The global outlook for sustainable development is rather bleak – greenhouse gases emissions continue to grow, while millions still live in poverty. Although gains have been made in lifting large segments of the population out of poverty through economic development, this has been done with adverse effects on the climate, especially in the fastest growing economies of China and India. Conflicts in developmental goals and methodologies have also seen gains wiped out. Read more

Most fail to end poverty while cutting emissions

by Paul Brown in Climate News Network (21 January 2013):

The world’s attempts to achieve sustainable development – tackling poverty and simultaneously curbing greenhouse gases – seem condemned to widespread failure unless politicians change course, a study claims.

World leaders have so far failed to raise people out of poverty by economic development while at the same time avoiding the worst effects of climate change, Swedish researchers say.

A study of 134 countries published by TCO, a confederation of 15 Swedish trade unions (based on data from the TCO RioRank database), shows that sustainable development is not yet close to being achieved, despite it being the stated aim of many politicians.

Yet it remains the official policy of the United Nations, the aim of climate negotiations, Earth summits and many international economic forums.

The theory is that countries can develop and at the same time reduce carbon dioxide emissions by combining energy efficiency and the greater use of renewable sources of power.

About 40 countries have managed to do this, but the vast majority have not – and among those that have failed, the study says, are the fastest-growing economies and the most polluting: China, the US and India.

Efforts nullified

The starkest example is China, whose development has been monitored since the first Earth Summit in 1972 in Stockholm. There the economy and the environment were for the first time discussed together in a United Nations setting, giving rise to the idea of sustainable development.

In an extraordinary period of growth, in which it has lifted many millions out of poverty, China has also topped the league in energy efficiency measures. It became 77% more fuel-efficient per unit of GDP between 1972 and 2007, saving billions of tonnes of CO2 from entering the atmosphere.

At the same time the country’s economy has grown so dramatically, more than 10 times, that it has wiped out all these gains. That means that despite these efficiencies China also leads the world as the country that has increased CO2 emissions by the largest amount, to six times more than in 1972.

The world’s other large polluter, the US, has done the same. It has become more efficient, producing 27% more with the same amount of energy. But because the economy has grown, although much more slowly than in China, pollution levels have continued to rise – only 22% since 1972, but still adding to the overall atmospheric CO2 load.

One important point in the report, by the Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees, is that energy efficiency makes countries and companies more competitive. The report says it is very bad news for countries engaged in world trade if they are less energy-efficient than their competitors while the price of energy continues to rise.

This is especially bad news for India. Unlike China, with its 77% increase in energy efficiency, India has managed only 3%, while using 500% more energy. This makes it a major polluter saddled with inefficient industries that will not be able to compete in world markets.

Across the world it is the European Union countries that do best overall, although for different reasons. The eastern European countries now in the EU, formerly part of the Soviet bloc, suffered economic collapse after 1991 and as a result emissions went down hugely.

They are now rising again as economies grow, but these countries have new fuel-efficient industries so emissions overall are still well below 1991 levels.

Conflicting pressures

Of the larger economies Germany, the United Kingdom and France have all managed to reduce their emissions over a 40-year period while their economies have continued to grow, albeit well below the pace of the tiger economies of Asia. Germany has reduced total emissions by 22%, France by 20% and the UK 18%.

One point the report underlines is that all 134 countries studied have different resources and politicians prone to making different decisions. Some produce most of their energy from renewable sources, like Iceland and Zambia.

China’s example is especially instructive. Thirty years ago it produced 40% of its electrical power from renewables: since then, to keep pace with development, it has invested heavily in fossil fuels. China’s renewable industry has grown dramatically, but it now accounts for only 14% of overall electricity supply.

The report shows how difficult sustainable development is to achieve, as governments are pulled in opposite directions, and also how agreement on a fair way to cut emissions becomes almost impossible. Because resources, growth rates and stages of development differ, so do priorities and policies.

And because politicians have already made strategic decisions on building power plants, it is very difficult to see how they can settle on another agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol that will involve the entire world and seem fair to everyone.

Source: www.climatenewsnetwork.net

UP Singapore was established in June 2012 as a platform for creating enterprises aimed at addressing social and environmental challenges, and will be hosting the Reducing our Environmental Impact Hackathon from the 25 to the 27 of January in collaboration with private and public agencies. The hackathon aims to bring together individuals and organisations to create real ways help people better protect our environment and save energy.  Read more

From Newtown Circus

Inspiring ground-up innovation to improve our urban environments through the creative use of technology and data

UP SINGAPORE

UP was created by Newton Circus as a platform for creating technology and data enabled enterprises that tackle a wide range of social and environmental challenges.  We crowdsource groundbreaking innovations by bringing together individuals and organizations from the people, private and public sectors and providing them access to new technologies and big, real-time data. The result is meaningful prototypes of enterprise solutions (for companies and government agencies), as well as social, mobile and web consumer applications.

Established in June 2012, UP has participated in over 20 leading events and organised two highly successful weekend Hackathons focused on Urban Solutions and Marginalized Women. The UP community now includes 1,500 Singapore based professionals and the Hackathons have involved over 500 participants contributing 13,000 working hours towards building more than 40 working prototypes. A select few continued on through the UP incubation process and are receiving both corporate and government funding.

See: www.upsingapore.com  and watch the video at: http://bit.ly/up-video

DATA AND TECHNOLOGY SANDBOX

Through the work of UP, organisations from both the private and public sector contribute to building the “UP Data Sandbox” (a unique and unprecedented testing environment with over 30 and growing private and public datasets to be used for prototyping during a hackathon). See: www.upsingapore.com/datawiki/doku.php

We continue to extend the scope of the Data Sandbox by broadening the datasets and including access to realtime data streams. UP will also be adding a Technology Sandbox where participants will be given access to the latest technologies developed by our private and academic sector partners.

REDUCING OUR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

At the end of January, UP with the support of the World Wildlife Fund’s Earth Hour, National University of Singapore Research Labs, National Environment Agency, Infocomm Development Authority and Economic Development Board will host the Reducing our Environmental Impact Hackathon. Tackling the issue of Energy Conservation and Efficiency, the Hackathon will bring together a broad spectrum of scientists, architects, sustainability experts, economists, government researchers, policy makers, design thinkers, developers, programmers, and creatives who want to create real ways to help people better protect our environment. The central themes are:

I WILL, WILL YOU? – Solutions to drive behaviour change and quantify the impact of individual actions, with the potential to be adopted as Earth Hour’s flagship application.

SMART CHOICES – Test out the latest technology to help individuals and businesses optimise energy usage and reduce their environmental impact.

CITY SOLUTIONS – Tackle environmental challenges with creative solutions that help Singapore become ‘A City in a Garden’.

SUPPORT UP SINGAPORE

UP provides a unique opportunity to engage with diverse communities in Singapore. Partner organizations have the chance to build connections with startups and specialist enterprises, researchers, creatives, data scientists and technology developers, multi-national corporations, government agencies, NGOs, social enterprises, and community organizations in Singapore. Technology and Data providers gain a fresh perspectives on the value and potential of their technology and data via thousands of hours of creative innovation. Finally, everyone involved will have a fantastic experience and benefit from the growing media coverage of UP – we have already been featured on television (Channel5 ,Channel News Asia), radio (93.8 Live), print (Straits Times) and numerous other leading print and digital media outlets.

We are inviting organizations to be a part of this growing platform by supporting UP in a few ways:

FUNDING & AWARDS – Funding UP puts an organization in the center of the innovation and media buzz that each Hackathon generates. Organizations that give in-kind services and monetary support to short-listed Prototypes can also help shape the focus and challenges for the Hackathon.

DATA SHARING – Detailed, relevant data not usually publicy available is a critical driver of the UP prototypes. Access is strictly controlled and can be customized to suit each organization’s needs.

PARTICIPATION & MENTORING – Each Hackathon and workshop features industry experts that act as mentors and coaches to the competiting teams and, of course, we hope that all interested organizations will encourage their employees and partners to participate.

We invite you to join us as pioneers in ground-up innovation.

For more information contact: daryl.arnold@newton-circus.com or stefan.jacob@upsingapore.com.

ABOUT NEWTON CIRCUS

At Newton Circus, we believe “doing good is good business.” We are a sustainability-inspired business incubator with a wealth of experience and expertise spanning all areas of business. We establish our own communities and ventures, working in partnership with multi-national corporations and government agencies to create new products, services and applications that are good for People, Planet and Profit. Newton Circus was the driving force behind the hugely successful UP Singapore in June 2012; and is at the forefront of open citizen innovation and harnessing data for value creation. www.newton-circus.com

In our effort to meet the challenges of climate change, the solutions have been mainly through technological or political means. Often overlooked is the role played by design in mitigating climate change. Design? Doesn’t design lie in the realm of aesthetics or something superfluous? What kind of effect can design have on the climate? Surprisingly much, as it turns out. A well designed product utilises sustainable materials without wasting valuable resources, and is made for durability and a lasting appeal – all leading to reduced consumption and sustainable development. Read more

Ken Friedman in The Conversation (17 January 2013):

Many of us get frustrated with the slow pace of international action on climate change. But powerless as we feel, we can still make a difference by rethinking the way we design our lives.

Design is rarely considered when talking about climate change, yet is a significant factor in the economic activities and political decisions that are driving emissions higher.

The World Bank’s ‘Turn Down the Heat’ report warns of the consequences of global temperatures rising by an average of four degrees Celcius by the end of this century.

Let us be clear about one thing – the prospect of a four-degree rise is a conservative prediction.

Many equally reasonable scientists believe it is likely we will face more dangerous changes than that, sooner than we think.

This is where designers and their employers, as well as consumers, have to share responsibility for dealing with climate change.

From handmade to mass production

For most of the past two centuries, design has been the handmaiden to industry.

Whether design has been framed as an applied art, an artisan craft guild tradition, or an industrial art, the purpose of design in an industrial context has been to encourage consumer choice and purchasing.

Public policy and education policy embraced this tradition in 1837 in the United Kingdom, when what is now the Royal College of Art was established as the Government School of Design.

This concept entered the public mind with the Great Exhibition of 1851. In Germany, the birth of the Bauhaus in 1919 was a key moment. In the United States, industrial design education began at the Carnegie Institute of Technology in the 1930s.

In all these places, the role of design was to encourage better-designed products for increased sales.

More people wanting more

Between 1900 and 1950, world population grew from just over one and a half billion people to nearly two and a half billion. In the next half century the population more than doubled, and today it stands at nearly seven billion.

Along the way, something else happened: the world’s wealthy economies shifted from production to consumption, and much of the world’s productive capacity shifted to meet demand.

The design profession had a key role in making products desirable.

At a time when production was the key to prosperity and growth – and while economic growth was seen as the road out of poverty, this made sense.

Back then, the world had enough environmental resources, or “carrying capacity”, to cope with our extra demand to permit growth.

In 1950, 70 per cent of the world’s people lived in rural areas, and it wasn’t until 2008 that more people lived in cities than in rural areas.

A wealthy and growing middle class in North America and Europe powered global economic growth, while much of the world got by on far less.

Growing pains

Today, the problem is that the world economy is growing, and many of the seven billion people now alive want the lifestyle that was possible for half a billion in 1950.

By the 1960s, a handful of future-oriented designers understood the problem.

Buckminster Fuller studied the balance between global resources, population and opportunities. He came to the view that the world could support the full population of the time at a high level of comfort, based on comprehensive recycling and reuse of materials in an economy oriented toward values other than consumption.

At the same time, Victor Papanek began to ask why designers were making so many shabby products, focusing on style while wasting resources.

Designers such as Ezio Manzini, Anna Meroni, Tony Fry, and Jurgen Faust now continue the tradition, with encouragement from economists such as Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Lab, while economists such as Jeffrey Sachs look for solutions to sustainable development.

Built to last

The answer is simple. While we live in a world that requires economic growth, we do not recognise that economic growth requires sustainable development.

Rather than sell new products repeatedly to the same few wealthy consumers, we could achieve a different kind of growth by selling better and more durable products to larger groups of people.

The world requires a return to a productive ethos for economic growth linked to the reduced resource consumption that will make the world sustainable.

This may be a challenge, but designers can play their part in change by accepting their responsibilities for ethical engagement.

If the World Bank predictions are correct, we have less than half a century left and every year remaining in this half century counts.

I would like to believe that designers are prepared to move from consumption to sustainable development. The alternative is unimaginably worse.

Ken Friedman is University Distinguished Professor and Distinguished Professor of Design at Swinburne University of Technology.

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au

The intention was to start the New Year with the message– “Warm wishes for a cool change”. But it would seem to be not only an empty hope but flying in the face of everything we are coming to learn about climate and our future management of our planet. The earth is getting hotter. FACT. The US has just experienced its hottest year ever. FACT. Australia has just experienced its hottest day on record. FACT. Climate change – or global warming, if you like – is happening faster than anyone predicted. FACT. So do we, like others  in the know, just give up telling the world to face the facts? Should we, like some others in the media, bury our heads in the sand and hope for the best?  Of course, we will keep on telling the climate change story. Reporting history as it happening. But also bringing any good news we can find. Where countries, companies, organisations and individuals are being inventive and innovative. Are finding ways to clean up our energy act. And hope against hope that some sense of urgency consumes people in authority. That leaders get fired up when they see flames destroying property and thousands of hectares of farmland and forest . When they realise that extreme weather  and “catastrophic” fire storms are directly attributable to a warming world. And we can do something about it. Maybe we can only wish for a change of heart. May this be the wake up call for 2013. – Ken Hickson

He believes that humanity is heading for disaster unless politicians, companies and civil society join forces to respond to the challenges of social injustice, climate change, resource scarcity, ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss. Paul Polman, one of the 100 Global Sustain Ability Leaders, has a missionary zeal about the potential to create a better world and often works 15 plus hours a day to not only embed sustainability at the heart of Unilever’s business but also to encourage a more collaborative approach with companies, NGOs and institutions like the World Bank and the United Nations. Read more

Jo Confino for the Guardian Professional Network (21 November 2011):

Paul Polman, chief executive of Unilever

Unilever chief Paul Polman talks to Jo Confino about the company’s radical sustainability agenda.

Who would have thought even a few years ago that one of the world’s most powerful chief executives would be advocating a transformation in society far more radical than any mainstream politician.

Paul Polman, the CEO of Anglo-Dutch consumer giant Unilever, whose brands include Dove, Persil, Bertolli, Flora and PG Tips, says the political and economic systems are failing and that capitalism needs to be reframed to work for the common good.

He says too many companies have prospered at the expense of society and nature, and that business now has to learn to be successful while contributing to society and supporting ecosystems and biodiversity.

“We do not have to win at the expense of others to be successful,” he says. “Winning alone is not enough it’s about winning with purpose.”

He acknowledges the Occupy Wall Street movement for exposing the inequalities in society, warning that this is just the tip of the iceberg and that companies that fail to respond to the social and environmental challenges of our age, are at risk of being put out of business.

“The Occupy Wall Street movement sends out a very clear signal,” says Polman. “If you look out five or 10 years, which is my job, the power is in the hands of the consumers and they will not give us a sense of legitimacy if they believe the system is unfair or unjust. Some companies that miss the standards of acceptable behaviour to consumers will be selected out.

“I am not advocating communism or trying to turn the world into a kibbutz. Some people sometimes accuse me of being a socialist but I am a capitalist at heart. But what I want is a sustainable and equitable capitalism. Why can’t we have that as a model?”

Polman is acknowledged as one of the leaders of a small but growing band of progressive companies that believe humanity is heading for disaster unless politicians, companies and civil society join forces to respond to the challenges of social injustice, climate change, resource scarcity, ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss.

“We have increasing income disparity within the developed world. We have a political system that barely functions after the economic and financial crisis. So continuing the way we are going is simply not a solution and increasingly consumers are asking for a different way of doing business and building society for the long term together.”

Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan

Polman believes in walking his talk and last year launched the company’s Sustainable Living Plan, which covers all brands and 180 countries where Unilever operates, as well as its total supply chain, including the impacts of its consumers.

Unlike many other companies that concentrate on their environmental footprint, Unilever’s plan also incorporates the other two pillars of sustainability; social, and economic.

The plan seeks to double sales and halve the environmental impact of its products over the next 10 years. There is also a commitment to improve the nutritional quality of its food products – with cuts in salt, saturated fats, sugar and calories – and link more than 500,000 smallholder farmers and small scale distributors in developing countries to its supply chain.

At the heart of Polman’s thinking is the desire to show the Sustainable Living Plan is not just about doing good but about good business. By providing a concrete example of the business case for sustainability, he hopes it will convince other companies to follow suit and help convince the investment community to move away from their obsession with short-termism.

“If we hit all our targets on this plan, but no-one else follows suit, we will have failed miserably,” says Polman. “We are trying to show that you can be successful as a business and at the same time show the financial community this should be one of the better drivers for their investments.

“We are growing and our share price is doing well. So we will gain credibility. The more we can reinforce that link and show it to others, the more we can be a galvaniser in this world for good. That is what success will look like.”

Reconnecting business to a sense of purpose

At the root of his philosophy, and what drives him, is a recognition of the importance of reconnecting business to a sense of purpose beyond just making money and getting bigger.

“If you believe in something you have to fight for that and have the courage to take the tougher decisions that come with it,” he says “Having a deeper purpose to what we do as people makes our lives more complete, which is a tremendous force and motivator.

“What people want in life is to be recognised, to be part of, to grow and to have made a difference. That difference can come in many forms; by touching someone, by helping others, by creating something that was not there before.

“To work for an organisation where you can leverage this and be seen to be making a difference; that is rewarding.”

The importance of collaboration

Polman has a missionary zeal about the potential to create a better world and often works 15 plus hours a day to not only embed sustainability at the heart of Unilever’s business but also to encourage a more collaborative approach with companies, NGOs and institutions like the World Bank and the United Nations: “I only do things I am passionate about otherwise I am wasting my time,” he says the development of coalitions is essential, he believes, because change needs to come at a systemic level, which needs all major players in society to commit to change.

He cites as examples his work with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to see how business can work more effectively with the global institution, and the creation of the Consumer Goods Forum, which has agreed amongst other things to stop buying palm oil, paper, soya or beef from illegally forested areas by 2020.

Part of his thinking behind the Sustainable Living Plan was to set such ambitious targets that the company would be forced to work in partnership with others if it were to have a hope of meeting them.

“We cannot do it alone,” he says. “We have to work together. People felt uncomfortable about this inside the company, and to some extent also my board. People were concerned about what would happen if we miss the targets and saying to me that I will not be here anyway in 10 years time.

“I got all that stuff but the response overall was positive as this is the response of a human company. We do not know all the answers, we cannot do it all on our own.

“We have to play at a different level of co-operation. I think one of the main reasons is that people are understanding that international institutions and governments are not designed for all the answers.

“By making sustainability a strategy and operating model it opens doors that are beyond peoples’ imagination. We have a unique opportunity because people are realising the world is inter-dependent. In the past we might not have talked to Greenpeace or WWF, but now we are now on the phone with them every week.

“Who will refuse that journey, who will refuse to jump on the train for a better world. I ask people what is the alternative? Why would I distrust anyone who wants to work with us to achieve that, including the Occupy Wall Street movement.”

Why are so few companies embedding sustainability?

So why is it that so few other business leaders are taking the issue of sustainability into the heart of their organisations?

Polman points out that the average tenure of a CEO is only three years so there is often little motivation to take on the challenge and that most business leaders are fixated at the moment with getting through the current economic turmoil.

He also highlights the increasing complexity of the world which creates a feeling of disempowerment.

Polman says: “I use the term VUCA to describe the world – volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous. It is very difficult for people to get a total picture. The food, water, energy nexus is so inter-related that it is for most people too difficult to know where to start and where to end.”

Another concern for Polman is the motivation of the financial community. In fact Polman famously stopped quarterly reporting and drew a line in the sand by making it clear he wanted investors who were interested only in supporting the long-term health of the company.

The role of government

He believes government has a role to play here and argues for a progressive taxation system for share ownership, pointing out that equities in FTSE100 companies are held for on average just eight months.

“Most of the trading is done in nano seconds by people that you call my shareholders but who would move anywhere if they can make a quick return,” he says.

“Governments can think about frameworks to encourage longer term thinking. There could be different share structures where dividends attract a higher tax rate depending on how long you hold shares. There are options if you really want to address that issue.

“The quarterly cycles and reporting requirements, we really have to challenge those. This is the right time to do that.”

Polman says CEOs on their own cannot significantly influence the financial markets, and given that Unilever is a consumer goods company, it makes more sense to focus the company’s attention on changing the behaviour of its two billion customers, who account for the majority of the company’s environmental footprint.

“For a CEO to move the investment community is a tall order,” he says. “We are a company focussed on the consumer so we have a lot to do there.”

The role of consumers

One aspect is to encourage customers to use resources more efficiently, such as taking shorter showers and washing clothes in lower temperatures. The other is encouraging them to switch to more sustainable products.

Polman says some clear lessons have already been learnt, such as consumers will not buy ‘green’ products unless their performance is as good and they do not have to pay a premium: “If our sustainable Lipton tea does not taste good or is too expensive, they will not buy,” says Polman.

But he believes we are now entering a new era when consumers will stop buying products from companies they see are not behaving responsibly.

“Are consumers prepared to pay for sustainable tea or not – we have gone past that at 100mph,” says Polman. “The question now is are they prepared to buy from companies that are not being responsible. Consumers recognise they can drop a company instantly.

“Companies should use this knowledge to act as a force for good, become part of the responsible movement. This is not utopia, it is enlightened self interest.”

The role of progressive regulation

Polman, like other business leaders, is frustrated by the lack of clear incentives to support the transition to a sustainable society, and is a firm believer in progressive regulation that is based on incentives.

“To move things forward like carbon reduction, it would help for governments in Europe to be clear on whether they support a 30% or 40% reduction goal – and we have made it clear we don’t mind the 40% goal – but if there is not a clear framework, companies won’t invest because capital decisions take a long time.

“Business needs frameworks. I am a free enterprise person but that is not the only solution. A system where you can have positive reinforcement for the long term is more effective than rules and regulations. If I had to run my company with bibles of guidelines I would not be in business long term.

“The financial crisis of 2008 was as much a crisis as ethics and a unique opportunity to develop frameworks for the longer term.”

Polman acknowledges there is a new generation of CEOs, brought up in the 1960s, who have a more rounded view of the role of business in society.

But he believes previous generations would also have responded to the challenges facing the world “because the clarity of the issues we are facing now are so transparent. When we went into the Second World War, the business leaders combined took a decision for the greater good of the UK to fight for freedom and when they came out, to get the economy back on track. When the challenges are big enough people respond in a responsible way.”

How Unilever is embedding sustainability

It’s one thing a CEO putting his weight behind a leading-edge sustainability strategy, but how is Unilever embedding this across a company with nearly 170,000 employees operating in 180 countries, owning hundreds of brands and directly touching the lives of 5-6 million people across its supply chain.

Polman points to the importance of preparing the groundwork before going public, Cancelling quarterly reporting and changing the way employees are incentivised were two key ways of moving the company away from concentrating on the short-term. Measurement of impacts has also been critical in understanding where the company’s key impacts are and being able to set intelligent targets for improvement.

“In any company, you have to go back to what drives people. Making more money or being bigger means less and less,” he says.

“Brands with a purpose and that are values-led over time are going to be by definition more successful.

“We embed the three pillars of sustainability into our strategy, our key performance indicators, how we reward people. Our buying people have KPIs on the percentage of sustainable sourcing, we measure how many small-holder farmers we employ, we measure the full impact of water, carbon, packaging, waste, of all of our products and reward our people for moving in the right direction.”

Polman is delighted by the way staff have responded, although more work needs to be done to push change down into the middle management layers.

The engagement score in the regular staff survey leaped by 10 percentage points after the Sustainable Living Plan was launched. Polman says this shocked the survey company because they had never seen this level of change before.

“The real breakthrough is feeling it not just in the head but also in the heart and we do a lot of storytelling around that. Every country I visit I go to consumers and retailers to look at the impact of our products, the contribution our products make to society.

“People rally to this – some more than others – but it is at a critical mass.”

Reasons to be optimistic

While some people worry that the pace of change is far too slow to address the scale of problems the world is facing, Polman cautions against pessimism and suggests that the foundations for transformation are being put in place.

In the corporate world, he points to the growing number of companies reporting on their impacts and disclosing their carbon emissions and he points to the rapid growth of socially responsible investment funds in the financial markets. Beyond that he says investment banks are coming together to help halt illegal deforestation and that they are starting to think about their business models, although he recognises they are doing this under pressure from critics rather than voluntarily.

Within the field of corporate responsibility, Polman is considered to be the most influential advocate for challenging the status quo and showing that business as usual is not an option.

But he brushes aside this reputation and points out he could not have taken the position he does if the values of responsibility were not already embedded in the company’s culture.

“Don’t personalise this because this company has been a force for good,” he says. “I have the benefit of having the size of this company but there are lots of unsung heroes who do not have the resources of Unilever.

“What we are trying to do is nothing special. We are seeking to stay close to society to guarantee our future.”

Source:  www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable

As 2012 marks the hottest year ever on record in the United States (and maybe the rest of the world when figures are available sometime soon), concrete actions that lead to meeting climate targets remain mired in the decision making process. The task of mitigating climate change is no longer a technological or scientific conundrum, instead is largely limited by political will and action, or the lack of. In a paper from IIASA, ETH Zurich and other institutions, uncertainties in political action ranks top in factors affecting the meeting of climate change goals. Read more

Political action the biggest swing factor in meeting climate targets, research says

In Phys Org (2 January 2013):

The most important factor affecting the likelihood of limiting climate change to internationally agreed targets is when people start to do something about it, according new research from IIASA, ETH Zurich, and other institutions.

The new study, published today in the journal Nature, examined the probability of keeping average global temperatures from rising more than 2°C above preindustrial levels under varying levels of climate policy stringency, and thus mitigation costs.

In addition, the study for the first time quantified and ranked the uncertainties associated with efforts to mitigate climate change, including questions about the climate itself, uncertainties related to future technologies and energy demand, and political uncertainties as to when action will be taken.

The climate system itself is full of uncertainty – an oft-used argument to postpone climate action until we have learned more.

“We wanted to frame the problem in a new way and try to understand which uncertainties matter in trying to limit global warming by specific climate action,” says Joeri Rogelj, ETH researcher and lead author on the paper, who carried out the research at IIASA.

The most important uncertainty, according to the study, is political – that is, the question of when countries will begin to take serious action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and implement other policies that could help mitigate climate change.

Keywan Riahi, IIASA energy program leader and study co-author says, “With a twenty-year delay, you can throw as much money as you have at the problem, and the best outcome you can get is a fifty-fifty chance of keeping temperature rise below two degrees.”

Two degrees is the level that is currently supported by over 190 countries as a limit to avoid dangerous climate change. Social uncertainties, which influence consumer energy demand, were second-most important, the study found. Social uncertainties refer to things like people’s awareness and choices with respect to energy and to the adoption of efficient technologies.

“How much energy the world consumes going forward turns out to be a much bigger swing factor for climate change than the availability of technologies like solar and wind power, biofuels, and so on,” said IIASA researcher David McCollum, another co-author.

“Energy efficiency, improved urban planning, lifestyle changes – these things on the demand side of the energy equation are so important; yet they receive relatively little attention compared to the supply side.”

The researchers examined geophysical and technological uncertainties and found that while the climate system and energy supply technologies are generally seen as the major factors for climate, they ranked below political and social uncertainties in the new study.

Geophysical uncertainties refer to the unknown – and unknowable – factors about how the climate system will react to greenhouse gas emissions. Technological uncertainties refer to questions about which energy supply and carbon capture systems will be available in the future.

The authors used scenarios to define how these factors affect the probability of staying within a given temperature target, at a variety of carbon prices. In addition to the 2°C target, the researchers also explored the distribution of costs and risks for limiting global warming to below 1.5°C and 3°C.

Even for a 3°C target, a 20-year delay in the most stringent greenhouse gas reductions in combination with a high demand future means that there would remain a one in three chance that temperatures exceed 3°C. At the same time, limiting warming to 1.5°C with at least a fifty-fifty chance (a target supported by the least-developed countries and small island states) appears only to be possible if the world starts acting on climate change now and turns towards an energy-efficient future.

Surprisingly, while much research is focused on understanding the global climate, a highly complex system with many uncertainties, the new study finds that after a certain point, there is little chance of limiting temperature rise to below 2°C. “Ultimately, the geophysical laws of the Earth system and its uncertainties dictate what global temperature rise to expect,” said Rogelj. ”

If we delay for twenty years, the likelihood of limiting temperature rise to two degrees becomes so small that the geophysical uncertainties don’t play a role anymore.”

More information: Rogelj, J., D. McCollum, A. Reisinger, M. Meinshausen & K. Riahi (2013) Probabilistic cost distributions for climate change mitigation. Nature, DOI:10.1038/nature11787 Journal reference: Nature

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-political-action-biggest-factor-climate.html#jCp

Devastating bushfires sweeping across large swathes of Australia on the back of the hottest day ever recorded are a sign of things to come. With average temperatures in Australia predicted  to rise by 5 degrees C by 2070,  extreme weather conditions and firestorm events are set to be the new norm. The New Scientist also reports that while the extended Kyoto Protocol takes us through to 2020, it is unlikely to achieve what it set out to do. Emissions have risen over time and it’s not likely to change that trend any time soon. Read more

Climate change looms large as Australia swelters

By Andy Coghlan in New Scientist (7 January 2013):

Australia is baking in a record-breaking “dome of heat“, threatening to unleash the worst firestorms since those that claimed hundreds of lives in 2009. Temperatures reached almost 48 °C on Monday at the Oodnadatta airport in South Australia, and 43 °C on Tuesday in Sydney. The typical January high is 37.7 °C at Oodnadatta. The average across the country is tipped to break the previous record of 40.17 °C in 1976.

“It’s likely to just beat it,” Karl Braganza of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology told The Age newspaper on Monday. “It’s just an extensive dome of heat over the continent.”

At least 90 fires were sweeping through New South Wales by Monday, and 100 people remained unaccounted for in Tasmania following major fires covering 60,000 hectares. Bushfire experts warned that things could get worse. “The current heatwave is unusual due to its extent, with more than 70 per cent of the continent currently experiencing heatwave conditions,” says John Nairn, South Australia’s acting regional director for the Bureau of Meteorology, in comments to the Australian Science Media Centre.

Lack of rainfall in recent months has left soils completely dry and unable to release moisture that would take up heat from the air through evaporation. At the same time, vegetation across the continent that had been revived by rains over the past two years is now completely dried out. “Much of this grass is fully dried and is ready to burn,” says Gary Morgan of the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre in Melbourne.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in the fourth and most recent of its assessments of the effects of climate change, predicted that in south-eastern Australia, the frequency of days when extreme fire danger threatens will increase by up to 25 per cent by 2020, and up to 70 per cent by 2050. In its most recent study of the impact of climate change, the Bureau of Meteorology noted that average temperatures across Australia have increased by almost 1 °C since 1910, and could rise by up to 5 °C by 2070.

Source: www.newscientist.com

By Fred Pearce in New Scientist (3 January 2013):

Fifteen years after its painful birth in Kyoto, Japan, the world’s first legally binding agreement to limit emissions of greenhouse gases ended this week.

For some it is a victorious conclusion. The 37 industrial nations that stuck with the protocol after the US pulled out in 2005 say they exceeded their promises, cutting their emissions for the period from 2008 to 2012 to an average of 16 per cent below 1990 levels, compared with the 4.7 per cent promised in the agreement.

But the protocol only ever applied to rich industrialised nations. Most of the cuts came from Eastern European countries when their economies collapsed after the fall of the Berlin Wall – reductions that would have happened anyway.

Emissions rise

In the same period, global emissions have risen by 50 per cent, thanks to the rapid industrialisation of nations such as China, not covered by the original deal.

Formally the protocol lives on. Climate talks in Doha in December created a second “compliance period” stretching to 2020, when diplomats promise a new deal involving all nations will come into force. But with Russia, Japan, New Zealand and Canada pulling out, this next period only covers nations which contribute 14 per cent of global emissions, mainly the European Union and Australia.

What’s more, phase 2 contains the same fundamental loophole as the first deal. Too many rich countries have met their targets by moving their carbon-intensive industries, such as steel and aluminium manufacturing, offshore to nations not covered by the protocol.

Moving to China

This allowed the UK to easily meet its Kyoto target, cutting its domestic carbon dioxide emissions by 23 per cent from 1990 levels by 2011. But several assessments of its total carbon footprint – including emissions produced from the manufacture of imported goods – reveal an increase of around 10 per cent since 1990, even allowing for the recent economic downturn.

Worse still, most of the new manufacturing nations are both highly inefficient users of energy and power their manufacturing largely with the dirtiest of the major fuels, coal. The result is higher emissions.

Energy economist Dieter Helm from the University of Oxford asked recently:”What exactly is the point of reducing emissions in Europe if it encourages energy-intensive industry to move to China, where the pollution will be even worse?”

It seems likely that, in this way, the Kyoto protocol may actually have increased global emissions. Ouch.

Source: www.newscientist.com

2012 will be looked back upon as a significant year for climate change – the 20th anniversary of the Kyoto Protocol, the hottest year ever in America on record, devastating wildfires and superstorms – that made the world sit up and take notice. It was also the year that cities around the world took the initiative to battle climate change instead of waiting for national governments to make their move. Responsible for 70% of global GHG emissions, it is only appropriate that cities set the field for the upcoming battle. Read more

2012: The year cities stood up to climate change — and took a beating

By Greg Hanscom in Grist (28 December 2012):

A year ago, as the curtain was closing on 2011, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg stood in front of an audience at the United Nations and declared that it would be cities, not national governments, that would lead the fight against climate change. “As mayors — the great pragmatists of the world’s stage and directly responsible for the well-being of the majority of the world’s people — we don’t have the luxury of simply talking about change but not delivering it,” he said.

2012 would prove Bloomberg right. It would also lay bare just how far we still have to go before cities like New York are prepared for the havoc climate change is wreaking — and how hard urban leaders in the U.S. will have to fight to get help from Washington on this and a whole host of other issues. In the closing days of 2012, we watched Republicans in Congress balk at funding disaster relief after superstorm Sandy barreled into New York, inflicting tens of billions of dollars in damage along the Eastern Seaboard.

In the immortal words of Philip Bump: “Oh my God, some politicians are dicks.”

To put it all in perspective, here’s an overview of Grist’s cities coverage from 2012 in five acts.

Act 1 Cities step up

Bloomberg’s speech at the U.N. was part of the lead-up to the United Nations Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June. The summit marked the 20th anniversary of the original Rio Earth Summit, and for a handful of starry-eyed optimists, it represented a chance for world leaders to make bold commitments to tackling climate change and other problems.

Rio, traffic-choked and deeply divided between rich and poor, offered a glimpse of the challenges the world’s cities will face as they struggle to accommodate another 2 billion people by mid-century. It was no great surprise, then, that while international diplomats dithered, leaders of some of the world’s largest cities stepped up, committing to bump up their battle against climate change by, among other things, reducing methane emissions from garbage. (Methane is a greenhouse gas more than 20 times more powerful than CO2, and can be captured and burned to generate electricity.)

At a press conference, Bloomberg announced that the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group — a network of 59 cities, including New York and Los Angeles — had already laid plans to cut 248 million tons of greenhouse gases, the equivalent of taking 44 million cars off the road for a year. By 2030, the group could slash carbon emissions by 1 gigaton. “We’re not arguing with each other about emissions targets,” Bloomberg said. “What we’re doing is going out and making progress.”

Act 2 A green-cities arms race

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, U.S. leaders were far too busy running for office to be bothered with the climate fight. President Obama (You are our only hope, Obi Wan!) hardly mentioned climate change on the campaign trail or in the debates. His rival, Mitt Romney, turned it into a punchline.

On the local level, however, urban leaders were engaged in a sort of arms race for the title of “greenest city in America.” And perhaps they should: Cities are responsible for a whopping 70 percent of the global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report released earlier this year by the Carbon Disclosure Project. They are also increasingly vulnerable to heat waves, droughts, and flooding.

In Los Angeles, where a UCLA study found this year that climate change will drive up average temperatures by an average of 4 to 5 degrees F by mid-century, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has enacted an ambitious climate action plan. In Chicago this month, Mayor Rahm Emanuel unveiled a new blueprint for creating 645 miles of bike lanes by 2020. Philadelphia, meanwhile, is sewing the seeds of a sort of green urban renaissance, replete with a burgeoning urban farming scene and a new bike share program. And there are many examples in between.

Act 3 Women take the helm

Many of the people leading the fight against climate change on the city level are women — a surprising number of them quite young and, dare we say it, smoking hot. Grist’s assistant editor, Darby Minow Smith, has talked to more than a dozen of these women for her series “Knope and change.” (The name is a nod to Lesley Knope, the main character in the TV show Parks and Recreation.)

Philly’s sustainability director, Katherine Gajewski, is leading the effort to bring the city into compliance with the Clean Water Act using “green infrastructure” — read: green roofs, rain gardens, streets with porous pavement, etc., that slow, absorb, and evaporate stormwater before it overwhelms the sewers. In Gary, Ind., sustainability chief Lauren Riga has ramped up the recycling program and helped launch an urban agriculture program in a post-industrial city that has been compared to post-evacuation Chernobyl. Fort Lauderdale’s assistant city manager, Susanne Torriente, is preparing her city for rising sea levels — and for good reason: Depending on what happens on worldwide climate action, 48 percent of South Florida could end up submerged.

“There’s been a lack of progress at international negotiations. We saw it in Rio,” Cynthia Rosenzweig, head of Climate Impacts Group at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, told me earlier this year. “There’s a growing realization that cities are the right level of governance to tackle climate change issues.”

Act 4 A violent reality check

Which brings us to Oct. 29, when superstorm Sandy roared up the Eastern Seaboard and slammed into New York City, revealing just how sinister the impacts of climate change are — and how ill-prepared we are to deal with them, even where urban leaders have drawn lines in the sand.

As Grist’s Susie Cagle wrote as New York was still reeling from the blow, “There are multiple factors that came together to whip up Sandy, and no one causal judgment, however attractive, is fair. But given the evidence, it’s likely that no matter how Sandy came in to this world, climate change has helped this storm grow bigger, go faster, and head farther than it might have in earlier times and cooler seas.” And Sandy was undeniably a taste of what is to come as warming and rising seas and a warming atmosphere whip up bigger, more frequent storms.

Five weeks after Sandy hit, with parts of New York still without power and flooded buildings still too dangerous to enter, Bloomberg appeared at a press conference with Al Gore and Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, to begin laying plans for defending the city from future storms. “We may or may not see another storm like Sandy in our lifetimes, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that we should leave it to our children to prepare for the possibility,” he said.

Act 5 A question for 2013 and beyond

Sandy brought into sharp relief what is at stake with climate change. It also made it clear that cities will not be able to tackle the challenge, or respond to its wrath, alone. And yet, on the national level, politicians continue to ignore the issue or pretend that there is still some debate over whether it is even real. And that, in a nutshell, is the challenge facing American cities today.

In recent decades, the U.S. has turned its back on urban areas, pouring billions into car-centric suburbs while allowing inner cities to crumble. As with climate change, we understand what it will take to assuage many of our cities’ worst problems — joblessness, poverty, crime — and yet we’re content to turn a blind eye, dismiss these as someone else’s problem. Many Republicans go so far as to call any policy that would help cities part of the bogus “war on the suburbs.” Urban sustainability efforts, they say, are a United Nations plot to destroy the American way of life.

In truth, cities are the key to battling the climate conundrum, as Alex Steffen eloquently points out in his new book, Climate Zero, published in Grist last month. The question for Americans — for our national and local leaders, for millennial urbanophiles, and baby boomers who say they want to live in cities again — is whether we’re really ready to commit to making our cities work again. The answer to that question will have huge implications not just for our cities, but for our warming planet as well.

Greg Hanscom is a senior editor at Grist. He tweets about cities, bikes, transportation, policy, and sustainability at @ghanscom.

Source: www.grist.org

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) will be putting concept into action with its No Impact Week, where environmentally friendly practices will be adopted by its staff, consultant and contractors. This is in line with its wider commitment to sustainable development, as evidenced by its financing of a project in the Philippines aimed at replacing 100,000 fuel-burning, smoke-spewing motorised tricycles with clean, energy efficient electric ones. Read more

From 14-18 January 2013, ADB will hold No Impact Week — our contribution to the No Impact Project campaign that seeks to reduce our environmental impact and make our operations — and ourselves — more carbon neutral.

Objective

To raise awareness about the impacts of our institutional and individual behavior on the environment, health, and well-being of our communities and ultimately effect long-term change.

How It Works

Each day of the week has a specific theme:

Monday, 14 January – Trash: Stop making trash

Tuesday, 15 January – Transport: Switch to more sustainable transport

Wednesday, 16 January – Food: Eat local, eat less meat

Thursday, 17 January – Energy: Conserve energy

Friday, 18 January – Water: Consume less water

Participants sign-up will be asked to sign-up for the No Impact Week challenge and commit to activities based on each day’s theme. Each day builds on the day before, so by Friday participants will have tried to consume less and make more sustainable choices n their energy, food, water, and transportation.

Target participants

All ADB staff, consultants, and contractors. External guests will be invited to observe. These include but are not limited to:

•           university students and professors,

•           representatives from the private sector,

•           NGO’s,

•           and local governments.

http://www.adb.org/news/events/no-impact-week-adb#page

300 Million for Green Transportation Revolution in the Philippines – ADB

11 December 2012:

MANILA, PHILIPPINES – The Asian Development Bank (ADB) is providing $300 million towards a groundbreaking project that will replace 100,000 gasoline-burning tricycles in the Philippines with clean, energy efficient electric tricycles, or E-Trikes.

“E-Trikes are a cleaner, greener transport solution for the Philippines, and provide a better quality of life for trike drivers,” said Neeraj Jain, ADB’s Country Director for the Philippines. “This project can help transform transportation in the Philippines, and positions the country as a leader in electric vehicle development in Asia.”

About 3.5 million gas-fuelled motorcycles and tricycles are currently operating in the Philippines, typically serving as short-distance taxis, with the average tricycle driver earning less than $10 a day. E-Trike drivers will save upwards of $5 a day in fuel costs, and the new E-Trikes have the capacity to carry more passengers. E-Trike drivers saw their daily incomes more than double during a pilot program in Metro Manila.

The new E-Trikes, which run on an electric motor and rechargeable lithium-ion battery, will be introduced to Metro Manila and other urban centers across the Philippines under a lease-to-own arrangement. Replacing 100,000 gasoline-powered trikes will enable the Philippine government to save more than $100 million a year in avoided fuel imports, while decreasing annual CO2 emissions by about 260,000 tons.

“This project will lessen the Philippines’ dependence on foreign oil imports, and by fabricating and assembling the tricycles domestically, it will create up to 10,000 jobs in the 5-year project implementation,” said Loreta G. Ayson, Undersecretary at the Depart of Energy.

In line with the government’s plan to develop a national e-vehicle industry, the project will support the establishment of an e-vehicle parts industry, battery supply chain, and charging stations, including five off-grid solar charging stations.

Without intervention, the Philippines is on a course to almost quadruple CO2 emissions in less than 25 years. Based on an ADB study, gasoline-fuelled tricycles are responsible for more than two-thirds of all air pollution generated by the country’s entire transport sector.

In addition to its $300 million loan, ADB is also administering another $105 million loan and grant from the Clean Technology Fund for other Philippine environmental-focused projects. The Government of the Philippines is providing $99 million counterpart funding for the project. The project will run for five years, with an estimated completion date of December 2017.

http://www.adb.org

With widespread adoption of carbon fibre in making light energy-efficient vehicles, the problem of properly disposing of them at the end of the vehicle’s lifespan becomes apparent. To this end, Boeing and BMW have collaborated to jointly research carbon fibre recycling  – ways to reclaim and reuse the material to make new products. Over at Australia’s Monash University, a novel method of arranging graphene in a cork-like structure unlocks its suitability for use in applications ranging from aerospace to tissue engineering. Read more

BMW, Boeing collaborate to recycle carbon fibre

13 Dec 2012:

The BMW Group and Boeing have signed a collaboration agreement to jointly research carbon fibre recycling.

In addition, the engineering giants will look to share manufacturing knowledge and explore automation opportunities.

The companies have been pioneering the use of carbon fibre in their products and recycling composite material at the point of use and end of product life is essential to both.

In combination with the SGL Group, BMW has constructed a carbon fibre plant in Moses Lake, Washington state.

Boeing and BMW will share manufacturing process simulations and ideas for automation at the location.

Herbert Diess, board member at BMW, said, ‘Boeing for us is a suitable partner for a collaboration in the field of carbon fibre.

‘Boeing has many years of extensive experience using carbon fibre in the field of aviation, while the BMW Group has earned a significant competitive advantage through its use of special manufacturing methods for series production of carbon fibre parts. Through this cooperation we can merge know-how between our industries in the field of sustainable production solutions.’

Larry Schneider, Boeing vice president of product development, added, ‘This collaboration agreement is a very important step forward in developing the use and end use of carbon fibre materials.

‘It is especially important that we plan for the end of life of products made from carbon fibre. We want to look at ways to reclaim and reuse those materials to make new products. Our work with the BMW Group will help us attain that goal.’

www.newenergyworldnetwork.com

Cork the Key to Unlocking the Potential of Graphene

Science Daily

Dec. 4, 2012 — Scientists have taken inspiration from one of the oldest natural materials to exploit the extraordinary qualities of graphene, a material set to revolutionise fields from computers and batteries to composite materials.

Published December 4 in Nature Communications, a  Monash University study led by Professor Dan Li has established, for the first time, an effective way of forming graphene, which normally exists in very thin layers, into useful three-dimensional forms by mirroring the structure of cork.

Graphene is formed when graphite is broken down into layers one atom thick. In this form, it is very strong, chemically stable and an excellent conductor of electricity. It has a wide range of potential applications, from batteries that are able to recharge in a matter of seconds, to biological tissue scaffolds for use in organ transplant and even regeneration.

Professor Li, from the Department of Materials Engineering, said previous research had focused mainly on the intrinsic properties and applications of the individual sheets, while his team tackled the challenge of engineering the sheets into macroscopically-useable 3D structures.

“When the atomic graphene sheets are assembled together to form 3D structures, they normally end up with porous monoliths that are brittle and perform poorly,” Professor Li said.

“It was generally thought to be highly unlikely that graphene could be engineered into a form that was elastic, which means it recovers well from stress or pressure.”

The researchers used cork, which is lightweight yet strong, as a model to overcome this challenge.

PhD student, Ling Qiu, also from the Department of Materials Engineering, said modern techniques have allowed scientists to analyse the structure of such materials and replicate nature’s efficient design.

“The fibres in cork cell walls are closely packed to maximise strength and individual cells connect in a honeycomb structure which makes the material very elastic,” Mr Qiu said.

Using a method called freeze casting, the researchers were able to form chemically modified graphene into a 3D structure that mimicked cork. The graphene blocks produced were lighter than air, able to support over 50,000 times their own weight, good conductors of electricity and highly elastic — able to recover from over 80 per cent deformation.

“We’ve been able to effectively preserve the extraordinary qualities of graphene in an elastic 3D form, which paves the way for investigations of new uses of graphene — from aerospace to tissue engineering,” Professor Li said.

“Mimicking the structure of cork has made possible what was thought to be impossible.”

Source: www.sciencedaily.com