Make No Mistake: Invest in Sustainability & Learn from Nature

With the world’s green economy worth UK£3,000 billion a year and growing fast, failing to invest in sustainability could be an expensive mistake. ‘Nature has lots of wonderful ways to renew itself. We can learn a lot from Nature, if we look hard enough, to find sustainable solutions to some of the world’s most pressing problems,” said Singapore’s NTU President Professor Bertil Andersson, an internationally-renowned biochemist and pioneer in ‘artificial leaf’ technology, as the University sets up a new laboratory – the first in Asia – that aims to turn water into hydrogen fuel.

Straits Times (8 February 2011):

SCIENTISTS from Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University (NTU) have set up a new laboratory – the first in Asia – that aims to turn water into hydrogen fuel.

The new Solar Fuels Laboratory at NTU aims to create efficient and sustainable sources of solar fuel by developing a device that can extract large amounts of hydrogen from water using sunlight.

The energy-producing ‘artificial leaf’ technology can reduce help to reduce dependence on crude oil when perfected, NTU added.

Current technology requires huge amounts of energy to draw small amounts of hydrogen from water which makes it commercially unviable.

NTU’s Solar Fuels Lab was officially opened by Professor Bertil Andersson, NTU’s President-Designate earlier this month. A seminar on solar fuel generation and artificial photosynthesis was also held in conjunction with the opening ceremony. The lab will be jointly managed by NTU’s School of Materials Science and Engineering and the Energy Research Institute @ NTU (ERI@N).

‘Nature has lots of wonderful ways to renew itself. We can learn a lot from Nature, if we look hard enough, to find sustainable solutions to some of the world’s most pressing problems,” said Professor Andersson, himself an internationally-renowned biochemist and pioneer in ‘artificial leaf’ technology.

Source: www.straitstimes.com

By Andrew Stone in the Daily Telegraph (3 February 2011):

As the low-carbon revolution gathers pace globally, Britain’s businesses have an unprecedented opportunity to profit from it. Already worth £3,000 billion annually, the world’s green economy is forecast to grow by a quarter over the next five years, outpacing overall growth.

The early pioneers of this green business revolution are already profiting from the move towards an economy less dependent on exploiting finite resources and which has less impact on our environment.

The global giant GE began exploiting the opportunities a more sustainable global economy presented some time ago through its Ecomagination initiative and is profiting from the move, said Mark Elborne, CEO & President of GE UK

“We’ve doubled our commitment in terms of investment, research and development and the revenues we wish to generate from these types of products. Between 2005 and 2010, our revenues in these sectors have grown from $10bn to $20bn.”

The UK is extremely well placed to profit from the green-growth revolution, said Mr Elborne. “The opportunity is enormous. When you look at the need for more efficient thermal generation, next-generation gas engines and turbines, the introduction of renewable energy, carbon capture and storage, the need for smarter use and distribution of energy and the arrival of electric vehicles, it adds up. If we need to deploy 20 million smart meters in the UK by 2020, for example, and it takes three hours to fit a meter, how many jobs is that going to create?”

But the green-growth revolution poses a threat too. Businesses, governments and societies that pursue old ways of thinking risk being left behind in the race for green growth, according to Ian Cheshire, group chief executive of the home improvement group Kingfisher, which has 840 stores in eight countries and sales of £10.5 billion.

The cost of energy together with the march of legislation is driving businesses to rethink they way they work, said Mr Cheshire. “All of us running businesses hope we have a sustainable model that will still be here in 30 years. But if you are using too many resources, that will come home to roost. A business model predicated on cheap oil, for instance, may not be around when crude hits $150 a barrel. And the landfill tax has prompted a whole new set of behaviours.”

Most business leaders see the sense in taking a longer-term view of their companies but circumstances often conspire to prevent them acting on this knowledge, said Tom Delay, chief executive of the Carbon Trust.

“Decision makers in businesses often aren’t rewarded for being brave and visionary, but for being very good managers in the short term. Business leaders also see this change as risky but in fact it’s just the opposite. There’s a great risk for firms that try to cling to old business models and ways of doing things.”

Mr Cheshire agrees that the risks of not acting outweigh those of acting. “There are still some who regard sustainability as a bit of an add-on. That’s not surprising; there will be leaders and laggards in any change process. But the risk for people tackling environmental issues in a box-ticking way is that they will miss opportunities and that their customers will see them as hypocrites. I have sympathy for companies trying to get through a recession. But in western Europe, where the economy is sluggish and there’s pressure on spending, any area offering growth potential is hugely valuable.“

The emerging green economy should be one of Britain’s great areas of advantage, a global opportunity to create jobs. Green jobs are going to be fundamental to our recovery. China and the United States get it. Britain needs to be there, too.”

To achieve this transformation, business leaders must be courageous and cultivate a sense of mission that will drive green growth, said Mr Delay. “It is difficult to take bold decisions when cash is at such a premium and you may still be in survival mode but now is a good time for bold action.“

The British economy is not behaving as it would have done 10 years ago. A board that would have been sceptical about green growth 10 or even five years ago will probably listen and understand now.”

Mr Cheshire says putting sustainable business at the heart of your strategy can produce surprises. “We asked some bright managerial talents to look at the waste in our stores. I had hoped for a 30 per cent reduction target; they suggested 80 per cent.”

Even small start-ups are feeling the power that a sustainable mission has in attracting employees. Despite competing with global banks for scarce talent, the power software firm RLtec is finding recruits inspired by the potential of the firm’s software technology to make significant CO2 and cost cuts in Britain’s electricity grid. “We’ve been successful at recruiting highly skilled mathematicians because they want to work for a green company,” said Paul Lazarevic, managing director.

You don’t have to be GE to profit from a more sustainable vision and strategy, said Mr Elborne. “Whether you’re developing offshore wind turbines or considering changes in how you light your shop or factory, be confident in your ability to be adaptable.

“Time spent understanding the benefits of action and exploring the consequences of inaction will be money and time well spent. Don’t just stand there and say it doesn’t affect you because it does. There’s a strong consensus, and it’s growing, that this is something we need to do.”

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

WWF, Ecofys & Intel Point To A Clean Energy Future

All but five percent of the world’s energy needs could be met from renewable sources by 2050, a report by conservation group WWF and energy consultancy Ecofys showed early this month. Leading the way is Intel Corporation, the top purchaser of renewable energy in the US, according to a new ranking by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The California-based chipmaker – which has built nine solar plants in the U.S. and Israel – now gets about 88% of its electricity from renewable sources. Pictured is Intel Israel’s green data centre.

By Nina Chestney for Reuters (2 February 2011):

All but five percent of the world’s energy needs could be met from renewable sources by 2050, a report by conservation group WWF and energy consultancy Ecofys showed early this month.

In 2050, total energy demand could be 15 percent lower than in 2005 due to ambitious energy saving measures even though population, industrial output, freight and travel will increase, the report said.

Currently, more than 80 percent of global energy comes from fossil fuels but the report said nuclear power, fossil fuels and biomass could be almost entirely phased out by 2050.

To achieve this, building heating needs to be cut by at least 60 percent through energy efficiency, the use of solar power and geothermal heat.

Electricity grids need to be upgraded, smart grids installed and electric transport introduced on a large scale globally.

“Renewable energy and better grid interconnection with Europe has the potential to meet all of our energy needs in a very sustainable way,” said Nick Molho, head of energy policy at WWF-UK.

Financial incentives for renewable energy generation, such as feed-in tariffs, would play an important role.

Consumption of meat should be halved per person by 2050 in industrialized countries and increased by a quarter elsewhere, the report said.

The population should also cycle, walk, use more public transport and replace air travel with trains.

By 2050, 4 trillion euros ($5,588 billion) will be saved annually through energy efficiency and reduced fuel costs in a business-as-usual scenario, the report said.

However, capital expenditure will need to increase first to install renewable energy generating capacity, modernize electricity grids and improve energy efficiency.

This will grow over the next 25 years to about 3.5 trillion euros a year from 1 trillion euros. The investments would start to pay off in around 2040 when the savings start to outweigh the costs, the report said.

Europe will need to spend 2.9 trillion euros or 25 percent of the bloc’s annual gross domestic product over the next 10 years to satisfy demand for low-carbon technologies, a separate report by Accenture and Barclays Capital said this week.

Download the full report from www.ecofys.com

Source: www.reuters.com

Pictured: Intel Israel recently dedicated the country’s most environmentally friendly office building in Haifa. Dubbed IDC9, the 11-story, $110 million data center facility now has a double distinction—it is Israel’s first LEED-certified green building and it has been awarded Gold, the second-highest rating in the LEED certification system.

By Yale Environment 360 (2 February 2011):

Intel Corporation remains the top purchaser of renewable energy in the U.S., nearly doubling the amount of green energy credits it will buy in 2011 to more than 2.5 billion kilowatt-hours – the equivalent of powering 218,000 American homes – according to a new ranking by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

With that increase, the California-based chipmaker – which has also built nine solar plants at its facilities in the U.S. and Israel – now gets about 88 percent of its electricity from renewable sources.

The retail chain, Kohl’s, which ranked second on the EPA’s list of the top 50 green energy buyers, now gets 100 percent of its electricity from green sources, purchasing more than 1.4 million kilowatt-hours annually.

The EPA works with more than 1,300 businesses and organizations through its Green Power Partnership to encourage the voluntary purchase of green energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the EPA, those partners are using about 19.2 billion kilowatt-hours of green energy each year. Intel’s purchase of renewable energy credits is the largest green power purchase to date in the EPA’s Green Power Partnership.

View the full list: http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/toplists/top50.htm

Source: www.reuters.com

By The Hillsboro Argus (4 February 2011):

Intel may be blue, but they are definitely striving to go green.

Evidence of that is the growth of Intel’s commitment to solar power. Two 400 kW solar installations in Hillsboro, one at the Jones Farm campus and the other at the Ronler Acres campus, have just been energized. Each system consists of raised solar support structures.

The new solar installations supplement an $800,000 100 kW solar project on the roof of a Jones Farm Campus building that was energized in December 2008.

They also supplement six other just completed solar installations. Building on its existing portfolio of renewable energy site installations, Intel reported in January 2010 that new contracts were in place to incorporate approximately 2.8 megawatts worth of new solar power projects at eight U.S. locations in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Oregon.

The solar panels used in Oregon were manufactured by Evergreen Solar Inc. and installed by Solar City Inc. They were made at Evergreen’s flagship production facility in Devens, Mass. The installation consists of high quality String Ribbon solar panels offering exceptional performance, cost effective installation and industry-leading environmental credentials.

“We’re very excited about this project,” said Marty Sedler, Intel’s Director for Global Utilities and Infrastructure. “The solar installations are a big step for Intel and supplement efforts at other Intel sites around the world.”

Intel’s new solar installations reflect just the latest in Intel’s energy portfolio, which includes wind, solar, geo-thermal, small hydro-electric and biomass sources.

Intel Oregon, with 15,000 employees, is Intel’s largest site in the world and an anchor tenant of Oregon’s economy.

Source: www.oregonlive.com

And here’s a report on Intel’s work in China:

Environmental Innovation. Energy-Efficient Performance.

“Consistent environmental commitment is a part of everything we do. The environment informs and drives our business from our Eco-smart product design to our environmental partnerships.
Intel complies with all environmental standards stipulated by Chinese law and regulations, and regularly solicits opinions from communities, local supervision institutions, suppliers, and users, to improve the Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) program.

Energy efficiency, outstanding performance, and innovative materials are all essential to Intel’s Eco-smart product designs. As part of our rigorous design process we evaluate material input and improve energy efficiency and performance.

In China, Intel delivers excellent energy-efficient performance and energy saving experience to consumers through technological innovations. Intel Core™ 2 Duo Processor enables home and business computers to save 1.6 billion kwh per year, which is equivalent to the power consumed by 400,000 ordinary Chinese families in one year.

At Intel, our commitment to continuous improvement is integrated into our programs, which are designed to drive more sustainable operations in our facilities. We encourage our employees to not only participate in but also create new Eco-focused programs.

In 2006, Intel’s assembly and testing facility in Pudong, Shanghai recovered more than 66.5% of the solid waste, reduced power consumption by 5 million kwhh, and enhanced the industrial water recycling rate by 15% per year over year through technique improvements. Meanwhile, Intel’s assembly and testing facility in Chengdu, constructed later, also recovered 46% of the solid waste.

Source: www.intel.com

Avon Aims to End Deforestation & BMW Joins with Peugeot for Electric Cars

When people think of the company Avon, they may conjure images of door-to-door make-up saleswomen, or they may even recall the company’s efforts to fight breast cancer. But Tod Arbogast, vice president of sustainability and corporate responsibility says he wants Avon to be known as the company that helped end deforestation.  Meanwhile, electric car market fever is gaining traction. BMW and Peugeot PSA have joined forces to produce electric cars, fuelling speculation of a full-blown Franco-German merger. 

By Tilde Herrera, an editor at GreenBiz Group (3 February 2011):

When people think of the company Avon, they may conjure images of door-to-door make-up saleswomen, or they may even recall the company’s efforts to fight breast cancer.

Tod Arbogast, vice president of sustainability and corporate responsibility at Avon Cosmetics, hopes the company gains a different type of reputation.

“We want to be known as the company that is going to help end deforestation,” Arbogast said.

In a workshop at the State of Green Business Forum, Arbogast offered a look at how chief sustainability officers can identify and manage potential environmental and social business risks before a crisis requires immediate action. A range of tools exist to help chief sustainability officers get in front of issues voluntarily, before it becomes mandatory. 

“As sustainability practitioners, the earlier we can get visibility into an issue, the better informed we are to make a choice,” Arbogast said.

Arbogast took this approach with forestry, a material business issue for a company that is a major publisher of product catalogs. “Our ‘storefront’ is our brochure, our catalog,” Arbogast said.

It was a highly relevant issue for Avon that was growing in attention and concern, but the company had no position or sourcing policy for pulp used in its catalogs. The company utilized a range of tools to help it decide how and when to address deforestation, which eventually led to the formation of what it calls the “Avon Paper Promise.”

The Promise aims to promote sustainable forest use through the purchase of 100 percent of its paper from certified and/or post-consumer recycled content sources by 2020, with a preference for pulp certified through the Forest Stewardship Council  (the company is now at about 70 percent, about 30 percent of which is FSC); protecting forests, old growth, high conservation or endangered forests and ecosystems; reducing demand on forests; promoting clean production practices; and promoting continuous improvement and transparency.

To identify potential business risks like forestry, Avon regularly maps issues by weighing both their relevancy and maturity or societal awareness to guide the organization in how they might react.

“If it’s very relevant to your organization, but no one in society really knows about the issue, you should probably execute against it, but do so quietly. No point in being outspoken about it if no one really knows about it,” Arbogast said. “If it’s very relevant and it’s an issue that well known, you should be very strategic with it.”

Is it a less-relevant issue that’s not well-known? Be responsive based on risk, Arbogast said, but don’t allocate a lot of resources. Not relevant, but well-known in society? Be concerned and monitor in case it eventually requires action.

Avon also uses another tool to determine the level of action the company should take on issues, and figure out where it wants to be on issues, based on five stages ranging from Elementary (Stage 1) to Transformational (Stage 5).

“Because of forestry’s relevance to Avon, the last place we want to be in terms of our implementation strategy to address the issue is at the elementary level,” Arbogast said. “What we really want to be seen as, based on our actions, is transformational.”
Source: www.greenbiz.com

Robert Lea in The Times (3 February 2011):

BMW and Peugeot PSA have joined forces to produce electric cars, fuelling speculation of a full-blown Franco-German merger.

The prospects of a marriage combining steely German success with French panache has long been the subject of saloon car chatter.

But while the big day may still be some way off, the relationship has been getting stronger.

The companies have been working together on conventional engine development for five years and agreed last year to produce a four-cylinder petrol engine.

Now they are setting up a 50-50 joint venture to produce hybrid vehicles powered by a combination of electricity and petrol or diesel.

The move binds the companies together in what is generally regarded as the next big automotive market.

“We are sure to develop and expand our expertise and to build a European leader in the field of automotive hybrid innovation,” said Philippe Varin, the chief executive of PSA.

Peugeot has been one of the world leaders in electrification, with the launch last month of the Peugeot iOn in an electric battery and engine collaboration with Mitsubishi of Japan.

This alliance has been the subject of speculation that it may be the precursor to a Franco-Japanese merger.

The tie-up with BMW comes before Peugeot’s industry-leading launch this year of a diesel hybrid that will power its Peugeot 3008 family-sized vehicle.

BMW’s conversion to hybrid and electric production has been significantly slower.

The joint venture with PSA, its most substantial commitment to the market yet, will spark speculation that the Mini could be the ideal model for the new technologies.

A low-key trial of electric Minis is being carried out in Oxfordshire but is understood to be a long way off commercialisation.

Norbert Reithofer, the BMW chairman, said that the creation of BMW Peugeot Citroen Electrification would create big economies of scale in joint research and development, production and component purchasing.

The venture is pitching itself as the standard for hybrid car production in Europe, a platform from which to sell components and technologies to other automotive groups and setting up a head-to-head rivalry with Volkswagen.

BMW and PSA refused to reveal their financial commitments to the project but indicated that detailed information would be published at the Geneva Motor Show, which opens next month.

A full merger of the two companies has always been regarded as difficult because both businesses have controlling family interests – the Peugeots and the Quandt family at BMW.

However, recent comments by Thierry Peugeot have suggested that control of the company in any future corporate structure is no longer a deal-breaker.

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Water Wor(l)ds Surfaces in Singapore; Climate Change on Stage and Film

Climate change is making itself felt on the London stage. Three plays on the theme open inside 10 days, starting with this major offering from the National Theatre. In Singapore, World Water Day and World Storytelling Day come together on 20 March in an aptly titled and unique celebration – “Water Wor(l)ds” – devised and organised by  Roger Jenkins, supported by the Singapore Environment Council. In Santa Monica, California, “ThinkSwiss Climate Trail & Polar Wonders: Photographs From the End of the World” went on show earlier this month.

Singapore Storytellers Come Out in the Open for World Water Day

World Water Day and World Storytelling Day come together on 20 March in an aptly titled and unique celebration – “Water Wor(l)ds” – devised and organised by  Singapore’s Roger Jenkins, himself a storyteller, director, teacher and author.

Stories with a water theme will be told and acted out at two venues during the day – Sengkang Wetlands stage and Lower Seletar Reservoir – while in the evening a gala performance will be held at the NTUC Auditorium, 1 Marina Boulevard, which also provides a panoramic view of the Marina Bay Reservoir.

Traditional tales from around the world – from the mountains of Ecuador to the mouth of the Ganges – will be told by professional storytellers Roger Jenkins, Chuah Ai Lin and Dolly Chew, with Gillian Tan sharing some stories in song.

Roger Jenkins explains that the importance of water – and storytelling – is universal. “Water is a symbol for life, cleanliness, renewal and healing”.  He quotes Ursala K Le Guin who said: “There have been great societies that did not use the wheel, but there are no societies that did not tell stories”.

For the evening performance at NTUC Auditorium, commencing at 8pm, it is necessary to book in advance for a seat, but entry is by donation. Funds collected by the Singapore Environment Council (SEC) will go towards a water conservation project in an ASEAN country.

Roger Jenkins says he has three main objectives in organising the World Water Day’s event:

• To enable a wide range of people of all ages to tell and listen to stories;
• To raise awareness of the importance of water;
• To raise funds for a water related project in an ASEAN country.

Internationally, the organisers of World Storytelling Day – www.worldstorytellingday.webs.com – have adopted the theme of water for the first time this year, while the international observance of World Water Day – www.worldwaterday2011.org  – is an initiative that grew out of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro.

For more information on the day and evening activities go to www.rogerjenkins.com.sg and to make booking for the event at NTUC Auditorium on 20 March at 8pm, email to: waterworlds@rogerjenkins.com.sg

From Switzerland to Santa Monica

A traveling photography exhibit and program highlighting global climate change, developed by the Swiss government, is making a stop in Santa Monica this month.

The “ThinkSwiss Climate Trail & Polar Wonders: Photographs From the End of the World” event  provides a unique opportunity to get an artistic and scientific impression of climate change.

The educational displays and photography exhibit was dispersed throughout the Santa Monica Main Library Lobby and Youth Services Area at 601 Santa Monica Blvd.  

This presentation is open to the public, free of charge, and offers the Santa Monica community an opportunity to:

• Meet award winning photographer Daisy Gilardini and hear her speak about her expeditions to the polar regions.

• Learn about climate change from a scientific perspective as Konrad Steffen, Director, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado will discuss the global issues and answer your questions.

• See a film by documentarian Corina Gamma about the wildlife in Antarctica.

Event jointly organized by the City of Santa Monica Office of Sustainability & the Environment / SantaMonica Public Library / Sustainable Works and the Swiss Consulate General of Switzerland in Los Angeles as part of its U.S.–wide program ThinkSwiss-Brainstorm the Future.

The ThinkSwiss Climate Trail is a pathfinder toward global solutions. During workshops, conferences and fairs in many U.S. cities, thou­sands of people have walked the Climate Trail exhibition. It offers an interactive opportunity to learn about global warming and en­courages multidisciplinary discussions about how to pursue a more sustainable lifestyle.

The dramatic increase in greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere has led to an increase in global temperatures and the destabilization of the earth’s climate. Globally, 11 of the hottest 12 years on record have occurred since 1995. In the past century, the earth’s surface has warmed by about 1.4°F, while arctic temperatures have risen at almost twice the global rate. The public health consequences of global warm­ing will have drastic effects. If warming continues, more than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.

There is not a single solution to address this pressing environmental problem; only a combination of measures will provide an effective response. Given rising prices for fossil fuels, renewable energy is an attractive alternative. Solar energy—the fastest growing energy technology in the world—increased by 50% in 2007 while wind power grew by 28% worldwide. Biomass and geothermal energy are also increasingly used for power and heating.

Switzerland is committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 8% below 1990 levels by 2012. The use of hydropower already meets 60% of Switzerland’s electricity needs, while public transportation and energy-efficient vehicles provide alternative modes of travel. The Swiss railroad system ranks among the best in the world: more than 50% of Switzerland’s adults are regular train travelers.

Switzerland has also increased its construction of energy- efficient buildings by 16 times since 2000. Buildings are responsible for 40% of energy use in most countries. In addition, Swiss scientific institutes conduct excel­lent climate research and produce state-of-the-art technology.

Global warming will remain a primary concern on the international agenda in the coming years. As one of its top priorities, Switzerland is strongly committed to finding and implementing solutions in col­laboration with other countries. We can all become climate heroes by using new technology and adopting a more sustainable way of living.

Source: www.smdp.com and www.thinkswiss.org

By Sarah Hemming for Financial Times (4 February 2011):

Climate change is making itself felt on the London stage. Three plays on the theme open inside 10 days, starting with this major offering from the National Theatre. It’s great to see the National tackling big issues of common concern, and it goes about it with tremendous ambition and energy. The result, unfortunately, is neither fish nor fowl. One of the central points of the piece is the difficulty of achieving anything at climate change conferences. Sadly that same unwieldiness seems to apply here: it flounders under its own weight.

The theatre has commissioned four playwrights (Moira Buffini, Matt Charman, Penelope Skinner and Jack Thorne), whose contributions are woven together by dramaturge Ben Power and director Bijan Sheibani. We have a wealth of mini-narratives that bob to the surface in turn, each offering a different perspective.

There is the passionate young eco-activist trying to explain her single-mindedness to her perplexed mother. There is the Arctic observer communing with his younger self on the shrinking ice. There is the lesbian couple at loggerheads over how to conduct their daily life. And there is the government adviser who is hoping to get a scientist to present his terrifying climate projections to the 2009 UN climate change conference. Present, too, are delegates from Mali and a lad who talks generally about risk and choice.

The piece certainly reaches for something epic and catches the paralysed sense of confusion as to what to do. I like the non-naturalistic style and Sheibani’s ambitious staging (designed by Bunny Christie), which uses the height and depth of the stage to create an apocalyptic dreamscape and deluges the hard-working cast variously in plastic bottles, sheets of paper and pouring rain. It has some beautiful moments, particularly when a huge, lifelike polar bear lumbers on to the stage.

But a downside of this kaleidoscopic approach is that nothing beds in and there is little real progress. The characters are thinly drawn, their relationships flimsy and their arguments often grimly clichéd. Theatre can be excellent at dialectic, or at plunging you into characters’ lives. This piece doesn’t do either: it neither rattles your brain cells nor stirs your emotions. This is a huge subject – you long for rigour, clarity, urgency, to have your ideas tested and your understanding increased. Greenland is a noble venture, but it feels like an opportunity missed. 

National Theatre

Source: www.ft.com

Making Economic & Business Sense out of Sustainability

Sustainability might be a buzz word to some, but it is increasingly making good business and economic sense to those who take it seriously – companies and countries large and small.

This is not just because we have a business in what we can the “sustainability sector”, because we have been writing and talking about corporate sustainability for many years, and – yes – acting on it as well.

In Sustain Ability Showcase Asia, along with ABC Carbon (the book, newsletter and consultancy), plus through our involvement in the new business Carbon Zero Solutions, we see our primary job as convincing governments, business, community leaders and all those we are in touch with, to see that sustainability – along with its associated commitment to the environment, social enterprise, energy efficiency, renewable energy and all things green – makes economic sense. It is not just good for the heart and soul, it is vital for the wallet and the bottom line.

Embracing  sustainability in business is a commitment to invest in the future, to save money and make money, to please customers and all stakeholders.

So we happily repeat here an article by Timothy Iszler, of the US professional firm Crowe Horwath, because it puts into words what makes sense. He writes:

“Many people are talking about corporate sustainability, but many don’t understand exactly what corporate sustainability means. Corporate sustainability is a business approach that creates long-term shareholder value by embracing opportunities and managing risks deriving from economic, environmental and social development.” Read More

Smart Business South Florida

Timothy Iszler, Partner, Crowe Horwath LLP

Many people are talking about corporate sustainability, but many don’t understand exactly what corporate sustainability means.

Corporate sustainability is a business approach that creates long-term shareholder value by embracing opportunities and managing risks deriving from economic, environmental and social development.

Still, even if a company is interested in achieving corporate sustainability, the prospect may seem overwhelming. But it’s really not that difficult to get started, according to Timothy Iszler, a partner with Crowe Horwath LLP.

“You can take small steps to get started,” says Iszler. “And the benefits can be significant. Generally when companies go through this process, they end up saving money and improving the bottom line.”

Smart Business spoke with Iszler about corporate sustainability and how it can improve a company’s image and its bottom line.

What key factors does a business need to focus on when approaching sustainability?

The first is a commitment from the CEO and top management. Without that commitment from the top, it will be very difficult to get the buy-in of employees and push the initiative throughout the organization. The leaders also have to develop a business case for sustainability, including a return on investment, as well as the compliance aspect with government regulations, consumer concerns and employee interest.

Consumer consciousness may be driving sustainability initiatives, but on the business end, they can also save costs and improve the bottom line.

Another factor to consider is finding the right person to lead the initiative. Don’t just assign someone to lead; instead, talk to people across different departments to find those who are really passionate about the issue, because without that passion and drive, the effort is likely to fail. You also need to measure the results of your efforts, and not just assume that they are working.

Finally, start small. Looking at too many areas at once can be overwhelming, and taking small steps will reap small successes, which will encourage you to continue your efforts.

What are some ways to start small?

One entry point is to look at your product design. For example, Nike started its sustainability initiative by examining its product design and discovered how much waste it had in the process. By reducing that waste, it was able to realize a cost savings, but it was also an environmentally good thing because a lot less material ended up in the landfill.

Another thing you can do, especially in manufacturing, is to go through your processes and determine where things could be done more efficiently to reduce waste. Even things that seem simple, like changing the light bulbs in a factory to more efficient lighting, can result in additional cost savings and benefit the environment.

Also, more and more companies are using environmentally friendly packaging with a certain percentage made from recycled cardboard and other materials. Doing so can not only save you money but also benefit your brand image, as more and more consumers are becoming more environmentally conscious and view recycled packaging in a positive light.

What are the benefits of sustainability?

The biggest one is an improved brand image for the business. There are also cost savings to be realized from things such as using less electricity, and sustainability can give a company an advantage in a very competitive marketplace. Finally, increased employee satisfaction is also a benefit as workers gain pride from working for a company that is doing the right thing for the environment.

How do you get buy-in for sustainability?

Employee buy-in is critical. When you find the right leader for the sustainability initiative, that person needs to put together a sustainability team. The people on the front line are the ones who are going to be able to identify the opportunities in your organization.

The challenge is to identify those people within your company who are driven and have a passion to pursue the opportunities and then have them spread that passion throughout the organization.

Sustainability should flow throughout the organization, not be separated into a silo or an individual department. The goal is to fully integrate sustainability issues into the core business structures and processes, rather than managing them as separate issues.

Can a company begin the process on its own, or should it consider outside help?

That depends on how sophisticated the company is. It can be difficult to identify issues from inside the company. Before you go down that path, it’s a good idea to have someone from outside the company come in and help you develop a plan. An outside firm can help you assess and respond to the risks and opportunities integral to achieving your strategic business objectives. A sustainable corporate governance program provides a platform to understand, communicate, collaborate and deliver solutions in alignment with your organization’s vision and mission.

A consultant will help you answer questions such as: How do customers measure your performance? What sustainability metrics are included? How do your customers validate what you report? What new sustainability initiatives are your customers putting in place? How are you taking advantage of new tax and economic incentives related to sustainability? How are you going to take advantage of the new business opportunities presented by companies reacting to climate change? How are you preparing for CO2 cap and trade programs?

By consulting with a professional firm, your company can take full advantage of sustainability opportunities to help the environment, improve its image and improve the bottom line.

Source: www.sbnonline.com

Welcome to the placid year of the rabbit

Pulling a rabbit out of a hat, breeding like rabbits, white rabbits – all rabbit images from the West – but to the Chinese followers of fashion and custom the world over, as they welcome in the Year of the Rabbit (commencing 3 February), the humble, playful and very edible rabbit is seen somewhat differently. Here’s one view on the year ahead:  

“A placid year, very much welcomed and needed after the ferocious year of the Tiger. We should go off to some quiet spot to lick our wounds and get some rest after all the battles of the previous year.
Good taste and refinement will shine on everything and people will acknowledge that persuasion is better than force. A congenial time in which diplomacy, international relations and politics will be given a front seat again. We will act with discretion and make reasonable concessions without too much difficulty. A time to watch out that we do not become too indulgent. The influence of the Rabbit tends to spoil those who like too much comfort and thus impair their effectiveness and sense of duty.”

And as the year has started for many with very wet feet – even in Singapore – an umbrella will come in handy! So we go very international in this issue, with reports from Washington and Davos, with John Elkington looking kindly on Singapore and water as a ongoing issue. Water conservation is in the news in China, while Australia’s flood tax is creating a storm of a different sort. Wellington will host this year climate change and business conference, while Australians of the Year get the attention they deserve. Coral bleaching gets in National Geographic’s focus and News Limited attains carbon neutral status.  Find out what’s meant by “Green Ops for PE” and look again at bamboo for its sustainability in a material world. Pandas and rabbits unite! – Ken Hickson

Profile: Lester Brown

Lester Brown is worried. In his new book “World on the Edge,” the founder of Worldwatch and the Earth Policy Institute says mankind has pushed civilisation to the brink of collapse by bleeding aquifers dry and over-ploughing land to feed an ever-growing population, while overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. If we continue to sap Earth’s natural resources, “civilisational collapse is no longer a matter of whether but when”.  

WASHINGTON (AFP) – – Like many environmentalists, Lester Brown is worried. In his new book “World on the Edge,” released this week, Brown says mankind has pushed civilization to the brink of collapse by bleeding aquifers dry and overplowing land to feed an ever-growing population, while overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide.

If we continue to sap Earth’s natural resources, “civilizational collapse is no longer a matter of whether but when,” Brown, the founder of Worldwatch and the Earth Policy Institute, which both seek to create a sustainable society, told AFP.

What distinguishes “World on the Edge” from his dozens of other books is “the sense of urgency,” Brown told AFP. “Things could start unraveling at any time now and it’s likely to start on the food front.

“We’ve got to get our act together quickly. We don’t have generations or even decades — we’re one poor harvest away from chaos,” he said.

“We have been talking for decades about saving the planet, but the question now is, can we save civilization?”

In “World on the Edge”, Brown points to warning signs and lays out arguments for why he believes the cause of the chaos will be the unsustainable way that mankind is going about producing more and more food.

Resources are already beginning to be depleted, and that could cause a global “food bubble” created by overusing land and water to meet the exponential growth in demand for food — grain, in particular — to burst.

Two huge dustbowls have formed in the world, one in Africa and the other in China and Mongolia, because of soil erosion caused by overplowing.

In Lesotho, the grain harvest has dropped by more than half over the last decade or two because of soil erosion, Brown said.

In Saudi Arabia, grain supplies are shrinking as a fossil aquifer drilled in in the 1970s to sustain domestic grain production is running dry after years of “overpumping” to meet the needs of a population that wants to consume more meat and poultry.

Global warming is also impacting the global supply of grain, which Brown calls the foundation of the world food economy.

Every one-degree-Celsius rise above the normal temperature results in a 10 percent fall in grain yields, something that was painfully visible in Russia last year, where a seven-week heatwave killed tens of thousands and caused the grain harvest to shrink by 40 percent.

Food prices soared in Russia as a result of the poor harvest, and Russia — which is one of the top wheat exporters in the world — cut off grain exports.

Different grains are staple foods in most of the world, and foods like meat and dairy products are “grain-intensive.”

It takes seven pounds (3.2 kilograms) of grain fed to a cow to produce a pound of beef, and around four pounds (1.8 kilograms) of grain to produce a pound of cheese, Brown told AFP.

In “World on the Edge”, Brown paints a grim picture of how a failed harvest could spark a grain shortage that would send food prices sky-rocketing, cause hunger to spread, governments to collapse and states to fail.

Food riots would erupt in low-income countries and “with confidence in the world grain market shattered, the global economy could start to unravel,” Brown warned.

But Brown still believes civilizational collapse can be averted, if there is a mass effort to confront threats such as global warming, soil erosion and falling water tables, not military superpowers.

Source: www.forum.channelnewsasia.com/

Biography of Lester Brown

The Washington Post called Lester Brown “one of the world’s most influential thinkers.” The Telegraph of Calcutta refers to him as “the guru of the environmental movement.” In 1986, the Library of Congress requested his personal papers noting that his writings “have already strongly affected thinking about problems of world population and resources.”

Brown started his career as a farmer, growing tomatoes in southern New Jersey with his younger brother during high school and college. Shortly after earning a degree in agricultural science from Rutgers University in 1955, he spent six months living in rural India where he became intimately familiar with the food/population issue. In 1959 Brown joined the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Service as an international agricultural analyst.

Brown earned masters degrees in agricultural economics from the University of Maryland and in public administration from Harvard. In 1964, he became an adviser to Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman on foreign agricultural policy. In 1966, the Secretary appointed him Administrator of the department’s International Agricultural Development Service. In early 1969, he left government to help establish the Overseas Development Council.

In 1974, with support of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Lester Brown founded the Worldwatch Institute, the first research institute devoted to the analysis of global environmental issues. While there he launched the Worldwatch Papers, the annual State of the World reports, World Watch magazine, a second annual entitled Vital Signs: The Trends That are Shaping Our Future, and the Environmental Alert book series.

Brown has authored or coauthored 50 books. One of the world’s most widely published authors, his books have appeared in some 40 languages. Among his earlier books are Man, Land and Food, World Without Borders, and Building a Sustainable Society. His 1995 book Who Will Feed China? challenged the official view of China’s food prospect, spawning hundreds of conferences and seminars.

In May 2001, he founded the Earth Policy Institute to provide a vision and a road map for achieving an environmentally sustainable economy. In November 2001, he published Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth, which was hailed by E.O. Wilson as “an instant classic.” His most recent book is World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse.

He is the recipient of many prizes and awards, including 25 honorary degrees, a MacArthur Fellowship, the 1987 United Nations’ Environment Prize, the 1989 World Wide Fund for Nature Gold Medal, and the 1994 Blue Planet Prize for his “exceptional contributions to solving global environmental problems.” More recently, he was awarded the the Borgström Prize by the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry, received an honorary doctorate from the University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine in Romania, and was selected one of Foreign Policy’s Top Global Thinkers of 2010.

Source: www.earth-policy.org

A Sputnik Moment for a Green Energy Future

US President Barack Obama has vowed to eliminate billions of dollars of oil subsidies in order to invest in a drive towards a clean energy future. ‘I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own,’ he said in his State of the Union address.’Instead of subsidising yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s”.  He vowed government support for research that could lead to breakthroughs in green energy, comparing such efforts to the Cold War race to the moon. Meanwhile, Carol Browner’s departure as the White House’s top adviser on climate change reflects the President’s limited ability to push his clean-energy agenda

Sky News January 26, 2011

US President Barack Obama has vowed to eliminate billions of dollars of oil subsidies in order to invest in a drive towards a clean energy future.

‘I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own,’ he said in his State of the Union address on Tuesday.

‘Instead of subsidising yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s,’ he added in the annual speech outlining his main policy goals.

Obama vowed government support for research that could lead to breakthroughs in green energy, comparing such efforts to the Cold War race to the moon.

‘We’re not just handing out money. We’re issuing a challenge. We’re telling America’s scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we’ll fund the Apollo Projects of our time,’ Obama said.

‘With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.’

Obama challenged the country to scale back its dependence on fossil fuels, setting the goal of producing 80 per cent of US electricity from ‘clean energy sources’ by 2035.

‘Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all, and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen,’ Obama said.

Last year Obama championed a clean energy bill that would have set up a ‘cap-and-trade’ program to reduce emissions in the world’s second largest polluter, only to see it die in the Senate.

He faces an even steeper climb now that resurgent Republicans – who oppose carbon regulations they say would hamper a desperately-needed economic recovery – control the House of Representatives.

The 21-page ‘Pledge to America’ released by Republicans in September calls for increased access to domestic energy sources and opposition to what they describe as a national ‘cap-and-trade’ energy tax.

Republicans have often derided Obama’s clean energy policies as ‘job killers,’ and support offshore oil drilling and drilling in the Arctic, nuclear power plants, and coal-to-liquid technology

Source: www.skynews.com.au

By Kim Chipman and Jim Snyder - Jan 26, 2011 12:52 AM GMT+0800

Carol Browner’s departure as the White House’s top adviser on climate change reflects President Barack Obama’s limited ability to push his clean-energy agenda through Congress, former Obama aide John Podesta said.

“It’s a recognition of a certain reality,” Podesta, who managed Obama’s transition team and pushed for Browner’s appointment, said in an interview today. Browner realized the chance to pass legislation curbing carbon emissions was “in the last Congress,” he said.

Browner’s plan to leave was confirmed today by Nancy Sutley, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. While Browner, 55, won the auto industry’s acceptance of tighter tailpipe emissions standards, legislation to impose cap-and-trade restrictions on carbon emissions failed in the Senate after passing the House.

“There was a feeling it was time to move on,” Podesta, who was chief of staff for President Bill Clinton, said in an interview today. “It’s a loss. I hate to see her go.”

The administration hasn’t decided whether Browner will be replaced or her job eliminated, Sutley told reporters at an energy conference in Washington today.

“Carol has been a tremendous colleague” Sutley said. “She’s very valued at the White House.”

Browner’s critics said her resignation may signal the administration’s intention to scale back environmental regulations such as the EPA’s new greenhouse-gas regulations. The rules, which took effect Jan. 2, are opposed by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say the limits will burden businesses and hurt the economy.

Job-Creation Obstacles

“Her departure may be part of a legitimate effort to pay careful attention to addressing some of the real regulatory obstacles in the way of job creation in the U.S.,” Scott Segal, a lawyer in the Washington office of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP who lobbies for utilities such as Southern Co., said in a e- mailed statement yesterday.

Browner’s departure doesn’t lessen the administration’s commitment on the environment, Podesta said.

“Polluters see this as an opening,” said Podesta, president of the Washington-based Center for American Progress, a public policy group that advises Democrats. “There’s no opening.”

Obama ran for president on a pledge to push for cap-and- trade, a carbon emissions-trading system that would let companies buy and sell a shrinking pool of permits to pollute. In November, a day after the midterm elections that gave Republicans control of the House of Representatives and increased their number in the Senate, Obama said cap-and-trade legislation probably wouldn’t be possible until at least 2013.

‘Just One Way’

Obama said cap-and-trade was “just one way of skinning the cat” and he would be “looking for other means to address this problem.” The president has yet to spell out such a new approach.

Browner is the latest senior administration member to depart two years into Obama’s presidency. Obama is scheduled to give his State of the Union address to Congress tonight.

Source: www.bloomberg.com/news/

Flood Levy: Government Robs Green “Peter” to Pay Wet “Paul”

The federal government should fund flood recovery by cutting subsidies and tax breaks that promote fossil fuel use and greenhouse pollution, not by slashing funding to climate action programmes, the Australian Conservation Foundation says, while  Giles Parkinson in Climate Spectator writes:  “Surely, not in their wildest dreams would they have imagined that the Gillard government would decide, without a hint of irony, that it should be the clean tech and clean energy industries who should pay for the Queensland clean up, along with a bunch of unfortunates who cannot afford to pay their own rent?”

Giles Parkinson in Climate Spectator 28 January 2011

Senator Bob Brown received a right old bollocking when he suggested earlier this month that the fossil fuel industry should pick up the tab for flood relief, arguing that since fossil fuels were the major contributor to global warming, and that the intensity and frequency of natural disasters were likely to increase because of it, then the industry should be held to account.

It wasn’t just a matter of bad timing or unsightly finger pointing, although it was most certainly both of those. When disaster and tragedy strike, politicians and civil leaders are expected to show statesmanship and empathy with those who are suffering, which is why Queensland Premier Anna Bligh has earned such admiration.

Brown made many wince, including in his own party, but he was not the only one to cross the line. Catholic leader Cardinal George Pell, who influences an even greater congregation, wrote a week earlier of his delight at the extraordinary freeze that had hit Europe in late December – an event that just so happened to have killed dozens and ruined the travel plans of millions – because he thought it disproved the theory of man-made global warming.

“Nothing so delicious has happened,” he wrote, since President Obama’s aircraft was snowed in at the global warming summit in Copenhagen in 2009. The coolest Cardinal’s hopes were dashed a week later when data came in confirming that 2010 was, indeed, the hottest year on record – even despite the European deep freeze. 

The mining industry, predictably, made a big hullabaloo about Brown’s comments, claiming a levy would destroy their industry and invoking, yet again, the it’s-not-us-it’s-them defence – that Australian coal really doesn’t contribute that much to global warming. It certainly shouldn’t be them who paid, they said, ignoring for the moment that the exact function of a carbon price is to recognise the environmental impacts, or externalities, of burning fossil fuels.

So who, then, should pay? Surely not in their wildest dreams would they have imagined that the Gillard government would decide, without a hint of irony, that it should be the clean tech and clean energy industries who should pay for the Queensland clean up, along with a bunch of unfortunates who cannot afford to pay their own rent?

Gillard’s obsession with producing a surplus in 2012/13 is one thing, but the symbolism of slashing $675 million from climate change policies to pay for a natural disaster in the hope that it is a “one-off” is quite another. Climate change programs are suddenly luxury goods. What happens if there is another disaster?

The $430 million ‘cash for clunkers’ scheme is axed, along with Green Start, but so is the remaining $234 million in the Green Car Innovation Fund. Funding programs for utility-scale solar and carbon capture and storage are cut and deferred, and solar cities and solar hot water schemes are brought to an early end. That’s half a billion dollars out of solar.

The closing of some of these programs will not be lamented. Clunkers was a dumb idea and was destined to be cut anyway, and Green Start had already been canned. Many wondered why the coal industry couldn’t throw a bit more of its own money to develop technology that could supposedly save its future, and there were doubts about whether the money in either flagships program would ever be spent.

But was there really nothing imperfect about the subsidies that fossil fuels enjoy – the FBT scheme that sends drivers out on endless road trips so they can qualify for a tax break; the diesel fuel rebate; the petroleum exploration rebate – that they couldn’t be touched for these purposes?

So what is that government up to? Does it know? Is this just Penny’s pay back? Penny Wong, the former federal climate change minister, now in finance and vested with the responsibility of identifying sacrificial lambs, was never a fan of these schemes. Most were constructs from the offices of energy minister Martin Ferguson and industry minister Kim Carr, and she didn’t like them.

Could the ALP simply be giving itself some negotiating room? A program restated is easier agreed than a program added. Or is it simply trying to differentiate itself from the Greens; sowing the seeds for a carbon policy that might rely more on support from the Coalition than it does from the cross-benches?

One thing appears clear – Labor is being progressively seduced by industry groups and lobbyists who argue that complementary measures are not needed with a carbon price. This seemed to be the thrust of Gillard’s argument at the National Press Club on Thursday: The green schemes were cut because they did not deliver a low enough cost of abatement. In the case of clunkers, certainly not, but the other schemes were designed to support the early stages of development of technologies that can and – like solar – will defray costs elsewhere and, in the words of US President Barack Obama just a day earlier, underwrite the industries of the future.

This does not look good for the development of the cleantech industry in Australia. The motor industry is in uproar, and the solar industry is mortified that it has been subject to $500 million of funding cuts and deferrals. Flagships was not particularly loved because it required a panel to pick four winning technologies from a cast of 52, when markets tend to do a better job at that. Now two of those winners will not even be chosen till after 2015.

But the clean energy industry did not want to can government support, it simply wanted it replaced with ideas that have proved effective overseas, such as feed-in tariffs and loan guarantees. That now seems unlikely, and investors will look elsewhere, and Australian developers will continue to look for backers and markets overseas.

As Obama said on Wednesday, nascent industries need support. Gillard seems to be intent on following a different drumbeat. If Australia does ditch the idea of complementary measures, it will most certainly be ‘going it alone’. No other country has forged a similar path, but then they don’t have quite as much coal and minerals to export.

The economic rationalist argument might be valid, but as Professor Ross Garnaut notes, it would require a carbon price with real bite – somewhere between $50 and $100 a tonne to generate the technologies that are needed in the future. It’s doubtful that industry groups charged with protecting the status quo have that in mind. And you’d imagine that this government would not have the stomach to go there.

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au

Australian Conservation Foundation release

28 January 2011

Cut fossil fuel subsidies to pay for flood recovery

The federal government should fund flood recovery by cutting subsidies and tax breaks that promote fossil fuel use and greenhouse pollution, not by slashing funding to climate action programs, the Australian Conservation Foundation said today.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard yesterday announced cuts to the Green Car Innovation Fund, the Cleaner Car Rebate scheme, the Solar Flagships program, the Solar Hot Water Rebate scheme and the Green Start program to help pay for flood reconstruction.

“It’s right for the government to help people rebuild after these devastating floods, but it should use fossil fuel subsidies to fund the work,” said ACF’s executive director Don Henry.

“There are a number of tax breaks and concessions that drain the Federal Budget, while promoting fossil fuel use and greenhouse pollution.

“The largest of these fossil fuel subsidies is the Fuel Tax Credits program, which costs taxpayers more than $5 billion a year, the vast majority of which goes to mining companies as credits for use of diesel fuel.

“Another is the Fringe Benefits Tax concession for personal use of company cars, which is set up so that if you drive a company car, the benefits increase the more you drive it and the more you pollute the atmosphere.

“US President Barack Obama, in his State of the Union address this week, made a commitment to fund the development of clean technology by ending $4 billion a year of tax subsidies to oil, gas and other fossil fuel producers.

“Australia should take a leaf out of Obama’s book.

“While no single extreme weather event can be directly attributed to climate change, this summer’s floods are entirely consistent with what climate scientists have been warning about for decades.

“By cutting greenhouse pollution we can reduce the severity of extreme weather events and help protect our people and our economy.”

Source: www.acfonline.org.au

Time is the Scarcest Resource: Business Must Act on Climate Change

The world economy may be steering itself cautiously out of the doldrums, but leaders have struggled to agree remedies to the key threats on the agenda at the annual World Economic Forum’s Davos event. “Let me highlight the one resource that is scarcest of all: time,” said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. He was specifically talking about the battle to halt climate change, but he could just have easily be addressing stalled world trade talks, Europe’s debt crisis, Chinese asset-price inflation or soaring world food prices. Victor Anderson, who is ‘One Planet Economy’ leader at WWF, doesn’t think those assembled at Davos really appreciated the significance of the ecology crisis and why it posed a threat to both business and politics as usual.

Jean-Louis de la Vaissiere for AFP in The Age (30 January 2011):

Global business leaders headed home from Davos on Sunday after a week in which were courted by politicians seeking plans to deal with debt, food scarcity, climate change and revolt on the Arab street.

The world economy may be steering itself cautiously out of the doldrums, but leaders have struggled to agree remedies to the key threats on the agenda at the annual World Economic Forum’s elite annual networking event.

“Let me highlight the one resource that is scarcest of all: time,” said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, as dozens of senior international figures swung by to lobby some of the richest and most powerful people on the planet.

Ban was specifically talking about the battle to halt climate change, but he could just have easily be addressing stalled world trade talks, Europe’s debt crisis, Chinese asset-price inflation or soaring world food prices.

There was no lack of good will in Davos, the self-selecting group that makes the annual pilgrimage up the mountain to this snowbound resort is largely sold on the virtues of a globalised economy and multilateral cooperation.

But many of the debates at this year’s event were pessimistic in tone, and the political guests sometimes appeared caught flat-footed by shock events far beyond the Davos Congress Centre.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev put on a credible show of defiance to the terrorists who bombed a Moscow airport shortly before he was due in Davos, but his arrival was delayed and his visit cut short.

His opening day speech was preceded by a minute of silence, and worries about extremist violence took the shine off the Russia delegation’s unveiling of a billion-dollar oil exploration deal with US giant ExxonMobil.

Meanwhile, Forum organisers were scrambling to address the number one topic of anxious discussion in the venue’s corridors — the popular revolts in North Africa and the risk of their spreading throughout the Arab world.

Davos managed to produce a trio of newly-minted ministers from the Tunisian interim regime, and they were warmly welcomed to the fold as champions of the fight for freedom, but between sessions delegates sought news from Egypt.

Western leaders fear Egypt’s revolution will trigger bloodshed and boost Islamism, but don’t want to be seen to be backing an autocrat like strongman Hosni Mubarak, and Davos never really managed to address the issue.

Meanwhile, topics debated with great elan at Davos 2010 have scarcely moved on: post-earthquake reconstruction in Haiti has stalled, the Middle East peace process is in ruins and Iran clings doggedly to its nuclear plants.

Since then the Lebanese government has fallen and Ivory Coast has found itself divided between two would-be presidents and on the brink of war.

With the political and environmental crises proving intractable, the Forum spent a lot of time listening to rival economic recovery plans, but here again Western leaders were on the defensive.

Russia and fast-growing India duelled to see which could plaster the resort city with more triumphant posters, and Chinese executives and officials made placatory noises about global trade imbalances without making concessions.

But a string of European leaders concentrated on defending the stability of the euro and their deficit reduction plans, while the United States insisted they had got it all wrong and that now was not the time to cut spending.

Source: www.news.theage.com.au

Victor Anderson for the Guardian Professional Network Wednesday 26 January 2011 

This week the world’s business and political elite gather in Davos, Switzerland, to discuss the planet’s future. Although economic rivalries are always at the top of the agenda, in recent years the Davos meetings of the World Economic Forum have found a little time to discuss climate change. However, there is as yet no sign that most of those who attend really appreciate the significance of the ecology crisis and why it poses a threat to both business and politics as usual.

The conventional view of the world is that there is a choice to be made between the risk of systemic change and the relative safety of sticking with what we have now. However if we take the idea of sustainability seriously, we can see it is not like that. Current unsustainability means that the situation we are in cannot be continued, and will change. The choice is therefore not between what we have and making a risky transition to something different. The choice is between two different forms of transition.

The signs of both forms are all around us, good and bad. We need to recognise that indications of the unintended and unplanned “bad transition” are not just to be found in climate change, biodiversity loss, and environmental deterioration generally, or in environmental and social problems put together.

There is also a distinctively economic component to the process. Some of it is to be found in the economic impact of climate change. Increased flooding, for example, has put enormous costs on agriculture and other economic activity, and of course raised insurance premiums paid by business and households.

More of the bad transition is to be seen in the way ecological deterioration, such as reductions in soil quality and water availability, undermines production, most obviously in the case of food.

However there is also a basic economic shift taking place at the moment which is as pervasive as the worldwide changes in climate and ecosystems. This phenomenon is structural inflation caused by unsustainable economics. Prices are, above all, a response to supply and demand. If demand is rising – and demand is rising fast across the world now for fuel, food, metals, and many other commodities – and supply is relatively fixed, prices will go up.

This is exactly what is happening, returning to the circumstances which preceded the financial crisis in 2008: “Global food prices have reached a nominal all-time high, surpassing the peak seen in 2007-08 – when bread riots rocked poor countries.” (Financial Times, 11 January 2011) “The price of steel has risen more than a third in two months” (FT, 17 January 2011). “Copper prices rose 33% in 2010“. (Wall Street Journal Europe, 4 January 2011). “Morgan Stanley analysts predicted recently that crude oil would go ‘above $100 per barrel’ in 2011.” (WSJE 4 January 2011)

As the world economy moves closer and closer to the limits of its resources, we get nearer to the points where various commodities are fixed in supply, or are increasingly risky to supply (as with oil extraction in places like the Gulf of Mexico), or where their output can only be expanded by limiting the production of other commodities. Climate change and ecosystem deterioration then restrict supply still further.

The outcome is bound to be inflation. Not just a temporary and localised form of inflation, but inflation structurally built in to the world economy.

In the UK, rising inflation now threatens the ability of the Bank of England to use monetary policy to counteract the deflationary effects of the government’s spending cuts. The next move for interest rates is likely to be upwards.

The general outcome of this form of inflation is stagflation: stagnation in output produced by inflation in input prices. When input prices rise, firms cannot afford to buy as many of the materials they use, and unless they can find a way to use those materials more efficiently, firms’ output will fall.

A no-growth economy does not depend on radical green campaigners persuading people that growth is undesirable, nor on the overturning of current values and priorities which that would require. It can be the simple outcome of unintended stagflation. A no-growth economy may be closer than we think.

Victor Anderson is ‘One Planet Economy’ leader at WWF

Source: www.guardian.co.uk