Children’s Climate Forum

Continuing with the theme of youth involvement. This is a very interesting effort from the Danish government and schools. They may be young but they are aware.

Children’s Climate Forum kicks off in Copenhagen

The forum is a collaboration between UNICEF, the City of Copenhagen and 22 Danish school classes acting as hosts for the visiting children.

Many of the child delegations represent ‘at risk’ countries, particularly vulnerable to climate change, such as Konduani Joe Banda from Zambia, a country struggling with droughts and heavy rain falls.

“The effects of climate change have been taking place gradually over the last five years in Zambia. If the sea levels rise in other countries, we see floods in Zambia, resulting in the spread of disease. Rain falls are also happening at the wrong time, and the country suffers under deforestation,” explains Mr. Banda.

After the forum, the children are to educate other children in their home countries on climate change issues.

And what is the message from the children to the adults at COP15, so far?

“Children are the grass roots of all nations, so if our opinion is taken into consideration it can affect the world at large. My message to the negotiators is less talk, more action. We want to see that the conference actually has an impact,” concludes Mr. Banda.

Carbon-free Kids

Pretty interesting initiative from a high school student, Ruthie Gopin. Their carbonfreekids.net website seems be down and facebook page sparse but they have a nice video of the founder summarizing her thoughts.

Ruthie Gopin, the Founder of Carbon-Free Kids

Book: Hope for a Heated Planet

I had an opportunity to listen to an old hand in environmental movement, Robert Musil, former Executive Director and CEO of Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), on changing alignments in the climate change battle. Please see the links below for the book and the talk.

He wrote to a book to document the grassroots efforts in the US such as

1. 10000+ students' lobbying efforts at congress
2. 1000s of church gatherings
3. Hundreds of cities going carbon neutral
4. 30+ governors committing to Kyoto targets
5. Companies being forced to leave US chamber

He talks about ground-level changes compared to Kyoto:

1. Change in attitudes that is bringing/forcing politicians on board
2. Splintered business community now vs. solid opposition
3. Buildup of public opinion first before a deal is struck vs. Al Gore's last minute parachuting to sign the deal without public backing
4. Military as a new bedfellow arguing the national security side of the issue
5. High quantity and quality of engagement from youth across the world

Overall he is cautiously optimistic. Listening to him gave me a perspective on how far things have come.

Hope for a Heated Planet: How Americans Are Fighting Global Warming and Building a Better Future (also from Rutgers University Press)

Rejecting cries of gloom and doom, Hope for a Heated Planet shows how the fight against global warming can be won by the grassroots efforts of individuals. Robert K. Musil, who led the Nobel Peace Prize–winning organization Physicians for Social Responsibility, explains that a growing new climate movement can produce unprecedented change—in the economy, public health, and home—while saving the planet.

Musil draws on personal experience and compelling data in this practical and rigorous analysis of the causes and cures for global warming. The book presents all the players in the most pressing challenge facing society today, from the massive fossil fuel lobby to the enlightened corporations that are joining the movement to “go green.” Musil thoroughly explains the tremendous potential of renewable energy sources—wind, solar, and biofuel—and the startling conclusions of experts who say society can do away entirely with fossil fuels. He tells readers about the engaged politicians, activists, religious groups, and students who are already working together against climate change.

But the future depends, Musil insists, on what changes ordinary citizens make. Through personal choices and political engagement, he shows how readers can cut carbon emissions and create green communities where they live. With practical and realistic solutions, Hope for a Heated Planet inspires readers to be accountable and enables them to usher in an age of sustainability for future generations.

Podcast: Our Role in Combating Climate Change - Talk at the World Affairs Council of Northern California

Members of civil society do not have a seat at the upcoming climate treaty negotiations in Copenhagen, yet the issue of climate change affects us all. Looking at the causes and potential cures for global warming, Robert Musil sees hope in the role of the individual. He argues that it is efforts of a growing grassroots movement of engaged citizens that will ultimately decide the course of the climate challenge. Through personal choices and political engagement, he explores how we can cut carbon emissions and produce unprecedented change across sectors. Musil was the Executive Director and CEO of Nobel Peace Prize–winning organization Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) and helped launch PSR’s environmental program in the early 1990s.

Links for Nov 28, 2009

Harper to face pressure on climate at Commonwealth meet. Yep, this is the same Canada the lectures the world about rights, whales and corruption. There is proposal to exclude Canada from the Commonwealth

Copenhagen conference: India, China plan joint exit. This is tragic. The mistrust is legitimate but they need the deal more than others.


'The World Wants a Real Deal' - Global Day of Action from TckTckTck campaign.

Turmoil in the Australian Parliament questions climate legislation. Novel.

Climate Thoughts

Thoughts on climate activism

Solve Climate has a fascinating article detailing the growing activism across the world. This is similar and related to activism on fair trade, wildlife protection, iraq, water privatization etc. There are several important things to notice here about this kind of activism:

1. It is global. The level of coordination in terms of scale is high. Roughly 9M people signed up to tcktcktck campaign.
2. It is relentless. Everyday and hour there is something or other somewhere.
3. It is strategic in terms of methods and timing.
4. It is in visible. It is in your face and you cant miss it. Roughly 20K people are gathering in Copenhagen, and there are four parallel events happening.
5. It understands money. While they work the politics, they are working on altering the economics as well.
6. It understands communication. They are bringing the best of strategic communication to the table which make it hard to fight.

The challenge to global political and economic decision makers has never been higher, I think. People have talked about information and knowledge societies for a long time now. We are beginning to what it looks like and can see power structures being altered in real time.

I think at the core is a desire in people for change, and people are using their knowledge and skills to shared problems outside the government and business context. They see too much of wars, greed, destruction of life and property, concentration of power, rights violations etc. They are participating whenever there is an opportunity. I myself worked on a campaign to get Coke to control its water usage and education in India. I was surprised by my own 'reach' in the system.

Climate Activism Soars Planetwide

At Ambrose's office on Wednesday, another group of protesters was drawing attention to the tar sands industry's contribution to global climate change, Kinder said. A youth-produced video out of Canada this week, The Tar Sands Blow, also urges Harper to stop the expansion of the tar sands, or oil sands, which it calls "the greatest mistake we've made."

In Australia, 200 climate protesters blocked the entrance of parliament, calling for deep cuts from the Rudd government before 130 of them were arrested by police and taken away.

In Indonesia, protesters from Greenpeace chained themselves to four cranes at a paper mill on the island of Sumatra. Their goal was to highlight the role that deforestation plays in global warming.

The Washington, D.C.-based 1Sky campaign is organizing what its calling a "creative action" on Dec. 4 in front of the White House with images reflecting the urgency of the climate challenge.

How Climate Change is Changing Lobbying

This blog is fundamentally about tracking events in the journey to low carbon economy. This is, I think, a significant event.

This article from October but is talking about how this act of leaving a large and influential lobby group like US Chamber of Commerce is unprecedented. Companies are reading the future differently, and some like Apple are betting on a carbon-scarce future. This is indicative of two things: first, it has become unacceptable to be seen as global warming denier, and second, the business coalition for status quo is weakening every day. There will probably be a tipping point down the line - watch for it.

Exit Through Lobby by James Surowiecki, Newyorker Magazine

Last Monday, Apple announced that it would be quitting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of the Chamber’s opposition to global-warming legislation. And that was just the latest in a series of defections: in the past few weeks, the public-utility companies Pacific Gas & Electric, PNM Resources, and Exelon all announced that they’d be leaving the Chamber, while Nike quit the organization’s board of directors. Historically speaking, this is a positive exodus.

...

Why the difference? Partly, it may be a matter of self-interest; Exelon, for instance, has big investments in renewable energy. But it may reflect a calculation that global warming is simply too big an issue to get wrong, both economically—few companies are really going to benefit from the melting of the polar ice caps—and from a public-relations point of view.

It concludes with a strong statement

global warming isn’t just bad for the planet; it’s bad for business.

Mercury News, among others, has reported on this:

"Apple is committed to protecting the environment and the communities in which we operate around the world," Catherine Novelli, Apple's vice president of worldwide government affairs, said in a letter to Thomas Donahue, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce president and CEO. "We strongly object to the Chamber's recent comments opposing the EPA's effort to limit greenhouse gases."

The move comes amid efforts by Apple to burnish its green image. The Cupertino-based company revealed its carbon footprint — or total greenhouse-gas emissions — for the first time last month, announcing on its Web site that 53 percent of the 10.2 million tons of annual carbon emissions it takes responsibility for comes from consumer use of its products.

The company has taken a broad view of greenhouse gas emissions, using a "life-cycle analysis" to calculate greenhouse gas emissions for each product, from production to transportation, consumer use and recycling.

"We believe it has resulted in the broadest possible measure of the carbon footprint for each of our new products," Apple said in response to a lengthy questionnaire by the Carbon Disclosure Project, which publishes emissions data for the world's largest corporations. "No other electronics company reports this information at the product level, but we think they should."

Shipping industry gets moving

I came across this interesting two-month old posting by David Hone, Shell on how shipping industry is reacting. Realizing that their emissions will be included in the discussion, they are moving to stave off tougher regulations/mandates. They are setting up a private trading system exclusively for shipping-related emissions. I am not a strong believer in industry self-governance but it is an interesting question as to what makes shipping-related carbon market different from others? Should each industry be allowed to setup its own system?


David Hone
Climate Change Advisor for Shell

Hello and welcome to my blog. There's lots said about why climate change now confronts us, and what it means, but the real issue is what to do about it. Plenty is said about that too, but there's not enough discussion on the practical aspects of implementation. Focusing on energy, that's what my blog sets out to achieve

Shipping makes a move

The announcement comes in the form of a discussion document released by the British, Australian, Belgian, Norwegian and Swedish ship owners associations. The document clearly outlines the issue and challenges, spells out the advantages of a trading approach and then outlines two different constructions for a possible system. At this stage the document doesn’t discuss the scale of reductions, but I don’t think that is important right at this moment. Rather, the industry is taking a major step into the policy arena with a view to charting its own course foward (pun intended, sorry).

Guide to Copenhagen Negotiations

I was looking for some explanatory kind of document that will give me insight into the negotiations at Copenhagen - the process, what makes it hard, what are the politics and personalities etc.

Comprehending Copenhagen: a guide to the international climate change negotiations from the Lowy Insitute, Australia.

From 7-18 December, the world’s attention will be focused on Copenhagen, where representatives of 192 nations will gather in an attempt to strike a new international agreement to respond to the urgent challenge of global climate change. In this Lowy Institute Analysis, Dr Greg Picker and Fergus Green aim to demystify the negotiations and deepen public understanding of this important process. From the expansion of international carbon markets to proposals for curbing tropical deforestation, the paper elucidates the key issues to be negotiated in Copenhagen and outlines the positions of the various countries and groups to each issue. The paper also explains the Conference’s processes, weighs the likely outcomes and considers its potential implications for Australia and beyond.

It might be easier to listen to the presentation by the authors instead.

Just as an example, this is the timetable of the negotiation:

Broadly, negotiations at Copenhagen will likely follow a pattern familiar from previous COPs. The keysteps in the process will likely be as follows:

• Several days before the negotiations formally commence there will be both formal meetings on specific issues between parties and closed meetings of negotiating blocs to fine-tune positions and respond to the latest intelligence.
  
• The first two days will contain a mix of ceremonial fanfare (formally launching the conference), administrative discussions (agreeing the agenda and organising the work schedule) and substantive grandstanding (introductory statements by countries in large plenary meetings with several thousand participants).
• Typically, by the second day, the subsidiary bodies will have their opening plenaries – with up to 1500 people present – involving a similar mix of ceremony, process and substance of an introductory nature. In Copenhagen, however, this step may be skipped or truncated. The current agreement is that the permanent subsidiary bodies will meet in the first week, and adhoc working groups will meet until midway through the second week. It is also possible that a 'Committee of the Whole' may be formed through which all issues are addressed.
• Regardless of the structure of meetings for the subsidiary bodies, by Wednesday 9 December, small group negotiations will commence. Typically, these will be closed meetings. Dozens of different types of these groups will be formed (including 'contact groups', 'informals', 'informal informals', 'friends of the chair' and 'friends of the president') resulting in literally hundreds of negotiating meetings (not counting the truly informal negotiations that happen over a quiet cup of coffee or glass of wine). Small group negotiations will continue until no later than Tuesday 15 December.
• On Monday 14 and Tuesday 15 December, large plenary meetings will be held to agree formally to any issue that has been tentatively agreed in small group negotiations.
• Typically, ministers arrive and become engaged on the Tuesday or Wednesday of the second week (15 to 16 December). However, given the importance of the Copenhagen meeting, the current expectation is that ministers will arrive and begin working on the weekend of 12 and 13 December. The ministerial segment will not conclude until the COP ends. While there will be public statements by countries, the real work of the negotiations will happen in increasingly small ministerial meetings as the week draws to a close. Unusually, a large number of prominent political leaders and heads of state will be attending the negotiations in Copenhagen. They will likely arrive after ministers and can be expected to be engaged in even higher level negotiations as the conference comes to an end.
• While the COP is scheduled to conclude on Friday 18 December, it is virtually inconceivable that it will do so. Negotiations in Bali and Kyoto did not conclude until well into the weekend.
• Copenhagen will conclude when there is a closing plenary that has formally endorsed all elements of the agreement and countries have had an opportunity to express their views on the proceedings. Closing plenaries tend to be long, fraught affairs and are, even at the best of times, the source of much drama. With so much at stake, the closing plenary at Copenhagen will be one to remember.

Changing Business Attitudes towards Climate Change

I have been studying the changing business attitude towards climate change. Initially there was resistance, then acceptance, cooperation, and now increasing excitement. It is discussed in U.S. Business Strategies and Climate Change paper from Wilson Center. The paper talks about the role of science, concerns about reputation, and the potential of new markets. I would add shareholders have become sensitive of all these as well. In Risking Shareholder Value? ExxonMobil and Climate Change, the shareholders of Exxon accuse the company of risking reputation and missing opportunities. Organizations such as Investor Network on Climate Risk are driving changes at the systemic level.

McKinsey Quarterly report from 2008:

First, there will be efforts to optimize the carbon efficiency of existing
assets and products: infrastructure (buildings, power stations, data centers,
factories), supply chains, and finished goods (automobiles, flat-screen
TVs, PCs). This optimization will involve measures to improve energy effi-
ciency, as well as a shift to less carbon-intensive sources of power, such
as nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal.
Second, demand is growing for new low-carbon solutions that can meet
the need for sustained, drastic emission reductions. Value chains that disrupt
existing industries and create new ones will spring up—industries based,
for instance, on the large-scale supply of biomass to power plants and on
second-generation biofuels. New business models that reward suppliers
and end users in the power and transport sectors for consuming less energy
will be as important as new technologies.
Third, public policy and the widespread belief that higher energy prices
are here to stay are driving both of these developments. The coming economy-
wide discontinuity may be the first one driven largely by regulation.

Messaging and Branding around Climate Change

I have been thinking about the use of language and emotions to discuss the issues around climate change. I was looking around to see if there are efforts and organizations in this space. I found some cutting edge thinking in terms of messaging and branding in this space. Check them out:

Futerra has some cool new thought pieces in this space:.

Born out of a desire to help communications professionals get their green messaging right, the guide identifies the top ten signs of Greenwash, reveals how Greenwashing has grown over the last years, addresses the question of why Greenwash matters and what you can do about it. Versions of the report are also available for the USA and in french.

10 Tips for Sustainability Communications
10 RulesThis is Futerra's bible. A postcard reminder of how to sell sustainability. Widely used and adopted by the UN's Environment Programme and elsewhere.

Rules of the Game

Futerra and The UK Department for Environment published the Rules of the Game on 7 March 2005. The game is communicating climate change; the Rules will help us win it. The document was created as part of the UK Climate Change Communications Strategy.

New Rules New Game

New rules: new game coverThe same type of concise document as the previous Rules - but this time for changing climate behaviours.

Communicating Sustainability

Communicating Sustainability coverFuterra, in partnership with the UN Environment Programme, published Communicating Sustainability: How to produce effective public campaigns in September 2005.

The guide showcases innovative campaigns from every continent which have succeeded in making people think or behave differently towards the environment. It has now been downloaded over 700,000 times from the UNEP website!

Words that Sell

Words that sell coverThis guide to the language of sustainability asks some hard questions. Based on valuable focus group research, Words That Sell identifies the good, the bad, and the ugly of green and ethical terminology.

The Compass Network

is a global exchange for knowledge and creativity in sustainability communications. It's a place to share, to learn and to meet like-minded people working towards the same goal.

They have an interesting document called Clean technology: tomorrow's brands:

Cleantech has been called the next Industrial Revolution and, if commentators are believed, will save the planet AND the economy. It could also produce the C21st's biggest and most recognisable brands. The report argues that developing a strong brand, as well as great technology, can help cleantech companies succeed, grow and win

Obama goes to Copenhagen!

Woohoo!

Obama Announces 2020 Emissions Target, Dec. 9 Copenhagen Visit

President Obama today unveiled key details of the U.S. negotiation position headed into next month's global warming talks in Copenhagen, including a provisional greenhouse gas emissions target for 2020 "in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels" and a new itinerary that includes a personal appearance during the opening days of the U.N. conference.

The White House said Obama will put the 2020 target on the bargaining table "in the context of an overall deal in Copenhagen that includes robust mitigation contributions from China and the other emerging economies." Obama's emission goals closely parallel action on Capitol Hill, including the House-passed climate bill and a Senate measure that Democratic leaders hope can reach the floor with enough votes by next spring.
...
"This could be one hell of a global game changer with big reverberations here at home," said Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.). "For the first time, an American administration has proposed an emissions reduction target, and when President Obama lands in Copenhagen, it will emphasize that the United States is in it to win it. This announcement matches words with action."

Kerry, the Democrats' lead legislator on the Senate global warming bill, stressed that Obama's provision target is "contingent on the support of Congress" but still outlines a politically important path for both developed and developing nations to follow as they outline their own plans for reducing emissions.

"It lays the groundwork for a broad political consensus at Copenhagen that will strip climate obstructionists here at home of their most persistent charge, that the United States shouldn't act if other countries won't join with us," Kerry said. "It is an enormous shot in the arm for those of us working overtime to get a comprehensive bill passed in the Senate. And the fact that the president will attend the Copenhagen talks underscores that the administration is putting its money where its mouth is, putting the president's prestige on the line."

Worldwide views on Global Warming

The detailed survey results are here World Citizens Demand Action at COP15.

Overview news report:
World first: global climate poll

Held in September, the 44 meetings of everyday citizens in 38 countries gave more than 4,400 randomly selected participants the chance to express their views on the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP15).

Ninety per cent of these participants thought reaching a global climate deal at the conference was a matter of urgency, and 89 per cent thought countries such as the USA, Australia and EU nations should commit to short-term emissions targets of 25 to 40 per cent or higher.

This shows a discrepancy between what the citizens want and what policy makers are prepared to deliver. In the lead up to COP15, Australia is currently proposing reductions of 14 per cent (by 2020 according to 1990 levels), the US is proposing a 2 per cent reduction, and the EU is proposing a 20-30 per cent reduction."[The survey] has given politicians a unique insight into the views of ordinary citizens from all corners of the world on the climate crisis," said Danish Minister of Climate Change and Energy and World Wide Views ambassador, Connie Hedegaard.

"It is a powerful signal to the politicians when citizens all over the world agree that action is urgent."

The consultation findings reflect a global consensus on six key issues: the need for strong policy, technology sharing between nations, an international climate change council, increased environmental awareness and education, improvements to climate change technology and the development of consumer incentives to encourage less carbon emissions.

Australian participants were most concerned with committing confidently at COP15 to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius through a legally binding global agreement. It seems likely that such a global accord will hinge on whether global leaders can forsake self-interest and agree to co-operate and share the economic burdens.

Of the 38 countries, China's citizens were least willing to introduce emissions cuts for fast-growing economies.

The Worldwide Views on Global Warming Experts Blogs has more detailed analysis. Not all is well:

The results showed a very strong expression of concern about global warming. There was an overwhelming sense of urgency for achieving a strong climate agreement. In addition there was a pungent message that national politicians heed the deal made in Copenhagen this December.
In my first glance at the data, perhaps the strongest result was that 89% participants affirmed that short term reductions of carbon emissions in developing countries be reduced by 25-40%. This will come as a shock to world leaders who are aiming at targets much lower than that in the immediate future.
At the same time within the aggregate results, there were some moderately worrisome themes.

1. Some 43% of participants world wide seemed to say that a rise of 2 degrees Centigrade or higher is actually permissible. Reading the same figures, it’s also true that 89% of participants overall said that no more than 2 degrees increase would be acceptable. [Is the glass half empty or half full?] From what I’ve read, even 2 degrees increase would spell disaster. Are people becoming acclimated (so to speak) to prospects for dreary future?

2. Another cloud on the horizon was that among some national groups, raising the price of fossil fuels was not uniformly popular. Some 32% of U.S. participants said no price rise was desirable. Evidently Americans want the Age of Happy Motoring to continue forever. A substantial number people in the groups from Austria, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain, and UK were also opposed to fuel price hikes.

3. Finally, I was interested in the data from question 2.4 about whether punitive sanctions should be applied. In the combined groups from the U.S.A., 29% said there should be no sanctions or only symbolic ones. This may be a residual expression of the feeling that rules and penalties made in international treaties don’t really apply to America.

I have my own concerns. Understanding the meaning of 2C increase is hard for scientists, forget common man. So not sure how asking people is going to help. Also politics gets mixed in. Chinese are legimately fearful that the west does not want it to prosper - thanks to 100 years of international conflicts and deals. At a recent LSE talk, Ed Miliband, UK Secretary for Energy and Climate Change, talks about the politics of climate change and how to frame it in terms of common good.

Update: Their policy report has a summary of results:

• Make a deal at COP15
• Keep the temperature increase below 2 degrees
• Annex 1 countries should reduce emissions with 25-40 % or more by 2020
• Fast-growing economies should also reduce emissions by 2020
• Low-income developing countries should limit emissions
• Give high priority to an international financial mechanism
• Punish non-complying countries
• Make technology available to everyone
• Strengthen or supplement international institutions

US about to make a deal at COP15?

One more piece of puzzle falling in place keeping the hopes of a deal alive.

May be Obama concluded a private deal with India (Prime minister Manmohan Singh is on state visit).

US to present emissions target before Copenhagen

The United States will announce a target for reducing its greenhouse gas emissions before the UN climate conference in Copenhagen, removing a major obstacle to a deal, officials have said.

"Countries will need to put on the table what they are willing to do on emissions," a senior administration official told journalists. "We expect that a decision will be made in the coming days."

The official refused to be drawn on specific numbers but indicated the US target would not differ much from levels mentioned in legislation before Congress.

A US House of Representatives bill, passed in June, calls for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by 83 percent by 2050.

A slightly more ambitious bill before the Senate, but not due to be debated again until early next year, talks of a 20-percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2020.

The senior administration official said Obama could make a last-minute decision to attend the conference if "negotiations have proceeded sufficiently that going to Copenhagen would give a final impetus, a push, to the process."

Business coalition calls for firm CO2 treaty

Continuing the momentum thread, this is from yet another business coalition. There is a consistency in what multiple of the business coalitions are asking for - clarity, commitment, and low uncertainty. They have accepted that carbon price and legislation is coming. They are trying to influence the course now.
Business coalition calls for firm CO2 treaty

The private sector investment needed to tackle climate change will not be made without a binding international deal on carbon emissions, according to the head of a big business coalition.

Lars Josefsson, chairman of Combat Climate Change, a group including BP, General Electric, Unilever and more than 60 other large companies, said business was ready to act but would not do so without a clear regulatory framework.

“The necessary investments will only be made when you have a binding treaty and legislation,” he said in an interview.

“Of the money required to implement a deal, the vast majority – about 80 per cent – will come from the private sector. That can only come when there is a stable legal framework.”

This coalition calls itself the 3C Initiative

Combat Climate Change (3C) is business leaders’ initiative endorsed and actively promoted by the top executives of 66 of the world’s largest corporations.

The main objective of 3C is to support the UNFCCC-led negotiation process to establish a new global agreement on climate change, and to mobilize companies and business leaders across the world to contribute knowledge, resources and leadership to this common goal.
...
At present 66 global companies including General Electric, Unilever, Citigroup, BP, Siemens, DTEK, Rusal, Reuters, Duke Energy, Gazprom, China Oil & Offshore Company, Volvo, Tata Power, HP and Vattenfall have joined our initiative!

UK Low Carbon Transition Plan

I see this as a good sign of rubber hitting the road. It can help with reducing uncertainty and helping other countries draft similar plans.

I had an opportunity to listen (via podcast) to Ed Miliband, UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change at LSE. He talks about this transition plan, his vision, and politics. Way to go.

The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan

The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan plots how the UK will meet the 34 percent cut in emissions on 1990 levels by 2020, set out in the budget. We have already reduced emissions by 21 percent – equivalent to cutting emissions entirely from four cities the size of London.

Transforming the country into a cleaner, greener and more prosperous place to live is at the heart of our economic plans for 'building Britain’s future' and ensuring the UK is ready to take advantage of the opportunities ahead.

By 2020:
* More than 1.2 million people will be in green jobs.
* 7 million homes will have benefited from whole house makeovers, and more than 1.5 million households will be supported to produce their own clean energy.
* Around 40 percent of electricity will be from low-carbon sources, from renewables, nuclear and clean coal.
* We will be importing half the amount of gas that we otherwise would.
* The average new car will emit 40 percent less carbon than now.

Momentum building for Climate Risk Disclosure at SEC

I talked about investors asking SEC to develop and implement disclosure rules on the climate front (Climate change disclosure & SEC).

That momentum is building.

Big investors push SEC to make companies disclose climate risks

Institutional investors managing more than $1 trillion in assets have asked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to spell out the climate-related financial risks corporations should disclose on their financial forms.

U.S. and Canadian fund managers signing onto the petition included the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS); top state financial officers in Oregon, North Carolina, Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Florida; British Columbia Investment Management Corp.; the Laborers' International Union of North America; and Pax World Management Corp.

Their chief complaint is that the SEC requires public companies to disclose "material risks" to investors, but the agency has offered no guidance for reporting financial risks tied to global warming. The investor groups say there is a panoply of climate-related issues affecting long-term corporate finances, including a pending batch of greenhouse gas reporting requirements from U.S. EPA, worsening environmental conditions and the prospect that Congress will mandate reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.

"Many companies haven't examined these risks," said CalPERS CEO Anne Stausboll in a statement. "The SEC should strengthen and enforce its current requirements so investors' decisions fully account for climate change's financial effects."

Whether or not SEC moves, states are moving forward.

Companies and the SEC have faced increasing pressure from shareholder groups, regulators and state attorneys general asking for more public disclosure of climate-related risks. On Thursday, the office of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (D) announced a settlement with AES Corp. that requires the utility giant to tell investors more about risks posed by climate change. Arlington, Va.-based AES owns 34 power plants in North America and is one of the biggest electricity companies in the world.

Under that agreement, AES must disclose in its 10-K SEC filings risks from "present and probable" climate-related regulations and legislation, litigation and the physical impact global warming could have on utility assets. The state reached similar settlements with power provider Dynegy Inc. and Xcel Energy last fall.

60 heads of state to attend Copenhagen

Promising but a mixed bag.

Copenhagen climate summit: 60 heads of state to attend

Hopes for the Copenhagen climate summit in December have been boosted after it emerged that more than 60 presidents and prime ministers plan to attend.

There had been concern that no strong agreement would emerge from the talks in Copenhagen.

But observers say the presence of so many heads of state will radically increase expectations.

Copenhagen conference attracts world leaders

So far 65 heads of state and government have accepted Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen's invitation to attend December's UN climate change conference in the Danish capital.

Attending: Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Spain and the United Kingdom

Not attending: US, China, India

It is 60 or 65 depending on the source but the point is China and India are not attending. I understand the politics involved in such negotiations but the optics does not look good. The impact of climate change is the highest in these countries with the Himalayas receding. They also represent about 40% of the humanity.

Architects Call for Copenhagen Commitment

Yet another stakeholder sees merit in the low carbon economy: Architects.

I strongly believe that design has a big role to play in process of adaptation and final state of the low carbon economy. Good design will help improve productivity and has financial benefits.

My own research work has been influenced by work of Christopher Alexander's Timeless Way of Building and The Nature of Order.

Architects Around the World Join Forces to Call for Copenhagen Commitment

The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), Australian Institute of Architects, Architecture Canada and the Commonwealth Association of Architects joined forces to deliver a 15 point "Call for Action" at next month's United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen (COP15, 7-18 December 2009) in an effort to lobby world leaders to deliver an ambitious and effective international response to climate change.

They identify a set of principles that should be familiar to people following climate change issues:

- Recognition of the fundamental importance of the built environment as central to the international climate change mitigation and adaptation agenda.

- Binding emissions targets and a carbon price to drive market change - a price on carbon reflecting the true consequences of its use and complementary government policies and incentives facilitating the competiveness of sustainable design.

- Credible and verified measurement of built environment emissions, being an international standard of accounting for carbon emissions.

- Innovative and pre-emptive design and adaptation of the built environment in response to unavoidable impacts of climate change.

- Partnerships between developing and developed economies to share information regarding sustainable design and technologies.

- Enabling policy - whether market mechanisms, government policy, private sector initiatives or voluntary action.

- Incentives to drive innovation and reward greater sustainability in the built environment.

- Investment in pilot projects to trial and demonstrate innovative approaches to built environment models.

- Risk management in the face of climate uncertainties - future scenarios, including the threat of peak oil and sea level rise, should be factored into the way built environments are conceived and planned.

- A concerted program to improve existing building stock to encourage positive change, including energy efficient refurbishment and retrofitting, as well sustainable design for new buildings.

Climate change and Middle East

Triggered by the news of Deutsche Bahn's contract in Qatar to build urban mass transit system, I looked around for information on whats happening in the middle east on the climate change front. A couple of pieces of information:

Impact of climate change on Middle East and North African region (MENA) from the World Bank:
Adaptation to Climate Change in the Middle East and North Africa Region

According to the latest IPCC assessment, the climate is predicted to become even hotter and drier in most of the MENA region. Higher temperatures and reduced precipitation will increase the occurrence of droughts, an effect that is already materializing in the Maghreb. It is further estimated that an additional 80–100 million people will be exposed by 2025 to water stress, which is likely to result in increased pressure on groundwater resources, which are currently being extracted in most areas beyond the aquifers’ recharge potential. In addition, agriculture yields, especially in rainfed areas, are expected to fluctuate more widely, ultimately falling to a significantly lower long-term average. In urban areas in North Africa, a temperature increase of 1-3 degrees could expose 6–25 million people to coastal flooding. In addition, heat waves, an increased “heat island effect,” water scarcity, decreasing water quality, worsening air quality, and ground ozone formation are likely to affect public health, and more generally lead to challenging living conditions.

Global models predict sea levels rising from about 0.1 to 0.3 meters by the year 2050, and from about 0.1 to 0.9 meters by 2100. For MENA, the social, economic, and ecological impacts are expected to be relatively higher compared to the rest of the world. Low-lying coastal areas in Tunisia, Qatar, Libya, UAE, Kuwait, and particularly Egypt are at particular risk.

News from Cop15
Global warming to have heavy impact on Arab states

The effects include depletion of agricultural land, spread of disease and endangerment of many plant and animal species, the 2009 Report of the Arab Forum for Environment and Development forecasts.

Global warming will have a severe impact on Arab states where water is already scarce, a regional report warned Thursday ahead of next month's Copenhagen environment summit.

Some of the most feared effects include depletion of agricultural land, spread of disease and endangerment of many plant and animal species, the 2009 Report of the Arab Forum for Environment and Development said.

The AFED report, released in Beirut, said sea level rise will mostly threaten Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Tunisia, affecting "one to three percent of land in these countries."

In Egypt, the Arab world's most populous nation, more than 12 percent of the country's best agricultural land in the Nile Delta is at risk from sea level rise, or SLR.

AFED Report Presented in Abu Dhabi

The report, compiled by independent experts, estimated that in the Arab region as a whole, the cost of environmental degradation is estimated at 5 % of gross domestic product (GDP). The report also highlights that the governments of the region have failed in addressing these mounting economic costs with clear and effective policies.

However, the report commended the environmental work carried out in Abu Dhabi, describing the Abu Dhabi Emirate Environment Strategy 2009-2013, adopted by the Emirate, as a "model" and called on Arab countries to follow this model and praised the clean energy initiative ‘Masdar,' which was launched by Abu Dhabi Government.

More about AFED:

The Arab Forum for Environment and Development (AFED)

The Arab Forum for Environment and Development (AFED) is a not-for-profit regional non-governmental organization, grouping experts together with the civil society, business community and media, to promote prudent environmental policies and programmes across the Arab region. While it maintains its character as a non-governmental organization, AFED admits, in the capacity of observers, national, regional and international bodies working in the fields of environment and sustainable development.

CO2 Reduction Commitments at Copenhagen

Flow of pledges drives up UN expectations
Apart from the US, all industrialized countries have given targets for their greenhouse gas emission reductions. This promises a successful conference in Copenhagen next month, according to UN’s top official on climate change.

Some of the announced commitments:

Country/Region	Commitment
Russia	25% drop from 1990 level
South Korea	30% drop from expected emissions in 2020 (~4% below 2005)
Brazil	Freeze at 2005 levels (no growth)
EU	30 percent reduction target from 1990 levels by 2020
US	House 17% and Senate 20% reduction from 2005 levels by 2020

Green Hajj

The journey to low carbon economy has just gotten a boost. Just imagine the symbolic value of holiest city in Islam, Mecca, going enviro-green - that too in the heart of the oil kingdom. Remember that the Saudi Arabian king's official title is The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. Idea is in proposal stage but it is a very bold proposal.

ISLAM’S GREEN INITIATIVE

Under the newfound coalition toward eco-commitment and a Muslim Seven Year Plan, Medina, Islam’s second most important city after Mecca, is to serve as a model green city. This move is critical since Saudi Arabia is essentially, for better or worse, presently the pillar of the Arab nations.
Medina, "The City of the Prophet", is a strategic start pointing that has the capacity to really launch a green campaign in neighboring territories.
The Seven Year Plan was presented by the Sheikh Ali Goma'a, Egypt’s Grand Mufti, who has already introduced the plan into his own city of Dar Al Iftaa. Some key initiatives of the Seven Year Plan include:

* Develop and implement a "Green Hajj". With 2-3 million people visiting Mecca during Hajj alone, transforming the experience into an environmentally-friendly pilgrimage will reap immediate benefits.

* Construct a "green mosque" and introduce this model for other Islamic buildings worldwide.

* In the first phase, develop 2-3 green model cities; in the second phase, adapt ten other Muslim cities to implement the model.

* Integrate eco-awareness into Islamic education.

* Publish "green Qurans", printed on paper procured from sustainable wood.

* Create a specialized TV channel focused on Islam and the environment.

* Create award and prize systems for excellence in this field.

The ultimate goal here, as with other faith groups, is to radically redefine faith-based relationships with the environment. While the "greenie" movement is still seen as a secular front by a number of conservative groups, the world’s oldest religions with a following in the billions will be able to bring much needed attention and authority to an issue that has predated our recognition of it.

Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) is driving the initiative.

CRU Hack and Research Process

Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists

Hundreds of emails and documents exchanged between world's leading climate scientists stolen by hackers and leaked online

Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world's leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.

The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.

Climate change sceptics who have studied the emails allege they provide "smoking gun" evidence that some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind.

Folks at Real Climate are in the best position to address the specific details. I will only comment on the research process.

Science has built in uncertainty. If there is no risk, there is no science. The hypotheses, experiment, and conclusion may all be "wrong". Science proceeds by continuously refining all the three. Every result should be considered tentative (except may be mathematical proofs). It is routine to say previous work X made wrong assumption Y, we corrected for it and got result Z.

Research into complex systems such as the atmosphere is difficult, time consuming, and often fragile because we have limited knowledge. By their very nature, the results have to be tested and retested constantly. From all that I understand, IPCC has been doing an excellent job verifying as much data as possible and continuously, and in being conservative in its claims. But uncertainty simply cannot be eliminated in such spaces.

It seems to come down to three things - outlook (how you see the world), values (how you make your choices), and systems (how groups react).

Outlook. People are comfortable accepting the products of science such as the electricity, Internet and new drugs but cant accept it when the results are inconvenient. Either you accept science with its imperfections or not.

The world is getting only more complex over time due to advancements of science, and it is overwhelming. In such conditions, it is easier to cope with the world by sticking to some political, social, religious or other dogma instead of struggling with the reality as it is. I catch myself doing that all the time. The challenge is overcome the dogma and see the world as it is.

Values. This came across to me during the financial crisis. The crisis is not about subprime mortagages but rather about subprime culture. It is the attitude that it is fine to sacrifice somebody else's interests if it means enhancing personal interests. Everyone along the chain starting from the homeowner to the international investor had that attitude. The financial system as a result came to the brink of the collapse. I see this all the time in academics as well. There are no saints. The challenge is know where to draw the line as individuals and societies.

Systems. Asking for certainty is asking for the impossible. Reasonable people know that. It is trick. Then why does it happen? I think it is combination of marketing, confusion, fear, and ignorance. Who is doing it and why? It is the outcome of a battle between a large set of players (scientists, politicians, companies, non-profits) for the common man's mindshare. From a systemic point of view, each has their set of institutions, resources, and interests. They are trying to preserve, and enhance their interests. Because the direction will determine the winners and losers - personally and as an organization - the fight is fierce. The timing of the leak is not an accident. The challenge is know at what point the institutions have to be changed to cope with the changed world.

Where does all this leave us? As I said in an ealier post (Climate Pact Postponed. A Crisis of Leadership.), if we dont have a medium to have the global conversations, a realistic framing of the problems, and willingness of people to compromise, social collapse is potential outcome. It is not impossible. Nature does not have any obligation to treat humans differently than other species.

30 Rock, Al Gore and Selling Green

Fun day!

Since when did reducing carbon footprint become a worthy topic for sketch comedy?

30 Rock Goes Green, Al Gore Makes Cameo

As part of NBC's Green Week, many programs are incorporating environmental themes into their shows. On this week's 30 Rock, Jack Donaghy gives Kenneth the task of reducing TGS's carbon footprint by 5%.

and Al Gore as a popular comedian? I must be living in an alternate universe!

EV, national security and Shai Agassi

In a previous blog post (Electrification Coalition: Adding momentum to EV deployment), I wondered about the emphasis on national security.

I went back and listened to Shai Agassi of Better Place from Nov 2008. He said a few things that were striking from a national security point of view.

First, that for a nation of the size of US, the idea that you have only a few days worth of oil storage is a national security issue - whether the world is a stable or not. There was never a serious way to address that risk, and EVs now make it possible at think about addressing the problem. This is validated by the fact that Israel - one of the countries with the greatest interest in oil - is the first country to go EV in a big way.

Second, the oil companies' business is about to change. I was aware of it but he said it in a way it brought home the point. Shai was asked about how oil companies would respond to electricification. He asked what would the CEO of Exxon say in 2017 to its share holders? They cant possibly say 'it was a good ride, thank you!'. They have dwindling reserves, and new reserves are harder and more expensive to get to. Shai reminded that oil companies are in energy business - they are selling fuel-miles. Oil companies could have life beyond oil too.

Third, when asked about how detroit companies would respond. He smiled and said they get the idea that they have to change. He pointed out that Detroit successfully retooled themselves in early 40s. When the companies pushed back, FDR simply said 'fall in line' and forced them to comply. For almost 3 years during the 40s, Detroit didnt make any cars at all. So from a jobs point of view, it can be done. It is painful and the signal must be clear (my paraphrasing). Elsewhere at Copenhagen Business Council's meeting, he said that by 2020, the largest car manufacturer might very well be Chinese and not American or German. There is the issue of loss of competitiveness in an international market.

He argued that approaches such as rideshare is really in the taxi business and not in the personal car business. He wants new business models in the car industry where you get a car for free (like razor) and sell battery-based fuel-miles for a price (like blades). Anybody can provide the fuel miles - whether it is exxon or wind power. He talked about about how he is happy to consume energy at a higher price 10c/KWH and higher uncertainty provided by Wind energy (compared 5c/KWH of coal) because the value created elsewhere is higher.

Overall highly recommended.

Water Disclosure Project

Some days back I talked about the Carbon Disclosure Project. There is a new project from the same folks.

Water Disclosure Project
Carbon reporting group launches Water Disclosure Project

Having encouraged over 2,500 companies to measure and report on their carbon footprint, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) will today launch a new initiative designed to repeat the trick with firms' water footprints.

The group, which is backed by 475 institutional investors, will announce that from next year it is to send questionnaires on water use to approximately 300 of the world’s largest corporations in water intensive sectors such as chemicals, consumer goods, food and beverage, mining, forestry, pharmaceuticals, power generation and semiconductor manufacturing.

Emulating the model pioneered the Carbon Disclosure Project, firms will be asked to detail their water use, water management and improvement plans, and the risk and opportunities presented by water use across their supply chains. The results will then be made available to institutional investors and summarised in an annual report to be published in late 2010.

Paul Dickinson, chief executive of the CDP said there was a strong commercial case for businesses to pay greater attention to water risks. “If climate change is the shark, then water is its teeth and it is an issue on which businesses need far greater levels of awareness and understanding," he said. "CDP Water Disclosure will raise this awareness and drive companies to take action to mitigate risks and seize opportunities."

Investors also need to be aware if businesses are exposed to risks of water shortages or disruption, according to Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), which is lead sponsor of CDP Water Disclosure project.

"As water becomes an increasingly constrained resource, it also becomes an investment issue," the company said in a statement. "It is vital that institutional investors have access to high quality information on how water-related risks threaten corporations, both directly and within their supply chains, in order to make better informed decisions and direct the flow of capital away from risks and towards solutions."

This is fascinating at multiple levels. Carbon was immediately followed by water. The carbon project is about reducing future problems but the water project is about today's problems. Water will be the basis for many national and sub-national conflicts. I myself was involved once in the past in campaigning against Coke bottling plant in India for its abuse of underground water. However I felt at that time and now that the effort was anti-something but not enough pro-something else. Also that the water not priced right resulting in misuse. This database will enable coordination of pricing, conservation efforts across countries, and development of new business models, services, and projects across national boundaries. At a recent meeting Arnold Schwarznegger mentioned that 20% of the California energy is spent moving water around. A reduction in water consumption will reduce the energy need as well.

Is low carbon world also a water efficient world?

Electrification Coalition: Adding momentum to EV deployment

A new lobby group has formed with some heavyweights to push for the EV deployment.

The Electrification Coalition

The Electrification Coalition is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit group of business leaders committed to promoting policies and actions that facilitate the deployment of electric vehicles on a mass scale in order to combat the economic, environmental, and national security dangers caused by our nation’s dependence on petroleum.

The Coalition seeks to achieve its goals through a combination of public policy research and the education of policymakers, opinion leaders, and the public. Equipped with exceptional research and analysis, these prominent business executives bring credibility, insight, and objectivity to the debate over electrification.

Look at members of this group:

Timothy E. Conver,AeroVironment, Inc. - Manufacturer (EV/UAVs)
Peter L. Corsell, GridPoint, Inc. - Smartgrid software vendor
David W. Crane, NRG Energy, Inc. - Enginnering/operations
Kevin Czinger, Coda Automotive - EV manufacturer
Peter A. Darbee, PG&E Corporation - Utility
Seifi Ghasemi, Rockwood Holdings, Inc. - Manufacturing, materials
Carlos Ghosn, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. - EV manufacturer
Ray Lane, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers - VC
Richard Lowenthal, Coulomb Technologies, Inc. - EV charging
Alex A. Molinaroli, Johnson Controls- Equipment manufacturer
Reuben Munger, Bright Automotive, Inc. - Vehicle design
Frederick W. Smith, FedEx Corporation - Logistics
David Vieau, A123 Systems, Inc. - Battery manufacturer


They have an electrification roadmap, if you wish to look at.

The Electrification Roadmap is a comprehensive report that outlines a vision for a fully integrated electric drive network in the united states. The report examines the challenges facing electrification, including battery technology and cost, infrastructure financing, regulatory requirements, electric power sector interface, and consumer acceptance issues. The Roadmap provides policymakers and business leaders with a framework for overcoming these challenges in order to drive meaningful reductions in u.s. oil dependence.

A few observations . First, people are taking the fight to the political level/public discourse now. The potential winners (GE/transportation/software etc.) are bracing for a show of force with potential losers (coal, oil etc.). Second, the coalition is still small. Only some are heavyweights - FedEx, PG&E, Nissan, and Johnson controls. Third, they are playing up, possibly for strategic reasons, the national security angle. They are likely being advised by the best of the messaging talent that exists out there. This strikes me a way to split the subset of lawmakers who are both market and security hawks.

The march to low carbon economy continues....

What sound should EVs make?

I see this "mundane" issue as an indication of EV market is in scaling up mode. As nobel laureate Philip Anderson said, "quantity changes quality". As the number of EVs increases many such hidden problems will be revealed and solved.

Now that we have an opportunity to control the sounds, what could we do differently? What all information could you convey to pedestrians through sounds? I can think of a few - size of vehicle, speed, hazardous material load, emergency or not, ownership status (stolen or not), zones etc. The challenge is to simplify it to such an extent that there is only a small amount of information that the common person needs to remember. Or may be these noises will be conveyed to some hand held device that the common person can carry or is widely available that simply suggests an action based on some internal logic - start, stop, move away etc. The good thing about such a device is that the sounds can be in a spectrum that we dont hear and we dont need to.


Now you can hear electric cars coming

HALOsonic technology makes electric vehicles sound more like spaceships or sports cars - which should make roads safer for people with visual impairments

As electric vehicles (EVs) become part of our lives – both Nissan and Mitsubishi will have models on sale here within the next year, and charging points are being installed by local authorities around the country – one safety issue is becoming urgent. Unlike, say, an electric milk float, EVs are astonishingly silent, with just the wheel rumble and an occasional electric whine to alert you to their approach. The Royal National Institute of Blind People has been raising awareness of the risk; legislation is likely to follow soon.

All this is wonderful news for Lotus Engineering, which has been working for two years on a system to mimic engine noises. With the help of Harman International – which specialises in car sound systems – it came up with an electronic device that is wired into the engine and follows the revs to produce a synthetic engine noise.

So how does it sound? In the end Harman synthesised a number of alternatives, including a Prius in petrol-powered mode, the purring of an Aston Martin's supercharged V8, the tiger's roar of a Ferrari V12 engine, and the four-cylinder boxer engine you might find in an Alfa Romeo. And just for good measure, they added two spaceship sounds: rising and gently descending.

Larry Summers: Shaping the Next Economic Expansion

This is a recent talk by Larry Summers, National Economic Council Chair. There is not a whole lot of new information but tells you where the administration is in terms of thought process.

He is mulling about what would be the source of growth. He talks about three things - energy, internet, and health. Having spent many years in the Internet space, it is not clear to me what substantial gain Internet investment in new bandwidth can bring. It is not clear that increased bandwidth is necessary or sufficient for creation of new value. I can see new value being created in mobility. If the mobile carriers free up handsets and applications, I can see lots of new applications being built. Healthcare is a harder problem. The current approach which involves backroom no-pain deals with HMOs and PHARMA is pretty much status quo or worse. The incentives are pretty much the same as before (Hear these great reports from the trenches in This American Life - More is Less Somebody Else's Money. They tell you why the health care reform may be non-trivial). That leaves energy and environment. There are major challenges in energy including the fact that the politics is broken and the product cannot be easily measured in many cases. He talks about the need to reduce uncertainty. A floor on the carbon or gas price will be necessary for anybody to consider investing.

“Shaping the Next Economic Expansion”
Lawrence H. Summers
New York Economic Club
October 29, 2009

How, then, to think about economic recovery that is not driven by unsustainable consumer borrowing and spending or by the public sector?

By the logic of national income accounting, it depends on three things. It depends on private sector investment, it depends on exports, and it depends on income growth that can support consumer spending increases. Let me say a little bit about each of those three things.
...
Given that capacity utilization is at very low levels, it is inevitable that private investment will lag for some time to come in some parts of the economy. But in a variety of other spheres, private investment will be profoundly important for the next economic expansion. That is why the President has emphasized measures that support the availability of credit for small businesses. That is why the public sector is playing a crucial role during this period in the financing of new houses.
....
Two cutting-edge sectors for the American economy at this juncture are, first, energy and the environment and, second, information technology.

We are currently working with Congress on major cap-and-trade and energy legislation to build on the substantial steps contained in the Recovery Act to support both energy efficiency and renewable energy as well as more efficient and effective exploitation of our traditional energy resources.

Turning over the capital stock more rapidly to meet environmental and energy independence objectives can be a significant contributor to aggregate demand in the short and medium term, even in the presence of significant unused capacity.

Certainty as to the likely price tag for energy can also be a spur to investment. It has been demonstrated again and again that the greatest barrier to long-term investment decisions is residual uncertainty. If we are able to resolve uncertainties in the investment area, there is substantial scope for increased demand in this key sector.

Peakoil Contingency Planning Talk Goes Mainstream

This is a small group but pretty influential - Virgin and Yahoo in UK. But the fact that they have publicly asked for a contingency plan is interesting. They mention 2013 as the year of the peak. There is an interesting alignment between Climate and Energy. Both require going green in a big way and fast!

Energy security body calls for 'urgent' review of impact of oil shortages

Virgin, Stagecoach and Yahoo among firms calling for measures to address economic dislocation from a sudden rise in oil prices....
An industry organisation that includes Virgin and Yahoo has called on the government to "urgently" reassess its dismissive view about the potential threat and impact of oil shortages.

The call from the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security comes after revelations in the Guardian that there is dissent inside the International Energy Agency (IEA) about how soon the world may run out of supplies.

It also comes alongside a petition to Number 10 which calls on Gordon Brown to take up the issue more seriously amid a growing number of reports that indicate the situation is more urgent than many believed.

The Wicks Review into energy issues, published in August on behalf of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, gave scant regard to peak oil issues.

Will Whitehorn, the taskforce chairman, who is also president of Virgin Galactic, Sir Richard Branson's space travel business, said: "Given the revelations from within the IEA, we hope the government will be urgently reviewing the complacent approach to peak-oil risk evident in the Wicks Review."

Other members of the taskforce include Scottish and Southern Energy, Stagecoach, the transport group, and Arup, the civil engineering consultancy. Work already undertaken by the taskforce has suggests that more needs to be done to prepare for the potential economic dislocation from a sudden huge rise in crude prices.

The report of this group is called The Oil Crunch. More about the group:

The UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security (ITPOES) is a group of British companies concerned that threats to energy security are not receiving the attention they merit.

The Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security

The aim of our first report is to engage government more proactively on the peak oil threat, and also to alert the public to the problem. We aim to encourage collaborative contingency planning by government, industry, and communities on measures that can be taken to accelerate independent energy supply within the UK.

In preparing this report, we asked ourselves three related questions: How big is the risk from peak oil? How big is the alternative-energy opportunity? How do the two conflate?

Climate Pact Postponed. A Crisis of Leadership.

APEC leaders: no climate change deal at Copenhagen

But at the annual Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting, Obama has joined the chorus of doubters that say that a global deal on cutting emissions won’t be reached at a key summit next month in Copenhagen. The 19 leaders agreed that the gap between rich and poor nations over what to do about global warming was too big to bridge in the next three weeks. The December meeting in Denmark would be an interim step to any final agreement.

World Leaders Put Off a Climate Change Treaty

in Copenhagen, diplomats will aim to reach a less aggressive — and much less specific — "politically binding" agreement, with the hope that hard numbers and legal obligations to reduce climate change would be added soon, in a two-step approach. "There was an assessment by the leaders that it was unrealistic to expect a full internationally legally binding agreement to be negotiated between now and when Copenhagen starts in 22 days," said Mike Froman, Obama's deputy national security adviser.

A lot of this can be explained using economics (powerful lobbies, coordination challenges) but thats an excuse. The governance systems are so broken that it will take a major shock to the system . At that point we may act constructively or follow societies of the past and collapse .

At the core is the failure of leadership and imagination. You dont need leadership when the problems are obvious. Post-katrina required an immediate response. Thats not a demonstration of leadership. It was too obvious. Leadership is required when there is uncertainty and leaders see problems as they are emerging. They take to the bully pulpit and sell both the problem and solution.

The response to the banking crisis is an indicator of leadership or the lack of it. There is no non-trivial problem for which there are only winners. There will always be winners and losers. The challenge for any leader is to be able to compel the losers to go along with the new order. It is done using whatever means available - buying, helping and punishing.

Leadership doesnt exist in vacuum. Citizens get the leadership they ask for - directly and indirectly.

It is easy to not act. The imperfectness of knowledge can be easily questioned. We can call environment policies standards (which people support) or regulations (which people oppose). No big deal. Too many smart people are in the business of selling ideas - however bad they may be. They package status quo well, use the right language, and visuals to encourage inaction. We see all the time how misaligned incentives can have major consequences.

Societies collapse for a reason. Societies collapse because we cant have the right conversations at the right time - the people are not ready, the medium doesnt exist, or the challenges unclear. We dont know if this moment is perfectly timed, but it definitely sounds like that from all that I have read until now. Yes, we have to act in the presence of imperfect understanding and information.

Where is the leadership? Where are the citizens?

Nissan Leaf Roadshow or The Age of Electric Drive has Begun

I spent a couple of hours at the first roadshow of Nissan Leaf in Santa Monica. See the pictures below. A few thoughts:

First impression - very positive. It had a very elegant design, sober coloring, had wide enough body for comfortable seating. I couldnt see the inside of the hood or the boot. It didnt seem to have too much space in the back.

Quite a few people showed up. Almost 800 people RSVP'd to attend. Many others like me didnt RSVP but attended. People were of all backgrounds, old and young. There werent too many women but a few starting trickling in by the time I left.

This is set for release in Dec 2010. The first version will have 1000 cars. I signed up to testride end of next year when they release the car.

I had a little bit of fun. I interviewed a couple of regular folks on their attitudes towards this car. Environment as an issue is being discussed in the family, school and workplace. I also spoke to EV enthusiasts as well.

I gave a quick interview (!) to Nissan people on camera about why Leaf was the greatest thing since sliced bread and urged everyone to go electric.

Enjoy the slideshow!

Living Climate Change

This is a very interesting series of sketches from IDEO that try to portray
a new way to live with climate change (conflict, higher energy prices etc.)

Living Climate Change

Check this sample:

Free Ride from IDEO on Vimeo.

How important is sustainability for businesses?

Sloan Management Review (SMR) thinks it is important.

8 Reasons (You Never Thought Of) That Sustainability Will Change Management

1. Planning. It is inevitable. You will become news if you dont handle it.

2. Productivity. 16% improvement in productivity

3. Reputation A Proxy For Management Quality.

4. Strategy. You might learn something about your organization in this process.

5. Innovation. It might lead to increased pace and quality of innovation.

6. Coordination. It is necessary due to inter-disciplinary nature of the problem.

7. Partnering. Will increase trust in the partners.

8. Advantage First Adapters Will Win.

1 and 8 are reflective of changing mindsets and market place. These are basically externally imposed requirements. 2 has to do directly with the bottomline. Interestingly 3 is about the management's sensitivity to other people's perceptions. They want to be seen a good player. There is a bit about business interest too. Today it is hard to attract people to organizations that are not seen as good players and dont have open sharing culture. The rest are secondary or spillover effects that have value too.

What is Houston's future?

Houston, we have a problem...in future. Not yet. I think this is
the kind of news we will see more often in future.

Big Oil's New Lean Look: 'Glory Days' May Be Over

But recent downsizing moves by Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips and other oil and gas companies appear to go beyond the typical bottom-of-the-cycle belt tightening.

They suggest a permanent shift toward doing more with less -- in what could be a troubling trend for Houston.

"The oil and gas industry in the Houston area has probably seen its peak in terms of, if you want to call it, its glory years," Allen Brooks, managing director at Parks Paton Hoepfl and Brown, a Houston investment bank that invests in the energy sector.

Last month, Shell said by year end it would cut 5,000 employees, or 10 percent of its global workforce, under a sweeping reorganization. ConocoPhillips -- after cutting 4 percent of its workforce this year -- is putting $10 billion in assets on the block to pay debts. BP, meanwhile, has cut more than 5,000 jobs worldwide under an ongoing turnaround, and major oil field services firms like Schlumberger and Halliburton have eliminated thousands more jobs this year.

While not all the job losses have been in Houston, the moves highlight a growing emphasis on getting lean to compete in a world where the costs and challenges of accessing new oil and gas reserves are rising each year.
...
Some oil and gas jobs will inevitably return as the recession lifts and global energy demand rebounds. And Houston will remain a key hub of activity, buoyed in coming years by deepwater projects in the Gulf of Mexico, increasing activity in natural gas shale plays in North America and other work.

But other jobs may never come back to Houston, the casualties of a shrinking workplace, technology improvements and a shifting focus from North America to oil-rich areas of Africa, the Middle East and South America.

"How rapidly we decline," Brooks said, "is open to a lot of debate."

One factor could be the fate of climate change legislation in Congress, which could add costs to oil and gas producers, refiners, chemical makers and other parts of the energy sector, forcing them to cut jobs, Susan Combs, Texas comptroller of public accounts said.

"I think there's a big bull's-eye painted on Houston," she said.

Are we post-peak? IEA whistleblowers say so.

This is explosive if further substantiated.

Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower

Exclusive: Watchdog's estimates of reserves inflated says top official

In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.

Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.

"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.

A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad," he added.

Nature of Carbon Markets

I just started looking at it and came across this somewhat dated but fascinating article.

A collapsing carbon market makes mega-pollution cheap

As recession slashes output, companies pile up permits they don't need and sell them on. The price falls, and anyone who wants to pollute can afford to do so. The result is a system that does nothing at all for climate change but a lot for the bottom lines of mega-polluters such as the steelmaker Corus: industrial assistance in camouflage.

I need to study this a bit more. It doesnt strike me as being fundamentally problematic if polluters dont get to hoard these permits indefinitely. Atleast superficially, the fall in prices is due to reduced demand, i.e., reduced output. If the gap between demand and available credits is not high enough (say 100 & 95 units instead of say, 100 & 70 units), it might make more sense for companies to wait to take advantage of regular market fluctuations, e.g., a company going bankrupt, instead of investing in alternatives. Thats seems to be the point the article is making. Now the question is whether people and companies would let the policy makers create higher scarcity to create stability in the price of carbon. Regulatory capture to some degree or other is the norm.

Other questions were raised about the whole issue of whether we really trust the credits being offered or not. This is an overview paper:

Accounting and the environment

Introducing a discussion of some of the ways in which accounting and other calculative mechanisms are involved in environmental matters, the article focuses on a number of questions that emerge from accounting for carbon emission permits and corporate environmental reporting. Both are areas where there is already a need for more research and where that need will increase in the coming years. Identifying some of the interests and pressures that already influence approaches in the area, the case is made for the need for both critical and facilitative research.

Climate change disclosure & SEC

Catching up stuff...Was a little busy yesterday.

This news is somewhat dated but interesting nevertheless. This could be potentially real because big investment firms have asked for this information.

SEC says climate change disclosure a priority

The SEC plans to focus on climate change disclosure requirements once it completes working on corporate compensation disclosure proposals, said spokesman John Nester in a statement today.

“This is an area of great interest and we intend to focus on it,” he said in his statement.

His comment came in response to a letter sent last week by 41 institutional investors, urging the SEC to require corporations to disclose climate change and other environmental and social risks.

The request is from INCR - Investor Network on Climate Risk

INCR is a $7 trillion network of investors that promotes better understanding of the financial risks and opportunities posed by climate change.

Carbon Disclosure Project

Carbon Disclosure Project

The Carbon Disclosure Project launched in 2000 to collect and distribute high quality information that motivates investors, corporations and governments to take action to prevent dangerous climate change.

We further this mission by harnessing the collective power of corporate CEO’s, investors and political leaders to accelerate unified action on climate change.

Over 2,000 organizations in some 60 countries around the world now measure and disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and climate change strategies through CDP, in order that they can set reduction targets and make performance improvements. This data is made available for use by a wide audience including institutional investors, corporations, policymakers and their advisors, public sector organizations, government bodies, academics and the public.

We operate the only global climate change reporting system. Climate change is not a problem that exists within national boundaries. That is why we harmonize climate change data from organizations around the world and develop international carbon reporting standards.

We act on behalf of 475 institutional investors, holding $55 trillion in assets under management and some 60 purchasing organizations such as Walmart, PepsiCo and Cadbury. View our programs to find out more.

Impact of Carbon Price

Pinoy Partners give an estimate of
$22B at 3.75$/ton, $120B at 16-20$/ton, and > $300B if carbon price is 50$/ton in
the article Just how big is the economic impact of a carbon price?

They dig a bit bit deeper in the next post



A couple of interesting case studies - EDS (mostly computers) and International Paper:

EDS reported scope 2 emissions of more than 500,000 metric tons in 2007. The cost impact under carbon pricing: $2 million, $10 million, or $25 million at prices of $4/MTCO2e, $20/MTCO2e, and $50/MTCO2e, respectively. That comes out to about .3%, 1.4%, or 3.5%, respectively, of net income. Or take 3M: their scope 2 emissions in 2007 were about 1.7 million metric tons of CO2e. For them, carbon pricing on electricity could add as much as $85 million to costs, but that only represents about 2% of net income....International Paper, whose 3.2 million metric tons could cost them an extra $160 million, or almost 14% of net income...