Upon reviewing an article from the WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development) and based on studies from the (IEA) International Energy Agency on the needs for energy in global development, one issue became crystal clear; that without investors feeling the need to move their funds toward Sustainable Technologies and Sustainable companies, there would be insufficient capital to keep up with growing global energy demand. While this causes a major problem for “developing” countries, it also causes a major challenge to move towards sustainable energy in “developed” countries. Note that I have added the quotes because, in a world that is being injured by much of the development we have experienced, one may question the long term efficacy of the whole notion of “development” as we currently know it. The term “Developed” in the fullness of time will more likely be something like “mature” and mature has a very different implication. What mature country would continue to destroy it’s own environment? Well, that’s a different topic so let’s move on.

In a quote from the report the author states that “Today private sector investments constitute the largest share (86%) of global investment flows and are expected to be essential to addressing climate change. A large additional flow of tens of billions of dollars will also be needed for adaptation.”

One of the most effective means of a government to weild it’s financial power is to influence the direction of Private Investment Capital. Rather than trying to “be” the investor as in many of the current government incentive scheme’s which directly invest, wouldn’t it be possible to take a different approach? » Continue reading “How to move Investment Capital to Sustainable Technologies”

An interesting news item made me ponder on the how optimum the current market is for creating and acting on new ideas.

The news item was about Canadian research on obesity and how the researcher was regarding obesity as an auto-immune disease which impacts T-cell production by reducing the so-called “Good” T-cells and increasing the “Bad” T-cells. The researcher indicated that already they had found ways of normalizing T-cell production in mice and that potential treatments for humans are on the horizon, the implication of which would be a potential for reducing obesity, type 2-diabetes, and the plethora of diseases associated with obesity.

From a health perspective, such a discovery has amazing potential for reducing the costs of health-care, especially in developed countries where obesity is prevalent. But that same discovery could be devastating for the long term and potentially even short term profits of drug companies that have invested billions in research for treating symptoms.

At this point, it is a hypothetical problem but leads to the old question: Do drug companies hide cures, do oil companies buy up technologies up like cold fusion, do auto companies crush electric cars to protect current investments? Do large multinationals buy up threatening new technologies in order to protect their original investments in outdated technologies at the peril of greater human interests?  What does or should a top executive pay the most attention to when they make decisions: personal reward, company profits, shareholder dividends, their own sense of power to make decisions, building a legacy or ethics?

Asked the opposite way: Can we make a better system of economics for propagating new ideas which uses profit potential in different ways? Can we create incentives in our economic system that would consistantly encourage executives to make decisions based on any one of the above motivations and still come up with the same decision, ideally the one that benefits human society the most?

» Continue reading “Thoughts on Creating a Sustainable Capitalism”

Many cities and companies are promoting carpooling as an easy way to reduce carbon emissions. There is little doubt that their are enormous benefits to carpooling but from a commuters point of view (i.e. someone trying to get to work in the least amount of time) it seems like carpooling will take additional time. However, if we do a little commuter math, we can determine that, on average, carpooling actually saves time. Why? Let’s say, for example, that every commuter made an effort to car pool. An average communiting time to downtown Toronto during rush-hour from surrounding community is about 1.5 hours. If we were able to reduce the number of cars by even 1/4th there would be a significant decrease in average commute time, possibly 30 minutes. And even if we don’t succeed in that amount of reduction, there are carpool lanes for cars with more than one person. The time saving becomes more significant over time because congestion is increasing with even more severe impacts on commuting time. There is a certain volume of traffic that the road ways can easily handle. Up until that point, there is very little impact by adding traffic. But after that limit is reached, the congestion increases considerably for every additional car. So removing even 5% of the cars would reduce commute time by more than 5% on average. It only stands to reason then that every car we get off the road will make a positive difference in reducing commute time and CO2 emissions. For the individual commuter, sometimes there is a trade-off if they have to stop and wait for a carpool or go out of their way to drop someone off, but as more people opt for carpooling, there will be better matches. Imagine if 25% of the vehicles were taken off the road. Commute times may be reduced by 30 minutes which would easily make up for any inconvenience.

Benefits of Carpooling

What are the other benefits of carpooling? First, you make friends, get to meet someone new and get to know them well because you see them on a regular basis. Second, you get to share costs of commuting. If you still have a car, at very least you save on gas. If not, you may get to save on repairs, insurance and other costs. Third, if you’re riding with someone else, you may get a little more time to sleep before getting to work. Fourth, in many cities you save time because you get to use designated carpool lanes. Fifth, if your company supports carpooling, you get to leave at a regularly scheduled time(and for reasons I’ll explain later, this is also good for the company). Sixth, you help to save the planet. In the battle against climate change, you get to reduce carbon emissions by sharing a ride directly (more riders is better) and by reducing average commute time for everyone, you help every vehicle on the road because all of them enjoy a slightly shorter commute time. Yes, as even one car comes off the road, there is just a little less congestion and every other car benefits a little and contributes a little less carbon.

Getting your Company Involved

There are many ways to participate in car-pooling and there are many direct and indirect benefits to the company for doing so, not the least of which is your company’s contribution to reducing CO2. But before you roll-out a carpool plan, it is like many other projects, you need think about how to inform staff and management on the benefits to them and to others. Following are a few steps to consider: » Continue reading “Reducing Company CO2 the easy way, Carpool, Flex-hours and Telecommuting”

As we watch the news of enormous red dust clouds over Arizona and Australia due to record drought, the discovery of the record melting of Icebergs in Greenland at a rate that the IPCC models failed to predict, record temperatures being set in northern and western Canada, record flooding in Atlanta which is sweeping people and vehicles away and  record wild-fires in California all at the same time, in addition to the recent first time ever passage of a commercial German vessel through the north east passage without an icebreaker, along with record flooding this year in Taiwan, Burma, and Vietnam, if there was any doubt left that we are experiencing climate change, there certainly isn’t anymore. And anyone who believes that it’s not caused by human activities simply isn’t accepting reality.

The question now is, how will the world be impacted and how will businesses respond? Although there is still far too much rhetoric, even the world leaders at the UN Summit on Climate Change preceding the Copenhagen meeting, most notably Obama noting that “the old habits, the old arguments are irrelevant”, are beginning to speak seriously about the issue. Even China, which understandably refuses hard targets in the light of excessive energy usage and emissions from developed countries, is taking a leadership role in developing solar, wind and other renewable energy sources.

 The question is not about whether changes in business will occur: the question is, what will drive business the most? Will there be sufficient agreement on policy and limits at the global or national government levels or will the change in the earth’s environment itself be the greatest imputus for business to adapt and what will that mean for business? » Continue reading “Climate Change impact on Business Leadership and Planning”

In a 2006 article written by US Senator Jim Webb, he addressed an increasing disparity between salaries of CEOs and their employees, where CEO salaries top 400 x the amount of their average employee, vs 20 years ago when the difference was 20 x. Recently with the economic downturn, an even brighter light was focused on this issue as a result of failing financial institutions doling out rich and unjustified executive bonuses. Those of us who are not in the position of a major corporate CEO may view this disparity as a fundamental injustice. While there will always be richer and poorer in the world, the extremes of wealth and poverty can be problematic for a number of reasons, even though there are arguments which strive to justify these compensations.

But are they helpful or hurtful to global development? » Continue reading “Global Corporate Development – CEO Salaries and the (positive) impact of Outsourcing”

When I heard about the existance of the Cash for Clunker program, it seemed like a reasonable approach to start stimulating the economy and to get some potential benefits for the environment. After hearing a few of the details, I thought perhaps there is room for improvement. Mr. Obama suggested that if there’s a better idea, then use it no matter what the source. So here are a few ideas to improve the program, for what their worth. » Continue reading “US Cash for Clunker program”

According to a report by Environmental Leader, Wal-Mart will be announcing a new sustainability index initiative for rating the sustainability of products that it sells. The initiative will include other retailers, researchers, universities and suppliers and possibly go so far to look at entire life-cycle of the products with the goal to reducing or eliminating non-sustainable products. Also according to the report, while they plan to start the initiative, they also plan to hand it off to a group yet to be formed to ensure neutrality in reporting and rating. » Continue reading “Wal-Mart’s Sustainability Index Initiative”

A question was asked in April on one of the leadership forums about the impacts of the economic crisis on Renewable Energy suppliers and other environmental concerns. At that point, most answers were speculative. Now we have a little more insight and these are my answers to the questions that were posted: 

1. How will this crisis affect the renewable energy industry?
2. Will the possibility of creating green jobs surpass the additional cost that a customer would be able to afford to have clean energy?
3. Should environmental consciousness prevail?
4. Would governments change their commitments by reducing incentives to renewable energy in a moment that tax payer money has more important uses?
5. How would a renewable energy company adapt to this market of lower capital and possibly much lower revenues? » Continue reading “Impact of the economic crisis on renewable energy and other environmental issues.”

This article in the Star about Ontario’s Green Energy Act makes some valuable points about the Act. Click on the link below to read the article if you haven’t already. (Note the article was printed Feb 24, 2009 and came up in my research on the Green Energy Act which has now passed. It did generate some thoughts.)

Can Green Energy Act clean up Ontario’s electricity supply?

My own thoughts: Let’s look at current and future solutions with the goal of learning from our mistakes. Limiting our time-frame is unfair to future generations who are equally entitled to resources we are consuming. Any act which promotes 100% renewable energy is consistent with justice for future generations. Any act inconsistant with that goal denies future generations of their rights.

» Continue reading “Commentary on Star Article related to Green Energy Act”

Sustainability is a cooperative endeavor. None of us can fully achieve it until all of us achieve it together.

A Harvard study Global Warming’s Six Americas looked at Americans to gauge their attitudes toward climate change. The study determined that 18% of the US population are alarmed about Climate Change issue, 33% were Concerned, 19% Cautious, 12% Disengaged, 11% Doubtful and 7% Dismissive, which means that they actively oppose work towards elimination of GHG (Green House Gas), viewing it as wasted money and effort. In the words of Kofi Annan, “Climate change is a silent human crisis, yet it is the greatest emerging humanitarian challenge of our time.” Looking at the figures alone, we might feel somewhat discouraged about the possibility of achieving universal sustainability. But, there are also other ways of looking at sustainability which might make us more optimistic.

Encouraging a cooperative view of Sustainability

» Continue reading “Sustainability is a Cooperative Endeavor”