Filed under: Activities, Climate Change, Energy, Environment, Global warming, News, Russia, Welcome, corporate responsibility, nonprofit management
After moving back to life in and around the Beltway (otherwise known as the DC metro area), I am starting fresh with a new blog and a new name. Check it out at bluegreenconsulting.wordpress.com. This will be my last posting here, so I invite you to visit the “Blue Green Blog” regularly for my weekly posts.
Thanks for reading!
Along with the burst of commentary and news about ways to combat climate change there has been a kind of counter movement which claims that the warnings about global warming overstated and exaggerated. One example was the British film “Great Global Warming Swindle” which supposedly debunks the “myth” of human impact on climate change and global warming.
In the midst of all the back and forth, a Canadian economics professor (Peter Tsigaris, an economist at Thompson Rivers University, in Kamloops, BC, Canada) has taken a somewhat unique approach to assessing the costs associated with addressing the human impact on the earth’s temperate and climate–statistical analysis. For a recent exam, he asked his students to consider what would ultimately be more costly:
1. Doing something about climate change based on the idea that humans are causing a large proportion, but later finding out that humans don’t cause global warming; or
2. Doing nothing about climate change based on the idea that humans are NOT causing the phenomenon and finding out that in fact humans ARE causing global warming.
He and his students concluded that the second option would be the most costly because the costs to society would be greatest if society was forced to make drastic, quick changes to alleviate the effects of global warming at some point down the road. Conversely, spending money and resources now and over time is a less costly approach, regardless of who is right about the human impact and climate change.
Aside from the environmental benefits of conservation and the development and use of alternative energy, it can be argued that the research and development associated with a more “green” approach can be technologically and economically beneficial as well. Putting the time and resources into this kind of activity doesn’t have to set the global economy back…it could even move it forward. But spending time and energy to “debunk” the “myth” of climate change doesn’t get us anywhere in the end, regardless of whether humans really do impact global warming.
Wouldn’t it be better to spend a little extra money over time for peace of mind?
There has been a great deal of news lately about climate change, sewing the seeds of hope that maybe, just maybe, the US public and the international community is ready to tackle this challenge and make an impact. But perhaps it is a bit early to celebrate this seemingly widespread “awakening,” at least in the US.
While the White House claims to support a 2008 budget that “promotes the use of clean, alternative fuels and technologies for transportation and electricity that will improve energy security and air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through research and development, loan guarantees, and other measures,” the Washington Post reported on March 10 that the Energy Department has plans to build as many as 150 coal-fired plants by 2030. How do these plans jive with efforts to curb global warming and reduce carbon dioxide emissions?
Simply put, they don’t.
The main argument for building more coal-fired power plants is based on economics and demand. Coal is cheaper and more readily accessible than almost any other energy source available, even oil and gas. While the technology to produce energy with less environmental impact exists, accessibility and availability make alternative options more costly than building more coal-fired power plants. As demand for energy continues to increase, communities feel pressured to meet that demand and the “cheapness” of coal-fired plants is attractive.
The downside is that this short-term frugality will have serious costs down the road. Yes, today’s coal plants are “cleaner” and more energy efficient than those of the past, but the reality is that they still release high levels of carbon dioxide, the chief culprit in the rise of greenhouse gases. In addition, the process of coal mining poses significant safety and environmental hazards. Finally, coal, like oil and gas, is not a renewable resource. At some point the supply will run out.
Without solid forethought, the US and the rest of the world will face a serious energy crisis in the future. Policies and mechanisms need to be in place to ensure smarter, more sustainable responses to both the need for energy and the dangers of global warming.
Fundamentally, people need to learn to use less and use what they have more efficiently. One way to encourage that effort is by supporting public and private research and development (R&D) of new technologies and new approaches to energy production. The private sector is making some headway, but the US Government has to take the lead in this area by shifting its funding for R&D to more projects focused on renewable and alternative sources of energy. At a time when there has been a dramatic increase in Federal support for R&D, renewable energy R&D remained a relatively small part of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) research and development program. Only two of DOE’s eight R&D projects address renewable and alternative sources of energy.
If climate change and energy efficiency were real priorities in the US, more money would be spent on developing the technologies needed to make that a reality. Then the market share of those technologies over time would increase and become more viable and ready options for producing energy.
“It’s not easy being green” was the mantra of Kermit the Frog, a regular on Sesame Street and the Muppet Show. It also used to be the mantra of so many environmentally focused individuals and groups. But that doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. In fact, it’s pretty easy…and hip…to be green these days.
Green is everywhere–on the red carpet where the talk is all about celebrities arriving in hybrid cars and at international economic conferences where the discussion focuses on climate change. Two opinion columns in Sunday’s Washington Post highlighted this phenomenon: Bruce Sterling believes “we’re gonna glam, spend, and consume our way into planetary survival,” while Daniel Esty declares, “we are in the midst of a revolution.” It appears that being “green” isn’t as simple as Kermit might have us believe. And it’s just a little less edgy than it seemed when all environmental activists and advocates were labeled as “fringe.”
Now green is more grey. It’s less defined. As Esty points out in his column, businesses aren’t producing more environmentally friendly products out of the goodness of their hearts…they are doing it because there is a demand for those products and money to be made. After all we do live in a capitalistic society where the bottom line drives most, if not all, significant activity. Of course there may be some sense of altruism in the people who run Walmart, Toyota and other companies selling eco-friendly products, but that is not the main motive behind their actions. Does that make them less green? And does the fact that it is easier and more appealing for a celebrity-crazed public to purchase eco-friendly products nullify the benefit of the accessibility of these products?
As with anything, the good comes with the bad–getting more people on the green bandwagon means making it more appealing and easier for them to jump on. It would be wonderful if individuals and groups did things just because they were the right things to do, but the reality is that the world doesn’t work that way. There need to be incentives and there needs to be an atmosphere where people feel comfortable making a change in their behaviors. If the promise of more profits or the chance to drive the same hybrid as a favorite celebrity is what helps move this country and this world toward more responsible behavior when it comes to the environment, then so be it.
And for all the diehard greens out there who don’t need those incentives, keep fighting for more change. That’s what got us to where we are today.
Filed under: Climate Change, Energy, Environment, Global warming, News, corporate responsibility
In early February, British billionaire and entrepreneur, Richard Branson announced a special challenge–$25 million to anyone who can create a way to remove at least one billion tons of carbon dioxide a year from the atmosphere. The so-called “Virgin Earth Challenge” is a bold way to garner interest in innovative approaches to climate change, but is it unique?
A quick search on Google for “awards for technological innovations and climate change” demonstrates that there is a range of opportunities out there for the would-be climate change entrepreneur. Among the expected academic and governmental institutions recognizing such innovations (the rarely mentioned Climate Change Research Program at the US Department of Energy is one example), one finds the Shell Springboard program, sponsored by Royal Dutch Shell, a self-described “international energy producer.” (I guess “oil company” isn’t politically correct anymore.) According to its website, the Springboard program is meant to “encourage others to innovate…helping to support the transition to a lower carbon economy.” Shell holds both regional and national competitions in the United Kingdom. Recently announced regional winners, who received a £40,000 prize, will compete in the national competition on March 6.
Clearly Branson’s “Challenge” is not the first time someone has offered money as an incentive to create “green” technology. And while Branson has elicited Al Gore’s help as a judge for the competition, Shell’s program demonstrates that traditional green businesses and individuals are not the only ones interested in finding new technologies that will lessen the human impact on the environment. What is unique about the Branson example is the size of the reward ($25 million beats £40,000 any day), the worldwide media attention, and the fact that the challenge is focused on removing existing carbon dioxide, not just reducing the output in the future. In addition, the award is structured so that the winner gets a portion of the winnings upfront, while the rest is awarded only after the project has been successfully implemented for 10 years.
While it is not novel to offer a monetary reward for technology, Branson’s award offers a critical opportunity for a significant jump in technological know-how in the climate change arena. Ultimately, broad implementation of the hoped-for technology will depend on the support of the world’s citizens and governments. It’s a long shot, but the human race has made such bold leaps before and sustaining our existence on this planet depends on us doing it again.
Filed under: Climate Change, Energy, Environment, Global warming, News, corporate responsibility
The recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been highlighted on this blog and in other places as a sign that the world is really starting to wake up about climate change. Happily, the report is not the only show in town. Before and since the IPCC report, discussion about climate change and the ways to combat its impact have appeared in many places, both expected and unexpected. Large corporations like GE, BP and Alcoa recently came together to form the US Climate Action Partnership, climate change was a key topic at the World Economic Forum in Davos and even Exxon Mobil is at least giving lip service to the need to address global warming. “Green” products are also the darlings of the marketing world–ads touting eco-friendly clothes, vehicles, food and cleaning products appear with increasing frequency. With the proliferation of these products and websites like www.idealbite.com (which offers advice on how to be a “greener” consumer) the idea of an environmentally conscious lifestyle is less “fringe” and more mainstream.
At the heart of these efforts and campaigns is the idea that we need to reduce our environmental “footprint” on the plant. In other words, we need to reduce the impact our activities have on the environment. This is no easy task when you consider that a relatively small percentage of the world’s population uses the majority of the world’s resources. As the overall population grows and globalization spreads, the demand for resources grows exponentially. Those who have want and get more. Those who haven’t had do the same. It’s an unsustainable cycle.
At the international level, some have suggested the option of carbon trading–richer, more developed countries pay for the pollution that they cause and that money is used to establish sustainable development in developing countries. In the entrepreneurial spirit, one organization in Australia has brought this idea down to the individual level. Easy Being Green (www.easybeinggreen.com) provides people the opportunity to become “carbon neutral” by purchasing “carbon credits” equal to the amount of transportation or the type of lifestyle they live. As an example, for about $400 a year, a single person living in the US can balance out the pollution she causes. Easy Being Green uses the money they receive to fund energy saving activities in schools, businesses and local communities.
While this may be a clever way to raise money for pollution-reducing activities, can a person really claim to be “carbon neutral” just by paying for her environmental impact? Doesn’t this kind of approach just reinforce the idea that if you have the money, you can do whatever you want, guilt-free? Some have suggested that once a person would pay for carbon neutrality, she might be inclined to pollute more…like the person who is dieting and decides to have an extra brownie since she exercised.
The Easy Being Green approach helps to highlight the problem with carbon trading at the macro level. Ultimately carbon trading doesn’t encourage the efficient and sustainable use of resources; instead it enables those who have access to the right financial resources to continue their patterns of use. Furthermore, it perpetuates the idea that there is a simple fix to a complex problem (not that carbon trading is exactly simple, but the concept is). Carbon trading may have a place in a comprehensive approach to reducing the human impact on the environment, but alone it does not go far enough. While the idea of becoming carbon neutral is an attractive one, in the process of creating a more sustainable world there is no room for a neutral Switzerland.
The Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) was made public earlier this month in Paris. The big news in this pot of alphabet soup was that humans really are contributing to climate change. While this shouldn’t be earth shattering news (no pun intended), the release of the SPM marks an official recognition of the connection between human activity and climate change by the world’s governments. Furthermore it has put climate change in the forefront of public consciousness.
But what does this mean, if anything, for the average person sitting at home watching the network news–is there anything that anyone can do to mitigate the damage that has been done?
In a word, YES. The bright side of recognizing the human role in contributing to global warming is that it means that people can do something about it. At the micro level that means educating oneself and then buying and using resources like electricity and gasoline responsibly. It means calling and writing local and national representatives and urging them to support policies which promote sustainable development and resource use. These are seemingly small actions that can and do have an impact.
But what about the big picture? Certainly we are not going to improve the health of the planet just by carpooling to work. The large-scale actors in our society must do their part in concert with each other. Effective cross-sectoral cooperation means a cross-pollination of ideas and approaches and increased opportunities for innovation.
A December article on grist.org promoted this very idea. In their article “Does This Ring A Nobel?,” John Elkington and Mark Lee cited recent Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Muhammed Yunus, as an illustration of how social entrepreneurship can change and is changing communities. The innovation behind Yunus’ Grameen Bank is the fact that it empowers individual stakeholders to contribute to the economic betterment of their communities. As Elkington and Lee point out, it is a model that can and should be replicated, not just to fight poverty, but to ensure the development of environmental sustainability. Happily the Grameen Bank is not the only example of this kind of thinking. So-called “social entrepreneurship,” is taking hold as a respected approach to addressing sustainability challenges.
The IPCC’s AR4 confirms the need for that kind of innovation, at both the micro and macro levels. The SPM by itself will not alleviate global warming; rather it spurs us to think creatively in dealing with the challenges of sustainability.
Training opportunities for nonprofit executive directors can be few and far between. Too often “training” is an on-the-job event. The Institute for Conservation Leadership offers a range of support services for nonprofits in the environmental field. The staff at ICL was incredibly helpful to me and other staff at ISAR and I can’t say enough good things about the staff and the approach at ICL. For those of you who are leaders at environmental nonprofits, check out ICL’s 17th Annual Executive Director Leadership Program, which begins in February 2007. Deadline for applications is December 15, 2006. More information can be found at the ICL website: www.icl.org
Over the last few days there has been a lot of discussion in the news about the Russian government’s efforts to halt the Sakhalin-2 liquefied natural gas (LNG) project (held in part by Royal Dutch Shell (55 percent) along with Japan’s Mitsui and Mitsubishi). I have noticed that most articles seem to focus on how this action will affect Russia’s relations with its Asian neighbors as well as how this will reflect on future foreign investment. When reading these articles, it’s easy to have the impression that Russia is just being greedy and unfair in its unwillingness to follow through on the Public Sharing Agreement (PSA) it agreed to in the early 1990s. While clearly with the price of petroleum resources today, there is more to be made for Russia from a renegotiated PSA, the underlying tone is that Russia is scaring away needed future foreign investment.
But there is more to this situation than just money–the reality is that there are serious environmental concerns regarding the Sakhalin 2 project, concerns that have been expressed by local residents in addition to environmental organizations, Russian and foreign. And these concerns have not been adequately addressed by Shell. While I’m not naive enough to believe that the Russian government is halting the project purely because of these concerns, I do think that the government does have the right to (and should be) looking out for the welfare of its citizens and its environment. If that means renegotiating an agreement to be more beneficial to the people most affected by it, then so be it.
Filed under: Activities, Energy, Environment, corporate responsibility, nonprofit management
In two previous posts, I have highlighted a few aspects of the energy debate and some of the steps being taken at the macro level to address the most pressing concerns. The reality is that ensuring the availability of resources for the future is not just about what government or industry decides to do on their own, it is also about taking personal responsibility. As individuals we have to educate ourselves and look for ways to reduce our impact on this planet’s environment. Then we have to share that knowledge with others, which ultimately supports change at the macro level.
Regardless of the issue, there are many possible connections between the individual and the larger forces at work in our local and global communities, but I believe that nonprofit organizations, also known as nongovernment organizations (NGOs), have a particularly important role to play in making those connections. Ideally, an NGO doesn’t exist for the sake of existing, but instead represents the will of a particular group of people. The NGO sector offers a platform on which organizations can share that will with others and gain support for a particular set of activities or policies. NGOs come in all shapes and sizes, with various ranges of scope and influence. This diversity is good and valuable for society, as long as each organization is fulfilling its mission.
For many organizations, often identifying that mission and purpose as an organization is not a simple task. Some organizations might start based on one idea and then discover that they can be more effective and garner more support by branching into other areas or by choosing a particular element of the original idea upon which to focus. When this organizational evolution is done intentionally and transparently, the potential for success is far greater than if that process is attempted without a clear vision.
Because of the nature of environmental issues, it is critical that individual NGOs in this sector have a purpose that is communicated clearly to both their supporters and to those they are trying to influence. Having passion for an issue can ignite a vision, but in the day to day effort to share that vision with the world, the key is to back up that vision with a well-stated purpose and plan of action.
My purpose in creating AHG Consulting was to help organizations be more effective at all stages of the development process, whether it be the early stages of establishing an organizational mission or the details of pursuing a specific project. I know from my own experience within organizations that an outside perspective can be a useful tool in moving an organization forward. If your organization or an organization you know could benefit from the resources of AHG Consulting, please contact me. I look forward to working with you.
