Comments on: Idea dearth at big money sustainability summit Global environmental challenges Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:14:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Ralphooo Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:36:23 +0000 Sorry to disagree, but I do not believe it is possible for humans to modify their current way(s) of living to produce anything approaching a sustainable system. Making tremendous sacrifices to benefit unknown descendants living under unknown circumstances in unknown future times is simply not yet a part of human behavior.

Rather, it seems that the consequences of our rapid and accelerating drawdown of fossil fuels will simply have to arrive. Whether our species faces a long slowdown or a sudden catastrophe, we will not begin to react en masse until the bad trouble is actually happening.

And even then, with the wolf at the door — or already inside the house — most of us may still prefer to hide under the bed and hope for the best.

By: PaulMinett Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:20:39 +0000 I like the idea, but wonder about the liability for bad investment decisions? What I observe is that we so far do not really know what to do, and how to do it, to bring about the sort of change needed. Look at what happened to Solyndra. How do you use pension fund money to back green when it is not necessarily a ‘good’ investment? Who decides? Who picks the winners?

By: WillPomroy Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:54:32 +0000 For anyone interested, more information about Aviva Investors’ policy proposal can be found here – ility/programme-updates/13023

Aviva has convened a Corporate Sustainability Reporting Coalition (CSRC) of likeminded organisations. This coalition is proposing that nations at Rio +20 commit to develop national regulations mandating the integration of material sustainability issues in companies’ Annual Report & Accounts. It is also advocating effective mechanisms for investors to hold companies to account on the quality of their disclosures – e.g. through an advisory vote at the AGM.

Such a requirement will help capital to be allocated to more sustainable, responsible companies and strengthen the long term sustainability of the financial system.

By: TomRand Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:38:36 +0000 Changeling: Don’t think they have any motivation to be first-mover, indeed disincentive.
1. Second mover is good enough: They have the capital and muscle to come into the sector anytime they want. So just sit and wait, and when it’s big, profitable and any sort of threat, just come in and take it over.
2. Psychology: They made a ton of money yesterday, even more today, why change behaviour?
3. Psychology: It’s not easy to take on board the belief that climate change is likely catastrophic. We will all seek evidence that negates the discomfort such a belief causes. It’s literally hard to believe.
All three add up to momentum. No day is the day a captain of the fossil fuel industry wakes up thinking “today’s teh day to lead the new industrial revolution!” And so they don’t.
My two cents, Cheers, Tom Rand

By: changeling Thu, 03 Nov 2011 00:25:05 +0000 A question for you, Tom. Why is it that none of the big players in energy attempt to become renewable energy leaders, with the aim of conserving their limited fossil fuel resources as emergency backup? Do they honestly believe the long term viability of their business means sticking with non-renewable resources as their primary profit source? It just makes no sense to me.