Can the social network of Davos deliver?
– Aron Cramer is the president and CEO of BSR , a global business network and consultancy focused on sustainability. He is also coauthor of the forthcoming book Sustainable Excellence (Rodale 2010). The views expressed are his own. – The 40th World Economic Forum at Davos gets underway this week in a world still groping for direction and solutions to structural changes and economic weakness that plague the global economy. Is it realistic to expect that the 2,500 people at Davos will deliver a truly sustainable economic recovery?
The disappointing outcome at Copenhagen was a powerful example of how risky it is to expect grand, global gatherings to save the world. Does that mean it’s best to keep expectations of Davos in check? Maybe not.
Davos is a place where influential government, business, and civil society leaders gather to create new solutions to vexing problems. It is, in its own elite way, more representative of the 21st century world than the summits that rely on formal treaties. You could say that Davos, with its informal opportunities for connections, is a social networking site in the snow, while Copenhagen, with its formal communiqués, is more like the Congress of Vienna.
In proper web 2.0 fashion, much of the goings-on are user generated, organized by participants outside the official program. And by looking at what’s happening at the “off-piste” meetings and events, it’s easy to see that sustainability is at the core of this 40th Davos.
It is precisely the combination of the official and unofficial agenda at Davos that has the potential to contribute to sustainable prosperity—especially if it can deliver systemic redesign, spark innovation for sustainability, and leverage the power of the network it has assembled.
Indeed, one of the WEF’s core themes this year is system redesign. It’s looking to make progress on its Global Redesign Initiative, an effort to promote governance improvements for inclusive economic growth that is also environmentally sustainable. In addition, the chairs of Davos’ 70 Global Agenda Councils (which includes one I will lead on sustainable consumption) will close the event with recommendations to bring to a summit in Qatar this May. It is then that the outputs of these 70 councils, which range from the future of China to the future of journalism, will be presented formally to a group of governments. The goal is nothing less than “fostering transformational innovation in global governance” to solve the world’s most pressing problems. So we should give the WEF credit for its effort to look at global problems from a systemic perspective.
Innovation for sustainability is also on the agenda. I’ll be leading a discussion on “Redirecting Marketing,” in which leaders from fields such as marketing and consumer products will debate the fundamental premise of how we communicate about and sell products. Today, innovation is about much more than just new kinds of products, and we’ll consider whether marketing is mired in a “Mad Men” world, or whether there’s an opportunity to inspire consumers to make more sustainable choices.
Business must take the lead on carbon management
Léo Apotheker is CEO of SAP. The views expressed are his own.
Most people who followed the Copenhagen climate talks in December will have been disappointed.
While the agreement brokered by the group of countries that included the United States, Brazil, China, India and South Africa and ratified by most of the attending countries is being touted as a success of sorts, it fell far short of the expectations that had built up, and achieved very little in concrete terms.
Now with the World Economic Forum approaching, the issue of climate change and sustainability will once again dominate discussions among the business and political leaders who attend the annual gathering in Davos.
Ever since the 1968 publication in Science of Garrett Hardin’s article “The Tragedy of the Commons,” it has been regarded as virtually an article of faith that only strong national and international regulators can be trusted with the proper management of public resources.
A clear regulatory framework is necessary for businesses to act in competitive environments and maybe at least some pieces of such a framework will be provided in the future. But it was not provided at Copenhagen.
The United State’s forward thinking progressive types want to lead the World in green sustainable energy. This drive was put in park by the last 5 out 7 administrations. It’s no wonder why the Dems finally got mad and elected Barack Obama, and why the Rupuglican’ts are reeling so spastic-ally. But leading the World in Green technology in the near future is going to be other countries like Germany, China. So we had better get cracking with government incentives to build up our
manufacturing base with solar cell factories, hydrogen cell factories, wind farm factories, Algea farms, Alpaca farms, Organic farms, etc etc. First Obama has to be re-elected in 2012 or it’s going to be 6 out 9 “backward not-green” administrations that our beautiful country has had to slog through year after year instead of 5 out of 9. I hope the rest of the World will support Democrats in 2012, for the Planet’s sake I pray.
For real results on climate, look beyond Copenhagen
– Aron Cramer is the president and CEO of BSR, a global business network and consultancy focused on sustainability. He is also coauthor of the forthcoming book Sustainable Excellence (Rodale 2010). The views expressed are his own. –
(Updated on December 17th to correct figure in McKinsey study in paragraph 7.)
As world leaders seem uncertain about whether a binding treaty is even possible at Copenhagen, it’s important to remember what was already clear: Twelve days in Copenhagen were never going to solve climate change anyway.
No doubt, these negotiations, now extending into 2010, are crucial. The sooner we can seal a global deal to reduce emissions, the sooner we can avoid catastrophic climate change. But as important as the treaty negotiations in Copenhagen’s Bella Centre are, even a successful outcome will be for naught if boardroom decisions and factory processes aren’t reoriented toward a low-carbon future.
To steer the world in that direction, business must change how it operates, with a shift of historic proportions. Otherwise—like the Kyoto Protocol of 1997—a new international climate agreement won’t achieve its goals.
Making this change requires business to focus on innovation, efficiency, mobilization, and collaboration—and that work must start now.
At every turning in point in history, from the advent of the railroad to the internet revolution, innovation has redefined our economy. Solving climate requires exactly the same thing. Everything about a climate-friendly economy—from the basic products we use to the places we shop to how we commute—will look different.
from The Great Debate UK:
John Reid on climate change and global security
- John Reid MP, formerly UK Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Defence, is the Chairman of the Institute for Security and Resilience Studies at University College, London. The opinions expressed are his own. -
Barack Obama’s announcement that there will be no all-encompassing protocol agreed at Copenhagen underlines that climate change is perhaps the most complex issue facing the world today. In part, this is because it involves long-term thinking and modeling which our existing political, financial and economic institutions and governance frameworks are ill-designed and configured to grapple with and resolve.
With uncertainty building over what, if anything, the Copenhagen Summit can still achieve, now is therefore the time to remind ourselves about some of the larger stakes in play next month at what has been billed by some as the most important environmental summit in world history.
We know already that climate change will impact upon our quality of life and have potentially profound consequences for future generations through, for instance, the impact of rising sea levels, and more extreme weather. In the medium-term, the Stern Review estimates the overall impact on GDP could be 5 to 20 percent from 2050.
This alone should alarm us all.
Moreover, while all will be affected, it is the most vulnerable countries and populations which will suffer earliest and most -- even though they have contributed least to the causes of the problem. This is injustice on a truly global scale and should, in itself, be sufficient reason for all sides to move closer at Copenhagen so that a comprehensive climate change deal can be agreed in 2010 or 2011.
However, there is an additional factor in this equation that should compel our action out of enlightened self-interest. Because climate change also has major geopolitical and security implications for the UK, the EU and the rest of the world.
from The Great Debate UK:
A freakonomic view of climate change
Ahead of a U.N. summit in Copenhagen next month, scepticism is growing that an agreement will be reached on a global climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, due to expire in 2012.
The protocol set targets aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which are believed to be responsible for the gradual rise in the Earth's average temperature. Many scientists say that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is key to preventing climate change.
But authors Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner argue in their new book SuperFreakonomics that humanity can take an alternative route to try and save the planet.
"If the goal is to stop warming then geo-engineering solutions are worth considering because they are far cheaper, probably much more do-able and easily reversible," Dubner told Reuters before a talk at the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce in London.
Analogy: a smoker is found to have an early lung cancer.It is pointless to debated whether he should either (a) stop smoking or (b) have the cancer excised.He must do both. We must Both decarbonise our economy (which will itself deliver a much wanted boost to the world economy by creating jobs in energy conservation and renewables)and sequester the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.It’s a bit like walking along and chewing gum at the same time. Some cannot do this, but most, with a little application, find that they can.
Change the climate narrative
– Nancy Birdsall is the president of the Center for Global Development. Arvind Subramanian is a senior fellow at the Center and at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a regular columnist for the Business Standard, India’s leading business newspaper. The views expressed are their own. –
Efforts to cut emissions of the heat-trapping gases are gridlocked over a misunderstanding about what is fair. This misunderstanding is hindering climate change legislation in Congress and threatens to torpedo international negotiations in Copenhagen next month.
We propose a new way of thinking about climate fairness that focuses not on emissions cuts but on meeting developing countries’ energy needs in a climate-friendly manner. This simple narrative can provide a framework for U.S. legislation and open the way for international collaborative efforts to avert climate catastrophe.
At present, many people in the United States focus on the large and growing emissions of the developing world, especially China, which in absolute terms is now the world’s largest source of greenhouse gases, and India, which is growing fast and like China relies heavily on coal. They argue that it would be unfair to force emissions cuts at home without similar cuts in developing countries. A recent poll found that 60% of Americans believe that in any climate agreement China should cut its emissions the most.
It is true that developing countries already account for roughly half of all greenhouse gas emissions, and that their large populations and rapid economic growth are boosting emissions fast enough to create a planetary crisis by 2050-even if today’s rich countries had never existed.
But meanwhile a quarter of humanity — including millions in China and India — live without any electricity, and one-in-three people on the planet rely on straw, brush, charcoal and animal dung for their cooking needs. The resulting indoor air pollution kills 1.5 million people a year — about 4,000 per day — mostly children. Power for small businesses, irrigation networks, clinics and schools is sorely lacking.
Developing countries point to these unmet energy needs and to large disparities in per capita emissions to argue that the rich world must move first. They note that the 20 tons of CO2 that Americans emit annually is five times the world average, well above both China (5 tons per capita) and India (below 2 tons per capita).
Casper in order to exercise logic one must first be able to comprehend what they read. I stated CO2 has increased 20 percent. 300 ppm in 1960 to 370 ppm currently. Oxygen on Earth is currently around 19 percent at sea level and steadily decreasing. The higher the elevation, the lower the oxygen. Thinner air. Fifteen or sixteen percent oxygen content are the limits for large mammals generally though not always.You are correct that humanity has burned up the planet and that the time for debate has passed. I am not so sure that the people of my country have the stomach to do what is required.
Defeats doom climate bill in ’09
– John Kemp is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed are his own –
Resounding defeats for Democratic Party gubernatorial candidates in Virginia and New Jersey on November 3 have killed any lingering hope Congress will enact climate change legislation this year, and may doom the prospect of passing a cap-and-trade bill this side of the 2010 mid-term elections.
Prospects for eventually passing legislation may now depend on winning Republican support with nuclear loan guarantees and more offshore drilling.
While the president remains personally popular, with high approval ratings, and does not need to face the voters again for another three years, 16 Democratic senators and 256 Democratic members of the House of Representatives will be on the ballot in November 2010.
The Virginia and New Jersey off-cycle elections are often idiosyncratic. But crushing defeats for Democrats at the top of the ticket in both states are already sparking a bout of soul-searching over the lessons that need to be learned if the party is to retain firm control of both houses of Congress next year.
What worries many Democrats is that turnout among the young voters who helped propel them to victory last year fell away sharply, self-identified independents broke heavily for the Republican candidates; and voters overwhelmingly cited the economy and jobs rather than healthcare or climate change as their major concern in exit polls.
Democrats face the classic dilemma for any party after a defeat — press ahead trying to enact a difficult agenda or pull back, re-focus on simpler and less controversial measures.
Look over there, my boy and cheer
For coming from the yonder shore,
Bringing promises and more,
Old Cap’n Trade is here.
Far beyond the politics we know,
He sails the seas of emission trade,
Avoiding the perils of party debate,
Just watch him go.
The perils of the world are grand.
Cresting the waves of voter polls
And the erratic winds of public opinion,
The Cap’n will stand.
So away he sails to foreign lands,
While young girls and presidents
Are tucked safe in bed,
And old men sit on their hands.
Who can say just where or when,
Old Cap’n Trade will sail his boat,
Or when that peerless mariner
Will see our shores again?
from The Great Debate UK:
Can emissions be tackled without Copenhagen deal?
Even if a deal is reached among political delegates at the upcoming United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen, it is unlikely to set out specific emission targets, says Mike Hulme, author of "Why We Disagree About Climate Change" and a professor at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.
"What we've done with climate change is to attach so many pressing environmental concerns to the climate change agenda that trying to secure a negotiated multilateral agreement between 190 nations is actually beyond the reach of what we can achieve," he argues.
Hulme, who will take part in a debate hosted by the Institute of Economic Affairs in November about carbon emission policies and economic activity before he heads to the Copenhagen conference, discussed his views with Reuters.
Climate change is happening. This is an indisputable fact. The only reason the facts seem obscured is because there are many people with a vested interests (who stand to profit), in keeping the global warming issue on the back burner.In the 70′s a whole in the ozone layer was discovered. This ozone hole was attributed to CFC’s. CFCs combine with ozone to create O2, and release chlorine gas which destroys even more ozone.In the 70′s the hole was barely noticeable. Now that barely noticeable hole covers the ENTIRE CONTINENT of Antarctica. So asking if this is really happening is a moot point.Even if we as human beings only contributed to a small fraction of the problem, it still doesn’t change the fact that we are now living in it. And as human beings we have the responsibility of doing what ever we can to make things right.But this whole sorry attitude on the part of die hard profiteers will get us no where. We are facing a very serious problem where we live. We have no other planets to run to. So we would do well to put our heads together to find a solution that will allow us to continue on.
from The Great Debate UK:
We Need a Fresh Approach on Climate Change
- Bjorn Lomborg is adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School. He is the organizer of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, which brings together some of the world's top economists, including 5 Nobel laureates, to set priorities for the world. The opinions expressed are his own. -
In this blog, I would like to share with you some of the best – and worst – ways to fix climate change. This is important because the Earth is warming up, increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide are contributing to this warming, and humankind is dumping ever-increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Of course, this is a point that is made by many campaigners, politicians and the media every single day. But I think that in our discussions on global warming, we actually often miss a really important question: not if we should do something about global warming - but rather how best to go about this. Just like with any other problem we face, there are many possible remedies, and some of them are a whole lot better than others. Not just cheaper (although cost is one very important criteria), but more effective, more efficient and - crucially - more likely to actually happen.
We need to focus on the cost of the solutions and the real-world benefits we should expect from them. Why? Because I believe it is nothing less than morally unconscionable to spend enormous sums of money making a minor difference to long-term global warming and human well-being, if we could achieve a lot more impact – and leave future generations better-off – with a smaller investment through a smarter solution.
This year, my think-tank, the Copenhagen Consensus Center, commissioned 21 new research papers – you can read them all here along with summaries and op-eds on them – that examine the costs and benefits of a multitude of responses to global warming. Each research paper carefully examines one response to global warming, and highlights the costs and benefits of that approach.
The research in itself is very important, and is groundbreaking in many respects. It answers such questions as what can we achieve through climate engineering? What happens if the entire world signs up to stringent, immediate carbon cuts? Are we on the right path to achieving the technological breakthroughs needed to shift away from reliance on fossil fuel? How much can we achieve through adaptation? How much global warming damage can be prevented if we focus first on cutting methane or black carbon emissions, or if we put more emphasis on expanding forests?
The papers are written by top climate economists – many of whom are heavily involved in the work of the United Nations climate change panel, the IPCC. I believe we should pay attention to their findings, because these economists are experts in calculating costs and benefits and in looking at the ramifications of different climate policy approaches. Their work definitely fills a void in the climate debate.
There are other problems that you seem to ignore. You do not address the problem of ocean acidification. You do not seem to be aware of depletion of coal or petrolium. A carbon tax would be more helpful to discourage use of limited fossil fuel resources.
