thinkingstring.com

If you want to understand whether COP15 us likely to make any meaningful difference look not to Copenhagen, nor to the twittering commentary of my fellow bloggers, journalists and assorted spinners. Look instead to England. The most important thing that has happened this week that frames the Western World’s proposed and possible actions on reducing GHG emissions took place this month in the UK High Court, where BA won an injunction declaring proposed strike action by BA cabinstaff as illegal.

Unite, the union representing some 12,000 BA employees had propose to cal a 12 day strike. Such action would, according to BA head honcho Willie Walsh “ruined Christmas for millions of people”. UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown was reported as saying he was “very worried” by the prospect of a BA strike, and warned that BA and the unions must both consider the damage the airline would suffer if they cannot reach a resolution..

And there lies the key to understanding the degree to which Brown and other(se)elected national head honchoss of his ilk can lead us toward a safe level of greenhouse gases. They will pledge the world in Copenhagen. Just as anything they propose doesn’t interrupt the voting public’s plans to fly somewhere to see Granny or sit on a warm beach for Christmas.

How then are we meant t cost into airline tickets the environmental cost of flying, in a way that encourages the potential traveler to consider and choose alternate means of transport? Therein is the hypocrisy, moral weakness and failure to lead that speaks volumes, but leads is little.

A response to Dave Hampton’s excellent and thoughtful case for the “YES” argument.

Its important I think to not confuse the causal relationship that exists between the electorate and elected, and the very real need for the latter to use the power that they uniquely wield to make structural changes to the workings of the society in which we live.

We can debate the degree to which the elected are influenced by the actions of the constituency, both on polling day and on all the other days in between. Days the people may choose to spend not in comfortable pursuit of middle-class distractions but rather in a passionate expression of their belief for governmental or corporate action and change.

We can debate who wags whom and where the ultimate power to influence the view of reality that both the politicians and the people hold – I would argue that the media super-barons have at least one cheek ensconced on the throne of power with their proven ability to make or break a candidate’s aspirations, their demonstrated willingness to take sides on an issue, and their role as lenses of the world and its priorities for most citizens.

But what we ought not debate, and what we should accept as pragmatism is that as long as we accept that the sole answer to avoiding catastrophic levels of environmental degradation is for individuals to make personal and non binding pledges of action then the chances of our ultimate success are slim. That is not to say that we should just be sitting by, wondering why things aren’t the way we’d like to find them to be. It is important for us to take an active role in building the world we wish to live in. We get the world we make.

It is a simple recognition of reality that achieving the 80-90% emissions cuts that climate scientists advise are necessary requires changes to the system. Never mind dealing with the other pressing environmental issues we face such as water supply, land degradation, and the genocide of species.

To achieve emissions cuts of that magnitude then no less than transport choices, electricity generation and distribution methods, urban planning, construction methods and materials, and what food we eat must all be addressed. The reality is while a minority may care enough about an issue to make personal pledges, and to stick to them, the vast majority will go with the flow.

I may pledge to walk or cycle, but on a cold, wet and windy day most people just think I am an idiot. Or worse; someone with no money or no aspirations. I may elect to have a staycation, but in the time I have taken to type this much eight jumbo passenger planes have passed through my view on their descent to Heathrow.

As long as the default choice is the status quo with regards to housing, transport, energy supply and food supplies, locked in a behavioural framework where success is defined by a larger house, a larger car and ideally one that is endorsed by Top Gear, more overseas holidays and more consumption of throwaway stuff, then the reality is that the majority will blindly follow those choices. Meanwhile, developing nations and the next generation – those who will inhabit the world we deliver to them are being educated to aspire to repeat our mistakes, locking us into another thirty years heading in an unsustainable direction.

The premise of making personal pledges is to recognise that the status quo is broken and that the default sets of choices have something wrong with them. That is entirely a good thing – the more people who lift their eyes from the motoring or travel lift out of their paper and take a moment to think “Is it a good and worthwhile decision in the grander scheme of things that I fly the family to Florida so that the kids can eat popcorn and ride a roller coaster at Disney Land?” the better. However we do not have the timeframe available to us now to allow us to hold minority choices to be the strategic answer that will lead to ultimate success.

We need systemic changes that deliver default choices to the majority so that without pledges or other conscious action on their behalf their ecological footprint is sustainable. The power to deliver those changes lies not in the hands of a minority of average private citizens, no matter how vocal, passionate and committed they are. It lies in the hands of those making the macro financial and legislative structures that shape the world we live in.

Debate we can on how to best achieve the attention and action amongst our elected leaders. However it is to be pragmatic to recognise that success lies not in a minority swimming against the stream, it lies in changing the course of the river. Ten thousand people could sit in peaceful protest in Heathrow’s terminals tomorrow, but until the system stops classifying their actions as illegal, until the media brands them not as “Enemies of the economy” but rather “National heroes”, and until the majority of public opinion has some degree of empathy for their actions it will all be just a blip soon lost in time and significance as the status quo resumes.

We do not have time for the luxury of optimism. We have time only for bold thinking enabled through pragmatic execution. The time for despair may yet come, but it is not upon us yet as we are still “this side” of the historical record; a record that will document whether we lived through the age of stupidity or the age of grand deliverance.

YES there is time for individuals to fight climate change without government regulation by Dave Hampton

Before talking about individuals and governments, I’d like to separate out the: “Is there enough time?” part of the question.

Let me be clear. I think we have very little time. But is there enough time? I don’t know

The late great Dana Meadows had a famous stock answer. When asked if we have enough time to prevent catastrophe, she’d always say that we have exactly enough time, starting now. Ok, you could observe that it’s a while since she gave her answer now. But that would be missing the spirit of her answer. What is crystal clear, like the melting ice, is that we don’t have long.

We don’t have time for the luxury of pessimism any more. Neither despair, which, although sometimes tempting, is illogical, unhelpful, and, some might observe, part of the problem.

Dana treated the future as choice, not fate, and she defined with luminous clarity how to do (as one sometimes must) what is necessary.

I turn now to E.F. Schumacher, in Small is Beautiful: “Can we rely on it that a ‘turning around’ will be accomplished by enough people quickly enough to save the modern world? This question is often asked, but whatever answer is given to it will mislead. The answer “yes” would lead to complacency; the answer “no” to despair. It is desirable to leave these perplexities behind us and get down to work.”

“Down to work” I believe he meant, is taking every single action we can take, now (to fight climate change) within our direct sphere of influence. To act now, and now, as if we believe CO2 to be a toxin. To work to eliminate it from our lives, without delay, without excuses, and without exception. This ‘work’ prepares the foundation for the next stage. To BE the low carbon life.

There is a vital point here. How can we demand that others take action before we have. We can do so, but our words will fall flat. This is obvious, but oft overlooked.

Once we have trimmed our own lifestyle to the level where we are as much a part of the solution as we are the pollution, then we can turn our hand to other work. To being an advocate. To inspiring our peers. To persuading all the powers that be, whether bosses, captains of industry, MPs or PMs. Persuading them by whatever peaceful means are available to us, ethically.

Then, once everyone is awakened, and engaged in ‘the war effort’ – then the process turns to cultivation, reward, acknowledgement, and steady escalation of ambition, raising of game, until the job is done. Until the world can live happily ever after again, without fossil.

I see no point in my logic above where we the people – have to hand over power to them – the government – to make us do something that we have told them we want them to force us to do!

Governments don’t lead, they follow. People lead.

IF we lead well, they will follow well, and one day, when its popular and with the benefit of hindsight, they can legislate for all the things that we’ve done, and proved can be done.

Regulation is necessary, and will follow our collective individual actions, but these must precede it, and with urgency. Waiting for governments to regulate, hoping they will - is a mugs game – a game of mutually assured destruction. It’s the game we have been playing for the last 20 years.

The new game is one of simple example, responsibility and advocacy with high contagiousness.

After all, if all each of us manage to do, is just set our own back yard in order (simples) ..and we all just do that one thing… then the world will take care of itself!

NO there is not time for individuals to fight climate change without government regulation by Simon Perry

I’m all for the movie The Age of Stupid. I think it is a clever plot framework for presenting the multi generational challenge that is climate change. I am always mindful that my own children will be fifty-ish by 2055, the year in which the film is set. Note to Franny: can we please have a version that is specifically designed for the ten to sixteen year old audience and their teachers? My aspiring actress daughter volunteers herewith.

I also think that the associated 10:10 campaign has much going for it. Chipping away at the wall of popular ignorance and intransience that has prevented mass awareness of the risks associated with uncontrolled climate change is a task that will require constant and innovative ways of gaining attention and airtime. People love to rally around a cause; and making a pledge, wearing the rubber wristband and joining a Facebook group makes everyone feel involved and even helps encourage some people to take some real action.

The creation of popular rallying foci isn’t however the strategic answer to achieving the necessary changes required to avoid a level of global warming above two degrees Celsius. Like it or not, the pragmatic answer is that we require market intervention in order to deliver the financial incentives and regulatory control that will force individual and corporate change.

Businesses are answerable to their shareholders and private owners and the strictures of legislation, not to moviegoers and the minority of the population that will take a 10:10 pledge. I eat local, organically and avoid all animal products, but my supermarket still sells factory bred chicken swizzles from China, all in the name of “providing a choice to the consumer”. No business will make a strategic or structural change in the way that operate as a result of only popular pressure, where such a change runs the risk of reducing competiveness and material profitability, especially with regard to reducing emissions. Corporate history is awash with examples of profit over purity in areas such as ignoring human rights, general environmental degradation, overfishing, over-extraction of water and production of products that are unhealthy or dangerous.

Meanwhile the long term and multi generational nature of climate change effects, and the necessary duration and scope of our responses requires that the educational curriculum must be updated in order to develop a generation of “emission adepts”. The knowledge of economics, history we teach and the social values we attempt to instil in the citizens of tomorrow must recognise and call out the flaws of reasoning we have thus far applied in our economic systems and commercial approaches - thus bringing us to this brink of catastrophe from which we must retreat. We must teach to every child the skills and knowledge required for them to play an active role in transitioning to a low carbon way of life, starting now. “No child left behind…in a high carbon mindset” ought to be our mantra. School Governors, PTA members, and even the occasional brave teacher may organise a screening of The Age of Stupid, and the school may even pledge to reduce, recycle and reuse the kitchen scraps in the eco garden compost. However the teachers will also follow the set curriculum knowing that OFSTED scores standard tests and attendance records, not CO2 emissions and 10:10 pledges.

It is legislation and governmental leadership that will shape the reality of our future. Given the scope of the necessary changes – wide, systemic, and interwoven; the urgency of the required response; and the need to get this right first time it is almost inevitable that deep market intervention will be required. It is equally likely that the average citizen and business lead won’t like the changes much, given how far they will potentially push us from the status quo. This is of course Catch-22, governments won’t act if doing so has a short term negative electoral effect on popularity while we the governed won’t accept the changes (however grudgingly) unless we are forced to. In this context both the movie and the campaign are helpful – if only everyone who views and pledges remembers their priorities come election day.

Franny Armstrong has demonstrated exceptional vision, tenacity and commitment in making the film and the campaign a reality. How many of our elected leaders will demonstrate the same clarity and courage in order to now make the changes we need a reality? Voluntary and individual action around the edges won’t achieve the necessary emissions reductions – never mind address other pressing environmental issues – in a free choice open market.

Al Tepper of OOFFOO has organised a little online debate, inspired by the release of Franny Armstrong’s The Age of Stupid.

The question to hand is this: “Is there time to fight climate change without government regulation?”

Al says: We all encounter cynics when it comes to being green and with the global launch of the 10:10 campaign we thought it would be a great idea to debate whether or not individuals can make enough changes to tackle climate change or whether ultimately we need governments to regulate our way out of this mess. Is the carrot enough or do we need the stick?

Joining us to get the debate started are two great green voices: Simon Perry, Sustainalyst @ Thinking String & Dave Hampton aka The Carbon Coach (his latest newsletter is very relevant).

The original debate posting, together with reader comments can be found here.

Franny Armstrong and Team Stupid today launched the campaign 10:10 - on the back of the release of the film The Age of Stupid. The film (which this author has not yet seen) spices up a documentary on oil and climate change with a fictional, backward glance in time at the present day. It is designed to be no less than a catalyst for change in the attitude of viewers regarding the reality and urgency of climate change, and thus one that inspires meaningful action across a broad front. The film’s production, distribution and funding models are themselves innovative - and that too has helped form a buzz around the film. Meanwhile, the associated 10:10 campaign is an attempt to get individuals and corporations to sign-up to a pledge to reduce their GHG emissions by 10% (over 2009) levels by the end of calendar year 2010. So while the film is intended to galvanise action, the campaign is intended to provide the framework for execution. I sincerely wish both the film and the campaign the best of success.

However it pains me however honesty compels me to say that I also ultimately believe that neither effort will make a difference to the course we are on.

Here’s why…

We are well beyond the point where simple changes to everyday behaviours are going to make any meaningful difference to climate outcomes. That’s not to say that there aren’t a long list of good things that can’t be done at an individual level - from the choice of lighting and building environmental control methods to the selection of green energy producers. There are nearly as many lists of methods regarding “how to drop 10% of your emissions” as there are tonnes of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere every year. We have no shortage of knowledge with regards to what needs to be done. What we lack is any broad interest in actually making those changes and making them stick.

Of course, that lack of interest is what both the movie and the campaign are attempting to address. But it won’t work - there is too much momentum built into the system of doing things for the change to occur. Honestly - of all the people I know I can’t think of a single person who is today not already switched onto the idea of the need to reduce their own reduce emissions who is likely to change opinion now to meaningfully internalise the need to alter behaviour. Note the emphasis - I do know people who are doing their darnedest to make a difference, both in their own lives and in the broader community and business world. However of all the intelligent, successful and everyday people I know, living everyday lives I see no evidence whatsoever that the message on climate change is sinking in. Of course they are all aware of all the little things that I happen to do at a personal and professional level - however all that is relegated to either being something that is regarded as endearing and quirky personal characteristics (and thus forgiveable) or the “Well that’s just all about work…let’s talk about something meaningful like the great deal I can get on a new sports car since the recession.”

The all too obvious answer of course is to interject with the suggestion that if a sports car is needed then perhaps a Telsa Roadster might be a better environmental choice than an AMG modified Mercedes. However the real, strategic answer is “How about cycling, walking, or catching the train instead.” Its the difference between the tactical choice and the strategic direction and lets be honest, we’re not gearing up for it. After all, in order to make enough of a difference that we avert further climate change we don’t need 10% of film goers to elect to watch The Age of Stupid, and then have 10% of them not only to sign onto the 10:10 pledge but to also actually achieve the committed reductions. We need more like 50% of the developed world’s population to make and then deliver on that commitment, while supporting the developing nations in a wide variety of ways such that they do not fill the resulting emissions reductions with their own GHG fuelled economic growth.

The question is “What’s stopping us getting there? Surely a people-powered social change such as that of the 10:10 commitment will overcome the inertia?” Actually, its hard to believe that it will. Realistically speaking there is little to point to which would indicate that the carrot approach of market forces alone will set the appropriate path and pace for change. Cutting through to the “bottom line” we can actually say that market forces have proven to be utterly ineffective at delivering a low carbon economy. Only a bloody great big stick approach involving market intervention of a dramatic kind is likely to alter that outcome, and there is much to point to support the case that such market intervention is unlikely to occur.

Take the USA. Obama’s administration does I think get climate change, as well as understanding that a path toward a low carbon economy provides opportunities for a renewal of US economic fortunes. However one needs to look no further than the debate - if we can sensibly call it that - in the US concerning the health care system to find an example of the ability of the US population overall (stirred on by Republican Party agitators) to violently insist on retaining a status quo that is both already enormously damaging to human health and fiscal responsibility, as well being forecast to cause far greater economic exposure down the track. There are plenty of parallels between how the US health care debate is playing out and how events would unfold if the administration attempted the necessary market interventions required to reduce the USA’s by 10% next year, with further dramatic changes scheduled annually thereafter. Rest assured that bipartisanship will be sunk deeper than the Good Ship Titanic if the Democratic Party administration took that path. The chance to play politics on the issue of climate change and by doing so to place a Republican leader back in the White House in 2012 will override the longer returns to humanity that come from avoiding a greater than 2c degree rise in global temperatures by 2050.

Meanwhile in the UK there is consensus amongst all but the Brown family that the Tories will form the next UK government. Even the most ardent of Labour supporters can smell the paint fumes from the writing that is on the wall on this one. From the perspective of the government in waiting there are therefore no significant votes to be had in taking a more hardline approach to climate change than has already been mooted. Cameron has done green and almost certainly has recognised that he doesn’t need the incremental votes of the 10:10 pledged voting public to achieve power. Look no further than the very real absence of a detailed plan from Camp Cameron on how to achieve real structural change regarding climate change (hint to London’s Conservative Mayor, Boris Johnson - it makes no difference to climate outcomes if Heathrow expansion is cancelled in favour of a runway in the middle of the Thames).

Meanwhile down in Australia the debate between the incumbent Rudd government and the Liberal opposition over the details and implementation timetable of the proposed Climate Bill is raging. The Rudd administration, seeking to exploit the currently shambolic leadership of the opposition party has flirted with the idea of pushing the question of the adoption of the bill - which has thus far been blocked by Liberal Party opposition - through to a double dissolution election. Doing so would deliver both the opportunity to strike politically while the opposition is weak, outside of the standard election cycle (thus extending the overall potential duration of the Rudd government term of power), while giving all the appearance of taking action, while actually avoiding the pain of making real change. The latter is in fact the only guaranteed outcome of the whole process as there isn’t a climate scientist of any repute who has looked at the proposed Australian bill who feels it commits Australia to the necessary level of emissions cuts. Politics over real climate action again.

If all that sounds awfully cynical let me hold up some examples to ponder of where phenomenally important decisions and agendas have been pushed through by the government of the day. The following list is not, to be absolutely clear, meant to be representative of what have been good decisions. There are merely examples of the lengths that government will go to when they really want to achieve an end.

Exhibit one: The Iraq Invasion. When George W. Bush wanted to topple Saddam Hussein he co-opted no less than Tony Blair, Australian Prime Minister John Howard, Colin Powell, and most of the USA/UK/Australian media in a campaign of popular and political persuasion both audacious in its scope as it was inevitable in its outcome. The general citizenry were lied to regarding the evidence for WMDs, and when none were found the raison d’être for the war was conveniently changed. When hundreds of thousands of protesters voiced their opposition to the invasion they were ignored (something to keep in mind if 10:10 does in fact succeed in drumming up widespread ground-up calls for action on climate change).

Exhibit Two: When in 1999 the question of whether Australia ought to become a republic could be ignored no longer as a question of federal political importance no less than a national referendum was held to put the issue to the public vote. Some would say that the outcome was manipulated by the structure of the actual referendum questions citizens could reply to - but like the Iraq War the point isn’t necessarily about the rights and wrongs of the process, its more to do with the fact that when an issue is deemed important enough to be brought to the voting public’s consideration a process and will exists to do so.

Exhibit Three: During 2008 and into this year as the economies of the world collapsed governments have not pulled back from a degree of market intervention that is without precedent. Money is being printed in the US and the UK. Banks have been nationalised, car companies and airlines bailed out. Indeed the outcome of the 2008 US election cycle ultimately hinged on the question of how the nascent government would address the failing economy and the rapidly growing ranks of the unemployed and homeless. You can bet too that as the dust clears from the market collapse that a whole slew of new regulations will be introduced designed to tighten up fiscal and corporate governance in the hope of avoiding a repeat. So we have widespread extraordinary intervention already, and we’ll get a whole lot more intervention in the form of ordinary legislation later.

The 10:10 campaign, for all the good it will do, and for all the good intentions of those behind it exists solely because there is a leadership vacuum on the issue of climate change from the only people who can truly make the strategic and structural changes required - the collective governments of the G8 nations and those of India, China and other major emerging large GHG emitters. People power alone is not enough to sway the outcome - those protests that have already taken place continue to be dismissed as the Greenie Fringe. Our elected leaders have the capacity and track record in manipulating widespread public opinion on the occasions that they wish to. When that fails they simply claim the mantle of electoral mandate in order to override a minority of public dissent in the secure knowledge that the majority are too distracted to really care anyway. Simply put - we won’t achieve the necessary GHG emissions cuts without structural changes to the global economy; to society; to transportation and housing; and to the balance of fairness of the world’s economic systems without deep market intervention. And we won’t achieve that without a degree of leadership so far utterly absent on this issue.

We can be honest. Or we can continue to be collectively stupid. The status quo may win votes and avoid an uncomfortable degree of change, but only history will honestly judge the degree of the stupidity of the age in which we live.

What isn’t surprising is that America hammered home a ground stake yesterday at the G8 Summit with the declaration that they will commit to an 80% reduction in GHG emissions, achieved by 2050. The idea that the Obama administration would take such a direction crystallised on the evening of October 2nd, 2008 in St. Louis Illinois.

On that evening the then Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin and the current Vice President Joe Biden primped, positioned and even occasionally answered a question during the Vice Presidential (nominee) televised debate. Biden, in response to a question regarding the causes of climate change responded; “It’s man made, it’s clearly man-made. That’s why the polar ice caps are melting”.

For those paying attention, this was a watershed moment – remembering that every answer given in that debate must have been subject to intense preparatory deliberation by an expert team of policy setters and massagers of messaging. Biden’s answer unequivocally nailed a sign on the wall pointing to the direction the administration would take. Here we are, some nine months later, and the bright spark Biden gave voice to that night has gestated in the G8 announcement.

And yet, like a newborn child, there is both an infinity of possibility and the great potential for tragedy all wrapped up in the same bundle. The G8 announcement, designed to spur developing countries like China and India into making similarly far reaching commitments, is problematic in that it fails to set aggressive commitments for interim emissions targets. Climate scientists would like to see developed nations achieve 50% emissions cuts by 2020, on the way to the overall 80% cuts three decades later. The announcement also courted controversy for the failure to concretely specify the baseline year against which relative targets are calculated – “OK…I’ll cut 80%. 80% of what though?” So…dramatic progress, but the devil remains in the details.

If the announcement isn’t a complete surprise then, is there anything that is? There’s certainly no surprise in the fact that 99% of the western world will get up today and do exactly the same things that they did yesterday, even if they read the newspaper headlines regarding the announcement as they crunch through their morning bowl of cereal. They’ll eat the same food, use the same transport method to get to work or drop little Mary-Jane and Muhammad at the local school, and book the same holiday destination regardless. An infinitesimal number of people will internalise the news and begin to think how their lives might be different if conducted such that they generate only 20% (or less, depending on the baseline year) of emissions than they do today.

Similarly, business leaders will generally have the same meetings they otherwise would have had. Focussing not on the method by which they may achieve profitable operations with 80% less emissions, but instead on this quarter and this year. Product Managers, Vice Presidents of Futurology and other foretellers of the future will spend the day dreaming up two-dot-oh this and three-dot-oh that, mashed up, twittered and iPhone ready for all. Ministers of Education, School Principals and Teachers will pull out the same textbooks and all give no thought as to how to enable the room full of fresh-faced 9 year olds with an education suitable to successfully progress and contribute to an economic model that is undergoing a fundamental shift throughout the duration of their future working lives. The 9 year olds of today are the 50 year olds of 2050. They are generation of Emissions Transitioners – the Digital Immigrants of the carbon-down age. Their lives will be defined not by the rhetoric of the 2009 G8 Summit, but by the continued action of many throughout the coming forty years.

Perhaps the surprise then, if there is any, is simply the degree to which the minutia of planning necessary to actually enact structural change has thus far failed to materialise. To have the head and the mouthpiece of the dog bark is one thing, but to have the body react requires specific directions to be sent to the nerves and muscles that initiate and coordinate action. It is high time that detailed consideration is given to how change will be achieved and successfully guided and governed along the way.

Clearly the necessary structures to accommodate and encourage change remain illusive – preceding the G8 announcement by just a few days was the news that an ambitious plan to generate 4,000 megawatts of wind farm electricity in the USA was being mothballed. The project was cancelled, according to the chairman of BP Capital Management due to fact that “transmission issues and the problem with the capital markets make (the scheme) unfeasible at this point”. The country that does achieve such a plan for renewable energy generation and distribution will be the first to lay claim to the pole position in the rankings of countries decoupled from the pollution, profit, violence and warfare associated with oil production in many parts of the world.

A high game of brinkmanship therefore continues to be played amongst the world’s leaders. At stake is nothing less than the shape of the geopolitical stage and the economic ordering of the winners and losers in the “green economy”. Mixed in amongst that is the question of what sort of everyday opportunities and decisions will be available to everyone alive today who is 45 years of age or less – for we are the generations of transitional action. L’Aquila may rumble with the aftershocks of tectonic discontent, but it is the aftershocks from the 80% announcement that will rumble far longer and with far more potential reach.

Anyone who’s ever attempted to avoid certain foodstuffs, whether for reasons of taste, allergy, diet, belief or morals, will know that it’s the fine print in the ingredients list that is all important. The ingredients list, together with standardised disclosure labels such as the Soil Association’s “Organic” symbol, the Fairtrade mark, and the Food Association’s “traffic light” symbol help consumers make informed decisions over what they put in their mouths. It’s worth noting that many foods have ingredients lists longer than the fine print in a mobile phone contract, which is an indicator that when required to by legislation, manufacturing companies can manage to track a complex set of base ingredients in a way that supports required disclosure.
It must be said that such disclosure requirements aren’t always welcomed by industry, however there’s a grudging acceptance of the need to label together with a strong desire to happily seek a stamp of approval if having one is suddenly recognised as being a positive brand differentiator. Disclosure, and informed choice, are after all powerful market shaping forces that have created new markets and enabled the phasing out of products, sources, and manufacturing methods newly considered undesirable or dangerous. There are many examples of these phenomena, but the two most powerful examples in the fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) food market in the last two decades are the Fairtrade and Organic Produce marks. There have also been notable “issues based” campaigns such as that conducted by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall in the UK against battery farmed chickens during 2008 and 2009. The power of such issues-based campaigns ought not to be downplayed especially when sufficient media attention gets behind one. Consumer preference can be extensively shaped when attention is drawn to the sourcing of produce tainted with the whiff of dubious morals or unsustainable practices.

Disclosure also supports one of the most basic and powerful tools of international diplomacy; the application of economic pressure through sanctions and market control. Forcing companies to identify and disclose the use of materials sourced from a particular country allows for the enforcement of laws restricting trade between certain countries. The U.S.A’s Export.gov site provides full information regarding international trade restrictions, as does the UK’s Foreign and Commercial Office site. Such restrictions fundamentally shape market behaviour, and restrict everyday company actions such as selling to or sourcing from specific countries.

By now, you may be wondering what all this has to do with the ICT and consumer electronics industries; and the answer is Tantalum. Tantalum is a rare mineral with conductance properties that make it an essential ingredient in the capacitors inside every mobile phone (and many other ICT devices). Tantalum is sourced from only a few mines around the world, with the majority of supplies now coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The DRC has been in a state of guerrilla warfare for many years to the tune of around 6 million deaths, and Tantalum mining and export is to the conflict what opium poppy farming is to Afghanistan; providing a rich source of international trade that funds continued conflict. Tantalum’s role in the DRC conflict has long been recognised, with the U.N. creating a panel to look at the issue back in 2001, at the direction of then UN secretary general Kofi Annan.

While the intervening years have seen little real change, Tantalum’s presence in consumer and office electronics goods is facing renewed focus. In April, U.S. Senators Sam Brownback, Dick Durbin, and Russ Feingold drafted and introduced a new act called the Congo Conflict Minerals Act of 2009. Under the draft legislation, U.S.-registered companies selling products using columbite-tantalite (a source of tantalum), cassiterite, or wolframite, or derivatives of these minerals, would be required to annually disclose to the SEC the country of origin of those minerals. If the country of origin is the DRC or neighbouring countries, the company would need to also disclose the specific mine that the minerals are sourced from.

How significant that act might be in shaking up the electronic supply chain is perhaps indicated by the fact that meanwhile, the world’s largest source of Tantalum outside of the DRC is busy shutting down operations. Australia’s Talison Minerals, which previously enjoyed a 50% market share for supply of the mineral, mothballed its largest mine at the end of 2008, a move that reduced its active Tantalum mine operations from three to one. In announcing the action Talison cited unviable market prices related in part to cheap supply from the DRC. Perhaps the U.S’s Congo Conflict Minerals Act will see a reversal in this market state in the coming years, as the restrictions and market pressures make electronics manufactures reconsider their supply chains. Right now, electronics manufacturers are unnecessarily and significantly exposed as far as the provenance of the Tantalum supply.

All of which is a good lesson as to why “sustainable IT” is more than a passing nod toward an energy efficient server or a refillable printer cartridge. While the newly drafted Congo Conflict Minerals Act has a way to go before being adopted (as is or amended) it is a sign that far more scrutiny can be expected into the ICT industry supply chain in the future. Such scrutiny no doubt introduces complexity in both adherence by manufacturers, as well as in the level of consideration a buyer might have to take in selecting a product and supplier. However scrutiny crucially enables informed decision making, which is never a bad thing. Meanwhile, take another look at your mobile phone, there’s more inside it than just your contacts list and a battery that never lasts long enough.

Originally written for eWeek Europe:
http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/comment/sustainable-supply-and-the-trouble-with-tantalum-850?page=1

In the lead up to this week’s ICT 2020 conference, the EU Commission has called upon the Information and Communications technology (ICT) sector to “lead the way” on dealing with climate change by “by setting itself concrete targets (for greenhouse reductions)”.

The Commission quite rightly identifies some important ways that ICT can contribute to achieving a low carbon economy, from smart metering of electricity to the increased use of IT in the construction, building management and transportation sectors. But the Commission is misguided in its call for ICT to “lead the way” and has made the grave mistake of misidentifying which part of the dog is controlling the wagging of the tail.

It’s important to remember that ICT serves the business, and not the other way around. This is true even in companies that make strategic use of ICT. ICT departments prioritise according to business imperatives, and while there might be some degree of deferment to ICT when scheduling business initiatives (for instance timing the launch of a new sales initiative based on the capability of IT to deliver the new web based sales infrastructure), technologists will always be part of a service function to departments like finance, marketing, sales and supply chain operations.

To say that ICT can lead the way forward on climate change is to misdiagnose the problem and in doing so to avoid the necessary strategic change required in the way that organisations operate overall. It seems that ICT is perceived as the magic method by which the relationship between economic growth and energy usage will be decoupled. A few simple examples will suffice to demonstrate that the EU’s call for ICT leadership is flawed.

Firstly, there is the question of efficiency. Both the IPCC and the IEA have calculated that efficiency efforts will deliver significant returns with regard to cutting energy usage, and therefore reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Not coincidentally, ICT vendors and ICT buyers are pushing hard on products and projects that claim to be more efficient than last year’s way of doing things.

So a data centre may well be redesigned with a consideration to cooling, rack placement, aisle layout and so on, and servers may be virtualised to ensure higher utilisation loads on the newly chosen “energy efficient” hardware. The ICT department may even take on some new workloads like supporting high-end video-conferencing as an alternative to staff business travel.

Meanwhile, even while in recession survival mode many business strategies call for continued and unbridled overall growth and increased market share. So having achieved a highly efficient operating level, ICT will simply be asked to deliver even further computing services to support that growth. More business demand ultimately equals more computing, albeit delivered more efficiently then before.

Eventually the push for expanded service delivery capacity will exceed the ability of efficiency efforts to reduce energy usage, and overall energy usage will rise again. Efficiency in the absence of a business level cap on overall emissions is often an encouragement to further growth.

Secondly, it is worth remembering that ICT is estimated to account for a mere 2 percent of overall global emissions with the other 98 percent coming from all the other things that businesses and individuals do. Indeed the EU Commission states “The use of ICT across all sectors of the economy and society can reduce the remaining 98 percent of European emissions.” Clearly the ratio between ICT’s emissions and “everything else” is going to vary when the same breakdown is applied at the level of a single organisation. In some organisations ICT may account for 20 percent and in some next to zero.

Regardless of the actual amount however, there is generally a clear link between some aspects of the actual business’s operations and the processing that ICT performs. Applications “map” to business functions if you will.

The bulk of the emissions savings will come from shutting down or tuning those business functions, not by addressing the ICT that supports them. Sure, ICT may measure, meter, manage and provide guiding intelligence to the business on how those various functions may be improved, but ultimately it will be a business decision whether or not the business functions are left as-is or are changed. If the business decides a function will continue, then ICT will simply be asked to get on with delivering the application environment in a cheap and efficient manner.

Finally, the emissions of greenhouse gases are being internalised into a company’s balance sheet via the proxy of real currency (meaning you’ll have to pay for it), via cap and trade and carbon taxation schemes like the UK’s Carbon Reduction Commitment. This will introduce a sliding scale of charges related to total emissions resulting from business activity.

It will be a business decision how such charges will be allowed to influence operational strategy, not an ICT one. Sales, Finance, the executive management team and the Board will ultimately decide, and the CIOs will do what they need to provide the required set of services.

This isn’t at all to say that ICT won’t play a strong role in achieving a low carbon economic model. Indeed, there will be additional opportunities and challenges ahead for the ICT industry as a whole and for individual CIOs to grapple with. The mantle of strategic leadership lies elsewhere however – dealing with climate change and formulating a successful path forward for the company is a challenge that must be spearheaded at corporate executive level.

With all due respect to the EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media, Mrs Viviane Reding: ICT isn’t the right place for leadership if we are to solve this problem correctly.

Originally published in eWeek Europe:
http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/comment/get-real-reding-ict-can-t-save-the-world–427

Every parent learns the trick of reverse psychology. Its cheap, its unsophisticated, but heh….whatever works.

Those doubting the USA’s new-found passion for driving an economic reconnaissance on the back of a “green” agenda will find a strong suggestion for the new Obama administrations resolve in the unlikely grounds of an Iraqi complex for orphans in Tikrit. It comes in the form of a 2.5 metre long statue of a shoe. Sculptor Laith al-Amiri masterpiece is a lovingly crafted replica of one of the shoes hurled at Ex-President Bush by journalist Muntadhir al-Zaidi in Baghdad.

That act, and the monument it has inspired represents more than anything how low the opinion of the USA has fallen to amongst a larger proportion of the Arab (oil bearing) world. They have lost leadership not just economically, but also inspirationally, morally, and industrially. But here’s the most important thing and also why any of this is relevant to the “sustainability” story: The Obama administration are keenly aware of the existence and magnitude of that loss. And it is worth emphasising that the Obama administrations newly minted existence itself is also a reflection of the same awareness of that fact too, amongst the majority of the electorate. It is a sure thing that the Whitehouse staff have little enough time on their hands right now to be minutely following the fibreglassing and metalwork career of al-Amiri. It’s also pretty much guaranteed to be true that the thought of a monument to the execution of the most heinous insult an Arab can give being a final symbol of the US’s impact on Iraq would be an unwelcome one.

That keen awareness of America’s down and nearly out position on the world-stage is however transforming into a spirited and forceful turnaround. Like the turning manoeuvre of an ocean liner it is going to take time to set the economy off in a new direction and to stoke the boilers back from their currently sputtering and hissing state. However once turned and sailing their wake will influence the direction and pace of others.

Obama is pointing toward the US’s future - “Green Industry”. Environmentalists are rightly sceptical of our collective ability to engineer our way away from catastrophic climate change. With that reality check in mind, have no doubt that from an economic point of view that “green innovation” will be the underlying technology engine driving the next macro economic wave around the world.

The Obama Whitehouse will do everything to make sure that the US gets a big slice of that wallet. They will do everything they can to ensure that the US position is back to where they feel it should be - one of dominance on the world political and economic stages. You don’t have to like that, but you do have to recognise it.

And if they ever feel that someone else is nipping at the heels of the pace of their innovation and investment efforts, they need only to look to an orphanage in Tikrit to get the necessary boot up their behinds.