Category: Sustainability

Valuing natural assets, like near pristine bushland and water catchments, is not always easy. Dr David Suzuki, at a recent Legacy Lecture in Adelaide, put it succinctly saying: ‘in his view it was no longer acceptable to damage pristine environmental systems – there are far too few of them left’.

The Australian New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission agrees. In its Project Assessment of BHP’s 60 billion dollar coal project – just outside of Sydney – it found:

“the level of impacts proposed … for some significant natural features are no longer acceptable practice. … The Panel is of the view that it is no longer a viable proposition for mining to cause more than negligible damage to pristine or near-pristine waterways in drinking water catchments or where these waterways are elements of significant conservation areas or significant river systems.”

BHP Billiton, after previously holding the project was only viable with mining under this area of significance have now revised the project. The decision effectively puts a high value on significant natural assets. Arguably, the difference between the previous project’s value and the new significantly reduced mining proposal.

Sustainability is obviously more than numbers and measurement. We know this but sometimes decision making loses sight of our motivations. Consequently, art has a big role to play.

Next week Waking in fear and living in hope – what kind of art do we need now? the first of 3 forums in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane kicks off.

Re-imagining a global future through dialogue and action TippingPointAustralia explore ways we can adapt to and mitigate functionally, culturally and socially the effects of climate change.

There are free public events covering hope to silver linings to citizenship.

The synergy between art and sustainability is strong. The picture above is in my 2005 Graham F Smith Peace Trust dinner talk – full talk and pictures are here. And this year the integration was partly the subject of a joint USA Harvard, Australia and China Climate Change and Society colloquium here.

Or, for an environmental self portrait of America, see Chris Jordan‘s great site (click the pictures to zoom)! Plus check the full list of TippingPoint speakers, participants and their websites.

If Australia puts a price on carbon – tax or trading – we are not going it alone.

The Climate Institute commissioned Vivid Economics to look at electricity in Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States.

It compared clean energy incentives and carbon costs – the graphic illustrates 2010.

Australia has the second lowest price, which arguably results in far less innovation and support for clean technology growth. And the impact is tangible with Chinese wind power capacity now greater than the USA. Its set to expand by another nine America’s in the next 10 years.

Climate institute report here, Greenpeace and Global Wind Energy Council here.

Hot on the heels of the Carbon Disclosure Project’s 2010 report the United Nations has just released its global environmental damage assessment.

At a staggering $ 6.6 trillion – equivalent to 11% of global GDP for damage caused by human activity in 2008 – its bigger than the Global Financial Crisis.

The study projects that the monetary value – from water and air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, general waste and depleted resources – could reach $28.6 trillion in 2050.

Other study headlines include:

• The top global 3,000 public companies were responsible for $ 2.15 trillion worth of environmental damage in 2008.
• More than 50 percent of company earnings could be at risk from environmental costs (in an equally weighted portfolio).
• Damage costs are generally higher than the cost of preventing or limiting pollution and resource depletion.

UN PRI and UNEP Why environmental externalities matter to institutional investors Executive Summary here.

The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) reports are now out. On behalf of 534 institutional investors, holding $64 trillion in assets under management, this is the 8th year CDP has reported. From just 235 organisations in 2003, 2,500 now measure and disclose greenhouse gas emissions – and what their actions are to manage or mitigate the impacts – to the CDP.

Importantly there are some interesting new entries. Like Nestlé which débuts  in CDP’s leadership index for the first time.

CDP is relevant for any organisation or business. It asks 10 questions of major companies. One of these is what actions are the companies taking in the supply chain. Which means any organisation involved in delivering, or wanting to deliver, a product or service to 2,500 major corporations around the world should read the CDP.

That’s most of us and there are 64 trillion reasons to do it.

Earlier this week 60 Minutes showed Bloom Energy‘s Bloom Box and the topic trended #1 on google. It’s quite a result – a high level of interest in new technical ways of generating electricity and power.

Fuel cells have great potential. This 3000 home power station in Korea is currently generating electricity and heat at 80% efficiency. It produces power at about AUD 0.23 per unit (roughly similar to the retail price of electricity in Australia) and 50% of this price is gas – a relatively expensive imported commodity in Korea. In Australia or other countries with gas resources the power could be a lot cheaper.

Fuel cells, in a world first from Australian company BlueGen, are also installed in houses. The units, about the size of 2 washing machines, promise to cut household power bills by about $1,100. Costs to the homeowners are still being worked on.

Picture: BlueGen Home fuel cell. It produces up to 75% less carbon dioxide emissions than Victoria’s current coal-fired generators – saving up to 18 tonnes of carbon per unit per year.

One of the most frequent concerns about environmental sustainability – going green – is that people will only act to maximise self-interest. There’s a body of evidence that this is not the case (links below) and Jeremy Rifkin, in this short 10 minute video, summarises some of our collaborative drivers.

The talk covers human behaviours that can deliver a real sustainable advantage to companies acting on climate change.

For some more background see Just who collaborates in the real world? and Carbon neutral companies seeing the advantages.

Walmart is consistently mentioned for it’s green sustainability initiatives. From being the first company to work with the Carbon Disclosure Project establishing an emissions strategy for its entire supply chain – over 100,000 companies – to recently with sustainable fish supplies in Brazil and ‘traceability’ for food products.

Traceability will see it bar code agricultural items. This lets customers quickly find out where food has come from, how it’s been produced and is a gateway for transparency. If we know the background for food, it’s easier to stop deforestation and other impacts of food production.

Walmart’s Héctor Núñez says: Due to all the challenges in cattle raising related to the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, meat is the first item in this program.  

And why take such environmental steps? Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund summed it up speaking about the supply chain initiatives: Walmart’s bold move will help companies identify steps to slash pollution and costs. Importantly, they also point out, its: good for business and good for customers!

Image: Ambalaj sustainable packaging

Just launched is this excellent summary of Climate Change from the Australian Academy of Science. It should answer everyone’s doubts or opposition to taking action. Of course it won’t,

So why do we have such difficulty in learning what we most need to know to mitigate our most destructive behaviours? Dorothy Rowe, Australian psychologist and emeritus associate of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, explains that we make decisions, about what to do, from the different interpretations each of us make.

As this New Scientist article about her recent book puts it:

we cannot see “reality” directly. All we can ever know are the guesses or interpretations our mind creates about what is going on. To create these guesses, we can only draw on basic human neuroanatomy and on our past experience. …

As a result, for global issues like climate change, no matter how much evidence we accumulate our truths will always be approximations. That is lying to ourselves about uncertainty – particularly present in issues like climate change – gives us certainty! Something we desire.

What to do? Climate Change Leadership explores motivation and we shouldn’t forget there’s significant advantages and profits to be had for countries and businesses that act.

Climate change needs political leadership. It’s an obvious requirement but a recent survey from the University of Queensland reveals some startling gaps. Out of 300 Australian federal, state and local government political leaders, 70% agreed with the statement that the planet is warming because of human activity producing greenhouse gases.

However, 17% are uncertain if they agreed or not. It raises the question of what awareness is necessary for these leaders to be informed? The survey finds that politicians say scientists are the most influential people when it comes to framing their views. Yet, less than 40% of the politicians agree with the IPCC scientists on global temperature – that a limit of 2 degrees or less of warming is necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.

It’s a global gap. For example in Sweden politicians scored 70% answering questions on climate change. But it’s more than a knowledge gap. We must hear discordant voices, multifarious human beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviours says Mike Hulme investigating climate change disagreements.

In other words knowledge is necessary but not sufficient. Understanding how people interpret this information is important.

As Centre for Research on Environmental Decisions puts it climate change solutions are workable, cost-effective technologies which permit society to improve living standards… Yet scientific, engineering, and organizational solutions are not enough. Societies must be motivated and empowered to adopt the needed changes.

Picture: Centre for Research on Environmental Decisions, The Psychology of Climate Change Communication.