SustainAbility Radar Carbon June 2006

The Business of Carbon
Geoff Lye
lye@sustainability.com

Inventors and entrepreneurs at the heart of the 18th-century Industrial Revolution could have had little idea that unlocking the power of fossil fuels would trigger an unprecedented concentration of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere. When James Watt invented the steam engine, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was at about 270 parts per million (ppm). Today it stands in the region of 387 ppm and is rising fast: the outlook is for it to break 700 ppm this century unless we take drastic and urgent action.

The issue of climate change first took to the world stage in 1988 through a ground-breaking speech given by the UK’s then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher (a speech in part developed and written by Sir Crispin Tickell, uncle of SustainAbility Chair Sophia Tickell). By the time of the Earth Summit in 1992, the issue — recognised as the most serious global environmental threat — was addressed by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which had at its heart a commitment to the ‘stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’.

When the convention was signed, no specific target was set for the level of stabilisation, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has since concluded that the range of 450—550 ppm is the highest concentration which is not only practically and economically achievable but also likely to avoid the most abrupt and catastrophic shifts in weather patterns and intensity. Yet only a handful of governments and even fewer businesses are willing to commit to those levels of CO2 concentrations as guiding principles for regulation and business strategy.

That said, the business community has been increasingly active in recognising the inevitability of carbon constraints and higher energy costs. Most carbon intensive industries have been focusing on energy savings to deliver both environmental and economic benefits; some have demonstrated significant reductions in the carbon intensity of their operations — often delivering huge cost savings. The range of global companies’ responses and actions on climate change has been admirably reviewed by Ceres, a US coalition of investors and NGOs working with companies to address sustainability challenges. Their recent report Corporate Governance and Climate Change: Making the Connection (page 07) provides real insight into current best practice.

When it comes to the specific issue of climate stabilisation, few companies appear to have accepted the strategic implications of the IPCC’s recommendations. A number, including American Electric Power, DuPont and Shell, have public positions which implicitly accept and support the concept, calling on governments to act to avoid future uncertainty and to enable long-term investments to be made with greater confidence and a level playing field.

Another 24 leading CEOs signed up to a statement, prepared by the G8 Climate Change Roundtable convened by the World Economic Forum, in response to an invitation from the UK Prime Minister to provide a business perspective on climate change in advance of the 2005 G8 summit. Among its many progressive and urgent calls for governmental action, it pressed the G8 to ‘move expeditiously to adopt climate stabilisation targets that will define the
scope and scale of mitigation needed in the years ahead’. Notably, however, they did not specifically support (or dispute) the IPCC proposed ceiling.

Two of those signatories were Bill Ford and Lord Browne. Ford and BP are the only major companies I can identify which make explicit commitments in their own strategic planning to climate stabilisation with specific CO2 concentration targets.

It is no coincidence that these were the two lead sponsors of research by Princeton into the viability of stabilising emissions of CO2 at 2005 levels within 50 years. The research concluded that it should be possible to secure emissions stabilisation on the basis of global programmes to shift the mix of fuels to low(er) carbon energy sources and to use fossil energy more efficiently. They refer to the potential strategic shifts as ‘wedges’ (illustrated in their figure overleaf). Princeton’s conclusions were clear, encouraging and sufficiently convincing for their sponsoring partners, BP and Ford, not only to adopt as policy the need for society to act to stabilise at the 500 to 550ppm level, but to go further and acknowledge that they have an active role to play in driving towards that goal.

For many years, BP’s public position on climate has been that they:

‘support precautionary action to limit GHG emissions, even though aspects of the science are still the subject of expert debate. In our view, the goal must be to stabilise GHG levels through sustainable long-term emissions reductions. We support the emerging consensus that it
would be prudent to limit the increase in the world’s temperature to about 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures. One way to achieve this would be to ensure that global emissions in 2050 are no higher than today’s — around 25 billion tonnes of CO2 a year. This is a major challenge, but we believe that the reduction can be achieved using a mixture of existing and emerging technologies.’

Similarly, Ford make a specific commitment to ‘playing a leadership role in the reduction and stabilisation of GHG emissions’. They further acknowledge, as do BP, that:

‘many scientists, businesses and governmental agencies have concluded that stabilising the atmospheric CO2 concentration at around 550 parts per million (ppm) (compared with the current 380 ppm and the pre-industrial level of approximately 270 ppm), may help forestall or substantially delay the most disruptive aspects of global climate change’.

Ford’s overarching strategy is to ‘drive to stabilisation in which low GHG vehicles reach dominant market share and fleet CO2 emissions converge with a target global stabilisation curve’.

The biggest issue for both companies is that the use phase of their products is where the greatest release of CO2 occurs. In the lifecycle of cars and trucks and of the oil business, over 90% are generated during use rather than production. Both companies accept a degree of accountability — if not full responsibility — for these emissions as well as for their direct operational emissions. This sets an interesting perspective and precedent for all businesses whose products or services are carbon intensive in any part of their lifecycle.

While making bold public statements, both companies realistically recognise, however, that they cannot address the issue of stabilisation alone and highlight the need for a multi-lateral and multi-dimensional approach. Ford’s words would no doubt be readily endorsed by BP when they note that ‘climate change is also an example of a complex 21st-century challenge that requires a systemic social, political, technological and business solution. It requires global coordination of technologies, government policies, markets and infrastructures’. To date, the record of governments as an active partner does not give cause for optimism.

Ford and BP’s commitments to stabilisation of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are, regrettably, both notable as exceptions to the broader corporate landscape. Both companies also face robust challenges from campaigners that their short term business investments and actions are not aligned with their proclaimed long term commitments. Furthermore, as I write this piece, fossil fuel prices are hitting record levels, with early signs of markets and consumers shifting towards more energy efficient goods. The rising price of oil may just succeed where science and common sense have failed.

GL

For office emplyees that qualify, telecommuting would:

• Increase fuel efficiency by the number of vehicles driven
• Decrease the number of vehicle miles travelled
• Use best efficiency practices in all residential and commerical buildings.

Telecommuting would reduce Ford's carbon footprint every work day (which is good for the world). And reduce their operating expenses (which is good for Ford).

For what future are they preparing themselves?

Windows HS: Microsoft designs a school system

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates has famously called high schools "obsolete" and warned about their effect on U.S. competitiveness. Now, his company has a chance to prove that it can help fix the woes of public education.

After three years of planning, the Microsoft Corp.-designed "School of the Future" opened its doors Thursday, a gleaming white modern facility looking out of place amid rows of ramshackle homes in a working-class West Philadelphia neighborhood.

The school is being touted as unlike any in the world, with not only a high-tech building -- students have digital lockers and teachers use interactive "smart boards" -- but also a learning process modeled on Microsoft's management techniques.

"Philadelphia came to us ... and asked us to design a school," said Craig Mundie, chief research and strategy officer of Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft. "We're going to take our best shot."

The company didn't pay the $63 million cost -- that was borne by the Philadelphia School District -- but shared its personnel and management skills. About 170 teens, nearly all black and mainly low-income, were chosen by lottery to make up the freshman class. The school eventually plans to enroll up to 750 students.

Sabria Johnson, a 14-year-old from West Philadelphia, said she is excited to be attending the school.

"We're getting a chance to do something new," said the freshman, who hopes one day to go to Harvard or to the London College of Fashion. "We don't get a lot of opportunities like the suburban kids."

Mundie said companies have long been concerned that schools aren't churning out graduates with the skills and know-how that businesses require in employees to compete globally -- and mental acuity is especially critical to Microsoft.

"Our raw material is smart people," he said.

School district CEO Paul Vallas said he was impressed by more than just the company's technology.

"I was also taken by their culture," Vallas said. "They created a culture within which ideas can be generated and acted upon."

At the 162,000-square-foot high school, which sits on nearly eight acres, the day starts at 9:15 a.m. and ends at 4:19 p.m., simulating the typical work day. Officials said studies show students do better when they start later in the day.

Students -- who are called "learners" -- use smart cards to register attendance, open their digital lockers and track calories they consume. They carry laptops, not books, and the entire campus has wireless Internet access.

Teachers, or "educators," rather than using blackboards, have interactive "smart boards" that allow teachers to zoom in and out, write or draw, and even link to the Internet.
There's no library, but an "interactive learning center" where information is all digital and a "multimedia specialist" will help out students.

Instead of a cafeteria, there's a food court with restaurant-style seating. The performance center -- where two sections rotate close to create a smaller space -- replaces the typical auditorium.

"This is completely different from any Philadelphia school I've ever seen," said Tramelle Hicks, 39, of West Philadelphia, whose 15-year-old daughter, Kierra, is going to the school. She said she believes her daughter would benefit from learning strategic and organizational skills from Microsoft.

The high school will use an "education competency wheel," patterned after a set of desirable traits Microsoft encourages among its employees. Officials, teachers and students are to be trained in dozens of skills, including organizing and planning, negotiating, dealing with ambiguity and managing relationships.

Students have scheduled appointments with teachers, typed into their online calendars, instead of being limited to structured times for classes. Their laptops carry software that assesses how quickly they're learning the lesson. If they get it, they'll dive deeper into the subject. If not, they get remedial help.

Lessons will have more incorporation of current events to teach subjects. For instance, a question of whether Philadelphia is safe from the avian flu will teach students about geography, science and history.

"Learning is not just going to school," said Shirley Grover, the school's energetic principal who came from the American School in Milan, Italy. "Learning is equal to life."

In addition, students at the school must apply to college to get a diploma.

This new approach to education has sparked the interest of Doug Lynch, vice dean of the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania.

"Two things are quite intriguing -- the willingness of the district and Microsoft to try something different," Lynch said. He cautioned, however, that while trying new methods may be valuable "we have to be careful because you're messing with kids' lives."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Does education follow business, or does business follow education?

Thank you and Good Night.

"Ford and its industry are facing a new economy and a new global marketplace. The automotive industry is reinventing itself to survive, and so must Michigan. The days of big manufacturers, big labor, and big government thriving in a big economy are ending."

-- Gov. Jennifer Granholm

Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Michigan Technology Conference Provides Thought-Provoking Keynotes

DEARBORN – More than 400 business professionals packed the Ford Motor Company Conference Center for the 2006 Michigan Technology Conference to hear futurists predict the shape of technology to come and how right-brain creative thinkers will dominate the job markets of the 21st century.

The event, sponsored by the Detroit Regional Chamber, Michigan Economic Development Corp., and Automation Alley, also featured some of the hottest technology products and services coming out of Michigan on display at some three dozen booths set up in the lobby.

The morning keynote came from Andrew Zolli, founder of Z+ Partners of Brooklyn, N.Y. He outlined future business strategies and technologies, lead by ecovation, where products and services will take their design cues from Mother Nature.

For example, nature uses advanced concepts like self-assembly, chemistry based on water rather than toxic materials and solar power. Nature also uses the power of shape to solve problems, available materials and recycling. In other words, Earth friendly, rather than Earth polluting. He cited a couple of thought provoking examples, including:

Paint that uses the microstructure and hydrophobic coating of a lotus leaf to shed dirt:

A polymer that contains self-healing cells to patch tears in aircraft wings while in flight;

Bio-engineering plants so that they change from green to red when their roots touch the chemicals contained in land mines;

Display technology based on the refractive properties of peacock feathers not light emitting diodes;

A building in Zimbabwe kept at a year-around 78 degree temperature because its design was based on the air chambers found in two-meter tall termite mounds;

Billions of tiny RFID tags and sensors embedded in everything to help you find your luggage, and remind you to take your medications;

Replacement organs and bones grown from your cloned cells:

Personalized medications, rather than mass produced pills;

A hypoallergenic cat, for people who crave animal companionship without sneezing:

The luncheon keynote was Andrew Pink, former Al Gore speech writer and now author and lecturer, who said the left-brain rational attributes of the 20th Century will be replaced by the right-brain creative, emphathic, inventive types. Because of this, Pink said three factors will drive the world economy – Abundance, Asia and Automation.

Abundance drives the growth of the self-storage industry, for people with a lot of stuff, designer products to make us stand out from the crowd and aging Baby Boomers searching for the meaning of life, since their have their material wants and needs covered.

Asia, with its huge population, will take over the routine jobs - read left brain logic and routine - now done not only by blue collar factory workers, but white collar engineers, accounts and financial services professional in the United States. Like manufacturing, these routine white collar jobs will migrate to Asia.

Automation already is replacing brawn in manufacturing, software is replacing left-brain routine tasks, except in the case of the right-brain creative types. So the big question to ask in the future about whether you'll have a job in the 21st Cetury economy is does someone outside the United States do it cheaper, can a computer do it faster. For businesses, they need to ask if they are still selling a product or service in high demand in this age of abundance?

Pink said six characteristics will drive commerce in the future:

Design. He cited a recent quote from General Motors Corp.'s Robert Lutz that "we are in the arts and entertainment business";

Story, the ability to put facts in context with emotional impact;

Symphony, the ability to see the big picture;

Empathy, the ability to see another's perspective;

Play, to have fun on the job;

Meaning, the radical idea that there's more to business than just making money. Altruistic motives drive profits – or the Zen of a business shouldn’t be just the money, but the business itself, or the money will not come.

Author: Mike Brennan Source: Mitechnews.Com

Why Thinking 'Outside the Box' Is Not So Easy

By Marion Brady

Education Week
August 30, 2006

In the fall of 1987, the Associated Press carried a story from Tacoma, Wash., about a boy “penned in a coffin-sized box for two years because his stepgrandmother feared he was brain-damaged.”

Two years in a box! Did the kid scream to get out? Feel abused? Unhappy? No. When he was let out, according to the news item, “he was amazed to learn not all children are shut up in the same way.”

The boy illustrated, literally, the difficulty of “thinking outside the box.”

We all share that difficulty. We’re bundles of unexamined beliefs about what’s proper and acceptable, and many of those unexamined beliefs relate to schooling. We cling to them not because research has shown them to be true or because they make good, common sense, but simply because lifelong immersion in the status quo makes it exceedingly difficult to imagine alternatives.