Do You Need to "Believe" in Climate Change?

Posted April 22, 2008 | 10:38 AM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

Another Earth Day is here. It's probably trite to say, "Hey, every day is Earth Day", but I'll give it a go. Yes, we need to worry about Earth stuff every day, but not just because the planet is in peril - which is a pretty good reason. Think of it this way: the Earth is often metaphorically compared to our home and, as a fairly recent homeowner, I can tell you that your home needs care and feeding much, much more than once a year (my small lawn of non-pesticide laden, eco-cared-for grass and natural weeds grows really fast). It's a constant battle to keep a house running smoothly and providing for you and your family.

But let's take a business perspective. Minding your costs, taking care of your assets, figuring out and fulfilling customer needs - all part of green value creation - are best done consistently and aggressively, not just in big flashy moments of marketing excitement. The days of "plant a tree" Earth Day celebrations being the only thing companies do are over. But many execs still see green as a checkbox exercise, not a corporate mandate and core strategy - do a few things such as retrofitting a facility or putting together a CSR report and move on.

But the environmental work we have ahead of us will be hard and ongoing. Luckily, it should get easier over time. Like the "flywheel" analogy from the bestseller Good to Great, you keep pushing away, and you start to get some real momentum.

All this relates to a question I've been struggling with lately: Does it matter if a company or its execs believe in climate change and other environmental imperatives? What got me started on this weeks ago was GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz' comment that "global warming is a crock of s***." And at nearly every talk I give on green business, people at all levels in companies from CEOs down inform me that climate change is not real.

My approach in these moments has generally been to stay quiet or point out that it doesn't really matter whether you believe it or not, as long as you buy that going green is good for business. If you're still pursuing green value through, say, eco-efficiency or product innovation, then who cares what you believe. This is basically what Lutz went on to say after his more colorful remarks ("My thoughts on what has or hasn't been the cause of climate change have nothing to do with the decisions I make to advance the cause of General Motors"). This general idea that you don't really need the first half of the Green Wave (made up of natural forces/pressures and stakeholders), is a key point my co-author and I make in our book Green to Gold.

But I'm beginning to wonder.

Yes, in the short run, you can go down a profitable green path with the conviction that if enough of your stakeholders care, it's good for business. But what about in the longer-run, as the excitement that's swept the business world quiets down and we have to make this new green way of doing business work?

Innovation is hard. Creating new products and services and finding new markets for them is hard. Handling what may be a permanent rise in the cost of all commodities and thus the cost of doing business is extremely hard. Won't all these pursuits go a lot easier if there's a bit more on the line than "well, we just have to do this because our competitors are doing it and customers are asking for it"? Won't employees drive harder if they and their bosses believe the underpinnings of why it's good for business? When Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer said recently that dealing with climate change "will be hard work and there is little time," I believe his employees appreciated the blunt honesty and could set their nose to the flywheel/grindstone.

So does belief matter? I don't have the answer, but I have my suspicions. The now oft-told green business success story of the Toyota Prius still speaks volumes - the company set out to make an environmental car. It wasn't just an efficiency pursuit, but a real belief that the 21st century needed a form of transportation that reduced environmental burden. Going forward, GM may have trouble matching Toyota's innovations if attitudes remain so different.

In the end, doesn't it hurt morale, creativity, and productivity to hear your boss say one of the biggest drivers for action is a crock?


Comments
83
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

You must be joking - have you ever actually worked in a major corporation before? Do you really believe that morale, creativity, and productivity will be lower because employees are upset the CEO doesn't believe in climate change? Are environmentalist living in reality or their own world?

The things in a company that lower morale, creativity and productivity are workers losing health benefits because the company is trying to save money or not having prescriptions covered anymore or the company changing their insurance to a plan that is cheaper so they get lower rates, job insecurity, not knowing if there will be more layoffs, not having child care facilities so that a substantial portion of their check has to pay for it, not having your work valued, being treated like garbage by CEOs who only care about raising the price of their stocks, experiencing racism when you try to be promoted while incompetant people get the jobs.

I really doubt people are the concerned with how their CEO feels about global warming but the fanatics who tell us the world is ending and being "green" is the most important thing is the world don't live in reality. The fact is that companies being "green" or people driving hybrid cars won't change much of anything. We should be spending all our money on finding alternative sources of energy and paying scientists to research that instead of telling people that if their company isn't "green" the world is going to end.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:24 PM on 04/23/2008

Yup, you guys just keep building those SUV's and as the price of gas continues to stay high, more and more of the increasing majority who understand that "green" doesn't necessarily denote fanaticism will just continue not buying them. And Toyota will KEEP kicking GM's sorry ass all over the schoolyard.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:00 AM on 04/25/2008

It is so amazing how some individuals are able to so illogically disassociate "their reality"--that personal or small collective & subjective POV that can exist between four walls--from the far more concrete collective reality that encompasses all other subsets.

Your "corporate reality" will cease to exist without a sound environment to uphold its existence; if corporations [mostly the larger, public, multi-national corporations] do not begin down the road to sustainability, the world that encapsulates your "reality" will fail, and all else we know goes with it.

While it is true that nothing about global warming is so concrete that it cannot be disputed, the consensus is real among those we pay to study and understand the environment and what lies ahead of us. And it is this FACT that puzzles me about so called "conservatives," as the belligerent denial of the best information we have flies in the face of true conservatism. The idea that acting on the recommendations is somehow more harmful than a "wait and see" attitude, and that the majority of concerned people are merely liberals with a political agenda, is impossible to fathom, if indeed these are true "conservatives" espousing such opinions of resistance.

And it's not just picking on companies or corporations--but such are huge players in all of this, and they cannot be exempted from necessary change due to faux-conservative greed and selfishness.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:43 AM on 04/24/2008

Did Toyota *really* set out to make an environmental car? In Japan, which imports 100% of their oil, and thus is more sensitive to commodity fluctuations, the Prius is marketed merely as a cool gadget. Their ads make no mention of fuel efficiency or the environment.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:15 AM on 04/23/2008

First off, thanks to all for a good discussion and debate. But to answer this question specifically, yes, Toyota set out to make an environmental car. To be more specific, they actually were trying to build the "21st Century Car", and hit upon "environment" as the critical word/factor/goal. The story is told well in The Toyota Way by Jeffrey Liker. On the marketing, I'd suggest that how something is pitched is not necessarily indicative of it's goal. Quite often, green products are pitched on other dimensions, like quality, health, or in this case, cool technology. That's often advisable -- very few people buy solely on green...although, again, the Prius is an oddball case study -- at one point a year ago roughly 60% of people buying a Prius had no other car in mind -- that's brand dominance.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:46 PM on 04/23/2008

This whole idea that we can believe in anything we want or dismiss what we want is so reflective of our narcisistic culture. As if, scientists can work decades uncovering evidence and we can watch the ice caps melt in front of our collective faces and we can still choose not to believe in global warming. Then many of the same folks choose to believe in "Intelligent Design," as if believing it makes it a field of actual scientific endeavor. No scientific work is being done in this field and even its advocates approach the issue like it is a free speech debate, by arguing that people have a right to say what they believe, as if that makes it science.

Scientists have measured the melting of the ice mass on the poles. They have identified another process called solar dimming whereby particles in the air lessen the intensity of the sun, which would otherwise mean that global warming would be affecting us even faster. We can work with scientists to discuss policy ramifications of their work and our consequent need for fossil fuels. It is the only responsible alternative. We do bear some responsibility for our stewardship of the planet and the climatic conditions we hand down to our children, where we can affect it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:54 PM on 04/22/2008

Save your "belief" for your religion. This is science and it calls for understanding, which unfortunately is quite a bit like "heavy lifting" and some people have either an aversion to it or an inability to do it, so instead we believe in those that say they can...unfortunately a lot of those who say they can, either can't or don't. For instance any number of environmental writers who are great writers but are not themselves scientists who then ask scientists who are biologists but who themselves aren't climate modellers who then ask scientists who actually understand modelling and it's predictive abilities...but already we're into the "heavy lifting" area, aren't we, and the polar bears are all gonna drown, no? No. The polar bears are gonna feast like kings when the seals which are on the ice to escape the polar bears so they don't get eaten, now have to give birth on rocky shoals, islands and coastlines accessible to polar bears who will with all the extra calories be giving birth to lots of cubs. But don't worry about the seals, there will be lots of them to spare since the removal of sea ice means more sunlight on water which means more plankton, more fish and so on. Unless you believe polar bears need the ice for something else...what?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:57 PM on 04/22/2008

What's going on in this country is really amazing. Absolutely everything causes people to pick a side. Once that side is picked, nothing the other says will matter. It's not even just about matters of opinion, like politics or religion, it's everything. Science is science. How people can try to argue that is beyond me. "It's a consensus, so it's not fact." Okay, whatever. You know, there've always been people who believe the world is flat. So I guess it was only a "consensus" that the world is round and not a dead-on fact.

Is global warming real? Well, if you look at this study and ignore that report, then everything is fine. No, we're killing the planet.

You want to debate about euthanasia, social welfare, universal healthcare, or corporate taxes, go for it. Those are matters of opinions. Science is not opinion. Just because you disagree with someone on an issue of opinion, why does that have to carry over and force you to disagree about an issue of fact?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:33 PM on 04/22/2008

Let me turn the discussion around for the believers of AGW. I"m sure you all have done research, looked at the IPCC data, no doubt have studied the NAOO data on sea levels, Investigated the solar flare data cycles for the past 150 yrs, has studied the correlations of CO2 vs. temperature , and has found that temperature rise precedes increase in CO2, has understood that the IPCC projections for sea level and temperature rises had to be diminished substantially from their 2001 prognostications, still not believe that the earth is not going through a natural cycle ?

Would it shock you to believe that the North America as far down as the American Plains was encapsulated in an ICE sheet 1 mile thick as recent as 10,000-12,000 yrs ago? One mile thick!! Can you fathom that? It has since retreated well before the advent of the industrial revolution.

Would it shock you to believe that sea levels several thousand years ago were 500 FT lower than then present? This was an enabling circumstance fro the original Americans to walk the land bridge across the Bering strait " sea levels had obviously started to rise due to the Hunter Gatherers gas powered Mastodons.

So please produce the data, not some IPCC mouthpiece talking point, but data that invalidates the natural cycles of earth as a cause of climate change. Then start debating the salient points which have led to the rather mild IPCC conclusions on sea levels and temp rises

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:53 PM on 04/22/2008

I am curious why anyone should bother to produce any reference on your request; you make nefarious claims on multiple subjects here at HuffPo, but consistenly fail to backup those very questionable assertions with verifiable information or links to such.

The majority consensus backs the primary view of progressives / liberals: global warming is real, and must be acted on.

By all rights it is YOU who bears the onus of refuting the majority consensus with verifiable source information. If you cannot do so, then you are not significant enough of an opponent to bother engaging in an argument.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:53 AM on 04/24/2008

Yes, the scientists have measured the data. They measure how warm our seas have been by boring into the coral reefs. They have bored into the glaciers to study what climatic conditions were like in earlier eras by studying the different levels of gases present in the ice. The data is there and the IPCC synthesizes much of it. Because the glaciers once extended to America means little in terms of what we are seeing today with our frenetic industrialization.

You comments on the IPCC is typical conservative propaganda, Whenever conservatives do not like the findings of any body, scientific or otherwie, they attack it as having an agenda. The conservatives themselves are usually the ones with the most rigid agenda.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:05 AM on 04/23/2008

The answer in my case, is "yes", I have investigated. Quite alot.

But let me ask you, Sparky...

Have you done the math and physics to understand special relativity (SR)? Or general relativity (GR)? Or quantum mechanics? Probably not. Yet I suspect you "believe" your GPS (which depends on both SR and GR), and every little solid-state device you buy, which depend on quantum mechanics.

The more relevant question is: Do you believe in science?

The consensus of the literature is VERY clear. I don't expect you to understand the literature, but trust the scientific process -- or at least give it the benefit of the doubt. I believe this is one process that's earned it.

Since you don't like the IPCC, I refer you to the websites of the following professional scientific societies, all of which have convened their own panels, drawing on the expertise of their membership, and published statements concurring with the conclusions of the IPCC:

American Geophysical Union (largest organization of geoscientists, at around 50,000 members)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (world's most prestigious)
American Meteorological Society
National Academy of Science (and the national academies of two dozen other countries)
American Chemical Society (largest scientific organization on the planet)
Geological Society of America
American Physical Union
Royal Society
National Association of State Climatologists
etc.

In fact, you'll not find a single scientific society that disagrees. So, as a matter of risk management, perhaps we can just get on with mitigation...

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:05 PM on 04/22/2008

It is obvious that your elitist rancor outweighs your ability to form coherent thoughts on the GW discussion. Just because you have the foresight to consult Wikepedia for your laundry list of consenting organizations, does not impress me at all.

There are many scientists from those same organizations that are not monolithic in their opinions of the causes, the extent , and the severity of the problem. I will take NASA as an example. The head of the organization added his voice to the consensus opinion. Many of the members , with whom I have acquaintances are almost diametrically opposed to the position Hanson has taken. This scenario can be applied to all of the organizations including the IPCC. You may disagree with your governments positions on a number of issues, but the outside world sees Rice, Bush ,et al as setting policy. The same applies to scientific organizations.

It is no secret that very large amounts of government Grant money is applied to organizations willing to make a go at postulating various theories on the effects of Global Warming. It makes the oil company grants look stingy. This is why a number of the GW conclusions on it"s effects border on total absurdity.

Nobody debates a one degree increase over the past 100 yrs , and a 30 % increase of CO2. It means nothing, and cannot predict any consequences- good or Bad. I believe it is you that is ignorant of science. . Back to your Tea and

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:01 PM on 04/22/2008

You say: "Many of the (NASA) members, with whom I have acquaintances are almost diametrically opposed to the position Hanson has taken. This scenario can be applied to all of the organizations including the IPCC." Fine, then who are they and where have they published their findings. Or is it just the fact that they mentioned their objections to Hansen's conclusions to you in passing.
(By the way, since you know him so well, his name is spelled Hansen and not Hanson.)

You also say: "you may disagree with your governments positions on a number of issues, but the outside world sees Rice, Bush ,et al as setting policy. The same applies to scientific organizations." Are you trying to say that Bush decids what the scientific findings are. His idea to do nothing about climat change may be policy, but it is not founded on science.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 AM on 04/23/2008

So what contention do you dispute? Do you think that greenhouse gasses do not raise temperatures? Do you believe that we are not producing greenhouse gasses? Do you not believe that the amount of gasses has a significant effect?
More importantly, what is your margin of error of your believe, and what is your cost/benefit analysis?
If there is a 20% chance that global climate change will cost us 60 trillion dollars, and an 80% chance it will not (which is wildly optimistic towards your point of view), then logically spending 12 trillion dollars-more than the entire US GDP-to prevent it is the only intelligent action.
Otherwise you are saying that there is no doubt, global climate change is impossible (or it is impossible that it is caused by human action), and so spending money on it is dumb. If so, you are no longer arguing that there is still dispute, you are hiding under your blanket singing "la la la I'm not listening."

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:30 PM on 04/22/2008

Aaror, it is so hilarious that Urbanite says your ability to mention which scientific groups comprise the IPCC does not impress him, as if it is your responsibilty to impress him. He is saying that he doubts the concensus of 80% to 90% of scientists that think man-made global warming is a fact, then he expects you to prove to him that they are correct, instead of otherwise. He misspells the name of the top NASA scientist who has done much of the work on climate change (James Hansen) and mentions some who have spoken to him in disagreement, but does not mention names or what they have published.

He says a one degree change in temperatures is not so bad, but I believe scientists have identified three degrees as the tipping point from where we have not been as hot as in thousands of years and from where much of the frozen methane gasses underneath the world's oceans may be released..

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:26 AM on 04/23/2008

Let me repeat what others have said. Whether or not you 'believe' in global warming all-out conservation is the ONLY logical way to proceed from a cost/conservation/environmental standpoint. BUT, you get the feeling that a lot of the folks who claim to not 'believe in' global climate change are refusing to listen out of fear that someone will come and take their 'stuff' away from them. Simple conservation is poison to them too. They see it all as a zero-sum game. The better society does at husbanding the earths resources the less these individuals get to hoard for themselves. Selfish juvenile short-term-thinking mindset.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:26 PM on 04/22/2008

The deniers would rather have a robust economy than clean air and water.
The believers have their hearts in the right place but many still don't act.
The apathetic may be blissfully unaware or consciously unwilling to put energy into it.
The Amish, now those folks get it! Hope the rising temps don't screw them too.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:09 PM on 04/22/2008

People are bad at predicting the future, particularly when they are trying to predict actions by complex systems. We can't predict what the weather is going to be next month or next year with a high degree of accuracy, so predicting the extent and pace of global warming must be uncertain.

But I disagree completely that the fact that we have been incorrect before and are almost certainly incorrect to some degree now means that we shouldn't reduce the amount of carbon we are putting in the atmosphere. The risk we run by not reducing it seems greater than the risk we run by reducing it -- even taking into account the fact that there will be some dislocation to the world economy (as well as the creation of many economic opportunites).

US dependence on foreign oil is bad for our economy and for politics; this will only get worse as oil becomes increasingly scarce. Efforts to move away from a carbon-based economy may be necessary from an economic, political and envioronmental point of view.

If business people view "green" activities as good for business, it may not matter whether they "believe" that human activity causes climate change. Yet the market may reward actions that don't get us the most bang for our green buck.

The extent to which human conduct has contributed to global warming is interesting but not the right question, which is whether global warming is happening, represents a danger, and can be reduced by human conduct.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:57 PM on 04/22/2008

The CEO's who embrace going green will still be in business 10, 15, 20 years from now.

The ones who don't, the market (as conservatives always say) will get rid of.

Seems quite simple to me.

What do you want, lots of money in the short term, or a successful, ongoing business?

Of course, conservatives will choose the quick money.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:49 PM on 04/22/2008

Quite the contrary. Most conservatives that I know in business would rather have a successful, ongoing business, which they can leave to their children or grandchildren.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:50 PM on 04/22/2008

The clowns running the oil industry are all related to the character played by Daniel Day-Lewis is "There Will Be Blood." Violent, greedy, brutal, and single-minded, they all "believe" that God has blessed them with the ability to turn shit into gold. The irony is that their industry has thrived by using the science they scorn when it comes to global warming. What other scientific principles do they not believe in? Gravity? The hydrologic cycle? We live in the New Dark Ages in which a thousand years of empirical science is thrown out the window by fools who are too stupid to pour warm piss out of a boot. Our children are taught "intelligent design" instead of evolutionary biology, all in the name of balance. The notion that there is "western civilization" is belied by our actions as superstitious, backward rubes. As the saying goes, you can choose your opinions but you can't choose your own facts. The laws of physics and of karma are inscrutable, ineluctable, and inelastic and we will all learn this very soon.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:35 PM on 04/22/2008

The supply of oil in the world is finite (unless the earth starts soaking up oil from intergalactice dark matter). Do we have to completely run out before there is any urgency to find an alternative?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:16 PM on 04/22/2008

"The supply of oil in the world is finite (unless the earth starts soaking up oil from intergalactic dark matter). Do we have to completely run out before there is any urgency to find an alternative?"

i have been wondering the same thing myself, mrjoyboy.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:19 PM on 04/22/2008

why would you say petroleum is finite. What are the processes that created it? i understood its the remains of once living matter. It is in a liquid state from the high pressures the material is exposed to-along with temperature. Geotech engineers and geologists have gotten good a identifying the strata that oil is typically found in. In fact, that is how we are still finding new reserves. Now, granted, our removal of oil may be at a faster pace in which it has been created. But the processes creating oil are ongoing.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:51 PM on 04/22/2008

I like to put it this way. You are standing on a set of railroad tracks, looking into a tunnel where you see a light coming towards you. If you choose to believe it's just the other side of the tunnel, that's your option. However, if you refuse to jump off the tracks you will die no matter what you believe.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:49 PM on 04/22/2008

If you wish to have your green ideas better received focus on energy independence and pollution abatement.

And drop the anthropogenic global warming stuff.

And question whether your embrace of AGW is in itself an embrace of a big business public relations agenda -- cap and trade.

Embrace of AGW is not healthy for the environmental agenda. It is a parasite.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:30 PM on 04/22/2008

Peak Oil will provide the impetus for conservation. There will be an endless slowing of the world economy destroying demand for all energy as financial markets dry up, jobs go away and people spend more and more on food and fuel.

The financial markets will go by the wayside as the uncertainty of a future without cheap and abundant energy sucks the profit out of any kind of real growth.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:27 PM on 04/22/2008

Whether some dude ascended into heaven on the back of a white horse or whether another dude was born of a virgin and died for your sins are matters of FAITH. Whether the earth is getting more polluted and is warming unnaturally are matters of EVIDENCE. Learn to know the difference.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:24 PM on 04/22/2008

The fact that the scientific data is all there means little to men and women who do not read scientific data, which makes up most of the corporate administrative class. If your well rounded education left you with a degree in business or marketing or economics, it is more than likely you cannot understand science and so dismiss it as inconclusive.

Sadly, this is the most important issue facing all of us, and it was no where to be seen during that pitiful "debate" last week, and of those who do comment look at the absurdity of the defenders of CEOs ignorance, e.g., that the overwhelming scientific evidence of human degradation of our planet's ability to sustain life is "nothing more than a somewhat educated guess" or the rather obtuse connections of "beliefs" bizarrely strung together by Mr. Overdog ending with a meaningless reference to "incomplete data".

My suggestion to the willfully ignorant, why not start with E.O. Wilson's "The Future of Life". It's a book (you might have heard of such things, they're sometimes used by humans trying to understand complicated issues and ideas), and while the latest evidence makes Wilson's warnings appear to be a bit too upbeat, it will give you a background understanding as to why the next generation will want to bring the Greatest generation, the Boomers and Gen X back to life so they can beat them to death with a plastic tree limb.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:02 PM on 04/22/2008

"The fact that the scientific data is all there means little to men and women who do not read scientific data, which makes up most of the corporate administrative class. If your well rounded education left you with a degree in business or marketing or economics, it is more than likely you cannot understand science and so dismiss it as inconclusive."

You're certainly a smart guy, no doubt about that. But there are plenty who have degrees in "marketing" and "economics" who support AGW solutions. Indeed, their "marketing" of the "economic" solution of cap and trade is quite brilliant. They channeled your general environmental concerns into the pit of AGW. They're certainly smart guys too!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:34 PM on 04/22/2008

Let's see, trading CO2 is a con game to appease polluters...yes, far too many people have these make-believe degrees, and yes again, some of them can read and don't tow the line of standard corporate-think.
Now, I take it that you and MD and UV have already had time to read Wilson's book...Wow! I am impressed, do you guys have MBAs just like Pres. Bush? I hear he's a speed reader too.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:58 PM on 04/22/2008