Do You Need to "Believe" in Climate Change?
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?
Follow Andrew Winston on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GreenAdvantage
Loading comments…
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
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.
"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 inconclusi
If you understand the science I have a feeling you have no clue of the effect on business and the harm all of these proposed sanctions would do to our country. People don't need an education to look out the window in Minnesota and see that it is still really cold in the winter and hot in the summer.
Take your elitist view and go talk to someone that cares.
Or, more importantly, someone smarter than BiasedPoo.
climate change isn't going to affect every single area around the world all at once. i live in the midwest. sure its still cold in the winter and warm in the summer, but its getting colder in the winter, and droughting in the summer. both seasons are lasting a little bit longer with much stronger weather than we have normally experienced in the path. what is causing such a severe change in weather and temperatures AROUND THE WORLD (not just minnesota) isn't important. what is important is that the change is happening. oil will not be around forever, if we keep using it up like we have been we could start experiencing shortages as early as 2016. planet earth (kind of like the human body) requires balance to work properly and sustain life. record-breaking droughts and increased frequency of abnormally powerful storms are not conducive to sustaining life. instead of arguing over what's causing it, why not do something to limit our impact on our environment? we only have one planet. if we fuck it up we don't get any do overs.
I've looked through the IPCC report, have you?
They manipulate the data, very obviously. For example, they had data collected from 4 different mountain ranges around the world. One of them showed a large change in air temps, so that one got a big, fat figure in the paper. A second showed a much more subtle change in air temps, so it got a smaller figure on the next page. The third and fourth showed absolutely no change in air temps, so they were only briefly mentioned in the text, with no figures provided.
They have one set of data that says the air temps have been warming since the industrial revolution, with stable temps beforehand. They have another set of data by another method that says we've been warming exponentially since the 1500's, with no explanation whatsoever for the discrepancy. They offer no explanation for why one method contradicts every other method used, and instead just lump it in as "more proof" of a warming phenomenon.
So they manipulate the reader by highlighting positive data that supports their conclusions, they play down all the negative data that undermines their conclusions, and refuse to consider that their self-contradictory methods might be unreliable, because the conclusions still support their agenda. Sure, it's science, kind of. Just not particularly good science.
"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 inconclusi
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!
Let's see, trading CO2 is a con game to appease polluters.
Now, I take it that you and MD and UV have already had time to read Wilson's book...Wow
I believe in science. Hey, just look at all the modern stuff around you that was developed through science. From cell phones, to airplanes, to rockets, to computers and the internet, to nuclear bombs, all of these things were developed through science, and hey, all of that stuff WORKS. So, scientists aren't perfect, but they have a pretty damn good track record. Without science we would be living in caves and eating berries.
So, if you believe in science, then read the IPCC reports. They aren't that difficult to understand. All of these CEOs are college graduates, aren't they? Ok, maybe not Bill Gates. I remember he dropped out to start a little software company.
As far as I'm concerned, the scientific evidence laid out in the IPCC reports is impeccable.
I believe in science but I also know that initial reports that scientists put together are proven wrong a lot of the time when more information comes in.
As far as the US temps, there is a massive credibility problem with how they record the temps and many of the sites that collect these temps are out of comliance (on assphault, next to parking lots, near jet engines, etc.)
While science has a "pretty good track record", as you say, environmentalism doesn't.
Environmentalists banned DDT worldwide, causing 50 million unnecessary deaths from mosquito borne illnesses in the most impoverished nations on the planet.
We had the whole boondoggle over MSG being a life threatening substance. Now that's all been disproven.
We had the whole boondoggle over how butter was going to kill us all, and that margarine was the answer. Nevermind that margarine was loaded with unnatural trans fats, and was actually less healthy than butter ever was.
We had the flap over MTBE. Cars were polluting too much, so environmentalists forced people to burn gasoline with MTBE added to it. Now, that very MTBE is leaking into and poisoning our groundwater in many areas of the country. And of course the environmentalists accept no responsibility in the matter, and spend all their time pointing fingers at everyone else.
On the topic of climate change, 30 years ago it was global cooling, and we were all going to be living in igloos.
During the 90's, when Al Gore was actually in the White House, instead of developing "green" technologies, they sponsored hundreds of new "non-polluting" natural gas fired power plants to be built across the nation, despite being involved in the Kyoto talks and paying lip service to CO2 as a pollutant.
The only thing consistent about environmentalists is how consistently WRONG they have been about what they profess.
And now we face worldwide food shortages because of "rush to green" programs like our biofuels boondogle
I also find it amusing that the use of "Global Warming" has been dropped by our activist pundits. It's now "Climate Change" since the models are now proving to be flawed. The big question is, at what point in Earth history wasn't the climate changing? We are either entering an ice age, or leaving one.
And now PETA is pissed at Gore for eating meat. Their consensus is that livestock cause 40% more CO2 than autos do. Huh?
If we do as Arnold and Al, most of the world's leaders and all of the PEER REVIEWED scientists recommend and they're wrong, the right wing morons, the corporate destroyers and the biostitues will still get to breathe cleaner air. They will still get to fish in, bathe in and drink cleaner water.
]
What will we get from the morons if they're wrong?
You'll have plenty of air to breathe and water to drink, because you'll be unemployed once our country unilaterally destroys its own economy on the altar of Climate Change and China becomes the new world superpower.
...said the guy who voted for the guys who destroyed the economy.
...said the guy who voted for the guys who destroyed the economy at the alter of Greed.
At what point do we let the "free market" do its "creative destruction" with GM?
$4/gallon gas and no vehicles over 30 mpg.
Nice knowing you, Lutz.
I was watching Jim Cramer last night and he reviewed his "green" stock picks from last year. They were up, on average, 35%. (while the S&P was down)
This goes to show there is money to be made in "green" companies. I don't have a problem with that. If people want to buy solar panels to make themselves feel good about their contribution to the environment, then God Bless them.
I have a problem with government mandates based on nothing more than a somewhat educated GUESS that man has caused global warming. I have a problem with climate doomsayers telling me that if I don't cut down my carbon footprint, the earth is going to blow up. (especially when these same doomsayers fly around on private jets with footprints about 20 times the size of my footprint) I have a problem with a so-called consensus replacing scientific fact. There is no such thing as a consensus in science. If there were, Columbus would have never discovered America.
You might note that when Columbus "discovered" America, it was already here. The scientific consensus on climate change is based on scientific research done by well respected scientists. Whether you choose to believe the mountains of accumulated data is for you to decide.
"This goes to show there is money to be made in "green" companies.
That's what they said about the massive amounts of Internet companies building up in the 90s, then the bubble popped.
A rise and fall in stock prices is not really determinative science.
First, you have to remember that as a rule, scientists have a hard time agreeing on anything. So, when the vast majority of scientists that study a topic come to a similar conclusion, it's time to sit up and pay attention.
The thing that keeps getting "conveniently" forgotten in the "green to gold" mentality is that the fervor over CO2 is on track to permanently destroy over a million acres of gorgeous, living, crucial desert ecosystems because it's "cheaper" to kill our planet for so-called "solar and wind farms" than to install them on previously developed land. Meet the new boss ("Mr. Renewable Greed.") Same as the old boss ("Mr. Fossil Fuel Greed.")
People need to believe that the planet needs SUSTAINABLE, healthy treatment to level out the enormous destruction wrought by man over the past 150 years. It does NOT need a "solution" which is just as bad as the "problem" and Big Energy making a profit off causing the problem, then again off "fixing" it while taxpayers subsidize them and the planet is slaughtered. What complete crap!
If you care at all about the planet, you will INSIST that CONSERVATION be the central theme of R & D, of building/l
The problem is that you cannot rationalize with the environmental radicals because every issue is hysteria, in which no contrarian debates are allowed. Every spineless salivating politician is now seeing dollar signs from all the potential taxes they feel they are now morally obligated to collect, in the name of the environment. There is a distinction between environmental issues and Global warming. But you would be hard-pressed to identify that nuance among the press, or the many governments and institutions all jumping on the GW bandwagon. It would be naive to believe that altruism is the only motivating factor for theses parties, i.e. international governments whose only interest is in Uncle Sam dispensing out checks, every time an American turns on the lights, or the willingness of many scientists to compromise their scientific integrity, by issuing hyperbolic statements about the peril of the planet that they know to be BS and borderline absurd.
The unfortunate part of all of this, is that legitimate environmental concerns will not be properly addressed, while solutions to non-existent problems are approached with the typical politically correct demagoguery of the few, with no consideration of the consequences, intended or otherwise, to the lives of the billions of inhabitants of this planet. The greenies and the radical left have succeeded in shaping the argument to make it seem that debating AGW is akin to questioning the purity of mom, apple pie, or the loyalty of a fine dog. Long Live Political correctness
Wow, it sounds like you are making a typical Fox News argument that it is a battle of the radical left vs. the rest of civilization. Arguments about political correctness have little to do with science. Can't you do any better than that?
Yes. And how about the orangutan habitat being destroyed for palm oil farms, to grow biodiesel for Sheryl Crowe's tour bus. We're plowing up virgin grassland, paving over the desert with solar panels, grinding up birds and bats in giant ill-placed windmills, just to reduce our carbon footprint. I would rather get my energy from a nuke plant or even an oil well. This destroying the environment to save it is ridiculous.
Just to be clear, I am advocating for solar and wind ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND, paired with lots of CONSERVATION, which can be technologically aided to make it painless. I am NOT advocating for nuclear waste dumps in the middle of our mountains, nor for increasing planetary devastation caused by Big Oil, both of which i believe to be total and complete dead ends.
julie, that's what sheila was saying. that we need a real alternative because destroying more land just to be more conservative in how we use the earth is silly. FYI, oil will run out eventually, especially at the rate we use fuel.
It's mind boggling that they don't "believe". Is it because they don't want to? Are they that closed minded? It's no wonder, GM is in trouble.
To 'believe" is an exercize in faith. To "understand" is a mental exercize. Please take a step back from your mind boggling belief and try to understand.
By what mechanism does CO2 increase the world temperature? It absorbs or reflects little or no radiant energy.
Why is every planet in the solar system increasing in temperature? The sun.....ma
Concern for the environment is good.
Environmental zealotry is bad.
"Why is every planet in the solar system increasing in temperature?"
Aliens driving SUVs maybe?
Aliens don't change their light bulbs maybe?
It has nothing to do with not believing, it's not believing in man made global warming. Climates change all the time without any human influence and it has been happening forever. How else could you explain glaciers covering Minnesota or dried up lakes in California long before we were there.
I don't believe in the things activists are screaming about Florida will be gone or global warming will create canabalism.
What are the solutions that have been offered thus far?
- Ethanol (joke)
- Changing light bulbs (joke)
- Stop driving SUVs (joke)
your last two jokes would save the people who did them money. yes the climate has always changed over time. but usually longer periods of time than the average human life span. we are seeing drastic changes within a few generations. that isn't normal. it doesn't matter what has caused it, what matters is that we must deal with it if we wish to continue having a habitable planet that can comfortably support human life for a long time to come (presuming we don't annihilate ourselves, first)
that being said, we also can't expect that pumping cubic tons of all kinds of chemicals, poisons, toxins, and pollutants into the air water and ground, clear-cutting oxygen- and rain-producing rainforests for grazing land and to grow corn to feed cattle, and throwing off the ecosystem in general through our activities isn't going to have an effect on the earth has a whole. of course our actions have an effect on the earth. just like building a levee to keep water out of land that is below sea level-- eventually the earth tries to correct itself and its imbalances. the earth and the human body are similar in that they both require a delicate balance to function properly.
All these bastards need to believe is that there's a buck to be made.
Before we see "the green", they need to see "the green".
I've worked in the environmental sector for over 20 years. Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. The only thing that motivates businesses to go green if there's a buck to be made. Also the only thing that motivates them to clean up the pollution they've caused is the law. What is missing in both cases is the desire to act because it's the right thing to do.
Fortunately (or unfortunately) what top management believes won't keep the Truth from becoming obvious! If Manmade Climate change is true (as I believe) those Corporations that have a head start will prosper, those that drag their feet will go under - I just hope they don't take the rest of us with them!
No. The climate is always changing. Always has and always will. You have to believe that humans are the primary cause of it. If you do believe humans are the primary cause of it, you have to believe that human actions (realistically) can effect it enough to matter. If you do believe humans can realistically effect it enough to matter, you have to believe that the cost of doing so is worth it, and that humans understand the climate will enough to make the right decisions that won't screw things up even worse. That's a lot of believing that needs to be done with incomplete data (and several value judgements thrown in). So don't belittle those that disagree with you as though the path forward is obvious. It isn't.
See A. Siegel's Profile
Skewing the discussion.
1. Change is normal. That is not the discussion, the reality is that we are experiencing (globally) change that is abnormal against the human/historical record. And, that pace of abnormal change is threatening to humanity.
2. It is not that humanity has driven climate change through millions of years of Earth's history, but that humanity is impacting the climate NOW.
3. Hmmm ... if humanity is a driving factor (and the IPCC and other science says so), then let us take it as a truism that humanity has a say as to what the climate might be like in the future. Do we seek to accelerate/continue the change? Try to stall the change? Try to move back on impacting the climate.
"Belitle those who disagree ..." I (and others) will be glad to have a serious discussion about what the bests steps are moving forward, but denial of reality simply doesn't merit the respect that you are begging for.
1. Nature does a lot of unexplained stuff, have you ever heard of the "little ice age"? That thing came out of no where.
BTW, why don't I ever see it mentioned that a 5 degree increase would be much better for us than a 5 degree decrease? A decrease would threaten our food supply a lot more than would an increase.
2. Humanity is impacting the environment is a fact, Humanity is impacting the climate is opinion.
3. Good luck trying to stall change that you have no control over.
Cons are very good at believing their own scam. They dismiss anything that threatens their orgy of consumption, including peak oil and global warming.
Tell that to the largest sociallist government in the world. Or better yet, start a petition and deliver it to the Chinese government yourself. I am sure they will welcome a soulmate, such as your self, with open hearts and minds.
This was already done. China signed the Kyoto protocol, the US did not.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
