The business logic for protecting nature has always been a harder sell than making the case for other green initiatives. Companies are increasingly seeing the obvious benefits of slashing energy use, and beginning to include in their calculations the considerable risk reduction from managing water well or limiting the use of toxic chemicals. But there are aspects of going green that are much less directly quantifiable than kilowatts or tons of carbon -- or the avoidance of regulations or a lawsuit.
For example, how should companies handle the overuse of natural resources and the reduction in the planet's "biodiversity" (that is, the abundant variation in plant and animal life)?
One large company, Dow, is now tackling this issue, working with the environmental NGO The Nature Conservancy to try and make the business logic clearer. This odd couple announced a collaboration last week to "work together to apply scientific knowledge and experience to examine how Dow's operations rely on and affect nature."
But we don't have to wait for their work to come to fruition to cite a number of possible compelling arguments for managing the intersection of business and natural resources well, including:
In the end, all of these arguments are really part of a much larger logic, which was laid out best in the 1999 groundbreaking -- and now classic -- book Natural Capitalism by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and Hunter Lovins (more info on ongoing work by the Lovinses here and here). In total, it's about a systematic and realistic view of the world.
In some sense, asking "what's the business case for valuing nature?" is ridiculous. We live in an integrated network on a single planet with limited resources. Either we manage these resources well, or we don't survive. In our current mode, we're systematically knocking down pieces of our own support structure. Or in business terms, we're drawing down the assets on the balance sheet of the world. This is no smarter than taking out load-bearing walls in your home.
But regardless of the macro-logic, business does run on financial valuations. Since none of the benefits above are truly measured in our models, we need news tools to value the natural world in business. This is why I was excited to see the announcement about the work Dow's doing with The Nature Conservancy.
The novel alliance will look at Dow's business and its supply chain through a natural world lens. They will identify risks and opportunities at Dow's facilities and in its products and supply chain, and try to value them correctly. In short, the $10 million collaboration will "advance the incorporation of the value of nature into business." But perhaps more importantly, the project will be an open-source exercise, with the partners sharing all the tools and lessons learned. As Michelle Lapinski, TNC's Director, Corporate Practices, says, "We hope to demonstrate to other companies that incorporating nature's services into decisions is a responsible, smart and viable business strategy."
As part of the joint press conference and announcement, Dow's CEO Andrew Liveris put it all in context:
This collaboration is designed to help us innovate new approaches to critical world challenges while demonstrating that environmental conservation is not just good for nature -- it is good for business...companies that value and integrate biodiversity and ecosystem services into their strategic plans are best positioned for the future by operationalizing sustainability.
The Nature Conservancy's CEO Mark Tercek talked recently on his blog about the opportunity here for Dow and for nature:
Imagine the potential of a company with the size and reach of Dow making a commitment to incorporate nature into its global business strategies. What might that mean for green infrastructure? What might that mean for nature? What might that mean for a company's bottom line? What might that mean for the health and prosperity of the communities around the world? Together, we're going to find out.
(For longer views on this partnership and perspectives from Dow's VP of Sustainability Neil Hawkins and the Conservancy's Mark Tercek and Glenn Prickett, see excellent pieces from GreenBiz's Joel Makower and TIME's Bryan Walsh.)
As usual with sustainability strategy, companies must strike a tough balance between pursuing competitive advantage and the kind of open-source partnership needed the tackle global-scale issues. But the companies that "get" how to value nature in their operations first will have the advantage, even if they then share that information. The leaders will win by integrating these new valuations effectively into their processes, products, and services. They will create an advantage through superior execution. It will be fun to watch how Dow navigates this tricky path -- while developing the tools for other businesses to follow in their footsteps.
Follow Andrew Winston on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GreenAdvantage
The physical footprint of a plant is a fraction of a solar field, and capacities have been above 90% for the last ten years. I don't know the numbers on solar off hand, but I'm feeling pretty confidant at under 50%.
Proliferation is a concern I suppose, until one reads up on the science of it.
http://depletedcranium.com/why-you-cant-build-a-bomb-from-spent-fuel/
And waste disposal is a concern, unless you're ok with changing the laws on reprocessing, and have read the wikipedia article on natural nuclear reactors, and realize that Mother Nature has been doing a fine job for millenia, and that perhaps we could model our solution after hers.
And if you're concerned about radiological releases, rightly so! Chernobyl and whatnot. And did you hear about the radioactive rabbit poo at Hanford? Shocking. Also shocking, wikipedia's Fossil Fuel Power Station article also says "it is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. It should also be noted that during normal operation, the effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants." Oh, and there's never been a civilian death in the US as a result of nuclear power generation. I personally know two people who've died from falling off their roof.
Guess what I'd rather have in my backyeard!
Either intact ecosystems are valuable, and we work to protect them from industrialization, destruction, and depletion, or they are not, and we cut down all the forests for firewood at the same rate we bulldoze deserts for Chevron Solar.
Just because people are totally ignorant about the incredible success and value of arid ecosystems when left alone, that doesn't justify killing them. If the planet is warming and precipitation is shifting, wouldn't we be a lot wiser to STUDY how these plants, animals, reptiles, birds and insects have not only adapted to those conditions but who THRIVE in them?
Do you have any clue how much more efficient we could be if we weren't constrained to solely rooftops in our built environment? What's the difference in efficiency between the Mojave desert and rooftops in the middle of San Francisco? What would be the resulting difference in capital resources we would need, and thus mining and extracting resources from the earth to build said arrays? What would the REAL environmental impact be of providing a little more shade for desert animals? What would the difference be in maintenance and upgrade costs (labor and equipment) on the equipment if we achieved economies of scale? Something tells me it wouldn't be as "doom and gloom" horrible as YOU self-proclaimed "environmentalists" make it out to be, and in fact would be better than your alternative. Yes, I'll concede to you that we might use a little more water to cool a solar farm in the desert. But you MUST consider all factors, and not just your personal "pet" ones when making such a decision. Mother nature doesn't live inside your little box.
i am a person who bothers to get all the information before opining, however. you should try it. start by reading project applications and EIRs/EISs. The entire several thousand acre region of each project is SCRAPED BARE. NOTHING IS LEFT. "providing a little more shade for desert animals?" are you out of your mind? they are all KILLED except for tortoises. only half of those are killed, the rest are shipped off to areas that are unfamiliar and they spend the rest of their lives trying to get back. nice.
there are no maintenance and upgrade costs other than inverters replaced every 10 years ($1,000 no need to go on the roof), and the only economies of scale are the labor costs, as in, every dollar saved by Big Solar is actually taken out of the pocket of an installer.
the minimum for mirror rinsing is 51 million gallons/year for a modest project, not counting cooling or construction. in the desert. solar insolation is roughly 10% higher in the remote Mojave than in the regions being sold the power, all of which is lost in transmission.
you, my friend, are totally out of your league on this subject. mother nature doesn't live at all with your position. at least i care enough to promote sustainability, democracy, efficiency, affordability and reliability. you talk about shading dead animals.