Over the next two weeks, Cancun will be in the spotlight for something other than spring break madness. As host of the annual climate summit that once saw such promise in Kyoto in 1997, Cancun in 2010 is framed by the spectacular failure of last year's Copenhagen talks and by the stark realization that nearly 200 nations simply cannot agree on anything of consequence.
No matter how unequivocal the scientific evidence is that climate is changing and human activity is a central factor, nearly 7 billion people loosely represented by a few hundred governments are agreed on nothing. We know the reasons why action on climate is frozen: emerging countries such as China, India and Brazil will not accept limits that stifle their rapid emergence; developed countries such as the United States and the European Union can't or won't subsidize efforts abroad; and the U.S. federal government can't even agree on binding limits for America itself. While everyone shares the sentiment that they do not want to destroy the earth or ruin it for their grandchildren, there is no consensus on how to shift global economic activity in a more sustainable direction.
That should be cause for despair, and much of the commentary this week will likely conclude that we are on an inexorable and negative path towards deleterious climate change. But that is only because we collectively focus too much on government and its failings rather than on business and its successes.
For many in the self-identified community that identifies climate change as humanity's greatest challenge, big business is seen as an obstacle to a better future. That attitude is a legacy of the 1970s, when the green movement ranked big business as a culprit that couldn't be redeemed but might be coerced. Today, however, global businesses aren't being pulled kicking and screaming to innovate and become more sustainable: they are racing ahead of government and may in the end be the one real hope for the future.
They aren't doing so because management has gone green or awoken to some moral environmental imperative. They've done so because of the current imperatives of the market: with the price of raw materials skyrocketing in the face of China rapid industrialization and economic growth in the affluent world flat-lining, companies have ample new markets but no real pricing power. In short, they can sell, but any rising input costs they have to absorb. That is a powerful spur to use less stuff, to become more efficient, and to embrace sustainable growth.
My recent book Sustainable Excellence (co-authored with Aron Cramer) charts just how companies are doing that. They are too numerous to list, and range from behemoths such as Walmart (yes, Walmart -- which has aggressively pushed for more sustainable products), Unilever, Nike, Marks & Spencer, Nestle, and Shell to newer less familiar companies such as Better Place (which is trying to redefine transportation), Masdar (which is building a carbon-neutral city in the deserts of Arabia), Schneider (which is at the forefront of meters and energy efficiency), ICICI Bank (an Indian financial power that is addressing rural poverty), and hundreds of others. They are addressing consumer needs and recasting global supply chains, and doing so in a way that reduces their costs and thus, their carbon footprint.
They are doing so largely in spite of government inaction and inconsistency. And they show no signs of reducing their efforts after the financial crisis of the past two years. If anything, that crisis led to redoubled efforts to use less stuff and enhance efficiency. And so while there will be hand wringing and consternation at what Cancun will not achieve, that should be placed against a backdrop of incredible dynamism in corporate land, driven not by idealism but by the urgency of the market. Costs of everything raw are spiking; that includes food, fertilizer, iron ore, copper, rare earths, oil, and even coal in China. And with costs soaring, innovation is as well.
It would be lovely if governments were to find concord, and better for the world. But it won't happen in the coming weeks, and it may not need to. Humanity has always been in tug-of-war between the ability to destroy life and the inexorable capacity to save it and create it. We don't know which force will win in the future. But we are here now, and that says something about which has come out on top so far.
This post originally appeared at www.time.com
Follow Zachary Karabell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/zacharykarabell
Carl Pope: A Year and a Difference
Steve
http://www.TheChinaBusinessGuide.com
What remains as disturbing about the U.N.’s climate culture is the socialist governance that has now been openly advocated by members of the IPCC. Several members meeting this week in Cancun at the annual conference to replace the 2012-expiring Kyoto Protocols have spoken in pure Marxist-socialist principles – wealth redistribution.
A Chinese member said that multi-billion dollar Western developed-nation payments would be the key to success of the Cancun meeting. And, co-chairman of the IPCC's third working group, Ottmar Edenhofer, has stated, "One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.... One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy."
The IPCC meeting in Cancun is not expected to accomplish much more than to subtly shift the operative regulatory language from “climate change†to “global biodiversity,†and attempt to shakedown developed countries for billions in order to fund underdeveloped countries under the guise of environmental and social justice. Karl Marx would be most proud.
It is clear that socialist ideologies and cultish environmentalism have replaced prudent science and economics in U.N. climate policy. Militant environmentalism and green-obsessed bureaucrats have become an “axis of antagonism†that we can no longer afford.
As is always the case, the "havenots" believe they are entitled to the goods of the "haves".
Getting off coal is absolutely essential and it will never happen without government intervention.
The technology that will move us more quickly is nuclear, combined with a safe and effective re-use and permanent storage technology for nuclear waste.
We also need to put thinking caps on to ways to better and more efficiently capture both earth's internal energy source; the mantle, and incoming solar radiation.
An 11 year sunspot cycle has begun. NASA estimates that any one of four anticipateÂÂd “extreme†solar storms could cause New York, WashingtonÂÂ, D.C., Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle and most of the Eastern U.S., as well as many other metropolitÂÂan areas everywhere on the planet, to lose grid electricitÂÂy, possibly for weeks.
On-site renewable energy has become a wise insurance policy - as well as a practical way for disruptive technologiÂÂes to start to replace fossil fuel!
See: www.aesopiÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂnÂsÂtÂiÂtÂÂuÂÂtÂÂeÂÂ.ÂÂÂoÂÂÂrÂg for an overview - and an outline of possible actions.
Three huge Coronal Mass ejections (CME) have been born so far this year. One came very close last week. Should a strong CME strike Earth's geomagnetiÂÂc field, NASA estimates wide areas might suffer collapse of the power grid.
Imagine massive blackouts all across the globe lasting for days or weeks.
More than 500 sunspots that could produce a CME are anticipateÂÂd. NOAA estimates four such “extreme†events are likely during the current 11 year cycle.
In the U.S., NASA estimates a strong geomagnetiÂÂc storm could cause 130 million people to suffer a long-term shortage of electricitÂÂy. The cost is estimated to be $1-2 trillion the first year. Roughly the combined price tag, to date, of the wars in both Iraq and AfghanistaÂÂn!
Since this threatens catastrophÂÂe all across the world, acceleratiÂÂon of decentraliÂÂzed energy and especially less expensive green energy has become urgent. It is happening!
Oh wait, that uses energy too, what hypocrites.
Whatever.
What remains as disturbing about the U.N.’s climate culture is the socialist governance that has now been openly advocated by members of the IPCC. Several members meeting this week in Cancun at the annual conference to replace the 2012-expiring Kyoto Protocols have spoken in pure Marxist-socialist principles – wealth redistribution.
A Chinese member said that multi-billion dollar Western developed-nation payments would be the key to success of the Cancun meeting. And, co-chairman of the IPCC's third working group, Ottmar Edenhofer, has stated, "One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.... One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy."
The IPCC meeting in Cancun is not expected to accomplish much more than to subtly shift the operative regulatory language from “climate change†to “global biodiversity,†and attempt to shakedown developed countries for billions in order to fund underdeveloped countries under the guise of environmental and social justice. Karl Marx would be most proud.
It is clear that socialist ideologies and cultish environmentalism have replaced prudent science and economics in U.N. climate policy. Militant environmentalism and green-obsessed bureaucrats have become an “axis of antagonism†that we can no longer afford.
If by "shakedown" you mean that poor countries that have the most to lose by global climate changes are to by helped by the wealthier countries that have benefited by the unchecked growth that destroying natural resources offers, well yes. I have no problem with that.
East Angilca issued an "independent" report clearing itself - As OJ said " I am not a murder, because I cleared myself".
Technology alone will not prevent our ruin. It is a massive act of genocide to leave this problem unsolved.
Job sharing can reduce unemployment and greenhouse gasses. Employers could be offered carbon offsets to hire two people to alternate days at the same job reducing thousands of tons of co2 per year per worker. Multiply that saving by the millions. Single payer health care and other sensible socialist solutions can give our businesses the flexibility to innovate. In the past government controlled monopolies such as the electrical utilities allowed the expansion of the power grid in a logical manner.
The cold war is over The Soviet Union fell long ago. Our changing climate is not an ideological battle ground to be manipulated by worn out slogans and economic models that don't work anymore. Real scientists with real data tell us we must reduce our carbon emissions. The time for arguing is over.
-"Sensible" Marxist-socialist solutions? Check
-Wealth redistribution? Check
-Militant environmentalism? Yep
-Green-obsessed bureaucrats? Someone has to administer the employer carbon offsets for hiring 2 people to work on alternate days, etc, etc, etc.