We’re looking to generate as many ideas, leads, and information. Post a comment!
Thanks!
February 8, 2010
How Can Business Save The Planet From Climate Change?
Posted by whoopingboy under Ideas | Tags: business, Climate Change, green |[19] Comments
[19] Comments
February 9, 2010 at 5:31 am
First hit on google: http://www.euronews.net/2009/12/17/can-business-save-the-planet/
Richard Branson talks about government intervention. If not, the Carbon War Room. Conclusion: If the government can’t do it, free market can.
February 15, 2010 at 7:15 pm
As a business owner, the first question that I ask myself with respect to climate change: Is it in the best interest of my stakeholders (customers, investors)?
There is a bit of a prisoner’s dilemma (game theory) to the answer, I think. If in order for my business to ‘do something’ about climate change it will increase the cost of operating my business, that will put me at a disadvantage relative to my competitors. So unless they too are compelled by law to do the same, I don’t want to be the first make that sacrifice.
One of the central themes of Friedman’s “Hot, Flat and Crowded” was the absolute need for long-term regulatory consistency around which companies can plan their future.
For that reason, I believe that any comprehensive corporate involvement should be preceded by comprehensive long-term regulatory frameworks.
So perhaps the first ‘best step’ for business is to encourage/lobby/request regulatory clarity prior to engaging in any specific activities related to climate change.
February 18, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Jason – thanks for joining the conversation.
I agree that in the big picture, some regulation would be required to nudge things one way or another, although it’s hard to get those things done in a way that doesn’t cause some distortion or weird loophole.
I’ve also seen a number of product designers – people who know sustainable materials and design really well that could help new businesses start with a better design in the first place. Others are shedding light on their carbon footprints and that of their suppliers.
It seems to me that the risk to business of climate change is uncertain. That is, it’s somewhat agreed (though not be Saudi Arabia!) that climate change is happening, but it’s not clear what is actually changing and where and what the effects will be and when. If I were a multinational CEO, I might have this on the agenda of a junior executive, but it wouldn’t make my own top 10 list until there was an obvious risk or benefit to doing something. I think that’s why we get the greenwashing. It’s not clear what to do, and especially in a tough economy, it’s hard to justify large investments in things with uncertain benefit for the company or for society. And to revisit your point, the business has to choose things to do that will keep it competitive.
February 24, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Jason, you make a very valid point about the prisoner’s dilemma businesses face, however, that is only if one considers any climate change modifications to their business as strictly a cost to that business. For example, True Nature Foods has a green roof. This roof saves energy costs for the building, moderates the temperature effects of a traditionally concrete roof. It also has the further addition of being a source of locally grown herbs and vegetables. This has the added benefit of reducing the carbon footprint for their products as well. Of course there is an initial investment cost, but the $5000 credit from the Chicago Green Roofs makes that a little less painful. The bottom line is that this is project is a net cost saver.
My point is, if you couch climate change initiatives in terms of what is saved for the business and can prove it, you avoid the prisoner’s dilemma – at least sometimes.
February 25, 2010 at 1:10 am
Companies that have the innovation to create cost saving green alternatives for other businesses while being able to make a profit themselves are great and ideal, but probably not the norm. In the future, I hope such companies will take over the climate change initiative, but it’ll take time for new cost saving technologies to be developed and marketed. Therefore, I also agree that regulations to level the playing field for businesses that want to go green are important at this time.
February 15, 2010 at 10:48 pm
First of all, I think what Jason said is right on the money.
But, if “saving the planet from climate change” really means “use less fossil fuels”, I would say encouraging telecommuting is a decent answer. The commute to and from work burns a lot of fossil fuel. If people can be just as productive at home, companies should foster an atmosphere where telecommuting is encouraged.
And of course, as a cloud computing evangelist, I would say shutting down your data centers may also help a bit.
Whether these things would have any impact on changing the temperature of the Earth, I have no clue.
February 18, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Hi John – thanks for joining the conversation.
–
if “saving the planet from climate change” really means “use less fossil fuels”,
–
Maybe it does – maybe it doesn’t. I think that for many jobs, telecommuting works well. Or a combination of telecommuting and showing up on site or at a third location from time to time. I know many people who work this way now. Have you found that businesses don’t support telecommuting? What have you seen? What do you think would help them see it differently?
If we/they/whoever were to shut down data centers, what would happen to the capacity and reliability of data processing? Aren’t the world demands for this processing increasing? If so, can cloud computing expand to support the demand but just much more efficiently?
Yah, the data on changing the temperature (I’ve noticed more references to “climate change” vs. “global warming” in the last couple of years) is a curious thing. I found a site recently (can’t find it now) that debates the validity of the data used to show global warming – so not the deniers but the super-hardcore math and stats people that are trying to figure out what the data really means. Quality of conclusions is directly affected by quality of the data itself. Briefly, what I understood was that the organization that collects the global temperature data has stations all over the world that record the temperature. Those stations that, over time happened to have a city sprout nearby, have some distortions. It’s gets slightly warmer near a city that has lots of pavement and lots of cars and buildings and for other reasons, so then what is the “real” temperature?
Shifting to a “climate change” probably makes it even harder because it’s so complex. Chicago has been cooler on average for a lot of the time. Next broke 100 last summer. Had the two coldest winters with the most snow in a long time the previous two years. Weird.
I like what Obama said in his speech – regardless of whether we agree with the science, it is true that using less fuel and becoming more efficient makes us better off.
February 16, 2010 at 12:56 pm
I agree that all businesses want to compete on an even playing field. And like with everybody else, there are added expenses with being socially responsible. But, as we’ve seen with some companies who have taken the lead on being socially responsible (e.g. Hyundai), they have been rewarded with higher sales and a better company reputation. Therefore, I think it can be advantageous for a business to take the lead or join in on being “socially responsible.”
February 18, 2010 at 8:07 pm
I agree that actions deemed socially responsible may be beneficial for the business, and I think that is a key point for those who want to influence business to make different choices. When Wal-mart improved the efficiency of its delivery trucks, they got the help of Rocky Mountain Institute – I guess they’re still working on improvements:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/12/walmart_seeks_t.html
Reducing green-house gases may be an important social benefit, but let’s not kid ourselves. Walmart expects to save $52 million as a result of making this investment. Many supporters of change in the business world present doomsday scenarios or a values-based argument, “You’re bad – you should do better” that won’t convince most business people even if the argument is correct. Unless the issue is something that affects the business now or can improve the business now, they can’t justify the investment. But it’s not because of a money-grubbing greed; they have to answer to shareholders. If they make enough investments that don’t improve anything, they get fired. The way to approach business people with something that will help the environment without being just greenwashing is to find a real way to improve the business. As much as we might like business to share the same values we do, it’s easier to get things done by meeting them where they are and helping them meet their own goals in a way that contributes to ours.
February 18, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Let employees work less:
http://www.greenbang.com/how-to-help-people-the-planet-and-economy-21-hour-work-week_13680.html
Purchase carbon credits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit
February 18, 2010 at 6:59 pm
@Jason – it’s true that for most businesses that are already up and running, changes to use fewer resources requires some kind of extra investment for a redesign, whether in materials, supply chain, product design, efficiencies, etc. Within the context of a business that has a finite runway, these decisions which might help might also put the business at extreme risk for failure. As much as it’s called a cop-out to make it about the money, cash is like blood; when you don’t have enough, you die. Not all the great ideas can be pursued. But some could be depending on the state of the business and whether a change will make the business better off. Though it might sound selfish, I believe that the business has to come first. If the business is compromised so that it is not competitive, then it will die, whether slowly or quickly. Then other social functions, like providing jobs and tax revenue, cease as well (for this business). Then there is the issue of what a business should be responsible for. It’s easy to take sides on this one, but it’s hard work to build a business, and it’s even harder to build a business with extra constraints. There is a tradeoff between letting businesses start, grow, and evolve, and keeping businesses from starting because they can’t even get off the ground. I think it would be impossible to design all businesses such that no negative externalities arise. If this were the standard, then no businesses would be started.
February 18, 2010 at 7:03 pm
What if we step away from a business we already have/own/work in and think about a new possibility for a business? Maybe it’s a new idea or technology that could be commercialized? There might be many new businesses that could be created to serve/solve a specific thing in a sustainable way. Maybe the redesign of a common product but with plant-based materials instead of plastic. Or a new kind of transportation that is light enough to be powered by solar batteries.
February 22, 2010 at 2:27 am
Check this out: http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/22/the-bloom-box-a-power-plant-for-the-home-video/
A former NASA scientist is about to take a technology on fuel cells public, this is a game changer if its true and cost effective. WOuldn’t it be nice to have this in electric cars.
February 23, 2010 at 3:56 pm
I’m really not sure driving around with a bloom box to run a motor is the way to go. Especially when it’s one that’s burning at 1000C and probably takes hours to get up to that incredible temperature. With all electric cars, the new danger is the 120 – 240V and the incredible amount of amps. Mating that much current with a 1000C box adds yet another incredibly dangers layer to things. I wonder if any emergency worker would ever want to take a jaws of life to such a vehicle. This tech is meant to be left in one place.
electric cars are nice and clean, but literally have hidden dangers when things are not working as designed.
February 23, 2010 at 9:29 pm
The problem with fuel cells and electric cars is… where does the electricity to create they hydrogen or charge the cars come from? The answer? Fossil fuels. Check out the documentary “A Crude Awakening.” which points out that all the nuclear and natural power we have available to us is a tiny fraction of what fossil fuels has given us. Eventually, reality will catch up to us: we simply cannot sustain our current way of life. Period.
February 23, 2010 at 9:26 pm
I forgot what documentary I saw, but it recommended immediately grounding all airplanes except for emergency usage. It’s quite a drastic recommendation, but as a consultant that travels on a weekly basis (I’ve taken at least 600 flights for work in the last 8 years , not including multiple leg trips and vacation travel) I’m ashamed to admit that I’m a part of the problem. My industry would be rocked if such drastic measures were taken, but given technology, I think it would be possible.
February 24, 2010 at 9:50 am
I commuted every week for years, and the question I would ask is “How often do you really need to be there?”. My prior company paid almost $50k a year to support my commuting, and to make it worse, I was on a team of about 250 in which half of us were on the same schedule. I could have likely been more effective commuting once a month, and working from a home command center with web conferencing the other 3/4 of the time.
February 24, 2010 at 9:55 am
Our company has installed cameras and web conferencing on all computers, it has made an impact on our traveling budget and curbed the impulse of executives to jump on a plane for every minor meeting.
We also pay for public transportation expenses for all employees.
The burden of a tough economy goes hand in hand with cost cutting, and cost cutting goes hand and hand with driving efficiencies and becoming more green.
February 25, 2010 at 3:20 pm
If all the companies in the world were able to convince its employees about the importance of climate control and getting them to develop small habits to do their part, the companies would make a significant impact. For example, companies could set up recycling programs and incentive programs to get people to use public transportation more often. Companies could also have company activities where employees can individually or collectively volunteer to do “green” activities (e.g. plant trees, gardens, clean up parks, etc…).