Showing posts with label private sector. Show all posts
Showing posts with label private sector. Show all posts

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Brazilian ethanol finally allowed into the US

American ethanol uses to much energy to produce it is probably no greener than petrol. Not only that but it displaces food production pushing up food prices. Alternatively, it requires using land that could be used to grow trees. American ethanol production uses billions in subsidies. Funds that could be used for health or education or transport or the environment or lower taxes for businesses and workers. Anything. I came to the conclusion some time ago that it only exists because of the power of the corn lobby. On the few occasions that I fill up a car in the US, I deliberately avoid the mixed petrol-ethanol on offer. I reckon it is probably less green than pure petrol.

Brazilian ethanol takes less energy to produce (even including transport), uses less land per litre to produce, is cheaper and more efficient. Finally, in the current climate of cut-backs, it can't be justified not to allow it to compete with the US variety. It should result in a large reduction of ethanol being produced in the US. Brazil's economy should grow faster lifting more people out of poverty and the American consumer can have cheaper and greener fuel for their cars. The subsidies should go, the land used for food or forest. The world will be a greener place. And, I can fill up cars with ethanol. Oh, but the small vested interests of the corn-lobby in the US which produces inefficient American ethanol due to the utterly crazy subsidy scheme will lose out. All thanks to the fact that Brazilian ethanol is finally allowed into the US.

Sunday, January 1, 2012

Junk mail

Just two weeks away and I got all of this, just from Comcast. It is already all on its way back to them with a request not to send any more of this junk unless it is actually important (as per the indication on the envelope). How many trees? How much transport? How much energy? ....



Sunday, December 11, 2011

On environmental issues, businesses need government leadership

I've been wanting to write something about the Durban Climate Talks that was something more than the morbid curiosity with which I watch humanity choosing to cease to exist à la Easter Islanders by destroying all of the earth's natural systems on which we rely for survival. I like a lot the personal perspectives of my friend, Jo, who is attending the meetings. In the end, of course, countries decided to push our survival to the limit by agreeing to do something after 2020. Scientists say it will not avert catastrophic climate change and somewhat surprisingly for a country that already suffers extremely badly from the effects of climate change, India, were villains (who needs to drink water from the mountains anyway? and why should we care about monsoon patterns anyway?). All this is rather bad economics.

Thankfully, some companies are doing their best to go green despite a lack of Government leadership. But they are doing less than they otherwise would. One of the reasons is that they don't know what the standards will be and there are costs associated with setting standards only to have to change them. For this reason:

Of 300 bosses of big global firms recently quizzed by Ernst & Young, 83% said they wanted to see a legally binding multilateral deal struck in Durban to update the ailing Kyoto protocol and help to put a price on carbon emissions. But only 18% expect this to happen. The absence of a clear climate policy helps explain why, for example, investment in British clean technology fell from around $11 billion in 2009 to $3 billion last year. It would also suggest that any firm factoring a steep carbon price into its plans—as Shell does, assuming a notional price of $40 a tonne—should quietly lower it.

(see FULL ARTICLE in The Economist)

This applies in particular to new technologies such as that associated with electric cars. Israel is reportedly doing very well because the Government has already defined standards. Why invest in a system of recharging or changing batteries when the country may change standards? This partly explains why other countries are doing less well in this field.

A few companies fight against change. For example BA announced that an air duty rise will cost jobs. They are correct. But only in the short run and the alternative is far worse or, at least, far more expensive.

So there are two reasons why Government leadership is necessary: setting standards which are predictable and, applicable to everyone (fair competition) and forcing companies to adjust to the changes rather than fight them.

I recently read a book about the impact that humans have had on the environment and what the planetary limits are in different areas now and what can realistically be done. I recommend as essential reading The God Species: Saving the Planet in the Age of Humans by Mark Lynas. There is also an excellent interview with him on The Guardian's Science Weekly(I had pre-ordered this book in fact, and I plan to write a full review of it when I get time.)

He talks in great detail about the CFC (ozone layer) crisis. It is somehow seen today as if this was an easy one to fix but in reality it was far from easy. Governments needed to be strong armed into agreeing. Industry tried to resist saying that there was no alternatives.

Of course, any argument suggesting we could no longer have fridges or deodorants make people think twice. Indeed, I believe that all arguments saying that people's lives would be significantly worse following action to prevent climate change are doomed to failure. But this didn't happen. The industry developed new technologies and I am happy to report I as I write, I am sipping on a beer kept chilled in my fridge and smelling very nice, thank you very much.

The point is that clear legislation and leadership by Government gives industry an incentive to innovate. It gets around the short term profit motive. It gets around the risk of losing business if you go green but your competitor does not. It gets around the standards problem. Governments need to lead to avoid collective action failure (tragedy of the commons) and to create a level playing field.

And we need to have faith in human nature and the dynamism of the private sector to find solutions without lowering living standards. But this will only happen with Government leadership in the right areas (and, obviously, not interfering in business in the wrong areas).

One of the major justifications for having Governments at all is the ability to correct a collective action problem. In Durban they have failed and they all lose some legitimacy for this.

Monday, September 19, 2011

Firms with climate change strategies perform better


"For the first time in its ten year history, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) Global 500 survey report reveals the majority of the world's largest public corporations have climate change actions embedded as part of their business strategies. The survey also finds that companies with a strategic focus on climate change provided investors with approximately double the average total return on their investments."

This is what you would expect if the majority of consumers favour companies which care about the environment. Or caring about climate change could be a luxury good for firms - only the more profitable ones can afford to care.


Read the whole article HERE



Emerging-world companies combining growth and greenery


"A new study by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) identifies 16 emerging-market firms that they say are turning eco-consciousness into a source of competitive advantage. These highly profitable companies (which the study dubs “the new sustainability champions”) are using greenery to reduce costs, motivate workers and forge relationships. Their home-grown ideas will probably be easier for their peers to copy than anything cooked up in the West.

The most salient quality of these companies is that they turn limitations (of resources, labour and infrastructure) into opportunities.

The central message of the WEF-BCG study—that some of the best emerging-world companies are combining profits with greenery—is thought-provoking. Many critics of environmentalism argue that it is a rich-world luxury: that the poor need adequate food before they need super-clean air. Some even see greenery as a rich-world conspiracy: the West grew rich by industrialising (and polluting), but now wants to stop the rest of the world from following suit. The WEF-BCG report demonstrates that such fears are overblown. Emerging-world companies can be just as green as their Western rivals. Many have found that, when natural resources are scarce and consumers are cash-strapped, greenery can be a lucrative business strategy."

Read the whole article HERE.