Archive for October, 2007
How about consumer confidence to buy less?
Good news! Consumer confidence drops in October.
Where’s the good news there, you ask? Doesn’t this portend a slowing economy, perhaps a recession? After all, our economy lives and dies on consumer spending. If we consumers aren’t optimistic about the future, we’re going to reel in our spending. And that will bring businesses to their knees and cost us our jobs.
Or at least that’s what we have been led to believe for years and years.
No, I don’t yet see the good news in the fall in consumer confidence. But I do look forward to the day when consumers are actually confident enough to spend less — not more. I mean, look at what we’re being told by those guiding our economy: We are to be afraid, very afraid, when surveys tell us that collectively we may spend less in the months ahead. We have learned to use that fear of spending less as a motivation to spend more so we protect our economy, jobs and way of life.
Americans are conditioned to believe it’s consume or bust. But I’m pretty sure we have things turned upside down here. We’re in an age of rapidly disappearing natural resources, a warming atmosphere and exploding consumer economies in China, India and elsewhere. Never has it been more evident that too much consumption — not too little — is the thing we ought to be concerned about most.
In other words, strong consumer confidence, as it’s defined today, is as much a negative social and environmental indicator as a positive economic indicator. If we could somehow find ourselves in an economy built on limited consumption of material goods, we would track our collective confidence in buying less. Meaning, we are optimistic that if we save our money or spend it on non-material stuff, the economy will prosper, and so will we.
I recognize I’m dreaming here. But look where our existing American Dream has taken us.
Tags: American Dream, consumer confidence, consumption
Posted in Business & Economics, Sustainability | No Comments »
Adding cement to the climate change mix
Portland’s downtown is practically ripped to shreds by an unprecedented building and redevelopment spurt. Doesn’t make for happy motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians. But navigating through the city’s maze of construction zones, as frustrating as it is, may not be the worst of it. Until this week, I thought I understood the primary sources of CO2 emissions. However, I’ve managed to overlook a big one: cement, the basic ingredient in concrete.
In my last post, I referred to a BusinessWeek’s latest cover story, “Little Green Lies.” One of the companies the magazine mentions is Lafarge, a giant cement manufacturer based in Paris. Despite praise from the World Wildlife Fund as a “climate saver,” Lafarge’s CO2 emissions have actually risen by “11% over two years,” the article states. The company alone generates more greenhouse gases than Portugal!
And today, the New York Times has a feature article, “Cement Industry Is at Center of Climate Change Debate.” According to the Times,
Cement plants account for 5 percent of global emissions of carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming. Cement has no viable recycling potential; each new road, each new building needs new cement…Cement poses a basic problem: the chemical reaction that creates it releases large amounts of carbon dioxide. Sixty percent of emissions caused by making cement are from this chemical process alone, Mr. (Olivier) Luneau of Lafarge said. The remainder is produced from the fuels used in production, although those emissions may be mitigated with the use of greener technology. “Demand is growing so fast and continues to grow, and you can’t cap that,” Mr. Luneau said. “Our core business is cement, so there is a limit to what we can change.”
So therein lies the rub. Despite successes by cement producers to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions for each ton of cement, the worldwide demand for cement is skyrocketing. Especially in China, which “alone makes and uses 45 percent of worldwide output.”
But we can’t make China the scapegoat here. There are countless cities like Portland across the globe where cranes dot the skies and trucks form block-long queues to pour concrete for underground parking garages and condominium and office structures. Construction folks, like my brother, sing the praises of concrete for its strength and versatility in conforming to just about any desired shape. It’s a nearly perfect building material — if you overlook the CO2 part. Cement making’s contribution of 5 percent of global CO2 emissions exceeds that of the world’s airline industry.
So are there any cement alternatives? I’m no expert here, but a quick Google scan indicates alternatives are starting to emerge but their widespread adoption remains on the distant horizon. If you’re into this sort of thing, check out this piece that explores ways to reduce cement’s CO2 emissions and several cement alternatives.
‘Business as usual’ in Corporate America
This week’s cover story of BusinessWeek, “Little Green Lies,” tells the tale of a corporate sustainability director who dares to tell it like is. Let’s see if this admirable character, Auden Schendler, now manages to keep his job at Aspen Skiing Co. He gives voice to the statement BW reporter Ben Elgin really wants to make: “Much corporate environmentalism boils down to misleading statements and hype.”
While that is hardly an earth-shattering revelation, Elgin has done his homework to prove his point. The greenwashing of Big Business is rampant, just as many of us suspected. In an accompanying podcast to the article, Elgin said he interviewed a couple dozen corporate sustainability types and read a bunch of sustainability reports issued by large businesses and other public carbon emission disclosures by these companies. His conclusion? “When you really sift through it, it’s a lot of business as usual.” Again, no real surprise, but it’s good to see a reporter with such a prominent business publication assemble the facts to prove what many of us believe to be true.
What Schendler told Elgin and Elgin corroborated in his research was:
“Companies continue to assess most green initiatives with the same return-on-investment analysis they would with any other capital project. And while some environmental advances pay for themselves in time, returns often aren’t as swift or large as competing uses for corporate cash. That leads to green projects quietly withering on the vine.”
Elgin reports Schendler now believes “companies won’t make serious progress without regulation of carbon emissions.” Elgin might also add that his BusinessWeek boss John Byrne, who interviewed him for the accompanying podcast on his reporting of the story, is also representative of the problem. Toward the end of the recording, there was this exchange between the two:
Byrne: “I tell you, when I buy a bottle of wine on the basis of green farming, I’ll need my head examined. And when I buy a car that reduces carbon emissions but costs me a lot more money than another car, I’ll need my head examined, too.”
Elgin: “No Prius in your garage?”
Byrne: “No! Because those are just not economical.”
Elgin: “They are pricey.”
Byrne: “And not only are they pricey and not only do you not get the payback on them, but more importantly how much waste, how much toxic chemicals are going to be released into the environment because you are replacing those damn fuel cells, and maybe you are going to someone who’s not going to properly dispose of them.”
This is the executive editor of BusinessWeek speaking. And yes, he did say fuel cells (not batteries) in reference to hybrid cars. Like the corporate executives Elgin interviewed for his piece, Byrne is telling the world he’ll go green when the payback (ROI) is right. It’s a small wonder Elgin’s piece made the cover of the magazine.
Tags: Aspen Skiing, Auden Schendler, BusinessWeek, Little Green Lies, Prius
Posted in Business & Economics, Climate Change, Sustainability | No Comments »
No worries, the Coast Guard is coming
So the melting Arctic ice has persuaded the US Coast Guard to set up its first operating base in the region. It will start small, reporters tell us:
“But given continued warming, that small base, which could be in place by next spring, would be expanded later to help speed responses to oil spills from tankers that the Coast Guard believes could eventually carry shipments from Scandinavia to Asia through the Bering Strait. Such a long-hoped-for polar route would cut 5,000 miles or more from a journey that would otherwise entail passage through the Panama Canal or the Suez.”
What’s wrong with this picture?
Van Jones speaks, Thomas Friedman listens
You know you’re somebody when you’re featured in a column by Thomas Friedman in the NY Times. Not that Van Jones needs any affirmation that he’s somebody. Today Friedman brings Van Jones to the attention of his thousands of influential readers worldwide. And what an incredible platform for Jones to spread his vitally important message.
In the past year I’ve had the good fortune to hear Jones speak twice. I’ve never heard a more compelling speaker. Both times he was addressing audiences of almost all white progressives and environmentalists. His powerful request to us as people helping to build the next new economy is this: As you’re hopping on that train to the land of the lush green economy, ask yourself, “who are you taking with you — and who are you leaving behind.”
If Van Jones has any say in the matter, and believe me he does, the African-American community will not get left behind this time. He also knows that it’s going to take great effort on his part and among African Americans to ensure the new economy is not just green, but inclusive. The first step is getting this message out to as many people of power and influence in green political and economic circles as he possibly can. That’s why Friedman’s column strikes me as a watershed moment in Jones’ crusade. Friedman speaks to power and influence across America. I fervently hope they’re listening.
The language of global warming
A couple months ago, I signed up for Google Alerts on certain keywords. Two of them are “global warming” and “climate change.” I wanted to get a sense for what is being said and argued in the blogosphere and the general media about these topics. I don’t begin to read all the posts and opinions that come to me each day. In fact, I find myself increasingly wanting to tune out.
Why? First off, let me state that I’m deeply concerned about the broad environmental, social and economic impacts of climate change, and I absolutely believe human actions contribute greatly to, and are maybe the sole reason for, our warming atmosphere. I believe we must act now, collectively and individually, to avert the worst outcomes of climate change. But I also have a new concern: the rise of global warming fear mongering, what others view as hysteria and alarmism.
Unfortunately, on this point I find myself sympathetic to the complaints of those I will call “The Deniers” — those on the other side of the debate (FOX News, anyone) who deny the existence or predicted impacts of climate change and continuously rant against the alarmist claims they see spewing from their liberal enemies. And let me tell you, they have plenty of fodder for their daily diatribes over the global warming movement. Consider a few of the headlines I pulled from my Google Alerts in just the past three days:
– Global Warming Linked to Worst Mass Extinctions in Earth History
– Global Warming And A Deadly Amoeba That Feeds On Your Brain
– Global warming report gives grim outlook for state
– Pumping Particles Into the Atmosphere: A Global Warming Doomsday …
– Climate Change, Past Tipping Point
– Environment: Climate Change: Can We Stop It?
– The rising threat from global warming affects us all, warns Sir Emyr
– Another reason to sweat about global warming
– Global warming driving up humidity levels, says study
– Burning Earth: Linking Wildfires to Global Warming
– Global warming may aggravate Argentine energy woes
– A matter of life and global warming
– Global warming brings additional woes to orangutans
– WITNESS – Global warming changes face of high Alps
– October heat wave adds to global warming fears
– Where Climate Change is Felt More Strongly Than Anywhere
– Papua’s forests and global warming
– Climate Change “Mega Disaster”
– GLOBAL WARMING: Connecticut lobsters dying off
– Will Global Warming take away monsoon & food?
These headlines are from bloggers and journalists worldwide: US, Asia, Europe and South America. The Deniers would look at this sampling as evidence of hype, junk science and liberal conspiracy. I view it as the potential cause for human inaction. Yes, some of us read posts and articles like these and feel compelled to act, out of fear or a deep sense of obligation to Earth and its inhabitants. But I’m also convinced that these dire-sounding reports and opinions, repeated over and over again by well-meaning media and bloggers, will lead many to tune out and send others into a tailspin of depression and powerlessness. In which case, scientists, politicians, journalists and concerned citizens attempting to raise awareness and ignite action on global warming will be stymied.
If large numbers of people stop listening because the drumbeat of warnings is too loud or are rendered inert by the perceived vastness of the problem, the doomsday warnings will become self-fulfilling. Those who are out front on climate change issues worldwide need to rethink and carefully monitor the effect of their language choices. We need everyone on board in this great cause.