If it wasn’t so serious, I’d be wetting myself with laughter right now.

At the top of the cliff are clustered all the countries of the world. You first, one says. No sir, you first, say the others. They all push and jostle, each trying to get as close as possible to the edge without actually jumping off.

We must all jump together they say, nodding their heads wisely as though being a leader was something to be ashamed of. What’s more, we won’t jump right now, but we’ll half jump in forty years’ time. If we’re all in agreement that is.

What’s so laughable is that most of these countries are market economies, basing their entire rationale upon commerce and the trading of products and ideas.

This isn’t just an industrial picture: the UK, for instance, is leading the way in gene therapy and embryo manipulation. Rather than producing pig-iron to be exported abroad, this is all about enhancing skills and producing techniques which can then be used to bolster the country through the international knowledge economy.

So why doesn’t the same go for sustainability and emissions? Heck, if your country “broke the code” and managed to get hyper efficient renewable solutions to our carbon reliant lifestyles, you’d be laughing. All the other slowcoach countries would come clamouring to your door for the solutions.

Yet no-one will jump. Despite being guaranteed that they will be able to fly, no one will jump. They’re a bunch of scardy cats, with as much conviction in their own policies as a warm blancmange .

I have only two posts in this blog which I’ve never finished, and both are about stimulating an economy through the introduction of sustainability friendly carrots. For example as well as taxing petrol so highly, cut VAT on LPG car conversions etc.

The first country to introduce such measures will find itself in an enviable position. It will find its economy starting to pick up as spending goes into products which will save people money in the long term. And any incentives to encourage innovation and attract entrepreneurs should bear fruit within a decade.

The down side? Well, for starters a country will have to give up serious amounts of tax revenue. Get the beancounters in, because most countries should have a surplus coming in from the high price of oil. Stiff regulation will also have to be brought in, to force the pace of innovation.

Whisper it quietly, but a country may also have to become uncompetitive for a time, falling behind its oil guzzling competitors for a short time.

However, the G8 are currently thinking about maybe…possibly…half-jumping in 2050. If a country was to take the courageous step and fast track serious renewable incentives and strong regulations (eg. banning plastics in food packaging), there is a good chance they could be ahead of this thumbs-in-the-backside brigade within 40 years.

In the meantime the cliff all these countries are clustered at the top of is continuously being undermined by the rising sea levels. Let’s hope that someone jumps before it collapses beneath them.

Site Tags: sustainability, emissions, regulation

The debate about whether companies should be obliged, by law, to participate in CSR activities has been going on for years and looks set to continue for some time yet.

The UK Companies Act (2006) took a step in the right direction through its compromise between the Yes/No extremes of this argument. In essence, it is not mandatory to participate in these activities, but all companies listed on the Stock Exchange are obliged to publish Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to measure their impact on and involvement in “environmental matters, employees and social issues”.

The next round of debate will undoubtedly move onto what these KPIs should be. At present there is a situation where companies can choose their own measure making it impossible to compare one company with another easily or fairly. Some form of mandation seem likely.

However there is another way. Rather than mandating specific KPIs, those which can be used should be categorised and ranked in order of perceived importance. So, as a very basic example, you have environment and social categories and performance against an emissions cutting indicator is ranked more highly than performance against a carbon-sink creation indicator.

Then you create a green certification scheme for a company’s supply chain. What this scheme does is measure/aggregate the KPIs for a company’s supply chain and give it a familiar A-E ranking, much as is currently required for electrical items and offices.

At a single blow you’ve just created two things: a framework for comparing different KPIs which is flexible enough to accommodate new ones and changing priorities and a system for monitoring and encouraging companies’ sustainability through the their business activities.

Of course, the next debate is whether the scheme should be mandatory or not. Maybe or maybe not, but self-certification available for companies not listed in the stock exchange looks an interesting proposition. A discussion for another time.

Site Tags: sustainable, supply chain

The following letter was sent to The Independent letters section in response to Skippy For Supper, published 24 January 2008. The bits in bold are the bits the editor cared to publish on 28 January.

Re: Skippy For Supper; 24/01/08

Sir,

Many people, when they think of cutting greenhouse gases, think primary of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Slowly the information is seeping through that that methane is more damaging than carbon dioxide and that its greatest source is our society’s reliance upon lamb and beef. The serious greenie should therefore think about reducing their consumption of these animals in favour of other alternatives, as well as using the car less.

To that end, “Skippy for Supper” is welcome as it highlights a meat which can help to reduce greenhouse gases. However, it failed to address one important question: is shipping frozen skippy half way around the World better for the environment than eating a flatulent cow from next door? Personally I don’t know but I’m disappointed that the article didn’t mention it.

I also have to wonder whether any thought has been given to the expected rise in skippy-meat once peak oil starts to bite. It’s all very well to highlight it (and ostrich, springbok and bison) as meats more atmosphere-friendly than beef and lamb, but it doesn’t do the environmental movement any favours if importing these from across the globe is basically unsustainable.

Given these flaws, I think the article would have been better as a green-angled foodie article rather than a foodie-angled green one.

Yours etc

Site Tags: meat, sustainability, independent, letter