The toaster might be more energy efficient, but we're cooking in it

James Hansen is the NASA scientist who twenty years ago warned the US Government about the reality of, and the dangers in climate change. In 1988, during what was then a record year of high temperatures (a record repeatedly exceeded since), Hansen testified before Congress and called for urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Two decades later Hansen has again appeared before US Congress to say that we have long since passed the "dangerous level" for atmospheric GHG levels. In short, we need to get back to 1988 levels in order to survive. Hansen is a man to be listened to. He is the director of the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences, and has been "popularly" referred to as "the godfather of global warming science" - though his message is by no means popular with many who hear it.

Hansen's warning underscores the fact that energy efficiency, while being desirable and laudable, is not going to get us to where we need to be. Only transformational change, in societal structure (and therefore living and working lives) will drive GHG levels down to sustainable (and survivable) levels. In the technology industry, a reduced energy usage per computing task is only any good as long as the resultant efficiency is not simply burned doing more "business as usual" computing work. In transport, energy efficient vehicles are only any good if we don't use them to drive further. The list goes on.

This is the difficult part for us all. Energy efficient light bulbs do not cast a comforting light on the real task facing us. The simple changes are 95% comforting, and only 5% effective. A building that doesn't need artificial light to be a useful structure is better. Not requiring the building at all is transformational.

As Hansen told The Associated Press; "We're toast if we don't get on a very different path. This is the last chance."

Quocirca

Very pleased to announce here that I have joined forces with Quocirca. I'll be covering "sustainability" for Quocirca. What does that mean? For a start I'll be looking at both techniques and technologies to reduce the footprint of existing ICT services. This is getting a lot of buzz in the trade press as "GreenIT", though as I have blogged about before - efficiencies are good business practice but they don't get us where we need to get to. So more importantly I'll be looking at the use of ICT, new energy generation techniques , and emissions capture technologies that are transformational in nature i.e. they enable a change in way that society and business operates.

Breakfast of champions

We hear all the time that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. The question is; what's better: cereal, toast, English fry up, eggs, porridge? All of these are regarded as satisfying and all of them have their supporters (though personally I prefer avocado on toast with a cup of white tea). This morning however I had a really satisfying breakfast; a spirited debate concerning peak oil and climate change with an Estonian MP. Though I am sometimes accused of not being the best company first thing in the morning, I really appreciated the pick-me-up of some intelligent and passionate discussion over the cold remains of the first meal of the day.

Political expediency and the focus on the short term often overrides the necessity for long term strategic planning. My breakfast companion made the point (rightly) that the moment of inertia was too high for the necessary social changes to occur. I do not disagree with this point, and the recent reactions to high oil prices highlight this; hand wrenching by our political leaders as they wonder whether to bow to public cries for tax relief on bowser prices. This is why we must urgently, initiate and maintain a multi-party dialogue free of political point scoring. Only by addressing the barriers of opinion can we move forward.

Thank you Mr. MP for a champion start to the day.

Earlier in June I posted this quote from John Wyndham. The intervening ten or so days has just reinforced the appropriateness of the quote, in my mind. Both the IEA, and Alexey Miller, who is the head of the Kremlin-owned gas giant Gazprom, are pointing to the likelihood of $250 a barrel oil prices. Much hand wringing and protesting by truck drivers all over the place. The drivers are even choking on their jasmine rice in Thailand, though whether a "drive-slow" or a "traffic blockade" would be noticed in Bangkok is another question.

Meanwhile, in my native Australia petrol is now at A$1.60 a litre and predicted to head to A$2.00. The Australian government of Kevin Rudd, which was voted in only last year and promptly signed up Australia belatedly to the Kyoto protocol, doesn't have the bravery to say what needs to be said: "Price reflects supply, and what we're seeing now is a harbinger of what a carbon emission restricted economy and lifestyle will look like".

This is why, to me, a carbon-down future is not an issue for technology. The highest barriers we will need to overcome are those in people's minds. Mind you, we can't blame them. Governments the world over have known about the reality and risks of climate change for at least twenty years, while Hubbert predicted global peak oil in the 1950s. Economic policy, education curriculum, and a lack of bravery and honesty by politicians have wrapped humanity in a warm(ing) comforter blanket of high energy dependency.

On the weekend I met up with some friends. The teenage son of one couple said that his high school science teacher says that global warming is caused by sunspots. I choked on my beer (we were having a quick rest and refreshment halfway through a bike ride), while I quickly jotted down the name of his school so I can make sure I don't send my kids there. No doubt it would be regarded as inappropriate meddling to make the reality of anthropogenic climate change a required aspect of the next generation's eduction. Pity, as they are going to have to live with the consequences of the choices and actions of today's workforce and government.

erisa conference

So after a short train journey I am up in Wales awaiting the start of the eris@ conference, which is being run by ERISA and the Welsh Assembly. As I mentioned in an earlier post the conference is focusing on electronic crime, trends, solutions, state of play of the police forces etc. What, you may well ask, has THAT got to do with sustainability? Have I slipped back to InfoSec? Well, yes and no.

Yes; because clearly this conference is focused on cyber crime, which is of course the "other side" of infosec. That's the easy answer so I'll move right on to the "no" side...

No; because I will be speaking about cyber crime in the context of sustainability. If that is a leap of logic for you, here goes. First up, I don't think you can look at anything in isolation; time and again we (the BIG "we") have done that and have ended up misunderstanding or worse totally missing something because we slipped on the mental blinkers and ignored context. As the Internation Energy Agency says in their recently published report Energy Perspectives to 2050, "The BLUE map (see note below) is very challenging for the transport sector and requires massive decarbonisation of transport".

Whereas the IEA believes such cuts will come from carbon capture and storage, or non-petro fuel alternatives, it is my view that we must also massively reduce the level of regular business commuting. We must take vehicles off the road and business travelers out of the air. Doing so requires us to (both) drastically expand public transport alternatives to private vehicular traffic and introduce the means and incentives to work remotely. The latter requires a far expanded use of telecommuting and teleconferencing than we have in use today. What that means is "data everywhere" and a dramatic increase in remote access to corporate systems.

Meanwhile, legislation will also eventually come into play. Around the world various countries including the USA, Japan, and the EU are currently debating such legislation, mainly inthe form of GHG "cap and trade" systems. This will place a financial value on carbon emissions. In effect, a new and very valuable currency will be born. Under the IEA's BLUE model such carbon trading units may eventually be exchanging hands for US$500 a pop. Crime has been following money since before we even knew what carbon was, let alone invented a currency tied to it. So I believe it perfectly logical that we will see the emergence of crime around this area in the future. It is natural to me that the trading platform for CTU's will be electronic. QED: the crime targeting that CTU trading environment and currency will be "e-crime".

So, everything is connected. Or as they say in Wales; Bopeth chydir.

Note: The IEA refers to the necessary changes in industry as ACT model or BLUE model. The ACT model includes technologies that are currently available, or in a very advanced stage of development but perhaps short of widespread commercial availability. BLUE model technologies and changes are "to be developed". BLUE model changes are required in order for the world to meet what the IPCC regards as the necessary GHG cuts; being 50% to 85% of 2005 levels achieved by 2050, whereas the ACT model only achieves a return to 2005 emission levels by 2050.

Who owns sustainability?

An increasing number of companies are announcing their "green" strategies, from travel and transportation, to high-tech, to supermarkets. It seems that every CEO has woken up the risks presented by the twin problems of climate change and peak oil. But what concerns me are the number of companies that don't seem to have quite got their head around what those issues mean. An awful lot of companies seem to be placing responsibility for "sustainability" or "green" into the hands of their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) officers. Now, don't get me wrong. Most of the CSR people I've ever met are very dedicated to their jobs, and the causes they manage to get funding and corporate support for. But I've never met one who has said that they feel they are in any way leading the company's strategic direction and pace. In fact, many have become resigned to the fact that the charitable programs that they manage are at the whim of whoever is the current sales manager; and at the mercy of the discretionary budget.

However, sustainability doesn't belong in the CSR department. ownership and governance of sustainability belongs at the board and executive management team level (think: CEO). Companies should no more place responsibility for sustainability in the hands of the CSR office than they would place responsibility there for corporate strategy, good governance, and risk management. Because those are the major elements inherent in a true sustainability strategy. If sustainability/green sits in Marketing or CSR, then you can be sure that a company is just painting green lipstick on the pig.

For those companies who "get it", no doubt we will soon see the creation of a Chief Sustainability Officer - especially in North America where they are particularly fond of creating a new exec' position and lumping them with a problem to solve. Where that occurs, the thing to watch for is how much influence the head greenie has over sales execution, facilities ops, field staff behaviour (in relation to travel), and strategic company direction.

An open letter to Richard Branson

Dear Mr. Branson,
I am writing to you in the hope that you will actually put some serious business effort toward being environmentally friendly. No, I am not talking about the use of biofuels in the Virgin Atlantic fleet. I am sure that you know what I, and numerous leading environmentalists know; biofuels are not an ecologically sound nor sustainable replacement for petro-based aeroplane fuels. Even with oil priced above $130 a barrel, amidst calls for the UK government to scrap the £10,000,000,000 a year subsidy they currently provide to the airline industry, you still can't seriously think biofuels are the answer.

I am sure that you know as well as I do that there isn't enough arable land in the world to feed the fueltanks of the world's current aeroplane fleet, while leaving any land left for food production or forests to act as carbon sinks. What, I ask myself, would you feed all those Virgin Upper Class passengers once all the land has been turned over to fuel production? That biofuel flight was, permit me to suggest, a marketing stunt that permitted a little green washing of the red Virgin brand. No, the maths and the science don't add up, and I don't believe you can get to be the head of a brand like Virgin without enough intelligence to crunch the numbers and come up with the same conclusion; biofuels are not the answer.

But I also believe that you do recognise the reality of, and danger inherent in climate change. After all, you did pledge £1,600,000,000 to help fund action. There you were, standing smiling with Al G and Bill (you remember - the other Clinton) promising to put all the profits from Virgin's air and train operations for the next ten years toward reducing reliance on petroleum. So we agree that there is a need, and we both share a will. It just seems that we don't share an understanding of the way. Two out of three is surely enough for you to consider my suggestion.

Mr. Branson, let me lay it out. I'll say it quietly so as to not scare the Virgin Airline shareholders: we need to drastically reduce the number of flights. Not fuel them with algae or babassu trees; don't fly them at all. So here's my suggestion; how about putting some of that £1.6 billion toward establishing a world wide network of business executive meeting suites, interconnected with state of the art high-definition video conferencing capability.

You know better than I that there are basically two classes of traveller; the holiday maker and the business person. In one move you could take all those business travellers out of the skies and enable them to conduct their meetings online. Lets face it, business travel isn't really even any fun any more, what with all that hassle of stripping down to the silk socks; no Perrier passed security; lost baggage and hassle. Not to mention the lost productivity, what with not even being allowed to Blackberry in the air.

How much more preferable it would be to book meeting time in an executive suite, in my own city, and to avoid all the hassle of flying. How much more productive to be able to avoid all the time wasted checking in, traveling whilst having to be "off the grid", and then having to deal with hotels and all that at my destination. And how much more profitable for the Virgin group of companies? Think of all the cross sell opportunities that present themselves. The basic service comprising two suites in two cities (for say, half a day) could be priced just under the price of a business ticket. Meanwhile, business people could travel to and from the city centre in a Virgin train, while staying online using Virgin broadband. Of course people will expect the same excellent class of service they currently enjoy on Virgin Atlantic. Those massages in Upper Class really are a nice touch; but just think how much cheaper it must be to employ a professional masseuse if you don't have to train and pay them as a flight attendant too.

Of course this isn't a new idea; lots of companies are talking about the power of video conferencing. But I do believe that the Virgin brand of companies is in a uniquely powerful position. Unlike your competitors in the air travel business (say, like BA) "Virgin" isn't really an airline; its a brand umbrella. It is already diversified into a whole range of areas that complement each other. Meanwhile, unlike teleconferencing technology companies like Cisco, Virgin is already synonymous with business (and holiday maker) travel. Doing business is really all about communicating, while the travelling is just an enabler for that communication. "Virgin Business Telesuite" does have a certain ring to it; don't you think?

So how about it Mr. Branson? How about a little innovative thinking toward climate change? Biofuels? You wouldn't last five minutes with Alan Sugar with that one. Thanks for your time and all the best.

Regards,
Simon Perry
Sustainalyst
ThinkingString

PS. If you need some help with the business plan I have some time next week.

New Whitepaper: An introduction to peak oil

A new whitepaper is available (another one of my jigsaw pieces) entitled "The Energy Fulcrum: An introduction to peakoil" available from the String Think page on the ThinkingString site. With oil bouncing around above $130 a barrel peak-oil theory is finally getting some play in the general media. This white paper provides a back grounder to peak oil by examining the exploration and exploitation challenges that limit the availability of oil supplies.

私は立法化する (*)

(*) Legislate me

Despite a struggling economy, and a failure to meet its current obligations under the Kyoto protocol, Japan looks likely to take strong action to force industry to drastically cut CO2 emissions. Yasuo Fukuda, Japanese Prime Minister (pictured) will likely announce a self-imposed target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 60 to 80 per cent by 2050, according to media reports. The announcement is expected to be made in a speech at the Japan National Press Club.

While the US Senate bows to pressure from the united forces of the coal industry, Japan is looking to move unilaterally. Japan is one of the world's leading emitters of greenhouse gases, and is obviously an industrial powerhouse. Fukuda's government views climate change as a serious risk and one that also requires business/economic transformation rather than mitigation. The announcement is a recognition that without legislation industry is not likely to move far enough or fast enough on transformations that will enable the necessary cutting of emissions.

Practice your Japanese and say after me:
私は立法化する

IEA - Energy Technology Perspectives 2006

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has published "Energy Technology Perspective: Scenarios and Stragegies to 2050". The report is the direct response to concern expressed at the 2005 G8 summit, and a subsequently developed action plan.

The report generally finds that a sustainable future for energy production is possible, addressing both climate change and peak-oil factors. Albeit the report actually states that a "more sustainable" energy future is possible - I'm not sure I get that. Its either sustainable or its not sustainable. Regardless of the semantics, the report highlights that substantial investment, substantial effort, and urgent action is required to stimulate transformation.

The report is strong in support for so-called clean-coal power production, a switch to natural gas for power gen', nuclear, and CO2 capture and storage. Of note is the view that decentralised power generation, fuel cells, and "emerging technologies" require further research and commercial development, and even then may only account for 3% of global generating capacity by 2050.

Technology is not the panacea that will get us there, rather it is one enabling factor, together with social/behavioral changes, a focus on efficiency, and political will and cooperation. This is not to be a short, easy journey. A soft landing for humanity will be a long journey; one that will take at least two decades to engineer and implement. Remember that the next time any company claims to have the simple solution.

E-Crime conference

Next week I'll be in Wales. I've been asked to present at an eCrime conference by ERISA and the Welsh Assembly. The conference is focusing on electronic crime, trends, solutions, state of play of the police forces etc.

I will be speaking on the role that technology will be play in the future (IMHO), and therefore where the concern areas are for crime. Looking forward to it. The conference presentation will be available here as soon as my hosting services technical folk manage to solve a problem. I hope to also later post a video of the session.

The "Climate Security Act"

This week perhaps the most important piece of potential legislation this year is being debated in US Congress. Before it is even passed, the legislation has already cost US businesses tens of millions of dollars. That is the estimated amount the US coal industry and energy companies and their lobby firms have already spent on ad campaigns to convince the US population that the "Climate Security Act" is a greater risk to the US way of life than, well, death by climate change.

The Climate Change Act, also known as "cap and trade" is sponsored by Joe Lieberman and John Warner. Lieberman was of course Former Next Vice President to the Former Vice President. His and Warner's proposed bill would seeks to place a cap on carbon emissions by US industry, with the cap limit lowering every year. This of ourse comes with a cost to the US economy. The bill therefore also provides for trading of unused carbon credits. Nothing new there. What is significant is that US politics have moved along so far since Lieberman stood aside Gore and that the act is being presented to Congress at all. In fact, amendments to the original draft call for a mandated total carbon reduction target of 66% by 2050. Stuff that in your power station chimney and smoke it.

Of course, the US energy industry, especially said coal fired power stations and the coal producers aren't taking this lying down. They're spending big to sway opinion their way, and considering that George W. Bush has already stated he'll veto the bill, it doesn't look like Lieberman/Warner will become as popular in our vocabulary as Sarbanes and Oxley have.

We need this legislation, and similar. Flawed as it is, and it is flawed, without it businesses will be left without the proven-to-be-effective kick start that regulation is. Now will they have a framework for necessary change. Self regulation and market forces are not enough to ensure the necessary scope of change nor the required sense of urgency. Self regulation in fact will ensure the status quo for longer. If you need any proof of that, witness simply the investment the Club for Growth has already laid down to ensure the failure of the bill's passage and the retention of the status quo.

Technology solutions will get us part of the way, but they will not get us there alone. In fact, historically there have been market drivers such as legislation underlying and driving technology adoption. SOX, HIPAA, Basel II, GLBA, The US Patriot Act. All of these acts prompted important change and improvements in corporate governance, and therefore in the IT systems that support those businesses. Similarly, climate change legislation is the only thing thatwill drive the necessary scope of behaviour change for businesses. Dripping out of those changes will be technology changes, go-to-market changes, social changes. Profit and Loss.

I make the easy prediction that the Climate Security Act will fail to pass. The harder to make prediction is that without it, or something like it, we will not achieve the necessary momentum and direction we need to achieve sustainability.

Very appropriate...

“In the time now ahead of us a great many of these prejudices we have been taught will have to go, or be radically altered. We can accept and retain only one primary prejudice, and that is that the (human) race is worth preserving. To that consideration all else will for a time at least be subordinate. We must look at all we do, with the question in mind: “Is this going to help our race survive – or will it hinder us?” If it will help, we must do it, whether or not it conflicts with the ideas in which we were brought up, If not, we must avoid it even though the omission may clash with our previous notions of duty, and even of justice.
‘It will not be easy: old prejudices die hard. The simple rely on a bolstering mass of maxim and precept, so do the timid, so do the mentally lazy – and so do all of us, more than we imagine.”

John Wyndham - The Day of the Triffids

Legislate me

According to Wikipedia (yeah...I know but its good enough for this purpose) the group named "The Club for Growth" is "a 501(c)(4) political organization and an affiliated political action committee that raises money for candidates who support a low-tax and limited-government agenda. The group claims over 40,000 members.".

Relevant to me is that they are the major mouthpieces for the US coal and petro industries and that on their behalf it is trying its best to prevent the adoption of "cap and trade" regulations in the US. As the debate continues this week in Congress, and The Club for Growth and their coal industry lobbyist friends "America's Power" continue their massive disinformation and influence campaign, they'll probably succeed. Succeed in slowing the necessary political and regulatory changes and accelerating our rush to a climate change crash landing.

The Club for Growth says "Are the unproven benefits of legislation worth the major job losses?".

It might be time to ask "Are the unproven job opportunities and benefits worth the loss of the planet that sustains the people in the jobs?".