Beyond the blur in realtime

The life you can save by Peter Singer

2009-07-17T02:08:00.002+02:00

The life you can save by Peter Singer is interesting because it is so boring and feels like it was written 20 years ago.

This is a person that has helped move the animal rights agenda into mainstream. He did that using ethical arguments and demonstrating that we are not acting in a coherent or ethical way in relation to (other) animals. So he has been a thought leader that challenges systems even though it looks impossible.

When it comes to how we should look at the poor people of our own species he adopt a much more narrow perspective and by trying to be “pragmatic” he ends up writing a book that probably is meant to get him and others invited to rich people that want to provide philanthropic contributions to poverty.

Parts of the book are downright counterproductive. One example is his discussion about our unfair trade and agricultural system. These areas he rightfully describe as much more influential than aid, but then goes on saying that it is not likely that these system will change so we should focus on increased philanthropic aid. First of all we must do both, and a discussion about the balance would be interesting. Second, with this approach we would still have slavery, women would not be able to vote, etc. These where things that most people saw as given, but people kept on fighting and managed to change the system. A fair trade regime and a more sensible agricultural policy seems a lot easier to achieve than earlier breakthroughs.
Personally I also feel that the whole philanthropic approach feels a bit outdated. It is nice with philanthropy, but the big question today is how we can get business people using their core skills and delivering solutions that helps the poor. Even if not everyone can be Muhammad Yunus all companies should look how they can assess their contribution to poverty reduction (I wrote an article in China Daily about this two weeks ago).

For the next book it would be good if he spend more time with the philosophy. The arguments in this book are very sloppy and there are references to "human nature" and what's "natural" (e.g caring about family and friends) that feels more like a 19th Century conservative politician than a philosopher.

There are obviously also a number of positive things in the book, but anyone interesting in Peter Singer is better off reading his earlier books and for poverty and ethics there are many books that can be read. An end to poverty by Gareth Stedman-Jones and Kicking away the ladder by Ha-Joon Chang are two books that I hope that Peter Singer will read is he will continue engaging in the poverty debate.

If nothing else this can hopefully inspire a new generation of philosopher as we this year will have more than a billion hungry people on the planet for the first time in human history and we need innovation also in the field of philosophy [see earlier blog].

A World Without Bees by Alison Benjamin & Brian McCallum

2009-07-17T01:19:00.003+02:00

This is a book I can really recommend [and it has a blog http://www.aworldwithoutbees.com/]. The book captures so many different aspects. More than anything else the book is an example of what happens if you are driven by passion. Two people with an interest in bees discover the world through their passion. The way it is written is something I don’t think we see enough of. They are not journalists that focus on language, sound bites and a simple story, they are two people that want to tell us something they feel is important.

The story in the book is a scary, but important, illustration of how vulnerable our ecosystem is and how we must rethink our approach to nature (it is not a machine). They way they look for different explanations to why bees are dying is told as if you had a great dinner conversation.

How the authors are describing the mystery that bees are dyeing is also something that should be seen as an example for people writing books about the state of the world. They don’t push one idea and try to make things simple by pointing at one aspect the way media and many policy makers tend to approach big challenges. Instead they look that the mix of many different drivers such as short term perspective from chemical companies pushing out toxic substances, increased use of GM crops, increased demand for profit, monocultures, increased resistance towards chemicals from the varroa mite parasite, etc.

The one small issue where I think we need to be careful is not to only look at resilience, but broader at sustainable development with cultural and ethical aspects. Resilience has become very popular lately and can provide some guidance, but it is dangerously close to payment for environmental services and other concepts that try to move nature towards the kind of economic system that we have seen destroying the planet. Rather than resilience we could look at some of the many Chinese concepts that capture the need for balance e.g. 无以人灭天 /Do not let the artificial to obliterate the natural.

Op-ed China Daily: Two questions for those earning over 70 yuan a day

2009-06-30T09:19:00.004+02:00

Below is my article from today's China Daily. It was inspired by all the "innovation" events that I have been attending lately and was triggered by the news from FAO the 19th of June that 2009 will be the first year in human history when more than one billion people will go hungry. An alternative heading could be "A billion reasons to innovate".

China Daily is allowing a lot of space to 21st Century thinking and todays reader could also read the following article from Noleen Heyzer called "Riding high on low-carbon economy"

Two questions for those earning over 70 yuan a day
By Dennis Pamlin (China Daily)
Updated: 2009-06-30 07:55

The UN's Food and Agricultural Organization issued a press release recently saying this year will be the first time when more than 1 billion people face undernourishment, that is, 1 billion people won't get enough to eat. We share the same vulnerable planet and, because of globalization, we are closer neighbors than ever before. Hence, we should not allow any neighbor to starve without doing everything we can to help.

Poverty is a complex issue, and the current situation can be explained by a number of factors, ranging from structural global issues such as unfair trade rules to capital flight from poor to rich countries because of non-transparent tax havens. There are no simple ways to address these challenges, but we must keep looking for solutions.

Over the past few weeks, I have attended a number of conferences on how innovative individuals and companies develop new products. After listening to participants, it has become obvious that almost the entire focus is on the small minority of rich people.

The innovations include things like tracking devices for pets, automatic watering gadgets for flowers and plants, games on mobile phones and dull nail polish. None of this is necessarily bad, but in times of such a huge crisis we should take a step backward and rethink our priorities.

We should ask ourselves how much time we spend on addressing the basic needs of those that need help the most compared with that spent on trying to give those who already lead a good life an even better life, or even create needs where there might be none.

The focus on people with more money is not surprising because all companies look for possible ways to increase their revenues and know the poor have weak purchasing power. But it is time we discussed how poverty can become a driver for innovation.

Alleviating poverty is not about charity, it is about justice and about the kind of people we want to look at when we see ourselves in the mirror. It is also about the kind of companies we have and what they do.

It is time to act and take some small steps to tap into the resources and creativity that exists in all companies. The CEOs of all companies with creative staff should gather their employees and ask two questions: "How can positive contributions be reported, and can the things we produce meet the needs of 9 billion people?"

Many companies are already helping the poor, some knowingly and others unwittingly. If we make the positive contributions of such companies well known, it will increase their prestige in society. On the other hand, it can raise questions over the companies that make a lot of money but do not contribute anything in the fight against poverty.

Companies could start formulating "planet and people positive target" plans. The existing system of companies reporting non-economic issues, for example, social and environmental issues, focus on how companies can reduce their negative impacts. This is of course important, but it is equally important that companies contribute positively and report these in a credible way.

If companies had to write in their quarterly and annual reports how they helped alleviate poverty it would help employees, clients and policymakers to better understand their contribution to society. Discussions on "the fortune at the bottom of the pyramid" have shown there are many opportunities out there.

As far as the second question is concerned, to eradicate poverty we have to think in the long term on how we can create a more resource-efficient society.

In just a few decades, there will be 9 billion people on the planet. If we are serious about alleviating poverty we have to accept the fact that much of what we are producing now can fulfill the need of only a small group of people. The simple reason is that our planet does not have enough resources to fulfill human need if everyone starts copying the wasteful lifestyle of the rich.

The Hummer car is probably one of the best examples of a wasteful lifestyle. Even if one out of every 10 or 20 people were to buy a Hummer car each it would cause an environmental catastrophe. We need to ask ourselves whether such products should be allowed to be used at all, and what kind of PR campaigns companies should be allowed to run to try to convince us to buy things that are quite unnecessary and use huge amounts of natural resources.

On the other hand, most smart IT solutions, which make use of laptops and mobile devices, are examples of products that could be used by 9 billion people. Solutions like e-education and teleworking should be supported increasingly because they can be used by everyone and help build 21st century's real infrastructure. This infrastructure is already in a position today to help the poor by creating channels like mobile micro-lending and those that give information on agricultural products' prices.

The government can help unleash a wave of poverty alleviation programs by supporting companies that want to use their innovation to help. It can, for example, ask for transparency when it comes to the positive impacts of companies. More involved companies will help address some of the more complex and structural issues, too, because those working to alleviate poverty would see the need for more fair trade rules, and pricing and other mechanisms.

We are the first generation in history to face mass poverty, hence this is a historical time for companies and politicians to take innovative steps, and those doing so will be remembered forever.

The author is adviser to various companies, governments and NGOs.

World Business Summit on Climate Change (WBSCC) present summary report of the Summit: More pictures that content

2009-06-27T18:28:00.002+02:00

Yesterday the “World Business Summit on Climate Change team” sent out the summary of the summit. With all the pictures, snappy quotes and lack of concrete message it looks very much like the kind of greenwash CSR report that companies with focus on PR used to publish before standards like GRI came along.

It is surprising that a document that focus more on photos and short quotes from different people than content, is published in 2009. We have a climate crisis where radical action is needed and business usually, rightfully, ask for clarity. In this situation a document is put together, that is meant to reflect business perspective, that say nothing important. I hope people will read the document, will not take long as it might be 44 pages, but the text without all the quotes and pictures could fit on about 17 pages. The whole process is very strange and I’m sure future researchers that study the lack of action will study the WBSCC process in order to find out why.

Not sure why the full text submitted to them did not make it into the catalogue (see below for the full text). The price would have been a slightly smaller picture on the page (page 29), the gain would have been a few more concrete suggestions. Even if the suggestions are in the back of the report, and detailed suggestions where not allowed, hopefully a few policy makers could find inspiration.

Even if the WBSCC process so far is a disappointment (I still hope that follow-up events will be more specific and contribute to a more opportunity based agenda that present new ideas the really can deliver) Gordon Brown did what all serious world leaders (including business) should do, he became specific and put money behind it. Obviously it is not perfect, but it is far better than anything else out there now. It is the kind of statement that WBSCC and other business initiative can look at and see how they can support or even challenge by taking it even further. Have a look at Brown’s “Roadmap to Copenhagen” Speech here.

Below the full text submitted to WBSCC about the side event (a shorter version can be found on page 29 in the summary).

‘Creation of a low carbon economy - an opportunity’
Hosted by Novozymes /Ericsson/Suntech/WWF

Background
• In discussing possible solutions leading up to the COP15 meeting we too often focus on incremental change of the existing industrial landscape. In other words, we talk about the size of relatively modest emission cuts for emitting companies. The focus is also almost exclusively on high carbon emitters and not on possible solution industries.
• Incremental reductions are obviously important, but it is essential to go beyond that. It is not possible to “reduce” our way to the 80 % or even 90 % reductions of GHG emissions required by 2050
• In order to reach substantial emission cuts we must create a whole new industrial landscape and not only focus on what we must do less of, but also what we need to do more of. This will require a technological shift to provide smarter ways of doing things
• Several companies and sectors are already providing low carbon solutions, which create transformational solutions that encourage further and deeper emission cuts.

Key messages
• At COP15, governments must make sure to focus on solutions based on transformative technologies such as those offered by the ICT, biotech, smart building- and renewable energy generation industries as they have a huge potential in terms of mitigating climate changes.
• Climate policy must shift from the strong focus on the high carbon emitters, to also include solution industries, and companies that can offer services and solutions which have a net positive impact on global CO2 emissions, in other words are “climate positive.”
• Businesses should be encouraged to report not only their own direct emissions but also their contribution to reductions in other parts of the economy. This would allow for climate positive reporting by solution providing companies that through the sale of their products help reducing GHG emissions significantly (such as many ICT, biotech and renewable energy companies).
• Governments should shift from a product to a services perspective, applying life cycle approaches that support cradle-to-cradle strategies in business along all value chains and using ecosystem services sustainably.
• Governments must support a shift from investment in “20th century infrastructure” such as roads, airports, transmission lines and old buildings to investments that enable mass deployment of low-carbon broadband networks and smart services, or a “21st century infrastructure.

From the cold war to the coal war: Eight principles that can guide us out of the fossil era

2009-06-21T16:39:00.003+02:00

Are there lessons to be learnt from the Cold War for those engaged in the Coal War? I think so.

This year it is twenty years ago since the cold war ended (in practice even if the formal declaration took a few years more). The political wave of change during 1989 began in Poland when Solidarity was legalized and allowed to participate in parliamentary election. It continued in Hungary where the parliament adopted legislation providing for multi-party parliamentary elections and a direct presidential election at the end of 1989 and Czechoslovakia experienced peaceful student demonstrations. The pictures from the wall might be the most famous from 1989, but the events in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary can easily be seen as the sparks that changed one of the most serious polarizations in modern time.

Twenty years later I visit Warsaw, Budapest and Prague during three days on the low carbon innovation tour. It was impossible for me to avoid reflecting on the similarities (and differences) between our current “war” on coal/climate change and the cold war.

Many have described the climate challenge as a war this time with outdated economic models/ideas, influential individuals and powerful companies on the one side and the planet, future generations and new smart solutions on the other side) and that we need a similar focus in order to avoid a climate catastrophe. There is a lot of truth in this, but we should also ask how the cold war was won and why the actual outcome was less positive than most people hoped for. After discussing with students and experts during the trip I have identified the following principles that might inspire those involved in the “coal war”.

1. Don’t let the people with marginal thinking and marginal solutions dominate
Today many so called “environmentalists”, researchers and climate experts are engaging on marginal issues in relation to climate change. This is not always bad, but in many cases it can actually be counter productive. By spending time on incremental issues resources are spent in field that are actually do not matter very much. Obviously certain processes are not suitable for a transformative agenda, but if that is not the case these should be avoided as much as possible. A lot of time and opportunities was lost during the cold war as many (especially in the “west”) focused on incremental improvements, as an end to repression seemed impossible and naïve. This principle is true for everyone, but environmental NGOs could probably benefit extra from reflection in this area. I’m working on a graph that provides an overview of how different groups have moved since Kyoto 1997 and will publish that in August/September.

2. Don’t see all the people on the other side as evil
Too much time is spent on demonizing the “Coal/fossil forces” in the same way as a “communists” was painted a collective evil. Instead of sweeping generalizations it is better to be very focused and talk about the individuals that are responsible for the agenda (in the coal war the CEOs, board members and ministers). These are people that have a responsibility and it is when their friends and families no longer will accept that they are destroying the planet that they will change (or cling less desperate to the power they have today). Within the fossil companies many people exist that see the need for a low carbon future and that are doing important work to promote this (my feeling is that many of these “intrapreneurs” are doing some of the most important work in preparing for a rapid shift towards a low carbon economy) or even more clear as they have more knowledge both about the problem and solutions than most people.

3. Dare to publish results that are challenging business as usual
Many experts and thinkers through time have hesitated to challenge the accepted “truths” of their time (people used to be afraid of the Church, now it is big corporations that many are afraid of criticize). The “fact” that growth is needed, that coal will be with us for many years so we need CCS, all climate measures must create new jobs, etc is nothing more than fossil thinking that assumes a “business as usual scenario”. Many organizations need to be better to separate strategy from tactics. Since Kyoto there has been too many examples where key people in NGOs have fiercely opposed a bad policy, then trying to mitigate the consequences of the policy when they have been introduced, then after a while promoting the new mitigated policy and push for damage controls as “solutions”. Necessary tactics should not be turned into strategy.

4. Realize that the war is not over when the rhetoric change and symbols disappear
Looking at the cold war from a security perspective the war did not really end. We still live under a nuclear threat (“Fog of war” is a fantastic movie about this and one of the best documentaries made). If it was about personal freedom and human rights some significant gains were made, but we should not forgot that some were lost as well when one set or rulers took over after the other. So now when old companies start talking about a “low carbon future” and don’t use old industrial symbols in their marketing it is important to look at the actual investments and emissions.

5. Don’t try to win tomorrows battles with yesterdays weapons
Using simple macroeconomic models, growth targets and industrial job creation as tools to show the benefits of a post carbon economy can not be the dominating strategy. They can be used for tactical reasons, but a well thought though strategy must exist. The opportunities are enormous and the positive impacts of a decentralized smart energy and transport system is much bigger than just the reduced carbon. When even the Chinese government, the European commissions and Al Gore are talking about the problem with a GDP focus many people in NGOs are pushing harder than ever for Growth models (like the McKinsey abatement curve) and payment for environmental services (as a way of putting “value” on things that can not be measured). Using the web to build networks of low carbon innovators, applying non-linear models to understand different change scenarios, illustrating the transformation through interactive tools, implement new business models using a low carbon development as a driver for innovation/profit and build net producing buildings that demonstrate that the future is here are just a few of the tools at our disposal.

6. When winning, make sure you don’t lose
The collapse of the wall was the beginning of one of the least thoughtful and most narrow-minded reform projects ever. Experts without any understanding of the countries they where sent to “liberalize” the economies in a way that created some of the most corrupt and environmentally destructive countries on the planet. It also created instability that we still are suffering from. It is important that time is spent on developing the strategy for a post coal economy.

7. Put the challenge into context
Even if media have a problem to deal with complexities and focus on a few issues at the time that should not push those working with important questions in the same direction. Climate change has become a mainstream word (I remember being told that “climate change”, “CO2”, “transformative solutions”, etc would never make it into mass media as they where to technical and difficult for people outside the academia to understand. I get the same reaction when I ten years later try to push for “integrated solutions”, “planet positive”, “beyond happiness” and “innovation surfing” as key concepts. This Friday FAO estimated that 2009, for the first time in human history, more than one billion people will go hungry.

The climate challenge is related to the burning of fossil fuel, but it must be seen in the context of a society that it depending on wasteful consumption, the idea that everything has a price, a culture that lost connection with nature, an ethics that put people in the centre and the rest of the planet that is at our disposal, etc. Unless we do this we will win the battle, but lose the war.

8. Those claiming to be part of the solution can be part of the problem
Maybe the most controversial, but also one of the most important lessons, is that just because to engage in the issue and claim to be part of the solution that might not be true. Many of those claiming to support a low carbon development are not really doing so. The reason for this can be many, they can be so caught in internal power struggles that they focus on keeping their position regardless of direction, they might depend on funding sources that they are afraid to upset (often without ground); they might have a lack the intellectual capacity to understand both the challenges and the solutions, etc. The result is that they become more of problem than a solution. While formal education might not be the most important (but it does not hurt) experience, network and funding are things that are important, but more than anything transparency regarding, investments, goals and strategies.

The question is not if we will leave the fossil age, the question is when and how. A new generation will hopefully not do the same mistake as the old. And more than anything don’t think that a new generation will bring change just because of the fact that they are a new generation.

I end with two quotes.

First a quote from Time Magazine that dedicate their latest issue to 1989: “Americans today are consuming 2 million more barrels of oil a day than they did in 1989. ‘I was hoping for a huge shift in philosophy afterwards [Exxon Valdez],’ says Riki Ott, a biologist and fisherman from the sound who wrote a 2008 book on the spill entitled Not One Drop. ‘But it hasn't worked that way yet.’”

Second a quote from IHT (June 21st issue):
In the “In our pages” box, they reminded us of what happened 50 years ago by republishing an article that included this quote: “Joseph Goebbels, minister of propaganda, ordered that the vice-chancellor’s speech before the University of Marburg on Sunday [June 17] should not be reported in the press, because the man who by his own connection with President Von Hindenburg made it possible for Hitler to become chancellor was rash enough to stat publicly that ever critic was not necessarily a traitor”. When an organization is afraid of external criticism and new thoughts, it is time for those who don’t believe in authoritarianism to act.

Three innovation guidelines presented at the Lift conference in Marseille

2009-06-21T00:05:00.003+02:00

Asked to present some ideas, based on the work I’ve done with large companies around the world, that could help innovators provide solutions that are needed, I presented the following three ideas at the lift conference in Marseille:

1. The 9 Billion Challenge
This is a challenge that I have been talking about with a lot of companies but am yet to develop into a working tool. The basic idea is to look at innovations/solutions/suggestions trough a “9 billion population lens” and ask the question: “Can everyone use the innovation/solution/suggestion, or is it only for a small exclusive group in the rich countries?”. The 9 billion challenge is meant to discuss the direction of innovations not produce a “yes or no”. It can also be used to ask about the relevance of the innovation. While it is fun to develop application for the iPhone it might be worth asking if this is helping the one billion people starving. If it does it is great, if not maybe it is an idea to reflect on how much time/resources that resources/time/imagination we spend on the already rich and how much time we spend on those who struggle to survive.

Both solutions and ways to measure a 9 billion solution are needed.

2. Planet Positive+
This is a further development of “Climate Positive” (that I’ve been working with Ericsson, China Mobile, Novozymes and others) as I think that neutral is not a suitable goal for companies. Innovators should not focus primarily on how they can make companies less destructive (but it is nothing wrong with that) but how they can help companies give a positive contribution to society.

We should set targets that are positive for companies, not zero as a target. (I liked what Gunter Pauli said: “We would not accept a bank robber who say that he will rob a little less and say that it is a great improvement, but for companies we often accept less destruction as a great step forward.” Almost as good as the question “Is it progress if a cannibal uses knife and fork?”)

Again, both solutions and ways to measure planet positive are needed.

3. Innovation surfing
It is obvious that most of the innovations are not directed towards those that needs it most (or the areas where innovation is most desperately needed). But instead of complaining we can map where innovations are taking place and try to see how we can “surf” on those innovations towards the areas where we need innovation. We can use the resources, ideas and network from areas where more activity is taking place today and ensure that as mush as possible is used to deliver the important innovations that we need.

A map to define innovations an outline for an innovation map for “hot-spots” is presented in the PPT below:

One sixth of humanity undernourished – Can a call for innovation become any louder?

2009-06-19T20:14:00.002+02:00

The same day as the Lift France 09 Conference kicks off the FAO sends out a press release telling us that 2009 will most certainly the first time in human history when more than one billion people are undernourished … That is 1 000 000 000 people not having enough to eat in 2009. (but you know that already)

It is time to demand more of those who have the best opportunities to innovate and turn the innovations into projects that deliver results for those that cannot do anything. Looking forward to the discussions tomorrow and hope there will be some concrete outcomes that deliver results. Time for “Spime that delivers”. Bruce Sterling and Marc Giget probably had the most inspiring presentations the first day, but can their ideas be turned into action?

I really think a tool must be developed to track the deliverables from conferences. It will be difficult, but maybe that in itself could be one challenge for innovators? Looks like a perfect fit for Lift….

Goals for Lift:
• Turn change into opportunities
Change can be a threat if you do not anticipate it in time. By coming to Lift you will get a preview of the big changes that will impact you, your job, your organization, your life, so you can prepare and get ready.

• Inspire
Like some of the most creative organizations in the world, we believe that one of the best way to generate new ideas is via cross-polinization, an horrible word for a fundamental truth: you will get more inspiration from an event featuring speakers from diverse backgrounds that at a professional convention where everybody basically agrees on everything. Come and listen to ethnologists, entrepreneurs, artists, designers, or even the webmaster of the Vatican. They all have some ideas you will be able to reuse in your daily life!

• Connect
What's an idea without the persons behind? Usually not much. At Lift we focus on bringing together all the participants, whatever their background and role in the event. We treat everybody the same and that creates amazing networking so that you can meet the people behind an idea that interests you.

TOWARDS GREEN ICT STRATEGIES: Assessing Policies and Programmes on ICT and the Environment. OECD study reveals a blind spot

2009-06-16T10:54:00.004+02:00

OECD recently released a new study “TOWARDS GREEN ICT STRATEGIES: Assessing Policies and Programmes on ICT and the Environment”. There is a lot of interesting material in this and OECD should be congratulated for carrying out this task (not the least mapping the governments and industries focus with regards to ICT.

The focus on ICT as a problem “Green the ICT (2%)” is very dominating, while the more important area “Greening with ICT (98%)” is still very much ignored. (See the graph for governments here and the graph for industry here)

A closer look would most certainly reveal an even more unbalanced picture if the resources spent on 1st and 2nd effects (2%/98%) was presented. Most initiatives that I know of in the list that state “both” will spend 80-90% on “Green the ICT (2%)”. Some of the Government initiatives are not really in the “Greening with ICT (98%)” area even though they have said that this is their focus. Others such as Greenhouse Gas protocol have begun to look at the possibility, but their current standard have no real focus on the secondary order effects.

Maybe also interesting is that Governments seem slightly ahead of the whole ICT industry when it comes to “Greening with ICT (98%)”, unfortunately this is often only related to research and not so much actual initiatives that support accelerated uptake.

It is worth noting that no (zero) global initiative, neither business nor industry, is dedicated to the “Greening with ICT (98%)”. But very many are only looking at “Green the ICT (2%)”.

When will the first global initiative be launched that is dedicated to promote the uptake of low carbon ICT solutions, i.e a clear 98% focus?

China Daily OP-ED: Five ways to make the world a better place

2009-06-12T10:42:00.003+02:00

From today's China Daily. Look forward to discuss these in more detail when I go to China next (end of July). Again a great illustration. Will we be able to see that companies can be both the main solution and the main problem to the Climate Challenge? Supporting the winners is now more important than hunting the bad.

F ive ways to make the world a better place
By Dennis Pamlin (China Daily)
Updated: 2009-06-12 07:49

The first World Business Summit on Climate Change ended in Copenhagen recently, where the world's leading companies were supposed to send a clear message to politicians across the world, but they failed.

The idea was great, but the outcome was full of vague statements and shameless requests for money to continue with unsustainable business practices. This was in great contrast to parts of the actual conference where I saw some really interesting ideas and sustainable business examples, some of them from Chinese companies, but more about that later.

One of the ironies of the fight against climate change is that many of the companies, including Chinese, most vocal at climate discussions are part of the problem. Of course, we should listen to such companies, too. But we must realize that slavery would have probably existed today if politicians back then had listened to recommendations of firms that were making the chains the slaves were forced to carry. Even if such firms conceded the need to change they would still try to find excuses and delay action by presenting improved products - for example, chains for slaves or purportedly less-polluting goods.

The global market is changing fast and a naive market fundamentalism has not only been destroying the planet and widening the income gap, but also undermining the economic values of society. It is time we understood that companies come and go as society changes, and there's no need for us to go overboard to save a company once it has ceased to deliver what society needs. The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stones.

Today's companies need to move away from fossil fuel before we burn up all the coal and oil. Technology has the power to bring to us the services that the polluting and dangerous fossil fuel has been providing by using clean energy.

China has the unique opportunity to support tomorrow's companies and ensure that those defending outdated business models do not get importance. This is especially important because China has some of the best and worst companies existing side by side. The worst are as greedy as the greediest Western companies. They are also non-transparent and unwilling to engage in dialogue with civil society. Many of them are active in the extractive industries, and have been driven outside China because of their development has been resource inefficient. On the other hand, China also has some of the most interesting and progressive companies, which can help reduce the need for natural resources.

During the World Business Summit two firms were especially striking: China Mobile and Suntech. They provided a breath of fresh air, and focused on their core business and what is needed for low-carbon solutions. The two belong to a group that can be called "climate positive" companies. The more these companies sell their products, the more they help the world reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emission.

The "climate-positive" contribution of solar-power firms is easy to understand because the more solar panels the world uses the less GHG it emits. But smart IT solutions from companies like China Mobile are a bit more complex. They are nonetheless no less important than renewable energy because low-carbon IT solutions can allow many people to live good lives without destroying the planet. Smart working solutions that allow people to reduce traveling by car, and smart control of lights and air-conditioning are just a few examples that can help build a harmonious society.

In order to support low-carbon economy and turn the need for reduced emissions into an opportunity, as well as to help the Copenhagen UN Climate Change Conference in December yield a good result, China could initiate a low-carbon innovation policy package. The package would require a significant change from existing climate policies, both in China and the world beyond. As a start, China could introduce five simple, but groundbreaking, policies.

The first and probably most important step would be to officially recognize a group of companies that is or could be "climate positive". These companies should be encouraged to report how much GHG the increased use of their products and services would reduce. Representatives from this group should be invited to comment on all policy developments. The government could even move this group to the forefront of the fight against global warming to redefine the way the problem is approached. It could also accord these firms a role in global negotiations.

The second step would be to pay special attention to transformative solutions that reduce GHG emissions by 90-99 percent. This would encourage innovative solutions such as smart buildings that produce the energy they need, video conferencing, e-paper and smart work solutions - for example, a person could work from home, if need be, instead of driving his or her car to office. The focus on transformative solutions will encourage smart nanotech solutions that would play a defining role in the 21st century, and thus China could lead the rest of the world in the fight against climate change.

The third step would be to announce a plan for 21st century infrastructure. Most of the infrastructure expenditure in China is still on environmentally inefficient structures, roads, airports, and oil and coal exploration. It's high time China shift its focus and ensure expenditures are diverted toward fiber optic cables, broadband, smart buildings that can produce their own electricity, electric cars, fast trains and renewable energy. The government could create an index to track such expenditures and help the companies collaborate to build the "new infrastructure".

Four, the country would require an eight-year fossil-free plan from all major companies because the pace of climate change is faster than thought earlier. The plan would indicate how ready companies are for a low-carbon economy. By asking for a plan that requires companies to be fossil-free in eight years the government would be encouraging innovation. This can be a climate stress test, similar to the test for banks that the US government carried out earlier this year. If it's possible to conduct a test to see if banks are in good economic shape, then it should also be possible to see whether companies are ready for one of the most important shifts in human history.

Five, China could become the first country in the world to set export targets both in yuan and GHG reduction value. This would require the government to develop a methodology to assess the GHG cuts from smart exports. In fact, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is already working on this.

China has the chance to approach a challenge in a way that could turn it into an opportunity. The five suggestions would propel it to the forefront of the fight against global warming. Many countries and groups would support it if the ideas were to become reality. The proposals fit well with current policies and would show that China is not following in the unsustainable footsteps of the West.

The author is advisor for various environmental organizations.
(China Daily 06/12/2009 page9)

From General Motors to General Mobility: Goodbye 20th century and hello 21st century when GM dies and Cisco emerge

2009-06-02T17:21:00.006+02:00

Will 8th of June be seen as the day US shifted focus from a 20th century infrastructure to a 21st century infrastructure? Can the restructuring of GM and the increased role of IT companies crate a new industrial map in the US?

Just a week after Ericsson and China Mobile discussed the need for a stronger focus on the 21st century infrastructure (not just the 20th century) at the World Business Summit on Climate Change it became public that the Dow Jones Industrial Average will begin including Cisco Systems on its list of 30 major stocks selected to reflect the overall U.S. stock market. The date this will happen is June 8...

If the US government turns what is left of GM to a sustainable company this could be part of one of the biggest transitions in modern industrial history. For this to happen the US government must move beyond the incremental thinking that other countries have demonstrated (Sweden for example that only think about slightly better cars). General Motors must be turned into General Mobility. The company that is re-emerging must focus on service not products. It is not good enough to just make better cars, even if they are electric or fuel-cell cars. A company in the 21st century must focus on sustainable provision of services for a global market.

The transition from General Motors to General Mobility should:

- Include strategies the also allow for virtual mobility (don't see the 21st century infrastructure as a competitor, but one part of the offering to customers)

- Ensure that the solutions developed support sustainable cities of the future (The way cities develop will decide if we can move out of a high-carbon/resource intensive lock-in or not. By just putting more cars on the road we will not be able to create sustainable cities)

- Adopt a global market perspective. Don't only look at the short-term demand in the rich part of the work (that kind of perspective will result in SUV's and other non sustainable solutions). Ensure that the company can offer solutions that can be used all over the world.

- Create solutions in collaboration with other companies (IT, public transport, renewable energy providers, etc) to help move away from the "car" focus.

- Support a model where people don't own cars, but rent them as they need them (Smart car use)

This could be historic, or it can become a minor change that does not result in any significant change... The people at GM, providers of sustainable mobility solutions and the US government have the opportunity, all that is needed is leadership. It can be done...

The illustration is from a tool that soon will become public.

High-level OECD Conference for ICTs, The Environment and Climate Change: High demand for calculating CO2 savings from low carbon ICT solutions

2009-05-30T17:42:00.002+02:00

Quite a number of interesting presentations during the High Level OECD conference for ICT, the Environment and Climate Change. But what was really great was that we were allowed to arrange a last-minute side event about how calculations to assess the savings from low carbon ICT solutions should look like. I expected 4-5 people to turn up but over 20 people came to discuss and most with concrete ides and projects. Will put together a short questionnaire and collect the different initiatives.

Just during the 20 minutes there was a number of interesting projects presented. On the more practical level I particularly liked the new Japanese initiative with “Eco-points”. This is an innovative approach that could be further developed to ensure that efficiency measures will result in low-carbon feedback (investment in efficient solutions that reduce GHG emissions result in further reductions) instead or high-carbon feedback (often called negative rebound effects).

That ICT companies are starting to get their acts together was demonstrated by NEC. Botaro Hirosaki, Senior Executive Vice President, NEC gave an interesting presentation and included a slide where he showed that they formulated a vision already in 2003 to contribute with as much savings in society as they emit themselves. I hope they will aim for climate positive beyond that. (See picture for NEC slide).

Beside that it was great to hear The OECD Secretary-General, Angel Gurría talk about the need for ICT to deliver a low carbon development. He was very clear about the key role of ICT as a transformative technology. In a similar way Esko Aho, Executive Vice President, Nokia; Former Prime Minister of Finland also gave a very good presentation (in stark contrast to his colleague representing Digital Europe at ICT4EE in Brussels, see earlier blog). He also noticed that ICT is often forgotten and made a reference to the latest paper from Stern that totally ignored ICT as part of the low carbon solution.

It is fantastic to see this high-level support that only a year ago was not really there, but it is obvious that it will difficult to get a solution agenda accepted before the COP15. As COP15 will be a failure and not deliver anything close to the kind of solutions we need (unless something very unexpected happens) it is even more important to prepare for the post COP15 discussions. A Climate Positive agenda will help to ensure that policy makers and the general public realize that a rapid transition to a low carbon economy is not only possible, but will be an exciting journey with companies that are see a sustainable future as an opportunity and create job opportunities (This is sharp contrast to most car and power utilities today do).

PS
I really want to thank Graham Vickery from OECD and Henrik Kjaer from the Danish National IT and Telecom Agency, as they arranged for the small calculation event to get squeezed in the last minute into an already very tight schedule.

The Copenhagen Call: A reactive outcome with light in the tunnel

2009-05-28T11:59:00.003+02:00

Let’s hope that the call from the World Business Summit on Climate Change is not setting the standard for the outcome at COP15 in Copenhagen. The “Copenhagen Call” is a document that is vague and seem to adopt a lowest common denominator approach. Much better papers have been written by all the organizations that have been working in the process, except for 3C (WBCSD, WEF, The Climate Group all have much better and detailed proposals that could have helped to move the issue forward).

The one organization that is as bad as the outcome is 3C, but I hope it is not Swedish Vattenfall that is responsible for the poor outcome [UPDATE: Just saw that Vattenfall got this prize]. But with the single-minded focus on CCS and a global price on carbon it is not unlikely. Maybe it was Mondag Morgon, the small Danish consultant company that took on a bigger task than they could manage and maybe even was looking more for money than an outcome that would make a difference for one of the greatest challenges humanity faces. Most likely is probably that too many people was involved with the purpose of pushing a single issue and the result was a mix that did not make much sense. Again we see an example of what happens when leadership is lacking.

On the optimistic side it shows that those in denial that Climate Change is real are left behind. Now we need to focus on separating those that are serious from those that engage in green washing. We know that this vague statement stand against very detailed anti-climate lobbying. The conference itself was really bad prepared and the “call” that was presented was not even presented as a draft for those participating. That was very unfortunate as many of the companies participating at the summit could have contributed text. Text that it would have been very hard to resist if the process was transparent. And if good suggestions were killed it would be clear to everyone who the companies were that killed these ideas.

One clear example of how afraid the current companies are for a solution approach is the way reporting of emissions was dealt with. In the Copenhagen Call reporting about emissions was dealt with as a problem… The following was suggested by a number of solution driven companies but was ignored:
"Business, cities and states should be encouraged to report, not only their own emissions, but also their contribution to reductions in other parts of the economy. This would allow for climate positive reporting and catalyze action among companies that have solutions that can help reduce GHG emissions significantly, but are not big emitters (such as many IT biotech and renewable energy companies).”

The fact that a business conference ignores a simple suggestion that opens up the door for those with solutions is strange. My guess is that it is either depend on the old thinking among the organizers, or that utilities like Vattenfall don’t want policy makers know that there are much cheaper and smarter solutions that CCS that the world should focus on.

The contrast between the fact that good suggestion was not even discussed and the process almost total lack of transparency is especially interesting as lobbying was one of the few issues that triggered a really dynamic discussion. It was refreshing to hear the last panel engage in a heated debate about the destructive role of business lobbyist.

For governments a statement that don’t have actual companies signing under on the call is hard to use when companies are knocking on their door threatening to leave the country unless they are allowed to continue to pollute. As we move forward I hope we will se more concrete suggestions from companies with sustainable low carbon solutions.

The text it is not bad, just vague and shying away from the difficult questions that policy makers are wrestling with so if it was not meant to be an input to the COP15 it would not been so bad. Kunihiko Shimada was very clear and refreshing when he told the panel he was sitting in “I have not heard anything new here”. That energy efficiency is important, or that low carbon technology should be supported has been well known since before 1997.

A future "call" from business should include at least the following:

100% CO2 reduction by 2050 is supported
50% by 2020 from developed countries without any demand on developing countries until the rich world have demonstrated progress.
Climate Positive reporting from those with solutions and emission reporting from those with emissions (many companies would have both) would be mandatory from 2011.
Business could pay 50bn for adaptation and expect government to do at least the same.
A global fund for investment in 21st century infrastructure created and business (investors) will allocate 200bn per year to this fund
Global guidelines for public procurement that encourage a switch from products to services are supported (allowing new innovative low carbon ways to provide different services, (e.g. virtual meetings instead of flying and using laptops working outside the office instead of commuting by car.
Global guidelines for net producing buildings by 2020 is supported and if there are IPR challenges these will be dealt by through the 21st Century Infrastructure fund and new innovative compensation schemes.
Targets for solutions that help reduce emissions with 90% are necessary. These solutions should also be given preferential treatment in order to avoid many of the incremental improvements that are dominating the debate today
Multi-solutions must be given priority, so that solutions with the same potential for CO2 reducitons that also reduce poverty, water scarcity, etc are put in focus (so that integrated solar solutions that can provide energy and desalinate water also in poor countries are given priority over CCS).

It was encouraging that Tim Flannary, as he presented the Copenhagen Call highlighted that important issues had not been included and mentioned especially ICT. Although I think he said that “We don’t say enough about ICT”, but the truth is that nothing about ICT, biotech or renewables from a solution perspective was mentioned. Still there is an opportunity for a message that also see reduced emissions as an opportunity.

So Tim has given us second chance and the meeting brought together quite a number of CEO’s that policy makers could get really good suggestions from (these are only the companies that I heard presenting good ideas):

Carl-Henric Svanberg, Chief Executive Officer, Ericsson
Zhengrong Shi, Chief Executive Officer, Suntech Power
Steen Riisgaard, CEO, Novozymes
Girish S. Paranjpe, Joint-Chief Executive Officer, Wipro
Li Zhengmao, Executive Board Member, China Mobile
Walter B. Kielholz, Chairman, Swiss Re
Ditlev Engel, Chief Executive Officer, Vestas
Harish Hande, Co-founder and Managing Director, SELCO Solar Light
Shai Agassi, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Better Place
David Blood, Managing Partner, Generation Investment Management
James Cameron, Vice Chairman, Climate Change Capital
Alan Salzman, Chief Executive officer, Vantage PointVenture Partners

Can you spot the difference? The World Business Summit on Climate Change drops ICT as part of Thought Leadership Series

2009-05-26T08:40:00.006+02:00

Take a close look at the two pictures and see if you can see any difference. In the middle of actual summit, all of a sudden and without explanation, the expected paper on ICT was removed from the page… A number of ICT companies are participating at the summit, all of them with material that could have contributed to a report, so the question is why this happens.

Hard to see? Try this (and look at 8):

1. Screen capture With ICT

2. Without ICT

The process around the WBSCC has been one of the least transparent I have experienced for a “World Summit”. When there is a clear agenda that does not matter very much as this helps you to follow the agenda. But now things have become really mysterious.

ONE STEP FORWARD: On the initial draft for the full agenda there was no ICT companies in any of the plenary sessions. That was strange and after discussions with the organizers the panel was expanded and there was a whole table with ICT companies in the end [see earlier blog].

ONE STEP BACK: During the actual conference the page with the thought leadership papers was “downgraded”. All of a sudden there is no ICT paper among the papers. The aim of these papers is to:

“elucidating and creating awareness of the key elements in the business and policy response to the climate problem. The rationale for a Thought Leadership Series on Climate Change includes:

-A change in focus from stating we have a problem to communicating the solutions to the problem.

- The potential and opportunities inherent in tackling climate change."

Few other areas fit that description better than ICT and innovative solutions. B4E had it as a special theme, the European commission just issued a communication and from tomorrow OECD will host a high level meeting with focus on ICT.

That a climate summit 2009, that is meant to represent the business voice, is dropping ICT is both strange and worrying. The ICT sector and low carbon ICT solutions are one of the best examples of how new innovative thinking can turn reduced emissions into an opportunity. I really hope that it is not due to lobbying from companies in sectors that do not want to change.

Let’s keep our fingers crossed for the actual outcome of the summit.

Climate Positive message from China Mobile and Ericsson at the World Business Summit on Climate Change

2009-05-25T07:47:00.008+02:00

Ericsson and China Mobile sent a strong "Climate Positive" message during the World Business Summit on Climate Change. At the panel "Shaping the new green economy" both companies discussed and gave concrete examples on how they already are helping society reduce emissions (not only reducing their own internal emissions) and the need for a "21st century infrastructure".

A few weeks a ago B4E took place in Paris where Suzlon and Suntech was on stage together. Here in Copenhagen China Mobile, Wipro and Ericsson was on stage together delivering the most innovative business messages during the first day of the conference. Interesting to see that many of the most innovative ideas are now emerging from China and India (or companies like Ericsson that include these companies in their strategy for smart solutions).

Will be interesting to see how much of this positive message that the final recommendations from the Summit wil include.

On what might become a photo of a historic event, from left to right:

Girish S. Paranjpe, Joint-Chief Executive Officer, Wipro
Li Zhengmao, Executive Board Member, China Mobile
Carl-Henric Svanberg, Chief Executive Officer, Ericsson

Wipro focused more on ICT's capacity to track emissions in real time and hopefully they will add the climate positive contributions later.

During the first day of the event Ericsson also sent out the below press release.

ERICSSON PRESS RELEASE
In support of the UN Global Compact Caring for Climate initiative, Ericsson's CEO Carl-Henric Svanberg addressed UN Secretary Ban-Ki Moon at an official meeting in Copenhagen. Mr. Svanberg said a new 21st century infrastructure is required to significantly contribute to the creation of a carbon-lean economy. "We must move away from dealing with emissions after they have already occurred, and focus instead on moving ideas, not people, with broadband being society's new highways.

"A large scale offsetting of CO2 emissions will require new ways of conducting business and new ways of living, and will also require large scale investments in Information and Communication technology (ICT). This sector could offset societal CO2 emissions by as much as 15 percent by 2020, and with an innovation-driven climate agenda, Ericsson estimates that this figure could be even higher. Ericsson's contribution is to provide the foundation for low-carbon services and solutions, through mass deployment of mobile and fixed broadband networks. Thus, leadership for Ericsson means growing the business while reducing carbon-related impacts", said Carl-Henric Svanberg.

Mr. Svanberg also spoke at the first plenary session of the World Business Summit on Climate Change, addressing industry and government leaders. The message to the global business community is that companies can turn the climate challenge into profitable opportunity and make a significant contribution to combatting climate change. To governments and regulators around the world, the message is that effective legislative and regulatory frameworks should make markets work for the climate. The results of the World Business Summit on Climate Change will be presented to the Danish government, host of COP15 in Copenhagen in December 2009, and to world leaders negotiating the terms of the next international climate treaty.

"Today investments to reduce CO2 emissions of ten only result in marginal improvements, or even increased emissions, due to an overall unsustainable development. In contrast, low carbon communi cation solutions which instead can be seen as "21st century infrastructure" can contribute to direct emissions reductions and also pave the way for further reductions by supporting a long-term sustainable development, Mr. Svanberg concluded.

http://www.ericsson.com/ericsson/press/releases/20090524-1317171.shtml

INNOVATION KICK-OFF FOR A PARADIGM SHIFT AT COP 15

2009-05-24T19:23:00.004+02:00

Now it is official, during a coffee break at the World Business Summit on Climate Change we launched the innovation initiative.

WHAT: SUSTAINABILITY INNOVATION COFFEE BREAK

WHEN: SUNDAY 24 MAY AT 16.10

WHERE: BELLA CENTRE, ROOM 17, FIRST FLOOR, CLOSE TO THE PLENUM AND COFFEE AREA

HOSTS:

JIM LEAPE, DIRECTOR GENERAL WWF INTERNATIONAL

ELAINE WEIDMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, SUSTAINABILITY, ERICSSON

STEEN RIISGAARD, CEO, NOVOZYMES

JERRY STOKES, PRESIDENT OF SUNTECH EUROPE

Some of the best minds in business and in the climate field will be gathered in Copenhagen. We want to make sure that we take the opportunity to gather the best ideas for an innovation agenda.

History is being written and you are a part of it. As the global climate discussion moves from problems to opportunities, and the need for actions that deliver deep reductions is well understood, it is time to create space for those with the solutions.

Join us for a cup of coffee and an inspiring break. We want to hear your ideas and feedback as we present an outline for a solution based agenda for a low carbon economy –an agenda that goes beyond incremental change.

We will present ideas on how businesses can be serious and concrete in building a new industrial paradigm in order to secure deep emission cuts while simultaneously creating jobs and growth. This event will focus on how states, cities and companies can support and accelerate the use of innovative solutions.

Most of the plenary discussions and side events at this summit and every summit leading up to Copenhagen in December focus on the size of emission cuts for conventional companies and countries. The discussion often focuses on incremental change of existing systems. This is obviously important, but we believe that it is essential to go beyond that. It is not possible to “reduce” our way to the 80 % or even 90 % reductions of GHG emissions by 2050. To achieve this, new paradigms and a new industrial infrastructure are required: we need to address not only what we must do less of, but also what we need to do more of.

Several companies and sectors are already providing low carbon solutions, which create transformational solutions that encourage further and deeper emission reductions. The ICT- Biotech- Smart Building- and Renewable Energy Generation industries are all good examples of such sectors. Given the right conditions these sectors can help lead us towards a low carbon economy without incurring unnecessary costs.

From the 24th May we will start to collect input and ideas for what messages need to be sent to COP 15 from an innovation perspective that support this paradigm shift.

HERE ARE THREE KEY MESSAGES THAT WE BELIEVE SHOULD BE SENT TO COPENHAGEN.
What do you think about them and what other messages should be sent?

"Governments must make sure that the current focus on improvements also includes solutions based transformative technologies that have a huge potential in terms of mitigating climate changes when they are used."

"Business, cities and states should be encouraged to report, not only their own emissions, but also their contribution to reductions in other parts of the economy. This would allow for climate positive reporting and catalyze action among companies that have solutions that can help reduce GHG emissions significantly, but are not big emitters (such as many IT and biotech companies)."

"Governments should shift from a product to a services perspective, applying life cycle approaches that support cradle-to-cradle strategies in business along all value chains and using ecosystem services sustainably. An effective global climate treaty must support the creation of an intelligent and bio-based 21st century low carbon infrastructure. "

Text us, email us or provide us with your blog or twitter address, and we will collect them and update the suggestions on the blog:

http://cop15innovation.blogspot.com

Innovation hotline for text messages:

tel: + 46 707 26 72 32

e-mail: cop15innovation@climateinnovators.net

Apa Sherpa carries Climate Change message on his record 19th ascent to Everest

2009-05-22T16:36:00.002+02:00

Sometime people ask me what they can do for the planet… I think people should focus on what they are passionate about… There are many ways, one quite amazing and spectacular that I got today is Apa… I think we all can use what he’s done as inspiration. For all those who work with solutions it is also good to be reminded about the consequences of climate change. Taking the lead in saving the climate is not a 9 to 5 job....

See press release from WWF Nepal below…
++++++++++++
Kathmandu, Nepal – The WWF message – "Stop Climate Change, Let the Himalayas Live!" was carried to the top of the world by Apa Sherpa on his record 19th summit to the peak, reminding the world of its responsibility towards preserving this global heritage.

Apa Sherpa is one of the best persons to deliver this message to the world, having witnessed firsthand the changing landscape of the Himalayas in the wake of climate change during his decades of mountaineering experience, and having been a victim personally of its disastrous consequences.

At the summit, Apa also installed a Bumpa (sacred vase) personally blessed by the Venerable Rinpoche of Tengboche (Buddhist spiritual leader), containing 400 different sacred ingredients intended to restore the sanctity of the Himalayan beyul (sacred valleys) against negative impacts of rapid environmental changes.

Congratulating WWF and Apa on their efforts, Mr. Ganesh Sah, Nepal's Minister for Environment, Science and Technology said, "The well being of Himalayas is crucial for economic development of Nepal." "It's only by coming together we can deliver this message emphatically to the world."

Apa carried the WWF Banner during the Eco Everest Expedition. The expedition is led by two-time Everest Summiteer Dawa Steven Sherpa, a passionate advocate of climate change issues and also a WWF Climate Witness.

Mr. Anil Manandhar, Country Representative, WWF Nepal said, " WWF salutes the efforts of Apa and Dawa for taking the climate change message to the top of the world and being ambassadors for WWF's Climate for Life campaign." "Now, the time has come for the world to redirect its attention towards the Himalayas."

Will these individuals send the signal the world needs regarding the role of business and Climate Change?

2009-05-18T14:12:00.003+02:00

Here is the list [download the PDF list here (use Adobe to read it)] of the participants that will meet next week in Copenhagen for "The World Business Summit on Climate Change". Right now it looks like things can happen and I’m optimistic…

The latest programme can be downloaded here

Keep you eyes open for cop15innovation also…

爱立信与WWF瑞典携手推广有利于改善气候的解决方案以减少全球二氧化碳排放

2009-05-15T22:20:00.002+02:00

Here the press release from yesterday is in Chinese...

2009年5月14日

爱立信与世界自然基金会（WWF）瑞典分会今日宣布建立合作伙伴关系，旨在鼓励各行业有效利用电信解决方案，以减少全球二氧化碳的排放。为实现这一目标，双方将携手推广气候智能型的电信解决方案，并向ICT领域中以提供解决方案为主的公司推出“成为‘有利于改善气候’的公司”这一概念。

双方此次合作主要涉及三个方面：从避免排放的角度找出计算二氧化碳减排量的方法；将低碳电信解决方案整合到城市气候战略之中；为建立促进低碳经济发展的合作伙伴关系提供一个支持平台。

爱立信可持续发展与企业责任副总裁Elaine Weidman表示：“我们的社会正面临着一个巨大的挑战，到2050年，我们必须大幅度减少二氧化碳的排放，而与此同时，世界经济也将增长至现在的三倍。爱立信的一个愿景就是创建一个低碳社会，我们希望看到下半年在哥本哈根举行的全球气候谈判大会上，ICT和电信能作为帮助决策者和政府部门实现其减排目标的可行方法被提上议事日程。通过宽带来实现经济的非物质化、提高经济效率的机会数不胜数。”

信息通信技术（ICT）行业的二氧化碳排放量约占全球二氧化碳总排放量的2%，其余的98%排放量来自非ICT行业和大众。爱立信和WWF瑞典相信，采用ICT技术后，非ICT和公众的二氧化碳排放量将减少15%以上。此次合作的宗旨就是要鼓励交通、建筑和能源等部门更好地利用ICT基础设施，从而减少二氧化碳排放总量。

据爱立信和WWF瑞典分会估计，合理地使用宽带业务可将二氧化碳排放减少10-100倍，也就是说，使用排放1公斤二氧化碳的电信业务，可以减少10-100公斤的二氧化碳排放。一方面，固定和移动宽带可通过使用服务替代物理产品、提高社会资源利用率来减少二氧化碳排放，改善基础服务，另一方面还可以加快基础设施和服务从物理向虚拟的转变。

爱立信和WWF瑞典分会将共同研究如何测量ICT公司通过低碳ICT解决方案减少二氧化碳排放的作法，从而做到“有利于改善气候”，即一家公司通过推广和使用某解决方案，所降低的二氧化碳排放大大低于该公司运营产生的二氧化碳排放。

WWF瑞典分会全球政策顾问Dennis Pamlin指出：“这种合作伙伴关系很好地反映了21世纪创新工作环境的模式。与爱立信一起，我们可以将减排的需求转化为市场机遇，将快速减排的迫切需求转化为推动创新和谋求经济效益的动力。在当前经济危机的背景下，当众多资源正投入基础设施建设时，上述这一点尤为重要。在今后的几个月中，我们将继续开发和推动创新低碳解决方案的应用，帮助企业、各个行业以及政府部门降低碳排放，构建低碳经济。”

城市化的快速发展以及相关的投资，意味着城市可以将二氧化碳减排的需求转化为合理和低碳发展的动力。采用ICT创建的21世纪基础设施为投资于智能解决方案提供了众多的商机。这些解决方案可以通过高能效的方式提供包括交通、供暖和供冷以及照明等在内的基本服务，从而促进整个社会的可持续发展。

智能交通和通信系统可以很好地体现如何通过建立一个由人、道路和车辆所构成的网络实现减排，该系统可以支持远程办公和非物质化，并传送道路情况和交通信息，提供向导服务。爱立信开展的研究表明，引入电子远程医疗应用可以使到医院就诊的人流量最高可减少50%。爱立信的智能网格（Smart Grid）解决方案可帮助公共事业部门和家庭更好地管理能源利用的情况，而由爱立信开发的数字家庭（Connected Home）解决方案则可以对能源消耗和照明进行监控，并实现自动化管理。

该项合作伙伴关系是建立在WWF瑞典分会与爱立信长达七年的互动基础之上。在今后的6个月中，双方将进一步加大努力，力争使ICT成为今年年底在哥本哈根举行的气候谈判中的全球政策议题。

关于世界自然基金会瑞典分会

WWF是全球最大和享有盛誉的独立性自然保护组织之一，总共拥有近500万支持者，在全球100多个国家拥有分支机构。WWF瑞典分会是其国家办公室。WWF的使命是通过保护世界生物多样性、确保可再生自然资源的可持续利用，以及推动降低污染和减少浪费性消费的行动，来遏止地球自然环境的恶化，创造人类与自然和谐相处的美好未来。

有关WWF在ICT方面开展工作的更多信息，请登录http://www.panda.org/ict。

Ericsson Leaflet: Communication Solutions for Low Carbon Cities

2009-05-14T09:41:00.003+02:00

Click here to download the leaflet [2.5 meg] for the project that was announced today. It is a very interesting innovation based project that I think brings new energy into the climate discussion. Hopefully this project can also help to move the low carbon IT discussion forward (and if we are lucky make sure that the focus on 98% is what we will see from policy makers and IT users, not forgetting the 2% obviously, but I don’t see that happening as enough traditional thinking is out there… ;))

If the style looks familiar this might be for a reason, please have a look at the Novozymes launch… Together these two projects are really interesting… ICT and biotech… Time for a solution agenda.

ERICSSON AND WWF SWEDEN PARTNER TO PROMOTE CLIMATE-POSITIVE SOLUTIONS TO REDUCE GLOBAL CO2 EMISSIONS

2009-05-14T09:35:00.002+02:00

There is a story behind this that is very interesting, hope to write about this soon. Until then just enjoy a 21st Century initiative. There will be more in a not too distant future...

May 14, 2009, 09:30 (CET)

Ericsson (NASDAQ:ERIC) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Sweden today announced a partnership aimed to encourage the smart use of telecom solutions across industries to reduce global CO2 emissions. To achieve this, they will work together to promote climate-smart telecom solutions, and introduce the concept of being "climate-positive" to solution-driven companies in the ICT sector.

The partnership covers three key areas: a methodology for calculating CO2 savings from emission avoidance; the integration of low-carbon telecommunication solutions in climate strategies for cities; and a support platform for partnerships that promote a low-carbon economy.

Elaine Weidman, Vice President, Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility, Ericsson, says: "Society faces a huge challenge to drastically reduce CO2 emissions by 2050, while the world economy will as much as triple. Ericsson has a vision of using telecommunications to foster a more carbon-lean society, and we would like to see ICT and telecom on the agenda for the global climate negotiations in Copenhagen later this year, as a viable means of helping policy makers and governments when it comes to reaching their carbon emission targets. The opportunities for broadband to dematerialize and streamline the economy are almost unlimited."

While the information and communications technology (ICT) industry is responsible for approximately 2 percent of global CO2 emissions, Ericsson and WWF Sweden believe it has the potential to help reduce more than 15 percent of the remaining 98 percent emitted by non-ICT industries and the public. The partnership aims to encourage other sectors, such as transport, buildings and energy, to better utilize ICT infrastructure and thereby reduce overall CO2 emissions.

Ericsson and WWF Sweden estimate that smart use of broadband-enabled services can reduce CO2 emissions by a factor of 10-100, i.e. the use of a telecom service that emits 1kg of CO2 may enable a reduction of 10-100kg of CO2. Fixed and mobile broadband can play a leading role in improving basic services while reducing CO2 emissions - both by replacing physical products with services and by helping society to use resources more efficiently - and can accelerate the shift from physical to virtual infrastructure and services.

Ericsson and WWF Sweden will explore how to measure how an ICT company can help reduce significant amounts of CO2 in society with low carbon ICT solutions, thereby becoming "climate positive", i.e. the use of a company's solutions are promoted and used in a way that result in much greater CO2 reductions than the company's internal emissions.

Dennis Pamlin, Global Policy Advisor at WWF Sweden, says: "This partnership is an example of how innovative climate work in the 21st century can look. Together with Ericsson, we can approach the need for reduced emissions as an opportunity, and the urgency for rapid reductions as a driver for innovation and profit. This is especially important in this economic crisis when significant resources are being allocated into infrastructure investments. During the coming months we will explore and promote the use of innovative carbon-lean solutions which can help businesses, industries and governments reduce their carbon emissions and shape a low-carbon economy."

Rapid urbanization and related investments mean that cities can turn the need to reduce CO2 emissions into a driver for smart and carbon lean development. The 21st century infrastructure that ICT has created opens up opportunities for investments in smart solutions that can deliver basic services, such as transport, heating, cooling and lighting in resource efficient ways that contribute to sustainable development for the world's population.

Intelligent transport and communication systems are an example of how emissions can be reduced through a linked network of people, roads and vehicles, which support teleworking, dematerialization and, communicate road descriptions, guides and traffic information. Research conducted by Ericsson shows that introducing telemedicine applications can reduce travel for hospital consultations by up to 50 percent. Ericsson's Smart Grid solutions help utilities and households to better regulate energy use, and Ericson's Connected Home allows for monitoring and automating energy consumption, lighting and surveillance.

This partnership builds on seven years of interaction between WWF Sweden and Ericsson. Over the next six months, the partnership will focus on intensified effort to get ICT on the global policy agenda for the upcoming climate negotiations in Copenhagen later this year.

Notes to editors:
Background information on energy efficient solutions:
www.ericsson.com/press/facts_figures/doc/energy_efficiency.pdf
Ericsson's multimedia content is available at the broadcast room: www.ericsson.com/broadcast_room

Ericsson is the world's leading provider of technology and services to telecom operators. The market leader in 2G and 3G mobile technologies, Ericsson supplies communications services and manages networks that serve more than 250 million subscribers. The company's portfolio comprises mobile and fixed network infrastructure, and broadband and multimedia solutions for operators, enterprises and developers. The Sony Ericsson joint venture provides consumers with feature-rich personal mobile devices.

Ericsson is advancing its vision of 'communication for all' through innovation, technology, and sustainable business solutions. Working in 175 countries, more than 70,000 employees generated revenue of USD 27 billion (SEK 209 billion) in 2008. Founded in 1876 and headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden, Ericsson is listed on OMX Nordic Exchange Stockholm and NASDAQ.

For more information, visit www.ericsson.com or www.ericsson.mobi.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT

Ericsson
Ericsson Corporate Public & Media Relations
Phone: +46 10 719 69 92
E-mail: press.relations@ericsson.com

WWF Sweden
Barbara Evaeus, Manager Climate Communications
Phone: +46 70 393 9030
E-mail: barbara.evaeus@wwf.se

About WWF Sweden

WWF Sweden a national office for one of the world's largest and most respected independent conservation organizations, with almost 5 million supporters and a global network active in over 100 countries. WWF's mission is to stop the degradation of the earth's natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by conserving the world's biological diversity, ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable, and promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption.
More about WWFs work with ICT: www.panda.org/ict

Op-ed China Daily: China, US can use differences to support innovative solutions

2009-05-05T08:53:00.003+02:00

This is an op-ed from today’s China Daily that i wrote with Stefan Henningsson and input from WWF US and WWF China. It is shorter than the original version. These complex issues are difficult to capture in just a few paragraphs.

China, US can use differences to support innovative solutions
(China Daily)
Updated: 2009-05-04 07:46

The difference between emissions in China and the US is much greater than most people realize and requires very different strategies.

Scientific principles and the ability to differentiate between bad and good emissions could help deliver a climate deal that is ambitious enough to avoid dangerous climate change and support innovation, but is equitable, argues Dennis Pamlin a global policy advisor for World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

China and the US are the two largest emitters and users of coal power in the world today and are seen by many as the most important countries for a climate agreement, but from a climate perspective it is important to remember that there are probably more differences than similarities between the two countries.

Per capita emissions
China's population is for example four times larger so per capita emissions are just a quarter of the emissions in the US. This makes China's emissions effectively lesser, when compared to the US.

Let's start with the commitment to action against climate change in the last decade.

For those of us who were in Kyoto in 1997 for the climate negotiations, it was interesting to see that the US delegation did not play a very constructive role there and contributed to many of the loopholes that the world still struggles with. When George W. Bush became president in 2001, one of his first acts after taking office was to declare that he would not seek Senate ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. In contrast, China formally signed the Kyoto protocol in 2002 and has since implemented many policies; some of these are among the most ambitious on the planet, to increase energy efficiency and use of renewable energy.

Today, as it stands, the US has lost a decade and developed a history of undermining global negotiations, but with the speed at which Obama is working could be made up for quite fast. America can begin by demonstrating its commitment to an energy plan based on sound science, a plan that puts the US on the path toward more vigorous cuts in pollution over the next decade, and a plan that ramps up investment in technologies needed to get there.

If we look even further back in time, it is clear that the US, together with most Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, over the last century have created wealth by filling the atmosphere with greenhouse gas.

The current emissions are just one part of the puzzle. Simplistic ideas about a global cap and trade system or a global carbon tax are, at best, naive and, at worst an attempt to move away from a system based on equity, capacity to act and historic responsibility.

The historic emissions and capacity to reduce emissions were two main reasons why the Kyoto protocol only included absolute reduction targets for the rich countries.

'Equity perspective'

As we look ahead a question that needs to be discussed more is why different countries still increase their emissions. This can be seen from an "equity perspective".

As President Hu Jintao rightfully pointed out at a G8 meeting last year, "a significant share of China's total emissions fall in the category of subsistence emissions necessary to meet people's basic needs". As China continues to grow, it is important to differentiate these kinds of emissions from other emissions, such as those related to inefficient industrial production and consumption among a growing rich urban population.

The increase over the last decade in the US and the projected increase for the coming years are very different. Emissions in the US are mostly related to investments in inefficient transmission systems, very large building space with low efficiency and consumption of luxury goods and fast food, large cars.

It would be good if the US and China could develop a tool that indicated how much of the emissions from different countries are related to being necessary for the basic needs of their people and how much is for other reasons. It would also help to identify areas where different low carbon solutions are needed.

Why the emissions take place can also be seen from a "global economy" perspective. A large proportion of the emission that are emitted in China are embedded in goods that are exported. So even if the emissions take place in China it is people in OECD that benefit from these emissions. Estimations show that up to a third of China's emissions are embedded in export, making China's real emissions much lower than the official numbers. For the US the situation is the reverse and the emissions in the US would be about 15 percent higher if the carbon embedded in import and export was included.

Countries need to begin to measure the systemic consequences of their export of different goods and services. Countries that export SUV's and inefficient appliances are contributing to increased greenhouse gas emissions in other countries, while export of renewable energy, low carbon IT, smart buildings help reduce emissions.

Looking forward towards Copenhagen it is clear that a global climate deal should build on the principles of fairness and equity, drawing on the criteria of historic responsibility and capacity to act. Each country should follow a low carbon development path within the global carbon budget. In this context, it is clear that after decades of inaction, the new US administration must join a strong new international agreement in Copenhagen.

This includes adopting an economy-wide quantified emission reduction commitment that is comparable, in nature, intensity and compliance requirements to the commitments taken by other industrialized countries. In order to address the concerns for effectiveness and equity in the new agreement, the US should also commit to steeper reductions after 2020, with distinct milestones that lead towards a 2050 target.

Low carbon economy
As we now move closer to Copenhagen, China and the US should also begin to identify companies and technological areas that can become winners in a low carbon economy, including whole sectors such as IT and Biotech as well as efficiency in the building sector, smart grid and solar energy.

By encouraging and scaling up international collaboration these and other solution-oriented companies could deliver transformative solutions that help the rich world reduce their excess consumption and emissions at the same time as they support sustainable poverty reduction.

This will however also require collaboration around using and, in some cases, creating policies so that these solutions are taken up faster in both US and China and elsewhere.

The last decade of climate negotiations focused on the problems with reduced emissions and how companies with major emissions can reduce their own emissions. The next decade should focus on opportunities and how companies with low emissions can provide innovative low carbon solutions for high emission sectors to give us what we need.

If China and the US take the first steps the world will follow.

Dennis Pamlin is Global Policy Advisor, WWF and Stefan Henningsson is Global Innovation expert, WWF. The views expressed in the article are their own

2009-04-28T20:57:00.003+02:00

Next week I will participate at this event in Boston. I really look forward to this and it feels like a very good follow-up from B4E last week. Demonstrating low carbon innovation and climate positive in reality.


	VOLVO OCEAN RACE - BOSTON STOPOVER

	Ericsson Pavilion Fan Pier Race Village 28 Northern Avenue, Boston, MA 02210



	Public Policy Roundtable: Exploring the role of technology in meeting the climate challenge

You are invited to a roundtable discussion, “Exploring the role of technology in meeting the climate challenge”, on Friday, May 8, 3:00pm-4:30pm, at the Ericsson Pavilion, Boston Harbor, hosted by Ericsson, the world’s leading provider of telecommunications technology and services, in collaboration with the newly inaugurated Columbia Climate Center of the Earth Institute.

Participants include leaders from the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) private sector, public policy makers, academia, NGOs, media and other key stakeholders.

The telecommunications industry is creating and linking opportunities across sectors such as transport, energy, and health for socio-economic development, job creation and low carbon solutions. Industry and academic estimates show that smart use of ICT can offset global CO2 emissions by at least 15% by 2020. Ericsson believes that an innovation-driven climate agenda would deliver significantly higher reductions than 15% and are now exploring ways for innovative telecommunication solutions to help support low carbon development.

We are bringing together thought leaders to discuss the role of the ICT sector in addressing climate challenges and the role technology can play in finding tangible solutions. This dialogue is critical to bringing public and private partners together to tackle these critical issues and highlight a new way of thinking about carbon emissions – that is being “carbon positive”. It is also a step to putting the ICT sector on the agenda for policy makers and governments when it comes to reaching their carbon emission targets – focusing on the industries such as ICT that can make transformative change.

The prestigious panel of speakers include:
Jeffrey Sachs, Director, Earth Institute and Special Advisor to UN Secretary General
Carl-Henric Svanberg, President and CEO, Ericsson
Dennis Pamlin, Global Policy Advisor, WWF
Dan Schrag, Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Director, Harvard University Center for the Environment
Gavin Schmidt, Author of “Climate Change: Picturing the Science”
Cynthia Rosenzwieg, Leads cllimate impacts research at NASA's Goddard Institute

Space is limited so please respond by May 4, to Elaine Weidman, VP Sustainability, Ericsson corporate.responsibility@ericsson.com

Detailed logistics will be sent upon your confirmation of participation.

With best regards,
Carl-Henric Svanberg, President and CEO of Ericsson and
Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University

The Green Imperative: B4E asks for sustainable infrastructure systems and transformative improvements

2009-04-25T23:35:00.003+02:00

I was happy to see that Georg Kell, executive director, Global Compact, and the rest of the B4E team agreed to include my suggestions for new language that ensured focus on “sustainable infrastructure”, the need to avoid “high carbon lock-in”, “transformative improvements” and a “shift from product to service perspective”. The suggestions were captured in the following two points:

> Capturing the global crisis requires recovery plans that provide for drastically expanded investment in clean technologies and sustainable infrastructure systems, building the Green Economy with transformative improvements that avoid lock-in in high carbon and resource inefficient systems.

> We need to shift from a product to a services perspective, applying life cycle approaches that support cradle-to-cradle strategies in business along all value chains and using ecosystem services sustainably.

There was quite a few other changes that I think could have been made to further strengthen the “manifesto”, but the two above where the most important. I would also liked to have seen a bullet about the need for a special focus on solutions industries like IT and biotech (based on biomimicry), but if we take the two point above serious it is covered.

The fact that IT was represented as one if the key sectors at the conference was good and together with participation from China and India as well as leading thinkers like Janine Benyus it was a constructive conference that moved the agenda forward.

It will now be interesting how the Copenhagen Climate Council and the World Business Summit on Climate Change can build on the Manifesto from B4E. So far the headings for the summit looks good, but hardly any representatives from new innovative companies are present (their manifesto also feels like 1999 rather then 2009). Hopefully both the mix of companies and message will change to a more innovative and solution orientated when the conference opens in four weeks. If not we will have a situation where the Copenhagen Climate Council, instead of moving the agenda forward and build on B4E, will move the agenda backwards. Let’s hope that they can improve, as the world doesn’t need more of a traditional approach where the stage is reserved for the big polluters and their talk about incremental improvements.

+++++++

The whole “Manifesto” from B4E can be read below or here.

The Green Imperative
from the B4E Summit, Paris, 22-23 April 2009

The global economic downturn has exposed the extent to which markets and societies are increasingly interconnected and interdependent. We, the participants of the B4E Summit 2009, recognize that the economic, environmental and social challenges and risks we face demand a new level of leadership and cooperation. We are confident that by exercising such leadership, restoring trust and by working together we have the opportunity to put our global economy, our markets and lifestyles, our livelihoods and security, and, ultimately, our planet on a sustainable path. We emphasize the following:

• Agreement on a new global climate regime is urgent, offering all countries the opportunity to unlock the potential for sustainable, green innovation and job creation that exist as we head towards the low-carbon society. We call on Governments to complete a comprehensive and successful COP-15.
• We call on Governments to promote global integration, based on fundamental principles of non- discrimination in trade and investment, so that we can more efficiently disseminate clean
technologies globally.
• We call on Governments to provide appropriate regulatory and incentive structures to encourage more sustainable consumption and production, and send the right market signals for business to act.
• Now is the time to remove uncertainties, enable green investments to flow, and build scalable public- private partnerships that can leapfrog in terms of technological innovation.
• Capturing the global crisis requires recovery plans that provide for drastically expanded investment in clean technologies and sustainable infrastructure systems, building the Green Economy with transformative improvements that avoid lock-in in high carbon and resource inefficient systems.

• For business, we need increased transparency, a stronger ethical orientation and an expanded risk paradigm that includes not only traditional business and financial factors, but also relevant extra-financial issues in the environmental, social and governance realms.
• We need new due diligence requirements that strike a fair balance between the needs of shareholders and other stakeholders, including future generations.
• We need to shift from a product to a services perspective, applying life cycle approaches that support cradle-to-cradle strategies in business along all value chains and using ecosystem services sustainably.
• We need to shift from the tyranny of “short-termism” to a longer-term orientation of value creation, as embodied in the UN Global Compact.
• We need broad-based use of sustainable procurement and criteria that are both green and decent in the management of our supply chains.
• We need reporting and accountability systems which combine internationally recognized financial and sustainability standards to mainstream forward-looking approaches.
• We recognize the importance of promoting small business development and social entrepreneurship in the making of truly sustainable enterprises.
• We underscore the importance of revamping business education and training in order to properly nurture and develop the leaders and managers of tomorrow.

We offer our energy and commitment to work with Government and society, to jointly take leadership, ownership and accountability for our contribution as responsible citizens, consumers and leaders. This implies our engagement from local to global level, including cooperation with UNEP and others in the UN facilitated process on sustainable consumption and production leading to a 2012 World Summit.

We, the participants of the B4E Summit 2009, underline the need for business to take its part - along with Government, the research community and other societal partners - in creating a more sustainable world and drive the way towards the sustainable, green and responsible enterprise. We call on all stakeholders to work together in order to achieve these aims.

A new G2 in Asia: From op-ed to reality with leading CEOs showing the way

2009-04-23T12:09:00.003+02:00

I want to thank everyone for the feedback on the article in China Daily about the new G2 (I will try to reply to you, but please resend if I don’t). One reason for being slow in responding is that Asian companies like Suntech and Suzlan are moving to the centre of the discussion.

I think yesterday was the first time that Shi Zhengrong and Tulsi Tanti were on the stage together and it felt like an historic moment. When these two low carbon heroes to put their heads together there is hope for the future (I could not resist a photo of these two brilliant minds together).

After short discussions with both Shi Zhengrong and Tulsi Tanti I hope to be able to support new innovative projects with both and hope to report back soon as we move from idea to implementation…

China Daily: A new G2 in Asia to help steer the way

2009-04-21T19:18:00.003+02:00

This is an article from today's China Daily (and that was also picked up by Xinhua). I really like the illustration.

A new G2 in Asia to help steer the way
By Dennis Pamlin (China Daily)
Updated: 2009-04-21 07:45

We have a financial crisis that has forced any traditional superpower to understand that the emerging economies must be given a more important role when global economic policy is being developed. So far this has resulted in G8+5, a bigger role for G20 and a number of crisis meetings.

But the financial crisis is nothing more than the tip of an iceberg and much more is needed. Below the surface we have a number of trends that require a dramatic change in how the current global governing system works, including the Bretton Woods institutions that were created after World War II.

The firm action that the current financial crisis requires is a perfect opportunity to begin looking toward a new global architecture. At the very center of this architecture are two different G2's that will play a very important role.

The first G2 is the one that has been discussed in media since the beginning of the financial crisis, that of China and the United States. This is the G2 that follows the logic of the current system. Few would disagree that the G8 that exists today is increasingly outdated and that something new is needed. The G8 was a response to the oil crisis in 1973 and when it was formed in France in 1975 it was the major Western countries that came together. That time is gone and we have a different situation today.

The two major economies on the planet should have a special relationship and the "strategic and economic dialogue" mechanism that was launched during the G20 meeting in London provides a great opportunity.

It is important that China is clear and does not allow the old, polarized agenda to dominate, so that G2 becomes a smaller, more effective version of G8. China's global role so far has been a breath of fresh air as it does not seek global leadership, but instead wants to work in collaboration with all countries and on all levels.

With the US as a major consumer and China as a major producer, we can hope for a "global collaboration" initiative. This could focus on the major challenges we face and how China and the US could together, with other countries, to find solutions for them.

These solutions could range from major initiatives with incentives that support sustainable innovation and standards that ensure future buildings are net producers of energy. Instead of being the largest problem for climate change and resource use, the buildings of the world could become the epicenter for climate-smart and resource-efficient solutions. For this to happen, China and the US must cooperate.

This G2 could also encourage micro collaborations. I myself carry around a bag with solar panels that can charge my laptop; it is made in the US and costs a lot. I would like to see these kinds of solutions being made in places like Baoding, the city south of Beijing that wants to be a center for renewable energy production that Silicon Valley is to the computer industry. At the same time, companies in China could be invited to the US to explore how joint construction projects for solar buildings can be launched.

This kind of practical collaboration could be linked to more strategic collaboration in trade, investments and finance, as well as in security policy and other important areas.
In order to identify the second G2, we must take a step back to the macro level. It is easy to see that the center of the global economy is moving east. The need to find long-term solutions for a financial system where the money can move at the speed of light will require new regulations and new institutions.

But there are other issues that are harder to see, issues that will not hit the headlines before it is too late, as they happen slower. These include issues such as the demographic crunch with an aging global population, the increased population pressure as the world moves toward 10 billion people, growing inequalities within and between countries, and finally an accelerated development of new technologies.

All these can bring humanity fantastic gifts if they are met with the right framework, but they could also drive the world into conflict and problems beyond imagination. Especially since natural resources on the planet are not enough to provide everyone with a "G8 lifestyle".
This brings us to what I think is the more interesting, and less discussed, G2 - China and India. I was fortunate to be in Delhi during President Hu Jintao's visit in 2006. During this trip, a number of initiatives were started and it is clear that the 2 billion-plus population countries share many challenges and opportunities.

Cynical observers have focused on the differences between the countries and many Western observers seem to view China and India as pawns in the power play between the G8 countries. But anyone that can do the math and look at the history of these two countries will realize that there will be a very interesting G2, whether we like to call it that or not.

By ensuring closer and more strategic ties between China and India, the world will get two countries with long, proud histories that are a welcome balance to the dominating Western narrative in most of today's global institutions. The world would also get two countries that are reflections of how the world as a whole looks like, with a mix of rich and poor people and different development paths.

The most interesting aspect of the "Chindia G2" would probably be the end of the idea of Western countries as the goal of "development". We could also get a discussion about where the world can and should go next. We need a global circular economy for that and the two countries that probably have the best opportunity to provide guidance on how this can be done in a practical way are China and India.

Every time I visit China and India, I see more and more similarities when it comes to the big challenges. With their roles as global economic engines, it becomes very important what direction those engines will move and what fuel they will use. If China and India start collaborating in a way that shows the world the two countries - which together contain about 40 percent of the world's population - can develop joint innovative strategies for global sustainability, it will be a very good step forward for this current crisis.

This G2 understands the need for innovative solutions that deliver more than incremental improvements, as this is necessary to lift people out of poverty and deliver solutions that do not result in conflict over natural resources a few years from now.
So while most people are looking for a US-China G2 along the lines of the old school, the most important G2 will probably be that of China and India. We should see these two in a relationship that is mutually beneficial.

With a global agenda that delivers global benefits, China would start building a global governance culture beyond narrow self-interest that also includes scientific consideration for the planet in a way that the current economic system has failed to do. This would be a very good start for the 21st century and a way to turn the current economic crisis into something that will benefit both the people and the planet in a way that we never done before, but that we urgently need.

Deng Xiaoping once said that a real Asian century will arrive only when China and India are developed - this time is now emerging and for it to deliver a positive outcome, the two G2s could play a crucial role.

The author is a global environment policy advisor specializing in China and India.