The table will now be published on a quarterly basis with the next publication on the 1st of October 2009.

Please contact me directly should you have any questions or comments on this.

Sam

Post from: Green Leader

The report will also examine other areas, including barriers to creating green jobs and analyse where the gaps are in the skills base for the UK environmental industries. Interestingly Tim Yeo - Chairman of the EAC, has called for the government to lead by example and do more to achieve its own environmental targets. He told the BBC;

“If the government expects everybody else to be getting greener, it’s important that it should lead from the front. It is missing its own target for cutting carbon emissions from the government’s own offices, it’s using less renewable energy, not more, and its recycling rate is falling, not rising.” 5th August 2009

The EAC inquiry comes hot-on-the-heels of the publication of the report ‘Green Jobs: Towards Decent Work in a Sustainable, Low-Carbon World’ funded by the UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) . This year Allen & York were delighted to be recognised as one of the first 100 participants of the UNEP - Climate Neutral Network (CN Net) and therefore took great interest in this recent report which is looking at green careers across the globe.

The UNEP report predicts that there will be a significant rise in ‘green jobs’ particularly within the Energy industry. This will come from a shift in public spending from fossil fuels (oil and natural gas) to renewable energy sources (wind, solar and geothermal power), and that the 1 million people already working in biofuels, could rise by 12 million by 2030.

New jobs could also result, (the report suggests) from the expansion of recycling and environmental engineering (e.g. engineering new eco-vehicles). Wales as an example has proposed targets to see 70% of domestic & municipal waste and 90% of construction waste recycled by 2025.

Jane Davidson (Environment, Sustainability and Housing Minster – Welsh Assembly) said she was keen to get Wales living within its resources and pioneer sustainability in the UK; “There are tremendous opportunities to save money and create high quality industry in Wales by using the valuable material resources contained in waste.”

What does this mean in terms of actual numbers of jobs? Well Ed Miliband, (UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change) predicts that the environmental industries across Britain could generate an extra 400,000 jobs by 2015 and the UNEP report predicts that the manufacture, installation and maintenance of solar panels alone, will be such a booming industry that it will generate 6.3 million more jobs worldwide by 2030.

These are all large, optimistic numbers and some might say (including Tim Yeo maybe?) that we will have to move a lot faster to reach these ambitious targets. However, what is does show is another global commitment to move the world towards a greener, more sustainable society and that can only mean the creation of more green jobs.

As leaders in Environmental Recruitment – we were asked by the Independent Newspaper this month to give their opinion on the growth of environmental recruitment and the prospects of career changers looking at moving into this industry.

The biggest area here, we suggest, is people with generic project management skills, picked up in another industry, such as construction, for example or sometimes individuals with experience of a specific business role prove to have easily transferable skills. We managed a move recently for a telecommunications firm employee, whose role was buying land for new masts. He moved to a role buying land to site wind turbines.

Other upcoming areas where strong project management and commercial skills will enable a shift toward the green agenda are the Carbon Reduction Commitment or CRCs that come into force in April 2010. There are certainly insufficient skills in the market to ensure that all businesses hit their “commitment” effectively so solid project managers from all sorts of backgrounds are being lined-up within firms to manage the carbon reductions, if not to set the policy and actions at the outset. During the downturn this affords some businesses a fresh area in which to house those redundant from other sectors. As things pick up however, we will see this trend extend in to the recruitment of project delivery teams from a wealth of differing fields.

Another good example of where transferable skills can be used is in the field of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), a growth area for many companies. CSR spans all levels, from the Board to Junior roles and often begins within Marketing and PR teams. However, when taken on properly by a company it becomes part of the business and drives every day activity. Often skills will be acquired ‘on the job’, and people who initially have minimal environmental training may find themselves obtaining further qualifications to enhance their newly found skills. The Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (IEMA) is a good place to find introductory training courses.

As we approach the Copenhagen summit to find a successor to the Kyoto agreement, and as more environmental pledges are made by global governments, we need to ensure that the infrastructure is in place to deliver on the targets. We anticipate a surge in environmental job opportunities over the next few years and look forward to supporting existing environmental experts, as well as career changers looking to start a new ‘green career’.

Mark Allen is the founder of Allen & York, www.allen-york.com

Post from: Green Leader

‘The Designers Accord’ is a creative approach to accelerating sustainability and a role model for other job disciplines or industries. So what is ‘The Designers Accord’? It asks designers worldwide (new product developers, architects, interior designers) to commit to 5 sustainability principles for themselves and their businesses. It is about addressing sustainability on every project with every client. Designing sustainability into a new building, a new product/service, etc. is the best way to achieve sustainable results.

Designing sustainability into a project could include (very much the approach defined in “Cradle to Cradle” :

• Assessment, recommendation, and selection of renewable resources used to create the end product and/or ends up being in the end product, e.g., new building, new product/service
• Minimizes the water and energy used to create the end product and to operate the end product with a focus to use renewable energy whenever possible
• Zero Waste approach during the development and testing, and for the life of the product including:

• Easy disassembly
• Easy sorting
• Recyclable, refurbishable, biodegradable end of useful life handling
• End product provides and is supported to provide high energy efficiency (preferably 100% renewable energy) and high water conservation in life cycle operation.

• Assures that fair labor practices are adhered to by all suppliers in development and then provision of the new product or service.
• Etc.

Since its inception in 2007, ‘The Designers Accord’ is already over 100,000 commitment strong with significant corporate backing and commitment. It is important to note that there were two other reasons (and probably more) for initiating ‘The Designers Accord’, in addition to accelerating world sustainability progress, i.e., to level the playing field and to inspire and support broad collaboration.

Designers proposing and urging sustainable solutions could be disadvantaged in the market by those with no focus on sustainability. The idea is to create peer pressure and customer power that if you or your firm has not made sustainability commitments, then you are not a reputable designer or design firm. In the past, designers worked sustainability, if and only if their client asked for a green building or solution. ‘The Designers Accord’ turns that on its ear by requiring designers to take the responsibility to propose sustainable solutions and urge their acceptance whether the client wants to build a green building or not, for example.

As a very new non-profit, they are now working on developing their infrastructure and a way to make broad collaboration possible. We are on such a learning curve on sustainability that this collaboration is critical to getting the best of what we know and have proven in relation to sustainability to the forefront as quickly as possible.

Even with moderate success, ‘The Designers Accord’ will make a significant contribution to future sustainability, perhaps as much as public policy, which may take forever to get at the scale we need it. I wonder what other job disciplines could follow ‘The Designers Accord’ lead. My vote would be for at least Project Managers worldwide to establish ‘The Project Managers Accord’. It would have as much or more impact as ‘The Designers Accord’ due to their job function, their leadership and professional skills, the sheer number of them, their involvement in all kinds of projects, and being involved in projects from inception to close or hand-off to operation.

‘The Designers Accord’ description and principles per their Web site (www.thedesignersaccord.org) are:

“The Designers Accord is a global coalition of designers, educators, and corporate leaders, working together to create positive environmental and social impact.

The Designers Accord is made up of over 170,000 members of the creative community, representing 100 countries, and each design discipline. Adopters of the Designers Accord commit to five guidelines that provide collective and individual ways to take action. Becoming a member of the Designers Accord provides access to a community of peers that shares methodologies, resources, and experiences around environmental and social issues in design.

Our mission is to catalyze innovation throughout the creative community by collectively building our intelligence around issues of climate change and humanity, and tackling those challenges with optimism and creativity.

The unifying philosophy of the Designers Accord is open source. We advocate inverting the traditional model of competition, and encourage sharing best practices so we can innovate more efficiently and quickly.

• We ask all adopters to engage in conversation about social and environmental impact with every client and customer, and integrate sustainable alternatives in their work.
• We will create a real-world and online network to enable conversation about opportunities and challenges in creating sustainable products, services, and businesses.

Adopters agree to carry out 5 Guidelines:

1. Publicly declare participation in the Designers Accord.
2. Initiate a dialogue about environmental and social impact and sustainable alternatives with each and every client. Rework client contracts to favor environmentally and socially responsible design and work processes. Provide strategic and material alternatives for sustainable design.
3. Undertake a program to educate your teams about sustainability and sustainable design.
4. Consider your ethical footprint. Begin by measuring the carbon/greenhouse gas footprint of your firm, and pledge to reduce your footprint annually.
5. Advance the understanding of environmental and social issues from a design perspective by actively contributing to the communal knowledge base for sustainable design.”

Debbie Deland, PMP, Six Sigma Black Belt
Sustainability Expert, Systems Thinking Practitioner
President, Greater Orlando Net Impact Professional Chapter
Green Leader Panel Member

Post from: Green Leader

Based on reliable data from numerous sources, business and organizations use the most world resource and create the most pollution and waste. As undeniable, business enables a lifestyle across America that is not sustainable in that:

• Vehicles it sells that are not getting high mileage/gallon
• Products it sells with:
• Toxins, non-environmentally friendly chemicals
• Non-renewable resources
• Unrecyclable resources
• Non-biodegradable resources
• Heavy metals like electronics
• Woods, like hard woods from rainforests and other threatened forests
• Fish from depleting fisheries or of fish that are in danger of not being able to replenish due to over-fishing
• Excessive packaging
• Disposable product alternatives that are not made from renewable, recycled materials and that are recyclable or biodegradable after use
• Chemicals and other materials used for agriculture and landscaping
• Products and services not designed ‘cradle to cradle’:
• Made from recycled or renewable resources
• Made for easy disassembly and sorting for reuse, recycling and/or to biodegrade
• Meat products especially beef due to its radically intensive use of water, stock, land, as well as the methane produced by cattle
• Etc.

Business has most to lose and most to gain
Business has the most to lose or gain from taking on sustainability integration throughout their business operation, including upstream in their supply chain and downstream in how their products are handled at the end of the product’s life. In our new era of declining resources and ecosystem services slammed against ever-increasing human demand and population growth, businesses face:

• Large cost increases due to energy, water, and waste cost increases year over year
• Potential inability to get required resources and/or pay exorbitant prices for those scarcer resources
• Pressure from consumers, the public, governments, and each other to operate sustainably or jeopardize their brand reputation
• Higher insurance rates due to risk of increased liability of non-sustainable actions and operation
• Inability to attract growing number of socially responsible investors

Based on resource availability and the health of our ecosystems, whether a company and its earnings are sustainable in a medium and long term future, is now a viable question. Two examples:

• Shell Oil looked at the future of progressively decreasing oil supplies to within 30 years the world having no oil and realized their company was not sustainable in that future. After a relatively slow start, they are on the road to redefining Shell to be a total energy company with strong positions in solar and wind technology, as well as bio-technology related energy.
• Darden looked at its future and saw no fish. A no fish future doesn’t work for most restaurant menus. Darden has become involved with supporting certified and responsible fishery management, i.e., strengthening the stewardship of one of our commons. Darden doesn’t buy fish at risk of being depleted beyond recovery due to over-fishing or other fishery impact.

On the other hand, businesses have the potential for tremendous short and long term gain. Case study after case study of companies actively pursuing sustainability prove that, although hard work, these companies experience at least two of more of the following hard, tangible, and soft, intangible, benefits:

Tangible benefits

• Lower operational and project costs
• Higher revenues
• Lower lending rates; Lower insurance rates
• Lower financial and operational risk; Reduced liability
• Remain a supplier
• Increased innovation: new products, processes, materials, etc.

‘Intangible’ Benefits (sometimes more potent in enhancing the hard gains)

• Higher employee productivity, dedication, trust, involvement
• Easier to do business in communities of operation
• Ensure sustainability of the business
• Stay out of reactive mode to new laws and regulations
• Avoid adversarial relationship with activist groups and governments

Companies high on the sustainability indexes, rating corporations worldwide, on their sustainability performance, like the Dow Jones Industrials Sustainability Indexes, shows that these stocks trade at 2 to 15 times book value. There is a universal perception that sustainability costs more, but this is contradicted by many case studies especially when companies take a longer term view versus the overly short term view they are accustomed to. Again, from the many case studies, these companies still require business cases, still require strong ROI, although many have a lower ROI hurdle when sustainability, social or environmental issues are involved. It is interesting to note that in some of these cases sustainability is considered a positive constraint that drives innovation to deliver the minimum ROI.

Business can deliver innovation, influence and change faster
Although sometimes it takes forever for business change, e.g., a GM, who needed bankruptcy to allow the radical changes that were required a long time ago, many businesses are adept at change and leading other business to change. It is true that many companies struggle with making real change happen and that sustainability integration is hard work. However, in many case studies change to support sustainability both connected with the business’ reason for being and their employees and customers personal missions or purposes. This leads to the hope that as we learn more in the sustainability realm, businesses will be able to change faster and that change will be long lasting.

“Business, more than any other major institution, is focused on innovation and change.” J. Ehrenfeld, Sustainability Design. In almost all the case studies of companies taking the journey (integrating sustainability is not a destination, it is a continuing core mission commitment), companies experience visible and measurable increase in innovation whether in new ways to do things, new materials to use, new products and services, new ways to offer product and services, new ways to reduce energy, water, and resource consumption, as well as more ways to reduce waste, release of pollutants, or ways to capture waste and pollutants for treatment, reuse, etc. Businesses also find new markets in, e.g., buyers for their waste products. Since we know so little about creating truly sustainable business and living, this ability to innovate, learn and change is another reason to leverage business to move us to sustainability faster than big government at federal, state, or local levels and faster than a tipping point can be reached with the public. In any case, for the public to change their lifestyles and live more sustainability, businesses have to provide the products and services, along with the promotion, to enable the public.

Another important aspect of businesses is their capability to learn and their technical know-how. For real sustainability progress, sustainability results have to be at the system and component level, from upstream and downstream of the company’s product or service, and must be visible, verifiable with accountability. Sustainability measurement, tracking, and reporting are some of the most difficult challenges for sustainability integration and implementation. Business has some of the infrastructure to support this accountability and transparency, but as importantly has the skills to enhance the infrastructure for sustainability measurement, tracking, and reporting.

Business largest world institution and leading trainer of people worldwide
Business is the largest world institution. Business is the leading trainer, educator, of people worldwide. Business is not only the largest employer, but the largest user and provider of technology. Business is the largest and most powerful global institution in terms of financial power, exceeding the historically dominant role of governments.” J. Ehrenfeld, Sustainability By Design . These aspects of business give business the capability to influence the way people do their jobs and live their lives. Many companies have significant training capability to influence and change the behavior of its employees, but also its suppliers and customers. Encouraging businesses to look to their broader circle of influence will further accelerate our sustainability progress. The Aspen Ski Company may seem like a strange example for sustainability impact due to their mission of providing luxury experiences that arehighly energy, water, and resource intensive, as well as high in polluting and waste. However, The Aspen Ski Company looked at its future and saw no snow in 10 years. A ski resort doesn’t work real well without snow. They have been on the sustainability journey for quite awhile and have made considerable progress while acknowledging it is hard work, requires a lot of learning, and involves a lot of surprises where results contradict intuition. The company realized that their environmental footprint reduction was important, but was not enough of a contribution to change the world’s global warming trajectory to have snow in Aspen. They decided they could have significant impact by using their prestige and visibility to make global warming and the action required more real to the world. They use the Aspen no snow future to and their sustainability experience to garner attention for global warming action in the media, always friendly to Aspen, and other forums.

Businesses are in the best position to see the future
This may seem like an over-statement, but businesses are tied to resources, tied to income and earnings putting them in a position where the future is more visible and real. All large companies and many medium and small companies have a formal strategy and planning function that looks longer term (actions are not dictated by long term health or sustainability in America, but is already moving slightly more that direction). The future is more in front of them than it is for the public. In addition, businesses have access to experts and analysis that removes the confusion that global warming and declining resources and ecosystem services are real and based in factual and well-founded science, including being urgent and important. Since government is so tied to public opinion and the next election and not responsible for a product or service, or income and earnings, they are not as likely to see global warming and declining resources and ecosystem services with the urgency and importance deserved. Business leaders are paid to plan and address both the urgent and important to assure their company’s short and long term future. Hopefully, business can help itself and us by thinking and acting based more on the long term and making the long term more urgent for all of us.

Businesses have a moral responsibility
Again, based on the numerous case studies on companies working sustainability, the bottom line for the leaders and leadership teams, and their employees is that sustainability integration is ‘the right thing to do’. For some, it goes beyond that gut reaction to more of an obligation. A recent quote from Warren Buffet, “If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.” recalls an earlier sentiment he expressed, i.e., he, his investors, business couldn’t succeed without the American business and financial systems, not to mention the country’s infrastructure. Business success is supported by the systems created by this country to support its operation. Those systems and support are provided by the people through the taxes they pay. Without this system, business success would not be feasible.

Per Jared Diamond in the book “Collapse”, there are five factors that determine the success or collapse of societies, but the over-riding factor for success or failure is ‘that society’s response to its environmental and social problems.’ The private sector, business, has an obligation to lead our response to climate change and an era characterized by declining resources and ecosystem services with the huge human demand and population growth.

Conclusion
Business, both directly and indirectly, cause the most environmental damage, resource use, waste of resource, and is the biggest polluter. Real sustainability (total system level, verifiable and transformative, accountable and transparent) implemented from leadership and involving all employees and business processes, products and services presents tremendous opportunity to benefit a company and, without action, high risk and jeopardy to the business’ future. The competitive advantage for companies that take on sustainability vigorously is compelling in terms of cost advantage, enhancing their brand, lowering their liabilities, increasing their level of innovation, as well as a stronger connection with their employees and customers. The 30 year love affair American business has had with the measure of its success based solely on shareholder value has to end. Besides being the most fickle of a business’ stakeholders, business value is built through a business’ employees and customers first and foremost, as well as the communities in which it operates. Businesses have a lot to gain from integrating sustainability both short term and long term. In many cases, deep commitment to sustainability will determine whether the company itself is sustainable in the future. Business has the capability and infrastructure to deliver sustainable results faster and with more widespread impact. It is increasingly clear that if the business itself doesn’t feel a moral obligation to act on sustainability, consumers, the public, and government are increasingly see it that way.

Call to action
Our best opportunity for rapid sustainability progress is through business whether started at the working level or the executive level. It is not only executives that can see the threats in our future. Many employees know them too. Many employees have seriously taken on living more sustainably in their personal lives, but haven’t thought to take that same personal commitment into their jobs.

YOU can make a contribution to sustainability action by expanding your contribution to take on sustainability on your job. Net Impact Orlando can help you make that contribution in your workplace. Net Impact Orlando mission is to inspire and enable you to lead or support social and environmental change through business, in your job within your business.

Join Net Impact Orlando to further develop your sustainability knowledge base, to define a sustainability contribution, and engage with others working to make sustainability contributions to our community through their jobs.

What do you have to do? Join us for several meetings and assess whether Net Impact Orlando is a fit for your need to contribute and/or your personal mission or purpose.

Debbie Deland, PMP, Six Sigma Black Belt
Sustainability Expert, Systems Thinking Practitioner
President, Greater Orlando Net Impact Professional Chapter
Green Leader Panel Member

Post from: Green Leader

As usual I apologise for the Anglo centric views, after all I live on an island. Also before I go any further if you would like to be removed from this circulation list please let me know.

So as Russia and Ukraine manned the barricades (valves) Europe looked on shocked at our own omnipotent inability to make the gas flow. Europe was subject to the “real politick” of the post Soviet Union and post several other things leverage by way of control of energy supplies. So what did the dispute demonstrate:

1. It demonstrated that the Russians can turn off the gas. Does this mean Russia is an unreliable supplier? It depends upon your definition I suppose. In Western Europe it is normal practice to shut off supply when someone doesn’t pay. Leaving aside the niceties of the source of the dispute at one level the Russians did no more that what any other commercial institution would do.
2. It also demonstrated that the Ukraine can also turn off the gas. The complicating factor was that the Ukraine also acts as a transit country and could retaliate by cutting off supplies to Russia’s other customers, again to many in the west a normal commercial response. If only the arrangements being curtailed weren’t so large and critical for many countries.
3. Leaving aside the niceties of “normal” commercial interactions. Energy is politics by other means (I paraphrase von Claustwitz – my wargaming hobby comes to the fore). Many observers in the West don’t see the Russian Ukrainian standoff as a purely commercial spat. This is more worrying because it is but a small step to cut off supplies to get something else you need. Would a future as yet undetermined Russian government turn the screw to get its own way with Western Europe? It is this perceived political motive (real or otherwise) that perhaps worries the West most. We are not imaginative enough to envisage a time when the West can’t pay for its gas so logically we only have to fear politically motivated supply curtailment. However stepping aside the scenario where oil prices hit new record highs driving up gas prices linked to oil prices, while renewables and nuclear displace fossil fuels in generation, just how flexible are those thirty year take or pay contracts?

1 and 2 above lead to the conclusion that strategic gas storage has its uses, something we Anglo Saxons have always been sceptical of, the North Sea was our store. The UK lacks such strategic gas storage and yet became an exporter of gas during the period of Russian curtailment, albeit most was probably Norwegian in origin. So one solution to further threats is to build more storage, something the UK Government wants to happen (subject to planning, another story). However most of the projects being pursued in the UK are not large seasonal stores but rapid response salt cavities favoured by traders – a drop in the ocean. So where is the commercial incentive to invest in strategic storage (above and beyond normal seasonal need such as Rough). At the moment with large volumes of LNG regasification capacity coming on line it is hard to see the need for expensive seasonal storage, after all if you pay enough doesn’t the LNG flow to you? Surely, the argument runs, it is more economic to buy a few high priced cargoes than invest millions (billions) on facilities you may never need.

Surely you say if the Russians do cut of supplies won’t you get payback then? Well yes assuming the grid doesn’t call an emergency and “nationalise” you capacity, or some helpful politician doesn’t decide you are profiteering and cap gas prices. Take note the drug companies are lining up for a decent profit on the back of swine flu but are becoming easy targets for politicians wanting to make a point, we have had retrospective windfall taxes in the energy sector before!

One question is does the UK need strategic storage? I’m sure those oil companies with depleted Southern North Sea gas fields think so, provided someone else pays. After all they can’t all be switched to carbon storage! But do we really need it, how much of the UK’s gas realistically comes from Russia? Surely with access to world markets (LNG) we can manage? How reliable are world markets? Just some of the long list of issues you have to start grappling with when considering the issue. One thing is clear lots of uncertainty!

So strategic storage will only really happen if someone mandates it, thereby putting up the price of energy. Strategic stores of fuel (oil) exist and the market keeps working, so perhaps they are appropriate for the gas industry. However any such storage would need to be mandated by Parliament, perhaps those supplying households could be required to have X days of supply in store. But what about gas for power generation, there again if gas supplies were shutoff gas would be priced out of the market, assuming adequate alternative generation (and a windy day).

In many ways not sure where I ended up with this ramble and as we are approaching Heathrow (now a couple of days later on the train to Reading) so I need to draw a conclusion. Perhaps it is that market forces will never support strategic storage in the UK, they hardly support seasonal storage. So strategic storage will only come about if required by politicians. Politicians have short memories and even shorter time horizons so don’t hold your breath. The status quo will be maintained and we will rely on paying high marginal prices in the event of a crisis, nothing new there then. Offset, hopefully, in the good times with lower prices giving a reliable supply at lower overall costs, there I do believe in markets.

Also feel free to comment on the email below, which makes a slightly different point, that not only are storage expensive and capital intensive the existing UK tax structure isn’t helping.

“Richard,

Like you my responses are as twice as slow as your missives.

But it’s all very well looking at Carbon reduction and the like but what about security of gas supply?
Like all things carbon management is the way to save the planet and the right thing to do but we need to also assure ourselves that we’ll have hydrocarbons to trade and “keep the lights on” in winter.

So I would like to start another discussion going about true GAS STORAGE.
Many of us have tried to put these schemes into operation and spent good money trying to do it. Unfortunately we failed because we just couldn’t get the economics to work. Those who have tried know just how difficult it is to try and get a really serious large scale storage facility of the ground. The only real growth is in the gradually expanding peak shaving salt cavern business.

The major reason for this failure to use existing depleted gas producing reservoirs is the Tax regime. It is geared and designed to take from revenue produced and is intransigent in regard to the use of reservoirs for anything else. Any attempt at trying to get decent tax allowances against capital investment for storage is a nightmare as you have no production to offset it – only the service charge for redelivery! Similarly the biggest cost of trying to set up the facilities – besides making the compressors go in reverse and other such minor issues – is the cost of cushion gas and the complete lack of tax break on getting it, buying it or retaining it in the reservoir.

The UK is quickly going to go into being a purchasing rather than a producing nation. Storage has to be the long term need of UK Co Ltd and lots of it. Surely it’s time once again to start this debate about what any government – Labour or Conservative – is going to do to help this massive deficit in our infrastructure. Let’s move forward on carbon taxes but let’s also be sure we can keep the lights on in UK to be able to pay the carbon tax. The industry needs clear tax breaks for this effort soonest.

I’m sure the debate would be more wide spread if you were to have a tilt at it.”

Richard Harper
Managing Director
Harper Energy
(o) +441189545726
(m) +447738159962
(e) richard@harperenergy.co.uk

Post from: Green Leader

As I’m sure the members of Renewable Energy Jobs are well aware, the Government’s Carbon Reduction Commitment legislation comes into full effect in April 2010. Many of you may be involved in you’re the measurement of your organisation’s carbon emissions and actions to reduce these emissions to minimise the impact of the CRC financially and from a brand perspective.

Having spoken with many of our clients Acre found that some organisations were extremely pro-active in realising the benefits that the CRC could have, while others remained confused about if and how the CRC would impact them.

For this reason Acre teamed up with sustainability solution specialist Atos Origin to launch the CRC Network a free independent network which provides an online forum and live events for professionals involved in the Carbon Reduction Commitment to help facilitate understanding, share solutions and ideas, and identify opportunities.

Last month saw the first event hosted by the CRC Network focusing on the impact of the CRC on landlords and tenants.

There was a high turn out on the night and a lively debate followed some insightful presentations from key industry professionals including Liz Peace CBE, Chief Executive Officer of the British Property Federation and Tatiana Bosteels, Head of Responsible Investment at Hermes Real Estate. The over riding message was a positive one that saw the CRC as a good legislation that would bring positive change and if utilised correctly, could offer valuable opportunities for organisational improvements and energy savings.

Martin Stephens, Energy consultant at GIS, stated, “The CRC will go ahead and could be viewed as an organisational ‘Health Check’, and could lead to compliance, improved knowledge of building performance and an internal allocation of responsibilities. The CRC empowers Energy Managers and, through raising the CRC to board level attention, it can allow for strategic review, and at a local level the opportunity to look at education and training throughout the organisation to influence behavioural change.”

Sam Pilcher, Head of Environment at Citi Realty addressed the CRC from a tenant perspective stating that CRC costs should not be passed on to tenants. Sam argues that it should not be landlords versus tenants but the two working as a cooperative, adding if Green Leases are introduced at the time of renewal he would want to see clauses included that made it compulsory for landlords to provide evidence of the effectiveness of a BMS and commitment to building refurbishments.

Speaking on behalf of landlords was Tatiana Bosteels Head of Responsible Investment at Hermes Real Estate. Tatiana confirmed that discussions had been entered into with their tenant portfolio and her presentation of the Hermes Emissions Trading Scheme (a virtual model of the CRC based on 103 properties) demonstrated the need for all parties to gain a greater understanding of the workings of CRC, not just at the planning stage but throughout all phases. Tatiana also raised questions around the need for a league table, arguing that a well assigned cap and auction process provides the right incentives for organisations to reduce emissions.

However this was not a view shared by everyone in the audience and a “show of hands” poll suggested that approximately only 25% of the audience agreed, with the largest proportion strongly in favour of the league tables as a way to motivate organisations.

There remain obvious questions outstanding amongst landlords and tenants about the future impacts of the CRC in preparation for compliance and future phases. However this event highlighted the constructive opportunities that could be created through CRC preparation and phase one, which could have a positive impact and help gain board level support for carbon reduction programmes across organisations — a positive view which is often overshadowed by negativity, uncertainty and misunderstanding.

We would be keen to hear from renewable energy jobs visitors who have been charged with managing their organisation’s activities to comply with the CRC with their opinions and experiences of the CRC.

Please post your thoughts here or join the CRC Network at www.crcnetwork.co.uk and visit our online forum.

Post from: Green Leader

I also take issue with these huge agreements or bills. A 1,000 page bill, like our US Congress seems to think is acceptable, is incomprehensible to the representatives voting on it (and even not read by our representatives) and definitely not understood by all of us in the system. Even the Kyoto protocol was too complex as so much legislation here is and as so much done in the International arena. To change the behavior of complex systems, there are several leverage points:

• Everyone in the system needs to understand the common principles, the policies and actions meant to move the system to results we desire
• Be clear about the goal/desired results of the system or the problem we are trying to solve
• Be clear about the common, shared principles of the policies and action you are going to assess
• Identify the system archetypes displayed by the system
• Review incentives and rules driving the behavior of the system, i.e., change them, remove ones that cause the wrong behavior or cause unintended consequences, and add ones that will influence business, government, and public behaviors
• Be sure you are focused on the whole, the processes, and the inter-relationships
• Develop metrics that can be tracked and reported annually
• Provide accountability and transparency on an annual basis
• Ensure regular and clear communication

Very little of the above is possible without an approach and commitment to ‘simplicity without reduction’, which per The Natural Step Sustainability Framework, means make it simpler to deal with complexity, provide direction for strategy and decision-making for the details, yet don’t simplify in the sense of disregarding any of the complexity (credit to The Natural Step).

Our politicians and government officials all over the world are missing a huge opportunity to unite the world around the urgency for sustainability action worldwide with as many that can work it now. They let themselves get trapped in a debate over climate change when that it is only one of our big issues. The great majority of them don’t seem to have a basic foundation in system thinking that is required to change the world’s complex systems to deliver more of the results we want, e.g., a world rapidly progressing to sustainable living, business, and government. We are close to out of time for avoiding the major catastrophes of climate change, running out of oil, being severely constrained on fresh water and other resources.

This view is not apocalyptic and we can’t scare people into action. However, we do have to be more strident in what we communicate. I think very highly of the Pew Center on Climate Change. However, I think both the Pew Center, the IPCC, etc. have to find a way to get through to all of us. Somehow the future has to be brought forward to us without the smell of politics and with the thrill of united action. From their report “Key Scientific Developments Since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report”, the news on the pace of global warming is grim. The last two sentences of their update report summary is much too ‘Pollyanna’ for me. “Recent revisions of projected changes are higher than earlier estimates and the IPCC projections published in 2007 now appear rather conservative in light of more recent observations and improved modeling techniques. Fortunately, strong policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can still avert the worst consequences of climate change.” The 2007 IPCC report was more than disturbing in its projected changes and the science that supports it. ‘Now appear rather conservative’ is quite understated. The last sentence with the ‘fortunately’ is inadequate. We are already experiencing climate change impacts. No matter what we do now, there will be more and they will be more severe. Since we don’t know the tipping point, it seems fair to me to indicate we have lost some of the opportunity to stave off many impacts of climate change and that not only do we need take significant action to reduce greenhouse gases (that stay in the atmosphere for at least 100 years) and we need to take significant action to prepare for the disruptions. Significant change on a worldwide basis takes a long, long time. Heck, change in a big company takes a long time. Why is it that great companies can articulate their sustainability principles and some of their strategies and results? They have to engage their employees. They can’t just order ‘you will do sustainability’. Probably the first step for government is agreeing to common shared principles that are science based for sustainability, not just climate change.

We need to know and commit to what we actions and expected results we need to deliver in 2011, 2012, 2013, i.e., year over year within an accountable and measurable timeframe. We already know, very few if any countries are meeting their commitments from the Kyoto Protocol. An international agreement that doesn’t deliver is useless. The success or failure of a society is dependent on several factors, but the most important is that society’s response to its environmental and social problems. With globalization, we are one society and very inter-dependent. Our world is also very diverse from culture to values, perceptions of world reality, etc. Yet, the mark of the greatness of today’s leaders will be in the aggressive action they can collectively drive with as much of the world as possible. There are so many immediate actions that these leaders have all kinds of ways of beginning to drive change. In US, the government has yet to call on its people to change through changes in rules, incentives, and policies. Business and the public has to driven to change and change faster. It doesn’t mean necessarily denying ourselves, but rather changing how we deliver our quality of life.

What do you think?
Too dire a view? Why?
What do you think of the effectiveness of large bills and international agreements?
What do you think of radically reducing the time horizon to ensure the progress we need?

Debbie Deland, PMP, Six Sigma Black Belt
Sustainability Expert, Systems Thinking Practitioner
President, Greater Orlando Net Impact Professional Chapter
Green Leader Panel Member

Post from: Green Leader

I did know that among the reasons that nuclear power is not sustainable is because of its heavy use of fresh water, not to mention we still have no way to take care of the radioactive waste. Power is such a consumer of water that often I think you can’t make power decisions unless you also take into account water use. I know that renewable energy uses a lot less water than fossil fuel energy. I don’t think the conservation of water value is taken into account in energy decisions at least in any major way. I also knew that agriculture is a huge consumer of our water resources to the point that if you are exporting a lot of grain and meat, you are in a very real way exporting your fresh water resources. An interesting table from the World Water Organization, ‘Water Content of Things’, provides a way to think about water and make some choices. The list needs to be more extensive to provide more value in making choices, but it gives you a starting point that you can use to extrapolate for things not on the table.

The table lists the water it takes to deliver things we take for granted. Look at the amount of water compared to the final output of a product to you or your business. The table looks at the water required to make or produce the final product. These are all estimates because so much depends on climate, the process used, the rigor of the company doing the producing, etc. And, they do make it clear that the data is not perfect, since a lot of assumptions have to be made, but even the order of magnitude differences are remarkable and worth taking into account in our lives. A lot of the data comes from www.waterfootprint.org and Gleick2000. Examples from the table are below.

For me in my personal life, many choices were clear:

• Continue drinking more tap water (no surprise)
• Only drink enough milk to meet calcium requirements; drink soy milk instead
• Drink tea, not coffee (that’s tough, but doable)
• Continue eating less and less meat in general (I’m sure I can’t be a total vegetarian)
• Although I am guessing, look for clothing and anything else made from bamboo because it is so quickly a renewable resource and based on my extrapolation, I think requires less water
• For health, I already try to stay away from processed foods, but based on my additional assumptions from the table, another reason to stay away from processed foods since my guess is that they significantly add to the water content of things.
• I choose chicken, steel and probably recycled aluminum based on the table and some of my own added assumptions.

It also seems to me that I need to be more aware and involved in the water decision-making going on around me. In my business, what processes are consuming a lot of water, why, and can the consumption be reduced? Can I influence employee behavior to make different choices on the things they use and consume? What are your choices? Here are some more questions for you to think about:

• Do you think it is important to think about the water content of the things you use and consume whether personally or in your business?
• Is exporting our fresh water resources in what we export a valid concept to you?
• Are the meat, grain, and cotton commodity markets also really trading fresh water resources?
• With the availability of fresh water declining every year here and in every other country in the world, should the water content of things be major focus for process improvement and export decision-making?

Since we think water is a critical and a very limited resource, we’d like to know what you think. Please share your opinion and insights on these questions.

Examples from the ‘Water Content of Things’ Table

Assorted Beverages (per liter)
Glass of beer—300
Glass of water–1
Bottled Water—3
Milk—1,000
Cup of coffee—1,120
Cup of tea—120
Glass of orange juice—850

Assorted Produced Goods (per kilogram)
Bread—1,300
Cheese—5,000
Cotton textile finished—11,000
Potato chips—925
Hamburger, Leather Shoes, Microchip—16,000

Assorted Crops (per kilogram)
Potato—500 to 1,500
Wheat—900 to 2,000
Corn/Maize—1,000 to 1,800
Rice—1,900 to 5,000
Soybeans—1,100 to 2,000
(range for crops, depends on climate and weight of finished crop versus total yield)

Assorted Animals (per kilogram of meat)
Sheep—6,100
Beef—15,000 to 70,000
Chicken—3,500 to 5,700
Egg—3,300

Assorted Industrial Products (per kilogram)
Steel—260
Primary Copper—440
Primary Aluminum—410
(great variation depending on process)

The url for the table is http://www.worldwater.org/data20082009/Table19.pdf, if you’d like to see a few more examples and what they included in the estimates. An even more comprehensive and vetted listing could be a key tool for the world in several ways, but especially where for the sake of water we should reduce consumption or change what we consume and where we need to invest to reduce the amount of water required to produce and/or process the things we use or consume in our daily lives. Of course, reducing fresh water use in landscaping, bathrooms, etc. is critical. Using rain barrel collection (or similar solution) for fresh water in the future will be standard. But, our choices of things to use and consume have a big impact on our water consumption giving us another way to conserve whether in the choices we make or in the process improvements and new processes we use in our businesses to use less fresh water.

Water Content Data Credit to Pacific Institute’s “The World’s Water”

Debbie Deland, PMP, Six Sigma Black Belt
Sustainability Expert, Systems Thinking Practitioner
President, Greater Orlando Net Impact Professional Chapter
Green Leader Panel Member

Post from: Green Leader

Dunne, Pete. Prairie Spring: A Journey Into the Heart of a Season. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 2009. 274 p.

I must have a secret desire to be a field biologist, but I will make do with reading other people’s accounts. Pete Dunne is a fairly engaging writer and interesting naturalist. Although birds are not my big interest, he writes about the array of wildlife in the plains region that is probably often neglected as a point of interest. I would have liked to see more of his wife’s wonderful photographs of their four month journey, but perhaps she will publish her own photo-essay of that trip. This book dovetails nicely on the Marshall book “The Power of Four” as they visit the site of the Little Big Horn Battle.

Robbins, Mike. Be Yourself Everyone Else is Already Taken: Transform Your Life With the Power of Authenticity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2009. 238 p.

Many of Robbins concepts are basic to the motivational realm. Why is it so important to be yourself? Why do we need to acknowledge our dark side? As Roosevelt so aptly put it, “All we need to fear, is fear itself.” In fact, Robbins has many inspiring quotes that get right to the heart of the issue. And he gives a great reading list of similar books, so very well known already like “The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success” by Deepak Chopra. These concepts seem so simple and obvious, but most of us need reminding when we fall into the trap and rhythm of everyday living. Robbins tells us why it is so hard in this society to be authentic and how the Five Principles can set you free. As another famous philosopher once said:

“Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness….Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now.”
-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832

Avery, Tom. To the End of the Earth: Our Epic Journey to the North Pole and the Legend of Peary and Henson. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 2009. 321 p.

More crazy modern day explorers - and so young too! Tom Avery and four others, including one woman, set out to confirm that Robert Peary actually could have reached the North Pole in 1909 with his specialty dog sleds. Avery constructs two of the same type of sled and sets out from Cape Columbia to hit the Pole in 37 days. This may be the last time an expedition team can make the trek given the loss of ice pack due to global warming. Avery is a good raconteur as well as a unique adventurer.

Hawken, Paul. The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability. New York: Harper Collins. 1993. 250 p.

Although first published in 1993, this book has never been so relevant as it is today. “As the therapist wisely counsels: honesty does not harm, dishonesty always does.” Today’s deteriorating culture, environment, and economy are the fruits of decades of corporate dishonesty, a dishonesty that we have created, sanctioned, and supported. We could mourn for all the lost time of the last 16 years since this book was written, or we can realize that at last we have finally started down the road to looking into the mirror and to stop the lying to ourselves that everything will be OK if we just keep on the way we always have.

Fox, Caleb. Zadayi Red. New York: Tom Doherty Associates LLC. 2009. 352 p.

A very fast read of a fantastical world set in pre-historical Native American (Cherokee) life when animal spirit guides communicate with humans, but humans can no longer talk to animals and plants as they once could. Maybe there was a time before humans felt the right to destroy all animals and plants that we all lived in harmony and spoke to one another. A beautifully written story that could easily be made into a motion picture, that is rampant with wonderful shift-changer creatures, and many noble and ignoble humans.

Rushkoff, Douglas. Life, Inc.: How the World Became a Corporation and How to Take it Back. 2009. New York: Random House. 274 p.

Who doesn’t dislike or hate corporations right now in this miserable economy? But did you know that the money we have been using for centuries has not always been the only currency? And right now places like Japan and the Great Barrington, Massachusetts in the Berkshires are using local money such as Fureai Kippu and Berkshares. Fureai Kippu was developed in the 1995 recession that rocked Japan, but it was so successful that it is still used today. As Rushkoff so clearly says, “Like a new form of life, the corporate culture fights for dominance against the humans who created it. Like a cancer, it is willing to bring down its host organism for the sake of growth.” This goal of corporations is what is killing us and Rushkoff has a few suggestions in the last chapter as to how to take our lives back, although he admits he does not have all the answers. Besides local or complementary currencies, Rushkoff promotes the new barter system employed in many areas to revitalize poor communities such as the South Bronx. And the Middle Ages were not the bad times that some people really has been led to believe, in fact the times before the plague hit were the most prosperous for workers and small businesses until the monarchy decided to seize authority over the issuance of money, which led to corruption by Philip IV and the debasement of the currency. This in turn centralized wealth, made the workers poor, which eventually led to the plague. There is the old saying that, “Those who do not remember history, are doomed to repeat it.”

Thorson, Robert M. Beyond Walden: The Hidden History of America’s Kettle Lakes and Ponds. 2009. New York: Walker & Company. 308 p.

While this is a pretty specific book about kettle ponds and lakes (formed at the glacial fringe), Thorson makes a case for how these lakes, once home to the Native Americans such as the Ojibwe, became loved and tortured to become seriously damaged from pollution. The front end of the story goes into excruciating detail of the geology of how these lakes were formed, but since limnology is such a wide-ranging science the author then goes into the social and commercial history of these types of lakes. Not long ago families grew up around lakes like this, but now that young people suffer from “nature deficit disorder” due to technology, there is understandably a lack of interest in these lakes. Thorson presents some recommendations at the book’s end on how we can reclaim and restore these gems. Lakes may be the last water resort hold out when the ocean shores are inundated from sea level rise.

Janet Palma, AICP
Principal: J. Palma & Associates – March 2009 to present
Treasurer: AEP San Francisco Bay Chapter – 2008 to present

Post from: Green Leader

As ever the table is based on (job seeker) traffic data (accurate as of today) provided by Alexa.

Traffic data being one of the most accurate indicators of a job board’s performance over a period of time, and clearly a very important indicator for employers and recruiters when reviewing marketing spend.

Inclusion guidelines:

• Only specialist job boards are included (not Monster / CareerBuilder etc) as it is not possible to determine the volume of traffic relevant to green jobs. Specialist job boards where a significant volume of relevant traffic is ‘green’ related are included.
• All included sites must be first and foremost a job board. Sites which include job listing but which are primarily something else such as a blog / information site etc (TreeHugger, GreenBiz etc) are not included. Sites must include job search facilities in a prominent position within their home page.

As ever is you are aware of a site you believe we should be listing as part of our monthly update please contact me directly and the site will be reviewed before the next league table is published on the 1st of September.

3rd August 2009

Post from: Green Leader