"Al Gore's carbon offsets may be an example for Big Three to follow"

The Wall Street Journal (28 March 2007) discusses a possible strategic alternative for Big Three, the US automakers: like Al Gore, carmakers could purchase carbon offsets to offset the CO2 emissions of passenger cars, perhaps even in lieu of making their cars more fuel efficient.

Nascent "carbon marketplaces hold the secret ingredients that has led many big companies - including the automakers - to come out favoring regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions," the WSJ writes. "The auto makers hate the current U.S. regulatory regime - Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards."

What if carmakers start buying offsets instead of reducing actual source emissions? This is, indeed, the greatest risk of the offset schemes: that companies and individuals buy good conscience while continuing to emit at the same rate or at increasing rates. How is the net outcome going to look?

Even Economist.com, a fervent proponent of markets, argues there are major problems.

"Calculating one's carbon output, and the carbon savings from various offsets, is very tricky and may be manipulated by unscrupulous offset firms. Trees take quite a long time to get to the stage where they are actually absorbing all that carbon—and tend to die shortly thereafter, releasing all that carbon back into the atmosphere, there to wreak havoc. By legitimating carbon usage, offset companies may actually be increasing it."

"Huge numbers of people in the rich world have to fly less, drive less, consume less, and live in smaller houses. If Mr Gore really wants to encourage this (as I do), then it would be nice to see him setting an example."

EU seeks to fight climate change with taxes

The Commission will on 28 March present ideas for “green taxes” to save energy and cut greenhouse gas emissions. It says that such an ‘ecological tax reform’ could increase the bloc’s competitiveness by shifting the burden away from labour taxes.

EU heads of state and government, meeting in Brussels on 8-9 March 2007, committed themselves to reducing European CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020 compared with 1990 levels – a bold promise, when one considers that Europe is already struggling to meet its current target, under the Kyoto Protocol, of cutting these emissions by 8% by 2012.

Currently, the EU’s principal tool to reduce emissions is its carbon trading scheme, but the EU will have to find new ways to discourage pollution if it is to reach its ambitious goal. Taxation could provide an answer as it can be used to orient producers’ and consumers’ behaviours to non-environmentally friendly goods.

From http://www.planet2025news.net/ntext.rxml?id=4261&photo=

Member states urged to take action on 'e-waste'

Consumer electronic manufacturers including Sony, Nokia and HP, and NGOs ranging from Greenpeace to Friends of the Earth, have called on the Commission to take action against 11 member states that have transposed the WEEE directive without making producers fully responsible for the recycling of electrical and electronic products.

The Directive on Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) aims to increase the reuse, recycling and recovery of waste from a variety of consumer products ranging from light bulbs to PCs. Electrical equipment is one of the fastest- growing waste streams in the EU.
The Directive aims to create incentives for producers to take the initiative to improve the design of their products and make them easier to recycle.

From http://www.euractiv.com/en/environment/member-states-urged-take-action-waste/article-162349


Snack-maker aims for green consumers with carbon labels
By Fiona Harvey,Environment Correspondent, Financial Times

Packets of Walkers crisps will appear on the shelves today carrying the world's first "carbon labels", enabling customers to gauge the effect of their buying habits on the climate.
The labels will show that 75g of carbon dioxide are emitted to produce and transport 34.5g of Walkers crisps "from seed to store".

Tom Delay, chief executive of the Carbon Trust, thegovernment-funded body that helped to develop the labels, said: "This will be a driver for businesses starting to compete on their carbon footprint as much as on price."

The carbon labels come as companies try to impress their green credentials on environmentally conscious customers. Walkers has been working with the trust for five years and other -companies, including Boots, the retailer, are expectedto launch similar labels soon.
Innocent, the maker of smoothies and fruit juices, will include information on the "carbon footprint" of its products on its website initially, although in the future these could appear on the juice packaging.

Marks and Spencer said yesterday it was also working with the trust on carbon labels for some product lines. Separate from the Carbon Trust's work, Tesco announced earlier this year it would put carbon labels on all of its products, although this could take several years.
Mr Delay said the idea was likely to be adopted more widely: "This is a little beginning to something that could be very big." He said the labels would explain to consumers the CO2emitted from the products, which would enable people trying to buy ethically to choose between different products.

Ben & Jerry's, the ice-cream brand, welcomed the initiative but said it would not put carbon labels on its products until an international standard had been set.
Fiona Dawson, chair of the Food and Drink Federation's sustainability and competitiveness steering group, said: "A single methodology for industry as a whole is essential. This is a complex issue. To be effective, the methodology must be practicable, based upon sound science and easily understood."

Coca-Cola's ethics put to the test in European-wide study

Coca-Cola's performance as an ethically conscious global brand has come under scrutiny in a 15 nation, European-wide study into the soft drinks giant's involvement in social causes and environmental responsibility.

Over two-thirds of respondents questioned whether the company makes a positive contribution to society.The study, which was commissioned by Vlerick Leuven Ghent Management School in Belgium, looked at the Socially Responsible Trading performance of Coca-Cola across 15 major European markets and eight separate consumer groups.

According to the report, more than 40% of respondents felt Coca-Cola was not making a positive contribution to society, with over-three quarters of those polled stating they were prepared to pay more for ethically produced goods.

Additionally, 86% of people surveyed said companies should speak about their charitable work, but a proportion of respondents said "virtue is its own reward".

However, the report warned that brands must be seen to be engaging in social and environmental programmes to remain successful.T

From http://www.planet2025news.net/ntext.rxml?cust=1001&id=4306&url=http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/645693/Coca-Colas-ethics-put-test-European-wide-study/&photo=

Dare You to Move for these gorgeous sunny days.

Cargill Shuts Down Soy Plant in the Amazon; "Whole Foods" Arrives in Britain; Itella, Nutella, Risella, A Rose by Any Other Name

Environmentalists and local politicians and activists celebrated, as local authorities in Brazil shut down a soy distribution plant in Santarem (here's where it is on the map.) The rainforest region has lost 20 percent of its trees and environmentalists claimed that it would lose more, if the plant was allowed to continue distribution.
---
US organic food mega chain Whole Foods arrives in Britain.
---
Now, apologies in advance, if I get a bit political on this next topic.

Established in 1638, Suomen Posti is changing its name to Itella in June. This begs the question, and just one question -- WHY? (Why on earth?) "Itella" is a publicly owned corporation that delivers mail, and as taxpayer-shareholders, wouldn't we all want to know:

a) How much does "Itella" rebranding cost? How much does it cost to redo all post office logos in stationary, vans, post boxes, office buildings? How much does it cost to advertise "Itella"? I don't mean "cost" with "unrealized gains" and hot air, I mean, how much does it really cost?

b) Who were the consultants, how were they chosen, and how much did they get paid -- and for what?

c) Who suggested this and who approved it? Did management actively solicit this brand change, or were they approached by "consultants"?

d) When will the investment bankers walk in, talking synergies, "strategic alternatives", "ownership structure", outside financing, leverage, IPO?

Is this paving way to privatization? It sure sounds more fitting to do a public offering of "Itella", as opposed to creating a primary market in the shares of Suomen Posti, which just sounds ... wrong. Because for almost four hundred years Posti- ja telelaitos, later Suomen Posti has belonged to, that's right, Sweden, Russia and finally Suomi. The name says so. I'm dreading that someone actually approves the privatization of postal services, which means Itella will then be majority owned by mostly US institutional investors (represented by a guy in a Brooks Brothers suit sitting in front of a computer terminal in Boston, Westchester, or Midtown Manhattan) who couldn't care less about whether the guys and gals in Jämijärvi get their morning paper before their afternoon coffee.

Here's an idea: why can't you just make it a better run business?

Why couldn't the company be well run and make nice profits even as Suomen Posti owned by the state of Finland?

A lively discussion on the Helsingin Sanomat website continues about Itella. Someone chose the username "Nutella" and I realized that's it -- my mind had frantically tried to recall what I was associating with the name Itella. Yes. Nutella. That's why it sounded wrong. Synesthesia means that names do matter. Why not use an X in the name? FPX? (Finland Post X -- for no other reason than the fact that X as well as Z sound speedy and cool. Sort of. American Express, Fedex, Rizzo, Zio, Cazze, Mexx, Jamie Foxx, taxpayer money, what have you.)

All in all, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. When rap star Puff Daddy changed his name to P Diddy, it sounded pretty stupid (really stupid), but apparently the guy was still cool. Postal services aren't cool even if they're called Itella. They're just ... postal services. Maybe they're just more privatizable (just coined a word.) Think TeliaSonera -- TS reminds me of two things: how my stock broker friend north of Boston made a killing with the Sonera IPO money left on the table and how Sonera used to be a part of Posti- ja telelaitos. Most importantly, there are precedents; this has been done before, in Shakespeare country, and it didn't work out.

Who is making money off of real public corporations and who is paying the bill? If someone out there actually considers future privatization a viable strategic alternative, please answer me this: Why would it be better to have a bunch of nameless, faceless US shareholders presumably running the show (especially when they'd probably rather be golfing in the Carolinas) as opposed to continuing to employ local people that represent 5 million Finns who care about getting their mail safely and on time? If you consider the countryside, there are many old people out there who hope they could get their mail delivered to their front door, because they're too tired to walk to their mailbox. Those are the people who this business ought to be answering to.

This corporation used to be subsidized by the government. It was built up with government money, our money. On one hand we have potential government profit centers (such as "Itella") and on the other, we have cost centers (such as old people's homes and city hospitals for the elderly.) Everyone and their second cousin seems more interested in these profit centers.

I appreciate the fact that while considering these highly charged issues one is supposed to remain credible, cool, calm, collected and analytical, but sometimes I don't think it's halfway human. Even in business schools, I wish people took more stands. Why is it any less normative and any more credible to rely on some of the dogma that economics and business books spew out, including the dogma that private = better? Milton Friedman got a Nobel prize. My personal opinion still remains that he was wrong about CSR, with or without the prize. Was his opinion really more credible because he appeared unaffected while speaking, or did he merely wear, on that issue, the cloak of intellectualism like the emperor's new clothes? Do we all when we focus on snazzying up the "Itellas" of the world, as opposed to doing what's gotta be done and running lives and businesses better and more sensibly?

Rant over. Thank you.

From Net Impact to No Impact

Colin Beavan and his family are living a Thoreau-esque year in the heart of Manhattan. The New York Times reports of this unusual family that has experimentally switched from a consumerist lifestyle to one that bars toilet paper, anything other than grocery shopping, any form of travel other than by foot and bike, you get the point.

Mr Beavan also blogs about their adventures at No Impact Man.

UK Broadcasting Woes

The other day I wrote an entry about The Great Global Warming Swindle, a film shown on the UK Channel 4 last week, and asked "Why is a UK government channel showing it? Who paid for it and who received the proceeds?"

This was a show that aimed to discredit climate change. The channel is publicly funded. Short of calling Channel 4 irresponsible, today's Guardian quotes one of the channel's founders as saying the channel has "lost its soul", and showing an anti global warming film "looks like opportunism." May a publicly funded channel air a production that may not be in the interest of the general public? What level of responsibility do public media outlets have as far as choosing their content is concerned? How does their degree of responsibility vary compared to commercial media, or does it?

US Automakers Show Support for Cap and Trade

Wall Street Journal Europe reported yesterday (20.3.) that representatives of the US car industry and the autoworker union have told lawmakers in Washington that they could support a mandatory "cap and trade" (US term for carbon trading) system for cutting emissions. The WSJ called this an "extraordinary" development; not too long ago the largest US automakers expressed doubts of the seriousness of climate change.

Dr Bowers' Lectures; "The Smartest Guys in the Room"

Helen Bowers, a finance professor from the University of Delaware, is teaching a five-day short course on corporate governance at Hanken this week. We started yesterday, and actually ended by watching The Corporation, which the CSR course and Net Impact showed in Casa back in January. Corporate governance, Dr Bowers said, is about how to solve a lot of the issues that cause CSR problems. Her lecture schedule is on the sidebar right here.

On Thursday (rm 305 at 16:15) there'll be a showing of The Smartest Guys in the Room, a 2005 movie about one of the biggest business scandals in American history -- the collapse of Enron. If you're interested, you know how to get there!

About Fairtrade

Opinions differ as to how effective fairtrade is in truly lifting developing country farmers out of poverty. The proponents of fairtrade say that it promotes self sufficiency and development. Critics say that the premiums are either too low or they serve to isolate farmers from the open market into an artificial second market that creates servitude to fairtrade buyers.

It is, however, somewhat hard to see the strength of the latter argument against fairtrade: market price for certain goods is simply the price consumers are willing to pay for that particular product in a given quantity. Fairtrade could perhaps be seen as a premium brand. The Fairtrade label is awarded by the FLO, Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International. Companies apply for the label, and they agree to pay farmers above market price for their products. The premium can then be spent on education and other needs by third-world farmers.

Whichever it is, good or bad, Fairtrade has grown considerably in some European markets. For example, in 2006 British consumers spent £290 million on fairtrade goods, an increase of a whopping 49% year over year.

Most DealBook Comments Ever?

John Doerr's tears elicited the kind of responses one would expect: disbelieving, cynical, accusatory, sympathetic and everything in between. There have probably never been as many comments on DealBook.

One reader pointed others towards The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary that was shown on the UK Channel 4 last week.

What is powerful about this provocative program is the way TGGWS unearths how the public feels about climate change. People start discussing this stuff over the internet, and it is obvious many people harbor serious doubts. If you watch even a few minutes of this film, you'll see why and how, because it is fairly well made (with groovy background music...) Unsurprisingly, many viewers responded positively; some even saying that just as they had been convinced of global warming, they were right back to square one after having watched TGGWS. Here's one reader quote from a British news site, in response to TGGWS:

"Good. The sooner all this global warming hyper nonsense is consigned to the dustbin, the better off we'll all be. I've been telling people, for many years, to ignore the scaremongers. There never was any convincing evidence that CO2 produced global warming - and there's still none. More and more evidence, however, points firmly to the Sun as the cause of episodes of warming and cooling."

— Posted by Peter Warlow, Brentwood, UK

fter seeing a film like this, you start to ask questions: who made this film? Why? Why is a UK government channel showing it? Who paid for it and who received the proceeds?

1) The director of the film Martin Durkin doesn't have the greatest reputation. The Guardian's George Monbiot wrote about his films back in 2000, after Mr Durkin filmed a number of questionable documentaries, including one that claimed silicone breast implants protect women from breast cancer.

2) Professor Carl Wunsch of MIT, interviewed in TGGWS, is considering making a formal complaint against Channel 4, because his views on climate change in the film were misrepresented. Professor Wunsch believes human activity causes climate change, but his interview was edited such that he appears sceptical. Said professor Wunsch, "If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."

You could argue that the greater issue this raises is the inadequacy of science education that renders many of us frankly incapable of making sound critical judgments regarding the natural sciences.

Becoming hysterical helps nobody; Greenland won't melt next year. But even if fossil fuel combustion caused no environmental effects whatsoever (and it does, in addition to CO2 emissions), we would still have to find alternative fuel sources because oil resources are limited. Someone is still going to have to figure out what those sources are, and someone is still going to have to risk their money to fund the R&D.

90 percent of the world's transportation systems run on oil. Nobody contests the Hubbert peak oil theory, according to which the world will eventually run out of oil. People complain about gasoline prices, but they don't see the connection: increasing demand for a finite, declining resource leads to higher prices! Simple. Eventually the cost will be very high, and sometime later, we will need to rely on other fuels. John Doerr has more than a fair right to feel badly; who cares if he hopes to make a few dozen million dollars more? If one of his companies actually strikes gold and popularizes a new affordable, clean fuel to power all our cars, Doerr, in my view, is more than deserving of the cut he makes -- much more, one could argue, than the CEO of Shell that received a 6% pay raise (from €3.5 to €3.7 million) for overseeing the company's most profitable year ever, according to today's WSJ.

This is pure politics and nothing much to do with Net Impact, apologies for going off on a tangent, but what on earth is going on in Zimbabwe? That country is like a never-ending nightmare. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial about the brutal arrest of opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai; in the accompanying photo, also published inthe New York Times, Tsvangirai was leaving a Hararean hospital with a swollen face and stitches on his half-shaved head.

Start-Up Fever?

Silicon Valley has start-up fever again, this time with energy companies. Alternative energy ventures are attracting attention among financiers, lawyers and accountants. This is the New York Times' most emailed article today.

The Times has also compiled a convenient list of energy-related articles under the rubric "The Energy Challenge"; this selection includes audio, video, interactive graphics and articles.

Business of Green -- special section in the New York Times, including articles about green venture capital, about "corporate hippies" and more.

Tears in Silicon Valley: No More Crying on the Inside

John Doerr's appearance at the TED conference last Thursday took a few days to become news. Some internet sharks are missing the point, looking for the odd video clip of the actual moment he started feeling emotional. (TED is one of those invitation-only networking events that are seldom talked about in the papers. For what it's worth, I'd never heard of it before today. The conference has its own blog for anyone who's interested.)

John Doerr is one of the most successful venture capitalists around; some have called him the best ever. He funded Google, Amazon.com, Netscape and others. Mr Doerr is a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers, and has appeared on shows such as Charlie Rose to discuss advances in green energy; Doerr heads his VC firm's greentech program. I'll embed the Charlie Rose episode below; it's a good one. (NB: the man in that picture with Rose is not Doerr, but Scott McNealy, the head of Sun Microsystems.)

Anyway, at the TED conference last Thursday, John Doerr had climbed up to the podium to talk about global warming and green energy. Towards the end of his speech, Mr Doerr started crying. What did Doerr say?

"I'm scared. I don't think we're going to make it."

Now his emotional speech is making headlines; Business Week, the San Francisco Chronicle and the New York Times have all written about it.

Many critics are calling Doerr depressed. I don't know.

Mr Doerr certainly knows as well as anyone of his calibre where we're at with technological discovery, resource availability, and other key parameters. He is extremely well connected and successful by any measure. But the fact that someone like Mr Doerr would put himself out there to be potentially shot down and ridiculed is pretty huge, because where he's at, you do NOT cry in public. You just don't. The fact that he did speaks volumes about his state of mind.

American business thrives on presenting a positive front no matter what: even if the ship is sinking, spin it. Doerr's breakdown is disconcerting, because it's diametrically opposed to what people expect of someone like him. They don't call some of these guys vulture capitalists for nothing. Let me just say that for what my opinion is worth, I applaud this man for showing his feelings on an issue that ought to stir up emotions in millions more. Brave move.

It would be easy to just say John Doerr is depressed and that's that, but frankly, I don't think that's it. Getting concerned about Doerr's mental health isn't the issue here, that much goes without saying, even though one wishes for him to regain the optimism for which he's known. What issues moved this man to tears, in public no less, should be our chief concern. Of course, it requires the kind of gentleness and open-mindedness that Wall Street and Silicon Valley aren't necessarily famous for. I'm sure that Doerr is the talk of the town this week, with former business partners wondering if he's still good for business or if he might need help. Perhaps Doerr is just tired of pulling people along while witnessing others on his side of the income gap allegedly doing something like this -- who knows. But to disregard Doerr's tearfulness as a bad judgment call, a sign of depression or male menopause or an insincere publicity stunt would miss the point. Mr Doerr is likely just really, really concerned and anxious: even though he is doing enough, he's probably acutely aware that most of the rest of the world isn't.

It doesn't matter what the issue, looking from the outside in we can always rely on Someone Else to do the work. Even if we bought a year's worth of carbon offsets, Someone Else is going to have to do the actual roll-up-your-sleeves business and get down to it. Anyone can collect a pile of money through dubious means and try to feel good about giving it to charity when the end is near, but Someone Else is going to have to be out there, doing the work, whether it's a Doctor Without Borders patching combat wounds and bringing babies into the world on refugee camps or a treeplanter picking up mangrove seedlings in dirty water. Well, to bring this home, someone is going to have to decide that they'll forego a lucrative position in traditional industry and work for a Net Impact type industry or social cause. When people ask why, they'll need to explain why they won't just let Someone Else do it.

Sometimes that Someone Else we rely on is a person like Mr Doerr, and frankly, for all he's got I don't envy him. I look up to the work he's been doing with green energy; I don't wish to be him. It must be incredibly demanding to realize this is it and there's no "someone else" to turn to for ideas or guidance. Ignorance is, as the cliche goes, quite blissful, for this, I'm sure, isn't really news to anyone: on a global scale (which is Mr Doerr's scale) "Someone Else" does not really exist. The closest thing, to some, is probably God.

You know what, I'll pay a hundred euros if you can get me in the same room with Someone Else. I've waited my whole life to meet Someone Else. I've wanted to shake hands with her (or him) and say, Thanks, I owe you. Actually, I think I first relied on Someone Else when I swept the bread crumbs off the kitchen table onto the floor at age six and thought to myself that Someone Else will clean it up. (Mom cleaned it. Thanks Mom.) Her hands may have been invisible, but that was just because I wasn't looking.

The thing about market externalities is, the markets with the greatest externalities (including carbon dioxide) rely on Someone Else to clean up the crumbs.

Now I'm blue. Kind of. Shoot. It's contagious. Anyhow, happy Tuesday all, especially John Doerr.

Forskare förbjuds tala om klimatförändring

Helsingin Sanomat skriver i söndagens tidning (11.3) om hur USA:s Fish and Wildlife service i februari har förbjudit vissa forskare att i offentligheten uttala sig om klimatförändring, isbjörnars utsatta situation och förändringar i arktiska områden. Enligt memot som läckt ut till offentligheten får endast personer med speciell fullmakt uttala sig om dessa frågor, och då i linje med USA:s nuvarande regerings linje. Enligt The San Francisco Chronicle så har två forskare från Alaska förbjudits att uttala sig om frågor som berör isbjörnar, arktiska områden och klimatförändring på två internationella akademiska seminarier som hålls nu i mars. Enligt artikeln får forskarna ändå diskutera frågorna kolleger emellan... Hurra för yttrandefriheten!

För mer info om arktiska områden och isbjörnar, titta t.ex. på länken http://www.climate.org/topics/climate/polarbears.shtml

Your next algae-powered joyride?

The New York Times reports that venture capital investment into green energy is soaring, and one of the newest developments is algae as fuel.

His Name is Bonderman, David Bonderman

Last week I blogged about the largest LBO in history. KKR and TPG (two huge American private equity firms) recently bought TXU, a Texan energy utility.

This deal was touted as a green LBO, because KKR and TPG agreed to freeze plans to build eight coal power plants and also invited a new board member onto the TXU board, William Reilly. Reilly has served as the chairman of WWF. Kauppalehti wrote about this in February.

After blogging about this deal, I emailed a friend of mine; he is an investment banker in New York, specializing in LBOs. "They've done the math", I argued, and said the financiers probably weren't doing all these good things just out of the goodness of their hearts. But perhaps I was wrong.

My friend blackberried me back, saying these green issues have been a "roadblock" to a deal for years (not sure what that meant -- we debated this stuff in December, without coming to any kind of conclusion. Still hoping for an invitation to his wedding, though...)

Anyway, I asked him about the deal because I wanted to know if he thought the TXU buyout signified a sea change on Wall Street. He wrote back with more information, all publicly available, but it has mostly gone unmentioned in the press.

Apparently, the major reason why the TXU deal was so "green" is, in fact, that David Bonderman, one of the founders of TPG (and the new owner of TXU) has been a board member of WWF, American Himalayan Foundation and the Wilderness Society.

Bonderman is not only a hugely successful investor -- he also sports a serious activist streak, of the suit-and-tie kind, and he pushed his agenda through in a big way, supported by pressure from numerous environmental groups.

Of course reducing emissions makes economic sense as well, especially in the longer haul, but certainly there's more than a pinch of goodness of heart there, too.

LSV energiaseminaari

Lääkärin Sosiaalinen Vastuu ry järjesti marraskuussa energiaseminaarin, jonka asiantuntijoina olivat mm. ydinfyysikko Säteilyturvakeskuksesta, säteilyvammoihin erikoistunut lääkäri, Greenpeacen edustaja ja uusiutuvien energiamuotojen tutkija VTT:ltä. Jos aihe kiinnostaa, presentaatiot ovat netissä.

LSV on lääkärien vastine Net Impactille. Amerikkalainen "No Free Lunch" -porukka on myös eräs muoto terveydenhuoltoalan aktivismista. Lääketeollisuuden etiikastahan ollaan puhuttu vuosien varrella suhteellisen paljon, esimerkiksi siitä kuinka lääketeollisuuden koulutustilaisuudet ja "lahjat" vaikuttavat lääkäreiden käyttäytymiseen ja heidän määräämiensä lääkkeiden tyyppiin ja määrään. Yleensä sponssaus alkaa jo lääkiksen aikoina. Esimerkiksi nuorten lääkäreiden stetoskoopit ovat (käsittääkseni) Suomessakin usein lääkefirmojen sponsoroimia. (Hyvä stetoskooppi maksaa 100-200 euroa.) "No Free Lunch" kannattaa lääkärien ja lääketeollisuuden tiiviin siteen eriasteista proaktiivista rajaamista, kuulakärkikynistä ja stetoskoopeista lounaisiin ja golf-outingeihin.

Futures Studies

Per request towards the end of yesterday's get together, here's a link to the Futures Studies pages at the Finland Futures Research Center / Turku School of Economics (FFRC/TSE); the Finland Futures Academy and some more info on the center.

The courses are organized locally at the Helsinki School of Economics. Futures2 kicks off mid March, and is open to students who may not have enrolled in Futures1 (literature pre-requisites.) FYI, no JOO application is needed; Hanken is part of the network, so you can just directly sign up with Johanna Ollila at the TSE/FFA if interested. The courses run every year. Futures1 just ended and it was great fun. Tight group and a great chance to meet people who are interested in similar issues.

The FFA also organizes an annual summer conference.