Signs of Spring

The Guardian also spots signs of spring in the English countryside.




Wanted to lighten people's day with these images. They were taken in the south of Finland, in Espoo, in the end of March -- early for crocuses in Finland? Thought they were very pretty.

TGGWS in Iltalehti

Over Easter, I quietly fumed about how Iltalehti published a reader comment recommending -- what else? -- The Great Global Warming Swindle to Finnish viewers. Wow. Recall that one interviewee in TGGWS later claimed that he was "the one who had been swindled" as he was "misrepresented" as a climate change sceptic. (The good thing about YouTube's current copyright infringement battle? TGGWS has been removed from the web.) The Iltalehti reader commenting on the film actually argued that, "The issue that we ought to be concerned about is environmental protection... I think it is mostly the media's and politicians' fault that climate change has become a more visible issue than taking care of the world's environment and oceans (sic). They are, after all, two totally separate issues."

First of all, I'm not even sure what I was doing reading Iltalehti, and secondly, I'm sorry, but what the heck? Oh my God. It is hard to fathom someone would genuinely write such a piece. The compartmentalization is simply mind blowing. Since when were environmental protection and climate change separate issues? Since when was the environment separate from the oceans? Despite the incoherence, Iltalehti afforded that piece of writing one third of a page, advertised TGGWS and juxtaposed this with a picture of pretty yellow flowers. It was clearly an effort to provoke, since that's what tabloids are about, but it's irresponsible: polemic that instills complacency.

The least critical and the least educated are the most likely to get their "science" from Iltalehti. Climate scepticism and films like TGGWS may claim to be about enhancing scientific literacy and inspiring dialogue, but most of us do not have the education to fully understand the science of climate change, anyway. The scientists themselves do not claim to fully understand it! None of us fully understand the consequences of our actions and nobody can predict the future, but does it stop us from living our lives? No. We do the best with whatever knowledge we've got, (hopefully) not doubting our every move. So why would anyone let the climate change polemic brew such doubt that they do nothing? How cocky to think that just by observing the weather and reading the dailies one could know better than individuals who've devoted their entire careers to the subject! Scientists have very little to gain from telling us the environment is changing and we're causing it. When thousands of scientists tell us they are confident something is for real, why can we not take it on faith -- are people that untrusting with the so-called establishment these days? Can the tabloids not go back to antagonizing Hollywood?

Here's a link to the discussion. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the original comment on the web; they probably only published it in the actual paper. I especially enjoyed that comment where someone tells another writer to "calm down, you're not going to die," and the other one responds, "I most certainly will, you wanna bet?" Me too, I will most certainly die. It's probably not going to be climate change that will kill me, just like the Greenland ice sheet won't melt next year, but that doesn't mean those things won't eventually happen.

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=

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.

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.

KKR and Texas Pacific Takeover of TXU

In the largest private equity takeover in history, environmental concerns play a major role.

Open Guest Lecture on February,19th, at Hanken:
Monday 19.2 12.30-14, room 309
Guest Lecturer: Eeva Simola, Finnwatch

Check out Finnwatch at www.finnwatch.org

Some interesting stuff from the website:

• Clas Ohlsonin ja Bilteman myymä kodinelektroniikka sisältää aineita, jotka ovat vaarallisia laitteiden tekijöille ja kuluttajille. Ruotsissa vastikään tehdyissä laboratoriotesteissä on löydettiin korkeita ja kiellettyjä pitoisuuksia lyijyä ja erittäin myrkyllistä raskasmetallia kadmiumia. Korkeat lyijypitoisuudet ovat vaaraksi sekä luonnolle että ihmisille, jotka valmistavat tavaroita Kiinassa. SwedWatchin tuore raportti kertoo, että kummaltakin yritykseltä puuttuu toimiva vaarallisten aineiden valvontaohjelma.
• Neste Oil pyrkii maailman johtavaksi biodieselin tuottajaksi. Se aikoo hankkia tarvittavan palmuöljyn parhailta malesialaisilta tuottajilta. Palmuöljyn nykyisellä tuotannolla on vakavia ympäristövaikutuksia. Kun biopolttoaineiden ja palmuöljyn kysyntä kasvavat, öljypalmuplantaaseja laajennetaan. Osa laajennuksista tapahtuu etenkin Indonesiassa sademetsiin tai turvemaille. Sademetsää raivataan polttaen, mikä lisää kasvihuonekaasupäästöjä ja metsäpaloriskiä. Useat uhanalaiset lajit menettävät elinympäristönsä, hiilinieluja katoaa ja ilmakehään vapautuu metaania. Rekkaralli yksilajisten plantaasien ja öljynpuristamojen välillä on tiuhaa. Euroopan unioni suurimpana ostajana on kaukana, joten myös kuljetuksista jää jalanjälki.

Go Aktivistit! Canberra/Tokio. Valaanpyynnin vastustajat ajavat japanilaisia valaanpyyntialuksia takaa Etelämerellä, australialainen ympäristöjärjestö Sea Shepherd kertoo. Aktivistit pyrkivät estämään pyynnin törmäämällä omalla aluksellaan japanilaislaivaan.
Japani isännöi tänään valaanpyyntiä harjoittavien maiden kokousta, joka ajaa kaupallisen valaanpyynnin sallimista. (HS 13.1.2007)

Miten USA:n taloudesta tehdään ympäristöystävällisempää? Projektissa "Turning the ship" http://www.turningtheship.com/ Harvardin yliopisto ja The Clark Group käyvät viiden viikon mittaista on-line keskustelua maailman suurimman talouden muuttamisesta vihreäksi. Webbisivu on vierailun arvoinen!

Carbon Disclosure Project on 225:n institutionaalisen sijoittajan liikkeellepanema kysely ilmastonmuutoksesta, hiilidioksidipäästöistä ja ilmastoriskeistä maailman 2000:lle suurimmalle yritykselle. Katso www.cdproject.net . Kiinnostavaa on että kolmasosa vastaaja-yrityksistä luokitteli antamansa tiedon salaiseksi - joten ko. tieto ei pääse vaikuttamaan maailmanlaajuisen sijoittajayhteison päätöksentekoon!