Hej! Net Impact medlem Kristoffer Wilen tipsade oss om följande happening.
Häng alltså med på en liten cykeltur innan Green Drinks nästa tisdag!

Lähde mukaan Kriittiselle pyöräretkelle
Kokoontuminen 10.4.2007 kello 16.30 Havis Amandan patsaalla Helsingissä.
Pyöräilemme niillä Helsingin tieosuuksilla, joissa liikennejärjestelyt
pyöräilijöiden kannalta ovat kaikkein huonoimmat.

Samalla näytämme, että pyöräilijät muodostavat kriittisen massan, joka tulee huomioida
liikennesuunnittelussa ja kaupungin rakenteessa. Ei käy laatuun, että
vuodesta toiseen tuetaan eri tavoin yksityisautoilua, joka saastuttaa
ilman ja tekee muiden kaupunkilaisten elämän hankalaksi. Autoistaminen
uhkaa siirtää elämän kaupungista kehäteiden varsille ostoskeskuksiin.
Autoille varattua tilaa tulee saada pyörien käyttöön. Huonosti
suunnitellut pyöräreitit, huonokuntoiset pyörätiet ja lähes täydellinen
pyöräkaistojen puute osoittavat, että pyörä nähdään lähinnä liikkumis-
eikä liikennemuotona, vaikka samalla puhutaan pyöräilymäärien
kaksinkertaistamisesta.

Kriittisen pyöräretken reitti on vähän yli kymmenen kilometriä pitkä ja
kiertää Kampin, Töölön, Meilahden, Rautatieaseman, Kallion, Sörnäisten ja
Kruununhaan kautta.

Swindle

Readers on a New York Times forum are referring others to the The Great Global Warming Swindle for credible (some argue "unassailable") evidence against human-induced global warming. The Swindle movie is so conveniently available on YouTube that literally hundreds of thousands of people have watched it over the past three weeks.

I posted quotes on the forum from the Guardian and the Independent to discredit Swindle. It was pretty much the same stuff posted here on our blog a few weeks ago. If you'd like to read the forum, my comments are under my first name; someone also responded to me (they got my name wrong and spelled it Kristeen, but just ctrl-F that and my name and there's my slice of the debate if you're interested.)

A forum like that shows the depth of doubt and breadth of opinion out there. I felt it was imperative to comment publicly on this film. People with no scientific background are trying to debate the larger issues by arguing over details that most of us simply cannot understand without extensive science education. The details don't change the big picture: we are putting gas in the atmosphere, hence it warms. Period. Many are using a film like Swindle to infer that human-induced climate change is merely a liberal hoax. All I'm saying is, I'm not an atmospheric scientist (either); sometimes you just have to trust the people who are. These are people who are working for a fraction of what they'd get in industry, telling us this thing is real. Endless debating among lay people without PhDs is what keeps the masses from taking action. Why are we willing to believe marketing and all kinds of hype, but unwilling to believe scientists?

Once the real evidence arrives, it may be too late. This view finds support in Oxford Today, which in its latest issue published an article about green energy:

Likewise, [Good Energy CEO Juliet] Davenport agrees that saving the planet is more about people than science. 'I do believe that humanity is incredibly innovative and incredibly powerful. But for governments to take action there has to be real public awareness of the issue', she says. 'I do believe that we will come up with a way of solving this problem. But to get to that critical tipping-point of public awareness, I fear there may have to be casualties first.'

Ben Franklin said it best: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

Happy Easter / Passover everyone. More blog entries from me next week.

Entertainment Industry 101: From Humps and Lumps to Greater Meaning

It's too bad we can't draw flowcharts on Blogger, but try to picture this.

Universal Studios, like Universal Music, was until recently a subsidiary of Vivendi. We recall Vivendi/Universal Music/A&M were behind the masterful My Humps.

To service some debt a few years ago, Vivendi had to sell a majority stake of Universal Studios to GE. (You with me?) All three are looking for new blockbusters.

Now GE+Vivendi/Universal Studios have picked up a new movie called "The Peaceful Warrior." The trailer is below. The storyline is: a chance encounter with a stranger changes the life of a college gymnast ("Movies aid search for "greater meaning"" from Yahoo! news.)

It is nice if a particularly moving filming gets people thinking, and it's good entertainment, too. The business model here, though, is spelled out below by one of the companies' representatives: creating a market in transformational films.

There are a few question marks. General Electric, the owner of the company that distributes Peaceful Warrior used to produce nuclear weapons. Vivendi reaped gains from My Humps.

Additionally, although General Electric is no longer involved in producing nuclear weapons, the company owns GE-Aviation / Smiths Aerospace ("We Bring Technology To Life", a twist on GE's motto "We Bring Good Things To Life.") Although it's not clear how much of Smiths Aerospace's business comes from the defense market, much of their avionics no doubt go to the military. I once worked for a similar firm (oh, yes, I did and it's a looooooong story) and it was mostly manned by ex-military selling to the military.

Any one of us could read the Bible online, or perhaps the Dhammapada, available for free. But it wouldn't generate revenue. Quoting Reuters,

"Despite the marketing challenge, Fogelson sees further opportunity in the growing audience for such transformational films. "I think there is absolutely a viable and powerful business model in making and distributing films for this audience," he said. "I think it starts with knowing there is a large enough and very passionate audience that can be found and spoken to and served. Whether it can expand beyond that I think is entirely a function of what kind of product is created.""

Music Industry 101: Environmental Impact Assessment of "My Humps"

This is a case study of the societal effects of My Humps by the Black Eyed Peas. (The lyrics can be found here.) The album was produced by A&M Records in the US and Interscope in the UK, both subsidiaries of Universal Music Group, the largest business group and family of record labels in the industry, with approximately $5 billion revenues in fiscal 2005. Vivendi is Universal's parent company, with $20 billion revenues in 2006. The song was once called "one of the most embarrassing rap performances of the new millennium" by music critic John Bush. Much of the criticism stems from repetitive lyrics and exploitation of the female body. Regardless, this video won MTV's best hip hop video of the year award in 2006. (Wikipedia)


This would all seem too funny, if only it wasn't for...

Here's a father-daughter moment featuring My Humps.

I don't claim to understand half of these lyrics any more than these kids do. Here's a little boy's response (look for his sister trying to access the get-away car.)

Here's what happens when boys grow up a little. (Apologies in advance if it's crass; please don't waste five minutes to finish this whole clip. I didn't either and those would be five minutes of your life you can never get back.)

Here's what happens when girls grow up a little (where's their dad?)

Then the little boys and little girls grow up into men and women who try to find love and live happily ever after. We all wonder why it's so hard and would even like to believe it's because we're from altogether different planets. Bah humbug. I mean, bah hump bug.

Then it becomes an international phenomenon. This is in Serbian. Serbian!

Finally someone with a brain and some power in the industry says, I've had enough of this ----, and ... oh Alanis, you rock. You're the best. The best!

ps. Here's an article from the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics: "Exposure to Degrading Versus Nondegrading Music Lyrics and Sexual Behavior Among Youth."

Net Impact program update

Nästa tisdag (10.4) ordnar vi igen tillsammans med Kauppis Sustainable Business Club "Green Drinks" på Mr. Don, kl. 19 -> Välkommen att bara droppa in kort, eller stanna kvar med liksinnade för ett stop eller flera...

Mot slutet av april, måndagen den 23.4, sent på eftermiddagen ordnar vi ett studiebesök till GlobeHope i Nummela, som är ett av de mest innovativa & intressanta design-bolag i Finland just nu. Kolla www.globehope.com . Vi får också möjlighet att besöka fabriksbutiken, och köpa övercoolt mode inför sommaren! GlobeHope har vunnit flera design priser förra året, och det har skrivits artiklar om dem i bl.a. Gloria, Talouselämä, Hesari, Kauppalehti, you name it... Vi försöker fiksa fram några artiklar som pdf och skicka till er innan besöket. Affärsidén med GlobeHope är att de köper in gamla klädlager av finska armén, fabriker, Nato, Unicef, mm., och "re-designar" dem till ungdomlig street fashion. Mera info närmare.

Vi ska också ordna ännu några get-togethers för våra medlemmar - intresset har verkat stort, och det skulle vara roligt att träffa så många medlemmar som möjligt! Vi återkommer med datum. Spam-problemet torde vara nu fiksat. Vi ber om ursäkta för allt besvär med spam i postluckan! Meddela alltså i fall du får fortsättningsvis spam via netimpact-epostlistan.

Skön fortsättning på våren & Glad påsk till alla!

New Supreme Court decision: EPA finally allowed to set restrictions on GHG emissions in USA, and GHGs are thus classified as pollution in USA!

In February, I referred to the Citigroup report about the effects of climate change on business:

"If corporations do anyway not care about what consumers think, then they might care of the actions of litigants. There are at least two very interesting trials coming up in the U.S. this year: First, the supreme Court is set to rule on the federal regulation of GHG emissions (the question is whether GHGs are pollution, and whether Environmental Protection Agency EPA should have the mandate to regulate them). "

The Supreme Court has now made its decision, and with votes 5-4 EPA enjoys now the mandate to regulate GHG in USA.

It was president Bush who earlier forced through the law that GHGs are not pollution, and thus EPA should not have the mandate to regulate them... !!!

Newest IPCC Report to be Released on Friday

The IPCC will publish the second part of the fourth climate change assessment report this Friday. It is titled "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability." The draft outline can be found here. Overall, the message seems to be that the North will first enjoy the benefits of warming, while the South suffers; eventually negative effects dominate everywhere. The poor of the world, who have contributed the least to climate change, will suffer the most. New York Times reports at length about the report.

Petition

Please consider signing a petition by Doctors Without Borders (Medecins Sans Frontieres.)

Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis is suing the Indian government to restrict generic drug production and sales in India. This may risk countless lives in the developing world.

In the past, India allowed patents only on a select number of drugs. Thus, India has become a haven for generic production that provides for the healthcare needs of many people in developing world. Over half of the medicines used for AIDS patients in developing countries come from India. 80 percent of AIDS drugs used in MSF projects come from India.

Now the WTO (World Trade Organization) rules require that India begins to grant patents on drugs across the board. Based on the WTO rule, Novartis is suing India to restrict generic production. If the company is successful, the lawsuit may restrict access to affordable medicine to millions of people worldwide.

"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.

KKR and Texas Pacific Takeover of TXU

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

An Inconvenient Truth wins two Oscars; Conscious capitalism the next megatrend; Citigroup publishes climate report

"An Inconvenient Truth," the big-screen adaptation of former U.S. Vice President Al Gore's slide-show lecture about the perils of global warming, won Academy Awards on Sunday for documentary feature and best song. Great job, Al Gore - What's next? I think that Hollywood will wote democratic this year.

Patricia Aberdene is considered one of the leadind mega-trend predicters in the world. In the year 1982 she predicted the transformation intoa new information age, and in the 1990 she wrote about jumping further into a technology based and web- based reality. In her latest "Megatrend" book, in 2002, she predicts the step towards a conscious capitalism. According to Aberdene traditional capitalism " business as usual", has proven to be destructive to humanity, environment and society at large. She points out that the next megatrend in business is competitive advantage based on corporate responsibility, where social and environmental performance will define the winners and loosers. Get her book on Amazon on http://www.amazon.com/Megatrends-2010-Rise-Conscious-Capitalism/dp/1571744568
If Aberdene's predictions once again prove to be true, ethically consciouss consumers will be mainstream, and businesses will compete to be the most responsible company.

Citigroup has published a massive climate report. It is filled with physics, climate science and graps, but one section provides extremely interesting information: The behavioral implications of climate change on corporations. the section is split into four parts: how climate change affects consumers; litigants; investors; and corporations. Here are some best shots:


Consumer behavior

• Consumers in the two countries responsible for the most emissions of GHGs (USA & China) care least about the issue
• On average European consumers would only pay up to 5% premium price on a climate friendly product
• Historically, consumers have anyway had great power in pushing through more environmentally sound solutions: Remember CFCs (used in aerosol sprays) and the Tuna Boycotts? Consequently, consumer products businesses are starting to adapt their products for clime-conscious consumers.

Litigant behavior

• If corporations do anyway not care about what consumers think, then they might care of the actions of litigants. There are at least two very interesting trials coming up in the U.S. this year: First, the supreme Court is set to rule on the federal regulation of GHG emissions (the question is whether GHGs are pollution, and whether Environmental Protection Agency EPA should have the mandate to regulate them). Second, the Alliance of automobile Manufacturers against the California Air Resources Board and its efforts to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles in California.

Investor behavior

• Carbon disclosure Project, a coalition of institutional investors representing more than $US 31 trillion in assets, has, for the past several years, been requesting information perfaining to GHG emissions from large multinational companies. 72% of the global FT500 companies responded to the request in 2006 (up from 47% in 2003).
• Climate-related shareholder resolutions that were filed with U.S. companies tripled in 2004-2005 the number of 2000-2001
• SRI (Socially Responsible Investing) funds in the U.S. rose in 2005 to 2,29 $ trillion, so that nearly one out of ten dollars under professional management was involved in SRI.

Corporate behavior

• Consumers, litigants, and investors all affect corporate behavior
• From corporate perspective, climate-friendly policies have five distinct advantages: They may lower costs trough energy-efficiency; They enhance corporate reputation and brand; They may yield a 'first-mover' advantage; they may lead to expanded market potential for new products; they institutionalize a climate-friendly mentality and keep management alert to climate related opportunities and risks.
• In 2006 McKinsey survey, 28% of executives in 116 countries cited environmental issues, including climate change, as one of the issues likely to have the most impact on shareholder value over the next five years.

Reminder: Net Impact träff för alla medlemmar nästa torsdag, 1.3, kl. 17.30 i Mr. Don (tidigare Cupla) på Runebergsgatan, ett stenkast från Hanken mot Tölö torg. Välkommen!

Tanken är att träffas tillsammans med alla intressade Net Impact medlemmar över ett stop öl, och bolla med idéer, växla tankar och saftiga CSR nyheter, och lägga ramar för framtida verksamhet för Net Impact.

Potentiell agenda, t.ex.
* Vad har hänt inom CSR i Finland och i världen, nyheter & annat
* Framtida program för Net Impact: Deltagande i konferanser i Finland och utomlands, ordnandet av seminarier, paneler, företagsbesök, "aktivistdag" på Hanken, Green Drinks, samarbete med Kauppis Sustainable Business Club, samarbete med privata sektorn, utvecklandet av vår blogg, you name it. Idéer, önskemål?
* Vem tar sustainability kurser på Hanken/Kauppis/TKK? Vem skriver skolarbete/prosemi/gradu om CSR? Vem har haft coola jobb, praktik eller annat inom sustainability - CSR området? Vem har läst bra böcker om ämnet, eller hittat bra websidor?

Anmäl gärna per epost i fall du är på väg på träffen till netimpacthanken (at) shs.fi.

William Wilberforce - A Visionary

BBC 4 radio show "In Our Time" showcases the life of William Wilberforce (1759-1833). Wilberforce was in the great minority of 18th century Londoners who could address the British parliament; he chose to use that platform to demand the abolition of slave trade. Wilberforce inspired many future visionaries, including Dr Martin Luther King.

"It is always difficult to employ historical imagination," Melvyn Bragg says, it is easy for people to go around and say "of course the slave trade should've been abolished," but we must try and picture what it was like for this man in the 18th century,

"facing a parliament which was completely entrenched in the notion that slavery was necessary and a good thing and inevitable and in some cases God commanded. It must have taken enormous guts, fearing great failure, to stand up and address the parliament at that time in this measured, reasoned, but underneath it, passionate and convinced way."

Historical imagination is hard.

But what about foresight? Is it easier? On what issues?

What issues might future citizens in the year 2207 consider the "slave trades" of our time?

2-Year Study of Polar Changes Commences

Scientists from more than 60 countries. $350 million budget. Over 120 research projects.

The latest IPCC (Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change) report excluded estimates of changes in the Greenland ice sheet, because polar melting it is not well understood, at least not well enough to be used as the basis of a scientific report. This is about to change, as a new two-year polar study commences. The New York Times reports on the study here.

The effort is called "The International Polar Year". (The projects, as said, will actually take two years, from March 2007 to March 2009.) What will the scientists be doing? According to the Times,

They will use gliding underwater robots, giant icebreaking ships, satellites and other technologies to explore polar climate, biology, geology and ocean chemistry, and they will undertake physics and astronomy studies that can be done only at the poles.

Here's something else interesting: the Times' environment reporter Revkin traveling in the Arctic. The sites links to short video clips from his arctic journeys. One video included sounds of oil exploration that Revkin had recorded in the Northern Alaskan tundra.

Carbon Offset

Here's a new article from the Guardian about companies who deal in carbon offsets.

What are carbon offsets? The basic idea is that if you are responsible for emitting carbon (e.g. you take a flight to France), you can buy a service or a slice of a service that offsets the damage done: this could come in the form of tree planting, sewage clean up in a less-developed country, or directly in the form of a carbon permit.

How much does carbon offset cost? It depends on the service you're using and on how much carbon your flight emits. If you fly from Finland to France, you won't have to offset as much (it's voluntary though) as you would if you were flying to Honduras.

By buying carbon offsets, you'll be supporting renewable energies, environmental clean up services, reforestation efforts and other anti climate change measures. The schemes aren't without critics but the point is to be doing good to offset the "bad."

Who is in this business? The article talks about companies who sell carbon offset services. Each of the carbon offset firms (here are some companies in this business) gives a different number of tonnes of CO2 emitted for the same flight; as a result, the offset cost can vary ten-fold, according to the article.

How much does it cost? That depends on the number of tonnes of carbon that one is responsible for emitting (or is assumed to) and the market price for a tonne of carbon. There is no standard number of tonnes of carbon emitted per flight of X kilometers; each carbon offset firm calculates it differently. The market price for carbon, however, is quoted (and very difficult to locate, still!) somewhere on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme website. Carbon isn't like pork bellies or crude oil, though. A while back when doing research, a website with over-the-counter secondary market prices for tonnes of carbon popped up, but unfortunately the URL got misplaced. Must go through a few emails to find it, since I did forward to someone. Anyway, like the "truth is out there", carbon prices are out there somewhere, too... only both are seemingly hard to find at times...

Can Markets Cut Carbon?

Two of the largest market-based initiatives to cut carbon dioxide emissions are the EU ETS (EU Emissions Trading Scheme) and the RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative; in the Northeastern United States.) The EU is talking about a common European energy policy. US corporations are working with environmental groups.

What is the role of carbon trading (cap and trade) in cutting emissions? This article explores some basics and links to a number of great sites. Could carbon trading curb emissions by placing a price on carbon? How will it work globally?

Permaculture: From Observation to Application of Nature's Patterns

Permaculture is a lifestyle ethic and a design system that is based on sustainability concepts and nature's patterns. According to the permaculture philosophy, food production, community design and land use could be reorganized based on ecological design. Some researchers have found that many pre-Colombian peoples in the Amazon basin emulated natural design in their communities.

What does permaculture mean? Specific examples could include maximizing the use of trees and perennial plants; using chickens in weed control; and making sure that agricultural workers are treated fairly. A basic question that permaculturists might want to answer is, How can we profit from our land resources in ways that keep that land productive -- and how do we do it without exploiting people?

From Australia to the United States, local citizen groups concerned about resource dependency and environmental degradation are making a concerted effort to undo and redo current consumption and living patterns.

Where does CSR fit into the picture? Permaculture has spawned a monster of a word, "ecologinomic", to represent ecology-economic ethics in land use. Perhaps systems ecology and sustainable living philosophies could rub off on corporations going forward, particularly on agricultural and chemical giants that have been accused of dubious business practices in recent years.

Gold Mining on Papua New Guinea - a destructive business at the cost of local environment and an ancient culture















The report by CorpWatch about gold mining on Papua New Guinea is just devastating. It is in every way the stereotype of how everything goes wrong in extractives business. It grasps in a single article what it means for a pacific island with one of the richest eco-systems in the world, with inhabitants living in ancient culture and without cash economy, to be envaded by a western mining giant that only wants the gold. The result is total destruction of the ecosystem that is home to hundreds of unique species, a total clash of local people with the mining company resulting in deaths and armed forces, destruction of the ancient culture and a jump within one generation from stone-age to cash economy.

I just keep asking myself - how can this happen? The worst thing is perhaps that the gold mining company, Canadian Barrick Gold, tried to approach the project with good stakeholder dialogue and fair compensation to local people and landowners. However, in the end, they dramatically failed to treat the island in a fair way as greed for more gold took over the project.

Can it be that no matter how great CSR programs, stakeholder inclusion and dialogue, and fair compensations plans, an extractives industry where a foreign company is extracting natural resources from somebody else's land is incrementally doomed to failure? Why is it that even if environmental damage and lost of land area is accounted for in modern extractives projects, nobody still takes into account the cultural loss and the inevitable conflict that arises from the confrontation of a Western company with ancient cultures living without cash in traditional ways?

Check out the full report on http://corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14381

Net Impact träff för alla medlemmar nästa torsdag, 1.3, kl. 17.30 i Mr. Don (tidigare Cupla) på Runebergsgatan, ett stenkast från Hanken mot Tölö torg. Välkommen!

Tanken är att träffas tillsammans med alla intressade Net Impact medlemmar över ett stop öl, och bolla med idéer, växla tankar och saftiga CSR nyheter, och lägga ramar för framtida verksamhet för Net Impact.

Vi har massor med roliga idéer, och tar mer än gärna emot ännu flera.

Potentiell agenda, t.ex.
* Vad har hänt inom CSR i Finland och i världen, nyheter & annat
* Framtida program för Net Impact: Deltagande i konferanser i Finland och utomlands, ordnandet av seminarier, paneler, företagsbesök, "aktivistdag" på Hanken, Green Drinks, samarbete med Kauppis Sustainable Business Club, samarbete med privata sektorn, utvecklandet av vår blogg, you name it. Idéer, önskemål?
* Vem tar sustainability kurser på Hanken/Kauppis/TKK? Vem skriver skolarbete/prosemi/gradu om CSR? Vem har haft coola jobb, praktik eller annat inom sustainability - CSR området? Vem har läst bra böcker om ämnet, eller hittat bra websidor?

Net Impacts mission är att skapa en ny global generation av innovativa & ansvarsfulla ledare, som har både kunskap och ledarskap för att göra en ändring mot mera hållbar affärsverksamhet. Det händer just nu mera än någonsin på den här fronten överallt i världen - var med i ändringen!

Anmäl gärna per epost i fall du är på väg på träffen till netimpacthanken (at) shs.fi.

Diamonds Are Forever

In response to Johanna's post Tuesday, here's Kanye West addressing the same issue.

Have you already seen the movie Blood Diamond? It is definitely worth checking out.

According to Helsingin Sanomat (17.2.2007) the diamond industry started defending their business already before the movie came out. The diamond-giant De Beers reported loss in sales for the first time in six years after the premier of the Blood Diamond. De Beers claims anyway that the movie has not have any effect on its sales. In Internet bloggs worried boy-friends are asking how to fulfill the wish of girlfriend: Please, do not buy me a blood diamont. Even though there are some cerficiations that aim to assure ethical diamond sourcing, and for example De Beers describes in its 150-page long brand new CSR report numerous processes for assurance of ethical business behaviour, how can a consumer really know?

Here is what CSR wire notes about diamonds and ethics:

Your Valentine Deserves Cleaner Gold and Diamonds Top US jewelry retailers sign the Golden Rules of the No Dirty Gold campaign, and De Beers reports progress on sustainability issues such as conflict diamonds and black economic empowerment.Valentine's Day and jewelry gifting go hand-in-hand, but recent exposure about the social and environmental impact associated with jewelry such as the Blood Diamond movie have raised concern.

This week, the No Dirty Gold campaign coordinated by Oxfam America and Earthworks announced a major breakthrough that will make jewelry made with "cleaner" (more socially and environmentally responsible) gold available. Of the top ten US jewelry retailers, seven--including Wal-Mart and QVC--have signed onto the Golden Rules criteria for more socially and environmentally responsible mining. However, highly visible retailer Target remains a laggard in declining to sign on.

Also this week, diamond company De Beers released its Report to Stakeholders, covering for the first time its sustainability practices on issues such as conflict diamonds, HIV/AIDS, human rights, indigenous peoples, and climate change. The report follows the new Global Reporting Initiative G3 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, as well as summarizing progress with respect to both the UN Global Compact and the UN Millennium Development Goals. De Beers also announced an agreement with the South Africa Department of Minerals and Energy to spin off its Namaqualand Mines into an independent diamond mining company, after community consultation. The new company seeks to enact black economic empowerment and promote a sustainable diamond mining industry in South Africa.

Australia To Ban Conventional Light Bulbs?

Australia may become the first country to ban conventional light bulbs and require consumers to purchase fluorescent bulbs instead.

California has been planning the same initiative for some time now.

Policy Tipping Point in the US?

Climate change policy shift in the US is featured as the top story on today's CSRwire.com. Reuters reports that policy is approaching a tipping point.

In the Guardian, scientists warn it may be too late to save the ice caps.

Report urges US government to curb television violence

The American media regulator FCC has published a report suggesting ways in which the US congress could craft a law against (excessive) violence on television.

Psychological research suggests that children who watch violent TV material become more aggressive and less sensitive to other people's pain. What about adults?

The new report, which is of interest to American broadcasting corporations and production companies, suggests ways to curb television violence -- ways in which the first amendment ("free speech", thus far used to defend media companies) won't be violated.

Global leaders reach climate change agreement (The Guardian, 16 Feb 2007)

"Leading world politicians and industrialists have reached a new, non-binding agreement at a meeting in the United States on tackling climate change.

Delegates agreed that developing countries will have to face targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions as well as rich countries.

The non-binding meeting in Washington of the G8+5 Climate Change Dialogue also agreed that a limit should be decided for maximum acceptable carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, the NBC reported. A global market should be formed to cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions, they also said."

Astroturfing

"Astroturf" is artificial grass. Astroturfing describes "formal PR campaigns that seek the create the impression of being spontaneous, grassroots behavior."

Care2.com, a green networking site, sends out frequent environmental newsletters with a mix of topics. One of them recently had a headline that linked to an article titled "Global warming is not due to human contribution of carbon dioxide." It was so provocative that I followed the link; in fact, it might have been more persuasive had it been more subtle. The link brought the reader to a full-length article at Canadafreepress.com written by Dr Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and a consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. His credentials sound impressive.

What is the Natural Resources Stewardship Project? It is apparently a group that has recently been exposed as being controlled by energy industry lobbyists. A short Wikipedia entry is here.

This would be an example of astroturfing.

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!

Ilmastonmuutoksesta iltapäivälehdessä

Ilta-Sanomat aloittelee ilmastonmuutoskampanjaa.

Warren Buffett on Life, Love, Family, Wealth and Value Investing

In a rare interview, Mr Buffett talks about his remarkable career and family. This documentary is about an hour long. Look for his investing tips (on Gillette: "Hair isn't going to stop growing on men's faces and twice as many women's legs"), his views on business ethics, his friends' interviews, and his lifelong love story.

Buffett still lives in the same house he bought in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1958. "It's dumb", he said in an interview, "to let possessions rule you". He has decided to donate most of his wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, combining the wealth of the world's richest and second richest men into one gigantic philantropic effort.

Buffett's children won't inherit any great wealth when he dies. Buffett has said, "There's no reason why future generations of little Buffetts should command society just because they came from the right womb. Where's the justice in that?"

Frankly, I find Buffett's commentary so unique, inspiring and powerful that I'll add one more citation from his Wikipedia page. I'm fully partial: I find this guy remarkable.

"I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned. If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru or someplace, you find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kind of soil... I work in a market system that happens to reward what I do very well - disproportionately well. Mike Tyson, too. If you can knock a guy out in 10 seconds and earn $10 million for it, this world will pay a lot for that. If you can bat .360, this world will pay a lot for that. If you're a marvelous teacher, this world won't pay a lot for it. If you are a terrific nurse, this world will not pay a lot for it. Now, am I going to try to come up with some comparable worth system that somehow (re)distributes that? No, I don't think you can do that. But I do think that when you're treated enormously well by this market system, where in effect the market system showers the ability to buy goods and services on you because of some peculiar talent - maybe your adenoids are a certain way, so you can sing and everybody will pay you enormous sums to be on television or whatever -I think society has a big claim on that." (Lowe 1997:164-165)

"I don't have a problem with guilt about money. The way I see it is that my money represents an enormous number of claim checks on society. It's like I have these little pieces of paper that I can turn into consumption. If I wanted to, I could hire 10,000 people to do nothing but paint my picture every day for the rest of my life. And the GNP would go up. But the utility of the product would be zilch, and I would be keeping those 10,000 people from doing AIDS research, or teaching, or nursing. I don't do that though. I don't use very many of those claim checks. There's nothing material I want very much. And I'm going to give virtually all of those claim checks to charity when my wife and I die." (Lowe 1997:165-166)

Wal-Mart Class Action Suit

According to Helsingin Sanomat, Wal-Mart faces a class action suit for gender discrimination. An American court accepted on Tuesday a historical suit involving millions of women who have worked for Wal-Mart after 1998. The suit alleges that Wal-Mart paid women lower wages and limited women's opportunities to advance into managerial positions.

In the clip, the CEO of Wal-Mart talks about sustainability issues at Wal-Mart. The interviewer is Charlie Rose, who doesn't exactly take a stand but leaves it up to the viewer to make up their own mind. More Charlie Rose interviews here; some of us know him as one of the most well regarded US talkshow hosts (he works for PBS, the Public Broadcasting Service.) GoogleVideo offers hour-long interviews with Al Gore, Noam Chomsky, artist Shirin Neshat (whose photos were up at EMMA in Espoo last fall!) and others on issues like climate change, alternative energy and human rights.



Here "High Cost of Low Price" producer-director Robert Greenwald and a Wal-Mart representative talk about the firm's labor practices.

WAL-MART: The High Cost of Low Price - Movie Night

Time for another movie event. Tomorrow (Wed) night in Casa at 18.00. A documentary about American superstore Wal-Mart will be shown.

Conservative Thinktank Offers Cash to Scientists

The Guardian reports that a conservative thinktank has offered $10,000 each to scientists and economists for disputing climate change.

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is funded by oil giant ExxonMobil, whose ex-CEO is the vice chairman of the thinktank's board of trustees. According to the Guardian, the thinktank also has close ties to the Bush administration.

AEI sent letters to the science community offering payments for articles that emphasize the shortcomings of the IPCC report.