Event - Responsible Investment Forum Europe 2018

The Responsible Investment Forum Europe 2018 will take place on June 12 - 13 at the Waldorf Hilton, London, United Kingdom. Now in its 9th year, the longest running Private Equity meeting focused on bringing together GPs and LPs to discuss ESG issues and market trends is back again.

Many of the experts quoted in this unique supplement will be speaking at the event. Attracting over 250 delegates annually, this event is the largest event globally focused on ESG issues within private equity. Whilst ESG has grown due to LPs demanding managers to adopt stricter ESG principles, GPs are increasingly seeing how implementing ESG can add value to their portfolio companies.

Agenda highlights

1)  PRI/ERM Reporting and Monitoring Workshop will take place on Wednesday 13th June, 9am-9.55am. This workshop will by presented by Guy Roberts, and it will address the following:
  • Making the case for reporting and monitoring ESG processes within the life of a fund
  • Giving a range of options depending on levels of ESG integration maturity
  • Ensuring a consistent and streamlined approach across the sector
  • Are we getting closer to standards of disclosure on ESG?

2)  A Streamed Workshop on on TCFD recommendations will take place on Wednesday 13th June, 3.35pm – 4.20pm and it will feature James Stacey. It will include the following:
  • Update on the progress of the FSB taskforce
  • Using scenario analysis
  • Moving beyond disclosure
  • How value can be added by developing a climate risk strategy

3)  SDG Networking Roundtable Discussion will take place on Wednesday 13th June, 5pm - 6pm and the lead will be Linden Edgell.

Click here for the agenda
Click here to register.

The Courts and Fossil Fuels

As the leading cause of climate change court rulings against the fossil fuels industry are a game changer. A bit more than a year ago a judge ordered Exxon to hand over internal memos that proved the company privately knew the truth about climate change while investing in campaigns of disinformation intended to undermine the perceived veracity of the facts.

Recent court decisions have ruled against the fossil fuel industry's climate change causing emissions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the law governing all environmental reviews of federal decisions. This may set a precedent that has implications for the entire industry.

Citing NEPA and specifically climate change causing GHGs, an August 2017 ruling by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the federal government’s approval of a natural gas pipeline project in the southeastern US. The case concerns the Southeast Market Pipelines Project, which is meant to bring gas to Florida to fuel existing and planned power plants. The Sierra Club sued Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) following its 2016 approval of the project. The ruling found that FERC did not properly analyze the climate impact from burning the natural gas.

Also in August, a federal judge stopped the expansion of a mine in central Montana because the Interior Department did not comprehensively account for climate impacts. In September, a federal appeals court forced BLM to re-do its climate assessment of four large coal leases because they were economically "irrational."

NEPA and specifically climate change causing GHGs were also central in a March 2018 federal court judge ruling forcing the US Interior Department to consider climate and environmental impacts associated with drilling and mining leases in the Powder River Basin that encompasses both Montana and Wyoming. The ruling is in response to lawsuits brought forward after the Interior Department announced plans to open up more than 15 million acres of public land for mining and fossil fuel extraction.

Related
Court Rulings Check Pruitt's Vison of the EPA
Courts Defend Climate Action and Environmental Protections
The Courts Offer the Best Hope for Environmental and Climate Justice
Courts are Defending the Climate and the Environment
Danish Legal Victory Shows How the Courts Can Combat Climate Change

Courts Defend Climate Action and Environmental Protections

The courts have contributed to efforts to recognize and act on climate change and defend environmental protections. They have countered the Trump administration's deregulatory orgy and stopped Republican legislators from running roughshod over the natural world by shutting down dirty energy pipelines, and upholding the right of children to sue for climate action.

 Courts outside of the US are also mandating responsible government action.  In Denmark the courts have forced the government to reduce climate change causing greenhouse gases. In April Columbia's Supreme Court ruled that government must take urgent action to protect its Amazon rainforest and stem deforestation. These are but two examples of court actions that have resulted in victories for the natural world. According to an LSE study there are more than 1200 climate change laws around the world.

The courts have done a great deal to protect both the climate and our environment in the face of the nightmare that is the Trump administration. The US justice system has checked the administration's reckless agenda and as such they may offer the best hope we have of countering the presidency of Donald Trump.

California offers a practical rebuke to the Trump administration's central narrative that environmental protections and climate actions hurt they economy. The state has passed some of the nation's most progressive environmental legislation including an air pollution law and most recently a cleaning chemical disclosure law. Contrary to Trump's assertions California's economy continues to enjoy prodigious growth.

However wrong minded they may be Repubicans still control both legislative chambers and as president Trump still has broad powers.  Nonetheless US courts have shown that they are capable of countering government malfeasance at the highest levels.

Related
The Courts and Fossil Fuels
Court Rulings Check Pruitt's Vison of the EPA
The Courts Offer the Best Hope for Environmental and Climate Justice
Courts are Defending the Climate and the Environment
Danish Legal Victory Shows How the Courts Can Combat Climate Change

Event - Diversity and Inclusion: Respecting Difference and Standing on Common Ground

This event will take place on June 7 - 8, 2018 at the New York Marriott Marquis in New York, NY. 22nd Annual Diversity & Inclusion Conference is one of North America’s longest running and best-attended gatherings of D&I and business leaders that consistently addresses the most important issues in this area.

Greater inclusion is simply good business – but businesses have a broader responsibility to bring employees together, foster greater mutual understanding and create workplaces that allow everyone to contribute the best of themselves. This event enables this through a remarkable platform for leaders to actively participate in new trends, new ideas, and new innovations and think about how they can invoke change in their organizations around the world.

D&I has never been more important to the success of your business and the employee experience. The workforce has never been so diverse but there is currently a heightened tension across society and in many workplaces. Greater inclusion is simply good business – but businesses have a broader responsibility to bring employees together, foster greater mutual understanding and create workplaces that allow everyone to contribute the best of themselves.

This event enables this through a remarkable platform for leaders to actively participate in new trends, new ideas, and new innovations and think about how they can invoke change in their organizations around the world.

Who Should Attend

CDOs and C-Level executives

Vice Presidents and Directors of:
  • Diversity & Inclusion
  • Talent Management
  • Human Resources
Professionals with responsibility for:
  • Diversity & Inclusion
  • Organization Culture
  • Leadership Development
  • Employee Engagement
  • Learning
  • Succession Planning
  • Program Managers
  • Learning and Development
  • Employee Relations
  • Talent Acquisition
  • Global Business, Ethics and Integrity
  • Total Rewards

Earn Credits

Earn up to 11 CPE credits Personnel/Human Resources Requirements: Attendees must sign-in each day for full credit. Delivery Method: Group-Live; Program Level: Intermediate, Prerequisites: Bachelor’s degree or higher, Advanced Preparation: None

This program has been pre-approved for 9.25 PDCs for the SHRM-CP or SHRM-SCP. For more information about certification or recertification, please visit www.shrmcertification.org.

This program has been approved for 9.25 (HR (General)) recertification credit hours toward aPHR, PHR, SPHR, PHRca, GPHR, PHRi, and SPHRi recertification through the HR Certification Institute (HRCI). For more information about certification or recertification, please visit the HR Certification Institute website at www.hrci.org.

Click here to see the agenda
Click here to register

Does Business Need Government to Incentivize the Green Economy?

The business community is driving sustainability forward in response to market incentives. The question is how far can the private sector go in the absence of responsible leadership from government?

Businesses are leading first and foremost because they are looking to reduce costs and capitalize on opportunities. Other factors are also at play. Publically traded companies are  beholden to shareholders and as such they have a fiduciary responsibility to address threats. Investors are calling for nonfinancial information and a number of shareholder resolutions have demanded more disclosure and actions to mitigate climate change as well as adaptation strategies to protect against potential risks.

We are seeing promising signs from a number of corporations that are engaged in climate action and seeing benefits from doing good. Businesses have extracted value from embracing facts and pursing science-based goals and objectives. Well-positioned businesses are able to adapt to threats and take advantage of major trends. The economic case has been made repeatedly,  sustainability is a boon and the climate crisis is both a serious threat and a real opportunity. Both CEOs and shareholders have a vested interest in avoiding obstacles and exploring opportunities.

Financial inducements have also advanced sustainability. Incentives make sustainability compelling to business owners and stakeholders. This has augured action independent of an organization's understanding of climate science or concerns about the ways their business activities contribute to environmental degradation.

profit as an inducement to action. There is arguably no faster way to hasten the spread of sustainability than through incentivizing action from business. This can go a long way to encourage responsible action.

Some businesses, particularly small businesses often see sustainability as a daunting challenge. For these organizations, we need to speak the language of short-term self-interest. Although this is not a long game it moves us in the right direction and offers measurable benefits.

People sometimes argue that the cost of action is prohibitive. However, this is a mistaken assessment. In failing to act on global warming, we put jobs and economic prosperity at risk. According to a slew of studies the benefits of action far outweigh the costs of inaction.

"Climate change poses a severe risk to global economic stability," said World Bank Group president Jim Yong Kim in a news release, adding, "We believe it's possible to reduce emissions and deliver jobs and economic opportunity, while also cutting health care and energy costs."

We cannot afford to deny the costs of climate change. A cost-benefit analysis demonstrates the value of climate action. Simply put the longer we wait the more it will cost. If we wait too long we risk horrific consequences and we may surpass tipping points from which we cannot recover.

Failure to act on climate change makes us vulnerable to a wide range of serious and potentially existential risks. It also eschews a number of powerful benefits that include everything from impressive financial returns to safeguarding supply chains. The World Bank is behind one of the many studies that emphatically make the point that acting on climate change is in our best interest.

"Climate inaction inflicts costs that escalate every day," World Bank Group vice-president Rachel Kyte said, adding its study "makes the case for actions that save lives, create jobs, grow economies and, at the same time, slow the rate of climate change. We place ourselves and our children at peril if we ignore these opportunities."

The Risky Business report came to a similar conclusion, saying, "The U.S. economy faces significant risks from unmitigated climate change." Henry Paulson, is a Republican and one of the authors of the report, he served as treasury secretary under George W. Bush and he has called for climate action including a carbon tax.

"That means the decisions we're making today — to continue along a path that's almost entirely carbon-dependent — are locking us in for long-term consequences that we will not be able to change but only adapt to, at enormous cost," Paulson argued in the New York Times.

There are some who are optimistic even as we are forced to contend with profoundly irresponsible governments.

"Let me be very clear about it: all the progress made in the green economy over the last few decades is here to stay. While the changing political administrations are likely to bring some sort of change to the green economy, other factors are taking hold outside of public policy and regulation to cement the green economy as an indelible fixture of the business landscape," Yaniv Vardi argued last year.

While sustainability is indeed an "indelible fixture of the business landscape" it is simply not enough.

Mark Foster, Chairman of the IBLF Board of Trustees and former Group CEO, Accenture said in 2011, "It will be companies, not governments, which will engineer the quantum leap in how to manage the earth’s finite physical and financial resources...It will be companies that will bring under control the cost to society of lax corporate governance, dubious financial schemes, and outright corruption. Where a stable regulatory framework is absent or unstable, companies which will voluntarily regulate themselves, and work with governments to create a regulatory environment which incentivizes efficiency, integrity, and social equity."

While Foster can be faulted for being overly optimistic, he is correct in saying that things like the cost savings achieved through efficiency and profits derived from innovation are powerful drivers. However, we have not seen the kind of progress that is capable of meeting the challenges we face.

Despite prodigious activity in cleantech we are not seeing the level of growth required to keep us within the upper temperature threshold limit of 2 degrees Celsius. Led by price declines we have seen tremendous advances in solar, wind and other renewable sources of energy. However, far more activity is required if we are to quickly scale clean power and replace fossil fuels with renewables within the coming decade.

The window in which we can safely burn fossil fuel is rapidly closing. If we continue down this road we do so at the expense of our long-term prosperity. The price we pay for dirty energy is considerable. It takes a toll on human health and ultimately risks destroying the natural systems upon which our economy depends.

While business can play an important role governments are required to provide incentives just as they have done for almost every major new technology and just as they continue to do for fossil fuels. Governments need to prioritize cleantech in the same way that they prioritize other sectors of the economy.

Governments in countries like Spain, Costa Rica and even the United Arab Emerites are working to end their use of fossil fuels. State governments like California and national governments like France, and Germany have demonstrated that there are tangible benefits associated with climate action. The governments of many European nations along with the governments of Asian countries like China, Japan and South Korea have all supported cleantech research and development.

However, for businesses that have to contend with upfront costs and uncertain profit horizons this patchwork of government action is insufficient to keep us within the upper threshold temperature limit.

Governments also have an essential role to play in enacting regulations, levying taxes and passing legislation. They are the only body that can hold polluters accountable with national strategies like carbon trading schemes.

Incentives are even more important than disincentives. Governments can ncentivize the green economy through a policy mix that includes direct investments, tax breaks, and loans in support of renewable energy, energy efficiency, low carbon transport and green buildings.

Businesses see the costs that they create yet do not have to bear as an "externality". Carbon pollution that causes climate change is a good example. Only governments have the power to make an organization internalize these so called externalities.

Governments are instrumental in the widespread commercial development of low carbon technologies. The market is doing some of the work on its own, but only government can provide the kind of incentives that are capable of driving the green economy into high gear.

Related
Sustainability Leadership: 500 Companies, 50 Drivers, 5 Reasons and 5 CEOs
50 Sustainability Drivers
Businesses Practicing Sustainability are Leading the Way Forward
Sustainability is Not a Choice it is a Market Dictate
How Sustainability has Become a Mainstream Phenomenon
Businesses are Thriving with Sustainability and Risk Dying Without It
Sustainability is a Strategic Imperative

Republican Voters at Odds with Trump's Climate Denial

Republicans are nowhere near as ignorant about climate change as their commander and chief. Donald Trump's anti-science climate denial is at odds with the majority of Americans including Republican registered voters. According to a recent poll people in the party that elected Trump are slowly inching their way towards a science-based understanding of global warming with solid majorities indicating their support for climate action.

The latest national survey conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication suggests that the views of Republican registered voters are evolving. Since last Fall, more Republicans are conceding that climate change is real and caused by human activities. What is even more surprising is the fact that they have increased their support for climate action. This is in stark contrast to the Trump administration which has systematically eradicated science-based climate policies.

Climate and CO2

The Yale poll found that there has been a 9 percent increase in Republicans who accept the anthropogenic origins of global warming since last Fall and a 5 percent increase in Republicans worried about climate change. Perhaps the most surprising result is the fact that compared to last Fall 9 percent more Republicans support strict carbon dioxide limits on existing coal-fired power plants. This is particularly interesting in light of the Trump administration's efforts to kill all vestiges of climate action including the Obama era Clean Power Plan. Like his boss EPA chief Scott Pruitt has infamously lied to support of his efforts to kill the plan

Although Pruitt has demonstrated that he is intent on enfeebling the EPA, 69 percent of Republicans, representing an increase on 8 points since last Fall, support regulating CO2 as a pollutant. In total 81 percent of Americans support this idea including 91 percent of Democrats and 80 percent of Independent.

Renewable energy

The Yale poll shows that 79 percent of Republicans support more funding for renewable energy research. This idea has the support of 87 percent of Americans, including 94 percent of Democrats and 83 percent of Independents. A solid majority of  Republicans (81 percent) support generating renewable energy on public lands. This idea is supported by 86 percent of Americans polled, including 91 percent of Democrats and 82 percent of Independents.

A strong majority of Republicans support solar energy. When asked if the US should use more solar energy 75 percent of Republicans agreed. In total 80 percent of Americans share this view including 84 percent of Democrats and 80 percent of Independent.

Wind energy is also supported by Republicans with 62 percent of Republicans indicating their support. In total 73 percent of Americans support wind energy including 82 percent of Democrats and 75 percent of Independents. Republican support for levying a revenue-neutral carbon tax against fossil fuel companies increased by 7 percent.

There has been a 6 percent increase in the number of Republicans who support tax rebates for people who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels. A total of 85 percent of Americans support this idea including 77 percent of Republicans, 82 percent of Independents and 91 percent of Democrats.

Fossil fuels

Trump campaigned on the promise to increase fossil fuel extraction in the US, however, only 18 percent of Republicans think that the US should use more coal and 16 percent think the US should use more oil. A total of 12 percent of Americans think the US should use more coal including 6 percent of Democrats and 14 percent of Independents. Only 11 percent of Americans think the US should use more oil including 7 percent of Democrats, and 16 percent of Independents.

These are especially surprising results given that Trump's policy positions indicate that he dislikes renewable energy and loves fossil fuels.

Related
The Pessimal Presidency of Donald Trump 

Event - 2018 Sustainability Management Conference

The 2018 Sustainability Management Conference will take place July 30 - August 1, at the Omni Providence Hotel; Providence, Rhode Island.

At this event, you will learn how to further integrate sustainability into your business operations from fellow corporate EHS and sustainability leaders. Through a mix of peer-led case studies and benchmarking dialogues, NAEM’s annual sustainability conference is a unique opportunity to gain actionable insights you can use to immediately improve performance, identify opportunities for your business and set better sustainability goals.

Find Focus, Execute Your Strategy

Are you responsible for implementing sustainability efforts, or tracking and reporting their results? Is the scope of your sustainability program expanding in all directions? This conference will offer insights that will help you improve your company’s performance internally and more effectively manage your sustainability data at both ends of the supply chain.

Benchmark Best Practices

The conference draws an engaged group of in-house sustainability professionals and trusted service providers.

Meet Your Peers

This year's conference program will showcase the leading practices and emerging challenges you need to know to enhance your sustainability program.

About NAEM

The National Association for Environmental Management (NAEM) empowers corporate leaders to advance environmental stewardship, create safe and healthy workplaces, and promote global sustainability. As the largest professional community for EHS and sustainability decision-makers, we provide peer-led educational conferences and an active network for sharing solutions to today's corporate EHS and sustainability management challenges. Visit NAEM online at www.naem.org.

Click here for the conference program and agenda
Click here to register. 

Trump and Macron: A Climate Luddite and a Climate Leader

The Trump administration will go down in history for its assaults against environmental protections and eradication of climate action. Donald Trump's presidency has been a nightmare of Orwellian proportions so much so that it is a challenge to keep up with his malfeasance.

The Trump White House has an unprecedented aversion to science. Trump is the first president in modern history to be without a science advisor. The reason is simple, science exposes the highly destructive nature of his administration's policy positions. To further corroborate the point the Trump administration recently axed Nasa's Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) that measures atmospheric greenhouse gases.

This is a logical extension of Trump's inept decision to pull the US out of the Paris Climate Accord. It follows that Trump would want to kill scientific research programs that reveal the ignorance of this decision.

CMS is a $10 million per year project using satellites and aircraft to remotely track carbon dioxide and methane. Killing CMS will impact dozens of research projects. Under Trump the US has abandoned evidence based policy and relinquished its role as s world leader. Europe will likely fill the void. The EU already has one satellite-based carbon monitoring system in place and more are on the horizon.

Led by French president Emmanuel Macron Europe has emerged as a global climate leader. This was evident at the One Planet Summit late last year. In response to Trump's contempt for climate science, France awarded "Make Our Planet Great Again" grants to 18 researchers including 13 US climate scientists.

Macron has done what he could to council Trump on a range of issues including the urgency of climate action. In his address to Congress on Wednesday, April 25 Macron unflinchingly contradicted some of the central tenets of the Trump administration including environmental degradation and climate change.

Unsurprisingly Trump appears to be impervious to good counsel. His administration officially canceled the CMS program shortly after Macron's visit to the US in April.

Webinar - How to Put the Planet in Your Portfolio: CoPower's New Green Bonds for Canadian Investors

This webinar will take place today Thursday, May 17 at 4pm ET / 1pm PT. It will address the issuance of new Green Bonds that can help you put your money to work for profit and planet. With updated terms and some exciting new clean energy projects in the pipeline,  CoPower's newest Green Bonds include a 6-year, 5% bond, and a 4-year, 4% bond.

When you invest in Green Bonds you’re investing in a diversified portfolio of loans to clean energy and energy efficiency projects. The projects generate steady revenues from the sale of clean energy or energy savings, allowing you to earn competitive fixed returns while reducing carbon emissions.

Easy, profitable clean energy investing for investors of all sizes that are good for your portfolio. Investing in clean energy projects is a great way to put your money to work for both compelling returns and measurable impact. But it's difficult for most investors to participate in this opportunity.

CoPower makes it simple. Their Green Bonds are backed by diversified portfolios of senior, secured loans to clean energy projects and energy efficiency projects that reduce carbon and generate steady revenues - revenues that are used to pay investors like you. Their Green Bonds are backed by clean energy projects that earn steady returns from energy savings or the sale of clean energy.

Expertly Managed: Each project loan backing the Green Bonds is vetted and structured by a team of experts following a rigorous due diligence process.

Competitive Returns: Earn up to 5% annually by investing in markets under-served by mainstream finance and earn a steady income with quarterly payments.

Online Monitoring: Your personalized investor dashboard makes it easy to track financial performance and environmental impact.

Diversification: Private, fixed-rate bonds help offset your exposure to market volatility and improve diversification in your portfolio.

Carbon Reductions: Your investment helps finance more clean energy and energy efficiency projects that measurably reduce harmful emissions.

CoPower Green Bonds are currently available for investment via the CoPower platform in Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Yukon and Nova Scotia. Canadians outside of eligible provinces and territories may invest via a securities dealer. Please contact investors@copower.me for more information.

Join Jennifer Macdonald, CoPower's Manager of Impact Investing, for a live 45-minute webinar covering CoPower's new Green Bond terms and features, the clean energy projects your investment will support, and Q&A.

Click here to register.

Webinar - Rebuilding in Puerto Rico: Universities as Leaders in Community Resilience

This NCSC event will take place on May 23, 2018, 1:15 to 2:45 PM EDT. The webinar is presented by the National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE) as part of their Sustainable Infrastructure & Resilience Series. Long before Hurricane Maria made landfall on Puerto Rico, the University of Puerto Rico established the National Institute for Energy and Island Sustainability (INESI) as a collaborative platform to understand and address the infrastructure issues being faced by the campus system and island.

Join the National Council for Science and the Environment in collaboration with Arizona State University's Julian Ann Wrigley Global Institute of Sustainability and SSF on May 23 to hear how this model for local collaboration in Puerto Rico has progressed post-Maria, and inspired a United States national network of higher education leaders focusing on resilience, data-driven decision-making, and local solutions. The webinar will address models for university contribution to resilience in islands and smaller countries at risk from extreme weather events.

This is the first in an SSF webinar series on Sustainable Infrastructure & Resilience hosted by the National Council for Science and the Environment that will extend through 2018. The NCSE series will explain how social structure is highly dependent on infrastructure and sustainable infrastructure investments that can lead to economic vitality, equitable resource allocations, and more resilient societies.

Moderator

Gary Dirks, Ph.D. - Director, Julie Ann Wrigley Global Institute of Sustainability at the Arizona State University

Speakers

Cecilio Ortiz García, Ph.D. - University of Puerto Rico Mayaguez
Jennie Stephens, Ph.D. - Associate Director for Strategic Research Collaborations, Global Resilience Institute (GRI) at Northeastern University and co-chair of the NCSE Energy Education Community of Practice
Clark Miller, Ph.D. - ASU's School for the Future of Innovation in Society and the Global Institute of Sustainability at ASU

Click here to register.

Related
Energy Justice for Puerto Rico: Abandon Fossil Fuels and Adopt Renewables
Puerto Rico's Renewable Energy Opportunity (Video)
Tesla is Bringing Renewable Energy to Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico Relief Efforts: Companies Doing What Trump Won't
Trump's Climate Denial as Puerto Ricans Continue to Die in the Wake of Hurricane Maria
Trump's Climate Denial Makes Storms and Wildfires Worse
US Hurricanes and the GOP's Climate Denial
Trump's Climate Denial the GOP and Fossil Fuels

Growth Psychosis: The Psychology of Denial

The preoccupation with economic growth is deeply rooted in the worldview of capitalists all around the globe. Influential post-modernist writer William S. Burroughs said, "When you stop growing you start dying". Nowhere is this more true than in the United States where growth is a key assumption. Few seem to have noticed that this economic model has been shown to be illusory and ultimately perilous. The only way that growth is tenable is if we decouple it from both emissions and resources. However, questioning our preoccupation with unfettered growth is considered heresy in some conservative quarters. For many the belief in growth borders on gospel and those who question are derisively dismissed as "socialists".

To help people to move beyond reflexive dismissal we need to understand some of the entrenched psychological reasons why we have difficulty acknowledging the perils of our fixation with growth.

Denial

Just as we deny the full scope of ecological degradation, we ignore the ways in which our economic model is fundamentally flawed. The psychology of climate denial denial can help us to understand why we ignore the adverse impacts associated with our preoccupation with growth.

Why do people eschew science and deny the facts? Acceptance is difficult particularly when the facts are both terrifying and personally damning. The situation is further compounded by misinformation from politicians who proritize industry interests. Nonetheless, coming to terms with reality is a vital step towards taking responsibility.

The psychology of denial is a key tenet of the psychoanalytic movement starting with Sigmund Freud (1856 - 1939). Freud popularized the idea that when something is too painful it is excluded from our conscious apprehension as part of a defense mechanism called repression. More than 40 years ago Elisabeth Kübler-Ross published a book that proposed a model commonly known the Cycle of Acceptance. According to this model we manage radical change by going through a series of stages starting with denial. As eloquently articulated in a scholarly book called the Denial of Death, Ernst Becker expounded on the idea that we find clever ways to avoid rather than confront terrifying realities.

Individualism

Another facet of the dynamic of denial involves the rise of the individual disconnected from the world (and its biosystems). With the demise of social norms and religious affiliations individual actions are less likely to be subject to limitations. People commonly perceive themselves as being separate from the environments that they inhabit and this is antithetical to our survival as a species.

As revealed in the writings of Ayn Rand and others individualism is a core feature of conservatism and a central tenet of American culture. This tendency has grown in recent years as a backlash against globalization. People are now estranged from the wider community and the larger world.

The ruling US government is eviscerating regulations and dismantling institutions that limit its power. They are abandoning multilateral deals and promoting their sovereignty so that they can make decisions unfettered by consideration of the collective best interest. The arrogant pursuit of this type of insolar freedom takes precedence over the carrying capacity of the earth. As government persues more freedoms people are being manipulated by sophisticated targeted propaganda from foreign actors, industry, and our own governments.

Erik Linberg has written extensively on the subject of growth and he says, "I am not so naïve as to hold that a communal truth is universal or transcendental, any more than an individual one. Rather, I am suggesting as we face the consequences of individual truths, we need to develop strong collective and communal ones to take their place, with the keen sense that most recent collective and communal truths have not worked out very well."

Human frailties

The paralyzing apathy of so many people make it abundantly clear that we humans are intellectually challenged and emotionally immature. We are far too often slow and self-interested. However, incorporating basic psychological truths can be as simple as giving people personal reasons to act.

All of this psycho-drama is taking place against the backdrop of a ticking time bomb.  While we must acknowledge that paradigm shifts take time, we cannot afford to ignore the very real possibility that it will take more time than we have. Despite the urgency it makes no sense to tell people to run if they cannot walk. Being impatient or insistent with people does not work.

Rather than flog a dead horse, people are leading by example and doing what they can through their personal actions and professional lives. Even in the context of irrational governments people continue to advocate for an evidence based policy agenda.

A psychological understanding of denial can help inform our efforts to rescue ourselves from ourselves. We need to apply these insights so that we can speak in a language that people can understand and so that we can craft approaches that people can accept.

Next: Solutions to the Problem of Growth

Trump's Border Walls are a Threat to both Flora and Fauna

The presidency of Donald Trump is a nightmare and his proposed wall will only make things worse. The Trump administration is infamous for their obsession with deregulation and contempt for science, environmental protection and climate action. Due to the dangers that it poses to plants and animals the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Defenders of Wildlife are all opposed to the building of more walls on the US-Mexico border.

The frontier between the two nations encompasses some of the most ecologically diverse regions in North America. The almost 2000 mile long border runs from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. It spans three mountain chains, the continent's two largest deserts, and several rivers.

Trump signed an executive order in August that is designed to expedite the environmental approval process. The EO may even force changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). There are negative consequences for wildlife associated with an expedited environmental review process. Barriers are harmful to animals from Texas on the East coast to California on the West. The Tijuana Estuary just south of San Diego is where the Tijuana River meets the Pacific Ocean. Building a wall here could adversely impact one of the most biodiverse areas in the state of California.

Trump has shown willful disregard for animal welfare. In March the administration eliminated protections for animals on organic farms. According to an April 11 Mother Jones article, a leaked document reveals that the Trump administration is planning to end protections for more than 300 threatened plant and animal species listed under the 1973 Endangered Species Act. His support for big game hunting suggests that even animals in Africa and elsewhere are not safe from this president.

Once dismissed as a pipe dream the US is ebbing ever closer to the building a wall along the border with Mexico. Although Trump has backed down on his repeated promise that Mexico will pay for the wall, he has requested $1.6 billion for the fiscal year 2018 to fund the first stage of the project. As explained by a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, this would include 28 miles of new levee wall system in Rio Grande Valley, 32 new miles of border wall system in the Rio Grande Valley, and 14 miles of replacement secondary barrier in San Diego. The Department of Homeland Security will test eight prototypes this summer. Building the kind of wall that Trump promised on the Campaign trail could cost as much as $40 billion.

Predate Trump

In fairness, the myriad threats faced by wildlife predates Trump. Man-made species extinction attributable largely to habitat loss endangers half of the species on earth and global warming is adding to the pressure.

Over the course of two years, the Republican-controlled Congress passed two key pieces of legislation that harms wildlife. In 2005 Congress passed the REAL ID Act, which granted the Secretary of Homeland Security authority to bypass local, state and federal laws including the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Wilderness Act. This law precludes the need for environmental impact studies. In 2006 Congress passed the Secure Fence Act adding 700 miles of new border barriers including sections of the Arizona border along the San Pedro River.

Thousands of miles of roads have carved up formally wild landscapes including federally protected wilderness areas, national monuments, and wildlife refuges. A highway on the Mexican side of the border also poses a barrier to animal movements.

The Trump administration's deregulatory orgy and disdain for animal welfare have exacerbated an already difficult situation. As quoted by Vox the Sierra Club's Dan Millis said: "We’ve been dealing with all these negative environmental impacts of fences on the border for more than a decade." Millis added, "Trump’s proposal would make it worse.”

Existing walls

There are already 654 miles of barriers along the ecologically rich US-Mexico border. Research has shown that existing border walls have a number of adverse consequences. This includes increasing both erosion and flooding and diminished populations of some animal species. While they have not stopped human migration they have effectively isolated a range of animal species increasing inbreeding and reducing their genetic diversity. Restricting the movement of animals weakens the gene pool and limits the adaptive capacity of species already subject to significant pressure.

A 2011 study by Lasky et al estimated that 134 mammal, 178 reptile, and 57 amphibian species live within about 30 miles of the US Mexico border. Of those, 50 species and three subspecies are globally or federally threatened in Mexico and/or the United States. Lasky's research reveals that border barriers have been harmful to both wildlife and plants. He identified 45 species and three subspecies that are being dangerously isolated.

Texas border

Trump's proposed border wall could stop animals from moving freely in and out of Mexico including those that frequent the Texas wildlife refuges. Conservationists consider these refuges some of the most ecologically diverse regions along the 1,954-mile long border with Mexico.

A wall in the Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge would put at risk 19 federally threatened and endangered species and 57 state protected species.

As reported by Science Daily, recent study out of the University of Texas at Austin, suggests that a border wall in Texas will cause habitat fragmentation that will harm plants, animals, and tourism. The research was conducted by conservation biologists Norma Fowler and Tim Keitt. They are professors in the Department of Integrative Biology and they reviewed scientific literature in 14 publications.

In a letter published in the Frontiers of Ecology and the Environment, they say that erecting a wall on the Texas border with Mexico will result in habitat fragmentation and ecosystem damage. "I and other Texas biologists are very concerned about the impact this will have on our rich natural heritage," Fowler said.

The scientists are concerned that a wall along the Rio Grande floodplain could hurt ecotourism and this will have significant economic implications. Birders flock to the Lower Rio Grande River Valley generating hundreds of millions of dollars ($344 according to a 2011 Texas A&M study).

"If ecotourism declines significantly because access to preserves has been impeded, there may be negative economic impacts on the region," the letter states.

Flooding

Flooding is one of the dangers for wildlife associated with the building of border walls. A wall along the Rio Grande could pose a flood risk. "They are particularly problematic because they would be the first walls built inside the Rio Grande floodplain, and thus are likely to cause floods in the populated areas where they are planned," Millis said.

Scientists are concerned that a wall along the Rio Grande floodplain will exacerbate flooding. The letter from Fowler and Keitt says, "if the barriers are not far enough from the river, they may trap wildlife escaping from floods, and may even act as levees, which tend to increase downstream flooding."

We have already seen how existing border walls have caused flash flooding in Nogales and Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona. These floods caused two deaths and millions of dollars in damage.

"Flood water always has debris in it," Millis says. "That’s how you got these damming events that blew out chunks of wall. Damming also causes erosion — it creates the situation we saw in Arizona where debris backs up the water and then the sediment building upstream created a waterfall that causes more erosion. This is liable to happen in Texas."

Arizona/New Mexico border

Between Texas and California, Arizona and New Mexico share a long stretch of border with Mexico. Wildlife in these two states is already suffering the effects of climate change including warmer temperatures, shorter rainy seasons and drier winters. A barrier along the border could augur the end for some species.

Only 60 miles of Arizona's border with Mexico is not fenced off. Adding more border barriers could prove deadly to animals already struggling with home ranges that are prone to severe droughts. "A lot of species do best in Northern Mexico, but with changes in precipitation patterns, they would need to disperse across the border," says Lasky.

Even birds and fish are at risk. The ferruginous pygmy owl is in jeopardy because research shows they rarely fly high enough to clear border walls. Other winged creatures at risk include some species of bats and the monarch butterfly. A wall straddling the Rio Yaqui could add more pressure to already endangered fish in the San Bernardino wildlife refuge.

The movement of the endangered Sonoran pronghorn, which tends to avoid roads and fencing, will also be further restricted. Other species likely to be vulnerable to border barriers include bighorn sheep and black bears.

Jaguars

Jaguars have been spotted crossing the border from Mexico however, any hope that the 300 jaguars left in the Sonoran Desert could one day repopulate Arizona and New Mexico would be definitively crushed by the building of this wall.

Building a wall in the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge in south Texas could destroy the habitat of the remaining Jaguars and more than 400 bird species. A barrier could also pose a threat to ocelots and rare plant species.

"The only hope for natural re-colonization [of jaguars] in the U.S., however remote, hinges on maintaining this core population to the south, and its connectivity," said Alan Rabinowitz, CEO of Panthera.

Better solutions

Many question the utility of building a wall to stem the flow of people and drugs into the US from Mexico. They point out that those who want to access the US will still be able to tunnel under the barrier. The wall will succeed in cutting off wildlife from traversing the frontier. Even the Border Patrol which supports the wall admits that it will be largely symbolic.

In a Scientific American article, Aaron Flesch, a wildlife biologist at the University of Arizona, was quoted as saying: "In wild settings, people are really the only species we know is definitely going to get over the wall or under it,"

Rather than build a wall, both border security and wildlife preservation could be achieved through other means including electronic sensors and vehicle boundaries that leave room for most animals to get through.

"Negative impacts could be lessened by limiting the extent of physical barriers and associated roads, designing barriers to permit animal passage and substituting less biologically harmful methods, such as electronic sensors, for physical barriers," the letter from conservation biologists states.

Protect protected areas

Protecting protected areas could be a game-changing solution. A total of 25 million acres of protected US public lands are within 100 miles of the US-Mexico border. Along the US border there are six wildlife refuges, six national parks, tribal lands, wilderness areas, and conservation areas. On the Mexican side of the border, there are a number of protected areas including El Pinacate y Gran Desierto Altar, which abuts the US Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and parts of the Organ Pipe National Monument and Barry M. Goldwater Range in Arizona.

Arizona and New Mexico's border with Mexico encompasses one of the largest protected areas in North America. The Sky Islands region is home to thousands of species many of which will be subject to even greater stress from the proposed wall. Sky islands has one of the most ecologically diverse assortments of flora and fauna anywhere in North America (eg spotted owls, thick-billed parrots, barred tiger salamanders, Mount Graham red squirrels). Sky Islands also includes the Coronado home to the greatest number of threatened and endangered species of any US national forest.

Climate change is putting additional pressures on wildlife, however, the American government can assist with adaptation programs on public lands along the border. These programs could help to save species on both sides of the border.

"We’re already experiencing hotter temperatures, a shorter monsoon season, drier winters," Scott Wilbor, conservation science director for the Sky Islands Alliance was quoted as saying. "We have a lot of capacity on our U.S. public lands to implement adaptation strategies," he says, including restoring streams and seeps, and harvesting rainwater. "But we need cross-border connectivity so these species can have their full range." However, Trump has shown that he has little interest in investing in adaptation.

"Trump’s wall could deal a blow to wildlife if it severed key corridors that until now have remained open and passable." Cally Carswell wrote. At risk is a wide range of animal species including some that are not found anywhere else. The wall would almost guarantee the extinction of two of the most majestic apex predators on the continent, the northern Jaguar, and the Mexican gray wolf.

Trump's border wall makes no sense because there are other less expensive technologies that are more effective. While a wall may achieve Trump's political objectives it will not prevent people and drugs from entering the country. It will however hasten the demise of many species. Contrary to his xenophobic rhetoric Trump's "big, beautiful wall" is anything but.

Event - Social Innovation Summit

This event will take place on June 5 - 6 at the Pullman San Francisco Bay, in San Fracisco, California.  This is not your average conference.  This is the place where "Business Innovation Meets Social Transformation". The Social Innovation Summit is an annual event taking place in Silicon Valley which represents a global convening of black swans and wayward thinkers. Where most bring together luminaries to explore the next big idea, they bring together those hungry not just to talk about the next big thing, but to build it.

Those who are playing at the nexus of technology, investment, philanthropy, international development, and business come together to investigate solutions and catalyze inspired partnerships that are disrupting history. If they are obsessed with anything, it is great people. They convene the world’s most potent leaders, thinkers, and practitioners with an unwavering bias towards action and a push towards scale.

CONFERENCE SCHEDULE


DAY 1: Tuesday, June 5
9:00-5:00: Main Event Program
5:00-7:00: Networking Reception

DAY 2: Wednesday, June 6
9:00-5:00: Main Event Program
5:00-7:00: Networking Reception

FEATURED SPEAKERS

SANDY WEILL
Philanthropist, Former CEO & Chairman
Citigroup

LAURA DEMING
23-Year-Old Venture Capitalist & Partner
Longevity Fund

DAMIEN HOOPER-CAMPBELL
Chief Diversity Officer
eBay

STACEY TANK
Chief Communications Officer
The Home Depot

TOM HERBST
Vice President, Global Marketing
The North Face

BILL TAI
Founder, Blockchain Summit on Necker Island; Founder & Chairman
ACTAI Global

MIKE MASSERMAN
Head, Social Impact
Lyft

ANNE EMIG
Lead, Mayor's Challenge
Bloomberg Philanthropies

KIM VU
Senior Vice President, Enterprise Business & Community Engagement
Bank of America

KEVIN CLEARY
Chief Executive Officer
Clif Bar & Company

DARYL BREWSTER
Chief Executive Officer
CECP

JUNE SUGIYAMA
Director
Vodafone Americas Foundation

ALEXIS LEWIS
Teenage Inventor
Lewis Inventions

SAMEE DESAI
Director, Knowledge Creation & Research
Kauffman Foundation

CHARLES BEST
Chief Executive Officer
DonorsChoose.org

Click here to register.

Climate Crisis Economics: A Serious Threat and a Real Opportunity

Climate change is a serious threat and an unprecedented economic opportunity. The science is clear and so is the solution. However, after seventeen decades of climate inaction there is an ever diminishing window within which we must act if we are to avoid the worst impacts of a rapidly warming world. We are in danger of triggering feedback loops and surpassing tipping points from which we may not be able to recover.

The need for action is urgent and it is coupled with a cogent economic rationale. This includes both a compelling incentive and a powerful disincentive.  

According to a study from the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate the economic opportunity is real as are the costs of inaction. The Commission is composed of former heads of government, business leaders, economists and other experts.

According to the study our carbon intensive societies will require $90 trillion in investments over the next 15 years or $6 trillion a year. This includes infrastructure investments, transport, energy and water systems. The study also outlines the costs of air pollution which is between 4.4 and 10 percent of world gross domestic product.

A shift to low-carbon energy including renewables and greener cities would cost $270 billion a year. This is only a 4.5 percent increase which could be offset by savings including savings on fuel.

The key takeaway from this and many other studies like it is that the cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of action. The impacts of global warming on agriculture, energy, real estate, trade, public health and labor productivity are devastating. However, the economic potential of climate action is significant.

Many economists are not addresing this threat because the metrics we use to assess our economic health (GDP, GNP, fiscal prospects, business earnings etc) completely ignore these risks.

We cannot fall for the false choice between the economy and the environment. In the final analysis climate action spurs economic growth and protects our economy by protecting the environment.

Related
We Cannot Afford to Deny the Cost of Climate Change
The Economics of Climate Action
The Economics of Sea-level Rise
Acting on Climate Change: A Cost Benefit Analysis
The Cost of Climate Inaction/Action
Acting on Climate Change Makes Good Economic Sense According to Citibank
An LSE Cost Benefit Analysis of Acting on Climate Change
A Cost Oriented Approach to Climate Change for Conservatives
Risky Business Report Quantifies the Cost of Climate Change
The Cost of Ocean Acidification
The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change

Oil and Gas Industry Influence in Canada

Fossil fuel industry misinformation campaigns are alive and well in Canada as is big oil's influence on both Canadian media and politicians.  Although we tend to think of the United States as the home of fossil fuel inspired fake news, Canada is also the target of front groups that undermine fact based journalism in support of the oil and gas industry. Just like the Heartland Institute in the US, Canada has its own front groups who willfully undermine the facts.

Sophisticated campaigns to fund climate denial have been around for years. As reported by the Vancouver Observer, in 2011 it was revealed that political scientist Barry Cooper of the the University of Calgary had funneled oil industry money to a climate change denial front group called Friends of Science.

The oil and gas industry works directly with media organizations to advance self serving narratives. According to the National Observer, Greenpeace leaked a Powerpoint presentation produced by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) for Postmedia’s board of directors in 2013.

The Observer reports that the oil and gas industry uses its leverage to stymie publication of materials that are harmful to its interests. The article also details how Enbridge  uses advertising pretending to be journalism.

Statistics Canada says capital spending to extract oil and gas will fall for a fourth straight year in Canada in 2018. Part of this trend can be explained by the fact that investors are more interested in cleaner sources of crude than they are in Canada's carbon-intensive tar sands.

The Conservative government of Stephen Harper which governed Canada for almost ten years was well known for its stridently pro-fossil fuel agenda.

Independent of party affiliations successive federal governments feel compelled to at least appear to be supporting the fossil fuel industry. This includes the ruling Liberal party which continues to tout its climate leadership and support for indigenous communities. The Liberals are investing more than a quarter of a million dollars to study why investment in Canada’s oil and gas industry is lagging behind the United States.

Much of the Canadian public supports climate action and questions. As reported by Global News, a recent survey conducted for the Ecofiscal Commission Canadians indicates that only slightly more than 10 percent of Canadians disagreed with the statement that the Earth is warming while 61 percent said there is conclusive or solid evidence to prove this. A total of 70 percent of Canadians said climate change is caused by human and industrial activity.

We know that the fossil fuel industry is the leading driver of climate change causing CO2 emissions. It all comes down to the fact that the oil industry has vast fortunes that it uses to secure support from political leaders and muddy the waters of science.

The presidency of Donald Trump has lent credence to fake news and emboldened big oil. However, Canada is not immune to the kind of lies and obfuscation that now pollutes the White House. As reported by the National Post, Doug Ford is vying to be premiere of Ontario and he has set up his own fake news to counter fact based news.

Related
War on Science Makes Fossil Fuels a Climate Archvillain
Proof of disinformation from Fossil Fuel Companies
Exxon's Crimes Against Humanity
Exxon is not the Only Bad Apple: The Whole Fossil Fuel Industry is Rotten to the Core
Fossil Fuel Lies and misinformation

Growth is Untenable without Decoupling

As the driving force in modern economics our current conceptions of growth are both illusory and perilous. While innovations and efficiencies are incentivized in a growth driven free market system, our preoccupation with unregulated expansion is overtaxing our biosphere and heralding our demise.

We are blinded by growth. By definition when our economies are not growing we are in recession. For an economy to be working well countries are expected to see growth rates of around 3 percent. Anything less is referred to as sluggish or slow growth.
The majority of what we call growth is driven by dirty energy and unbridled consumerism. Fossil fuels and the acquisiton of things we really don't need drain resources, add greenhouse gases and degrade the environment.

Much of what we call growth is an illusion. For example, our current economic models interpret debt (personal, corporate or government) as growth. While it may appear to be benefitial, as we saw with the collateralized debt obligations that caused the recession of 2008, such short term benefits can have serious consequences down the road.

Environment AND economics

The economy and the environment are inseperably interrelated. In the book Prosperity Without Growth, Tim Jackson explores the unsustainability of current rates of consumption drilling down on the false dichotomy between environmental action and economic growth.

Although ecologists see the environment as a subset of the economy, economists tend to ignore environmental impacts altogether. If corporations consider environmental impacts it is commonly characterized as an "externality".

The environment has been excluded from our economic models and this eschews the unavoidable reality that the economy is fundamentally dependent on the environment. Excluding environmental realities is the greatest market failure we have ever seen.  Our current trajectory is the result of this omission driving us like lemmings towards the cliff of eco-ruin.

We can no longer afford to avoid the ever encroaching evidence demonstrating that our current economic model is destroying the ecosystems upon which our economy depends.

Decoupling (emissions/resources)

For growth to be tenable it must be decoupled that is to say it must be seperated from emissions production and resource extraction. Although this is daunting it is not impossible. We already have the means at our disposal to significantly reduce our footprint and do more with significantly less.
We can decouple through rigorous monitoring, radical efficiency, creative sourcing, technological ingenuity, emissions-free energy and all-around innovation.

In a 2017 Environmental Leader article, Jessica Lyons Hardcastle, cites a World Resources Institute (WRI) report which calls for decoupling growth from environmental impacts. The report makes the point that it is in businesses’ self-interest to address risks like social inequality, climate change, and environmental degradation.

Sadly after some initially hopeful data, we are seeing evidence that suggests we are not decoupling growth from either emissions or resources. Although businesses may be publishing sustainability reports, WRI cites research which suggests that only 5 percent are taking stock of ecological limits. Even those that do do not address specific impacts on planetary boundaries.

The WRI report explains that companies will need to innovate new business models that deliver shareholder value and meet consumers’ needs in different ways. As Hardcastle says, "future business success depends on executives decoupling economic growth from resource use and environmental impacts".

Do the math

The equation is not hard to follow, our biosphere has limits and it cannot support infinite growth. Economic models that account for environmental impacts reveal the powerful logic of decoupling. The benefits of decoupling far outweigh the short term gains from business as usual. Even if we approach this from a purely economic perspective we are forced to reckon with the exhorbitant costs of our failure to incorporate environmental impacts. Climate change alone comes with a $44 trillion dollar price tag.

It is ecological and economic suicide to ignore the earth's carrying capacity. If we incorporate environmental realities we can reframe our economic models and our conceptions of growth. This is the only viable way forward within a market based system.

Related
The Illusion of Growth and the Fallacy of Kuznets Curve
The Perils of Growth and the Ubiquity of Growthism
The Death of Decoupling is a Major Blow to Climate Action
Decoupling Economic Growth and Resource Consumption
More Decoupling Proving Corporate Emissions Reduction Compadible with Growth
The US/China Ratify Climate Deal and Corporations are Decoupling
Decoupling economic growth from emissions
More Evidence for the Decoupling of the Economy and Emissions
The Challenge of Sustainability: Economic Growth and Emissions Reduction
We Can Reduce GHG Emissions and Tackle Climate Change