Archive for January 2012
Business Continuity and Climate Change
January 31, 2012 | 
Author At the end of this decade, scientists discover that giant solar flares have caused the temperature of Earth’s core to increase at an incredible rate. As the fragile balance of the planet’s structure is tipped by this unprecedented event, cracks begin to appear in the Earth’s crust, creating earthquakes of increasing ferocity. Despairing governments hatch a plan to ensure the survival of life via the creation of modern-day Arks – but while this desperate plan unfolds vast swathes of the world are consumed by mega-tsunamis, gigantic volcanic eruptions and the clash of mountain against mountain. Billions die – and the fate of humanity rests in the hands of… John Cusack?
The more observant among you may well have noticed that this is not in fact a representation of the near future from the perspective of shared services and outsourcing; rather, a precis of the plot of disaster movie 2012. However, while such cataclysmic challenges remain (for the moment…) in the realm of Hollywood sci-fi, the threat posed to smooth back-office operations by smaller (but nevertheless potentially devastating) phenomena is very real. Organizations without clear, coherent and agile disaster-avoidance and disaster-recovery strategies are courting catastrophe – and in many respects the challenges will only intensify over the years to come…
If that sounds too doomladen for many readers’ palates, it’s worth taking a look at a few critical issues. Firstly, from an organizational standpoint a catastrophe doesn’t have to be global to have global implications: the amazing advances in technology that have paved the way for IT-enabled centralization and the rise of the shared services model have resulted in countless benefits but have also created incredible dangers for any companies foolhardy enough to put all their data eggs in one basket – the oft-imagined (and thankfully unlikely) scenario whereby Company X’s sole SSC is destroyed in an earthquake without that company backing up its mission-critical data is the archetypal nightmare here.
Secondly, the increasing interconnection brought on by globalization has similarly led to innumerable benefits but has also led to the possibility of almost unthinkable dangers, both natural and artificial: the headlines over the past year have been dominated by the consequences of the financial crisis, a “near miss” event in many ways which at one point looked as though it could result in systemic collapse with the global banking superstructure within hours of collapse; and by the avian ‘flu pandemic which – fingers crossed – appears now to be less problematic than was first feared but which could – thanks again to globalization and easy travel – have reached every corner of the earth more rapidly than any previous pandemic and with devastating consequences. In this case, disaster-recovery teams would have had to cope not with acute trauma at any one location, but the consequences of a significant proportion of the workforce being rendered unfit for purpose (ie, dead) and of the impact of a substantial depletion of the consumer base on profitability. Two near-misses in a single year: it’s easy to imagine the Sword of Damocles swaying gently overhead…
Coping with that kind of catastrophe might seem beyond the domain of shared services (as if they didn‘t have enough to cope with); however, it seems logical to assume that, in the case of a seriously destabilizing event like either of the last two mentioned could well have become, shared services would be perfect to lie at the heart of any recovery strategy developed by a global organization: a number of small, agile centralized groups (as long as they’re not too depleted or rendered useless by whatever’s transpired) are far better placed to mount coherent resistance to disaster than widely dispersed (and probably pretty terrified) local teams – as long, crucially, as the lines of communication remain open and the aforementioned mission-critical data is not lost. Any element of disaster-avoidance strategy dealing with major global events should therefore include well-defined roles for shared services teams maximizing the advantages conferred by this model.
However, such events remain, thankfully, unlikely in the short-term. Much more immediate and pressing is the risk of local catastrophes which threaten the shared services units themselves – and dealing with these, and minimizing their impact on the organization as a whole, is what disaster-avoidance and -recovery are really all about. After all, in the case of a truly disastrous global pandemic or systemic collapse we’re all probably going to have a lot more to worry about than whether the business processes are still up and running; however, a localized event could have very little impact on the world at large but prove fatal for an organization which hasn’t taken the time to take preventative measures. Unfortunately, in many ways it seems that the likelihood of such localized events – whether of natural or artificial origin – is on the up, for a number of reasons.
Foremost amongst these is the ongoing impact of climate change (and here it’s worth pointing out that while skeptics can rail against the assumption that humans are responsible, very few are actively denying that climate change is a reality) and other consequences of environmental degradation. Following the old adage that prevention is better than cure, a sensible starting-point for disaster avoidance would be to avoid locating critical infrastructure in areas likely to be worst affected by global warming in the foreseeable future – so global businesses are unlikely to be setting up shared services hubs on the beaches of the Maldives or the shores of the Ganges Delta, for example. The problem here is that nobody knows to what extent climate change is already impacting on what might previously have been thought “safe” areas via catastrophic meteorological events: anyone in the Philippines (an increasingly important shared services and outsourcing hot spot) during the fatal storms and floods earlier this year, or in New Orleans during the ravages of Hurricane Katrina, can testify to the effects of the weather on productivity. The bottom line is that now more than ever, location selection processes must include at their heart a full and rational assessment of the possible impact of climate change. In addition, once built, those responsible for a shared service center – no matter how sensibly sited – must also put in place contingency measures to cope with weather-related events of an intensity over and above what may have been expected only a few years previously. Back-up generators and plans to minimize the impact of disrupted communications and transport links are already an absolute minimum here.
At the other end of the spectrum, the possibility of a human-induced destabilizing event, which – thanks to an increase in terrorism targeting sites of commercial activity – has also increased over the past decade, is likely to rise exponentially if the worse forecasts for climate change are realized. Rising sea-levels and – ironically but no less catastrophically – increased drought are likely to see extreme population movements over the next couple of decades, fuelling existing social tensions and creating new ones. Predicting the stability of any given location ten years from now certainly isn’t an easy proposition – but it’s one that planners cannot now afford to ignore, especially as much new shared services activity is taking place in those fast-growing developing nations most likely to be worst affected by such pressures.
These points are by no means meant as an argument for keeping new shared services development wholly within the developed world (specifically within meteorologically “safe” locations); the benefits posed by siting infrastructure in the emerging hot spots are frankly too good to miss. The point is that those benefits will be for naught if they are not insured by robust disaster-mitigation practices which factor in the potential impact of climate change – and any board unwilling to face the realities of climate change, skeptical though its members may be about the underlying causes, is asking for the kind of trouble from which many businesses wouldn’t be able to recover. Splashing out a few bucks on getting a climatologist’s advice before investing millions in a new center might a few years back have been seen as verging on the lunatic; now it’s probably if not indispensable then pretty close to it.
Of course, it’s not just those looking at setting up new infrastructure that have to concern themselves with such gloomy matters: existing centers should also be assessed in terms of potential risks based on scientific data. But to a large extent such scrutiny will already have been carried out by most organizations – after all, severe weather events are hardly a new phenomenon: it’s their prevalence and intensity which are likely to increase over time. More crucially, firms now don’t just need to assess their own susceptibility to damage: thanks to the growth of outsourcing and the development of more disaggregated business structures, it’s increasingly vital to include in any due diligence an assessment of a potential provider’s ability to cope with the possible consequences of climate change. After all, the gains derived from a sweet outsourcing deal will look pretty paltry pretty quickly if your partner’s infrastructure is rendered useless by flooding or other weather-induced trauma.
For those who may be thinking all this is overly paranoid, it’s worth noting that the consensus within the business community is increasingly aligning itself with the climate-change evangelists. A survey conducted last year for insurance brokers Marsh found that 87 per cent of businesses consulted saw climate change as the single leading threat facing them over the next decade in terms of risks to future growth (while threats posed by the global economic downturn may well have risen to top spot in current thinking, it’s unlikely to have driven climate change off the agenda altogether). Regardless of cause – and that debate is unlikely to disappear despite the growing scientific consensus placing blame at humanity’s doorstep – in the minds of those running the planet’s economic engines, the threat posed by changes in the environment is more pressing than those offered by terrorism, pandemics or anything else. Shared services, so clearly at the heart of so much of the transformation to have revolutionized business over the past few years, simply can’t afford not to be at the forefront of this most urgent issue.
The Vilification Of Climate Change Sceptics
An article in the Washington Times recently discussed how skeptics of global warming are ‘treated like a pariah’. The article begins, ‘Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack – treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.’ The article cites an example of this by mentioning how a climatologist in Oregon might be stripped of his position by the governor for speaking out against the origins of climate change.
Most skeptics don’t claim that climate change is not occurring, they just disagree with what is causing it, and yet they are treated like traitors. A NASA funded study in 2004 found that, ‘Changes in the solar cycle – and solar output – are known to cause short-term climate change on Earth.’
In a storm of scientists speaking out against Al Gore’s movie, an New Zealand professor of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory has publicly stated, “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.” In response to the use of images in Gore’s movie of glaciers breaking off, Dr. James Roebuck, a professor on marine geology and former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Sweden, said that, ‘The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier.’
Makes sense, especially since history tells us that glaciers move, after all, that’s what helped form our valleys and reshaped mountain ranges at the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago. Maybe my memory isn’t very good, but I don’t think people were driving SUVs 10,000 years ago. Another clever use of images to manipulate facts that Gore has in his movie is that of a polar bear seemingly stranded on a piece of a broken off ice berg, stating that polar bears are becoming extinct because of global warming.
However, there are a few things wrong with this assessment, first of all, that according to a paper published by University of Alaska professor Franklin Kane, ‘the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise.’ Secondly, if the polar bear is in such danger according to Al Gore, then why does a recent government survey in Canada show that they are not declining, but rather rising in numbers?
Thirdly, the very idea of a polar bear ‘stranded’ on a small block of ice is in itself misleading for Gore’s argument, as polar bears are excellent swimmers and according to Sea World, ‘They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances and they’ve been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 miles)’ Professor Kane, speaking about Gore and his personal crusade, said, ‘The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.’
Even if Al Gore was telling the truth about the causes of global warming, or climate change, which most evidence points to the fact that he is not, but even if he was, he would still be a hypocrite. It was recently revealed that Al Gore doesn’t exactly practice what he preaches, such as what he said in his Academy Award acceptance speech, ‘People all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It’s not a political issue; it’s a moral issue.’
Well, in that case, why is it that a recent study by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research found that one of Al Gore’s mansions uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average American does. It was also reported that Al Gore consumes twice as much the electricity in one month that the average American consumes in one year.
In examining that there is more evidence to prove the basis for a conclusion that changes in climate are more related to an increase in the temperature of the Sun rather than influence of people, we must examine why efforts to expose this myth are stifled and those who speak out are attacked. In fact, there are reported cases of scientists who speak out against the man-made theory as having received death threats. There has even been talk of relating those who speak out against the currently held theory on global warming as being equal to those who deny the Holocaust.
In a recent op-ed piece in the Boston Herald commenting on the report issued by the UN, Eileen Goodrich wrote, ‘Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.’ This is a very disturbing comment, not only because there is reason to scientifically doubt the man-made theory, but also because this is a scathing attack on freedom of speech, the most vital and important of all rights and freedoms.
With the UN Panel’s judgment in, western politicians are quick to declare that the debate is over, and action must be taken immediately. What is this action that they are planning on taking? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, Alistair Darling, has publicly called for a ‘new world order’ to combat the threat of climate change. So let’s have a look at this New World Order that’s being implemented to combat the threat of global warming.
One major thing being pushed through with little, cancel that, no debate, is a UN recommendation that we impose ‘a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions’. Most people will hear this and think, ‘Good, polluters need to be taxed’. Well, this means people who drive cars will be taxed, because according to Al Gore, when you drive your car, you’re causing global warming. This is no joke, as an article in the UK’s Guardian Newspaper reported that, ‘The government is throwing its weight behind a revolutionary plan that would force motorists to pay 1.30 pounds sterling a mile to drive on Britain’s busiest roads’. That is approximately $3.00 per mile.
A study conducted by an expert in transportation and infrastructure found that, ‘a Birmingham commuter might end up paying about 1,500 pounds sterling a year for driving 19,000 miles.’ That’s equal to about $3,000 per year. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many people who can afford that. In the European Union, plans are being made to impose an increase of taxes on diesel. The European Commission recently proposed to ‘raise the minimum tax on commercial diesel fuel by nearly 20% over the next seven years’. This, they claim, is to help protect the environment because it will act as a deterrent for people to drive.
This is just excellent news, because as anyone who has driven in the past two years knows, gas prices are just too low. Another concern arising out of the concept of taxing people for how far they drive is how it is done. According to the Transport Secretary in the UK, ‘Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a satellite system to track their journey’. This has been raising concerns in the UK of an increase in Big Brother technology and government programs. Proposals currently being made in Canada recommend that, ‘Canadians would pay an extra 10 cents per litre at the gas pumps’, mirroring plans in the European Union.
James Nash is solely responsible for the contents of this article.
Understand How Energy Conservation Work Affects The Bottom Line
Priority is given to energy conservation as governments pass legislation which forces businesses to reduce energy use. Upon the making of the various Acts into a law, enterprises will need to find solutions and alternatives to reduce energy use in order to lower carbon emissions
The general public’s opinion implies that every company should take responsibility on its carbon emissions. Companies which do not adopt ‘green’ processes and policies might be abandoned by its customers as patrons are already becoming very much aware of the adverse effects of carbon emissions due to unclean production practices.
Companies should understand that awareness is the key for them to overcome barriers in achieving cleaner and greener production. Each company should be able to adopt its own effective enterprise energy management program. To do this effectively, a company should get every personnel involved in its goal for energy conservation to meet its productivity targets and legislative needs.
Senior management should spell out the company’s plan and accurately get the problem defined. When we talk about energy efficiency, it takes more than simply purchasing energy at the best rates. It is also important that management should also make sure that every employee knows the importance of efficiency of every asset in its performance. An equipment might need replacement or needs better maintenance if it is showing any signs of under-performance such as increase in fuel consumption.
Traditional accounting practices in companies only include documentation of expenses versus income. Companies across the country have inefficient preventive maintenance processes, inefficient accounting system, and tracking of word order is poor. Accounting in this sense fails to pull together all the necessary elements of an organization. To address efficient asset management that can lead to energy conservation, companies should be able to learn to do “carbon accounting”.
There are many service providers and external consultants who can help initiate processes and systems that can help curtail energy use. This could mean implementation of automated software programs which can yield accurate and detailed reports. Consultants will find help in finding ways to cut down energy consumption with the data gathered through the use of some automated programs.
Business practices in the past have been focusing on making profits over saving on costs. By addressing climate change and global warming, companies go through a transformation in corporate mindset. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will not only help the environment but will also translate to high savings for any business.
Posted in Carbon accounting | 
Tags: Affects, Bottom, CONSERVATION, Energy, Line, Understand, Work | 
No Comments »
How Much Carbon Do I Emit?
Anyone who is curious about finding out how much carbon they emit can find many different sites on the internet that offer a way of calculating the amount of emissions they create in their daily life, with a quick search engine query. There are sites that offer a step by step guide on how to calculate the emissions as well as sites that offer mathematical equations that take the amount of electricity a household uses and converts it into the amount of emissions created by the use; however, there are three major carbon emitters that everyone should be aware about. These three major carbon emitters should always be taken into account when calculating carbon emissions because they are what largely contribute to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere on a daily basis.
Air travel is an exceptionally guilty greenhouse gas emitter because of the huge amount of fuel that it requires. Just think about how much fuel one airliner requires to go from point “a” to point “b” and then multiply that by the hundreds of aircraft that are in the air each day. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believes that aviation is responsible for nearly four percent of all green house gas emissions in the world.
Cars, especially larger lorries require lots of fuel to run each day. Think about how much petrol it takes to run the car each day, how often a person has to fill their tank up and then multiply that by the millions of other vehicles being used all around the world each day. In fact, in many places emissions created by all types of vehicles appear to account for about fifty percent or more of all greenhouse gas emissions in the air.
A house is constantly pumping greenhouse gases in the air. The size of the house and the energy conservation methods of the people living in the home determine its greenhouse gas emissions. The use of electricity for all the appliances and electronics in the home, as well as for the heating and cooling can often contribute a large amount of greenhouse gases in the air because of the fossil fuels being burned in order to create the energy being used. While it is difficult to determine how much a home can contribute to carbon emissions it is certainly recognised as a major contributor, especially when the tenants or homeowners don’t take the steps to conserve energy.
Solar Tower – renewable energy green global warming
EnviroMission Limited (www.enviromission.com.au) produced this 5 minute video on the pilot plant in Spain. It is an older video (2000) but gives a decent understanding of the solar tower concept. EnviroMission, Ltd. (US Market: EVOMY, Australian Exchange: EVM) is a renewable energy developer of sustainable “green” energy solutions for the energy market. EnviroMission aims to be one of Australia’s leading producers of clean renewable energy. EnviroMission holds the proprietary rights to Solar Tower technology, a large-scale renewable energy technology based on simple fundamentals of physics — hot air rises. Solar Tower technology has the potential to offer competitive renewable energy with equal reliability to fossil fuel generators. A single 200MW Solar Tower power station will provide enough electricity to power around 400000 households. The energy output will represent an annual saving of more than 1960000 tonnes of greenhouse CO2 gases from entering the environment when compared to brown coal emissions in Victoria. The greenhouse savings equate to the removal of approximately 500000 cars from the road. The Australian Solar Tower project consists of six distinct phases, the first two of which (project optimization and pre-feasibility commercialization) have already been completed. The third phase (final feasibility), paving the way for the implementation of the next three phases (final design, construction, and commercial operation).
Corporate Social Responsibility – New Fad or Necessity
Organisations of the 21st century can no longer limit themselves to producing and marketing products or services without any concerns for the impact they have on society. If they want to be trusted by their customers, employees and the public at large, they have to be more socially responsible. One key issue of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) which needs to be addressed is the integration of ethnic minorities in the workplace and the community.
Demographic changes
The lack of proper governmental strategies following the demographic changes of the 50′s and 70′s, has left many British companies struggling to this day to deal with the problem themselves. Many organisations have played a passive role in this integration process by staying within the legal boundaries and are now experiencing difficulties in that area.
A lack of consideration of differences
One of the major reasons behind these integration problems is the lack of awareness and consideration for cultural differences. People from different cultural backgrounds have different sets of norms, different sets of values and different assumptions. This means that we all have different ways of reacting to events, different ways of communicating and different behaviours. We judge the others from our own frame of reference and tend to think that “our way is the right way”.
In a multicultural workforce, this can lead to misinterpretation, misunderstanding, incomprehension, mistrust and disrespect. As a result, rather than getting closer, people distance themselves from those they consider different and groups are formed on the basis of commonalities, whether it is ethnicity, colour, language etc. “Departmental ghettos” start to appear. Often, there are rivalries and tensions. In some instances, these situations can degenerate into discrimination, bullying or racist behaviours.
The law is not enough
Staying within the letter of the law is not enough for organisations experiencing these situations. It is imperative for them to resolve these issues if they want to retain a stable and productive workforce and be regarded as good “corporate citizens”. Organisation can be more socially responsible by contributing to a smooth cultural integration of ethnic minorities into the workplace.
Being more socially responsible
Integration does not mean imposing one way. It means harmonising and synergizing differences. Having a clear and unbiased understanding of the context is the first step toward formulating proper integration strategies. The second step is to develop cultural awareness. Being open to differences, understanding and respecting the other’s cultural background are the key elements in preparing the ground for integration. The third step is to build or rebuild trust. Finally, only when trust has been demonstrated from all sides, solutions can be discussed. It is the step where different norms and values are reconciled and tangible and intangible elements of integration are defined. Building shared ownership of the solutions is at that stage essential to reinforce trust and guarantee implementation.
These steps can take different forms; for example interviews with the various groups involved for step one, training programmes at the levels concerned in the organisation for step two and facilitated workshops for steps three and four involving all concerned or a limited number of influential representatives of each group, who can then intervene as mentors to their members.
Being proactive in the integration process of ethnic minorities is a corporate social duty which can strongly impact the community and contribute to a much more committed workforce.
During the last few months Farnham has been working with a number of clients in the development of programmes, using a training approach normally associated with supporting the integration of home and foreign workforces, to address the growing issue of multicultural tension within the domestic workforce. Because of the sensitivity of the issue, each programme has to be very carefully designed and often involves a number of programmes each with a different perspective at each level. The need to exercise corporate social responsibility is evolving in many different guises, in light of recent events, perhaps this one in particular needs our attention now.
Man-made Climate Change – Fact or Fiction?
In the past dozen years or so a major controversy has developed through out the world about changes that are supposedly taking place with the earth’s climate. There is a large body of opinion that believes the earth’s temperature is getting warmer due to the increase in greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), caused by the burning of fossil fuels and increasing industrial activity, and unless governments take action to remedy the situation then mankind is in serious trouble.
This theory is not believed by everyone. Indeed there are many eminent scientists who have said that the theory has no credibility as the evidence presented by its supporters is inconclusive. So there are two schools of thought on this matter, each adamant that they’re right:
1) Those who believe implicitly that global warming is taking place and that man is entirely responsible by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide ( a ‘greenhouse’ gas) in the atmosphere. I call these people the Scaremongers.
2) Those who believe that much more evidence is needed before any categorical claims can be made. I call these people Idealists.
So lets have a closer look at the issues raised by these two factions:
The Scaremongers predict doom and gloom.
The ‘Yes’ case says emphatically that the earth is getting warmer at an increasing rate, posing a dangerous threat to the future of mankind. They say that the increase in global temperatures over the past 50 years has been caused by a world-wide increase in industrial activity during that same period and earlier. They also suggest that the problem is getting progressively worse and that higher temperatures will lead to melting ice in the polar regions; higher sea levels causing world-wide flooding; more violent storms, hurricanes, typhoons etc; problems in the production of food; and a wide number of other circumstances that could pose problems for life on earth.
The ‘Yes’ case’s solution is to take severe measures today to stop disasters from happening in the future.
They suggest halting and then reversing the situation by eliminating our dependence on oil and coal and embracing ‘clean energy’ such as wind, solar, tidal power; finding an alternative to using oil derivatives for transportation; and most controversially, heavily taxing users of ‘dirty energy’ to force them to switch over to ‘cleaner’ alternatives.
As the biggest users of ‘dirty energy’ the western nations would be exposed to the full impact of these severe impositions.
The Idealists, on the other hand, want more concrete evidence of this forecast change.
The ‘No’ case believes that more credible evidence is needed and collected over a longer period of time, before any definitive conclusion can be determined. They consider that statistically the 50 years period that the Scaremongers quote is nowhere near enough time to establish a long-term trend in the world’s temperatures, taking into account that the age of the earth being 4.5 billion years. They point to the changes, both ups and downs, of the earth’s temperature during its recent history. They also suggest that if a period of climate change is starting then it’s part of a cycle that’s been seen to occur periodically in the past.
The ‘No’ case says that the relationship between possible rising temperatures and man’s industrial activity is at best nothing more than an unproven theory. They suggest that much more concrete evidence than what’ has been presented so far is needed, and as the Scaremongers have been pushing this theory for at least 10 years without producing further evidence, then it’s still a theory.
Some people even suggest that the Scaremongers are inciting public opinion to advance their political ambitions.
However, many of the Idealists agree that a switch to cleaner and renewable energy resources would be beneficial for mankind in the long term, but that the measures put forward by the ‘Yes’ people go too far. Generally, the Idealists agree with the need to find alternate means of energy for when the present sources of fossil fuels – coal, natural gas, oil, uranium - expire, and to get away from suppliers in politically sensitive areas.
The ‘No’ people suggest that as there is a very slim chance of the Scaremongers being proved correct, other world-wide problems should be tackled first and given a greater degree of emphasis than is the present case. Here the Idealists are referring to major issues of world-wide poverty; the ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor countries; the decline in health services to poorer countries; the deterioration in the quality of political governance in Africa; threats of religious confrontation; as well as the many regionalized issues that have been a source of continuous friction between nations for decades.
This is an attempt to put some balance into the ongoing international controversy that is the theory of man-made climate change.
Climate Change – Change Your Lifestyle Rather Than Purchase Carbon Offsets
Rather than sending hard-earned cash to offset companies, we need to examine our lifestyles and consumptive behaviour. We must all do what we practically can to cut down or avoid carbon emissions before signing up to some carbon offsetting scheme. Purchasing offsets can be seen as a way to avoid real behavioural change by individuals in reducing their carbon emissions. Shortcuts are not the answer.
We need to take personal responsibility for the environment (e.g. acquire a carbon consciousness) and directly offset our own emissions. This includes reducing emissions at source by looking at energy conservation and efficiency measures (e.g. making our homes energy efficient, switching off appliances, changing to a ‘green’ supplier of electricity, using solar heated hot water, etc). Carbon dioxide emissions from the housing sector accounts for at least 27% of the UK’s carbon footprint.
We must make the effort to purchase products that have been made with minimal harm to or exploitation of humans, animals and/or the natural environment. Ethical consumerism is practiced through ‘positive buying’ and is a very effective tool in reducing carbon emissions. For example, make a point of buying produce that is sourced locally, is organic and/or fair trade. Think holistically about what you buy ? how was it produced, where has it come from (supermarket food travels on average 2,500 km before it gets to you), what networks were required to sustain its production. By favouring ethical products you directly support progressive companies.
Nothing highlights the importance of addressing the consequences of our actions as consumers more than what is happening in the Amazon. Every year large areas of the Amazon rainforest are being destroyed by agribusiness corporations to grow hundreds of thousands of tonnes of soy beans. These companies then export the high protein soy to Europe and China for use as cheap animal feed (90% of soy exports are fed to animals raised for meat – primarily chickens and pigs). Factory farming for meat and dairy is at the heart of a hidden chain that links the food on our plates to rainforest destruction in South America. To make them grow quickly and produce high yields, animals in factory farms are being pumped full of imported soy crops ? creating demand for vast plantations that are wiping out forests and forcing indigenous communities off their lands. The UK imports over two million tonnes of soy each year from South America to feed animals and spends £700 million of taxpayers’ money to prop-up intensive meat and dairy production in England.
Although soy is one of the main drivers of Amazon destruction the cattle industry is the single biggest cause of deforestation in South America. The Brazilian cattle industry is the leading cause of deforestation and it is estimated that cattle ranchers destroy at least one acre of Amazon rainforest every 8 seconds. Over the past decade more than 10 million hectares ? an area about the size of Iceland – was cleared for cattle ranching as Brazil rose to become the world’s largest exporter of beef. Brazil is currently the fourth biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, 75% of which stem from deforestation.
Forests are vital to stabilizing the world’s climate because they store such large amounts of carbon. It is estimated that the Amazon alone stores somewhere between 80 to 120 billion tons of carbon. If the Amazon were destroyed, it would release some 50 times the annual greenhouse gas emissions of the United States. A fifth of the Amazon rainforest has been lost since 1970.
As the destruction of the Amazon rainforest is linked to a handful of the world’s largest food companies and commodity traders, you can help protect it and combat climate change by refusing to purchase factory farmed and imported meat products from supermarkets, fast food restaurants and other outlets (the UK is the second largest importer of processed Brazilian beef in the world – 50,000 tonnes in 2008). This will put pressure on supermarkets and high-street brands to clean-up their supply chains. You should also boycott goods made from cattle that have been linked to rainforest destruction (e.g. leather products and cosmetic ingredients) and the multinational corporations (global brands) behind these products. Better still, why not switch to a vegetarian or vegan diet as what the soy and cattle industry demonstrates more than anything is that meat consumption is bad for the environment and simply not sustainable. Switching to a vegetarian diet would reduce your carbon emissions by a colossal 50% and going vegan results in an even greater reduction.
The ‘Meat Free Mondays’ initiative recently launched by Paul McCartney and his daughters highlighted the impact of meat production on climate change. Cutting down or giving up meat is the single most effective act anyone can take to lessen greenhouse gas emissions. A ‘meat free’ diet is also better for your health. Fresh evidence from the largest study to date to investigate dietary habits and cancer has concluded that vegetarians are 45% less likely to develop cancer of the blood than meat eaters and are 12% less likely to develop cancer overall.
While boycotts and ethical consumerism campaigns are legitimate attempts to create market pressure to reform specific practices, while rewarding producers with favourable practices, they fail to address one of the most serious problems inherent in modern day societies – the mass production and consumption of goods. Whatever products you buy it takes energy to get them into your shopping basket (e.g. energy to mine raw materials, make the product and ship it). There will also be other hidden costs (e.g. the exploitation of humans, animals and/or the natural environment) infused in the production and sale of goods.
In order to live in harmony with our planet and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we need to go beyond ‘ethical shopping’ and try to divorce ourselves from shopping altogether. We need to simplify our lives, decrease consumption, and thus shrink our economic needs. In so doing, we limit the time that we must devote to waged labour, and regain control of our time, the most precious commodity in our lives.
Simplifying your life is one of the most beneficial things you can do for the environment and your carbon footprint. On a day to day level, it’s about reducing our consumption of the world’s resources, re-using items rather than throwing them away, recycling our waste, buying local foods (or growing your own food), walking and cycling more. Other examples include swapping your car for public transport (cars are responsible for 40% of personal emissions on average) and cutting back (or eliminating) the number of short breaks on cheap flights.
Living sustainably is not only about knowing how to make greener, more ethical, practical choices in our lives. It is also about valuing our health and wellbeing, our relationships and community above the need to consume and exploit.
Proponents of ‘sustainable living,’ ‘simple living’ (voluntary simplicity) and ‘downshifting’ realise that quality of life is much more important than quantity. Consumerism often leads to stress and dissatisfaction because it creates a society of individualistic consumers who measure both social status and general happiness by an unattainable quantity of material possessions.
The evidence cited above clearly demonstrates that making changes to our lifestyles can be a far more effective tool in preventing climate change than the carbon offset model. Instead of paying to rectify the damage once it’s done, we should take steps to reduce our own carbon emissions by taking personal responsibility for the environment, simplifying our lives, and addressing the consequences of our actions as consumers.
Posted in Climate Change | Tags: Carbon Accounting, Change, Climate, Lifestyle, Offsets, Purchase, Rather, Than | No Comments »
Bloomtrust
Bloom trust is a UK registered charitable social enterprise organisation working to overcome poverty, sickness and hardship by making the world’s poorest and under privileged get safe drinking water and sanitation, eradicate Malaria, Empower Lone Parents families, Equip the youth and engage with Corporate entities to take a positive stand on Corporate Social Responsibility.
Their Vision is to EMPOWER, EQUIP, ENGAGE, ENHANCE AND IMPACT LIVES FOR THE BETTER.
They want to eradidate the unneeded suffering of poorest and most forgotten children. They drill wells for clean drinking water, distribute life straws, pur packets, insecticide treated nets and offer medical care. The also provide basic sanitation through mobile health initiative.
They arrange events, programmes, training to support the youth and lone parent families.They also try to socially equip them and address the issues that affect and provoke them in the community.
The organisation achieves its mission through the support of local communities, churches, non-profit organisations, institutions, government departments, other Trust and Foundations.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a helping hand for present and future.Corporate social responsibility generally refers to transparent business practices that are based on ethical values, Compliance with legal requirements, and respect for people, communities, and the environment.
Bloom Trust Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a concept wherein the interested organisations take interest on society and take responsibility for the impact of their activities on customers, employees, shareholders, communities and the environment in all aspects of their operations.
The Key CSR issues include governance, environmental management, stakeholder engagement, labour standards, employee and community relations, social equity, responsible sourcing and human rights.
Through an organisation’s effective participation with Bloom Trust International CSR programme, that organisation/company can:
Improve access to capital
Sharpen decision-making and reduce risk
Enhance brand image
Uncover previously hidden commercial opportunities, including new markets
Reduce costs
Attract, retain and motivate employees
Bloom Trust International seeks to partner with local, national and international corporate establishments to work together to bring about positive impact to the people, community and the company.
Small Changes, Big Impact
The two golden rules of travel can be summarised by the following mantra: work out how much money you think you will need then double it, and work out how much stuff to take and halve it. And to an extent this is true; holidays invariably end up costing much more than planned, and sometimes an entire suitcase of clothes can go unworn, in favour of that one top that just looks oh-so-good.
But for a lot of people, holidays are for kicking back and letting loose so why shouldn’t they pack an entire wardrobe, because “you never know”? The old cliche about taking thirteen pairs of shoes on a 4-day break may cause a lot of mirth for the more compact traveller, but “holidaying heavy” can have a more serious consequence for the environment.
Most airlines have a standard baggage allowance and anything over that amount is charged back to the customer. However, some airlines now charge for any checked luggage, citing environmental reasons; more luggage means more fuel and more fuel means more carbon emissions and subsequently less ice at the two poles. So, travelling light might actually be a good idea after all, not only for the environment but for the wallet too.
Holidaymakers can also take other small steps to help combat climate change. For example, whilst on holiday, consider whether it is really necessary to hire a car. Maybe the public transport system is perfectly adequate to meet most people’s needs. Even when travelling to the airport before departure, it’s worth considering the bus or train as an option first, saving on the cost of parking and reducing the impact on the environment at the same time.
This is particularly relevant for early morning flights at provincial airports, where public transport may be a little more restricted, especially in the small hours. Rather than getting up at four or five am, it may be wiser to travel the day before at a leisurely pace and stay at an airport hotel, meaning more sleep and less stress when getting that flight, and it also allows more time to eat a proper breakfast and even shop for flight essentials such as magazines and refreshments. Ultimately, it also means more time to enjoy the holiday without feeling jaded or jet-lagged on arrival.
Never has the environment and climate change been so much at the forefront of people’s psyche. Small changes to individual travel habits can have a massive impact if everybody is involved, and the changes can actually enhance the whole holiday experience. So kick back, let loose and lose some shoes. Three pairs is more than enough!