by Light Partners on April 17, 2010
Looking past the exciting technical, legislative and community advancements made to address climate change over the last few years, lies the reality of whether we as a society will make the necessary changes in energy use, lifestyle choices and investment decisions in time to avoid the most catastrophic global warming scenarios.
In last weekend’s New York Times, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman examined the question that could fatally delay the steps necessary to reduce the impact of climate change. It’s the question that many of the people running our government and global corporations are now pondering, “Is it good for business?”
Even when people accept the reality of climate change, there is some legitimate debate on how fast and how hard the truly negative effects of global warming will visit us. So Krugman quickly takes the argument past the philosophical diatribe conducted by climate deniers and examines first how business plans for any other crisis. He identifies the best and worse case economic effects on GDP if we make drastic cuts in CO2 emissions. As it turns out, the very worst that could happen is a 3% drop in GDP that would likely soon be made up through the manufacture and marketing of the technical solutions and products necessary to live in a low-carbon emissions world.
Krugman then makes an attempt to predict the impact on the world economy if the effects of global warming produce the disastrous changes in climate and weather patterns that scientists predict will come true by the middle of the century. Suffice to say, a 3% decline in GDP would be the least of our troubles.
Like me, it might take you a couple of days to get through the article and ponder the consequences of Krugman’s predictions. It’s well worth your time-both for how well it shines a light on the decision-making processes of our legislative and business leaders, and because the facts may come in handy for debating colleagues who believe ‘the business of America is business’.
by anthonybutler on March 8, 2010
Text for a Speech at the Cambridge Energy Alliance–March 4, Clear Conscience Café–Cambridge, MA
Good evening, ladies and gentleman.
First off to Lilah and everyone else at Cambridge Energy Alliance, thank you for the chance to work with you on this project, and for the opportunity to say a few words about this work. Our design pholosophy can be summed fairly succinctly: “Keep working until your client’s happy. And the audience cares.” Based on initial reactions, it seems we’ve succeeded.
I’d like to talk briefly about the role of communications in sustainability and energy efficiency efforts in Cambridge and beyond. As we get further and further into the notion of making our communities energy efficient, it’s become obvious awareness and action aren’t following close enough behind one another. Some of the greenest, most progressive towns in the US are finding it challenging to make significant energy use reductions.With all the Fair Trade coffee, organic cotton clothing and Prius cars sold in their towns, you wonder how this could be.
If you look at one of the posters behind me, you’ll see there’s a map indicating global CO2 emissions. The countries considered to be the most advanced and prosperous are also the ones emitting the most carbon. It’s been this way for the last 250 years, so it’s not strange that most people consider less carbon emissions to equal less commercial activity, less productivity, less jobs and lower standards of living. That thinking has to change.
Every time I think the job is too hard I’m reminded that 50 years ago a large percentage of Americans still did enjoy the same civil rights as the rest of the population That 40 years ago it was perfectly OK to smoke in a hospital room.
Just 30 years ago, knowing something about a computer pretty much guaranteed no girl would talk to you ever again.
If you put solar panels on your roof 20 years ago, your neighbors suspected you were the Unabomber-Ted Kazinski.
What changed? It wasn’t so much that these things became normal, but that their acceptance and development continued past that point to where the old ways of thinking and doing things started to look make people look uniformed, a bit clueless and out of touch. And more people are more afraid of looking bad than standing out for something good. That’s how much work remains to be done here. To reach our carbon emissions goals, we need to get to a point where people who resist taking energy efficiency measures in their home and in their workplace will find the court of public opinion turning against them. They will be forced to adapt simply to fit in with the rest of society.
How do we make that happen? There is no magic bullet. It’s a combination of government action on the federal state and local levels. Scientific development of new ways to create and deliver energy, and the support of a population that sees this is the only way to a sustainable future for our children and our planet.
Let me know how I can help.
