Just like in neoclassical ecomonics, it will be more practical if you seperate the mico ecological economy and macro economy in the field ecological economy.The micro and macro economy doesn't converge in their view of economy scale."spaceship economy" for the macro and "cowboy economy" for the micro. The govenment should act upon this judgement, pulling in stead of pushing the business unit to apply the strong sustainability view.
Back in 1966, Kenneth Boulding pointed out the two words "cowboy economy" and "spaceship economy". Nowadays, more and more people begin to accept his "spaceman economy" concept, however, why still most of the companies, in micro side, apply a policy contra to this view.
The economy on a whole has its boundary of expansion in terms of throughput, however, the enterprise doesn't think that they will be near the boundary. They are in the cowboy stage in their sub system..The sustainable development of the enterprise doesn't converge with the macro.
First, until now they can get the nature resources like water and air free of charge. Because the marginal cost of it is almost zero, they will not take it into consideration.
Second, as long as the "money" exists, the human society will distribute the resource based on the fortune you have, so when the resources are hard to get, the one with the most money will get it. To make the business sustainable, they must try to get the most profit. They can use their money to buy the technology or resources needed if necessary. it's those who have the most money get the resources. In this case, they will not meet their own boundary, they can offset it either by getting the others' share or by improving of technology. These extend the space for the erterprise to act as if they are in a "cowboy economy."
The micro economic view the enviroment as "cowboy eonomy" and will act based on its view. We should not expect that the government set a law to limit the gas emission of the car 80 years ago, and it's the same that the business now will NOT invest heavily on the natural capital at the risk of losing his market and profits.
We can conclude that most of the business will act upon the concept of weak sustainability view. They just react to the laws, customs and culture in order to maximize their profit. And the government should set up the policy based on this judgment. Therefore, they should levy the tax or through other means to raise the cost of using of the natural resources to let the business unit improve the productivity efficiency more rapidly. As the traditional economics, the eco economics should establish the macro basis and micro basis theory to solve the different problems and make itself more perfect.
Hello everybody,
As I come from a developing country I have searched some documents and theories explaining the link between economic development and sustainable development to understand what kind of environmental challenges Morocco is going to face in the next years.
I realised very quickly that the most popular theory about this topic is the “Environment Kuznets effect”.
One of these studies which main title is “Lorsque le développement perd le nord” (Boutaud et al.) which can be translated by “when then development turns crazy” explain how economists today are using the Kuznets Curve to say that the economic development is probably the only way to have a decent environment (Beckerman).
The environmental Kuznets curve is a reversed U with the income per capita in the horizontal axis and the environmental pressure on the vertical axis. So according to this curve, above a degree of wealth, the pressure on environment is supposed to decrease. The problem is that the theory is absolutely falling down if compared with the reality.
The fact is that the western world is richer than ever and he is polluting more than ever before. So for the moment the environmental Kuznets curve is shaped like an increasing straight line.
But this theory is for course not wrong at all but at this rhythm of pollution we will perhaps never reach the inflexion point where pressure on environment begins to decrease.
I think that developing countries have today to be supported financially and technologically to jump the first half of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. It will be just a half reversed U (let’s call it the Mehdi’s hope curve for environment) reached by a transfer of knowledge, environmental awareness … from the North to the South.
Yesterday I read the text "Weapons of mass salvation" of Jeffrey Sachs.
Several times in my life I have read other cases according to wrong behaviour of the american government and even sometimes of the citizens.
Again I became really angry that the government spends only 0,1 percent of their GNP on foreign assistance and is therefor on the last place among the 22 donor countries in aid as a share of income.
Instead of helping other countries they prefer to fight against terrorism and produce Weapons of Mass Destruction.
I can't understand why the USA isn't able to see that this is not the right solution. Nobody can solve a problem at its end, you can only solve a problem at its root.
Everybody knows why the USA is attacked by terrorists, but why do the Americans not see the real problem?!
If the people from Afghanista and Iraq have had enough to eat and to drink and not be exploited, they wouldn't have started attacking the USA.
Sustainable Development is in my opinion also necessary to prevent the problem at its beginning and not when it is too late! Countries, their governments, companies and the people have to care now for the environment. If we are going to see the results of misbehaviour, it is surely too late.
I was reading the first chapter of Natural Capitalism and started thinking of something I from time to time have thought of ever since the discussion first came up in class during one of my three high school years.
A piece of the text concerned this.
"In less developed countries, people need realistic and achievable means to better their lives.
The world’s growing population cannot attain a Western standard of living by following traditional industrialpaths to development, for the resources required are too vast, too expensive, and too damaging to local and global systems.
Instead, radical improvements in resource productivity expand their possibilities for growth, and can help to ameliorate the polarization of wealth between rich and poor segments of the globe."
As I interpret the text the authors believe that the way for developing countries to achieve Western standards of living is to radically improve efficient use of resources that are better for preserving the environment. I am not sure if the book mentions other things in later chapters, but I am sceptical to if this is the ONLY thing needed.
The discussion I had many years ago was mainly about the fact that we who live in developed countries, and who are used to waste energy and a lot of other things, have to be ready to give some of that up if everyone on the planet is to have the same possibility to live a comfortable life (like I do for example). It eventually became a wild debate between people with some slightly different views on what they were willing to sacrifice...
I do think that sustainable development is the way to go when it comes to keeping the inter-generational equity, but I strongly believe that people in the West have to start rethinking about how they live their lives. Andrea wrote about the water-problems facing us, this is just one of the things we have to consider in our daily lives. As I am from Sweden I'm used to having nice clean fresh drinking water everytime I turn the tap on. It's enough for me to come to France and realize that this is not the case in even the rest of Western Europe (you french people have some strange chemicals in your water...).
One of my personal problems with the usage of water is that I tend to turn the tap on a little too often and a little too long. I really enjoy warm baths at home, but I don't really want to think about how much water I waste by doing that. I would get just as clean taking a shorter shower. There are people in this world who never get clean water and I feel so spoiled reminding myself of that I sometimes do the dishes under running water. But the question is, am I willing to give my long showers up so that other people can have access to fresh water? In theory the question is of course YES, but do I try to change my behaviour? The answer to that is a bit more vague, I might not always act as I think I should.
There is more examples of how we spend energy unnecessarily, like having the TV on while not looking or leaving the lights on while going to the supermarket. It might seem as small things, but it is important in the long run. Not only do we need a new way of thinking about sustaining the enviropnment and improving the lives of poorer people, we need to change our actions. What happens when the use of water might get restricted one day? Or when the electricity prices sky rockets? Is it first then we will change our wasteful habits or is it possible to do that earlier?
'Cause the saying goes: "You can't teach an old dog to sit" (at least we say that in Sweden, if you have not heard it you will probably still understand the underlying meaning of it).
Do you guys and girls have any ideas about how we can work on changing our ways? And are you yourselves willing to give up some of the things in life you might take for granted?
Several recent projections indicate that by 2025 numerous river basins and countries will face a situation in which 30 percent or more of their irrigation demands cannot reliably be met because of water shortages.
Water resource is distributed unevenly within countries and continents as well. China, for instance, has one fifth of the world’s population, but only around 7 percent of Earth’s renewable fresh water—and most of that supply is in the Southern China. Since the “opening door policy” was implemented in 1980’s, China’s growth is an amazing improvement in quality of life for Chinese people. As a result, people ‘s needs have shifted from basic “adequate food and clothing” to “quality and health” lifestyle. Therefore, fresh water supply is now becoming the first requirement for most Chinese population.
Although water resource allocation has been shifting from traditional agricultural irrigation to industrial and individual uses, agriculture is still main consumer for about 70% in China. If there has 1.3 billion people need to be feed, it is really a tough and urgent task to reduce irrigation water consumption and maintain crop throughput at the time. More so, because of uneven distribution of water resource in China, Western and Northern regions are implementing a “time and quota consumption” method, as people can consume certain amount fresh water resource according to the different time period concerned. Therefore, it is ensure the water supplies to be available as many as possible.
Rising water consumption results the falling water tables in many countries, mostly serious impact in developing countries. How to provide all worldwide populations with at the least the minimum amount of clean and fresh water for sanitation and healthy needed is the main task we have to solve!
More detail information about world sustainable development issue: http://www.worldwatch.org/
When I was thinking about an example for sustainable development the ecotax reform in Germany came in my mind.
Under the law on the ecological tax reform the ´´Deutsche Bundestag´´ has decided to introduce the ecotax in Germany on the 1st April 1999. In the same year the first of the five reform steps started with which the consumption of energy and the connected emissions should be decreased. With the additional tax income the decrease of social security earnings and employers’ costs should be decreased.
The ecotax reform was very controversial because of different ecological, economical and legal reasons. It got even worse when the import prices for mineral oil products rose dramatically through the rise of the world prices for crude oil and through the devaluation of the Euro. This led to vehement resistance in parts of the economy and also in the German population. Meanwhile the critics slowed down because the people got used to the additional costs of the ecotax reform and also the opposition cannot do without the additional earnings of the ecotax reform.
There are many effects of the ecotax reform as for example the decline of energy and fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. Besides the number of passengers in public transportation has been growing. Moreover the ecotax creates about 250000 additional jobs. Unfortunately, there are some negative effects, too as the ecotax leads to higher energy, fuel and oil prices. Still, the tax changes do not lead automatically to corresponding changes in energy prices. Fuel prices are affected by the development of the crude oil prices and the dollar rate.
To sum up, the goals of the ecotax refom are the drop of the energy consumption and the emissions, an increase in employment and the development of environmentally friendly methods. Unfortunately, exact targets of the legislative are missing, but there are some political goals like the reductions of greenhouse gases by 21% until 2012.
What do you think about reforms like the ecotax? Do you have something like this in your country?
As I am the only person from Poland, and one of the few from Central Europe, I thought it might be good to reflect on how countries such as my own can adopt the concepts of sustainability.
Even though the ecological awareness in Poland is still far beyond one that you may find in Sweden or Germany, I believe the chances for improvement are wonderful. First of all, the number of people that do care for the environment is regularly increasing and most probably within ten years it will reach that in the most developed countries. There are however other advantages of countries such as Poland.
One of these is, paradoxically, its relatively low level of development. Just because of lower levels of consumption people in Poland often use fewer resources than those in developed countries. When one does not have a car, he or she doesn't burn too much petrol. It is just the same with minor things such as not using an electric dryer to dry your clothes. Naturally, the consumption level is constantly growing. Yet here lies the opportunity to change the pattern of growth towards sustainability. Once someone is using an old, inefficient technology, it is costly and difficult to upgrade it. But when you are purchasing a new appliance, it is only natural to choose a more efficient one. For this reasons one may frequently find appliances more advanced technologically in less developed countries.
What is more, it may be easier to compel people in Poland to keep using public transport intead of driving their own car than to make people who have ever since driven one to give this up. I must admit that right now I have some second thoughts about my idea to save some money and buy myself a car after I return to Warsaw.
Cement is made by burning limestone with clay, plaster, and some other materials in rotary kilns. Cement manufacture is quite energy intensive process and it generate large amount of Co2. This large amount of Co2 emission comes not only from fuel burning such as coals and oil but also from the chemical process related to limestone. Therefore, Co2 emission from Cement industry accounts for 5% of global man-made Co2 emissions.
In 2002, 10 world leading cement such as Lafarge (France: world largest cement company: [http://www.lafarge.com/]) formed research and study program CSI (the cement sustainability initiative) [http://www.wbcsdcement.org/] in order to explore sustainable development of cement industry.
Concerning Japan, the energy efficiency in cement manufacture is quite high and Co2 emission per cement production is the lowest in the world. These days, cement companies in Japan have been making efforts to use industrial wastes as part of raw materials of cement and as a fuel in cement making. About 28 million tons of wastes were used in cement production in 2003 (Data from Japan cement association [http://www.jcassoc.or.jp/]). This waste recycling is one of the ways to reduce waste disposal problem and CO2 emission problem, which in turn brings the reduction of cement producing cost. I think this is one of the examples that link business and environment.
On the other hand, industry is facing the difficulty in increasing the amount of waste to recycle in the factories because there is a government regulation related to quality of cement.
So, now, I think that cement industry has to make best efforts to technological improvement that makes it possible to use more waste in the cement factory without any negative effect to the quality of cement. By implementing this, it may be possible more actively to link the cement business and waste recycling. For example, as a total system, selling cement to clients (concrete, construction companies etc) and collecting industrial waste from them may become possible.
Before this class I didn’t understand the true extent of the water problems already prevalent in the world today. A United Nations study indicates that by the year 2025, two-thirds of countries will be “water-poor.” I find this mind blowing because this isn’t a problem we’ll be faced with down the road; this problem will be reality in our lifetime. The claim is that water will be the “oil of the 21st century” it’s also been described as “liquid gold” and could potentially cause wars between nations.
This article explores the possibility and implications of Canada selling its water as a commodity. At least one study says Canada has 20 percent of the world’s fresh water, which gives us the largest supply in the world. However, of this 20 percent only nine percent is ‘renewable” which needs to be kept in mind.
Politically and legally under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the selling of water falls into a grey area. There is the question of whether water is a “commodity” to be traded and sold or is it a “vital resource” like the air we breathe.
This article holds a pessimistic view on the affects of water exports and their ability to meet the economic and social needs of far away countries. The writer feels only the wealthy will be able to afford this water and allocative inefficiencies will broaden between the rich and poor. Secondly, if the rich are able to maintain a high quality source of water they will ignore the pollution of local waters because their needs are satisfied.
There is also the ecological and environmental aspect of this argument. Intra-generational equity needs to be considered. Canada has numerous lakes, great lakes and rivers. We need to ensure these are maintained for future generations to enjoy.
I don’t share this pessimistic view in regards to our ability to help and share our water with other countries when the time comes. I feel that Canada’s water will at some point be sold as a commodity. If Canada has excess water and other countries don’t have any, we need to help them. I am just pessimistic and concerned with the methods that will be used in pumping this water. I don’t think initially ecological budget constraints will be strictly followed. If this practice is to happen in the next decade or two, the research needs to start now as to how much water can be pumped per year without destroying or harming the delicate ecosystems of our lakes and rivers. Only 9 percent of our water is renewable!
What do you think? Is water a commodity to be traded and sold or is it something ‘that belongs to everyone and no one” like the air we breathe and shouldn’t be sold in mass quantities? Do you think countries purchasing this water will ensure it gets to everyone who needs it?
Source: Selling Canada’s Water, CBC News Online, August 24, 2004 http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/water/
Professor Williams, I am Hama and sending this blog from Xiandon's name because I can't log-in by using my first name.
I analyzed Aeon’s business activities by comparing with other retailers to ensure these activities show the improvement by sustainable business strategy.
Aeon is the first retail group which sales is more than us$39billion. The company aim to growth as top 10 companies in terms sales and management in the world. Aeon is operating 393 stores in Japan and developing their business to Asian countries. The company is also famous in Japan as their proactive activities in terms of sustainable activities and takes part in GRI. They have invested in natural capital as “tree planting campaign” that has planted 5.7 million trees in the world since 1991. And “bring your own bag campaign” which save the waste of plastic bag also has penetrated into customer and accumulated usage of my bag is more than 633k pieces. It seems that Aeon is really proactive to sustainable development, but is it true? Does company commit green wash? To make sure their sustainable business strategy, I analyzed the company’s business activity by comparing with other companies in the same industry.
Firstly, I compared with second retailer, Ito Yokado (IY) in Japan which is operating 183 stores in Japan. I pick up four items (the usage of electricity, plastic bag, copy paper and waste) which have the strong impact on environment to compare the efficiency per store. As for the usage of electricity, Aeon used 5 billion (wh/year), on the other hand, IY used 6.9 billion wh. Aeon managed to control the usage of electricity almost 74% of IY’s usage of electricity per store. In a similar manner, Aeon used almost 52% of plastic bags, 54% of copy paper and exhaust 56% of waste per store. These figures show Aeon managed to control all the items more efficiently than IY in their business activities. Thus, I can make sure Aeon is not the company commits green wash by appealing their environmental activity as PR. Secondary; I tried to compare with Tesco which also proactive to sustainable development in the UK. Unfortunately, I could not get the detail data from their CR review to compare their business activities. However, I could identify that their sustainable strategy is more proactive than Aeon. For example, Tesco open the 90% of new stores on brown field site. Usually, Aeon open the new store green field site, therefore, they destroy many greens and ecosystem to open new stores. In addition, they open the “green” store in Bangkok, which inbuilt roof top solar energy system. These ideas are something new to Aeon. Thus, Aeon still have room to enhance their sustainable activity and can reduce huge amount of energy and waste by applying the central strategy of natural capital such as radical resource productivity into their business activities.
I was not used to go to the Environment Pages of Le Monde (the most popular French newspaper) but I did it yesterday and I am shocked and angry by what I have read in an article of November the 16th 2005:
A study published in 2000 have shown that small particles* (present in the air) produced by some human activities are suspected to reduce Europeans life expectancy by an average of 9 months and it will possibly be responsible for the premature death of 348,000 Europeans in the 25 countries of the EU.
The European Commission is working now on the project to “solve” this problem.
The first thing that upsets me is precisely that: why has the European Commission waited so long to begin working on this, as if Europeans lifetime wasn’t important enough? The problem is that the EU has a steadfast department for Environment even when the danger affects one of our vital elements of nature capital: the air.
Anyway as a French saying says, “it’s never too late to do the right thing” (we hope it will never be too late). But now that the European Commission decided to face the problem, it has to do it really, with conviction and strength.
Unfortunately, this is not what is happening. The article explains that 36 scientists have precisely written to the President of the European Environment Committee to denounce the project which is according to them too lax. In fact, the project allows a rate of small particles in the air much higher than the dangerous rate for human’s health. The several health consequences revealed by experts are severe and frequent asthma crises for children, premature deaths due to cardio-respiratory diseases, cancer…
The experts also denounce the fact that the project does not create any kind of repressive tool to restrain and to make sure that it will be respected.
So what is the problem? We know what are the consequences of our current unsustainable way of development; experts are pushing the alarm button everyday and surveys shows that Europeans are more and more concerned by environmental problems. So why are not the authorities following?
I think that as long as Environment will depend on politicians, situation will never change. They are always thinking in a short term way, always thinking how to be re-elected and so they easily give up to companies lobbying.
The Environment question is a global interest question. To speak in an economic way, the Earth is our most precious equity, so I think that some kind of Supreme Court of Environment should be created, totally independent and with a real power to execute, restrain, punish: NOT WORDS, ACTION.
* The small particles are very dangerous: Because of its size, it goes very deep in the lung. These particles are spread in the air by diesel engines cars for example.
At the end of class today, we were asked to share three things that we have learned over the course of the week in regards to Sustainable Development and Competitive Advantage. Of particular interest to me was Dorotea’s comment on how she felt that it was Sweden’s responsibility as a developed nation that is equipped with the resources necessary to ensure and promote the sustainable development of those less fortunate nations. I came across an article on the net http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/0402/ijge/ijge0402.htm that addresses this exact issue. The article speaks about the responsibilities of developed nations, particularly the United States, and its belief that it has the responsibility to assist those less developed nations in order to equip them with the resources they need in order to truly benefit from the “opportunities of the global economy” .
The article also addresses the issue of the synergies of political, legal and economic policies that are all key elements in the pursuit of a nation’s sustainable development. I personally feel that if a nation is equipped with the resources to help those less developed nations to achieve an adequate level of sustainable development, that is should be a responsibility that is taken on by advanced nations such as Canada or Sweden. The issue of Sustainable development is a global issue, and if each country can work together in the pursuit of global sustainable development, we can get one step closer to ensure the preservation of our ecology not only for the present, but for the future as well. Does anyone else share the same view as me? Or do you feel that the SD of each nation is an individual responsibility regardless of what stage of development a country is in?
Source: Achieving sustainable development, An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State
April 2002 Volume 7, Number 1, http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/0402/ijge/ijge0402.htm
We are all people living on this green planet (maybe not as green as before) called earth. We all care for the environment (more or less), enjoy the wildlife, prefer clean air etc. Despite that it is surprisingly little cooperation between us to sustain and protect our home, earth that we have the honour to be residents of (average 82,68 years for a Swedish woman).
Even more surprisingly is the lack of cooperation between non governmental organisations and corporations. Most corporations view organisations as Greenpeace as the worst enemy existed. But are their visions so different? And what would happen if we started a dialogue instead of fighting each other down?
Searching the Internet I found a few cooperations I would like to praise and also I would like to show that this method of cooperation is working and that it is far more effective than fighting and opposing each other.
The Swedish furniture company IKEA have with several occasions cooperated with Greenpeace. As you all may know most of IKEAs furniture is made of wood and this puts a lot of pressure on IKEAs sustainable development. IKEA have been very strong with their environment friendly policy.
They cooperated with Greenpeace when mapping out the Swedish and Finnish woods and are positive to further cooperation.
Another successful collaboration is when the Swedish government, or more specific the Swedish environment minister Lena Sommestad and Greenpeace worked together to forbid the flame retardant dekaBDE on a national level when the European Union was to slow.
As we can see cooperating with our enemies can have a positive outcome. I would like to know if you have other examples? Maybe from your home countries?
**Corporate Social Responsibility is an increasingly important part of the business environment.
The past twenty years have seen a radical change in the relationship between business and society. Key drivers of this change have been the globalization of trade, the increased size and influence of companies, the repositioning of government and the rise in strategic importance of stakeholder relationships, knowledge and brand reputation. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), defined in terms of the responsiveness of businesses to stakeholders’ legal, ethical, social and environmental expectations, is one outcome of these developments.
**SME (Small and Medium Enterprises) development in developing countries is crucial to meeting its goal of improving the impact of business on society.
SMEs are essential to the ‘path out of poverty’ for many developing countries. On the other hand the SME sector must not be allowed to become a loophole in which polluting, exploitative industries flourish. However, support for SME development can be an important part of the CSR commitment of big companies, and improvements in social and environmental impact can go hand in hand with improvements in quality and management. As all we know, the industrial revolution has contribute to the development for the developing countries several centuries ago. During that peorid, those countries tried their best to seize the maximum profit. And now it is important to improve the quality of life in developing countries. So we shouldn’t rebuke the SMEs of developing countries for their development roughly from the view of developed countries.
**Towards ‘Small Business Responsibility’
If CSR is truly going to become a strategic force in contributing to international development and eliminating the negative externalities of business, it must help to develop effective and viable approaches to Small Business Responsibility. It is crucial that:
· CSR supports the role of SMEs in development, and does not serve as a tool to undermine and disadvantage them;
· SMEs are not able to undercut universal CSR standards and become a blindspot in which exploitative and environmental destructive practises flourish.
Thus, the challenges are to reduce the barriers and threats while strengthening the opportunities and drivers in order to ensure that CSR has a wide and positive impact on SMEs.
Like a few others, I tend to believe, that the government and legal systems have the opportunity to play a greater role than the corporate sector in the furtherance of sustainable development in this world. Therefore, I was interested in the action that has been taken so far by the concerned authorities in this regard. The UN has organized 2 world summit meetings as of date, the first at Rio De Janerio, and the 2nd at Johannesburg in South Africa, where the top leaders of our countries, representatives of various NGO’s and leading lights of the world met and discussed this very real problem.
Here I present a short summary of all the decisions that were taken. Having done that, I have attempted to understand the impact of their plans, and tried to think through of these actions on developing countries.
At Rio de Janerio, in 1992, the Agenda 21 was developed. This was probably the first official document that recognized SD as an issue that required attention, and it outlined all issues such as land management, waste management, urban planning etc that needed to be improved.
More than 10 years later, in Johannesburg, a new set of ‘priorities’ has been listed (water, energy, health, biodiversity and agriculture). Five ‘Framework for action’ papers have been issued. But no terms of action, or any timelines that force the implementation of these has been thought out. To get a broad idea of what was decided, click here. To give some credit, some timelines have been decided, but the general lack of direction and specificity in the decisions greatly limit their effectiveness.
There is much talk about "stronger partnerships, new technologies, better environmental management and human resource development". But what ultimately matters is ‘walking the talk’; which, sadly but truly is either absent or at least a long way off. Unfortunately, considering the pace at which countries like India are growing (and depleting natural resources), time is the most precious commodity we have.
Coming back to the question of implementation, the next level of governance at which we can expect definitive action, is at the National level. What got me started in this direction was the continuous reference to Germany as the country leading by far the move towards sustainable development. Researching further on this, I found that in 2002 in Germany “Gross domestic product grew by 11 percent between 1990 and 2000 but energy consumption dropped by 5 percent. Germany thereby achieved an emissions reduction of the greenhouse gases identified in the Kyoto Protocol of over 18 percent-- more than 85 percent of its commitment to reduce emissions by 21 percent until 2012.”More details of this can be found here
The document mentions rules and policies brought in by the Govt. (eco-tax etc), and this gives support to my view that the Govt. and legal systems are the best weapon we have. The question that now arises is if the same scenario would apply to a country like India.
Just to summarize the major issues that face developing/underdeveloped nations
1. Lack of resources to fund SD projects
2. Human suffering levels that demand the immediate and complete attention of resources, personnel and planning
One recurring solution that comes up during discussions is to send money from the developed countries to these poor countries, help them learn how to manage their economy like they did. The problems with this approach are many
1. The money does not reach its intended purpose (corruption and redtape). To resolve this problem what we need would be a strong politico-legal system, which is non-existent in developing countries.
2. But more importantly, this ignores the basic differences between cultures and countries. It is not a one-size fits all approach that works, as is obvious from the case of Africa and its agriculture. The World Bank intervened in Africa, with a strong belief that privatisation would increase efficiency of agricultural systems, but the result cannot by any means called positive. Further, though helping developing nations emulate the developed ones just might be the solution, there is always the possibility of viewing this ‘help’ as interventionism. As an attempt to control the economy of the recipient in some manner. And there are countless examples to prove that this is not completely unfounded.
3. Thirdly, it is a clear case of give the man the fishing rod and not the fish! As in the case of the Australian farmers, as long as there is a source to fund inefficiency, inefficiency shall thrive. Lets take one country, India for example. The term sustainable development meant nothing to me 4 days back, a citizen of INdia with more than the country average of general knowledge. But a simple search reveals that India has been an active participant in both the World summits. The Indian minister asks for more aid in the form of new technology and says “2.8 billion people still live on less than $2 a day and the richest 1 % of the world's people receive as much income each year as the poorest 57%.” (read the rest of the speech here). This once again gets the focus to 'intra-generational equity'.
To take an example of monetary help from advanced nations, India has also recieved aid in the form of cash from some nations, it is classified as ‘research project’ and has been closed for 2 years now. It is, however, referred to as ‘The Sustainable Development Network of India’. The many projects under it are classified as approved or closed, and most relate to research and documentation; none to definitive action.
From all of the above, we can see that in developing nations, if only for the basic reason that ‘intra-generational equity’ demands more attention than inter-generational, social systems are not the solution. So now we move to the business world. India alone has about 0.5 million companies operating in 2000. The real figure at present would be much higher. And only a small percentage of this would be companies that can be classified as resource (read cash) rich. To convince these companies, to figure out a means to make them more environment conscious, and finally to bring them all together with one common aim to bring about a change in the attitude of the Government would take many lifetimes. Not lifetmes of men, lifetimes of companies. If we take a second to imagine the level of co-operation that is required, we realise the impracticality of it. Especially in a situation where the results of global exploitation are not yet visible, but the fruits of such exploitation are many.
So what can be done in these countries? One posible solution that has come up was with the case of outsourcing; considering the spurt of growth in outsourcing and IT activities in India, that we could focus on driving Indian economy by this industry, where the natural capital lost is relatively lower. However, we must agree that no country would allow one-directional growth, and at some point in time, the focus is going to move to industries that consume great natural capital
What we face here is a real issue, seemingly with no clear solution in sight. In developing countries, is Sustainable development only a matter of personal choice and implementation? Or can it really be institutionalised? This group provides the best opportunity for discussion and thought on this matter.
From the courses it appeared that it is more difficult to force the companies to follow a strategy that is based on Sustainable Development in the long term than do the actual changes in their way of doing business. I think that the common goal can be achieved by first creating an integration of governments and non governmental organizations throughout a region. For example in the European Union the European Council should help the nations and elaborate programs for the integration of the ecological aspects. On the other hand Sustainable Development should be generally admitted as a shared value for each and every person. First of all the governments should build this feeling in the individuals' and in the companies' mind but I think that the media and education have more important role in it. The governments will never focus on long term strategies but the media can persuade people to change their minds, their lifestyles. Also the companies have to do business in an other way. But they can act if they have the instruments and possibilites to do better and only if they realize that copetitive advantage can be achieved by this.
In many areas the way of doing business cannot be sustainble in the long run so the focus has to be changed. For example the actual way of production and consumption habits are depending on the road and air transport of the cargo which cannot be sustainable. The EU should form regulations that encourage the economic friendly transportation.
So I think without integration and regulations the problems cannot be solved. But I am sceptical about whether the governments can understand the importance of inter-generational equity. In my opinion they will only set the regulations if they are forced to do so.
Tetraethyl Lead (TEL), CFC's, Nylon Production in Goa, Lead Paint, Hormone Disruption, Military, Workers.When you see the above series of “hot” words, I bet you could not built up the relation beween these notorious product and a worldwide famous chemical company-Dupont, me too. Unfortunately, it was this super company that owned the extremely notorious reputation in chemical industry. Frankly speaking, I am very shocked to know so many familiar and destructive products researched and made by Dupont company. If you read the passage “DuPont: Politics of Products and Politics in Production ” (source: http://www.groundup.org/dupont/pp.htm) , you will feel very uncomfortable and anxious for the future.
Once the surprising reality is exposed to the outside, I can’t help contemplating something behind the screen, i.e. Why did those ugly companies like DuPont can exist so long and live in well being. From the story of Dupont, we can find some know-how about these environmental polluters. On one hand, they are thorough money-maker and do anything for economic profit at all costs. Hereon the traditional economics and organizational behavior theory about the personality hypothesis that human-being is a self-fish and rationally economic nature brings into the play. As the above title said, politics is dominated by and in turn serve for economics, as well as the political tactics in production follow the company’s economic strategy. In brief, it is the interest that induce the company as an economic unit takes the destructive action regardless of the global sustainability and the company social responsibility.
On the other hand, we can question that why the government and the public can be manipulated by those economic “scamp”? Why did the government and the media default? Why did the environmental protection laws and institutions fall short of what is needed to prevent the pollution? Maybe it is a complex and systematic problem which puzzles all of us. But I think the answer may be more distinct if we can analyze the status quo from three “M” aspects ---Motivation, Mechanism and Market orientation. Motivation---it owes to the substantial and economic strength which dominates the economic man’s motivation, causes the government official and the media (sometimes including the consumer, the public ) being influenced and manipulated by the lobbies. Hereby I want to quote and create the notion “ecological economic agency problem”---it refers to the differences in incentives between the company and the society. Mechanism--- we lack of not only the perfect laws but also effective execution. It is caused by the previous Motivation. Mechanism consists of the laws and institutions, power distribution and balance, bureaucratic organization and structure, and so on. Market Orientation--- As we know it is that the market ecomomy dominates the up-to-date mainstream economic development model. And market rule pays more attention to the profit and competition.
Hence, more or less the sustainable development is a little contradictory to the competitive ability in short run because one company, one country which pursuits the SD will pay higher cost right now. To some extent, it weaken the competitive ability and the substantial return. Sometimes the developed countries will claim that developing countries ignore the environmental protection. It maybe unfair because from the history perspective, we can know that nearly all the developed countries had experienced the same phase when they robbed of other colonial or less developed coutries’ resource and badly polluted the environment to afford their own prosperity (Industrial Revolution Stage ). They should undertake more responsibility in moral and intragenerationally. From the long term viewpoint, we also can infer that a country with good sustainability will have more aftereffect in the long term competition and benefit from the today’s SD effort. So all we need to do at present is to instill the SD ideology to the executives and administrators of the company, help them build up the right motivation, set up a perfect mechanism like “corporate governance” to enhance the relevant laws legislation and empower the special department or the third party to inspect and control the SD and CSR. The most important should be to foster a ecological economic orientation in the market, let the ecological effect can create and reveal the distinct value (e.g. acceptance by customer alike green vegetable and fruit, recycling water and paper ).
It will probably take several generations a lot of time and effort to achieve the goal, but it is worthwhile.
I have discovered an article which includes a comparison between the American Dream and the European Dream, written by Jeremy Rifkin, an expert in the area of Economic Trends. The article has been published by Spiegel Online in July 2005. Rifkin discusses Europe's current problems and offers solutions for its future.
This newspaper article is of great interest to me, since the author claims that the American dream is more capital-oriented whereas the European dream is more likely to be social- and environmental- oriented. On the one hand, the American society perhaps has a much higher degree of individualism since especially the personal achievement of wealth resulting in individual success is the main goal of the dream. In comparison to that, the Europeans, who tend to be more socially-oriented for the benefits for society instead of isolated individuals, follow a dream which can be identified as the opposite of the dream followed across the Atlantic Ocean.
In reference to the newspaper article, I imply that the American dream, and therefore the American society who lives this dream, can be identified as the neo-classicalists concerning their economy whereas the Europeans may symbolize the ecological economists. It can be stated that there is a great controversy between the two opposites.
It could be argued that the Americans put emphasis on growth, but at the same time, they might not pay the attention necessary to their environment due to the fact that the American economy is generally profit-driven and aiming at sustainable development through continuous growth. In contrast to the U.S. the European Union can be rated as dedicated to their environment since it can be inferred, not only from the news, that they show more concern about environmental issues than the world’s superpower across the Atlantic Ocean.
As a result from the different views of the American versus the European dream, different problems arise which have to be outlined and evaluated separately.
Let’s begin with the U.S. Since the American economy could be compared with the neoclassical view, it can be concluded that they simply rely on the fact that their properly functioning market will react in case of serious environmental problems due to the fact that the market will, when the time has come, indicate the scarceness of resources with a rising cost of these resources, this will on the other hand affect their production methods leading towards a greater efficiency, and so on. So they may say. They forget a simple but very important variable in their model: The environment. Their model is an idealistic economical view which implies that there is no resulting waste. In contrast to that, the American economy tends to neglect the effects of natural degradation. The scarcities of natural resources like clean air, clean water, natural forests, etc., lie outside the market mechanism and therefore are not considered in the model. The Americans may not be aware of the fact that these resources cannot be technologically substituted. A forest can be eroded easily in less than one year but it takes decades to grow it again and there is no technology which can provide the human race with clean air and this is not expected to happen anytime soon. This argument consequently reveals an error in the reasoning of the Americans relying on their properly functioning market. The “everything-has-a-price” view of the neo-classicalists does not work in this case.
On the other hand, the European Union seems to be more aware of the fact that man-made capital will not be able to compensate the degradation of the natural resources. The EU has significantly been showing a fair amount of awareness of the negative influence of economic growth on the natural resources of our planet earth and, therefore, on the environment which is necessary for the human race to survive. The EU may have recognized the fact that the leading people influencing the economy have to be aware of the fact to preserve a stable and healthy environment for the future generations. This is assured by legal regulations. The alert of the importance of the “intergenerational equity” may not have been arisen in the U.S. yet. Jeremy Rifkin gives the example about energy consumption of the U.S. in comparison to the EU. The European Union has 450 million people compared to 280 million Americans but the Europeans use one-third less energy than the U.S. do. It can be concluded from these figures that the European Continent is fairly more dedicated to the efficiency of their use of energy than the Americans are. In Europe, sustainable development implies a sustainable environment for the future generations. In contrast to the Americans, the EU seems to be more aware of the existing responsibility concerning our children and grandchildren. This responsibility affects and includes every country on this planet but unfortunately, there are just a few countries taking this responsibility. Since the European Union pays so much attention to the preservation and protection of the environment, the money, time, and efforts invested in these actions and environmental programs are missing concerning other issues. Especially the rising unemployment rate is creating a concern for the Europeans.
It can be concluded that there is no general solution to the environmental issues but it has to be underlined that these problems will become of major importance in the near future. It would be very helpful if the Americans could also start to think more critically about the (bad) effects of their economy on the global environment. This does not only include the Americans but also those countries that are still lacking of environmental awareness. It cannot be denied that this might cause some problems in other areas but we all have to start thinking about the consequences of our actions, especially concerning the pollution. To start solving this problem, it could begin with the development of a more efficient use of energy, improving production in a way that results in the elimination of waste at the end of the circle. The Business Sector is the most flexible sector and therefore, this change is possible. Although it has to be stated that it takes time and also indicated that this behaviour will imply capital resources and therefore, profits might not be as high during the implementation phase. Finally, we as the countries of this world have take the responsibility for the good of the future generations and we know that our current environmental behaviour will sooner or later cause a big change in the environment which is irreversible. This cannot be ignored and other countries should follow the European example concerning environmental programs since we all sit in the same boat which is planet earth and only if all of the countries go in the same direction concerning environmental issues, the environment we benefit from in this day and age will be preserved for our children and grandchildren.
As I have been working for two years in the automotive industry, I wanted to present the Valeo case. Valeo is an industrial group fully focused on the design, production and sale of components, systems and modules for cars and trucks. It ranks among the world's top automotive suppliers and supplies all major vehicle manufacturer. I think that Valeo is a good example of a multinational company that promotes the practice of sustainable development for the benefit of the communities where the Group is present, EVEN IF decentralization is a daily reality. I would like to present some of interesting practices the Group is developing.
First Valeo is really trying to develop the employees' competences and to give them more power. Indeed, the Group provides all employees with the same learning opportunities and a system of "improvement propositions" has been set up, so that the employees can continuously propose game-breaking ideas.
Concerning the environment policies, Valeo is taking into account the European directive on end-of-life vehicles which requires heavy metals to be eliminated from the production of all european vehicles since july 1, 2003. In addition to that, 99 sites of the Groupe have received ISO 14001 environmental certification. This shows how Valeo is respecting the international standards for the products, process, but also managerial and organizational practices.
Finally, concerning the commitment to society, Valeo has joined the United Nations Global Compact, which defines 10 principles in the area of human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption to be respected. The Global Compact also help the business community to find solutions to the problems of globalization.
If you want to get more information about "Globalization and sustainable development", go to the Center on Globalization and Sustainable Development. I found some interesting research works.
Do you have other examples of companies working for sustainable development? Have you experience those kind of practices?
Since the short discussion about the differences according to ecological awareness in France and Germany, we both had to think about it. We tried a long time to find an answer.
First we thought that it might be a reason that in Germany the party of the socalled "Bündnis90/Die Grünen" has or perhaps had a larger influence in policy than "Les Verts" in France. They even have been a part of the red-green coalition in the years from 1995 until 2005. Also one of their most famous members "Joschka Fischer" has been the foreign minister of Germany from 1998 until 2005.
But we weren`t really satisfied with only that possible reason. Speaking with some of the other Germans we found out that in someway it is not only because of our political background but also because of the historical and out of that even mentally background.
Germans are known to keep with rules and needing instructions. The best example therefore is surely that every German who has to drive with his car on the French streets is nearly confused about not having exact lines on the ground for helping finding the right direction.
Finally it is perhaps another reason that the Germans are really afraid of doing wrong again. After the World War 2, the Germans always tried to do their best not having or causing bad things again. This also includes the environment.
Because these are only some of our own opinions for being reasons for that difference, we would really like to know what you think about that. Why could be the French different from us for you?
Please tell us your view!
Global warming and climate change are the most pressing issues we are facing today. China, the continent has one fifth percent of population of the world, contributed to global greenhouse gas emission has increased significantly for the last 20 years. China is the biggest developing country and its energy needs are dependent heavily on coal, which is the most intensive carbon fuel. Continuing consumption of coal is not only causing the rising greenhouse gas emission, but also damaged the natural resource of China by arbitrarily exploiting and mining.
Indeed, Western China is the most concerned and being polluted areas as it is the industrial base and contains large amount of China’s energy resource. As mentioned in the class, economic growth imbalance between east and west is the major problem Chinese government needs to be solved. Western regions, as the mainly industrial base, their outputs of coal fuel are the top of the whole country. Moreso, their average GDP level is much lower than other regions and contains least technologically advanced.
How to develop advanced cleaner air transformation technology, how to find other substitute environmental advanced fuels, and how to help further modernize the industrial practices in the Western regions probably are the principal questions Chinese government should solve.
Maybe this is a strange headline but during the whole course I had to think about it. At the beginning of course we were thought what the meaning of Sustainable Development is: Inter- and intragenerational equity, no waste of natural capital, careful use of regenerative resources (that can still regenerate) and a pollution-rate that the nature can still absorb. So that’s the challenge we are facing and I feel really committed to.
The next step was that we were introduced to the (neo-)classical system and that it fails to handle the challenge of Sustainable Development. It is just looking for growth which indeed - on the long run - doesn’t fit with SD. If we now start talking about Competitive Advantage as an instrument to face the challenge of SD, it is like using one of the most powerful instrument (or slogan) of the system we blamed before.
Of course in the cases where we can find a Competitive Advantage and we use this, it will help to solve some problems. But there is nothing new about it. This is a business rule that is as old as business is itself. And even a manager who has absolutely no commitment to SD would take this advantage. So it is rather an ecological (and SD-) instrument than a lack of the (classical) economical system with absolutely no change in mentality or attitude. If a few years later a technology is developed that is cheaper but causes more pollution, companies will change their technology again because of the Competitive Advantage. New discovered Competitive Advantages had always been taken – long before anybody was talking about SD.
The real challenge begins where the both theories (SD and CA) don’t go in the same direction...
The real challenge begins where the both theories (SD and CA) don’t go in the same direction. And I’m wondering if management in a free capitalism would be able to face the challenge or at least if it should be their task? I think both not. In order to create SD there is a need to change the (legislative) framework in a way that brings the goals of the two systems (SD and CA) together. We need a framework where it leads to SD when companies go on acting just on their own interests. So I really believe that the problem can’t be fixed by management and that it is more an economical problem. Although most governments today are less powerful than some world-wide acting companies, they are the ones who could build up the (world-wide-)framework to reach SD. Companies will always have to make profits that’s what they are made for. But it is still good to teach future managers the spirit of SD, because if they feel a commitment to SD, they can use their power to influence governments that they faster change the framework, so that they are able to compete with “the bad companies”.
There could also be the idea that the people of a country could force companies to behave sustainable by just asking for high quality and environmental-friendly produced products. But in my opinion that is just a nice dream. There are economical theories like the social dilemma or the Low-cost-hypothesis which can point out that this probably won’t work. Social dilemma is about the fact that the best solution for the whole group is not congruent to the best solution of an individual member. Here it is again just the framework that is able to unite the best solution of the individual with the one for the whole group.
To sum it up: It is important that management and people are aware and sensitive of environmental problems, but on a long-term view it is the responsibility of the government(s of the world) to create a sustainable framework. Competitive Advantage can serve or do harm to SD, so these words are not necessarily linked.
In 'The Economist' of 29th October I found a very short article ('When lobster was fertiliser', p. 84) about research done by Glenn Jones of Texas A&M University. He and his team studied some 40 000 sea-food reastaurant menus dating from 150 years ago to today, in order to assess depletion of some sea species that we can (or could) find on our plates. The prices revealed that the exploited species cost gradually more, and often dissappeared from the menus after some time. For example, for a mollusc called abalone, in San Francisco in the 1930's you would have to pay $6-7(in today's dollars), while in 1980's it was already about $30-40. In 1997 the commercial explotaition of abalone was banned off California's coast. Sometimes the prices fall again, as the products are imported from further away, which indicates the total depletion of local resources.
The author reflects not only on the supply side of the market, but also on the demand. He gives an interesting example of lobsters, which are considered a delicacy today. In the 19th century servants would negotiate with their masters NOT to be fed lobsters more than thrice a week! This just shows how abundant they must have been back than. And also that at a certain point their harvesting broke the sustainable level, leading to a gradual diminishing of the living stock, thus ridding us of a valuable natural capital asset – the lobster. Thank God I don't like seafood!
On the first day of our course, missing some good old style academic knowledge, I looked into one of the readings provided in the printed course materials, one by Herman E. Daly on steady state economics. The author discusses the concepts of throughput, natural capital and the efficiency of its use. He also wonders why it is so difficult for the steady state economics to become incorporated by the mainstream economics. One reason he gives is that it would require a paradigm shift (reffering to Kuhn's ephistemological views). Yet I am not fully convinced by this reason, as in fact the steady state economics only seem to add new factors to traditional economics, making its models work differently. Still, applying such basic concepts of economics as utility and marginal analysis one may arrive at the conclusions of steady state. All that is needed is to accept that natural resources are indeed a factor that can limit growth of the global economy, which seems only commonsensical. The other argument Mr. Daly suggests is that accepting steady state economics would force people, and especially governments, to face such problems as poverty and famine without being able to say (and think) that thanks to economic 'development' (or as Mr. Daly suggests, growth) will one day vanish. What is more, it might even require citizens of the rich North of our world to give away some of their comforts. One can hardly imagine a politician who might suggest that. They are rather likely to go on speaking of defending 'their way of life', just like Mr. Bush does as he proposes to go to another war in a far distant country, which is by some strange coincidence rich in crude oil. We might only hope that sooner or later this will change. What we need is sooner rather than later.
If refer to the article “Environmental Economics, Ecological Economics, and the concept of Sustainable Development” written by Giuseppe Munda in 1997.
He points out, that sustainable development is a multidimensional concept that is why it’s so difficult to find solutions to the urgent problems of our globe.
To clear up his train of thought Munda quotes a study by the United Nations.
“In 1980, the total world energy consumption was 10terawatt-hours (TW-h). With no increase in consumption in less developed countries, by 2025 the whole world population would need 14 TW-H. If the consumption of the whole world population were at the level of western countries, then by 2025 it would be 55 TW-h.”
Now the conclusions to be drawn form this:
If in 2025 the world population need 14 TW-h, it means that there is no economical growth in less developed countries and that’s highly socially unsustainable.
If in 2025 the world population need 55 TW-h, it is environmentally unsustainable because of the exhaustion of natural capital.
While reading this paragraph the question which came to my mind was, what would be the impacts of SD of our every day life in Western Europe, if a shift to a sustainable future was unavoidable?
My question that I would like to discuss with the other Blogger:
How can we contribute to intra-generational equity (Decrease of North-South divide), without losing track of inter-generational equity?
Just like in neoclassical ecomonics, it will be more practical if you seperate the mico ecological economy and macro economy in the field ecological economy.The micro and macro economy doesn't converge in their view of economy scale."spaceship economy" for the macro and "cowboy economy" for the micro. The govenment should act upon this judgement, pulling in stead of pushing the business unit to apply the strong sustainability view.
Back in 1966, Kenneth Boulding pointed out the two words "cowboy economy" and "spaceship economy". Nowadays, more and more people begin to accept his "spaceman economy" concept, however, why still most of the companies, in micro side, apply a policy contra to this view.
The economy on a whole has its boundary of expansion in terms of throughput, however, the enterprise doesn't think that they will be near the boundary. They are in the cowboy stage in their sub system..The sustainable development of the enterprise doesn't converge with the macro.
First, until now they can get the nature resources like water and air free of charge. Because the marginal cost of it is almost zero, they will not take it into consideration.
Second, as long as the "money" exists, the human society will distribute the resource based on the fortune you have, so when the resources are hard to get, the one with the most money will get it. To make the business sustainable, they must try to get the most profit. They can use their money to buy the technology or resources needed if necessary. it's those who have the most money get the resources. In this case, they will not meet their own boundary, they can offset it either by getting the others' share or by improving of technology. These extend the space for the erterprise to act as if they are in a "cowboy economy."
The micro economic view the enviroment as "cowboy eonomy" and will act based on its view. We should not expect that the government set a law to limit the gas emission of the car 80 years ago, and it's the same that the business now will NOT invest heavily on the natural capital at the risk of losing his market and profits.
We can conclude that most of the business will act upon the concept of weak sustainability view. They just react to the laws, customs and culture in order to maximize their profit. And the government should set up the policy based on this judgment. Therefore, they should levy the tax or through other means to raise the cost of using of the natural resources to let the business unit improve the productivity efficiency more rapidly. As the traditional economics, the eco economics should establish the macro basis and micro basis theory to solve the different problems and make itself more perfect.
In yesterday's class, Professor Williams brought up the new term of "Intergenerational Equity". Like many other students in this class, this is my first experience learning about the issue of Sustainable Development, thus many of the terms and concepts discussed are new to me. I particularly found this term interesting, as I have personally found that the actions of many companies and even the government at times focus more on temporary "band aid" solutions, rather than taking a long term perspective, and identifying the root of the problem in order to prevent difficulties in the future. The question of whether a short term perspective, where one will solve current issues without consideration of its future impacts is the more appropriate route to take as opposed to looking at the long run, and considering how actions taken today will impact society, the environment etc. in the future should be considered. One can refer back to a concept used by Karl Marx; "Self interest". I feel that we live in a world where people are in the pursuit of one's own well being, and if it means putting other people at risk then so be it. The case discussed in today's class in regards to the droughts in Australia, I feel served as a perfect example. In my mind, I felt as though the politicians were more concerned about getting the extra votes from the rural community which represented a large proportion of the population, and were therefore looking out for their own self interest rather than taking care of the people of the nation as a whole, which is what they are being elected to do. In order to ensure and foster the creation of integenerational equity, we must always take on a long term perspective and carefully analyse how actions taken at the present, will affect the future if we are to preserve the well being of our future generations to come.
I tried to post: If people don't want to be aware of the issue of Global warming from a scientific point of view they will do it from a financial point of View.
Indeed recent hurricanes in the United States faced the business fields, Assurance funds, Institutional investors with the problem of disruption in ecosystems. Because of the frequence of storms and its increasing strenght, Insurance funds have to modify their standards, the way they pay for disasters. The amounts are more and more important because the disasters go on increasing.
Insurance funds, Investors,etc., which are very influent in all big industries and many economics, fields would have to find solutions to save money and avoid to pay so much. The obvious long term solution seems to be curving global warming in order to reduce its effects on climate
It is widely accepted that greenhouse gases are causes of global warming and other climate change effects.
The Kyoto protocol is a treaty under the UNFCC that aims to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions of industrialised nations by at least 5 percent of the 1990 levels in the commitment period of 2008-2012. It moreover recognises that while the industrialised countries have gained the most out of environmental exploitation (and hence conributing to global warming) in terms of economic profits; the negative effects of such activities are expected to be experienced all over the world, especially the least developed nations.
The protocol sets binding targets that countries have to achieve in their emission levels. The protocol even envisages a global emission trading sysem which will incentivise countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emission levels. The treaty also enables developing countries to collaborate with developed nations to install environment friendly technology in their countries. It is in effect a truly global effort to adress a problem that is truly global.
Yet it is appalling that the worlds biggest emitter (USA) and the worlds biggest emitter per capita (Australia) have not ratified it in their home legislatures despite being signatories to the treaty.
This is inspite of the large grassroots level support for the treaty in the US. Even more distressing is the US administrations unwillingness to engage in any kind of negotiations on the issue.
The US has gone on record stating that the treaty will only serve to stunt the growth of developed countries while providing impetus to the economies of developing nations such as China and India. The US government has taken the stance that economic growth and technological innovations will automatically reduce emissions.
Will this view hold water in the light of findings pointing towards rapid climate change and the inabiliy of governmens to act prudently? Moreover climate change is expected to occur rapidly and increasingly in the form of natural calamities. An evidence of this is the fact that insurance companies consider climate change and claims arising from them as their biggest concern.
The US is one country wherein development has not led to an increase in environmental awareness among the general populace; at least to the extent as in Europe (Environmenal Kuznets effect). The drive for change needs to come from the ground up. Consumers must demand it so that companies start acting. This will in turn put pressure on governments to comply and adopt pro environment policies.
The US government needs to reanalyse its short termist stature of playing to the energy lobbies and take concerted action to sustain the ‘American’ way of life for future generations.
* Reactions to US Kyoto pullback
* A good discussion on the current status of the protocol citing arguments for and against it can be found on wikipedia
* The counries and their targets can be seen here.
A warm welcome to all Reims Management School IMP students!
In the course outline, you will note that 30% of the assessment is allocated to "Analysis of a journal article or company performance" and that this is an individual assignment.
This is where this blog comes in ...
Between now and midnight (GMT + 1hr) on Friday 18 November, this is your space to make a contribution to your peers' learning. Your task, simply, is to analyse, critically, articles and news reports. Other than this, I will not be too prescriptive! Indeed, this would be counter to the whole idea of a blog which is to provide an outlet for your creativity. Suffice to say that your posts must have something to do with sustainable development and competitive advantage! To find out how to blog, follow this link which provides you with some screenshots.
In terms of grades, I will be looking for quality rather than quantity. In other words, huge slabs of text cut-and-pasted from web sites are unlikely to earn you high marks, nor will "Me too" or "I agree" responses. The main thing I am looking for is evidence of your powers of analysis and synthesis. This might be:
1. Challenging a point of view/forwarding a new perspective;
2. Relating the theory to one’s experience;
3. Offering support for a position based on the literature; and
4. Contributing to peers’ understanding.
One final point: it is quite acceptable for your contributions to be 'comments'. It is not imperative that you initiate a blog topic.
To get a sense of what this course is all about, you might like to listen to ABC Radio’s Background Briefing report on: The Business of Climate Change, broadcast on 16/10/05 (49 mins). There is an Australian focus, but the principles are more widely applicable. You can listen on your iPod, or MP3 player, or download (right click) the programme (23MB) to your computer and listen on Microsoft Media Player. Alternatively, simply read the transcript.