Education and the future

Green24 is for everyone's future. We should never lose sight of the fact that sustainability is for future generations, for our children and our childrens’ children. This is a long-term project and part of everything we do.

We have explained in this column how businesses can and should benefit from being actively involved in sustainable development, both in terms of innovation and implementation. Whether or not we have made the case successfully, it is undeniable that sustainability must be forwarded through the involvement and engagement of young people and education providers.

Schools, both in this country and in many others, have built sustainability into the national curriculum. Although the curriculum is being slimmed down, just now the Sustainability and Environmental Education charity - SEEd - (http://se-ed.co.uk/edu/sustainable-schools/sustainability-curriculum/) is piloting new forms of curricula, working sustainability learning into a wide range of subjects. This includes a scheme to make your school more sustainable! An excellent resource is the ‘world mapper’ that shows countries by size of carbon use. There is also the eco-schools campaign (http://www2.keepbritaintidy.org/ecoschools/), 'Teach Share' for teacher’s materials (http://www.teachshare.org.uk/) and the 'Sustainable Schools Alliance' (http://sustainable-schools-alliance.org.uk/) supporting learning programmes.

In Scotland, the ‘One Planet Schools’ initiative, backed by government, published the One Planet Schools Report in December 2012, providing a whole-school approach to learning about sustainability. It is a model that many countries would do well to follow.

At a higher tier of education, many universities offer degrees up to Masters level in sustainable development and related subjects. The universities of East Anglia, Exeter, Leeds, Dundee and Aston are prominent in offering a range of courses that attract international students. Some, like Kingston, focus on environmental change, while others like Lancaster make links with business and management. Even my own university, Oxford, has expanded the oldest Geography department in the world to include environmental change in its title. To brag a little, we were, I recall, at the forefront of climate change research in the 1980s!

The international scene is very diverse and rich with opportunities. PhD work is widespread and many universities have research centres. I am connected to Royal Holloway, London, but there are other centres, from Aberdeen and Glasgow to Cambridge and Hertfordshire. There is a wealth of activity, interest and application among the younger generations; perhaps the rest of us need to catch up! Certainly, I have one son studying a sustainability degree and another to follow. It is encouraging that they can see this as a key part of their futures. It is up to us to provide the support we can. This is where Green 24 starts.

David Jackman

Roots

It is hard to ignore the severe weather events in both the US and UK right now. There have been successions of storms piling across the Atlantic, bringing extensive flooding and loss of life. The coastlines of Wales and the West have been worst affected, with the beach becoming almost entirely deposited on the seafront promenade at Aberystwyth. In Canada, a region used to difficult weather, the conditions are described as a ‘polar vortex’.

This reminds us of our deep connection with the environment, a chord we cannot cut. Many of those interviewed on daily TV news reports freely make the connection between the increased frequency of extreme weather events and global warming. As a long-time resident of a village (now an island) in the Somerset Levels remarked, ‘flooding is more common, reaches a higher level and lasts for longer’. That pretty much sums it up.

Perhaps now, as in so many things, commitment to sustainability becomes a matter of belief. There are those who will never have enough evidence to accept that the climate is changing, or that if it is, human agency has any significant role in the change. Others readily see the signs everywhere and are perhaps over-zealous!

So perhaps the argument should move on to different ground? Perhaps it is a sense of inter-connectivity in economic, social and environmental terms that we should be focusing on. We should say, ‘be sustainable because sustainability is mutually beneficial’ rather than rely on the climate change threat. There is a well-founded impact on economic and social cases. I have personally carried out a good deal of international research on this, with Edinburgh Business School and King’s College London, which demonstrates that good sustainability in corporate practices connects to long-term financial performance and improving return on assets.

Perhaps it is easier to talk about the responsibilities we have to each other as part of being reasonable citizens. The strength and resilience of our communities depends on our commitment to each other and indeed, on our faith that communities are worthwhile. Being aware of what we measure as signs of success needs careful examination. That also forms part of the work I am currently engaged in for the International Standards Organisation (ISO).

We owe it to each other to examine the facts and the options more closely. Departing from the climate change debate, there is still much to chew over and many other reasons to accept the sustainability challenge. green24 is here to help.

David Jackman

It’s a Wonderful (Integrated) World

All eyes have been on South Africa recently. We have been sharing in the country’s loss while, it seems to me, wishing the country well for a future, post-Mandela age. I wrote to him once and he was kind enough to send a response. I remain impressed.

The sight of nearly 100 world leaders, together in the pouring rain in the cavernous FNB stadium outside Soweto in Johannesburg, tends to inspire a ‘bigger picture’.  It could be argued that we do too little ‘world thinking’, and yet this week reminded us that the people of the world share similar problems, emotions and aspirations.

Similarly, there is a movement catching on in sustainability which is global in perspective; broadening horizons, and moving away from national concerns and financial obsessions. It is called Integrated Reporting (www.theiirc.org), and it brings together the long term value of creation of all kinds. Unilever, HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Hyundai, Microsoft, PepsiCo, National Australia Bank and Tata Steel are among over 100 businesses in the IR Pilot Programme. I note that Singapore has a board member and a local bank, DBS, which started using the system in 2012.

IR is being pioneered in 25 countries. This includes South Africa, which is taking the lead in writing IR into statutory requirements. Once again, South Africa draws us together.

Supported and launched by Prince Charles in 2009, details of the IR Framework were only released on 9^th December 2013. The benefits for business include:

·         A rise in all forms of capital.

·         More connected departments within corporations, breaking down silos.

·         Improved internal reporting and governance processes.

·         A lower financial capital cost.

Currently, many companies view sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as separate from the main business. Such companies may publish partnership reports some months after the main report, or accounts which leave a feeling that they perhaps don’t care. The way sustainability measures are reported is not standardised, and this leads to many comparison problems, particularly for prospective investors.

There is undoubtedly a long way to go in sustainability efforts, but this seems to be the goal; it is of particular interest to those with governance roles in businesses, as well as their accountants and fund managers. For details, download a copy of the easy-to-follow framework from the IIRC website. 

Game of two halves?

The green energy debate is really heating up (please excuse the pun), with both politicians and corporations backing away from earlier commitments to renewable energy schemes. On 26 November, the German energy giant, RWE, announced its plans to stall its 240-turbine Atlantic Array wind farm in the Bristol Channel in the UK. The scheme could have provided hundreds of jobs in the tourism-dependent area, but objectors were concerned about the appearance of the 750 foot high turbines, as well as their possible effects on the delicate marine ecosystems that surround Lundy Island.

This was announced as a commercial decision, and is likely a result of the growing difficulty in getting long-term financing for such large-scale green projects. RWE reportedly said that it was ‘no longer viable’ to continue with the scheme, which would have provided power to around 1 million homes. There is also a change in background political ideology and support, both in the UK and more widely. This follows reports that the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, is now less keen on his previously much-vaunted green image, especially if it means increases to the cost of living.

Meanwhile, I have just come back from a series of meetings in Geneva. At the meetings, many countries were co-operating on schemes to help sustainable communities, with considerable enthusiasm among participants. For example, the Chinese delegation was talking about building eco-cities from scratch, and to the highest standards.

The meetings were held at the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). Here I found a treasure trove of resources about green energy schemes ...and much more. I discovered, among other things, excellent resources from FIDIC (International Federation of Consulting Engineers), Project Sustainability, the TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) Global Community, Green Cross International, a Geneva ‘Sustainable Living’ pack for families, and ‘Our Planet’, the UNEP magazine. All were useful for different parties in the sustainable future.

Whether you need to make an argument, build a business case, find case studies, or devise a tool kit, the materials are all here. There is no shortage of good information. Perhaps the inability to decide on how to proceed with the green energy debate is because there are two groups in the ‘room’, talking amongst themselves and not to each other. Surely, if we are to take such large decisions, we should do so on the basis of the best information available. In this, G24 can make a contribution.

David Jackman

What climate change actually means

Most of us have heard politicians, environmentalists and lobby groups drum on about how bad climate change is, sharing their doomsday prophecies with whoever will listen. But what does climate change mean to the person on the street and how will it affect our lives?

At the beginning of October this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 5th Assessment report was published, in which it stated that in all likelihood, the rate at which the atmosphere is warming up is due to human influence. So we are doing things that increase the rate of atmospheric warming – a global greenhouse effect.

Many of us will shrug our shoulders and say “so what, I could do with a bit of warmer weather anyway”. Experts have speculated that on average, the world’s temperature will increase by about 2ºC. Now this may not seem like much, but the impact this seemingly insignificant increase will have on global weather patterns and ecosystems will be potentially catastrophic.

With global weather patterns changing, we can expect a lot more severe weather. From hurricanes and cyclones through to forest and bush fires; this means a lot more damage to your homes and offices. Most of us will have insurance to pay for the cleaning and fixing up but the insurance companies won’t want to foot this bill for too long, so it will no doubt increase premiums quite substantially. They may even put levies up on storm damage, or add clauses which exclude severe weather from your policy. This is already happening in some parts of the world!

With bad weather comes terrible traffic. From short-term delays through to entire bridges and roads being washed away due to flooding or mudslides, our daily commute may take a lot longer than it does now. There are cases from around the world where people were stuck in days-long traffic jams due to extreme weather.

Our agriculture will also be affected beyond our current comprehension. Although there are some places benefitting from climate change, the majority of the planet is bracing itself for increased droughts and flooding, longer winters and drier summers. This means that we, as a species, are going to have to reconsider the way we farm and manage our land. In the not-too-distant future you may struggle to get the simplest of fruit and vegetables at your local greengrocer or supermarket due to poor growth in these varietals around the world. Can you imagine your salad without a couple of key ingredients?

The point here is not to make you have sleepless nights but merely to inform you that climate change will affect each and every one of us, even if we see a seemingly insignificant global increase of just 2ºC. It may result in an increased commute to work once or twice a year which some of us can handle, but for others, especially those living in poorer nations, the effects of climate change on their land, food and income streams will be devastating.

So play your part in reducing your impact on the planet. This may be a small change, such as taking public transport or cycling to and from the shops or work, or a larger one, such as limiting the number of flights you take annually. We all need to take responsibility for our actions and start paying more attention to how these actions negatively affect the planet.

Energy

Energy is back in the spotlight; it's right at the centre of political debate in the UK. Firstly, the Labour party announced that if it was elected in 2015, it would apply a price freeze to energy companies until a more effective regulatory and price- fixing system could be established. Unsurprisingly, energy companies pointed out that such a move would leave them vulnerable to raw material hikes with no prospect of recovering their margins; such risk would blight potential investment.

Now, following concern expressed about recent energy bill increases, former Prime Minister John Major has ‘bounced’ the Government to announce energy price reductions. Interestingly this has included cutting the so-called ‘green tariffs’ built into energy bills. This is an indication that green concerns are slipping down the order and is perhaps a clearer reflection of the political mood, namely one of scepticism over climate change and carbon taxes in a time of economic downturn. Obviously, it is neither comfortable nor desirable to find pensioners having to choose between heating and eating over the winter season; nonetheless, there is apparently a latent reluctance to invest in green energy or a low-carbon economy until it seems absolutely necessary. Nuclear power is back on the agenda as a way forward, even if some new power stations seem to be financed by China and France.

Part of the political reluctance must come from conflicting engineering ‘stories’. Most prominent is that early technologies such as on-shore wind farms are inefficient, even counter-productive, as they contain high amounts of embedded carbon. It is often the case that early –adopters are disadvantaged as technology advances, but that is the way.

There have been a lot of press stories recently; the Financial Times ran a full pull-out section with contributions arguing both ways. But public opinion still seems interested in sustainable options. As always, the devil is in the detail; some quick-fix solutions are dubious in the longer view. But the fundamental course we are on does need to be fairly settled. At the moment we are hesitating, with neither the alternative energy sector nor more traditional energy companies having a clear plan on what to do. This does cause difficulties for investment and planning. We have seen how the Australian government who was ‘brave’ and ‘out there’ in carbon reduction terms has now backtracked. The US is feeling energy secure, buoyed by new reserves and using fracking, OPEC has tightened its grip on prices and production and Russia is similarly increasing output and exploring (openly controversially) the deep arctic.

It seems apparent that energy needs and security are driving ever greater carbon production. What no government can afford is for the ‘lights to go out’. To see a shift in this route will require some real determination, international resolve and perhaps some new science.

David Jackman

IPCC

I found the most inspiring statement from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s 5th Assessment report, published on 1 October 2013 following its recent meeting in Copenhagen. The document came to the conclusion that ‘it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century’.

There you have it, as good as you will ever get from scientists (who have to wrap findings up in the language of statistical significance); a conclusion from 209 lead authors and 50 review editors from 39 countries and more than 600 contributing authors from 32 countries: climate change is a result of human activity. That leaves climate change doubters little room to manoeuvre.

And if there was any doubt left, the report concludes that:

‘Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased’. It does not matter that in the last 10 years temperature increases have stabilised; this is probably due to the redistribution of energy within the oceans and biosystems. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years. The long-term trend is clear.

Almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming. Some of the evidence is startlingly clear. For example: ‘Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover has continued to decrease in extent.’ Over the period 1901–2010, global mean sea levels rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m. Scientists allege that ‘CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times’.

What of the future? The headlines are not happy reading. Global surface temperatures are likely to rise by 1.5 – 2 °C by 2100. Heat will penetrate from the surface to the deep ocean and affect ocean circulation and many other aspects of the climate’s climatic patterns. Perhaps most significant is the prediction that temperatures will continue to rise for centuries to come, even if we stop carbon emissions right now.

One aspect also worth mentioning is that the effects of climate change will not affect everyone in the same way or to the same extent. For example, the contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase. This is likely to have a relatively harsher impact on fragile environments and render uninhabitable those areas where some of the least wealthy and least resilient communities live such as sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia. How will the world's communities react? The IPCC’s report is not designed to answer these sorts of questions, but in light of the evidence, the answers seem pretty self-explanatory.

David Jackman