So who was it: the Chinese, intent on global domination? or the rich north, selfishly maintaining profligate lifestyles? or the impoverished south, making impossible demands? The line-up of potential villains is long. For companies, the need now is to get beyond the blame game and ask more fundamental questions. In this edition’s Speaking Out, Peter Truesdale gives his personal view about why Copenhagen failed. Despite the Stern report, the economic case for action has not yet been convincingly made in a way individuals can believe. Without that, it was and remains a near impossibility for politicians from 190 separate countries to agree anything difficult.
So should companies give up? The absence of a binding agreement means there is no certain path forward on which to base big or risky new investments. Even so, the case for continued action remains strong. Energy costs, renewable or otherwise, can only rise over next few decades. Other resources will be increasingly constrained and costly. Freshwater water supplies, already under pressure, will get more scarce as populations grow. In fact the failure at Copenhagen means the economic case for individual company action just got a whole lot stronger, as severe global warming impacts are more likely more quickly.
Growing the business and making profits will be harder and harder, unless you cut your water, waste and energy consumption dramatically. And guess what: cut these and your green house gas emissions will come down too. So here’s a suggestion. Let’s all stop talking about global warming and instead focus on fundamental business efficiencies.
And be optimistic, as readers of Briefing have to be almost by definition. You are the ones taking the actions we analyse here, doing the many small steps that make sense for your companies and taken together will add up to a big difference.
COMMENTS