|
 |
Monday, May 9, 2005 |
Lest it be lost at the bottom of that GE/Ecomagination post earlier this evening:
Speaking of the risks, opportunities and business logic of all this,
you can now listen
my recent speech on Risk,
Fiduciary Responsibility and the Laws of Nature in streaming
audio.)
Yes, yes, podcasts to come... just as soon as I find some spare time to
figure it all out and set it up. (Volunteer help welcome!)
10:39:29 PM 
|
|
[New Scientist]: The problems these little trucks are causing was rumbled when the
Chinese government commissioned a national energy inventory. It found a
black hole in the figures, with consumption of diesel far greater than
could be accounted for by the vehicles on China's roads alone....
The CRVs [China rural vehicles] are so inefficient that they produce as much pollution as all
the conventional vehicles in China and account for a quarter of its
diesel consumption. This makes them "a pretty significant part of
China's greenhouse gas emissions," [Dan] Sperling says....
CRVs could easily be made more
economical and less polluting by
tweaking the engine to improve combustion efficiency, Sperling argues.
'You would need just a little technology transfer to halve emissions
and to achieve a 50 per cent improvement in energy consumption.' With
changes like these, the CRV could become as important to China's
development as the Model T Ford was to America's, he says.
Important changes -- since China is poised to export the low cost CRVs
all over Asia. India is potential competitor; one can only hope they
don't race to the bottom by competing over cheaper, more polluting
vehicles.
8:54:52 PM
|
|
I just stumbled across The Enlibra Principles (on the US Environmental Protection Agency site):
The Enlibra Doctrine is an approach to environmental stewardship that
was co-authored by former Utah Governor and later EPA Administrator
Mike Leavitt and former Governor John Kitzhaber of Oregon. Enlibra,
from the Latin, means 'move toward balance.' Enlibra is based on the
dual concepts of balance and stewardship, and is built upon principles
of flexibility, innovation, partnership and collaboration. The
philosophy emphasizes collaboration instead of polarization, national
standards and neighborhood solutions, markets instead of mandates,
solutions that transcend political boundaries, and other common sense
ideas that will accelerate environmental progress.
National Standards, Neighborhood Solutions - Assign responsibilities at the right level Collaboration, Not Polarization - Use collaborative processes to break down barriers and find solutions
Reward Results, Not Programs - Move to a performance-based, instead of process-based, system
Science For Facts, Process for Priorities - Separate subjective choices from objective data gathering
Markets Before Mandates - Pursue economic incentives whenever appropriate Change a Heart, Change a Nation - Environmental education and understanding are crucial Recognition of Benefits and Costs - Make sure all decisions affecting infrastructure, development and environment are fully informed
Solutions Transcend Political Boundaries - Use appropriate geographic boundaries to resolve problems
There's a paragraph more (not excerpted here)
for each of those points, which make it all sound less platitudinous.
Does anyone know more about the history -- and the real impact -- of
these principles?
(Leavitt of course presided over much of the Bush
EPA's stealth deregulation program. Kitzhaber, OTOH, presided over some
of the country's most forward looking sustainability initiatives. I'm
always intrigued by strange bedfellows.)
8:21:50 PM
|
|
You may have seen the new General Electric slightly-too-cute
'Ecomagination' ads (elephant impersonating Gene Kelly's great
eponymous Singin'
in the Rain dance number). It turns out there's a real story
behond the story.
Friend & colleague Joel Makower (who had a
hand in the GE strategy)
recounts
some of that story at WorldChanging
this weekend. After describing the initiative -- which includes
'doubling its... annual revenues from ecomagination products and
services to at least $20 billion by 2010' -- Joel
comments:
Reasonable
people can disagree on this, but it[base ']s hard
to argue with Immelt's willingness to put his company out front of the
debate in a very visible way. GE's goal is not to promote one or two
energy technologies above the others, but to push them all
aggressively. Washington could learn a lot from that
strategy. GE
seems to be doing several other things right in making ecomagination
central to its strategy. In many ways, it represents a textbook
approach to what a major corporate sustainability effort can look like.
Here are six specific reasons I believe GE is headed in the right
direction: -
It's being viewed as a business opportunity....
- It's got
solid top-level commitment....
- It's both
aspirational and specific....
- They've
done their
homework....
-
It's being integrated with the brand.
- They're in
it for the long haul....
Time will tell, of course, how
effective this strategy
will be in helping GE gain business -- and shareholder -- value. If it
works, it may provide a model for how a company can strike out as an
environmental leader in today[base ']s cynical marketplace.
There'll be controversy, of course, including over GE's still unsettled
PCB contmination legacy. But this is a Big Deal, if it's real. I
suspect it is -- those 'six reasons' are a good market -- and the proof
will be in the results. Yes, it's a drop in the bucket, but it's a
helluva big drop -- and bottom line success at GE will have a more
powerful ripple effect on other companies than a tanker truck of
exhortation.
PS: Speaking of the risks, opportunities and business logic of all
this, you can now listen
my recent speech on Risk,
Fiduciary Responsibility and the Laws of Nature in streaming
audio.)
8:01:51 PM
|
|
© Copyright 2006 Gil Friend.
|
|
|
