In the last post I wrote about one of the most historic inter-governmental landmark decisions: At the ‘Biodiversity’ COP (COP15) 200 countries had agreed on 4 Goals and 23 Targets.
It goes without saying though that the interesting piece is the enforcement and implementation mechanisms of the mentioned agreement.
Hence, the focus of this article is: How exactly – if at all – will the goals and progress measures reached in December 2022 be enforced and tracked?
In time for Christmas, one of the most historic inter-governmental landmark decisions hit the headlines: The 'Biodiversity' COP (COP15) had actually achieved 'something'. 200 countries had agreed on 4 Goals and 23 Targets. Some of those are a bit more concrete than others, the headline goes roughly like this: “By 2030: Protect 30% of Earth’s lands, oceans, coastal areas, inland waters; Reduce by $500 billion annual harmful government subsidies; Cut food waste in half.” A closer look at precisely those 23 Targets and the specificity of the measures they contain.
This post is part of a series where I look at and into the true cost of certain goods and services. This time I’d like to look into the True Cost of all types Transport and Mobility: road, rail, aviation and water. The question therefore is: What are the total costs – the True Cost, i.e. including what is commonly called ‘externalities’ – of the different types of transport we use globally, both for passengers and for freight? Or if you prefer: how do different types of transport compare to each other when it comes to ‘collateral damage’?
Spoiler alert: It is really quite complex and rather diverse. And: public infrastructure investments and maintenance costs play a significant role in it.
This post is part of a series where I look at and into the true cost of certain goods and services. When in the previous post I looked at subsidies and the True Cost (associated with the True Price) for oil and gas, this time I’d like to look into what we know about the True Cost of Energy. Not just about fossil fuels, but indeed across the breadth of the energy spectrum.
The question therefore is: What are the total costs – the True Cost, i.e. including what is commonly called ‘externalities’ – of the
different types of energy we use globally?
Spoiler alert: It's very interesting - and also a bit suprising and counter-intuitive.
This is the first of a series that will look at and into true cost of certain goods and services. Cash subsidies thereby is one component, but certainly not the only one relevant one – indirect subsidies (e.g. in the form of environmental degradation or similar) need to be considered also. In this particular post, I’d like to focus on Oil & Gas subsidies, fossil fuels' True Cost, and what we know about these. What we already also learn: comparing apples to apples won't be easy.
True Cost calculations are only ever 'best available efforts', and much data remains missing or speculative at best. This is an issue we will encounter again also once we'll look into renewables, or indeed other kinds of industries outside of energy.
Measuring Biodiversity, in terms of baseline (status quo), progress, and deliverable targets, is not a simple thing. Collateral damages are a serious risk.At the same time though, some companies use outcomes of tools, which where never intended to deal at all with biodiversity, as proxy vehicles. This of course raises the question: Where are we with tools, programmes, and measurement systems for biodiversity? Hereafter a look across what I found to be having (some) teeth - also in comparison to the more popular climate change topic. These are: TNFD, SBTN, as well as two management tools that might be helpful, FFFBB and BIA.
Ask: If you are aware of others initatives 'with teeth' as of of writing (November 2021): do let me know and I’d be happy to list them also. Thank you!
While the relevance and criticality of COP26 is hammered home in the global media, the news reporting on COP15, as an effort possibly and reality more important than its Scottish climate conference peer, was rather subdued and unspectacular.
Let’s therefore get the most context-relevant questions straight out of the way: What is COP15? And why are there two COPs? And what has biodiversity to do with it?
Nearly a year ago I wrote about how the terminology we use abstracts from the fact that there are living and sentient human beings doing 'supply chain' work. Listening to a recent podcast it dawned on me that language can be just as useful to gloss over the seriousness and impact of scientific facts. And the resulting necessary actions. Climate Change vs Climate Emergency? Green energy vs renewable energy vs clean energy? Hence, some more thinking about the role of language.
It is quite astonishing: all the different contexts that the term ‘circularity’ or ‘circular economy’ is being used. They key point mostly is of course the waste reduction promises inherent in the term, and the subsequent lower dependency on finite resources.
But, in addition to reducing waste, carbon – or rather carbon footprint – is a key factor.
Unfortunately, the reality is sobering: taking fashion as example, at best between 3% and 6% of the industry's carbon footprint could be remedied that way.
And even worse: in order to realise the potential, three fundamental hurdles must be addressed. Some efforts are underway, of course, but a steep hill remains to climb.
The influence of decision bias is nothing new when scrutinising corporate governance. And yet: by and large businesses continue to fail to adjust their strategic decision-making processes to become more climate viable. At best they have just barely started on their journey. Why is that? As we look deeper into the corporate discourse on Climate Change, it becomes evident that one of the silent yet crucial culprits behind the climate change inertia lies in the cognitive biases at play in corporate decision making. What are those biases, what do they mean for boards in the context of strategic Climate Change decisions, and what can be done about it?
Financial accounting is rather ill suited as well as ill equipped to deal properly with a system that has finite natural resources. Else, why would it not record the environmental losses that come with e.g. extracting bauxite? And what about ESG? Well it turns out, ESG is just more of the same (growth) just in a shade of ‘green’. It is for a reason that the Global Materials Footprint has kept growing in alignment with the much coveted GDP growth. Despite all green efforts. ESG – investing in ‘greener’ tech and businesses – is definitely NOT ‘Sustainability’ as we need it.
Many of the most important resources our current civilisation depends on – all of them finite natural resources - form part of what historically would have been called ‘The Commons’. And yet, many of them are economically treated as 'income' and not the valuable and finite 'assets' they are. That again is the tragedy of the commons.
The supply chain.
It has been accepted a long-time ago: supply chain is a risk. Or better: a RISK in capital letters.
But also a word that sounds impersonal. Very akin to a factory being a cogwheel in a much larger clockwork. And while the definition of the term does list ‘people’, the focus is very clearly on the idea of it all being a neat system of seamless interactions.
The Manifesto of a Hummingbird: . 13 + 1 ways to make a stance for responsible business and leadership.
Doughnut Economics = An economic system that respects the planetary boundaries as well as the societal attributes of welfare. To create an economic system that works for the humans and the environment around us.
The quality of governance is one of the key ingredients why projects, companies, and even governments fail in their tasks. It is also the key ingredient to achieve results, buy-in and participation. It is for this very reason that good governance was seen early on as one of the fundamental success factors for the Social Labor Convergence Project (SLCP).
Definition of 'sustainable' by the London College of Fashion's Center for Sustainable Fashion.
Fashion that has been produced by people who work reasonable hours in safe conditions and are paid a living wage.
For most of us within the small professional circles of sustainable fashion, the terms ‘upcycling’, ‘recycling’, and ‘downcycling’ flow aeasy over our lips. However, while there are a few simple definitions of what these terms means – to follow hereafter – the concept demands a bit more attention when drilling down into material streams related to fibres, in particular
In this article a very brief run down of the main varieties of ‘better’ cotton that exist: Cotton made in Africa, Better Cotton Initiative, Organic and Fairtrade cotton, and 2 more generic good practise farming systems.