March 27, 2011 Leave a comment
February 18, 2011 3 Comments
I had a great week. As the sun is back in Barcelona today, and the week-end is so close, there are plenty of explanations behind my good mood. One of those explanations is definitely my lunch with Guy Bigwood, MCI Sustainability Director on Tuesday. Although my favourite soccer team has had a tough time on Wednesday, I had a fantastic evening with my friends on Thursday. Then, this morning, I read two very interesting articles that I’d like to share with you:
“That’s the question experts sought to answer at The Economist’s Intelligent Infrastructure conference held at Pace University, where principals of major architecture firms gathered to define green building and how it relates to their own urban designs.”
In the article, some of the architects share their vision of how we can build a more sustainable planet through green architecture. Among many great contributions, I particularly liked Llewelyn Davies Yeang chairman Ken Yeang’s idea that true green building is “a seamless integration of four eco-infrastructures”:
I like this approach. It also reminds me how important it is to choose, not only the colours, but more importantly, the words carefully. Specially when talking about sustainability.
This aspect is particularly clear in the other article that I wanted to share:
Written by Sally Uren, a “Deputy person @forum4thefuture. On a mission to create a sustainable future” as mentioned on her Twitter account, this brilliant article gives very smart pieces of advice to sustainability practitioners. Among them, Sally mentions the importance of “Using the right language.” She writes:
“Tailor your language to make the case as compelling as possible – use the language of business. So it’s ecosystem asset, not rainforest; it’s supply chain security, not running low on resources, for example.”
I couldn’t agree more. Using the language of business and, even more importantly, adapting your vocabulary and style to the personality of your interlocutor is fundamental, specially when presenting sustainability to political and rational decision-makers, as described by Sally in her post. Those two types of personality styles are more likely to be found in a Board room than the emotional one. The ideal situation would be to have a good balance of those three styles in a Board room, individually or as a team. That’s why diversity is so important as discussed in a previous post.
Well, in case you have to present some day a sustainability project in a Board room full of “emotional decision-makers” I can recommend the following video sent by my friend Gaelle, a brilliant manager at SAP. She has the right balance between emotional, rational and political decision-making styles, and she’s passionate about sustainability.
Enjoy and have a wonderful (green or multicoloured) week-end!
February 4, 2011 Leave a comment
Today, February 4th, European Union leaders are holding their first ever energy summit. Although the policy agenda looks likely to be overshadowed by pressing issues such as Egypt and the eurozone debt crisis, Europe must significantly enhance its climate action, without any delay, to stay on track toward meeting the goals mandated by law under the EU Climate and Energy Package of 2008.
In March 2007 the EU’s leaders endorsed an integrated approach to climate and energy policy that aimed to combat climate change and increase the EU’s energy security while strengthening its competitiveness. They committed Europe to transforming itself into a highly energy-efficient, low-carbon economy.
To kick-start this process, the EU Heads of State and Government set a series of demanding climate and energy targets to be met by 2020, known as the “20-20-20” targets:
- A reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions of at least 20% below 1990 levels
- 20% of EU energy consumption to come from renewable resources
- A 20% reduction in primary energy use compared with projected levels, to be achieved by improving energy efficiency.
In January 2008 the European Commission proposed binding legislation to implement the 20-20-20 targets. This ‘climate and energy package’ was agreed by the European Parliament and Council in December 2008 and became law in June 2009.
In May 2010, despite the actions of certain companies and strong internal opposition within the European Commission itself, arguing that the conditions had not yet been met, a detailed EU analysis showed that, due to the economic changes of the last two years, achieving a 30% target was now almost as inexpensive as achieving a 20% target was estimated to be in 2008“
The additional question is if Europe can meet its long-term climate target of 80 to 95% emissions reductions by 2050? (from 1990 levels).
Ahead of this week’s meeting , during the presentation of an independent study by Öko-Institut that sets out a detailed energy scenario for Europe up to 2050, the Greens/EFA energy spokesperson Claude Turmes urged the EU leaders to “set out a course to ensure the EU becomes an energy leader and not an energy loser”.
Greens/EFA co-president Rebecca Harms added:
“Further delaying decisive action on energy efficiency and renewables will heighten the risk that Europe will lose out to emerging economies like China in the growing green tech sector. We also need to move swiftly to reduce our damaging dependence on energy imports, which leads to the transfer of € billions to oil, gas and nuclear exporting countries. Investing in energy efficiency, home grown renewable energy and energy infrastructure would not only ensure Europe remains a leader in this emerging market and act as a crucial source of employment creation, it would also save Europe €130 billion in 2020, €260 billion in 2030 and €455 billion in 2050. We simply cannot afford to take another path.”
According to Jason Anderson, spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund:
“It is essential for Europe to reduce our dependence on expensive, polluting, insecure energy sources.”
Clear priorities mus be set to ensure immediate action. Existing priorities should also be revisited. The Iter nuclear fusion reactor project for example, which European financing rescue plan has been rejected last December by the European Parliament. This project, viewed by its defender as the future of clean energy, has been strongly opposed by Greenpeace International and other ecologist organizations in Europe and particularly in France, were the reactor is being built. According to Greenpeace’s Jan Vande Putte, “Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy”. “Instead, they should invest in renewable energy which is abundantly available, not in 2080 but today.”