From Fossil to Future in Barcelona

At Technology@Work in Barcelona we took the opportunity to release the second of our think-papers this year about the role of ICT and climate change. From Fossil to Future with innovative ICT solutions

The main purpose is to move the discussion from incremental reduction within current sectors to a discussion about transformative changes with the help of ICT. Maybe there is hope that the message will spread. In FT and Wired there are however no signs, as far as I have seen, that this perspective is getting any attention.

Bangalore the future of IT- but not connected today

An intensive week in Bangalore with sustainable ICT as a theme. Meetings with leading ICT companies, both Indian and foreign, but also video conferences, Skype, Webex and phone meetings with the rest of the world. Still moving from one place to another in Bangalore is done in the traditional way... ;)

To discuss climate policy with a political party in Europe (Moderaterna in Sweden on the picture), to have a lecture for business students in the US, Skype with China about art for an upcoming book about Chinese Concepts, webex meeting with Sida in Sweden, phone meeting with Gartner, Booz Allen Hamilton, HP, Verizon, etc was not without problems.

The technology is obviously here in Bangalore, but the infrastructure needs improvements before it can become mainstream. The only thing I know that works like a clock are the really expensive equipment that Cisco and HP have. To travel as I do makes it important to stay connected, but when not even the mobile phone is working it is more than a little frustrating, especially as a lot of my work right not focus on the potential of ICT to reduce CO2 emissions, not the least in transportation…

As usual it is hard not to have very mixed feelings after a trip to India. On the one hand there are so many interesting initiatives happenings, and I hope to be able to talk about some of them in the near future... Infrastructure, ICT and innovation are the three i’s that I hope my future visits to Bangalore will focus on. On the other hand I read about initiative that will try to turn coal into oil as a way to reduce the dependence of oil, experience companies that want to do something, but seem more focused on PR than real results.

Over all I’m still positive and it is very good to see that the positive opportunities that collaboration between China and India can result in is beginning to be a mainstream issue. Two new book out on the Indian market are:

Chindia Rising - How China and India will Benefit your Business, by Jagdish N. Sheth

As always when a book is written from a Chinese and/or Indian perspective the need for innovation to ensure that people can be brought out of poverty without destroying the planet is a key issue:

“China and India have tremendous opportunity tremendous responsibility. Both nations appear committed to peaceful prosperity, and when the two most populous nations on earth opt for a postcolonial model of global cooperation and comity, the earth stands to benefit.

The quest for resources will test their resolve. Can they work together to acquire diminishing resource assets? Can they strike deals that benefit rather than exploit owner nations? Most important, can they use these those recourses wisely, conserve them where possible, and lead in the development of alternative energy resources? If they fail in this task, the world will pay a heavy price. If they succeed, Chindia’s rise will lift people everywhere.”

Another book, that unfortunately is not very good, is The Elephant and the Dragon. The only thing I think is better about this book compared with Sheth’s book is the cover.

The book is written by a journalist from Forbes magazine and might serve as a reminder how important it is to not only listen to western voices. The book is filled with sentences that make you wonder if the author is serious or ironic. Surly no one would seriously suggest that China, without any support would ban traditional cars and only allow ethanol cars… This is such a bizarre statement. I hope that it is meant to be ironic and make western readers think about their own unsustainable transportation system that China is now copying (with the help of western experts). If not it would show that the author have not thought about where that ethanol should come from (would be hard to feed people and have the whole of Chinas population drive around in ethanol cars), second you would expect someone writing for a US magazine in an old UK colony should think a little about what countries like the US is doing. But maybe most of all it is so interesting to compare the realization among authors like Sheth who, based on a concrete reality, writes that we need a new development path with authors like Meredith who, what seem based on short articles pulled together as a book, write a book that fail almost entirely to pull fragments together and present anything useful. To be fair the book could help people to become more curious about China and India, hopefully they will find other books then…

The China-India link is an interesting discussion that I look forward to follow the coming years. When we released the report “Indian companies in the 21^st Century” in 2006 and recommended a joint initiative between China and India people where still quite skeptical. When we arranged the “Sino-Indian axis for Business Sustainability” the interest was significant. Still it is not easy to create these links in practice, but I hope that we will see a number of interesting concrete initiatives in the near future.

Barroso in CeBIT – but they could not connect me from India

Barroso followed in the footsteps of Viviane Reding and her presentation at EBS (see earlier blog) when he spoke at CeBIT. It is great to see this high-level interest where ICT slowly is beginning to be seen as part of the core strategy ahead towards a low-carbon sustainable society. Hopefully people will see that things like CCS is marginal in comparison and that the focus should be on integrated system solutions that support innovation and a new generation of companies.

An "interesting" detail is that I was asked to participate at CeBIT to discuss sustainability and ICT. I asked if I could participate from India (where I am right now), but that was not possible. If one of the leading ICT events on the planet can not arrange a video link to discuss the sustainable use of ICT we still have a long way to go. Let's hope this is the last year that the organizers fail to provide the possibility to link India with Europe...

Below is the part of Barroso’s speech covering ICT and climate, the full speech is available here. (1/4 of the full speech was ICT and climate)

+++++++++++++++

José Manuel Durão Barroso
President of the European Commission
ICT Industry has a Major Role to Play in the European Economy of the 21st Century
CeBIT Trade Fair
Hannover, 3 March 2008

+++++++++++++++++++

I already briefly mentioned the climate and sustainability challenge, and here too, we want Europe to lead in addressing this challenge, not least through the use of ICT.

The energy and climate policy we are proposing will require efforts, but will imply huge opportunities too, for all sectors. European business, and the ICT sector in particular, will be key partners in the new environment that will emerge.

Just as ICT has contributed to welfare and growth, it also has a major role to play in greening the European economy, in improving energy efficiency and lowering emissions.

Europe must more than double the rate of improvement in energy efficiency, for example. There is tremendous untapped potential in using ICT for adding intelligence to components, products, equipment and services, and for addressing barriers and market failures.

First, ICT can substitute for physical products by using online services, moving business to the internet and adopting new ways of working, like video-conferencing.

Second, the ICT sector itself must clean up its own act. The carbon footprint of the ICT sector is small but growing. I believe the ICT industries are ready to set a good example, and I am encouraged by recent developments.

But the real gains will come from ICT as an enabler to improve energy efficiency across the economy. ICT matters for energy reduction, especially in transport and the energy intensive sectors.

In the energy generation, distribution and storage industry, overall potential savings of up to 40% are considered possible.

ICT’s ability to organize and innovate is a key factor. We see whole cities like Gothenburg in Sweden moving their local electricity grid towards a smart "Internet of Energy", with self-organizing online sensors and controls which monitor and optimize the energy use. Needless to say, these developments also need to be backed up by our regulation reforms in energy and telecom.

The Commission itself is exploring voluntary agreements with industry, and we are supporting research and large-scale pilot projects on energy efficient public buildings. And the new European Institute of Innovation and Technology will also be heavily involved in this area.

A Commission Communication on Energy Efficiency through ICTs is under way. It will spell out in more detail the messages I am giving here today.

Europe needs all stakeholders to sign up to the goal of better energy efficiency to achieve sustainable growth. With smart use of smart technologies, we can all be winners in the transition to an energy-efficient, sustainable knowledge based society.

So it is also your turn to seize these opportunities and to participate in innovation and research to tackle climate change.

The ICT sector is crucial to the huge forward-looking project we are embarking upon with our climate policy. This will be a driving force for many decades. It will open up horizons we cannot even imagine at this stage. I urge you to join us in this venture.

Under a Green Sky - but not here in Delhi

Spending time here in India, doing my best to support those who want to take transform a society still struggling to provide the basic needs for people, it is easy to feel caught between the urgent needs of today (and just continue in the footsteps of those who have better lives at the expense of the planet) and the needs of tomorrow (and feel that we have a lot in front of us).

What fascinates me is the great amount of energy being invested in denial and horror stories in the West, and so little in action. Here in India I have a similar feeling as in China. It is about result and legacy.

Still, I enjoy books that make you think about the historic context you are in, and the idea behind "under a green sky" is thought provoking. Have a look at this article in Wired, or buy the book, then act.

GlobalFOCUS one year - there is hope

If you looking for a reason to celebrate, take a look at www.globalfocus.net and think about what is possible to do in a year, starting from nothing... One year of work for real change. GlobalFOCUS message: Do not listen to what people say is possible, focus on what's necessary. Happy birthday!

Can ”Social footprints” and/or a ”Social Shadow Index” help guide decisions?

The lack of dynamic instruments that can help to measure products, companies and countries in terms of social impact inspired me to think about a measurement that can show what’s behind certain choices and what consequences over time these choices can have.

In the same way as I find the ecological footprint a good tool to make people think about the ecological consequences I think a “social footprint”/”Social Shadow” could do the same for social consequences.

I have started to write down my ideas about Social Footprint/ Social Shadow Index here, feed-back welcome. I will try to get the other ideas up on the web also, but it always take a bid longer than I plan to move things from word to html...

Vattenfall and Shell in the lead with empty Climate PR undermining necessary actions

Last year climate change moved from a fringe issue to mainstream. These days politicians and business leaders are falling over themselves to talk about the need for a resource efficient low carbon future. I wonder if this new found enthusiasm partly can be explained by the realization that a strong PR message combined with destructive actions not only is possible, but also brings companies to the centre stage of influence and allow them a voice in media.

Governments like the Swedish and German have invited Vattenfall and both have appointed the CEO as a climate advisor. The result is that a company that talks about action to reduce CO2 at the same time as they lead the lock-in of Europe in dependence on coal power is rewarded and put in a position where they influence government policy. This is dangerous as serious companies realize that the government is not interested in real actions that deliver results.

Vattenfall might actually be so bad that they would become number one if a “Hypocrisy index” was created were the distance between word and action could be measured. (this is not to say that Vattenfall lack good ideas, see earlier blog for example of how interesting things happen within Vattenfall).

Other companies are trying a different path. They are trying to turn the environmental rhetoric around and try to make destruction something innovative that we should be proud of. Shell is probably the leader in this field. After Brent Spar and the Ogoni Shell, together with BP, took the lead in ethical discussions and investment in sustainable energy production. I have no idea why, but now Shell seem to do everything they can to position themselves as leaders in destroying the planet and ensure that the infrastructure for the addiction to oil will be with us for decades to come.

So right now I would put the following as the worst/most dangerous PR climate campaigns:

1. Vattenfall: “Empty words just add carbon dioxide” Yes, agree. Especially if the words come from a CEO that have used tax payers money (Vattenfall was compensated when the government closed one nuclear power plant for Sydkraft, now E.ON. and gave them part in a plant from Vattenfall and gave Vattenfall compensation for this) and high energy prices to invest in dirty coal power. Vattenfall is now responsible for more CO2 emissions that Sweden as a whole, to be celebrated as a leader then is something that

2. Shell: “Difficult, Yes. Impossible, No” I guess this refers to how the PR people replied when they were asked if they could make people believe that oil sand was part of the sustainable energy future. That they run this ad in Scientific American is amazing, especially when they manage to have it in the same issue as “The Sea-Level Threat from Sliding Ice Sheets”. My optimistic side think that the people how picked the spot wanted Shell to wake up and realize that they cannot redefine the truth with simple PR.

3. Ford/Volvo: “Life is better lived together”
Yes, but it is impossible if a lifestyle and technology that will make the poor people and future generations suffer is promoted to expencive PR campaigns.

I would like to add a third company to the list as the launch for the new destructive car use a slogan based on an idea of caring for each other. Interesting enough the launch of this car was so out of sync with reality and what people want that the FT of Sweden (Dagens Industri) asked if Volvo understood what the market was asking for.

With an image like Volvo they help fuel cynicism and here is the kind of respond they get. If this is the customer they want Volvo will have a hard time explaining why they should exist in the 21^st Century.

European Business Summit – Agreement about the need for a revolution, but little action

Participating in the European Business Summit (EBS)over two days is an interesting experience, part inspiring visions, part sad PR attempts and part opportunities for very frank one-to-one conversations with interesting people.

The reason for my participation was a panel with the theme “ICT: solution for a low carbon economy?”. It was a good panel with the following participants:

Moderator: Martin Porter, Managing Director, The Centre
Viviane Reding, Commissioner for Information Society and Media, European Commission
Tim Cowen, Commercial Director and Legal Counsel, BT Global Services
Francesco Serafini, Senior Vice President, Managing Director, HP EMEA
Dr. Craig Barrett, Chairman of the Board, Intel
Håkan Eriksson, Senior Vice President, CTO, Ericsson
Dennis Pamlin, Global Policy Adviser, WWF

It was encouraging to hear Viviane Reding talk about the role of ICT at the panel and the day after Euroactive wrote:
“To tackle the problem, the commissioner announced a range of actions for ‘the coming months’. The EU executive will start with a document suggesting the way forward. Then there will be a stakeholders' forum, followed by a final recommendation by the European Commission. ’Everything [will be] in 2008,- pointed out Reding.”

I look forward to follow this process. It sounds very much like the WWF-ETNO roadmap from 2005. But if we could get started now we have only lost two years.

The others on the panel where strong supporters, Craig Bannet was the only one who did not seem to be 100% on the solution side, but instead slipped back into the energy use of the IT-equipment all the time (maybe he did not hear that the rest of the panel left that discussion behind)

THE BEGINNING
Looking at the rest of the event it is interesting to observe that the first panel included, but was not dominated by, Björn Lomborg. It was almost symbolic that he was part of the introduction as his role these days seem to be reduced to a clown/joker that is invited to be a voice for a world we have left behind.

His statements where either obvious things that no one disagree with (that we need to think carefully about the long term consequences of our actions, and that research is important, that we cannot solve the climate challenge by asking individuals to act as structural changes are needed, that other important challenges exist, etc) or just plain wrong (that it will be extremely expensive to save the climate, or that early action is unimportant). While he earlier discussed important issues like the risk of overestimating the risk of climate change (and other environmental threats) he seem to have nothing to say these days beside that we should not act, but instead focus on research (that it is not a matter of either or seem to more than he can grasp).

AND THE END
The final panel was dominated by Jeremy Rifkin, who talked about the need for a revolution, to make society smart, to move beyond incremental improvements, the need to focus on the three big areas of climate (Buildings, meat and transport). Jeremy have said these things for years, so the surprise is not that he says this, but that he is allowed to end the European Business Summit, and even more surprising the strong support he got from other in the panel. I hope they all read our material from Davos that is exactly about this (5 meg and in a difficult format to read as it is from A4 to A2)...

The biggest surprise for me was probably Gunter Verheugen, hardly known for his leadership in sustainability. He was talking about the need for market regulation in order to ensure that new technologies can enter into the market. The feed-in tariffs that gave birth of the Wind industry in Germany was all of a sudden almost his personal invention. Others on the panel where equally radical. Mark Spelman, Global Head of Strategy, Accenture, talked about the need to get sustainability and climate in as performance management targets on board levels in companies, that innovation must be supported and venture capital increased. Bernard Wientjes, from Belgium was probably one of the more conservative on the panel but was still presenting ideas about green houses that are net producers of electricity.

I should also mention Jean-Philippe from Microsoft who was on the same panel as Lomborg and probably the one on that panel with the most coherent message. From innovations to smart homes, he included much of what Jeremy talked about in the final panel. But there was one big thing missing (not only from him but everyone, including Jeremy): NUMBERS. There were very few concrete numbers about the CO2 reductions that different options will result in and very few, if any, concrete numbers regarding …

So in short the conference started with the historic way of looking at climate change as a problem, and ended with the perspective that it is a driver that can deliver a positive revolution.

NEXT YEAR
I would not mind if the theme next year could be action, where the conference start with the most innovative solutions today and end with the most promising for 2010… Less talk and more action…

Narrative for a better future – art as inspiration

Spent last evening at ”Elverket”, a theater for new Swedish and European productions, discussing climate change and global resource issues. (interesting that a place that is meant for new ideas exclude pretty much the whole world).

It is fascinating/worrying that so few plays are dealing with what is seen as most experts as one of the biggest challenges of our time. It is hardly because the climate issue/the state of the environment is too depressing (just look at Shakespeare...), so why? Will we be able to change our destructive relation to nature (and each other) if the narratives are so complex that the “cultural discourse“ can not incorporate it?

Since Aniara (1956) I don’t think Sweden has been able to produce anything interesting on the theme. Maybe it is time now more than 50 years later for a new generation to engage in discussions that are beyond the direct human interactions?

Supporting a low carbon development in China - the role of CCICED

Over the weekend I participated in the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED) Low-carbon Task Force Scoping Meeting. Over two days we discussed how a roadmap for a low carbon development could look like.

Some key areas that I think would be worth considering are:

1. Balance between incremental and transformative change in key sectors (most of the work now focus on low-hanging fruits that can be delivered by incremental improvements. These are important, but not enough if we are to reach the deep reductions needed, then transformative change with new innovative way of providing the services are needed)

2. How China can move up the value chain in a low carbon way (ensuring that a low carbon economy is part of the overall economic development, instead of creating a high-carbon lock-in where CO2 reductions are applied ad-hoc) This would mean that China will approach a low carbon development very different from OECD countries that still try to reduce CO2 emissions in an ad-hoc way in a system that promote a high-carbon development.

3. Low carbon export from China (how can China support a world with cost effective low carbon solutions).

4. Accelerating well-off low carbon lifestyles (it is easy to forget that about a billion people in China still have a low carbon life style due to poverty. How people can have a well-off life combined with small carbon emissions is the key challenge)

The case of Baoding in China could be used as one case study (of many) for all of the above.

Germany as a leader towards a high-tech low carbon society?

Germany will lose its no. 1 position as the world’s export nation to China this year. 2008 is also the year when, for the first time in human history, more people will live in urban areas than rural. It is time for some re-thinking.

At a conference in Berlin today arranged by BITKOM the theme was climate change and resource efficiency. Instead of the usual focus on their own products the focus (for most of the time) was new services. Germany could play an important role in the shift from a “problem” to an “opportunity” perspective when it comes to climate change and business. BITKOM could play a key role in this. I know I’m an optimist, but I think it would be easy to get things going in Germany.

Hopefully CEBIT could follow the example of BITKOM and also focus on the services that the ICT sector can provide (not only the products)… If all goes well I might be there virtually (as I will be in India at the time for CEBIT).

Still working on a pledge that I will ask conference organizers to sign in order for me to go there. The pledge would be to follow-up and measure concrete progress after events. I think events like this one by BITKOM in Berlin is ready for this...

Trade and Climate with UNEP and others

Just spent two interesting days in Geneva (day 1 and day 2) where the links between trade and climate was discussed. Too much of the discussion focused on formal discussions and those from WTO defending the current trade system. Surprisingly little time was spent discussion what we need to do in order to deliver the necessary emission reductions.

Good to see that Benjamin Simmons is the lead on the trade/climate link at UNEP and that Ulrich Hoffman from UNCTAD is working hard to ensure that focus is on real results. Few if any people from China and India at the meeting though. So 30% of the global population and economies with a key role to play in the climate and trade was not represented, even if I did my best to bring an “emerging economy agenda” to the meeting.

The five areas of work that I presented was:

1. EGS: Developing and implementing a project based approach (tech trans/IPR/innovation)

2. Embedded CO2 in imported products: Turning an excuse for protectionism to an opportunity for innovative reform.

3. Dynamic effects of export: Exploring ways to estimate indirect and systemic effects of different products (outward investment)

4. Labels for sustainability (not reduced problems): Work with key label schemes to move from a product based approach to a service based approach

5. Supporting Sustainable export from China: Joint project with MOFCOM in China to explore support for sustainable trade

That the link between trade and climate is starting to reach mainstream discussions is very welcomed and hopefully we will see intensified discussions