Friday was day two of the Carbon Finance World 2007 seminar in Chicago (my observations on day one here). The majority of the conference's talks revolved around how companies can operate and improve in a world of climate change and carbon markets. There were fascinating talks from executives at energy companies, hedge funds, investment banks and even a couple major nonprofits (such as World Resources Institute), among many others. The theme that emerged, for me, was that there is ample opportunity for companies to position themselves to simultaneously do good and do well in the battle against climate change. In other words, moving to a carbon-free future should be a part of every company's strategy for both economic and environmental reasons, and there will be a huge payoff by doing so.
As I was watching the conference, I started thinking about my experiences with environmentalism and climate change activism. I think there are, broadly, two brands of people fighting climate change. The first group fights for energy conservation in all modes of life and believes that many of us should give up some of our luxury and "things" in order to reduce our footprint. This group is more commonly thought of as environmentalists, and has already had a great impact on how we live and treat the world around us. There is, however, a second brand of climate change activist: the kind speaking at, and attending, the Carbon Finance World conference. These are business leaders throughout the world who are making climate change and carbon mitigation one of their main corporate foci. One of the main differences between these activists and the first group is that the business leaders typically intend, as stated by Neal Dikeman, Partner at Jane Capital Partners, head of the Cleantech Blog, and the conference chairman, to "allow the consumer to 'get more', but with less environmental impact."
Andrew Ertel, CEO
Evolution Markets |
I recognize that not everyone has to come out on one side or the other. There are, in fact, many people working in both worlds. However, in my mind there aren't enough. What amazes me is that, in many cases, these two groups are hoping for a similar global outcome (the end of climate change), but at the same time remain at such odds with each other. In fact, they often seem to have little respect for each other. My friends who attended Burning Man and advocate energy conservation believe that, deep down, the business people only want to make money, and if this required hurting the environment rather than saving it, they would switch their tune. In contrast, my friends in management consulting and investment banking don't think the first group can have any real impact on global climate change.
It seems to me that both sides are losing out in this fight. Group one can't have as big an impact as they'd like if they don't include the business world in their fight. Group two, on the other hand, won't see changes spurred on a large scale without the environmental advocates in group one. We're losing efficiency and environmental impact while the infighting continues.
I don't have a solution to propose, except to point to situations that have shown a successful merging of the two worlds. For example, this year's TXU buyout came as a result of both worlds banding together for a common purpose. If you remember, the Texas energy company TXU had plans to build 11 new coal-fired power plants, but was purchased in a huge deal that included a number of environmental clauses, including reducing the number of coal plants to three. The deal, a major landmark for carbon reduction in the business world, would never have happened without the advocacy and support of Environmental Defense and National Resource Defense Council, two organizations respected by both worlds.
I think that both worlds of environmentalists are crucial in our battle against climate change. However, we would be much better off with more respect, cooperation, and collaboration between the worlds.
