Climate Legislation - How Important Is It?

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES Act), H.R. 2454 by a vote of 219 to 212. Anyone following the path of climate related legislation knows that this has been a clear uphill battle. The House vote of 219-212 indicates just how divided we are on this matter. The battle to follow in the Senate will prove equally hard fought; the outcome at this point is any one's guess. As this legislation debate on climate matters continues, a few questions come to mind and I present a couple here. I have some of my own ideas but welcome feedback from others as well.





First, do we really need legislation in the first place? One could argue that we've already reached a considerable tipping point. Not a day goes by that I don't see some sort of green related messaging. On the international level, many countries around the world are well down the slope of imposing caps on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and working with a variety of trading programs aimed at mitigating those emissions. Companies, large and small alike, across all verticals are pursing various sustainability programs and their numbers are increasing. The number of such firms publishing their sustainability reports to network based organizations such as Global Reporting Initiative are also increasing.





Based on these observations one might well conclude that we will do right by the environment because we're already doing so, others around the world will expect us to do so, and we're simply just "getting it" as something that needs to get done. I for one anticipate that these forces will continue to grow and accelerate, with or without legislation.





On the other hand, I believe there are strong reasons supporting the need for legislation to be properly crafted and implemented. The low hanging fruit and perhaps some of it just beyond will indeed be pursued without it. But the bigger challenges, particularly those pertaining to sectors of our economy that represent the most detrimental to our environment in terms of negative impacts, need mechanisms that will ease the path toward improved sustainability. Such mechanisms would need to include trading capabilities that could be obtained by large emitters to drive down their carbon footprints along with other efforts they may pursue. Similarly, incentives will need to be implemented to ensure desired progress can be made without crippling economic performance. Beyond these supporting arguments, legislation will likely get us to our desired objectives faster than we will otherwise as necessity will drive innovation and investment that accelerates the progress made.





Assuming this conclusion is accurate and legislation is considered to be a necessity, one needs to drill into the other side of the coin and ask: at what cost? I find this to be an interesting question. Clearly, the concerted debates surrounding this matter and the close votes suggest that there may indeed be a steep cost to be paid. Those opposed to climate legislation, at least in the form it is currently taking, point to tremendous job losses to other parts of the world as well as large per capita costs required to implement proposed legislation. They also question the actual impact such legislation will have on the planet's overall health.



I've seen cost estimates ranging from a few hundred dollars per person, per year, to those exceeding $4,000 per person. I've not as yet seen any specific numbers on job losses predicted by those opposed to this legislation. And yes, we are certainly not alone in this challenge; we may make a dent in the bigger problem but it won't be "solved" unless there is a concerted effort by all the major polluters, including China.



To better understand this raging debate it would be helpful indeed to see some hard numbers along with their underlying assumptions and calculations. It's simple to pluck numbers out of thin air and use them to argue a point; it's another matter to provide substantiation that at least affords us the opportunity to have a more meaningful discussion around the issues and options at hand. I welcome input along those lines so that we can have that more meaningful discussion. In the meantime, change out those light bulbs, turn off your PCs when not in use, and definitely continue sorting out those recyclables!

Tackling Sustainability Challenges – A Concerted Team Approach

Firms of all sizes are increasingly developing sustainability programs aimed at a broad spectrum of environmental impacts. These range from implementing fairly simple paper recycling programs to elaborate power management initiatives spanning multiple, dispersed physical plants and facilities. The motivations can vary from attaining cost savings that simultaneously lead to positive impacts on environmental emissions to interests in driving increased revenues by differentiating oneself from peers in a competitive market niche. Regardless of the motivations, determining what to pursue for what intended objective(s) is complicated by the many options available and the varying amount of investment and effort required to pursue those options. Success requires a comprehensive plan; one executed with a true team approach.

Briefly, a sustainability strategy needs to be aligned with and indeed contribute to the organization’s overall business plan. The connections between each and how one will positively impact the other is critical. Developing and empowering a diverse yet cohesive team to the challenges of the sustainability program is a critical success factor. Establishment of agreed to and measureable objectives help guide the team toward desired outcomes that can be monitored along the way.

This strategy needs to be guided by sound data on the most critical impacts targeted for mitigation. Without such data it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine how big a challenge one has, the type of remediation programs needed to pursue, the appropriate investment to make, or whether or not the desired objectives are attained. Once the appropriate metrics are agreed upon and sound baselines can be established, identification and implementation of the appropriate programs can commence. Periodic monitoring along the way can help ensure success and/or changes in approach as appropriate.

Among the many significant targets to be considered, corporate data centers in medium to large scale firms emerge as promising targets. Ideally, initiatives pursued in data centers will not only make significant contributions to sustainability goals and objectives but will also lead to improved efficiencies that strengthen business performance and agility. The ability to positively contribute to a multitude of corporate objectives, representing both business and sustainability goals, demands a concerted team approach. Otherwise it’s likely that investments will be made in areas that may yield some significant returns yet do not represent the most optimal options available.

Our experiences and observations at Global Green Consulting Group firmly support the need for a concerted team approach, one that includes the rigor that balances the objectives of business goals and objectives with sustainability targets in the most cost efficient manner. The absence of an effective team approach can very well lead to some impressive sustainability outcomes yet fall short of what is otherwise possible.