Launch of the Sydney Cleantech Network

The Launch of the Sydney Cleantech Network will be held on Tuesday 22 September 2009 from 5:30pm until 7:00pm at the offices of KPMG at Level 15, 10 Shelley Street, Sydney (entry also via 7 Sussex St)

The evening will include:
- the formal launch and a presentation on the progress of the cleantech sector in NSW by the Hon Carmel Tebbutt, NSW Deputy Premier and Minister for Climate Change and the Environment.
- two minute pitches from companies seeking finance or partners

Further information is available at the Sydney Cleantech Network group on Linked-in at http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1928638&trk=hb_side_g

To be added to the distribution list for future events please email scn@auscleantech.com.au

Will Non-energy Cleantech be Left Behind?

The Renewable Energy Target (RET) legislation has been passed by the Australian legislature but the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) was defeated. What impact will this have on the cleantech sector, both in the short and longer terms?
Let’s start with the longer term and consider the prospects for cleantech companies in, say, five years time. This outcome is reliant on the key drivers behind the adoption of cleantech. In my view there are four unique and significant drivers behind the global move towards clean technologies – and only one of those relies on regulatory measures.
Firstly, cleantech solutions are being integrated into many real assets that provide core services, such as power, water, waste and recycling over the long term. This ensures that any over-exuberance in investments, comparable to the IT bubble of the early 2000s, has a lower bound and tangible level.
Secondly, the demand for these core services of energy, water and resources is growing due to both population growth and increasing wealth and its consequent improved standard of living.
Thirdly, as the world continues to use and deplete its natural resources there is increasing pressure on communities to act sustainably. Not only is the demand increasing but the supply of resources is decreasing, so it is essential to use more innovative technology to improve efficiency and reduce waste.
Finally, and certainly not most significantly, there is the recognition of climate change and the consequent regulatory regimes, such as the RET and the CPRS. This is a separate driver from those above and, whilst it will result in additional growth in some cleantech sub-sectors, it does not underpin the cleantech sector as a whole. As a result, the longer term growth of cleantech is assured and will be unstoppable.
So whether the RET and/or the CPRS, and their equivalents in other countries, are passed now, next year or the year after will have little impact on the long term growth of the sector. The long term winners will be those technologies that provide required solutions at the lowest costs. There may be some minor technology variations if the early stage subsidies are not provided, causing some of the individual technologies to fall in the valley of death. In general however, the sectors that could be winners will still be winners and the ‘petty politics’ of 2009 will become a mere detail in a few autobiographies of retiring and elderly ex-ministers.
The short term may not have any importance in the overall scheme of things, but it clearly has a huge and current impact on individuals, companies and investors. Individuals have reputations at stake, companies are trying to keep their shareholders happy and the investors are seeking pots of gold. The short term impact of the ‘petty politics’ is therefore immense.
A quick look at which of the sub-sectors of the Australian Cleantech Index have performed well in the last six months demonstrates the correlation between policy and investment returns. The ACT Solar Index has increase by 119% in the 6 months since 31 January, driven entirely by the increased demand for rooftop solar photovoltaic panels resulting from policy decisions. For instance, investors with $1,000 invested in Quantum Energy on 31 January could have cashed in $3,750 if they had sold out six months later.
The RET will drive a massive investment in renewable energy, with most pundits backing wind to be by far the biggest winner. There might be an additional 10,000MW of wind constructed over the next 5-6 years with a capital expenditure of over A$20 billion. Some estimates double this level of installed capacity. The ACT Wind Index and the companies investing in these assets will surely reflect this growth. Some solar, wave and geothermal projects and companies may also thrive, although the growth is certainly less certain.
A valid question is whether this will exhaust the investment appetite for cleantech leaving nothing for all the other sub-sectors. Will sub-sectors such as water, waste, vehicle technologies, energy efficiency and energy storage stagnate whilst their cleantech cousins in clean energy boom?
Will the delay and weakness of what may become the CPRS mean that Australia’s non-energy related clean technologies will remain on the shelf?
Looking back at the fundamental drivers of cleantech, the answer is clearly ‘no’. The other sub-sectors may not accelerate as fast in the short term and maybe the investment returns will not be so strong. However, the demand for increased resource efficiency, reduced waste and improved environmental performance will ensure that technologies across the cleantech spectrum will succeed even in the short term. We may go through a different ‘sliding door’ with respect to the uptake schedule and the exact technology mix and this may have profound impacts on individual companies and investments. From a sector level, however, the industry growth will continue and innovation and adoption will be widespread for all industries.
Cleantech is not reliant on regulatory regimes. Furthermore, for the technologies that improve efficiencies, reduce waste and consequently increase customer profits, investment will always be available.
Politics may influence the short term behaviours, but the long term drivers for cleantech adoption are far bigger than mere national politics.

This article was originally published on Environmental Management News in August 2009.

Opportunities Beyond Carbon: Looking Forward to a Sustainable World

The book Opportunities Beyond Carbon: Looking Forward to a Sustainable World was launched in June at the Adelaide ‘Economy of the Future’ seminar. The book is published by Melbourne University Press.

The Sydney book launch seminar was held on Friday 10 July at the EBA’s offices in Pott’s Point. The Melbourne book launch seminar was held on Friday 17 July at Investec’s offices on Collins Street.

‘Verily I say unto you: this is a new New Testament, containing hope of a planetary resurrection … Read this book. Immediately. This book should be set to music and sung aloud by all policy makers.’
Phillip Adams, broadcaster, columnist.

The book aims to recast the debate on climate change from one of fear and problems to one of hope and opportunity. It contains a collection of essays from key politicians, investors, business people, activists and academics on how to make the most of the current predicament. The authors include the Hon Greg Hunt MP, the environment spokesperson for the Federal Opposition, Professor Sir David King of the University of Oxford, Bill Mckibben, the renowned American author, and Tenke Zoltani who works with Lord Nicholas Stern in London.

This fresh, lucid and practical optimism for the future offers a foundation for an entirely new and proactive attitude to climate change.

Opportunities Beyond Carbon presents climate change as potentially the ‘best crisis we ever had’. It maps the many opportunities for communities large and small, local and international, making the transition to a low carbon economy.

At the Adelaide launch, the book’s editor, John O’Brien said that ‘Media stories on climate change either focus on the dire consequences or on the ‘silver bullet’ scientific solutions. The community views the first as a reason not to get involved as the problem is too big and too remote in time and place. The second type of story also provides a reason not to get involved by telling themselves that “those clever scientist will sort it out for us!”’

‘By telling positive stories about beneficial changes made because of climate change, it will be possible to engage all levels of community and change the focus from one of fear to one of opportunity.’

‘The future visions provided in this book give cause for hope, optimism and celebration.’

The seminars feature some of the authors and provide insights into the science and regulatory status, the opportunities and solutions and how to secure the finance needed to pay for the transition.

Endorsements for the book include the following:

Ever since a former Astronomer Royal announced that “space travel is impossible” we have found ways to postpone the future. But there are much better things to do with carbon than setting it alight. This terrific book explores some of the most exciting alternatives—for a future replete with energy, sustainability and choice. Never before have the real possibilities been so interesting.
Robyn Williams, host of The Science Show, ABC Radio

By focussing on the opportunities rather than the challenges of climate change, this book provides an excellent platform to drive changes with tangible benefits for all. The breadth of opportunities covered gives hope that this will indeed be the ‘best crisis we ever had’.
Mark Lynas, author of Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet.

The book can be purchased online from Melbourne University Press at www.mup.com.au/page/118

Green Benefits for all Business

Many businesses might assume that sustainability, emissions and cleantech are issues for only big corporates and that they do not have time to worry about these ‘nice-to-haves’. Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) are usually so focussed on ensuring sales, keeping costs down and chasing cash flows that, regardless of personal persuasions, keeping the company afloat rates a long way above saving the environment.
These views are exasperated by two types of media coverage of climate change: the no-hope horror stories inciting paralysing terror; and the ‘happy ever after thanks to science’ approach offering an effortless solution.
The continual coverage of melting ice sheets, sea level rises, droughts, severe storms and crop failures is essential in providing a context for debate on climate change. However, the tone is often so cataclysmic, so intent on relishing predictions of upcoming disasters, that many people are left with the defeatist attitude ‘We have passed the tipping point rendering all action pointless’.
Stories of wonderful ‘silver bullet’ inventions that will ‘solve’ the climate change problem are equally as damaging. Tales of genetically modified carbon-munching trees, or dumping iron filings into the ocean allow the listeners to relax and dismiss cautionary news. To those accepting such stories, the problem appears insignificant in the face of man’s scientific innovation.
However, if done well, ‘green’ activities can save money and increase sales for all companies. It does not need to be an extra task needing more management time but rather an excuse to review the business plan and position the company ahead of its competitors and ready for future growth.
There are many people offering to do ‘emissions audits’ and to provide carbon offsets, and these have their place. Much greater value can be secured however by a business assessing its strategies before adopting the quick fix (and extra costs) of carbon offsets. There are two key aspects of a business, whether it produces goods or services, that will drive the greatest increase in the bottom line.
Firstly, how can processes be changed to reduce waste and therefore increase efficiency? The waste may be measured in terms of input materials, consumables, utilities (power and water) and even human resources. The solutions might involve installing new equipment, streamlining approvals processes or recycling waste back into the start of the process. For all the inputs and outputs of a business, whatever it may produce, a balance can be drawn up to show what creates value and what creates waste. Waste streams can then either be reduced or beneficially used.
Waste is just a resource to which insufficient imagination has been applied. Once the waste streams are understood then some imagination and innovation can be applied to utilise and create value from some of these resources. These solutions often need external technical and business process advice to overcome the problem of managers ‘not knowing what they don’t know’.
Secondly, business must look outwards to see what changes are occurring to their business environment. Most importantly, an understanding of how its clients’ needs are changing. Large corporates are starting to look at the supply chain emissions of multiple inputs, Governments want to be seen to be procuring sustainably, hotels are assessing the environmental footprint of their menus and householders are increasingly buying ‘green’. If a company does not anticipate these changes, it will lose market share. If it continues to ignore them, it will go broke. By moving early, however, it is possible to gain customers and move ahead of competitors.
Over time, sustainability and climate change will change every aspect of how our communities work. This change presents huge opportunities for those willing to grab them. Opportunities to both improve their internal processes and to anticipate the changing needs of their customers. Those that do not evolve and are focussed only on the problems will find themselves left well behind. Which will you choose to be?

Open Letter to Senator Fielding

13 July 2009

Dear Senator

As you would know, the news today widely reported that you have been unable to find coherent answers to your reasonable queries on climate change and have raised this issue with your fellow parliamentarians.

I am by no means a climate scientist, but I have heard some reasonably compelling answers to the points that you have raised. In Australia, Professor Barry Brook at the University of Adelaide is able to provide detailed explanations that may help arrest your concerns. I will be seeing Barry tomorrow and will let him know that you may be in contact.

Through contacts in the US and in Europe, I can also connect you with other leading global climate scientists who will be able to provide you with as much detail as you wish to see. There is of course no absolutes, no absolute proof – science as you know is merely a question of fitting the most likely cause with the most obvious consequence. The evidence appears however to be reasonably conclusive on many of the key points.

I would agree with you that science is not perfect. This is continually demonstrated in scientific fields such as medicine, but we continue to take treatments even when the diagnosis is not perfect. Like the human body, there is undoubtedly far more to learn and far greater understanding of our climate to be gained.

Some might consider the fact that the vast majority of global climate scientists agree in overview (if not in detail) to be merely a conspiracy of self-reinforcement amongst all those ‘white coats’. Others might consider that in fact the weight of probability appears to be strongly in favour of anthropogenic climate change caused by emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

In the unlikely event that all the leading scientists have got it wrong, there is an interesting consideration that I first heard raised by Professor Stephen Schneider of Stanford University. He asked a public meeting in Adelaide Town Hall how many in the audience had house insurance, to which many hands were raised. He then asked how many people have had their house burn down, to which one poor chap at the back raised his hand. To many who have thought seriously about the issue, the insurance of reducing carbon emissions appears to be a sensible precaution just in case the world’s climate scientists happen to be correct.

If you are right, then I will happily applaud you once the scientists are standing with you. That you may be wrong and, through your actions, may even manage to turn global opinion against the climate science community, worries me immensely. I wish to invest in climate insurance for my family.

If there is a hint of uncertainty, then taking the safe route through backing the majority of climate scientists appears to be the only rationale course of action.

Please let me know if you would like to be introduced to any particular climate scientists – I would be more than happy to facilitate this through my contacts.

I apologise for making this an open letter with the media, but it is an issue that is too important to remain in private.

Best regards
John

The Beauty of Pessimism

I am jealous of pessimists. Life must be so easy when all you can only ever see is the downsides and the reasons why things should not be changed.

I am even more jealous of pessimists who have access to expensive PR firms and lobbyists, who can make sure that a whole country is influenced by their psyche. This week has provided some fine demonstrations of pessimism at work. The federal Government backed down on its proposed CPRS plan under pressure from all sides to help shore up its poll ratings in order not to be remembered as a ‘oncer’ government (one that only lasted a single term). The Government viewed the option of being bold and courageous with pessimism, as it considered whether the voters would come with it. Sadly, it felt like it had more to do with getting ‘one over on Malcolm’ rather than serious policy formulation.

The industry commentators on these changes provided further examples: Mitch Hooke from the Minerals Council of Australia claimed the scheme’s delay ‘amounts to little more than a temporary stay of execution for thousands of mining jobs…’; Charles Burke from the National Farmers’ Federation explained how beef farmers would go broke; and the coal industry are still furious that they only get $750m.

Pessimism works well in driving two outcomes. Firstly it is great for increasing the fear of change – if you only see the negatives then why risk moving forward. Secondly, it encourages incrementalism – like walking down a rocky path on a moonless night, it is OK to shuffle forward slowly but far too risky to take a big step or maybe even a leap. So people continue to see the world through the same lens and just tinker at the margins.

The pessimists are right in that pricing carbon will cause jobs losses in emissions intensive industries. Given the whole point is to reduce consumption of emissions intensive products, job losses will demonstrate the scheme’s success. Viewed in isolation, this is a terrible outcome. Pessimists are good at looking at things in silos. Looking back over the last 30 years, Australia has lost and exported almost all of its jobs as manufacturing shut down and globalisation took hold. Many have deplored this loss.

Pessimists are also right in that some emissions intensive investment may, in the short term, go to countries less advanced on carbon pricing. This ‘carbon leakage’ will not result in increased emissions, as all new plants will be built with an eye on future global carbon schemes, but it may result in job losses here and gains elsewhere.

Sadly I am not a pessimist. I see that the export of Australian manufacturing jobs has helped the Australian workforce increase its skills and increase the country’s financial wealth. I see emissions intensive industries moving offshore as an opportunity for Australia to start focussing on the industries of the future – the cleantech industries – and thereby loosening the shackles to those industries that will inevitably go into decline as carbon is further restricted. I see an opportunity for unions to strongly advocate for the development of the new industries and their associated cleantech skills to secure future employment for their members, rather than seeking to protect jobs in twentieth century industries.

There are, of course, serious transition issues in all of this and there will be difficulties on a local level. Stewart Taggart of Desertec-Australia comments on this transition by stating that as long as governments focus on looking after workers rather than the shareholders, this will be manageable.

Dr Sam Wells from the University of Adelaide speaks brilliantly of how paradigm changes only occur when the change is driven by the attraction to something better rather than moving away from something bad. Through cleantech, Australia will create green jobs, will create more connected communities and in the process increase both wealth and even the happiness of its people. The paradigm shift requires a change of perspective to the positives of a cleantech future rather than all the negatives of the changes to existing industries.

Luckily, the growth of cleantech is not reliant on there being a strong carbon price. Renewable energies will be driven the Renewable Energy Target and other cleantech sub-sectors will be driven by resource depletion, population growth and increasing wealth and life quality expectations. That the CPRS will be weak is irrelevant to cleantech as it will grow and prosper regardless.

Optimists can see a brighter future, but then have the significant challenges of convincing the wider community that the short term pain is worthwhile and then delivering on the vision.

Life would be easy as a pessimist!

Securing Cleantech Benefits for Australia

Australia has the chance to secure its long term economic security from taking a leading role in cleantech. What’s more the current financial downturn presents the perfect opportunity to make a step change to sustainable industries, replacing those emissions-intensive industries that will inevitably decline, and underwriting Australia’s GDP growth for decades. It will however take some bold and confident steps to be taken by Government and companies to fully secure these benefits.

Australia has a choice on whether it wishes to be a future technology taker or to become a global leader in clean technologies. There are many jurisdictions around the world that are seeking to establish themselves as centres of excellence for cleantech. In North America, regions such as Ontario, the North–Western States and Los Angeles have all been pushing hard to create industries of the future. In our region, the Singaporean Government have placed cleantech high on its priority list of industries for which it wants to become the ‘gateway to Asia’. Only this week, the Florida State Government issued a document titled Florida: Building a Foundation for Excellence in Clean Energy in which it considered the State’s strengths in solar, biomass, fuel cells and ocean currents and its strategy to become a global leader in each.

Australia clearly has world class natural resources in solar, wind, wave and geothermal energy. Through its lack of water, it has also been forced to innovate with some clever water management and efficiency technologies. So the question is then how does the country secure the greatest benefits from these natural advantages.

Government’s clearly have a part to play in this through targeted grants and other measures such as renewable energy targets (RET). In Australia, the RET will underwrite the roll out of mature wind technologies developed elsewhere, the Clean Energy Program (CEP) will hopefully drive some Australian innovation in solar and wave technologies and the Geothermal Drilling Program may further Australia’s leading position there. Despite protestations to the contrary, Governments alone will not do enough to guarantee success in any of these fields regardless of the quantum of grant money.

To create the best chance of success requires entrepreneurs and technology developers to collaborate and build companies and solutions that are ready to be sold to the world.

One technique that is being undertaken by a number of companies is to consolidate technology offerings. By pooling a number of similar development technologies, the chances of success for all involved are greatly improved. As part of a consortium, the individual technology developers can leverage off the greater scale to market their technology globally; investors have the opportunity to invest in a diverse portfolio of technologies rather than just backing a single product; and Australia benefits by seeing more of its technology commercialised at home and thereby builds a sustainable future for its communities.
Governments at all levels can assist in this process by providing hubs for this collaboration to occur as well as grants to help things progress, but it is those with the technologies that have the greatest influence on the success of this strategy. By choosing to become part of a group rather than being a stand-alone company changes the route to international commercialisation. Technologies are no longer the ‘babies’ of their inventors but rather become part of wider offering. Inventors must give up the need for total control and become part of a team – a team that has a greatly increased chance of success.

Two companies that I am involved with that are pursuing this strategy are GPAus and CleanFutures. GPAus is building a suite of emerging wind technologies that it can then take to global wind turbine manufacturers to enable them to accelerate their progression towards Gen-2 wind turbines. CleanFutures is assembling diverse nanotechnology-enabled environmental solutions that can be backed and commercialised as a portfolio.

Australia can be a technology exporter of future high value products that will create an advanced and sustainable manufacturing base for the country. This will occur if Governments provide the right environment and technology developers choose to work as a team to the benefit of all. It is the cleantech providers that join forces who will have the greatest chance of succeeding on a global scale and if they succeed then Australia will be the greatest beneficiary.

Companies interested in discussing participation with GPAus or CleanFutures should contact the author at john.obrien@auscleantech.com.au.

European Investors Looking for Australian Clean Technologies

Europe is a strange place at the moment. Having managed to escape the heaviest snow London has experienced for many years and come back to another Australian heatwave, and despite the extreme pessimism in the City, I am enthusiastic about the potential for securing European money to invest in Australian cleantech companies.

Whilst I was there, the front page of The Times of London showed a big picture of the Blitz with a headline saying that the economy has not been this bad since then. There are daily and significant job losses being announced, wild cat strikes over the use of Italian and Portuguese construction workers ‘taking British workers jobs’ and many in the finance community both without a job and facing significant community backlash. It makes the Australian version of the financial crisis seem mild.

The investors I met were all focussed on cleantech and were all remarkably positive and looking forward to a year of growth in 2009. Many were increasing staff levels and confident that they would be able to raise new funds during the year. It was a wonderful contrast to the feeling held by the rest of the country. There was a view that the rest of the UK may be a ‘basket case’ but that cleantech was the one area that is set to thrive.

One consequence of the financial crisis is slight change to the investment mandates. There appears to be an increased emphasis on late stage pre-IPO type capital, as opposed to seed investments, and also on sectors less dependent on carbon pricing such as waste, recycling, building materials and energy efficiency. It was felt that the volatile conditions would lead to unpredictability in carbon pricing that may lead to short term revenue issues. There is also a greater desire to see definitive sales strategies in place and to gain an understanding of exactly how and when revenues will be generated.

These investment groups have either previously raised funds that they are looking to invest or have institutional investors ready to provide further capital as required. The one common problem they seemed to face was enough high quality investment targets in which to invest these funds.

There was also a common view that Australia is an excellent source of technology research and development and that there may be many potential products and companies that would be suitable for investment. The bonus with this arrangement would be that through securing a European investment, companies may then be able to more easily access the larger European markets and thereby increase the value of the company and returns to its investors.

Some of the funds seemed keen to co-invest with local investment partners. This also provides the opportunity for Australian based investment funds to mitigate their investment risks and establish ties with European partners.

It seems as though many in Australia have been looking to the big venture capital funds from Silicon Valley to secure international investment and that there have been limited ties to date with European investors. This feels like a big opportunity that we have been ignoring. A number of the European funds are currently actively looking for Australian investments and are keen to hear of any suitable opportunities.

The investment opportunities for Australian cleantech companies have been clear for some time. My recent trip to Europe has not only reinforced this opinion in a global context but also highlighted the potential to secure additional sources of investment and access to new markets.  The future for Australian clean technologies seems even brighter than before.

$580mil to expand capacity & rail to Hunter Coal mines??

Save a bit here, ship a whole lot there

Posted by Barry Brook on 26 December 2008

Here’s some figures to make you queasy after all that rich Christmas dinner. As was reported recently, Australia’s bold new short-term greenhouse gas reduction target is to reduce carbon emissions by 4% on year 1990 levels by 2020.  What does that mean in real terms? Well, according to the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, our total emissions in that reference year were 552.6 Mt (million tonnes) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-e), with 286.4 Mt of that coming from energy generation. In 2006 (the latest inventory year), it was 576.0 Mt, with a whopping 400.9 Mt of that now coming from energy.

So, our world-leading aim is to ‘only’ be emitting 530.5 Mt CO2-e by 2020 — a saving of 22 Mt on 1990 levels. Forgive me if I’m less than impressed.

But in reality, it’s far, far worse than that — actually, ridiculously so.

Why? Go read this news story. To quote Prime Minister Kevin Rudd:

“…$580 million of today’s investment will be used to expand capacity and rail corridors to service the Hunter, the Hunter Valley Coal mines, and of course their connection to the Port of Newcastle.”

The reporter then blandly notes that this investment will more than double the export capacity at Newcastle (New South Wales) from 97 to 200 million tonnes of coal a year.

Hmmmm. Let’s see — that’s an extra 103 Mt of coal being shipped out each year. Now, when you burn a tonne of coal, you yield about 3.6 tonnes of CO2 (since the carbon atom combines with 2 x oxygen atoms). So that’s $580 million of taxpayers money being channeled into a handout to the fossil fuel industry that will result in an additional 371 Mt CO2-e being pumped into the global atmosphere each year.

Oh, but silly me — it’s all heading offshore, so as the cartoon says, it’s no longer our problem. Easy as that! Never mind that this tidy little half-billion buck infrastructure by the Rudd government will ‘offset’ (read: cancel) our measly 2020 savings almost 17 times over…

But wait, there’s more! Actually, this was from earlier in the year, but the wound still smarts when you rub salt into it. In April 2008, ‘Environment’ Minister Peter Garrett gave the green light for a multi-billion dollar three-phase plan to expand the Wiggins Island Coal Terminal in Gladstone (Queensland), such that it will be able to export an additional 84 Mt of coal per year — a decision applauded by the Queensland State Government.

Okay, so that’s another 302 Mt CO2-e released by someone, somewhere, up into the great aerial ocean. But hey, again, it’s for export, so it’s just not our problem. All 371 + 302 = 673 Mt CO2-e of it. It doesn’t matter that these two infrastructure projects, announced in 2008, will result in emissions 17% greater than Australia’s TOTAL CO2-e annual emissions, and cancel out our 4% reduction by 2020 commitment more than 30 times over. Nah, no sweat. It’s all covered by offshore sequestration.

Treasurer Wayne Swan reckons the above stimulus is our ‘best shot’ at avoiding recession. What he doesn’t say is that it’s also our best shot at ensuring deadly climate change. But it’s the economy, stupid! (h/t Matt Mushalik)

So, we’re stuffed, because as Jim Hansen said:

“If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants [or supplying them in Australia's case], those coal trains will be death trains — no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.“

Reduce 22 Mt here, add 673 Mt there. Yet Mr Rudd says this trade-off “…gets the balance right“.

Sigh. I (almost) give up…

Three Shades of Green

In a recent interview, the Chief Scientist of Great Britain, John Beddington, stated that the biggest obstacle to moving towards a sustainable future was the actions of committed environmentalists. As a committed advocate to creating solutions to climate change, this seems like an interesting position. However, his vision of future driven by technological adaption, by cleantech, stands in contrast to the anti-consumption rhetoric of traditional environmentalists. It also stands against the incremental greening of many large industrial companies who provide token support for environmental issues whilst still operating unsustainable businesses. Cleantech provides a shade of green that is both sustainable and attractive.

In late October, the Queensland Government held its Sustainability Awards on the Gold Coast. That the dinner was held in one of the least sustainable developments in the country was not lost on many of the attendees. There were many awards for good work being undertaken by companies in varied industries. Improved agricultural practices, smart battery technology and the climate change campaign by the Courier Mail were all feted. There were however many examples of heavy industrial companies merely greening around the edges. The evening started with an acknowledgement of Xtrata’s $3m support for hairy nose wombats. In a wonderful display of cognitive dissonance, the company movie showed rescued wombats without any acknowledgement of the damage the company’s coal mining does to the natural environment. One guest commented that it was like celebrating a tobacco company’s donation to lung cancer research!

Following this dinner, I was lucky enough to spend a few days in Byron Bay. On the local radio and in the local rag, we were encouraged to embrace the ‘counter-culture’ of the region and save the world by reducing consumption, eschewing technology and going back to basics. In the profit centre of Byron this felt as much of an oxymoron as sustainability on the Gold Coast. John Beddington would not have felt comfortable sipping his latte on Jonson Street.

Cleantech offers so much more: far more than greening around the edges and so much more attractive than heading into the mountains in rags. Cleantech provides technologies that enable ongoing development in a way that improves the planet’s ecosystems – it does not require sacrifice and it is more forward looking than mere ‘end of the pipe’ or incremental solutions. It does, however, require new ways of thinking, an ability and willingness to view the world through a different lens and a commitment to the making of lateral connections that have not been made before.

An article in the Time magazine of October 2008, Michael Grunwald profiled Arnold Schwartzenegger as one of the world’s Heroes of the Environment. Arnie has been a driving force behind cleantech development adopting the ethos that ‘you don’t have to be a girly-man to help save the planet’. The article tells us that ‘[he] ridicules traditional environmentalists as prohibitionists scolds who want us to drive wimpy cars and live like monks; he’s selling a future of a clean environment and a booming green-tech economy with all the gizmos that anyone could want.’

Incumbent emissions intensive companies, who fear that change and technological innovation will lead to a decrease in profits, are the obvious opponents of cleantech. What many in the cleantech world may not yet have realised is the danger posed by the self proclaimed ‘pure’ greenies of Byron Bay and elsewhere.

In a three way fight for the ascendancy between greening, greenies and cleantech, the smart money can only be on cleantech. In the end, ‘greenwash’ will always be seen as the superficial marketing exercise it truly is. The attraction towards a positive message will always be stronger than negative messages that prohibit what is harmful. To quote Arnie in his drive to cement California as a global cleantech leader ‘guilt doesn’t work’. To develop sustainability does not require counter-cultures or clever marketing: rather than rebelling, we can enable a great future through adopting cleantech solutions.

This article was originally published in Environmental Management News in December 2008.