Gem of the day

Toby Webb on the senseless distraction that is the debate over how to frame corporate sustainability (responsibility? CR? CSR? citizenship? right.)

"Perhaps the consultants need to spend less time on re-badging common sense as their own idea (TM), and more on challenging clients (c) and helping them deliver."

Bonus gem

Ken Cohen over at ExxonMobil unintentionally proves himself why renewable energy sources will be better in the long-term than oil and gas:

"Risks are inherent in the oil and natural gas business. There is no guarantee that oil and gas will be found in quantities that will make it economic to produce. There is always uncertainty in predicting ultimate recoveries, particularly in the early stages of development."

Gem of the day

Joe Romm delivers a real zinger of a headline:

"The NY Times 'Noticed' That 'Green Jobs Attract Graduates'"

Bonus bonus gem

Participating in an Economist webinar this morning on global energy demand--sponsored by Shell, of course. The head of research at the Economist Intelligence Unit just thanked Shell for supporting "this expensive and complex event", admitting "without Shell it wouldn't be possible". Hmm, kind of like climate change.

Bonus gem

Did Chesapeake Energy even read all the way through the first page of the NY Times article on Monday, rightfully investigating overblown natural gas claims? Here's the predictable CEO bluster:

"Aubrey McClendon, CEO of the Oklahoma City-based oil and natural gas producer, said the story, which ran in the Sunday issue of the paper, 'accused the company of exaggerating natural gas shale wells' productivity and industry reserve estimates of future well performance despite numerous available sources verifying the estimates.'"

Two gems here: numerous "available sources"? Try Googling "climate change", McClendon. Or "Notorious B.I.G. 1997". There's plenty of sources "available", but how many are accurate? How many are downright loony? Then there's the awkward question of what these sources are actually based on--if McClendon had gotten to page 2 he could have come to terms with this reality check:

"The Energy Information Administration relies on research from outside consultants with ties to the industry. And some of those consultants pull the data they supply to the government from energy company news releases, according to Energy Information Administration e-mails."

Gem of the day

David Roberts weighs in on the natural gas debate, citing what he calls "the WSJ effect" (via Grist):

"The Wall Street Journal editorial board has a long piece vociferously defending natural gas boosters and their happy projections. There are very few analytical techniques in which I have absolute faith, but here's one of them: if the WSJ editorial board says it, it's probably wrong."

Zing!

Gem of the day

More from the energy vortex. Here's an analyst at the EIA in an April email to a fellow employee (via NY Times):

“Am I just totally crazy, or does it seem like everyone and their mothers are endorsing shale gas without getting a really good understanding of the economics at the business level?”

But wait! It gets better. A senior petroleum geologist at the EIA is even more blunt in a different email:

“E.I.A., irrespective of what or how many ‘specialty’ contractors are hired, is NOT TECHNICALLY COMPETENT to estimate the undiscovered resources of anything made by Mother Nature, period.”

Another non-environmental wonder

What a Republican said about the state of the House of Representatives in 1935 (via NY Times):

"A supine, subservient, soporific, superfluous, supercilious, pusillanimous body of nitwits.”

Clearly not much has changed.

Bonus bonus gem

An unfortunate piece of mega-greenwash from GE--I say "unfortunate" because it's part of their Ecomagination initiative, which has so far been a sustainable beacon of light in the senseless debate over whether sustainable products and services can deliver financial benefits.

Ironically the slogan is pretty much right, but not for the reasons GE's marketing team were imagining. See Joe Romm for an in-depth review, in a nutshell here:

• Natural gas is one of the worst greenhouse gases
• More importantly, it's still a traditional energy source--why even bother when we have zero-emission, infinitely renewable energy sources available?

Probably the worst proof point the full version of the ad uses is that natural gas in the US could "power every home in the country for over 70 years". A few decades? What about a few centuries later?

Bonus gem

Fun statistics of the day:

Amazon accounts for 1/3 of all online commerce.
Walmart owns 13.4% of the entire consumer market.

Oh wait, that's scary.

Gem of the day

Oil and gas companies represent a third of the 29 companies on the Standard & Poor's 500 that have zero women on their board of directors (via Bloomberg).

Memo: It's not just the business strategies of those companies that are still stuck in the 1950s.

Gem of the day

Only Al Gore could take the future of life as we know it and diminish it to this sleep-inducing sentence:

"What is now at risk in the climate debate is nothing less than our ability to communicate with one another according to a protocol that binds all participants to seek reason and evaluate facts honestly."

Bonus gem

Thomas L. Friedman's column two weeks ago on Gilding's "great disruption" generated hundreds of comments from readers. Here's one gem:

"I'm fearful that the mindset fostered by the tremendously well subsidized pushback against facing reality using state of the art PR manipulation will survive yet more evidence as we continue to indulge in our "virtual" reality and infotainment as our primary source of information about how the world works."

Gem of the day

Nelson Lichtenstein examines the Supreme Court's decision to block a class-action sex-discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart that could have impacted over 1.6 million current and former female workers of the megacorporation. His conclusion:

"There used to be a remedy for this sort of managerial authoritarianism: it was called a union...For a time it seemed as if the class-action lawsuit might be a partial substitute. By drastically limiting how a class-action suit can be brought, the Supreme Court leaves millions of service-sector workers with few avenues to escape the grinding work life and limited opportunities that so many now face."

It's clear unions don't function as an institution anymore; they yield increasingly little force in the U.S. and membership has been dropping for years. But even more importantly, either way the Court's decision is yet another signal establishing corporations and their leadership teams as power holders that can basically do whatever they want.

And in other news, why should any company ever be allowed to get away with the kinds of labor and social policies that Wal-Mart has?

Another non-environmental wonder

Response by David Foster Wallace to nauseating, predictable interview question in 2006, as published this month by our lofty, well-rounded friends at the New York Review of Books:

OK: What do you think of the modern state of American literature?
DFW: Ugggggghhhhh. Somebody asked me this a couple of weeks ago.

Gem of the day

Even if you're not a fan, you've gotta love Thomas L. Friedman for using a Paul Gilding quote this way to summarise the challenges we're facing:

"Right now, global growth is using about 1.5 Earths. 'Having only one planet makes this a rather significant problem,' says Gilding."

Gem of the day

In honor of Joe Barton's gamechanging "Apology to BP" anniversary, here's an email the ever-genius Casper ter Kuile sent me in 2010 during that time:

"Dear BP,

I’m sorry for playing samba on a salad bowl outside your conference center yesterday when I should have been giving you moral support and making coffee. That was wrong."

Zing!

Another non-environmental wonder

Inspired by Congressman Weiner, a collage of Stepping Down faces from American politicians past and present.

Gem of the day

Thought leadership from the energy sector: it's the stuff dream gems are made of. Now we're treated to a new initiative from our friendly folks over at Chevron (via Casper ter Kuile, who is always first to know about these kinds of things). "Energyville", part of their ongoing greenwash tour-de-force campaign "Will you join us?" is just as mindnumbing as it sounds. It's an interactive game that lets you plan the energy sources for a "typical city" in 2015.

There's a never-ending supply of critiques that could be made of this nauseating effort. Oh Economist Intelligence Unit, what were you thinking? Why are you manufacturing toys for corporations that want to superficially enhance their "green profiles"? But ignoring the game itself, let's take a minute and look at the fine-print provided upfront on the homescreen.

First of all, the sheer number of caveats outlined are enough to show that making this game at all was a waste of time. If you want to see a live game, watch a broadcast of the House Energy & Commerce Committee on CSPAN. Anyway, witness:

• "...the game does not take into account the time and investment needed to replace existing energy infrastructure with your choices." Not to mention this barrier: the hopelessly distorted global debate over energy issues that has been driven by deliberate and proactive miscommunication from companies like Chevron.
• "Global forces and technological developments may change current and future assumptions." May change? Please.

But this is truly the damning one:

• "The game simulates aspects of reality, but does not serve as a perfect model of the real world."

Since when do we have any perfect models of "the real world"? It's impossible. It's not even a desirable goal, given the rate at which our world as we know is transforming. The fact that this is even placed as a caveat is a striking example of just how deluded we've become over what we know about the world we live in. And I'm talking about our societies and economies systematically, not just the vortex of the energy sector.

Bonus gem

Over at Treehugger they're pondering the question "is 'green billionaire' an oxymoron?" Short answer: yes. Bill Gates gets a near-failing "D" grade, however: here's their explanation of why.


"Bill Gates - Until Gates can ensure me that his efforts to help feed Africa are devoid of corporate controlled GMOs he'll never be green to me. Grade: D. Some more human scale efforts to feeding Africa would"

More like a D Minus to me. But it's not because of the GMOs. Bill is one of those industry vortex people who believes, with an iron rigidity, there are simply one or two silver-plated pathways to sustainable development: nuclear energy and geoengineering. Zing!

And not only that, he attempts to destroy potential solutions that he doesn't personally think fit into those two pathways (lame-o "cutesy" stuff like energy efficiency). Which, awkwardly enough, is at odds with his lament in a recent essay on climate policy:

“The world is distracted from what counts on this issue in a big way,” he wrote.

True that. And it's certainly no thanks to people like Bill himself.

Gem of the day

I don't find this funny, but it's a gem regardless. Wal-Mart, long championed within the sustainability community/industry/vortex as a paragon of sustainable business value, is finally coming up against some real, organised public campaigning. Why? Because the mega-uber-corporation awkwardly misses out completely on the social dimension of sustainability.

A new union-funded non-union group (really rolls of the tongue, doesn't it) called OUR Walmart is taking its demands for worker respect and improved labor environment to the virtual streets of Facebook. The NY Times reports:

“I’m hoping that OUR Walmart will make a difference in the long run,” said Margaret Van Ness, an overnight stocker at a Wal-Mart store in Lancaster, Calif., about 60 miles north of Los Angeles. Ms. Van Ness earns $11.40 an hour after four years of working there. “The managers at our store and others are running over their associates as if they didn’t exist,” she said. “They treat them like cattle. They don’t seem to care about respect for the individuals. We need to bring back respect."

I wish them the best of luck. With over 30 global and regional awards for being everything from most energy efficient retailer to frothy champion of diversity, Wal-Mart's sustainability team can guarantee the industry is going to keep slobbering over its efforts. Minimum wage or not.

That's the American Dream, right?

Bonus bonus gem

APP's response to the Greenpeace anti-Mattel packaging campaign is, of course, priceless. Here's a real gem from the official APP statement, referring to alleged compliance with Indonesian law:

'It is our responsibility to adhere strictly with these laws, not to satisfy the unreasonable and groundless demands of a foreign-based NGO.'

Seems awkward compared to one of their avowed tenets of the company philosophy:

"We are not only accountable to our shareholders, but also to the community at large."

In other news, strangely enough this statement doesn't seem to be available on APP's website, only through the media. Perhaps the company needs to hire some extra bodies for their PR machine.

Bonus gem

How to interact with independent scholar Nicholas Taleb, if you so dare (according to his website);

"Please do not 1) send me your papers or other “interesting material” to read, 2) ask finance questions (not my specialty, 3) make me to rewrite sections of my books (I write books, not emails), 4) ask for a list of “other interesting books to read”, 5) ask me to provide career or educational advice, 6) send me passages from Tolstoy or the Ecclesiast on luck and randomness, 7) send me the list of typos in my drafts."

Gem of the day

Few things are better than "definitive" statements from the marketing vortex. This one courtesy of our committed friends at Trendwatching (italics theirs):

"Innovation is the only way to survive in an ever more global, competitive business arena."

Bonus bonus gem

BP executives seem to be a never-ending source of gems, regardless of nationality. Here's one from Bob Dudley's speech to a Chinese university back in May:

"Our aim, in China and around the world, is to use the capabilities we have developed in BP over 100 years to help countries access secure and sustainable supplies of energy...Let me briefly look at three – natural gas, oil supply and sustainable energy."

That's a wee error, right Bob? Categorising natural gas and oil separately from "sustainable energy"?

Whoopsies.


But wait! It gets even better. Via Casper ter Kuile, here's Dudley on the Gulf of Mexico:


"We responded immediately to the accident...In time, I hope that it will be recognized as an act of great corporate responsibility."

Bonus gem

Another gem emerges from the dark vortex of reporting. Here's how Tetrapak's CEO believes his packaging company is Protecting the Environment:

"We favour the use of renewable resources, such as wood."

Zing!

Gem of the day

Only Down Under, folks:

"Australia Considers Killing Camels for Carbon Credits"

So where would the dead camels go?

"The camels could be processed for pet food or human consumption, and the carbon credits earned could be sold to domestic or foreign polluting companies."

Mmm.

Gem of the day

What's wrong with this IBM Smarter Planet ad?

Somebody call their PR team and prepare the defensive shells.

Uber-gem

It kind of pains me to do this, but since I'm already on page 12 of PwC's pseudo-bible of CR reporting trends (that's right, a report about reports), here goes.

The gem lieth in the CR report PwC bestows honor upon for its "focus": BP's 2008 Sustainability Review. Here's why, in PwC's words:

"BP's 24-page Sustainability Review 2008 emphasizes the company's goal of 'no accidents, no harm to people and no damage to the environment.' There are many solid features in the report and on the website:

• Live links throughout the PDF to more information on BP's website;
• Comments from an independent assurance provider throughout the report, as well as a detailed assurance statement that comments on the strengths and weaknesses of BP's reporting;
• Case studies documenting the company's activities related to each area of focus as well as a searchable library of case studies; and
• Interactive maps, tools and quizzes."

This surely doesn't come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the sustainability vortex, but two comments:

1.  Three of the four elements PwC finds so fab-o are just superficial, interactive nice-to-haves in a digital report. "Interactive maps"? You know, if I was a shareholder trying to decide whether an oil company is assessing its environmental and social impacts effectively, I don't think I'd want to take a quiz or click on a map. I'd want some real data (unless I work at Goldman Sachs, in which case that map looks great to me).
2. More importantly, what if people had spent as much time asking BP about its actual policies for disaster response as they did exploring and lauding its reporting?

Sigh.

Gem of the day

Here's a real gem from the "darker" side of the green business scene in the U.S.-of-A, via Washington Post:

"Some think green burials are mostly hype. 'There’s an industry joke that more people attend green burial seminars than get buried green,' says Mark Matthews, president of the Cremation Association of North America."

Another non-environmental wonder

Peter Diamond, a professor of economics at MIT, has a damning op-ed in the NY Times today explaining why he's voluntarily decided to step down as one of Obama's nominees to be one of 7 governers of the Federal Reserve.

Here's but one of the many gems which crop up as he describes his frustration with the Senate vetting process:

'Senator Shelby also questioned my qualifications, asking: “Does Dr. Diamond have any experience in crisis management? No.” In addition to setting monetary policy in light of a proper understanding of unemployment, the Fed is responsible for avoiding banking crises, not just trying to mop up afterward.'

Oh and you know what else? Diamond got a Nobel Prize last year for his work on the US labor market. Right.

Gem of the day

What could be better on a Monday than the CSR report of National Bank of Abu Dhabi sailing into my inbox? Probably the picture you're looking at now.

That's right, "NBAD" is how they abbreviate their company name.

It doesn't get any more unreal than that.

Gem of the day

Unsurprisingly, business executives in Japan are not taking kindly to a new campaign from their government, encouraging them to wear less clothing to save energy in the workplace. The campaign, ingeniously titled 'Super Cool Biz', was launched with a cute little fashion show.

Here's what one of the target audience had to say:

"I personally do not think it is appropriate to go out in sandals and meet people," grumbled one official from the powerful ministry of trade. "Super Cool Biz would be difficult to implement at [the trade ministry], because we receive lots of guests from outside the ministry, including many foreigners."

Another non-environmental wonder

Palin visited Trump in his wee triplex apartment in Manhattan yesterday. Then they...went to a pizza chain together? But before the serious conversation started, Palin threw the press this single gem:

She did respond to one reporter’s question about Mr. Trump’s past donations to Democrats: “I think I’ll go change his mind and make sure he’s contributing to constitutional conservatives.’’

Gem of the day

Here's a great biodiversity gem:

"Recent studies by researchers in North America and Europe harnessing the new techniques have consistently found that 20 to 25 percent of the seafood products they check are fraudulently identified, fish geneticists say."

Here's what the director of Oceana, an American NGO, has to say about that:

"Customers buying fish have a right to know what the heck it is and where it’s from, but agencies like the F.D.A. are not taking this as seriously as they should."

Bonus gem

Exxon Mobil published their 'Corporate Citizenship' report today. Rather than explore it in detail, which would obviously be a waste of time, behold a gem from their dedicated 'Stakeholders' page. It provides a mini case study for each major 'stakeholder group' they engage with.

Bearing in mind that mashing NGOs and communities into one group is in itself a gem, here's the case study for it:

"Communities and NGOsGoal: Enhance trust and communication through knowledge sharing
Example: Operational transparency through guided toursThe Esso refinery and chemical facility at Fawley is the largest in the United Kingdom. Each year, employees at Fawley volunteer to participate in local community projects. To further engage the community and promote understanding of operations at the facility, guided tours are offered to local residents. Each tour provides visitors with an introductory presentation of Fawley operations, including a detailed overview of safety, in which visitors learn about the site’s safety performance as well as community emergency response procedures. In 2010, more than 500 residents toured the facility, responding positively to seeing firsthand the level of security, environmental controls, and safety procedures implemented at the site."

No comment.

Gem of the day

Via Casper ter Kuile: What's wrong with this picture?

Gem of the day

A classic gem from Ogilvy Earth, in one of their many "rigorous" studies of the elusive "green consumer":

"Green is the New Pink. The barrier is even higher for men. Fully 82% of our respondents said going green is 'more feminine than masculine.'”

One word: ugh.

Another non-environmental wonder

Palin puts on her tiara to comment on Schwarzenegger's awkward love-child situation:

“I feel so bad for his children,” she said. “It must be quite embarrassing for them.”

If anyone knows anything about embarrassing situations, Palin sure does. Remember the newspaper incident? Right.

Bonus gem

What's wrong with this picture?

Gem of the day

If you're looking to go to a mind-blowing conference this year, this one should do the trick:

Iraq Mega Projects 2011.

"Iraq Mega Projects Conference 2011 will focus on the progress, the challenges and the solutions faced in the production of the 12 oilfields."

What a gem. But it gets even better: CSR has not gone too far afield--ahem--of their agenda:

"Corporate Social Responsibility Led by UNDP: This year's session promises to be a thought-provoking and interactive discussion. Led by the United Nations who, with their local experiences is, well placed to engineer solutions and highlight possible problem areas for companies concerned with their corporate social responsibilities."

At this point in the brochure--which landed on my desk yesterday morning--I began to wonder if this is actually real. Is it? The corporate site is a little suspect. But the organisers, the ambiguously named 'CWC Group', won a Queen's Award for Enterprise in 2011.

Long story short, I hope it's a joke.

Another non-environmental wonder

From a great article in the NY Times today about raising the curtain on French politicians (literally):

'During the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal in the United States, even some French politicians associated with Catholic causes chose to congratulate President Clinton for his strength of libido. “He loves women, this man!” Marie-Christine Boutin, a deputy in Parliament and a leader of the religious right, said. “It’s a sign of good health!"'

Another non-environmental wonder

It's a competition for which claim in the non-sensical debate over Common's invitation is more hysterical over at Fox News:

Sean Hannity: "This is a poetry event...an evening of poetry at the White House"

Karl Rove: It means "inviting a thug to the White House"

There's a 'Part 2' to the video linked to above, but I wouldn't watch it if you paid me.

Gem of the day

The CEOs of Shell, Chevron and Exxon are showing up in Congress tomorrow to testify (naturally against) cutting their billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Doubtless the event will be overflowing in gems, but here's just a wee preview of what else has been going on in the background for those who can stomach it:

• Shell is wading headfirst back into drilling in the Arctic. Their justification: “Outside of the Gulf of Mexico the next biggest resource in terms of scale is Alaska." That's right, not even blinking an eye at referring to the Gulf regon. What about the scale of oil spills, eh?
• ExxonMobil has something to say about the energy debate on Capital Hill: "All the talk in Washington about how we can lower energy prices by raising taxes on the U.S. oil industry is misleading – and, as the Wall Street Journal noted last week, “junk economic theory.” Who cares? You know what's not junk economic theory? Record profits, no matter where they come from.

Even more excruciating is this deplorable article in Forbes today--where else?--explaining away oil industry revenues by claming Big Oil profit margins "pale in comparison" to those in other industries. No, really. The author, Robert L. Bradley, is CEO of the Institute for Energy Research, one of those ambiguous machines in Washington which churn out reports laden with all kinds of statistics, depending on what suits the political climate. And with a Board of people including fellows from the American Enterprise Institute, who needs a well-rounded perspective? Here's where Bradley's article gets really awkward:

"As the revenues of oil companies improve, so do their stock prices. In turn, teachers, firefighters, policemen and millions of other public servants see their retirement accounts expand. And as most states are struggling to keep their pension programs solvent, oil stocks can help ease that pressure and stave off fiscal woes."

So we're supposed to feel good that the stock prices of oil companies--and therefore the wildly fluctuating price of oil--is what's underpinning the security of our entire economy and society, not just today but in the future?

Bradley's solution is predictable, but even more damning:

"Market-based policy will also promote jobs, investment and income for America at a time when they are most needed."

And when is that time exactly? How's about in ten, twenty years? Then again, there's nothing like policy suggestions from the head of an Institute which believes "government policies should be predictable, simple, and technology neutral."

Gem of the day

Seriousness--albeit predictability--of the inquiry aside, what's wrong with this sentence:

'ExxonMobil is connected to nine of the top ten authors of climate change denial papers, according to a “fact-check” website.'

If I was toiling away at The Carbon Brief and it was described as a "fact-check" organisation I sure wouldn't be happy. Then again, the 'About Us' section of their site seems to be lacking a certain something...

Another non-environmental wonder

Newt Gingrich on his wondrous justification for conducting an extramarital affair at the same time he was criticizing Clinton during the heady Lewinsky trials of the late '90s:

"There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards," he said in 2007. "There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards." Gingrich said at the time there was a difference between his conduct and Mr. Clinton's because Mr. Clinton had perjured himself.

Gem of the day

Anglo American published their latest sustainability report today. Surely it is bursting to the brim with all kinds of gems, but this set of contrasting statements from the CEO Interview is key. What does it remind you of?

"There’s absolutely a clear business case around sustainable development: mine safely,
responsibly and sustainably, or lose our social and environmental licence to operate."

vs.

"We’re going into more remote and challenging environments and the regulatory conditions are becoming more stringent."

Right.

Bonus non-environmental wonder

Donald "The Duck" Trump on the very question of Obama's existence:

"Our current president came out of nowhere. Came out of nowhere," Trump said. "In fact, I'll go a step further: the people that went to school with him, they never saw him, they don't know who he is. It's crazy."

Another non-environmental wonder

I never get tired of classic marketing gems like this one, courtesy of a consultancy called--wait for it--Added Value. To 'solve' a critical issue for brands which in their terms 'lack character', they've created a digital Character Lab. Here's how they describe what exactly this magic machine does:

"An interactive quantitative test of brand character that makes character development simple, intuitive and compelling."

Amazing. But it gets even better in the Extreme Egocentric Marketing Jargon they use to explain the history which led up to this extraordinary brainwave:

"We used to think positioning was just about, well, positioning. After all, it's what it says in the text books.

Precision market definition. Laser-guided targeting. Nail that insight. Distil the brand benefit. Prioritise your substantiators. Be clear and concise about your personality and values."

They don't stop there. It gets even more nauseating:

"Less is more. Ideally, on one page. In an onion. Or a pyramid. Or a Steering Wheel or a Bulls-eye. (Sorry. The last two were both ours.) All to enable consistent brand behaviour. Clinical, logical, brutal. Preserved in aspic for future generations."

If anyone has the willpower to read on, incredibly enough their entire website is written in this terse, stop-and-go style. What a joyride.

Gem of the day

This White House statement on the house bill passed this week, which will headlessly expand offshore drilling mostly to calm public furor over gas prices--short termism anyone?--is pretty clear about what the issue is:

"H.R. 1230 would undermine the Administration's work to ensure that environmental analysis required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is conducted in a rigorous manner. H.R. 1230 would hastily open areas of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic to leasing, including requiring the Department of the Interior (DOI) to hold three lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico using outdated NEPA analysis that was conducted before the Deepwater Horizon oil spill."

Ah yes, outdated analysis. The foundation of the oil industry.

Bonus bonus gem

This intro to a new McKinsey study, which glosses over the fabled lust after emerging markets from your favorite multinationals, is a true classic:

"Creating a powerful emerging-market strategy has moved to the top of the growth agendas of many multinational companies, and for good reason: in 15 years’ time, 57 percent of the nearly one billion
households with earnings greater than $20,000 a year will live in the developing world. Seven emerging economies—China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, and Indonesia—are expected to contribute about 45 percent of global GDP growth in the coming decade. Emerging markets will represent an even larger share of the growth in product categories, such as automobiles, that are highly mature in developed economies."

Ah yes, product categories such as automobiles. Because clearly repeating the exact same mobility problems in countries which are vastly more populous than their US and European counterparts is a good--let alone a feasible--idea. Beijing traffic, anyone?

And then there's fun with growth. As Paul Gilding has been saying for years, all these calculations predicting the GDP growth share of emerging markets are based on historic growth patterns. Not on the gross uncertainties--and what Gilding believes is a certain calamity--of a future where this rapidity of growth isn't possible.

Bonus gem

The American political scene on all things climate and energy is no joyride for anyone who actually wants to do something progressive about such topics right now--let alone someone who was headhunted from Lawrence Berkeley lab to face an uphill battle trying to convince lawmakers who think oil comes out of trees. Which is why this gem, unearthed by the Guardian last week, can't be a surprise:

"When US energy secretary Steven Chu visited, someone who found themselves in conversation with the two energy secretaries heard Chu say he wouldn’t mind going back to academia."

Gem of the day

As Joe Romm reports, Sarah Palin is test-driving the GOP's 'ingenius' new talking point to defend oil subsidies (how has the debate even gotten this twisted?)

"As for the government subsidies that we’re hearing Obama flirting with right now, and wanting to decrease those or eliminate those, we’re only talking about four billion dollars. Compare that to the 14 trillion dollar debt that he our president has certainly contributed to."

It can only get more awkward from here, right?

Gem of the day

Of all the tragic incremental efforts trickling out of this year's tepid Earth Day, this one has to be among the most unapologetic [as reported by GreenBiz]:

"With no consumer products to shill, Dow Chemical Company is in the position of talking about something other than sales. The company announced its employees would participate in street cleanups, tree plantings, trail restorations, recycling events and more. The company is also holding a talk by The Nature Conservancy's chief conservation officer, Bill Ginn, at its headquarters."

Right.

Gem of the day

It goes without saying that accountants and their friends don't have much imagination. But Ernst & Young, one of the world's biggest auditors and a well-known face appending many big CSR and sustainability reports, is really thinking outside the box. Here's a particularly far-fetched assessment of the state of offhosre drilling in the US-of-A right now, courtesy of E&Y's managing director in Houston:

"Those kind of incremental, evolutionary changes are what we’re going to see, and they can be effective. There is always someone who wants the third coat of paint to be applied before they operate a machine. But that is not realistic given the demands on the oil and gas industry. The country needs to get back to drilling."

Wait--so an auditor, not to mention BP's assurer of choice for their recent and poorly executed 2010 Sustainability Review, thinks that extra safety checks and basic regulatory measures in the wake of Deepwater Horizon are like a 'third coat of paint'?

But wait! Not to be outdone, our pals at Deloitte have an even more choice quote assessing this very topic:

"There is still a great prize in the Gulf of Mexico."

Great short-term analysis, Deloitte. How's about thinking 10, maybe 15 years down the line? Oh, and remember 2010 by the way?

Gem of the day

This can't possibly come as a surprise, but it still hurts. As the Guardian reports (where are American newspapers on this?):

"Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show BP officials openly discussing how to influence the work of scientists conducting independent research into the consequences of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster."

Here's Russell Putt, from BP's environment team, in an email from June 2010:

"Can we 'direct' GRI [Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative] funding to a specific study (as we now see the governor's offices trying to do)? What influence do we have over the vessels/equipment driving the studies vs the questions?"

It gets even more to the point in another document, which includes minutes from a BP meeting in Louisiana containing this gem:

"Discussions around GRI and whether or not BP can influence this long-term research programme ($500m) to undertake the studies we believe will be useful in terms of understanding the fate and effects of the oil on the environment, eg can we steer the research in support of restoration ecology?"

These documents were all secured by Greenpeace. And there's more where that came from on the political side of the spill--NOAA and EPA vs. White House--which we already know.

Wow.

Bonus gem

Can someone please explain to me how this Bob Dudley quote from his AGM speech yesterday makes any sense, any sense at all:

"Let me remind you that in BP we advocate stronger policies on climate change including a widely applied carbon price and transitional incentives to help low-carbon technologies compete at scale.

However, whatever course policy takes, and even if climate change is robustly addressed, fossil fuels are projected to provide most of our energy in 2030." 

Um. Maybe he's not advocating the right policies. Either that or we're on a different page about what 'robustly addressed' means in the context of climate change.

Another non-environmental wonder

It goes without saying that Donald Trump lives in a world that's different from ours. But taking on Obama's team is a big ask, even for our most iconic real estate mogul. Here's his ingenious response to David Plouffe's assertion that Trump has 'zero chance' of becoming President:

"Obviously, I hit a nerve because they're fighting me," Trump said this morning on Fox and Friends. He added: "I can tell you I'm their worst nightmare. I am not the person they want to run against. They know it, and I know it. I know it for a fact because I have a lot of people that frankly are contributors to him and they tell me, 'Donald, you are not the person they want to run against.'"

It just doesn't get any better than that in the land of political gems.

Gem of the day

Quote from Obama, back in the heat of Gulf of Mexico in June 2010:

"I don't sit around talking to experts because this is a college seminar, we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick."

Gem of the day

Bob Dudley unleashed a few prize gems today at the much-anticipated BP AGM.

Witness:

• "We have also decided not to accept rigs that do not conform to our standards". Whereas before? Right.
• Compares the oil spill to “a fire hydrant on the bottom of the ocean" 

Zing.

Bonus gem

Every year SustainAbility and Globescan survey a few hundred "qualified sustainability experts" in the consulting field to name which companies are making the most progress on environmental & social issues. In their words, they look for corporates that are:

"...committed to sustainable development, seeing strategic advantage in pursuing policies and actions which go beyond the requirements of environmental and social legislation.”

This year the usual suspects were lauded--M&S, Unilever, GE. But what captures my attention is who was leading before 2010:

BP. Yes indeed, the oil major was nominated by between 20 and 30 percent on respondents in 2004, 2005 and 2006.

There's no doubt BP saw a whole lot of strategic advantage in running 'Beyond Petroleum' as a campaign. The question is, did the public get anything out of it? And yes, that's a rhetorical question.

Gem of the day

In another Congressional Environment First, Sen. Mike Simpson of Idaho has successfully abused the budget crisis to slip in a provision removing Rocky Mountain wolves from the endangered species list.

Things can only get better from here, right?

Another non-environmental wonder

You may have mistakenly interpreted Karl Rove's schlepping on Fox News as a heady descent from Most Powerful Conservative in the Recent History of Politics to Ordinary Slobbering Pundit. Well, this screenshot of his rapid-fire, inspired response to the near miss of a Congressional government shutdown will prove you wrong. He's actually been demoted to Glenn Beck Wannabe. And he's armed with a dangerous white board to boot.

Bonus bonus gem

Of all the degenerate comments social media has enabled on BP over the past year, I think this one is my favorite (refers to an article criticizing the company's poor excuse for a sustainability report in 2010.)

Bonus gem

Fact: Shell has 50% more petrol stations around the world than McDonald's has burger joints. James Smith, the outgoing chairman of Shell, doesn't hesitate to say that statistic is "my proudest boast at Shell".

Gem of the day

The UN climate scene is moving from awkard to despairing. As if the media's representation of the squabbling, haggling, low expectations and predictable debates wasn't depressing enough, here's a rock-bottom quote from the chair of Africa Group:

"Thank god we came up with an agenda. It's a pity it took so long. What does it say for the rest of the year?"

That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

Gem of the day

An interview on FT Energy Source with Amrita Sen, oil analyst at Barcap, captures in one choice quote what the entire issue with the investment community and the future of energy is:

"Despite a series of hurdles, the continued development of Canadian oil sands looks almost inevitable to us."

Right. If Barcap as a major investor decides that developing this dirty, hazardous energy resource is 'almost inevitable', placing it in the hands of some pre-determined fate, then...it will become so.

There's also a great exchange around the question of whether cutting oil subsidies would make renewable energy more competitive (obviously). Witness Sen's reply:

"This is a very interesting question."

Gem of the day

You have to wonder how Jane Austen would feel about having her literary masterpiece's title subverted to headline a Fortune survey. Regardless, the results of this year's 'Sense and Sustainability' are out and they paint a stunning portrait of how twisted the corporate landscape is.

Here's the whopper:

88% claimed their company is 'going green', but only 29 percent believe a majority of businesses are doing the same.

Aside from the fact the awkward reality that there's no way to pin down what 'going green' actually means, this is the kind of aggravating PR exercise that begs the question: If these results were really true, what would be left to worry about?

Still, the executives polled happily admit that they face challenges to achieving their green dreams. Witness this delight:

70% said the top barrier to more businesses going green was insufficient return on investment.

Right, because traditional methods of investment are really winning right now. Maybe those executives should pay attention to this.

Bonus gem

The shortlist is out for the annual Business Green awards, and guess who's up for Sustainability Team of the year?

The folks at BAE Systems. Ah, capitalism.

Gem of the day

The public reaction to BP's Sustainability Review, published last week, is: silence. Hardly anyone has responded to the gross failure of a report at all, with the exception of Good Magazine which noted its omission of oil spill volume estimates early on.

Why? The CSR community sure was vocal enough in the aftermath of Gulf of Mexico last year, offering up a chorus of timidly critical voices, most of which were aimed at the lame question 'whenceforth for BP's reputation'.

Perhaps the lack of chorus this time is because this sustainability report gets at a hard reality about reporting in general: as it stands, reporting is pretty useless. The purpose of CSR reporting is supposedly to improve performance by creating accountability for social and environmental impacts that aligns with financial impacts.

So if causing the biggest environmental disaster in the history of the US doesn't prevent BP from publishing a report which offers up little to no detail on what the actual impact was, and how their sustainability 'strategy' will change to reflect this, there's no point in reporting at all.

Then again, financial reporting ain't so great either...

Bonus bonus gem

Our friends at BAE Systems published their Annual Report today (proof in a nutshell, by the way, of why the concept of 'One Report' ain't getting us any closer to transparency or progress on sustainability at big corporates). And magically enough, here's what you get when you land on their homepage:

That's right, a disclosure for you to sign up to before you even see the content. This kind of Extreme Manouever doesn't really mesh with their commitment to a culture of 'Total Performance', which is hands down the most dystopian corporate strategy of all time. Here's a snapshot of what that means:

"Total Performance is about every aspect of the way we do business: Customer Focus, Financial Performance, Programme Execution and Responsible Behaviour."

I assume their use of the word 'Execution' is unintentionally ironic.


But spend an efficient 5 minutes parsing the bare bones of a report they've been able to cobble together and you'll see that this 'cautionary statement' is hardly necessary--it's pretty clear that anything sustainability related sits in the convenient 'sometime in the future' box at BAE. Where else could it sit for the largest military contractor in the world?

And just for kicks, in their words here's a snapshot of their motivation behind trying to do anything sustainably at all, according to their lovely CEO:

"Our CR strategy covers the issues that have been identified as having the most potential to affect the sustainability of the Group, by directly impacting the Group’s reputation or ability to operate."

That's right, reputation. Where have we heard that before? I think I'll start paying attention when BAE looks at their indirect impacts as a business. Boy, that'll be interesting. Human rights, anyone?

Bonus gem

For anyone who still has doubts of how far the oil industry's efforts to shape the dialogue over the future of energy have gone, enjoy this.

Gem of the day

Paul Krugman takes it up a notch as he investigates Koch-funded "climate science":

"I was wrong when I said that the joke was on the G.O.P.; actually, the joke is on the human race."

Another non-environmental wonder

The faces of hedge fund wealth in 2010. What a happy bunch. Analysis from the NY Times in a nutshell:

"Ten years ago, when the hedge fund industry was much smaller than it is today, it took 25 hedge fund managers to earn a combined annual payday of $5 billion. Last year, it took only one."

For a bonus gem, here's Leon Cooperman of Omega Advisors on what he plans to do with his extraordinary wealth (driven by signing up to the Gates' 'Giving Pledge'):

“I’m very, very philanthropic toward Columbia, which opened the door to Wall Street for me,” said Mr. Cooperman. “I’m trying to give money away to the kinds of things that touched me during my lifetime.”

Ah, redistribution of his billions towards things that matter...to him and his lifestyle. Tastes like progress.

Gem of the day

We knew it wouldn't be long until someone referenced That Movie to 'add humor' to the debate over sustainable forestry. Yes, I'm talking about Pulp Fiction.

Here's the Sustainable Forestry Initiative doing just that:

"ForestEthics continues to peddle pulp fiction about the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, repeating the same old inaccurate and misleading information."

Surely the certification wars are already gruesome enough without that kind of nauseating double entendre.

Bonus gem

Here they come, one after another: clear signs of the total disconnect between the energy--read: oil--crisis we're facing and what investors/the megacorporations they blindly trust assume we should do about it--read: continue business as usual.

HSBC issued a prediction today markets will doubtless be reacting to:

“We’re confident that there are around 50 years of oil left,” Karen Ward, the bank’s senior global economist, said in an interview on CNBC.

Here's the NY Times on the counter-argument to that prediction:

"Some oil industry observers take a more optimistic view of future supplies, arguing that further development of Canadian tar sands, offshore discoveries in the Arctic and an expected surge in supply from Iraq will keep oil markets well-supplied for decades. Shale drilling has also managed to boost domestic oil production in the United States after years of decline."

So increasingly risky, hazardous methods of drilling are a-ok as long as on a superficial level the markets remain 'well-supplied'? Somebody tell me what's wrong with that. Hmm.

Gem of the day

Joe Romm over at ClimateProgress is up in arms today about Obama's scheduled speech on energy security. The speech is supposed to revolve around a new White House plan to cut the nation's oil imports 1/3 by 2025. Romm rightfully points out that the 2008 baseline used--11.1 million barrels a day--means the goal is less ambitious than it seems, since for 2009 and 2010 the good ol' US-of-A has already averaged 9 million.

But what's making Romm especially upset is the same thing most enviromental groups took issue with after the State of the Union: the total absence of climate change, global warming and carbon from Obama's rhetoric.

Why? Framing the energy--let alone sustainable development--conversation around climate in the US isn't working. If anything, it's set the sustainability agenda back significantly by giving the big energy lobbyists and their GOP friends something to debate over instead of increasing regulations and taking action.

The attempted dismantling of the EPA is a direct outcome of that ongoing, tortured debate which environmentalists will never win as long as the economy remains on the side of traditional energy (and it will in the near future).

It ain't about climate anymore. It's about better lifestyles, health and safety, and common sense. I wiil definitely play that drinking game with you though, Joe.

Bonus gem

It's a zinger of a month for CSR reporting. Hot on the heels of BP, our friends at British American Tobacco have published their latest defensive shell.

My favorite part is their CEO's jargon-filled, generic answer to this question:

"For me it is clear: If we do not operate sustainably and create shared value, we will not be a successful business in the future."

"Our strategy is designed to deliver our vision of industry leadership and, as a result, build shareholder value. It is based on growth, funded by productivity and delivered by a winning organisation that acts responsibly at all times. Our balanced strategy adds value to all aspects of our business. We think this sets us apart from our competitors and ensures our long-term business sustainability. My predecessor, Paul Adams, was clear when he said that our sustainability goals are intrinsic to our strategy and are a cornerstone to building sustainable value. I agree wholeheartedly. The sustainability agenda is and will remain key to our long-term success."

To increase clarity, I suggest the following equation to replace that corporate monologue:

More cigarettes + more greenwash = Unsustainable long-term business strategy

Next up, it wouldn't be a report from the tobacco industry if we didn't have this tepid testimony to incremental innovation:

"How do we develop lower-risk products that will appeal to tobacco consumers? This is tough, and we’re still working out the science."

And for the final zinger, the concluding Q&A from the CEO interview:

"This is the 10th year of your sustainability journey. What do you think the next 10 years will bring?

Hopefully, more of the same."

Gem of the day

Joel Makower does his annual run-down of the polling frenzy in the lead up to Earth Day 2011. Here's one gem of a stat which typifies the relentless quest of these various media firms and research agencies to find PR-able nuggets in chaos of green markets:

"Lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender (LGBT) adults are accelerating their personal commitment to environmental issues at a higher rate than their heterosexual counterparts, found Harris Interactive. A majority (55 percent) of LGBT adults, say they 'personally care a great deal about the current state and future of the environment,' compared to just 33 percent of heterosexual American adults."

Green or not, it's true that as long as the GOP has its say gay Americans will have a lot more to worry about than straight Americans.

Here's another great one:

"New Consumers are looking for brands that deliver 'total value' — products that work well, last longer, cost less and, hopefully, do some good."

Right.

Another non-environmental wonder

Dissident Aleksei N. Navalny on what motivates him to keep his anti-corruption site in Russia up and exposing:

“I do this because I hate these people."

Not helping his chances of climbing the ladder in the Russian business community, that's for sure. The CEO of Transneft, a major energy company there, is already claiming Mr. Navalny is working for the CIA ordered to take down Russian companies.

Another non-environmental wonder

Few things are funnier right now than the outrage handily mustered by the Congressional Good Ole Party on Obama's moves in Libya.

Here's our friend Boehner crying his eyes out on behalf of The American People over the 'lack of a clearly defined role' in this foreign intervention:

"I and many other members of the House of Representatives are troubled that U.S. military resources were committed to war without clearly defining for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is and what America's role is in achieving that mission," Boehner wrote. "In fact, the limited, sometimes contradictory, case made to the American people by members of your Administration has left some fundamental questions about our engagement unanswered."

You're right Boehner. Obama has committed a truly irresponsible act. If only decisions had been made more in the style of 2002--then we'd know so little we'd have nothing to complain about.

Gem of the day

A new study out from Cone confirms our worst fears about the challenges of marketing sustainable--or at least 'less worse'--products:

"Americans Give Green Marketing Claims Too Much Credit"

Wait, what? Now we're blaming the average shopper for not being able to magically intuit the difference between 'eco-friendly', 'naturally made' and 'green'? I'm hard-pressed to think of a more convoluted way of assessing the state of green marketing, which is becoming a vortex of labels, certifications, claims and suggestive imagery that you'd need an advanced degree to navigate, let alone 5 minutes in a supermarket aisle.

Uber-gem

It's here, the highlight of the corporate greening season:

The 2010 BP Sustainability Review. Two points right off the bat, because I'm feeling too ill at ease to take the entire 50-page journey through this robust defensive shell of a report:

The 2010 BP 'at-a-glance' figures, which include Volume of oil spills and Volume of oil not recovered, don't include Deepwater Horizon. Why? In their fine print: "Although there are several third-party estimates of the flow rate or total volume of oil spilled from the Deepwater Horizon incident, we believe that no accurate determination can be made or reported until further information is collected and the analysis, such as the condition of the blowout preventer, is completed." One word: bullshit.

In his CEO statement, Dudley concludes: “To those who ask if we truly understand the implications, let me say firmly that ‘we get it’. We understand that business-as-usual is not an option, and we are making substantial changes to the way we work.” 

Compare that with this bold strategy revealed earlier in the very same CEO statement:

"With global oil production from existing fields declining by around 5% a year, it’s vital that new fields are discovered and developed. This is why BP will continue to move farther into harsh, remote and complex geographies, from deep water to the Russian Arctic; from oil sands and unconventional gas to giant fields – such as Rumaila in Iraq. We believe we can help meet energy demand and create returns for investors by applying our distinctive skills, capabilities and technologies in these demanding areas.”

As per Jeff Erikson, a VP at SustainAbility who provides tepid commentary to support this report that he should never be allowed to live down:


"The critical question seemed to be, as one participant in Washington put it, “will BP stand for ‘Beyond Petroleum’ or ‘Back to Petroleum’?” Many of BP’s stakeholders are looking for early signals of BP’s answer to that question."


Might I suggest Dudley's bold statement above provides a pretty clear answer.

Gem of the day

Deloitte has a new report out with a bold title designed to capture the attention of industry rags: "Every Company is an Energy Company". There's many, oh so many gems in here, but three deserve special attention.

#1 is this diagram. The simplistic idea that it's all about 'product and profit', translating into 'buy clean', is truly spectacular. Overall it's a classic reduction that has little to no meaning.

#2 is that behavior change, and how we can get people--not just 'corporations--to use less energy gets only a one-sentence nod in the entire thing. Let alone how we get people in a more holistic sense to change their relationship with energy (by developing a relationship with it in the first place).

#3 is their explanation for why renewables have yet to become front of mind:

"Perhaps one reason that corporations have not been quick enough to understand and implement energy management is that renewable technologies like wind and solar seemed for a while likely to ascend more quickly than they have. But the accumulated experience with renewables over the past few years has dimmed expectations."

Right, and traditional energy companies--read: oil and gas and coal--have had no role to play in trying to convince people that scaling up alternatives is an ambiguous and doubt-ridden 'challenge for the future'.

Gem of the day

When an energy production disaster occurs, you can be sure a gem like this isn't far behind:

"Japan Nuclear Firm Admits Missing Safety Checks at Disaster-hit Plant"

And yet, it still boggles the mind. This ain't your average storage facility, folks--it's a huge nuclear plant. So can we afford to step up the basic safety checks? Or, not even step them up, just--er--remember to do them?

"According to documents from Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), the company repeatedly missed safety checks over a 10-year period up to two weeks before the 11 March disaster, and allowed uranium fuel rods to pile up inside the 40-year-old facility."

Another non-environmental wonder

Conservative think-tanks and their pseudo-publications are always full of awkwardly confusing gems. Witness this one:

"Ever wonder why the left doesn't teach history? It's one disaster after another for them."

Gem of the day

Ann Coulter never fails to blow my mind, for obvious reasons. But this gem of a column she's written, a truly unreal assessment of the Japanese nuclear explosion, goes above and beyond the call of duty:

"With the terrible earthquake and resulting tsunami that have devastated Japan, the only good news is that anyone exposed to excess radiation from the nuclear power plants is now probably much less likely to get cancer. This only seems counterintuitive because of media hysteria for the past 20 years trying to convince Americans that radiation at any dose is bad. There is, however, burgeoning evidence that excess radiation operates as a sort of cancer vaccine."

Right. Her conclusion to the article is a tour-de-force in itself:

"Remember that, so far, thousands have died only because of Mother Nature. And the survivors may outlive all of us over here in hermetically sealed, radiation-free America."

Ann, I'll buy you a one-way ticket to Minamisanriku. You can be a lesson to us all.

Another non-environmental wonder

The NY Times on emotions running high inside yesterday's awkwardly misguided hearing on Muslims in the US-of-A:

"One member of Congress broke down and cried. Another was so incensed that she waved a pocket-size copy of the Constitution and declared, “This breathing document is in pain.” And there were so many angry charges of McCarthyism and countercharges of “political correctness” that it sometimes seemed that the topic at hand on Thursday in Washington was the radicalization of the House Homeland Security Committee, not American Muslims."

Right.

Gem of the day

Petrobras President and CEO Sergio Gabrielli on the company's future, in an interview with Fortune:

“What we can say is that we have a lot of oil."

Another non-environmental wonder

Obama's team.

Bonus gem

Every  now and then something truly weird and disturbing comes along in the paradise of green business. This is one of those things. Please explore for yourself.

In the words of GreenBiz:

"It should perhaps come as no surprise that, as people dig in to the business of greening every aspect of their work and personal lives, they will also get serious about greening their afterlives."

Gem of the day

There's many, many reasons why today's face-off between climate scientists and the House Energy and Commerce Committee over EPA regulatory scope is a bad thing, but here's the most important one:

This is not a long-term issue. This is about every American deserving clean and safe water and air, and protection from toxic chemicals and emissions. Framing it in the context of climate change only helps advocates for big business and little regulation press on short-term policy levers--i.e. economic growth and jobs--and contribute to a further erosion of the EPA's ability to lay down any rules, let alone those potentially governing greenhouse gases.

Enough climate talk already--it doesn't work in the ol' U.S.-of-A. Can I get some mountain-top coal mining bans now please? Thanks in advance.

Another non-environmental wonder

The NY Times on Glenn Beck's Fox TV show:

"A serial doomsday machine that’s a bummer to watch."

Zing!

Gem of the day

Love articles that use supporting evidence like this:

"One survey found that nearly 90 percent of senior executives at Fortune 1000 companies believe sustainability is a 'moral responsibility' but that cost savings is the leading driver of sustainability related project investments."

Right, ethical obligations vs. money--I wonder which is most likely to capture the attention of your average corporate.

Uber gem

An unintentionally hilarious piece of thought leadership from the oil and gas industry:

"The Gas Machine", from a microsite on Statoil which carries the unfortunate title of 'goodideas.statoil.com'

That's right, in an age where all other companies in the industry are competing to produce ambiguous greenwash about the future of energy, Statoil is laying down the line about just how much gas its ingeniously named Troll development has produced since 1996. And they're not mincing words:

"Developed through the application of innovative technology, this enormous platform has provided Europe with gas since 1996, and will carry on doing so, for many decades to come."

But wait--it's not as simple as that. The best part is that if you accept their invitation to 'take part in the conversation', you're transported to the magical homepage of 'goodideas' which carries this headline:

"Together we can solve the challenges of tomorrow."

Awkward. I think Statoil's comms team needs a 101 on thought leadership to decide which misleading message they want to choose: greenwash or dirty energy promotion. Maybe they can call these guys for help?

Gem of the day

Joe Romm delivers a whopper to the "Yes we can" team in D.C.

"I’ve been as critical of Obama about this as anybody, and like you, have come to the conclusion that he doesn’t appear to get the dire nature of the situation we’re in.  But, in ‘fairness’ to the President, it must be pointed out that the White House sucks at messaging in general."

Gem of the day

It's no news that the US-of-A is currently a vortex for all things climate and energy. But this is truly a gem: according to a new report from the stalwart genius crew Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the DOE has missed all 34 congressional deadlines for setting energy efficiency standards for the 20 product categories with statutory deadlines that have passed.

The cost? $28 billion in missed energy savings by 2030. Ouch.

Another non-environmental wonder

Ever wondered what it's like to be a lobbyist for Middle Eastern oil despots? No, me either. But the NY Times has a painful insight into the awkward situation today.

The gem:

"Just last year, three of the biggest names in the lobbying club — Tony Podesta, Robert L. Livingston and Toby Moffett — pulled off a coup for one of their clients, Egypt. They met with dozens of lawmakers and helped stall a Senate bill that called on Egypt to curtail human rights abuses. Ultimately, those abuses helped bring the government down."

Right. But wait, it gets better. A window into what the conversations sounded like:


Mr. Moffett, a former congressman from Connecticut, told his old colleagues that the bill “would be viewed as an insult” by an important ally. “We were just saying to them, ‘Don’t do this now to our friends in Egypt,’ ” he recounted.

Bonus gem

Guess what everyone! Our friends over at News Corp have finally, at long last achieved their goal of becoming carbon neutral. Harken, the future of corporate sustainability is here. After all, if Rupert Murdoch can afford enough offsets to make his megacorporation look less dangerous, the skies are wide open for his more innocuous peers. Here's Murdoch reveling in his achievement:

""We made a bold commitment in 2007 to embed the values of energy efficiency and environmental sustainability into all of our businesses -- for the benefit of our communities and our bottom line."

And how about the social side of things, News Corp? Journalistic integrity, anyone? Halting global progress through disinformation and climate science denial? According to their pseudo-article in Greenbiz/press release, "News Corp. also created a set of intentionally broad long-term goals with no time horizon." Wow, impressive. Included among them is this gem:

"Continue to engage its readers, employees and customers on sustainability"

Oh well, I guess that'll go in next year's CSR report. Wait--I don't even want to know what that goal looks like for News Corp in practice. I think I'll just watch Fox News instead.

Gem of the day

This can't come as a surprise after all this time, but for some reason it still does. What did BP base its projections for future energy demand in last year's annual report on?

An IEA reference scenario, which that organisation makes clear in its yearly 'World Energy Outlook' is not to be treated as realistic. In the IEA's words:

"The reference scenario does not include possible, potential or even likely future policy initiatives, thus it cannot be considered a forecast of what is likely to happen."

Right. And what impact do BP's energy projections have on its annual report? Well, they're used as justification for more complex and risky types of drilling--like offshore drilling.

When, O when, will the investment community wake up and smell the sustainability roses?