COP15 has come and gone… leaving behind a bad taste for some and a grain of hope for the others.  But no matter which of those two groups you belong to, outside of your window the movement toward more sustainable world continues.

The Information Technology is only one area of industry that is in full focus right now in the US. Just recently, the government and private sectors announced a $115 million dollars investment into 14 IT projects that would work on improvement of energy efficiency in the following areas:

• IT equipment
• Software
• Power supply chain and cooling

IT equipment and software projects will focus on servers and networking devices and how they can be optimized in order to be more energy efficient. Power supply chain projects will look at how to “minimize power loss and heat generation that occurs in server-based IT systems.” The cooling projects will focus on improvement of cooling equipment in order to use less energy.

From $115 million claimed, $47 million is coming from the U.S. Department of Energy. The following is a breakdown of how the funds will be distributed among IT companies based on their areas of specialty:

Funding for IT equipment and software projects will go to:

• SeaMicro Inc. – $9.3 million
• IBM T.J. Watson Research Center - $1.6 million
• Alcatel-Lucent, Bell Labs – $300,000
• California Institute of Technology – $300,000

Funding for power supply chain projects will go to:

• Hewlett-Packard Company – $7.4 million
• Power Assure, Inc – $5 million
• Columbia University – $2.8 million
• Lineage Power Corporation – $2.4 million
• BAE Systems – $222,000

Funding for cooling projects will go to:

• Yahoo! Inc. – $9.9 million
• Edison Materials Technology Center – $2.8 million
• IBM T.J. Watson Research Center – $2.3 million
• Alcatel-Lucent – $1.8 million
• Federspiel Controls, Inc. – $584,000

So if you, like so many, feel that the Copenhagen summit took away our last hope for change – think again. The only reason we didn’t reach the new treaty is because the countries couldn’t agree on the financial and legislative commitment toward each other at this time. But, that doesn’t mean that the commitments don’t exist on the national level, as we can see with the US – they just need to be re-thought and re-engineered in order to fit into the international level, as well. Once countries are clear on what they can do inside their own borders, they will become clearer on what they can offer between international borders, as well.

So, let’s just keep going.

If you have any interest in the world of technology and gadgets, you probably followed the exciting news last week from the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

One announcement that caught my eye was OnStar’s mobile application for the new Chevrolet Volt. Motorists will be able to track and control nearly everything in their automobile, from its mileage to when it gets charged, all by using the app on an Apple iPhone, Motorola Droid or BlackBerry Storm.

The Volt, as you may know, promises to go 40 miles on a single electric charge with zero carbon emissions, after that the gas engine kicks in to provide long-distance driving. Why only 40 miles of emissions-free driving? The company says its engineers determined 75 percent of drivers go less than 40 miles each day. The car is scheduled to hit the roads sometime near the end of 2010, estimated to cost around $40,000.

Photo from Shark Truth, a campaign to find alternatives to shark fin soup

A couple of weeks ago, I saw an interesting post from The Atlantic magazine come across Facebook. It was titled provocatively, “Is it okay to eat an inhumane meal if it’s traditional?”

The substance of the article was about the enjoyment of shark’s fin, which is a popular and controversial delicacy across Asia. The fins are procured in a process called “finning,” where fishermen cut them off and toss the sharks helplessly back in the ocean to die.

While not of the same magnitude at all, this reminded of an e-mail my mom sent me recently about LED Christmas lights. A proponent of the traditional, she, like many people, doesn’t think the new, energy efficient lights have the same fun holiday spirit as the antique lights of the past. And she doesn’t appreciate being made to feel bad about her preference.

Through our world’s history, changes in tradition have often been driven by societal pressure. Today, much of that pressure comes from the sustainability/social responsibility movement. When we talk about sustainability, our messages often hinge on morality—or guilt. By making “good” choices, you help save the world. And by making “bad” choices, you hurt the world. So, does guilt work?

In a word: Yes.

But maybe it’s not that simple.

Scientists, psychologists and marketers have been studying the effects of emotions on consumers for a long time. Not surprisingly, they play a huge role in the decisions we make.

In a research described in The New York Times earlier this year, scientists found that consumers who were once reacting with desire for expensive handbags now look upon the same products with something like repulsion—because the recession has conditioned them to feel guilty for considering something so expensive but non essential to their lives.

Many retailers see shame as an impediment to economic recovery. People don’t feel bad just about buying handbags. They feel bad about buying anything.

Researchers have even found that fear and guilt are more motivating than any other message, including hope.

“Making people feel good is less important than making people feel accountable when it comes to making wise decisions about self-protection,” wrote Kirsten A. Passyn of Salisbury University and Mita Sujan of Tulane University in the March 2006 issue of the Journal of Consumer Research.

But there is evidence that guilt gets its power from being different. The more people hear guilt-driven messages, the more savvy and skeptical they become. In essence, perhaps the more we play the “guilt card,” the less it works.

So, my question is: What role should guilt play in our advocacy of sustainability? Do we stand the best chance of success by making people feel accountable for their actions. Or, in the end, will guilt only turn people off?

What do you think?

As the year and the decade draw to a close, a reflection …

Humankind has made many great strides in the past 10 years. We’ve grown in our understanding of the global challenges we can only resolve by working together. We’ve summoned up the will to make meaningful improvements in the condition of our planet and its people. We’ve advanced the technology and know-how it will take to bring those changes to life.

To all who have made a mindful choice to do something, great or small, to drive positive change for the next generations, I say “thank you.”

And in that same spirit, here’s a New Year’s wish to the world – from policy makers and business leaders to scientists and inventors … from the farmers who feed us to the children who look to us to protect their future:

If you are weak, may you find an advocate to champion your cause – and if you are powerful, may you be graced with the insight, fairness and courage to be that advocate. May each of us have the vision and resources required to act for long-term prosperity rather than short-term gain. May all creatures who share this Earth have fresh air, clean water and shelter from the elements. And may we all find sustenance and comfort, for body and soul.

In Einstein’s wise words, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Here’s to a new way of thinking … in a New Year filled with peace and good will.

It appears that world leaders have reached an agreement—well into the night in Copenhagen.  Insiders are saying it provides a means to monitor and verify emissions cuts by developing countries but has less ambitious climate targets than the United States and European governments had initially sought.

The deal was brokered by a handful of countries—U.S., China, India, and South Africa.  We’ll take the weekend and analyze information coming out of Copenhagen and provide a summary of the agreement on Monday.  Watch President Obama’s press conference here.

With literally hours remaining before the COP 15 conference ends, President Obama spoke at the climate conference.  Obama shredded his prepared schedule a few minutes after landing in Copenhagen Friday, racing from the airport to an emergency meeting with 18 other leaders from large nations in a last-ditch effort to save the foundering climate change conference.

When he did address the delegates, Obama didn’t offer any new concessions, but he outlined the U.S. position:

1. Climate mitigation—binding greenhouse gas emissions
2. Transparency and verification of emissions reporting by all countries
3. Long term financing for developing countries

The second point—transparency and verification—is the key sticking point between China and the U.S.  The U.S. and its allies have taken the position that countries providing funds — as the United States would — have the right to verify the emissions reporting of countries receiving funds (Such as China and its allies — primarily the G77).

Many believe if the U.S. and China can resolve this difference, some type of political framework can be agreed upon that would lay the foundation for a binding agreement in Mexico next year.  Immediately following the conclusion of his remarks, Obama and Premier Wen Jiabao met for nearly an hour and both sides that progress had been made.  While not saying they had reached a breakthrough, both sides did say that progress had been made on verification and both leaders instructed their teams to keep talking.

FH colleague, Michael Berendt, wrote a commentary piece that appeared in today’s China Daily.  It’s a look back over the past two weeks at Copenhagen and discuses the prospects for a deal and future challenges and opportunities.  It’s a perfect “curtain-raiser” for the last day of negotiations and places today’s activities in Copenhagen in context.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-12/18/content_9197009.htm

Stay tuned.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came to Copenhagen today and announced that the U.S. will help raise $100 billion annually through 2020 to help developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.  Long term finance assistance remains one of the key sticking points between the developed and developing countries.

The money would come from public and private funds mobilized by the United States and other unspecified nations.  But, it will only happen if major emerging developing countries agree to binding emission targets that can be verified internationally.  In effect, the U.S. is tying this carrot of financial assistance to another sticking point in the negotiations—countries like China and India agree to binding agreements that can be independently verified. Clinton stated in very clear terms that “if there is not even a commitment to pursue transparency, it’s a deal breaker for us.” 

The proposed fund is on the low end of what the European Union and others say is needed Clinton also stressed that the aid would go only to the poorest countries.  It remains unclear what portion would come from the United States, and Clinton did not specify how much immediate money would be available from America.

Immediate reaction from environmental activists was positive and said the announcement now puts the onus on China to compromise.

More than 110 heads of state are set to arrive in the Danish capital over the course of the next 48 hours to launch the final summit session. Several will speak to delegates today, including Ethiopian prime minister and Africa’s lead U.N. negotiator Meles Zenawi and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

It appears that on almost every point of contention, countries have drifted further apart since the conference began. That’s brought home by the latest draft agreement, which leaves, for later this week, pretty much everything that is controversial—how much to cut emissions by in each country; who will pay and how much; how to verify what other countries are doing on emissions; and, how to rectify any climate deal with international trade agreements.

China and the U.S. continue to exchange public barbs.  The U.S. and China are at odds over how much wealthy economies should pay poorer countries to deal with global warming, emissions-reduction goals and how to ensure that countries live up to their pledges to curb climate change.

President Obama is feeling the heat back home too—more than two dozen of the United States’ most prominent manufacturers, utilities and technology companies.  Yesterday, they sent a letter to Obama urging to take a leadership role when he arrives in Copenhagen on Friday and to secure an aggressive international climate agreement.

“This agreement has to include significant near- and long-term emissions reductions targets and strong finance provisions, with a substantial commitment of new long-term finance from developed nations, including the United States,” the companies write.

The letter’s signers include Nike, Dow Chemical, Microsoft and Ingersoll Rand, as well as power providers Northern Grid, PG&E and PSEG. They stress the importance of an international climate agreement for leveraging private investment — a point made repeatedly by investor groups at the Copenhagen conference — and for spurring Congress and governments worldwide to give businesses the regulatory certainty they need to plan ahead.

The letter also states “We must put the United States on the path to significant emissions reductions, a stronger economy, and a new position of leadership in the global effort to stabilize our climate. The costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of action. Our environment and economy are at stake.”

In addition, the group calls for an agreement on technology transfer that is careful to protect intellectual property rights while also providing clean technologies and manufacturing know-how to start poor countries on a low-carbon path to development.

Gordon Brown said in remarks earlier today that there is a potential breakthrough on one of the key sticking points between rich and poor nations.  In a press conference expected later today, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi is expected to discuss details of a compromise from poor countries that could offer an agreement on long term financial commitment to help poor countries adapt to the effects climate change is having on their countries.

With heads of state descending on Copenhagen, the negotiations are reaching crunch time.

Last week had its dramas—leaked drafts, tiny nations walking out, and rifts between the U.S. and China over emission reduction targets.  But, that was a prelude to the real action that will unfold this week when world leaders arrive and the real negotiations begin.  The negotiations are framed around 4 pillars:

• Mitigation
• Adaptation
• Technology transfer
• Finance & investment

First and foremost, there is the question of how far developed countries are willing to cut emissions by 2050.  President Obama arrives Friday and is expected to take the podium.  But, analysts doubt he can offer much more than the targets he has already proposed—somewhere in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.  Related, there is also the broader question of whether the world can keep temperatures from rising no more than 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius.  Small island nations, most impacted by rising sea levels, have indicated that what’s been proposed so far is insufficient. 

Equally contentious is the problem of developing countries like China, India and Brazil and what they are willing to do to help avert climate change.  While all three countries have come out with reduction targets, none is willing to be held legally bound to achieve their stated reductions.  They see these as voluntary commitments and resist any resist any suggestion that they should be subject to international control. 

The big battle, however, is over longer-term finance to help poorer countries adapt to the worst impacts of climate change and help them begin to mitigate their own carbon emissions.  Industrialized countries have proposed a $10 billion “fast-start” fund for immediate needs through 2012.  And, a consensus has emerged among the same countries that the long term investment should be about $100 billion a year. On the other hand, developing countries — and some pressure groups like the World Wildlife Fund–say it needs to be much more, but even $100 billion will be hard to achieve. President Obama will be severely constrained on what he can offer while climate legislation remains held up in the U.S. Senate, and other nations will not want to commit until they see some sign of U.S. intent. 

Finally, there are arguments over the very form of any deal. As reported last week, developing countries are insisting on retaining and improving the Kyoto Protocol, but its very name is a deal breaker in the United States.  And, Russia is rumored to be privately turning against it. The likeliest outcome is a toughened Kyoto Protocol, with a linked treaty covering the United States and developing countries and new agreements made in Copenhagen.

Negotiations could end up being all or nothing—one big package or nothing at all.  And, it may all come down to the last few hours of the last day.  It promises to be a nail biter.  Stay tuned.

As COP15 heads into the second and crucial week of negotiations, both Channing and I spent a considerable amount of time talking to individual companies and attending sessions that featured a diverse set of business perspectives on the negotiations.  For those businesses attending the conference, several themes emerged outlining the “gotta haves” for them to make the type of investments that will usher in a low-carbon economy.

1. Clearer rules: Businesses here are looking for certainty in any regulatory scheme that evolves from these negotiations.  Clearer rules will help give investors the confidence to put money into clean technology.  One CEO told us “clean tech is one of the largest emerging markets the world has seen.”
2. Level playing field: In climate change terms this means an international carbon market that ensures carbon price stability, as well as unified and reliable measurement, reporting and verification.  This will enable fair competition and a meaningful comparison of companies’ performances.
3. The cost of carbon: Business is looking for price signals to emerge from the negotiations and the type of emissions trading that will be established.
4. Clear emissions reduction target: Without clear reduction goals and market mechanisms companies may hold back on investment, despite having the technology and the know-how to deliver the required solutions.

Business interests here at the conference are also actively trying to impact the direction of the negotiations.  In advance of COP 15, the Prince of Wales Foundation submitted to the U.N. a Copenhagen Communiqué on Climate Change that outlined the components of any agreement.  The communiqué was signed by more than 800 global companies, including U.S. companies like Nike, Starbucks and Yahoo.

Additionally, this past Saturday evening, business leaders met at Kronborg Castle, the castle that allegedly inspired Shakespeare to create Hamlet.  Several U.S. companies outlined the current low carbon products and activities they currently have on the market.  These companies have a clear commitment to climate change and have identified the key obstacles they hope are removed during this conference so that they can even more aggressively capture the waiting low carbon market.

That said, there’s a sense here that the companies in Copenhagen don’t reflect the mainstream of corporate America, where big lobbies like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers oppose the climate bills pending in Congress.  Still, they are hoping that the negotiations at the COP 15 do not turn out to be, as Shakespeare once wrote, “much ado about nothing.”