I've mentioned this before, and will doubtless mention it again... until I move from being a struggling and in need of help and connections business, to being nice and comfy and no longer in need of much except a cushy lifestyle surrounded by my fellow green elite.
For I have just had yet another 'invitation' - with major price tag attached - to attend yet another summit discussing things green and how to profit from them, this time from Alan Rusbridger, Editor of the Guardian: The Guardian Climate Change Summit 2007
It is 'a must-attend event for all directors and managers wanting to be at the forefront of solving the carbon challenge'. Well, unless you are not quite up for the £1k price tag for the day, once fee, travel and accommodation are totalled up.
I would like to go, as it could be of use to me and, who knows, I could have something to offer. Just look who is going to be there:
Peter Ainsworth MP, shadow secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs
Keith Allott, head of climate change, WWF
Kathryn Barker, head of environment, BAA
Paul Dawson, director, Barclays Capital
Richard Gillies, director of store development, design and procurement, Marks & Spencer
Adrian Hewitt, energy and sustainability manager, Merton Borough Council
Senior executive, HSBC
Chris Huhne MP, shadow environment, food and rural affairs secretary
Andrew Jones, senior manager, energy and environment, Boots
Tony Juniper, executive director, Friends of the Earth
Sir David King, chief scientific advisor to HM Government and head of the Office of Science and Innovation
Simon Lewis, group corporate affairs director, Vodafone
Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London
Caroline Lucas, Green Member of the European Parliament
Paul Monaghan, head of ethics and sustainability, Co-operative Group
David North, community and government affairs director, Tesco
Ian Pearson MP, minister of state for climate change and environment
Jonathon Porritt, founder director, Forum for the Future
James Smith, chairman, Shell UK ltd
Ben Stimson, director corporate responsibility, BskyB
Karl Whiteman, Managing Director, Berkeley Homes (Central London)
Confirmed facilitators (for sector specific breakout sessions):
Simon Mills head of sustainable development unit, City of London
Bill Clark, sustainability policy manager, Southampton City Council
Nick Coad, head of group environmental strategy, National Express Group
Jo Confino, executive editor, the Guardian
James Stacey, head of sustainable business, Standard Chartered
But then again, what chance would I have of actually meeting them? They will be in the VIP enclosure or up there speaking. I would just be a face in the crowd and maybe get to chat to a few guys around me who may ask about my Vac:Sac, which is my mobile billboard.
Frankly, unless you are speaking, it hardly seems worth the money or effort.
However, I may have a rummage round the sponsors list to see who I can try and blag an invite from.
You never know, they could feel having someone from less rarefied places may bring them closer to earth, where the rest of us live.
Showing posts with label BIZ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BIZ. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Today... save planet. Tomorrow.. write about it
Not the other way round!
Global capitalism now has no serious rivals. But it could destroy itself
That subhead is dead posh, but has the benefit of brevity.
Basically it’s saying ‘There are too many of us. There are getting to be more and more each day. Most are getting richer. And they have few other outlets for their money than buying stuff that screws up the planet in the making (and using, in the case of airplanes, etc, because most rich, and not so rich, folk spend so much time working they have to rush about the planet in the few moments spare just to find more ways of blowing the excess dough).
This is the second time that elephant has been trumpeted this week. The last was a shrill lady from Transport 2000 (London, not-yet-parent, doesn’t cook much at home branch... ‘who needs cars?... we can all cycle!) on Newsnight, who the government and hence BBC seems to think represents all who care about our fair planet.
But you know what? I agree with you.
It is a pretty Pyrrhic victory if, having triumphed, you, or perhaps your heirs, don’t have much left to enjoy it in.
And there, to me, is the rub.
Time. And what ‘we’ do with it.
Our future is in our hands, but we do leave most of it to a rather odd, even unholy, alliance of government, business, various ‘groups’ and... the media to ensure it’s all going to work out OK in the end.
And at any one time they all hook up and fall out on various tribal, selfish and self-interested (with the odd smidge of altruism every so often) lines, such that historically one bloc has been pre-eminent until it isn’t.
Leaving aside nuclear Armageddon, we have now for the first time a potential global threat which rather demands that all these groups, in all their separate bases of operation, with all their various associated nuances (race, religion, etc)... cooperate.
I’m not feeling too encouraged at this point.
Most ‘isms’ are not really designed to cope with much on a planetary scale. It’s just competing to win locally. Trouble is, Mother Nature’s evolutionary design has hit a snag: there’s no more space to expand, and an awful lot of us are none to keen on dealing with that problem the old-fashioned Serengeti way. And having just hit fifty, I’m not too keen on them addressing it even locally, by making me today’s Soylent Green additive.
Personally, I think that little lot needs to be higher on the agenda by now than 4x4s, or even the terms of the next Kyoto’s location, but moving on....
I have to say of the ‘isms’ I actually think capitalism is in with the best chance, because it is most likely to throw up those with the desire and the means to act. I have to assume there are some squillionaire supermarket chiefs who do have kids and do worry about their futures almost as much as shareholder returns. Let’s just hope he or she is not the next Hugo Drax (no beard if it’s a her).
Speaking of beards there are some glimmers of this happening already, but I’m still trying to reconcile Mr. Branson saving the planet with Big Al at the same time as spending his next Bank Holiday in space (unless that tourist rocket is propelled by rubber bands).
And at least most capitalist systems are sort of democratic (for now), with sort of free - if no longer very effective, or trusted - presses (for now).
So if a bloke, or a lady, or a very small mixed bunch do start doing stuff for their own short-term personal interest at the expense of others, we can often still find out and try and stop them. In many cases, at least in the West (but not always), it can be without getting banged up or done in.
Davos has been mentioned, and here I must play my own devil’s advocate to the cause of ‘BIG’ business helping much at all - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/enjoy-today-tomorrow-is-looking-lot.html
But compared to the alternatives, in other countries and indeed our own political classes (who can see no further than their career and the next election, if that far – I do believe in a sorry twist that allotments are being dug up for someone’s next Olympian concrete folly), I’m afraid they are the best of a very bad lot. I just wish more would see fit to act while they are still establishing their power bases by raping the planet first, and not just once they have had their go and are seeking other outlets.
But there are those keen to DO something about it, and a little less of the talking.
It would indeed be good to get a few more.
How about you?
Global capitalism now has no serious rivals. But it could destroy itself
That subhead is dead posh, but has the benefit of brevity.
Basically it’s saying ‘There are too many of us. There are getting to be more and more each day. Most are getting richer. And they have few other outlets for their money than buying stuff that screws up the planet in the making (and using, in the case of airplanes, etc, because most rich, and not so rich, folk spend so much time working they have to rush about the planet in the few moments spare just to find more ways of blowing the excess dough).
This is the second time that elephant has been trumpeted this week. The last was a shrill lady from Transport 2000 (London, not-yet-parent, doesn’t cook much at home branch... ‘who needs cars?... we can all cycle!) on Newsnight, who the government and hence BBC seems to think represents all who care about our fair planet.
But you know what? I agree with you.
It is a pretty Pyrrhic victory if, having triumphed, you, or perhaps your heirs, don’t have much left to enjoy it in.
And there, to me, is the rub.
Time. And what ‘we’ do with it.
Our future is in our hands, but we do leave most of it to a rather odd, even unholy, alliance of government, business, various ‘groups’ and... the media to ensure it’s all going to work out OK in the end.
And at any one time they all hook up and fall out on various tribal, selfish and self-interested (with the odd smidge of altruism every so often) lines, such that historically one bloc has been pre-eminent until it isn’t.
Leaving aside nuclear Armageddon, we have now for the first time a potential global threat which rather demands that all these groups, in all their separate bases of operation, with all their various associated nuances (race, religion, etc)... cooperate.
I’m not feeling too encouraged at this point.
Most ‘isms’ are not really designed to cope with much on a planetary scale. It’s just competing to win locally. Trouble is, Mother Nature’s evolutionary design has hit a snag: there’s no more space to expand, and an awful lot of us are none to keen on dealing with that problem the old-fashioned Serengeti way. And having just hit fifty, I’m not too keen on them addressing it even locally, by making me today’s Soylent Green additive.
Personally, I think that little lot needs to be higher on the agenda by now than 4x4s, or even the terms of the next Kyoto’s location, but moving on....
I have to say of the ‘isms’ I actually think capitalism is in with the best chance, because it is most likely to throw up those with the desire and the means to act. I have to assume there are some squillionaire supermarket chiefs who do have kids and do worry about their futures almost as much as shareholder returns. Let’s just hope he or she is not the next Hugo Drax (no beard if it’s a her).
Speaking of beards there are some glimmers of this happening already, but I’m still trying to reconcile Mr. Branson saving the planet with Big Al at the same time as spending his next Bank Holiday in space (unless that tourist rocket is propelled by rubber bands).
And at least most capitalist systems are sort of democratic (for now), with sort of free - if no longer very effective, or trusted - presses (for now).
So if a bloke, or a lady, or a very small mixed bunch do start doing stuff for their own short-term personal interest at the expense of others, we can often still find out and try and stop them. In many cases, at least in the West (but not always), it can be without getting banged up or done in.
Davos has been mentioned, and here I must play my own devil’s advocate to the cause of ‘BIG’ business helping much at all - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/enjoy-today-tomorrow-is-looking-lot.html
But compared to the alternatives, in other countries and indeed our own political classes (who can see no further than their career and the next election, if that far – I do believe in a sorry twist that allotments are being dug up for someone’s next Olympian concrete folly), I’m afraid they are the best of a very bad lot. I just wish more would see fit to act while they are still establishing their power bases by raping the planet first, and not just once they have had their go and are seeking other outlets.
But there are those keen to DO something about it, and a little less of the talking.
It would indeed be good to get a few more.
How about you?
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
What we need is more reasearch, obviously, to avoid making any decision on this
Pushed a few buttons: David Brents 'are costing us £220bn'
Just think what such management is preventing us from making.
At my company have another view of these folk, which is not meant to be that complementary: gatekeepers.
If carried out correctly, it is a very necessary process of assessment and filtering, but all too often can mean barriers of self-interest, concern for being wrong and plain desire to maintain comfortable status quo that prevents innovation and competitive development: paralysis.
In my own area, the environment, I’ve lost count of the instances we’ve experienced or have been told of, where innovation has hit brick walls within public and private organizations more interested in process than product.
I’m obviously happy with the report’s finding in support of this, but have to say doubt the solution is in the engagement of more blame-shifting and/or shoring trainers or consultants to further muddy the decision-making process.
Just think what such management is preventing us from making.
At my company have another view of these folk, which is not meant to be that complementary: gatekeepers.
If carried out correctly, it is a very necessary process of assessment and filtering, but all too often can mean barriers of self-interest, concern for being wrong and plain desire to maintain comfortable status quo that prevents innovation and competitive development: paralysis.
In my own area, the environment, I’ve lost count of the instances we’ve experienced or have been told of, where innovation has hit brick walls within public and private organizations more interested in process than product.
I’m obviously happy with the report’s finding in support of this, but have to say doubt the solution is in the engagement of more blame-shifting and/or shoring trainers or consultants to further muddy the decision-making process.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Well, he did ask #2
The Telegraph Business Club asked a question based on:
Would you give a senior management job to someone who had no experience of business management and no experience of the subject area? No. I thought not.
So maybe Patrick Barbour of the TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA) is onto something when he argues that politicians face an impossible task when they are appointed to run complex government departments.
"They generally have little or no knowledge of their subject area and no management experience," he says, "yet they are made chief executives of huge organisations like the NHS that would be beyond the best business brains in the world." As a result, he points out, the British Medical Journal ranks British healthcare as the second worst in the industrialised world.
Barbour suggests that politicians should set policy but have no direct involvement with the management of vital services like health and education. "People with genuine experience should be responsible for day-to-day management," he says.
His argument is given some added credence from an ICM poll commissioned by the TPA that shows nearly 70 percent of the population believes more than a fifth of Government expenditure is wasted. The poll also reveals majority support for taking politicians out of the management of health and education.
Barbour concludes that "we need serious structural reform of Government so politicians are no longer trying to do impossible jobs and talented people from outside politics can be brought in to run things better." Is he right? In a funny way, Gordon Brown set a precedent for such a change when he gave the Bank of England control over interest rates. There is a huge amount of business talent in the UK. Maybe it could be put to use at the highest levels of government.
Or am I being naïve in giving any credence to the views of a single-issue lobby group like the TPA. What do you think? Come to my blog and let me know by clicking here.
I answered:
"Short answer to a much bigger, and complex, piece of research and opinion: yes, why not? There couldn't be much worse mess and waste created. And logic does dictate that those educated, trained and experienced in delivering an end-result of benefit to the real stakeholders (for consumers - and a happy consumer is a successful company - read the public, tax and/or ratepayers), as opposed to ones to meet target, career or agenda-driven criteria, will make for better ROI all round.
I am currently looking a barrel-load of discrepancies between what is being broadcast, done and hyped with environmental, 3rd sector and social entrepreneurship issues, and what is actually being done and/or (mis)-managed."
Would you give a senior management job to someone who had no experience of business management and no experience of the subject area? No. I thought not.
So maybe Patrick Barbour of the TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA) is onto something when he argues that politicians face an impossible task when they are appointed to run complex government departments.
"They generally have little or no knowledge of their subject area and no management experience," he says, "yet they are made chief executives of huge organisations like the NHS that would be beyond the best business brains in the world." As a result, he points out, the British Medical Journal ranks British healthcare as the second worst in the industrialised world.
Barbour suggests that politicians should set policy but have no direct involvement with the management of vital services like health and education. "People with genuine experience should be responsible for day-to-day management," he says.
His argument is given some added credence from an ICM poll commissioned by the TPA that shows nearly 70 percent of the population believes more than a fifth of Government expenditure is wasted. The poll also reveals majority support for taking politicians out of the management of health and education.
Barbour concludes that "we need serious structural reform of Government so politicians are no longer trying to do impossible jobs and talented people from outside politics can be brought in to run things better." Is he right? In a funny way, Gordon Brown set a precedent for such a change when he gave the Bank of England control over interest rates. There is a huge amount of business talent in the UK. Maybe it could be put to use at the highest levels of government.
Or am I being naïve in giving any credence to the views of a single-issue lobby group like the TPA. What do you think? Come to my blog and let me know by clicking here.
I answered:
"Short answer to a much bigger, and complex, piece of research and opinion: yes, why not? There couldn't be much worse mess and waste created. And logic does dictate that those educated, trained and experienced in delivering an end-result of benefit to the real stakeholders (for consumers - and a happy consumer is a successful company - read the public, tax and/or ratepayers), as opposed to ones to meet target, career or agenda-driven criteria, will make for better ROI all round.
I am currently looking a barrel-load of discrepancies between what is being broadcast, done and hyped with environmental, 3rd sector and social entrepreneurship issues, and what is actually being done and/or (mis)-managed."
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Enjoy Today. Tomorrow is looking a lot iffier.
I have a last listened to the Today slot I was told about on Saturday morning (8.10am).
It is one of the scariest things I've heard.
John Humphrys in a cosy get-together with some of the world's 'leading' 'businessmen', at what sounds like a dinner table, watched by a clubby audience (there's a mental image - imagine them watched by starving kids through glass) in Davos.
I don't know if there's a download, but here's the link while it's good. Listen!
I will review it again to be sure, but I counted at least three top bods, from Shell, Pepsi and Nestle.
Two sounded Northern European and one American. I think I can hold my Brit head higher ('til they interview one of this country's hotshots and he mouth's off the same).
The questions were mild, but their answers were facile, with no excuse, no mitigation and no explanation other than if they didn't do what they did people wouldn't buy it. If your audience is dead they may not be buying much soon. And whatever priorities others may have (AIDS patients, etc) that were raised by way of putting their obligations to the future lower on the totem, it was just so much green-won't-wash.
One even tried to separate climate change (not a problem in his eyes) with what he thought was a problem: water shortage! Er... where does potable water come from? Or not, as in Australia, currently? Perrier mines?
Another tried to equate horse-traffic to car-traffic. It was like listening to a kid playing with a fun, rude fact. What on earth has horse manure in 1890 got to do with a few more billion people now driving cars and emitting greenhouse gases!!!! Yes, science and commerce made life 'better', and now it looks like it may be making things worse. It needs a correction.
And somehow what happened in Greenland 1,000 years ago naturally makes what is happening now OK? Er, no. We have 6 billion, and growing, people, trying to survive on limited resources, and making it all worse exponentially.
Another claimed his bottling was all returnable glass. Well, until corrected. Now, what is 'most'?
If they think all that they came out with is sustainable, then I fear for their reading of a balance sheet.
And my kids' future.
BBC - Climate change warning for Sydney - With a vid-link to the water (recyl) situation in Queensland
It is one of the scariest things I've heard.
John Humphrys in a cosy get-together with some of the world's 'leading' 'businessmen', at what sounds like a dinner table, watched by a clubby audience (there's a mental image - imagine them watched by starving kids through glass) in Davos.
I don't know if there's a download, but here's the link while it's good. Listen!
I will review it again to be sure, but I counted at least three top bods, from Shell, Pepsi and Nestle.
Two sounded Northern European and one American. I think I can hold my Brit head higher ('til they interview one of this country's hotshots and he mouth's off the same).
The questions were mild, but their answers were facile, with no excuse, no mitigation and no explanation other than if they didn't do what they did people wouldn't buy it. If your audience is dead they may not be buying much soon. And whatever priorities others may have (AIDS patients, etc) that were raised by way of putting their obligations to the future lower on the totem, it was just so much green-won't-wash.
One even tried to separate climate change (not a problem in his eyes) with what he thought was a problem: water shortage! Er... where does potable water come from? Or not, as in Australia, currently? Perrier mines?
Another tried to equate horse-traffic to car-traffic. It was like listening to a kid playing with a fun, rude fact. What on earth has horse manure in 1890 got to do with a few more billion people now driving cars and emitting greenhouse gases!!!! Yes, science and commerce made life 'better', and now it looks like it may be making things worse. It needs a correction.
And somehow what happened in Greenland 1,000 years ago naturally makes what is happening now OK? Er, no. We have 6 billion, and growing, people, trying to survive on limited resources, and making it all worse exponentially.
Another claimed his bottling was all returnable glass. Well, until corrected. Now, what is 'most'?
If they think all that they came out with is sustainable, then I fear for their reading of a balance sheet.
And my kids' future.
BBC - Climate change warning for Sydney - With a vid-link to the water (recyl) situation in Queensland
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)