According to NASA, polar caps are losing ice mass. Antarctica is losing about 150 billion tons per year. And Greenland about 270 billion. From the satellite's perspective, this might not look like a lot to non-experts. So, what does that mean?
First of all: What are we talking about with 420 billion tons of ice? One billion metric tonnes are one gigatonne (1 Gt = 1 x 109 tonnes). One gigaton of ice is equal to one cubic kilometer of water. Means: We're talking about 420 km³ water.
The largest lake (by area) in Africa is Lake Victoria. Its volume: 2.420 km3. This also means: After almost 6 years, Lake Victoria would be empty. Lost. The lake that feeds the Nile. Which is among the longest rivers in the world.
That alone might not sound like good news. But it's only part of the message.
The tipping points for the Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets are 1.50 C global warming.
The long-term consequence: a sea level rise by more than 70 meters or 230 feet. (Yes, La Paz in Bolivia would not be affected.)
And short-term (2050)? By 2050, 800 million people will live in cities where sea levels could rise by more than half a meter (C40). Sea-level rise threatens low-lying areas around the world's coasts with increased coastal flooding during storms.
Of course, the question arises what does this mean economically. What sea level rise will cost the world in terms of flooded cities and coastal infrastructure. One response could be building or upgrading coastal flood defenses. The total costs estimate add up to US$18.3 trillion (World Bank).
The takeaway: Act now or pay later. And payday won't just be about money.
After reaching an all-time high this year, global coal demand is expected to decline to 2026, according to the latest edition of the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) annual coal market report.
The bad news first: The global demand for coal rose by 1.4% in 2023, surpassing 8.5 billion tons. Which is a historical maximum.
The good news: The latest International Energy Agency market report sees lower demand to 2026. The report expects global coal demand to fall by 2.3% by 2026 compared with 2023 levels.
The question mark in this forecast: China and its coal use in the coming years is subject to uncertainty. The ultimate demand for coal depends on China's economic growth. Of course, the positive aspect is also included in this calculation. Electricity generation from solar PV and wind increases in China significantly.
Or as Keisuke Sadamori, IEA Director of Energy Markets and Security puts it: “We have seen declines in global coal demand a few times, but they were brief and caused by extraordinary events such as the collapse of the Soviet Union or the Covid-19 crisis. This time appears different, as the decline is more structural, driven by the formidable and sustained expansion of clean energy technologies.”
The essence: Energy transition still requires enormous efforts. But the turning point for coal is clearly on the horizon.
Today the Guardian published an interesting article discussing future UK investments. The underlying question may sound familiar to politicians in many countries:
How can economic growth and prosperity be revived?
In the article, the Guardian quotes a study from the London School of Economics from January 2024: “Investing in energy infrastructure, transport, innovation in new technologies such as AI, and the natural environment would boost the UK’s economy rapidly, the research found.”
The starting point of the study is also interesting for non-British politicians. The need of substantial investments.
Because it puts the question on the table: Where should the money go? The question behind: What is the growth story of the 21st century?
Infrastructure investment may not be the answer in other countries. But asking the question about the growth story of the 21st century makes considerable sense. Which also raises the question of the foundations for this growth.
Or the other way around: Not asking the question (or leaving everything as it is) means that investments become less productive. The consequence: They produce less growth and prosperity.
The door to the future is open. We have two options. We stay behind. Or we go through it.
Weforum has published the Global Risks Report 2024. Over 11,000 business leaders in 113 countries were surveyed. The dominant themes: climate and conflict.
Asked to select up to five risks that they believe are most likely to present a material crisis on a global scale in 2024 they painted the following picture:
Rank 1: Extreme weather (66%)
Rank 2: AI-generated misinformation and disinformation (53%)
Rank 3: Societal and/or political polarization (46%)
Rank 4: Cost-of-living crisis (42%)
Rank 5: Cyberattacks (39%)
(Source: World Economic Forum Global Risks Perception Survey 2023-2024)
Although I think climate change and the associated extreme weather events are very important, one thing is crucial when looking at these numbers: It's not about number 1. Or about number 2. The factors mentioned are part of a polycrisis.
Or as Adam Tool puts it: “In the polycrisis the shocks are disparate, but they interact so that the whole is even more overwhelming than the sum of the parts.
Just to give two examples: Climate is not simply ecology. It is economics, politics, prosperity and source of conflict. Social division is not simply social conflict or politics. It is economics. Influences the solution to climate problems. And is increasingly being exploited for international conflicts and wars.
Means: In order to tackle the big problems and get them under control, we have to see them in context. All factors must be viewed as a whole.
Angkor Wat. It still is the largest religious structure in the world. The size of the city was as big as modern Los Angeles – more than 1,000 km2. Not as many people as in LA today. But Angkor Wat was one of the largest cities in the world at the time.
The city grew over 500 years. Only to collapse in the 14th century and disappear into the jungle.
What happened?
First a simple no. Angkor Wat didn't just get into trouble with its neighbor and get destroyed.
And then a warning. This post is also about the Medieval Warm Period. Individual measurements from this time were often used to make the (false) claim that global warming is nothing new. The truth is: There was no average increase in global temperatures in the Middle Ages. But: There was an increase in many parts (especially) of the Northern Hemisphere. And: climate patterns changed drastically.
The impact of these changes was not simply a drought. Or a flood. Both cause a lot of suffering. But good societies can handle things like that. The real problem was a lot of droughts and a lot of floods. Over a very long period of time. This wore down Angkor Wat and ultimately caused it to fail. Politically and economically.
Why is that important?
The forecasts for the future contain exactly that: extreme weather events. Not just one, but many. Droughts and floods. They will also push good, efficient states to the edge of their capabilities.
And finally? How about Winston Churchill?
"Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."
These lines are from the poem “Ulysses” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson. Old Ulysses doesn't feel too old to set sail again. I wish the same for the old European prosperity mindset. And us all I wish a successful start to a good new year. “To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.”
Many thanks also to the wonderful Poetry Foundation, where you can read this poem in full:
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45392/ulysses
A few days ago the we-forum published a post with the headline "5 innovative ways we are tackling plastic waste ". At the beginning there was a number to make the magnitude of the problem clear: We produce around 400 million tons of plastic waste. Every year.
But what does 400 million tons mean? For comparison: the tallest building in the world, the Burj Khalifa at 828 meters high, weighs (empty) 500,000 tons. The tower can still be seen from 95 km away.
Let's assume we could build a skyscraper out of plastic. (Yes, well-meaning architects are now raising their fingers in warning.) But just assume we could build an 828 meter high building with 500,000 tons of plastic.
If we wanted to use all plastic production, we could build 800 times as high: a tower around 662 km high.
To give us a clearer idea of what that means, here's another number: at two-thirds of the altitude, around 400 km, the International Space Station (ISS) flies past.
This would certainly have the advantage that we would no longer need rockets to supply a space station. We wouldn't even need a space station anymore.
The disadvantage: the whole thing would be extremely difficult to heat (space is pretty frosty), so it would be extremely cold to the feet. And: Impacting comets or space debris could lead to acute respiratory distress.
After all, if we carry on like this for another 200 years, every country in the world could have its own plastic scrap tower. In the end even Andorra and the Vatican.
In summary: I am very pleased that smart minds are thinking about how we deal with plastic waste. But I would also like to strongly recommend that we rethink our actions. In other words: to drastically reduce production and use of such quantities.
Sustainability is important. No doubt? Some (Germany focused) data.
Human-induced climate change exists? 85% agree. It has an impact on human health? On global population: 89% agree. On myself: Only two thirds agree.
Climate anxiety? About ¾ of the people know it. 44% are concerned. 22% are alarmed. And climate change literacy? Declines.
And mobility transition? 81% support the expansion of local public transport. However, 85% do not want to give up their car in the next 5 years.
What does this have to do with culture? Culture consists of shared values and beliefs. From traditions, routines and all the little comforts that we have become so accustomed to. (The number 1 reason for driving a car is convenience.)
And values? Violation of values leads to rejection. Of people. Of plans. And from concrete actions. That means?
1_Sustainability strategies must appeal to people.
2_The fact that everyone says ‘sustainability is important’ is irrelevant.
3_Sustainability demands. It destroys rose-colored glasses and ideal worlds.
4_A catastrophe scenario is not a tempting offer. More like a future worth living.
The sum? Sustainability strategies should be thought broadly and deeply. Good succeed.
But keep Peter Drucker’s famous quote in mind: Culture eats strategy for breakfast.
COP28 runs for two more days. So keep calm and carry on? The original poster from 1939 was intended in the event of the German invasion of Great Britain. The invasion never came. The poster was not published.
It was rediscovered 70 years later. And in the 2009 crisis it became popular. Afterwards it became a decoration on coffee cups. And served to calm tormenting souls. All is well. Just go on.
Many authorities hastened to add: Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise is a troublemaker. We know what to do.
The fact is, not enough is being done. By far not.
That is why I would like to revive the original reading of this poster with this post.
We are about to lose the normality we have been accustomed to for 12,000 years. It is necessary to recognize that we are now dealing with an extraordinary emergency.
It will require significant sacrifices from all societies on this planet and from each individual.
It's time for everyone to step up. Against paid liars, sweet talkers and gossips.
Act now.
I recently got stuck on a post by Tijno Visser t Hooft. He made a good comment on an article titled "The Biggest Delivery Business in the U.S. Is No Longer UPS or FedEx." Tijno’s quintessence: Disrupt your own business or be disrupted.
I added a quick three-liner and then shared his post. “Most of us are familiar with one form or another of operational blindness. Often enough, those who really understand something about their market are hit hardest. Unfortunately, the influences that affect a market from outside are often outside of your own radar system.”
I just want to add one more thought in this post. Anyone who uses (or has developed) a key performance indicator system also knows the problem.
You set goals. Make them measurable. And measure. What we measure has to do with our own performance. Absolutely. And relative to the market.
For good reason, we don't measure anything that has nothing to do with these goals. And that brings us to the problem.
If something develops around our market that impacts it from outside, we notice it too late.
External factors such as new technological possibilities, social influences or changed environmental conditions are increasingly influencing the development of many markets.
The forces that significantly control market shares and profits in individual categories often enough have their roots outside of them.
Banal? Perhaps. But how many monitoring systems do you know that actually map these external influences?
It's damn easy to become operationally blind.
If you google “strategy” or have ChatGPT write something about it, you will get many correct answers. But rarely good ones.
The correct answers contain important words such as goal and means. Neatly divided into overall and sub-goals. Or in a range of means available to achieve them.
The great correct answers of this type contain clever thinking tools, for example for a meaningful analysis of the data.
The strategic process addresses questions such as: Where are we right now? Where do we want to go, where do we have to go? How do we get there? How do we measure our success? And so forth.
What processes and structures do not deliver is the idea. The idea is the good part of the answer.
Sometimes, for a good strategy, what we need above all is a clear objective. When the general conditions change. And with them our market. How deep will the change be? What will be at the end of this change? What rules do we play by then? What does that mean for our business model?
Or we have a clear goal. But how we get there is not clear. Most chess players know what checkmate is. Only a few become world champions in chess. Winning requires a high degree of flexible thinking. And that despite the fact that in chess there are only two players sitting at the chessboard.
Good facts are a must. Good structures and processes, great tools. But without a good idea they are nothing.
Many people understand “green growth” as just a variant of “more, more”. But we can’t eat earth like a pizza. Therefore, I would like to propose a more sustainable perspective.
The most obvious first: We can’t expand our little blue marble. Our human system has reached a limit. And it becomes more than obvious that it is starting to eat itself.
Means: growth can only take place within the limits. So, green growth can’t mean increase. But substitution. In a market it is not about its expansion. But about a growing share of sustainable services or products.
In fact, green growth means less. Shorter supply chains, for example. Or less energy. Less water. Less plastic.
The growth winners will be those who move forward on the path to sustainable living.
The takeaway? Green growth is about us. We are responsible. Act now.
It’s a jungle out there: The sustainable certification landscape is a wilderness. But if we can hardly get through, customer perception becomes an issue.
So yes: The world increasingly focuses on sustainability. And yes: Choosing the right Green Business Certification is a pivotal step towards a more eco-conscious future.
Unfortunately, the world of green certificates is not particularly clear. There are hundreds of them. Private and public. Global and regional.
In addition, you have to identify your focus areas that matter most to your organization and dive deep into reputable sustainability certifications like LEED, B Corp, or Fair Trade to really understand their specific requirements and how they align with your sustainability goals.
This could involve operational changes, investments in eco-friendly technologies, or compliance with certain industry standards.
Then you have to evaluate the financial and resource commitments needed for certification. Which includes initial fees, ongoing assessments, and any necessary investments in sustainable practices.
Not to forget all the documentation and reporting requirements you have to familiarize yourself with and the third-party verification with audits and assessments.
And when you're finally done with it and feel like the king of the jungle, please remember: your customer has the choice between thousands of products in a single purchase. He spends less than 3 seconds buying toothpaste.
This makes sustainability marketing hard work. But it’s worth it. Because we make the world a little bit better every time.
© Carsten Niepmann. All rights reserved.
Wir benötigen Ihre Zustimmung zum Laden der Übersetzungen
Wir nutzen einen Drittanbieter-Service, um den Inhalt der Website zu übersetzen, der möglicherweise Daten über Ihre Aktivitäten sammelt. Bitte überprüfen Sie die Details in der Datenschutzerklärung und akzeptieren Sie den Dienst, um die Übersetzungen zu sehen.