China just announced that they were putting a price halt (read control) on petroleum, water, and some food products. See: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/09/business/yuan.php
This is a serious error on their part, and it will hopefully be short lived.
The benefits are:
Temporary political stability.
The downside:
Consumption of these resources continues to rise, putting more pressure on the local environment and eventually on the politicians. De-coupling resource prices from market prices becomes very dangerous when the resources are dangerously close to running out.
For example, water tables in China are dropping at an astounding rate, and without strong reductions in consumption through prices (and taxes), cities will need to start importing water and people will suffer. Notably, China is so desperate for water that they will build a Canal from the South to the North to bring water, at a tremendous financial and ecological cost.
Two options for the development of environmental regulations exist:
1 People only start to ‘sacrifice’ quick wealth for the environment when they have enough wealth to live well (and other ways of making money). It is thus in our global interest for societies to become wealthy so that they become more environmentally friendly.
2 The other path towards environmentalism is when the price point of resources (set by the market of government) forces society to adapt. If we interfere with the price-point in negative fashion such as making gasoline artificially cheap, then we are retarding resource efficiency improvements.
By artificially reducing the price of resources, you are slowing down the progressive evolution of Chinese society towards environmental sustainability. And how long can you hold back 1.3 billion people?
Published on
January 9, 2008
Wal-Mart Sustainability
I just heard a great talk and discussion from the Stanford Center for Social Innovation with Lawrence Jackson, former President and CEO of Global Procurement, Wal-Mart.
The main points were:
The move towards sustainability was started by one very influential person inside the organisation, Rob Walton.
The first store retro-fits were very expensive and did not work that well. But, Wal-Mart was willing to take the initial losses because they saw the big picture and potential windfall. When setting out on a new business path, the first steps are always the hardest (and most expensive). That is why Vision Setting is so important.
Wal-Mart included NGOs and other organisations which were not traditionally friendly to Wal-Mart in the sustainability discussions. This was an example of Community Engagement on the largest possible scale. Wal-Mart realized that their efforts needed support from the Environmental Community to ensure success and credibility.
The CEO, Lee Scott set aside one our per week to deal with sustainability. This shows how seriously they took the issue. How often do you see a recurring one hour meeting on a CEO’s weekly schedule?
They started their organic cotton line with Baby Wear. This was logical as the people who are most prone to buying wholesome products are mothers. To convince the board that organic cotton was a good idea, Lawrence Jackson simply brought in a tub of pesticides and set it down on the boardroom table. The tub contained the exact amount of pesticides that was used to make the shirts the board members were wearing. This was a great use of a concrete example to enact change.
If Wal-Mart can make these changes, so can other organisations.
Published on
December 7, 2007
So Sad
China is losing so much, so we can fill up dollorama (and lift the poor out of poverty).
Published on
December 7, 2007
CBC Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister
This is my entry for the CBC competition: Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister
Watching sports is very gratifying when your home team wins, but sucks when they lose. So is watching regular season hockey a good use of time? I am not too sure.
