The Thames Barrier is the world’s second biggest movable flood barrier. Total construction cost was around £534m (equivalent to £1.3 billion at 2001 prices). The barrier was initially intended to protect London against a big flood level, with a return period of one thousand years in the year 2030. Since then, due to global warming, a greater rate of sea level rise has been identified. Based on recent estimates, the barrier will cope with projected sea level rises until around 2060–2070.

Exploring the next 100 years of flooding: What is proposed to happen in the future with the onset of climate change and rising sea levels? What plans have we made to improve our flood defenses and what are the limitations the Environment Agency and developers face in the future when considering the flood risk to people and property?

Schedule

1.00pm: Meet for lunch at Information Centre & Café

2.30pm: Private tour

4.00pm: Boat trip back to city central

5.30pm: Arrival at Westminster

Registered guests will a get 50% discount code to invite a friend (only ten ‘friend’ tickets available). Kids under the age of twelve get free entry (only five ‘kid’ tickets available – please enter discount code ‘kidundertwelve’ to register kids to the event).

Save on future speaker series events by signing up as a member. Visit http://www.netimpact.org/join and select Professional (Europe and Canada) for a special rate of $30 USD.

How to get there

London Underground: North Greenwich (Jubliee Line). The station is approximately 2 miles from the Thames Barrier and only 5 minutes by taxi or bus (161 & 472).

Rail: Charlton station is situated on Woolwich Road and is approximately a one-mile walk from the Thames Barrier Site. Woolwich Dockyard station is situated near Church Street and is within walking distance. Woolwich Arsenal station is the most convenient station to take a taxi to the Barrier Site.

Bus Routes: Bus No’s 177 and 180 via Greenwich (stop at the top of Eastmoor Street). 161 & 472 from North Greenwich tube station.

Car: site map, parking and more information available here.

This informative study on the CR industry is in its third year and was conducted by specialist recruitment consultancy Acre in partnership with Acona, a sustainability consultancy and publication Ethical Performance.
This event will be lead by Acre’s Managing Director of Acre, Andy Cartland alongside Rufus Bullough, a CR & Sustainability Associate at Acre. Acre is a leading recruitment company in CSR, Sustainability and Climate Change now in its seventh year of placing influential professionals in key CSR sector roles.

Following the event, there will an opportunitiy for networking with sustainable refreshments from The Hub bar.

Save on future speaker series events by signing up as a member. Visit http://www.netimpact.org/join and select Professional (Europe and Canada) for a special rate of $30 USD.

The Leadership Committee is a great opportunity to cultivate and demonstrate your leadership and expand and deepen your network.

The Commitment

• Voluntary posts; maximum 2 year term w/ opportunity for re-election
• Quarterly meetings (in person or teleconference)
• Plan at least one event per year
• Volunteer to lead projects/support ideas to continue the growth, thought leadership and impact of Net Impact London Professional

Roles

Chair

• Leads the Leadership Committee meetings
• Responsible for ensuring the delivery of events and activities via the Leadership Committee members
• Liaise with Net Impact Central
• Receives partial compensation for costs of attending the Net Impact Annual Conference

Secretary

• Minutes and internal communication

Treasurer

• Maintenance of accounts

Technology Manager

• Maintenance of the website; technology strategy

Marketing Manager

• Marketing and communications strategy; collateral

Membership Manager

• Maintenance of member lists; membership strategy

Partnership Manager

• Develop partnerships and sponsorship opportunities

General Leadership Member (up to 3)

• Plan events, contribute to strategy, take on new roles or opportunities as needed

Process of Election

• Between now and June 10th, announce your candidacy
  • Send your name, contact information, and a brief (no more than 500 words) introduction about you, why you desire the role, and your vision
• Communicate to the voters
  • Your brief will be posted on the website
  • Address members before the 10 June event: “What’s hot in the CSR job market” (optional)”
• Voting via the website will be available 10-30 June
• Results will be tallied July 1st
• Come meet the new Leadership Committee at our social event on 18 July

Announce your candidacy by emailing Net Impact with the subject line as “Elections”.

For questions, please contact:
Caren Holzman or a member of the current Leadership Committee.

UK companies paid out £56.9bn to investors in 2009.

BP and Shell paid a quarter of all UK dividends according to the Guardian newspaper.

BP alone paid out £10.9bn, i.e. just short of 20% of the UK total dividend.

So what?

Well, BP could be in the middle of the sort of crisis which cripples a company. The Deepwater Horizon blow-out is now expected to be the second worst oil industry pollution incident in history. Some commentators are claiming this could put an end to BP’s US licence to operate. And as a result, this huge source of cash flow into (British) pension schemes, which are often overweight in this stock, could also be at risk.

The media’s interest in BP peaks when it, as now, obligingly plays the role of corporate villain and every pundit feels able to say “BP should have invested more in safety measures”. But maybe BP’s apparent failures to keep pumping pressures under control (the fundamental issue behind the current crisis and the Texas refinery explosions) is indicative of a wider inability to manage the pressure of its other source of value – shareholder’s cash.

Bernie Madoff struggled and ultimately failed to meet the ROI expectations he had encouraged in his investors – and the fraud exploded under the pressure of avarice.

Similarly, BP may simply be in a frightening co-dependent relationship with the pension funds which desperately need this flow of dividend cash to fund their day-to-day payouts to pensioners, and keep telling themselves that, because BP has been paying dividends since 1917, it’s a safe bet and their fiduciary duty has been fulfilled.

The question is, will Tony Hayward (or his successor?) be able to step back and say “no dividends until further notice, we need to invest in proper health and safety controls and a proper renewables programme, if we want to still be here for our centenary.”

If he fails to do so, who is going to find a replacement financial product which will take the pressure off the system and satisfy pension funds that they can meet the projected demands on their reserves? Who will open up a new source of sustainable cashflow, as the 1945-6 baby boom generation hits 65 and looks forward to that Gulf of Mexico cruise that they’ve been promising themselves.

http://eabis.mpaff.nl/fileadmin/eabis_uploads/Events/Colloquium/2010_Colloquium_-_Call_for_Contributions_Final.pdf

Following the Queen’s Speech announcement of an Energy Security and Green Economy Bill, Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent at the Financial Times; James Cameron, Founder of Climate Change Capital; and someone to represent the government perspective (tbc) will be discussing who in government and in business has the resources, the vision and the mandate to deliver the major changes which are needed to help the UK’s transformation to a sustainable economy.

We have also invited H2ope to give a short presentation on a programme which illustrates some of the strands of the discussion.

This will be followed by refreshments, kindly provided by the BBC, and networking.

Further Details

Through this discussion we hope to build a post-election development roadmap of the various aspects of physical infrastructure alluded to in the UK government’s 2009 low carbon transition plan, along with the associated governance and financial framework.

Our definition of physical infrastructure includes the assets, UK-wide, that are needed to fulfil the interim carbon budgets which government has set (i.e. not those which directly relate to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme) e.g.:

• offshore wind
• CCS
• smart metering / grid
• domestic waste processors
• alternative fuelling / vehicle charging

By focusing on “governance infrastructure” we hope to answer the question of which departments/authorities are leading each bit of delivery, e.g.:

• BIS/DECC/DfT/EA
• Sub-national and regional players
• Cities

“Financial infrastructure” is perhaps the most interesting, in that we’re looking for a high level picture of how projects will be funded and accounted for, e.g.:

• a green investment bank / green fund
• carbon accounting standards
• domestic energy feed in tariffs

The discussion will be at a sufficiently high level for a good overview, while dipping into the areas where panellists have insight.

The ASA judgment is here: http://www.asa.org.uk/Compl…lt-UK-Ltd/TF_ADJ_48419.aspx

It remains to be seen if Renault (or at least its marketing staff) will be diligent in correcting their misleading marcomms.

Renault’s beautifully constructed Eco-2 multi-media, multinational campaign started last year and has yachtswoman Ellen Macarthur providing celebrity endorsement. The campaign materials claim amongst other things that one of the vehicles contains the “maximum possible” recycled materials and, by virtue of Renault adopting a corporate ISO14001 system, their ongoing reduced environmental impact is “guaranteed”.

Of course ISO14001 does no such thing. And this is the wording of the print advert which the ASA told Renault to withdraw in 2009.

However, it seems that Renault are STILL giving the impression that ISO14001 “guarantees” their manufacturing sites reduce environmental impacts, only this time the message comes via an embedded video at http://www.renault.co.uk/cars/environment/default.aspx

Moreover the French site continues to make this claim, embedded in their interactive Eco2 pages: “cette norme garantit la diminution constante de l’impact de l’activite de nos sites de production sur le milieu naturel”

Anybody think Renault are doing their shareholders a disservice?

“Development: what should it mean?”
Sir Crispin Tickell has had a distinguished diplomatic career. He was Chef de Cabine to the President of the European Commission (1977-1980), British Ambassador to Mexico (1981-1983), Permanent Secretary of the Overseas Development Administration(now Department for International Development)(1984-1987), and British Ambassador to the United Nations and Permanent Representative on the UN Security Council(1987-1990).
He was warden of Green College, Oxford between 1990 and 1997. He is currently director of the Policy Foresight Programme of the James Martin 21st Century School at the University of Oxford (formerly the Green College Centre for Environmental Policy and Understanding) and Chairman Emeritus of the Climate Institute, in Washington DC. He has many interests, including climate change, population issues, conservation of biodiversity and the early history of the Earth. He helped to write Margaret Thatcher’s keynote speech on Climate Change in 1988. He is President of Cranfield University SAFAD.
Sir Crispin’s talk this evening will examine the question “Development: what should it mean?”  Development is a highly used and often misleading term, and sustainability even more so.  It should not mean following a universal blueprint for economic progress, but rather improving on the different geographical and cultural circumstance of each country, with focus on human well being in the broadest sense.  This means bringing in a host of such other factors as human proliferation, use of resources, destabilisation of climate, changes to ecosystems, and the increasing globalization of human society.  But development is about individuals as well as communities, nations and the world, and there SAFAD has a real role to play.

Please reserve your free place  and request travel directions to Cranfield by email to thea.hughes@cranfield.ac.uk.
 
Cakes and soft drinks will be provided.

Scott McGregor of Camco discusses progress to systematise sustainability/emissions management in business in the UK and the US.

You can view Jeremy’s comments on Peak Oil and the process of “re-engineering capitalism” which is needed to avoid severe global macroeconomic impacts.

One method towards restoring balance, which recognizes the connection and interdependence of both systems looks at assessing and internalising externalities in order for the whole environmental and social cost to be reflected in the price of goods and services. The externality of an economic transaction is the consequential impact on another party not directly implicated in the transaction. In this instance, the price of the transaction does not include the whole costs or benefits in the production or consumption of the product or service cost. For example, the tar sand operations in Canada generate vast quantities of contaminated water but do not currently compensate for the environmental and health impacts on nearby communities. Would tar sand investments continue if they were required to pay for the present and future environmental and health damage created? The difficulty lies in valuing the cost of current and future impacts. For instance, the impact of the Bhopal spill disaster in 1984 is still unfolding on today’s generation as they continue to get sick from associated cancer and birth defects. Predicting and quantifying environmental and social costs is complex. In the case of climate change, Lord Stern of Brentwood was the first economist to value the whole cost of carbon. The Stern Review published in 2006 suggests that each tonne of CO2e emitted causes damages estimated at least US$85. However one tonne of CO2e is currently trading at US$24.60. The financial markets are currently not valuing the whole cost of carbon.

Neither the market nor individuals can be solely relied upon to prevent the inefficiencies caused by economic externalities. Consequently, the government must intervene and oblige companies to internalise the costs of environmental and social impacts. This implies that if business pollution generates expenses such as medical bills from sickness, then the government will require the company to pay that cost. Consequently businesses would incorporate the whole and long-term costs and decide if the activity is cost-effective. This creates a decision-making process that supports the optimal economic, social and environmental choices.

A recent example of this is the Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme (CRC). The CRC launched on April 1st 2010, is a mandatory scheme designed to promote energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions in the UK. It requires businesses to monitor their emissions, report these emissions annually, and buy and surrender allowances that correspond to their emissions. As a result the carbon cost of products will gradually be reflected in the price to consumers and low carbon technologies will be implemented, prioritised and become profitable for businesses. A recent report commissioned by the UK Government confirms the rising worldwide demand for low carbon goods and services. The report estimates that the global sector for Low Carbon and Environmental Goods and Services (LCEGS) is valued at £3 trillion, and is expected to increase by 4% per annum in the next five years.

Similarly, DEFRA calculates that the carbon footprint of reuse and recycling is less than manufacturing new goods. Internalising externalities such carbon into the cost of products creates financial incentives to promote reuse and recycling versus extracting new raw materials. As a result businesses can take advantage and focus on re-manufacturing and still generate employment – simply different types of employment based upon service repairs and reuse or recycling to extend the life span of goods. The Institute for Self-Reliance also conducted a study that supports the economic case for reuse and recycling.

Right now, a business can choose to be proactive and start calculating the whole cost of its business activities along its supply chain. This involves looking at impacts generated from the extraction of raw materials, manufacturing and transportation before considering usage and eventual disposal of products. Whole costing and transforming business activities towards low carbon and low resource-use activities can provide competitive advantage and ability to hedge the risk of legislation exposing externalities. 

This solution starts to enable economic and environmental systems to align and prosper together.