It is not about GW or saving power.
Don't lie down with pandas
Peter Foster, Financial Post
Published: Friday, March 28, 2008
I suggested in Wednesday's column that tomorrow's Earth Hour? -- when a number of cities and citizens in Canada and around the world are dimming their lights between 8 and 9 p.m. -- is a gesture both environmentally pointless and politically subversive.
By the most optimistic estimates, last year's "great success" at the first such event in Sydney saved the energy equivalent of keeping one -- yes, one--car off the road for six years.
Earth Hour's primary purpose is not to "raise awareness" about climate change, or give people an opportunity to see the stars, but to demonstrate the power of organizer WWF. Such power is not merely cherished for its own sake; it comes attached to the potential for earning big bucks.I came across an example of the WWF's earning power at the recent Globe conference on business and the environment in Vancouver. The Cement Association of Canada had just produced its second "Sustainability Report." At a related session, earnest industry representatives emphasized the many steps they were taking to reduce their environmental footprint. They committed -- like the doomed carthorse in Animal Farm -- to do more and better in future.
What intrigued me about the session was the presence of Michael Russill, president and chief executive of WWF Canada. When he went to the podium, his tone was quite unlike that of the other panel members. He was not there to grovel, or to struggle with practical issues. He made clear that he was not an "advocate" of the cement industry. Nevertheless, he then talked about the "partnership" that WWF International had with French-based cement giant Lafarge, one of whose North American executives was on the panel. According to Mr. Russill, Lafarge had come to the WWF for help with work on restoring quarries, but this relationship had "expanded." One of the WWF's "stretch targets" for Lafarge was a reduction in its carbon dioxide emissions from developed countries by 10% below 1990 levels by 2010. "We are demanding and challenging and pushing," Mr. Russill said. The WWF, he said, saw its job as "raising the bar." (So much easier than having to jump over it.)
Mr. Russill -- a former oil industry executive -- laid out the "rules of engagement" with Lafarge. The "dialogue" had to be "CEO to CEO." Moreover, the parties had to be free to criticize each other. The WWF insisted on "transparency" and on third-party auditing.
In the interests of transparency, I decided to ask three questions: What was the cost to Lafarge of meeting the WWF's demands? How much was Lafarge paying the WWF? And, since the freedom to criticize was such an important part of the partnership, what criticism did Lafarge have of the WWF's approach?
The Lafarge executive on the dais suddenly looked like a deer in headlights. He didn't have a clue what meeting the WWF's demands was costing. Moreover, he would presumably rather have chewed off his own arm than criticize the WWF. It was left to Mr. Russill to reveal the price that Lafarge had to pay to have the WWF hold its feet to the kiln: ¤1-million, that is, around $1.6-million. (Mr. Russill subsequently came by to assure me that only a small part of the money came Canada's way. Apparently it was devoted to a "big carnivore" project.) Subsequently, however, I discovered, when speaking to Olivier Luneau, Lafarge's head of sustainability and public affairs in Paris, that the figure was actually ¤1.5-million, that is, $2.4-million, annually over three years (a new contract is currently being negotiated).
In terms of WWF targets, Mr. Luneau said, Lafarge was on the way to meeting the intensity reduction of 20% by 2010, but was only halfway to meeting the absolute reduction figure of 10% in developed-country operations.
Mr. Luneau explained that he didn't have a figure for the cost of meeting the WWF's demands (beyond what Lafarge would have done anyway). However, he stressed that Lafarge's link with the WWF was valuable in terms of the company's credibility, especially when it came to input into the policy-making process.
Mr. Luneau said that the WWF brought professional expertise in reclamation, while its "stretch targets" were useful in getting the company prepared for the carbon-constrained world toward which the policy climate seemed to be moving: a little toughening up for a more draconian future.
The WWF thus seems to have found a very profitable and powerful niche for itself, both as business and political consultant, while at the same time somehow retaining its posture as guardian of the planet. This unusual combination means that it can happily bite the hand that feeds it. "Partners" may then proudly display the bite marks as proof of their environmental commitment. It couldn't work anywhere else but the environment business.
This both-sides-of-the-fence shtick reminded me of the modus operandi of Maurice Strong, the den father of radical environmentalism. It is surely not a coincidence that Mr. Strong-- who currently resides in Beijing-- was one of the earliest and most influential members of the WWF. Meanwhile, the Cement Association's Sustainability Report came about as a result of the "Cement Sustainability Initiative" of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. The WBCSD was started by?Go on, have a guess!
So if you love freedom, and possess the slightest trace of ability to think independently, don't forget to keep those lights burning brightly between 8 and 9 P.M. on Saturday night. And in particular try to avoid idiotic retailers who want you to suffer eyestrain for an hour so that they can demonstrate their willingness to kowtow to the forces of darkness.link
CKA Uber 
![[bash]](./images/smilies/bash.gif "Bash")
CKA Uber 
