Lights Out London

London has celebrated its “switch off” campaign yesterday. Like the Sydney Earth Hour, the idea was to create awareness of the climate change issue.

Houses of Parliament
The Houses of Parliament after the big switch-off (Courtesy: BBC)


Lights across the city were switched off for an hour on Thursday night to encourage London’s three million households to conserve energy.

The Lights Out London campaign aimed to have all non-essential lighting turned off between 2100 and 2200 BST. It followed similar campaigns in cities including Sydney, Paris and Rome.

At the time of Sydney’s Earth Hour I wrote that “It is important that the debate is concentrated on doing more important things than turning lights off. We should work towards cleaner base load energy, creating “cradle to cradle” industrial processes, building waste management systems and changing the culture in Australia. These are tougher and more important things to do.”

What kind of awareness does this lights off symbolism create? Energy is the problem, switching off is the solution, sacrificing is the way to go?

Josie Appleton on Spiked writes about the role of energy in the world and why this act amounts to nothing in the wider scheme of things.

The practical effect of the event will be negligible – perhaps a 10 per cent reduction, for an hour, for one city, for one night.

…Lights Out London is a symbolic gesture from a high-speed culture that is deeply uncomfortable with itself. We have so much at the flick of a switch, yet we are uneasy about the idea of using energy, and a light bulb is becoming a symbol of angst rather than a bright idea. We in some respects seem to find darkness more meaningful than light, inaction more meaningful than action.

What kind of awareness do we need to create? We need to change our industrial system, change our buying pattern, create better technology for energy generation, and increase energy efficiency. And yes, change our habits.

By switching off the city lights for a hour it can actually create the wrong impression.

Sustainability and the bottomline

On EBBF, a quote on the connection between CSR and the bottomline.

“The vast majority of CSR research is attempting to establish a
correlation between the bottom line and CSR. For an excellent overview
see a recent book by Vogel (2005): The market for virtue. His conclusion
BTW is that: there are indeed cases of companies that have gained a
competitive advantage from being responsible. However, that there are
also many companies with good records of corporate responsibility that
have done poorly financially, and that there are many companies who
have pretty irresponsible records of corporate responsibility that have
done very well.

He argues that corporate responsibility, purely from a
self-interest perspective, is like any other business strategy.
It
makes sense for some of the companies some of the time. A strong
neo-liberal agenda does not only determine the research agenda but also
the focus of practical CSR efforts. As the CEO of GE remarked: “We are
investing in environmentally cleaner technology because we believe it
will increase our revenue, our value and our profits… Not because it is
trendy or moral, but because it will accelerate our growth and make us
more competitive.” (Economist, 2005).

Khosla, The Pragmatist

Vinod Khosla has a large portfolio of energy investments which I had blogged about yesterday. Since the time I had known his interest in bio-fuels he has moved on. This intrigued me and I wanted to understand his thinking behind the “energy issue” and what could be the possible solutions.

Khosla on his website provides some resources to the issues close to his heart. In one of the essays titled Environmentalists vs Pragmatists (Download: Word Doc) he comes out with a strong case against the ideas of Dr. Hermann Scheer. Dr. Scheer is a Member of the German Parliament and he has introduced a novel solar scheme in Germany which has transformed the solar industry in Germany and makes it a world leader in this area.

Sometime back, Scheer and Khosla had a debate on “how” to solve the energy issue and the related pollution problems. Scheer backs renewable energy; especially solar cells, and wind; he is against the electric grid and prefers a government mandated, higher cost, distributed, solar generation for every home.

In this essay, apart from making a case against Scheer’s ideas; which he calls Scheer nonsense and he provides a good look into his understanding of “the energy issue”, what kinds of solutions will work, his investment philosophy, and thus, leading to his investment decision making.

Recently, I was on a panel with Dr. Herman Scheer, a member of the German parliament and the president of EUROSOLAR (The European Association for Renewable Energy) and a much honored “environmentalist”. Suffice it to say that there was great commonality of goals but significant disagreement about “how”……India, China, and other countries are rapidly industrializing and bringing basic electric power services to their peoples. Their development, like US electric power, follows least-cost options. Our least-cost electric power options – coal-fired power plants – are by far our most destructive and dangerous ones…

…As such, we must address some basic rules: For any energy scheme to be viable, it must be cost effective, and it must be scalable. If solutions don’t get adopted in India and China global warming control efforts are futile. To scale, they must make economic sense in China and India….If we allocate the same carbon emission per person worldwide (an equal right to pollute for every human) we are toast at anywhere near current levels of US emissions or even at levels of carbon emission in Europe…To achieve these goals, we must provide services that consumers want and prefer over their non-sustainable fossil competitors, while at the same time be profitable for business…

…Applications that meet the engineering needs but fail to meet the commercial ones are doomed to failure, which provides one of the key reasons for my disagreements with Dr. Scheer. …

Two things Khosla suggests are important to understand. First, it needs to be a low-cost option; commercially viable and acceptable in India and China; and second, an equal right to pollute for every human; which is the argument of per capita emissions that I have made several times.

Continue reading