China Mobile gearing up to deliver real CO2 reductions and Sweden as a margin of error

Had great meeting with China Mobile together with Li Nan where we discussed the structure and focus of our joint project that we just started about the role of ICT to reduce CO2 emissions. It is easy to feel that resources spent by most environmental organizations are less than optimal when it comes to result on invested work when you look at the potential and willingness to engage in a serious way. Our work will link to their new Green Action Plan and is part of our joint work with MOFCOM.

Looking at the targets of China Mobile and the opportunities it is easy to be impressed. 6,94 million tonnes of CO2 reductions until 2010 (7 million tonnes today but will grow fast due to expansion plans) from their own operations and a target to “utilize mobile tech to enable the whole society to improve resource efficiency”.

The fact that China Mobile has 369 339 000 customers make’s Sweden’s whole population close to being within the margin of error, that is food for thought for anyone thinking about outreach and engaging individuals.

I really look forward to develop the detailed work plan.

China's role in Africa: A thought when worlds connect with IT

With Skype strange situations happens. Sitting in Beijing, in Jade Garden Hotel close to the forbidden city, where the increasing food prices are being discussed intensively and so are links to Africa for obvious reasons.

Then talking to Penny Davies who participates in an OECD meeting in Kigali about aid, who is living in Hôtel des Mille Collines, the hotel that became “famous” as the building in which more than a thousand people took refuge during the Rwandan Genocide of 1994.

Only 14 years ago… Beijing was a very different place then… The following was world news April 1994 from China:

"Beijing's first public showroom for imported cars opens this week, an important step in turning the car from a tool of privilege into an ordinary commodity."

Now oil, food and China top news, still few are discussing the links and the history that brought us here.

China's role in Africa: A thought when worlds connect with IT

With Skype strange situations happens. Sitting in Beijing, in Jade Garden Hotel close to the forbidden city, where the increasing food prices are being discussed intensively and so are links to Africa for obvious reasons.

Then talking to Penny Davies who participates in an OECD meeting in Kigali about aid, who is living in Hôtel des Mille Collines, the hotel that became “famous” as the building in which more than a thousand people took refuge during the Rwandan Genocide of 1994.

Only 14 years ago… Beijing was a very different place then… The following was world news April 1994 from China:

"Beijing's first public showroom for imported cars opens this week, an important step in turning the car from a tool of privilege into an ordinary commodity."

Now oil, food and China top news, still few are discussing the links and the history that brought us here.

World Future/Fossil Power Index 2008: -33

Introducing a “World Future/Fossil Power Index”

After reading Forbes an old idea springs to mind again. I would like to see a global “future/fossil power index” being calculated. This does not have to be very sophisticated to give a sense of direction. It would look at the companies with the world’s top revenues as this indicates where we put the money to provide the services we want (or think we want). It would also indicate the lobbying capacity of the "fossil industry" vs. the "future industry" that in many cases have good reasons to slow down a transition to a low carbon economy.

First outline for the “future/fossil power index” based on Forbes top 50 list over revenues/sales

+100 for companies providing services that are reasonable sustainable and have a track record of supporting low carbon legislation/initiatives (not very many on the top 50 list)

+50 for companies that are doing more good than harm through investments and/or lobbying

0 for companies that are neutral (either with a business that is not really pushing in any direction or a company that do as much good as bad)

-50 for companies that are starting to move in a more low carbon direction and/or doing some lobbying in support of a low carbon development. But where the majority of the business is still in a high carbon area and the majority of investments still go in a direction where they lock us into a structure that making reductions more difficult

-100 for companies that still investing in high carbon solutions and either blocking or in other ways trying to stop rules and regulations that support a low carbon future.

Looking at top 50 I get the following list (based on my knowledge on the companies and rather giving a good score than a bad, so in reality we might be a little worse off, but as the rhetoric is carbon friendly in most cases I think we can get a momentum as soon as the biggest obstacles are out of the way) :

2 Companies +100

2 Companies +50

17 Companies 0

17 Companies -50

11 Companies -100

This would result in a 2008 Future/Fossil Power index of: -33

So we still have a long way to go, and I hope to follow-up this next year. Hopefully with a much better score.

World Future/Fossil Power Index 2008: -33

Introducing a “World Future/Fossil Power Index”

After reading Forbes an old idea springs to mind again. I would like to see a global “future/fossil power index” being calculated. This does not have to be very sophisticated to give a sense of direction. It would look at the companies with the world’s top revenues as this indicates where we put the money to provide the services we want (or think we want). It would also indicate the lobbying capacity of the "fossil industry" vs. the "future industry" that in many cases have good reasons to slow down a transition to a low carbon economy.

First outline for the “future/fossil power index” based on Forbes top 50 list over revenues/sales

+100 for companies providing services that are reasonable sustainable and have a track record of supporting low carbon legislation/initiatives (not very many on the top 50 list)

+50 for companies that are doing more good than harm through investments and/or lobbying

0 for companies that are neutral (either with a business that is not really pushing in any direction or a company that do as much good as bad)

-50 for companies that are starting to move in a more low carbon direction and/or doing some lobbying in support of a low carbon development. But where the majority of the business is still in a high carbon area and the majority of investments still go in a direction where they lock us into a structure that making reductions more difficult

-100 for companies that still investing in high carbon solutions and either blocking or in other ways trying to stop rules and regulations that support a low carbon future.

Looking at top 50 I get the following list (based on my knowledge on the companies and rather giving a good score than a bad, so in reality we might be a little worse off, but as the rhetoric is carbon friendly in most cases I think we can get a momentum as soon as the biggest obstacles are out of the way) :

2 Companies +100

2 Companies +50

17 Companies 0

17 Companies -50

11 Companies -100

This would result in a 2008 Future/Fossil Power index of: -33

So we still have a long way to go, and I hope to follow-up this next year. Hopefully with a much better score.