Upcoming Events
Recent Events
World Forum Brochure
What is business doing about climate change?
Nowadays, I can sometimes feel overwhelmed by the enormity of the task we face to address climate change. But it takes being in the company of real experts to actually crush all hope in me.
That nearly happened on the occasion of attending the Smith School of Enterprise and Environment’s half day conference on Business and Climate Change. The tightening in my chest was brought on by the excellent speakers and their knowledgeable peer audience, whose collective voice was so unambiguous and so pessimistic.
This particular half-day conference was delivered in partnership with the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Middlesex University, and the University of East Anglia. The conference discussed the question ‘What is business doing about climate change?’ Speakers at the conference included Will Day (Chair, Sustainable Development Commission); Wanda Kim (Managing Director, Head of Environmental Advisory Group, UBS); Jonathan Pinkse (Assistant Professor, University of Amsterdam Business School); Dr Mick Blowfield (Senior Research Fellow, Smith School); Leo Johnson (Partner, PwC Sustainability and Climate Change team); and Dr Katherine Begg (University of Edinburgh).
Their slides contained serried ranks of figures outlining how far we have to go, and how quickly we are slipping behind. They took us from analysis of policy and regulation, to the need for collaboration and the challenges for technology transfer into the developing world. And wrapped around these figures from the speakers were questions from the audience and anecdotes from both about the failures and setbacks that have beset the global efforts since the disappointment of Copenhagen, and the sceptic onslaught in the press around Climate Gate, and Glacier Gate.
To be fair to businesses (the subject of the conference) it wasn’t any sense of corporate inertia that brought on the gloom, but the sense that politicians, bureaucrats and civil society itself was looking incapable of setting the right regulatory framework, with a decent carbon price, in which business could get on and do its thing. At the nadir was Leo Johnson’s otherwise warm, witty and interactive analysis of the options facing humanity. When asked to vote on various options as “most likely to come about”, not one of the hundred or so in the room put their hands up for Scenario 2, which predicted “controlled reduction in emissions, stabilising average global warming at no more than 2degrees Celsius”. Such was the pessimism that the normally ebullient Mr Johnson was almost reduced to tears.
None of this should be taken as criticism of the speakers, whose analysis and argument was of the highest academic and professional quality. It is just a simple observation that each of them were in effect reporting that the task looks unfeasibly huge, we are heading in the wrong direction still and the main intergovernmental mechanisms being deployed to address climate change aren’t working nearly well enough. No dissenting voices. No wonder optimism drained away.
It wasn’t until the Smith School’s own, Dr Mick Blowfield, took to the PowerPoint that I started to feel the warm embers of hope glow again. Dr Blowfield has been working with a small number of high-impact industries, such as palm oil production, to understand how easy or otherwise it is for them to transform to being low-impact. Part of this work involved applying five drivers of change from a model of transformation. To explain the model he showed comparisons from the past, including how the slave trade was overturned despite the fact that almost none of the necessary factors were in the right place to lead to transformation. What he was demonstrating was that even when nearly all the drivers are in the wrong corner of his two-by-two matrix it is possible to migrate them rapidly to the right corner and make things happen.
And then it struck me. We have just gone through a major economic and societal revolution of almost equal magnitude to that which we must achieve to address climate change. We should be grateful that we never stared up at the cliff face daunted by the challenge of creating global standards, developing new technologies, disrupting incumbents and investing trillions of dollars in a couple of decades. And that the likes of Tim Berners-Lee only ever saw it as an opportunity, not really as a risk. Otherwise, I might not be posting this blog up on the Internet for you to read today.
Martin Chilcott is the founder and CEO of 2degrees, the world’s leading community of practice and peer-to-peer service for sustainable business.
Complexity Economics and Climate Change
Wednesday 7th April 2010 (16:00-17:00)
Eric Beinhocker, Executive Director of the Global Green Growth Institute, a Senior Fellow at the McKinsey Global Institute, and the author of The Origin of Wealth
‘Complexity Economics and Climate Change’ Slides
Summary: Even prior to the financial crisis, orthodox economic theory based on neoclassical principles was increasingly being called into question. Mounting empirical evidence from behavioural economics, experimental economics, and new capabilities analysing large data sets provided evidence directly contradicting fundamental orthodox tenets. The financial crisis has further eroded confidence in orthodox thinking and accelerated the desire to advance economic theory. Over the past few decades significant progress has been made in heterodox areas of research, including behavioural and neuroeconomics, institutional economics, evolutionary economics, and computational economics. This talk will present a brief synthesis of this work under the framework that it provides a view of the economy as a complex adaptive system. We will then explore what this emerging view might mean for the study of climate change in areas ranging from modelling, to the analysis of risk, to the innovation of low-carbon technologies. The seminar will conclude with a discussion of what such a shift in economic thinking might also imply for climate policy.
http://www.mckinsey.com/ideas/books/originofwealth/overview.asp
Seminar Room, SSEE, Hayes House, 75 George Street, Oxford OX1 2BQ
This seminar is OPEN TO ALL and there is no need to pre-register; simply arrive just prior to the published start time.
Oceans Agenda: Focusing action through multi-stakeholder engagement
Monday 26 April 2010 (16:00-17:00)
Rosemary De Vos (European Representative of the International SeaKeepers Society, Fort Lauderdale, and an Associate of J. Ottman Consulting, New York)
Summary: Ensuring that future generations have the opportunity to benefit from bio-diverse, vital oceans needs global attention now. An opportunity exists to begin bridging the gap between diverse constituencies, who are involved with the oceans for manifold reasons, to integrate shared objectives into stakeholder strategies and, in so doing, target protection efforts in a concerted way. The aim of the seminar is to start exploring that opportunity to develop a viable, realistic approach and, ultimately, one which is welcomed by constituencies as an enhancement to their progress rather than a burden.
Personal Biography: Rosemary is an independent consultant working on the corporate responsibility agenda while consciously focusing attention on how all forms of communication, including new media, are being used to promote environmental messages and influence behavioural change on a global scale.
With a particular concern for two distinct topics 1)stability of ocean environments and 2)long-term healthcare provision, Rosemary is keen to communicate key messages in their simplest form, to bridge the gap between the scientific community and private enterprise and to build further awareness across diverse constituencies.
Seminar Room, SSEE, Hayes House, 75 George Street, Oxford OX1 2BQ
This seminar is OPEN TO ALL and there is no need to pre-register; simply arrive just prior to the published start time.
World Oil Reserves at Tipping Point
World oil reserves at tipping point warns Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment
News Release
23rd March 2010
The Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment has today (23rd March 2010) published a paper stating that capacity to meet projected future oil demand is at a tipping point and that we need to accelerate the development of alternative energy fuel resources in order to ensure energy security and reduce emissions.
The Status of Conventional Oil Reserves – Hype or Cause for Concern? published in the journal Energy Policy concludes that the age of cheap oil has now ended as demand starts to outstrip supply as we head towards the middle of the decade. The report also suggests that the current oil reserve estimates should be downgraded from between 1150-1350 billion barrels to between 850-900 billion barrels, based on recent research. But how can potential oil shortages be mitigated?
Dr Oliver Inderwildi, Head of the Low Carbon Mobility centre at the Smith School, said:
“The common belief that alternative fuels such as biofuels could mitigate oil supply shortages and eventually replace fossil fuels is pie in the sky. There is not sufficient land to cater for both food and fuel demand. Instead of relying on those silver bullet solutions, we have to make better use of the remaining resources by improving energy efficiency. Alternative such as a hydrogen economy and electric transportation are not mature and will only play a major role in the medium to long term.”
Nick Owen of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment added:
“Significant oil supply challenges will be compounded in the near future by rising demand and strengthening environmental policy. Mitigating the oil crunch without using lower grade resources such as tar sands is the key to maintaining energy stability and a low carbon future.”
The Smith School paper also highlights that in the past, political and financial objectives have led to misreporting of oil reserves, which has led to contradictory estimates of oil reserve data available in the public domain.
Sir David King, Founding Director of the Smith School, commented:
“We have to face up to a future of oil uncertainty much like the global economic uncertainty we have faced during the past two years. This challenge will have a longer term effect on our economies unless swift action is taken by governments and business. We all recognise that oil is a finite resource. We need to look at other low carbon alternatives and make the necessary funding available for research, development and deployment today if we are to mitigate the tipping point.
The report also raises the worrying issue that additional demand for oil could be met by non-conventional methods, such as the extraction of oil from Canada’s tar sands. However, these methods have a far higher carbon output than conventional drilling, and have been described as having a double impact on emissions owing to the emissions produced during extraction as well as during usage.
ENDS
For more information contact:
Michael Evans/Sarah Mylroie
Madano Partnership 020 7593 4000
About The Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment
The Smith School’s mission is to influence and enable decision-makers in business and government to make well-informed decisions that address the energy, environment and sustainable development challenges confronting the world. It seeks to advance the knowledge and understanding of the role enterprise must play if we are to secure a sustainable low-carbon future.
For further information visit http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/
World oil reserves at tipping point
The Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment has today (23rd March 2010) published a paper stating that capacity to meet projected future oil demand is at a tipping point and that we need to accelerate the development of alternative energy fuel resources in order to ensure energy security and reduce emissions.
The Status of Conventional Oil Reserves – Hype or Cause for Concern? published in the journal Energy Policy concludes that the age of cheap oil has now ended as demand starts to outstrip supply as we head towards the middle of the decade. The report also suggests that the current oil reserve estimates should be downgraded from between 1150-1350 billion barrels to between 850-900 billion barrels, based on recent research. But how can potential oil shortages be mitigated?
Dr Oliver Inderwildi, Head of the Low Carbon Mobility centre at the Smith School, said:
“The common belief that alternative fuels such as biofuels could mitigate oil supply shortages and eventually replace fossil fuels is pie in the sky. There is not sufficient land to cater for both food and fuel demand. Instead of relying on those silver bullet solutions, we have to make better use of the remaining resources by improving energy efficiency. Alternative such as a hydrogen economy and electric transportation are not mature and will only play a major role in the medium to long term.”
Nick Owen of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment added:
“Significant oil supply challenges will be compounded in the near future by rising demand and strengthening environmental policy. Mitigating the oil crunch without using lower grade resources such as tar sands is the key to maintaining energy stability and a low carbon future.”
The Smith School paper also highlights that in the past, political and financial objectives have led to misreporting of oil reserves, which has led to contradictory estimates of oil reserve data available in the public domain.
Sir David King, Founding Director of the Smith School, commented:
“We have to face up to a future of oil uncertainty much like the global economic uncertainty we have faced during the past two years. This challenge will have a longer term effect on our economies unless swift action is taken by governments and business. We all recognise that oil is a finite resource. We need to look at other low carbon alternatives and make the necessary funding available for research, development and deployment today if we are to mitigate the tipping point.
The report also raises the worrying issue that additional demand for oil could be met by non-conventional methods, such as the extraction of oil from Canada’s tar sands. However, these methods have a far higher carbon output than conventional drilling, and have been described as having a double impact on emissions owing to the emissions produced during extraction as well as during usage.
Ends
Click here to view the paper in Energy Policy.
For more information contact:
Michael Evans/Sarah Mylroie at Madano Partnership: 020 7593 4000
What is business doing about climate change?
25 March
EVENT ENDED Business and Climate Change Conference
The Smith School co-hosted a half-day conference with the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Middlesex University, and the University of East Anglia. The conference discussed the question: ’What business is doing about climate change?’
Speakers at the conference included Will Day (Chair, Sustainable Development Commission); Wanda Kim (Managing Director, Head of Environmental Advisory Group, UBS); Jonathan Pinkse (Assistant Professor at University of Amsterdam Business School); Dr Mick Blowfield (Senior Research Fellow, Smith School); Leo Johnson (Partner of PwC’s Sustainability and Climate Change team) and Dr Katherine Begg (University of Edinburgh).
For more information visit https://www.eventelephant.com/businessandclimatechange.
Developing Corporate Climate Strategy: the German Chemical and Pharmaceutical Industry
16 March,
Speakers Dr. Roland Mohr, Managing Director of Infraserv Hoechst and Prof. Hannes Utikal, Provadis School of International Management and Technology analysed the impact of climate policy on strategy development at a large chemical and pharmaceutical business park.
External pressures have a significant impact on the formation of climate strategies and are having to be taken into account much earlier compared to other strategies. Climate strategies are also unique in having to be integrated across all levels of management and business divisions, to bringin about meaningful emission cuts and implement effective adaptation measures.
Spring (Hilary) term 2010 series
The Smith School and Oxford Law co hosted the Environment Law Discussion Group seminar series. A forum for students and the wider audience to listen to presentations and debate important issues in the area of environmental law and policy.
Convenor Eloise Scotford writes:
“The end of Hilary term saw the end of the Environmental Law Discussion Group seminar series – although we may sneak in another session next term. It has been a great term for discussing environmental law issues over lunch in the welcoming Smith School seminar room, amongst both with lawyers and non-lawyers. Our final session concerning the topic ‘ What Do Environmental Lawyers Do?’ provoked some spirited discussion, especially concerning the challenges of interdisciplinary scholarship around environmental problems. We discussed and debated the relatively unpopular but critical issue of the methodology of interdisciplinary scholarship, and how joint research projects can be frustrating exercises when methodological problems are not confronted at the outset. We see this as very much the start, or part, of an ongoing discussion that is at the heart of the Smith’s Schools research mission. The slides for this final seminar are posted here on the Smith School website, for those who missed it or otherwise for further consideration, and we welcome any comments about related problems encountered by others in undertaking interdisciplinary research. Other methodological difficulties that environmental law scholars face in their research include the speed and scale of legal change (often in response to urgent environmental problems and developing scientific knowledge), the multijurisdictional nature of environmental regulatory regimes, and the challenge of understanding regimes of environmental governance that extend beyond traditional legal rules and Court decisions to involve novel legal and non-legal ways of ordering and complex institutional structures and cultures, inviting a sociological appreciation of how law operates in society. All these challenges were discussed in our final seminar, and from the audience discussion, some of these research challenges resonate in other disciplines. What did resonate, in particular, was the theme in environmental law scholarship that the subject is yet to mature or grow up, because it occupies relatively novel scholarly territory.
Many interesting and difficult questions arose out of this term’s ELDG seminars, some of which I leave here for further thought. We welcome continuing online discussion on any of these issues – it often turns out one scholar’s research problem is not necessarily another scholar’s research solution, but at least another scholar’s problem too.
- How might different disciplines share and organise their methodological research problems and parameters sufficiently in advance of a joint research project getting off the ground (including setting its timeframe and funding requirements)?
- Who should bear the financial responsibility for cleaning up contaminated land sites? (there is a statutory regime in the UK that offers one answer to this question, but it is not always clear and is a relatively controversial way to apportion liability)
- How does, or should, the European Union integrate environmental protection requirements into all its other policies (including the internal market, transport policy, competition policy, immigration and agriculture), as it is required to do under its founding Treaty (most recently revised by the Lisbon Treaty)?
- What are the respective rights of neighbouring states with respect to transboundary watercourses (particularly where the activities in one state affect water availability or quality downstream in the neighbouring state)?
- Finally, for a bit of fun as much as scholarly enquiry, what is your experience of environmental lawyers, if any? Good? Bad? Necessary? Unnecessary? Indifferent?’
Leaders discuss a clean-tech economy for Oxfordshire
Oxfordshire business leaders, key environmental academics and high level Government representatives came together on 3rd March 2010 for a ½ day presentation and workshop co-hosted by Oxfordshire County Council and the Smith School to discuss “Developing the clean tech economy in Oxfordshire: a low carbon future for a world-class economy”.
Featured speakers included Professor Sir David King, Director of the Smith School; Trevor Graham, Head of Sustainability for the city of Malmo, Sweden; Councillor Keith Mitchell (Leader of Oxfordshire County Council) and Dr Barbara Hammond, Environment Director, SEEDA.
Presentations were followed by discussions about how senior business and political leaders in Oxfordshire can help each other respond successfully to the challenges and opportunities created by climate change.
Updated: 10th March 2010
Airship ahoy! Could airships replace planes?
Airships could replace aircraft on cargo flights to cut costs and emissions, quicken the delivery of aid and ease demand for airport expansion, Smith School researchers say.
Modern airships can carry far more than planes, take off from most surfaces including water, and use less fuel than other forms of transport.
They could also operate from close to production centres and, if passengers accepted longer flight times, costs and fuel use for passenger flights would also be reduced.
“We could see ‘lorries in the sky’ able to make multiple deliveries and collections, and connect distant communities with international markets,” the Smith School’s Dr Chris Carey says.
“The as-the-crow-flies capability of airships means airship routes would be more flexible than both road and rail. This would be particularly attractive in developing countries and keep transport emissions low in those countries.”
The advantages of developing commercial airships are highlighted in a Smith School study published in the journal Aviation and the Environment.
They would reduce the need for airport expansion and ease demands on air traffic control, because they fly at much lower altitudes.
Airships would not need hard paved runways and would produce fewer local pollutants.
Aid agencies are among those who could benefit, with emergency supplies delivered more quickly and at much lower cost than by air and road.
Dr Carey is planning a second study which will look in more detail at all aspects of commercial airship development.
He is based at the Smith School’s Low Carbon Mobility centre, one of six research centres at the School. The potential for low carbon transport is the theme of the School’s second World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment in June.
Publications
Latest News
- China Central TV – Is our cold snap abnormal?
The very cold weather we have recently been experiencing across parts of the UK and [...] - Smith School Fellow wins Chartered Management Institute Award
Dr Mick Blowfield, Research Fellow at the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, has [...] - World oil reserves are now beyond tipping point
Professor Sir David King has published an analysis of the oil market in Nature this [...] - Gas-to-liquid technology – A solid alternative to oil-derived transport fuels?
With 90% of transport fuels being oil-derived, uncertainty around depletion levels of conventional oil reserves [...]
