Engineers are at the forefront of the transition to a carbon constrained world. New technologies are needed that will allow the world to adapt whilst ensuring a good quality of life for all its inhabitants. Only through the innovation and entrepreneurship that engineers can provide will these technologies be conceived and delivered.
However it must be recognised that a vital link is required to facilitate the work of engineers. Connections between the technical and financial communities are essential to achieve desired outcomes. Through an understanding of both new sustainable technologies and the world of finance, the ‘environmental entrepreneur’ can make connections and innovations in how technologies are financed and adopted by the community. The paper considers the theory of innovation cultures and how this can be applied to assist the transition to a carbon constrained world.
The full paper for this abstract was publsihed in the Australian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 5 No.1- Special Issue on Leadership, Business and Management, Engineers Australia.
Please contact info@auscleantech.com.au for a full version of the article.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Cleantech: Investing in the future
Cleantech: it’s one of those words that once you see it for the first time, it seems to turn up in every newspaper. Although a reasonably common term in US venture capital circles for several years, ‘cleantech’ has until recently been relatively unheard of in Australia.
But what exactly is ‘cleantech’ and why does the definition seem to change depending on where you look?
An example of the guiding principles behind cleantech is provided by the US firm Clean Edge:
A diverse range of products, services and processes that harness renewable materials and energy sources, dramatically reduce the use of natural resources and cut or eliminate emissions and wastes.
Broadly, the term seems to encompass companies that have both environmental and economic benefits.
Cleantech however tends to be a more amorphous industry group than, say, environmental services, and a less rigid investment asset class than, say, financial services.
But what exactly is ‘cleantech’ and why does the definition seem to change depending on where you look?
An example of the guiding principles behind cleantech is provided by the US firm Clean Edge:
A diverse range of products, services and processes that harness renewable materials and energy sources, dramatically reduce the use of natural resources and cut or eliminate emissions and wastes.
Broadly, the term seems to encompass companies that have both environmental and economic benefits.
Cleantech however tends to be a more amorphous industry group than, say, environmental services, and a less rigid investment asset class than, say, financial services.
Sectors that appear to fit into the definition of cleantech without dispute include:
- Renewable energy – wind, solar thermal and photovoltaics, wave, tidal, hydro, geothermal, biomass and biogas;
- Water technologies that increase efficiency;
- Energy efficiency, green buildings and biomaterials;
- Waste management and recycling;
- Energy storage and fuel cell technologies;
- Low emission vehicle technologies; and
- Environmental Services
Other sectors are controversial with some including them within cleantech by reason of their environmental benefits whilst others reject them because of insufficient positive environmental benefits or too many perceived negative impacts. Examples include:
- Biofuels are seen by some as the saviour to high oil prices and energy security issues but by others as the cause of rising food prices, food riots and increasing monoculture.
- Carbon Trading is clearly driving much of the investment behaviour in cleantech, but it is questionable whether the act of trading has any direct environmental benefits.
- ‘Clean’ fossil fuels, including natural gas, coal seam methane, underground coal gasification, gas to liquids, carbon capture and storage and clean coal technologies, have reduced emissions profiles but, as fossil fuels are, at best, only transition resources.
- Nuclear power, along with its associated uranium production and treatment, clearly has a lower emissions profile than the fossil fuel equivalent but deep concerns remain over the environmental and social impacts of uranium transport, usage and waste storage.
- Agri-Businesses are often included in many measures of environmental performance due to their clear interaction with the environment, even though this interaction is not always a positive one for the environment and the communities involved.
It is clear that decisions on what is included as being part of cleantech depends on the viewpoint and vested interest held. Lobby groups, investment fund managers and participating companies all have desired outcomes that help shape their arguments on the definition.
Despite this, cleantech is not is just another term for Socially Responsible Investments (SRI) or Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) performance. Cleantech is a term which embraces organisations whose essence, whose raison d’être, is to provide environmental benefits. SRI and ESG look at incremental improvements in company performance and can be seen as ‘operational hygiene’ measures that find the best in class. Cleantech is about doing ‘more good’ rather than ‘less bad’.
Regardless of the definition and of any environmental benefits that may ensue, the question remains as to whether the sector is one that should be of interest to investors.
Some commentators have dismissed the cleantech phenomenon as being a mere ‘green bubble’, similar to the IT bubble or the current leveraged debt bubble that is currently exploding. However the drivers behind cleantech’s growth are significantly different. Firstly, there are many real assets being constructed to provide core services such as power, water, waste and recycling. Secondly, the demand for these core services is growing due to population growth and increasing wealth. Thirdly, as the world continues to use and deplete its natural resources there is increasing pressure on communities to act sustainably. Finally there is the recognition of climate change and consequent regulatory regimes. This is a separate driver from those above and, whilst it will result in additional growth in some cleantech sub-sectors, it does not underpin the cleantech sector as a whole. As a result, the growth of cleantech as a whole appears to be unstoppable.
The question then is which technologies and which stocks are likely to outperform the cleantech sector benchmarks. Many cleantech companies are early stage and therefore have high levels of risk. Some of these risky companies have the potential to be world leaders and this may be of interest for the speculative investor. Some of the sub-sectors, however, such as water and waste, are more mature and have companies with steady and growing revenues which will be of interest to conservative investors.
Despite the lack of clarity on the definition of cleantech, it therefore seems to offer a range of investment options with the common thread that the investee companies are all working towards environmentally positive outcomes. Given the strength of the drivers behind the cleantech sector, it is an opportunity to invest in the future.
This article was originally published in the ASX monthly newsletter.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Cleantech Leadership Threatened by Ignorance
Australia has the opportunity to be a global leader in cleantech. A strong and robust Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) will facilitate the investment and innovation required to enable many companies to commercialise their clean technologies. However, the Federal Government appears to be heading towards a decision to appease the emissions intensive industries, a disastrous short term approach that would sabotage this leadership opportunity. It is essential that all those who want to see Australia build a long term future understand this issue and make their feelings known.
Every indication from the Government is that it will honour its election commitment to introduce the CPRS in 2010. However, as the potential impacts of the scheme become more fully understood, pressure has been building to ensure a soft start. This softness might be obtained by the setting of very modest targets and the provision of many free permits. An alternative approach would be to fix or cap the price of permits in the market for a number of years to remove volatility. Fixed price permits would merely act as a tax. Emissions would not be seen as carrying any intrinsic value and few tradeable assets could be created by those reducing emissions. Thus the introduction of fixed priced permits or capped prices is a particularly obnoxious and dangerous threat to Australia’s aim to be a leader in the carbon constrained world ahead.
At last month’s Carbon Market Expo, held on the Gold Coast, speaker after speaker implored the Federal Government not to adopt a fixed price or capped permit scheme even if it is pressured into the adoption of a soft start approach. The reasoning behind these arguments put forward by Australian and international investors, traders, cleantech companies and environmental NGOs was that a fixed price would stifle investment. Without investment technologies will not be commercialised and Australia will languish as the rest of the world invents and profits from the technologies of the future. It is true that this may provide a benefit to some of the old emissions intensive industries, but it is no way to build strong foundations for Australia’s future.
Much of the danger lies in the understanding, or lack thereof, by the general public. Lobbying and community engagement by the emissions intensive industries has been well funded and effective. Stories of the future benefits that would be betrayed by a soft policy decision have not gained wide coverage. It appears that the public has been persuaded that a fixed price is the low risk option. What has not been communicated is that a decision to adopt a fixed or capped price is a decision to be a follower rather than a leader in global carbon markets. It is a decision not to build the foundations of a smart country.
I am reminded of two widely discussed public issues, the outcomes of which would no doubt have been different if the issues had been subject to informed and rational debate. The national referendum on whether Australia should become a republic was cleverly manipulated to achieve the outcome desired by the then Prime Minister. Tactics of fear and confusion were used to great effect, together with an emphasis on divisions between republicans. Voters were denied the opportunity simply to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the concept of a republic. If such a straight forward question had been posed, most commentators seem convinced that a ‘yes’ vote would have resulted.
The defeated town referendum on the indirect potable recycled water scheme in Toowoomba again shows how the introduction of fear and confusion into a debate can work extremely well for those opposing change.
In both of these, the outcome was not what the voters would have chosen if they had been fully informed and not been led to fear change. The old adage of ‘better the devil you know’ is often applied without reason. Common sense too often faces defeat by the ignorance engendered by a poorly communicated debate.
Australians now stand at a turning point. We can choose to fear change and let the Government be persuaded to make Australia a technology taker by adopting fixed or capped carbon price. Alternatively, we could choose to build the foundations of cleantech leadership through investment and innovation.
The absence of an official referendum should not cloud the great power of the community, of the readers of this column. The Australian Federal Government is influenced by community opinion. It is incumbent on all of us to explain our position clearly and loudly.
This article was originally published in Environmental Management News on 6 November 2008.
Every indication from the Government is that it will honour its election commitment to introduce the CPRS in 2010. However, as the potential impacts of the scheme become more fully understood, pressure has been building to ensure a soft start. This softness might be obtained by the setting of very modest targets and the provision of many free permits. An alternative approach would be to fix or cap the price of permits in the market for a number of years to remove volatility. Fixed price permits would merely act as a tax. Emissions would not be seen as carrying any intrinsic value and few tradeable assets could be created by those reducing emissions. Thus the introduction of fixed priced permits or capped prices is a particularly obnoxious and dangerous threat to Australia’s aim to be a leader in the carbon constrained world ahead.
At last month’s Carbon Market Expo, held on the Gold Coast, speaker after speaker implored the Federal Government not to adopt a fixed price or capped permit scheme even if it is pressured into the adoption of a soft start approach. The reasoning behind these arguments put forward by Australian and international investors, traders, cleantech companies and environmental NGOs was that a fixed price would stifle investment. Without investment technologies will not be commercialised and Australia will languish as the rest of the world invents and profits from the technologies of the future. It is true that this may provide a benefit to some of the old emissions intensive industries, but it is no way to build strong foundations for Australia’s future.
Much of the danger lies in the understanding, or lack thereof, by the general public. Lobbying and community engagement by the emissions intensive industries has been well funded and effective. Stories of the future benefits that would be betrayed by a soft policy decision have not gained wide coverage. It appears that the public has been persuaded that a fixed price is the low risk option. What has not been communicated is that a decision to adopt a fixed or capped price is a decision to be a follower rather than a leader in global carbon markets. It is a decision not to build the foundations of a smart country.
I am reminded of two widely discussed public issues, the outcomes of which would no doubt have been different if the issues had been subject to informed and rational debate. The national referendum on whether Australia should become a republic was cleverly manipulated to achieve the outcome desired by the then Prime Minister. Tactics of fear and confusion were used to great effect, together with an emphasis on divisions between republicans. Voters were denied the opportunity simply to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the concept of a republic. If such a straight forward question had been posed, most commentators seem convinced that a ‘yes’ vote would have resulted.
The defeated town referendum on the indirect potable recycled water scheme in Toowoomba again shows how the introduction of fear and confusion into a debate can work extremely well for those opposing change.
In both of these, the outcome was not what the voters would have chosen if they had been fully informed and not been led to fear change. The old adage of ‘better the devil you know’ is often applied without reason. Common sense too often faces defeat by the ignorance engendered by a poorly communicated debate.
Australians now stand at a turning point. We can choose to fear change and let the Government be persuaded to make Australia a technology taker by adopting fixed or capped carbon price. Alternatively, we could choose to build the foundations of cleantech leadership through investment and innovation.
The absence of an official referendum should not cloud the great power of the community, of the readers of this column. The Australian Federal Government is influenced by community opinion. It is incumbent on all of us to explain our position clearly and loudly.
This article was originally published in Environmental Management News on 6 November 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
