In a recent interview, the Chief Scientist of Great Britain, John Beddington, stated that the biggest obstacle to moving towards a sustainable future was the actions of committed environmentalists. As a committed advocate to creating solutions to climate change, this seems like an interesting position. However, his vision of future driven by technological adaption, by cleantech, stands in contrast to the anti-consumption rhetoric of traditional environmentalists. It also stands against the incremental greening of many large industrial companies who provide token support for environmental issues whilst still operating unsustainable businesses. Cleantech provides a shade of green that is both sustainable and attractive.
In late October, the Queensland Government held its Sustainability Awards on the Gold Coast. That the dinner was held in one of the least sustainable developments in the country was not lost on many of the attendees. There were many awards for good work being undertaken by companies in varied industries. Improved agricultural practices, smart battery technology and the climate change campaign by the Courier Mail were all feted. There were however many examples of heavy industrial companies merely greening around the edges. The evening started with an acknowledgement of Xtrata’s $3m support for hairy nose wombats. In a wonderful display of cognitive dissonance, the company movie showed rescued wombats without any acknowledgement of the damage the company’s coal mining does to the natural environment. One guest commented that it was like celebrating a tobacco company’s donation to lung cancer research!
Following this dinner, I was lucky enough to spend a few days in Byron Bay. On the local radio and in the local rag, we were encouraged to embrace the ‘counter-culture’ of the region and save the world by reducing consumption, eschewing technology and going back to basics. In the profit centre of Byron this felt as much of an oxymoron as sustainability on the Gold Coast. John Beddington would not have felt comfortable sipping his latte on Jonson Street.
Cleantech offers so much more: far more than greening around the edges and so much more attractive than heading into the mountains in rags. Cleantech provides technologies that enable ongoing development in a way that improves the planet’s ecosystems – it does not require sacrifice and it is more forward looking than mere ‘end of the pipe’ or incremental solutions. It does, however, require new ways of thinking, an ability and willingness to view the world through a different lens and a commitment to the making of lateral connections that have not been made before.
An article in the Time magazine of October 2008, Michael Grunwald profiled Arnold Schwartzenegger as one of the world’s Heroes of the Environment. Arnie has been a driving force behind cleantech development adopting the ethos that ‘you don’t have to be a girly-man to help save the planet’. The article tells us that ‘[he] ridicules traditional environmentalists as prohibitionists scolds who want us to drive wimpy cars and live like monks; he’s selling a future of a clean environment and a booming green-tech economy with all the gizmos that anyone could want.’
Incumbent emissions intensive companies, who fear that change and technological innovation will lead to a decrease in profits, are the obvious opponents of cleantech. What many in the cleantech world may not yet have realised is the danger posed by the self proclaimed ‘pure’ greenies of Byron Bay and elsewhere.
In a three way fight for the ascendancy between greening, greenies and cleantech, the smart money can only be on cleantech. In the end, ‘greenwash’ will always be seen as the superficial marketing exercise it truly is. The attraction towards a positive message will always be stronger than negative messages that prohibit what is harmful. To quote Arnie in his drive to cement California as a global cleantech leader ‘guilt doesn’t work’. To develop sustainability does not require counter-cultures or clever marketing: rather than rebelling, we can enable a great future through adopting cleantech solutions.
This article was originally published in Environmental Management News in December 2008
Sunday, January 4, 2009
How Nanotech is Driving Cleantech Growth
South Australia Cements Leadership Position in both Cleantech and Nanotechnology
An Adelaide seminar on 8 December heard how nanotechnologies are being harnessed to deliver clean technology solutions for Australia and the world.
The high level seminar, titled ‘How Nanotechnology is Driving CleanTech Growth’ was organised by the Adelaide Cleantech Network, the only organisation of its kind in Australia. The conference brought together 80 representatives of business, finance, government and academia to promote collaboration across these groups and stimulate the growth of cleantech companies.
The Adelaide Cleantech Network is the initiative of Australian CleanTech which provides research services and investment analysis of the cleantech sector.
Commenting on the event, John O’Brien, Managing Director of Australian CleanTech said that Australia will adapt quickly to a future of low emissions by providing an environment for new companies and technologies to flourish. “Maintaining and protecting existing industries is important in the short term, but it does not result in a leadership position in the long run,” he said.
“Adelaide is leading the way in demonstrating how the collaboration between business, finance, government and academia can produce sustainable companies providing investment returns and economic development.”
The seminar was held in conjunction with the Australian Nano Business Forum. The Australian Nano Business Forum is the peak national body representing and promoting Australian industries and companies involved in nanotechnology. The ANBF provides a collective voice for member organisations engaged in this emerging technology, as well as facilitating links between other key stakeholders.
The seminar examined the bridge between nanotechnologies and clean technologies through both overview presentations and specific case studies. The panellists explained the potential that nanotechnology has to deliver environmentally friendly development in many varied ways.
The case studies come from Australian organisations that are leading the world:
• Dyesol Ltd is commercializing thin film solar photovoltaic materials that can be integrated into roof or window materials;
• Flinders University is undertaking ground breaking research into biofuels; and
• NanoVic is developing wind turbine blades from carbon nanotubes.
Professor Tanya Monro from the University of Adelaide started the afternoon with an overview of the potential for nanotechnology to drive cleantech growth.
The growth of nanotechnologies and clean technologies is being driven by much more than just climate change and government emissions trading. “Increasing wealth, increasing populations and decreasing natural resources require the world to adapt to cleaner technologies”, Mr O’Brien said
Australian CleanTech has estimated that, if the Australian growth matches the global forecasts, annual revenue for the Australian cleantech sector could exceed $40Bn within the next 10 years.
This seminar is a first for Australia and cements South Australia’s position as a leader in both cleantech and nanotechnology.
For information on future Adelaide Cleantech Network events please email acn@auscleantech.com.au
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Environmental Entrepreneurs: the Missing Link on the Road to a Carbon Constrained World
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
'Bailing out' the Environment
The last couple of weeks have made history in the management of global financial markets. The threat of a looming global financial crisis has led to the swift implementation of brave ideas by governments and regulators. The response may reveal how the world could avert the looming crises of climate change and resource depletion by backing the clean technology (‘cleantech’) sector.
The United States Federal Government rushed through emergency legislation that will inject up to US$700 billion into the banking system to remove the problem of ‘toxic debt’ from the US financial markets. This debt will apparently include sub-prime mortgages, credit card and other debts that could cause large financial institutions to come under increasing pressure. The financial crisis has already led to the nationalisation of three of the larger US financial institutions and the Government’s response is an attempt to stabilise other companies before they too need to be nationalised. In addition to this ‘bail out’, regulations have been implemented to restrict short selling practices, preventing hedge funds profiteering from, and thereby driving, the collapse of companies. Several markets around the world have emulated this response in varying degrees, with Australia taking the most extreme position.
AT the same time Gordon Brown, the UK Prime Minister, has been calling for an international system of regulation to oversee the global financial system, admitting that it is impossible to effectively regulate the world’s markets on a national basis alone.
Commentary, other than from hedge funds, appears to be generally supportive of the initiatives taken in the US and elsewhere. They are commended as being necessary and courageous moves to shore up the global economy and to reduce the risk of the world descending into financial depression. Confidence in the decisions made has stemmed from deep knowledge of causal factors in economics and the likely responses.
The world of course faces another potential catastrophe that could have an impact far worse than a financial meltdown: continuing global climate change and resource depletion.
Of course, the precise consequences of both financial depression and climate change are uncertain, but the risk of catastrophic outcomes of both is very real. Indeed, the issues involved in both problems are in many ways similar. There are companies that will fail due to pursuing toxic, legacy activities beyond the bounds of a sustainable system; there are groups profiteering from activities detrimental to the health of the overall system; there is a need for government investment combined with regulation; there is a drive towards global regulation; and, if done well, there are immense opportunities to increase both global wealth and well being.
Imagine what would be achieved by a response to the global ecological environment on a par with what we’ve seen for the financial environment. Consider a Bernanke/Paulson type team, with knowledge and confidence in the economic and environmental consequences of their recommendations, persuading a President in one of the richest countries of the world that there is a looming global crisis and that, as one of the worst offenders, there is a responsibility to secure the global system through an investment of several hundreds of billions of dollars.
Not only would such an approach ‘bail out’ the world from a possible catastrophe, but it would also drive a new global industry with the potential to improve the quality of life for all the world’s inhabitants: not merely through increasing wealth, although that is an important aspect, but also by changing the way wealth is created by breaking the ties with emissions and resource depletion.
The adoption of cleantech will happen regardless of such an intervention, but it will be a far less painful experience if the courage and belief demonstrated by recent actions in Washington were to be replicated in the response to global climate change.
This article was originally published in Environmental Management News and on ABC Online. To read the bizarre collection of comments on the latter site follow the link - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/03/2381148.htm
The United States Federal Government rushed through emergency legislation that will inject up to US$700 billion into the banking system to remove the problem of ‘toxic debt’ from the US financial markets. This debt will apparently include sub-prime mortgages, credit card and other debts that could cause large financial institutions to come under increasing pressure. The financial crisis has already led to the nationalisation of three of the larger US financial institutions and the Government’s response is an attempt to stabilise other companies before they too need to be nationalised. In addition to this ‘bail out’, regulations have been implemented to restrict short selling practices, preventing hedge funds profiteering from, and thereby driving, the collapse of companies. Several markets around the world have emulated this response in varying degrees, with Australia taking the most extreme position.
AT the same time Gordon Brown, the UK Prime Minister, has been calling for an international system of regulation to oversee the global financial system, admitting that it is impossible to effectively regulate the world’s markets on a national basis alone.
Commentary, other than from hedge funds, appears to be generally supportive of the initiatives taken in the US and elsewhere. They are commended as being necessary and courageous moves to shore up the global economy and to reduce the risk of the world descending into financial depression. Confidence in the decisions made has stemmed from deep knowledge of causal factors in economics and the likely responses.
The world of course faces another potential catastrophe that could have an impact far worse than a financial meltdown: continuing global climate change and resource depletion.
Of course, the precise consequences of both financial depression and climate change are uncertain, but the risk of catastrophic outcomes of both is very real. Indeed, the issues involved in both problems are in many ways similar. There are companies that will fail due to pursuing toxic, legacy activities beyond the bounds of a sustainable system; there are groups profiteering from activities detrimental to the health of the overall system; there is a need for government investment combined with regulation; there is a drive towards global regulation; and, if done well, there are immense opportunities to increase both global wealth and well being.
Imagine what would be achieved by a response to the global ecological environment on a par with what we’ve seen for the financial environment. Consider a Bernanke/Paulson type team, with knowledge and confidence in the economic and environmental consequences of their recommendations, persuading a President in one of the richest countries of the world that there is a looming global crisis and that, as one of the worst offenders, there is a responsibility to secure the global system through an investment of several hundreds of billions of dollars.
Not only would such an approach ‘bail out’ the world from a possible catastrophe, but it would also drive a new global industry with the potential to improve the quality of life for all the world’s inhabitants: not merely through increasing wealth, although that is an important aspect, but also by changing the way wealth is created by breaking the ties with emissions and resource depletion.
The adoption of cleantech will happen regardless of such an intervention, but it will be a far less painful experience if the courage and belief demonstrated by recent actions in Washington were to be replicated in the response to global climate change.
This article was originally published in Environmental Management News and on ABC Online. To read the bizarre collection of comments on the latter site follow the link - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/03/2381148.htm
Friday, September 26, 2008
CPRS Green Paper Submission
Plan to Build Australia as a Centre of Excellence for Clean Technology
Australian CleanTech made a submission to the Department of Climate Change on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Green Paper. The submission focussed on how to best secure the long term opportunities that are being presented by the transition to a low carbon economy rather than focussing on short term gains or losses by industry participants. A seven point plan is presented in this submission with an overview presented below.
For a full copy of the submission see http://www.climatechange.gov.au/greenpaper/consultation/submissions.html or request a copy at info@auscleantech.com.au
Stage 1 - Carbon Risk: Don’t back long term losers
Understand the carbon risk of current Australian industries and make sure that, other than transitional measures, we do not back those industries that will inevitably decline as carbon pricing increases. Australia will not deliver a prosperous future by being the last to be supporting legacy industries.
Stage 2 - Facilitate Easy Wins: Back Energy Efficiency Service Providers
Back the suppliers and service providers of the ‘easy wins’ for emissions reduction through matched expansion funding. Energy efficiency products and services will provide the quickest return on investment. By investing in the service providers rather than grants to emitters there will be greater and longer term economic development from generating expertise and commercial knowledge, rather than simply providing greater longevity for single companies.
Stage 3 – Build Supply Side Capability: Cleantech Parks – Promote and support the development of sustainable manufacturing and innovation hubs. Examples of State based initiatives include the Tonsly Park proposal in South Australia and the Springfield development in Queensland. To make these true successes, they need to very specifically target and attract Australian and international companies that are or have the chance to play on the world stage. This process should also look at attracting industries at varying points in their maturity.
Stage 4 – Build the Demand Side through the Australian Climate Initiative
Taking the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) as a template, there may be an opportunity to stimulate the sustainable manufacturing initiatives of Stage 3 by effectively forming a buying group of local councils and State and Federal Government departments. To do this on an Australian scale, an ‘Australian Climate Initiative’ (ACI) would only require an initial group of several State and Federal Government departments and some key Councils. Through publicity and exposure, others would be encouraged to join across all three tiers of Government.
Stage 5 - Local Empowerment: Facilitate Local Innovation
Promote projects and provide facilitation services to enable local councils and local communities to develop smaller scale projects in their own area. This will allow the community to feel part of the solution, will harness many more hands, will attract greater and more diverse investment models and will deliver significant community behaviour change. A Victorian example is the Hepburn Wind Farm project. Another example is the proposed Just Peachy project in the northern suburbs of Adelaide that combines urban regeneration, increased social capital underpinned by the growth in sustainable businesses.
Stage 6 – Negotiate Infrastructure Hurdles
There are some large scale infrastructure projects that are unlikely to be developed in the short term without Government leadership. If these projects are delivered, however, they will provide a step change in the delivery of new technologies and a spring board for the country to become a centre of excellence. The best example of this is a High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) cable that could be constructed from the renewable energy resource rich areas of the country to the energy demand centres.
Stage 7 – Demonstrate Success: Power Parks
Professor Stephen Schneider from Stanford University suggested the South Australian Government develop power parks promoting multiple low emissions technologies and ‘showcase the State as a centre for innovation in greenhouse emissions reduction and renewable energy development’. This concept could be developed across the country with demonstration facilities in specific sectors show casing the best of breed for many technologies.
Australian CleanTech made a submission to the Department of Climate Change on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Green Paper. The submission focussed on how to best secure the long term opportunities that are being presented by the transition to a low carbon economy rather than focussing on short term gains or losses by industry participants. A seven point plan is presented in this submission with an overview presented below.
For a full copy of the submission see http://www.climatechange.gov.au/greenpaper/consultation/submissions.html or request a copy at info@auscleantech.com.au
Stage 1 - Carbon Risk: Don’t back long term losers
Understand the carbon risk of current Australian industries and make sure that, other than transitional measures, we do not back those industries that will inevitably decline as carbon pricing increases. Australia will not deliver a prosperous future by being the last to be supporting legacy industries.
Stage 2 - Facilitate Easy Wins: Back Energy Efficiency Service Providers
Back the suppliers and service providers of the ‘easy wins’ for emissions reduction through matched expansion funding. Energy efficiency products and services will provide the quickest return on investment. By investing in the service providers rather than grants to emitters there will be greater and longer term economic development from generating expertise and commercial knowledge, rather than simply providing greater longevity for single companies.
Stage 3 – Build Supply Side Capability: Cleantech Parks – Promote and support the development of sustainable manufacturing and innovation hubs. Examples of State based initiatives include the Tonsly Park proposal in South Australia and the Springfield development in Queensland. To make these true successes, they need to very specifically target and attract Australian and international companies that are or have the chance to play on the world stage. This process should also look at attracting industries at varying points in their maturity.
Stage 4 – Build the Demand Side through the Australian Climate Initiative
Taking the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) as a template, there may be an opportunity to stimulate the sustainable manufacturing initiatives of Stage 3 by effectively forming a buying group of local councils and State and Federal Government departments. To do this on an Australian scale, an ‘Australian Climate Initiative’ (ACI) would only require an initial group of several State and Federal Government departments and some key Councils. Through publicity and exposure, others would be encouraged to join across all three tiers of Government.
Stage 5 - Local Empowerment: Facilitate Local Innovation
Promote projects and provide facilitation services to enable local councils and local communities to develop smaller scale projects in their own area. This will allow the community to feel part of the solution, will harness many more hands, will attract greater and more diverse investment models and will deliver significant community behaviour change. A Victorian example is the Hepburn Wind Farm project. Another example is the proposed Just Peachy project in the northern suburbs of Adelaide that combines urban regeneration, increased social capital underpinned by the growth in sustainable businesses.
Stage 6 – Negotiate Infrastructure Hurdles
There are some large scale infrastructure projects that are unlikely to be developed in the short term without Government leadership. If these projects are delivered, however, they will provide a step change in the delivery of new technologies and a spring board for the country to become a centre of excellence. The best example of this is a High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) cable that could be constructed from the renewable energy resource rich areas of the country to the energy demand centres.
Stage 7 – Demonstrate Success: Power Parks
Professor Stephen Schneider from Stanford University suggested the South Australian Government develop power parks promoting multiple low emissions technologies and ‘showcase the State as a centre for innovation in greenhouse emissions reduction and renewable energy development’. This concept could be developed across the country with demonstration facilities in specific sectors show casing the best of breed for many technologies.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Cleantech Growth through Collaboration
Tangible cleantech outcomes can only be effectively achieved through collaboration between the four core groups of cleantech participants and by adopting a four point collaboration strategy.
The four core participant groups of the cleantech industry are business, governments, researchers and the finance community. Extraordinary outcomes will be achieved by combining the knowledge, capacity and resources of each of these groups.
The combination of innovative research, business needs, commercialisation skills, financial drivers and all three tiers of Government can deliver solutions that not only meet environmental needs but also deliver economic and social dividends. If any one of the core groups is missed from any stage of the process then the result will be, at best, sub-optimal.
Collaboration between the core groups must occur throughout the lifecycle of the project. The adoption of a four point collaboration strategy facilitates behaviours which lead to cleantech innovation and growth.
The four core participant groups of the cleantech industry are business, governments, researchers and the finance community. Extraordinary outcomes will be achieved by combining the knowledge, capacity and resources of each of these groups.
The combination of innovative research, business needs, commercialisation skills, financial drivers and all three tiers of Government can deliver solutions that not only meet environmental needs but also deliver economic and social dividends. If any one of the core groups is missed from any stage of the process then the result will be, at best, sub-optimal.
Collaboration between the core groups must occur throughout the lifecycle of the project. The adoption of a four point collaboration strategy facilitates behaviours which lead to cleantech innovation and growth.
- Strategy 1 - Networks. Cleantech networks are starting to emerge. They provide valuable forums for making new connections and starting new discussions. One example is the Adelaide Cleantech Network, which organises educational events to facilitate cleantech growth in addition to other opportunities for members of the core groups to meet and exchange information and opinions.
- Strategy 2 – Drive Demand. Through establishing buying groups of companies, government departments, local councils or businesses, it is possible to jump start emerging technologies.
- Step 3 – Drive Innovation. The establishment of cleantech manufacturing and development parks creates and enables the positive interdependencies between researchers, companies and financiers. This enhances product development both in terms of quality and time to market.
- Step 4 – Demonstrate Success. Highly publicised demonstration parks or projects are required to provide access to multiple technologies in-situ. The successful technologies are likely to be those that were conceived at network events and borne from the impetus of buying groups and cleantech parks.
Amidst the noise of emissions intensive industries crying foul, the voice of opportunity is starting to be heard. Grasping this opportunity requires the implementation of a comprehensive collaboration strategy that brings together the four core groups of cleantech participants. Governments and other facilitators can lead this strategy, but it requires commitment from all four groups for it to succeed. Once implemented, the multiple dividend streams of cleantech will be fully unleashed.
This is an edited extract of an article that was originally published on Environmental Management News. For a full version of the article please email info@auscleantech.com.au
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Adelaide Cleantech Network - Grants & Investment Seminar
The First Adelaide Cleantech Network Seminar was held on Tuesday 2 September 2008 at the National Wine Centre in AdelaideThe high level seminar was organised by the Adelaide Cleantech Network, the only organisation of its kind in Australia. The conference brought together representatives of business, finance, government and academia and promoted collaboration across these groups to stimulate the growth of cleantech companies.
Commenting on the event, John O’Brien, Managing Director of Australian CleanTech said that Australia will adapt quickly to a future of low emissions and resource constraints by providing an environment for new companies and technologies to flourish. “Maintaining and protecting existing industries is important in the short term, but it does not result in a leadership position in the long run,” he said.
“Adelaide is leading the way in demonstrating how the collaboration between business, finance, government and academia can produce sustainable companies providing investment returns and economic development.”
The first session of the seminar focussed on State and Federal Government grants and incentives available to cleantech companies. This included one of the few good news stories from the closure of Mitsubishi’s Tonsely Park plant. The Federal and State Governments have jointly launched the South Australian Innovation and Investment Fund which will provide up to $30m for investment in new manufacturing ventures. Another grant that was discussed was the Federal Government’s Climate Ready Grant that will provide up to $5m of matched funding to successful applicants.
Show casing a successful case study, Anthony Kittel, the Managing Director of Lonsdale-based REDARC talked about his company’s success in securing a multi-million dollar grant that has enabled it to expand its operations.
The second session of the PricewaterhouseCoopers event turned the focus from companies to investors. It started with an overview of the Rudd Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme along with the current state of lobbying by ‘big business’ looking to protect and forward their interests. Other topics included an overview of picking stock market winners and losers for a carbon constrained world and the investment strategy of South African bank, Investec, to make money from cleantech.
In the last session of the morning, Fiona Waterhouse from the Australian Cleantech Marketplace explained the new ways Australian investors can access environmentally friendly investments. Included was a commentary on the world-first Sustainable Investment Market, the Sydney based stock exchange that will only list cleantech companies.
Cleantech investment differs from ‘socially responsible investments’ and their ilk, focusing only on companies whose output positively enhances communities and ecologies. “It is about doing ‘more good’ rather than ‘less bad’,” Mr O’Brien explained.
To round off the day IBM Australia’s Malcolm Mackey explained how IT is the enabler of both the technologies and investment returns associated with cleantech.
Australian CleanTech has estimated that, if the Australian growth matches the global forecasts, annual revenue for the Australian cleantech sector could exceed $40Bn within the next 10 years.
“Successful cleantech investments are about looking at future trends and understanding which technologies will achieve both economic and sustainable development,” Mr O’Brien said.
“The drivers behind cleantech are much more than just climate change. Increasing wealth, increasing populations and decreasing natural resources require the world to adapt to cleaner technologies,” he added.
Mr O’Brien concluded by dismissing what some commentators have coined as a ‘green bubble’, similar to the IT bubble of the turn of the century. “With many real assets being constructed and global demand for its products and services increasing, the cleantech revolution is here to stay.”
“Finally we have a solution to the dichotomy between good returns and positive environmental investments. We now have a way to make money and save the world.”
EMAIL acn@auscleantech.com.au FOR INFORMATION ON FUTURE EVENTS
Saturday, August 2, 2008
The Cleantech Cure for Climate Fatigue
A new challenge for those fighting the effects of climate change is on the horizon - ‘climate fatigue’. Each day the public is bombarded with terrifying prognoses for the future that they and their forebears have created.
Many people are understandably confused about the possible effects of climate change and feel an inability to make any meaningful difference. They sense a lack of control and eventually fear will give way to resigned boredom and the distractions of more immediate and local issues. So, ironically, as media exposure on the issue of climate change increases so too does the danger of climate fatigue.
Yet it is essential that individuals and their communities do stay motivated and engaged with the solutions to climate change – it is not enough simply to rely upon scientists and politicians to alleviate the consequences. Cleantech provides the solutions that will deliver both global and local benefits and ensure the community engagement is maintained.
“Climate fatigue” may be compared with the well documented phenomenon of famine fatigue. As news of ever more famines continue however, the length and depth of compassionate feelings reduces until there is tendency to accept famines as unavoidable.
Famine fatigue or, more generally, compassion fatigue occurs fastest when the suffering is far removed. Climate fatigue is no different, as shown by Putin’s retort that Russians are unlikely to suffer from a slight rise in temperature, and the effects of climate change are often seen as a problem belonging to the distant future and far flung places of the world. However, recent Australian weather conditions – both floods and droughts – have focussed many Australians on the immediacy and relevancy of the problems created by climate change. Extreme weather patterns elsewhere, such as the US and parts of Europe, have had the same effect. Enthusiasm for change is high, both here and abroad, and fatigue has yet to set in.
To harness this enthusiasm and secure its benefits requires two aspects: firstly, local benefits must be visible to communities so that the benefits of change are clear; and secondly, networks and forums must be established to facilitate new connections and enable new collaborations. This is where cleantech comes in.
Focusing on local benefits whilst also delivering part of a national or international solution is not easy. It requires collaboration and understanding between business, investors, academia, all three tiers of government and most importantly the general public. Providing a forum to have these conversations is a vital first step to delivering the greatest benefits from changes that are going to be required as a result of climate change.
One example of this first step is the recently formed Adelaide Cleantech Network. This brings together all of the disparate groups and enables discussions to start on wider more ambitious solutions.
By changing the story from one of worry to one of opportunity, cleantech alters the whole dynamic of climate change. It is a twist on the concept “think global - act local” which has historically been seen as taking local detrimental actions to achieve global benefits. Instead this is thinking about worrying global events and turning them into an excuse to deliver local benefits.
By focussing on how cleantech solutions can deliver local, as well as global, benefits and by starting new conversations and collaborative relationships, we have the opportunity to make climate change seen as the great motivator to a better world.
This is an extract of the full article that was first published Environmental Management News. For a full version of the article please email info@auscleantech.com.au
Many people are understandably confused about the possible effects of climate change and feel an inability to make any meaningful difference. They sense a lack of control and eventually fear will give way to resigned boredom and the distractions of more immediate and local issues. So, ironically, as media exposure on the issue of climate change increases so too does the danger of climate fatigue.
Yet it is essential that individuals and their communities do stay motivated and engaged with the solutions to climate change – it is not enough simply to rely upon scientists and politicians to alleviate the consequences. Cleantech provides the solutions that will deliver both global and local benefits and ensure the community engagement is maintained.
“Climate fatigue” may be compared with the well documented phenomenon of famine fatigue. As news of ever more famines continue however, the length and depth of compassionate feelings reduces until there is tendency to accept famines as unavoidable.
Famine fatigue or, more generally, compassion fatigue occurs fastest when the suffering is far removed. Climate fatigue is no different, as shown by Putin’s retort that Russians are unlikely to suffer from a slight rise in temperature, and the effects of climate change are often seen as a problem belonging to the distant future and far flung places of the world. However, recent Australian weather conditions – both floods and droughts – have focussed many Australians on the immediacy and relevancy of the problems created by climate change. Extreme weather patterns elsewhere, such as the US and parts of Europe, have had the same effect. Enthusiasm for change is high, both here and abroad, and fatigue has yet to set in.
To harness this enthusiasm and secure its benefits requires two aspects: firstly, local benefits must be visible to communities so that the benefits of change are clear; and secondly, networks and forums must be established to facilitate new connections and enable new collaborations. This is where cleantech comes in.
Focusing on local benefits whilst also delivering part of a national or international solution is not easy. It requires collaboration and understanding between business, investors, academia, all three tiers of government and most importantly the general public. Providing a forum to have these conversations is a vital first step to delivering the greatest benefits from changes that are going to be required as a result of climate change.
One example of this first step is the recently formed Adelaide Cleantech Network. This brings together all of the disparate groups and enables discussions to start on wider more ambitious solutions.
By changing the story from one of worry to one of opportunity, cleantech alters the whole dynamic of climate change. It is a twist on the concept “think global - act local” which has historically been seen as taking local detrimental actions to achieve global benefits. Instead this is thinking about worrying global events and turning them into an excuse to deliver local benefits.
By focussing on how cleantech solutions can deliver local, as well as global, benefits and by starting new conversations and collaborative relationships, we have the opportunity to make climate change seen as the great motivator to a better world.
This is an extract of the full article that was first published Environmental Management News. For a full version of the article please email info@auscleantech.com.au
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
