Climate Matters: How should companies respond to climate change?

We are only into episode 3 of Climate Matters and our focus has expanded. Stuart set out to try to understand the elements of climate and thought he would be focusing on the facts, and the science of carbon and methane, and the impact of solar fluctuations, and so on.

While that remains much of the focus of this show, he has already heard from viewers that the conversation needs to be expanded to include a wide range of elements that include the environment and societal values.

One of those societal values is, how are organizations responding to climate change? It struck him that no matter what you think or know about the science, organizations need to appear to be responding to the issues.

Failure to do so means those organizations may end up off side with their customers who are also voters. The connection of course is, those voters elect politicians who establish laws and regulations that force changes in manufacturing and use.

So no matter what you think about climate change, the business climate is changing and your organization better change. As Mark Carney says, failure to address the issue may very well strand assets – coal, oil, gas that can lose value – as the push to move away from carbon based fuels grows. He says trillions of dollars of potential investments may be sequestered with the carbon based resources fund.

The Teck Frontier oil sands cancellation is an example of how the business community, while attempting to respond to environmental issues, ultimately determined the biggest climate change was the uncertainty that comes for a lack of clear cut policies and regulations.

The company walked away from a billions of dollars investment and suggested the market for resource development in Canada is finished.

In this episode, we sit down with Professor Justin Bull of the Sauder School of Business, who focuses much of his energy on why and how companies are forced to face the climate change issue.

---

climate003 #climatechange #environment #climate

[audreypopa]

The comments on this page are concerning to say the least. Thanks Justin for always speaking eloquently and about what matters!

[emieliadahl-sam]

Thanks Justin for speaking to this relevant topic, which has been scientifically backed for the past 30 years! It's about time companies start including climate change in their mandates.

[edwatson]

Norwegian energy policy was an economic stance, not an environmental one. if they were looking for the best thing for the environment, they would have left it in the ground. Sure they ones with the big bucks are going to use it to roll with the punches of the marketplace, that hasn't changed. It is also the wealthy that are the cause of the greatest environmental detriment. Civilizations have cycles, they all come to an end, from its ashes will rise a new one. Just like the transitions you speak of here, out with the old and in with the new.

[svenbuijks]

What if its all politics and the world is just fine but the peoples minds are poisend with this crap talk ?

[rayw]

Why does he keep saying carbon a black solid and not CO2 which is colourless and the stuff of life.

[paulinetsai]

Thank you Justin for bringing awareness on this matter!

[edwatson]

It is really good to have these conversations. I would like to point out that the biggest detriment to the environment is deforestation. I have worked in the forest industry for a long time. I have taken drastic action in my own practices for the sake of favouring forest systems, taking these actions has meant that I lived in poverty to reduce because nobody wants to pay for doing things right. Suggesting another use for forest products is only going to increase pressure on the forests, and in order to make things economically feasible, more and more processing systems will do more and more damage to the forest environment per cord of wood produced. That is the direction that things have been moving for a long time. On paper forest practices have been getting better, but on the ground the reality is that they have been getting much worse. As far as I can see we have done more damage to the environment in our attempts to save it. As humans we approach natural systems with a managerial eye, but the irony is that the only thing that can manage the environment sustainably is the environment. Trees have been here on earth for 100 million years they don't need our help, we need theirs.

[bronwindraney]

A compelling new perspective on climate change. The question. What determines the climate, on Earth, other planets and moons?


Output from the sun PLUS the density (not the composition) of the atmosphere. Worth a look.

[steveyoung]

Some sound business insights, BUT, he is mostly talking about ecology and environmentalism, and conflating that with CLIMATE. They are not the same problem. My Son-In-Law is a gas turban power plant operator in Florida, USA, and they do not report their CO2 emission levels to the EPA...because CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT. Science not politics.

[robertcoutts]

Buying credits is just playing a game ... those who do this and think that they should pump out their chest thinking that they are doing something wonderful is living in a fantasy.

[robertcoutts]

You are suggesting that any business should kiss the ass of stupidity ... sorry that is a race to the bottom.

[orange]

Growing up in the 1970's the noon-day sun was very much yellow in color, now the noon-day sun is a blinding white color. Why is it that this fact is not mentioned by anyone. The sun is literally in your face on most days yet people don't notice a dramatic and obvious change in our sun, it's beyond bizarre.

[FredCompusmurf]

McNish, this is bad for your reputation!
How can I ever trust anything you say?

[rateromuerte]

And why are we even talking about climate when we are in a REAL CRISIS RIGHT NOW. I bet greta is flickin her bean shes so happy about the total collapse in emissions right now.