Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

Obviously as oil becomes obsolete, the countries that wield it as a power would see that power weaken, and sustainable technology could potentially empower many third world countries.
I'd be very interested to know to what extent the potential for a more even spread of power across the world in this century is considered, in light of essential new knowledge and technology for sustainability.

Also, I'm interested to know to what extent exactly at Davos, climate change is considered a problem for all humanity as opposed to a problem for big business (just in terms of personal opinions, obviously business would lead the way for any significant change).

what i don't understand is the specious groupthink that people engage in in relation to climate change. it's hot this winter, therefore climate change must be taking hold.. rather than it just being a typical variation.

Maybe it is specious or misleading to use this winter as an example of climate change. Maybe it isn't. That's the nature of statistics, and of climate change. You have to look back, and forwards, to notice it. But, If it wakes visitors to Davos up to the fact that it can impact them, then maybe it's not such a bad thing after all.

Anyway, the snow started this afternoon, so maybe it's back to normal in Davos...

Unfortunately it took over a hundred years to convince the last diehards that the earth was not flat.

The problem is that even a catastrophic climate change (such as the asteroid impact which doomed the dinosaurs) can be rationalised away as a natural phenomenon. The goal must be to remove such people from positions of power.

The goal of the Davos meetings should be to inform today's elite as to the possible costs of doing nothing, and the enormous rewards (environmental, social, and economic) of halting mankind's slow destruction of this planet. If Davos can accomplish this, it has served its purpose.

The forecast for Davos tomorrow (1/24/2007) is light snow. Looks like old man winter finally found his way to Switzerland. Enjoy the forum and hope the business leaders can take some concrete actions to help develop the under-developed nations. Anybody can talk but only a few can deliver the results. Thanks.

There is very little doubt that the strategic decisions of a multinational have a more powerful effect than those of a government: they often affect 20 to 50 or more nations (depending on the size of the company) whilst a government only affects one nation.

The consequences on the environment of a multinational's production plant do not stop at the border of that nation, the wind has no borders and the waters of rivers have no borders.

This takes us to the growing awareness that we do not live and that our actions are not limited to Switzerland or to the UK or to Europe.

We don't live in one nation, we live in one world.

So given the power of multinations and given that business nowadays seems to be responsible primarily to shareholders (short term - one quarter at a time ones) it would be interesting to build the "business case" for sustainable behaviours (in production, in transport, in energy consumption in the office) in companies.

It would be interesting to read what data is offered at Davos to justify only apparently costly, responsible behaviours, in companies?

Earlier this week on the Davos Conversation site:
I asked a question about Carbon Neutrality:

It was answered very well by the WEF COO, Andre Schneider. He did a very good job of outlining the steps WEF are taking to make Davos carbon neutral. They really have thought about the impact the organisation, it’s staff and delegates have. I’ll be looking to see who has a lapel pin.

However, I’m still not convinced offsetting is the answer. Can we really give back with one hand what we take with the other? Once the carbon is in the system the damage is done, even if we then limit the damage done by somebody else. Even ‘neutralising’ by planting trees will take a long time to balance the impacts of today. I also feel there is something unethical in the stance that we western consumers can pump out carbon but then feel good if we offset by limiting the damage done in the developing world. I am not saying that such schemes are a bad thing. I think they can at least help. But it doesn’t feel quite right and in the long term each and every one of us needs to look at limiting our own output, not balancing the figures.

In your own interviews with Davos delegates look to see if they are wearing a lapel pin and if they are not, please ask them why.