John Elkington asks in the Guardian today if innovation and new business models can do the same for sustainability in the 21st century? The biggest problem and challenges we have is that our society not working with a balance the aligning human and nature system. Since we developed the Natural Steps 4 system – method some leading business leaders understand that they have to find a roadmap that can aligning human and nature system in their business strategy. Global reporting initiative (GRI) – and other tools are helping hands for business that integrate economy – ecology and social issues mostly for the business sector of today.

The problem as I see it that we have left the politician and economist behind. Politicians and economist don’t understand how to measure and report on eco system consequences when they discuss or take decision and evaluate GDP and GNP. We need a resilient economy that provides a better quality of life for all within the ecological limits of the planet. The initiative Economics of Eco system and Bio Diversity (TEEB) -http://bit.ly/IMlGJR – is a promising work by Pavan Sukhdev and others. Another interesting article is written by Charles Secrett - 9 reason why environmentalist should called them self economist where he point out the necessary of recognise the full productive value of delivering sustainable development (sustainability) in the round, generating honest capital and maximising human well-being.

Our economic system is failing people and the planet. I think the innovation issue should be up for economists and politicians. Why not inspire, push, demand that the political and economic sector to be the new change agents before the nature say no and give us humans no options.

And we need brave and outspoken politicians and economist in Rio+20

Where are you politicians and economists?

Kaj Embrén

I can say that the Stockholm’s + 40 Conference managed to gather world’s leaders who presented their proposals and  agendas for the  Rio + 20 meeting in June, thus creating some momentum for the rather subdued expectations for Rio.

The Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, stressed the importance of a circular economy and paid tributes to the Nordic countries, mostly Sweden for its role providing technical solutions for sustainable development.

Achim Steiner, Head of UNEP was one of the most outspoken speakers. He stressed that governments and businesses need to accelerate and put in a new gear to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and take the necessary actions to meet our planet challenges. He drew attention to the large subsidies that still exist for fossil fuels and wondered what is stopping us from taking concrete actions to build a greener economy.

Teresa Fogelberg, Deputy Chief Executive at the Global Reporting Initiative reported that more and more companies, government agencies and organizations report their sustainability efforts. In my interview with Teresa Fogelberg as she sees that the issue of mandatory reporting are discussed with increasing frequency.

There were about fifty young leaders from developing and developed countries that were invited to the conference. They voiced their concerns regarding the lack of popular support to actions that mitigate global warming.  According to Alex Wang, the executive director of  The Youthink Centre in Beijing, there is very little involvement from the public in green issues.

Citizens need to participate and demand that politicians prioritize the development of a low carbon economy.  However, we all know that grass roots mobilization is a slow process and perhaps the earth does not have that much lifetime left!

We are faced with few options. Either the public, politicians and the business community together embrace the urgent need of change to a sustainable economy or there will be no future for any of us.

Read the conclusions of the Stockholm +40

Listen to the opinion of Sha Zukang, the United Nations Secretary General for the Rio +20 conference on the results and challenges coming out of Stockholm +40.

Kaj Embrén - Follow on Twitter

But will the conference deliver any meaningful messages ahead of the Rio Earth Summit in June?

Summits in Copenhagen, Durban and other world cities have been tasked with discussing national governments’ ambitions to find global agreements on sustainable development, Millennium Development Goals and climate change. Despite this, the climate deal is still up in the air and in my view there are no clear signs of a breakthrough. Instead, I see passive national governments that are not engaged enough to bring us closer to any solid agreements.

But at the same time, we’ve seen more cities working together with businesses and their stakeholders to act positively and deliver solutions on sustainable development. It is these initiatives that have been most successful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and finding ways to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.

It seems fitting that the conference is being hosted by Sweden, a country that has benefited from such programs. The Swedish now use more bio energy than fossil fuel so perhaps when discussions start on Monday, the participants will be inspired by the sort of Swedish initiatives highlighted in the new edition of Sustainable Solutions magazine. It highlights some of the country’s most innovative solutions that have been successful because they embrace local perspectives and involve all stakeholders.

The real question therefore, is whether the Swedish Government will take the lead ahead of the Summit and bring these powerful local solutions from its cities to the negotiating table in Rio? That question will be answered by Wednesday when the Stockholm+40 conference draws to a conclusion.

Kaj Embren

PS Click here to participate in the Rio+ LinkIn group

1. 2006 to be reduced to 75%
2. 2009 to be reduced to 50%
3. 2016 to be reduced to 35%

Moreover the directive states that “Member states that in 1995 or the latest year before 1995 for which standardized Eurostat data is available put more than 80% of their collected municipal waste to landfill may postpone the attainment of targets by a period not exceeding four years” which translates in a shift of the 3 target milestones to 2010 for the first, 2013 for the second and 2020 for the third. Countries that fall under this category are the United Kingdom, Slovakia, Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Ireland, Greece, Estonia, Cyprus, Czech Republic and Bulgaria.

As the targets appear quite ambitious incineration seems an attractive solution since it can reduce the MSW volume up to 95%. Chart 1 demonstrates the levels of Land-filling, incineration and recycling during 2009 for EU member states.

Chart 1

*Source Eurostat.

In chart 1 we notice that there is a cluster of six leading countries Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria and Germany that their Land-filling level is in the single digits. These countries are the ones that have already achieve the final target set by the landfill directive as shown in chart 2 below

Chart 2

*Source Eurostat

In addition the six leading countries have at the same time the highest levels of recycling and MSW incineration. Their average recycling level is at 59% and their average incineration level at 39% and their average Land-filling is a low 2%.

Clearly without incineration the landfill directive targets would not have been achieved 7 years earlier. Proponents of reduce, reuse, recycle mantra are against incineration as they consider it as a disincentive for recycling. Data from Euro-stat shows a completely different picture. In our 6 country cluster we observe that they possess the top level of recycling. The country with the absolutely top level of recycling outside our 6 leading Member States is Luxemburg with 47% just one point shy of Denmark which is the country with the lowest level of recycling in our top 6. Moreover, the first country that doesn’t incinerate at all and just recycles is Greece which has a Land-filling ranking of 19.

Chart 3

*Source Euro-stat

From Chart 3 we notice that the increase of incineration is around a third since 1995 as opposed to recycling that had almost increased by two and half times.

Thus, data indicate that incineration and recycling can go hand in hand and complement one another in a way favorable to recycling. In addition incineration gives Europeans the benefit of reducing to some degree their level or dependency on fossil fuels in producing electricity and heat; something that should not be taken lightly given the increase that the prices of fossil fuels have undergone in recent years.

-

More of waste to energy can be found at: http://www.renewablegreenenergypower.com

Link to EU directives for the Environment: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/landfill_index.htm

Link to information on Renewable energy sources at: http://www.renewablegreenenergypower.com/category/renewable-energy-2/

Let us look at a particularly important segment of this economy – end-of-life products and the problem of garbage in our city centers.

The number of landfill sites and garbage tips produced by the world’s growing cities is a huge dilemma. How much worse will the picture look in 2030, when it is predicted that 60% of the population will live in urban areas?

To a great extent, this problem is the result of consumerist societies but changing global consumption habits will be hugely difficult. Instead, in order to find a solution we must direct our focus towards the lifecycle of products and services. The answer lies in taking all of the processes involved – raw materials, design, production and recycling – and integrating them in a circular economy.

Fuelled by tougher legislation, the waste disposal issue has given rise to an increasingly lucrative market. EU law now covers everything from city landfills to vehicle recovery units, so producers have little choice but to become more responsible.

Let me highlight three examples of ways that this market is growing:

1)  Since 2001, Panasonic Eco Technology Center (PETEC) has operated a plant that transforms 1.4 billion end-of-life products into new resources. This represents enough recycled material to manufacture 95 new jumbo jets or 150,000 new cars, which meets some of the organisation’s need for aluminum, copper and steel.

2)  The Financial Times reported a study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Senseable City Lab that followed the lifecycle of 3000 electronic items from Seattle. The study showed that 75% of the products ended up in recycling facilities, compared with the US average of about 34%.

3) As well as recycling for materials, garbage is also being used to generate energy through urban district heating systems. In Amsterdam, 99% of local waste (household and industrial) is used to provide heat and energy for the city’s metro, tram and road lighting. A similar system is also in use in other cities including Stockholm, Malmo and Copenhagen.

In the coming years, urban waste disposal will be about getting people to sort and recycle more of the products and materials they consume. But the question is how? I decided to ask an expert who has been working to find an answer, the CEO of Envac, Christer Öjdemark. You can watch the full interview here.

His company, Envac, has been developing waste collection systems worldwide since 1951. In the early 1960s it invented the automated vacuum waste collection system that transports waste to a central processing facility, making it easier to separate and recycle. It is still in use throughout the world – in residential areas, shopping malls, city centers, industrial kitchens, hospitals and airports – as it can be integrated with existing infrastructure, such as electricity, sewage and water supplies.

But although a technical solution exists, the greatest challenge is encouraging people’s participation and involvement, says Envac’s Director of Marketing and Communication, Jonas Törnblom. He tells me how the residents in Vollsmose, a suburb of Odense in Denmark, worked together to improve their environment: “Human behavior is always central to its success. Look at Vollsmose, a residential area with a variety of cultures, languages and experiences. With the help of local environmental ambassadors it is training its citizens in new behavior models and increased responsibility. The technical solution facilitated this transition and shows how an area can improve its environment and deal with its waste management.”

Recycling is an increasingly important part of the political agenda in almost every nation around the world. In January 2012, the EU Commission started considering changes to the current Waste Act with stronger demands for inspection, fees and taxes. Studies have shown that tighter regulation could save about € 72 billion and create an additional 400,000 jobs in the recycling industry.

Let us hope that these legislative changes stimulate further growth in this market by compelling companies to deal with their waste sustainably. As we have seen before, regulation can act as a catalyst for the rise of new and more innovative solutions.And why not inspire the Stockholm+40 conference in april and the Rio+20 Summit in june?

Kaj Embrén

How this works: several member states are trying to set the 1.5% target in Article 6 so that each year’s required savings would actually be delivered over a 15-25 year timeframe. This means that real annual savings would be just a fraction of the official savings reported to the Commission.

We’re still not sure exactly how many member states are in favour of this definition of ‘lifetime savings’. But it seems the UK is one of them. This at least is what officials from the UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) told us in a meeting in London on March 21st.  See below for our follow up email to Tom Bastin, Sarah Meagher and James Acord, three of the DECC officials leading the UK’s work on the directive.

Our figures are in terawatt hours. 1000 TWh are equivalent to 85 million tons of oil equivalent (mtoe). See IEA conversion table

“Dear Tom, Sarah, James,

Thanks again for a very interesting meeting on Wednesday. We’re writing to follow up the discussion on the 1.5% target in Article 6 and in particular the lifetime savings model you described.

If our understanding of your lifetime model is correct then we’re seriously concerned that the statistical savings are totally disconnected from the real savings. Your point – if we understood it correctly – is that each year’s target does not have to be met by real savings delivered in that year. Instead, measures would be put in place that would deliver the savings over their whole lifetime.

As the Commission puts it in their non-paper, this means “claiming savings that will, in reality, not materialise for many years to come”.

Let’s try this out with some numbers:

The UK’s final energy consumption (minus transport) is very roughly 1000 TWh / year. In order to meet the 1.5% target the UK would have to achieve 1^st year savings of 15 TWh. According to the method you described in the meeting these 15TWh would be met by installing measures that over their lifetime would deliver 15TWh. Assuming a lifetime of 20 years this means the real 1^st year savings would actually be 1/20 of 15 TWh = 0.75 TWh.

If this is your understanding of the 1.5% target then we have some serious problems. The most obvious is that the benefits that result from energy savings would be lost. Take GHG reductions: savings of 15TWh roughly correspond to 3 million tons of CO2 equivalent. But savings of 0.75 TWh are the equivalent of just 0.15 MT CO2e. A huge difference – especially given the scientific case for large short term GHG reductions.

Please get back to us as soon as possible on this issue! Our position: a 1^st year target of 15 TWh must be met with 15 TWh real on-the-ground savings in that year”.

Does DECC fully realise the implications of what it’s calling for? We’re still waiting for their reply. The point is that if accounting tricks to meet the 1.5% target are disastrous for greenhouse gas emission cuts, they’re equally bad for cost savings and energy imports. Salami tactics indeed.

By Brook Riley and Erica Hope

Twelve years later and an increasing number of individuals are earning respect for their contributions to the fields of sustainable development and environment. People are being recognized for their competence and experience, with a number of yearly rankings becoming very popular in Sweden.

Two dominant media in this field, Environmental Dayli (Miljöaktuellt) and CSR in Practise,(CSR i Praktiken) have both produced lists of the 100 people that have the most power or influence in Sweden’s environment and sustainable development fields. Anyone looking to build their networks in these areas would do well to study these rankings.

The Environmental Dayli

The Environmental Dayli’s (owned by IDG) list of the 100 most influence figures is topped by Johan Rockström, Professor and Executive Director at Stockholm Environmental Institute (SEI), who will shortly be leaving the position to focus on his role as the Head of the Stockholm Resilience Center.

Number 2 on the list is Maria Wetterstrand, former spokesperson for the Green Party. She is joined by current Green Party members at numbers 3 and 4 - Isabella Lövin (MEP) and Åsa Romson (present spokesperson).

In at number 5 is Svante Axelsson, Secretary General of the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC), Sweden’s largest environmental NGO.

Places 6 to 10 are as follows:

6.  Christian Azar, Professor at Chalmers University, Gothenburg

7. Mikael Karlsson, President, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC)

8. Mattias Klum, Photographer and speaker

9. Johan Kuylenstierna, new Head of Stockholm Environmental Institute (SEI)

10. Tomas Kåberger, President of the Japan Renewable Energy Foundation.

CSR in Practise (CSR I Praktiken)

CSR in Practise (which is owned by the media company Bonnier) claims that its list of the 100 most influential people in Swedish business indicates who you can trust to work with or listen to. The first of its rankings is for strategists, communicators and people acting as market advisors.

Top spot is given to Klas Eklund, Senior Advisor to the Scandinavian Bank and Sweden’s answer to Thomas L. Friedman.

The top 5 also includes Leo Razzak, professional Speaker; Niclas Ihrén, Senior Advisor for Respect; Christian Åberg, Advisor to the tourist industry and Peder Michael Pruzan-Jørgensen, Head of BSR Europe.

CSR in Practise has also selected its 5 most influence people in civil society, which comprises of the following: Anna Ryott, Secretary General of SOS Childvillages (SOS Barnbyar); Lina Thomsgård, Founder of “Rättviseförmedlingen” (‘translating as ‘Equalisters’ in English – ‘equal’ denoting equality and ‘listers’ for all the people that contribute towards compiling huge lists of people who challenge prevailing norms); Patrik Eriksson, Head of Campaigns at Greenpeace, Magdalena Hermelin from The Cancer Foundation and Martin Åhdal, CEO of the think-tank Fores.

The third list is of people is for coming from business, with a top 5 is made up of: Monica Lingegård, CEO of Samhall; Michael Wolf, CEO of Swedbank; Sasja Beslik, CEO of Nordea Bank Fonds; Helena Helmersson, Head of Sustainability at H&M and Stina Billinger, Strategy Advisor at SPP&Storebrand.

So, when you visit Sweden next time – why not get in touch and build your network!

Kaj Embrén

In the report said that the outline specifies 7 major indicators, with ammonia nitrogen and nitric oxide added as two new indicators, the official said. The plan calls for ammonia nitrogen and nitric oxide emissions to be cut by 10 percent by 2015, while chemical oxygen demand (COD) and sulfur dioxide emissions should drop by 8 percent, the report said. 

The five-year outline also calls for an investment of 3.4 trillion yuan ($539 billion) in environmental protection efforts. Eight major projects, including reducing major pollutant emissions and resolving environmental problems that affect people’s health, will require a investment of nearly 1.5 trillion yuan.

Thenumber of major cities covered by China’s air quality index system has expanded from 113 to 333, with stricter assessment standards established as well. 

The outline states that local governments should shoulder most of the responsibilities in financing and implementing the five-year plan, with midterm and final evaluations to be conducted in 2013 and 2015, respectively, the report said. 

Possible the China starts becoming an european green opponent?