Share this
Mister Wong
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Hear this text
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
Tags
As the Earth becomes a change management laboratory, South Africa has yet to define its methodologyQuestion: what is project management?
Answer: it depends on who is asking and in which context. A context in which all known life forms are currently inextricably embedded is the Third Rock from the Sun – the solar system’s densest planet and the one on which we live, move and have our being.
Change that, and the answer to the question “what is project management?” changes automatically. Climate change, change management – it is almost too pat.
Yet, climate change is perhaps the most significant factor that anyone serious about change management will have to wrap their minds around in the foreseeable future.
Which, given that the future has all but collapsed into a fractal present, means Now.
It is not only the physical effects of climate change that have to be managed. After all, there is always time to quibble, time to question the findings of scientists, time to cast aspersions at the very motivations of those scientists. That stuff – the stuff of rising oceans, holes in the sky – can wait.
But the law is no respecter of persons; change in the law is a management imperative, and that is not negotiable.
Green alert: change is coming to a legal system near you.
Addressing delegates at the recent Green Economy Summit, Minister of Science and Technology Naledi Pandor announced her department’s intention to stimulate economic growth and employment creation.
In Pandor’s words, “The long-term greening of the economy needs new thinking to fundamentally transform the economy, including addressing deep-seated production and consumption issues.
“If we achieve South Africa’s target of 1.5% of GDP [gross domestic product] for R&D [research and development] by 2014, we will be able to substantially increase our investments in green industry research, development and innovation without compromising other promising and important industrial development or science programmes.
“A key requirement for achieving this important goal is a strong synergy between industry and government,” she added.
Synergy: the PPP dream. Public and private sector working hand in hand, building a better future. Well, sometimes it works.
But when the government is in the driving seat, business tends to get nervous.
How, for example, will South Africa honour its Copenhagen commitments? The answer is generally assumed to be carbon tax.
Hard to disagree with this in principle: South Africa is overpolluted for its population size, not to mention average wealth.
“Totally carbon intensive” is one term applied to the way power is produced locally. Yet, any carbon tax is bound to affect the bottom line.
Given Eskom’s historical reluctance to disclose the precise nature of its deals with customers who use an awful lot of energy, but pay very little for it per unit; and the way that these deals play a role in structuring the economy, radical change in this area may well prove a nightmare to manage. Such a vicious circle threatens to bite anyone who tries to stroke it.
That is why business must be more proactive, says Paul Devine, head of Deloitte Carbon Management Solutions.
“Business needs to urgently engage government on major climate change policies, as it will directly affect their bottom lines,” he was quoted as saying by News24.com.
“Our government appears to favour a carbon tax system as a policy instrument to reduce our national carbon emissions because it is easier and cheaper to administer. It is up to business to engage in the consultation process and lobby for the best system, and not the easiest system.”
Carbon tax also has potentially negative economic implications.
Like a filthy jalopy exhaust backfiring, carbon tax carries the risk of polluters simply dumping the increased costs onto their hapless customers.
Against this background, carbon trading – the mechanism for businesses to “mitigate their carbon emissions cost effectively” – makes good sense. In Devine’s words: “when it gets very expensive to mitigate a marginal unit of emissions, the emitting business will look to purchase emission allowances from the market. In this way, a business can find the lowest price to reduce their overall emissions.”
Sounds great. Business can buy its way out of trouble.
No wonder carbon trading has been labelled by some, in tones ranging from the monitory to the greed possessed, as the next big financial thing since the subprime housing bubble. But a financial model with an eco-friendly label cannot manage climate change alone. What is to be done?
A hand goes up in the back row. What about renewable energy? It is clean, it is labour intensive, Ebrahim Patel is a great fan.
“Look at China,” said Patel, speaking at the aforementioned summit. “The Chinese government has invested heavily in clear energy and China is the world’s largest manufacturer of wind turbines as well as the largest manufacturer of solar panels – and China has created over a million jobs in the green economy.”
Can we emulate China – not in terms of depending on coal (which China still is), but in harnessing nature to create power and enjoyment?
Where there’s a will, there’s a way, but Pandor’s address at the Green Summit included the following chilling statement: “We need a renewable energy policy.
“According to the World Council for Renewable Energy, fewer than 10 countries have adequate renewable energy policies. I think South Africa should join the group that has an adequate renewable energy policy.”
I am not holding my breath.
Whether Devine’s enthusiasm for carbon trading is misplaced or not, he is right about one thing: business has to be more proactive – which must surely mean be more green.
Perhaps it is time for business to embrace Ghandi’s exhortation to “be the change you wish to see in the world” as more than something to print on T-shirts, but as a change management imperative.
Greg Penfold
