Triple bottom line

Australia's Federal Government's climate change adviser Professor Ross Garnaut has outlined the path he believes Australia should take in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions in the final instalment of his review of climate change options outlines a number of different scenarios. The one he prefers would see Australia reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 10 per cent by the year 2020. A goal which has greenies generally agreeing with him too.

Triage is essential in my view because using conventional approaches -- humanity is bound to fail to test of climate change. For example, in the USA, the FutureGen project (announced in December 2007 as located in Mattoon, Illinois) was meant to lead the charge towards clean coal, we were delighted when, after seemingly interminable delays, a site for the plant was finally announced. We seem doomed, however, as, astonishingly, just a month later, on January 29, the US Department of Energy announced that it was withdrawing funding from the project.

Jim Lovelock says (& the Guardian prints-- so it MUST be true?) that "Before we start geoengineering we have to raise the following question: are we sufficiently talented to take on what might become the onerous permanent task of keeping the Earth in homeostasis? Consider what might happen if we start by using a stratospheric aerosol to ameliorate global heating; even if it succeeds, it would not be long before we face the additional problem of ocean acidification. This would need another medicine, and so on. " Is geoengineering THE solution or the WORST possible direction to head?
Gille

The diabolical political challenge is a trilemma because Australia faces three possible options. We can try to save the Murray mouth whatever it takes; we can allow agricultural practices to continue as long as the changing climate permits thus condemning the Coorong to change; or we can invest in shifting affected rural communities towards our future climate while also attempting to manage some minimal flow to the mouth of the Murray.

The upheld complaint against Royal Dutch Shell for an ad that ran in the UK’s Financial Times this February, claiming that oil sands in Canada's wilderness were a "sustainable" energy source shows that media watchdogs around the world are becoming tougher on business greenwash. "We don't want to discourage companies from making legitimate claims but want to reinforce the fact that they have an obligation not to mislead," says the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in its judegment http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/aug/18/asa.advertising

In his TBL Blog (http://getsustainable.net/blogfiles/blog.html ) Andrew Savitz commented only last weekk that “If you're a CEO working to position your company at the forefront of the sustainable business movement, you should devote a little time to analyzing and, if necessary, "cleaning up", your personal life.” He goes on to outline how this means the kinds of cars you drive, the houses you own, and the holdings in your retirement account.