A few weeks ago I found myself in a bar in Houston, Texas. Old Colt 45 pistols for door handles, animal skulls for wall hangings, a single guitarist playing a mournful country song – I’d walked into a cliché movie set (awesome). To ensure I stayed in character, I ordered beer and brisket and got to talking tales of rattlesnake culls and fossil fuels.
Energy was the real reason I was in town – a group of government officials were meeting with industry to discuss the future of the North American market. Large men in checked shirts and smart suits spoke of the longevity of oil and natural gas, of stable prices, and geo-political shifts in supply and demand.
Landing back in Vancouver, it wasn’t long before I was speaking at conference on clean tech investment.
Nestled beneath the Conference Centre’s grassy roof, surrounded by Starbucks and Sushi, we talked of offshore wind-farms (the UK has the most in the world), river power generation for communities, the pros and cons of biofuel subsidies. I highlighted developments such as the UK’s Green Investment Bank, with an outlay of £764 million generating more than £3 billion of investment in environmental technologies.
As I strolled along Kits beach afterwards, admiring the north shore’s beauty and the squalling clouds of mist and hash smoke, I thought about this dichotomy. We live in a critical time in determining how we map out our energy future, and the impact those decisions will have on our climate, supply security and affordability. Which path should we take when looking down these seemingly divergent options?
Three things suggested themselves to me.
- This should not be pared down to an argument between tree huggers and money grabbing oil barons. We may enjoy the stereotypes when hanging out with our barman or barista, but in policy terms they are as misleading as they are damaging. Rational discussion of competing demands, of cause and effect, is vital; a genuine weighing of options and an acceptance that solutions come with costs.
- Clean tech as a concept seems to be fracturing and becoming mainstream simultaneously. Almost all business sectors – logistics, construction, resource extraction etc – now need to consider the impact of their energy mix and their environmental impact, including their emissions.
- Which suggests a new path is emerging, one that combines an acceptance that the global population is growing, urbanising, and becoming increasingly energy dependent; without denying the need to manage the impact this is having on our world.
But what does all that mean?
Smart businesses are looking to reduce energy usage, improve energy efficiency, better manage waste, join the circular economy. They are looking for environmental solutions, particularly to their economic pain points. Why? Because it makes them more efficient; because it improves their public image; because in the worst cases it insures against damaging litigation; and most musically of all, because it saves money. Whatever sector they are in, the search for such solutions is becoming ever more commonplace.
So it is no surprise that next week at Globe 2014, an international forum on business and the environment in Vancouver, the UK will have a trade delegation showcasing some great examples, some experienced speakers steeped in this emerging world, and our recently appointed Trade & Investment Minister.
This is no longer just an energy issue. Nor is it just an environment issue. It is both, and they are both everyone’s issue. So by way of symbolic and vastly oversimplified conclusion – I happen to love beer and brisket (although I have to admit I don’t like country music – sorry); I love coffee and sushi; and I want neither to go cold in the winter nor see our environment wrecked. Smart businesses can help find a way for us to have both.