Industries today must balance profits and sustainability.

Insights: Business Responds to Climate Change

[MUSIC PLAYING] Ralph, when it comes to the issue of climate change, you've been very vocal on warning about the threats and the risks. In fact, you tell your PSEG customers, use less energy. Which is interesting because it could hurt your company's profits. And it's not the sort of thing we hear from a lot of CEOs in your business. What is your goal/ What would you like to see happen? Well, I'd like to see us reduce the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that are in the atmosphere. The science is compelling. It's very clear. It's now decades old. Each week, there seems to be another report that confirms the time to act is now. Well, how serious is the threat of carbon emissions? You could just read any one of many reports that talk about a 2 degree centigrade rise, a 1 and 1/2 degrees centigrade rise, a 2 and 1/2 degree centigrade rise. All these different increases have different implications for low-lying areas, for shifting patterns of weather. And the resulting shift in economic consequences for agriculture, for tourism, for a variety of things. So it is so complex, but profound in its implications. You recently announced a climate change plan for PSEG, $4 billion to cut energy use and carbon emissions. And a big chunk of that money is going toward 40,000 new charging stations for electric vehicles. That's huge. Why now? Should've been done yesterday. We have a three-part vision of the future. We want our customers to use less energy. We want the energy that they use to be cleaner. And we want this cleaner, less amount of energy to be delivered with unparalleled reliability and resiliency. And it's really about the issue that we started the conversation, it's about climate change. And it's about making sure that our increased dependence upon electricity doesn't create harm for the planet. And allows us to lead the lives that we choose to lead. It looks like the progress so far on climate change has been very piecemeal, by individual states and local governments. And the experts say that to have a really successful climate change outlook, it requires a large scale national push with specific urgent agenda. What do you think of that? Well, I think that they're absolutely right. I would say that there are two things that have to get more and more attention. Number one, we do need a national price on carbon if we're going to move away from this patchwork quilt. And number two, we have to come to grips with the important role that nuclear power plays in getting us to a carbon-free future. Right now, nuclear power accounts for over 60% of the carbon-free energy in this country. And just the way in which the grid operates, nuclear is an extremely important part of preserving that reliability that w e about before, while being carbon-free. We know that President Trump and his administration have not placed climate change as a top priority. But if the president asked for your opinion, what is the single most important thing you would ask him to do? To put a price on carbon and then let the market work. Let's decide how much we're willing to pay for carbon reductions and then let the creative energy of American entrepreneurship decide whether that means more solar farms, more wind farms, more efficient light bulbs, smart thermostats, or a myriad of other choices. And to me, there's wisdom in taxing bad things and lowering taxes on good things. [MUSIC PLAYING] 

Insights: PSEG CEO on Climate Change Action - "It Should Have Been Done Yesterday"

Uncategorized

PSEG CEO on Climate Change Action

Ralph Izzo believes a tax on carbon emissions would trigger clean energy innovations.

when it comes to the issue of climate change. You've been very vocal on warning about the threats and the risk that you tell your P S. E G customers use less energy, which is interesting because it could hurt your company's profits. And it's not the sort of thing we hear from a lot of CEOs in your business. What is your goal? What would you like to see happen? Well, I'd like to see us reduce the amount of CO two and other greenhouse gases that air in the atmosphere. The science is compelling. It's very clear now. Decades old. Each week there seems to be another report that confirms the time to act is now. Well, how serious is the threat of carbon emissions? You could just read any one of many reports that talk about a two degrees centigrade rise of one and 1/2 degree centigrade drive two and 1/2 degree centigrade. All these different increases have different implications for low lying areas for shifting patterns of weather and the resulting shift in economic consequences for agriculture, for tourism, for a variety of things. So it is so complex but profound in its implications You recently announced a climate change plan for P F G $4 billion to cut energy use and carbon emissions, and a big chunk of that money is going towards 40,000 new charging stations for electric vehicles. That's huge. Why now? Should have been done Yes way have a three part vision of the future. We want our customers to use less energy. We want the energy that they used to be cleaner. And we want this cleaner, less amount of energy to be delivered with unparalleled reliability and resiliency. And it's really about the issue that we started the conversation. It's about climate change, and it's about making sure that our increased dependence upon electricity doesn't create harm for the planet and allows us to leave the lives that we choose to leave. It looks like the progress so far on climate change has been very piecemeal by individual states and local governments, and the experts say that to have a really successful climate change outlook, it requires a large scale national push with specific, urgent agenda. What do you think that well, I think that they're absolutely right. I was there two things that have to get more and more attention. Number one. We do need a national price on carbon if we're going to move away from this patchwork quilt and number two, we have to come to grips with the important role that nuclear power plays and getting us to a carbon free future. Right now, a nuclear power counts were over 60% of the carbon free energy in this country, and just the way in which the grid operates nuclear is an extremely important part of preserving that reliability that we talked about before while being carbon free. We know that President Trump and his administration have not placed climate change as a top priority. But if the president asked for your opinion, what is the single most important thing you would ask him to do to put a price on carbon and then let the market work? Let's let's decide how much we're willing to pay for carbon reductions and then let let the creative energy of American entrepreneurship decide whether that means more solar farms, more wind farms, more efficient light bulbs, smart thermostats or a myriad of other choices. And it's to me there's wisdom in taxing bad things and lowering taxes on good things

 [MUSIC PLAYING] The change that we need to see has to be at a whole systems level, and therefore, I think, given the very short time that we have, we need to identify almost like the acupuncture points in this system, that if we push on them, we can get a rapid and quick transformation. And I refer to the finance, which is the blood line of the entire economies, but most importantly to the subsidies. So if I can pick on one thing, I think we need to look at the harmful subsidies that are destroying d nature. Always see the reports indicate about $100 billion dollars going in subsidies that destroy biodiversity per year. Energy subsidies, $260 billion. So right now our economic and governance system is designed to harm nature, to harm the planetary systems. We need to revert that. How do you do that? With political will, with the engagement of the entire government, not just minister of environment. With the Minister of planning, he had a fantastic talk. With the ministers of economy and finance. And finally, of course, the citizens, not only the buy, but how about reducing your meat consumptions. How about looking at what's in your plate, and try to maybe not eat strawberries in January in Chicago, if they're imported from Kenya? And think about the CO2 emissions of that transfer. I'm Pamela Mar, I'm with the Fung Group in Hong Kong. Our big issue is consumption, so from a consumer products perspective, we see the rising 2 and 1/2 billion new consumers in Asia, from now until 2035, is a really good thing. But from the world's perspective it's not, so I think we should be using every single resource that we have, to help Asia create the new paradigm for our sustainable inclusive consumption. It's possible. We need political will, and we need the governments to actually get the companies to clean up their supply chains, and clean up consumption in Asia. This is a chance, because we're now at the point at which Asia is forming policy, developing its governance institutions, to make the transition from primary, to secondary, to tertiary. But you're talking about political will. It's hard, isn't it? To say to the new arrivals, no, you can't do what everyone who ca-- the billions who came before you did. It's not about saying no, you can't do it. It's about getting every company in Asia to clean up what they're doing, and to push long-term profit ahead of short-term. Yeah. I'm Priscilla Lu, DWS Sustainable Investments. One of the things that I would really like to see, is for large public listed companies to not only focus on P&L, but really P&L with respect to overall resource consumption and depletion, and so they have to account for, which going back to what Peter and what Dave was talking about. And also, sustainability being as important as a financial performance. Is that if we can include in that, really accounting for how much water you're depleting, How much waste you're producing, and how much waste you actually recycle, and therefore offset the waste that you actually dispose without recycling, and how much water you consume without reusing gray water and so on. If all of that becomes a part of your performance, because resource-- you know, we talk about capital return and capital performance, but capital can be more than just money, it should be a resource overall of the environment. I think that that should be the focus of all the cooperation. Just commenting on the conversations I've heard this two days, I think it is a reminder that, you know, the treating of a waste issue is not a sequential, or mono-solution one. In a sense that, yes, we talk about what's a new material to replace plastics? And so on. And sure, that's definitely a worthwhile thing to look at. But it feels as if that is replacing one material for another, if you don't look at the rest of the cycle. So while we are looking for more solutions-- if mono-polymer, recycle-ready materials are not satisfactory, then don't dismiss recycling, because it is stopping waste leakage into the oceans. Yeah, thank you for that. It has to come, again, from the policies made by the policy makers. Can we go to the demand side? Well, we can go to the demand side, provided the policy makers put the policies, right policies, so that instead of supply side, we go to the demand. So in my way of thinking, it has to start from the right policies, and that is the most difficult part. We can talk about equity, but then somebody said, what about eating strawberries in Boston in the winter? What over the poor farmer from Nairobi? What is going to do his income, if his market from Us disappears? People talk about the British buying flowers from Kenya. Well, we have to think about the poor farmer in Kenya, who's producing the farmer. So the problems are complex. The issues, when you look into it, they are difficult. They're not easy. Yeah. All actions have beneficiaries and people who pay the cost. And the question is, how do you maximize the beneficiaries? And how do you minimize the cost? You need wise policies. Yes. Half the carbon in the US, and I presume this is a reasonable fraction for the world, goes through monopoly pipes and wires, which means they're regulated. So we have standards for labor, we have standards for contract, why not standards for electricity? It's that simple. Either through compulsion, or reward. It doesn't matter, as long as it gets done. And the same goes with buildings. Why allow people-- we don't allow people to build buildings that burn down. We Don't allow people to build buildings that fall down. So why should we allow people to build buildings that just waste energy? [MUSIC PLAYING] 

Insights: Business Solutions to Climate Change - Best of 2019 Fortune Global Sustainability Town Hall 

Renowned globalists share their insights and experiences.

Business Solutions to Climate Change

the change that we need to see has to be at the whole system level. And therefore I think given the very short time that we have, we need to identify almost like the acupuncture points in this system, that if we push on them, we can get ah, rapid and quick transformation. And I refer to the finance, which is the, ah, bloodline off the entire economies. But most importantly to the, uh, subsidies. So if I can pick on one thing, I think we need to look at the harmful subsidies that are destroying nature. Oh, STD Reports indicate about $100 billion going in subsidies that destroy about ever steeper year. Um, energy subsidies. 260 billion. So right now, our economic and governance system is designed to harm nature to harm the planetary systems. We need to revert that. How do you do that with political will with the engagement off the entire government? No. Just Minister of Environment, with the Minister of Planning here, Fantastic talk with the Minister of economy and Finance, and finally off course, the citizens, not only the bike, but how about reducing your mid consumption. How about looking at what's in your plate and try to Maybe not. It's strawberries in January in Chicago if they're imported from Kenya and think about the year two emissions off that transfer I'm Pamela Marm with the phone group in Hong Kong are big issue is consumption. So from a consumer products perspective, we see the rising two and 1/2 1,000,000,000 new consumers in Asia from now until 2035 is a really good thing. But from the world's perspective, it's not. So. I think we should be using every single resource that we have to help Asia create new paradigm for sustainable, inclusive consumption. It's possible we need political will, and we need the government to actually get the companies to clean up their supply chains and clean up consumption in Asia. This is a chance because we're now at the point at which Asia forming policy, developing its governance institutions to make the transition from primary to secondary to tertiary. But you talk about political will. It's hard, isn't it to say to the new arrivals? No, you can't do what everyone who the billions of thought about you know you can't do. It's about getting every company in Asia to clean up what they're doing and to put ah, long term profit ahead of short term. Yeah, I'm Priscilla Lou DWS Sustainable investments. One of things that I would really like to see is for large public listed companies to not only focus off on P N L, but really p n l will respect overall resource consumption and depletion. And so they they have to account for which going back to what, Peter and what what they was talking about. And also sustainability, being as important as a financial performance is that if we can include in that really, uh, accounting for how much water you're depleting, how much waste you're producing, how much ways you actually cycle and therefore offset the waste that you actually dispose without recycling and how much water you consume without using reusing great water and so on. If all of that becomes a part of your performance, because resource that you know, we talk about capital return and capital performance, but capital can be more than just money. It should be resource overall off the environment. I think that that should be the focus off the corporation. Um just committing on conversations. I've heard this two days. I think it's just a reminder that you know the treating off a waste issue. It's not a sequential, all mortal solution, one in the sense that yes, we talk about, you know what new material to replace plastics and so on and sure that that's definitely a both while thing to look at. But if you says this, it's replacing one material for another. If you don't look at the rest of the cycle, so what? We are looking for more solutions. If more No polymer recycle ready materials are not satisfactory. Then don't dismiss recycling because it is stopping waste leakage into the ocean. Yeah, thank you for that. It has to come again from the policy's made by the policy. Can I go to the demand site? Well, we can go to the demand side, provided the policymakers put the policies right policies so that instead of supply site, we go to the demand. So they're in my way of thinking he has to start from the right policies, and that is the most difficult part we can. Uh, we can talk about equity, but then somebody said Ah, what about meeting, uh, strawberries in Boston? New Inter. What over the poor farmer from Nairobi. What is going to do this income if he's market from us, disappears. People talk about the British buying flowers from Kenya. Well, we have to think about The poor farmer in Kenya was producing the farmer, So the problems are complex issues only Looking to it, they're difficult. They're not easy. All actions had beneficiaries and people who think the question is, how do you maximize the beneficiaries? And how do you mean? You need wise policies. We'll have the carbon in the U. S. I presume this is a reasonable fraction, for the world goes through monopoly pipes and wires, which means they're regulated. So we have standards for labor. We have standards for contract. Why not standards for electricity? It's that simple, either through compulsion or reward. It doesn't matter as long as it gets done and the same goes with buildings. Why allow people? We don't allow people to build buildings that burned down. We don't allow people to build buildings that fall down, So why should we allow people to build burned building, build buildings that just waste energy

[MUSIC PLAYING] First, I pull back a little bit to the consumer engagement that we have as a brand of our size and the relationships that we have with our consumers. And largely, what they'll tell us is that we want your products to be cool. We want it to be Nike, we want it to perform. And, oh, by the way, we want it to be sustainable, and that's just the cost of your engagement with us as a consumer. Kering has a group of over 14 different luxury brands, from fashion to leather goods, to jewelry and watches. And today's consumers-- Noel was just saying, a lot of them are millennials. The younger generation-- we embrace luxury products, like no record before. And I think that young consumers-- they really demand brands and products to be more sustainable and ethical. More companies in the fashion industry-- they see the urgency from their own business perspective, from consumer perspective, and also now with regulation and government initiatives. They really are at this stage, a tipping point, to really do some serious, in-depth transformation of the industry. Over the years, we whittled our source base from 1,700 manufacturers down to less than 600 now. And part of what that allows is that you have that depth of the relationship, you have the longevity, you have the shared alignment of goals. And so you can have a back and forth on, how do we improve the environmental footprint of a manufacturing facility? What are the new apparel technologies for fabric textile technologies that we can integrate? That's really important to driving this, particularly when you're a big global brand with a really big extended supply chain. [MUSIC PLAYING]

Insights: Fashion Consumers Demand Sustainability, But Who Defines It?

How outfitters make environmental action fashionable.

Fashion Consumers Demand Sustainability

How outfitters make environmental action fashionable. (September 2019)

pull back a little bit to the consumer engagement that we have is a brand of our size and the relationships that we have our consumers. And largely what they'll tell us is that we want your products to be cool. We want to be Nike. We wanted to perform, and, oh, by the way, we want to be sustainable, and that's just the cost of the year. Engagement with a consumer carrying has a group off over 14 different luxury brands, from fashion to letter goes to jury and watches, and the today's consumers know which is saying A lot of them are millennials. You know, the younger generation. We embrace luxury products like, you know, no record before. And I think the young consumers, they really be meant to be friends and product to be more sustainable and ethical. More companies in the fashion industry, they see the urgency from their own business perspective from consumer perspective and also now, with regulation on government initiatives, they really are at the stage, a tipping point to really do some serious in that transformation off the industry. Over the years, we whittled our source based from 1700 manufacturers down toe left with 600 now and part of what that allows that you have that depth of the relationship. You have the longevity, you have the shared alignment of goals, and so you can kind of have a back in for a fine. How do we improve the environmental footprint of a manufacturing facility? What the new apparel technologies for fabric textile technology that we can integrate? That's really important to driving this, particularly when you're a big global brand with a really big extended supply chain.

[MUSIC PLAYING] The water risks alone cover 15 sub-sectors. And we're also looking at risks associated with carbon trading. And talk for a second about coal, and what have you found in the coal stress test? Have you found a large difference among different coal companies in China in terms of what you regard as their climate exposure? And then, number two-- what have you done with the bad actors? They're paying more for debt from the ICBC. Is that the end result? Mhmm. [SPEAKING CHINESE] Yes, we've done that. In China, at the very beginning we focused on coal fired power plants. And because we believe the consumption of coal is a key contributor to climate change with CO2 emission. In China, in the electric power industry, coal accounts for a very big part. For the key commercial banks, coal firing power plants are major loan customers. If there is growing risk experienced by that sector, it may worsen our asset quality. So we identified coal fired power to start using our stress testing. And China is increasing its environmental protection standards, pushing the overall economy to go green. The green companies and green industries are encouraged to grow faster while resource and energy and pollution-intensive companies are being restricted. The result of this exercise at the ICBC is that coal companies that are seen as more climate risky, climate riskier, have to pay the ICBC more for debt than other coal companies do. To move the needle in China away from coal and the electricity system. We've heard signs-- in fact, this morning, indications that China's coal use may peak earlier than people thought, and therefore, its carbon emissions may peak earlier than people thought. Is everything that Hong is talking about green finance with regard to coal actually behind the shift away from coal in China? In other words, are all these fancy is really doing anything in the coal sector? Or is what is happening in coal happening for other reasons and is green finance not doing enough to make it happen faster? Yeah. My answer simply is yes because-- Yes what? Because the banker now, they have faced a great risk if they still invest in the coal industry. We understand now China-- the coal consumption have reached the peak already by 2013 Not after. So I think that is the key operation. You compared it to before is now-- compared to the 2013, and China coal consumption reduced the 400 million times already. And so some small, medium, and small coal mine is now bankrupt. Even though large scale companies are still facing difficulty to get financial support from bankers. And so far, bankers now-- they are in high risk and maybe they could not get a return on their investment in a coal company. [LOGO THEME]

Chinese Banks Targeting Coal Energy To Fight Climate Change

Clean energy is incentivized in China. (September 2019)

the water with a loan cover 15 subsectors. And also we're also looking at risk associated with carbon trading and talk for a second about Cole. And what have you found in the coal stress test? Have you found a large difference among different coal companies in China in terms of what you regard as their climate exposure and then number two, what have you done with the bad actors? They're paying more for debt from the I C B c. Is that the UN result? Uh, no. Yes, we've done that. You're in China. At the very beginning, we focused on a coal fired power plants on because we believe the consumption off Cole is ah, key contributor to climate change with field to emission in China. In the electric power industry, a coal accounts for a very big part for the key commercial banks. Coop firing power plants are major loan customers. If there is growing risk experience by that sector, it might work thing worse than our asset quality. So we identified coal fired power to start within. Our stress testing on China is in increasing is encountering its environmental protection standards, pushing the overall economy to go green. The green companies and green industries are encouraged to grow faster while a resource and energy and pollution intensive companies are being restricted. The results of this exercise of the I C B C is that coal companies that are seen as Maur climate risky, climate riskier have to pay the icy be Seymour for debt than other companies do to move the needle in China away from coal in the electricity system. We've heard signs. In fact, this morning. Indications that China's coal use may peak earlier than people thought, and therefore its carbon emissions may peak earlier than people thought, is everything that Hyung is talking about green finance with regard to Cole, actually behind the shift away from coal in China. In other words, are all these fancy finances really doing anything in the coal sector? Or is what is happening in coal happening for other reasons and his green finance not doing enough to make it happen fast? Yeah, somebody's years because, yes, what? Because the banker now they have a face, a great race if they still invest in a coal industry, we understand now China have the coconut consumption have a least the peak or reading by 2030 knots. So I think that please give a pleasure. You compare toe before is now combat with 2030 13 and China Coke. And some sins refused the 400 million already. And so some small, medium and small coal mine knowledge is the bank locker. I even know that last day or cope combined company and still facing difficult to get financial support from bankers on so far is bankers. They had high res. Maybe they can not get return on their investment in a coal company.

[MUSIC PLAYING] I want to just tick off quickly four things that have happened quite recently that add up to, I think, a tectonic change that we're going to explore here in this session. In June, in the United Kingdom, the Bank of England said that it will require insurance companies to assess the risk that insurers face from climate change as part of what the United Kingdom calls a stress test, what the insurance industry calls a stress test-- a test of the financial health of insurance companies. The same month-- in June-- in France, the governor of the Bank of France said that central bankers around the world should consider exposure to climate change-- a bank's exposure to climate change-- in deciding how much collateral the central banks will require from banks when the central banks loan money to banks. Here in China, next year, as a result of a decision by the country's securities regulator, all publicly listed companies will have to disclose environmental risk data, including climate risk data. And as a bottom line, if you needed any more persuasion, Moody's the rating agency, has said that in 11 sectors across the global economy, there is $2 trillion US dollars worth of debt outstanding-- trillion with a T-- that is at risk because of climate change. [MUSIC PLAYING] 

Global Financial Policies Fighting Climate Change

FORTUNE Global Sustainability speaker Jeffrey Ball presents recent steps forward by regulators. (September 2019)

I wantto just tick off quickly. Four things that have happened quite recently that add up to, I think, a tectonic change that we're going to explore here in this section in June in the United Kingdom, the Bank of England said that it will. It will require insurance companies to assess the risk that insurers face from climate change, a CZ part of what the United Kingdom calls a stress test. What the insurance industry calls a stress test, the test of the financial health of insurance companies the same month in June in France, the governor of the Bank of France said that central bankers around the world should consider exposure to climate change, a bank's exposure to climate change in deciding how much collateral the central banks will require from banks when the central bank's loan money to banks here in China next year. As a result of the decision of a decision by the country's securities regulator, all publicly listed companies will have to disclose environmental risk data, including climate risk data and as a bottom line if you needed any more persuasion. Moody's rating agency has said that in 11 sectors across the global economy, there's $2 trillion worth of debt outstanding trillion with a T that is at risk because of climate change.

[MUSIC PLAYING] Before Impossible Foods came along, the problem was framed as creating meat-like products for people who wanted to reduce or eliminate meat from their diets. And that made the design spec basically to just-- you don't have to be better than the cow. You just have to be better than the next best veggie burger. It's a completely different problem. OK? And because our company was founded with a very explicit mission, which is to completely replace animals in the food system by making products that consumers prefer to the products they get from animals. I want meat lovers to be able to get all the meat they want, OK? But I want to replace animals as the technology that we use to produce meat. So animals as a technology. Yeah, it's like when the automobile industry came along, it was not, we want to replace transportation. It's that we want to replace the horse as the power system for transportation. We don't want to take away meat from meat lovers. We want to give them the best meat they've ever eaten, but not use animals to produce it, with all the catastrophic environmental impact of that technology. 

Insights: Impossible Foods CEO Wants to Replace Animals–Not Meat

They're one of the fastest-growing meat-substitute makers.

Impossible Foods CEO Wants to Replace Animals–Not Meat

A discussion with the founder and chief executive of one of the world’s fastest-growing meat-substitute makers, Patrick Brown of Impossible Foods. (September 2019)

before impossible foods came along. The problem was framed as creating meat like product for people who wanted to reduce or eliminate need from their diet. And that made the design specs basically, just you just you don't have to be better than the cow. You just have to be better than the next best veggie burger. It's a completely different problem, okay? And because our company was founded with a very exclusive mission, which is to completely replace animals in the food system by making products that consumers prefer to the products they get from animals. I want meat lovers to be able to get all the meat they want, okay, but I want to replace animals as the technology that we use to produce me the animals around the technology. Yeah, it's like when when the automobile industry came along, it was not. We want to replace, you know, transportation. It's that we want to replace the horse as the power system for transportation. We don't want Oh, we don't want to take away meat from meat lovers. We want to give them the best meat they've ever eaten but not use animals to produce it. With all the catastrophic environmental impact of that technology,

[MUSIC PLAYING] I just don't think China can afford to have the kind of livestock, animal agriculture as do some of the developed markets do, like the US, simply because if you look at China-- so China nowadays consumes more meat than any other country, so responsible for one quarter of the global meat consumption and one-half the global pork consumption. And-- One-half? One-half, yeah. So that definitely poses very serious environmental challenges to China on various fronts, like water, arable land, transportation, greenhouse emissions, all different type of environmental challenges. So that's the reason, that's the logic behind what we do as an impact investor and also accelerator incubator. But at the same time, we understand from a consumer's perspective, especially mainstream meat eater's perspective, these do want quality meat products. So you cannot tell them stop eating meat, right? Be environmentally friendly. That's not what we do. But we want to identify, engage, and invest in the kind of entrepreneurs who know how to come out with the good quality products, alternative protein products. And so the mainstream meat eaters, they can continue to have good food, gourmet food. But at the same time, they can also become part of China's environmental solution. 

Insights: Plant-based Meat Alternatives Are Key to Greener China

Dao Foods CEO on the Environmental Impact of China's diet.

Plant-based Meat Alternatives Are Key to Greener China

Dao Foods CEO on the Environmental Impact of China's diet. (November 2019)

I just don't think China can't afford to have the kind of livestock animal agriculture, as the developing markets do like the US simply because, you know, if you look at China so, China nowadays consumes more meat than any other country. So response for 1/4 up the global meat consumption on 1/2 the global poor consumption and half 1/2. So that's definitely opposed the very serious environmental challenges thio China on various fronts like water, arable land, transportation, you know, greenhouse emissions or a different type of but environmental challenges. So that doctor reason not that logic behind what we do as the impact investor and we're so accelerator incubator. But at the same time, we understand from a consumer's perspective, especially mainstream meat eaters perspective these you want quality meat products so you cannot tell them, you know, stop beating me, right? The environmental friendly. That's that's not what we do. But we want thio, identify, engage and invest in the kind of entrepreneurs who know how to come out with good produce, food quality products, attorney protein products, you know, and you know, so the mainstream media eaters that can continue thio have good food, uh, gourmet food. By the same time, they can also become part of China's environmental pollution

[MUSIC PLAYING] I have studied the accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere for far too long. And one of the things that teaches you very quickly is that we have to do all the right things, and we have to do them promptly. There's no more room for error. We have, as a world, squandered the possibility. So what I want to talk to you today about is what I call the four zeros. How do we get to a zero-carbon grid, zero-emissions vehicles, zero-net energy buildings, and zero-waste manufacturing? Before I do that I need to mention just a couple words about US-China relations as part of this. This is a picture that I like a lot. It's our governor of California, Jerry Brown together with the leader of China, Xi Jinping. This is important, because when China and the US work together, we get a whole lot done. One of the reasons Paris was successful was because prior to Paris, China and the United States sat down and hammered out an agreement that other countries could live with, and they made enormous commitments themselves. I've had the fortune-- I think I've made 70 trips to China over 20 years working with Chinese experts. When our countries work together on the global commons, we solve things. I know that US-China relations are fraught right now. That's all the more reason in this realm to join arms and stay together, so I don't want to forget that. Why do we have to stay together? Because there's no way that one of our countries can solve this problem without the other. The two giants in the energy world are China and the United States. And it's impossible to keep New York from flooding unless China does its part on climate change. And it's impossible to keep the Greater Bay Area and Shanghai from flooding unless the United States does its part. There's no way to separate the solution here. All right, this is common sense, perhaps, not practiced as well as it should be. So first, some slides you'll be very familiar with. The key to magic in climate change solutions is the learning curves. When we drive down the price of zero-carbon technology to incredibly low levels, a whole vast array of solutions becomes possible. And it no longer becomes an economic choice to do the right-- political choice to do the right thing but also, an economic choice. This is solar PV prices dropping down over time and the volume rising. I sometimes say there was an unwritten agreement between Germany and China. Germany agreed to overpay, and China agreed to overproduce. And together, they achieved a relative miracle. The same thing happened with wind, offshore wind. Watch this space. Offshore wind prices have dropped by half in the last four years, and they make an incredible contribution to a clean energy system. Batteries powering electric vehicles, staggering price drops. And we're by no means done, and there many more. And these have come again because of subsidized demand in the early days, overproduction, and the China price helps us all. So how do we get to the four zeros? Start with the electrical grid. This is the easiest and the fastest sector to decarbonize. And it also enables all the other three to decarbonize. So this is a crucial step we have to make. I've showed that electricity from wind and solar is incredibly cheap already, but what are the policies that we require to get us as far as we need to go? The first policy is a mandate to drive to 100% carbon-free electricity on the grid. Soft targets won't do it. Long-term signals are required. It's now cheaper to move to solar and wind than to continue. We analyzed every single coal plant in America and discovered that 75% of them cost more just to operate than if we replace them with brand new solar and wind farms. But that doesn't make it happen automatically, because incumbent industries fight back, and they fight back hard. And this is why we need good policy. So the first one is a 100% clean energy standard phased in over time, over the next 10, 20, 30 years depending on the state of the economy. Second, we have to align power markets with the carbon market. China is developing a carbon ETS, its Emissions Trading System. It needs to help accelerate the transformation of the grid. I should've put a third one on. We need better strategies to balance the grid. Intermittent sources of energy are not that difficult to manage if you have a good strategy that includes demand response, and more transmission, and heterogeneous electricity sources hooked together, and occasional use of peakers. I spoke last week to the man, Steve Berberich, who runs the California grid. And he told me he can get to 80% decarbonized electricity without worrying, 80% in the fifth largest economy on the planet. That's impressive. How do we get to zero-emission vehicles? Go to Shenzhen. They have 18,000 electric buses. All the taxes are soon to be electric. DD will be electric. The price drop is making this feasible. And if you have a solar system driving your energy grid, an electric vehicle, you've accomplished two things with one. You also, as an incredible bonus, cut out noise and air quality problems. What are the requirements? Ever stricter efficiency and pollution standards for internal combustion engines combined with a steadily increasing mandate for electric vehicles. You'll note that I have very few bullets on what we need to do with policies. And the reason I've reduce this so much-- as it turns out, with energy policy, there's a small number of things that make a huge difference. And most energy policies are not that important. We have to focus our energy on a small number that really drive change. We don't have time to waste. We can't do the wrong things. And this is the list for cars. It's not the entire list, but it's the core elements. If we do these two things, we come out OK. Buildings. My first job was construction, building buildings. And then I started at a construction company with my brother back in the 1980s. And we designed and built solar homes, and it was not difficult. You put in insulation, you put in great windows, you put in super efficient appliances and air handling system, you put overhangs over the windows and voila, your energy goes down by 80%. A well insulated, well-designed building is a 100 year asset because operating costs are so low. A poorly designed or poorly insulated building is 100 year liability, because you are condemned for the entire life of that building to pay utility prices and to emit carbon emissions you don't need. What makes for good buildings? Only two policies deliver great buildings-- A very strong building code that's well enforced, really important, and appliance and equipment standards so that we do not put bad air conditioners into good buildings. So those are the two that drive the zero net energy building. The last and the most difficult is industry. Industry because it's complicated. It has huge capital investments, and because steel is different from cement, is different from chemicals. But Tanaka-san mentioned the hydrogen economy. We need to reinvent chemistry so it's not powered by hydrocarbons but by hydrogen, which is entirely feasible. There is a company in New Jersey that makes cement that's called Solidia that's 60% less carbon than the best conventional cement power plants. We need concentrated, extensive research on each of the principal energy-consuming sectors of industry. And when we have that, we will come up with these solutions. Also, we can electrify much of industry. And again, if you have a low carbon or a zero-carbon grid, then electrification of industry is pretty dramatic. So those are the four zeros. Zero-carbon grid, zero-emission vehicles, zero-net energy buildings, and zero-waste manufacturing. Every one of them as possible. Every one of them can become cost effective if we take advantage of the learning curves that I mentioned. Learning curves don't just happen. They require much more vigorous R&D than we have in either China or the United States. They require early support when technologies are out of the price range but still promising. And then they require commercialization. The strategies I pointed out here will induce so much demand, they will create a vast amount of innovation. And that's what will really deliver the goods. It's when saving the Earth is cheaper than ruining the Earth, not just cheaper counting externalities, but cheaper in the narrowest possible sense. It's already happening with the grid. [MUSIC PLAYING] 

Insights: Energy Innovation CEO - Saving the Earth is Cheaper Than Ruining It

Energy Innovation CEO on what needs to be done.

Saving the Earth is Cheaper Than Ruining It

He presents what he thinks really needs to be done to fight climate change.

I have studied the accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere for far too long, and one of the things that teaches you very quickly is that we have to do all the right things and we have to do them promptly. There's no more room for error. We have a zoo world wandered the possibility. So what I want to talk to you today about is what I call the four zeros. How do we get to a zero carbon grid zero emissions vehicles, zero net energy buildings and zero waste manufacturing? Before I do that, I need to mention just a couple words about US China relations. As part of this. This is, Ah, picture that I like a lot. It's our governor of California, Jerry Brown, together with the leader of China teaching Ping. This is important because when China and the US work together, we get a whole lot done. One of the reasons Paris was successful is because prior to Paris, China and the United States sat down and hammered out an agreement that other countries could live with, and they made enormous commitments themselves. I've had the fortune. I think I've made 70 trips to China over 20 years working with Chinese experts. When our country's work together on the global Commons, we solve things. I know that U. S China relations air fraught. Right now that's all the more reason in this realm to join arms and stay together. So I don't want to forget that. Why do we have to stay together? Because there's no way that one of our country's Consol, this problem without the other, the two giants in the energy world or China and the United States. And it's impossible to keep New York from flooding unless China does this part on climate change. And it's impossible to keep the greater Bay Area and Shanghai from flooding unless the United States does its part. There's no way to separate the solution here. This is common sense, perhaps not practices well as it should be. So first, some slides you'll be very familiar with the key to magic in climate change solutions is the learning curves. When we drive down the price of zero carbon technology to incredibly low levels, the whole vast array of solutions becomes possible, and it no longer becomes an economic choice to do the right political choice do everything but also an economic choice. This is solar PV prices dropping down over time and the volume rising. I sometimes say there was an unwritten agreement between Germany and China. Germany agreed to over pay and China agreed to overproduce and together they achieved a relative miracle. The same thing happened with wind offshore wind. Watch this space. Offshore wind prices have dropped by half in the last four years and they make an incredible contribution to a clean energy system. Batteries powering electric vehicles, staggering price drops and we're by no means done. And there many more. And these have come again because of subsidized demand in the early days, overproduction and the China price helps us all. So how do we get to the four zeros? Start with the electrical grid. This is the easiest and the fastest sector to de carbonized, and it also enables all the other three to de carbonized. So this is a crucial step we have to make. I showed that electricity from wind and solar is incredibly cheap already, but one of the policies that were required to get us a ce faras we need to go the first policy is a mandate to drive to 100% carbon free electricity on the grid. Soft targets won't do it. Long term signals are required. It's now cheaper to move to solar and wind than to continue. We analyzed every single coal plant in America and discovered that 75% of them cost more just to operate. Then if we replace them with brand new solar and wind farms. But that doesn't make it happen automatically because incumbent industries fight back and they fight back hard. And this is why we need good policy. So the 1st 1 is 100% clean energy standard phased in over time over the next 10 2030 years, depending on the state of the economy. Second, we have to align power markets with the carbon market. China is developing a carbon E. T s emissions trading system. It needs to help accelerate the transformation of the grid. I should have put 1/3 1 on. We need better strategies to balance the grid. Intermittent sources of energy are not that difficult to manage if you have a good strategy that includes demand response and more transmission and had a rich genius electricity sources hook together and occasional use of speakers. I spoke last week to the man, Steve Barbara, who runs the California Grid, and he told me he could get 80% de carbonized electricity without worrying 80% in the fifth largest economy on the planet. That's impressive. How do we get to zero emission vehicles? Go to Shenzhen. They have 18,000 electric buses, all the taxis there soon to be electric. Dede will be electric. The price drop is making this feasible. And if you have a solar system driving your energy grid and electric vehicle, you've accomplished two things with one. You also as an incredible bonus, cut out noise and air quality problems. What are the requirements? Ever stricter efficiency and pollution standards for internal combustion engines combined with the steadily increasing mandate for electric vehicles, you'll note that I have very few bullets on what we need to do with policies, and the reason I've reduced this so much is, it turns out, with energy policy. There's a small number of things that make a huge difference, and most energy policies are not that important. We have to focus our energy on a small number that really drive change. We don't have time to waste. We cannot do the wrong things. And this is the list for cars. It's not the entire list, but it's the core elements. If we do these two things, we come out okay. Buildings. My first job was construction building buildings, and then I started a construction company with my brother back in the 19 eighties, and we designed and built solar homes, and it was not difficult. You put in insulation. You put in great windows. You put in super efficient appliances and air handling system you put over hangs over the windows and voila! Your energy goes down by 80%. A well insulated, well designed building is a 100 year asset because operating costs are so low. A poorly designed or poorly insulated building is 100 year liability because you're condemned for the entire life of that building. To pay utility prices and to emit carbon emissions, you don't need what makes for good buildings on Lee to policies, deliver great buildings, a very strong building code that's well enforced, really important, and appliance and equipment standards so that we do not put bad air conditioners into good buildings, so those are the two that drive the zero net energy building. The last and the most difficult is industry industry because it's complicated, it has huge capital investments and because steel is different from cement is different from chemicals. But the knock Assan mentioned the hydrogen economy. We need to reinvent chemistry so it's not powered by hydrocarbons, but by hydrogen, which is entirely feasible. There's a company in New Jersey that makes cement is called Lydia, the 60% less carbon than the best conventional cement power plants. We need concentrated, extensive research on each of the principal into energy consuming sectors of industry, and when we have that, we will come up with these solutions. Also, we can electrify much of industry and again if you have a low carbon or zero. Carbon grids and electrification of industry is pretty dramatic. So those are the four zeros. Zero carbon grid zero emission vehicles, zero net energy buildings, zero waste manufacturing. Every one of them is possible. Every one of them can become cost effective if we take advantage of the learning curves that I mentioned. Learning curves don't just happen. They require much more vigorous R and D than we have in either China or the United States. They require early support when technologies air out of out of the price range, but still promising. And then they require commercialization. The strategies I pointed out here will induce so much demand they will create a vast amount of innovation, and that's what will really deliver the goods. It's when saving the earth is cheaper, been ruining the earth, not just cheaper counting externalities, but cheaper in the narrowest possible sense. It's already happening with the grip.

[MUSIC PLAYING] You run a petrochemical company. And I'm sure there's some people out in the audience who are saying, what the heck is he doing here? I thought petrochemicals were the problem, not part of the solution. How do you respond to that? Well, petrochemicals enable a lot of things that we do every day to be more energy efficient. So if you can imagine, the products that we make typically have two to three times the impact on greenhouse gas reduction then the materials we use to make them-- insulation materials, for example, light-weighting automobiles, making packaging lighter-weight and stronger-- eco-friendly products that you use every day. So there's a lot of what we do that really goes into a more sustainable economy. But you're seeing a reaction out there. We had an interesting story in the magazine about Ball Corporation, how well they've done in the last year. Because people are moving from plastic bottles to aluminum bottles. You're seeing a kind of anti-petrochemical mood in the public. Right. We see moves like this from time to time. The move that's been made over the last decades to plastics has been because it's the most sustainable and environmentally-friendly package that's out there. It's easy to say "shift back to aluminum" because you don't like the plastic waste issue. But aluminum requires 60% more energy and gives off 60% more greenhouse gas emissions to produce aluminum or recycle aluminum than plastics. If you go to steel or glass, it's even more. And so I think what you're dealing with is the emotional response to the plastic waste issue-- which we all agree is an issue that needs to be tackled-- versus the real response, which is if you want to get to circularity, let's get to circularity with these materials. And we can do it in a more efficient way. I want to get back to the plastic issue in a minute. But can you talk about some of the other things you're doing? You've taken this sustainability commitment very seriously. I read through your sustainability report. You have a lot of different projects going on that you think contribute. We have a tremendous number. If you look from a sustainability standpoint, the things that are very important to us-- obviously, climate change. We are a big user of energy. And so we do emit greenhouse gas. And so getting those emissions down and using new technology to do that is a big change for us. Putting circularity into the economy-- so, making sure that all the products that we do make have the potential to be recycled. And then working on the projects in the communities to help actually recycle them. Looking at eco-friendly products-- so, I'm not talking about everything being bio-based. But I'm talking about using chemistry that's cleaner to make some of the materials that you use everyday-- chemistry that's effective but maybe not as toxic as some of the historical chemistries that have been used. And then, obviously, dealing with the plastic waste issue and dealing with the infrastructure that's needed, really, to keep up with the consumption of this world plus the consumption that's going to come when we have another billion and a half people coming onto the planet. Do you ever get questions from your board of directors saying, hey, why are you spending 25% of your time on this recycling stuff? We don't make our money off of recycling. Actually, our board has spent more time this year on climate change and plastics recycling than just about anything else we've done. They believe that it's a purpose that we have to tackle. They have believed it for a long time. And so that sustainability report that you've got is not just the culmination of last year's work. This is our third decade of putting out these long-range sustainability goals. The first decade was really dealing with our operations footprint just inside the fenceline. The second decade started to deal with how our products perform. And the third decade is, how do we design a blueprint for a society that can be more sustainable and more circular? They're completely supportive of it. I would also say the financial market is changing as well. You start to see the importance of ESG financing, ESG reporting coming into play now. And that sustainability report you've got is not only aligned to the UN's sustainable development goals, it's GRI reporting methodology and it's third-party audited. So I think it's a best-in-class example of what ESG reporting can be. Do you ever see-- or does your board ever see-- any tension between pursuing that social purpose and pursuing profit? I don't think tension-- I think our view is you have to do both, right? You can't be a stock on the New York Stock Exchange and not pursue profit. But you have to challenge yourself to say, I have to do both. I have to pursue profit but I have to run a business that's long-term sustainable. And if that plastic waste issue is an existential threat, how do I tackle that and still maintain my business. Because that will get you in the long-run. And you have to change the business model. You have to change the types of materials. So for example, one of the first challenges I would give to my plastics business people is 100% of everything you make needs to be recyclable. That's a big goal. That doesn't necessarily mean it's going to get recycled. Now we've got to go work on what happens at the local level to make sure that it actually gets collected and gets recycled. And when you get into that mode, you're dealing with existing systems that are out there today-- sometimes that work against you. So sometimes when you're recycling gets collected curbside in the states or maybe in Europe, you think it's going to be recycled. But what you find out is the most expedient thing to do is to landfill it or to put it on a ship and ship it somewhere else. That isn't addressing the issue. So we have to step up and address the issue. And if we don't, who's going to help drive that? [THEME MUSIC] 

Insights: Dow Chemical CEO - Profitability & Sustainability Must Co-Exist

Jim Fitterling believes petrochemicals are the solution.

Dow Chemical - Profitability & Sustainability Must Co-Exist

Jim Fitterling believes petrochemicals are part of the global climate solution. (September 2019)

you run a petrochemical company, and I'm sure there's some people out in the audience who are saying, What the heck is he doing here? I thought petro chemicals were the problem, not part of the solution. How do you respond to that? Well, petrochemicals enable a lot of things that we do every day to be more energy efficient. So if you can imagine the product that we make typically have 2 to 3 times the impact on greenhouse gas reduction, then the materials we used to make them insulation materials, for example, light waiting automobiles, making packaging, lighter weight and stronger eco friendly products that you use every day. So there's a lot of what we do that really goes into more sustainable economy. But you're seeing a reaction out there. We had a kn interesting story in the magazine about Ball corporation how well they've done in the last year, because people are moving from plastic bottles to aluminum bottles. You're seeing a kind of an anti petrochemical mood in the public, right? We've seen we see moves like this from time to time, so you know the move that's been made over the last decades to plastics has been because it's the most sustainable and environmentally friendly package that's out there. It's easy to say Shift back to aluminum because you don't like the plastic waste issue. But aluminum requires 60% more energy and six and gives off 60% more greenhouse gas emissions to produce aluminum or recycle aluminum, them plastics if you go to steal or glasses, even Maur. And so I think what you're dealing with is the emotional response to the plastic wishes to which we all agree is an issue that needs to be tackled versus the rial response, which is, if you want to get to circularity. Let's get the circularity with these materials and we can do it in a more efficient way. I want to get back to the plastic issue in a minute, But can you talk about some of the other things you're doing? You've taken this sustainability commitment very seriously. I read through your sustainability report. You have a lot of different projects going on that you think contribute. We have a tremendous number. Look, if you look from a sustainability standpoint, the things that were very important to us obviously climate change, we are a big user of energy, and so we do emit greenhouse gas. And so getting those emissions down and using new technology to do that is a big a big change for us, um, putting circularity into the economy. So making sure that all the products that we do make have the potential to be recycled in them, working on the projects in the community to help actually recycle them. Um, looking at eco friendly products. So I'm not talking about everything being bio based, but I'm talking about using chemistry That's cleaner, to make some of the materials that you use every day. Chemistry that's effective, but maybe not as toxic as some of the historical chemistries that have been used and then obviously dealing with the plastic waste issue and dealing with the infrastructure that needed really to keep up with the consumption of this world, plus the consumption that's going to come when we have another 1,000,000,000 1/2 people coming on the planet. You ever get questions from your board of directors saying, Hey, why are you spending 25% of your time on this recycling stuff? We don't make our money off of recycling. Actually, our board has spent more time this year on climate change and plastics recycling than just about anything else we've done. They believe that it's a purpose that we have to tackle. They have believed it for a long time. So that sustainability report that you've got is not just the culmination of last year's work. This is our third decade of putting out these long range sustainability goals. The first decade was really dealing with our operations footprint just inside the fence line. The second decade started to deal with how our products perform and the third decade is how do we design a blueprint for a society that could be more sustainable, more circular? They're completely supportive of it. I would also say the financial market is changing as well. You start to see the importance of E S G financing E SG reporting coming into play now, and that sustainability report you've got is not only a line to the U. N sustainable development goals, it's g r. I reporting methodology at third party audited. So I think it's the best in class example of what E. S d reporting can be. Do you ever see or does your board ever see any tension between pursuing social purpose and pursuing Prophet? I don't think tension. I think our view is they have to call. You have to do both, right? You can't be in. You can't be a stock on the New York Stock Exchange and not pursue profit. But you have to challenge yourself to say I have to do both. I have to pursue profit, but I have to run a business. It's long term, sustainable. And if that plastic waste issue is an existential threat, how doe I tackle that and still maintain my business because that will get you in the long run and you have to change the business model. You have to change the types of materials. So, for example, one of the first challenge is I would give to my plastics business. People is 100% of everything you make needs to be recyclable. That's that's a big goal. That doesn't necessarily mean it's going to get recycled. Now we've got to go work on what happens at the local level to make sure that it actually gets collected and gets recycled, and when you get into that mode. You're dealing with existing systems that are out there today. Sometimes that work against you. So sometimes when you're recycling gets collected curbside in states. Or maybe in Europe. Um, you think it's going to be recycled, But when you find out is the most expedient thing to do is the land, fill it or put it on a ship and ship it somewhere else. That isn't addressing the issue. So we have to step up and address the issue, and if we don't, who's gonna help drive that?

[MUSIC PLAYING] For over a year now, been investigating and learning all about the plastics issues. I want to create some new products. And I'm trying to find the most sustainable way to use plastics. And it has been fascinating to me to understand what's really going on after you scratch the surface and you get through a lot of the greenwashing going on in the petrochemical industry. And so it's been very, very intriguing. So we've all heard about there's tons of plastics in the oceans. There's going to be more plastics in the ocean than fish by 2050. We hear that over and over and over. That's right. It's absolutely true. It's going on. But it's a lot worse than that. Plastic is everywhere. It's in the air. It's in the water we drink. It's in the food we eat. It's in our bodies. It's in every single place. We found it the deepest parts of the ocean. We found the highest parts of the mountains. We found it in air. We found it in bottled water. We found it in our feces. It's everywhere-- microplastics. And people are like, well, the WTO just announced that-- well, we don't know if microplastics are bad. What we do know, though, is microplastics and nano plastics absorb like sponges bioaccumulative toxins that get lodged in our body and in our fat. And it goes from generation to generation. So you might say we don't know if it's going to be harmful. But we can tell you it's in your body. And it's soaking up chemicals now-- toxins-- and they're going in your bloodstream. Coal, right, it's bad? We shouldn't be making more coal plants. Everybody agree, no more coal plants? Well, why the hell are we making even worse coal plants for plastic? Oil to plastic-- coal to energy is three parts CO2 for every one part coal. In plastic minimally five parts to create PET plastic from one part oil. We are actually just in the production of plastics making more CO2 than coal plants. And we're getting rid of coal plants. So why are we making more coal plants? They just happen to be plastic production plants. Look at the emissions. The emissions are growing. And it's staggering. We're looking at over 600 new coal plants for plastic production between now and 2050. Packaging is only for days, weeks, or months. After that it sits in our environment for 500 years. Think about what was going on in the world 500 years ago. If they were using plastics, it would just be being decomposing today. 500 years. So a few months of use for 500 years of trash that goes in our body that's bioaccumulative toxin sponges. Most people won't tell you that when they are recycled, they can only be cycled two, three, or four times because they're mechanically recycled and they go and become trash because those long polymers become shorter and shorter as you just-- they grind them up. And then they try to make more products with it. That's why you have to put it in a road. That's why I have to put it somewhere else. It's not true recycling like aluminum or glass or paper in a lot of ways. It is still only partially recycled. And even then it turns into trash very quickly if it is recycled. Waste. From waste we turn it into plastics. And it needs to be consumer compostable. We can just throw it in a compost pit. The organisms just eat it. We can throw it in the water and in the ocean. And it just dissolves into properly-degradable elements that do not hurt us and do not hurt the things we eat and live on this planet. Bio waste plastics and consumer compostable in a business today. Right now you have to understand many, many countries are banning single use plastics. If you're using them, creating them, single use plastics are getting banned and very, very rapidly. All of Bali in literally three months has totally changed from single use plastics in many different categories. And those single use plastic definitions are growing wider and wider. After that we have to eliminate composite plastics. That means layers of film. They put different types of plastics together. They can't even be recycled. Many of the plastic packages you see that have food in them, they're composites. They can't even be recycled-- definitely not mechanically. Food delivery. Food delivery in Indonesia is starting to get regulated. What can single use-- what packaging can it be in? There's all kinds of regulations coming very soon for food delivery services and what they can use. We have to limit petrochemical infrastructure. We talked about incineration. And of course, we have to make sure the producers of these things don't just leave it to the consumers to have to clean up their mess that they helped to create. One of the things I love about this is it's a designer perspective where you kind of take a designer's sense of empathy and look at the whole system. And you say that things that aren't working don't work for a reason. It's because they're hard to use. And the user experience isn't what it ought to be. And I love your focus on consumers. So my question for you is making this switch that you say is the way to go-- so that it's easy for consumers-- what drives that? How do we get into that World is that the responsibility of designers to come up with some new materials? Is it the responsibility of governments to regulate as you described in Bali? Or does it fall back on consumers again just not to use-- I think it's all three. Look, governments are going to step up because they're seeing and they're really realizing the problem that they're having for their societies. And their constituencies are saying, this can't go on any longer because they're starting to wake up to all of these greenwashing terms that the industry is using, just like they did for oil and gas and tobacco and those kinds of things in the past. So people are waking up. Governments are waking up. Consumers are definitely waking up. And there's a very interesting study that came out about a month ago which said global brands today, when they come out with eco anything, consumers don't trust it. They trust new brands that come from scratch with eco products. They'd much rather go to that than try to go to a global brand that's been screwing up the world for a while. And they don't believe that they're doing actual good. 

Insights: iPod/iPhone Designer on Kicking Plastic Addiction

Tony Fadell is passionate about plastic dependence.

iPod/iPhone Designer on Kicking Plastic Addiction

Tony Fadell is passionate about plastic dependence and what role business plays. (September 2019)

for over a year now, been investigating and learning all about the plastics issues. I want to create some new product, and I'm trying to find the most sustainable way to use plastic. And it has been fascinating to me toe understand what's really going on after you scratch the surface and you get through a lot of the green washing going on in the petrochemical industry. And so it's been very, very intriguing. So we've all heard about, Oh, there's tons of plastics in the oceans. There's gonna be more plastic in the ocean than fish by 2050. We hear that over and over and over. That's right. It's absolutely true. It's going on, but it's a lot worse than that. Plastic is everywhere. It's in the air. It's in the water. We drink it in the food. We eat it in our bodies. It's in our in our every single place we found in the deepest parts of the ocean we found in the highest parts off the of the mountains. We found it in a row. We found it in bottled water. We found it in our feces. It's everywhere. Micro plastics and people like well the W T. O just announced that. What we don't know if micro plastics are bad. What we do know, though, is micro plastics and Nana Plaza absorb like sponges, bio accumulative toxins that get lodged in our body and in our fat, and it goes from generation to generation. So you might say we don't know if it's going to be harmful, but we can tell you it's in your body and it's soaking up chemicals now. Toxins, and they're going in your bloodstream. Cole, right? It's bad. We shouldn't be making more coal plants, right? Everybody agreed. No more coal plants. Well, why the hell are we making even worse? Coal plants for plastic oil to plastic cold energy of three parts go to for everyone part Cole in plastic, five parts minimally five parts to create a P e T. Plastic from one part oil. We're actually just in the production off plastics, making more co two than coal plant, and we're getting rid of coal plants. So why are we making Mork? Oh, plans? They just happen to plastic production plant. Look at the emissions. The emissions are growing and it's staggering. We're looking at over 600 new coal plants for plastic production between now and 2050. Packaging is only for day, days, weeks or months After that. It fits in our environment for 500 years. Think about what was going on in the world 500 years ago. They were using plastic. It would just be being, ah, composed, decomposing today. All right, 500 years. So a few months of use for 500 years of trash that goes in our body, that bio accumulative toxin sponges. Most people won't tell you that when they are recycled, they can only be cycled to three or four times because they're mechanically recycled and they go and become trash. Because those long polymers become shorter and shorter is you just grind them up and then they try to make more products with it. That's why you have to put it in a road. That's why I have to put it somewhere else. It's not true recycling like aluminum or glass or paper in a lot of ways. It is still on Lee partially recycled, and even then it can. On Lee. It turns into trash very quickly if it is recycled waste from waste. We turn it into plastics and it needs to be consumer compostable. We can just throw it in a compost pit. The organic organisms just eat it. We can throw it in the water and in the ocean, and it just dissolves into properly degradable elements that do not hurt us And do not hurt the things we eat and live on this planet. Bio waste, plastic and consumer compostable In a business today, right now you have to understand many many countries are banning single use plastics if you're in using them, creating them. Single use plastics are getting banned and very, very rapidly. All of Bali in literally three months has totally changed from single use. Plastic in many different categories. And those single use plastic definitions are growing wider and wider. After that, we have to eliminate composite plastic that means layers of film. They put different types of plastic together. They can even be recycled. Many of the plastic packages you see that have food in them. They're composites. They can't even be recycled. Definitely not mechanically. Food delivery Food delivery in Indonesia is starting to get regulated. What single use what packaging commit being There's all kinds of regulations coming very soon for food delivery. Service is on what they can use. We have to limit petrochemical Andhra structure we talked about in incineration. And of course, we have to make sure the producers of these things don't just leave it to the consumers have to clean up the mess that they helped to create. One of the things I love about this is it's a designer perspective where you kind of take a designer sense of empathy and look at the whole system. And you say that things that aren't working don't work for a reason because they're hard to use. And the user experience isn't isn't what it already. Andi, I love your focus on consumers. My question for you is making the switch that you say is the way to go so that it's easy for consumers. What drives that? How do we get into that world that the responsibility of designers to come up with some new material? Is it the responsibility of governments to regulate as you described in Bali? Or is it that they fall back on consumers again just not to use? I think it's all three look, governments are going to step up because they're being, and they're really realizing the problem that they're having before their society and their constituencies are saying This can't go on and younger because they're starting to wake up all of these greenwashing terms that the industry is using, just like they did for oil and gas and tobacco in those kinds of things in the past. So people are waking up. Governments are waking up consumers air definitely waking up. And there's a very interesting study that came out about a month ago, which said Global brands Today, when they come out with Echo anything consumers don't trust they can they trust new brands that come from scratch with Echo echo products. They much rather go to that and try to go to a global brand that's been screwing up the world for a for a while, and they don't believe that they're actually doing doing actual good

Insights: Business Responds to Climate Change

Insights: PSEG CEO on Climate Change Action - "It Should Have Been Done Yesterday"

Latest video

Ralph Izzo believes a tax on carbon emissions would trigger clean energy innovations.

Videos (10 videos)

Insights: PSEG CEO on Climate Change Action - "It Should Have Been Done Yesterday"

Insights: Business Solutions to Climate Change - Best of 2019 Fortune Global Sustainability Town Hall

Insights: Fashion Consumers Demand Sustainability, But Who Defines It?

Chinese Banks Targeting Coal Energy To Fight Climate Change

Global Financial Policies Fighting Climate Change

Insights: Impossible Foods CEO Wants to Replace Animals–Not Meat

Insights: Plant-based Meat Alternatives Are Key to Greener China

Insights: Energy Innovation CEO - Saving the Earth is Cheaper Than Ruining It

Insights: Dow Chemical CEO - Profitability & Sustainability Must Co-Exist

Insights: iPod/iPhone Designer on Kicking Plastic Addiction