The Angry Clean Energy Guy on the inexorable and intolerable continuing rise of emissions 27 years after the Earth Summit of 1992 in Rio de Janeiro; and on the RE 100, the best global initiative to fight back against catastrophic climate change by bringing together major businesses driving the world to 100% renewable electricity. Winner of the Week: Adidas, for challenging the (very irresponsible) fashion industry with a huge move to use only recyclable plastic and eliminate all plastic fiber in its 900 million items by 2024. Villain of the Week: Uber, for blatantly taking advantage of its London customers (and soon all others) by charging them a "clean air fee" (which is anything but) for every ride.
The Angry Clean Energy Guy on the inexorable and intolerable continuing rise of emissions 27 years after the Earth Summit of 1992 in Rio de Janeiro; and on the RE 100, the best global initiative to fight back against catastrophic climate change by bringing together major businesses driving the world to 100% renewable electricity. Winner of the Week: Adidas, for challenging the (very irresponsible) fashion industry with a huge move to use only recyclable plastic and eliminate all plastic fiber in its 900 million items by 2024. Villain of the Week: Uber, for blatantly taking advantage of its London customers (and soon all others) by charging them a "clean air fee" (which is anything but) for every ride.
[inaudible].
Speaker 2:Hi and welcome to episode 17 of the angry teen energy guy with me assigned or a Zuke. I am so happy you're here. Thank you. A quick reminder at the start you can find all my transcripts on my website, the angry clean energy guy.com. I hope you find these helpful and useful. This week I am going to rant about the unbelievable continuing rise of emissions, which makes me so angry, but also about my favorite initiative anywhere to stop or at least fight back against this rise. My winner of the week is Adidas, the iconic German apparatus company and my villain of the week is those guys and girls at Uber and I'll give you my reasons later in the podcast
Speaker 1:[inaudible]
Speaker 2:it's the UK met Office released an alarming press release. It said that faster CO2 rise is expected in 2019 so this year, let me just try and express why this is just awful. What this means is despite almost 40 years of talking and talking and talking about climate change, emissions are rising nonstop and their rate of increase is even accelerating. I mean, that is absolutely terrible. Let me take a step back first. So we all know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that too much of it makes earth warmer and warmer when we burn or gas and coal, we produce carbon dioxide and we have been producing gigantic quantities of it since the beginning of the industrial revolution. When we talk about carbon dioxide, we talk about parts per million. This number tells us how many parts of carbon dioxide there are in 1 million parts of air. So if we say that carbon dioxide is at 400 parts per million, that means that in 1 million particles of air there are 400 particles of carbon dioxide and the number matters. The number matters because carbon dioxide levels have gone high since the industrial revolution because of manmade activity, because we are burning oil, gas, and coal. Then you get a bit more specific about that using parts per million numbers or ppm. It took us 5,000 years to increase the carbon dioxide parts per million from 270 to 280 so over the course of 5,000 years, basically nothing happened. Then it took us a hundred years to move from 280 parts per million or ppm to 290 just 40 years to move from 290 to 300 the rate kept accelerating and it took just four years to move from 400 to 410 and we're now above that number. The planets state is healthy for humans, relatively speaking, of course, because climate has been changing forever, obviously, except that what we've now done is we have accelerated that rate of change in ways that are unpredictable and will kill millions as well as cost trillions. So the consensus is that the planet is healthy for us at a level of 350 parts per million. Three 50 we're already above 410 and we are zooming to 450 so when I learned that the UK met Office released a press release to say that they are expecting a faster rise in carbon dioxide in 2019 I took another look at that press release because it says that during 2019 the Met Office climate scientists expect to see one of the largest rises in concentration in 62 years of measurements. And that's terrible. So we've been talking about climate for 40 years, but in effect, our global collective action has resulted in less than nothing. In other words, we did not decrease emissions and we did not even slow their rise. Now there's an enormous amount of very good people everywhere around the world trying to do something about us. However, we, all of us trying to do something about this are not succeeding today. I'd like to draw your attention to one of the most important initiatives out there to make a big difference. And personally I think it's probably the most important initiative out there to make a difference and fight back and that is the r e 100 initiative. You can find it by Googling r e 100 or even 100 is a collection of companies that have committed to have 100% of their power come from renewable energy by a certain date. If you've heard my podcast before, you know that I think that corporations by and large are being very bad on the environment instead of being a force for good, they a force for bad. The e 100 initiative is one exception because as an initiative it's trying to appeal to their best instincts and collect a grouping of hugely influential companies that can make a very big difference in one place and then shepherd them to the right strategy in terms of how they source their energy, and this matters greatly. It matters greatly because we know we have to be at 60% renewables by 2030 and about 90 or 100% by 2050 in order to have a chance to stop the earth warming by over two degrees centigrade compared to the industrial revolution level. Because otherwise trillions of dollars are going to be fried and millions of people are going to suffer and possibly die. So this matters. And one one thinks about companies, we should not forget that the commercial and industrial sector, so companies is responsible for two thirds of the world's final electricity demand, two thirds. The r e 100 initiative is trying to bring together big companies that are all committed to a hundred percent renewables. And so it's very important and hopefully they will be able to push them over time to bring forward the date at which they will reach a hundred percent renewables as well as extend that pledge, not just to their own operations, but also to their supply chains. So the people who manufacture chips for apple and not just apple r e 100 is passive in the sense that as a company you would pledge that you'll go a hundred percent renewables by say 2025 and then you would report back to our ear 100 that will publish what you've done. There are no penalties or anything of the sort, however, it's still positive reinforcement and so the bigger the group is, the better it is. There were less than 100 companies as recently as two years ago. Now the number is approaching 200 and these aren't just companies. These are the biggest companies in the world, including seven of the largest 10 now when you look at the makeup of the less than 200 companies that are part of the r e 100 there are a few interesting observations that come out. You know, first it's dominated, not surprisingly by European companies, there is some American or North American presence, but it's a lot weaker than the weight of the North American economy in the global economy. And there is some Asian presence but it's a bit of a joke and certainly not enough Asian presence at all by any metric in the army. 100 lists actually shows you that the people that are at the frontier of suffering from climate change and their companies seem to be the ones least aware of the problem and the ones taking the least amount of action and that's got to change and it's got to change very, very fast. We need the r e 100 companies to be more like 3000 companies accounting for a big chunk of corporate use of electricity and we need their percentages, especially from North America and from Asia to be proportionate to the size of these economies instead of what we have now, which is an overweight Europe and an underweight United States and an underweight China and an underweight Japan and an underweight Korea and an underweight Singapore and an underweight Taiwan and an underweight Asia. Frankly in general. My other observation is that frankly, some of these companies are jokers anybody committing to 100% renewable energy beyond 2025 is just getting with us and not being serious and will eventually be called out. So the serious ones are the ones committing to 100% renewable energy by 2025 and hopefully they will extend that commitment as some have already done across their value chain. Because what we need in the fight against climate change is we need leverage and companies have leverage. If apple or Walmart say to their supply chain to go a hundred percent renewables, I think there are pretty good odds that they can pull it off in time. And that is huge leverage because potentially it affects hundreds of other companies, hundreds of suppliers, thousands of suppliers to a company like Walmart. So these companies should be encouraged to do what they're doing and they should be encouraged to do more. And what they do really matters because governments are sleeping at the wheel. The final observation. Of course if you go through the list of r e 100 companies is that not surprisingly big oil and gas are not members of our EU and a hundred because what they want to do is they want to keep burning oil, gas and coal until we all fry and they simply don't care. And I've documented in previous podcasts exactly how they go about this heaving us and shifting the responsibility and the blame to the consumer and to the end user instead of actually stepping up and doing something about the environmental destruction or around them. They are basically propagating the principle of the polluter doesn't pay instead of the correct moral outcome and they are lobbying their way out of incurring any responsibility for their actions. In episode 16 I highlighted one strategy that Shell oil goes about to shift the burden to the consumer trying to fill up their car and frankly what they do is scandalous and I never tire of repeating it, so aren't you 100 is very important. These initiatives that gather companies that have leverage over multiple hundreds, thousands of companies and millions of consumers are critical. What we need to do is we need more of them local and global, so we need small r e 100 initiatives in every country in the world and we need a network of r e 100 initiatives so that the corporate sector leads the change that we need from dirty oil, dirty gas and dirty coal to clean energy fueled lifestyles. So as I think you can hear, I actually love r e 100 and I am really showcasing it as a counterweight to that rise in emissions. That just doesn't seem like it's something that governments want to stop, but companies can do something about it and they must stop being a force for the bad. So we should upload initiatives like our ear 100 and its sister initiatives. We mean business and the CDP because at they're some very good people are trying to corral big companies into doing the right thing and what companies do matters. Remember it took us just four years to drive CO2 parts per million from 400 to 410 when previously it took us a hundred years to drive it from 280 to 290 so things are getting worse and we need to rally around initiatives that matter. I get really, really angry when the blame is shifted to the consumer at the pump trying to fill their car or the airline passenger for flying too much when in fact the responsibility is with those burning the oil, gas and coal. And it's the same story with plastics. Yes, of course we should all try and use less plastics, but if plastic was priced properly, we would not be using it. And it's not priced properly because big oil, big gas and big coal in 19 90% of plastic comes from or in gas in cold, isn't paying for the environmental destruction. And so as a result, the plastic that we're using is mispriced. It's really just as simple as that. If it was priced correctly, we would use a lot less. We must all take responsibility for the problem. But the 90 company's responsible for two thirds of emissions since the industrial revolution are way, way, way, way more responsible than the rest of us. And they should stop peddling bullshit. They should pay and they should pay the most. Their product is lethal and is not priced accordingly. On top of these 90 companies, just 3000 companies cause$2 trillion of environmental damage per year, which by and large they don't pay for. So the battlefield is all in the corporate world. Okay. Maybe not all, but certainly a big chunk of the fight that matters is at the corporate level. And what we need at the corporate level to move the needle is we need directors of companies to be liable for environmental destruction. Because if they were, I promise you would stop, it would stop. But at the moment they're not. And that has to change. I don't know if any insurance companies or accountants are listening, but that needs to change. Insurance companies should stop insuring directors and officers who cause environmental destruction as defined by the insurance company. And Similarly, accountants should them out in the financial statements. They should have a section on environmental destruction detailing what that company's product causes in terms of damage. There is a final point I want to make on this, which is that the r e 100 companies outperform their rivals. Yes, you heard that correctly. If you do the right thing, you are worth more money, not less money, and that's according to an analysis of 3,500 firms released in 2018 so I would imagine if doing the right thing is not enough of a motivation, if the moral imperative is not enough of a motivation, then surely financially corporations should be motivated since our e 100 companies are before the rivals.
Speaker 1:[inaudible].
Speaker 2:Thank you so much for listening to me the angry clean and as guy is this far, thank you. My winner of the week is I did us. I did the US did something very big if you days ago. It basically challenged the very irresponsible fashion industry, very irresponsible with a huge move to eliminate all plastic fiber in its product by 2024 and use only recycled plastic. I talked about the horrors of the fashion industry from an environmental perspective in episode 14 and Adidas actually did something very material about it. I did ask manufacturers 900 million items, 50% of the material that it uses in these 900 million items are polyester and the polyester is powering the microplastics epidemic. The microplastics that all of you, all of us are currently breathing, eating and drinking. It's in our bottled water, it's in our fish, it's in our salt and it's in the air and big companies doing something about it should be applauded. So Adidas, very well done. And Nike, are you listening? If you are just doing it, my feeling of the week is Uber. Uber thinks it can basically outsmart consumers and its own clients worldwide and it's started and you initiative to rip off people in London from January of this year. They have been charging what they call a clean air fee of 15 pence per mile, which is huge for every trip one takes through the app in London. Now claim that this clean air fi, and I love the branding, the clean air plan is because they Uber are striving to help reduce air pollution in London and they're going to do that by raising 200 million pounds, which they will give to the drivers at about 3000 pounds a driver in order to help them upgrade their car to an electric car by 2025 it sounds wonderful, doesn't it? Except it's not. It's evil. What Uber is doing is pushing responsibility. It's responsivity to clean up its act to the people that use Uber to go from point a to point to point B and then it's holding the money of these people. So the 200 million pounds they're trying to raise in the UK for God knows how long, with no accountability to maybe give it to drivers one of these days whose cars Uber does not own and who allegedly are not employees so that they upgrade their car. Because yes, of course 3000 pounds is going to make a big difference. But I am going to wait for the day when Uber actually puts its hand in its pocket to hand a even a penny to a driver. Remember Uber is incredibly unprofitable. It's built up a huge market position in multiple cities around the world by losing money, it's reported in operating loss of$3 billion last year after losing$4 billion the year before. So there I am, you know, sitting in one drink. Wouldn't it be nice if I was Uber to raise 200 million pounds that go into my treasury, which may be on pay to drivers in a couple of years, who may or may not be around, and no one can actually trace what I'm doing or why instead of me Uber putting my hand in my pocket and cleaning up my business model by upgrading drivers scars from my pocket, rather than from the pocket of the consumer already being ripped off by big oil trying to sell them offsets at the pump, as I said in episode 60 and by airlines trying to sell them carbon credits for their flights and by other polluters. And you know, here we go. Uber is joining the polluters club that is ripping off consumers. So Uber, shame on you. Shame on you. On that note, I've got only one more thing to say. Have a great week and thank you for listening.
Speaker 1:[inaudible].