How Banks Can Profit, Save the Planet

Daily Telegraph December 14, 2009

Accessibility links

Digital Publisher of the Year | Monday 14 December 2009 | Copenhagen climate change conference feed

Advertisement Website of the Telegraph Media Group with breaking news, sport, business, latest UK and world news. Content from the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph newspapers and video from Telegraph TV. Enhanced by Google Home News Sport Finance Lifestyle Comment Travel Culture Technology Fashion Jobs Dating Games Offers UK World UK Politics Celebrities Obituaries Weird Earth Science Health News Education Topics News Blogs News Video Earth News Copenhagen Climate Change Conference Environment Wildlife Outdoors Picture Galleries Earth Video Home Earth Copenhagen climate change conference Copenhagen climate summit: How banks can help to save the planet – and make a profit With the right finance, Britain can lead the world to a greener future, says Boris Johnson.

By Boris Johnson Published: 6:12AM GMT 14 Dec 2009

Comments 33 | Comment on this article

Buildings are the source of 70 per cent of CO2 Photo: Getty

By the time you read these words I will be airborne to Copenhagen. Out of the nozzles of the Rolls-Royce turbo jets the evil plumes of kerosene exhaust will streak across the heavens, until the wind bends those vapour trails into curves and blobs – gigantic question marks in the sky. Why, you may ask, am I going to the climate change summit? Is it really worth discharging yet more greenhouse gases into the upper air? And why am I not going by bike? To which the answer is that we did indeed look into the bike question, and it took far too long, particularly at the rate I pedal.

As for the validity of the summit itself, I believe that it is of crucial importance for the world. We have a real chance to agree new targets for reducing CO2 emissions – and to bring in countries such as China and India which were, insanely, omitted from the Kyoto protocol. We also have a chance to do something about the politics of global warming, which are in danger of going seriously wrong. We won't win this argument with the public, we won't get people to change their lives, we won't succeed in cutting CO2 if we continue to rely on a diet of unremitting gloom. It is time for a change in the psychological approach.

Related Articles Tony Blair: Copenhagen climate summit must not be about 'percentages' Lord Adonis: no need to cut travel to save the planet, says Transport Secretary G8 summit: UN accuses G8 of doing too little to tackle climate change Mirrors and wildebeest could save the planet Taxes must rise to pay for climate change, MPs warn

There is no doubt that humanity faces a risk of environmental catastrophe. Indeed, in many ways it is already happening. We are replicating too fast, hurtling towards nine billion souls on the planet like bacteria multiplying on a Petri dish. We are destroying habitats and species at an unprecedented and unforgivable rate. In continuing to rely on fossil fuels, we risk – according to the overwhelming majority of scientific

By Boris Johnson Published: 6:12AM GMT 14 Dec 2009

Comments 33 | Comment on this article

But there is something about human beings that means we are hard-wired to ignore these intimations of mortality. Do you remember poor Ricky Ray Rector, the half-wit murderer who was executed in Arkansas in 1992? As is customary on Death Row, Ricky Ray was given a splendid last meal topped off with pecan pie. As he rose to take his farewell from the world, he told his guards that he hadn't finished the pecan pie but would "save it for later". That, I am afraid, is us.

With part of our minds, we may accept that we are in mortal danger. But we find it very hard to make the full imaginative leap. We may be told by thousands of scientists and environmentalists that we are about to fry – and we may be able to understand the case they make – but some deep instinct none the less urges us to believe, inductively, that things will go on more or less as they are. That is why the polls show such an amazingly obstinate public refusal to accept the reality of global warming. That is why there is still a market for thermoscepticism of all kinds. That is why people seize on a few stray emails from the University of East Anglia which seem – wrongly – to undermine the scientific case. And the scientists are not helped, above all, by the tone of voice with which the green movement chooses to hector the world.

In calling for carbon cuts, the vast majority of environmentalists have adopted an approach that is miserablist, morose, bullying, judgmental and negative. They may be right, but they are putting people off. When the average punter sees hordes of crusties protesting in Copenhagen, and calling for the collapse of capitalism, he or she is unlikely to be sympathetic. They don't want to be told that the answer to global warming is to repastoralise society (minus the cows), and for us all to sit sneezing in yurts until the Earth cools down. They need the warning. But they also want hope.

They want the technological optimism that has characterised our species since the Stone Age occupants of Olduvai. They want to understand how the risk of disastrous global warming can be turned into an opportunity – and that, of course, is what we are doing in London. The other day I stood on the roof of a fire station in Ilford. It is not an architectural jewel. You will not find it in Pevsner. But, in its way, it is one of the most inspiring and uplifting buildings in London. By "retrofitting" that fire station – installing solar panels, transformers, insulation and other humdrum modifications – the fire brigade has cut the building's energy use by more than 40 per cent.

We have similarly retrofitted 42 public buildings across London, and already – on those buildings alone – we have saved £1 million in energy costs to the taxpayer. This success has, I believe, vital implications for our strategy. In a world in which people live increasingly in cities, and where cities produce the vast majority of CO2, we can only tackle emissions if we deal with the 70 per cent of CO2 that comes from buildings. We will only persuade firms and individuals to retrofit their buildings to reduce energy consumption if we can show that it is in their financial interest.

As you can tell from the example of the 42 London buildings we have just done, there are big savings to be made. After less than eight years, we will have recouped all our investment. But there are also big upfront costs. Where do you go when you have big upfront costs but the prospect of good financial returns? You go to a bank. There is a huge opportunity here, for banks to securitise these investments in such a way as to yield a profit for themselves and for the firm/householder. There is the chance to generate thousands of "green-collar" jobs in improving London's ageing buildings. There is the opportunity to make deep cuts in the single biggest source of CO2 emissions; and if the banks work faster, and help to devise the necessary financial instruments, there is the chance for them to redeem themselves in the eyes of the general public.

There is also the chance for Britain to lead the world. We often moan that we are lagging in this or that. This is the moment to lead in lagging itself.

Comments: 33

More hot air from Boris the Banker's mate.Has any Old Etonian, ever cared tuppence about others who weren't O.E.s?

What crap, the reason we the people are so against this is because rather than involve us and giving us all the facts from both sides, we are being dictated to and told we must do this and only after being told one side of the arguement. As long as you only allow this to continue and insist on banning the other sides view and insult those with them, you will never win the people over so you will never achieve any goals you set. I for one can tell you, the more you dictate to me and insult me for not following you, the more I will ignore what you say and will most likely increase my so called carbon footprint. I am neither pro or anti climate change, all I want is to hear both sides so I can see the evidence, before we change our whole way of life.

Oh, Boris, save us from MANBEARPIG!!!!!!!

Boris Johnson is 100% correct in asserting that building improvements will go most of the way towards solving the country's energy supply problems. The point is not to generate more energy using new methods but to reduce energy use radically. A 40% reduction on retrofit is a very modest ambition. Correctly done, building renovation can easily lead to savings of around 80% - you need to get close to the passivehouse standard. Getting buildings up to passivehouse standard not only saves a huge quantity of energy. It also makes buildings far more healthy and pleasant to work and live in. In Europe, where these kinds of things have been the order of the day for many years, low-energy buildings also command a price premium and as Mr Johnson states, the expenses are recouped over a relatively short number of years. Nevertheless, it is necessary to use a lifetime return calculation to justify this type of investment and public involvement makes sense (a lot more sense than investing in wind turbines). The public money currently being spent on insulation, new boilers, etc, are not well spent because the level of ambition is far too low. The same money, correctly spent, could easily lead to far greater energy savings but it is a problem that there are very few experts in passivehouse technology and calculations in the country, in fact, the only specialist company I can think of is Zero-Carbon Solutions. The construction sector does not seem very interested in making progress because this would reveal just how poor the quality of current buildings is. It would also force the industry to train their people properly - you can't take somebody from the street and expect them to be able to build passivehouses. Hence, there are some obstacles to overcome, none of them very difficult to deal with: the building regulations need to be tightened up at a much faster rate, SAP needs to be thrown out as the authorised calculation method - it is useless for ultra low-energy buildings - and a program of finance and training needs to be established. Public money is needed in a transition phase but as demonstrated in Europe, passivehouses quickly start to command a retail and second-hand sale premium once the concept get better known.

You too eh boris? Now I know we are all going to hell. I thought your head was screwed on. AGW is a scam.

One wonders how many of the thousands of protesters active on Saturday turned up on their bicycles?

Usually, Mr Johnson speaks some sense. On this occasion, he is wrong. Costs are transferred downwards, so someone always has to pay and that's the "little people". Neither should Britain be "leading the world". This is the nonsense that Brown and his motley crew are trying to do. Germany and France are the richest in the EU and are out of recession. There are 27 EU countries and the EU has pledged £6.5bn to fight "climate change". Brown, who sees himself at the helm of world opinion, has committed the UK to 25% of this - a massive £1.5bn. Such is the bizarre stupidity of egomania. Does Mr Johnson seriously believe that our little puppet state of the EU with our meagre 60 million can influence China with its 1300 million? Mr Johnson really must understand that there is no "Great" in Great Britain. Britain seems set to become the "sick man of Europe", languishing at the bottom of the European growth league table. There is no "Rule Britannia" any more. We have become a minor country in a big world, and our CO2 emissions are less than 2% and falling daily. Britain has become a laughing stock, thanks to such pretensions of grandeur.

Dear Boris, Fine, as far as you go, but think that all of the hot air emanating from Copenhagan that will far exceed that of an Ilford fire station. I have not heard in this global debate anything about finding a solution for reducing the effect of the many thoudands of oil field flares we see from the air. Technology to capture the heat, carbon, and particulates they pump out must be as important as a few solar panels in 'sunny' London. Are the polititians too afraid of the OPEC poluters?

They were building energy saving homes over forty years ago but they were treated as something for the future,these houses can utilise human waste,solar,and insulation,no one is interested,it takes building regulations and a massive change in the law for new build homes,we can do anything nowadays,the Govenment could also give big grants,but now they cant because dick head has give it all away to foreigners, the will is just not there,slightly of track,I was watching a program on Coastal erosion,its horrendous the rate it is happening,it can be stopped but its costly,flood barriers cost a fortune,will the people get any help who suffer from these problems? No,because "Polution boy Brown" is giving all of our money away to help other people with their problems the git.

I think that your time would be better spent planting trees on your estate old chap.

Gawd - not you as well, Boris! What is it with politicians that they fall such easy prey to propaganda, instead of using their brains and looking at a problem from all sides? Science does not rely on majority decisions, its not politics! Sceptics have been showing up the flaws in AGW for years, being shouted down by the warmlies. I would have expected you, of all Tories, to keep an open mind and above all not make the category mistake of bundling concern for the environment - which we all share - with AGW. Could it be that your banker friends, who know a good thing when they see one, are totally enamoured of the fraudulent 'carbon emission trading' scam, for which we, the taxpayers and your voters, will have to pay extra? Great pity, Boris - I'm very disappointed.

A report by the WWF out last week ranks the UK 20th in a list of 27 countries in terms of sales of their clean technology products. It includes the 27 EU member states and all G7 and BRIC countries and the major renewable energy and energy efficiency segments. What this tells us is that as might be expected from Gordon Brown and the boy Milliband the UK Govt is all spin and no real action. We already know from the report by former energy minister Malcolm Wicks that UK Govt R&D funding is the lowest amongst all its main competitors. Needless to say Boris' City has not helped. If it wanted to then of course the City could turn the UK into a clean technology powerhouse. But then that's industry and the City doesn't do industry.

Dear Boris, I know that the oberwhelming body of scientific opinion is in agreement that the world will suffer appalling temperature rises. Surely as a well educated chap you see that the Copenhagen diagnosis is not a distillation of all scientific thought on the matter and the science is definitely not settled. Let's save energy. Don't lets cripple ourselves as you are suggesting. Let's wait a couple of years until the consequences of scientific fraud on predictions of world climate are understood. Let's wait a little while so we can see whether the world behaves as the modellers suggest. Get on the bandwagon by all means, but use a bit of common sense.

I think that what everyone has got to realise is that the governments have tried to create a bogeyman in order to energise and control the populace . They tried it with the Muslims - the Islamic Terrorists - Al Qaeda - Saddam Hussein etc. - but didn't get very far . They have now tried a new bogeyman - global warming - it's just as false - but they are getting a lot further with it .

Boris, What an inane article: why are are in a party sentencing us to an organisation, the EU, that is intent on destroying the very industry that you wish to promote?

Well, well..I never thought I would see the day when somebody as hard headed and commonsensicle (new word) as Boris would go wobbly on the climate lobby. Boris, just tell the world how much the sea levels have risen in Aberdeen and Vanuatu in the last 60 years and then we can all get back to being commonsensicle.

Dear Boris I suggest you read (amongst others) Ian Plimer and Christopher Booker. We need CO2 - climate changes because that is what climate does We also need bankers, so at least we agree on something

I quite fincy a global catastrophe. It might take my mind of having my pension reduced by 75% aas a result of a prudent chancellor with a moral compass. The real world will get cooler or warmer as nature decrees. Funding unsustainable population growth in faraway countries (or indeed in the UK) is the primary source of any man made element. Simply paying green taxes will not make the problems we do have go away.

Poor old Boris - you used to be a breath of fresh air now you seem to have allowed yourself to be brainwashed. I guess the scandal of fraudulent and manipulated data that is Climategate means nothing to you - it's just business as usual. CO2 is NOT A GREENHOUSE GAS IT'S ALSO NOT A POLLUTANT - IT'S WHAT PLANTS LIVE ON TOO - WHY DON'T YOU DO A BIT OF HOMEWORK IN YOUR SPARE TIME INSTEAD OF WRITING AS IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING! What a pity you've allowed yourself to become GREEN BORE! But then it's not for nothing that you guys are now known as Blue Labour...

Another Bullingdon boy off to a beanfeast whilst defending the bankers, who are all in Switzerland depositing their bonuses. And they say we are still called the United Kingdom? don't make me laugh.

Dear Mr Johnson You will not find anyone more keen for you and your party to succeed in saving Britain than me. However, I think you are wrong in this case. Global warming is far from a catastrophe, if there is warming at all. Even if it was man made. Most people who consider themselves sceptic do so because they probably have a fairly good understanding that science is not about consensus. It is about being sceptical. It is scepticism that has brought us the understanding of the world we have today, however incomplete. When people self appoint as scientists and tell us all that the science is settled, we just know that they are lying. Science does not do consensus. Politics do. And if I may intrude in your territory, may I remind you that the greatness of Britain was directly derived from a House that does not do consensus. It is in the very nature of Parliament to be confrontational. Just look around the world and you will be able to see what consensus brings about. You will not like what you see if you look carefully. Having lived in thirteen countries, I can assure you, I do not.

What a dumb article. The picture says it all: it shows cooling towers emitting water vapour, and the caption describes it as CO2. Boris evidently hasn't seen the latest scientific information (e.g., there has been cooling over the last 10 years). It is excellently summarised on James Delingpole's Telegraph blogs. Perhaps it's time the Telegraph stopped paying Boris for bad journalism: he's not even as witty now as he used to be when he was an MP.

Dear Boris: There is every reason to doubt that "humanity faces a risk of environmental catastrophe", and every reason to doubt "the risk of an appalling rise in temperature". To understand this, you might like to have a look at the mass of real world data and convincing explanations gathered by good professional scientists over many years. Much of this material is available on the Internet. If you haven't got the time to look for yourself, then you could do a lot worse then start with Anne Stallybrass's marvellous primer -- http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm. If you investigate a little further, you will also find that many of the climate change sceptics are in fact very green and very much want to find solutions to real environmental problems of pollution and habitat destruction. It is just that they don't think that good solutions to the world’s problems are going to be found when everybody has a gun to their heads, and neither do I.

Boris - I have always thought you a highly intelligent and mostly sensible sort of guy. Have you really fallen for this nonsense about CO2 being a major problem? It almost makes me wonder if I ought to re-examine my own prejudices on the matter!

Meanwhile, in Edmonton, Canada, December 13 2009 was the coldest December 13 in Edmonton's history. The second coldest was December 13 2008. Until yesterday, I still believed, despite all the dishonesty revealed by climategate, that there was global warming. But yesterday I saw this short video on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04 What this video demonstrates is that the average annual temperature of the rural areas of the USA has not risen (or fallen) at all in the last 100 years. The warming we call global warming is actually city warming. It only only exists if we include the cities in the measurements. Of course the cities are part of the planet, but they are NOT warming up the rural areas nearby. The public are not told this; and with good reason if your objective is to convince the public that the warming is global, potentially catastrophic and human CO2 is responsible. You would perhaps not want to have to explain why the CO2 is only picking on the citites.

Climategate....climatgate... and of course CLIMATGATE. Hide the decline

'We are replicating too fast, hurtling towards nine billion souls on the planet like bacteria multiplying on a Petri dish. ' Yes Mr. Johnson, and half of them coming to live here.

Boris you have demonstrated your suitability for high office by singing to Dave the Rave's (a guess at his Bullingdon name, not indicative of current pursuits) hymn sheet on 'global warming'. A few points for you. 1. To convince thick journalists that opportunity not gloom is apposite, compose the equivalent of a marriage proposal based on their scaremongering: 'you're eating far too much so you'll get fat within 20 years; you're having too much sex, it costs 2000 carbon credits in condom manufacture, you'd better stop that sharpish; no one else will marry an old maid like you' and the like. I think any sentient intelligent woman would use two words, the first starting with the sixth letter of the alphabet...... 2. This whole conference is organised around interests, not around optimal solutions. That is why people are so angry. IF you looking to 'save the world', then prioritise solar panel sales, when manufacturing is limited, to Africa and other equatorial regions. The cost-benefit is maximised there. 3. Would you agree that by inflicting a credit crunch, early stage financiers can now slash valuations of young companies and grab the lion's share of their shareholding without adding any value? Is this the sort of society you want? If so, don't exhort others to sweat blood and tears to develop new technology only to give the vast majority of the added value to other folks. They deserve a percentage, but a rather lower one than they have been enjoying recently..... 4. The 'right finance' is merely the finance necessary to bring technology to market. No different to any other finance in other words. My view: identify the tipping point for any technology which makes it cost-effective vs traditional solutions and ONLY THEN invest demonstrator funding. There are usually quite enough problems even then to ensure a frightening drop-out rate. Before that, stick to R+D in either HEIs or well-funded corporations. There is a lot of woolly-headed thinking going on here and what is required is a gagging order on windbaggery and a set of technology development and implementation targets without which funding streams should be discontinued. We all know what I'm talking about - another gravy train for those solely interested in cash in their pockets in the absence of regular pointing of Kalashnikovs at miscreants half way through programmes.....

Before they save the planet,can they write off my loan,that will be a start.i worry about the planet later.

The whole argument about global warming is a crock or horseshit regardless of whether it is real or false. Man is not moral and therefore you will never convince future generations to do without the things we take for granted. As ever though the complicated problem has a simple solution - population control. If you want to reduce greenhouse gases by 30% then reduce the population by a similar or greater percentage. In the first world this is achieved by having tax incentives for having fewer children and in the third world it is achieved by guaranteeing a pension for every adult. Such a guarantee would be much cheaper than present overall levels of aid and would stop the breeding. They, after all, only over-breed for the same reasons we did in Victorian times - to provide children to look after us in old age. By the simple promotion of population growth we can reduce carbon emissions with the ease that 2 + 2 = 4. The added benefit of this is that belief in or scepticism of global warming (man-made or otherwise) is irrelevant. Population reduction will improve the quality of life for everyone on the planet and the ecological health of the planet itself. Anyone against that is not a sceptic but a moron.

The Carbon trading fiasco will collapse when the first super volcano goes off. Carbon bubbles, anyone?

Boris, If you think banks or bankers can save anyone your madder than a cut snake. A new report out to-day states bankers destroy seven pound in value for every pound they generate. ? Hospital cleaners generatate ten pounds in value for every pound they are paid. ? Bankers care about money. the more the better, and all for themsleves. They could'nt give a monkeys about the planet. They are like the very rich on the Titanic, pockets loaded with gold, which they knew would send them to the bottom of the sea, but were to greedy and stupid to throw away. The planet is dying NOW. Pacific Islands are allready under water,In Bolivia, glaciers that has provided the people with drinking water,and irregation water,for the last million years have melted, I live in Australia, we are now experiencing bush fires even in winter, record floods, record droughts,and the Great Barrier Reef dying. Yet even here we have "politicians" describing global warming as a "load of crap". If Oz cannot reach an agreement on the perils of climate change, what chance has over 200 countries world wide ? Answer, Non. We are all bollaxed.and deserve all thats coming our way.

Dear Mr Johnson The scheme you have put forward is a wheeze to charge us for the air we breathe, and although it is very nice of you to suppose that banks, as persons, might be persuaded to "save the planet", they don't really want to. Generally speaking, if someone else can profit even marginally, banks will not fund such a scheme. You will have to improve your proposal on the margins by demonstrating for us all how much profit banks can book on the scheme, and at what point they can pull out. It will need to be shown that when the scheme collapses, the world will fry to a crisp - but only then. If it cannot be shown that without funding the world will end, then it can't be funded. Why do you suppose banks were so anxious to have Glass-Steagall repealed? Saving the world isn't something they can report on their balance sheets or really confess to their shareholders. Imagine it! After crashing themselves and kicking the supports out from under every major social support programme, world wide, the CEO strides onto the platform and announces: We at MegaFachoCrimbank want to save the world! So far carbon tax trading has: a) created a vast specialty in faux-Science and a cottage industry in grant-getting; b) shown that if major powers promise £1.5 billion, there will be sufficient funds to populate swanky offices - but no more; c)that blowhards love it. Is the sky falling?

I have often asked "why are office buildings lit up all night when they are obviously unused?" The answer, I'm afraid is our old chum "health 'n' safety"; I can only assume it is too dangerous for a night guard to switch on a light as he enters a room.