The days when environmental concerns meant checking the weather forecast for rain before we organise our “Kenduri-Kendara” are long gone. An issue once dismissed as “tomorrow’s problem” is now the biggest issue facing the whole planet. The leaders of each countries around the world are falling over themselves to establish their green credentials with the people.
In the UK, the deafening chorus of approval that greeted Sir Nicholas Stern’s report on climate change has been followed by the climate change bill, which has the long term aim of reducing carbon dioxide emissions 60% by the year 2050. Its impact is likely to be felt by all those involved in the business, from blue chip clients to the small medium enterprises.
The British Government policy on sustainability has already been felt in socio-urban and regeneration agendas where many politicians and councils have demanded high-density mixed urban developments, in a bid to preserve social cohesion, green spaces and the planet at large.
But are political leaders and business lobbies jeopardising economic growth in their zeal to force the whole industry to embrace green issues?
Malaysia is a non-annex 1 country, not obligated to reduce our Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. However as signatory of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Malaysia has ratified the Kyoto Protocol in September 2002. This indicates the Malaysian Government strongly support Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) activities and has implemented an institutional framework. Furthermore, there is a great potential for GHG reduction projects in Malaysian in several sectors.
So how much sacrifice from the Malaysian business is really needed to avoid, for example, the apocalyptic conclusions of the Stern report? And does the business mostly dominated by short term concerns – investor value and share price – really have the ability or appetite to embrace technologies that take years to break even?
I think the Malaysian Government should tackle these issues head on, putting business leaders, politicians, opinion-makers and environmentalists face to face. They will need to take a critical look at all aspects of the green debate in the immediate future and long term. This is because the downturn economy will challenge the whole industry to cure its pollution ill and come up with more green solutions and at the same time to flourish their business in a slow market and catalyse innovation to create new opportunity.
The current sustainability agenda should be purely dominated by the increasing interdependence of public and private sectors. The government has to make it clear that the industry’s use of natural resources, the level of pollution and the amount of waste generated by the business and in use are purely unsustainable. Whereas the business is looking to examine energy and resource efficiencies to reduce their operational cost significantly
I would rather suggest for us to look at some of the critical issues as follow;
i. A possible lack of coordination between Federal and State Government, an overlay bureaucratic planning process and differences between city councils and local authorities that have blighted process on sustainability improvement.
ii. How the sustainable measures will be paid for as the government may offer a carrot through incentives, but the business is likely to face the stick of increased taxation.
iii. The business needs to re-examine their emissions trading and carbon offsetting in order to embrace change even by using their purchasing power to impose it on the supply chain.
I believe it is important to highlights how far up the politic and business power, the issue of sustainability always come at the forefront. The message has come that it is the responsibility of both public and private sector to show their commitment to work together across the board in resolving the pollution and carbon issues that people and market can’t deal with and create something that the people and market needs, whether that is renewal energy, carbon reduction, waste recycling or etc. and do that in an innovative and cheaper way.
In the UK, the deafening chorus of approval that greeted Sir Nicholas Stern’s report on climate change has been followed by the climate change bill, which has the long term aim of reducing carbon dioxide emissions 60% by the year 2050. Its impact is likely to be felt by all those involved in the business, from blue chip clients to the small medium enterprises.
The British Government policy on sustainability has already been felt in socio-urban and regeneration agendas where many politicians and councils have demanded high-density mixed urban developments, in a bid to preserve social cohesion, green spaces and the planet at large.
But are political leaders and business lobbies jeopardising economic growth in their zeal to force the whole industry to embrace green issues?
Malaysia is a non-annex 1 country, not obligated to reduce our Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. However as signatory of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Malaysia has ratified the Kyoto Protocol in September 2002. This indicates the Malaysian Government strongly support Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) activities and has implemented an institutional framework. Furthermore, there is a great potential for GHG reduction projects in Malaysian in several sectors.
So how much sacrifice from the Malaysian business is really needed to avoid, for example, the apocalyptic conclusions of the Stern report? And does the business mostly dominated by short term concerns – investor value and share price – really have the ability or appetite to embrace technologies that take years to break even?
I think the Malaysian Government should tackle these issues head on, putting business leaders, politicians, opinion-makers and environmentalists face to face. They will need to take a critical look at all aspects of the green debate in the immediate future and long term. This is because the downturn economy will challenge the whole industry to cure its pollution ill and come up with more green solutions and at the same time to flourish their business in a slow market and catalyse innovation to create new opportunity.
The current sustainability agenda should be purely dominated by the increasing interdependence of public and private sectors. The government has to make it clear that the industry’s use of natural resources, the level of pollution and the amount of waste generated by the business and in use are purely unsustainable. Whereas the business is looking to examine energy and resource efficiencies to reduce their operational cost significantly
I would rather suggest for us to look at some of the critical issues as follow;
i. A possible lack of coordination between Federal and State Government, an overlay bureaucratic planning process and differences between city councils and local authorities that have blighted process on sustainability improvement.
ii. How the sustainable measures will be paid for as the government may offer a carrot through incentives, but the business is likely to face the stick of increased taxation.
iii. The business needs to re-examine their emissions trading and carbon offsetting in order to embrace change even by using their purchasing power to impose it on the supply chain.
I believe it is important to highlights how far up the politic and business power, the issue of sustainability always come at the forefront. The message has come that it is the responsibility of both public and private sector to show their commitment to work together across the board in resolving the pollution and carbon issues that people and market can’t deal with and create something that the people and market needs, whether that is renewal energy, carbon reduction, waste recycling or etc. and do that in an innovative and cheaper way.
No comments:
Post a Comment