Happy Earth Day
ESG
April 22nd, 2024.
Happy Earth Day. News on the environment front remains, as ever, complex, and mixed.
Since the first Earth Day, 50 years ago, there have been some stunning successes. The "hole" in the ozone layer was first observed in 1979. Action was relatively swift. Just eight years later, in 1987, the Montreal Protocol was adopted. Within another 20 years (2006) ozone depletion peaked, and there have already been signs of recovery. While ozone protection will not reach pre-1980 levels for a few more decades, the imminent dangers have already passed.
In 2016, the giant panda was removed from the list of endangered species, though it is still classed as "vulnerable". The panda remains the logo of World Wildlife Fund. Maybe the group should consider changing its logo. A global competition to choose a new one would be a great way of engaging fans around the world and celebrate one of the most significant ever victories by a non-profit organization. Start planning now for the tenth anniversary of the panda's removal from endangered status.
There have been great strides in reducing urban river pollution in developed countries. In the cities I know best, the Hudson and the Thames are far cleaner than in my childhood. The Thames was declared "biologically dead" in 1957. No fish were spotted over a 69km stretch during the 1950s. When salmon returned in 1979, it was the first time they had been seen in the river for 150 years. My wife regularly swims in the Hudson, not far from where she grew up, but that is not something would ever have done as a child.
Infant mortality, hunger, and poverty have all been falling globally for decades.
But, then, there is climate change. Journalists and politicians - especially in the US - debate whether it is real, or whether it is caused by humans. In the real world, scientists debate how fast it is progressing, how accurate future projections are likely to be, and to what extent it is caused by human activity. And we continue to produce more carbon emissions. To stop suddenly would be essentially impossible. Literally billions of people would die.
But even here there is good news. Progress with solar and wind power has been faster than anticipated. Batteries are ever more efficient. By some estimates, wind and solar are now the cheapest sources of electricity. Even Germany and China, long major subsidizers of coal, are now betting big on renewables.
The International Energy Agency thinks carbon emissions could peak next year, and certainly by 2030. That's not net zero. That's just net output being lower in a few years than they are today. Things will be getting worse somewhat more slowly. But with new sources of energy generation and storage, the actual turnaround could be closer than we expect.
领英推荐
Tech
In the 1970s, The Six Million Dollar Man, was fiction. But now real bionic prosthetics are being used as aid for Ukraine. The global market for prosthetic robot arms is expected to grow by almost half a billion USD by 2027.
Ethics
The biggest problem with computers has long been that they do what you say, not what you want. With artificial intelligence, including autonomous vehicles, the parameters of which will have to be selected in advance.
Take, for example, the classic Trolley Problem, first set out by Philippa Foot in 1967. You are invited to consider a situation in which you have two - and only two - options. You can act, killing one person and saving five, or you can choose not to act, dooming the five people to die.
But an autonomous vehicle has to have its parameters selected in advance. Should it prioritize the safety of its occupants or society as a whole? Should it kill five bystanders to save one person in the car? Most people tell pollsters that it should prioritize the safety of society as a whole. But most also say they would not buy a vehicle like that. They would personally choose to buy a vehicle that prioritized the welfare of its occupants.
Alongside the technical issues and regulatory roadblocks, there are still ethical debates to be had.
Global Channels, Production and Capabilities Lead
7 个月Great article Quentin
In the original and proper sense of "climate change", of course there is climate change and their always has been so long as the Earth had had a climate. This is also the definition used by the IPCC. Using "climate change" to mean "primarly or exclusively caused by humans" is a cop out.? There is an odd notion that the level of COs a century ago was the right level. Even though it was (and is) much lower than through much of the Earth's existence. A century to two centuries ago, it was too cold for humans. There was barely enough COs for plant life to grow. It is not a coincidence that agricultural productivity has been improving -- including areas where no humans are involved.? Estimates claiming that wind and solar are the cheapest source of electricity are ignoring many relevant costs, including up time, storage costs, and massive upgrades to the grid. Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) is fraudulent and should not be used for comparisons.