China's role in Africa: A thought when worlds connect with IT

With Skype strange situations happens. Sitting in Beijing, in Jade Garden Hotel close to the forbidden city, where the increasing food prices are being discussed intensively and so are links to Africa for obvious reasons.

Then talking to Penny Davies who participates in an OECD meeting in Kigali about aid, who is living in Hôtel des Mille Collines, the hotel that became “famous” as the building in which more than a thousand people took refuge during the Rwandan Genocide of 1994.

Only 14 years ago… Beijing was a very different place then… The following was world news April 1994 from China:

"Beijing's first public showroom for imported cars opens this week, an important step in turning the car from a tool of privilege into an ordinary commodity."

Now oil, food and China top news, still few are discussing the links and the history that brought us here.

World Future/Fossil Power Index 2008: -33

Introducing a “World Future/Fossil Power Index”

After reading Forbes an old idea springs to mind again. I would like to see a global “future/fossil power index” being calculated. This does not have to be very sophisticated to give a sense of direction. It would look at the companies with the world’s top revenues as this indicates where we put the money to provide the services we want (or think we want). It would also indicate the lobbying capacity of the "fossil industry" vs. the "future industry" that in many cases have good reasons to slow down a transition to a low carbon economy.

First outline for the “future/fossil power index” based on Forbes top 50 list over revenues/sales

+100 for companies providing services that are reasonable sustainable and have a track record of supporting low carbon legislation/initiatives (not very many on the top 50 list)

+50 for companies that are doing more good than harm through investments and/or lobbying

0 for companies that are neutral (either with a business that is not really pushing in any direction or a company that do as much good as bad)

-50 for companies that are starting to move in a more low carbon direction and/or doing some lobbying in support of a low carbon development. But where the majority of the business is still in a high carbon area and the majority of investments still go in a direction where they lock us into a structure that making reductions more difficult

-100 for companies that still investing in high carbon solutions and either blocking or in other ways trying to stop rules and regulations that support a low carbon future.

Looking at top 50 I get the following list (based on my knowledge on the companies and rather giving a good score than a bad, so in reality we might be a little worse off, but as the rhetoric is carbon friendly in most cases I think we can get a momentum as soon as the biggest obstacles are out of the way) :

2 Companies +100

2 Companies +50

17 Companies 0

17 Companies -50

11 Companies -100

This would result in a 2008 Future/Fossil Power index of: -33

So we still have a long way to go, and I hope to follow-up this next year. Hopefully with a much better score.

World Future/Fossil Power Index 2008: -33

Introducing a “World Future/Fossil Power Index”

After reading Forbes an old idea springs to mind again. I would like to see a global “future/fossil power index” being calculated. This does not have to be very sophisticated to give a sense of direction. It would look at the companies with the world’s top revenues as this indicates where we put the money to provide the services we want (or think we want). It would also indicate the lobbying capacity of the "fossil industry" vs. the "future industry" that in many cases have good reasons to slow down a transition to a low carbon economy.

First outline for the “future/fossil power index” based on Forbes top 50 list over revenues/sales

+100 for companies providing services that are reasonable sustainable and have a track record of supporting low carbon legislation/initiatives (not very many on the top 50 list)

+50 for companies that are doing more good than harm through investments and/or lobbying

0 for companies that are neutral (either with a business that is not really pushing in any direction or a company that do as much good as bad)

-50 for companies that are starting to move in a more low carbon direction and/or doing some lobbying in support of a low carbon development. But where the majority of the business is still in a high carbon area and the majority of investments still go in a direction where they lock us into a structure that making reductions more difficult

-100 for companies that still investing in high carbon solutions and either blocking or in other ways trying to stop rules and regulations that support a low carbon future.

Looking at top 50 I get the following list (based on my knowledge on the companies and rather giving a good score than a bad, so in reality we might be a little worse off, but as the rhetoric is carbon friendly in most cases I think we can get a momentum as soon as the biggest obstacles are out of the way) :

2 Companies +100

2 Companies +50

17 Companies 0

17 Companies -50

11 Companies -100

This would result in a 2008 Future/Fossil Power index of: -33

So we still have a long way to go, and I hope to follow-up this next year. Hopefully with a much better score.

It’s the Climate stupid: Arriving to Beijing with Forbes 2008 Guide to the biggest companies in the world: 2

Looking at the lists in Forbes from a climate perspective is not the happiest reading. It is obvious that some serious strategic action is needed of we are to change direction.

Let’s look at the revenues and profit for the top sectors:

Winners Sales in billion dollars
Oil & Gas 3,761
Banking 3,439
Insurance 2,085
Consumer Durables 2,019
Retailing 1,549

Winners Profit in billion dollars
Banking 398
Oil & gas 386
Insurance 150
Minerals 143
Div. financials 135

These first are the sectors we put most of our money, the second those who without much problem could help us towards a sustainable future. The question is how they are reinvesting their revenues and what they are doing with the profit…

It’s the Climate stupid: Arriving to Beijing with Forbes 2008 Guide to the biggest companies in the world: 2

Looking at the lists in Forbes from a climate perspective is not the happiest reading. It is obvious that some serious strategic action is needed of we are to change direction.

Let’s look at the revenues and profit for the top sectors:

Winners Sales in billion dollars
Oil & Gas 3,761
Banking 3,439
Insurance 2,085
Consumer Durables 2,019
Retailing 1,549

Winners Profit in billion dollars
Banking 398
Oil & gas 386
Insurance 150
Minerals 143
Div. financials 135

These first are the sectors we put most of our money, the second those who without much problem could help us towards a sustainable future. The question is how they are reinvesting their revenues and what they are doing with the profit…