Tag Archives: Climate change

Rockaway Beach Provides A Sad Example Of The Integrated Nature Of The Triple Bottom Line

Are you familiar with the Triple Bottom Line? First defined by John Elkington more than two decades ago, it refers to the principle that an organization should measure its social performance and environmental performance, and not solely its financial (or economic) performance. It is occasionally known as the Three P’s of performance, i.e. People, Planet, Profit.

But the principle can also be interpreted in a more complex manner. Each of these three performance factors impacts the others. Thus, the “bottom lines” of these factors should be reported in an integrated manner.

Last week, the City of New York sadly announced a community restriction that illustrates the integrated nature of the Triple Bottom Line. Due to the hurricanes and rising tides of climate change, severe sand erosion on the city’s southeastern peninsula has led to the closing of a prime strip of sandy beach in the Rockaways.

The decision occurred after local tourist businesses opened for the season. Residents, of course, have already begun to protest their government leaders’ decision.

In this situation, an environmental crisis has led to a social and economic catastrophe for a working neighborhood that relies on its primary community resource — i.e. its summer beach — for its survival.

The residents of the Rockaways will gladly attest to the integrative nature of the Triple Bottom Line. Hopefully, the municipal leaders of your own town will learn from the current travails of their New York City colleagues.

America Alone

You may have noticed that the nations of the world are segregated in a pair of distinct groups. One is committed to fighting climate change, and the other is not.

How many nations are in each bloc? Until last week, 196 countries had signed onto the Paris Accord. And two, the United States and Syria, had not done so.

But last week, Syria announced that it is joining the Accord. The count then shifted to 197-to-1.

So what does this mean to the United States? How worrisome is its isolation from the other nations on earth?

It may be comforting to recall that America has taken lonely diplomatic stands in the past. After the First World War, for instance, it declined to join the League of Nations even though President Woodrow Wilson won a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to create it. The League mediated several territorial disputes before shutting down and transferring its assets to the United Nations after the Second World War.

But is this example truly relevant to our present day circumstances? At the conclusion of the First World War, none of the European (or Asian) nations was in any position to challenge the United States. Britain, France, and the other Allies were focused on rebuilding their decimated economies. Indeed, there was no global competitor with the relative strength of modern China to challenge the American nation.

And it is perhaps more worrisome that the League did not fulfill its mission to keep the world at peace. Without the United States, it was powerless to stop the rise of fascism and the onset of the Second World War.

So as America bids farewell to Syria and assumes its lonely stance, it may be reasonable to feel a bit worried about the future. After all, even without a global rival like China, the self-imposed isolation of the United States from the global diplomatic community a century ago preceded the rise of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Emperor Hirohito, and Benito Mussolini.

Climate Change: Tipping Points

For the past few years, environmentalists have voiced concern that we’ve passed a tipping point of climate change. Even if we achieve drastic reductions in emissions, they fear, the current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may inexorably increase its temperature by more than two degrees. And meteorologists warn us that such warming may create catastrophic damage to our global weather patterns.

But before you lose all hope for our planet, you may wish to consider a different tipping point. Namely, public awareness of the problem — and demand for solutions — may have passed the point where polluters can safely continue their behavior.

Consider, for instance, the Financial Stability Board. It’s the global consortium of central regulators and banking institutions that was formed during the global economic crisis of 2009 to establish universal financial standards. It launched the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures eighteen months ago to address environmental concerns.

Last week, the Task Force issued its final report. It recommended that publicly traded corporations issue more detailed disclosures about their governance practices, business strategies, risk management processes, and metrics and targets involving climate change.

Let’s think about that for a moment. The banking institutions that finance our global economy are establishing a universal expectation that corporations must integrate climate change considerations into all core business activities.

Although the Task Force announcement didn’t receive a fraction of the attention that was generated by the United States’ decision to withdraw from the Paris Accord, this new expectation may explain why many leaders are now optimistic that America will still meet the Agreement’s emission reduction targets.

So if you’re feeling depressed about the possibility that the environmental impact of climate change is irreversible, please keep in mind that our society’s awareness of the problem — and our determination to address it — may be irreversible as well.

In other words, one tipping point is confronting a countervailing one. And because so many individuals around the world are racing to manage both elements, it’s possible to hope that our planet has a fighting chance of survival.