I couldn't let today close without some comment about climate change.
Many years ago, when it was predicted that most organisations would have to report their carbon footprint, accountants were seen as the obvious choice to help drive/monitor the regulations. Being that way inclined, I had a go at measuing my own (carbon footprint) and published the firm's on its website.
That was in my naive "surely everyone is concerned by this" period and, of course, government and regulators did nothing, preferring instead to carry on regardless and wait for someone, or something, else to do/happen.
Today climate change is trending again and so, assuming someone out there is prepared to stick their neck out and do something about reversing current heating policies and legislate for heat reducing behaviour, how do you see yourself as getting involved?
For those who have not a clue about what I'm getting at, think about the imposition of Money Laundering regs, the FRS or GDPR and imagine how the imposition of carbon reporting and enviro. behaviour legislation would impact on you and your clients and how you'd respond.
Having messed about with all this in that prior period my imaginings included turning up to a client in my diesel and, taking them out for lunch where they ordered steak.
Replies (35)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
It's not all that long since an Ice Age was the likely scenario for the future.
And diesel was the future five years ago. As demonstrated by the spikes in the taxation of electric company cars.
Where's all this electricity going to come from ?
The other day I sat in my garden late into the evening and supped beer. We are growing grapes on the patio. I'm loving this climate change malarkey. Bring it on.
UK Population of 65m versus world population of 7.7bn suggests to me measures are futile.
We could sacrifice ourselves and lead the way but I’m reminded that we aren’t the influencers in the world we used to be.
When China, India and Brazil take this seriously it might be time for UK to join in.
So, sorry Paul, I won’t be joining this particular bandwagon. Humans are greedy, selfish and stupid when it comes to the bigger picture. I’m only human.
I don't chuck litter. Not because I am environmentally conscious, but because I was properly brought up. It's simple good manners.
I vote because I have an opinion and I am, within the limited parameters of the game, permitted to express it. It is highly unlikely I would ever vote Green.
I do a half-hearted recycle but understand that there is a chance it will all go to the same landfill so I am not confident it is a good use of my time.
Shall we agree that implementing any significant change will be a huge struggle. I am not a campaigner or activist. I leave that to people who already have too much money or those that wish to exist on the fringes of normal society.
I am broadly supportive of Paul's wish for climate change to be taken more seriously, but sadly am not convinced that "accounting " measurement is going to become that meaningful any time soon, certainly not at a national level.
I have the background of having been exposed to a fair bit of literature re COP21 et al as I have a daughter who spent four years getting an MA in Sustainable Development from St Andrews ,and I ended up doing a bit of reading, around her dissertation area, when she was brainstorming to narrow a definite question which her dissertation could address.
She ended up commenting and critiquing" Revising the Design and Review Frameworks re INDCs" and to take her 11,000 words down to a summary, and not to mince words, concluded current mechanisms re same were pretty weak.
National measurement of commitments and outcomes appears to need more rigour, until there is a far more rigid, rules based, generally accepted measurement basis at the macro level, countries will, despite headline agreements, continue to pay lip service to their commitments.
To give some comfort there does appear to be a generational impetus to changed behaviour, younger people do appear to take the potential and current issues far more seriously than older ones, over time attitudes will change and with that hopefully behaviours.
Anyway she is now embarked on an Msc in Planning so maybe, in years to come, a more than lip service approach (Insert your sustainability platitudes within your planning framework submission documents to tick the Environmental Impact part of the process) will spring out of the expansion of our cities, and far more emphasis will be placed on designing where and how we live, transport links,facilities etc, a combined , more joined up, sustainable planning approach will emerge.
We can then stop just playing at the edges ,as to me often appears the case re planning submissions I have read, merely considering materials used, plant a few trees and a wind turbine to give our developments their "green" credentials and that is enough; sustainable living and design is far more than merely the current fad of the month.
So my input, I have given the UK (and paid for, St Andrews is expensive) an SD graduate with an interest in housing policy.
Andy sees this as a sacrifice, a loss of something, whereas it's quite the opposite.
All change involves sacrifice. Why else is it so hard to achieve?
I think it's more a case of all change involves the perception of sacrifice. I find that, whenever I change something, I usually wish I'd just done it sooner.
Now, if I can just stop smoking and sacrifice the cost, the shortness of breath and the foreshortening of my life expectancy . . .
“Will climate change keep you in business”. Maybe there will be a market for us at some stage in the future, but if such reporting became mandatory for SMEs in the distant future, I suspect that specialists who have never been accountants would dominate the market.
This country is progressively de-carbonising, which is a good thing in my view. We have had the capability for decades to generate all of our electricity from nuclear or renewables, but have chosen not to. In the coming couple of decades, maybe we will reach 80%. Virtually all UK land vehicle transport will also be electric or electricfied over that period, as we are currently at the start of a transport revolution. Developments in battery technology may even allow air journeys of a few hundred miles to be battery powered.
But, as Andy Partridge says, the huge problem for carbon emissions is over population, particularly in the developing world. It is relatively easy to build dozens of nuclear power stations or thousands of winds turbines, but much harder to try to restrict a billion women having fewer babies, particularly where the culture is to have 4, 5 or 6.
I believe that there tends to be an inverse relationship between family size and GDP per capita. Therefore as less developed countries become more well off, family size reduces.
...but much harder to try to restrict a billion women having fewer babies, particularly where the culture is to have 4, 5 or 6.
Try restricting men then. Most women in developing countries have few or no reproductive rights. As for the "culture" of large families, that's due to the latter, plus a high rate of child mortality will always result in more births. Victorian Britons had more kids to ensure at least some survived to adulthood.
Emancipation of women is the key to family size. There is a proven correlation between keeping girls in education and falling fertility rates. UNESCO http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_c/popups/mod13t01s005.html
The alternative " Modest Proposal" for western countries is to somehow restrict the activities of the medical professions.
In effect consider medical provision as giving full cover to age x, 75% cover to age y, 50% cover to age Z then you are on your own with just pain relief to help your passing.
Catch is that this in effect creates a society where the rich can purchase longer and longer lives (albeit its quality may not be that hot).
The alternative approach is preserving life on a set of tests based on likely life quality, but this has some pretty nasty echoes from WWII.
Whilst birth rates are going to be part of the future problems,continual extensions of life expectancy, with bodies outlasting minds, is going to be another part, and as it is reasonable to expect life expectancies to keep increasing throughout the whole world the issue is unlikely to go away any time soon.
Im not sure I see accountants as being involved in any kind of reporting. Other than an analytical mind, what do we bring to the party? Depending on the client, it might be that engineers, surveyors, electricians or others would be much better placed than us to advise on carbon footprint.
I'd suggest that if reporting becomes compulsory then it might open up an entirely new market for consultancy/advisory services and maybe some accountants will join with suitably knowledgeable professionals to provide a service but we wont be anywhere near the forefront of it.
Paul there was ESOS reporting where all companies with more than 250 staff have to report there company energy use or you get fined.
I am assuming that is start that if it does not reduce over time then you will get fined, or name and shamed like the do with gender pay gap.
The problem with green energy is that other been green it doesn't really work as its too expensive.
It only works when there is loads of government grants around. For me every roof should have solar panels on it as there is nothing more sure than daylight, but once the tariffs were reduced no one seems to bother with it now.
Its the same with wind turbines etc cost a fortune, look terrible on landscape and only work when windy, but not too windy otherwise they get switched off.
As someone who spends a lot of my time on the coast and fishing I have been appalled at the amount of crap there is on our beaches which no one has done anything about for years until David Attenborough showed a picture of a dolphin with a Tesco bag on its flipper now everyone is all over it.
We can do our bit, but unless China and the US get involved it will be like p*ssing in the wind.
My next car may well be electric or hybrid as I see Audi are now all over it.
If the reporting of carbon footprint became a thing I am sure there will be loads of ambulance chasers who pop to do it for you, but having done 1 gender pay gap report for a client that's enough for me.
But, do they say do whole of life costs rather than just running costs?
Building a car has a fair amount of emissions so for someone like myself, a low mileage driver, it may be better for the environment if I drive my older, less fuel efficient car, for more years rather than change my car every three years to a more energy efficient model.
My house is 150 years old next year, it may not be that energy efficient (sash and case wooden windows etc) re running costs, circa £1,800 H & L a year, but the original energy expended cutting the sandstone, quarrying the slate etc, is spread over its life (and there is certainly no reason why it cannot manage another 100 years) making the energy re its creation per annum very low when compared with its modern competitors- if you look at how modern flats are built they may be far more energy efficient on a running basis but how many years will they remain standing , maybe only 100?
I am of the view that environmental measurement metrics are still in their infancy, you need a modern day Pacioli to devise far more robust "envionmental accounting" measurement, and whole of life calculations are critical re such an appraisal.
I have a chimney sweep client who can leave substantial carbon footprints if he comes straight from work.
You'd be surprised how much woodburning goes on these days.
He has a little sideline as a Lucky Chimney Sweep, too.
I do a lot of it myself at the property in my picture, but that is sunny Sweden where no holiday is complete without working through 1-2m^3 of birch lengths with the chainsaw and the log splitter before stacking in the stage one log store (I have two log stores- stage one newly cut and split for drying out, stage 2 those that are dried and are ready for the fire)
In fact come this Saturday (school October holiday up here this Friday) I will be sitting over there in front of the open fire likely burning a large basket of logs each day we are there.
Now I do have a sweep in Sweden but I have never met him (or her) so cannot really comment on his/her carbon footprint.
If you are happy making the changes you have made that is fine, but I would guess that left to humanity's own devices we are doomed as a species.
We can not rely on governments whose focus is generally limited to being re-elected. That leaves the planet's human inhabitants to drive change. They need to be convinced that:
a) There is climate change
b) The change is largely man-made
c) The change can be stabilised and reversed by a shift in habits.
That is a tall order for educated savvy people because it requires 'faith'. Imagine how much more difficult for the majority of the global population who have not had the benefit of Western 'privilege'.
PS. I have a hybrid vehicle.