5 Beyond the business case Working in Zuidas, I often see people pitching creative, clever and sustainable projects to companies. Most of these start-ups construct a logical narrative – starting with a problem, ending with its solution – all supported by a proper business case. That business case is provided to convince companies to participate or invest. The start-up proposes a win-win scenario: its product or service is environmentally friendly and the potential investor saves money or stands to earn more money: everybody is happy. There are a lot of opportunities for smart and innovative companies during this energy transition, also in Zuidas. But for now, more than anything, the transition will cost a lot of money. Yet, the more we spend now, the less it will cost us in the future. In its bi-annual risk analysis the Dutch Central Bank (DNB) warns about the financial consequences of waiting too long before executing a radical climate policy. “Delay increases the risk that ‘abrupt’ measures will be necessary, which could lead to ‘heavy losses’ for the Dutch financial sector” (NRC, 18 October 2018). The Dutch National Bank thereafter presents four possible scenarios in which far-reaching climate policy, increased CO2 prices and linked energy prices cause from 48 up to 159 billion Euros of losses; ‘only’ 48 billion if we act quickly and accurately now, 159 billion in the worst scenario, if we wait too long. And these losses don’t even include actual investments in solutions, we’re talking about pure devaluation of assets. We cannot avoid that the measures we need to take, will affect the economy; companies and personal finances, regardless of income level. Therefor the question ‘What’s in it for me?’ is no longer relevant, definitely not in the long term. ‘You should approach it as you would a child’ a friend of mine said in discussion, ‘You invest a lot of energy in raising them, but you don’t ask yourself what your profits will be, do you?’ Good point. Efforts in climate change should be made with that logic: well thought out, but unconditionally. For, as long as people keep asking ‘What do I get out of it?’ we will not get anywhere at all. And that question is easy to answer anyway. How about clean air, less natural disasters, anyone? I am reminded of an old advertisement for a credit card company: ‘Heavy investment in climate change policy? 159 billion Euro. A liveable world? Priceless…’ The climate conference in Poland held in December 2018 concluded that we need to work more intensely to protect our planet from further global warming. This conclusion was based on the IPCC report (the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change) published earlier that year. In the report a significant difference in consequences is described between 1.5 degrees Celsius global warming and 2 degrees Celsius. With “only” 1.5 degrees, weather will be less extreme, as will the damage to our ecosystem, sea levels will rise 10 centimetre less by 2100 and developing countries will have a significantly reduced chance of suffering from food and water scarcity. In addition, a global rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius as opposed to 2, will cost three to four times less, despite any economic slowdown resulting from strict laws and guidelines. Half a degree, one cannot even feel that difference in air temperature. However, that half degree will save us billions and billions in damages, and more so: nature, a more stable political environment, less drought. In other words, a liveable world. All that for just half a degree. If that is not a good business case, I do not know what is. Maartje Oome Editor-in-Chief Photo: Lotte Gottschal Sustainability report Zuidas 2018
6 Online Touch Home