Posted by Nick

The New York Times ran an article that featured biodegradable household products. Worth mentioning, primarily because though one hand more sustainable, there’s also the potential that they deepen our (American) proclivity for conspicuous consumerism under the auspices of responsible shopping. I’m also concerned–as the article duly notes–about the concept of family heirlooms and keepsakes, which deepen family bonds and serve as the physical embodiment of oral traditions. Should everything we physically surround ourselves with eventually go kaput!, one has to wonder whether we find ourselves enjoying inner peace or suffering from utter despair…

Posted by Tom:

This week I noted two interesting articles about the USA in the press relating to all things Bright and Green.

The first, here, talks about China’s CO2 emissions, which are now ‘greater’ than the US’s. As it rightly points out, the overall output might be greater than in the US, but per capita, the Chinese are 75th, whilst the US remains firmly at the top of the tree. As the author wisely points out – ‘can we stop pretending that the average person in China is living like the average North American’. It’s time for the US to realise that big isn’t beautiful. (Nick, our esteemed-US MD drives a smart car in San Fran, attracting more attention than any Hummer or Porsche). The tide is turning on the big is beautiful ethos, but the US has a long way to go. It’s laughable that they might hide by claiming the Chinese are now chief culprits. American’s are proud, nationalistic people – let’s keep the pressure on them as the biggest villains.

The second, here, from the Economist – regarding a talent shortage in the green startup space. I notice Nick has also noted it below on this blog. I have a different angle:

Apparently, global investment in renewable-energy business alone rose 60% to $148.4 billion, with one of the key bottlenecks being the lack of green, entrepreneurial talent. It also says that 90% of executives in clean-tech firms cited top-level recruitment as a serious concern.

Yet we find that people are still reluctant to use recruiters to help them find these key people, even on a contingency basis (no hire, no fee). Those who’ve used Bright Green seem relieved to have one of their biggest problems mitigated. Yet too many people we’ve come across spend months of valuable time, and huge expense hunting for people themselves in the name of ‘saving’ money, or not having to pay recruitment fees. That’s fine, we’ve plenty of business coming our way – but I would recommend any business owner take a look at the real value of attracting the best people quickly and efficiently allowing them to grow their business over the coming years. The war for talent doesn’t stop just because we’re in the caring and sharing green space.

Posted by Nick

The “Economist” has long provided an overtly pro-market perspective to my weekly reading. A recent article caught my attention with its byline, “A talent shortage hits green startups”, and its source city: San Francisco.

Good timing, Bright Green SF.

The article goes on to decry the talent shortage in the Bay Area experienced by green firms. It mentioned a New England bootcamp for non-greenies where they green up their credentials to then join the green workforce. Great idea–but is it necessary?

In many way, green jobs are just combination of a good ole fashion 9a-5p with passion and purpose mixed in for better results. Advocating for a greener, cleaner job can begin with a basic assertion that there’s a smarter, more sustainable way to do one’s job. Better processes, cleaner products, more sustainable results. The equation holds true from cleaning bathrooms to building power generation plants. My gut reaction: don’t get caught up in the concept of a green job (this from a green recruiter). Green’s all around us–whether at home or work. It’s primarily a question of how you engage with your employment that determines whether it’s a labour pain or pleasure that keeps you paid.

Posted by Nick

The “Economist” has long provided an overtly pro-market perspective to my weekly reading. A recent article caught my attention with its byline, “A talent shortage hits green startups”, and its source city: San Francisco.

Good timing, Bright Green SF.

The article goes on to decry the talent shortage in the Bay Area experienced by green firms. It mentioned a New England bootcamp for non-greenies where they green up their credentials to then join the green workforce. Great idea–but is it necessary?

In many way, green jobs are just combination of a good ole fashion 9a-5p with passion and purpose mixed in for better results. Advocating for a greener, cleaner job can begin with a basic assertion that there’s a smarter, more sustainable way to do one’s job. Better processes, cleaner products, more sustainable results. The equation holds true from cleaning bathrooms to building power generation plants. My gut reaction: don’t get caught up in the concept of a green job (this from a green recruiter). Green’s all around us–whether at home or work. It’s primarily a question of how you engage with your employment that determines whether it’s a labour pain or pleasure that keeps you paid.

Posted by Tom

Every day I get Jon Snow’s Snowmail, which is a great daily digest of the news. Today, he comments on Shell’s withdraw from building a key windfarm. As he rightly says, in a week where they’ve posted huge profits, it’s a great shame to see Oil remaining at the top of these firm’s agenda.

When visiting Silicon Valley recently, as well as in general discussions with financiers and VCs, I’ve been impressed by the speed and quantities that are being poured into Cleantech and Renewables. Are these big firms missing a trick or are they adapting quickly enough to capture the new wave?

Here were Jon’s comments:

“First off as things stand, where now for the government’s green agenda? The giant oil company Shell has pulled out a flagship British scheme, destined to become the world’s biggest offshore wind farm.

The multinational said it was selling its interest in ‘The London Array’ project, with 341 turbines in the Thames Estuary, capable of generating enough energy to power a quarter of London’s homes?

Shell’s decision to get out of the project has raised doubts about whether it can proceed as planned. Why has Shell jumped ship? Is it simply a case of Shell switching their investment out of wind power because old-fashioned and dirtier oil is more lucrative?

Well of course it is in the short -term, but wasn’t it the oil giants who were claiming they were trying to escape just that short-termism? And all this in the week when the likes of Shell are posting colossal profit, no wonder the Environment Secretary Hilary Benn called it “very disappointing”.”