tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6278115441557880568.post2895645673687100051..comments2024-03-18T16:29:17.369-07:00Comments on Inverted Alchemy: An Integral Economy: Honest Brokers Need Not ApplyDavid Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01775270821108542258noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6278115441557880568.post-53485664022412854982014-05-05T23:26:14.170-07:002014-05-05T23:26:14.170-07:00Catherine, as the perpetrator of said intervention...Catherine, as the perpetrator of said interventions I'm not well positioned to opine on my sensitivity. That said, while I have sought compassionate engagement, my delivery is often surgical and empirical. As a result, I believe that, as the messenger, I may have weakened the message. <br /><br />I am aware of this balancing act most definitely and seek to hold myself to a higher standard. That's a work in progress on my side.David Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01775270821108542258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6278115441557880568.post-67914377744396523032014-05-05T23:24:02.247-07:002014-05-05T23:24:02.247-07:00From C. Ansboro
Very thought-provoking.
In the 2...From C. Ansboro<br /><br />Very thought-provoking.<br /><br />In the 2 examples given, were the parties who rejected the information and assistance offered not offered this help in a deeply compassionate way? What could have been done differently?<br /><br />Is the point that a different mindset from the beginning might have created more opportunities?<br /><br />One can do one's best to communicate from the heart to "create a listening", and ideally let go of attachment to specific results. Perhaps the person on the receiving end just isn't ready.<br /><br />Regardless of the reason for someone's response, it's a delicate balancing act to provide information and perspective, yet not exert pressure. It's all the more challenging when someone truly believes they <br />understand what is in someone else's best interest.David Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01775270821108542258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6278115441557880568.post-16480815805367486032014-05-04T15:44:14.966-07:002014-05-04T15:44:14.966-07:00(reposted from LinkedIn) - David, I think our met...(reposted from LinkedIn) - David, I think our methods might mesh, as your conclusion certainly matches mine, that "Maybe we need a bit less empirical honesty and a bit more compassionate collaboration with those to whom much has been entrusted."<br /><br />What I'm running into on the UNEP FI risk assessment team is a strong reluctance to include the financial risk of a business's exposure to CO2 produced as a result of paying the people it uses to operate or provide other essential services. It's by far most business's largest exposure to climate change risks, embedded in the goods and services that business people rely on. If a CO2 tax, (or market energy cost spike), didn't raise a business’s costs, it would certainly shrink its consumers’ demands for their product. That’s the path of financial disaster I see coming.<br /><br />I've had a good chance to present the problem to the group, along with the accounting method that would give investors a complete picture of the environmental risk exposures their businesses face. Still, no one is acknowledging that it is indeed a major hidden financial risk that should be the principal duty of our team to expose and advise the financial community about.<br /><br />It seems to confront the dilemma, you may have come across, that economics does not categorize the people who run and provide essential services to a business as part of the operations of a business, as crazy as that sounds to me. So the consumption that brings them to work with the needed skills to do the job is not counted as a business impact on the environment, even though the business provided the money and consumed the services.<br /><br />As I see it that share of the money from the business is what is exchanged for the "value added" that business people provide, and it has environmental impacts as a cost of operating the business. That's the very same as for the money paid for the technology, and it's environmental impacts. So, from "nature's view" shouldn't they both be counted the same way, as part of the investor's risk exposure?<br /><br />I think it would give investors better information to have the total GHG risk exposure accounted for, whoever takes responsibility for it. Otherwise wouldn't we be stuck just lying to investors due to the inconvenience of rethinking the accounting method presently being used? It's an institutional problem to change accounting methods, but technically easy to count the impacts of human services as "average" per unit of GDP, until someone objects and offers more data.<br /><br />http://synapse9.com/signals/2014/04/08/easy-intro-scope-4-use-interpretation/jessilydiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09657452820388113610noreply@blogger.com