Koos Termorshuizen is an active rower, author and co-owns the market research company, Arachnea. He recently went on a bike trip around the North Sea with Jos Wassink to investigate sustainable energy projects along the coast line. On North Sea Cycling they documented their journey. What follows are three questions about his views on sustainability.

- What was the most inspiring sustainable solution you found along the North sea route? 

There were hardly any. Wind energy is a very fine solution but a disaster for the landscape. Offshore wind parks may be the best solution. I don’t believe in tidal or wave energy as it seems to be very hard if not impossible to come over technical problems due to the extreme forces of sea currents.

- In what way did your bike ride change your views on sustainability?

The political standpoints in the area of sustainability are unrealistic and populistic. Large scale carbon storage e.g. is not possible at all yet, and the costs will be extremely high. So, if politicians say that CO2 emissions of a new coal fired electricity plant will be very low because of carbon storage, in the best case they don’t know what they are talking about.
In fact, the trip made me even more pessimistic. I think the global change cannot be stopped anymore. Glaciers will disappear worldwide.

- You wrote a book on the river Eem on which you row and you cycled around the North Sea, what draws you to water that you not only do sports on it but also write about it?

Writing is nice to do, and the river Eem – the landscape, the history – inspired me to write the book. I’ve always loved rivers and ships; my Rotterdam background – where I grew up very close to the river will have helped. I’ve never been a lover of the sea or the beach, but the coastline is in many places wonderful.

Last weekend I read an interview with Steve Stichtman, writer of the book Blue Chip Manager, in a Dutch magazine on career management. He says:

“I got the feeling that the top of Maslow’s pyramid – self development – isn’t the real top. The desire, that emerges when all one’s needs have been fulfilled, is an almost holistic longing to be part of something bigger. That explains the emphasis of the young generation on work and private life, on idealism and spiritualism. They want to be happy as a whole person, not only as a working person.” (Intermediair)

It’s interesting to see this shift all around me. Many of my friends quit their jobs and became freelancers. Or they quit their jobs to travel the world. They spent three months touring Australia or South America, or going to Africa to do volunteer work helping the poor. It shows that self-actualization can’t be found in working 60 hours a week. Why would they otherwise quit their perfect jobs, to do something completely unrelated? As a collegue of mine said the other day, in the West we have everything. There is nothing left to aspire for. This may be true for our material situation, but as Stichtman points out that doesn’t mean we are satisfied internally.

Most people would not willingly consign tracts of Amazon rainforest to destruction simply through a few trips to the shops. But we do it every day. Throughout the developed world, food is treated as a disposable commodity, disconnected from the social and environmental impact of its production.

- “The scandal of food waste“

Uit: Paul Cliteur, “Intolerant voor de intoleranten.”

Hij presenteert zich als groene bankier en is kandidaat van D66 voor de Europese verkiezingen, Gerhard Mulder. Hij werkte ondermeer in Washington, DC, New York en Den Haag, voor politiek en financiële sector. Tegenwoordig werkt hij bij ABN AMRO als klimaathandel expert. Geïntrigeerd door de term groene bankier besloot ik hem drie vragen te stellen. (Bekijk ook eens het youtube filmpje en GerhardMulder.nl)

- Waarom is D66 de groenste partij bij de Europese verkiezingen?
D66 is de groenste partij omdat wij een ambitieuze agenda combineren met slimme en economisch verantwoorde maatregelen. De truc is niet om een wensenlijstje te presenteren, of gewoon te roepen dat alles beter en duurzamer moet, maar om een fundamentele verduurzaming van onze economie na te streven.

- Welke rol zie jij voor de financiële sector in de klimaatcrisis?
De financiële sector moet een centrale rol spelen in de oplossing van de klimaatcrisis. We moeten zo’n 200 miljard USD per jaar mobiliseren; de financiële sector moet geprikkeld worden om te investeren in milieu, duurzame energie, schone technologieën. Zij is dit harte harte bereid om dit te doen, maar de overheid moet zich als een betrouwbare partner opstellen en zekerheid bieden voor investeerders.

- In hoeverre moeten Europeanen gaan consuminderen om een klimaatcrisis te voorkomen?
Ik geloof dat consuminderen, of het bewust minder consumeren om ons milieu te sparen, een lovenswaardig streven is. Maar je zult niet iedereen ervan kunnen overtuigen met morele argumenten. Veel beter is om milieukosten mee te nemen in de prijs van de producten of diensten die men consumeert, zodat je op die manier gedrag kunt sturen.

Why vote for Europe?

- A European financial authority can restore checks and balances in the financial world. Why should all these small countries come up with their own legislation when most financial institutions operate international anyway?

- Europe can give better protection of individual rights.

- Europe can cooperate to have a sustainable agenda.

- Europe needs one voice in the world, so it can converse on equal footing with the US, India and China.

Last Friday I went to hear Noreen Hertz speak and debate on the current financial crisis. After her introductory talk, Rosi Braidotti interviewed her and Edith Kuiper, a feminist economist, took her on in a debate. Union members and feminists filled the room. This was no surprise, since it was a talk in the Women Speak series. Noreena calls the current crisis, the end of Gucci capitalism. This was an era where business was good, the more the better, and government bad, the less the better. She is saying there is a collective shift towards more guidance by government. Its reputation is rehabilated. For example, over 50% of Americans would like to see more government intervention according to her. She calls this “a seismic shift”.

Also, this Gucci capitalism was male driven. Men filled the board rooms and trading floors. It was testosteron and according to Edith, speed driven. Not velocity, but the drug. Cocaine ruled the workplace, she mentioned coke being cheaper than a cup of coffee at one point. Noreena did mention she liked the G20 declaration, but missed any mention on women. To which Edith replied that the recent Afghanistion conference did include 5 pages on women.

I found there was little talk about solutions and where we are going. Except that we need less men. One man asked what will be the new moral imperitave. But this was not answered. Also, Noreena and Edith championed positive discrimination within board rooms and trading floor. More women will have to enter. They want direct action as waiting for women to rise to the top has been to no avail. The old boys club reigns and women are not even in the talent pools amongst headhunters. This immediately made me think, why don’t you start a headhunting company solely focussed at women? Why demand that government makes this into law? Noreena spoke about Iceland where women are now leading the banks and the country. Another lady proposed to kill income tax and tax resources instead. Noreena and Edith didn’t have an immediate response to this but said it was ideas like this we need.

There was mention of this being a debate. But everyone seemed to agree with each other. So I did not hear many controversial stances. Except from one guy in the room, clad in all white, who asks if women where all that different as leaders referring to Queen Victoria and a Russian Tsarin. He also tried to grab the microphone but a lady was holding it, while there is one golden rule: Never hand out the microphone or else you are not in control of how long someone speaks. Of course, this lead to hilarity among the audience as the lady wouldn’t let go of the microphone and someone from the audience pointed out that this was what the debate was about; Men need to let go.

All in all, I felt it was a challenging evening but did miss practical solutions.

ps While waiting before the talk started, I was chatting with a retired activist. He works on a paper regarding mobility in the region of Utrecht together with other organizations. I’m interested what will come out of that. His reasoning was there have to be alternatives. Not to say people can’t use their car or build more roads, but to give a better alternative.