The reality is that decisions are often made by politicians who see facts as supplementary to arguments of emotion, quick to choose actions based on opinion polls rather than scientific data. We see this in the pandemic response, with some governments reluctant to listen to the science and act quickly, leading to more prolonged shutdowns.

Even when scientific advice is made available and clear, some refuse to listen. Last month the director of Ontario’s COVID-19 scientific advisory table almost resigned out of frustration because the scientific advice to implement better protections for front-line workers fell on deaf ears. Now Premier Doug Ford is keeping outdoor activities closed despite the science table advising against doing so. First the Ford government opened up too quickly, against the advice of science, to appeal to business owners, and now they refuse to allow outdoor activities, to show that strong action is being taken on COVID. Both efforts were misdirected, and both continue to be ineffective. Shutdowns are difficult, especially for small business owners. But we could have avoided the shutdowns of the third wave if we had not prematurely opened after the second; the economy ultimately suffers more when decisions are taken with a short-term view.

We need to be doing more than just listening to the science – we need to be acting upon it too. Around the world, countries that made science-based decisions, collaborated and acted swiftly fared better than those that did not. A newly released report by the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response found that open data and science were key to developing a vaccine in record time and that the countries that devalued science and denied the impact of the pandemic suffered the greatest harm with the highest infection and death rates.

Even as we round the corner of this crisis, a larger, more threatening, crisis looms: climate change. Here the science has been clear for decades and continues to get clearer as every year brings higher temperatures, more unpredictable weather and natural disasters that threaten our communities with flooding and forest fires.

While Canada’s newly announced climate target of reducing emissions by more than 40% by 2030 is welcome, it does not go far enough. Canada is the only G7 nation to have greenhouse gas emissions increase since the Paris Agreement. As a result, Canada needs to reduce emissions 60% by 2030 to reach our stated net-zero goals. Just as deaths are a lagging indicator of COVID infections, climate change is a lagging indicator of CO2 emissions.

Global clean technology activity is expected to be worth more than $2.5 trillion by 2022. If Canada does not act now to invest in this coming transition like our allies in Europe and the United States have, we will be left behind.

Whether it is a global pandemic or global warming, we need political leaders with the expertise to make evidence-based policy decisions that will affect us all. Unfortunately, only 7% of parliamentarians have a science, technology, engineering or math (STEM) background. Sure, we can have leaders who listen to the science, but what happens if they don’t really understand it? Or worse, what if they understand but choose to ignore it for political gain?

Unfortunately, scientists rarely attract the attention of political parties and often carry the stereotype of being poor communicators. After all, if there is one skill a politician needs, it’s the ability to communicate to their constituents.

The image of the nerdy antisocial scientist content to remain in their lab with their beakers is dated and inaccurate, however. Today’s generation of scientists go on to create venture-backed start-ups, develop impactful policy and quickly rise to positions of power in multinational corporations. Two of the most influential female heads of state of the last century, U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, both received degrees in chemistry, the latter a PhD. Regardless of how you feel about their politics, the impact they have had on the world is undeniable.

Science and technology, while important and necessary, are not sufficient to address the crises we face. You can be the most brilliant scientist with the best technology, but unless you can convince a policy-maker to support it and a market to buy it, it will sit on the shelf. This is why I’ve decided to take a leave from my dream job as the youngest-ever director at the National Research Council to run for office for the federal Green Party in Toronto.

I’m running because we must move faster to combat the threat of climate change and sustainably renew our society and economy. I’m running because we need more diversity in Parliament and more science in policy. I’m running because I want to lower the barriers for other non-traditional candidates to consider running, because a diverse government is a robust and resilient one.

I hope that my run inspires other scientists to consider running as well, regardless of party, because Canada needs them now more than ever.

Phil De Luna is a scientist and cleantech innovator turned first-time candidate and aspiring politician. He is running for the Green Party in Toronto-St. Paul’s in the next federal election.

The post Why Canada needs more scientists running for office appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Lesson 1: The power of public research funding

As the world seeks to build back greener from the economic downturn triggered by the pandemic, we need to recognize the hard-learned lessons of funding early-stage technology. Governments and non-profit organizations have devoted CAD$14 billion to COVID-19 vaccine development and testing. These public investments lowered risks for private investors, unlocking much-needed capital from the pharmaceutical sector.

Today, global R&D spending as a whole has reached a record high of almost US$1.7 trillion, with the vast majority of that sum coming from the private sector in the form of short-term investments like product development or digital apps. Solving broader societal problems typically involves long-term investments in higher-risk emerging technologies, but the private sector rarely takes such risks.

Most technological advances occur in publicly funded universities and, to an extent, national labs. Historically, it has been notoriously difficult to translate discoveries from the lab to the marketplace – especially in capital-intensive sectors – as the private sector is reluctant to invest in unproven technology. The last cleantech boom from 2006 to 2011 ended in a bust, with venture capital firms losing more than half the $25 billion invested in clean-energy technology start-ups. Cleantech has since matured and last year outperformed other sectors, doubling its worth on the TSX from 2019 to 2020. However, the mounting urgency of the climate crisis demands strong public-sector commitment in early-stage cleantech, which requires cutting-edge equipment, manufacturing of prototypes, and years of development from invention to impact.

Lesson 2: Use collaborative platforms as a vehicle

The COVID-19 innovation push highlights how governments around the world are investing in collaborative platforms that aim to promote cooperation across the public, private and sometimes philanthropic sectors. These platforms pool facilities, data and training to accelerate the development of nascent industries and disruptive technologies.

A recent OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) report examined collaborative platforms for advanced materials used in next-generation electronics such as flexible LED lights or clean energy like new batteries and found a few critical success factors. Sharing of open-access data and equipment can create a community around a technology, cross-pollinate creative ideas, and train a diverse and robust workforce. These platforms can have varying degrees of involvement from industry, academia and government. For example, the Materials for Clean Fuels Challenge program links national labs, academics and cleantech start-up companies to rapidly develop disruptive technologies like hydrogen and carbon conversion to decarbonize Canada. Publicly funded R&D should be used to support these collaborative platforms to ensure that benefits are shared by all, rather than monopolized by one organization.

Lesson 3: The importance of international cooperation

Lastly, these platforms must transcend national borders to be effective. The push for a COVID-19 vaccine has underscored the importance of international collaboration, and the threat that national silos and vaccine nationalism pose to public health and well-being. There are excellent examples, such as the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator by the World Health Organization, which has raised US$5.6 billion to accelerate technologies in diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines. This includes COVAX, an international effort to ensure equitable access to vaccines that includes the building of manufacturing facilities.

In the context of clean energy, Mission Innovation is a global initiative of 24 countries and the European Commission focused on accelerating innovation in cleantech through increased R&D funding of member states. Canada currently leads two efforts on sustainable biofuels and clean energy materials. However, most Mission Innovation activities to date have been focused on coordination and promoting increased funding within national borders. For the next phase of Mission Innovation, Canada could double down with partners to establish international joint R&D facilities that pool resources in the fight against climate change.

In today’s digital world, the right infrastructure makes it easier than ever for people to connect. Yet as technology continues to erode physical barriers, waves of populism and nationalism are strengthening social and political barriers. We need to identify common challenges, invest in the pre-competitive innovation platforms to address these challenges, and work to ensure fair access to these solutions.

Whether it’s a global pandemic or the threat of climate change, these problems do not discriminate – they know no borders and affect us all. A diverse group of actors across the world and across the public and private sectors pooled their resources and collaborated in new ways to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. We should learn from their experiences to tackle the other global challenges knocking furiously at our doorstep.

Phil De Luna is a Toronto-based carbontech innovator and a director at National Research Council Canada, where he develops disruptive technologies to decarbonize Canada. Views expressed here are his own and not those of the NRC.

David Winickoff is a Paris-based senior policy analyst at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), where he leads work on the responsible development of emerging technologies. Views expressed here are his own and not those of the OECD.

The post How COVID-19 innovation can teach us to build back greener appeared first on Corporate Knights.

“What I am really passionate about is ensuring this transition [to a low-carbon economy] is a just one and there is economic opportunity for everyone in this energy transition,” says De Luna, whose people-oriented outlook is rooted in experience. Growing up in Windsor, Ontario, in a family of Filipino immigrants to Canada, he witnessed the devastating 2008/2009 recession that eviscerated a once-vibrant community dependent on car manufacturing. His father was among thousands laid off. “The theme of economic prosperity really resonates with me, and today, when I look at Alberta and our energy sector, that really resonates with me again,” he says.

As director of NRC’s Materials for Clean Fuels Challenge program, with a budget of $57 million over seven years, De Luna works with research scientists and the oil, gas and petrochemicals industry to identify promising technologies to reduce CO2 emissions. After an exploratory phase ends in 2021, the program will select the most promising candidates that, by 2026, could leave the lab for adoption by energy companies and private investors.

A co-founder of a venture to convert carbon dioxide into ethylene, De Luna likens his NRC role to a venture capitalist who backs promising ideas that generate returns in several years. In his case, he says, he looks for ideas with global impact. “My return on investment is not necessarily a monetary return. It is the potential for greenhouse-gas-emission reduction.”

Jesse Popp
Indigenous Environmental Stewardship Chair, University of Guelph

Wildlife ecologist Jesse Popp likes to see the whole picture in her research.
A member of Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory in northern Ontario, she blends Western and Indigenous perspectives into her investigations of declining species and fluctuating wildlife populations.

“All my research takes this ‘two-eyed seeing’ approach to weaving together Indigenous and Western ways of knowing,” says Popp, who in September 2020 became the first Chair in Indigenous Environmental Stewardship at the University of Guelph. “Both are complementary to one another, and you get a better understanding of the world.”

One project is a study of declining moose populations across North America and several regions of Ontario. She applies Western scientific methods while gathering insights from Indigenous Elders and knowledge holders on changing land use and environmental conditions.

“Moose are a culturally important species to many First Nations,” Popp says. “We are basically bringing together Indigenous and Western knowledge systems to try and understand why the moose populations are declining and how that is impacting the environment and the communities that rely on moose.”

An emerging scholar, Popp previously held a Canada Research Chair (Tier 2) in Indigenous Environmental Science at Mount Allison University and is a current recipient of a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council grant (2018–2023) to study the influence of natural and man-made pollutants on wildlife diversity and populations.

Early in her career, Popp questioned the exclusion of Indigenous perspectives in Western scientific research. That led her to develop Laurentian University’s first course in biology with Indigenous perspectives and history to create a whole picture of the discipline.

Her commitment to “two-eyed” research has only deepened, adding to her perspective on sustainability.
“If we respect our [interpersonal] relations, if we are responsible and if we are reciprocal, we can in turn live sustainably with the earth.” If so, she adds, “sustainability will come naturally.”

Simon Pek
Assistant professor, University of Victoria Gustavson School of Business

Democracy is under siege but count Simon Pek at the University of Victoria as “cautiously optimistic” about the potential to invigorate democratically run organizations.

In that cause, he wears many hats. An assistant professor of sustainability and organization theory at the university’s Gustavson School of Business since 2017, the 33-year-old won the inaugural UVic President’s Chair, the university’s highest academic honour, for contributions to teaching, research and the wider community. He is also co-chair of Gustavson’s Carbon Neutrality Plus committee to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is a co-founder and board member of Democracy in Practice, a non-profit that promotes leadership capacity-building.

One of his research interests is the role of democracy in unions, worker-owned firms and cooperatives. Though democratic, these organizations too often wind up with entrenched leadership, leaving little room for new, diverse voices. “They have the same paralysis and problems as many societal governments,” he says.

One remedy, he says, is a democratic lottery to recruit new leaders from a pool of interested individuals. The result is a randomly selected group whose members collaborate on decision-making. “It’s less top-down and more horizontal,” Pek says, and enables added input from women and minorities.

His interest in the gig economy has prompted an examination of alternatives to new business platforms like ride-sharing Uber. “That [model] comes with enormous consequences for workers and communities in particular,” he says. An alternative is a worker-run cooperative whose members decide on practices and profit-sharing.

“I want to broaden what we think of as organizations,” Pek says. “Tons of organizations, not just those for profit, can play a massive role in positively addressing the SDGs.”

The post Meet three of Canada’s top young researchers appeared first on Corporate Knights.

As I charged through youth and into adolescence, I realized that it wasn’t necessarily white that I wanted to be – I just wanted to be successful. But I never had a professional role model who looked like me. Sure, Filipino people are considered hard workers (something my parents never let me forget), but the positions I would see them occupy were low-skilled and service work – janitors, customer service, labourers. Always the nurse, but never the doctor. To be clear, these are honourable professions: my partner is a nurse, and in my humble opinion, she is the best that humanity has to offer. These are, after all, the workers on the front lines of the pandemic.

I learned early on that education would be the tool I needed to forge a better life. I leveraged my thirst for knowledge into a PhD at the University of Toronto, where I had the luck to be mentored by professor Ted Sargent – one of the most ambitious, effective and successful people I’ve ever known. Suddenly, I was publishing in the world’s best scientific journals, travelling the world, summer interning at IBM in New York or UC Berkeley in California, and competing in the finals of the Carbon XPRIZE. Today, I run a seven-year, $57 million collaborative research program at the National Research Council to develop transformative technologies to decarbonize Canada’s economy.
At 28, I’m the youngest-ever director of the NRC. I sit on the board of directors for CMC Research Institutes, a non-profit focused on industrial decarbonization. I am a mentor for Creative Destructive Lab, an accelerator that brings science-based start-ups to life. I can proudly say I clawed my way to the decision-making table. I owe a lot of this success to the mentors in my life – all of whom were white. As they say, it’s all about who you know. Unfortunately, many visible minorities don’t know many leaders.

It’s not hard to see why, as a child, I would conflate being white with being successful. Leaders in Canada are overwhelmingly white. Only 10% of top executives at Canada’s Big Six banks and two large life insurers are visible minorities. Earlier this year, disclosures under the Canada Business Corporations Act showed that of 255 directors in S&P/TSX 60 companies, only 14 identified as a visible minority. The gap between whites and visible minorities is only set to widen, as 30% of the national population could identify as a visible minority by 2031. Canada’s workforce is becoming more diverse, but its bosses are not.

A diverse leadership team is not only more representative of the workforce and general population; it’s also good business. A recent report by McKinsey and Company shows that more ethnically diverse executive teams outperformed less diverse teams on profitability by 36%. Diverse perspectives lead to more creative solutions, greater understanding, and trust across gender, ethnic and cultural lines.

Diversity in leadership is necessary; to get there we need to mentor the visible minorities within our organizations.
First, we need to ensure that a robust candidate pool exists, with greater representation of visible minorities. Simple steps like blocking out the names on resumés can be effective in removing bias against non-Anglo-sounding names. Once we establish a pool of talented individuals, we need to match them up with leaders (yes, especially white ones) who can help them develop and grow. While there may not be many leaders who look like me today, there certainly won’t be any tomorrow if we place the burden of visible minority mentorship on the few visible minority leaders we do have.

Lastly, we need to be open and empathetic to each other. While it sounds cliché, communication really is the most important thing.

I no longer want to be white when I grow up. I want to realize myself fully in all the complexities of character that entails as an innovator and change-maker, beyond just a visible minority. I also want to be an example to other young Filipinos who dream of something bigger but aren’t quite sure what that is. However, there aren’t yet enough leaders who look like me – so white mentors, please apply.

Phil De Luna is a carbontech innovator and program director at the National Research Council of Canada, where he develops disruptive technologies to decarbonize Canada.

The post If you want a diverse workforce, you need diverse leadership appeared first on Corporate Knights.