Quote

The people that you work with, the organizations that are committed to the same objectives. If they know that you're in it together, and you're working towards the same objectives, and you agree on how to do more with less, you can actually have a greater impact.

Politicians or pundits can distort or cherry-pick climate science any way they want to try and gain temporary influence with the public. But any serious industrialist who's facing 'climate exposure' - as it's now called by money managers - cannot afford to engage in that sort of self-delusion.

And very often the influence exerted on a person's character by the amount of his income is hardly less, if it is less, than that exerted by the way in which it is earned.

There is always strength in numbers. The more individuals or organizations that you can rally to your cause, the better.

Climate change - for so long an abstract concern for an academic few - is no longer so abstract. Even the Bush administration's Climate Change Science Programme reports 'clear evidence of human influences on the climate system.'

Because the better an organization is at fulfilling its purpose, the more it attracts people who see the organization as an opportunity to advance themselves.

An employee who's one of hundreds, rather than one of a few, is unlikely to feel personally responsible for helping the organization adapt and change.

It would be difficult to exaggerate the degree to which we are influenced by those we influence.

Climate change is obviously happening and there is obviously a man-made contribution.

As such people achieve influence within the organization, whenever there is a conflict between their own interest and the interest of the organization, their interests will win out.