Jim Harris

News

Record Setting Black Friday & Cyber Monday Expected

By

Black Friday is the Busiest US shopping day of the year; Cyber Monday the busiest for online shopping

Black Friday sales will top $7.5 billion on November 29 – up 20.3% from 2018, while Cyber Monday sales are predicted to hit $9.4 Billion on December 2 – up 19%, according to Adobe Analytics.

Black Friday is the busiest US shopping day of the year and has been every year since 2005. A staggering 151 million people went to shopping malls or centers on Black Friday in 2018, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers.

The term Cyber Monday, was coined in 2005. Many consumers, who were too busy to shop over the US Thanksgiving weekend, shopped for bargains online on Monday from home or work. Cyber Monday in 2018 was the biggest US online shopping day in history.

The five days between Thanksgiving and Cyber Monday will account for 20% of total holiday US retail spending – so for retailers these five days are critical.

Millennials are now the largest group in the US workforce and their lives are smartphone centric. Smartphone sales will account for 50% of the seasonal sales growth in 2019. And on Christmas Day consumer will purchase more on their smartphones than on desktop for the first time ever, predicts Adobe Analytics.

Smartphone purchases are 21% smaller by dollar volume, as consumer leave larger purchases for researching on bigger laptop and desktop screens, notes Adobe Analytics.

The best days for shopping online, based on retailers’ past discounting practices are: On Black Friday, appliances are discounted by 9%, while you can save 6% on sporting goods. On December 1 a toys are 32% cheaper and computers discounted 18%. While you can save 19% on televisions on Cyber Monday; on Boxing Day, electronics are typically 27% cheaper. These prices are tracked by Adobe Analytics

The growth of eCommerce has profoundly impacted US retailers. Online shopping in 2018 accounting for more than 16% of all US retail sales.

Here’s a staggering statistic: Amazon is now worth double of the following eight retailers ADDED TOGETHER! Those eight retailers are Walmart, Best Buy, Kohl’s, Target, Nordstrom, Macy’s JC Penny and Sears. (market valuations as of November 19, 2019):

 

But eCommerce in the US pales in comparison to online sales for Alibaba’s Singles Day.

China introduced the one child policy in 1979 to slow it’s population growth. Culturally Chinese families wanted a male child, so female children were adopted out to other countries. As a result, today in China there are 34 million men who will never have a partner.

In response to this phenomenon Alibaba – the Amazon of China – created Singles Day, which is represented by 11.11 (November 11). In North America we will buy a gift for our beloved on Valentine’s Day – but on Singles Day in China you buy a something for yourself.

Two weeks ago, on November 11, sales on Alibaba’s Singles Day sales exceeded $38.4 Billion in a 24 hour period. Alibaba – a single retailer – achieved sales that are double the sales of Black Friday AND Cyber Monday from ALL US retailers combined both online and in store.

The key insight coming out of this fact is that eCommerce will continue to grow explosively. China’s Alibaba is showing the way:

Combined Black Friday and Cyber Monday sales are expected to hit $16.9 billion. This figure is for all US retailers, all in store locations and online combined. It will be less than half the sales that Alibaba achieved in just 24 hours. Black Friday and Cyber Monday combined sales in 2018 totalled $14 billion.

Jim Harris is a leading international disruptive innovation speaker. His last book Blindsided is published in 80 countries worldwide and is a #1 international bestseller. You can see one of his talks at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbfRPztsKLY

Jim Harris is one of the Top 50 digital influencers in the world.

For interviews, contact Jim Harris, jim@jimharris.com or by calling (416) 388-3432.

Davos: Talking Champagne on a Sinking Titanic

By

I am in Davos at the World Economic Forum (WEF) where the top issues that world leaders must address are: unstable global economy, eurozone fragility; and financial system instability. Climate change only ranks as the 7th issue. To me, it’s like a group of business leaders and “experts” on the sinking Titanic discussing the fragility of champagne sales. I am deeply concerned about the Alice-in-Wonderland perception of the environment’s big picture.

On the morning of Saturday, January 12 when I logged onto Facebook, a friend’s status update jumped out at me: “WHY DO MEDIA FAIL TO DISCUSS OPENLY THE SIGNS OF CLIMATE CHANGE? IT”S NOW 12 DEGREES IN TORONTO, NO SNOW, AND THE SIGNS OF SPRING IN JANUARY ARE NOT GOOD FOR ECOLOGY, HYDROLOGY, OR HUMAN PROSPERITY.”

Later in the day the temperature rose to 15ºC, at 3 p.m. setting a new record according to Environment Canada.

It is deeply disturbing that we experience +15ºC in the middle of winter. And I am disturbed listening to the media commentary about how wonderful this warm weather is. A friend mentioned that the Magnolia tree in their neighbourhood was showing signs that it was about to bud. If this Spring weather continues in the middle of winter it will bud. And its flowering will be killed off with the inevitable return of winter weather.

The stability and predictability of the seasons is defined as “security” by many Aboriginal peoples. The changing of the weather on a global scale is bringing unprecedented, disastrous changes in human experience.

When I hear on the radio or in media how wonderful this mild weather is, I despair. Because to me it’s like people dancing as the Titanic is sinking, unaware of the impending consequences. And so the band played on… Yes, It is deeply disturbing. And frankly depressing.

In 2012 the sustained early spring-like weather during winter followed by the return of cold weather had a disastrous consequence for Niagara Apple growers as the trees budding were killed off by frost.

Wildly variable weather is having drastic economic consequences:

Munich Re, the largest re-insurance company worldwide, estimates that the final damage from Hurricane Sandy will top $50 billion — of which only half of the losses are insured. Never before has New York been hit by a Hurricane.

The drought that plagued the U.S. in the summer of 2012 was the worst since the 1930s. The consequence for farmers was devastating as the drought was combined with record-breaking heat. The consequence? An estimated $75-150 billion loss — making it the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history.

Australia has been plagued in January by the worst ever heat wave in Australian history — setting a new record of 40.3°C, for the highest national average temperature. The result? Wildfires have raged across Australia. And the temperatures have become so hot the country’s Bureau of Meteorology was forced to add a new color — deep purple — to heat maps to show areas that have exceeded all-time heat records. And it’s not just the interior of Australia that’s baking — on January 18, Sydney set a new a record-breaking 46.4ºC (115.5ºC).

Over the last 20 years, Greenland and the Antarctic have lost 4 trillion tons of ice.

Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is a phenomenon not well understood but colonies of bees are dying off. Causes are thought to be pesticides and cellphone tower radiation. The death to honey bees in North America would kill $15 billion of commercial agricultural crops.

So here’s my point: Just how many apocalyptic signs are required before global leaders get serious about preventing climate change and the preservation of natural capital? Apparently the answer is more.

I am in Davos at the World Economic Forum (WEF), which formally began Monday night. The top issues that world leaders must address, according to a survey of 1,500 experts in academica, business, civil society and governments conducted for WEF, are unstable global economy, eurozone fragility; and financial system instability. Climate change only ranks as the 7th issue — and then only for Climate Change Adaption, not urgently preventing the change in the first place.

To me it’s like a group of business leaders and “experts” on the sinking Titanic discussing the fragility of champagne sales. I am deeply concerned about the Alice-in-Wonderland perception of the big picture of what is happening to our world.

As one of my heroes, Thomas Berry, said: the earth economy is primary, the human economy a derivative. Bankruptcies in the earth economy are immediately followed by bankruptcies in the human economy. In other words, when there are no more Cod on the Grand Banks, Newfoundland fisheries go bankrupt.

In a ground breaking analysis in 1997 Robert Costanza and his colleagues estimated that the value of eco-services that the world’s eco-systems provide was $33 trillion— for instance the value of pollination that bees provide for free; the value that trees and plants provide by turning CO2 back into O2; and the value the hydrological cycle provides by raining — just to take a few examples. By comparison, the global cumulative national product was $18 trillion. In other words the value of the natural world far, far exceeds the value of the human economy.

Increasingly unpredictable, unstable, extreme weather events will drive increasing economic catastrophes. So if global leaders are concerned with economic stability, addressing economic fragility and building economic resilience, they should start with addressing the more fundamental issue first.

Signs of Hope

There are reasons for hope. One WEF report calls for $14 trillion of green investment in green technology and retrofitting.

The McKinsey Study Reducing US Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost? highlights how 40 per cent of the CO2 cuts that were required to meet the Kyoto targets were highly profitable. I interviewed the senior partner in charge of the study — Jon Creyts. He pointed out that if the profit from these high ROI projects were invested in the next least cost solutions we could have got all the way to achieving the goals at zero cost to society!

Focusing on energy efficiency is not only highly profitable but will spur innovation, job creation and help businesses, homeowners and society as a whole cut costs and create energy and economic security. This is the point of a report entitled More Bang for Our Buck: How Canada can Create More Energy Jobs and Less Pollution. Every $1 million invested in oil and gas only creates two jobs, while by contrast investing in energy efficiency creates 15 jobs, and has the economic benefit of insulating business and homeowners from the inevitable rise in energy prices.

Another McKinsey study: The Case for Investing in Energy Productivityhighlights that the internal rate of return (IRR) for investing in energy efficiency is 17 per cent. I like to note that by comparison the returns for investing in the stock market over the long term is 10 per cent and real estate 16 per cent — the two vehicles that we’ve been told create the best long term results.

Globally, oil and gas receive $557 billion a year in subsidies according the International Energy Agency (IEA) and $700-800 billion a year according to the head of the United Nations Environment Program. Why are global governments subsidizing the most profitable industry in the world? Why are governments literally subsidizing climate change? I thought that subsidies were supposed to be for new emerging industries, not highly profitable, mature ones.

And so I question how relevant the discussions are at Davos when world leaders are addressing symptoms, rather than the root causes of the challenges we face. And our economic system is liquidating natural capital and recording it as income.

Jim Harris is in Davos at the World Economic Forum for the launch Corporate Knights’ Global 100 — the ranking of the 100 most responsible firms with a market cap of $2 Billion or more which are doing the best job of charting a sustainable path based on 12 key performance indicators. For more information see http://www.global100.org/ You can follow his live tweeting from Davos at @JimHarris

Original Article

Identifying barriers to adoption of sustainable business practices

By

In October, sustainability consultant and former federal Green Party leader Jim Harris presented the business case for sustainability to delegates of the CIMA Canada Conference 2012. Mr. Harris put forward the argument that sustainable business practices weren’t just a matter of ethics, but also tools for cost reduction and profitability, citing several studies and examples that proved his thesis. However, he also noted that few organizations have adopted sustainability practices because the issue simply isn’t on their radar. He recently spoke with the Financial Post’s Dan Ovsey about why he believes this to be true and what he sees as the biggest barriers to sustainability. Following is an edited transcript of their conversation.

[…]

24 Hours of Reality: The Dirty Weather Report

By

Join me on November 14 for 24 Hours of Reality: The Dirty Weather Report. Broadcast live online, it’s an event that anyone can attend. And it’s your chance to join millions around the world to demand real solutions.

Taking place over 24 hours, this event will put a spotlight on every region of the globe — featuring news, voices, and multimedia content across all 24 time zones. Every hour will be different. You’ll hear from experts, musicians, comedians, and everyday people about the impacts of climate change on their lives and homes.

Leading the event will be our Chairman, former Vice President Al Gore, who will conclude with a presentation on November 15 at 7 p.m. Eastern Time.

Most of all, we want to hear from you. During these 24 hours, we’ll ask you to sign a pledge and join a global movement to demand action. You can join the social media conversation, make connections, and send us your ideas. Find out how we can, and we must solve the climate crisis — and how you can help.

Looking for ways to improve your business? Jim Harris is a professional business innovation speaker, contact him today!

What’s Really Killing Print Journalism

By

Print journalism is changing fundamentally. Three dramatic events last week make the point: On October 18, Newsweek magazine announced it will become a digital only publication in 2013, ending 80 years in print.

The same week, John Stackhouse, Editor-in-Chief ofThe Globe and Mail, announced that the paper will launch a paywall for its articles. You will get to read the first 10 articles a month for free and then have to pay for the remainder. Finally Huffington Post Canada announced it has become Canada’s largest national news site, with a record 3.9 million monthly unique visitors. In the US HuffPost’s traffic has trumped the New York Time’s.

[…]

Pre-empting the energy shockwave

By

The inevitable long-term rise of energy prices poses a serious risk to corporate profitability. A Deloitte study, released at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2009, showed that even modest 3.5 per cent year-over-year increases in energy and resource input costs could wipe out the profitability of a vast number of North American firms.

To put 3.5 per cent increases into perspective: The price of oil was $10 a barrel in 1999 and ran up to $147 in 2008 – that represented a 40% annual compounded increase.

wef_sustainability

Jeff Rubin, the former chief economist of CIBC World Markets, predicts oil will hit $225 a barrel in 2012. Heightened tensions with Iran, the fourth largest oil producing country worldwide, could be the catalyst for the run up in oil prices.

A risk for Canadian manufacturers is that the Canadian dollar has become a petro dollar. When the price of oil rose to $147 a barrel, the Canadian dollar hit its highest point in decades against the U.S. dollar. And that in turn hit Canadian exporters hard.

How can exporters mitigate the risk of a high Canadian dollar? One way is by becoming more energy efficient, lowering the cost of production. Another, of course, is through hedging against a rising Canadian dollar through currency swaps.

Energy efficiency is a powerful profit driver and risk mitigation strategy. Walmart is spending $500 million a year on fuel and energy efficiency projects with paybacks of four years or less. During the recession, the company’s sustainability spending didn’t decrease by once cent. Why? Because it’s about increasing profit and mitigating risk.

Walmart’s sustainability focus, which began in 2005, is now driving more than $500 million to the bottom line every year. Given that the company works on three per cent net profits, it would require $16.5 billion of top line sales to achieve the same profitability. So Walmart has become a fiscal convert to going green.

Sears Canada just completed a $4.5 million LED lighting retrofit. The project has a 13-month payback. Where, in a down market, can you get a one year payback?

Electricity prices in Ontario will be rising significantly in the near term: Simply applying the HST to electricity will drive up the price.

In North American, a staggering 23 per cent of electricity is used simply for lighting, and this consumption can be reduced by more than 85 per cent using LEDs. Lighting retrofits for companies typically have a pay back of one year.

Remember the Y2K crisis? Companies worked feverishly to re-write old mainframe software that ran their operations. But there were a limited number of COBOL programmers with the depth of knowledge required to solve the problem. Their average hourly rates spiked as demand for their specialized services rose as the year 2000 approached.

There will be a similar stampede through a very narrow opening when the price of oil spikes. Companies beginning to focus on energy and fuel efficiency once oil hits $225 a barrel will have to pay significant premiums for bona fide energy efficiency experts – or they will hire Johnny-come-lately contractors who don’t have the necessary depth of knowledge or experience to achieve the promised savings. Either way, those who are late to the game will pay for it.

Every Chief Risk Officer and CFO who is not aggressively pursuing energy and fuel efficiency is not fulfilling their mandate of increasing profit and mitigating risk.

Harper Conquers Canada, One Robocall at a Time

By

This robocall scandal is not just about some inconvenient phone calls, it’s about subverting our democracy and altering the outcome of the election. And it’s about Harper remaking Canada in his own image.

The widening “robocall scandal” is deeply disturbing — as is its media coverage.

The language we use to describe a situation, the words that a journalist uses in their coverage of an issue, literally frame the issue and how we think about it.

This isn’t a story about “dirty tricks,” it’s about election fraud. This isn’t “stupid,” it’s illegal. This isn’t “folly,” it was a deliberate, systematic, strategic, targeted campaign to steal the election. This isn’t “voter suppression,” it’s stealing democracy.

We should not treat this as some petty misdemeanor. This is a grave threat to our very basic freedom. This is a threat to our democracy. This is corruption.

You would expect this in some tin-pot dictatorship–not in Canada.

The stakes are much, much higher than most people or commentators realize. Harper won his “majority” with 6,848 votes. That’s the difference between a Conservative candidate getting elected and the second place candidate in the 14 closest races that the Conservatives “won.”

For instance, in Nipissing-Timiskaming the Conservatives “won” the riding with a mere 18 votes. In Etobicoke Centre it was just 26 votes. Out of the 14.7 million votes cast across Canada that is an infinitesimally small margin for a majority — it’s 0.048 per cent.

What was the exact nature of the illegality? Liberal supporters in tightly fought ridings received pre-recorded messages on Election Day claiming to be from Elections Canada telling them that the location of their polling station had been changed. The Liberals claim it was a factor in losing 27 seats. The NDP is claiming it happened to them too. The Conservatives didn’t need to misdirect very many voters in very many ridings with tight races to steal the 2011 election.

What is the impact of this illegal action? With a “majority” Harper has eliminated the gun registry. He has appointed 48 Conservative so far in the 105 seat Senate, and four of the nine Supreme Court of Canada justices. This issue is not just about some inconvenient phone calls, it’s about subverting our democracy, it’s about altering the outcome of the election. And it’s about Harper remaking Canada in his own image.

This is the heart of the real story: It’s about the Conservative’s usurping the power of government.

There are a few important points to make about this scandal:

The Conservatives have proven they will happily break the law to win power

The Conservatives pleaded guilty to breaking campaign spending laws in 2006 in the election that brought Harper to power. The Conservative party violated election spending limits, exceeding the amount the party was allowed to spend by $1.3 million — through an “in-and-out” scheme.

In the end the Conservatives pled guilty and got a $52,000 fine.

There was no appropriate consequence for the Conservatives breaking Canada’s election law. The fine is a joke. The Conservatives spent $1.3 millionmore than allowed to by law, “won” the election, and paid a penalty of $52,000. The reward: gaining access to the levers of power and deciding how to spend the Government of Canada’s $270.5 billion budget.

The case took five years to be resolved. By this time the Conservatives had been in power for five years and had appointed 48 Conservatives to the Senate.

The Conservatives strategy is clear: break the law, deny any wrong doing, frustrate and stall any investigation — whether by Elections Canada or House of Commons committee — and when the final decision is about to be rendered, plea bargain and pay a fine.

But here’s the realpolitik of it: It’s five years after the fact, the media isn’t paying attention. It’s been covered already. Meanwhile the Conservatives have been enjoying power for five years. The consequences are, well, inconsequential.

The electoral fraud efforts were part of a systemic Conservative strategy

The Conservatives are trying to claim that a single individual, Michael Sona, was responsible. Sona has worked for Conservative candidates, for a Conservative MP, and for a Minister in the Harper Government. He is not some uniformed, neophyte newbie. He is, however, the sacrifice the Conservatives are more than willing to offer to try and put this illegal action to bed. So Sona was fired last week from his position in Conservative MP Eve Adam’s office.

Harper’s style is one of systematic command and control. No messaging, no strategy, is executed without the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) vetting and approving it. This has become crystal clear during Harper’s tenure. Lawrence Martin’s book Harperland documents this in detail.

Young Sona, having worked for a so many different Harper Conservatives would have had this drilled into him. The fact that it has taken Elections Canada and the RCMP almost a year — with their powers to investigate — to uncover this scheme shows to what great length the Conservatives went to to hide this.

The consequences for this electoral fraud should match the crime: Criminal charges should be laid and by-elections called for every riding where electoral fraud occurred. Any person or firm involved should be barred from working in any election campaign ever again.

Original Article

Occupy Davos?

By

“Severe income disparity” is the most likely risk facing business and political leaders according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk 2012 Report. This finding really caught me by surprise. So while the Occupy movement isn’t anywhere on the agenda, here at Davos, its impact has been very much felt.

 

There’s the published agenda for the World Economic Forum (WEF) this week in Davos — and then there are the elephants in the room.

“Severe income disparity” is the most likely risk facing business and political leaders according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk 2012 Report. This finding really caught me by surprise. So while the Occupy Wall Street movement isn’t anywhere on the agenda here at WEF in Davos, its impact has been very much felt.

“Capitalism, in its current form, no longer fits the world.” A statement from an occupy protester? No, it was uttered by WEF Founder Klaus Schwab. But it’s not a view that I have found widely shared by the 2,600 delegates here. The ultimate irony, of course, is that those at WEF aren’t even the one per cent — they’re the 0.0001 per cent of global corporate and political elites.

There’s a lot of talk about the European debt crisis, which centres on Greece. At the heart of it is the fact that wealthy Greeks don’t pay taxes; tax evasion is a national past time for the rich. In turn the Greek government’s austerity program will cut the benefits and pensions of average citizens. Here’s a warning: That’s the recipe for revolution. Average citizens won’t accept austerity programs if the wealthy aren’t pulling their weight. And the cascading impact that a Greek default will have on German and French banks will highlight just how interconnected the world that we live in is.

Erosion of Trust
The Edelman Trust Barometer shows that trust in financial institutions and banks is at an all-time low. That might not come as a surprise given the origins of the 2008 U.S.-led credit crisis.

A quick refresher: The subprime meltdown was caused by Wall Street investment banks selling securitizing mortgages (which was profitable). Then some of the very same investment banks made a killing by betting against these very same securities triggering the credit crisis. Then some of the very same financial institutions got hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts, which some, like Goldman Sachs, in turn used to buy equities at drastically reduced prices, in turn making a killing and then paying huge bonuses.

The regulation of investment banks and markets (or the lack thereof) is the government’s responsibility. Ultimately these events have proven to be deeply corrosive to trust and in turn to faith in government. As the Sufi saying goes, “The eye cannot see itself.” How will Davos delegates, comprised of corporate and political elites, see that it is greed at the center of the problem?

What do all these have in common? At the heart of them all is the occupy critique: The privatization of public wealth and socialization of liabilities.

Unsustainable Consumption
I feel like someone on the sinking Titanic while the band played on. Few participants that I have talked to understand the depth of threats that I perceive we are facing globally and tectonic shifts that the limits to growth will ultimately force upon all governments and corporations.

If everyone in the world consumed as much as we do in North America, we’d need another three planets to provide. So clearly our lifestyle is not sustainable. In Natural Capitalism authors Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and Hunter Lovins document our wasteful industrial process of harvesting raw materials, manufacturing, and then landfilling. When you look at the cycle after six months, only six per cent of the raw materials are in use. In other words, 94 per cent of the total cycle is waste! For me there’s no deep understanding of this at Davos. When people talk of resource productivity, they’re thinking about tinkering with the system as opposed to wholesale transformation.

Another issue that hasn’t had much attention here is the fact that globally governments are spending $1.5 trillion a year on militarism (the U.S. is responsible for about half this amount) and $700 to $800 billion subsidizing oil and gas. So when issues like poverty, access to safe drinking water, combating malaria and AIDS are discussed here — in my mind I keep coming back to the mantra that it’s not a lack of resources to address these chronic problems — the central problem is a gross misallocation of resources.

So dear reader, while you won’t hear reports of these issues from Davos, you got to read them here.

Not to be Completely Pessimistic
There are reasons for hope. From one survey: A staggering 92 per cent of millennials (those born after 1981) believe that a company’s purpose should be measured by social purpose not just profit. This contrasts starkly with CEOs who believe that profit maximization is the goal of business. So if corporations want to attract and retain the best and brightest employees as baby boomers begin retiring en masse, they will have to focus on the social good to ensure their social license to operate. A large number of the participants at WEF are highly idealistic. One such group is the WEF’s Young Global Leaders.

Another trend that gives me hope is the dramatic rise of the influence of the Internet. A staggering 6.5 million people signed petitions in a single day opposing SOPA and PIPA — convincing a number of U.S. politicians to withdraw their support from the bills.

I would deeply appreciate your feedback and comments on this.

And I will write more about Davos in my next blog… so click on the RSS feed to be automatically notified about the next one.

Originally posted at Huffington Post

Green Energy Act could create 90,000 jobs in Ontario

By

building-the-green-economy

By: Jordana Levine

The Green Energy Act (GEA) could employ over 90,000 Ontarians in green jobs. The government of Ontario is prepared to initiate the GEA, which focuses on the possibilities for employment if a large investment is made in green practices.  Along with increasing employment opportunities, the program could have a huge positive impact on the environment.

The main goals of the GEA are to ensure that Ontario is the country’s leading green economy, create over 50,000 green collar jobs, and generate billions of dollars worth of economic activity as quickly as possible – ideally in three years.  The plan involves phasing out the province’s coal plants by 2014 and shifting the province’s economy so that it is based on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.

Building the Green Economy: Employment Effects of Green Energy Investments for Ontario is a report done by the Political Economy Research Institute, which gives recommendations and ideas regarding the GEA.  The report identifies two levels of investment that would help the GEA.  The first program is the baseline Integrated Power System Plan (IPSP), which would invest $18.6 billion over the next ten years in: conservation and demand management, hydroelectric power, on-shore wind energy, bioenergy, waste energy recycling and solar power.

However, the report also looks at an enhanced green investment program, which is referred to as the Green Energy Act Alliance (GEAA) plan.  The GEAA plan would involve spending $47.1 billion over ten years and would do everything the baseline IPSP would do, plus it would invest in off-shore wind energy and a smart grid electrical transmission system for Ontario.

Although the baseline IPSP would generate 35,000 jobs, the expanded GEAA program would create 90,000 jobs for Ontarians.  The occupations created would range from construction workers to financial auditors and engineers to research scientists.  For the most part, wages would exceed $20 per hour.

Three types of employment effects would come out of these programs: direct, indirect and induced effects.  The direct effects would be the jobs created within Ontario by the environmentally related activities, such as conservation, hydroelectricity and solar power.  The indirect effects involve jobs associated with these green industries that provide goods and services for the green investment activities, like hardware and metals.  Induced effects would be the employment that is created when the people who are paid via green investment projects spend the money they earn on other products and services within the province.

The baseline IPSP would lead to 15,500 direct jobs, 11,600 indirect, and 8,100 induced, while the expanded GEAA program would create 38,400 direct, 31,100 indirect and 20,900 induced jobs.

The IPSP would create nearly 12,000 MW of new electricity or conservation capacity; the expanded GEAA program would produce over 22,000, though.  In March 2009, the Ontario Power Authority operated with about 27,000 MW of electricity-generating capacity.  This means that the $47.1 billion investment program could either replace or expand capacity by 82 percent in the province (and the IPSP by 44 percent), leading to higher efficiency and a huge increase in renewable energy levels.