| |
|
|
|
Check out this interesting analysis (in very simple terms) explaining why energy is difficult to store and harness, and why there is no easy substitute for oil. (Thanks to John T. for passing along good stuff as always) Scary: an 860-billion-tonne chunk of Antarctica's Mertz glacier broke off and is staying put in a precarious spot, one that is likely to upset the delicate flows of global ocean currents. Read the full story here. ... It is something we are continuing to explore with much enthusiasm. A really great new source of information on the topic recently came from WWF, entitled Meeting Environmental Challenges: The Role of Human Identity. Touching on similar areas to George Lakoff's explorations of cognitive psychology, it looks into how environmental campaigns can avoid pitfalls and be more effective. Some pointers and highlights include: - To combat the power of self-enhancing and materialistic values, encourage people to place greater priority on values such as self-acceptance/self-direction, affiliation, benevolence, and community feeling/universalism.
- By previously embracing self-enhancing, materialistic values and life goals (e.g. playing by the current rules and norms of society, such as trying to put a $ value on ecosystems), the environmental movement has actually served to reinforce the dominance of these values and goals. These are the very values and goals that lead to more negative environmental attitudes and damaging behaviour.
- Studies have shown that a more sustained, reflective meditation on the feelings aroused by thoughts of death can actually decrease material strivings, bringing a greater sense of meaning in life.
- Highlighting the scale and finality of an environmental threat may actually be counterproductive. It is important to spread the understanding of such impacts, but should not be done in a way that stimulates fear.
- Exaggerating environmental impacts of simple and painless steps might actually encourage people to deploy strategies for diversion (e.g. avoiding the topic, seeking pleasure, or blaming the problem on someone else), and also potentially leave people less inclined to adpt other more difficult and signficant behavioural changes.
- Blaming other groups or nationalities (such as SUV drivers around carbon emissions for instance) also is counterproductive in that these campaigns might heighten the sense of threat of those targeted, encourage them to dig in further into their damaging behaviour, and engage others outside the group to deny their own responsibility, instead projecting the problems onto the target group (e.g., the target group becomes the "bad guys").
- Behaviour is a strong determinant of opinion, which is why one cannot drive behaviour with information based on opinion. People adopt views which explain or are consistant with their their behaviours.
- In terms of wider social/environmental movements, it has been commonly noted that "Any oppression helps to support other forms of domination." Basically then, wars that dominate one group over another, abusive treatment of animals, and oppression of women all have some common causes. Working systematically and connecting these dots shows promise to changing the bigger picture for social and environmental issues of global importance.
Check out the WWF study, and also a related post here on Forward Thinking.  Like many countries, Thailand has an issue with waste. From buildings, to manufacturing and agriculture, to consumer goods and tourism leftovers, mountains of garbage go to landfill each year. Agriculture alone in Thailand churns out 58,190,000 tons of refuse annually (Land Development Department, Government of Thailand). Think about that the next time you frolic on a Thai beach. Throughput of industrial system today, from source to end consumer ends up in landfills or incinerator. For every truckload of product with lasting value, 32 truckloads of waste are produced. On a finite planet, it doesn’t take a genius to realize this sort of system is totally unsustainable. Singh Intrachooto is an unlikely hero in this pile of waste. Closing the loop on society’s byproducts has become Singh’s claim to fame. On one sunny afternoon just outside Bangkok, on the campus of Kasetsart University, we caught up with Singh for an intimate look at his work. (article continues)
In many developing countries, eco-tourism projects are heralded as one way to bring money into communities and create economic benefits for local people. The premise is simple: showcase the local culture and natural heritage and gain the tourist dollar. Unfortunately, this seemingly simple business idea gets messy when implemented.
Small communities are often overrun with waste from materials brought in for or by tourists. Mountains of plastic water bottles and other refuse are the usual suspects. Too, communities often lack sufficient water and sanitation infrastructure, which leads to sewerage issues. Local natural attractions can be overrun and degraded by unscrupulous tour guides and their groups. Culturally too, it is far too easy for communities to be culturally overrun by outsiders and lose the very elements that make them unique to begin with. Thankfully, in the Spiti Valley of northern India, one social enterprise is taking these concerns into consideration. Ecosphere got started in 2002 with the premise to take a holistic view on ecotourism and what it could provide the local community. The crux of the organization’s work is to couple economic empowerment, development, and conservation efforts so that no area goes lacking. (continues) 
Slammed by the economic crisis? Been laid off? Hating your job and wishing you were? Yearning for something more meaningful? Congratulations, you’re not alone. If you’ve been pounding your brain and the pavement in search of alternatives, look no further as there is something perfect for you. Called “ Half Farmer/Half X”, it’s a concept created by a rather astute Japanese man named Naoki Shiomi. The idea is simple: roughly half your time you devote to raising food and connecting with nature-- be it in a backyard garden, veggie patch, window box, or on a farm. The other half of the time, you spend developing your “X”— that is, your bigger purpose in life. Shiomi got the idea after being a “salaryman” (Japanese corporate hack) for nearly a decade in Japan. Back in 1995, he got tired of his day job and found himself wondering how else he might spend his time. Around that same time, he also became conscious of a number of environmental issues, as well as thousands of hectares of abandon rural land in the Japanese countryside. In exploring the issues and his own desire for change, he realized that most environmental problems are connected with people’s often misguided attempts at finding their identity. They consume to satisfy deeper emotional needs to the point it becomes addictive, an unquestioned pattern of behavior. (article continues)  As the keynote speaker at the Singapore Energy Lecture, Dr. Daniel Yergin was toeing his usual line of optimism on the subject of oil and energy. As the Founder and Chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associate ( CERA), Dr. Yergin has a long career in the energy industry, though one some challenge as upholding the status quo of business and industry. “The century ahead of us will be defined by energy innovation,” he said in his keynote address. “We need availability and security of energy, and a depth and diversification of energy sources.” He spoke of the odd timing of the Copenhagen agenda of lowering carbon emissions (of which fossil fuel energy sources are a key contributor) by 2050, as well as projections that by 2030, there would be a substantial growth of energy needs worldwide. Some 80% of which these energy demands are to be met by hydrocarbon sources. Indeed, humanity faces some difficult decisions and conflict in the years ahead: development at what cost? (article continues)  Trying to stop the destruction of the world’s remaining forests is a complicated affair. One proposed mechanism to help in the battle is a clean development mechanism for developing countries called REDD, or Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. The general idea behind it is to give developing nations an incentive to maintain intact forests by assigning them value and finding alternatives to industries like logging or slash and burn farming. On the ground, it works like this: a set area of land with tree canopy cover is assigned a value for the ecological service of carbon absorption. Polluting companies can purchase a credit for this value as a means of offsetting their carbon emissions elsewhere in the world. Whoever owns the land benefits from the financial transaction. (article continues)  One of the keys to keeping carbon emissions, and therefore climate change, in check is getting reductions in place. One of the easiest and most palatable ways to sell this to business is through energy efficiency measures. Energy efficiency in business is considered low-hanging fruit, something that can be easily achieved in many cases, with both environmental and economic savings. They have one of the highest internal rates of returns (IRR) and companies can usually see the business case to do it. However, Frederic Crampe, Managing Director of ReEx Capital Asia stumbled onto difficulty with one of his case studies.
In discussing a client project in the Philippines, Crampe mentioned that some simple steps were taken to conserve energy in one of the properties of a shopping mall developer. The net operation savings were in the vicinity of US$1 million in the first year, and likely to be similar going forward. (article continues) The upcoming climate negotiations in Copenhagen have highlighted an interesting dilemma. Nations worldwide are trying to shirk their responsibilities around emissions and their economies. So called “developed” nations like the U.S., U.K., and Australia are having a difficult political time getting industries to swallow the fact that big changes need to happen. Industry needs to clean up its act. Of course, then the political dance begins: (article continues) Don’t expect climate change to get fixed by the governments of the world. Don’t expect that, however noble in intention, the efforts of Gore, McKibben, Stern, and their many cohorts will succeed either. Not on any large scale. It won’t be clean tech or green products saving the day either.
Climate change, like energy scarcity, water pollution, and other serious global issues is merely one symptom of a larger global problem. Tackle the symptoms individually, and at best you might get lackluster results. Tackle the source of the problem, and everything attached to it will be positively affected.
That problem is consumerism. Too many people want too many things on a finite planet with limited resources. The process of obtaining and manufacturing those things is what has gotten us into trouble: carbon emissions, resource depletion, deforestation, species extinction, etc.
The consumer economy is the cornerstone of “democratic” governments worldwide. As a result, governments have no genuine interest in changing the status quo. It would be too problematic, too chaotic, and mean transcending too many vested interests. Don’t count on Copenhagen to come to much.
And while Al Gore and company have some good ideas and rational arguments, the problem is that the arguments are rational, while the roots of consumerism are not.
For decades, the worldwide public both in the U.S. and any country that has emulated the American formula for “success” has had their minds absorbed by consumerism, and their emotions compromised by its advertised promises. At this point, the average consumer is largely driven by irrational motives, advertisers tugging at the heart strings, making promises that products will solve “problems”.
In this emotional landscape and this mindset, at best you might get a few people to change to energy efficient light bulbs. You might get their attention just long enough for a few token actions. As for significant lifestyle shifts, they will be few and far between. Any significant shift will come from reaching people on an emotional, and likely irrational level—just as advertisers have been doing for decades.
What we need is a shift to a new model—for our lifestyle, for our economies, for our livelihoods, for our planet.
A rational argument is not going to bring those about. What will?
Not clean tech, not green products, nor any other model that looks similar to the one we already have. Merely re-positioning “stuff that is less bad” for consumers to consume is just shifting the nature of the problem. As Buckminster Fuller advised, to make an existing model obsolete, one must create a new model worth aspiring to.
Or as Einstein so elegantly put it, “We cannot solve problems using the same logic we used to create them in the first place.”
There needs to be a shift in people’s values and behaviors on a wide scale.
The terrain is there for exploration. Here is a well documented series from the BBC tracing the origins of consumer behavior and how they got us to where we are today. It’s a long series to watch, but incredibly detailed and insightful. If you are serious about wanting to change the way things are, study and reflect on these videos.
As the old adage goes, “Turn the problem into the solution.” In this case, the answer is getting consumerism to quickly consume and snuff itself out. Will it be another banking crisis that does it? Some other social movement rooted in the masses? Some other driver yet undetermined? Who knows, perhaps you will be the one coming up with the next golden idea on that one.
The Century of the Self Part 1
The Century of the Self Part 2
The Century of the Self Part 3
The Century of the Self Part 4
Yup, it can be done. Living without money for a year was an ambition of Mark Boyle, and he succeeded. Check out this fantastic article on one person's journey.  Jack Sim’s mind is in the toilet. Or rather on the toilet. In face, he thinks that toilets are not only one of the keys to a global economic recovery, but also to empowering the developing world. Perhaps he’s spent too long on the “seat of wisdom”, or maybe he’s got a damn good idea. Consider this: worldwide there are 2.5 billion people without access to proper sanitation. This is really bad news as it means that many are left to do “business” in rather uncomfortable and unsanitary conditions. It also means that effluent is not properly treated in many countries, and often winds up contaminating the ecosystems of rivers, lakes, and streams. This of course has knock on effects with drinking water, and that can spell some nasty diseases from contamination. Now move from this scene to one of a corporate board room on the other side of the planet: business people are trying to find new markets and new products to make money. The recession has meant belt tightening, and not only that, how many flat screen televisions does the average household really need? Well if a 2.5 billion person market doesn’t attract attention, what would? Problem is, conventional business strategy sees these underprivileged “bottom of the pyramid” people as poor, and therefore, not worthy of much business attention. As with the conventional logic that spurned our recent economic crisis, this notion is worth flushing. While the poor might not have heaps of wealth, they are still are promising market for businesses as they represent a volume opportunity. Why not try selling a million useful things to people at a reasonable cost, than a few expensive big ticket items to the really rich? Telecoms have recognized this opportunity for millions of new customers. Nokia is one such example. Its introduction of Nokia money (a credit that is swappable between mobile phones) in developing nations has not only meant success for the company, but has also served as a de facto second currency in several African nations. African warlord got you down? National currency a bit deflated? Use your Nokia money to pay for groceries instead this week. Not a bad idea. So back to the toilet. How to connect the bottom of the pyramid with the businesses in a position to help? Jack Sim started the World Toilet Organisation (or WTO) to connect these two seemingly disparate parties in the name of mutual progress. The UN estimates that $1 spent on sanitation yields $9 in economic benefit (think lower disease rates, less trips to the doctor, better environmental quality, better health, which then means higher productivity, and consistent wages). Good sanitation is therefore one cornerstone of alleviating poverty. Breaking down silos, the WTO works to bring governments, aid agencies, community groups, and businesses together to help solve sanitation challenges worldwide. According to Mr. Sim, just throwing money at the problem is not going go solve anything. “Merely throwing aid dollars around only creates a dependency mentality, and incentivizes people not to help themselves,” he says.  The answer lies in treating this new market just as you would with any market. That means involving the customers, respecting them as real people with very real needs, subsidizing the market development instead of hardware costs, developing rural markets for sanitation services, empowering local entrepreneurs, and facilitating links between demand and supply. “Poor people are intelligent, discerning, brand conscious, and prudent with their money. Quite literally, they cannot afford to make a purchasing mistake,” says Mr. Sim. “Not only that, poor people are highly entrepreneurial out of necessity. They do not want to look poor and have a great amount of pride. Part of the solution is to make toilets a status symbol to help spur demand. A vision needs to be created in the community that everyone aspires to better health and sanitation.” The good news is, even in developing nations, there are many low cost fixtures on the market already, some as cheap as US$250-400. There are also many ways to keep the whole process affordable. A village might come together to build a shared toilet block and biogas digester unit, or individuals might get a microfinance loan to have facilities installed in their home. In many countries, distribution networks are largely already in place, with over 4000+ low cost distributors in Bangladesh alone.  As sanitation becomes community and national priority, it opens up opportunity for new jobs and micro enterprises. Sure there are some gaps to fill along the way, but with some careful planning, coordination, and facilitation of low-cost financing, they’re not impossible to overcome, and certainly worth the results. Healthier people, better environment and water quality, increased economic opportunity, and new business possibilities—it’s a hard bottom line to argue with. And that’s where the WTO comes in to catalyze the process. From a business point of view, Mr. Sim sees it like this: sanitation and hygiene yield health and optimism. Optimistic healthy people are then better positioned to work and be entrepreneurial, thereby getting a better income and slowly raising themselves out of poverty. As they climb up the ladder, they enjoy better well-being and have more opportunity for the future. “Sooner or later, if you persist, it will have to happen. By helping the world’s poor, we are really helping ourselves at the same time. It’s a win-win situation,” says Mr. Sim. Mr. Sim started the WTO in 2001 and has seen progressive involvement since, with everyone from the UN to the Clinton Global Initiative getting involved. It now has 215 member organizations in 57 countries. Annual conferences have raised attention to sanitation issues on the global stage. While the WTO might seem to have achieved glamorous standings, even for a toilet association, the reality is that it started from a very humble, simple background.  At the age of 25, Mr. Sim started in business and was quite successful. By age 40, he was comfortably wealthy and pondering retirement, or starting a new business. He then had the inkling that perhaps, rather than put his wealth on a roulette wheel once again just to make more money, a change was in order. “I was looking for something meaningful,” he says. “Death is a sure thing and I might as well do something positive. I saw toilets and sanitation as a neglected area, something that in many cultures, people were afraid to talk about. I figured it couldn’t get any worse, so it was time to make a difference.” With that very simple motivation, he got things flowing. “The more difficult the challenge, the more kick you get from solving it,” he says. “For me, it was about becoming an ordinary human being again, and just feeling happy.” Jack Sim recently spoke at ISEAS as part of their ongoing series on climate change and environmental issues.
 The National Museum of Singapore was graced last night with some of Southeast Asia’s leading innovators. Both native talent and international experts were showcased in an event hosted by Qi Global. The event themed Human Progress in Harmony with Nature was incredibly significant, not only for the speakers, but for the fact that it sought to connect people with the ability to create change. “When you ask someone if they think that climate change is happening, they say yes. When you ask them if they are doing anything about it, they say no. Where did that disconnect happen?” questioned Paul Coleman, director of Qi Global. “We want to inspire people to think about the long term, and simply put, care about the future.” The evening was full of people who did exactly that, many starting out from extremely humble means and little money. Dr. Willie Smits, founder of the Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation was one such example. He arrived in Indonesia from the Netherlands and became smitten with the local wildlife. Very quickly he realized the large scale destruction that plagues rainforests in Indonesia, with poor farmers clashing and burning in order to open up areas to agricultural land. In 1998 alone, over 5.5 million hectares were lost to fires set by locals, which were exasperated by layers of coal near the surface. For roughly 3 months, only minor sunlight could get through the thick haze of smoke. Under such conditions, the native orangutans are frequently driven from their habitat, often turning up in villages where they quickly become food for impoverished locals. Dr. Smits sought to change all that, and starting only with small donations bought up incremental parcels of land. Using mixed agriculture techniques, he slowly transformed acres of landscape from agricultural plain back to rainforest. “Interaction lead to innovation,” he said. “We used over 1232 different species of plants to regenerate the area, not just for nature, but for human well-being also.”  In this mix was bamboo that could be harvested for a number of uses, as well as the highly valuable sugar palms. Far different than oil palms, sugar palms provide 20 times more jobs, and also have an extremely high sugar component making them valuable as an ethanol biofuel source. People in the area were taught these farming techniques and recruited for the replanting efforts that have reclaimed an every growing area of land each year. Dr. Smits used diversity of plants and their purposes to fulfill not only ecological roles, but also to help create livelihoods for locals so they could step beyond their traditional slash and burn methods. The evening’s raffle went to benefit the project. Also in Indonesia, designer and entrepreneur Singgih Susilo Karotono helped transform his village of Kandangan in Central Java. He developed a high quality process for manufacturing a wide range of handcrafted wooden pieces, from chopsticks to radios. Working alongside European buyers, he created a market for his products and grown his business to the point that it now employs 30 locals. Like Dr. Smits, Singgih had more than just ecological outcomes in mind. He wanted the products to redefine how people viewed with and interacted with nature. “A product is part of our life and people often have a strong connection with what they own. We need to have a similar relationship with the environment as we are all a part of nature,” he said. “Beyond reduce, reuse, and recycle that everyone knows, we need to redefine what our lives and products are like in the first place.” His formula was simple: use small amounts of wood to craft high quality, high value products that are beautiful and sell for a fair price point. Teach the local craftspeople how to manufacture at this level and help them learn business skills to regenerate the local economy. Use profits from the business to regenerate local environment and encourage the planting of new trees, not only for future material, but for ecological benefit.  A Thai based designer took a different approach. Dr. Singh Intrachooto (centre right) the design principal at Osisu was overwhelmed by the sheer amount of agricultural waste Thailand produced annually. “Right now, we focus too much on the product, not on the process,” he said. “Often something we make creates as much as 32x the waste as the final product we use.” Some 38 million tons of waste emerges from farming everything from rice to oranges every year in Thailand, not to mention the waste that comes from manufacturing processes that produce everything from buttons to foam for sofas. Dr. Singh set about experimenting with the different materials, seeing how they could be given new life. One by one, new products took shape. Old steel pipes were reborn as park benches, pop tops as stylish handbags, plastic waste as chic modern seating. His solutions were genius in how they used waste streams as primary materials, and how they challenged what we think of as conventionally designed products. His designs are in hot demand with audiences across Asia and as far away as Europe. The evening’s events also included presentations from Filipino designer Kenneth Cobonpue (above image, left), world-renowned Danish conservationist Lone Droscher Nielsen (above image, right) and acclaimed jewelry designer John Hardy who founded the Green School in Bali. What all these stories had in common was the ability for every day people to transform our world for the better, starting in their own “backyard” and often by trying to tackle a single problem.  The innovation demonstrated in all of these stories was extremely inspiring. Beyond the luminaries presenting on stage, there was plenty of local talent on hand at the event, including the controversial Ivy Singh-Lim (image right, centre) of Bollywood Organics, model and presenter Nadya Hutagulang, and fashionable green scenester Olivia Choong. While interest in sustainability issues in Asia might be a slow process, it seems likely that the tide is shifting. The room was packed with everyone from gallery owners to product designers and bankers; over 200 people attended on the evening. With interest and enthusiasm we look forward to upcoming events. It’s probably happened to you. Someone in the company gets a bright idea that the company needs more bright ideas-- a new product or service; some new angle to catch the public’s interest; a marketing gimmick or brand extension that will “revolutionise the industry.” Blah blah blah. You’re dragged to an offsite “brainstorming” session and a day full of sitting on beanbags and drinking abusive amounts of coffee ensures. Plenty of talk takes place. White boards get decorated. Perhaps some creative juices flow. A barrage of new initiatives get slated for further development… but how many of these are actually goodies?  From SME’s, to big corporates, to community organisations, and the big ole’ city council— all of us at some point or another have to innovate what we are doing in an attempt to grow capital of one kind or another. Problems arise when creativity overtakes practicality and we lose sight our operating context. According to extensive research by Doblin Group based in the U.S., a 2007 survey of over 3000 projects in 400 businesses across 4 continents over 10 years revealed some startling conclusions: over 95.5% of all innovation fails. Painful but true. That’s a lot of wasted days on a beanbag chair. So what are professionals in the sustainability space to do? We’re trying to solve some big issues, from climate change to the viability and social cohesion of our communities. We also don’t have the luxury of time and cannot afford to let our actions be outstripped by the issues we face. How do we deliver value from the ideas we generate to solve these problems? We need to battle test them, critically examine their design, and make sure they hold up. Going back to Doblin Group, they note that 95% of change should focus on improving the everyday. It’s about being quick and incremental. Think battery powered lawn mower. Another 5% of the change needs to be more disruptive, radical, and outside the box. Think iTunes.  Keeping that balance is essential as often there are big gains to be made in improving on something already exists, rather than trying to be too revolutionary and producing a solution the world isn’t ready for yet. Peter Salmon of Moxie believes that problems need to first address the human condition. “After all, it’s like my dad used to say: everyone’s an environmentalist until the lights go out. If we aren’t looking after people’s basic needs, how can they care about bigger worldly issues?” he says. Moxie’s been around a while, and under Peter’s leadership, recently developed a programme they call Next Plays. After years of presenting thought provoking research and hearing "So what's next?" from clients, they sought to help companies answer the question. It goes like this: use carefully developed strategies to design a positive future. Everyone from Air New Zealand to the World Bank and governments in charge of Hanoi are getting in on the action. So, how’s this thing work? Up front, there’s consideration taken for the big picture issues. What will be affecting the industry or city? A critical examination takes place of the key factors that will be shaping the future, from shrinking capital markets, aging populations, climate change, peak energy production, and collapse of ecosystem services and so on. “There are no ideal answers,” Peter says. “It’s about creating a general and realistic scenario of the future rather than trying to be overly predictive.”  From there, Next Plays moves into the ideas necessary to start tackling these problems. Knowing what we know from the scenarios developed, what needs to be developed? Is it rejigging the business model? Developing a new product or service? How the widget gets made? Changing the way theorganisation operates to influence its stakeholders? In this stage of the process, all ideas are on the table, no matter how left field. “Most people innovate around their core competence,” Peter says. “There are often other opportunities out there around finance and delivery— and those are likely to be the revolutionary ones. Sometimes it’s as simple as recruiting a new industry partner or pairing up two promising, disparate ideas. There’s a lot that can be learned from biomimicry that translates into how we can successfully do business. We need to move away from linear thinking.” With some promising ideas on the table, the scrutiny begins. Alongside the Next Plays guide that features case studies from around the world, ideas are critiqued across numerous categories (or “Plays”) including: - Improving communications transparency (authenticate)
- Creating broader value nets—not chains (engagement)
- Considering longer term impacts in decision making (go long)
- Closing loops on material inputs and outputs-- waste is a resource (loops)
- Mixing and broadening boundaries together to increase chances for rapid evolution (mix)
- Filling unmet needs and gaps in the system (needs based- what do people want?)
- Finding a niche and simplify a way of doing things (simplify)
 The possibilities are then examined across the business or organisation structure, from the business model, to the larger operating environment, to the processes of the company, to the individual products and services, to larger communications and engagement strategies. Inevitably, some of the ideas fall out at this point. This is not a bad thing as it’s likely they didn’t have the sticking power first anticipated. Others ideas combine into larger initiatives, or broader themes for action. An overall response to the problem starts to emerge. Everything that’s left is vetted across three major results criteria: are these refined, new, or shifted ideas? The purpose of this stage is to help examine whether there’s enough of a balance in the response to the problem. If it all start’s looking like reinventing the wheel, then it’s time to start over. If it looks like there are substantial social and environmental wins, and that the organisation is at least starting to shift how it operates, it’s a sign of progress. What about the financial bottom line? It’s implied the whole way along that any ideas produced are of financial value in some way, or they wouldn’t be included.  Finally, the remaining ideas are weighed up against time and the scenarios that were discussed at the onset. What takes priority is determined by the organisation’s unique situation. Discrete initiatives might be polished off in a matter of weeks. Strategic business changes might roll out over a 5-10 year stretch. In either case, implementation should begin as soon as possible. “Future enterprise value will be measured by the benefit to society and the environment,” Peter stresses. “We need to do less, do it better, rigorously test ideas and designs, and get them more viable, rather than try 50 things that fail.” With these guiding principles gaining traction, let’s hope the solutions we develop going forward are intelligent, considered, and ultimately solving the problems we face. Time is not on our side. What matters most to New Zealanders? It’s a pretty worthwhile question to ask, and the answer is gets us to the heart of what’s important. However, what would seem like a pretty straightforward connecting of dots in reality isn’t so simple. Policy leaders at all levels of government look to such statistics as OECD rankings and how much the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) went up or down as keys to our success. But are these measures really an accurate portrayal of prosperity and wellbeing in the country, or are they in some ways standing in the way of genuine progress? Take GDP for example. What was originally intended as a nice easy number for economists to get a sense of the economy’s volume has become synonymous with the health of a country. To economists, if the GDP goes up, then we must be doing well, right? Growth is good. It’s the mantra we live by.  Well, have you had a car accident? Gotten really sick? Been hospitalized? Lose your house in a mudslide and will have to rebuild? Congratulations, you're doing good for the economy. That doesn't sound so good to you? Some expenditure measured by GDP really signals decline in wellbeing. Thing is, there is no distinguishing good from bad. A simple fact about GDP is that one of its key architects, Simon Kuznet, gave a warning about its use: never use it as a measure of a country’s welfare. We seem to have strayed from its intent of purpose, yet it continues to misguide actions and policy to this day. While GDP may oversimplify a complex situation, there thankfully are alternatives. Enter something called the Genuine Progress Index (GPI). It is a system of 20 components across social, economic, environmental, and cultural areas that’s been researched and created over the last 13 years by Canada’s Dr. Ron Coleman. Cutting down trees and turning them into houses might be good for GDP, but what about the value of the forest in terms of ecological services that will be lost? This is exactly the economic reality that has been ignored to date, and aided humanity in outstripping nearly ecosystem on the planet. As Rod Oram said, “There’s no central bank to bailout a bankrupt ecosystem.” The idea of GPI is to get a comprehensive view of what’s going up, what’s going down, and make conclusions from a more comprehensive set of data—in other words, a full-cost accounting.  Last week, as part of a nationwide speaking tour sponsored by Anew New Zealand, Dr. Coleman briefly discussed the GPI in a candid interview, and then gave a thought provoking presentation on how the index might be used to predict disasters such as the economic meltdown we’re still wading our way through. “It’s too hard and impractical to try and roll up such disparate things as employment, community cohesion, and fisheries stocks into a single number,” Dr. Coleman says. “We need integration to show the links between the different areas we are measuring of the Genuine Progress Index. An index gives us a holistic view and can better inform our policy decisions.” From his native Nova Scotia, to the government of Bhutan, to New Zealand’s capital of Wellington, Dr. Coleman’s ideas have been internationally well-received. The new government in Nova Scotia has adopted GPI, and locally the Maori Party has embraced the principles as part of their platform. The Wellington Regional Council is implementing GPI to monitor indicators across the community. Its goal is maintaining Wellington’s competitive advantage as a good place to live. As there is flexibility with GPI, the indicators have been tailored to suit their local needs, rather than blanketing a one-size-fits-all strategy. Back in Nova Scotia, Dr. Coleman’s GPI has been successfully used to predict several significant shifts: - a decline in volunteerism (and negative social changes as a result),
- collapsing fish stocks after a record boom period (and subsequent loss of thousands of jobs in a key local industry),
- a steady decline of local farming economies (it’s no longer viable to work the fields, so farmers are inclined to sell land to developers),
- and the substantial growth of consumer debt versus income— and the financial crisis that followed.
It’s a noteworthy track record, and with many questioning what got us into our current mess, it’s not surprising Dr. Coleman’s ideas are gaining interest. So far the stimulus packages developed by governments worldwide are fighting off the worst edge of what could be happening. “But taking on government debt to fight the collapse of insolvent banks and faulty industries is a bit like fighting fire with fire. There are issues out there, the big ones including climate change, peak energy, and resource depletion. What will we do when the chickens come home to roost, and we’ve already thrown our trillions at the problems we’re facing today?” Dr. Coleman says. Using climate change as one example, what happens when a disastrous weather event causes havoc to the scale of what happened in New Orleans? Decades of economic gain in the form of infrastructure can be destroyed in a matter of just a few hours. Even proponents of GDP should be able to see the logic: we need better measures and better decisions.  Dr. Coleman reckons that interest in a new system of will grow in the coming months as bailouts lose their steam and people become more vocal about changing the system that created the problems to begin with. Priorities will inevitably shift. Dave Breuer, the Founding Director of Anew New Zealand agrees. “We need to challenge the misuse of GDP and use a GPI to strengthen democracy independent of partisan politics,” Breuer says. “Increasing the wellbeing of our country should be the chief outcome of our actions at every level.” Along with Statistics New Zealand, Breuer has hosted a series of nationwide workshops aiming at developing a nationwide GPI for the country. So far, there’s been significant public engagement and a strong interest in how we go forward in the future. And what exactly does the future look like? “Creative adjustment to a smaller economy is the way forward,” Dr. Coleman says. “If there is any growth area of the future, it should be aligned with solving big threats like climate change. This is where stimulus is a good investment.” Events over the last year have made clearer than ever before how we equate unchecked growth with progress and wellbeing, and how unrealistic that assumption is. Either we revisit the decisions we’ve made and the tools we’ve used to make them, or we flirt with a future that, with the recent course of events as a painful example, looks less than bright. The time for a new model has come. Check out more from Dr. Ron Coleman on GPI in this video clip:  I saw conservationist David Bellamy speak earlier this week at Auckland University. If you've never heard him deliver a talk before, he wanders a bit. Okay more than a bit. He delved into the mating habits of turtles and wandered across other highlights/stories from his extensive career in the field for nearly an hour.
Props to the guy, it certainly sounds like an interesting career filled with a wide range of conservation activities: from helping farmers in Australia to guiding the children of Nauru recover parts of their stripped island in foliage. Restoring the wildflowers in England was the bit that gave me the warm fuzzies. He spoke quite strongly about the conservation ethic here in New Zealand and how over 4500 organisations in the country are "stitching their bit of the world back in order," restoring biodiversity. Aww shucks.
I was nodding along to everything I'd expect the guy to talk about. Then came the bombshell. "Climate change is poppycock." I sat up in my chair blinking, wondering if the accent had gotten me, or if the man was talking through his beard a bit much. No, he definitely said poppycock.
Well, that was my WTF?! moment of the day. Now, I'm not going to go all Elizabeth Kolbert on the guy, but what is a patriarch of environmentalism doing spouting such drivel? I'm not going to go on about the guy for 4 pages like Dr. Kolbert did towards Colin Beavan, (there's far better candidates for that sort of effort) but baby I've got an issue with this. I'd expect this line of drivel from Rodney Hyde or a less than forward-thinking government. I'd expect excuses like this from a coal company, or industry lobby group astroturfing their way around the place. I would not expect this from a man who restores wildflowers in Britain. And Mr. Bellamy's rationale for climate change being "poppycock", a problem not associated with human behaviour? Well he mumbled on another two minutes about volcano eruptions correlated to CO2 and temperature drop historically over time, and oh wait, he's got a graph somewhere he could show us, but he's not going to show us. Plop back in chair, next question from the youth panel. Sorry buddy, that's just not on. You do not stand on a otherwise legitimate career of doing good things to drop some misleading, unsubstantiated comment on a generation of people who is going to have to deal with the mess of global warming long after you've checked out. It's bloody irresponsible and an insult to the people in developing countries already feeling the brunt of these shifts. You can discuss the rate at which it's happening, explore the different consequences of human behaviour and the degree to which it might be affecting the bigger picture, but the reality is still the same: humans have a role in our current swing of the climate. Saying anything else but puts you not in the echelon of the people working to change things for the better, but in the dingy with the naysayers. Check your conservation credentials at the door please. I'm afraid I've lost much respect for a man with an otherwise noble career. I can only hope it was early onset Alzheimer's doing the talking. Also appears on Celsias.co.nz  Last night at LATE at the Museum, we witnessed a spirited discussion from some very intelligent minds. In a discussion focused on environmental and economic impacts of migration in a global age, eminent speakers Rod Oram (left) and Dr. John Merson (right) gave a worthwhile summary of how New Zealand is likely to stack up in the era ahead marked by climate change.
Moderated by Finlay Macdonald (centre), the talk explored far more than the title suggested and delved into the complex economic, social, environmental, and political relationships that are pivotal to understand when addressing climate change. In front of a standing room only crowd, Dr. Merson took a strong position that much of the challenge ahead lies in challenging our social norms and changing our everyday habits and views. He noted that economics and the markets they spawn are directly responsible for the environmental consequences of what business does-- in many cases, the pollution/distruction of our environment. Mr. Oram made the case that from a government point of view, market drivers play a big part in making change happen, which is why there has been contentious debate around the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme (or ETS). While an ETS is only one part of the equation, Mr. Oram raised the point that we only pay attention to what we value, and if carbon has a measured value, it can be managed throughout business models. He gave a rather interesting snapshot of how this would be likely to effect New Zealand's prominant dairy industry: each year, according to Fonterra, for every litre of milk, 1 kg of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) are generated. This amounts to a whopping 15 million tonnes of GHGs annually. While attributing some cost to these GHGs has the farming industry up in arms squealing apocalypse, Mr. Oram seems to think they're missing the point. Each kg of GHGs equates to wasted nutrients.  If farmers could farm more efficently, close the loop on many of their farming practices, they could actually save an incredible amount of money in the longer term and manage their land better. He noted that in New Zealand we have huge potential to be world leaders in redefining how ruminants are farmed, but our research budgets in this area to date have been really small. We could be developing some leading technology and proprietary know-how, but so far have missed the bus.
Dr. Merson, while optimistic to a point on technology helping save us, he noted that technology and ETS are just tools in a larger toolbox. Markets are crtically important, but not the only tool, and unfortunately the main focus to date has been on mitigation of climate change effects. Due to a 30 year lag time on emissions and the reality they present for us, time is not no our side. The way we live is not sustainable and with each day that passes we are affecting the hroizon of what will face our children and grandchildren. More than a reliance on mitigation is needed. With it, the conversation turned more towards adaptation and some serious questions were raised. He noted that in the years ahead, a likely 1.5 metre rise in sea levels would take place, affecting many crowded population centres worldwide from New York to Bangkok. What happens to all these people living coastally? What are our moral implications in New Zealand? Are we to take them in? What is the scale of confrontation that we are facing? He emphasised that we do not have the luxury of disconnecting ourselves globally from what is happening around us, and especially not from our neighbours on Pacific atolls. Unfortunately, planning for this likely monumental shift in humanity in the coming years and the migratory challenges it suggests has barely surfaced on the radar of policy makers. Mr. Oram confirmed that climate meetings later this year in Copenhagen are unlikely to yield a full blown climate treaty, but should hopefully help get countries worldwide on a better trajectory, especially if the U.S. is involved to any serious level. Painfully absent at the Kyoto negotiations, U.S. involvement is critical to the adoption of any worldwide agreement as it amounts to a credible shift in values.  Quick to make sure that the emphasis was not left on governments to do all the work, Dr. Merson shifted footing to personal responsibility, and also noted that the time has come to move beyond functioning as independent nation states for issues that cross all international borders. With or without governments, people around the world need to embrace the ideals of equity, mutuality, and interconnectedness. As time is running out and we are already behind the 8-ball, it is of vital interest to take personal action, to lobby government, and to send signals to the market that a shift is needed.
He cited several recent corporate incidents with GE and GM that have been in response to consumer behaviour and investor lobbying, as well as the Montreal Protocol on CFCs as success stories in how people have come together worldwide to make big shifts happen. Confirming the position, Mr. Oram noted that governments follow people, and that we each must help drive the change forward. We are going to need to get comfortable and excited about changing, understanding economic and social pressures, and get a better appreciation of the interdependence of the global scene. Success in combating climate change will come with a significant movement of human ingenuity and creativity to tackle the problems we face. It was a really positive point to end with, and a really great segue to the rest of the evening's programming, which included musical appearances from New Zealand's Ladi6 (right) and King Kapisi. It was some good food for thought with a positive soundtrack to help it all sink in. For more on upcoming events at Auckland Museum, check out www.lateatthemuseum.com While a recent survey showed that 3 quarters of Americans believe something should be done about climate change, getting them off their butts to do anything is entirely another story. Check out this interesting exploration of the psychology behind climate change on Solve Climate. The most interesting excerpt from the article that we found: At the heart of the challenge is reframing the issue. Frames are “mental structures that shape the way we see the world,” explains George Lakoff, a professor of cognitive linguistics at the University of California-Berkeley. Reframing an issue doesn’t just mean using a different set of terms, such as “deteriorating atmosphere” instead of “global warming” — it’s a much more comprehensive shift in perspective. When targeting a specific audience, climate change needs to be reframed according to the values and concerns of that particular group. To reach the broader public, Lakoff stresses eight concepts that need to be repeated over and over until they are part of the public’s common understanding. We are all part of nature — it is not outside of us, and the destructive exploitation of nature is evil. “Nature has been seen as a resource for people’s short term gain rather than as a nurturer for us and for future generations. But it is part of us … it is inside of us as we breathe the air, drink the water and eat our food,” Lakoff said. The economic and ecological meltdowns have the same root — the idea that unregulated greed is good. The ecological system is a global one that is affected by many different elements. Thus people need to realize that their actions might cause climate change effects in other parts of the world, and that what happens in other parts of the world can affect us as well. The right wing’s argument that it will cost too much to save Earth is faulty; if Earth goes, business goes. It is not just the polar bears that are endangered – all of human existence is threatened We all own the air, and corporations are polluting our air; they need to be stopped. Even the most effective emissions cap will not be sufficient; large corporations need to join the effort. The cost-benefit analysis is the wrong paradigm for thinking about global warming because it is only accurate when calculating short-term gain for a given purpose. It cannot calculate the long-term value of sustainable measures.
And from Grist, Adam D. Sacks argues that the solution to climate change lies not with science or carbon targets, but with changing cultural attitudes and behaviour. We tend to agree with his line of thinking: In the 20 years since we climate activists began our work in earnest, the state of the climate has become dramatically worse, and the change is accelerating—this despite all of our best efforts. Clearly something is deeply wrong with this picture. What is it that we do not yet know? What do we have to think and do differently to arrive at urgently different outcomes?[1] The answers lie not with science, but with culture. Climate activists are obsessed with greenhouse-gas emissions and concentrations. Since global climate disruption is an effect of greenhouse gases, and a disastrous one, this is understandable. But it is also a mistake.
Such is the fallacy of climate activism[2]: We insist that global warming is merely a consequence of greenhouse-gas emissions. Since it is not, we fail to tell the truth to the public. I think that there are two serious errors in our perspectives on greenhouse gases: The first error is our failure to understand that greenhouse gases are not a cause but a symptom, and addressing the symptom will do little but leave us with a devil’s sack full of many other symptoms, possibly somewhat less rapidly lethal but lethal nonetheless. ... The second error is our stubborn unwillingness to understand that the battle against greenhouse-gas emissions, as we have currently framed it, is over. From there Mr. Sacks starts getting quite contraversial. We'd highly recommend reading on.  Our friend Peter Salmon of Moxie Design is involved both here in New Zealand and internationally in shaping “green” and “sustainable” brands. Recently, while attending the Sustainable Brands ’09 conference in Monterrey California, he became acquainted with Duke Stump of The NorthStar Manifesto. Thanks to Peter and Duke, a crowd of Auckland professionals interested in brand identity got to hear an interesting discourse on the future of companies and the products they offer. According to Duke Stump, who had worked previously with Nike and Seventh Generation in the U.S. before setting out on his own, green is (surprise) getting overused to the point of greenwash. The word sustainable has likewise lost much if any meaning it might have had previously. So how is a company interested in “doing the right thing” to market themselves? (continues) While small and land-strapped, the busy metropolis of Singapore actually has a countryside. Kranji is an area located just 30 minutes outside the city center, well outside the radar of the casual tourist. Far from the urban high rise cityscape, it hosts everything from military barracks to fish farms to wildlife parks. It is a place where people go to escape city life and experience a Singapore less ordinary. Nestled in this green corner of the country is a place known as Bollywood Veggies. If you’ve heard of the place, you know of its owner Ivy Singh-Lim. And if you’ve heard of Ivy, you know she’s a firecracker-- a local legend. A conversation with this activist will leave you inspired, challenged, perhaps a bit offended, but definitely refreshed. For a 60 year-old woman, Ivy possesses more energy than most apathetic people two generations younger. I dropped in to check out their 10 acre organic farm and bistro eatery and got more than I bargained for.  Over a glass of ice water in the sweltering heat, Ivy tells her story. “My second husband and I met and got married in 3 days. Twenty-seven years later we are still trying to decide who was drunk and who was desperate,” she laughs, her eyes engaged firmly the whole time.
“We were both running businesses. I was the child of a rich landowner family who owned large tracts of property. Whether by family background or career choice, I could have chosen to retire and not do much,” she says. (continues)  Singapore is a bustling city state at the southern tip of peninsular Malaysia. Independent from Malaysia since 1965, it has a dense population of 4.7 million people crammed into 269 sq. miles (697 sq. km)— that’s roughly 3.5x the size of Washington D.C.
In spite of its lacking land mass, the tiny country is a major economic hub in Southeast Asia and boasts one of the best standards of living of any Asian city, and even rivals many metropolis overseas. It’s a city that is well planned, tightly regulated, visually attractive, and thankfully lacking the woeful pollution that afflict other centers like Hong Kong and Shanghai. Waste and the City All the economic activity and large population of course is not without its downside: waste. In 2008 the total volume of solid waste had reached 5.97 million tons. Luckily, according to government figures, roughly 2.24 million tons (approx. 56%) of this was recycled. That still left a lot left to deal with. (continues)  The Netherlands has a reputation for being progressive, from the environment to social initiatives. About twice the size of New Jersey, a large proportion of its landmass is below sea level. Protected (at least for the moment) by an elaborate system of dikes, the country is a center of creativity, efficiency, and diversity. It’s a place that is open-minded and broad thinking on everything from social programs to wind energy. A recent trip to Amsterdam also unveiled it is equally creative with its approach to waste management and water reclamation. (continues)
This updates a previous story about the Poh Ern Shih Temple in Singapore) 
One year after opening, and about two years after construction began, the Poh Ern Shih Temple (or Temple of Thanksgiving in English) is looking great. I’m dropping by to visit the temple and check out progress on this green Buddhist sanctuary.
The place is bustling with activity, and thankfully the first phase of construction has now been completed. On the day of my visit, several different religious study groups are in session upstairs, catering to the younger members of the Buddhist congregation. I locate Boon, the temple president, just before lunch and we sit down for a chat. “The building performance has been great,” he tells me. “We’ve generated 15 megawatts of power from our first phase PV systems so far in the first year, and we’re going to install another set in our second phase of construction.” (continues) This updates an earlier blog entry on defining progress. ANew NZ and Statistics NZ released their report from the workshops held across the country in a report entitled "Measuring New Zealand’s Progress Using a Sustainable Development Approach: 2008", now available on their website. In a nutshell, the report, "presents an overarching view of New Zealand’s environmental, economic, and social progress and whether that progress was consistent with sustainable development. The selected indicators provide information about whether we are meeting our current needs, how our resources are distributed, how efficiently we are using our resources, and what impact our actions may have on the stock of resources that will be available in the future."  Richard Heinberg, author of "The Party's Over" and "Peak Everything" has a really worthwhile newsletter I'd suggest subscribing to. This month, he (surprisingly!) offers a lot of good news. On the list:
World energy consumption is declining. CO2 emissions are falling. Consumption of goods is falling. Globalization is in reverse (global trade is shrinking). The number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is falling. There are fewer cars on the road. The world’s over-leveraged, debt-based financial system is failing. Gardening is going gonzo. While many of these factors are due to recession, the positive side is that we're getting the opportunity to reconsider so many of the structures we have in our way of life, and have the opportunity to change them for the better. Take a moment to check out the rest of what Richard has to say. 
Thanks to everyone who made it out to last night’s terrific event. We had around 15 people from all backgrounds show up for a few hours-- and a lot of meaningful conversation. People stayed on well past 6:30, with the last minglers clearing out at 8:30. We hope to see you for a glass of wine next time and hear what you’re up to. The next event will take place at the end of June: What: Forward Thinking Thursdays
When: Thursday 25th of June, 5:30-6:30 ish (not fussed about being on time or leaving early/staying late), and every last Thursday of the month
Where: Hosted at Mezze Bar + Tapas Restaurant, 1st Floor, Durham Lane in Auckland’s CBD – Meet us at the back of the space overlooking Queen St. and grab a drink/nibbles at the bar on the way!
Why: Have meaningful conversation about issues that matter, get new ideas and constructive feedback, meet more switched on people in a small, manageable group, chilled out group setting (originally appearing on Celsias.com) For those interested in the "sustainability space" (interpret how you wish), you might find the thoughts of John Thackara quite refreshing. He runs an international conference and knowledge network called Doors of Perception which sets new agendas for design. John is also the author of the book "In the Bubble: Designing in a Complex World". Personally, I think the man is a genius. Both his newsletters and blog feature a headrush of inspiring material (warning, take in small doses!). In a somewhat recent post he delves into many of the same issues that we cover here on Celsias. For some food for thought, I've taken the liberty of posing a few excerpts here. Consider it mid-week mind exercise. Enjoy, and I'd be curious to hear your reactions and thoughts around these issues:  ] Introduction: measuring what matters
“These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others”. Groucho Marx could also have been talking about environmental standards. Our world is awash in eco information, but starved of meaning. Hundreds of organisations churn out a flood of reports, graphs, studies, punditry – and lists. So many lists! I'm supposed to be an expert on sustainability, but it still gives me a headache trying to keep track of the Triple Bottom Line; the Three Main Components (and Four System Conditions) of The Natural Step; One Planet Living's Ten Guiding Principles; the World Wildlife Fund's Three Forms of Solidarity; the Copenhagen Agenda's Ten Principles for Sustainable City Governance; the Framework of Eight Doorways of the Sustainable Schools Network; the 12 Indicators To Follow of the Earth Policy Institute; the 11 Indicators of a Sustainable City (developed by Montreal); and the Ten Hanover Principles promulgated by Bill McDonough. Each list is the result of deep thought by smart and dedicated people - and there are doubtless other important to-do lists out there that I've missed. But can we please agree: enough already? The pervasive tendency of politicians to dissemble adds to the uncertainty. Vague promises to use "as few natural resources as possible," "reduce waste to a minimum" or deliver the "greenest Olympics planned so far" amplifies our feelings of anxiety that not enough is being done - and that what is being done, is not being done fast enough.
How do we measure "sustainable"? What is the benchmark? How far is it from here, to there? And how long do we have to get there? In the transition towards a more balanced economy and society, we probably do have to take numbers and metrics seriously. And if a well-engineered new economic system is needed, we probably need it to be more like a German car than an Italian one. But this is not to say that numbers are all that matters. On the contrary, we a new synthesis of metrics and aesthetics. The what *and* the why are equally important. (continues...) Also appearing on Celsias.com, check out this hot off the press interview with David Holmgren:
 [Chris Tobias, Editor of Celsias] David, I just wanted to take a moment first to thank you for living such an inspiring, creative, and explorative life. I've been very interested in permaculture for the last few years, and I'm keen to discuss many of the themes that have emerged in your latest book, Future Scenarios: How Communities to Adapt to Peak Oil and Climate Change.
The book is really great concise reference. Thank you for not providing another 500 page thesis on either climate change or peak oil. Your treatment is really thoughtful and well analysed. Digging into the material, what I found really enlightening was your take on the challenges of climate change and peak oil to be ones that can have particularly positive results. Most people view these factors in a very "gloom and doom/the world is going to end" sort of way. Perhaps you can elaborate on some of your thoughts from the book? [David Holmgren] Permaculture arose out of the limits of resources and unsustainability of society 30 years ago. People could have come to permaculture for a variety of reasons over the years. Since the 1970s, Bill Mollison and I have been very touched by Club of Rome, the ongoing oil crisis, environmental impact issues, global food crisis, and how we narrowly averted catastrophes on so many occasions. A lot of these issues dating back to the 70's were largely swept under the carpet in 1980s and it no longer became acceptable to talk about "limits to growth". Later climate change became the galvanizing issue for the environmental movement, rather than just running out of resources. For me, over that long term, getting a better understanding that these things are taking place has meant I restructured what I believe in. I've changed my focus around the more positive outcomes will result from these inevitable shifts.  It works on two levels. One can change their own life in taking these issues as "Normal" (e.g. a world of scarce resources), become more self sufficient, and start doing things with nature rather than focusing on technological solutions. Through that process, you gradually become more comfortable with those realities becoming the norm. So actually the things we have been talking about, such as food being grown more locally for example, will become both economically and environmentally necessary. These trends make me comfortable. Looking at the numbers, even if we were living with a 10th of the resources we have now, we would be better off than many of our recent ancestors, and maybe even relatives several generations ago. There is the opportunity to bring back many patterns of human behavior that have served us well for centuries. While the changes ahead of us could be quite challenging, some many good things can come out of it. For example, the sense of community: decreased mobility and high energy cost will lead to people talking to their neighbours again... even if it is because they can't get away from it! Challenges will mean that people have to look out for each other. Real community isn't a "utopian" thing, it is a really basic thing... it is a normal human state. (continues) Well, for those of you geoengineering hacks who are keen on biochar, this week provided no lack of entertainment! Quite an uproar took place in UK based newspaper the Guardian. George Monbiot took aim at biochar and its promise to sequester carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. No holds barred either: "Sorry, not charcoal. We don't call it that any more. Now we say biochar. The idea is that wood and crop wastes are cooked to release the volatile components (which can be used as fuel), then the residue - the charcoal - is buried in the soil. According to the magical thinkers who promote it, the new miracle stops climate breakdown, replaces gas and petroleum, improves the fertility of the soil, reduces deforestation, cuts labour, creates employment, prevents respiratory disease and ensures that when you drop your toast it always lands butter side up. (I invented the last one, but give them time)." Toast landing butter side up? If only! He went on to pick, poke, and prod biochar for a few more paragraphs, and implicated a few heavyweight proponents...
(read the rest on Celsias.com)  While the credit crunch has taken its toll, 2009 will still be a great year for clean technologies-- this, from the 2009 Clean Energy Report just released this week. Some key findings according to Clean Edge Research:
- Biofuels (global production and wholesale pricing of ethanol and biodiesel) reached $34.8 billion in 2008 and are projected to grow to $105.4 billion by 2018. In 2008 the global biofuels market consisted of more than 17 billion gallons of ethanol and 2.5 billion gallons of biodiesel production worldwide. For the first time, ethanol leader Brazil got more than 50 percent of its total national automobile transportation fuels from bioethanol, eclipsing petroleum use for the first time in any major market.
- Wind power (new installation capital costs) is projected to expand from $51.4 billion in 2008 to $139.1 billion in 2018. Last year's global wind power installations reached a record 27,000 MW. In the U.S., which accounted for more than 8,000 MW, wind installations represented more than 40 percent of total new electricity generating capacity brought online in 2008 – and moved the U.S. ahead of Germany as the world's leading generator of wind energy.
- Solar photovoltaics (including modules, system components, and installation) will grow from a $29.6 billion industry in 2008 to $80.6 billion by 2018. Annual installations reached more than 4 GW worldwide in 2008, four times the total set just four years earlier, when the solar PV market reached the 1 GW milestone for the first time in 2004
Together, we project these three benchmark technologies, which equaled $75.8 billion in 2007 and expanded 50 percent to $115.9 billion in 2008, to grow to $325.1 billion within a decade.
Total Investments Reach $155 Billion
Through the miracle of hydroponics, we now have this:
A house that is alive. It's official, you've now seen everything. Keep reading... Circulated by our friends at Natural Path Media, here is a lot to be hopeful about: - Consumers are increasingly aligning their purchases with their values. According to a recent report by BBMG, 9 in 10 Americans agree that the term "conscious consumer" describes them well.
- A November 2008 Economist survey of managers and senior executives (sponsored by Cisco, HP, Qualcomm and SAS) found that Corporate citizenship is viewed as becoming increasingly important for the long-term health of their companies.
- A McKinsey Quarterly survey found that companies with a strong position in the green market may be able to better protect their market share from competitors. Large brand advertisers have discovered that Moms, which pour $1.7 billion into the US economy each year, are especially receptive to cause marketing.
- A recent survey conducted by Millard Brown found that both women without children (86.4%) and moms (85.6%) feel it's important for companies to support causes and charities and an overwhelming (97.3%) of corporate marketers believed that cause branding is a valid business strategy.
- The Hartman Group's latest report, "Sustainability: The Rise of Consumer Responsibility", gives further support that consumers aren't throwing out the (green) baby with the (economic decline) bathwater. The survey represents the latest report that shows environmental responsibility not going away during these difficult economic times. In particular, the report found more than 75 percent consider environmental and social aspects in deciding what to buy and about a third are willing to pay more for those benefits.
- A recent and very comprehensive report, published this January 09 by The Boston Consulting Group, concludes this question with a resounding Yes: consumers will continue to seek out green products, despite the economy.
- The Boston Consulting Group (BCG, just issued an extensive report: "Capturing the Green Advantage Consumer Companies". The BCG report, based on interviews with 9,000 consumers in North America, Europe, China, and Japan and other research, found that consumers bought more green goods in 2008 than they did in 2007 and that many "consumers greatly value the direct benefits that green products offer, such as superior freshness and taste, the promise of safety and health, and savings on energy costs." The BCG report found that consumers were willing to pay higher prices for green products deemed to be of high quality.
Ecostore Founder Malcolm Rands also said this week at a speech in Auckland that in general, people were gravitating towards environmentally and fairly traded products because, in a world of financial fall outs and corporate spin, these brands had promises that they could believe in.
From John Bielenberg: “All along the way, people were inspired not just by the act itself, but by how this grassroots effort was conceived and executed. It’s an example of how the process of thinking wrong can lead to something that doesn’t feel wrong at all.” Not only does thinking wrong often not feel wrong, contends Bielenberg, it may just be the most effective means of doing right. “The more diverse minds you have working on something, the more opportunity there is to make connections that one individual or one discipline wouldn’t make. In the activity of problem-solving on these big issues of sustainability and climate change, I think you need that diverse expertise in the room. Getting out of your comfort zone is where the really cool ideas come from.” And designers have an important seat at the table. “This is where we are very different from a think tank or an institute that considers the issues and writes white papers. Designers like to make stuff. It’s not just the idea generation, it’s the rapid prototyping, the execution, the bringing these ideas to life.” Old economy hacks and stalewarts of business as usual take note: Forward thinking companies outperform in the current economic crisis. As it turns out, focus on value, the big picture, and long term growth, as well as social conscience aren't a bad thing afterall. Who knew? But don't take our word for it... the Financial Times had this to say: We see things differently. The downturn will produce more integrated, strategic and value-creating sustainability efforts in many companies. While traditional corporate responsibility and philanthropic initiatives may suffer, core elements of the sustainability agenda will survive or even thrive in a re-ordered economy.
In other news, a landmark global warming lawsuit was settled this week setting a legal precedent that funding dirty polluting business can leave you with a big liability. And at last, someone has mapped out the relationships between all the organisations pushing for change. It is called the "Gort Cloud". Interesting findings, albeit the awkward name. 
As seen on Springwise:
Breaking a bad habit is never easy, but a little support can help. Much like Green Thing, which we wrote about back in 2007, Green Groove is a site that aims to help consumers create and stick to a plan to eliminate their unsustainable ways and embrace new, greener habits. Green Groove's goal is to help consumers make "a phased withdrawal on catastrophic climate change." Toward that end, the Idaho-based site invites visitors to take three initial steps to create their own, personal withdrawal plan. First, they choose their desired plan type, length and level of difficulty, including whether it's just a personal plan or one that incorporates a household or family. Next, the site guides visitors to select specific weekly goals in four categories: auto, diet, home and lifestyle. Within the "home" category, for example, weekly goals might include replacing one old lightbulb with a compact fluorescent, or hang-drying at least one load of laundry. Third, visitors are then invited to put their weekly goals into the order they'd like to follow in accomplishing them, thereby creating their step-by-step action plan. A downloadable "Goal Tracker" widget is available both for Mac and PC, as are "Green Groove Participant" and "Green Groove Certified" website badges for those who are in the midst of or have finished their plans. With all the many external demands on consumers' time and attention today, the need for support in making lifestyle changes seems greater than ever. Deliver that help in bite-sized portions, and you may just win some lasting support yourself! (Related: Nagging service for dieters — A public incentive to stick to one's goals.) Website: www.greengroove.org
Contact: support@greengroove.org Spotted on the Moxie blog... "The sustainability debate has been positioned all wrong - as an environmental problem, as something business needs to account for, a risk to be managed or a tax to be paid. The business community has been going along with this to an extent, but it doesn’t sit well. And now, in a volatile global economy and competitive environment, sustainability is being pushed aside as a luxury while business focuses on efficiencies, and the bolder ones look to innovate their way out of recession. But it’s not an and/or situation. The answer is and/and. Sustainability 1.0 - compliance, CSR, reduction, limits, is over. Sustainability 2.0 is here. Sustainability 2.0 is an outcome-focused all encompassing approach. It’s a process that builds prosperous businesses creating innovative products and services; businesses founded on good financial results, responsible use of resources, and community well‐being." Sustainability 2.0? Sounds like an upgrade for virus prone Microsoft. In computer language, they call this sort of thing a kludge. Its a clunky, technical fix to get around something that wasn't right to begin with. Everyone has a different understanding of "sustainability" anyway. By only increasing the complexity of language with the "2.0", we only talk to our group that much more-- rather than branching out with language that the rest of the world can understand.
Isn't this whole thing about dreaming what we want the future to be, consciously designing a plan to achieve it, and taking practical steps to move the whole thing Forward? I'm with the spirit of this, not to be overcritical, but in terms of conveying the meaning, sustainability isn't ringing enough bells to begin with, and adding 2.0 only makes it a bit more convoluted to any outsider.  Here's a really great interview with the legend of the environmental movement, James Lovelock. The full version can be found here in the New Scientist. Some highlights:
On Carbon Emissions...
"Do we have time to do a similar thing with carbon emissions to save ourselves from climate change? Not a hope in hell. Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning." On Survival...
"Do you think we will survive?
I'm an optimistic pessimist. I think it's wrong to assume we'll survive 2 °C of warming: there are already too many people on Earth. At 4 °C we could not survive with even one-tenth of our current population. The reason is we would not find enough food, unless we synthesised it. Because of this, the cull during this century is going to be huge, up to 90 per cent. The number of people remaining at the end of the century will probably be a billion or less. It has happened before: between the ice ages there were bottlenecks when there were only 2000 people left. It's happening again. I don't think humans react fast enough or are clever enough to handle what's coming up. Kyoto was 11 years ago. Virtually nothing's been done except endless talk and meetings. It's a depressing outlook. Not necessarily. I don't think 9 billion is better than 1 billion. I see humans as rather like the first photosynthesisers, which when they first appeared on the planet caused enormous damage by releasing oxygen - a nasty, poisonous gas. It took a long time, but it turned out in the end to be of enormous benefit. I look on humans in much the same light. For the first time in its 3.5 billion years of existence, the planet has an intelligent, communicating species that can consider the whole system and even do things about it. They are not yet bright enough, they have still to evolve quite a way, but they could become a very positive contributor to planetary welfare." Sobering words, but it does make you look at things from the widest view possible. We are on a rock spinning around the sun that's been here for millions of years. Humans, while we like to think of ourselves quite centrically, are really small peanuts in the scheme of things. I'd reckon any solutions we shoot for should really keep this reality in mind. Though, how realistic might that really be... Courtesy Dan Gould at PSFK (see also the rather inspiring Havas link): Umair Haque, the director of the Havas Media Lab shares five questions (and possible answers) he believes can generate valuable insights on how to thrive as a business in the sometimes dizzying world of the 21st century. Haque says that to mitigate the effects of the gloomy economic future, people need to radically change assumed operating procedures and re-wire the fundamental ways they do business. He discusses how to manage a world based on decreasing consumption and how to build on two-way value chains such as the member submitted culture of Threadless. He explains: Tomorrow will not be like yesterday. This is no mere recession: it’s a tectonic global shift in savings, consumption, and investment. Today’s macropocalypse is a rupture in the global economic fabric - and the next half-decade will be spent reweaving it. It is not a temporary departure from business as usual, an illness - it is a structural transformation, a lasting change. 20th century business isn’t fit for 21st century economics. Yesterday’s businesses were built for a world of overconsumption, artificially cheap production, symmetrical competition, and macroeconomic stability. That was yesterday. Today, the herd of industrial-era dinosaurs is going to be mercilessly culled - unless they can evolve to fit a radically altered economic environment.
Harvard Business: “A User’s Guide to 21st Century Economics” It's not quite as sleep as the Micro Compact Home, but for reused material factor, local manufacture, portability, and composting loo (not to mention Kiwi ingenuity), we give it some big points. Introducing Port-a-Bach. Put all those retired shipping containers to good use. Nice Work!
 Previous Page | Next Page  | |