You know how we always talk about how politicians aren’t doing anything to stop climate change? NOW is the time for us to make them change their ways. Earth Day Network has drafted a petition demanding that Congress act to solve this crisis, and to solve it fairly.
Join me in signing up Earth Day Network's online petition, at:
http://salsa.democracyinaction
Throughout the 2-weeks US delegates were disruptive to the process, and it was only in the last hour – and only following a full minute of booing and hissing from the world community that we agreed to come to the table with the rest of the world. Here’s a more in-depth description from the Solve Climate blog: http://solveclimate.com/blog/20071215/eyewitness-bali-jeering-assembled-nations-humbles-bush-delegation-join-fold.
Some excerpts:
And then the moment of truth: India presented the alternative text from the G-77+China. The essential point about this alternative text is that it takes into account "differences in national circumstances" amongst developing countries.
Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union, let the other shoe drop. "We support the proposal made by....India." …Even the Saudis rose to say they could live with the G-77 text.
And then it was the turn of the United States. Assistant Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky, with only the absolute bare minimum of diplomatic language, stated flatly that the United States rejected the changes. It was not prepared to accept the G-77 text.
Then occurred one of the most remarkable sounds that has perhaps ever been heard in the annals of international diplomacy--like a collective global groan--descending then to a murmur, then increasing in volume to a full-throated expression of rage and anger and booing and jeering, lasting for a full minute, so that finally the Minister had to call the meeting back to order.
(The Americans, with almost unspeakable rudeness, issued invitations to the next 'major economies meeting' on the first day of the Bali COP. Sort of like making a big show of announcing your engagement while at someone else's wedding.)
Casting all diplomatic niceties to the winds, the representative from Papua New Guinea stood up and said: "if you're not willing to lead, please get out of the way."
Meanwhile, we hear little about this, we are fed an insane logic that addressing what the science tells us would be “unfair” if China, struggling out of poverty, does not act first (ignoring for one thing the 100+ years of emissions already in the atmosphere that we’re responsible for), and led to believe that addressing this problem will necessarily have negative impacts on the economy and our standard of living. I think the opposite is true, and that we can improve our standard of living through better, more sustainable lifestyles, by driving the growth of value in our economy through a strategic shift to sustainable systems. We are seeing leadership in this regard from many sectors – business, municipal and state government, higher education, not-for-profit – and increasingly from the federal legislators (in large part in response to demands from business). As the world moves forward in this shift, the delays we’re suffering on the federal level and in the international sphere are going to be costly. So stay involved, vote with the ballot, your wallet, your actions and intentions, and stay going…
"Schendler explains his confessional mood as the result of cumulative frustration: with foot-dragging colleagues, with himself for compromising, and with the entire green movement frothily sweeping through corporations in America and Europe."
I would say that he has just had challenges applying what he learned at the Rocky Mountain Institute. If applied in a conventional way, many green initiatives can represent additional costs. What we (and RMI) stress is the importance of a whole-system approach. The easiest examples are in buildings. If you had an energy efficiency technology, or solar panel, just tacked on to your average building, you can easily calculate the pay-back period, and depending on energy prices, etc, it either will or will not be attractive given the length of the payback time (even if it’s longer than standard pay-backs some companies do it for PR reasons). But if you design a building to be oriented towards the sun in such a way, insulated in such a way, using natural lighting, the most innovative and efficient fixtures, etc all right up front, you can dramatically reduce energy demand, and dramatically increase the payback and effectiveness of something like solar panels, so they do make sense, and aren’t just a sexy, expensive add-on.
There are many examples of this thinking in action, and the place most people point to is RMI’s famous book –Natural Capitalism. But these are also very difficult – they take incredible creativity, and extremely well-functioning teams that get the concept and are committed to it. It requires understanding systems-thinking – ie understanding the entire system you’re operating in, as well as the system(s) it exists within (e.g. a ski company, in the town of aspen, in CO, in the USA, in the biosphere), the various components of that system - internal (world-views, cultures) and external (structures, rules, norms) - and the relationships and interactions between those components. This is very complex stuff and most people, even if they have this understanding (like Schendler) don’t necessarily have the tools and skills to foster that in everyone their working with – and as the quote above indicates, it looks like he hasn’t been able to do that. When this does happen the whole ROI picture changes from kWh saved per dollar invested to a much more interesting equation that can show dramatic increases in productivity, employee morale, and brand goodwill – things that absolutely dwarf energy costs in an ROI calculation.
This is not surprising from a pioneer working in relative isolation like himself. As he indicates, it's easy to start compromising, and being overtaken by the institutional culture they find themselves within, which can be incredibly difficult to change. But at the end of the day, that is what ‘going green’ really requires – and that’s why it’s so hard. It is dramatic, transformational change.
He took an approach of selling and convincing, which clearly hasn’t totally worked. Focusing on the ‘art and practice’ of organizational learning has shown more success (but definitely not 100%) in getting people engaged on these issues, finding meaning in them and then acting accordingly. In the hotel example, of course the guy didn’t want to just slam in CFLs he knew nothing about – and it’s clear Auden didn’t know much about managing 5-star hotels – this is a classic example of needing everyone. If he instead took the time to help the manager and all the staff learn about the importance, and then gave them the tools with which to evaluate their own situation, using their own expertise, and find the appropriate, innovative, creative solutions, they might have had better luck.
I do agree with this: Much corporate environmentalism boils down to misleading statistics and hype.
But that doesn’t mean it all does, or that it necessarily has to be the case.
This last paragraph is the only one that really gets to the heart of the issue: "His former mentor Lovins says Schendler could find further cost-saving energy efficiencies with more support from his superiors. But this mind-set, Schendler warns, could influence companies to pursue exclusively projects with quick payoffs: 'The idea that green is fun, it's easy, and it's profitable is dangerous. This is hard work. It's messy. It's not always profitable. And companies have to get off the mark and start actually doing stuff.'"
Lovins is right – but it’s more than just his superiors (he’s very close to the top already, and they’re obviously supportive of him – they just don’t quite get it – and that’s probably in large part a result of his approach) – it’s also his ‘inferiors’ – EVERYONE in the company down to the lifties and janitors have to be behind this and stoked about it for it to work in a way that truly is profitable and effective.
In addition to having that engagement and creative energy from people throughout the organization, this whole case underscores the need for a long-term, strategic perspective when tackling sustainability from an organizational stand-point, and a common, practical framework to make that context more tangible and useful for all of the people involved with the organization.This is clearly the best quote from the whole thing: Schendler replied: "Relax, brah. I enormously appreciate all the support.... We're on the edge of this thing, figuring it out. If it were simple and easy, someone would have done it already."
Stay going...I just got back from watching Shark Water – an incredible new documentary that has been cleaning up at film festivals for good reason. The website (www.sharkwater.com) has a good trailer that gives you a sense of the destruction going on.
Bottom line: shark populations have declined 90% in the last 50 years in a barbaric attack on this species. Sharks have been around for 450 million years, surviving at least 5 major extinctions, and as top predators in marine ecosystems, they are a vital part of the balance in our global marine system, which is crucial in maintaining the stable climate that makes human civilization possible.
This is a perfect, dramatic example of violating SP 3 – a systematic degradation of natural systems by physical means. A lot of the slaughter is being driven by shark fin trade, which is hugely lucrative and made possible due to the lack of enforcement of international treaties. I doubt many of you eat much shark fin soup, but it is a huge issue and one to be aware of. It also speaks to larger trends and exemplifies the systematic destruction of our life-support systems.
The film also does a very good job at addressing a strong mental model that most of us hold: that sharks are scary and evil. The power of mental models – the unrecognized assumptions and habits of thought that we all have – and their importance (as barriers and/or catalysts) in creating a sustainable society.
Check out the flick, and stay going…
Mine will not be as powerful, but it will be intimately related... So Blog Action Day calls on all bloggers to write a post about the environment. Writing a sustainability blog, I obviously do this quite a bit, though not specifically about the environment - more about the interplay of social and environmental systems. But I think that's what they mean. And this interplay is present every moment of everyday and every decision we make affects it.
On that note, I thought I'd go for a personal post about how we try to "walk the talk" with our every day choices, with a bit of a photo-log:
Here’s our back porch with the worm bin in the foreground - all of our kitchen scraps go in there and a crew of red wrigglers break 'em down in no time. It doesn't stink, unless it gets out of balance, which usually means there's too much moisture or "green" material. I throw in some saw dust, dried leaves, or shredded newspaper to get it back in harmony and we're good to go. In the background, a good ole fashioned clothes lines takes a big chunk out of our electricity budget, and some late-season leftovers of the veggies we grew on the porch - a cheap and fun way to get the good local organic grub.
Bringing it inside, we’ve got the living room with some good daylight. So many of the actions we take to reduce our impact are just incredibly simple behavior changes that don’t represent any kind of sacrifice in comfort or lifestyle – they’re mostly just becoming aware of and consciously working on changing old habits. It’s harder than it sounds – but just not flipping the light on when walking into the bathroom during the day can make a big difference (when added up with everything else!).
The bedding’s all organic cotton – it took quite a bit of research to find it all without breaking the bank, but it’s very cozy now that it’s all set up. I think we ended up getting it from Gaiam and Viva Terra.
The furniture we got lucky with – due to a concurrent move in my family, we basically inherited an apartment-full of beautiful old wooden furniture. But even without the helpful circumstances, furniture is a great thing to get used – you can go fancy antiques, or cheap second-hand shops, but it’s a great place to “reuse” to lighten the impact. Beyond that, for all of its big-boxiness, IKEA has a great sustainability program, working extensively for years with The Natural Step framework, which has driven a lot of their product innovation, including the development of low-mercury compact fluorescent light bulbs.
Speaking of… we’ve got CFLs in all of our fixtures. These things are a no brainer – they last forever, and use a forth of the energy – they’ve also come way down in price, and when you’re talking about something as cheap as light bulbs, the “upfront capital costs” really shouldn’t be a serious deterrent - spending a couple of bucks instead of a couple of quarters is well worth it. You may also be wondering why we’ve got two right next to each other – the fixture actually has spots for 4 bulbs, but we just use 2 – it’s pretty common, and usually you get plenty of light without filling all the spots – you don’t have to do it just because they’re there!
Other furniture options – build your own. For these I cut 2 boards in half with some funky curves, the off-cuts serve as the braces. The towels – have hand-me-downs, half fluffy new organic cotton.
Some more veggies on the inside – everyone loves house plants, why not go for the kind that produce food. We heat these spaces anyway, may as well experiment with cold climate indoor agriculture. At the very least, fresh herbs are easy and a total treat.
Speaking of space-heating, the first and most obvious is keeping an eye on the thermostat, and keeping it at 65-67 F when hanging out and down to 55-57 F at night.
Our building has oil heat, so go with Mass Biofuel – a blend of 10% soy-biodiesel, and 90% ultralow sulfur diesel. While the 10% isn’t a whole lot, it is something, and more importantly sends the signal to the market that there’s demand for the stuff and supports the development of the market.
On the topic of biodiesel we put it in our whip as well – we’ve got a Volkswagen Jetta TDI (turbo diesel injection). TDIs get 45-50 mpg, but aren’t sold in most states. We haven’t really figured out why this is. We had to get ours used from Ohio. But we’re very happy with her now that she’s a Sox fan.
The biodiesel scene for the wheels is much the same as it is for the heat – we usually get B20 (20% biodiesel, 80% regular diesel) especially in cold weather.
Some places only have B5, but quite a few have B100, which is great. www.biodiesel.org has a great map of filling stations that have biodiesel pumps. The one pictured here is in Chelsea, just a few blocks off 93.
Back to the homestead… we are not immune to the gadgetry inundation – all of these little electronics are a huge source of growth in electricity demand. Beyond rethinking what it is we really need, we plug everything into power strips, and try to (again, another habit) turn the switch off whenever we don’t need the juice flowing through it. All of those chargers and ‘standby’ lights eat up billions of dollars of electricity a year in the US – again, it doesn’t seem like much but with everything else it is huge. We’ve avoided altogether a couple of the biggest energy-hog gadgets: AC units and flatscreen TVs (bummer, I know).
We do have a regular TV but are diligent about interpreting everything that it throws at us, and we do mix it up with the books – obviously good on its own, but what’s in the library that speaks to the sustainability attributes – a partial list can be found in the column to the right down under “reading list.”
To keep it all clean we go with the natural, biodegradable, organic products as much as possible. This is getting easier and easier with all of the good stuff coming on the market. It works just as well or better, it’s cost competitive, and it’s just another no-brainer.
Also in the no-brainer category for us is local, organic food. Again, the market is growing, and it’s easier and easier to get. With all of the horrendous impacts of industrial agriculture it’s also one of the more important things we can do. As for the question: which is more important, organic or local? I don’t think it’s a great way to look at the issue – for many things it should be both, and when it’s not available in ‘both’, ask for it. We also keep the seasons in mind and try to eat appropriately, and just changing our expectations slightly to realize we don’t need to be gorging on strawberries in February.
And of course, all the while remembering why we’re doing it all – to live happy healthy lives – a huge part of which for most humans is getting outside and enjoying a little nature. This one’s from a walk this afternoon in the arboretum in our neighborhood. Of course most of us in the US could live happy lives without worrying about the impacts of every little action, but the trick is not to do it at the expense of others, or future generations. Our emissions, land-use patterns, and production and consumption practices impact everyone – even those pastoral families in Kenya my sister wrote about. Hopefully some of these actions inspire you to evaluate your everyday activities or gives you some cool ideas if you’re already all over it. Another great resource to take it a step further and start spreading the action around, check out the Cool Communities Campaign and the Low Carbon Diet book – an innovative, old-fashioned neighborly approach to social change. So kudos to the Blog Action Day people, and stay going…
I reminisce because this year is the 25th anniversary of the Rocky Mountain Institute and Grist just ran a great article with Amory Lovins. I highly encourage you to read the whole thing:
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/07/26/lovins/index.html?source=weekly
Some highlights:
On the economics of nuclear vs. micropower:
We see this now in the electricity business. A sixth of the world's electricity and a third of the world's new electricity comes from micropower* -- that is, combined heat and power (also called cogeneration) and distributed renewables. Micropower provides anywhere from a sixth to over half of all electricity in most of the industrial countries. This is not a minor activity anymore; it's well over $100 billion a year in assets. And it's essentially all private risk capital.
So in 2005, micropower added 11 times as much capacity and four times as much output as nuclear worldwide, and not a single new nuclear project on the planet is funded by private risk capital. What does this tell you? I think it tells you that nuclear, and indeed other central power stations, have associated costs and financial risks that make them unattractive to private investors. Even when our government approved new subsidies on top of the old ones in August 2005 -- roughly equal to the entire capital costs of the next-gen nuclear plants -- Standard & Poor's reaction in two reports was that it wouldn't materially improve the builders' credit ratings, because the risks private capital markets are concerned about are still there.
On the competiveness of liquid coal:
I think a good way to smoke out corporate socialists in free-marketeers' clothing is to ask whether they agree that all ways to save or produce energy should be allowed to compete fairly at honest prices, regardless of which kind they are, what technology they use, where they are, how big they are, or who owns them. I can tell you who won't be in favor of it: the incumbent monopolists, monopsonists, and oligarchs who don't like competition and new market entrants. But whether they like it or not, competition happens. It's particularly keen on the demand side.
On the relative (in)effectiveness of government:
People will vote with their wallets as well as their ballots, in a way that will affect the political system and even more the private sector, which is quite good at selling what you want and not selling what you don't buy. The interplay between business and civil society is even more important than between business and government, and that is where I want to continue to focus most of my effort. I admire those who try to reform public policy, but I don't spend much time doing that myself. In a tripolar world of business, civil society, and government, why would you want to focus on the least effective of that triad?
On the absurdity of the level of the biofuels “debate”:
You're treating biofuels as generic and I don't think that's appropriate. There are much smarter and much dumber approaches to biofuels, and biofuels do not need to have the problems you refer to.
Stay going…
Go to www.goodsearch.com and enter “Stratleade” in the second field where it says “Who do you GoodSearch for?” in the field should appear: “Stratleade Sustainability Education (
For those of you who haven’t heard, or forget, Stratleade is a not-for-profit that raises money to support programs and activities that deliver education for Strategic Sustainable Development. It is a close partner of the MSLS program at BTH and plans to provide funds to support staff, scholarships, visiting lectures, internships and program activities. See www.stratleade.org for more.
This could raise a lot of money for the program, so please take the second to set Stratleade as your cause, use it whenever you search and spread the word!! Put it on your blogs, encourage family & friends to use it – it’s a great way to help the program without having to reach into your own pockets (although it would be great if you did that too! paypal donations accepted at www.stratleade.org).
Skål, tack så mycket, and stay going.
Aside from staying busy with business development, networking and exploring new project ideas, most of our time has been dedicated to the American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment. It’s been going very well, with over 312 presidents so far pledging their institutions to a path towards climate neutrality.
We had a very successful public launch of the initiative in
But in my opinion the presidents stole the show – Michael Crow (Arizona State), Tim White (U of Idaho), Kathy Schatzberg (Cape Cod Community College), David Hales (College of the Atlantic), David Shi (Furman), and many others – are all doing amazing things. A quick Google search will bring up some good info on them if you’re interested – especially Crow and ASU, they are shifting the paradigm in a big way, and as a result are going to be well positioned to meet the coming demands from applicants, employers, funding bodies, etc.
I also got a chance to facilitate a dialogue session amongst the presidents about implementing the commitment, sharing a definition of leadership I heard recently, which says leadership is stepping into that which you have not yet mastered. It’s safe to say that no one has yet mastered a long-term shift to climate neutrality on a large scale, so in that sense, and in many others, making this commitment is a tremendous show of leadership by these presidents and their institutions.
Our fantastic partners at ecoAmerica wrote up a summary for their blog, if you’re interested in more details (they also have some links to the excellent press coverage the event received). And we finally got to meet the rest of the team in person, after months of emails and conference calls - a great group to work with:
All in all, it’s been an interesting to see the reactions to this initiative as we go through this amazing time when the
Finally, and most importantly, a common reason for resistance is not seeing the larger picture, which is that ACUPCC is not just about reducing GHG emissions from campus operations, but much more about (1) educating our next generation of leaders so they’re prepared to solve this problem, by being able to deal with the complexity and communicate with each other across disciplines and (2) promoting research to develop the solutions we will need – both the physical and social technologies we are lacking. As ASU’s Crow said at the
The issue covers 10 companies and their sustainability initiatives, leaving out the already heavily covered GE and WMT stories they look at Honda, Continental, HP, Tesco, Suncor, Alcan, PG&E, S.C. Johnson, Goldman, & Swiss Re - for the most part usual suspects for people following the scene (with the exception of Continental, I didn't realize how much they've been doing) - but still a great rundown for the mainstream business types. Also focus pieces on the good, bad, & ugly at DuPont, the inspiring passion at
Check out the stories here: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/goinggreen/2007/index.html
But one of the most intriguing pieces in the issue is not in the 'green section'. It is a one-pager called "Opening the Capitalist Mind" and it lays out a scenario for shifting the $500 billion per year health care burden from corporate America to government It would be financed with a carbon tax - thus relieving business of big burden without taxing them directly for it (all carbon consumers would share the burden), without increasing the deficit, and all the while sending a huge signal for a carbon-free economy and helping Americans realize the dream of universal healthcare. It has the potential to make both Republicans and Dems happy and apparently has the support of some of those conservative think-tank analysts. I think it has the potential to be another small but powerful example of how pursuing sustainability can bring disparate forces together for our common good and that of the biological systems upon which we all depend. Stay going…
The concepts of organizational learning are a core aspect of the MSLS program, and we worked with them a lot last year – they were essentially the backdrop for everything we did. Still, it was really helpful to spend three intensive days delving deep in the concepts with a new group of people and facilitated by the folks that developed and articulated the ideas.
What organizational learning is, exactly, can be difficult to put into words. Essentially it describes an ongoing process of profound change within an organization (business, school, NGO, government agency, etc.) Senge’s The Fifth Discipline is a central book in the field, exploring five disciplines of a learning organization: team learning, mental models, personal mastery, building shared vision, and systems thinking. These are interrelated concepts, each with a lot behind it. Most are to some extent self explanatory – mental models refer to the “deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and take action.” Systems thinking I’ve talked a lot before – it is “the fifth discipline” and also the basis of the framework for strategic sustainable development (SSD).
One of the basic tools in the field of systems thinking and systems dynamics are causal loop diagrams (CLDs). The field also identifies some common patterns, or archetypes, that often play out in various ways in different systems. These archetypes are quite intuitive, as they are common patterns we have experience with, and the CLDs help clarify these patterns, bring them before us so we can get a better sense of what’s happening.
Here are two basic archetypes – Shifting the Burden and Limits to Success – as well as an example of each:
Another central theme in the field of organizational learning, which is also an integral part of the framework for SSD, is the concept of building a shared vision amongst a group of people, giving an honest analysis of the current reality. The gap between the vision and the current reality results in a creative tension. This is the basis of backcasting and enabling a strategic approach to sustainable development.
In the 5th Discipline, Senge points out that MLK Jr. once said: “Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind, so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths…so must we... create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism.” The same is true for creating a sustainable society, and navigating the enormous transformational change that is accompanying that creative effort.
The book and the program explore the two basic motivators for sparking change: aspiration and desperation. The latter is responsible for the phrase “no change without crisis” and in the context of sustainability it is a motivator we see a lot, when organizations hit the funnel walls. When Wal-Mart feels the pain of consumer boycotts, or when Greenpeace campaigns against PVCs, dumps old washing machines on Electrolux’s parking lot, companies are motivated to make some changes towards sustainability.
However, when the conditions that created the desperation are no longer there, when enough has been done to relieve the outside pressure, the change toward sustainability often subsides. This can lead to frustration within the organization and from outside groups, as well as to many books and papers on why sustainability efforts fizzle out.
When organizations are motivated by an aspiration, on the other hand, when they are pulled towards a compelling vision of a successful, healthy, sustainable future, they often have a better chance of sustaining their efforts, and making more dramatic progress towards eliminating their contributions to unsustainability. It’s usually only through a real aspiration to move towards sustainability can a company reap all of the benefits like greater employee attraction and retention, increased productivity, meaningful innovation, dramatic cost savings, etc.
Bob Willard’s concept of 5-stages of corporate development with regard to sustainability highlight this concept:
Put into the context of the funnel, this idea shows how as companies move up through the stages they can reduce risks associated with unsustainable behavior:
We’re getting excited to head down to Atlanta for the SoL Sustainability Forum, where we’ll keep the learning going as we meet with those pioneering the shift to a new way of doing business and using organizational learning concepts to move towards sustainability. Stay going.
