Forecasting vs. Backcasting...Feasibility vs. Necessity

We've been working on the American College & University Presidents' Climate Commitment for the past year. This has been incredibly exciting to see the awakening, learning, and tremendous vision and leadership by these chancellors and presidents to commit their institutions to pursuing climate neutrality. This is an Apollo Mission-esque commitment that will marshal the brainpower, energy, resources, and focus needed to accelerate our shift to a low-carbon economy. The structure is classic backcasting - envisioning a future state of climate neutrality and then looking back to the present to determine what we needed to do to get to this future state.

Our colleague Julian Dautremont-Smith just wrote a great post on the AASHE blog on this topic addressing one of the major objections that schools that have not yet signed express: "climate neutrality isn't feasible." Check out the response, as it walks nicely through the reasons why backcasting is necessary for success, again the link is here.

As we know a major drawback of forecasting is that it tends to bring the problems of the past and present into the future, as they are inherently part of the planning. It also limits creativity with regard to what's possible. Finally, the beauty of setting goals that might seem audacious is that if you fall short, you're still way ahead of where you would be if you didn't set those goals. In this case a school that commits to 15% reductions below 2005 emissions rates by 2020, might make it, they might even make 16%, they might fall short with 14% - but the school that contextualizes its planning and prioritization around the ultimate goal of climate neutrality will blow through those incremental targets - and yes they might even fall short with cuts of only 85-95%, but would you rather be a "failure" with 95% reductions in emissions or a success with 15% reductions?

Check out this clip of Joe Laur speaking eloquently on the power of being audacious.



Stay going...

Bali… the final hour

While it’s received some press – certainly more than Nairobi last year – the negotiations in Bali still have not held the spot light here in the US the way they should be. I haven’t heard much from any of the candidates, although one of them (whoever wins) was central to these negotiations, which resulted in a 2-year timeline for establishing the follow-up to Kyoto, which expires in 2012. That 2-year timeline of course opens the door for post-Bush representation by the US, after a potentially costly 8-year delay. The details of the plan are available here: http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_13/items/4049.php

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…

Speak up Americans

With the annual climate negotiations winding down in Bali, Al Gore is about to present to the delegation of ~10,000 and has a petition to show that the people of the US are ready to take some leadership, and harness our innovative, creative, spirit for the betterment of the world. Our representatives there have again been unwilling to move the dialog forward about the need for us to accept caps on our GHG emissions like the rest of the industrialized nations have, and we point at China and India saying they must take the lead before we will take any responsibility. For me, this is embarrassing.

If you agree, please take a second to add your name to the list of those of us who feel we are not being well represented in Bali at this critical time in human history. Even if you think Gore is terrible, please put aside partisan feelings, as this is probably the most effective way for the American people to show our support for international cooperation on this issue that affects us all.

http://climateprotect.org/standwithal

Thx, and stay going...

Blind spots

"When we mistake what we can know for all there is to know, a healthy appreciation of one's ignorance... gives way to the hubris that we can treat nature as a machine."

- Michael Pollan - The Omnivore's Dilemma

Green washing... the future is later

My mom informed me over the Thanksgiving holiday that she learned a new term on NPR - greenwashing. It was in a piece about Auden Schendler - the sustainability director for Aspen Ski Co, who has been shaking things up saying that going green necessarily costs more - in businessweek: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_44/b4056001.htm?chan=search

(The article isn't really the point of this post, but I'll include some comments I emailed to a friend who asked if it was true or not - is going green really more expensive??)

This post is about this hilarious piece from freeloveforum - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71kckb8hhOQ - "the future is later..." Clearly people are becoming more aware of the threats of greenwashing, and understanding the complexities of it (and the sometimes obvious, pandering tones that greenwashing ads can use in attempts to connect with you). At the same time, there are a lot of shades of gray in this, and as Hunter Lovins says, often "hypocrisy is the first step to genuine change," so as part of companies' and society's movement towards sustainability, we're going to have some gray areas - the encouraging thing is that it is becoming front and center and we all have the opportunity to wrestle with and move through these gray areas in our own lives, while at the same time demanding that companies and governments do the same and support us in these efforts.

(On a related note, a blog I recently discovered, SenseUp, has a piece on another take on greenwahsing: soap. Clever...)

Response to BizWeek article on Aspen:

"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...

Big Bill helps the ACUPCC tackle existing buildings

We had an exciting day for the American College & University Presidents' Climate Commitment yesterday with Bill Clinton publicly announcing a partnership we've been developing between the ACUPCC and the CCI (Clinton Climate Initiative).

Check out the full report from Inside Higher Ed - http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/11/08/clinton

The announcement was made at GreenBuild - the conference of the US Green Building Council - in Chicago, which was a great event with about 20,000 attendees, reflecting the tremendous development of the greenbuilding industry.

Watch his speech here: http://www.greenbuild365.org/Videos/video_gb01.html

As part of his talk, Clinton made an excellent point that as this space develops and the economics are better understood, things will only accelerate and in about 18 months the focus will be on zero-carbon and energy-positive buildings. This is the sort of development that dramatically changes energy forecasts, driving down the need for large, centralized coal and nuclear plants and driving smaller distributed clean renewables. In conjunction with the demand-side management this sort of path has dramatically lower costs to society.

This is a powerful example of how backcasting - in this case from climate neutral campuses - can drive the innovation and create the synergies needed to move towards sustainability.

Exciting stuff... stay going.

SP3 Shark Attack

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…