Copenhagen Crib Sheet

December 14th, 2009

This week there are going to be lots of headlines, inches and screen time about the Climate Conference in Copenhagen. Rather than have you be overwhelmed, or just bored and annoyed, let Saturday’s LA Times article by Jim Tankersley reduces it pretty nicely -

1- They’re one big optical illusion- it’s a circus on the outside with a few key players wrestling with breaking down the barriers to an agreement. Even today’s headlines about developing nations boycotting are theater.

2- Many activists are going to leave disappointed.- No matter what agreements emerge, they won’t be anywhere near the estimates of scientists say will be necessary to avoid the upper range of climate change possibilities predicted by existing models.

3- Scientists are striking back. In their own way, scientists are responding to the attack upon climate consensus led by the release of hacked emails. In addition to numerous interpretations of the three main emails actually used in the attack campaign, scientists are releasing data, and making presentations reaffirming this as the warmest decade on record, among other things. BTW- the cooling over the last few years fits with the solar cycle as we are in the low years of the 11 year variation of the sun’s radiance.

4- Language matters- The details of whatever announcement/agreement emerges will evidence a mastery of linguistic diplomacy as the need for both emerging and existing industrial nations to appear to be committed to both reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving or keeping their standards of living are great.

5- The circus is coming.-Last week was nothing. This week the world’s leaders show up- including Obama. The theater in the street will explode as the tens of thousands of environmentalists with no real access to the inside track at the talks strive to make their case, and those on the inside track elbow each other in ways that make the speed skating competition at February’s Winter Olympics look like kids going for cookies.

Here at home, while we won’t be hearing about it until next year, Cap and Trade is the big subject. From Anne Leonard, whose “Story of Stuff” explains our economic system’s accounting problems with the environment, comes “The Story of Cap and Trade”. Leonard’s short online presentations are simple yet sophisticated explanations of complex and very significant subjects. Her position is clear, but doesn’t obscure or ignore the full picture. While she uses the shorthand of ‘saving the planet” she doesn’t pretend that the economy doesn’t matter. Her annotated footnotes- appearing beneath the movie window as it plays &documenting the facts stated-  are a model for media that makes me jealous for her staffing support.

Meanwhile, winter is at hand. You can probably feel the places in your house where the heat isn’t, or is leaking. However you may feel about climate- the science or the politics- your best course of action is to keep that heat in. It will keep you warm, make the most of your energy dollars, make our nation more secure (especially if your heat comes from imported oil) and, if you hire local and buy domestic, help generate prosperity here at home.

Happy Holidays!

Posted in Capitalism, Geology, Human Nature, Leadership, Media, Politcis, Science, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Beat the Hangover

November 12th, 2009

The air is full of those traditional sounds of fall- sniffles, coughs, and feverish moans. As the days shorten, pessimism has spread with the flu.  This fall’s version builds upon a spring and summer of agitation and insecurity as the public discourse over a wide variety of issues has been a sort of headache hangover of last fall and winter’s giddy sense of optimism and accomplishment.
Historically, it was a justified buoyancy. But the tempering of realism and the lack of unity on just what sort of change we can actually accomplish sets us up for a new hangover, which unfortunately can’t be excused by a landmark accomplishment.
While it has only recently gotten front-page notice, the upcoming Copenhagen climate conference offers a historical opportunity that actually has equal if not greater potential than electing the first black POTUS. Imagine the impact of a truly meaningful enforceable climate plan agreed upon by all the nations of the world. Imagine the years since Kyoto of effort and organizing and politicking on all sides around the world.
Which is why there is going to be a hangover. Regardless of what is agreed upon in Copenhagen next month, what is generally agreed upon to be required of humanity to both mitigate and adapt to our climate won’t be included. The actions called for won’t be enough for some, and too much for others. Based upon past performance, they won’t be executed by many.
So just like drinking as much water as possible after a night of drinking, taking that aspirin just before going to inebriated sleep, today I want to share with you an example of something you can get stoked and high about and with, that won’t give you any hangover. You might have some after buzz with the prosperity, but the relative stability promised by this example will give the platform that inspires more risk taking.
As I moved into fall, I had the chance to hear Kevin Surace, CEO of Serious Materials speak at UCSB. His talk is titled “Last Chance to Save America”. His company, one of several ‘clean’ tech companies that “Proof or Propaganda” source Marc Porat is involved in. Serious Materials has reinvented sheet rock- you know that thing holding the paint up near you. More specifically they reinvented how sheet rock is made. And what it does both when installing it and just being part of your wall. Surace tells the story in the talk. Among the key points, huge reduction in energy used producing, and great increase in R factor of the wall it is a part of. Results in faster payback for home, and, especially when it goes to scale- reduction in energy use overall.  Surace’s personal goal- save a billion tons of carbon release.
Better than all that, Serious Materials has gained the first national recognition for its deal to purchase a notoriously closed domestic door and window plant, retaining the jobs and reinventing windows the same way they reinvented sheet rock.
Invest in the time to hear the Surace  presentation, or peruse a few of the much more compact videos on the company website.  The shortest slickest bit is a very compressed TED talk here or here. You’ll see something to get excited about, feel confidence in and what has to be accomplished at a mammoth scale. If the United States is to continue as the leading country in the world, in freedoms of all sorts, it needs to lead economically.
The prosperity of the 50’s led to the social revolution of the 60s. Progress in democratic freedoms, and quality of life, almost always follow prosperity- especially broad based prosperity.
As you’ll see Surace show in graphs and charts, there is plenty of profit to be had, and rapid payback in energy savings, in retrofitting our structures. There is no outsourcing replacing your windows and doors or insulating your walls. And energy savings pays dividends in our national security. Again this needs to be scaled way up.
So chin up. According to Surace, there is plenty of work in the material sciences, since we really haven’t done any since building materials became a commodity.
Here at CU, pushing the POP project is one of those jobs. Seems the nation hasn’t been sold on this idea that adapting to climate can produce prosperity and security. Beyond your personal practices or politics, I hope you’ll get enough of a lift from Surace and Serious Materials to want to share it with someone else.

Posted in Capitalism, Human Nature, Leadership, Media, Politcis | No Comments »

Another Call to a Wall

November 1st, 2009

Al Gore’s Repower American has created a video wall to which I have contributed the “Energy Like Salt” promo.
The run up to Copenhagen and the hope for an historic document will grow over the next six weeks. While the likelihood for disappointing compromise and political gamesmanship is probably greater than for an enforceable set of reduction commitments, there will be huge energy and expectations brought.
Rhetoric will be dialed up as well.


Posted in Human Nature, Leadership, Politcis | No Comments »

Is Hypocrisy a Stupid trait?

September 22nd, 2009

Last nights global screening of “The Stupid Age” potentially set records for the largest simultaneous screening of a film. Over 440 cities in the US and 63 other countries were treated to a live broadcast style presentation from those arriving (Heather Graham probably being the only person to have traversed both the red and green carpets that I saw) the film itself and then a tent session afterward that including numerous calls to action.

The short of it goes like this. science, including the IPCC fourth assessment report, points to a need to limit the physical inputs humans have on the climate to produce less than two degrees centigrade to avoid catastrophic effects of warming. In order to produce less than the calculated amount of CO2 that would generate more than that amount of warming, we- as in all of humanity burning stuff to operate our societies, need to rapidly curtail our growth in greenhouse gas outputs so that the peak usage occurs in 2015- just six years from now, and drop rapidly thereafter such that we approach preindustrial levels of such gases by 2065. Such a world wide accomplishment will require global agreement in short order and the deadline for said agreement practically is just 77 days away, when the world’s leaders will meet in Copenhagen to sign whatever deal they are working on right now (today at the UN in fact).

The highlight of this evenings global satellite show was not the live transmissions from glacier less Himalayas, or deforested Indonesia, but the in person appearance by UK Climate Minister Ed Milaband. who is in New York for the meeting on climate at the UN (It’s climate week in NYC!). He was challenged by the film’s director as to why the deal he is championing for Copenhagen agreement will “only give us a 50-50 chance to avoid catastrophic climate change”. Miliband became my favorite UK politician with his answer-

“I do not have the luxury of criticizing the past. I have 77 days to get the maximum agreement possible, and there aren’t enough people raising their voices, especially here in the United States.”

I particularly liked that bit about criticizing the past. The film, set in 2055, spends it’s entire length doing just that- particularly that past that is our present. Both in its title and the tone of the post film presentation, there is a sense of the filmmaker’s judging others, and knowing better, as opposed to an engagement aimed at persuading those that might not be in agreement with them. Every generation has its narcissistic sense of this being a critical time, and in the case of climate, there are some very good arguments to validate this sense of destiny. But it’s not appealing, valid or not.

The film itself is fairly brilliant in it’s mixing of documentary footage from the present presented in the best visual computer interface from the future yet. Peter Postlethwaite, presented wide angle as if from within his display (quite a risk for an actor with a mature nose) shares with the audience (who sees everything mirrored from his view) selected stories from around the world of people in the most interesting juxtapositions. The fictional character introduces us to an oil company scientist who lost his home in New Orleans while saving hundreds of neighbors with his boat druing the Hurricane Katrina aftermath; a woman in Nigeria whose village has been made poorer, if that can be imagined, by the explorations of that same oil company; a mountain guide whose tours now are ladder climbs down to the valleys formerly filled by glaciers, and whose village protests the five thousand trucks that take potatoes to Italy to be mashed and returned to Germany for sale; and a windmill engineer who loses the planning committee vote to bring windmills to an abandoned UK airfield right by a drag strip. He is opposed mainly because people “don’t want to have their view spoiled”. Interviews post vote with his opponents reveal the true theme of the film, and possibly humanity. The unacknowledged hypocrisy of the opponents, who both applaud the fairness of the fight and ‘right outcome’ of the vote while also expressing concern about climate change, is one of several strong moments in the film.

All of the hypocrites, and there are plenty arrayed across the issue spectrum, are articulate, intelligent and thoughtful. All are working towards bettering the world in their own way, even when they are generating huge increases in carbon release, or just putting about on a Harley.

And at the end of the day, as I reflect on the issue, it isn’t carbon dioxide release that we can’t master. Nor is it lack of gray matter, as the oil engineer points out. And I doubt the self-image concerns of the fictional narrative character (“maybe we just didn’t think we were worth saving”). Possibly our challenge is that hypocrisy isn’t just a human failing, but something we have needed to survive our development process as a species. Consciousness and memory may demand that we ignore our failures to integrate what we know and value so we can keep this circus running. Hypocrisy might not be stupid, but an evolutionary artifact that lets us have faith, believing in our best nature even as we act out our poorest.

The film and filmmakers deserve kudos for their accomplishments, even as they like the rest of humanity struggle with their execution. One comment I heard leaving the theater criticized the director’s personal presentation (“you’d think if you were going to be on camera before a million people you would brush your hair better”). I just question the characterization of our time. We aren’t stupid, but we certainly are complicit in the suffering of others, now and in the future.

Posted in Human Nature, Leadership, Media, Politcis | No Comments »

Glen Beck doesn’t know jack about science

September 10th, 2009

The resignation of Van Jones from his post as green job advisor to the White House this past weekend was both cheered and lamented this week by various champions of reinvention of the building, energy and transportation sector. Arianna Huffington thanked Beck for freeing Jones to, like Sarah Palin aspires, do better more important work outside of government.

In attacking Jones on his past, Beck reveals his preference for ideology and history over economics and the future. The question I would ask Beck is whether or not he thinks the laws of economics trump those of physics and chemistry. Economists tell us that since the industrial revolution humans have burnt coal and oil in amounts that have changed the proportion of carbon dioxide in the oceans and atmosphere. The increase is calculated to be about 35% more. Physics tells us that CO2 retains heat disproportionate to its volume and chemistry that CO2 proportions impact the PH of a fluid. These repeatable testable laws are what informs the basis of climate change science. Well before most of us had any idea about global cooling or warming, scientists predicted numerous changes in our world based upon these laws. Today observation confirms those predictions.

The future of the economy – something Beck does seem to care about- derives from those changes. Beck, and others who have focused upon ideology and referencing the laws of economics while ignoring those of physics and chemistry, are missing the emerging theme of the 21st Century – clean technology leadership in energy, transportation and building is going to translate to leadership in banking, employment, foreign exchange, and probably military might as well.

So it isn’t just science Beck doesn’t know about, but economics as well. In going after a leading author and hands on leader in putting people to work in green building, Beck and others have done damage to investors in the US economy. As pointed out by Thomas Freidman this week, China, by virtue of a mono party government, has been able to make the longterm policy choices to invest in the markets that are clearly driving this century’s development. Those busy distracting this administration instead of engaging in the discourse to find the best practices to answer the challenges that will not only secure our energy independence, reverse our balance of trade, and most immediately important, put our population to work, are betraying their claim to capitalism.

At it’s simplest level, capitalism values self interest. On a societal level, that self interest is served in serving the needs as defined by others. And the global need, where willing buyers are standing by right now, is for clean sustainable energy at or near the coal price of a kilowatt. Again chemistry and physics point to plentiful ubiquitous sources that are free, above ground, and need technology developed to be converted cost effectively. Silicon Valley, with a rich deep vein of talent, experience and cash, is eager to dive in.

But even the most liberal of investors wants to know that the rules are going to be before getting in the game. Until the energy and climate legislation gets done, they won’t. And getting Van Jones out of the jobs position means that one component of the recovery stimulus will be further delayed. Until building and home owners get the word on federal tax credits for upgrading energy efficiency, those installation jobs won’t be posted in the want ads.

Conservatives of the country are getting shortchanged. Instead of having a place at the table, making sure that the regulations are the best least practice, yet also stable and securing the place of capital in the societal investment, they are left out of the discussion. Those representing conservative thought who are engaged are being vilified by those crowing about socialism and job killing.

Meanwhile the self proclaimed communists of China have positioned themselves to out invest the US in critical growth areas. They have an even bigger number of people to put to work. There are populations in China greater than the US just striving to achieve running water and electrification. Yet they have the political will to invest in the future and the US doesn’t. Makes one wonder what was so bad about Jones having identified with communism.

The fact is that Beck doesn’t know jack about any of this, and doesn’t care either. His self interest is in that extremely short term commodity known as ratings. Serving up Van Jones as communist boogie man to his audience seems to have been the racist play that has made his calling the President a racist old news. He can be ‘hot’ again, and we can count on him to be even more hyperbolic in finding his next mark.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Capitalism, Human Nature, Leadership, Media, Politcis, Science | No Comments »

Fear & Free Markets/ Health Care and Climate

August 30th, 2009

Today’s LA Times front page and A section supplies a black and white illustration of our state of being in late summer 2009. Squeezed below the fire reports (“10,000 Homes Threatened”& “Time of the essence in Afghanistan”) and between the relative human stories of Ted Kennedy’s funeral and the slim likelihood of long-term ‘normalcy’ for either Jayce Dugard or her daughters, is the news that bullets are in short supply.

Seems that in spite of producing two billion more bullets this year than last, it is difficult to find ammo and when you do you will pay more. It isn’t that there is more shooting going on, or even a likelihood that there will be. No- it is the negative anticipation (AKA “fear”) of many that the current administration will restrict gun ownership. Gun sales in California are up 26% over the same period last year. Seems that even outlaws are having a hard time finding weapons and ammo to buy. Demand and prices are up.

Inside pages reveal that the fear tactic in political discourse can be traced to a guy named Wirt. According to Michael Hiltzik, writing on page 2, Wirt started all this hysteria-oriented stuff back in 1934 by suggesting that Roosevelt had a secret plan to put Bolsheviks in control. Playing on your fear of the unknown has been a tactic ever since, especially when any given interest has an interest in keeping things the way they are. Hiltzik mentions “corporate fronts and gun toting hysterics” but attempting to scare the public hasn’t been the sole province of any particular extreme.

Dig a little deeper and on page 7, Jim Tankersley reports under the headline ‘Foes on energy plan watch healthcare battle”. “The battle could be just as nasty” he writes. So we can look forward to another season of do nothing or little built upon the strategy of screaming instead of seeking solutions. The article ends with the admission by a GOP pollster that they need to bring alternatives to the administration’s plan. “They can’t just criticize Obama’s energy plans”. Why- because polling suggests that you the public want clean power in sufficient numbers that a ‘just say something scary” plan won’t be enough.

Virtually every page in the ‘A’ section is about something you can be afraid of- terrorism, being uninsured, rare orchid poaching, or that John McCain got to a million Facebook followers faster than the White House. That fear plays, and motivates us to spend our time and money on negative concerns shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone observing their own visceral responses in life. What is surprising is that it has come to dominate markets, our most critical policy discussions, and thus the front pages.

As Neil Gabler pointed out last week in his opinion piece, we currently getting ‘facts’ instead of truth from our media. “The more noise and the bigger the controversy, the greater the coverage. This creates a situation in which not only is the truth subordinate to lies, but one in which shameless lies are actually privileged over reasoned debate.”

With all the information available, and the huge stakes that ride on the decisions our federal government makes about those issues such as health care, and energy, why aren’t we demanding truths, rational discussion, and dispassionate decisions? Are we not a mature democracy? Leaders of the civilized world? Smart thinking adults? Draw your own conclusions.

And one bit of good news, at the bottom of the “Top of the Ticket” political news bits on page 14- Obama’s vacation reading list includes Thomas Friedman’s “Hot Flat & Crowded”. Friedman is a huge proponent of the opportunities reinvention of energy, transportation and building segments called for by many centrists in the climate conversation. If you like to think of yourself as a thinking adult, and would like to hear more facts and rational discussion on climate, you might want to check out “Proof or Propaganda”. In it you’ll find smart committed rational men and women who aren’t afraid of either the facts or markets, much less change.

Posted in Capitalism, Leadership, Media, Politcis | No Comments »

‘Cash for Clunkers’ and Climate

August 10th, 2009

As widely printed and reported by Seth Borenstein of the AP, the “Cash for Clunkers” program is a wildly successful program for individuals that isn’t going to do much about the climate. The estimated impact being the equivalent of the country’s CO2 output each hour of the day, every day of the year. Nor is it much of a benefit in terms of our energy dependence. The amount of gasoline saved annually by all the new better mileage vehicles being bought is about what we gulp in an afternoon- or four and a half hours.

So just like the cap and trade proposed legislation, the two extremes in the climate discourse are predictably critical of this for their own reasons. For those who favor more aggressive changes in our society, this bill does too little, and at too great a cost. For those who favor no changes, the bill is just a waste of money adding to an already intolerable deficit.

However there is a math that says this will pay off. Joseph Romm at Grist.com -  points out the fuel savings alone will pay taxpayers back in five years. Not really. Those savings will be in the pockets of the people who can afford to buy the discounted new car today. Still there is a payoff as one can expect that those savings will get spent here rather than become deposits in a Saudi accountt.

On many levels, we have been here before. These are the first small steps toward a reinvention of our economy.  First any reduction is at least a change in direction from our previous decades of practice in either carbon generation or oil consumption. Second, unlike the first or second round of OPEC induced oil embargoes, more efficient cars in terms of fuel use are not just econobox deathtraps. Every level of automotive product is being reconfigured, if not outright redesigned to reduce its consumption. Third, the purpose of the program was a short term support of the auto industry in which we are all partners. Seeing it as cost ineffective in reducing carbon is ignoring the program’s priorities.

And that is significant part of the larger issues facing us today. Addressing any longterm issue, be it health care, water supply or climate, will always need to address human nature and its focus on immediate security and prosperity. Regardless of our personal values, our traction in the greater society will always be conditional on our understanding of the majority’s short term thinking, and positioning whatever change we advocate within these.

“Cash For Clunkers” resonated with individuals sense of personal benefit, and that’s why Congress took two more billion dollars from the renewable energy fund to extend it ( keeping these additional billions from adding to the deficit). It is a success based upon its priority goal- stimulus.

That is what the second half of “Proof or Propaganda” is full of – people who have found ways to prosper while addressing the issue of climate.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Capitalism, Leadership, Politcis | No Comments »

The Green in Green won’t be Green

July 30th, 2009

Yesterday McKinsey & Company released a 165 page report titled “Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the US Economy”.

Summarized here in the NY Times, it shows that an investment of $520 billion in “sealing leaky building ducts and replacing inefficient household appliances with new energy saving models” could yield a 23% savings in the nation’s energy bill, more than the projected increase in demand, or “greater than the total of energy consumptions of Canada”. The paper only looked at buildings, commercial and private. It did not include the anticipated carbon cost, which would add another 8%.

Count this as another supporting document reinforcing the opportunity available in reinventing everything in society, as suggested by Mark Porat in “Proof or Propaganda”.

While the report looks at a ten year reward, the immediate impacts of such an investment is the massive domestic employment of such a broad and essentially low tech effort. The vast majority of those jobs would be urban because that is where our buildings are, especially our most easily improved buildings. And the jobs would employ those without high tech skills- people who are disproportionately unemployed at the moment and the ones most likely to not have bought all those consumer products languishing on store shelves at the moment. So there are big immediate payoffs available as well as a significant long-term benefit.

Many of the programs required have already be running in California for decades- incentives to utilities to give rebates for efficient appliance upgrades, and insulation installation in homes for instance, so while there is a lot to be done to execute such an investment, the models exist and have been tested.

But while there are short and long-term economic results available, to say nothing of decreasing if not eliminating our need to build more power plants, there are some facts about efficiency that mean that the result won’t be less pressure upon the environment, and certainly won’t result in the lowering of consumption hoped for by environmentalists. Historically, efficiencies result in resources that we use in some other way. We might put away more savings, but human nature says we’ll spend most of it, and even if it is on much more sustainable goods and services, it won’t be about reducing our individual consumption.

One good example is the automobile over the last thirty years. Without increasing CAFÉ standards, automotive engineers have made huge advances in engine efficiency. But almost all of that has resulted in increases in horsepower, making it possible for even relatively small cars like the Mini to weigh a lot, and still get away from a stoplight faster than a 70’s Porsche or Corvette. A Toyota minivan today can reach freeway speed faster than the most performance cars from the 80s.

Another issue is the fact that a 2 for 1 payback over a decade won’t inspire many individuals, much less landlords that don’t pay the electric bills. Without significant public policy incentives, whether in tax breaks or extraordinarily low cost financing, the average homeowner won’t be making major renovations solely to achieve energy efficiency. While we should count on energy costs continuing to rise, unless we see the kind of spikes that occurred last summer, most people won’t be either investing in efficiency or changing their use. And until utility costs of a house or building are reflected in resale pricing, a population that moves as often as we do won’t be looking at a ten year return.

I recommend you look at the comments section of the article as well. There are lots of insightful references. One points out that a similar study reached the same result in 2002, but only projected a fraction of the savings. The difference? Well oil was $22 a barrel in 2002, and reached $145 last summer. Plenty of other great pointers as well.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Capitalism, Leadership | No Comments »

I’m sick and tired of sick and tired false debate. or Haven’t we heard this before?

July 28th, 2009

Do the arguments on health care sound familiar ? One of the clearest examples of how form and posture has come to dominate policy, as opposed to substance and common sense, comes to us in the current discussion about health care. The similarities to the current back burner climate legislation discussion are great.

Maybe its just summer lethargy. Warm days, short nights. The recreational opportunities everyday of the week. It might be some sort of cold. But I think it is the less than forthright speech coming out of political leadership that is giving me this sluggish condition.

First is that there are voices that are committed to philosophical concepts above all, and the facts be damned. “Markets’ we are told are more important than facts, however those facts might be arrived at. “Freedom of choice” is of greater concern than care for all, as if they are mutually exclusive.

While there are political parties and associations that represent these positions to one degree or another, what the fundamental similarities in the discussion really turn out to be is who wants to scare you, and who is willing to let you to make your own choice on where to stand on the individualist-collectivist spectrum.

To some degree, many of the people ranting the loudest at this stage of the health care debate are not really too concerned about health care. Like those who are to one degree or another minimizing  climate concerns, they are far more concerned about ‘big government’ or ‘socialism’ than they are about reforming our health care, or its impacts upon the nation’s economy.

To be sure, some of these voices are for those who benefit from the status quo. Others are from those who think their interests lie in the promised change. But the voices resorting to scare tactics (“Obama’s plan could kill you” was one I heard yesterday) are consistently originating in ideology first.

As someone residing in the middle of the bell curve, not on the line between the polar opposites, and where most of us by definition of the bell curve must be, I want relief- Relief from those whose misrepresentations, bad logic, or just flat out irrelevant arguments fill the media; relief from repetitive stating of refuted or discredited positions; relief from a health care system that is failing millions of people, frustrating many of the dedicated professionals working in it, and burdening our economy in micro and macro ways.

Clearly, we are a people and a nation capable of amazing unprecedented accomplishments (moon rocks anyone?) and everywhere I look, I find hardworking sensible folk. Why these attributes don’t seem apparent in the health care or climate debates makes someone like Larry Lessig, who says that the appearance of money’s influence is sufficient alone for almost all of us to doubt the legitimacy of any discussion of an issue.

So if you are sick and tired of simplistic argument, and reductionist and negative discussion, I can’t recommend any media on the health care issue. On climate change, well you are already there, here in the middle of the road.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Capitalism, Leadership, Media, Politcis, Science | No Comments »

Reinventing Capitalism for a sustainable world

July 19th, 2009

If you are like most people, according to every single published social science, public opinion poll or market research survey, you care about the environment- just not very much, at least compared to other concerns and issues. Depending on which study you select, around 85% of us will state that the environment is an important issue.Yet very few of us say we are “environmentalists” with single digit percentages selecting the term when are offered that option.

In virtually every survey where people are asked to rank their concerns, the environment falls to near the bottom of how ever many issues are offered.    Two areas are consistently at the top of nearly everyone’s list- security and prosperity. FDR made these the two ‘from’ of the “four freedoms” – freedom from fear and want (the other two being the “of “ freedoms – speech and religion).

Thanks to the bifurcated and stilted state of public discourse today, the relationship between a healthy, sustainable environment and our security and prosperity have been typically placed at odds, if not outright opposite ends of a scale. Yet as is clearly visible in any place where air and water are significantly degraded, there can be no prosperity and security is threatened in an entirely different way. So it is no surprise that today’s business leaders are embracing ‘green’ ways of doing business. As one of the sources in “Proof or Propaganda”, Andrew Winston points out that this isn’t just altruistic or even enlightened capitalism. Because as much as we may rate the ‘environment’ near the bottom in a survey, in our shopping carts we rank it pretty highly, purchasing the product in any segment that creates a credible value of sustainable or ‘green’ – even though these terms are not clearly defined – and manages to be priced within 6-8% of the leading brand for that segment.

So in that very personal alchemy calculation where we may or may not actually use a calculator, pencil, make a list or just as Stephen Schneider says “in our gut” decision making, we are very much environmentalists. Nobody wants to have their daily existence be part of poisoning the water, making the ground or air toxic, much less contribute to child labor, slavery or suffering. And if we can do it without having to go to a different store or pay higher prices so much the better. We, as a group, voting with our money, want to be responsible, and will take up any and all retail opportunities to do so.

You would think that conservatives – social and fiscal- would be touting this victory of personally responsible behavior and capitalism. But they aren’t at least not from the usual known voices. And you would think that classic environmentalists would be cheering from the treetops too. But they aren’t. In fact those traditionally environmental leaders that have ‘crossed over’ to aid companies like Walmart are in most cases vilified and lose credibility.

Just look at this past week’s announcement by Walmart,  launching a new initiative to label all their products. Just like their other green efforts over the last four years, cynics and critics were quick to point out all sorts of flaws and contradictions inherit in a major agent of consumption and globalization advocating sustainability and conservation.

Well,”yea!” for Walmart. Four years in, and the company is continuing to take more significant steps toward sustainable operations, and is bringing its vendors along too. By all measures, this hasn’t cost them market share, gross revenue or their status as world’s largest retailer.

And while we’re at it, let’s say greenwashing and totally hypocritical marketing is appreciated too. In the big scheme of things, that is at least an acknowledgement that the need to appear ‘green’ has weight even among the least sincere  enterprises. If the goal is truly reinventing our society so that our footprint is actually an enhancement to the environment, as William McDonough says, then every step toward that is good. It’s very early in this evolution of society. Tom Friedman of the New York Times likes to say that we aren’t having a ‘green’ revolution. “It’s a green party. It’s not a revolution until someone gets a bloody nose.” And the party needs everybody as soon as possible.

As evidenced by our buying patterns, we all want to be part of a cleaner, more sustainable society, although as evidenced by social science, we need to feel safe and prosperous to do so. From what I learned from making “Proof or Propaganda” the path to integrating those values is not only possible, it’s the reason that the 21st century is the most exciting time to be alive.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Capitalism, Leadership, Politcis | No Comments »

« Older Entries