As the U.S. auto manufacturing industry slows to a halt, the evidence seems clear that car-centered transportation models are economically and environmentally unsustainable systems. However, the downfall of the traditional car industry presents us with exciting opportunities to re-envision cost effective transportation systems that move people on-time and provide economic growth opportunities while also minimizing negative impacts on Earth’s limited natural resource base.

In order to realize the exciting new opportunities that lay ahead, what we need most are entrepreneurs and policy makers who are willing to create an innovative and compelling vision for alternative modes of transportation. Most importantly, what we need is a leader that can engage the public in being a part of creating and supporting a new way forward.

There is a worldwide need to stabilize global carbon dioxide emissions, prepare for decreased oil production, alleviate traffic congestion and reduce air pollution. The truth is, we don’t have to look very far for transportation systems that accomplish all of these goals. A potential leader to look towards is Japan and the country’s high-speed bullet trains that travel up to 190 miles per hour, carrying almost one million people each day. As a pioneer in this arena, Japan’s high-speed rail network spans over 1, 350 miles, linking the nation’s major cities with trains that depart roughly every three minutes.

Indicators for progress on this issue in the United States include California’s 2008 passage of Proposition 1A which will provide a statewide high speed passenger train system and President Obama’s vision for a national high-speed rail system in the U.S. Ultimately, an impactful solution will require unprecedented partnerships between land use and transportation planners who have the knowledge and tools required to construct housing centers that are located within proximity to centers of employment and adequate transportation routes.

It will be some time before these types of partnerships are realized and the resulting solutions become available to passengers. In the meantime, the best solutions happen to be our own two feet.

Recent studies estimate that the IPCC’s projections of an 18 to 59 centimeter rise in sea level due to the melting of the Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets is well within the range of possibilities during this century. In fact, a study conducted by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment estimates that a sea level rise of 2 meters is an unfortunate possibility. The implications of a dramatic rise in sea level on the 634 million people who live along coastlines in the Low Elevation Coastal Zone represents the potential for a vast displacement of refugees on a scale that our planet has never seen.

The World Resources Institute estimates the total number of potential refugees to be 144 million in China alone. Countries such as India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan, Egypt and the United States also have massive numbers of vulnerable people in low lying areas. Urban centers such as London, New York, Shanghai and Kolkata are at risk, along with the agricultural regions of Asia, which supply food throughout the world.

As a result, there has never been a more compelling reason to support international policies that seek to regulate human-induced climate change. Exciting progress is being made along this front, as exemplified by the American Clean Energy and Security Act and the upcoming UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen. Supporting climate change legislation that regulates greenhouse gas emissions not only protects our limited and valuable natural resources, it also protects the livelihood of one eighth of the world’s urban population. Getting involved today by learning about and lobbying for your country’s climate change legislation can help to ensure the safety of millions of potential climate refugees worldwide.

The goal of this post is to make the point that corporations are one of our greatest assets in moving towards a sustainable future. There are two points that I propose to support this point.

1. Corporations represent a remarkable platform for the industrial capacity that is required to create the materials necessary for renewable energy systems.

2. Corporations represent a remarkable asset in terms of human knowledge and skills.

The following data points are compelling arguments that I have gathered from the recent work of Saul Griffith:

1. If an aluminum can producer redirected their production of 110 billion cans in a year to the production of solar thermal surfaces, they could create 200 GW of energy.

2. Nokia produces 9 phones every second. Again, that’s, 9 phones in a single second. Imagine if that production capacity was redirected to the manufacturing of solar panels?

3. GM manufactures one drivetrain every minute and one complete car every two minutes. Imagine if this production capacity was redirected to the production of wind turbines? This production capacity represents the ability to provide enough wind turbines to generate 2 TW of energy.

What will our future look like if the sustainability movement does not embrace corporations as partners? Where will the large-scale production capacity come from to create the materials that are required? Where will the brain-power to engineer the necessary innovations come from? Where will the financial acumen to determine how to make sustainability profitable come from?

Certainly, progress on these fronts can me made without the contributions of corporations. I feel strongly that we should look to the academic community, small business thought leaders, home garage hobbyists and inspired entrepreneurs for leadership in sustainability initiatives. However, I would argue that without embracing corporations as partners in sustainability and encouraging them to become a part of the solution, sustainability initiatives will not have the broad reaching, global impact that is required to solve the immediate environmental crisis and to build the foundation for a sustainable future to support our growing human population on Earth.

Commonly, I find that social and environmental practitioners expend too much energy arguing the faults of large corporations. Within the community of sustainability practitioners, I think the challenge lies not in articulating our thoughts on the poor practices of corporations. In fact, I find that to be an easily made argument that practitioners should move beyond. Instead, I feel that the challenge lies in finding the personal ability articulate the opportunities through which corporate assets can be leveraged to contribute meaningful solutions to our current and future environmental and social needs.

2009 is a critical milestone in the arena of international efforts to address climate change. With the upcoming UNFCCC negotiations, it is crucial that we now evaluate the efficacy of the 1992 agreements made through the Kyoto Protocol. Assessing the efficacy of the Kyoto agreements is a critical need in order to inform the design of successful strategies this coming December in Copenhagen. International climate change agreements should be a part of an iterative process in which strategies are designed and implemented, learnings are gained and understandings are then applied in the design of future efforts.

About CDMs.
As we all know, climate change is a global crisis. That being said, strategies for combatting climate change represent opportunities for economic growth in developing nations. A key component of the Kyoto Protocol that sought to accomplish economic development and reductions in GHG emissions was the clean development mechanism (CDM). The CDM is an innovative arrangement that allows industrialized countries with a GHG reduction goal to invest in development projects that reduce GHG emissions in developing countries. The CDM represents an alternative to expensive reductions efforts in developed nations which at the same time, encourages economic growth in developing nations where typically, GHG emissions levels are steadily increasing with growing populations and energy demands.

CDMs: How effective are they?
To give you a sense for the scale at which these projects operate, 1,128 CDM projects have been registered (as of July, 2008) with 4,000 projects in the process of certification. Given that the energy sector is typically the largest emitter of CO2 in most countries, the energy sector has become the largest recipient of CDM projects throughout the world with China and India being the dominant national recipients.

Criticism against the efficacy of CDMs has recently increased as economists and scientists have begun to see flaws in the design of the mechanism and abuse in the CDM regulatory process. Perhaps, the greatest accomplishment of CDMs to date lies in the fact that their presence in the global market has raised valuable awareness in developing countries and among investors around the urgent need to reduce global GHG emissions. However, the goals of the CDM are not to raise awareness; the goals are to actually reduce emissions.

Criticisms of CDMs include:
Projects with embellished environmental accomplishments have been approved without the proper certification.
Projects that would have been implemented without the benefits of the CDM are benefiting from the financial support of being listed as CDM projects.
A majority of the certified projects address reductions in GHG emissions but do not focus on CO2 which scientists claim should be most aggressively addressed.
It is too difficult to measure additionality and as a result, a financial and science-based mechanism based on additionality is fundamentall flawed.

The future:
How will the talks in Copenhagen be shaped by the lessons learned from the failures and successes of the the CDM since it’s implementation? What innovative new strategies will the international community devise and how will these mechanisms improve upon what is offered by the CDM?

My hope is that we will see a measurable strategy that directly reduces the actual emissions counts of the polluting companies, not one that enables them to continue with current emissions levels. Additionally, my hope is that we will see the US government take a leadership role in shaping a new and more effective strategy for emissions reductions while at the same time setting an example to the international community by rapidly embracing global agreements and enacting the necessary legislation to bring new mechanisms to the market place.

Thank you Richard Nixon. I’d like to begin this post by thanking Richard Nixon for creating the historic opportunity for the US to work with China on the two most critical global issues challenging our world today: Economy and the Environment. Although current US – China relations have opportunities for improvement, Nixon laid the groundwork for political collaboration with China through his 1972 visit to Beijing. The opportunity that the US now has to work collaboratively with China to solve the economic and environmental crises may well be our greatest hope for change. The goal of this post is to highlight where we are today with regards to high level political cooperation between China and the US on the issue of a global climate change treaty. I will also add a few comments on the role of US consumers in Chinese GHG emissions.

Where are we today? Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern (of the Stern Report) met at the State Department this past Monday with a vice chairman of China’s National Development and reform Commission to discuss climate change, clean energy and strategies to increase cooperation aimed towards a positive outcome at the UNFCCC negotiation in Copenhagen this coming December. This is a positive indicator that both nations are working well in advance of the December meeting to lay the political groundwork for cooperation and agreement. My hope is that conversations such as this will set up China and the US to lead the Copenhagen talks from a platform of shared, ambitious goals.

What’s to come in the immediate future? In April, the G20 Global Summit which will be held in the UK represents an arena in which Hillary Clinton and her Chinese counterparts will be able to further the conversation on energy and climate change which they began this past February during Clinton’s visit to China. Additionally, the outcomes and tone of this meeting will provide critical indicators as to what can be expected of China in the upcoming Copenhagen talks. Given the current economic crisis and China’s acknowledged top priority of fixing their economy, the G20 talks will provide a valuable indication of exactly how high of a priority international collaboration on the climate change issue is for China.

The role of the American consumer: Some significant portion of the American public blames China for increasingly high levels of GHG emissions. Commonly known as “panda sluggers”, adopters of this view are misguided in their allocation of blame towards the Chinese public and government. As an economically developed nation, the US has already gone through our high-emissions stage of national development. Although we may not have known the environmental impacts of our growth at that time, the fact is that China is pursuing a path of economic liberty that we also pursued years ago. That being said, China is certainly not entitled to harmfully pollute our shared environment simply due to their economic development stage.

What most American consumers don’t realize is that a significant portion of Chinese GHG emissions are due to US consumption of Chinese-made goods. Between 2002 – 2005, 50% of CO2 emissions in China came from export production (60% of which was sent to Western nations). Only 7% of the emissions increase was contributed by household consumption in China. So, a few of us need to change the way we think about the Chinese public and the Chinese manufacturing industry.

Reductions in US consumer purchases due to the economic downturn will reduce demand for Chinese exported goods which will in turn, reduce Chinese GHG emissions, and that’s a positive outcome overall. However, there is a future to be worked towards in which strategies for manufacturing processes are fueled by renewable energy resources and in this new way of working, enormous economic benefits are available to both, US and Chinese markets.

In summary, I encourage us all to closely watch the conversations between the US and China as we approach the Copenhagen talks. The outcomes of these precursor talks will provide valuable insight into what we can expect from both nations in December.

One can not help but learn about biomimicry and be amazed by the incredible examples of the strength of a spider’s silk, the lotus flower’s self-cleaning abilities and the manufacturing process of an abalone shell. However, I think that the real “wow” factor of biomimicry lies in the aspect of nature as a mentor where humans learn to learn from natural forms and functionalities.

I believe the significance of biomimcry as a concept is not that we have more innovative designs based on natural processes and structures. The most meaningful take-a-way from the principles of biomimicry is that we have designers, engineers and business leaders who are learning from nature. Changing the way humans approach design, manufacturing and problem-solving is where I find the most significance in the principles of biomimicry.

There is a key aspect of biomimicry that I feel should not be overlooked and that is the notion that natural organisms evolve in a pattern where each attempted solution is better than it’s predecessor. The natural world has had millions of years to adapt to it’s surroundings and during that time, 99% of the species that have developed have eventually gone extinct. That being said, I do not feel that humans have the luxury of continuing the trend of evolving with new strategies that actually impede the security of our long term future. Consequentially, it is apparent that humans need to evolve not in our biological abilities to thrive in a world of depleted natural resources. We need to evolve in our psychology of how we perceive design and manufacturing. Looking to nature as a model, measure and mentor is a critical paradigm shift that is required if we are to survive as a species on this planet.

In summary, I would like to highlight a quote from Janine Benyus’ talk at TED:

“…the most important thing, besides all of these adaptations is the fact that these organisms have figured out a way to do the amazing things they do while taking care of the place that’s going to take care of their offspring.”

Perhaps, “Natural Capitalism” should have been titled, “Natural Capitalism: The Sustainability Revolution.”  Here’s why: Although some businesses already employ the principles of natural capitalism, this concept for the most part is an entirely new way of thinking about commerce and industry.  What natural capitalism calls for is a remarkable shift in the dominant paradigm.

Natural Capitalism presents a financially logical, environmentally sound and emotionally compelling justification for adopting the four main principles of natural capitalism.  While reading this book, I was caused to consider the notion that if only more people could access this content in a more digestable format, the idea would spread and it’s adoption would begin to take place in the mainstream.

And that’s why I created the Pocket Guide to Natural Capitalism: A Strategic Paradigm for Business & Environment.  Download the pdf, print it out for yourself, print it out for your friends and keep a few on hand to encourage the conversation around the business case for adopting the principles of natural capitalism.

Download your copy now!

Please note that this design borrows heavily from Monterey Bay Aquarium’s design for their Seafood Watch Program cards.  This design is not intended for sale, it’s merely an exercise for me to consider how to best make natural capitalism accessible to the mainstream.

After reading “Thinking in Systems“, I was most interested in Meadows’ identification and description of the twelve leverage points in a system where she feels small shifts can lead to a large change in the behavior of the system.  I focused on this chapter because Meadows’ presentation of leverage points felt to be the portion of the book where I can learn the most about how to affect change in a system. I have outlined my specific responses below:

1. The leverage points with the greatest potential for change are the  most esoteric.
Meadows presents her twelve leverage points in order from the lowest to the highest level of impact that can occur from changes made to the individual levers.  Interestingly, I found that as the levers increase in their significance/potential impact, they become increasingly esoteric and intangible.  That being said, I agree with Meadows that her top levers (Goals, Paradigms, Transcending Paradigms) have the greatest potential for serving as catalysts for change.  Unfortunately, these leverage points seem to be the  most difficult to conceptualize in tangible actions and to measure quantitatively.  I spent time reading about Leverage Point Modeling (LPM) and much of the available literature that I found is focused on computer systems analysis undertaken by the Department of Defense.  Throughout the work I found, the DoD systems analysts seemed very capable of modeling the lower priority leverage points such as parameters/constraints and flow structures.  However the more conceptual leverage points of Goals and Paradigms were not mentioned.  When considering the efficacy and greatness of leaders, I wonder whether a great leader is one who can make changes to a system based on leverage points such as feedback loops and buffers or, is an effective one who can act upon the more esoteric levers of goals and paradigms?  My current feeling is that effective leaders can operate the lower priority levers well however, the great leaders are the ones who can act upon the power of the higher priority levers discussed by Meadows.

2. Leverage points are intuitive to leaders.
Meadows indicates that both she and Jay Forrester agree that leaders tend to be capable of intuitively identifying where the  leverage points in their systems exist.  Even though Meadows purports that leaders tend to affect these levers in a manner which typically leads to a negative change of direction in the system, I have to believe that in a system in crisis, it is often more beneficial to enact change even though you may not be certain of the outcome.  That being said, this simple point is made clear to me: Effective leaders need to be intimately familiar with and knowledgeable of the complex systems which they manage.  There is something to be said for a leader that understands when a change is necessary and the willingness or ability to make an informed decision based on a combination of intuition and the best available data.  I have worked for a number of managers who do not fully understand the complex workings of the systems they manage and these are the same managers that seemingly spend unescessary resources attempting to create change in an arena that has little capability for making meaningful change within the system.  In addition to intuition backed by the best available data, I have come to believe that a leader who will bring meaningful change to a system must a leader who is willing to accept disruption to the state of the system.

3. The paradigm of the consumer.
I want to change the dominant paradigm within the consumer society of the United States.  This is a tough statement to make because if called upon, I would likely have a difficult time articulating the stakeholders and relationships within this system because it is so incredibly complex.  For the purposes of this response, I will generalize this system through the nomenclature of “the consumer culture.”  As previously stated, my intuition tells me that the dominant paradigm in this system needs to change if we want a sustainable future on Earth.

Below are the foundational aspects of my definition of the current consumer paradigm:
- Products should be low-cost.
- It’s okay for products to be replaced with regularity.
- The more we consume, the happier we will become.

The paradigm shift that I would like to see is one in which the foundational aspects of the paradigm become:
- The cost of a product should reflect the comprehensive costs of manufacturing and delivering the product to the consumer.  This includes the social and environmental costs of manufacturing and bringing the product to market.
- Consumers should expect that products have a long life cycle and that when replacement is required, interchangeable parts are may be replaced so that the product as a whole does not need to be deemed invaluable.  Additionally, consumers should expect high quality product designs that allow for the recycling and re-purposing of “trashed” parts and accessories.
- Consuming less is actually a good thing.  Simplicity provides for an arena in which many of the ills of our consumer culture may be healed.  A greater emphasis on time with family and friends, time spent recreating in the outdoors and time spent enjoying meals with company are all benefits that should be valued and emphasized among consumers.  Reducing our emphasis on accumulating goods creates the space for taking advantage of the more simple aspects of life.

If my intuition tells me that the above described shift is what is needed in order to become more sustainable, should I not trust my intuition (given Meadows’ notion that our intuitive responses often shift a system in the wrong direction)?  If this is true, perhaps I should ignore my intuition and instead, encourage consumerism and hope that the system collapses dramatically and resolves itself to a sustainable path in response to a collapse of the system?

4. The role of vision in changing a paradigm.
In order to make a shift in a dominant paradigm, leaders needs to be able to articulate and broadcast their vision for where they seek to direct the system.  People need to visualize where it is they are being asked to go.  With regards to a sustainable future, I have to ask, how well have we articulated our vision for a sustainable future?  In our first residency, we spent much time discussing our various visions for sustainability.  If a room filled with intelligent and passionate people can not clearly articulate their vision for sustainability, what does this say about the likelihood that we will one day attain a sustainable way of living? Perhaps, this notion begins to get at what Meadows describes as “Transcending Paradigms” where the leaders recognize that the belief in paradigms is a paradigm and that there are numerous paradigms and the key to making a change is looking upon the complex system with an enlightened view softened by gentle humor.

5. Who provides the vision for sustainability that rings true for you?
We each have our own icons of sustainability and we often subscribe to the vision for sustainability that they provide in their writings, designs and social campaigns.  I have my own “heroes of sustainability” but, I am less concerned with my own icons and I am more concerned with the icons that the majority of our consumer culture members look to.  I was incredibly excited by the appeal that Al Gore has had with the general public.  Although his work with climate change began long before his major film, the awareness that the film raised with the general public was outstanding.  However, who does the public have to look towards today?  Al Gore seems to have lost some of his spotlight in this arena and I have not seen his original message evolve into a tangible vision that can make a change in the paradigm that exists among American consumers.  Although President Obama has laid out a plan of inspired words that paint the picture of a sustainable future in general terms, it is hardly a plan that many Americans can actually visualize and begin shifting towards.  T Boone Pickens has laid out a very detailed plan that can be easily digested, understood and worked towards by the general public.  So, I would ask a similar question to the one that I asked earlier…What does it say about the likelihood of that we will one day attain a sustainable way of living if the clearest vision for a sustainable energy future is one that is being put forward by an oil tycoon who seeks to secure his investments in natural gas?

Summary
The field of sustainability and the on-going adoption of sustainable business practices among global markets is a complicated web of interactions and relationships.  There lies a deep history in how this way of thinking has evolved and there is much to do in terms of making sustainability a principle of how our world operates.  “The Sustainability Revolution” provides an excellent overview of many key milestones in the evolution of sustainability as a concept.  I do not believe that this book intends to be a comprehensive portrayal of the field and it’s history and I do not think that the reader should consider it to provide that level of information.  Instead, I encourage the reader to embrace the concepts they are drawn to from the book and to explore those concepts more fully in other research efforts.   

I believe that “The Sustainability Revolution” provides a solid background on the evolution of “sustainability” as a concept in terms of when this concept began to be discussed in local and international arenas and how this concept has affected industries and consumers to date.  However, Edwards’ portrayal of “sustainability” does not convince me that it is in fact, a “revolution.”  More so, I believe that Edwards has described the concept of sustainability as a paradigm shift in progress.  A revolution and an in-process shift in mainstream thinking are two very different notions.  Ironically, Edwards uses both terms (revolution and paradigm shift) in the title of this book.  That being said, every field of study should have a few books such as “The Sustainability Revolution” which, provide the reader with valuable background information on the historical development of their chosen field of study.  Personally, I am more drawn to books that leverage current phenomena to engage the reader with inspiration for where we are today and where we headed tomorrow.  Along those lines, I think of Norman Uphoff’s “Reasons for Hope” and “Reasons for Success” as well as Hawken’s recent, “Blessed Unrest.”

One aspect of “The Sustainability Revolution” that I would like to focus on is Edwards’ presentation of the Hannover Principles.  I was surprised and somewhat disappointed that Edwards chose to begin his chapter on designing with nature with a presentation of the Hannover Principles because the statements that comprise the Hannover Principles are ones that date back much farther than McDonough’s 2000 declaration.  As a side note, I believe that the Hannover Principles were actually copyrighted by McDonough in the early 1990’s, prior to his 2000 presentation of these statements in Germany.  In considering Edwards’ presentation of designing with nature, I feel he has overlooked some very significant histories and concepts that would have served his chapter well.  If my understanding of the field is correct, I believe that designing with nature should begin with a discussion of the field of Industrial Ecology.  The concepts of Industrial Ecology can be dated as far back as the early 1900’s with the work of Buckminster Fuller.  The concepts of Industrial Ecology were further explored and explicated in the 1980’s by groups such as the Rocky Mountain Institute.  In the late 1980’s the term Industrial Ecology was made popular by Robert Frosch and Nicholas Gallopoulos.  In my estimation, the Hannover Principles are simply a re-wording of an already existing body of principles that had evolved over the course of many years, lead by thought leaders across a variety of fields.

So what is Industrial Ecology?
Industrial Ecology is a recognized and well followed, multi-disciplinary field which emphasizes the interactions of environment, economy and technology with a focus on the parallels between a “natural” system and “socio-technical systems”.  Very similar to the “cradle to cradle” concept, Industrial Ecology looks at the transformation of socio-technical systems from open loop to closed loop systems where waste is re-purposed as inputs to continue the original process from which it was discarded or, to be leveraged as input for a new process.

Why is it important to consider Industrial Ecology?
If what I have said is true (that the Hannover Principles are simply a re-statement of the principles of Industrial Ecology), then why is it important to focus on Industrial Ecology?…why not just skip Industrial Ecology and go straight to the Hannover Principles?  I think it’s important to learn about the contributions that the field of Industrial Ecology have made because some of these contributions include tangible tools that business managers, engineers and social entrepreneurs can make good use of in delivering more sustainable products and services.  These tools include but are not limited to Integrated Chain Management, the ISO 4000 management standards as well as engineering strategies such as cogeneration or energy recycling.

Identifying cost savings opportunities, ensuring long-term competitiveness, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are all benefits of evaluating a company’s energy usage.

In order to identify the cost savings opportunities that investing in energy efficiencies provide, a company must first analyze the energy flows and consumption patterns of electricity and gas.   Efficiency strategies are typically low-risk, high-payback measures that can free substantial amounts of money for more lucrative investments.  With payback periods as short as a fiscal quarter, companies can realize immediate improvements to their bottom line through reducing energy related operating costs such as lighting, HVAC, office equipment, water heating and vehicles.

Increased costs of electricity generation, volatile natural gas prices and a growing demand for energy are signs that future costs of doing business will rise. Improving the efficiency of energy usage enables the long-term viability of a company through reducing the current and future operating cost structure of the company.  Improved energy efficiency also enhances industrial productivity metrics such as product output, production reliability and improved working conditions.

The rising threat of global climate change due to increased GHG emissions such as carbon dioxide provides the basis for the likelihood of a GHG emissions regulatory structure which will impact the finances of a company.  A cap and trade scheme will create opportunities for companies to generate revenue through the sale of credits accumulated by reductions in GHG emissions.  Alternatively, a carbon tax scheme will require that companies minimize their emissions in order to maintain financially sustainable operating costs.