Voices of reason ...

Today I was reading the June 29th issue of the New Yorker and came across an article by Elizabeth Kolbert entitled "The Catastrophist." In a nutshell, the article is about Jim Hansen, who has been spending the better part of the last 40 years understanding the changes in the earth's climate system, and half of that time trying to warn the world by dealing in the facts. Unfortunately, as compelling as they are, the facts continue to get drowned out in a chorus of loud, agenda-driven messaging about how climate change is not a problem, that it's really reversing, and it's all a big hoax anyway.

This was brought home to me clearly this morning when C-Span had a call-in program on the subject of climate change. The Waxman-Markey legislation to cap CO2 is about to go to the floor of the House for debate. Listeners were invited to call three numbers, one for Democrats, one for Republicans, and one for Independents. All the calls were against support for Waxman-Markey. Consistent carefully crafted messages abounded about how global warming was not a problem, and that Waxman-Markey would kill jobs. An email from a climate activist put it this way "I'm getting a ton of messages saying that we're getting killed on C-span this morning. We are trying to generate calls into C-Span while discussion is happening around the bill. Opponents have mobilized effectively to swamp all 3 party call lines. It's 100% against with same talking points."

In the movement to get climate change legislation enacted will mobilized talking-points win out over scientific facts?

Tweet

Coming Home (Part II)

Alignment of Ecology and Economy

If ecology and economy are aligned, what can ecology teach economy? How can ecology inform how to manage the global economic system? Does this mean we all have to live in mud huts, treehouses or caves? Is the implication of this a giant step backward for the quality of life of human beings?

When people start asking questions like that it is apparent that fear has crept into the discourse. “I don’t want to give up my SUV or second home, my steak dinner or trips to the South of France.” This is what they really seem to be saying. No one wants to change if they’ve got it pretty good. And we in the West have got it pretty good. But understanding that ecology informs economy is not about having it bad – it is not a call to privation and poverty. In fact it is the only way to insure sustainable prosperity and abundance for generations to come in the developed and developing worlds.

Having ecology inform economy is first and foremost about understanding systems. The earth’s biosphere is the system from which we all come. Humanity is not only the inheritor of the earth, we are its issue. Human beings are natural adaptive systems within the biosphere. Together we created another very powerful adaptive system called the global economy. Systems theory tells us that every sub-process and subsystem within an overall system must be aligned with the aim of the overall system, otherwise there will be sub-optimization, decay and the ultimate destruction of the system. The global economy as a sub-process within the biosphere must be aligned with the aim and workings of the biosphere. It is through ecology that we can understand how the biosphere works, and it is through economy that we can align with it to achieve sustainable human prosperity.

In that way, concern that ecology could undermine economy makes as much sense as concern that medical research could undermine human healthcare. The two are aligned as opposed to being in tension. An understanding of ecology – how the biosphere works – is a great enabler of a sustainable, prosperous economy.

Tweet

Coming Home (Part I)

In the increasingly urgent discussions around climate change and industrial sustainability, one hears over again concerns about the choice between ecology on the one hand and economy on the other. Renewed concern about the earth's ecology must be weighed against the negative impacts actions from such concerns could have on the economy – especially an economy in global recession with declining equity and credit markets. The earth's ecology and the global economy are presumed to be in tension, what’s good for one is bad for the other, as one rises, the other falls.

If we look more closely, picking between one or the other appears to be a false choice. The very meaning of the words ecology and economy hint at this. The root of both words - ecos - is derived from the Greek and means home or household. Ecology is the study of home, and economy the management of home. As a species we have finally come to realize that home is not the just our house, or the village town or state we come from, but the entire planet on which we live - that's home. Ecology is the study of home - the earth's biosphere and how it works. Economy is the management of home - but this meaning has also expanded as our thinking of home has expanded. Economy now is about managing a global economic system that is reshaping the biosphere on which it depends for its existence.

Since the Enlightenment, the study of a system has informed how it is managed. The fields of astronomy, physics, biology, medicine, psychology and many others – have brought forth new knowledge that has informed and optimized the management of human activities. So it must be with Ecos. Ecology - the knowledge of the biosphere - must be a tool for better economy - informing and optimizing the management of the biosphere.

Using ecology to inform economy is simply using knowledge to inform management. Where tension exists between new knowledge and management, the outcome is generally undesirable. The new knowledge from Darwin’s theory of evolution was very controversial in its day, and is still in tension with the way many groups and individuals view their very existence. This has negative implications for education and the advancement of knowledge and science. Viewing knowledge as a threat compromises human advancement. Viewing knowledge of the biosphere as a threat to the global economy could threaten human existence.

If the study of home, Ecology, and the management of home, Economy, need to be aligned, how can that alignment inform more effective management? Read next week in “Coming Home (Part II).”

Tweet

The Waxman-Markey Bill

Hi Everyone,

I just got back from the North Amercian Summit for The Climate Project, in Nashville Tennesse. W were charged with contacting our elected officials to let them know that we need the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES), (the Waxman Markey Bill) to be passed.

Is it a perfect bill? No. Is it essential that we pass this bill now? Absolutely. The world will be meeting in Copenhagen in December to map out the future of global climate policy to cap CO2. If the U.S. does not have legislation in place, a global agreement on capping CO2 will be impossible, and American leadership in the world greatly damaged.

The question is, what type of role do we want to have in the world community in the decades to come? Do we want to be dragged kicking and screaming into responsible governance on global issues, or do we want to take leadership and have influence?

By contacting your representative in Congress you can affect change. Even if your Congressional representative is on-board, an email or a phone call or a letter will strengthen their hand, and perhaps turn them from supporter to advocate.


Tell your friends, corworkers, family, even some strangers, that they need to speak up and now and loud! You can ask them to phone or email their elected officials or direct them to the League of Conservation Voters website, http://action.lcv.org/campaign/april_gw_house_full. You can also direct them to the Alliance for Climate Protection website for Repower America, http://www.repoweramerica.org.

You can read the bill or a summary at http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1560&Itemid=1


The time is now. The opposition and big polluters are very vocally against this legislation. We need every person we can to speak out. It's your right and your responsibility to speak up!

Tweet

All Definitions of Sustainability are Wrong

Some, however, are useful.

The word sustainability is in danger of becoming a 'garbage term', having widely divergent meanings depending on who's using it. A word with too many meanings tends to lose all meaning - more is surely less in this case.

To some people sustainability sounds stagnant, coming across as dug in - neither growing, nor changing nor adapting. To others sustainability means something entirely different - robustness, durability, constancy of purpose, even adherence to core values. Sustainability can reflect how business treats the environment in general such as through recycling and reducing waste and toxins, or it can specifically refer to reducing greenhouse gases and addressing climate change. To some, sustainability is just staying in business. Others define it more broadly, as a paradigm shift from a focus on short-term measures to an alignment to broader aims.

The problem is, no succinct definition can fit them all, so in that sense all definitions of sustainability are wrong. Yet some are useful. The one I find most useful which incorporates a lot of the above ideas - and does so in seven words: sustainability is an appreciation for systems thinking.

A system is a grouping of components and processes in the service of an aim. If it doesn't have an aim, then it's not a system; if you don't know the aim, then you can't optimize the system. If all the subsystems and sub-processes within a system are not aligned with the aim of the overall system, there will be sub-optimization, decay and the eventual destruction of the system.

In looking at the problem of sustainability, the system in question is the earth's biosphere, and embedded within it is a very powerful subsystem called the global economy. Humanity has been putting the biosphere to work in service of the aim of the global economy for centuries. But we will not achieve industrial sustainability and we will not effectively address problems like climate change until we figure how to turn that inside-out, and learn to align the global economy in service of the aim of the biosphere.

What is the aim of the biosphere? Sustainability, of course.

Tweet

Climate Change Strategy - From Business For Business

This EarthDay April 22, a group of leading global businesses announced the formation of Interraction, a consortium that will advise businesses about the risks of climate change and the advantages of sustainable solutions. carbonRational is among these firms. Here is our launch announcement:

carbonRational announces the launch of InTERRAction - the first multi-disciplinary business consortium established to address climate change risk.

InTERRAction provides a collective 360 degree expertise, and will offer a unique, cross-functional perspective that is necessary to help corporations manage climate related risks and leverage the business opportunities they create. InTERRAction provides businesses with both advisory services as well as execution of its recommendations.

“Corporate sustainability efforts, if they exist at all, are often characterized by ‘silo thinking’,” said Andrew McKeon, co-founder of Interraction, and principal at carbonRational, a strategic consulting firm focusing on addressing climate change at a systems level. “Management may commission a state-of-the-art green building from their facilities department, but then neglect to orchestrate complementary changes in the departments responsible for vendor practices, product sourcing and packaging, site location and corporate development. Typically, the result is that the anticipated payback in terms of environmental impact, return on investment and risk management falls short of goal.”

Mr. McKeon noted that the group’s founding vision is to offer a comprehensive strategic approach based on the collective knowledge and experience of its membership. “As a group, we can help corporations with the difficult task of seeing the organization as a whole, which is the key to delivering sustainable shareholder value and reputation. We are replacing ‘silo thinking’ with ‘systems thinking’.”

As a starting point, Interraction uses a diagnostic tool called The Sustainability Scorecard to assess and manage climate change risk.

“The Scorecard functions like a full body scan in a medical check-up,” said Kenneth D. Makovsky, Co-Founder of the consortium, and president of Makovsky + Company, an independent communications consultancy. He noted that the Scorecard provides a snapshot of the notable risks throughout an organization, pinpointing specifically the impact climate change can have on a firm’s growth and reputation. The findings are summarized in an easy to understand risk index. The Consortium then collaborates with a client’s leadership to review the findings, identify areas of concern, and discuss options to manage any of the risks uncovered.

“Interraction is poised to counsel any business on a single area of functional expertise,” added Mr. Makovsky. “But our true power as an organization lies in our collaboration that can bring into focus the significant environmental risks and opportunities that are typically obscured by departmental myopia.”

“Interraction proposes to deliver a compelling blend of disciplines for an integrated approach to corporate sustainable practices,” commented Aaron Binkley, director of AMB’s Sustainability Programs. AMB is a beta customer of Interraction and is currently assessing the service’s applicability.

Interraction consists of top experts in Architecture, Climate Forecasting, Communications, Environmental Science, Law, Management Consulting and Engineering. Members firms include:

• Arnold & Porter: One of the preeminent law firms in the world, Arnold & Porter offers clients broad expertise in understanding the legal implications of climate change, educating and advising them on their legal status vis à vis current law, and what to expect in coming legislation.

• Buro Happold: A premier international design and engineering firm that is a global leader in balancing sustainable design and functionality, Buro Happold provides expertise in environmental impact statements, environmental management, masterplanning and design, and specialized services.

• carbonRational: A management consultancy focused on corporate strategies for climate change and sustainability based on systems thinking. carbonRational was founded by Andrew McKeon, a former systems engineer and operations specialist who for several years has been working with Al Gore and The Climate Project to raise awareness on climate change.

• FXFOWLE Architects: FXFOWLE enjoys an international recognition for excellence in design and pioneering green architecture, including the Conde Nast Building (the first green skyscraper in New York), the New York Times Headquarters (with Renzo Piano), and LEED projects representing over 12 million square feet.

• Makovsky + Company: One of the largest independent public relations, investor relations and branding consultancies in the USA, Makovsky + Co. has been engaged by corporations ranging from the Fortune 500 to emerging leaders in sustainable products and services, financial and professional services, health, and technology industries.

• Svante Scientific: founded to deliver to the private sector the quantitative information developed at Columbia University and NASA that is needed to identify opportunities and reduce risks associated with the changing global climate. The firm delivers both climate data and custom simulations of future climate change.

For more information about the consortium or The Sustainability Scorecard, please contact carbonRational at 917-750-6779 or info@carbonRational.com.

Tweet

With Finance Disgraced, Whither Goest the Best and Brightest

There is much speculation about the long-term consequences of the current financial meltdown and the impact it might have on the career choices of young people today. Frank Rich in his Sunday column, while skewering Lawrence Summers as an example of the the old model of cashing-in on one's influence, quotes his replacement at Harvard, President Drew Gilpin Faust. “Find work you love,” she implored the class of 2008. The “most remunerative” job choice “may not be the most meaningful and the most satisfying.”

A day earlier, another article in the Times entitled "With Finance Disgraced, Which Career Will Be King?" also discussed the direction of top U.S. students, with some surprising findings.

According to the article, public service, government, the sciences and even teaching look to be winners, "while fewer shiny, young minds are embarking on careers in finance and business consulting."

Also, graduate schools of government and public policy are seeing a surge of applications. And those top students who are deferring graduate school may be choosing to join "Teach for America", which has seen a surge in applications.

Beyond the "disgrace" of finance, another big trend pushing young people in a new direction are public problems, which the article says is being influenced by everything from the 9/11 attacks to climate change.

“There is a big crop of people, like me, who grew up in a different time when public policy and public issues have been at the center of things.” So says Matthew McKnight, a young Dartmouth alum who joined the Marines upon graduation, and is now headed to Harvard for a joint degree in business and public policy.

Don Chamberlin, a professor of computer science at the University of California at Santa Cruz recalled that back in the early 1960s when he was choosing a career, a technical professional was respected and well paid. Money, he said, was part of the equation. “But the bigger part of the motivation for me,” he said, “was that I would be doing exciting and important work and that my contributions would be appreciated.”

It is refreshing to see that people - especially younger people - are understanding that our future - as a society and as a planet - depends on what I would term an appreciation for systems thinking. Our society is weakened when we groom an elite to create vast wealth for themselves, while we ignore long-term political, economic and ecological problems. The individual myopic pursuit of fast money was exemplified by far too many young graduates from the 1980's until recently. Now it seems today's newly matriculated are looking longer-term, and realizing that the opportunities of the 21st century are going to be in solving big problems, requiring joint efforts between the public and private sectors.

When it comes to making career choices, our current President provides a good study. As Rich points out in his column yesterday "Obama turned down the lucrative career path guaranteed to the first African-American president of The Harvard Law Review to pursue the missions of service and teaching instead. The potential rewards for our country, now that that early choice has led him into the White House, are enormous."

I certainly hope so.

Tweet