Tuesday
Wednesday
Sunday
Tuesday
Cradle to Cradle Enters Public Domain, Eyes Mainstream Acceptance
OAKLAND, CA — Cradle-to-Cradle design is going into the public domain and worldwide with the launch of the Green Products Innovation Institute (GPII), a nonprofit that will develop standards for individual products, intended to accelerate the transition to safer materials and advance California's Green Chemistry Initiative.
"We're hoping this will be an innovation engine for companies," said William McDonough, co-founder of the GPII, in an interview in advance of the nonprofit's launch today.
McDonough, an architect and designer, and Michael Braungart, a chemist and co-founder of the GPII, developed the revolutionary principles of Cradle-to-Cradle (C2C) together, calling for products to be made with safe ingredients that be returned to nature or industry, by companies that are socially responsible, commit to renewable energy, and safely use water.
The duo's McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry firm has been handling all certification for C2C products, a list that now numbers in the hundreds and includes a range of office furniture, personal care, building materials and packaging products.
In creating the GPII, McDonough said, they are donating to the nonprofit all of their C2C intellectual property developed over 20 years, including their 10 years of ha certifications.
"This will become an open system that is subject to public discussion and improvement," he said. Previously, all of the details of how to achieve C2C certification was intellectual property of MBDC, and any companies wanting to move to that level of design had to go to MBDC for consultation and product assessment. Now all of that information, along with lists of safer, positive chemical choices, will be available publicly.
The GPII will develop standards for products based on the five principles of C2C design: safe materials; materials that can be reused (recycled, composted, etc.); use of renewable energy; efficient water use, coupled with production of safe water ("We want water coming out of factories that is safe to drink," McDonough said); and social fairness.
Each sector and product type, McDonough said, will end up with different details for their standards based on the entirety of their supply chains, but they will all be signals for where the GPII wants to see product development go.
The GPII, in taking over the bulk of the work that MBDC performed, will train assessors that will work with companies to look at their products and see if they meet C2C certification, as well as advise them on ways to either meet certification or move up in the different levels of certification. Assessors could end up being employees within companies, third-party groups and MBDC itself.
The GPII, McDonough said, will then focus on larger fundamental issues, such as investigating chemicals and materials. The group will inform assessors about topics that are being researched and discussed, and also take feedback from assessors about issues they run into while looking at products and processes. All such topics, he said, will be open to public debate, with encouragement to hear global input.
And the transition of C2C to the GPII will also free up McDonough and Braungart to work on their own passions of design and chemistry.
"On a personal level I am interested in moving back to design fulltime and working on products," McDonough said. "We've always wanted to do this. We've always felt that C2C was a discovery and not an invention, and it really belongs in the public domain."
But first, he said, C2C needed to be tested, needed to be manifested in a way that it could be fully understood before going into the public domain.
"It's been a very steady growth with really serious clients that take time to do things right," McDonough said. "We finally got to the point that our enterprise is vigorous and experienced enough that it is worth releasing. (C2C) is a teenager now. It can go out in the world and carry its own weight."
In addition, the development of the GPII was pushed forward by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to act as part of the state's Green Chemistry Initiative.
One of the six Green Chemistry Initiative policy recommendations by the California Environmental Protection Agency is to move toward a Cradle to Cradle economy.
While the GPII will be headquartered in San Francisco and have that initial focus on California's Green Chemistry Initiative, the intent is for it to have global reach, McDonough said.
Along with having worldwide discussions on materials, the non-profit will also have more clout, he said, in pushing for safer chemical alternatives that do not exist yet by challenging industry and showing how much of a demand there is for safer materials.
Saturday
Thursday
TransFair USA Opens Factory Standard for Public Comment
TransFair USA, is the only third-party certifier of Fair Trade Certified products in the United States, will begin certifying cotton clothing, bed and bath products for Fair Trade Certification in 2010.
In conjunction with the new product offering, the organization has drafted new factory standard for company's wishing to be fair trade compliant in this industry. The draft standard is viewable on the TransFair USA website and the public may comment on it for 45 days starting November 16th. The standard builds on the International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention to workers in factories and sewing cooperatives.
In a new fair-trade move, workers on both ends of the supply chain will benefit from the fair-trade premium. Cotton farmers will receive a minimum farm-gate price, as well as a premium to invest in community needs such as schools, hospitals and infrastructure. Garment workers will receive a premium from the purchasers of the finished goods and can democratically decide how the funds are spent.
Paul Rice, president and CEO of TransFair USA, said: "Consumers have become increasingly aware of humanitarian issues in the garment industry. They want to make ethical choices but are faced with very few options. This new draft standard will give consumers the opportunity to use their purchasing power to guarantee fair prices to farmers and social justice for workers who sew their clothes. By wearing Fair Trade Certified garments, consumers will now have a voice in ensuring better factory working conditions and higher earnings for cotton farmers in countries like Mali, India and Peru."
READ ON>>
via sustainable media life
Sunday
Wednesday
Open Letter to the Magazine Industry: The game has changed…
By Jonathan Shaun
1. It’s not a secret that generation X, Y, and Z is more digitally minded than past generations. Apple has developed products that are not only iconic to these generations, but also vital to their existence. The iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch is changing the way media is distributed and utilized. The industry must develop digital solutions that are conscious, authentic, entertaining, educating, and of course profitable without comprising the user experience.
2. Industry leaders need to develop a fluid experience that is absolutely interactive. They have to utilize both digital and analog communications so that your digital efforts need to complement the hard copy print. They are both vital to survival and to secure future market share. This is truly an amazing period and there are groundbreaking revenue generators just waiting to be explored.
3. The industry needs to develop Applications foriPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch. These elements will have ROI through a monthly subscription-based process through iTunes in the Apple Application Store. Again, there are individuals that will turn away from print due to their environmental stance. This is perfectly fine. In fact, this is an opportunity to connect with a diverse crowd, save money, and preserve natural resources.
4. You can charge the same amount or close to it on a subscription-based model without physically creating excess hard copy product. Remember, we are communicating a holistic brand communication process that will be a touch point for individuals on a global level. We haven’t hit on it yet, however, think about what you can offer your advertising partners and vital accounts that support the industries. You will be able to offer vast digital and print solutions that will be more effective than the singular pursuit of either digital or print. This method is an interactive multi-channel campaign that will enhance your brand IQ for both business-to-business and business-to-customer relations.
The digital elements can really bring together a potent look and feel. All the imagery and content can be rich and full of life. Moreover, you have the technology to embed hyperlinks, social media technologies, video, music, and commerce built into these creative aspects. It’s all in the delivery though. You need to create these interactive channels with entertainment and purpose. If you are just trying to sell the user something every time they scroll or click you will lose them forever. It’s about blended value and trust.
We just scratched the surface here. If you would like to explore more provided solutions to holistic brand experience and your digital IQ – feel free to connect. Again, thank you Doug for inspiring us to look deeper into the future of magazines and not the death of them.
Jonathan Shaun is founder of 3.ZERO, a Digital + Branding Studio. 3.ZERO develops innovative digital solutions for forward thinking businesses. Shaun can be reached at Shaun@3pointZero.org. Visit 3pointZero.org for more information.
One Textile Label to Cut the Confusion: L.E.A.F.
Elinor Averyt is the founder of a proposed eco-labeling program, ‘Labeling Ecologically Approved Fabrics™ ’ (L.E.A.F.) which aims to eliminate confusion in the US market around environmental and social labeling for apparel and other textile products. The three month public review process for LEAF is launching this week, during which industry stakeholders and the general public are being invited to participate in a collaborative development process. Ms. Averyt made some time for an exclusive Q&A with Sustainable Life Media.
What is the goal of LEAF’s new eco-label?
The overall goal of LEAF is to become the trusted label licensing program that eliminates confusion in the US marketplace concerning environmental and social labeling for apparel and other textile products. LEAF is intended to be a high profile program similar to the USDA program that is in place for food and the LEED environmental rating system in place for green buildings.
How will this be accomplished?
The LEAF program will clearly communicate to US consumers which third-party certifications different apparel products have received, and where along the supply chain the certifications apply. Grouped within specific environmental and social achievement categories, this information will be communicated through a licensed eco-mark and labeling format designed to be easily identified and read by US consumers.
Is this program focusing on all aspects of the textile industry?
The proposed focus of LEAF is on apparel sold in the United States. The program may also include other textile categories over time, e.g. home textiles and fabrics used on accessories (including shoes, bags, backpacks, purses, etc.).
So is L.E.A.F. also working on creating the actual solutions for how to green the apparel and textile industry?
No, not really. This program is not the entity that has created the environmental and social solutions when it comes to the production of apparel. Instead, this program’s purpose is to make sure consumers understand the solutions that already exist. Their informed purchasing habits can enable these solutions to become the norm, but the current labeling landscape is confusing. What we’ve found in this investigative process is that the answers for this industry’s successful transition to a sustainable existence are for the large part already here, and they’ve already been created by several key stakeholder groups. These solutions are being created by innovative designers and brands that have made great strides to work towards greening their products. This industry also consists of an extensive supply chain —all of whose efforts are absolutely necessary in order for the industry to operate and successfully transition to a sustainable existence. In addition, standards-setting organizations and their partnering certification programs have, by their painstaking efforts, created scientifically valid environmental and social benchmarks to aspire to all along the entire supply chain. These programs are literally spelling out the ways to successfully green this industry within its highly complex, industrialized life cycle.
Where then does your group fit in to the process of eco-certification for textiles and apparel?
Our group is here to be a neutral, non-biased entity that helps facilitate clear information exchange between four key stakeholder groups:
- Apparel industry stakeholders
- Standards-setting organizations and programs who have created environmental and social benchmarks for this industry
- Certifying bodies and agencies performing the certifications to/against these standards
- The U.S. end user, last but most definitely not least!
What’s the #1 competitive advantage that the LEAF label offers for businesses?
The #1 benefit is that their consumers will be able to identify easily which products have undergone extensive third-party certification. Our program gives assurance to the U.S. end user that their choices have been qualified when they see the LEAF mark. Additionally, one of LEAF’s primary goals is to help support avid consumer awareness through education and awareness campaigns in conjunction with brand holders that assist in informing and rallying the US marketplace to use their powerful consumer dollars in support of the companies that are taking these exciting, and at times painstaking, strides toward more sustainable practices.
Why does a program like this not already exist for this industry here in the United States?
The apparel supply chain is tremendously complex, and there are a myriad of different standards and certifications that exist and are emerging for this industry’s supply chain processes. Deciphering which standards are valid is confusing. Also, in order for a program of this nature to be successful, there needs to be some degree of collaboration between upwards of 15 standards-setting organizations that are headquartered all around the globe. It’s a complex industry.
Why a Public Review Process?
Overall, a public review process provides stakeholders the chance to provide feedback on a program that could potentially have impacts on this industry’s practices in the United States over time.
What happens during this review and where does it happen?
The review happens online at LEAFCertified.org (I’ll link to the site). Interested stakeholders and end users are invited to provide comments anywhere on the main document. Additionally, questionnaires have been created for both industry stakeholders and US end users. We hope both groups will take the time to answer these questions in order to help us understand the needs of these diverse groups, and how to form this program most effectively to serve those needs. During the review, LEAF will collect all comments, and every four weeks during the review we will post the comments, the name of the commenter, and LEAF’s proposed answer or solution to each comment or group of similar comments. We also welcome stakeholders to devise the solutions to the issues they are seeing toward these complex issues, if it is appropriate and/or feasible to do so!
What suggestions do you have for companies who want to consider using the LEAF label in the future?
The first step is to be a part of the review process at www.LEAFCertified.org. You can also contact me at Info@LEAFCertified.org if you would like to be considered as a licensee of the LEAF trademark labeling program in the future.
When can we expect to see the LEAF label in stores?
The review process will be completed in the next 90 days. It will take another 2 to 3 months to re-sculpt the program, incorporating stakeholder feedback from the review, after which we will launch the beta trials. We expect to launch the program to the marketplace in the summer or fall 2010.
Via | Sustainable Life Media
Sunday
ReMODE Manifesto ::.
(c) 3.ZERO 2009
ReMODE is a journey based on a strong commitment to sustainability, social responsibility, innovation, and authenticity. ReMODE believes in a quest for ethical visions and integrity throughout an entire organization.
ReMODE has adopted the triple bottom line methodology that is based on all people, our earth, and making an economic profit in business with conscious capitalism as the vehicle. ReMODE feels the singular pursuit of profit in business doesn’t have a place in the 21st century.
ReMODE understands the importance of a brand knowing who they are and openly finding new method, which strives to better connect and invites their faithful following into their internal and external process. These followers are stakeholders and evangelists, which authentically brings a new base to business through self-expression.
A ReMODE business model resonates with a like-minded base in meaningful and purpose driven ways and strives to involve customers through open source initiatives and social interactions that expands a brand to “cult-like” status.
ReMODE maximizes brand IQ with limited resources.
ReMODE knows that it’s not WHAT you do. It’s HOW you do it.
A ReMODE collective fuses physical space, street-level tactics, and analog communication with digital innovations, making it fluid, interactive, and holistic.
ReMODE understands that transparency creates truth intended for the communities we continue to honorably serve. To be transparent is to be brutally honest.
ReMODE is the making and remixing of ethos-based business and the desire to effectively communicate through conscious capitalism. A business that fails to address these elements can’t fully be ethical.
Visit 3.ZERO for more on our ethical brand communications.
* Jonathan Shaun of 3.ZERO developed an ethical brand communication solution dubbed ReMODE that tentatively takes from the Remodernism movement that was founded by Billy Childish and Charles Thomson in 1999.
Wednesday
Nine Design Strategies to Inspire Sustainable Profits - Part 2
A new dedication to change is leading today's executives to search for new, applicable business models that promote "triple bottom line" thinking. At the same time, many corporate sustainability targets are still focused on cost and waste reduction, creating unprecedented opportunity through innovative design and sophisticated communication. In part 2 of this 3 part series, author and communication strategist John Marshall Roberts (in partnership with LA based, Evenson Design Group) outlines three more design strategies to create brands and packaging that inspire sustainable profits.
READ ON>>
via | Sustainable life media
Monday
Building the Business Case ::.
Your company has been progressing nicely up the sustainability curve from compliance to cost savings. The next logical step is reputation and revenue generation, and it's here that many sustainability pros hit a roadblock.
Without a CEO mandate, business units usually have little incentive to deviate from what's been working in the past. Sustainability and CSR initiatives have safely been tucked away behind the scenes, dealing with internal and supply chain issues that reduce risk and cost to the business. Objections to customer-facing sustainability initiatives range from “Why put our neck out and risk greenwashing charges?” to “It's still a niche market” and “Why would we promote our values for commercial ends? We're doing this because it's right, not to make money from it.”
Perhaps they do see that sustainability is beginning to go mainstream, but it hasn't become a burning platform for action. And this is the big opportunity for sustainability pros. It's time for you to change the conversation.
As pointed out in a recent EthicalCorp article, “Corporate responsibility teams could do more to articulate a clear business strategy for their company that will grow sales…. Social and environmental issues are increasingly seen as new business opportunities, rather than risks to be managed. But translating this knowledge into practical business plans is easier said than done.”
You'll need to craft a compelling story and business case for taking sustainability to the next level within the organization. And that story must to be told using the language of numbers, making a clear connection between sustainability and topline revenue.
How you do that is the subject of a new series of articles that will cover:
- identifying your total addressable sustainability market and your share of that pie
- learning what you can do to protect your current base and attract new customers
- prioritizing initiatives that will get the most bang for the buck
- enabling customers to experience your company as a sustainable brand through key touchpoints
- engaging customers to boost loyalty and grow the sustainability market
- communicating in a simple, relevant and credible way with customers
Let's tackle the first one now. TAM, or total addressable market, is the sum of all of the potential sales that your company could make if it didn't have any competition. In the sustainability world, we need to identify your TASM, or total addressable sustainability market, to begin building the business case.
TASM is based on an understanding of how many buyers are motivated by sustainability-related attributes when they purchase or recommend a product. It's crucial to your strategy, and yet secondary data on this information is slim. LOHAS is a wellknown segmentation model originally designed for health & wellness, but it may or may not apply to your category. I would question whether the same segmentation model holds true across all categories including food, electronics, personal care and energy.
Without knowing exactly how many buyers in your market care enough to adjust their purchase and loyalty behavior, it will be hard to justify any customerfacing initiatives. Even if the market is small for your category, it may be growing at a rapid enough pace to make a dedicated effort worthwhile. Side note: don't believe what consumers tell you; TASM should be based on behavioral data, not a poll.
Step two is knowing what share of this market you currently own versus your competitors. Are you leading or lagging? If you increased share by one percentage point, what is the resulting revenue that you could use to fund additional projects? If you cede competitive advantage among this group to a competitor, what percent of your customer base is put at risk?
In the next issue, we'll discuss how to protect and grow your sustainability customer base.
To download the entire July Newsletter from Fruitful Strategy, click here
Jennifer is a strategist who's passionate about the role businesses can play in creating a better world. After almost 20 years in brand and customer experience strategy, she started Fruitful to help companies profitably align brand and business strategy with social impact. Jennifer has been recognized as a rapid and intuitive problem solver, a dynamic speaker and a get-it-done professional. She brings a global perspective, having managed strategy projects for businesses in the EU, Dubai and Southeast Asia. Consulting and corporate-side experience ranges from the Fortune 50 to smaller regional players across a range of industries including tech, hospitality and healthcare.
via | Sustainable life media
Wednesday
Nine Design Strategies to Inspire Sustainable Profits - Part 1
A new dedication to change is leading today's executives to search for new, applicable business models that promote "triple bottom line" thinking. At the same time, many corporate sustainability targets are still focused on cost and waste reduction, creating unprecedented opportunity through innovative design and sophisticated communication. In part 1 of this 3 part series, author and communication strategist John Marshall Roberts (in partnership with LA based, Evenson Design Group) outlines three design strategies to create brands and packaging that inspire sustainable profits.
READ ON >>
Low Income Consumers Drive Sustainable Purchasing
Miller Zell, a retail and strategy design firm, finds that lower income shoppers are driving the sustainable product marketplace, not the higher income, lifestyle consumers many think of as supporting sustainability.
Overall, the survey found 50% of consumers are willing to pay a premium for a product they consider to be green. The largest benefit comes to grocery stores, where 79% of shoppers will pay the premium and to mass retailers, where the number is 70%.
The research also suggests that retailers and manufacturers may be missing a great brand building opportunity with a younger, lower income consumer. Disposable income is not directly correlated to increased spending on green products, and in fact has an inverse relationship. Millenials and Gen Y'ers are the most likely to pay a premium for green products, while at the same time being the least satisfied with product information targeted to them.
via | Sustainable Life Media
Saturday
Climate Change “Scientists Are Divided”
No, they’re not. In the early years of the global warming debate, there was great controversy over whether the planet was warming, whether humans were the cause, and whether it would be a significant problem. That debate is long since over. Although the details of future forecasts remain unclear, there’s no serious question about the general shape of what’s to come.
Every national academy of science, long lists of Nobel laureates, and in recent years even the science advisors of President George W. Bush have agreed that we are heating the planet. Indeed, there is a more thorough scientific process here than on almost any other issue: Two decades ago, the United Nations formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and charged its scientists with synthesizing the peer-reviewed science and developing broad-based conclusions. The reports have found since 1995 that warming is dangerous and caused by humans. The panel’s most recent report, in November 2007, found it is “very likely” (defined as more than 90 percent certain, or about as certain as science gets) that heat-trapping emissions from human activities have caused “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century.”
If anything, many scientists now think that the IPCC has been too conservative—both because member countries must sign off on the conclusions and because there’s a time lag. Its last report synthesized data from the early part of the decade, not the latest scary results, such as what we’re now seeing in the Arctic.
In the summer of 2007, ice in the Arctic Ocean melted. It melts a little every summer, of course, but this time was different—by late September, there was 25 percent less ice than ever measured before. And it wasn’t a one-time accident. By the end of the summer season in 2008, so much ice had melted that both the Northwest and Northeast passages were open. In other words, you could circumnavigate the Arctic on open water. The computer models, which are just a few years old, said this shouldn’t have happened until sometime late in the 21st century. Even skeptics can’t dispute such alarming events.
“We Have Time”
Wrong. Time might be the toughest part of the equation. That melting Arctic ice is unsettling not only because it proves the planet is warming rapidly, but also because it will help speed up the warming. That old white ice reflected 80 percent of incoming solar radiation back to space; the new blue water left behind absorbs 80 percent of that sunshine. The process amps up. And there are many other such feedback loops. Another occurs as northern permafrost thaws. Huge amounts of methane long trapped below the ice begin to escape into the atmosphere; methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Such examples are the biggest reason why many experts are now fast-forwarding their estimates of how quickly we must shift away from fossil fuel. Indian economist Rajendra Pachauri, who accepted the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize alongside Al Gore on behalf of the IPCC, said recently that we must begin to make fundamental reforms by 2012 or watch the climate system spin out of control; NASA scientist James Hansen, who was the first to blow the whistle on climate change in the late 1980s, has said that we must stop burning coal by 2030. Period.
All of which makes the Copenhagen climate change talks that are set to take place in December 2009 more urgent than they appeared a few years ago. At issue is a seemingly small number: the level of carbon dioxide in the air. Hansen argues that 350 parts per million is the highest level we can maintain “if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted.” But because we’re already past that mark—the air outside is currently about 387 parts per million and growing by about 2 parts annually—global warming suddenly feels less like a huge problem, and more like an Oh-My-God Emergency.
“Climate Change Will Help as Many Places as It Hurts”
Wishful thinking. For a long time, the winners-and-losers calculus was pretty standard: Though climate change will cause some parts of the planet to flood or shrivel up, other frigid, rainy regions would at least get some warmer days every year. Or so the thinking went. But more recently, models have begun to show that after a certain point almost everyone on the planet will suffer. Crops might be easier to grow in some places for a few decades as the danger of frost recedes, but over time the threat of heat stress and drought will almost certainly be stronger.
A 2003 report commissioned by the Pentagon forecasts the possibility of violent storms across Europe, megadroughts across the Southwest United States and Mexico, and unpredictable monsoons causing food shortages in China. “Envision Pakistan, India, and China—all armed with nuclear weapons—skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land,” the report warned. Or Spain and Portugal “fighting over fishing rights—leading to conflicts at sea.”
Of course, there are a few places we used to think of as possible winners—mostly the far north, where Canada and Russia could theoretically produce more grain with longer growing seasons, or perhaps explore for oil beneath the newly melted Arctic ice cap. But even those places will have to deal with expensive consequences—a real military race across the high Arctic, for instance.
Want more bad news? Here’s how that Pentagon report’s scenario played out: As the planet’s carrying capacity shrinks, an ancient pattern of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies would reemerge. The report refers to the work of Harvard archaeologist Steven LeBlanc, who notes that wars over resources were the norm until about three centuries ago. When such conflicts broke out, 25 percent of a population’s adult males usually died. As abrupt climate change hits home, warfare may again come to define human life. Set against that bleak backdrop, the potential upside of a few longer growing seasons in Vladivostok doesn’t seem like an even trade.
“It’s China’s Fault”
Not so much. China is an easy target to blame for the climate crisis. In the midst of its industrial revolution, China has overtaken the United States as the world’s biggest carbon dioxide producer. And everyone has read about the one-a-week pace of power plant construction there. But those numbers are misleading, and not just because a lot of that carbon dioxide was emitted to build products for the West to consume. Rather, it’s because China has four times the population of the United States, and per capita is really the only way to think about these emissions. And by that standard, each Chinese person now emits just over a quarter of the carbon dioxide that each American does. Not only that, but carbon dioxide lives in the atmosphere for more than a century. China has been at it in a big way less than 20 years, so it will be many, many years before the Chinese are as responsible for global warming as Americans.
What’s more, unlike many of their counterparts in the United States, Chinese officials have begun a concerted effort to reduce emissions in the midst of their country’s staggering growth. China now leads the world in the deployment of renewable energy, and there’s barely a car made in the United States that can meet China’s much tougher fuel-economy standards.
For its part, the United States must develop a plan to cut emissions—something that has eluded Americans for the entire two-decade history of the problem. Although the U.S. Senate voted down the last such attempt, Barack Obama has promised that it will be a priority in his administration. He favors some variation of a “cap and trade” plan that would limit the total amount of carbon dioxide the United States could release, thus putting a price on what has until now been free.
Despite the rapid industrialization of countries such as China and India, and the careless neglect of rich ones such as the United States, climate change is neither any one country’s fault, nor any one country’s responsibility. It will require sacrifice from everyone. Just as the Chinese might have to use somewhat more expensive power to protect the global environment, Americans will have to pay some of the difference in price, even if just in technology. Call it a Marshall Plan for the environment. Such a plan makes eminent moral and practical sense and could probably be structured so as to bolster emerging green energy industries in the West. But asking Americans to pay to put up windmills in China will be a hard political sell in a country that already thinks China is prospering at its expense. It could be the biggest test of the country’s political maturity in many years.
“Climate Change Is an Environmental Problem”
Not really. Environmentalists were the first to sound the alarm. But carbon dioxide is not like traditional pollution. There’s no Clean Air Act that can solve it. We must make a fundamental transformation in the most important part of our economies, shifting away from fossil fuels and on to something else. That means, for the United States, it’s at least as much a problem for the Commerce and Treasury departments as it is for the Environmental Protection Agency.
And because every country on Earth will have to coordinate, it’s far and away the biggest foreign-policy issue we face. (You were thinking terrorism? It’s hard to figure out a scenario in which Osama bin Laden destroys Western civilization. It’s easy to figure out how it happens with a rising sea level and a wrecked hydrological cycle.)
Expecting the environmental movement to lead this fight is like asking the USDA to wage the war in Iraq. It’s not equipped for this kind of battle. It may be ready to save Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which is a noble undertaking but on a far smaller scale. Unless climate change is quickly de-ghettoized, the chances of making a real difference are small.
“Solving It Will Be Painful”
It depends. What’s your definition of painful? On the one hand, you’re talking about transforming the backbone of the world’s industrial and consumer system. That’s certainly expensive. On the other hand, say you manage to convert a lot of it to solar or wind power—think of the money you’d save on fuel.
And then there’s the growing realization that we don’t have many other possible sources for the economic growth we’ll need to pull ourselves out of our current economic crisis. Luckily, green energy should be bigger than IT and biotech combined.
Almost from the moment scientists began studying the problem of climate change, people have been trying to estimate the costs of solving it. The real answer, though, is that it’s such a huge transformation that no one really knows for sure. The bottom line is, the growth rate in energy use worldwide could be cut in half during the next 15 years and the steps would, net, save more money than they cost. The IPCC included a cost estimate in its latest five-year update on climate change and looked a little further into the future. It found that an attempt to keep carbon levels below about 500 parts per million would shave a little bit off the world’s economic growth—but only a little. As in, the world would have to wait until Thanksgiving 2030 to be as rich as it would have been on January 1 of that year. And in return, it would have a much-transformed energy system.
Unfortunately though, those estimates are probably too optimistic. For one thing, in the years since they were published, the science has grown darker. Deeper and quicker cuts now seem mandatory.
But so far we’ve just been counting the costs of fixing the system. What about the cost of doing nothing? Nicholas Stern, a renowned economist commissioned by the British government to study the question, concluded that the costs of climate change could eventually reach the combined costs of both world wars and the Great Depression. In 2003, Swiss Re, the world’s biggest reinsurance company, and Harvard Medical School explained why global warming would be so expensive. It’s not just the infrastructure, such as sea walls against rising oceans, for example. It’s also that the increased costs of natural disasters begin to compound. The diminishing time between monster storms in places such as the U.S. Gulf Coast could eventually mean that parts of “developed countries would experience developing nation conditions for prolonged periods.” Quite simply, we’ve already done too much damage and waited too long to have any easy options left.
“We Can Reverse Climate Change”
If only. Solving this crisis is no longer an option. Human beings have already raised the temperature of the planet about a degree Fahrenheit. When people first began to focus on global warming (which is, remember, only 20 years ago), the general consensus was that at this point we’d just be standing on the threshold of realizing its consequences—that the big changes would be a degree or two and hence several decades down the road. But scientists seem to have systematically underestimated just how delicate the balance of the planet’s physical systems really is.
The warming is happening faster than we expected, and the results are more widespread and more disturbing. Even that rise of 1 degree has seriously perturbed hydrological cycles: Because warm air holds more water vapor than cold air does, both droughts and floods are increasing dramatically. Just look at the record levels of insurance payouts, for instance. Mosquitoes, able to survive in new places, are spreading more malaria and dengue. Coral reefs are dying, and so are vast stretches of forest.
None of that is going to stop, even if we do everything right from here on out. Given the time lag between when we emit carbon and when the air heats up, we’re already guaranteed at least another degree of warming.
The only question now is whether we’re going to hold off catastrophe. It won’t be easy, because the scientific consensus calls for roughly 5 degrees more warming this century unless we do just about everything right. And if our behavior up until now is any indication, we won’t.
Bill McKibben is scholar in residence at Middlebury College and author of Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future (New York: Times Books, 2007).
via | Foreign Policy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)