I'm interested in organizing an ecofriendly fashion show in our community that features stylish, earth/people friendly clothing. Not your hippie, tree hugging variety (no offense) but clothes that are chic and hip. Can anyone point me to such designers? Also, if you have tips on how to organize such an event, that'd be great.
Thanks.
David B. Wilcoxen
Champaign, Illinois
EcoFriendly Fashion
Sign in or Sign up to comment
David
You could try Patagonia and ask if they would like sponsor your event. A great source of vodcasts about green clothing can be viewed from here: http://www.mefeedia.com/lists/45/?page=5
The Sun Dance Channel has The Green that often looks at this issue. How to organise a fashion show? - ask textile and fashion students at your closest college to get involved and run it for you!
Kind regards,
Andrew --
Andrew Stuck MA, MBA, MAUD, Dip EE
Ideas Broker, Education and Training Consultant
Community Engagement | Environmental Education
Sustainable Travel | Urban Design & Ecology
Rethinking Cities Limited
66 Beauval Road
London SE22 8UQ
United Kingdom 020 8299 4384
07725555460
[email protected]
http://www.rethinkingcities.net
David, I don't know if this is exactly what you are looking for, but a trendy brand for young people today is Volcom. They have recently created an "environmentally responsible" line. Here is a link to their news release: http://www.volcom.com/news/article.asp?articleID=1540 I think Roots has a sustainable clothing line as well.
Cheers,
Tyler R. Plante
Marketing Intern
Residential Energy Efficiency Project (REEP)
The Living Green Expo in St. Paul puts on a fashion show every year. www.livinggreen.org/fashionshow.cfm Birch Clothing has been involved with that. They carry high-end classic eco-fashions. http://www.birchclothing.com/
-Karen-
David, ironically, a great resource for you to find non treehugger eco fashions is treehugger.com It's quite a site in general, aiming to make sustainability sexy and compelling to a wider audience. I clicked the "fashion + beauty" category and saw lots of great leads for you.
Paul Smith
2007 MBA, Sustainable Management
Presidio School of Management
510.420.0878
psmith{at}presidiomba.org
I'm skeptical of an environmental protection strategy that involves promoting brands like Patagonia. If we don't challenge materialism/consumerism generally, I don't think we've achieved what we wanted. See this recent article in the Guardian by George Monbiot for an extended discussion of this point: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2133120,00.html
Jason
One of the problems in CBSM that McKenzie-Mohr and Smith have pointed is the difficulty in setting societal norms that support sustainability and sustainable behaviour and making that clearly visible (See: McKenzie-Mohr, Doug and Smith, W. (1999) Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing. 2nd ed. British Columbia, Canada: New Society). Simply because (unlikely recycling) many of the choices people make for sustainability are not clearly visible to others hence its inability to become a norm. I believe this eco-friendly fashion show that David B. Wilcoxen has proposed will help somewhat in bringing about that visibility. Of course it is arguable that we may not succeed in fighting against consumerism and materialism with the same tools that have been used to promote them in the first place. I know I will (and have) contradicted myself in other instances. But clearly these tools have been tremendously successfully in setting up the consumerist lifestyle as the norm which unfortunately the majority of the planets population is presently subscribing to. Perhaps it may not be so bad if youth identify with a greener brand (if it truly is greener) then something like Nike or Gap especially if the campaign highlights clearly the meaning of the brand (i.e. the values and principles of sustainability etc.). For the fashion show, it is important to identify a brand that is truly sustainable before it is promoted through the show. And efforts need to be made to sustain the brand. Hence this needs to be a long-term campaign. Nike and Adidas have spent years establishing their brand name and continue to do so, even now when they are already well-establish. Anything one-off will not work. Some assessment and records of impact will also be good to inform future efforts in a similar direction.
Good luck,
Komathi Kolandai
Komathi Kolandai
PhD Research Topic:
Mass Communicating Sustainability and the Environment
School of Political Science & Communication
University of Canterbury,
Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8020
Tel: 3642987 Ext. 3027
Is it not possible to make the three R's visible? And, don't even eco-friendly brands have advertising budgets for themselves? I'm concerned that lay people are beginning to think "retail" is one of the "three R's." And, to the extent that environmentalists reinforce the idea that clothing, cars, and lightbulbs are symbols of environmentalism, I think we're undeniably undermining our own cause.
Jason
I think we need to stand back and get a wider appreciation of what this is all about. The bottom line, throughout, is about re-shaping humanity's daily living in a way that is sustainable for the planet, and thereby for everyone and everything on it. Countless generations of people, of all colours, creeds and civilizations, have grown accustomed - indeed, have been encouraged, if not driven by both subtle and overt forces of economies and economists - to develop lifestyles that emphasize the acquisition of wealth, and to live for today rather than for tomorrow. The global mindset which has emerged has an inherited imbalance of regard towards sustainable living. Scientific evidence is persuading us to understand that things are in real danger of getting out of hand because the demands by so many people and so much cavalier treatment of the planet's natural resources now represent a total that cannot be sustained. The essence of the three Rs is the first one - REDUCE. Several times I have heard comments, by those promoting sustainable living, to the effect that if one purchases and applies different technologies (for instance, CFLs instead of tungsten light bulbs, lawn-sprinklers that turn themselves off when they've delivered 'enough' water, lights that turn themselves off when a room is vacant, and so on), one can continue "to enjoy the same lifestyle as before". On the contrary - surely the important thing is to get the world to understand that *changes* in lifestyle have got to be made. Those changes do not all have to be swingeing, and they are not necessarily unpleasant - just unfamiliar. The stats tell us that 20% reductions will make a lot of difference to projections of current climate/resource trends, and that fossil-fuelled transport is universally one of the worst offenders in these matters. A lot of travel is inessential, and much of the holiday industry is driven by fashion rather than need; it is not necessary for scientists to hold conferences in exotic locations unless there is a germane reason for selecting that site; it is not necessary to transport perishable foodstuffs to markets where they are out of season and therefore a delicacy; it is not essential to package almost every product in wraps that have to end up in landfills, nor to manufacture huge breakable plastic toys for small children instead of teaching them how to 'make do' and to develop ingenuity. It DOES matter to ensure that each and every one has access to basic essentials. Money-driven marketing has a lot to answer for. As George Monbiot so eloquently expressed it, an eco-cult can itself trigger unnecessary acquisitions. It doesn't matter how the REDUCE message is formulated, be it in association with waste disposal, eco-fashion clothes or turning off all lights for 5 minutes once a year, provided that the essence of that message is clearly audible or visible - and comprehensible. And like a good diet, it is not a one-sided question of semi-starvation, of just giving up; it is a question of a lifestyle modulation that is novel, interesting, and ultimately of resounding benefit. So - good luck to all these novel and interesting ideas that circulate round the csbm listserve. They all bear the right signals, but it is equally important to ensure that their basic, common message is taken home to where it needs to be and not just passed over or tossed into the garbage box (or 'recycle' box as it is now called in order to salve people's consciences!) More power to everyone's elbow!
Elizabeth Griffin
(Victoria, Canada)
I want to thank everyone who sent me links to various green fashion websites--the response was large! What a great Listserv!! A valid question was raised regarding whether focusing on fashion promoted consumerism. If all goes as planned, we intend to host the ecofashion show as part of a campus-wide workshop on green consumerism. The workshop aims to motivate people to look at and consider how their consumer habits impact the earth. Our goal, if possible, is to make the show as "green" as possible in all areas--serving locally produced organic food, using hair, makeup products and clothing that are earth/people friendly, etc. We've decided to focus on fashion because the general perception of who is an "environmentalist" is too restrictive. When the general U.S. public thinks of environmentalists the image that comes to mind are "tree huggers" and "hippies." Often with a negative connotation. We want to expand the concept of who is or can be an environmentalist. There is a growing segment of the population that is young, hip, savvy and urban--who also care about the earth. I don't know if they've been named in the popular press yet but we've dubbed them the "Metro Greens." The following website is an example of what I'm referring too: http://www.idealbite.com/
Thanks again to all who responded!!
David B. Wilcoxen
Today's Grist lists 15 Green Fashionistas
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/08/09/fashionistas/index.html?source =daily
David makes a great point at the end of his last post. Some wise person once said "when the environmentalists are having the most fun, everyone will want to be an environmentalist."
I have to put in my bit, having read all these very interesting responses to David's request. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with being a consumer, it's what you consume that matters. And yes, how much, too. But to expect people to radically shift their behavior before they're ready, is asking too much, in my mind. Eco fashion is a perfect introduction/bridge to making changes in other areas of your life. People aren't going to stop wanting to be unique, stylish, expressive any time soon, so I think, if anything, the increased consumption of sustainably made fashion should be encouraged. The more sales of these, the more companies will either start out as or shift towards being more sustainable. Shows like Davids can help drive this, and can make what is now a fairly small niche, an "alternative," become the norm, or at least make up an increasing percentage of clothing sales. Also, I don't think that companies that aren't 100% sustainable should be shunned altogether. For instance, one could go on for days about all the horrible things Nike does, the conspicuous consumption they inspire, etc. And yet, they have their Considered line. Interestingly, it's now gone from being a distinct site/line, to being part of their offerings, without feeling the need to trumpet their greenness. Things to make you think are things like this: In last Sunday's paper, there was an ad from Target (a US big box store) which had t- shirts that said "Be Green," which were made from conventional cotton. Now, do we say that's a bad thing, why didn't they do it organic, or support it, acknowledging it as a step forward, helping the idea of being more green become more wide spread, and hope that the people that buy these begin to explore more, learn about steps they can take, and next time go back and ask for organic cotton (or bamboo, etc) Tapping in to people's desire to be unique, there are an increasing number of fabrics made from sustainable/renewable materials, and I think that's to be applauded, encouraged, rather then just repeating the same old 3 Rs, without acknowledging the steps forward people have made. Actually, the fashion industry has been practicing the three Rs already, in several ways. For example Mion shoes minimizes the number of parts, glues used, etc. Nike recycles shoe rubber, to be used for children's playgrounds I belive. Patagonia recycles their clothes into more clothes. Then there's been a trend of repurposing old clothes into new garments, and on. True, the general public has a long way to go, on many fronts, and it would be great if they were there, today. But there's the concept of "blending," where you, rather then expecting someone to be or move to being on the same page as you right away, match their energy, then once you've blended, lead things in a different direction. It's like dancing, you don't come up to someone doing Salsa, and insist they do a Waltz with you. I think it's the same with peoples behavior. Meet them in the middle, then move from there.
Paul Smith
2007 MBA, Sustainable Management
Presidio School of Management
510.420.0878
psmith{at}presidiomba.org
Hi all,
In response to Jason, I have just done an essay on ecological modernisation and the 'risk society' ideas of Beck (German Sociologist). Ecological modernisation believes it is desirable and for societies to develop both economically and socially and at the same time conserve the environment. It is suggested that some improvements can be achieved through technological advances that help to reduce the consumption of resources via increasing efficiency (i.e. pollution prevention, waste reduction), typically by taking externalities from one economic production process and using them as raw material inputs for another (Christoff, 1996). (from Wikipedia) Hybrid cars and compact fluro's are examples put forward by ecological modernists of products that allow people to continue to receive the same service (e.g. mobility or lighting) while using less energy. Ecological modernisation is very popular with industry (and many governments) because it allows them to continue to produce goods for consumption while 'heading towards' sustainability. Beck's 'risk society' ideas point out that modern society creates risks that are the result of the modernization process itself. New technology brings new risks (many unknown or hidden because of science's reductionist nature) Consider the discovery of oil, it is only fairly recently that science started to realise the negative effects of societies use of oil and still does not understand the full impacts of climate change. As science and technology race ahead, many risks are created and climate change is a great example, but there are other risks that we don't even know about. Reducing consumption has got to help !!! As India and China develop rapidly (I don't know the figures, but about 10% growth in GDP for the last say 10 years ??anyone know) and become 'modern' we are creating further stress on the environment and further risks. Don't forget 'we' will be 9 billion people soon. Here in Australia, politicians are sounding a lot like ecological modernists (e.g. plans to phase out the use of incandescent lamps by 2010), but are reluctant to suggest lowering consumption because of the effect that would have on the economy. If they wanted to have cleaner energy why do they protect the coal industry rather than support renewables. Ecological modernisation seems to be putting business before the environment, but it is business that needs the environment! Every little bit helps, but not much if it is still heading in the wrong direction, only slower. As Madonna sang "We live in a material world" and the culture supports this. So it is difficult to create a norm of "I don't really need that" when surround by so much hype. (Modern advertising and media is everywhere in our society). We seem to be a victim of our own success. Maybe Beck is right. What do you all think??? Would love to know !!!
Thanks PJ
Throwing in my 2 cents on why 'Fashion' can be sustainable: The high-end good quality classic styles that I see at our local retailer, Birch Clothing are inherently sustainable because of quality of materials, and timelessness of style. Timeless quality goods last and don't need to be replaced. In that sense, educating buyers to see quality and durability as clothing values would lead toward sustainable behavior change. Too much of the NY rag trade is geared toward 'disposable' clothing, and rapid fluctuations of style and taste, to drive consumption. It's that *business model* that needs to be challenged, not whether fashion is or isn't relevant to sustainability. Fashion shows are an opportunity to educate people about market forces. On a side note, does anyone have information on Green Publishing Practices? I'm a free-lance editor, & interested in industry best practices.
-Karen-
Durability of the fashion is perhaps the key to sustainability in the fashion industry. I see a parallel here between the disposability of fashion fickle fabrications and the mentality that underlines the deliberate act of littering; it's the throw away mentality that goes with the territory. There is a designer in Canada of 'wearable art'. She does not promote herself as being 'sustainable' but through her sewing technique, which optimizes the use of materials, and through her orientation to the customer, her items are kept for years. Her wearable art has a closed loop process, clients have been able to exchange or sale back into her market their art pieces (usually due to weight changes in patrons). Further to this she supports mental health programs at her fashion shows. Her website is www.bonnieglass.com
L. E. Johannson, B.E.S. (Hons), M.Sc., FRSA
Hi David,
There are quite a number of green "fashion forward" and couture fashion designers out there. Here is a sampling:
Loomstate
Edun
Enamore
Deborah Lindquist
Komodo
Linda Loudermilk
Gaelyn & Cianfarani
Delano Collection
Emaharishi Sai
So In organizing the show, working with fashion students could be helpful as one reader cited. However, I would caution that while they may be highly creative, most fashion students are not producing wearable green designs and could send you off in a non functional direction. You may want to contact previous green fashion show organizers, brand leaders or partner with a green boutique who carries several of the lines and can have a direct benefit from the exposure while taking some of the work off of your hands. Feel free to contact me off list if you have any questions. http://www.kristenandersen.com/weblog/fashion/
Kind Regards,
-Kristen
Kristen L. Andersen
Conservation & Education Projects
Coordinator Catalina Island Conservancy
Conservation Department:
310-510-1299
[email protected]
P.O. Box 2739
Avalon, CA 90704
http://www.catalinaconservancy.org
Hi Karen,
We use a printer called Print Bound who won the Premier's Business Sustainability Award for 2005. Their 'clean green print' process is detailed on their website: www.cleangreenprint.com
Cheers,
Matt
Matthew Salter
Sustainable Transport Officer
EnviroSMART Buildings and Grounds Division
La Trobe University
Ph: +613 9479 1079
Fax: +613 9479 5051
Mailing Address:
EnviroSMART Peribolos East
La Trobe University, 3086
www.latrobe.edu.au/travelsmart/
www.latrobe.edu.au/carpool/
www.latrobe.edu.au/envirosmart/
This blog entry highlights _exactly_ what we don't want to have happen to the environmentalist movement. Certainly, this represents an extreme, but it's the result of the watering down of the environmental message to be sure. Is this a success or no? And, are we confusing people or being pragmatic when we present 'more palatable/acceptable' notions of environmentalism that are closely wedded to corporate fashion interests? http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2007/08/15/target-starts-the-greenwashing-in-its-
advertisments/
Jason
Karen,
I'll accept that there are different ways to read the situation of Target selling sweatshop clothes with "green" symbols on them. My worry though is that people will begin to see wearing the recycling symbol on such a shirt as a sign of environmentalism. Recycling has its own problems and doesn't need to be fetishized anymore than it already is. Target shirts aren't helping this, and I'm skeptical that people who buy these shirts will move on to actual recycling, reusing, and reducing. I suppose I'd need to see it to believe it. I'm reminded of the sequined "girl power" and "girls rule" shirts that were the rage only a few years ago. Did these shirts inspire feminism? There's a fine line between "gateways" and parody. Jason -- You could look at those T-shirts as free advertising for the environmental message. Like it's gone viral. Or as the equivalent of a 'gateway drug'. Like marijuana, those T-shirt will open the door to even greener fashion addictions for the kids that buy them. It's not a bad thing.
-K-
Jason -
The line between 'gateway' and 'parody' is ridicule. As I read it, the Target T-shirts are surfing an ongoing wave of interest in things Green. They're trying to make a buck capitalizing on it, sure. But without an edge of ridicule, it's no parody. An example of a parody T-shirt is one coming to the Twin Cities in time for the Republican 08 convention - The red white & blue R. elephant on its back, feet in the air, with an X where the eyes should be. It's a standard Republican logo, but with that edge of ridicule. So far, I've not seen any mass-market items that parody or ridicule the green movement. I'd be curious what that might look like.
-Karen-
Jason, this attitude is exactly what hinders sustainable behavior from becoming more wide spread in the general population, or people going beyond first tentative steps. If it's "not green enough" for people such as yourself, and gets criticized, people (and companies) get hesitant, or discouraged, to go further. How do you know that tshirts sold at Target are sweatshop manufactured? There likely is some, but not all, that make use of this. What if these shirts in particular were not, and say so, and had information regarding that on them? Careful not to presume that just because a company is big, it's bad. And the comparison to sparkly "girl power" shirts, an obviously not taking itself too serious, tongue in cheek statement, and a simple, straightforward message, one that perhaps in some areas where being green is not a given, would spark conversation. I'd say that's worthwhile, and welcome.
Paul Smith
2007 MBA, Sustainable Management
Presidio School of Management
530.752.8993 (Grass Valley)
510.420.0878 (Oakland)
psmith{at}presidiomba.org
Karen and Paul,
First, I need you to explain to me in what way wearing a Target t-shirt with a 'green' symbol on it reflects any semblance of environmentalism. For either of your positions to hold water, you need to show evidence that such shirts somehow further the environmental cause. I maintain that an entirely more plausible reading of the situation is the Target shirts promote the sense that shopping at Target is environmentally friendly - that is, the status quo is reinforced. No genuine challenge is issued to mainstream behavior. Second, you misinterpreted my point about "parody" Karen. I'm arguing that if consumers begin to equate shopping at Target with 'green-living' then the movement is a farce. The environmental movement needs to be concerned about consequences, rather than mere allegiance to symbols and rhetoric. Third, Paul, you give Target a lot of credit. I guess I'm just much more cynical than you. Target thrives off of materialistic consumerism, a paradigm I believe is antithetical to environmental protection. I don't accept the charge that I'm hindering the movement. Rather, I question the validity of a movement that claims to value the environment yet fails to critique the root cause of our environmental problems. Is it really unfair to offer a critique of the Target shirts? Do they really epitomize environmentalism to you? Fourth, I'll admit that one can read the Target situation as the increasing acceptance of the green ethos in popular culture. But in all seriousness, don't you find the situation just a bit ironic? I'm reminded of BP's recent re-branding efforts. Of course it's better if these companies put on a better face and even more-so if they can reduce their footprints, but if we're genuine with our concern, we need to remain firm in our convictions. Suggesting that it's wrong to criticize companies that have merely changed the logo on a couple of their products is absurd! Spend an hour outside of a Target and tell me how much necessary stuff people are buying. Tell me if you think Target is helping or hurting the environment. It's business model is premised on people /buying/ more and more of it's stuff, not less of it, you know.
~J
All -
As in so many cases where dedicated, non-stupid people disagree, there is truth on both sides. True -- promoting consumerism is not the solution. True -- anything which encourages environmental awareness as a mainstream value is a step (of whatever size) in the right direction. The common ground is the shared ultimate objective. The apparent disagreement is over tactics. The heart of the disconnect is over strategy, which neither side makes explicit, but upon which each side bases its tactical preferences. Strategy is what drove the shift in US political values from Ronald Reagan through GWB. Finding ways to present "conservative" (often, in truth, radical) values in mainstream terms; identifying a specific political platform with a presumed moral high ground; identifying and exploiting wedge issues to split off portions of the natural opposition and either co-opt or neutralize them -- these things didn't happen at random, they were sought out, analyzed and planned. And the fact that the sea change happened gradually, that privacy rights (for example) are never attacked frontally but rather undermined one step at a time -- that fact is empirical proof of the existence of strategy, and of strategists. The regular meetings convened by Grover Norquist and others are now widely reported; they provide the forum for disseminating strategy and creating operating consensus. My point is not to slam the "conservative" wing of the US political system, but to notice, and admire, and draw attention to the manner in which it achieved success. In many ways, true conservatives are natural allies of the environmental movement. Conservation is, at its heart, a conservative impulse. Mainstream conservatives in business, politics, and religion are finally beginning to sign on to combat global warming. So how can we act strategically? We need to find ways to speak in mainstream terms (evolutionary, not revolutionary). We need to identify potential allies in positions of power, and then work with them on issues of mutual interest. We need to find ways in which solutions to climate change also serve the interests of businesses and business people. No matter your view on national/global corporations, the fact remains that they're the ones with the money, and the power, and the power which money can buy. Is Target an ally at present? No. As Jason points out, Target is merely a successful player in the existing global consumerist profit-driven, debt-driven destructive paradigm. Can Target be an ally? Probably. Target's established market consists of people who have shown they're willing to pay a bit more than the Wal-Mart price for a product that's a bit better. If "better" can be redefined, in the minds of this middle-class audience, as including local production and sustainable materials, then customers will be willing to pay a premium for goods which are less environmentally destructive -- Target wins, and the environment wins, too. If "better" can be redefined as longer-lasting (and, thus, reducing the needs for both replacement and waste disposal), then customers will be willing to pay a premium; Target wins, and the environment wins, too. Why Target? Why not the world's leading retailer (and the USA's largest employer)? Because Target's business model is driven by a balance of quality and price, while Wal-Mart's is driven by price alone. We can establish common ground with Target more readily than with Wal-Mart. Will Wal-Mart come along, eventually? Probably. Is Wal-Mart readily co-opted? No. Other potential allies include home improvement chains (think of the potential sales of insulation, replacement windows, light bulbs and EnergyStar appliances), property/casualty insurance companies (think of the potential for risk avoidance), remaining and start-up US manufacturing (ship less by producing closer to the consumer), civil engineering and construction firms, real estate developers, high-tech entrepreneurs, colleges and universities, and many others. As the definition of "better" shifts, profit opportunities are created for many, and in this society, profit potential drives the manufacturing of consensus, which drives behavior, which drives emission levels. The world needs the USA, as the biggest and most resistant of developed economies, to change direction as quickly as possible. The players which have the leverage to effect rapid change are, primarily, corporations. We need to find ways to convince and co-opt selected corporations. Frontal assault on the profit motive (even though, as St. Paul tells us, the love of money truly is the root of all evil) will not achieve that. So ... if Target has determined that environmental awareness sells, how can we help them to be even more environmentally aware (and, as a result, even more successful)? If Lowe's has determined that compact fluorescents are the light-bulb of the present (no longer just of the future), how can we encourage them to increase the range of CF bulbs they carry, and bring the prices down more rapidly? If US consumers are increasingly nervous about foodstuffs and toys shipped half-way around the world, how can we reinforce and exploit that nervousness to pass country-of-origin labeling requirements, and promote both more local and more environmentally and socially responsible manufacturing? If consumers are (at long last) shifting toward more fuel-efficient (and, thus, less polluting) vehicles, how can we facilitate that shift, encourage manufacturers toward product lines based more on efficiency and less on artificial market segmentation? How can we make non-hybrid SUV's blatantly uncool? How can we effectively increase ridership on public transportation, and ride-sharing? Whom can we ally with to achieve these ends? How can we encourage higher localized population densities, smaller housing units, shorter (and less frequent) commutes to work? Who can make money as those shifts occur? How can we align with those people enough to get them to align with us? How can we exploit the capabilities of community-based social marketing to take the necessary first step: refine and redefine the key concept of quality of life? Such a strategic approach allows us, whatever our tactical preferences, to work together. It's a lot like work. It's less dramatic than direct frontal assault on the bastions of consumer capitalism and its offspring, corporate globalism. But, like the classic military strategy of "indirect approach", it's more likely of success.
Hi Rick -
I agree with you that an indirect approach is strategically important, but I do not agree that unholy alliances constitute an effective indirect strategy. We have been appealing to corporate "responsibility" for decades, with no net positive effect as far as I can see. Corporate interests are quintessentially incompatible with effectively addressing climate and environmental issues. Corporations must make profits, by definition, and there is *no way* other than exploitation - of people, of resources, of events - for a multinational (or even a smaller entity) to profit. Any greenwash is simply illusion, to be discarded the moment it is no longer useful - i.e., profitable. The kinds of decisions we must make for sustainability cannot be made by vested interests. This doesn't mean that business enterprise can't be sustainable, but it does mean that the decisions about what kinds of business activity are allowable must be made by people whose first concern is life on earth, not short-term gain. This is not so radical - after the American Revolution corporations had very little say in what they did, as they were chartered individually by state legislatures and kept on a short leash. Not a bad idea, IMHO . . .
Cheers,
Adam
Jason, this is getting a bit silly here. Rather then tit for tatting about minutae, we should, in my opinion, be spending time seeking as many ways to forge paths for as many people as possible to find their way to a more sustainable way of living on this planet. You're welcome to your interpretation of things, and I am to mine. I hope you in your efforts are able to make progress that satisfies you, and I hope the same for me, and all of us. I'm a firm believer in finding ways to meet people where they are, and moving from there. If you feel it's best to stand firm and wait until people come your way, by all means...Me, I do my best not to judge people and institutions before I really know what's going on, where they're coming from. I'm not saying don't have a critical eye about what happens around you, and companies such as Target. But at the same time, I also wouldn't encourage presuming the worst. I've found that with the so called "enemy," if you take time to listen, instead of giving them the expected confrontational stance, they're that much more likely to listen to you, and say and do things that you wouldn't have previously expected.
Paul Smith
2007 MBA, Sustainable Management
Presidio School of Management
530.752.8993 (Grass Valley)
510.420.0878 (Oakland)
psmith{at}presidiomba.org
Thanks Rick, for your thoughtful, provocative response. Did you, and Adam realize that Wal-Mart actually is taking active steps to become a more sustainable corporation, on many fronts? Adam, I empathize with what you're saying, there's been many an example of horrific, purely profit motivated behavior on the part of corporations, but a corporation can indeed combine being profitable and sustainable, and Walmart is a prime example of a corporation trying to do it. There are many others. Their execution of it isn't perfect, but one of the companies working with it, Act Now Productions, is actively working to keep them on their toes, doing what they're saying, and all the while, training their staff in ways that they, individually and collectively can make a difference. As you say Rick, it's about evolution not revolution, when it comes to people like this. Amory Lovins I believe is also working with them, on matters of energy efficiency as well. They've got some pretty amazing goals for themselves, on many fronts, and they're making progress towards them. You may want to read the recent article in Fast Company about this. I'm no great fan of Walmart, Target, big, non local businesses myself, but they exist, they're part of the landscape, and if they can be motivated, in whatever fashion works best for them, to become more sustainable, and therefore encourage other mainstream businesses to follow suit, bring it on, I say. I've included here part of an interview with Hunter Lovins, someone who would have pages of criticisms about Walmart, and yet...
FastCompany.com
Cover Story Outtake II: Down & Dirty With Hunter Lovins on Wal-Mart alking to long-time environmentalist Hunter Lovinsco-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, co-author of Natural Capitalism (along with eight other books), professor of business at Presidio School of Management, the first accredited MBA program in sustainable management, her credentials go on and onis like watching a documentary that you just dont want to end. She seems to know everyone youve ever wanted to take a time-share in their brain, has perspicacious opinions, and always knows how to spice up sober issues with a dose of her homespun humor. I interviewed Hunter for my September cover story Working With the Enemy, which chronicles the controversial journey of former Sierra Club president, Adam Werbach, who landed on Wal-Marts payroll. Heres a glimpse into our hour-long conversation; what she had to say about Wal-Mart and the dangerous dance of activists being co-opted by corporations: Danielle Sacks: When you first heard that Wal-Mart had outlined its audacious sustainability goals, did you buy that they were serious about it? Hunter Lovins: Hell no. My feeling was, fair enough, theyre going to save themselves some money, put solar panels on their roofs and sell organic underwear. But if you roam the planet rapaciously exploiting people in developing countries and in communities here at home so people like me can throw away more junk, this is not sustainable. But I had a realizationsuppose the world you see around you is largely the world that were going to have? Many environmentalists in their heart of hearts have this fantasy, vision of somehow a small rural community life. For most of the worlds people its not going to be like that, there are more people living in cities now than rural areas around the world, the mega-cities of Asia are not getting smaller, theyre getting bigger. Wal-Mart has been a phenomenon of the suburbs, and of an individual car-based society. But if you look at the big trends of mass urbanization, and high energy prices so people wont drive as much, that model starts to look just a little shaky. DS: So youre saying sustainability is not an option for the largest retailer in the worlds survival? HL: Since Lee Scott took over, Wal-Marts stock has had a 30% dissolution in share value. Why? I think in part people are no longer only looking for everyday low prices. Wal-Marts critics are hurting them, they were run out of Germany because of their social policies, they are barred effectively from many cities, Chicago, San Francisco, Vermont. But more fundamentally, I think they have exhausted the business model that was so successful. You open a superstore every day, and you run out of territory thats not being served by a superstore. And youre cannibalizing yourself. What would a truly sustainable Wal-Mart biz model be? I think if Wal- Mart grapples with that successfully it will continue to be a very large, powerful, wealthy company. If they fail, they could disappear. DS: So what does a sustainable Wal-Mart business model look like? Suppose in every Wal-Mart a certain amount of floor space was leased to small locally owned sustainable businesses. Suppose every time Wal- Mart does real estate development, what if the land is leased to small local sustainable business that can now piggyback off the back of Wal-Marts IP capacity, their credit capacity, their purchasing supply chain? DS: But there are many critics who say the big box model is systemically unsustainable. That Wal-Mart doing good just means either theyre doing less evilor giving them the free pass to gain even more momentum? HL: This is the Bill McDonough question: Is eco-efficiency just less bad? I.e. bad, still bad. True. If I could figure out a way to make Wal-Mart perfect, Id do it in a heartbeat. I cant. The only way I can figure is to show them a path that is more profitable, better for business, that moves them away from whats bad into whats good. Now, are we just fooling ourselves? And I ask myself that question all the time. DS: What was your reaction when you heard Adam Werbach was working for Walmart? Did it seem like a logical step from his Is Environmentalism Dead speech? HL: It sounded to me like the gutsiest thing I had heard in a long time. Adam is one of these people that you cannot buy. The risk of an activist is always being co-opted. Its not so much that they throw large quantities of money at you, its that they throw the belief that by coming inside you can somehow be more effective. And that over time you cease to be the gadfly, the source of the creative tension, and Adam is not going to sell out. Hes one of these people you can count on acting out of integrity, always. He could have his entire company, his entire staff dependent on the next payment from Wal-Mart and if he thought they were doing the wrong thing, hed walk. DS: So when will we know if Wal-Mart is just giving lip service, or really changing? HL: Do they bring on new products, new ways of doing business? Or do they just keep on doing the same old thing in the same old way? There will be a point in time at which if they keep on doing the same old thing in the same old way, all of us who have been fooling with them will throw our hands up and say, their most stringent critics were right, we were wrong. And I always hold in my mind the possibility I could be dead wrong. But I know how effective it has not been to stand on the outside and chuck rocks. We [environmentalists] have done this since 1970sthe first Earth Dayand here we are 30-odd years later and were losing every major ecosystem on the planet. We have 10 years to turn around climate change. So is Adam wrong playing with Wal-Mart? Could be. But not playing with them is also clearly wrong. It wasnt solving the problem. So lets try something new.
Give it a go.
Paul Smith
2007 MBA, Sustainable Management
Presidio School of Management
530.752.8993 (Grass Valley)
510.420.0878 (Oakland)
psmith{at}presidiomba.org
Hi, All:
Just a couple of things about corporations & Target: Target is based in my home community - Minneapolis/St. Paul. When I ran the Second Annual Sustainability Awards, I contacted them for corporate sponsorship of the event. In the process, I found they have a group of people (in marketing, no less) who are excited (and knowledgeable!) about sustainability. They were delighted to have a means to contribute to forwarding the message. What I learned from that experience is that corporations are large, complex critters - and not unilaterally monstrous aliens. They're first and foremost made up of individual people. It's a strategic error to objectify them, for then you lose the ability to realize there are multiple internal priorities held by the people within a given corporation - and thus many places to apply leverage for change. I believe that the first changes in corporate behavior are likely to occur department at a time, as internal leadership 'gets it.' For instance, facilities management may switch to non-toxic cleaners, marketing may steer some product lines toward the LOHAS market (that market segment is what those T-shirts are intended to explore), accounting may move toward more electronic/less paper systems, transportation may decide to move their fleet toward use of Priuses, IT may move toward lower electrical load flat panel monitors, etc. Departmental decisions tend to be incremental, and can be made at a lower level of the company. If those decisions prove to lower expenses or capture market share, they will be applauded, and further investigation along those lines will be initiated. There are other issues of sustainability that require decisions - and serious investment of political capital - by upper management. A shift toward total organic sourcing of textiles would be one such, for Target. Upper management will not support a decision like that, unless there is a proven track record of benefit to the company by smaller, more incremental policy shifts. I read that line of T-shirts as one such 'testing of the waters.' It's true that Target is guilty of promoting consumption. However, changing that model will require changes in the culture of consumption, before Target can respond to it. More likely for Target would be a shift toward quality products which are not disposable, and last longer - which, if you compare their goods to Mall-Wart, you will see that they are doing. They're staking out market turf of people that value a certain quality of goods - a behavior which will increase, if it's rewarded. If Target can make a good profit by slowing consumption - they will do just that. They /will /respond to us, the market. Expecting corporations to change before consumers do puts the cart before the horse. Change the attitudes of consumers about what they value and will pay for, and corporations will change to meet the wants of the consumer. Greenwashing wouldn't be an issue at all, if this supposition wasn't correct. I see greenwashing as a /good /sign. It indicates that corporations take note of their economic environs, and are responsive to them. If we continue to educate the public, challenge values of consumption, and promote a positive ethos of sustainable health and well-being for all, consumer choices will continue to push corporations toward further, more genuine kinds of sustainable behavior. My position is 'demand-side' in terms of fostering sustainable change.
-Karen-
When the Natural Step hired staff and began working in the U.S. to promote sustainability, it puzzled me that they focused on working with corporations right away. It doesn't puzzle me any longer when I see the incredible impact corporations have on everything. The beauty of it is that corporations can save a lot of money by becoming more sustainable, so it is a win-win situation.
Nancy Adams
Hi All -
Putting the responsibility for change on the demand-side, i.e., "consumers" (when did our identity become that of consumers, I thought we were citizens), is an old deception. It ignores the highly refined practice of manipulating how we think and act, which has been formalized and refined in the public relations industry since World War I (getting the American public to back that resource war was a major PR coup by the Wilson administration). Pretending that this manipulation doesn't have a major impact on our behavior is, of course, what we're supposed to do, which is what makes it so effective. Marketers dissect our purchasing psychology in excruciating detail in order to induce us to act contrary to our own individual and collective interests - and they have succeeded in spades. We have to be very careful not to fall for this blame-the-victim process, which can be very subtle. But in fact the reason we "need" all the stuff thrown our way is that it serves the interests of a powerful ruling minority, and our entire system, beginning with our first TV show at around age three all the way through employment and/or graduate school, is geared to needing (mostly unnecessary) stuff to keep our cancerous economy growing. Of course there are nice people at Target who "get it." When I was working at Sun Microsystems I was a nice person who "got it" and tried to make environmentalists out of all of my coworkers (hard to do with people basking in the wealthy tech-bubble, where life is always good). But all of that is beside the point - as I've said before, corporations have one driving force and that is profit. The "nice people" are thoroughly interchangeable, as is every single person working in a corporation - that's precisely why we have corporations, they exist apart from any human being and take on rapacious lives of their own in which we are nothing but moving parts. Any corporate board member, executive, manager or employee who bucks the rules and goals of the game is history in short order (though graciously allowing for enough debate for the corporation to appear "open" to change, even "green"). The only thing that "demand-side" change fosters is corporate lying to keep/increase market share, with occasional token sustainability efforts. Because if corporations were to be truly sustainable, most of them would have to close their doors.
Cheers,
Adam
P.S. - Sustainability, thanks to Herman Daly:
1. Don't use natural resources faster than nature can replace them
2. Replace non-renewable resources with renewable resources
3. Don't pollute faster than nature can render the pollutants harmless (which implies that there are many substances that should never have been mined or synthesized) --- Karen Engelsen
Hi Nancy -
Following up on my post which crossed yours - how do you define sustainable? Consider that even if we solved global warming tomorrow, we'd still be awash in potentially lethal planetary problems, most decidedly corporate driven: widespread war, synthetic genetic pollution and possibly destruction of our food and environment, ubiquitous pollution. Given that profitability limits any corporate action, I would be interested in hearing where the win-win lies, I don't see it.
Best,
Adam
Good point, Adam.
Global warming is only one of the truly huge threats humanity faces. The other is war vs peace - or, in the words of Rodney King (famously beaten by the L. A. Police Department), "Can't we all just get along?" I wonder how many of you know that some of the leaders of the corporate social responsibility movement are meeting at The Eden Center (Cornwall, UK) in October to talk about "the business contribution to one world living in peace and security"... in other words, war and peace? Called "The Next Great Transformation", it's being organized by The Applied Research Centre in Human Security at Coventry University, Boston College's Winston Centre for Ethics and Leadership, the Eden Project and the UN Global Compact. Here's the web site... http://www.coventry.ac.uk/researchnet/d/434/a/2191 I'll be there. Will anyone else on this list?
Steve
Hi Paul -
Thanks for your thoughtful response, and I mean no offense, but my opinion is that believing in corporate responsibility outdoes the tooth fairy. Collectively we have short (if any) historical memories. Corporate image has suffered "responsibility overhaul" before, and our history is very, very clear: it does not work. We get minimal compromises to keep us quiet, some crumbs to keep us fat-dumb-and-happy, but business-as-usual quickly reasserts itself. Some practices may look and actually be more "responsible," but the beast is only looking after its own short-term survival, and corporate understanding extends only to the bottom line - keeping in mind, of course, that corporations are legal fictions, not people, and they don't "understand" anything, their DNA is only programmed with a bottom-line reflex. This is no reflection whatsoever on the many wonderful people who find themselves working for corporations. But no matter what any individual does, the system prevails. That's the way all of our rules, starting with the U.S. Constitution, have been - and continue to be - written. To restate: no profit, no corporation. Period. I'm all for green corporate products and behavior (which would logically include rescinding the charters of the likes of Exxon-Mobil, Nestl, Altria, and many more), but if we want sustainable and green we will have to end shareholder supremacy and establish people supremacy, i.e., democracy. Relocalization is, as far as I can see, the only path to 21st century survival, and that will include local self-sufficiency leading to the end of most large national and multinational corporations. Of course, we are free not do any of that, fiddling with corporate smiley faces while home burns - but the laws of nature are indifferent to human muddlings, and always win.
Adam
Thanks Adam, for the good laugh. In answer, I refer you to Karen Engelsen's earlier response. Have a second read, and uncross those arms, while you're at it.
Paul Smith
Hi Paul -
Laughter is the best medicine, happy to assist. The substance of your message, however, escapes me. Please explain what was so funny so I can laugh too, and what specifically you're referring to in Karen's earlier response. As for my arms, they're crossed because I'm dyslexic and I can only type when right is left and left is right (Orwell might have approved).
Cheers!
Adam
An example of a corporation choosing a more people/earth friendly mode of operation is Interface. They were your typical carpeting company, producing toxics laden, disposable carpeting. The founder realized, after reading a particular Paul Hawken book, just how much damage his corporation was personally doing, and has now done extensive work to change that. This includes making the carpet recyclable, changing the model from purchasing a product to leasing a service (the carpets are now modular, as in small squares vs. giant rolls, and can be replaced, recycled, as need be, on the spot, not the entire carpet.) They've managed to be successful, but it hasn't been an overnight change. It, as Karen mentioned, had to move through the company, from upper to lower in this case, but it's succeeding. They are now an example that other companies are seeking to follow. Villainizing all corporations as being the same nasty earth eating globalizing robots (or however you put it) is like saying all white people are racists. Both are not true. By all means, have firm convictions, but I'd encourage you to not let them blind you from seeing where progress is being made. And by the way, I very much agree that relocalization is to be encouraged and supported, when you have cultures, economies that are more self sufficient, it makes for greater resiliency, cohesion, and, dare I say it, financial (and other) abundance? Take a look at http://www.interfaceinc.com/goals/ sustainability_overview.html for more about Interface.
best,
Paul Smith
2007 MBA, Sustainable Management
Presidio School of Management
530.752.8993 (Grass Valley)
510.420.0878 (Oakland)
psmith{at}presidiomba.org
Ah, there you go, being funny again. I was referring to your easter bunny reference. As for Karen, it's an example of how change happens within a corporation. I've found the same. Corporations are not a singular Borg creature, they are indeed made up of individuals, individuals who have varying interests, concerns, and levels of influence. Through them, change is possible, and it does indeed happen. A perfect example is Old Navy. Cheap, mass produced clothes, encouraging the frivolous disposable consumption you've spoken of before. And yet, there was one main person in the company whose concern was how much paper was being used in their packaging, bags, etc. It was because of her that they now use a great deal of recycled paper, and were New Leaf Paper's first major client, and actually were the reason it was able to continue, thrive, and be a force for greater, more viable alternatives to virgin paper use. Do I support Old Navy? Not overall, but I do support them making change. They're not going away, and wherever positive change can be created, which has an effect on a mass scale, I'm for that. I was also referring to when she said, "Expecting corporations to change before consumers do puts the cart before the horse. Change the attitudes of consumers about what they value and will pay for, and corporations will change to meet the wants of the consumer."
best
Paul
Hi Paul -
Thanks for your response. I've been familiar with Ray Anderson and Interface for several years now, and I say all the more power to non-toxic carpets and carpet production. I have no objection to corporations following a sustainability and low-impact path, and pioneers such as Michael Braungart and William McDonough are helping them to do that (check out their very interesting video, "The New Industrial Revolution," and their recent fascinating book, _Cradle to Cradle_). Forgive me, however, if I've been less than clear in previous posts. To me the issue is not whether the change in corporate culture to sustainability can or does happen - and certainly some corporations score higher on the evil-doer or well-doer scales than others. The issue is that viability of life on earth MUST NOT BE A BUSINESS DECISION. In other words, we need to come up with plans on how to mitigate and adapt to climate change (and many other global problems) unpolluted by the profit-motive. The profit motive has led us here - it is completely irrational to think that the system and processes that created the problems hold the solution. It hasn't happened yet, why would we want to put our faith in something with a zero percent success rate? Back to Interface, if the company started losing money because sustainability was uncompetitive, would Ray try to shut it down? Of course not (not without protracted stockholder and other legal action, in any case) - Interface would opt for unsustainability. It's not Ray Anderson's fault - the whole system is rigged, it's how we've defined the marketplace and the corporate role. It *seems* to us like The Way, even if some tweaks are needed, but just like fish seeing water, we are culturally almost incapable of comprehending economic possibilities other than endless and ultimately lethal growth. And yet, that is precisely what we must learn to do to survive: overhaul our way of life ("contraction and convergence" are keywords). Or it all falls apart (the most likely outcome, IMHO, and I'm very sad to say it).
Best,
Adam
Dear Friends--
To approximate a quote from Albert Einstein, and in support of Adam's position, "The problems we experience today are are not going to be solved by those who created them." Only severe reductions in consumption of resources and energy--meaning a halt and reversal of the Capitalist paradigm of continuous growth--will solve our "problems". This will happen with a massive voluntary movement to do so..... or in a hideously Malthusian manner. My $.02.
Tom
Tom Shelley
118 E. Court St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
607 342-0864
[email protected]
http://www.myspace.com/99319958
Dear Tom,
Thomas Malthus considered Earth to be a zero-sum system. If you don't mind my pointing this out, it looks like you are making the same faulty assumption. Humanity does not need to reduce its consumption based on a fear that we will fun out (of resources or energy). What humanity needs to do is learn how to re-use its existing resources AND use the limitless (for purposes of humanity's needs) energy Earth receives every day from the Sun. The UNEP issued its first-ever Global Deserts Outlook report this past June. Buried inside all the information about how deserts are expanding, etc was this fact: http://www.unep.org/Geo/gdoutlook/006.asp Only a very small fraction of the solar power potential in deserts has been harnessed, and with the decline in the production of fossil fuel as well as technological improvements, solar sources might supply a significant portion of global energy by 2050. Wind and solar energy installations can make use of the cheap space, large inputs of solar energy, availability of some windy sites, and the absence of objectors in deserts. However, lengthy power connections required from remote desert locations are a disadvantage in both solar and wind energy production in deserts. Solar and wind energy installations in the desert... a huge untapped potential source of electricity where the "fuel" is free. For the amount of money (admittedly borrowed from the Chinese government) that the USA will spend on the Iraq War (latest estimate is over $1.8 trillion), I think you could do a nice job of building solar installations in the world's deserts. Food for thought, wouldn't you say?
Steve
Hi Steve -
While the sun is an infinite source of energy, we are limited in our ability to utilize it to create the equivalent of the fossil fuel feast. The large-scale technology and manufacture are sophisticated and expensive, and unavailable to a significant share of the world's population (although there are plenty of examples of low-tech and local approaches that, while enhancing lives, cannot approach the levels our dinosaur-driven luxuries). Other resources are, in fact, most finite. In 2004, the *identified* reserves of some available metals were indeed limited, assuming annual production growth of 2%/yr: copper, 22 yrs; lead, 17 yrs; silver, 15 yrs; etc. (_Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update_, 2004; p 105). I think that you are absolutely correct about re-using everything (_Cradle to Cradle_, which I mentioned in a previous post, is all about that), but nonetheless there is no way we can support the "high" standard of living to which we are accustomed. Iraq is one of our many attempts to do so, and it's clearly an abject failure - in fact, the failure of such efforts is a foregone conclusion because it violates inviolable laws of nature. We are currently consuming at a rate that requires 1.25 Earths, and we're only acclerating (when it comes to needing more planets, I suppose the sky's the limit - hahahahaha). I would suggest that the fear of running out of resources is indeed well placed. If such fear leads us to rational action, blessed be . . .
Cheers,
Adam
Hello all,
I hear echoes of Daniel Quinn in Adam's views. (Not that Quinn was the first, only, or best presenter of such views.) And I don't wholly disagree (nor do I wholly agree). But I have noticed a typical problem in communication occurring in this thread. Talk about what 'needs to be done' is loaded with the perspective and history of the speaker. While we use the same words, they can mean very different things. It appears Adam was speaking from a paradigm that extends well beyond the one defined by our civilization. While others were focused on the paradigm of human existence in the context of our current economic and social paradigm. I'm sure there are many on this list who are far more educated and capable of treating this than I, so I will only continue to observe that no matter which paradigm we tend to think in regarding environmental/social/economic issues we should first be careful to remember that others may not be starting from the same assumptions as we are (and therefore may be understanding something in our words very different from what we intend). This is especially important for those of us whose work involves communicating, interpreting or educating. It is the burden of the communicator to ensure that his audience understands. Secondly, it is important to remember that humanity does not today, nor has it ever in the past all operated under the same set of assumptions about existence, rights, economics, ownership, etc. (I would argue that basic morality, and by extension basic human rights, is one area where humanity has agreed, but that's a different matter entirely.) What many environmentalists fear is not so much the end of all life (though some fear this) as the end of life as we know it. This translates into our varied approaches to environmental issues. Regardless of what anyone personally thinks about this, we must recognize that some focus on change (from within or without) that is designed to preserve that life as we know it (i.e. our civilization), and others focus on moving into a different mode altogether. Forgive my presumption, but it appears to me that Adam may be inclined toward the latter while Paul, et al. are inclined toward the former. Given that humanity does not and has not held one universal set of assumptions regarding these issues, we have to allow both views into the discussion as viable alternatives. Though we may then argue which is best. That's probably more of your time than my $.02 ought to get me, but you can take it for what it's worth.
-John.
Dear Steve and Colleagues--
In addition to Adam Sacks' comments about the real scarcity of natural resources, even if we had the $1.8 trillion, which we don't and never will see*, and even if we had the political will to make solar power appear over vast dessert areas, which we don't, the amount of fossil fuels required to make this happen and the quantity of dwindling resources available for materials would probably limit the success of such a project such that it would only produce a fraction of the needed energy to replace our current and projected usage of fossil fuels. 'Nother words, it's a nice idea, but it will never work. The only thing that really works well is to realize, individually and collectively, that we can't bite off the piece we think we want, that the piece we will be able to bite off is going to be a lot smaller than we envisioned, that it's going to taste like previous bites, and that we will need to be happy with this fact and back off.... Until this happens there will be increasing conflict over scare resources, energy and water in particular, and the death toll will keep climbing. Again, my $.02.
Tom
I would say it's a combination of a shifting/reducing of resource use/ consumption by companies and individuals, and increased renewable energy implementation. Yes, we do need to shift how we look and interact with the world, but I don't think it's entirely (or the majority) about reduction, reduction, reduction. Also, basing future possibilities on today's reality is not, imho, a sound basis with which to speculate on the feasibility of an idea. Things are constantly being improved, (re)invented and realized that change how things are, and can be realized.
Paul
Hi John -
Very astute! I consider Quinn (author of _Ishmael_ and other works) an important influence. I also agree that we on this list often use the same words with only tenuously shared definitions, and I own up to a loaded perspective of my own. I consider that loaded perspective, however, to be based on a fairly careful reading of history and current events after a long, painful and arduous effort to strip off the blinders of our cultural constructs. Such a perspective provides, to me, far better explanations than any other of who we are, how we got here and why we are doing the crazy things we're doing. Call it a little shave with Occam's razor (sharper than Gillette!). I acknowledge that it's a difficult perspective to accept for those of us who were raised in Western civilization over the past several decades (as Gandhi said when asked by a reporter what his opinion was of Western civilization: "It would be a good idea."). On the other hand, these non-mainstream views constitute the only perspective that I've come across so far that have a chance to lead us to equity, peace, justice and the survival of civilization (if not of homo sapiens and many other species). One good example of insinuated self-destructive cultural constructs is the widespread belief among environmentalists and progressives that corporations and their technology - which largely created this mess - can save us. Similarly, another dysfunctional cultural construct is our addiction to exponential economic growth and the unwillingness to recognize that our world is finite, we have to share, and we have to get back to basics - as Heinberg says, the party's over - overshoot and collapse, and all that. There are many people (though not of the ruling classes) who share my contraction/convergence perspective, which are by no means original with me. Nor am I so pig-headed as to maintain that I'm absolutely right. But I would have to be convinced (as Bill McKibben said - paraphrasing - "I wish James Inhofe were right" - about global warming being the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people). Likwise, those who believe in the fundamental goodness of American culture or that the U.S. Constitution is a democracy document would have to be convinced as to the contrary (which is a discussion I've had with hundreds of people over the past few years). It's a hard sell, because deeply imbued cultural norms defy evidence and rationality. Yet, as our insanity mounts the desperation to make sense of it all approaches a critical mass of collective consciousness - thus I have not yet given up hope. The bottom line is, as I've mentioned, the laws of nature. Ultimately what we believe makes not one iota of difference to the physical processes we've unleashed. Better for us if our beliefs are in accord with the reality so we can act in our own shared human interests - but if not, the climate will follow its course with no due regard whatsoever for human folly.
Cheers,
Adam
As a geologist with 30+ years experience in the mining industry, I can assure Adam that the so-called 'finite' resources he quotes in his earlier email as shown below are grossly misleading. It costs mining companies enormous sums of money to evaluate a mineral deposit with drilling so that they can quantity the size of the mineral resource contained within it. As a result, only limited numbers of their potentially available resources are ever assessed to the stage where they can legally call them resources. The 30 Year Update of the Limits to Growth publication that Adam quotes is completely inaccurate in almost every respect. The world is not running out of any mineral commodity and, even if known resources were getting low, the laws of economics would kick in and the resulting shortage of supply would quickly lead to an increase in the price asked for the affected commodities. The higher prices would immediately cause lower grade deposits to become potentially economic to mine, justifying their detailed evaluation to turn them into resources, thus restoring the balance between supply and demand. Over human history, there has been no shortage of a mineral resource which has led to the types of problems implied by Adam. As for his comment that we are currently consuming resources at a rate that equates to 1.25 Earths, analysis of this so-called 'human footprint' on our planet shows that we are well and truly consuming less than 1.0 Earths for all commodities or resources other than energy. Even with our energy consumption, however, the issue as described by the people who push the footprint concept is how many trees do we need to absorb the large amounts of CO2 that we're putting out into our atmosphere. The reality is that this is only one possible solution to our energy-related problems, with energy conservation, new technologies, renewable energy and geosequestration all offering genuine potential to reduce our energy footprint to less than 1.0 Earths. Our planet has many problems facing it, notably loss of biodiversity. Availability of mineral resources is not one of them, however.
Bernie Masters
Dear Tom (and Adam, who I am responding to with this post as well),
This discussion is pointing to a fascinating challenge... one which I have taken up with the launch of an effort I am calling "Think Differently". (The preliminary site is up at http://www.thinkdifferently.us - and it's a "dot us" because dots com, net, and org are already taken) The challenge to which I refer is whether or not human creativity - to the maximum amount possible - will be applied to solving the world's problems. Without going into a lot of details here, I will just point to one question I suggest we ask ourselves: Which of the limits we see in the way of having the completely sustainable world we say we want are "man made" and which are "mother nature made". And by "man made" I mean a product of our thinking.. (not necessarily a product of the limits of the physical world). History is filled with examples of people saying that one thing or another is "not possible".... from "man will never get to the Moon" to "You'll never be a success" (said to a young Elvis Presley by one of the first people he met in the music business) Frankly, this whole thing about "do we have enough money" is based on treating money as if it were water or air. It is not. It is a human invention of our minds. If humanity decides that it wants to do something bad enough, I can assure you that "money" will not get in humanity's way. The challenge I see is to adequately and effectively (meaning VERY publicly in a way that ordinary people in the street will (1) notice, (2) pay attention to, (3) learn from, and then (4) vote in accordance with their new knowledge) place the option that all of humanity can make it before the peoples of the world. People who say we are all going to have to get used to living at a reduced standard of living because the world is incapable of supporting 8 billion people living the way we in America live (and NO, I do not mean the way the most wasteful of Americans live. I mean the way I suspect a lot of us live... middle-income lives using "shared ownership" options, where possible, like http:// www.zipcar.com ) have never studied the principles of "doing more with less" taught for a great many years by the late R. Buckminster Fuller. ( http://www.bfi.org ) Amory Lovins (with his Rocky Mountain Institute http://www.rmi.org ) is on the forefront of today's "doing more with less" movement. Amory is a true genius, and I am curious to know how many people on this site are familiar with his work and/ or have ever heard him speak. He is VERY inspiring to listen to, because he is such a master of the science and facts of what we have the technological capacity to do... in ways that will MAKE MONEY. Check out the Rocky Mountain Institute's "Winning the Oil Endgame" report - http://www.oilendgame.com/ So, Tom, when you write "'Nother words, it's a nice idea, but it will never work." what I'd like you to consider is that your mental attitude - AND the mental attitudes of all of us in the "fostering sustainable development movement" - is a HUGE available resource for the journey ahead. And it is a resource that can play a very beneficial role, because it is the ONLY resource that taps into the critical need that all humanity has: To start doing things that ARE POSSIBLE RIGHT NOW but are largely invisible (ie unknown) to the public at large. But, if something is possible and we say "it will never happen"... I think that's called "shooting yourself in the foot." We need to figure out how to make happen what is technologically capable of happening. It won't be easy, but how many worthwhile things are? So you all have a better idea of what I'm talking about, I invite you to read this essay by Bruce Mal, the founder of the Massive Change project... http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2007.01-ideas-imagining-the- future Massive Change project site - http://www.massivechange.com/ What Bruce is talking about ... and what Amory Lovins is doing... and what Bucky talked about (and Dr W. Edwards Deming, one of my mentors)... is thinking like a DESIGNER. Oh.. and here's two last new, related web sites I discovered recently: the Design 21 Social Design Network. http:// www.design21sdn.com ... and "How many windmills could have been built for how much the USA is spending in Iraq" ... http://www.wind-works.org/articles/costofiraqwarandwind.html This is a very interesting discussion. One that I hope I can help swing in a more optimistic direction.
Best regards,
Steve
Some thoughts and tuppence worth : Remember that slavery was an unquestioned assumption of American and British business operations for many decades and it took a major effort to raise the awareness of the British public and the determined political expertise of liberal politicians to pass the necessary laws to abolish it. This is is well portrayed in the recent movie 'Amazing Grace' . Check it out. Where agglomerations of companies have vested interests in a certain way of doing things, changing their ways is well nigh impossible - without a mass of ordinary citizens led by courageous and smart politicians. The support of some of the oil megacorporatoiopns in conjunctkon with military industries for the Gulf wars is reminiscent of the sugar barons and the shipping companies (and the ports) who had much to lose if slavery was abolished and fought it hard to the end. The abolition of slavery is a testament to the fact that humanness and truth will prevail but this has to be strived for long and hard. I agree that people change faster that companies because they have hearts and minds, whereas companies have structure and systems and want to nail down the status quo so it can be quantified and predicted for optimum efficiency. I also believe soon a tipping point will be reached when a new set of values based on sustainability will come to be the dominant social norm. And sustainability's may be too antithetical to economic 'growth' to be able to be co-opted.
Regards
Hugh Tyrrell
Associates Promoting sustainability
Tel: (021) 44 - 88123
Cell: 083 - 253 4100.
Fax: (021) 44-88122
Email: [email protected]
10 Nuttal Road, Observatory.
PO Box 2341, Cape Town 8000
Website: http://www.tyrrellassociates.co.za
Dear Bernie -
I appreciate your expertise and experience, but I think that your casual dismissal of Limits to Growth would reasonably require a more solid basis for evaluation than your brief assurances. The table cited in LTG is from an evaluation of the mining industry published in 2002 by the International Institute for Environment and Development by one of its subgroups, Minerals, Mining and Sustainable Development (MMSD). Said table is found in Chapter 4 of its report, "Breaking New Ground," and is available here on page 6: http://www.iied.org/mmsd/mmsd_pdfs/finalreport_04.pdf The entire report (which I have yet to read), a collaborative industry/environmentalist effort (they too are presumably experts with decades of experience), is hundreds of pages long, and is available here: http://www.iied.org/mmsd/finalreport/index.html Limits to Growth itself is the result of work by MIT scientists since 1972. I'm sure it is subject to reasonable debate, counter-argument and disagreement (it wouldn't be science if it weren't), but a sweeping one-sentence statement of disregard does not fall into any of those categories of response. In response to some of your other points: 1. "Over human history, there has been no shortage of a mineral resource which has led to the types of problems implied by Adam." This is undoubtedly true (local shortages aside), but our current place in the broad expanse of human history is unique. Never before have we reached a global stage of overshoot and pending collapse; having trashed smaller environments, human groups have usually found somewhere else to go. No longer. 2. "The world is not running out of any mineral commodity and, even if known resources were getting low, the laws of economics would kick in and the resulting shortage of supply would quickly lead to an increase in the price asked for the affected commodities." Note that the table cited referred to *identified reserves*, not total known quantity of minerals. Of course market economics will drive further discovery and more expensive extraction, but that only postpones reaching the limits, it does not eliminate them. And the greater expense of minerals raises other issues, not the least of which is an increasing equity gap among the far too many people currently living on Earth. 3. "As for his comment that we are currently consuming resources at a rate that equates to 1.25 Earths, analysis of this so-called 'human footprint' on our planet shows that we are well and truly consuming less than 1.0 Earths for all commodities or resources other than energy." Which analysis is that? Cheers, Adam --- Bernie Masters
Dear Adam,
Thanks for the reply. I'm sorry if you mistook my brevity for casualness. As a person who's been working in what is now called sustainability since the early 1980s, I didn't want to write thousands of words but instead wanted to give a short synopsis of what I believe are the truths that I've come to accept over the years. I'm familiar with the MMSD program and, to be honest, I've never bothered getting involved in it because it's mostly spin put out by the mining industry to try and win a few hearts and minds. While I'm a great supporter of the industry, there are many aspects of it that I disagree with, including many individual mines such as the now closed Ok Tedi mine of BHP in PNG and the Bougainville mine of Rio Tinto, but that's another story. I'm pleased you pointed out that the information contained in the Limits to Growth report wasn't described as 'resources' (as you said in your previous email) but as 'identified reserves' (as stated in your latest email) as this actually strengthens my argument quite a lot. In the mining industry, a resource is a deposit about which an informed or educated guess has been made as to its size and grade. In contrast, identified reserves are deposits which have been drilled or otherwise evaluated with such precision that the likelihood of what's claimed to be in the ground actually being in the ground is close to 100%. While I don't doubt the accuracy of the years of 'reserves' as contained in the Limits to Growth and MMSD reports, the reality is that the world's 'resources' of the same minerals are 2 to 10 times greater than its 'reserves'. For better or for worse, the original 1972 Limits to Growth report received huge publicity at the time of its publication and has been shown to fallacious ever since. In the original report, if my memory serves me correct, the claim was made than many mineral resources would be exhausted within 10 years, yet here we are 35 years later and we still have 15 to 30 years reserves of all those mineral commodities. As for my concerns about the footprint concept, have a look at http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?content=global_footprint and you will see that almost half of our environmental or ecological footprint is related to our use of carbon. What you'll find harder to locate is the definition of what this carbon footprint means, which is the area of forests needed to absorb the amount of CO2 that us humans are putting into the atmosphere. As I stated in my previous email, there are now several viable alternatives (and hopefully more to come into the future) even excluding nuclear power that can reduce the size of our carbon footprint so that overall we are seen to need less than 1.0 Earths to live on. Just as the mining industry does its fair share of spin, so the environmental industry is guilty of the same sin, with the environmental footprint concept now shown to have been useful in its day but is now superceded by later and better understanding of the issues.
Bernie
Hi Bernie -
Thanks for the footprint site, very interesting. Unfortunately I don't have time to go over it in detail at the moment but I hope to get to it soon. As for Limits to Growth, models and predictions are always dealing with assumptions and probabilities - that LTG was 15 to 35 years off on the estimate of mineral reserves is somewhat beside the point, to wit, there is a limit, even if we don't know exactly what and when. We're running into the same question with peak oil and carbon dioxide emissions. The equations are too complex and there are too many variables and unknowns to predict details with accuracy, but the overall trend is remarkably clear: pretty soon most of humanity, except for the relatively wealthy, will run out of lots of things; pretty soon, no more cheap oil, natural gas; pretty soon (if not already), too much CO2 (and equivalents) in the atmosphere. As for the effects of CO2, the climate is changing much more quickly than anticipated even a year ago, and we don't know whether we've already triggered uncontrollable positive feedback loops (the likelihood is increasing daily) - IOW, we have quite possibly already crashed into a brick wall of limits but because of delays in human perception we won't realize it until we're sailing off of the cliff in grand style. So I'm not quite clear on your main point. Is it that we don't have to worry about resources, and there aren't really any limits except for CO2 emissions, and if we plant enough trees we're OK (although other important carbon sinks are failing as well)? Or that technology - mining and otherwise - can save us? Or that we not on the cusp (or in the throes) of multiple simulataneous emergencies? What are you suggesting that we do? Thanks for your contributions to this engaging conversation!
Best,
Adam
I happened to see a TV ad last night (aimed at teens going back to school)and either from Target or a shoe outlet (I wasn't watching carefully). The end message of the upbeat snappy ad said "RETHINK EXCESS" and "Spending money like it's going out of style is going out of style." Although I was pleasantly surprised to hear this, I'm of the wait-and-see opinion. Does this message confuse kids? I wonder.
Helen
Dear Adam,
The Limits to Growth estimates were 15 to 35 years off in their original 1972 report and it is my belief that they are still 15 to 35 years off because they fail to take account of basic economics: the law of supply and demand. The world is not running out of any resources that I'm aware of, other than biodiversity: once a genetically unique organism is gone (and assuming its DNA hasn't been stored in what looks to me like a feint hope that we can do a Jurassic Park reincarnation at some point into the future), then its gone. Conversely, we're far from running out of oil, since we're only running short of easy to access, cheap to produce liquid and maybe gaseous fossil fuels. Just a few years ago, Shell advised that it can economically produce oil from tar sands and similar non-liquid petroleum resources at US$22 a barrel. With the current price 3 times that figure, it's not hard to understand why there is now so much interest in oil and tar sands, oil shales and similar difficult- and expensive-to-process sources of petroleum materials. As for CO2, the problem is not one of resource shortage but of an excess of this pollutant in our atmosphere. Really, it's a sustainability question. Again referring to economics, we would solve our CO2 emission problems overnight if the entire world agreed to a tax on CO2 emissions set at, say, US$50 a tonne. Because it costs much less than this to trap and store CO2 or to use renewable energy or to be far more efficient at energy conservation that we are at present, the hip pocket nerve would quickly lead to a massive reduction in CO2 emissions. The problem is that such a tax has enormous political implications for almost every government on the planet: not just USA and Australia but China and India, etc. No government wants to bring in an unpopular tax and lose office when its citizens decide they don't like the tax. (There are other possibly solutions to the CO2 emission problem but I've picked on an emissions tax because it's one of the more obvious although less palatable solutions). Thanks to Al Gore and Professor Stern, we've moved a little along the road to having politicians, governments and many of the world's 6.5 billion people change their perceptions of the threat posed by global climate change and related issues. But the message hasn't really got through to the 1.2 billion Chinese nor the 1.2 billion Indians who will not be satisfied until they have a standard of living much closer to mine and what I assume is yours. And whether we've reached a tipping point or not is not really an issue: if we have, it's probably too late to do much about it; if we haven't, then it seems to me that not enough people presently accept that they have to accept personal responsibility to solve the global climate change problem, meaning that they won't act until their government or mother nature forces them to. So what's my main point? A few preambles first: the amount of resources available to the planet is not very relevant to our future (just as it hasn't been too relevant in our past); planting trees is too problematic as a solution to the CO2 emissions problem; and, while technology is important as a possible saviour for some of our problems, new technological solutions won't help if people and/or governments won't adopt them. So my main point is that people who wish to save the planet need to educate/inform/inspire/convince their fellow citizens so that they understand the problems and their possible solutions, so that in turn our politicians will have the confidence to think that they won't be thrown out of office when they take the many hard and difficult decisions that you and I know need to be taken if we're to turn these problems around. I am enjoying your challenging questioning of my earlier statements so many thanks.
Cheers
Bernie
Just to add to Karen Englesen's observation about individuals making up the corporate monoliths in her note 'Tshirts & Target', yes, we are out here! I am chair of an employee network within Shell Oil Company called SEEDS - Shell Employees Encouraging Development for Sustainability. It is an off shoot of a global employee network called Project Better World. We are a group of like-minded individuals supporting the principles of sustainable development with Shell and the communities in which we operate. We have been around since 2000. We focus on awareness, education and volunteerism. We are independent of Shell in that we are not a corporate mouthpiece and it is recognized that this independence is a significant part of our value & effectiveness. The global group administers a program which sends 45 Shell employees annually on Earthwatch Institute expeditions at company expense. They also have special programs set up with Volunteer Services Overseas and the UN Volunteerism group. In the US, we have over 400 people on our distribution list who receive a weekly SD newsletter. This distribution list includes a broad spectrum of employees including highly placed people in the organization. We recently sponsored a town hall about Shell's position on climate change and how it effects our industry. We had 200 people in attendance (That's a full house in the auditorium we used.) and up to 1500 people listening in on the web cast! We have sponsored a weekend "retreat" to learn about the plight of wetlands in Louisiana and have conducted solar car races at the children's museums both in Houston and New Orleans. We sponsored breakfast for "Bike to Work Day" and are developing education "minutes" to be used in department meetings. Unfortunately, our website is internal to Shell so unavailable to the general public but we are garnering so much positive attention lately that there is talk of us having space on the external Shell website! Yes, Virginia, we are out here! And we are more real than Santa Claus! And some people are paying attention!
Kim Millspaugh
Shell Oil Products US
US Fuels Customer Service Center
- Web Content Administrator
12700 Northborough MFB
110-224B Houston, TX 77067
Tel: +1 281 874-4739
Fax: 1 832 348 8851
Email: [email protected]
Internet: http://www.shell.com/oilproducts
SEEDS - Shell Employees Encouraging Development for Sustainability http://amsdc1-s-840.europe.shell.com/pbw-usa/
I have heard no mention of the possible effects of transferring enormous amounts of solar and/or wind energy from where they naturally occur, to different forms of energy for human needs. For example, how much solar and wind energy can be taken away from a desert before its energy balance is upset? And with what consequences? I am always suspicious of technological solutions to problems caused by excess technology. I don't see how anything but reduced footprint can permanently save us and the earth. as we know it.
Nancy
Hi All,
Just to clarify an earlier message concerning half the ecological footprint being related to our use of carbon, please see the comments below from the Global Footprint Network's National Accounts Manager.
Cheers,
Sharon
As noted in the previous email exchange, our calculations at Global Footprint Network do show that more than half of humanity's total demand on the planet results from the carbon emitted when burning fossil fuels. We calculate the Footprint of this carbon as the amount of productive area required to sequester it, and prevent it from accumulating as a waste product. These calculations do not imply that there are no viable options for reducing our carbon Footprint. Our calculations are historical accounts, not predictive models, and reflect only the status of the current energy mix, not how that might change in the future. This differs from the Limits to Growth models, for example, which were models of the future - our calculations are instead accounts that document only what is, not what could or should be. Within our accounting framework, when those other alternative energy sources come into play and reduce the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere, the carbon Footprint will fall accordingly. Today's carbon Footprint does not imply that this situation is permanent, but provides a record of the size of our current demand and, in the future, will reflect reductions in that demand as they occur.
Justin Kitzes
Senior Manager,
National Accounts Program
Global Footprint Network
[email protected]
tel.: +1-510-839-8879 x 101 (-0800 GMT)
www.footprintnetwork.org
...
David,
Check out the "Trash Fashion" annual event hosted by the Windfall Ecology Centre http://www.windfallcentre.ca. They incorporate a competition element with entrants from local college fashion design courses.
Judy Gibbens
Manager, Member Services and Communications
Green Communities Canada
P.O. Box 928,
Peterborough, Ontario K9J 7A5
Tel: 705-745-7479
Fax: 705-745-7294
Toll free: 1-877-533-4098
www.greencommunitiescanada.org