It would be wonderful to think that the power of positive change would be enough of a catalyst to improve our way of life, but in the world we have developed..."cash is King". This is not to say that activist trying to save the polar bears have no hope unless they can teach the bears how to make a latte at Starbucks, but rather we need to find creative ways to monazite the green movement. Whether it is providing tax breaks to corporations that support, use and develop eco conscious products, businesses and social organizations or leveraging stricter regulations on polluters. At the end of the day most companies don't 'go green' out of an instant social awakening, but rather how it affects the bottom line. While this may seem pessimistic, I think there is a silver lining; there is a way to effect change...money.
When preparing native landscape plans for clients it wasn't the social merits of using milkweed instead of daylilies, or how migratory birds would return to the area that would sell a plan. It was the thousands of dollars in saved irrigation costs, or the reduced maintenance requirements that would get clients excited. As discussed in another post on this blog, it's about telling the right story. It makes no difference to me what story I tell (migratory birds or saved money), as long as the ending is the same. Go Green.
Let's Assume Climate Change Isn't Happening
Categories: News, Rumors, Gossip, & Trends Innovation Discussion Sustainability New Products, Services, and Business Models Innovation Community Ideas
Let’s say climate change isn’t a problem…
Or,
What if green innovation was just about making money.
Not so long ago, North America shifted into full-blown climate change panic. Although there were multiple causes, the event that seemed to galvanize everything was Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth.
Fast forward a few years. As the recession takes our eye off the environment, a robust climate change denial movement has gathered steam.
Although trend skeptics (those denying that climate change is happening) are being squelched by evidence, attribution skeptics (those claiming climate change isn’t caused by humans) and impact skeptics (those claiming there are positive environmental impacts from climate change) are going strong.
As University of New South Wales Associate Professor David McKnight notes, there are several reasons why companies like Exxon have had some success playing the global warming denial card. “First, the implications of science are frightening. Second, doubt is an easy product to sell. Third, science is displayed as political orthodoxy rather than objective knowledge, a curiously postmodern argument.”
I’m not here to muddy the water with another piece arguing for the validity of climate science. Instead, I want to forward the case for green thinking, regardless of the political / scientific arguments.
To wit: we need to pick up the pace of our green innovation because it’s the smart economic thing to do.
When I lived in Europe – nearly 20 years ago - we had a curious contraption attached to every shower. You turned on the tap, and it filled an electric ‘kettle’ on the wall. When the kettle was full, it heated to shower temperature. Presto, you had enough hot water for your shower.
This system was incredibly energy efficient, and much ‘greener’ than the water boiler systems we still use in North America. But the Germans didn’t use it because of the enlightened environmental benefits. In a country with exhoribant energy rates, this little shower heater reduced costs. It was an innovation that made sense.
Look around the average European home, and you see similar innovations – light timers in hallways, baseboard power switches that prevent ‘vampire’ power drainage, dual flush toilets. None of these devices were introduced solely to preserve the environment. They were created to spare costly resources.
Now let’s apply that thinking to environmental innovations being considered today in North America.
Most energy experts agree we’re at, or close to, peak oil. That means finding and tapping new reserves is going to become more costly – especially if you consider the ravenous needs of emerging markets like China.
So even if we don’t consider the environment, does it make sense to develop vehicles that run leaner, or even run on electricity or hydrogen? Does it make sense to create new forms of ride sharing or telecommuting? Does it make sense to pump innovation dollars into new forms of mass transit?
Now let’s look at the way we live. Eco-density is a fancy word we’ve developed in Vancouver for multiple unit, multizone dwelling. In essence, it’s nothing more than structuring downtown condo living along the lines of European city dwelling. Even if we were to ignore the lessened environmental impact of this type of living, it would make sense from a home heating and transport model…not to mention the human benefit of increased community and interaction! In short, innovating new forms of high density dwelling make sense – even without support from climate change arguments.
Mintel’s Green Living Report (2008) tracks the explosion of green building in North America in everything from design and materials to government backing and consumer demand. True, some of this can be attributed to environmental enlightenment. But as the Wall Street Journal points out in quoting global financial service leader UBS: “We think the long-term benefits of incorporating green (building) products will offset the higher initial costs and result in significant expense savings.” The Journal article goes on to say the 41% of the 300 REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts) in the US are actively pursuing energy efficiency and green building upgrades, and another 27% plan do so.
These transport and building examples are just two illustrations of my point that green innovations make sense, without factoring in the environmental benefit.
So if you’re looking for new inspiration for innovation, consider new products, services and business models through the green lens. It will make sense – regardless if you believe in climate change or not.
Have you seen the new Maddock Douglas Homepage?
Follow Maddock Douglas on Twitter
Read More In: News, Rumors, Gossip, & Trends Innovation Discussion Sustainability New Products, Services, and Business Models Innovation Community Ideas
Thought leadership on innovation and the future of your industry from Maddock Douglas - The Agency of Innovation.
Click here to follow us on Twitter
I think you nailed it. Getting green is the goal, but the story you use makes the goal more / less attainable.
Companies get squeamish when they hear about a 'green' initiative (check out the history of GE's ecomagination - especially the early part where the board asked the management to go green...to not terribly good response!)
But when you wrap the green initiative in efficiencies, brand building benefits, and other real attributes of sustainability, companies can relate - and they get excited.
One thing to bear in mind as well. Companies aren't the only actors on the stage. Consumers are, more and more, motivated to live less wastefully. And their motivations are manifold and complex. Cash may be king with corporations, but consumers (motivated by their children, church, or simple sense that the universe isn't quite in order) can apply pressure for change. So to answer to the first part of your letter, we need activists to make this work, as much as we need corporations. We all need to engage.
Cheers
Marc stoiber
Right on! Sad but true that the climate change issue is a net negative to getting attention for anything sustainable these days. The Gore mystic is long gone and the arguments about the extent of climate change and who's causing it are just a diversion of attention.
My organization, CORE, belives that the Sustainability Consortium and the accompanying Sustainability Index - both initiated by Wal-Mart - are hugely exciting examples of how the world's largest corporations are now embracing sustainable business practices as
Graham,
Thanks for your thoughts. Only got a portion of your comments - the thread was cut off. Hope to see your full comment soon.
Cheers
Marc Stoiber
It's very simple folks,
Burning fossil fuels introduces CO2 into our atmosphere which is a poison to all animal life including humans. And this is done at the same time we are reducing the plant life which takes the CO2 out of our atmosphere and introduces O2 which all animal life needs to survive. More important than changing the climate we are suffocating ourselves and all future generations of people along with all animal life of our planet.
Sustainable businesses will replace fossil fuels with renewable fuels made from carbon waste. Sustainable businesses will find alternatives to deforestation. Sustainable businesses will advertise the fact that they are not suffocating people and all animal life with CO2 from fossil fuels, but are using nature to continuously recycle the carbon dioxide back into renewable fuels. Sustainable businesses will advertise the fact that they are preserving our source of O2 rather than slowly suffocating people and all animal life.
David G. Maskalick, Ph.D.
President and CEO
Biotecconnect
Matching Today's Discoveries with Tomorrow's Applications
Helping ro Sustainably Satisfy Basic Human Needs Globally
Best of all, if sustainable businesses do all of the above, they will be embraced by consumers and thrive.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Marc Stoiber
Money influences decisions. No doubt about that. But, we have all known people who would step over a dirty dollar to pick up a shiny dime. Money may be the driver, but common sense does not always follow or precede financial decisions.
The smartest approach I've seen yet is The Natural Step Framework, a methodology for guiding sustainable decisions that considers resource use and human needs in a holistic sense. The triple bottom line is another way to consider a decision's impact. When you view products, services or processes through the
Natural Step is a great framework, and it's been well tested and proven.
To your 'shiny dime' comment, I think the biggest direct result of 'green thinking' on business has been to expand timelines. Businesses who are adopting sustainability are also starting to look further down the road for payback. This is critical, because many green measures (beyond the low hanging fruit) take time to pay themselves off and show real ROI.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Marc Stoiber
Even if you do not believe that CO2 contributes to global warming, reducing CO2 is the right thing to do for the environment and your business. In most all cases, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions causes reduction in costs to the business; so it's a win for the environment and a win for the business. Analyzing your current CO2 inventory, evaluating your social and economic policies and philosophies, and then implementing continuous improvement to reduce the CO2 and ensure your policies are best in class will ensure that you are compliant with industry and governmental standards that have already been implemented.....even some that have yet to be implemented.
Visit our blog: http://blogs.global-champions.com/
Scott, thanks for your contribution. I agree, analysis of CO2 (along with other forms of waste, both environmental and human) can be extremely beneficial in helping your corporation rethink ways to boost efficiency (and $). Think the real win comes when you tie your corporate policy on waste and emission, with a supply chain policy that rewards suppliers who share your philosophy (and can offer savings based on their efficiencies!), and a consumer-facing green innovation brand that allows your fans to participate and support your green efforts. We're seeing more and more 'sustainability 2.0' type efforts like these. And, not coincidentally, we're seeing companies with robust sustainability efforts be rewarded during the recession. After all, sustainability is just a 'symptom' of a forward-thinking, engaged, innovative company...the sort of company that tends to outperform.
Also checked out your blog. Great stuff. Congratulations.
Marc stoiber
Balony! Redistributution of weath, will mean YOU too. "Crime Inc." has otherwise possible inteligent people believing in BS.... The Sun causes "warming" smog REDUCES tempature. Open YOUR eyes, see the truth, the Nazis of our time, like Gore {crazy, collectiong PSTD} with his new 9 million dollar house are Liars, criminals, and not right!
Remeber the polar bear on the broken piece ofice? Ask the woman that filmed it, what it TRULY was about! Or better yet open Your eyes and LOOK for what she said about how appaled she was about this HOAX.
Read 2 books "obamanation" (about a post turtle)and "Sacred Trust" (about a truly honorable man, George Washington) - be smart, not in "lock step" marching to your own funeral.
I'm sure that this message will be deleted by the moderator - those on the left, like the nazis - do NOT believe in the TRUTH, pnly thier lies.
LEHenson@msn think, research, before you email me. Larry
Thanks for you thoughts, Larry.
Definitely don't believe in marching in lockstep. That's why we're doing what we're doing and working with companies who want to reduce their environmental impace with ground-breaking innovation.
To your points, I'm reminded of what a friend of mine said: 'Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not everyone is entitled to their own facts.' Every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change (including the science academies of all the major industrialized countries) has stated that that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change. With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.
Read up on the 1997 World Scientists Call For Action petition, the 1992 World Scientists Warning To Humanity, the Jan 2009 survey of over 3000 scientists listed by the American Geological Institute, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Finally, our thoughts are that (as in the article) we shouldn't be doing this because of our adverse effect on the climate. We should be re-engineering simply because it's more efficient, and it moves the economy forward into new, untapped areas. If you could make cleaners that weren't toxic and cleaned as well as toxic cleaners, why would you stick with the old way? You only have to look at the economic performance of companies like 7th Generation and Patagonia during the recession to see how nicely an innovative take on the environment works for the bottom line.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Cheers
M
Cheers
Marc Stoiber


RSS