Great point Mark.

Consumers are quick to assume that 'solar powered', 'recycled', or 'green' means that a product is sustainable, but that is not always the case. A true sustainable product should come as close to zero net energy use as possible while creating no end waste (elements that cannot be reused or recycled). Take your average 'eco bag' that consumers take to the grocery store. While they are better than using new plastic bags every time, they are not perfect products. Many of these bags will still end up in a landfill, just delaying the time that it takes a plastic bag to reach a landfill instead of keeping the bag permanently out of the landfill. Progress can be slow, but the small steps in the right direction can help.

I know that it is a radical concept, but what about measuring sustainability based on the energy and outputs to "replace" versus consume or extract? It drastically changes the entire sustainability discussion, economic model, globalization, and consumer interaction. To me, this is a real innovation.

Immediately - conservation becomes the key concept, followed closely by usage of materials and processes which are focussed on ease of replacement and recycling. The design challenge becomes not only producing something which adds real value to one's life, but making it in such a way as to retrieve the product post consumer and use it again with the least effort possible. Outsourcing would immediately be too expensive - pushing local sourcing or regional sourcing at least.

Like the "solar surge" example, I am often troubled by people who purchase new "green" products to replace or enhance their non-green product they are interacting with. In my opinion, it is based on a good thing (people want to reduce their impacts) but being used as a marketing tool...

Cradle to Cradle...It will change the way you see everything! Such a great book.

A

This could also depend on where you sell the solar charger. What is potentially unnecessary in an urban first world location could be of great importance in the third world where there's no grid for power (or even in the outback of my Australian home).

On reflection, I have a deeper concern about the initial comment. To me, "not good enough" and "measure the impact" conversations seem to be based on assumptions of scarcity that are not necessarily valid.

Applying biomimicry in a broad context, I observe that Nature is enormously abundant. Look at the number of seeds thrown out to create the next generation of plants, and the number of evolutionary trials that it takes to develop a new species.

The difference I see between nature and our human systems is:
* At the moment, we don't close loops and reuse what we make very well.
* At the moment, we burn fossil fuels instead of generating clean, renewable energy.

If we focus on some simple positive goals, then the "natural selection" of commerce will look after "right" and "wrong". A couple of key goals to talk about could be:
1. Abundant renewable energy to support upcycling
2. Upcyling non-renewable materials (valuable natural resources) back in to more valuable materials
(read "Cradle to Cradle")

And as we get smarter:
3. Designing ways to deliver the valuable services behind our products regeneratively
(read "Natural Capitalism" on Service and Flow economies)

Ray Anderson of InterfaceFLOR; Alan Jones of the Borough of Woking; and many others have proved that "green is great for business". Maybe we could focus a bit more on "Doing well by doing good"? (There are more examples on my Twitter feed, some from down under.)

To me, the WCED's focus on "sustainable consumption" is back-to-front. What if we focussed on "regenerative supply" instead?

Imagine beyond sustainability. Can you envision regenerative business on a scale that creates a comfortable lifestyle for our projected 9 billion? Having worked inside the supply chain for decades, I know just how much we're wasting at the moment. While it's a "stretch" goal, I think it's also do-able.

The cycle of innovation starts with Innovators and Early Adopters who love smart solutions and "cool stuff". They don't care so much about "shoulds", compliance and measurement. If we want rapid change we need to engage them in "cool" (or "hot"?)

InterfaceFLOR powering a factory on methane from the local rubbish dump? Never-clean glass designed from a lotus petal? Much cooler and definitely more fun than "Isn't this solar charger wasteful..."