Recently, I had the privilege to hear several experts speak about this topic. They all offered opinions and advice. Some recommendations presented are actionable. Here are some that got me thinking:
(1) Steven Chu, Secretary of the US Department of Energy (DOE): Products invented in America and sold worldwide represent the seeds of our future prosperity.
(2) James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University: It’s not too late to act, but we must not delay!
(3) Robert Kaplan, Baker Foundation Professor, Harvard Business School: Leadership in Sustainability requires vision, commitment, alignment, and an action plan with accountability
(4) Richard Lazarus, Howard and Katherine Aibel Professor, Harvard Law School: Enable legislation in the US Congress by:
Empowering long term interests in the political process
Protecting courageous states such as California and the Northeastern states in RGGI (including Massachusetts)
Reducing the leverage of short-term interests and limiting the filibuster rule in the Senate
(5) Christoph Reinhart, Building Scientist and Architectural Educator, Harvard Graduate School of Design: 40% of energy consumption is in buildings, so start by measuring energy use!
(6) Rebecca Henderson, John and Natty McArthur University Professor, Harvard Business School: Businesses will take action if they combine passion to make a difference with hardheaded realism and creativity
(7) Eric Chivian, Recipient of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize, Founder and Director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment, and an Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School: Risks of inaction are too great. We need to practice precautionary medicine techniques with the environment.
Secretary Chu spoke at MIT on November 30, 2011. He’s clearly well versed in climate change issues, as well as in energy and cleantech. Also, he’s a very likable person.
I wanted very much to hear a call to action from him – something that he is pushing and something that we can all do to advance the cause of cleantech and minimize our dependence on fossil fuels. Unfortunately, he didn’t offer that. Instead, he spoke about the history of technology and innovation. He touched on the need for the US to be competitive, prosperous and sustainable. Interestingly enough, he didn’t insist on US-based manufacturing, although he agreed that that would add to our strength. He pointed to several examples where the US generated ideas or took ideas from other countries that ultimately turned into competitive advantage solutions for the US. Examples included fertilizer, telecommunications, the automobile, and the airplane.
After his talk I was unsettled; what I believe this country needs is strong leadership from our President. Obama as Chief Educator can drive home the need for clean energy and energy efficiency solutions. He can take Robert Kaplan’s recommendation and set a vision and objectives that the country can follow. For example: set Greenhouse Gas targets. Meanwhile, various states such as Massachusetts are setting targets and achieving them. In fact, Massachusetts was just recognized as the most energy efficient state in the nation! And businesses and universities are taking significant action.
On December 8, 2011 several Harvard professors spoke at a Harvard Thinks Green talk. They all had prescriptions for success. They represented multiple disciplines. Each one had 10 minutes to make a statement. Let’s get them to talk with Steven Chu and others in the US Administration!
At a national level we should set the stage for longer term thinking in Congress, and we should have short and long term environmental targets.
As a marketer, I believe that people are moved by stories. Stories can make the problems and solutions come to life. When people hear stories from and about people like them, they are more likely to buy into the solution.
There are so many great stories out there (possible topics for a future post):
Sustainability – and specifically energy efficiency solutions – save money
Businesses that adopt sustainability practices are more productive
Jobs are being created
The world is learning to do more with less
Customers, employees, partners and investors enjoy working with sustainable entities
So, get passionate, be involved, and take action. Making a difference and improving your sustainability is not only is good for you, the environment and your community, but also for the economy!
I think we’re in agreement that Secretary Chu is the right guy to (a) help us reduce CO2 80% by 2020, and (b) do it in a way that is economically smart. But I don’t think he’s been able, so far, to sell enough of the country. President Obama can and hopefully his political advisors will turn him loose.
Very good, Beth. you have attended meetings to hear so many ideas, opinions. However, the topics on clean energy are still the same as a few years ago, nothing much new. The uncertainty of the globe economy is the center for everything now.
Some big and small politicians in the US and other countries are thinking and planning war to get out of the crisis. However, we are, as science-tech and business professionals, are pushed out of the center of the stages, but we still have to do what we have to do. Time chooses the protesters around the whole globe. More protests around the whole world in 2012?
If you had attended all of those talks and been fully satisfied, Beth, I think perhaps that might mean you weren’t fully paying attention. Good thing you were. : )
Part of the problem is that the terms themselves — sustainability / sustainable in particular — are essentially meaningless because they have no commonly understood meaning. Everyone more or less applies their own definitions, shaped by personal, community, corporate, or other local contexts, preconceptions, and biases. (Plus all the excellent points raised by your other commenters. These are maddeningly complex challenges.)
Moreover, while I agree with you that political leadership is desperately needed at all levels, the very real issues we already face in this century — food, water, and energy security; persistent armed conflict; economic stability; severe weather events; virulent and/or drug-resistant diseases; etc. — cannot be resolved purely, or even principally, by political action.
As DARPA Deputy Director Ken Gabriel was quoted at MIT today, “The 19th century was about manipulating energy, the 20th century was about manipulating information, and the 21st century will be about manipulating matter.” [http://bit.ly/rwC0Y0]
I believe the winners of the 21st century may well be those who manipulate matter most efficiently, with the least waste, the least resource consumption, the least toxicity, the least societal detriment, and the least jargon.
In short, the most elegant, profitable, and beneficial. Past centuries were sufficiently forgiving to allow very big successes to be won on the basis of one, or possibly two, of the three. I see this century already shaping up to be much more demanding.
Manipulating matter (or any significant human endeavor) starts with telling stories, as you rightly suggest. We need to be telling factual, compelling stories about elegant, profitable, and beneficial solutions. In the interest of making those stories take hold and begin to reshape our reality, I’m okay with leaving “sustainability” out of the lexicon.
1) It is too late, and resilience or adaptation to climate change impacts should come to the forefront in discussions of “sustainability”,
2) Reliable, small and safe nuclear power plants (not the 40 year old giant clunckers that abound)should be the focus of Chu and MIT etc.,
3) Manufacturing based in China is almost exclusively based on coal electricity and results in production of PV technology with high embedded CO2 equivalent emissions, so its long overdue that we routinely perform independent life cycle assessments of PV products.
We are not moving fast enough with resolutions. I am amazed as the number of vehicles on the road with only one occupant. Better green mass transit is badly needed. Corporations must extinguish their old ideas and accept the practice of telecommuting, which is a win win for all (less cars on the road, improved morale and the savings in corporate real estate taxes and maintenance cost. I can go on and on, but the bottom line is that we are not moving fast enough and our children will suffer the consequence of our timid behavior.
Thanks, Beth. Keep pushing and don’t let up. This is a battle for our future.I liked the message of Mr. Kaplan, “Leadership in Sustainability requires vision, commitment, alignment, and an action plan with accountability” but I would add “passion” to his list. The meaning of the work commitment has been diluted by our driveling politicians. We should not be afraid to demand and expect nothing less than full blown acceptance of the import of a sustainable future.Seek to carry the mantle of a survival-oriented culture. Not a culture of consumerism, or of excess or of growth.
Beth,
I really enjoy reading this post and you are so right about that , when people hear stories from and about people like them, they are more likely to buy into the solution. thank you for been part in the renewable energy solution, we need to work together in community and make a strong positive climate change, having in mind that we can’t wait any longer we must begin the action now. avoid depletion of natural resourses. sustainability is the way,
It’s easy to let the enormity of the sustainability problem create paralysis. At World Energy we are big believers in not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and are daily helping our clients buy and use energy in smarter ways. A good recent example? We helped Bayer MaterialScience secure 20% renewable energy for their Sheffield, MA facility as part of an overall electricity buy that also saved them over $200,000. Saving on electricity cost while increasing commitment to renewables. That’s powerful, and the good news is it is happening often and across business sectors. Here is another example: http://bit.ly/tE5Omz
What about the sustainability of powering 137 million U.S. passenger vehicles with gasoline derived from oil? The United States is now importing 60 percent of its crude oil and that figure will rise to 100 percent in about 11 years. What is the plan from the Department of Energy to address that problem? For more information, please see
As the ranks of the already activated grow, I cheer along…but how to elicit behavior shift in those whose ‘frames’ won’t naturally accept sustainable thinking? This is where the stories you advocate may be a best first step. Deniers converted? Skeptics turned believers? As likely as policy change, and perhaps sooner realized, may be an acknowledgement among these targets that “if my short time horizon won’t let me support sustainability NOW, I will at least avoid action that will make it costlier and harder to do later…when it actually WILL need to get done.” Fundamental awakening, through stories, will re-jigger frames to accept truths that will otherwise continue to bounce back rejected and unbelieved.
Outside of the green, energy efficiency, sustainability communities, there is not enough awareness of the impact possible. If you save a kilowatt, that’s 2.5to 3 kilowatts you do not have to generate. There is for sure a lack of forceful leadership by those politicians and corporate leaders who can best raise the bar.
Felice, Eric, Fran Mark, Rich: you have each mentioned the political theme. This got me to thinking…
Many governments worldwide tend not to take an integrated approach to local, regional and global Resources challenges.
Example: Water. Water issues span the agendas of ministries and agencies responsible for water, agriculture, urban development, and environment. How do they communicate with one another? How often? Do we as voters pay attention to their interactions, which are or should be a matter of public record?
Another example: Land. It spans the jurisdictions of agriculture, forestry, interior, energy and environment at the national agency level, while at the provincial and district levels, even more agencies are involved.
Internationally, still more private aid agencies are weighing in.
However well intentioned these myriad groups may be, integrating and aligning their parallel and sometimes competing agendas is not often seen as a priority.
Here is a fundamental disconnect in the USA: we are empowered to democratically elect our President, Congress, Senate and dogcatcher. We are not, however, invited participants in agency appointments. Those are typically appointments curried and distributed by elected officials based on factors that may include campaign debt and influence swapping. Can you spell Blagojovich?
If we as voters paid attention to the agency appointments made by our elected officials (hello, C-SPAN), brought them into the light of day (like a thousand Arab Springs), educated ourselves about such candidates, and got vocal about candidate options, just maybe we will make progress in fomenting this badly needed political alignment.
Until then, it’s a shell game, and shame on us each and all for not speaking up.
I’m thinking of changing the name of my blog (1SocialClimate) to “Bloggers Without Borders”.
Beth – great post. I agree that at the intersection of politics, policy, innovation and finance lies the greatest opportunity we have to enable a game-changing future. Indeed, we NEED the game to be changed. Businesses are forging ahead with sustainable inititatives because they make good financial sense, but having more support from our government by supporting these good ideas in a non-partisan way would get more people on board who are sitting on the sidelines.
Keep up the good work,
Rich Goode
It is increasingly apparent that change must come from grassroots and not the top. Too many leaders are walking around today as if they had a lobotomy. Or else, they are afraid to use their heads and their good senses. Species across the globe have tapped in to the pulse of the planet and are adjusting their lives to new conditions. We can see the future in the crystal ball, yet we choose not to act. We also look through a monochromatic lens. We have not gotten beyond a concern for saving energy when we are about to use up all our drinking water. We do not deserve to come out of recession. Economic boom without green will be an immediate planetary bust.
The messages from all seven talks are right on the money. I agree that it is disappointing that Sec’y Chu is not issuing a specific call to action. We certainly need to hear one from him and President Obama.
I also agree that stories are powerful motivators.
There is a lot to gain from not wasting the energy we are already consuming. Businesses have been pooly served by the engineering community, but changes are taking place right now that can make a big difference to operating costs and the environmental impact. Still change is hard and some companies have to take the lead. This is not easy to do in a deep recession.
Just like going to the doctor, the consultants should start by looiking up the tail pipe of every process – i.e. the stack of the powerplant!
I totally agree that the President needs to be more pro-active as Educator in Chief. He needs to forcefully and widely promote the benefits of moving rapidly toward renewable energy sources. He needs to correct dire predictions about job loss as we move away from an oil economy (for example, incorrect numbers quoted by Trans-Canada’s CEO on jobs resulting from the building of the Keystone XL pipeline: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70021.html).
I also think it is urgent that the President educates Americans about the risks of doing too little too late to address catastropic climate change vs. the risks of taking significant immediate steps toward cleaner energy (possible economic loss, but certainly improved health and energy independence).
Anyone support a Change.org or Whitehouse.gov petition?”
Cut and paste missed the first paragraph – sorry.
Insert this before:
Beth – your post is great – and I agree with the general course of action it lays out.
There is an assumption though, that well-intentioned and reasonable people can put their heads together and steer the course of change in this country to make progress on the pressing problems presented by climate change. Furthermore the need to do this is assumed to be driven by self-interest, in
that we’re ultimately going to suffer much more if we don’t act, and that there are real and immediate benefits to acting now and promoting clean energy development. This is of course true, but if these reasons were enough to spur people to action – then they were also true many years ago and we would have already acted before now – when the dangers of inaction are now much more apparent.
Your post mentions disappointment with Energy Secretary Chu’s statements, and the lack of leadership on climate – illustrated most recently in Durban by the flaccid positions of US climate envoy Stern. How is it that even those who know that there is a problem and seemingly have the power to put solutions in place – have avoided doing so? President Obama has shown that he is not a leader so much as a negotiator – someone willing to make compromises for the good of the country. However this willingness to engage with the GOP has failed miserably in the face of intransigence. The problem is that even if there were some movement on a national energy policy that promotes clean energy and contemplates some kind of cap and trade program (originally a GOP proposal), compromises such as these does not get us to the kind of action that changes the course of catastrophic climate change.
The most important thing that we can do now, is to look at the main causes of entrenchment in our political process. The following paragrah is an excerpt from a recent edition of “The Climate Post” published by The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University:
“There has been an increase in climate skepticism in the past year and a growing reluctance to say anything about climate, especially among Republicans. The turning point—argued the National Journal’s cover story, “Heads in the Sand” — was the 2010 Supreme Court decision that lifted restrictions on campaign spending and boosted so-called super political action committees (super PACs) that can take unlimited funds.”
The quoted article from the National Journal shines a light on one of the main factors in our collective inaction in this country, and it does not bode well for our future that the GOP is nearly unified on the position that climate change is a hoax. Recently the Pope joined the ever-louder chorus from around the world calling for significant actions coming out of the talks in Durban. This further illustrates how out of step with reality the US is on climate change and energy policy.
I would suggest that before we put our energy into policy and technology-based solutions – of which there are many wonderful examples and more every day, we turn our attention to the real problem, that keeps any of these initiatives from becoming actual solutions. That is our broken democracy, which allows for corporate influence to dictate the status quo – day in and day out.
Great, thought provoking stuff! We are so plagued by short term thinking to the detriment of the environment, society, the economy, business, etc.There’s no evidence that politicians think beyond their next elections. Not only is it short term but also old thinking. This is not your grandfather’s or great grandfather’s world but we keep trying to apply those ancient to current problems and they don’t cure!
… that restaurants are the most energy intensive industry per square foot? According to NStar an average 6,000 square foot restaurant in Massachusetts spends approximately $45,000 per year on electricity and gas combined. 20% savings, generally from relatively simple measures, can equate to $9,000 per year in savings.
Small changes – either in behavior or in infrastructure – can amount to large energy and cost savings. And the restaurant won’t need to sacrifice service, quality, style or comfort. People want to work at and frequent institutions that are more sustainable. Benefits of energy efficiency and sustainability include: improved employee satisfaction, increased patronage and sales, and a cleaner, healthier environment.
There are two kinds of energy efficiency changes:
Behavior (i.e., changes in focus and procedures)
Infrastructure (i.e., new equipment)
Since most of the energy consumed in a restaurant is in food preparation and cooking, energy efficiency savings are mostly in kitchen appliances such as ovens, ranges, dishwashers and refrigeration. Simple maintenance measures include tightening bolts and screws, replacing used or worn gaskets, and turning down appliances that aren’t in use. Turning down or off equipment that is not in use, or even delaying when you turn on equipment at the beginning of the shift can make a huge difference.
Today there are several programs available to help restaurants pay for upgrades to Energy Star equipment. Also, many municipalities — such as the City of Lowell in Massachusetts — offer grants, loans and rebates to further assist qualified businesses.
So, what kind of help do restaurants need to be more energy efficient? Training!
Restaurateurs are busy. That’s why Eco Marketing recently developed and conducted a very prescriptive energy efficiency course for a group of restaurants in Lowell, Massachusetts: Brew’d Awakening, Espresso’s Pizza, Fio’s Pizza, La Boniche, Life Alive,and Mambo Grill. The city is working hard to help businesses and truly become a greencity – which will save all of us resources and dollars.
Here are some of the highlights of the course:
Overview of sustainability and energy efficiency, and why they’re important for restaurants
Explicit instructions for improving energy efficiency throughout the restaurants
Guidelines as to the amount of savings to expect from various measures
Financing options, including savings over time, rebates from MassSave and National Grid, as well as rebates, loans and grants from the City of Lowell.
Management plans and templates for the restaurants to engage employees and track progress (hard copy booklet and cd)
Visits to each of the restaurants to review what they learned and make on-site recommendations
We’d love to hear from you!
How does this sort of program compare to your energy efficiency and sustainability efforts?
Are you more likely to dine in a restaurant that is making an effort to be more sustainable?
There’s so many simple, inexpensive (or free) ways to both save money and help the environment like sid said. In the end even investing in more efficient ovens might be a higher upfront cost but well worth it in the long run. It’s a win-win situation. You save money and the environment.
Love the behavior aspect mentioned in the article. Going green starts with behavioral changes. It is important that the team at business understands that sustainability is real and they are helping the planet. Switching off the lights, offering water only when asked are some behavioral changes that don’t cost a cent.
Register now for a 50% discount! Enter code: EcoBeth at registration.
The 2nd Annual Massachusetts
Sustainable Economy Conference
Monday, May 2, 2011
8:30 am – 5:00 pm
Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
600 Atlantic Avenue Boston, MA 02210
Improve and Grow the Economy of the Commonwealth by Advancing Business Sustainability
The Sustainable Economy Conference (SEC) includes principled business leaders as guest speakers, interactive panel sessions and a networking reception featuring an exhibitor hall designed to provide participants with the resources necessary to implement sustainability, corporate responsibility and diversity into their business model for successful and prosperous results.
The SEC is designed to cultivate business relationships with a spirit of mutual benefit and civic interest.
You are invited to the 2nd Annual SEC, a forum designed to help participants learn from the collective experience of principled business leaders and network with local, cross-industry thinkers and doers who are changing the Commonwealth through business.
By advancing sustainability, corporate responsibility and diversity into the business model, businesses in Massachusetts can improve and grow their bottom line and the economy. How business conducts its affairs and defines its goals and values can drive and improve the state of the economy.
The SEC educates, inspires and prepares business professionals by presenting an array of speakers sharing and addressing the challenges and accomplishments of topics such as:
Sustainability
Corporate Responsibility
Diversity
The SEC invites MBA and other college students to the SEC to be empowered as the next generation of Massachusetts business leaders who will actively engage in progressive business practices that cultivate a sustainable economy.
Gain Practical, Actionable Guidance and Step-By-Step Advice
Governor Deval Patrick and the Massachusetts Legislature’s nation-leading efforts regarding energy efficiency, green communities, green jobs, clean tech and more are local sustainable solutions to nation-wide crises. Contribute to statewide and local efforts to accelerate a resilient green future for the Commonwealth by implementing sustainability, corporate sustainability and diversity.
Learn and Implement
The audience of the SEC is the wide range of high-caliber business influencers and thought leaders from diverse sectors, disciplines and perspectives across the Commonwealth. The SEC brings together the Commonwealth’s municipal, business, environmental and academic sectors for the purpose of creating a sustainable economy.
For more information: http://sustainableeconomyconference.com/
Massachusetts has the unique opportunity to be a world leader in Green Chemistry. Many local colleges and universities have Green Chemistry courses, including UMass Boston with the country’s first PhD program in Green Chemistry. With the help of John Warner, President and Chief Technology Officer of Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry and Paul Anastas, the Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the Science Advisor to the Agency, many companies are following the 12 principles of Green Chemistry. These companies are reducing the use of toxic chemicals, saving energy, reducing waste, and saving money. They are at the forefront of Sustainability. Furthermore, they are stewards of the environment, helping to reduce climate change and pollution.
The EPA, along with Green Chemistry leaders such as Paul Anastas and John Warner, ran a forum today at the MIT Sloan School in Cambridge, MA to create a sustainable green chemistry future for New England. It was a networking and community building event with NO PowerPoint presentations!
Local colleges and universities, non profits and businesses involved in Green Chemistry demonstrated their programs. With the aim of creating a community of practice, we addressed business issues relating to Green Chemistry. We discussed how to create a community of practice to bring Green Chemistry to more companies, and to improve the overall sustainability of these companies.
For companies the benefits of Green Chemistry are:
Cut costs
Save energy
Reduce waste
Pharmaceutical companies can save as much as $15 million per year with a Green Chemistry redesign. For example:
Pfizer will save more than 200,000 metric tons of chemical waste between 2007 and 2020 by “naturalizing” Lyrica® and 25,000 tons of waste per year in the manufacture of Vfend®.
By “greening” Lipitor® Pfizer also saves energy.
Some of the challenges and barriers include:
Permitting
Regulatory framework
Financial commitment
Lack of uniform standards
Uninformed buying public
IP/patent process
In order to promote Green Chemistry, we need to:
Size the business opportunity
Educate the general public
Make more success stories accessible
Provide a forum to share information
Offer prizes and awards to recognize Green Chemistry achievements
Establish linkages between schools and businesses
***
Utilizing the principles of Eco Marketing, the Green Chemistry coalition will need to: (a) better understand its stakeholders and what they need, (b) clearly articulate the messages for each set of constituents, and (c) create a communications program to reach out to people and encourage active participation. This is doable, with a motivated team that can draw from the experience of those who have achieved successes thus far in Green Chemistry.
This was a great event, amazing how many people attended and the companies and organizations represented. It was encouraging to see schools, higher education, corporations and government all participating and trying to move the idea of Green Chemistry forward. I like the idea of instead of having to clean up a mess start with a less toxic or nontoxic chemical or product.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Beyond Benign and EPA New England, Berkeley Cue. Berkeley Cue said: Green+Chemistry+Leadership+in+New+England http://t.co/JacG7RB via @AddThis [...]
SolSolution is holding their first annual SolSolution fundraiser, and it’s all about launching into the future!
SolSolution is a nonprofit corporation whose mission is to simultaneously generate clean, renewable electricity and increase the quality of education in underprivileged schools. Funds from the sale of clean, solar-generated electricity are shifted to school’s educational budgets for the purchase of tangible resources.
Come celebrate SolSolution’s launch into 2011 and enjoy a night of wonderful food and entertainment with great people.
Top 5 Reasons Why You Should Be at Launch!
You’ll meet great people with similar passions and interests for energy and education
Come fill your stomach with tantalizing Indian food from Tantric Bistro
Listen to notable speakers such as City Councilor John Connolly
Comedian Gary Gulmanwill leave you laughing and smiling for the rest of the night
You will be an integral part to putting solar panels up on our first school installation
All ticket prices and donations during the event will go towards helping us complete our first solar school installations. Your generosity and support will really make the night shine, but space is limited and seats are going fast, so make sure to get your ticket today!
Ticket prices:
Launch! Single Entry $119 (*Early Rocket Discount $99)
Launch! Student Entry $49: Only available for current undergraduate students and Young Professionals in Energy members — click here for separate registration
*Early Rocket Discount: Purchase your tickets before November 25, 2010, and we’ll discount your tickets $20. Don’t miss out on this great deal for a wonderful night of festivities! Click on the button above to take advantage of this limited opportunity now.
Can’t attend the event but still want to support SolSolution during the holiday season? You can click on the “Buy Tickets” button above, and you’ll find the option just for you!
We’re looking forward to the night, and we hope to see you there too!
What kind of negotiator are you? Are you afraid to ask for what you really want because you fear that asking may end – or significantly alter — the relationship?
The authors of the new book Dare to Ask! are adamant: If a woman doesn’t negotiate for what she wants, she probably won’t get it!
The Big Idea of Dare to Ask! is that it redefines negotiating as a win-win Collaborative Conversation rather than I win, you lose. Women have natural gifts — empathy, intuition, gift of gab, and talent for teamwork. Women can use these to empower themselves to become more comfortable demanding what they deserve and successfully negotiating to get it.
Consider these tips:
Don’t be timid. If you don’t ask, it won’t be given.
Ask yourself: What do I want? What do I need? What can I get?
The more powerful you appear, the more seriously the other side will take you.
***
Meet author Cait Clarke on ABC News. Join the conversation about negotiating for everything from personal relationships to your next raise.
To purchase Dare to Ask! the Woman’s Guidebook to Successful Negotiating, please visit: www.WomenNegotiating.com. Be among the first to buy it, read it, and get started on successful negotiating. Please enter Code BETH to indicate that you heard about this from me! The cost is $19.95.
Please let me know if you find Dare to Ask! as helpful and insightful as I did!
From Lexington, Massachusetts on August 29, 2010 to the David Letterman Show on August 31, 2010, Bill McKibben speaks about his book Eaarth, global warming and climate action.
Bill McKibben’s new book Eaarth provides countless examples of the conundrum our whole world is in because of global warming and peak oil. He suggests taking action: conserve energy and resources, make changes locally, and work together within your community. Some of the recommendations include community farming and community-based energy. It’s a must read!
The first challenge is to make sure that everyone understands the problem (there’s too much carbon in the environment), the severity of the problem (dangerous weather patterns are risking the livelihoods and lives of all of us), and the immediacy of the problem (at 398 parts per million we’ve already surpassed the prescribed 350 parts per million of carbon in the environment). Eaarth provides the facts — it enables us to see and feel the consequences. They are real, and they are painful.
It’s clear that we need change, both locally and at a national level. We all need to act at home, at work, and in our communities. That means grass roots/bottom up: working diligently in every way that we can think of in order to reduce our carbon output. We can all conserve energy and water, recycle and reuse, and also help our employers to make changes at the workplace as well.
We need political action: with a price on carbon set at the federal level, innovation for clean energy can be undertaken in earnest. Feed-in tariffs in Germany are an excellent example of how government policy enabled growth in the clean energy sector, especially solar power.
With top-down and bottom-up efforts, we may be able to stall the global warming trend. It will take enormous changes to actually reverse the trends so that the glaciers refreeze. But we all need to do our part. No one is immune from the consequences; no one should be immune from helping to preserve our environment for us, for our children, for our grandchildren, and for the plants and animals that share this planet with us.
I hope our world leaders in every locality truly understands deeply the true meaning of climate change and its real catastrophic effects. Most world leaders are still concentrating on politics and how they would survive their political carrier. Not governance nor the earths survival.
This was a well-organized article, leading with Bill McKibben’s appearance on the 29th. I liked your organization around bottom-up and top-down actions that are needed and the use of specific information – the 398 ppm carbon reference and Germany’s actions in the right direction.
This fine article deserves a wider audience although I am not sure what that would be.
Here are the key components of UL’s and Greener World Media’s Sustainability Certification criteria:
• Sustainability governance: How an organization leads and manages itself in relation to its stakeholders, including employees, investors, regulatory authorities, customers and the communities in which it operates.
• Environment: How an organization manages its environmental footprint across its policies, operations, products and services, including its resource use and emissions.
• Workforce: Issues related to employee working conditions, organization culture, benefits and retention.
• Customers and suppliers: Issues related to an organization’s policies and practices on product safety, quality, pricing and marketing as well as its supply chain policies and practices.
• Social and community engagement: An organization’s impacts on the communities in which it operates in the areas of social equity, ethical conduct and human rights.
John Warner established the 12 principles of Green Chemistry. These are critical to designing healthy products and also improving competitive advantage.
Pollution Prevention: It is better to prevent waste than to treat and clean up waste after it is formed.
Atom Economy: Synthetic methods should be designed to maximize the incorporation of all materials used in the process into the final product.
Less Hazardous Synthesis: Whenever practicable, synthetic methodologies should be designed to use and generate substances that possess little or no toxicity to human health and the environment.
Design Safer Chemicals: Chemical products should be designed to preserve efficacy of the function while reducing toxicity.
Safer Solvents and Auxiliaries: The use of auxiliary substances (solvents, separations agents, etc.) should be made unnecessary whenever possible and, when used, innocuous.
Design for Energy Efficiency: Energy requirements should be recognized for their environmental and economic impacts and should be minimized. Synthetic methods should be conducted to ambient temperature and pressure.
Use of Renewable Feedstocks: A raw material or feedstock should be renewable rather than depleting whenever technically and economically practical.
Reduce Derivatives: Unnecessary derivatization (blocking group, protection/deprotection, temporary modification of physical/chemical processes) should be avoided whenever possible.
Catalysis: Catalytic reagents (as selective as possible) are superior to stoichiometric reagents.
Design for Degradation: Chemical products should be designed so that at the end of their function they do not persist in the environment and instead breakdown into innocuous degradation products.
Real-Time Analysis for Pollution Prevention: Analytical methodologies need to be further developed to allow for real-time in-process monitoring and control prior to the formation of hazardous substances.
Inherently Safer Chemistry for Accident Prevention: Substance and the form of a substance used in a chemical process should be chosen so as to minimize the potential for chemical accidents, including releases, explosions and fires.
For more information on John Warner and Green Chemistry, please visit: Warner Babcock
**
There are clear synergies between Green Chemistry and sustainable manufacturing. These 2 groups should get together and merge their concepts.
If you’re doing sustainable manufacturing, Eco Marketing would like to hear from you. How does the above compare to what you’re doing? Which model is best? Eco Marketing can help you update and communicate your sustainability story. By properly demonstrating measures you have taken to improve your manufacturing sustainability, you should be able to delight your current clients and partners, and open doors to new suppliers and customers.
Eco Marketing requires all of the usual marketing considerations, but nuanced. For every organization the starting point should be a value proposition that is meaningful to your customers. As Jacqueline Ottman explains in Green Marketing Myopia[1], it’s important not to get too carried away with the green-ness or sustainability of your offering, at the expense of explaining how well it solves your customer’s needs.
1. Know your target audience. Who are they? How would you describe them (e.g., small or large, old or young, consumer or business, role within the household or business, industry or sector, location, interests, traits, characteristics, etc.)?
From a purchasing perspective, what shades of green are your customers? Do they insist on buying ONLY environmentally correct products, for example?
Which segments of your market care more about sustainability or green-ness?
2. Articulate your customer’s needs or pain points. What are their concerns? What problems do they need to solve?
Is sustainability high on your customer’s list of requirements?
What words do they use to describe their requirements and the results they’re seeking?
3. Define your product or service in terms of the benefits to the customer. How does it solve the customer’s need (e.g., for transportation: getting from point A to point B)? How much of an improvement will it be over what they’re currently using or doing?
Avoid Green Marketing Myopia and make sure to address the customer pain points. Don’t stress your green-ness at the expense of what’s important to your customer.[3]
4. Know your strengths. What are you particularly good at? What problems does your product or service solve? How is your product or service unique or better than what the competition offers?
Does your offering satisfy more customer requirements than the alternatives because it’s green or sustainable?
Does it cost more because it’s green or sustainable? (Consider capital and operating costs.)
5. Revisit the green part of your message. How much do your customers care about the environment? Where does green rank in their buying criteria? Is there a new market that is now open to you because of your green-ness?
Is your product or service intrinsically green (such as renewable energy), or are your operations green (you have a comprehensive sustainability program)?
How much does it matter?
6. Certify your green-ness. Assuming it’s important to your customers, utilize legitimate and widely recognized certifications and ratings, and above all, client testimonials. It’s good to describe how you’re green, but it’s even more important to QUANTIFY the benefits and results, especially for your clients.
The best ways to avoid greenwashing are to utilize recognized endorsements or labels as well as customer testimonials, quantified whenever possible. Make sure to substantiate your claims!
7. Walk the talk. Make sure to use sustainable practices in your own operations and marketing events. For example, provide recycling opportunities at customer events, and use natural lighting whenever possible.
8. Get the word out. What do you want people to do when they learn about your product or service? Consider how your clients acquire and use information. Make sure that you have the strategy and goals set before you select the methodology and tactics.
9. Establish an ongoing conversation with your prospects and customers. You can set up a campaign to push the message out, but it’s also important to provide a forum for communication and feedback.
10. Continuously improve your messaging and your offerings, based on customer needs and feedback.
[1] “Green marketing must satisfy two objectives: improved environmental quality and customer satisfaction. Misjudging either or overemphasizing the former at the expense of the latter can be termed “green marketing myopia.” Green Marketing Myopia, by Jacquelyn Ottman, Edwin R. Stafford, and Cathy L. Hartman, June 2006.
[2]Greenwashing refers to communications or actions that make the firm or its products appear more environmentally-friendly than they are.
[3] If sustainability or green-ness is a critical factor for your customers, then use it. But make sure to use it in the right hierarchy of messaging. For example, a company buying IT equipment for their data center may prioritize their requirements in this order: (1) increase processing capacity, (2) control costs, (3) reduce energy consumption, and (4) reduce carbon footprint and “save the planet.”
We have solved this by bringing together the best and most knowledgeable companies in the Washington DC area into a group that we call Eco Net. The “Green” and “Greenwashing” words are thrown around way too much these days. Companies that lie or don’t implement best practices and claim that they do are considered “Crooks”, not “Greenwashers”. The public is catching on to these goofballs by educating themselves on sustainability and best practices. I have seen it in the customers and clients that I deal with, it’s fantastic. Where a company is on their route to better efficiency and sustainability is where they are…good for them…and keep on track. No need to boast about things that aren’t true, or put yourself out there as a “Green” genius. Just stay on track and know that every small or large contribution to the same goal all adds up. In the end, do your part as best possible, and help out when needed. Chad, LEED GA. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Alexandria-Carpet-One-GreenSurfaces/103522046347637?ref=ts#!/pages/DC-Green-Living/195319094080?ref=ts
As written, #’s 5,6, and 7 are unique to “green” marketing. #’s 8,9, and 10 are clearly not. #’s 1&2 could easily be combined – as written, the first bullet points under each are essentially identical. ( and small grammatical error: “What shade of green IS you customer”? you have “are”) #’s 2,3 & 4 could be retitled to focus on concerns that cater to companies interested in providing more sustainable products or services.
More globally, a possible missed opportunity here is that you don’t mention benefits of promoting reduced risks, reduced external costs and lower life cycle costs. (and under “know your strengths” you list a weakness – “does it cost more” As someone involved in institutional purchasing, I am VERY interested in seeing comparative LCAs calculated with appropriate assumptions.
Under #7 you list “recycling” and “using natural light” – Recycling is actually pretty low on the priority list of most sustainability professionals but because it is so visible it is a “must do”. To be effective it must be done well with attention to “upstream” practices that ensure the process put in place will work. The emphasis should be on REDUCING UNNECESSARY THROUGHPUT, not recycling. “Using natural light” is great when adequate but, if done well, is generally invisible to participants and of questionable marketing value as a result. On the other hand, an event that is promoted as “powered with wind” (in the form of currently inexpensive Green-e RECs, easily purchased online, offers prospects and customers a tangible and more substantial indicator of a company’s “sustainability” credentials. Promoted, local and more sustainably produced food service is also a highly visible indicator of more sustainable practice. But even the “greenest” of events or marketing efforts will fail if the company or product itself is not, in good faith, “more sustainable”.
Nice, very informative, very true and very needed.
I would love to hear some real life experiences and example of groups who have done or doing it very well and one who do not.
Beth,
I think we’re in agreement that Secretary Chu is the right guy to (a) help us reduce CO2 80% by 2020, and (b) do it in a way that is economically smart. But I don’t think he’s been able, so far, to sell enough of the country. President Obama can and hopefully his political advisors will turn him loose.
Very good, Beth. you have attended meetings to hear so many ideas, opinions. However, the topics on clean energy are still the same as a few years ago, nothing much new. The uncertainty of the globe economy is the center for everything now.
Some big and small politicians in the US and other countries are thinking and planning war to get out of the crisis. However, we are, as science-tech and business professionals, are pushed out of the center of the stages, but we still have to do what we have to do. Time chooses the protesters around the whole globe. More protests around the whole world in 2012?
If you had attended all of those talks and been fully satisfied, Beth, I think perhaps that might mean you weren’t fully paying attention. Good thing you were. : )
Part of the problem is that the terms themselves — sustainability / sustainable in particular — are essentially meaningless because they have no commonly understood meaning. Everyone more or less applies their own definitions, shaped by personal, community, corporate, or other local contexts, preconceptions, and biases. (Plus all the excellent points raised by your other commenters. These are maddeningly complex challenges.)
Moreover, while I agree with you that political leadership is desperately needed at all levels, the very real issues we already face in this century — food, water, and energy security; persistent armed conflict; economic stability; severe weather events; virulent and/or drug-resistant diseases; etc. — cannot be resolved purely, or even principally, by political action.
As DARPA Deputy Director Ken Gabriel was quoted at MIT today, “The 19th century was about manipulating energy, the 20th century was about manipulating information, and the 21st century will be about manipulating matter.” [http://bit.ly/rwC0Y0]
I believe the winners of the 21st century may well be those who manipulate matter most efficiently, with the least waste, the least resource consumption, the least toxicity, the least societal detriment, and the least jargon.
In short, the most elegant, profitable, and beneficial. Past centuries were sufficiently forgiving to allow very big successes to be won on the basis of one, or possibly two, of the three. I see this century already shaping up to be much more demanding.
Manipulating matter (or any significant human endeavor) starts with telling stories, as you rightly suggest. We need to be telling factual, compelling stories about elegant, profitable, and beneficial solutions. In the interest of making those stories take hold and begin to reshape our reality, I’m okay with leaving “sustainability” out of the lexicon.
Keep telling great stories!
Harvard usually fails to impress.
Three things:
1) It is too late, and resilience or adaptation to climate change impacts should come to the forefront in discussions of “sustainability”,
2) Reliable, small and safe nuclear power plants (not the 40 year old giant clunckers that abound)should be the focus of Chu and MIT etc.,
3) Manufacturing based in China is almost exclusively based on coal electricity and results in production of PV technology with high embedded CO2 equivalent emissions, so its long overdue that we routinely perform independent life cycle assessments of PV products.
We are not moving fast enough with resolutions. I am amazed as the number of vehicles on the road with only one occupant. Better green mass transit is badly needed. Corporations must extinguish their old ideas and accept the practice of telecommuting, which is a win win for all (less cars on the road, improved morale and the savings in corporate real estate taxes and maintenance cost. I can go on and on, but the bottom line is that we are not moving fast enough and our children will suffer the consequence of our timid behavior.
Thanks, Beth. Keep pushing and don’t let up. This is a battle for our future.I liked the message of Mr. Kaplan, “Leadership in Sustainability requires vision, commitment, alignment, and an action plan with accountability” but I would add “passion” to his list. The meaning of the work commitment has been diluted by our driveling politicians. We should not be afraid to demand and expect nothing less than full blown acceptance of the import of a sustainable future.Seek to carry the mantle of a survival-oriented culture. Not a culture of consumerism, or of excess or of growth.
Beth,
I really enjoy reading this post and you are so right about that , when people hear stories from and about people like them, they are more likely to buy into the solution. thank you for been part in the renewable energy solution, we need to work together in community and make a strong positive climate change, having in mind that we can’t wait any longer we must begin the action now. avoid depletion of natural resourses. sustainability is the way,
thank you,
Manuel.
It’s easy to let the enormity of the sustainability problem create paralysis. At World Energy we are big believers in not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and are daily helping our clients buy and use energy in smarter ways. A good recent example? We helped Bayer MaterialScience secure 20% renewable energy for their Sheffield, MA facility as part of an overall electricity buy that also saved them over $200,000. Saving on electricity cost while increasing commitment to renewables. That’s powerful, and the good news is it is happening often and across business sectors. Here is another example: http://bit.ly/tE5Omz
What about the sustainability of powering 137 million U.S. passenger vehicles with gasoline derived from oil? The United States is now importing 60 percent of its crude oil and that figure will rise to 100 percent in about 11 years. What is the plan from the Department of Energy to address that problem? For more information, please see
http://www.jheversonconsulting.com/blog/2011/03/15/reduction-of-foreign-oil-consumption-using-electric-vehicles/
Dr. Jeffrey Everson
Good, thoughtful post Beth. Thanks.
As the ranks of the already activated grow, I cheer along…but how to elicit behavior shift in those whose ‘frames’ won’t naturally accept sustainable thinking? This is where the stories you advocate may be a best first step. Deniers converted? Skeptics turned believers? As likely as policy change, and perhaps sooner realized, may be an acknowledgement among these targets that “if my short time horizon won’t let me support sustainability NOW, I will at least avoid action that will make it costlier and harder to do later…when it actually WILL need to get done.” Fundamental awakening, through stories, will re-jigger frames to accept truths that will otherwise continue to bounce back rejected and unbelieved.
Outside of the green, energy efficiency, sustainability communities, there is not enough awareness of the impact possible. If you save a kilowatt, that’s 2.5to 3 kilowatts you do not have to generate. There is for sure a lack of forceful leadership by those politicians and corporate leaders who can best raise the bar.
Felice, Eric, Fran Mark, Rich: you have each mentioned the political theme. This got me to thinking…
Many governments worldwide tend not to take an integrated approach to local, regional and global Resources challenges.
Example: Water. Water issues span the agendas of ministries and agencies responsible for water, agriculture, urban development, and environment. How do they communicate with one another? How often? Do we as voters pay attention to their interactions, which are or should be a matter of public record?
Another example: Land. It spans the jurisdictions of agriculture, forestry, interior, energy and environment at the national agency level, while at the provincial and district levels, even more agencies are involved.
Internationally, still more private aid agencies are weighing in.
However well intentioned these myriad groups may be, integrating and aligning their parallel and sometimes competing agendas is not often seen as a priority.
Here is a fundamental disconnect in the USA: we are empowered to democratically elect our President, Congress, Senate and dogcatcher. We are not, however, invited participants in agency appointments. Those are typically appointments curried and distributed by elected officials based on factors that may include campaign debt and influence swapping. Can you spell Blagojovich?
If we as voters paid attention to the agency appointments made by our elected officials (hello, C-SPAN), brought them into the light of day (like a thousand Arab Springs), educated ourselves about such candidates, and got vocal about candidate options, just maybe we will make progress in fomenting this badly needed political alignment.
Until then, it’s a shell game, and shame on us each and all for not speaking up.
I’m thinking of changing the name of my blog (1SocialClimate) to “Bloggers Without Borders”.
Regards to all,
Ed
@socialclimate
Beth – great post. I agree that at the intersection of politics, policy, innovation and finance lies the greatest opportunity we have to enable a game-changing future. Indeed, we NEED the game to be changed. Businesses are forging ahead with sustainable inititatives because they make good financial sense, but having more support from our government by supporting these good ideas in a non-partisan way would get more people on board who are sitting on the sidelines.
Keep up the good work,
Rich Goode
It is increasingly apparent that change must come from grassroots and not the top. Too many leaders are walking around today as if they had a lobotomy. Or else, they are afraid to use their heads and their good senses. Species across the globe have tapped in to the pulse of the planet and are adjusting their lives to new conditions. We can see the future in the crystal ball, yet we choose not to act. We also look through a monochromatic lens. We have not gotten beyond a concern for saving energy when we are about to use up all our drinking water. We do not deserve to come out of recession. Economic boom without green will be an immediate planetary bust.
The messages from all seven talks are right on the money. I agree that it is disappointing that Sec’y Chu is not issuing a specific call to action. We certainly need to hear one from him and President Obama.
I also agree that stories are powerful motivators.
What story would you like to tell? I’m all ears.
There is a lot to gain from not wasting the energy we are already consuming. Businesses have been pooly served by the engineering community, but changes are taking place right now that can make a big difference to operating costs and the environmental impact. Still change is hard and some companies have to take the lead. This is not easy to do in a deep recession.
Just like going to the doctor, the consultants should start by looiking up the tail pipe of every process – i.e. the stack of the powerplant!
I totally agree that the President needs to be more pro-active as Educator in Chief. He needs to forcefully and widely promote the benefits of moving rapidly toward renewable energy sources. He needs to correct dire predictions about job loss as we move away from an oil economy (for example, incorrect numbers quoted by Trans-Canada’s CEO on jobs resulting from the building of the Keystone XL pipeline: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70021.html).
I also think it is urgent that the President educates Americans about the risks of doing too little too late to address catastropic climate change vs. the risks of taking significant immediate steps toward cleaner energy (possible economic loss, but certainly improved health and energy independence).
Anyone support a Change.org or Whitehouse.gov petition?”
Cut and paste missed the first paragraph – sorry.
Insert this before:
Beth – your post is great – and I agree with the general course of action it lays out.
There is an assumption though, that well-intentioned and reasonable people can put their heads together and steer the course of change in this country to make progress on the pressing problems presented by climate change. Furthermore the need to do this is assumed to be driven by self-interest, in
that we’re ultimately going to suffer much more if we don’t act, and that there are real and immediate benefits to acting now and promoting clean energy development. This is of course true, but if these reasons were enough to spur people to action – then they were also true many years ago and we would have already acted before now – when the dangers of inaction are now much more apparent.
Your post mentions disappointment with Energy Secretary Chu’s statements, and the lack of leadership on climate – illustrated most recently in Durban by the flaccid positions of US climate envoy Stern. How is it that even those who know that there is a problem and seemingly have the power to put solutions in place – have avoided doing so? President Obama has shown that he is not a leader so much as a negotiator – someone willing to make compromises for the good of the country. However this willingness to engage with the GOP has failed miserably in the face of intransigence. The problem is that even if there were some movement on a national energy policy that promotes clean energy and contemplates some kind of cap and trade program (originally a GOP proposal), compromises such as these does not get us to the kind of action that changes the course of catastrophic climate change.
The most important thing that we can do now, is to look at the main causes of entrenchment in our political process. The following paragrah is an excerpt from a recent edition of “The Climate Post” published by The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University:
“There has been an increase in climate skepticism in the past year and a growing reluctance to say anything about climate, especially among Republicans. The turning point—argued the National Journal’s cover story, “Heads in the Sand” — was the 2010 Supreme Court decision that lifted restrictions on campaign spending and boosted so-called super political action committees (super PACs) that can take unlimited funds.”
The quoted article from the National Journal shines a light on one of the main factors in our collective inaction in this country, and it does not bode well for our future that the GOP is nearly unified on the position that climate change is a hoax. Recently the Pope joined the ever-louder chorus from around the world calling for significant actions coming out of the talks in Durban. This further illustrates how out of step with reality the US is on climate change and energy policy.
I would suggest that before we put our energy into policy and technology-based solutions – of which there are many wonderful examples and more every day, we turn our attention to the real problem, that keeps any of these initiatives from becoming actual solutions. That is our broken democracy, which allows for corporate influence to dictate the status quo – day in and day out.
Great, thought provoking stuff! We are so plagued by short term thinking to the detriment of the environment, society, the economy, business, etc.There’s no evidence that politicians think beyond their next elections. Not only is it short term but also old thinking. This is not your grandfather’s or great grandfather’s world but we keep trying to apply those ancient to current problems and they don’t cure!