Category: Uncategorized

One of the most frequent concerns about environmental sustainability – going green – is that people will only act to maximise self-interest. There’s a body of evidence that this is not the case (links below) and Jeremy Rifkin, in this short 10 minute video, summarises some of our collaborative drivers.

The talk covers human behaviours that can deliver a real sustainable advantage to companies acting on climate change.

For some more background see Just who collaborates in the real world? and Carbon neutral companies seeing the advantages.

Walmart is consistently mentioned for it’s green sustainability initiatives. From being the first company to work with the Carbon Disclosure Project establishing an emissions strategy for its entire supply chain – over 100,000 companies – to recently with sustainable fish supplies in Brazil and ‘traceability’ for food products.

Traceability will see it bar code agricultural items. This lets customers quickly find out where food has come from, how it’s been produced and is a gateway for transparency. If we know the background for food, it’s easier to stop deforestation and other impacts of food production.

Walmart’s Héctor Núñez says: Due to all the challenges in cattle raising related to the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, meat is the first item in this program.  

And why take such environmental steps? Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund summed it up speaking about the supply chain initiatives: Walmart’s bold move will help companies identify steps to slash pollution and costs. Importantly, they also point out, its: good for business and good for customers!

Image: Ambalaj sustainable packaging

Just launched is this excellent summary of Climate Change from the Australian Academy of Science. It should answer everyone’s doubts or opposition to taking action. Of course it won’t,

So why do we have such difficulty in learning what we most need to know to mitigate our most destructive behaviours? Dorothy Rowe, Australian psychologist and emeritus associate of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, explains that we make decisions, about what to do, from the different interpretations each of us make.

As this New Scientist article about her recent book puts it:

we cannot see “reality” directly. All we can ever know are the guesses or interpretations our mind creates about what is going on. To create these guesses, we can only draw on basic human neuroanatomy and on our past experience. …

As a result, for global issues like climate change, no matter how much evidence we accumulate our truths will always be approximations. That is lying to ourselves about uncertainty – particularly present in issues like climate change – gives us certainty! Something we desire.

What to do? Climate Change Leadership explores motivation and we shouldn’t forget there’s significant advantages and profits to be had for countries and businesses that act.

Climate change needs political leadership. It’s an obvious requirement but a recent survey from the University of Queensland reveals some startling gaps. Out of 300 Australian federal, state and local government political leaders, 70% agreed with the statement that the planet is warming because of human activity producing greenhouse gases.

However, 17% are uncertain if they agreed or not. It raises the question of what awareness is necessary for these leaders to be informed? The survey finds that politicians say scientists are the most influential people when it comes to framing their views. Yet, less than 40% of the politicians agree with the IPCC scientists on global temperature – that a limit of 2 degrees or less of warming is necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.

It’s a global gap. For example in Sweden politicians scored 70% answering questions on climate change. But it’s more than a knowledge gap. We must hear discordant voices, multifarious human beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviours says Mike Hulme investigating climate change disagreements.

In other words knowledge is necessary but not sufficient. Understanding how people interpret this information is important.

As Centre for Research on Environmental Decisions puts it climate change solutions are workable, cost-effective technologies which permit society to improve living standards… Yet scientific, engineering, and organizational solutions are not enough. Societies must be motivated and empowered to adopt the needed changes.

Picture: Centre for Research on Environmental Decisions, The Psychology of Climate Change Communication.

If you’ve watched the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the headlines – Biggest in History – you may also have wondered what it means. Just how big is big?

One comparison that resonates is, at its peak, it was the size of the US State of Kansas. This is approximately the same size as the State of Victoria in Australia, just under half the size of European France and twice South Korea‘s land mass.

It’s also spawned a few comparisons. What if BP had spilled solar panels instead of oil calculates it would be enough clean energy to power the USA, Central and South America for 25 years. The oil, as opposed to solar, is enough energy for less than one day’s power demand. The BP spilled solar panels post also calculates costs.

Clearly solar power, on its own, is not the full, comprehensive, alternative to oil. The Rocky Mountains Institute in 2007 looked at how to Win the Oil Endgame. It documents how USA (and by extension world) oil dependancy can be ended – profitably, securely and equitably – within decades. It demonstrates viable effective alternatives to oil.

Picture: BP Oil clean-up

People in many situations collaborate, for example companies setting carbon neutral targets for themselves.

But does this see the long term protection of resources? Resources that can be overused by individuals and groups resulting in much less for everyone? Like the world’s ability to absorb carbon?

The graph illustrates a great example of this in today’s world. It shows how voluntary group effort – from lobster fishing communities – has succeeded where government regulation did not.

The blue line is the catch for a degraded inshore fishery. This is in Maine, USA and the fishery is governed by legislated quotas, catch limits and, licensing etc. These rules are not credible with relatively low compliance and strong resistance to strengthening restrictions. And the fish catch, everyone’s livelihood, suffers.

Red is the Maine lobster fishery. Its governed by formal and informal groups strongly influencing state rules. The result – a lot more lobster.

The challenge is to apply this knowledge to all situations including climate change. As a signal of its importance, the joint winner of the 2009 economics Nobel Prize was Elinor Ostrom. Elinor leads much of this work. In the words of the Nobel committee she has challenged the conventional wisdom that common property is poorly managed and should be either regulated by central authorities or privatized. … user-managed fish stocks, pastures, woods, lakes, and groundwater basins.. often see good outcomes

That is we do protect resources, voluntarily and willingly.

Graph data: Science 12-12-2003 The Struggle to Govern the Commons Thomas Dietz, Elinor Ostrom, and Paul C. Stern

Humans have to collaborate to address climate change. It’s a self-evident fact and often used as a reason for doing nothing – don’t act until everyone agrees; action, by any one individual, group or country, can be negated by another.

Yet many carbon neutral companies including Google in 2007 , News Limited Internationally by 2010, PwC in 2008 and HSBC in 2005 must see an advantage. And are willing to act beyond what many would say is the immediate self-interest of the company.

These companies hold out market results, staff and stakeholder engagement, profile, publicity and, innovation on products and services as benefits. But is there also an altruistic element? Are humans wired to collaborate?

Some of evidence comes from experiments. Give people two options:

1. to work together for the benefit of a group; or,
2. not to work and rely on everyone else in the group.

Not surprisingly there’s a tendency not to work – no benefit for anyone. But if the experiment allows individuals to punish non workers, suddenly everyone tends to work. Even when there is an individual cost for those who voluntarily sanction non workers.

Importantly, if you then allow people in a group that has no sanctions to freely shift to another group they will very quickly move into the one where there are sanctions. That is we seem to prefer just systems which is something the seemingly altruistic carbon neutral companies may also be benefiting from.

So we can cooperate for better lives and the next post’s focus is groups and societies that have, historically and voluntarily, collaborated. There’s many examples of this with groups answering shared resources issues similar to our greenhouse gas problems.

Details on collaboration experiment here. Picture: J. Sutliff from Henrich, Cooperation, Punishment, and the Evolution of Human Institutions, Science 7 April 2006

Vividly imagine value – is there a trick to valuing the future? Humans, generally, care more about the immediate at the expense of longer term. In the field of climate change it’s clear that we don’t seem to value the future as much as the present.

This future orientation is clearly important. Animals, for example, can act in response to the future:

When a mouse hides before a cat enters the room it is responding to an event that has not yet happened, and its ability to do so is one of evolution’s most remarkable achievements.

Humans have this ability too. But we also experience the future simulating it:

in our minds. We know… that it would be painful to go an hour without blinking… that winning the lottery would be more enjoyable than becoming paraplegic… because we can close our eyes, imagine these events… Unfortunately, the conclusions that we draw in this way aren’t always right. Trysts are often better contemplated than consummated, and sweetbreads are often better the other way around.

As Daniel Gilbert puts it, it’s notoriously difficult to get people to be farsighted. But you can get people to imagine the future more vividly.

Would you like to be 65 with an extra $100,000, is very different from imagine yourself at 65. Will you be living? What will you look like? How much hair will you have? Who will you be living with? With the imaginary scenario suddenly we feel like saving.

Daniel argues these techniques are marginal. But there are also many situations in which humans voluntarily collaborate to protect the future. When humans cooperate is the topic for the next short post.

It is more than two decades since we started re-imagining global and local production. By the early 1990’s, it was abundantly clear that we should not, nor could not, attempt to create a sustainable society by simply treating and collecting waste.

There are many inspiring examples of change since the 90’s. From Natural Capitalism, which shows how we should produce our goods and services, to Factor 4. The most recent demonstrates an 80% reduction of environmental impact per unit of economic output is achievable and available to us today – it’s here: Factor 5. Factor 5 covers everything from our homes and cities through to steel and cement, agriculture and transport.

But our overall society now has an even greater impact, by any of the common metrics, on the environment than it did in the 90’s. If resource use and waste avoidance makes such economic sense, as the examples demonstrate, we’re entitled to ask what’s gone wrong. Why are we 20 years down the track with so many easy wins still waiting to be implemented? And what can we learn from some of the standout examples of change?

This is the first in a series of short blog posts. We’ve set the scene, so what are some of the barriers – beyond technology – in society, mindsets and worldviews. Next blog is on valuing the future over the present.

What do Australian Futures look like? Or rather how can we help shape them? The 2010 Future Summit organised by the ADC Forum tackles these questions head on.

This year marks a dramatic shift for the Forum. While the summit creates a unique and irreplaceable dynamic, by its very nature there are inherent limitations – it’s in one place, for an (all too) limited time and our futures are complex, interconnected and dynamic.

To address this, in partnership with Google, the Forum is introducing a year-round digital platform. Google Wave will offer leaders in business, government, community and the arts the chance to engage fully in an ongoing national dialogue.

This kicks off at the summit with six Thought Leader Groups. GreenMode and I are very honoured to be invited to facilitate the Australian Futures group. Other groups will include Investment and Innovation, Green Economy and Global Economy, Local Impacts.

Watch this space, the Future Summit website and Michael Roux’s blog for more.