ThriveAbility: Creating Sustainable Value through Sustainable Innovation-v7.0 helsinki final
•
9 gostaram•2,636 visualizações
This document outlines a vision for achieving thriveability by 2050. It discusses the current unsustainable trajectory of business as usual and the impacts of climate change. To avoid catastrophe, we must shift to more sustainable models of innovation, design, and leadership. Thriveability requires integrating disciplines creatively to generate transformative outcomes. Personal and organizational transformation is key to thriving in the future. The document provides examples of sustainable approaches and case studies, and outlines a journey for leading organizations towards thriveability.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Semelhante a ThriveAbility: Creating Sustainable Value through Sustainable Innovation-v7.0 helsinki final
Semelhante a ThriveAbility: Creating Sustainable Value through Sustainable Innovation-v7.0 helsinki final (20)
Mais de Partners in Thriveable Transformation
Mais de Partners in Thriveable Transformation (9)
Último
Último (20)
ThriveAbility: Creating Sustainable Value through Sustainable Innovation-v7.0 helsinki final
- 1. Vision 2050 Celebrating World Quality Day Dr Robin Wood President Renaissance2 Helsinki Hilton November 8 2012
- 2. Overview • Introduction: The Origins of ThriveAbility • WHY? The ThriveAbility Imperative • WHAT? Creating Sustainable Value for Thrival • HOW? How to Drive Sustainable Innovation • What Next?
- 3. Part 1: Introduction The Origins of ThriveAbility
- 5. Rio+20 – Increasing the Impact of Business
- 6. But Don’t We Have Already the Technology to Solve the Problem?
- 9. Integrates existing disciplines in creative ways, leading to innovative outcomes that are game changers Personal and Organisational Transformation is the key to a Thriving Future
- 10. Part 2: WHY? The ThriveAbility Imperative
- 11. FIRST THE BAD NEWS
- 12. THE FOOTPRINT OF OUR SPECIES ON EARTH IS COMPLETELY UNSUSTAINABLE 2.5 2.3 Earths: N Business-as- u Usual m b e r 1.5 o 1.1 Earths: f Carbon Footprint Vision2050 E a r 0.5 Cropland t h Grazing land s Forest land 1960 2010 2050
- 13. More Stuff Fast Cars Fast Food Fast Women Get Rich Quick S u p e r f ic i a l B e a u t y C e l e b r i ty O b s e s s i o n S h a l lo w E n t e r t a i n me n t Planned Obscolescence Instant Fame, Empty Lives Where Does it All End?
- 16. NASA : Extreme climactic conditions are now 10 times more likely than before 1950
- 18. We have to act before we hit the irreversible tipping points…
- 19. = One Trillion Dollars Impact = Very Likely
- 20. One Trillion Dollars + I M P A C T PROBABILITY = Very Likely =UNPRECEDENTED RISKS TO OUR C I V I L I Z AT I O N ’ S F U T U R E
- 21. Growth as Usual Cannot Continue Forever...
- 24. Are we just one step away from the edge, reduced to twittering while earth burns?
- 26. Expecting different outcomes while doing the same old thing over and over
- 27. Global Scenarios- Many Expect Collapse Increasing Sustainability ? Requiem Scenario Business as Usual Crisis Global Collapse 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Possible Timeframe Source: H Tibbs, 1997
- 28. Or Is There Another Way?
- 29. After each great global extinction many new species appeared together Crisis is always Opportunity Acknowledgements: Dr Elisabet Sahtouris
- 30. Global Scenarios Also Show us a Way Forward… Post- Physical Growth Economy Voluntary or Increasing Emergent Sustainability Transformation Transformation Scenario ? ? Business as Usual Crisis Global Collapse 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 ……………. 2050 Possible Timeframe Source: H Tibbs, 1997
- 31. We Must Redefine Sustainability
- 33. & NOW, FOR SOME GOOD NEWS
- 36. Here Comes the Sun
- 40. Spain
- 45. Part 3: WHAT? Creating Sustainable Value for ThriveAbility
- 48. The Corporate Challenge: Money, Measures, Motivators, Mindsets & Methods Personal Action Logics & Collective Value Systems Shifting our Growth Obsession to Green Technotopia & Ecotopia: Finding the Synergy Zone
- 49. The Corporate Challenge • Progress toward sustainability has been highly uneven across companies • Most are held hostage to: – short-term investor pressures and – a myopic view of wealth creation that is dominated by a focus on financial capital to the exclusion of other “capitals” indispensable to long-term, inclusive wealth creation • Namely: natural, human, social, and intellectual capital.
- 50. What is corporate sustainability excellence? Mainstream Investor: – “Excelling in energy and water efficiency such that bottom line cost savings are achieved.” Discounted NPV/IRR on Future Economic Value Added/Free Cash Flow Social Investor: – “Creating shared value in the form of competitive financial returns while continuously reducing one’s carbon footprint and respecting human rights.” ROSI NGO: – “Paying living wages and contributing to poverty alleviation in the communities in which one operates.” Social/Environmental Impact • Result: – Ratings organisations have multiple choices of how to interpret what/ how they rate – Multitude of inconsistent , opaque methodologies used to generate a multitude of inconsistent, opaque ratings. – Investors, NGOs and everyone else unable to decipher which, and to what degree, sustainability ratings are applicable and relevant to their particular needs.
- 51. A Profusion of Standards….
- 54. The Key to Successful Sustainability Initiatives • Their design and implementation must be rooted in an understanding vastly different stakeholder values. • Leaders must understand different types of values and tailor all aspects of sustainability projects accordingly. • Components of the assessment, design, implementatio n, evaluation, and all communications should align the values of all key stakeholders.
- 57. Personal Action Logics Collective Value Systems • Long-term commitment • Determine the choices made toward sustainable within the development resides within communities, organizations an individual’s choice. and businesses such leaders interact with. • Such choices are grounded • Are formed from the in an individual’s deepest confluence of: motivations, rooted in his • historical forces or her personal values and • current life conditions action logics. • future possibilities
- 58. Action Logic Characteristics Strengths % of executives Opportunist Wins any way possible. Uses Crises & sales opportunities; short term 5% sustainability as a PR play/power boost focus; dealing with power cultures Diplomat Avoids overt conflict. Wants to belong; Acts as supportive glue in office; helps 12% obeys group norms: reactive approach to bring people together; CSR as usual sustainability Expert Rules by logic and expertise. Seeks Good as an individual contributor: 38% rational efficiency. Values scientific & excellent within own sustainability technical knowledge & certainty stovepipe Achiever Meets Strategic Goals. Team leader; Well suited to managerial roles; action and 30% juggles & integrates managerial duties goal oriented; ISO 14001 implementation &market demands Individualist Interweaves competing personal & Systemic & integrated approach to diverse 10% company action logics. Creates unique stakeholders; Effective in venturing and structures to resolve strategy/ consulting roles performance gaps Strategist Generates personal & Effective as a transformational leader for 4% organizational transformations. large organizations and business Exercises mutual enquiry, vigilance & ecosystems; proactively reframes vulnerability for short/long term sustainability issues; ISO 26000 Alchemist Generates social transformations. Good at leading large system and society 1% Integrates material, spiritual & societal wide transformation; Principle based, transformation authentic, transparent
- 59. Action Logic Characteristics Strengths % of executives Opportunist Wins any way possible. Uses Crises & sales opportunities; short term 5% sustainability as a PR play/power boost focus; dealing with power cultures Diplomat Avoids overt conflict. Wants to belong; Acts as supportive glue in office; helps 12% obeys group norms: reactive approach to bring people together; CSR as usual sustainability Expert Rules by logic and expertise. Seeks Good as an individual contributor: 38% rational efficiency. Values scientific & excellent within own sustainability technical knowledge & certainty stovepipe Achiever Meets Strategic Goals. Team leader; Well suited to managerial roles; action and 30% juggles & integrates managerial duties goal oriented; ISO 14001 implementation &market demands Individualist Interweaves competing personal & Systemic & integrated approach to diverse 10% company action logics. Creates unique stakeholders; Effective in venturing and structures to resolve strategy/ consulting roles performance gaps Strategist Generates personal & Effective as a transformational leader for 4% organizational transformations. large organizations and business Exercises mutual enquiry, vigilance & ecosystems; proactively reframes vulnerability for short/long term sustainability issues; ISO 26000 Alchemist Generates social transformations. Good at leading large system and society 1% Integrates material, spiritual & societal wide transformation; Principle based, transformation authentic, transparent
- 69. Masdar in Abu Dhabi
- 71. But What if You Already Live in Paradise?
- 72. But What if You Already Live in Paradise?
- 73. But What if You Already Live in Paradise?
- 74. Finding the Synergy Zone- Beyond Either/Or Technophiles: Science and Technology can solve all issues eventually or Ecophiles: Steady state or negative growth economics is required Let’s get back to nature
- 75. ThriveAbility points us to the Synergy Zone between these Clashing Worldviews and Gives us the Means to Get There in Time
- 76. FINL AND 80 7.4 6.2 New Hybrids of Technical & Social Innovation are Required to Accelerate Us on our Journey Toward ThriveAbility
- 79. T = Technological Intensity • Renewable Energy; Resilient Habitat; • Enlightened Enterprise; Integral Governance
- 80. T = Technological Intensity • Renewable Energy; Resilient Habitat; • Enlightened Enterprise; Integral Governance CE= Conscious Evolution • Human Development • Wiser Cultures
- 81. Beyond Sustainability to ThriveAbility • Growth- Transcend the materialism of modernity • Development- Embrace full spectrum of human potential • Diversity- Enjoy the richness of diverse cultures & share common perspectives • Consciousness- On a planet that is increasingly alive, conscious & reaching for the stars
- 82. Shifting human behaviour at all levels toward sustainability is the key to thrival . Thrival is the ultimate measure of value And value is determined by Values So, how can we shift WHAT people value and their lifestyles toward ThriveAbility?
- 83. Part 4: HOW? How to Drive Sustainable Innovation & Design
- 84. Beginning the Journey of Involves clarifying, redefining and integrating….
- 87. HUMANS
- 91. Changing Trends in Innovation: 1600 - 1980 Products & Services Scientific & Technological
- 92. Changing Trends in Innovation: 1980 - 2020 Products & Business Models & Services Social Innovation Scientific & Business & Social Technological Ecosystems
- 93. Let‘s consider the telephone
- 94. Control Fixed line Communication Wireless Connection Analog & Digital Entertainment Music & Video …………….. & more Apps ……….& more
- 97. 1997 2002 2006 2007 Lumia 920 2012
- 98. D E M AT E R I A L I Z AT I O N
- 99. TRANS M AT E R I A L I Z AT I O N
- 101. 3 Big Questions • Is Apple’s strategy & business model really sustainable? • Will the Lumia and Windows 8 save Nokia? • What will the next big wave of innovation reveal?
- 102. Part 4: HOW? Sustainable Design Approaches Design is the fundamental soul of the human creation Steve Jobs
- 105. • Beauty can help save the planet • If it’s not beautiful, it’s not sustainable • Reversing the devastation of nature requires reversing the devastation of culture • What are the principles of an aesthetics of ecology? Of thrival?
- 106. World’s Most Beautiful Building
- 108. We Thrive when we experience the joy of being alive with the people and things we love in places we care about surrounded by beauty in all its forms
- 111. Inputs Social Environmental Financial 9 Design Approaches Product & Service Life Cycle Model Desired Outputs
- 113. Which is More Sustainable? MANUF USE DISPOSAL ? Prius ?
- 114. Sustainable Design Approaches CRADLE TO CRADLE
- 115. Interface: Mission Zero Not a particle of waste
- 116. Part 4: HOW? Sustainable Design Case Studies
- 117. REUSE
- 118. SUBSTITUTION The Mirra: An Old Friend: The Aeron Chair • More Comfortable • As Beautiful • 1990’s Design of the • As Long lasting Decade • In Museum of • 15% Cheaper Modern Art • 42% Recycled Materials • Ergonomic • 96% Recyclable • Tough & Built to Last
- 119. DESIGN FOR DURABILITY & EFFECTIVENESS
- 122. Sustainable Design Approaches N AT U R A L C A P I TA L
- 123. I N T E G R AT I N G PRINCIPLES Human Capital Natural Capital Financial Capital
- 124. Part 5: WHAT NEXT? The ThriveAbility Journey & Innovation Process
- 125. 1. Unsustainable: Business as Usual- Compliance/Philanthropy 2. Exploring: Discovery & Familiarisation 3. Experimenting: Experimentation & Multiple Initiatives 4. Redesigning: Value-Chain & Organisational Redesign 5. Leading: Whole Business Ecosystem Engagement 6. Restoring: Restoring Entire Industry/Economy
- 126. Integrated Prototyping Pilot Projects Which Ideation Initiatives? How to Select the Best? Strategy Business Models
- 127. Which solution provides largest net Which solutions have a solid and consistent positive social/ environmental impact – implementation strategy? And which solutions within its category and beyond? can be scaled up? Which solutions can actually work in Which solutions are really unique? Which ones practice considering their underlying are radical innovations? social & technical science theories?
- 128. Leading the ThriveAbility Journey
- 129. Integrates existing disciplines in creative ways, leading to innovative outcomes that are game changers Personal and Organisational Transformation is the key to a Thriving Future
- 132. Shifting human behaviour at all levels toward sustainability is the key to thrival . Thrival is the ultimate measure of value And value is determined by Values Values are shifted & transformed through leadership, strategy, design & innovation
- 133. 1. Find out where you are on the ThriveAbility Journey and figure out our priorities from there. 2. Discover how your organisation's values can be aligned to make ThriveAbility a competitive advantage 3. Determine which approach/es to sustainable innovation and design would be most appropriate for your organisation 4. Learn more about the different approaches to sustainability and reporting which would align with your organisation‟s needs 5. Explore how your leadership team can apply the insights you got from this presentation.
- 134. The Pale Blue Dot You are Here
- 135. “The Earth is the only world known so far to harbour life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand. …There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we‟ve ever known.” Carl Sagan
- 136. “The present moment finds our society attempting to negotiate the most difficult, but at the same time the most exciting transition the human race has faced to date. It is not merely a transition to a new level of existence but the start of a new „movement‟ in the symphony of human history”. Clare Graves – The Momentous Leap
- 137. Spaceship Earth You are currently sitting on a self- sufficient, organic, 4,5 billion year old spaceship Orbiting a power source a million times larger than earth, capable of Let‟s Keep our Feet fuelling a Type 1 Solar Civilization on the Ground and As a member of a species which is Reach for the Stars evolving from homo sapiens, focussed on ethnocentric Together and national interests To homo universalis, which is a worldcentric civilization capable of bringing the rest of our solar system to life And then moving beyond to our galaxy and the stars……
- 138. To find out more about how you can create sustainable value through sustainable innovation & design in your organization robin@renaissance2.eu The Renaissance2 Foundation
Notas do Editor
- Steve Jobs understood this intuitively in stating that "design is the fundamental soul of the human-made creation", and great design helped Apple become the wealthiest company there is.We now need to take design way beyond what Apple has done with it and turn its skills whole-heartedly and single-mindedly to the challenges of sustainability. We need people saying "wow," "ah ha", and "yes" to really great sustainable design.
- 40 yearsago, when the Club of Rome publishedits first report on Limits to Growth, I graduatedfrom high school and began a careerwhich has taken me around the world several times over. As someoneborn in S Africa, whogrew up in Canada and spent 20 yearsbased in London consulting to global corporations and governments in 35 countries, I have alwaysfeltmyself to be a global citizen. To tell you a little bit about myselfbeforewelaunchinto the story I am about to tell you, I selected four peakexperiences over those 4 decadesthatreflectsomething about the times and how they are a changin.KeepSandton Clean, Green and SereneCampaign- demonstrated to me the power of local people taking action, and the power of youth to make a major difference in the world Shell Project and BorneoRainforests- whilehelping Shell and the Malaysiangovernment design a sustainableapproach to theiroilfields, the sheer beauty of the the second largestrainforests on earth and the terrible destruction beingwrought on them by logging, palm oil and mininginterestsconfirmedmybeliefthatweneeded global action. At the same time weweredeveloping the first SustainableEnergypolicy for the World Bank. Workingwith the top experts on the global challenges wefacedwas an eyeopeningexperience. Yetdespitethis, at the time the consensus wasthatwestillhadsome time to sort this all out.Creating the Future of Computingwith HP, Intel and Microsoft- in 1995 I wasatgroundzerowhen the internet wentfrom an academiccuriosity to a world changingway of getting world changing conversations and actions happening. Havingplayed a smallrole in takingcomputing and the internet out of the labsinto the living rooms and pockets of the world, I had an epiphany- thistechnologywasgoing to trasnformwhatitmeant to behuman, much as the first Renaissance inventions and culture did 500 yearsagoduringsomeverydark times. Tony Blair- Digital Economy- Afterwriting the story of how business, science and technologywerefundamentallychangingour society and ourlives for the Economist in my second book ManagingComplexity, I wasasked to advise Tony Blair’spolicy team on the effects of the Digital Economy on the world. Suddenly the darker forces of tectonic shifts in cultures and values caused by globalisation and technology, and the fundamentalistbacklasharound the world, rose up. How couldwecreate a worldcentric, global culture and mindsetthatwaswin/win/win for all? We made someprogress, but indeed the questions and challenges are still formidable. But so are the opportunities.
- So, how canwemakesustainability about not only the harmony of man with nature, but also the harmony of man and beautiful machines in nature?
- The result has been a throwaway world in whichplanned obsolescence, fast cars and fastfoodalongwith quick sex and instant fame and riches beckon. And we all know of the consequencesthis quick, disposablelifestyle for the rest of the world.
- The result has been a throwaway world in whichplanned obsolescence, fast cars and fastfoodalongwith quick sex and instant fame and riches beckon. And we all know of the consequencesthis quick, disposablelifestyle for the rest of the world.
- Climate change and global weirding are accelerating. Scientific consensus todayisthatcurrenteventsfrom the melting of polar ice and the Greenlandicesheet to risingsealevels, droughts and species extinctions are more severthanpredicted by theirmodels, evenwithonlyhalf a degree of averagewarmingaround the planet,
- As companies strive for continuity, the stakes for innovation are rising. Effective innovation strategies are required in order to meet the challenges of ensuring growth in this increasingly open, dynamic and uncertain environment. How to innovate? Where to innovate? Who to innovate for? Who to innovatewith?
- As companies strive for continuity, the stakes for innovation are rising. Effective innovation strategies are required in order to meet the challenges of ensuring growth in this increasingly open, dynamic and uncertain environment. How to innovate? Where to innovate? Who to innovate for? Who to innovatewith?
- The most agreed-upon definition of sustainability comes from the Brundtland Commission2 and dates back to 1987:(Use and) development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.Increasing climate change— indeed, climate crisis—is requiring us to take a systems perspective in order to create healthy, more vital natural capital for which to support human life and activities. Some of these concerns include:• Habitat destruction and collapse• Topsoil depletion (which retards our ability to grow food)• Habitat alteration• Reduced biodiversity• Climate change (also known as global warming, global weirding, and climate crisis)• Ozone depletion• Fresh water supplies• Air pollution• Toxic pollutions (including carcinogens, acid rain, and the by-products of industrial and agricultural chemicals)• Over-concentration of substances (too much of even good materials, in too high aconcentration, or in the wrong places, are just as toxic as harmful materials)• Resource depletion (such as oil or water)• Destruction of eco-services (such as the environment’s ability to clean air and water, and shade us from harmful ultraviolet rays)Sustainability is an approach to design and development that focuses on environmental, social, and financial factors that are often never addressed. Sustainable solutions strive to improve the many systems that support our lives, including efficiently using capital and markets, effectively using natural resources, and reducing waste and toxins in the environment while not harming people in societies across the Earth. Sustainability focuses on efficient and effective solutions that are better for society, the environment, and companies. Sustainable organizations are often more successful when they pay attention to the details of waste and impacts, allowing them to function more cleanly, increase profit margins, and differentiate themselves from other organizations,Why does being sustainable cost more—or does it?Sustainable solutions don’t always cost more than unsustainable ones. Many solutions are focused on energy and material efficiency, and these actually cost less up-front. Because our economic system rarely includes all of the social and environmental costs and impacts of products and services of the items we buy, the producers of sustainable solutions try to compensate for these costs. Doing this can cost more up-front, but often costs less over time since these solutions may prevent problemslater.
- the world relied on renewable sources for around 13.1% of its primary energy supply, according to IEA statistics. Renewables accounted for 19.5% of global electricity generation and 3% of global energy consumption for road transport in the same year.
- All the countries of the world (with the exception of the Arctic regions) receive – through radiation levels ranging from 900 to 2400 kWh on each square meter – huge quantities of solar energy, just a fraction of which would be sufficient to satisfy the entire energy needs of each of them. In this respect, solar energy is much more evenly distributed than fossil or nuclear energy. The maximum radiation power of the sun is around 1,000 W/m² everywhere on the Earth‘s surface. However the distinguishing factor is the cumulative annual received energy in kWh / m², because this reaches, for example, 2,400 kWh/m² in the Sahara, and about 1,000 kWh / m² in northern Scandinavia.Annual irradiated energy received by different regions of the Earth: ChartPhotovoltaic systems use no fuel and modules typically last 25 to 40 years. The cost of installation is almost the only cost, as there is very little maintenance required. Installation cost is measured in $/watt or €/watt. The electricity generated is sold for ¢/kWh. 1 watt of installed photovoltaics generates roughly 1 to 2 kWh/year, as a result of the local insolation. The product of the local cost of electricity and the insolation determines the break even point for solar power. The International Conference on Solar Photovoltaic Investments, organized by EPIA, has estimated that PV systems will pay back their investors in 8 to 12 years.[54] As a result, since 2006 it has been economical for investors to install photovoltaics for free in return for a long term power purchase agreement. Fifty percent of commercial systems were installed in this manner in 2007 and over 90% by 2009.As of 2011, the cost of PV has fallen well below that of nuclear power and is set to fall further. The average retail price of solar cells as monitored by the Solarbuzz group fell from $3.50/watt to $2.43/watt over the course of 2011, and a decline to prices below $2.00/watt seems inevitable.For large-scale installations, prices below $1.00/watt are now common. In some locations, PV has reached grid parity, the cost at which it is competitive with coal or gas-fired generation. More generally, it is now evident that, given a carbon price of $50/ton, which would raise the price of coal-fired power by 5c/kWh, solar PV will be cost-competitive in most locations. The declining price of PV has been reflected in rapidly growing installations, totalling about 23 GW in 2011. Although some consolidation is likely in 2012, as firms try to restore profitability, strong growth seems likely to continue for the rest of the decade. Already, by one estimate, total investment in renewables for 2011 exceeded investment in carbon-based electricity generation.Additionally, governments have created various financial incentives to encourage the use of solar power, such as feed-in tariff programs. Also, Renewable portfolio standards impose a government mandate that utilities generate or acquire a certain percentage of renewable power regardless of increased energy procurement costs. In most states, RPS goals can be achieved by any combination of solar, wind, biomass, landfill gas, ocean, geothermal, municipal solid waste, hydroelectric, hydrogen, or fuel cell technologies.Shi Zhengrong has said that, as of 2012, unsubsidised solar power is already competitive with fossil fuels in India, Hawaii, Italy and Spain. He said "We are at a tipping point. No longer are renewable power sources like solar and wind a luxury of the rich. They are now starting to compete in the real world without subsidies". "Solar power will be able to compete without subsidies against conventional power sources in half the world by 2015".
- The global total of solar PV was roughly 67 GW at the end of 2011, to be compared with just 1.5 GW in 2000. Over the past five years, solar PV has averaged an annual growth rate of over 50%. Growth has been mostly concentrated in a few countries, where PV generates today a few percent of total yearly electricity production. The over 200 MW Agua Caliente Solar Project in the United States, and the 214 MW Charanka Solar Park in India, are the world’s largest photovoltaic plants.
- Global wind power capacity was 238 Gigawatts (GW) at the end of 2011, up from just 18 GW at the end of 2000, with an average growth rate of over 25% over the past five years.
- In 2011 the global investment in clean energy reached $260 billion, a 5% rise on the previous year. It signals a relative decline in Europe’s share in renewables investment although Bloomberg’s Global Renewable Energy Market Outlook forecasts that Europe will remain the biggest regional market until 2014 with25 % of world investment, when it will be overtaken by China. European investment is expected to grow at an annual rate of 8% after that year as the continent recovers economically and the 2020 energy targets approach. By 2020 the developing countries will account for 50% of world demand while the share of the EU, the US, Canada and China will make up the other half of the market.European investment in renewables declined by 22% to $35.2 billion in 2010. This number is however contrasted with a surge in small-scale project installation, especially rooftop solar. Germany was leading the list with investments of $34 billion, a rise of 132 %, followed by Italy with $5.5 billion, a rise of 59 %, France with $2.7 billion, growing by 150 % and finally the Czech Republic growing the strongest with 163% and $2.3 billion invested. This positive development of the small scale solar market in Europe is expected to be continued in 2011.Beyond 2020, things start to get hazy. The European Commission’s recently-publishedEnergy Roadmap 2050 outlines several possible scenarios – such as low-use of nuclear, high energy efficiency, etc – all of which foresee a very significant role for renewables.European countries have yet to agree on intermediary targets for 2030. Because energy infrastructure is typically built with decades in mind, this could mean uncertainty in the market for renewables and that Europe will needlessly jeopardize its leadership in this area.EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard has expressed this concern most clearly, saying of the 2030 target:I think we should have it now. We will very soon be at crossroad where Europe has to decide: Do we want to create jobs in the renewables sector or do we want to give away a stronghold we have had to, say, the Chinas or some others?
- In 2011 the global investment in clean energy reached $260 billion, a 5% rise on the previous year. It signals a relative decline in Europe’s share in renewables investment although Bloomberg’s Global Renewable Energy Market Outlook forecasts that Europe will remain the biggest regional market until 2014 with25 % of world investment, when it will be overtaken by China. European investment is expected to grow at an annual rate of 8% after that year as the continent recovers economically and the 2020 energy targets approach. By 2020 the developing countries will account for 50% of world demand while the share of the EU, the US, Canada and China will make up the other half of the market.European investment in renewables declined by 22% to $35.2 billion in 2010. This number is however contrasted with a surge in small-scale project installation, especially rooftop solar. Germany was leading the list with investments of $34 billion, a rise of 132 %, followed by Italy with $5.5 billion, a rise of 59 %, France with $2.7 billion, growing by 150 % and finally the Czech Republic growing the strongest with 163% and $2.3 billion invested. This positive development of the small scale solar market in Europe is expected to be continued in 2011.Beyond 2020, things start to get hazy. The European Commission’s recently-publishedEnergy Roadmap 2050 outlines several possible scenarios – such as low-use of nuclear, high energy efficiency, etc – all of which foresee a very significant role for renewables.European countries have yet to agree on intermediary targets for 2030. Because energy infrastructure is typically built with decades in mind, this could mean uncertainty in the market for renewables and that Europe will needlessly jeopardize its leadership in this area.EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard has expressed this concern most clearly, saying of the 2030 target:I think we should have it now. We will very soon be at crossroad where Europe has to decide: Do we want to create jobs in the renewables sector or do we want to give away a stronghold we have had to, say, the Chinas or some others?
- Spain- 46% of electricitycomesfrom renewables-2010.
- Denmark aims for 100 percent renewable energy in 2050(Reuters) - Danish government proposals on Friday called for sourcing just over half of its electricity from wind turbines by 2020 and all of its energy from renewable sources in 2050.The government also invited the parties in parliament to negotiations on the proposal to shape energy policy to 2020.Denmark will take over the presidency of the European Union for six months from January 1 and aims to promote ambitious climate and energy goals for Europe.It is already the world leader in wind power, getting a fifth of its power from wind turbines."This is an historical effort to become even better at saving energy and create an even more competitive and energy-effective company culture in Denmark, also for households," Minister for Climate, Energy and Building Martin Lidegaard said.The portion of Denmark's electricity from wind and other renewables would rise to 52 percent by 2020 under the new plan, topping a 50 percent target in a government policy program adopted last month.Despite Denmark's green credentials in wind energy, the country has virtually no hydropower and no nuclear installations, making it still heavily dependent on coal.In 2010, coal accounted for nearly 44 percent of total Danish power generation and fossil fuels altogether for two thirds, while renewables accounted for one third.The government's proposal called for coal-fired power plants and oil-fired heating to be phased out by 2030. Coal heating, which now accounts for 11 percent of the total heat supply, would be replaced by biomass.Lidegaard told foreign journalists the plan to phase out fossil fuels amounted to buying an insurance policy "against the risk of the market in the next 10 years.""The conclusion being it has a cost to make a green transformation, but it also has a cost not to do it," Lidegaard said. "I think this will work out to be the best insurance Denmark has ever (bought)."The government estimated that its plan would cost 5.6 billion crowns ($1.0 billion) in additional spending in 2020."Not included in that figure are the billions of crowns businesses and households are projected to invest in renewable energy and more efficient technologies," the climate, energy and building ministry said in a statement.The government did not give an estimate for what companies and households would need to invest for the transformation.Under the plan, 100 percent of Denmark's power and heat would come from renewable energy by 2035, the ministry said.By 2050, the entire energy supply -- electricity, heat, industry and transportation -- would come from renewables, according to the proposal.The initiatives would cut Denmark's greenhouse gas emissions by 35 percent by 2020 based on 1990 levels.Lidegaard said that Denmark faced three global crises which will hit it "with a force that is so far absolutely unheard of" -- an economic and financial crisis, a climate crisis and a resources crisis. "This proposal will address all three crises."The push for renewable energy would position Denmark as a leader in developing climate-friendly technology, he said.Lidegaard said on Thursday at an energy council meeting in Brussels that energy efficiency would be a priority for the Danish EU presidency.On Friday, he said that his message to other EU member states would be that the investment in green energy can pay off."That is what I will say to my colleagues in the EU in the next half year," he said. "I actually think that there is money in this." ($1 = 5.5818 Danish crowns)
- At this point it is important for me to tell you that the drama we will experience in the next fourty minutes or so will contrasted by some amazing opportunities. You will see that the bigger the challenge we face in a specific area, the more miraculous will be the response and the more incredible the inspiring innovative force of the human mind and spirit.We could easily spend the rest of our time together just on this one slide if we allowed ourselves to be drawn into detail, but because I want to show you an incredible kaleidoscope of things to come, we must resist this tendency and stay up at the strategic level.The human population has roughly doubled since the 1960s and will increase to 9 billion by 2050. Demands for food, water and energy will increase, inevitably in competition with other species. People already use up to 40% of the world's primary production (energy) and this must increase, with important consequences for nature. Increasingly, we won't be living as a part of nature but alongside it, and we'll have redefined what we mean by the wild and wilderness.Crucially, we are still rapidly losing overall biodiversity, including soil micro-organisms, plankton in the oceans, pollinators and the remaining tropical and temperate forests. These underpin productive soils, clean water, climate regulation and disease-resistance. We take these vital services from biodiversity and ecosystems for granted, treat them recklessly and don't include them in any kind of national accounting.
- Tower of Babel- people talkingat cross-purposesfromverydifferent perspectives withverydifferentinterests. How to align in a new frame?
- How can managers create sustainable value through disruptive, sustainable innovations that lead to ThriveAbility rather than Sustainability being the metric for success? What shifts in mindset, culture and management systems are required to make ThriveAbility the focus in organizations and business ecosystems globally?
- Two decades after the first Rio conference and in the months following the adjournment of Rio+20, the answer to this most fundamental question remains elusive.Basically, it depends on the respondent. Same question, multiple answers – and all correct, to a degree.
- The result of extensive dialogues involving 200 companies spanning 20 countries, Vision 2050 has at its core the attributes of successful business planning: understand your current situation, identify the obstacles to success, and create a pathway to overcome those obstacles. The conclusion of this analysis is the need for a fundamental transformation of the way the world produces and consumes everything from energy to agricultural products. And in that shift, Vision 2050 identifies unprecedented opportunities for business – at least those that understand they can no longer operate in business-as-usual, autopilot mode.Opportunities range from developing and maintaining low-carbon, zero-waste cities, to improving and managing biocapacity, ecosystems, lifestyles and livelihoods. In today’s dollars, the market opportunities created by adapting to the new global reality for sustainable living are somewhere between $3-$10 trillion USD per year in 2050.Vision 2050 is not only about economics, development and sustainability challenges for business. It suggests governments and civil society must create a different view of the future, one where, “economic growth has been decoupled from ecosystem destruction and material consumption and re-coupled with sustainable economic development and societal well-being.”With 9 billion people on the planet competing for a limited supply of natural resources, the definition of “living well” will also have to shift. Instead of a utopian dream, living well in 2050 means that all people have access to and the ability to afford education, healthcare, mobility, the basics of food, water, energy and shelter, and consumer goods. It also means living within the limits of the planet itself.Sometimes the simplest questions are the hardest to answer. Vision 2050 asks those questions and offers a way to help businesses understand the pathways they will need to succeed. The question of where we will be in 2050 is well worth asking, for the rewards to those who get the answers right is unprecedented.
- What makes ThriveAbility different? At its core, ThriveAbility brings a whole systems, integral approach to large scale change based on a synthesis of top down and bottom up ways of enabling shifts to emerge when and where they are required. Creating sustainable value through sustainable innovation requires us to:Recognise and align the very different value systems and priorities motivating people and organizations to move toward ThriveAbility, to create coherent, effective initiativesReframe the relationship between nature, technology and human psychology so that we see ourselves in new ways and gain insights into the unique role we each play as leaders in the shift from surviving in a merely sustainable world to thriving in a flowering, global second RenaissanceRedefine three fundamental relationships between sustainability to wellbeing, innovation to personal development, and happiness to a thriving society, within in the context a the “Thrival Equation”Prioritise and invest our time, energy money and resources into initiatives, projects, programs and businesses that maximise the Thrival Equation.
- Resilient cities, those that are working to transition towards a low-carbon economy while also preparing to avert the worst of climate change, are gaining interest and attention from policy makers, city councils and others worldwide. In fact, today, leaders from the public and private sector, supported by ICLEI (see below) and the U.S. Green Building Council, are launching a National Leadership Speaker Series on Resiliency and Security in the 21st Century.“The battle to prevent catastrophic climate change will be won or lost in our cities…” (C40 Cities Initiative)Cities account for up to 80% of GHG emissions globally and are home to more than 50% of the world’s population (headed to 60%, 5 billion people by 2030). As I mentioned in my previous post, if we refocus our efforts on the right solutions soon enough, we can mitigate the worst of climate change while actually improving our city economies and growing corporate profits. Hunter Lovins and I recently published a book entitledClimate Capitalism to share stories of cities and companies around the world who are profiting from that transition to the low carbon economy. Furthermore, the longer we wait the more we will have to pay for adaptation.I have spent the past few months gathering data on what cities around the globe are actually doing to mitigate and adapt to climate change and here I present one of the first ever global rankings of resilient cities.And the Top 10 Resilient Cities Are….1.) Copenhagen, DenmarkIt can’t be much of a surprise that the city where nearly 40% of its citizens cycle to work scores the number one posting in this first ever ranking of resilient cities. Copenhagen was the only city obtaining a perfect score on political commitment. That’s not all of course. Copenhagen tied Curitiba with the lowest per capita emissions and also sets the global standard by seeking to be the first major capital city in the world to achieve carbon neutrality (by 2025). Copenhagen has some work to do on its adaptation planning but does score second in this ranking for parks/capita2.) Curitiba, BrazilWhile not a major capital city, Curitiba has the size (1.7m) to qualify for this ranking and is obviously very deserving of consideration. Curitiba is often the “poster child” for sustainable urban revitalization. Curitiba, through its former mayor, Jamie Lerner, introduced the world’s first bus rapid transit system which is used by 70% of Curitiba’s daily commuters. Curitiba is tied with Copenhagen for the lowest emissions per capita (2.1 Tons CO2e). Curitiba also comes second (to Vancouver) with its renewable energy contribution (82% of electricity generation). Despite being the highest elevation city in this ranking (i.e. no risk of sea level rise) it has the longest running adaptation program of any city in the study. In the 1970’s, Curitiba implemented a flood prevention plan from its nearby rivers by creating a win-win solution-creating 5,000+ acres of parks alongside their waterways.3.) Barcelona, SpainBarcelona only came up one short on political commitment as it is not part of theCarbon War Room’s Green Capital Global Challenge. Barcelona does have a CAP, is a member of ICLEI, C40, and the World Mayors Council on Climate Change and is a signatory to the Mexico Pact. While Barcelona currently has a low percentage of renewables, it is a global leader and innovator with respect to the introduction of solar thermal ordinance which requires all new and renovated buildings in the city to incorporate solar thermal energy, usually in the form of solar water heating. Barcelona also scored high for its adaptation planning because it has integrated adaptation into its plans and has identified key stakeholders and metrics associated with ensuring successful adaptation.4.) Stockholm, SwedenNot surprisingly two Scandinavian cities made the top 5 of this ranking (see Copenhagen below). Stockholm scored high on the political commitment scale and . came second only to Paris in its rail transit/capita use. Stockholm also has the second most impressive goal for GHG reductions, carbon neutral by 2050. Stockholm has a lack of focus on adaptation but also scored first on park area per capita in the study with over 21,000 acres (a whopping 40% of its land mass) dedicated to city parks.5.) Vancouver, CanadaVancouver scores the highest amongst all North American cities in this study. Vancouver was already on its way before its current Mayor, Mayor Robertson took office. However behind his leadership Vancouver is striving to become the greenest city in the world by 2020. Not surprisingly, Vancouver scored among the highest on political commitment, losing just one point for not being affiliated with C40 (although I understand that Vancouver has applied). Like San Francisco, Vancouver aspires to reduce its emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. A big difference however is that Vancouver’s per capita emissions (4.9 Tons CO2e) are already much lower than San Francisco’s (10.1). Vancouver also scores off the charts on renewable energy with approximately 90% of its energy from renewable sources. It has also been investing in its own district energy systems. Two items not included in the rankings because I could not obtain valid comparable data also show that Vancouver is on the right track: 1.) It has the highest number of LEED certified green buildings of any city in North America; 2.) Vancouver would score very high marks for food security as 48% of the food supply for the Province is sourced locally6.) Paris, FranceThe “City of Light” is also making headway towards being a resilient city. Paris shows significant political commitment despite for some reason not being a member of ICLEI. Paris is among the few global cities that have a CAP, are members of C40 and the World Mayors Council on Climate Change, and are signatories to the Mexico City Pact which includes a voluntary commitment to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Paris scored highest on my ranking of rail transit use/capita and was among the leaders in my study on adaptation due to both its “adjustment to climate change” plan as well as being one of the only cities in the study to have tangible adaptation projects underway such as having recently completed planting 100,000 trees and 20,000 square meters of rooftop gardens.7.) San Francisco, USASan Francisco was number 1 in my recent U.S. ranking and continues to be the highest rated U.S. city on the list. San Francisco is doing a lot of things well including substantial political commitment. Unfortunately I could not keep the green building ranking in this study because there is insufficient data from other green building certification groups outside of the Green Building Councils in North America and BREEAM in the UK. (San Francisco has the highest number of LEED certified buildings/capita in the U.S.). San Francisco did however score well on some key metrics in this study including having one of the more aggressive GHG reduction targets (20% below 1990 levels by 2012 and 80% reduction by 2050). They are also among the first cities working to introduce a group purchasing program for solar energy. 8.) New York, USAConservative Mayor Bloomberg is a strong advocate for climate leadership. NYC’s Mayor Bloomberg is the Current Chair of the Clinton 40 initiative. In a recent Clinton 40 Climate meeting, Mayor Bloomberg noted: “If you can’t measure it you can’t manage it.” New York of course is the envy of most cities in the U.S. when it comes to accessibility and use of rail transit. New York also scored quite well on my adaptation ranking for its integration of adaptation into its development permitting process and relatedly NYC scores relatively high on park space/capita9.) London, UKLondon is accustomed to showing up on sustainable city rankings and for good reason. Like Tokyo, London met the political commitment threshold for this ranking and is a very dense city (in fact the most in the ranking). London also stood out in this analysis for its early planning and integration of adaptation into its CAP. And of course congestion zone introduced by former Mayor Livingstone was a bold move which has led to significant reduction in traffic, increased revenue for public transit and is now serving to encourage greener vehicle purchases (since low emitting vehicles are eligible for a 100% discount). London also was an early mover in adaptation by erecting the second largest movable flood barrier in the world. The Thames Barrier, operational since 1982, “protects 125 square kilometers of central London from flooding caused by tidal surges.”10.) Tokyo, JapanThe most populated city in this ranking, Tokyo also is amongst the most dense and has the most used transit system of any city in the world. Tokyo is of course the only Asian city which made the top 10 this year. Tokyo met a key screen (political commitment) by being members of the C40 and ICLEI while also having a published aclimate action plan (CAP). Tokyo, like all cities, still has plenty to work on including an apparent lack of a climate adaptation plan (or meaningful inclusion within the climate action plan), grow its focus on renewables and increase its green spaces as pat of an adaptation initiative. However, I am keen on their focus on private sector innovation and profitable solutions to mitigate climate change. For example in their CAP, the first initiative is: “Promote Private Enterprises’ Efforts to Achieve CO2 Reductions.”
- In 2000, Nobel Prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen suggested that humans have had such profound and far-reaching impacts on the planet that we have ushered in a new geologic age – the Age of Man, or, as Crutzen called it, the Anthropocene. The idea has been bouncing around the halls of academia ever since, and in the last few years, it has jumped from the ivory tower into popular literature and a few geek-tastic conversations over beer. The notion that humans now run this joint seems to have struck a chordWe’ve been changing the world around us for millennia. But the scale and speed of change in the last 60 years have been incredible, leading scientists to call events since the 1950s the ‘Great Acceleration’. Since the end of the Second World War, the human population tripled, and the global economy exploded driven by new technology, a new global system of cooperation and huge investments.Our increasing demand for natural resources and polluting habits are ratcheting up the pressure on ecosystems all over the world. Three quarters of all the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide that humans have ever caused came over the same period.The acceleration shows no signs of letting up. At the dawn of the nineteenth century, the world’s population was 1 billion; it’s now seven times that, and by 2050 it’s predicted to pass 9 billion.We’re already catching more fish, cutting down more forests, emitting more nitrogen pollution, bringing more land under cultivation and driving more species into extinction than ever before. All these activities – and many more – are wearing down the Earth’s resilience. We don’t know how much more it can take before we start seeing abrupt, unpredictable shifts that could threaten the planet’s ability to support a global interconnected society.Helsinki Underground City- Green Data Center under Ouspensky Cathedral- world’s largest heat pump. The bedrock under Finland’s capital city accommodates a vast network of more than 400 tunnels and underground structures. These include everything from utility, water and metro tunnels, to underground shopping malls, swimming pools, parking and storage facilities, leisure complexes and of course Helsinki’s famous Temppeliaukio Church.With an increasing demand for sustainable development and sound planning of land use within the area’s red and black granite, the city of Helsinki has decided to capitalize on future construction opportunities by formulating a strategic “Underground City Plan”.This plan is being used to manage the construction of 200 underground structures in forthcoming years, including new metro lines and an road tunnel project, which will connect existing access roads leading into the city.The first stage of the City’s long-term strategy is to extend the pedestrian surface area in the center of the capital, by effectively removing all commercial supply traffic from the streets.This is clearly a great way to keep Co2 emissions out of the atmosphere. Now, if we could somehow get other countries to follow Finland’s lead on underground cities, we could cut CO2 emissions tremendously.This has to be one of the most innovative ecologically friendly city projects I have seen in a long time. Hopefully in the future they will find a way to replace the use of coal with more clean energy.EcoLocalizer (http://s.tt/12tHL)Anthropocene –a term used to describe the current geological period, starting from the 18th century when human activities began to impact global climate and ecosystems.The group wants to bring us back to the desired state of the Holocene epoch and attempts to identify the key variables that might push planetary cycles past safe thresholds. At present, atmospheric CO2 has reached more than 387 parts per million (ppm), well above the preindustrial figure of 280 ppm. So, the estimated safe threshold identified by the scientists, including NASA climatologist James Hansen, is 350 ppm, or a total increased warming of one watt per meter squared.Along with the climate change boundary, humanity has already pushed past the safe threshold in two more of the nine identified boundaries—biodiversity loss and available nitrogen (thanks to modern fertilizers). And, unfortunately, many of the processes impact each other, as well. “Crossing one threshold makes the others more vulnerable,” Foley adds. For example, “biodiversity [loss] on a really hot planet is accelerated.”Some scientists who criticized the precise thresholds set, cited water use, largely for agriculture, to expand from 2,600 cubic kilometers today to 4,000 cubic kilometers in the future will allow further degradation at such environmental disaster sites as the drying Aral Sea in Asia and seven major rivers, including the Colorado in the U.S., that no longer reach the sea.One of the authors, ecologist Jonathan Foley, director of the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment, mentioned increased nitrogen use in industrial agriculture. “A big part of this is feeding 6.7 billion people,” Foley says. “We are heading towards nine billion who are going to want to eat more like people in the developed world, and there’s the specter of biofuels. Those boundaries look really fragile.”At least there is still hope. Remember the fight against ozone-destroying chemicals which were causing the ozone hole? We pulled back through international cooperation and the 1989 Montreal Protocol.‘This provides some hope that we can manage our planetary impact if we choose’, says environmental scientist Diana Liverman of the University of Arizona’s Institute for the Environment and Society, one of the new thresholds authors. Source –David Biello Scientific American
- Saudi Arabia reveals plans to be powered entirely by renewable energySaudi Arabia says it wants to use fossil fuels to produce other goods rather than use it for power generation. Photograph: Fayez Nureldine/AFP/Getty ImagesRead by 136 peopleRemove from timelineFriday 19 October 2012World's biggest oil producer says it wants to make a 100% switch from fossil fuels to clean energySaudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil producer, has plans to become 100% powered by renewable and low-carbon forms of energy, according to an influential member of the royal family.But the process is likely to take decades, and some observers are sceptical as to whether it is any more than window-dressing.Prince Turki Al Faisal Al Saud, founder of the King Faisal Foundation and one of the state's top spokesmen, told the Global Economic Symposium in Brazil that he hoped the kingdom might be powered entirely by low-carbon energy within his lifetime – he is 67 – but that he thought it was likely to take longer.However, he insisted Saudi was moving ahead with investment in renewable energy, nuclear power and other alternatives to fossil fuels and that it could use its vast oil reserves for other goods, such as plastics and polymers."Oil is more precious for us underground than as a fuel source," he said. "If we can get to the point where we can replace fossil fuels and use oil to produce other products that are useful, that would be very good for the world. I wish that may be in my lifetime, but I don't think it will be."Joss Garman, political director of Greenpeace, said: "It speaks volumes that a Saudi prince can see the benefits of switching to clean energy sources when [UK chancellor] George Osborne seemingly cannot, but Saudi Arabia will only truly be a green economy when it leaves its fossil fuels in the ground."Saudi Arabia's energy use is almost entirely from fossil fuels at present, with about two-thirds coming from oil and the remainder from gas. The state produces close to 12m barrels of oil a day, representing more than 12% of world crude production, and has about one-fifth of the world's oil reserves, according to the US government's Energy Information Administration. Energy use per person within the kingdom is also high by world standards, because energy prices are kept so low.As Prince Turki noted, however, the kingdom has vast potential for using solar power. "The cost of solar energy is now 15% of what it was 20 years ago," he noted. Saudi Arabia has also signed memoranda of understanding – though no final deal as yet – with Argentina over nuclear energy.But despite his commitment to advancing renewable energy in the Middle East, Prince Turki – who served as director of Saudi Arabia's intelligence services for more than 20 years and has also been an ambassador to the UK and the US – was also clear that the rest of the world was likely to continue to rely on fossil fuels for many years to come. "No country can ban itself from any one form of energy," he said.One of the other potentially important technologies for Saudi Arabia is carbon capture and storage, as depleted oil fields could be used as storage for compressed carbon dioxide, but it has so far made little progress. The prince said the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology should be seen as an international effort rather than the responsibility of single countries.NebjsaNakicenovic, deputy chief of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, said CCS was likely to be a vital technology around the world. Though he acknowledged there could be problems, as the technology is still unproven, he warned: "Do not discount CCS."On renewables, Nakicenovic said the world should aim to generate 30% of energy from sustainable renewable sources by 2030. That would represent more than a doubling of current renewable energy usage, because although on paper about 15% of energy now comes from renewable sources, this includes a large amount of biomass – mostly wood, dung and other waste – burned in developing countries. Much of this is unsustainable, and requires a significant use of resources in foraging for firewood. "So [the target] is very ambitious, but doable," he said.
- The sustainability of the new booming Dubai is a worry for environmentalists. In recent global analysis of ecological resource use, the UAE came top as the least environmentally friendly country owing to its heavy reliance on air conditioning and desalinated water just to survive (in the summer it can be more than 40 degrees Celsius outside) - each resident in Dubai uses twice the resources of the average Briton.Turning sand (which Dubai has lots of) into real estate to sell for cash is one of the strategies of economic diversification away from oil. Building ‘The World' on its doorstep in order to attract the world to Dubai is having environmental costs. 33 million cubic metres of sand and shell from the sea bed have been dredged up to make the islands. Plumes of sediment disturbed by the developments have smothered sparse coral outcrops and dredging is causing permanent changes to current systems in the Gulf that carry developing fish and coral through the marine ecosystem.In one of the region's landmark sustainability initiatives, BurjKhalifa, the world's tallest building developed by Emaar Properties in Dubai, is tapping solar power for meeting a bulk of the water heating requirements of residents. BurjKhalifa uses solar panels to heat 140,000 litres of water every day, which will be distributed to homes and commercial entities within the tower. The solar powered water brings energy savings equivalent to 3,200 kilo watts per day and 690MWh of energy per annumShanghai is currently hosting the world’s largest ever event on the theme of sustainable urban living. But how sustainable is Shanghai itself? Will its recent investment in subway construction, clean energy production and water treatment, along with measures to promote recycling and energy saving, make a significant difference? Or does the city’s obsession with private cars, neon-lit buildings and conspicuous consumption mean such measures can do little more than scratch the surface? And indeed, how sustainable can a city of 20 million people ever hope to be? What can be learned from the failure of attempts to build Dongtan, the world’s first ecocity?
- The sustainability of the new booming Dubai is a worry for environmentalists. In recent global analysis of ecological resource use, the UAE came top as the least environmentally friendly country owing to its heavy reliance on air conditioning and desalinated water just to survive (in the summer it can be more than 40 degrees Celsius outside) - each resident in Dubai uses twice the resources of the average Briton.Turning sand (which Dubai has lots of) into real estate to sell for cash is one of the strategies of economic diversification away from oil. Building ‘The World' on its doorstep in order to attract the world to Dubai is having environmental costs. 33 million cubic metres of sand and shell from the sea bed have been dredged up to make the islands. Plumes of sediment disturbed by the developments have smothered sparse coral outcrops and dredging is causing permanent changes to current systems in the Gulf that carry developing fish and coral through the marine ecosystem.In one of the region's landmark sustainability initiatives, BurjKhalifa, the world's tallest building developed by Emaar Properties in Dubai, is tapping solar power for meeting a bulk of the water heating requirements of residents. BurjKhalifa uses solar panels to heat 140,000 litres of water every day, which will be distributed to homes and commercial entities within the tower. The solar powered water brings energy savings equivalent to 3,200 kilo watts per day and 690MWh of energy per annumShanghai is currently hosting the world’s largest ever event on the theme of sustainable urban living. But how sustainable is Shanghai itself? Will its recent investment in subway construction, clean energy production and water treatment, along with measures to promote recycling and energy saving, make a significant difference? Or does the city’s obsession with private cars, neon-lit buildings and conspicuous consumption mean such measures can do little more than scratch the surface? And indeed, how sustainable can a city of 20 million people ever hope to be? What can be learned from the failure of attempts to build Dongtan, the world’s first ecocity?
- The sustainability of the new booming Dubai is a worry for environmentalists. In recent global analysis of ecological resource use, the UAE came top as the least environmentally friendly country owing to its heavy reliance on air conditioning and desalinated water just to survive (in the summer it can be more than 40 degrees Celsius outside) - each resident in Dubai uses twice the resources of the average Briton.Turning sand (which Dubai has lots of) into real estate to sell for cash is one of the strategies of economic diversification away from oil. Building ‘The World' on its doorstep in order to attract the world to Dubai is having environmental costs. 33 million cubic metres of sand and shell from the sea bed have been dredged up to make the islands. Plumes of sediment disturbed by the developments have smothered sparse coral outcrops and dredging is causing permanent changes to current systems in the Gulf that carry developing fish and coral through the marine ecosystem.In one of the region's landmark sustainability initiatives, BurjKhalifa, the world's tallest building developed by Emaar Properties in Dubai, is tapping solar power for meeting a bulk of the water heating requirements of residents. BurjKhalifa uses solar panels to heat 140,000 litres of water every day, which will be distributed to homes and commercial entities within the tower. The solar powered water brings energy savings equivalent to 3,200 kilo watts per day and 690MWh of energy per annumShanghai is currently hosting the world’s largest ever event on the theme of sustainable urban living. But how sustainable is Shanghai itself? Will its recent investment in subway construction, clean energy production and water treatment, along with measures to promote recycling and energy saving, make a significant difference? Or does the city’s obsession with private cars, neon-lit buildings and conspicuous consumption mean such measures can do little more than scratch the surface? And indeed, how sustainable can a city of 20 million people ever hope to be? What can be learned from the failure of attempts to build Dongtan, the world’s first ecocity?
- The sustainability of the new booming Dubai is a worry for environmentalists. In recent global analysis of ecological resource use, the UAE came top as the least environmentally friendly country owing to its heavy reliance on air conditioning and desalinated water just to survive (in the summer it can be more than 40 degrees Celsius outside) - each resident in Dubai uses twice the resources of the average Briton.Turning sand (which Dubai has lots of) into real estate to sell for cash is one of the strategies of economic diversification away from oil. Building ‘The World' on its doorstep in order to attract the world to Dubai is having environmental costs. 33 million cubic metres of sand and shell from the sea bed have been dredged up to make the islands. Plumes of sediment disturbed by the developments have smothered sparse coral outcrops and dredging is causing permanent changes to current systems in the Gulf that carry developing fish and coral through the marine ecosystem.In one of the region's landmark sustainability initiatives, BurjKhalifa, the world's tallest building developed by Emaar Properties in Dubai, is tapping solar power for meeting a bulk of the water heating requirements of residents. BurjKhalifa uses solar panels to heat 140,000 litres of water every day, which will be distributed to homes and commercial entities within the tower. The solar powered water brings energy savings equivalent to 3,200 kilo watts per day and 690MWh of energy per annumShanghai is currently hosting the world’s largest ever event on the theme of sustainable urban living. But how sustainable is Shanghai itself? Will its recent investment in subway construction, clean energy production and water treatment, along with measures to promote recycling and energy saving, make a significant difference? Or does the city’s obsession with private cars, neon-lit buildings and conspicuous consumption mean such measures can do little more than scratch the surface? And indeed, how sustainable can a city of 20 million people ever hope to be? What can be learned from the failure of attempts to build Dongtan, the world’s first ecocity?
- The sustainability of the new booming Dubai is a worry for environmentalists. In recent global analysis of ecological resource use, the UAE came top as the least environmentally friendly country owing to its heavy reliance on air conditioning and desalinated water just to survive (in the summer it can be more than 40 degrees Celsius outside) - each resident in Dubai uses twice the resources of the average Briton.Turning sand (which Dubai has lots of) into real estate to sell for cash is one of the strategies of economic diversification away from oil. Building ‘The World' on its doorstep in order to attract the world to Dubai is having environmental costs. 33 million cubic metres of sand and shell from the sea bed have been dredged up to make the islands. Plumes of sediment disturbed by the developments have smothered sparse coral outcrops and dredging is causing permanent changes to current systems in the Gulf that carry developing fish and coral through the marine ecosystem.In one of the region's landmark sustainability initiatives, BurjKhalifa, the world's tallest building developed by Emaar Properties in Dubai, is tapping solar power for meeting a bulk of the water heating requirements of residents. BurjKhalifa uses solar panels to heat 140,000 litres of water every day, which will be distributed to homes and commercial entities within the tower. The solar powered water brings energy savings equivalent to 3,200 kilo watts per day and 690MWh of energy per annumShanghai is currently hosting the world’s largest ever event on the theme of sustainable urban living. But how sustainable is Shanghai itself? Will its recent investment in subway construction, clean energy production and water treatment, along with measures to promote recycling and energy saving, make a significant difference? Or does the city’s obsession with private cars, neon-lit buildings and conspicuous consumption mean such measures can do little more than scratch the surface? And indeed, how sustainable can a city of 20 million people ever hope to be? What can be learned from the failure of attempts to build Dongtan, the world’s first ecocity?
- Masdar means “the source” in Arabic and refers to Masdar the company, including Masdar City, being a source of many things -- including knowledge, innovation and human capital development in the areas of renewable energy and clean technologies. It will be a source for economic diversification and knowledge-economy jobs for Abu Dhabi. It will be a source for expertise in sustainable urban development and design. Masdar City will cost approximately US$18-US$19 billion. The city has a vision to provide the highest quality of life and work environment with the lowest environment footprint – and to do so in a commercially viable manner. Being commercially viable is central to this vision because of Masdar City’s goal to be a model city for sustainable urban development elsewhere in the UAE, the MENA region and globally.A 10MW solar photovoltaic plant is already operational within Masdar City, the largest such solar plant in the Middle East. It powers the first Masdar Institute buildings, the temporary Masdar administration buildings and many ongoing construction activities on site. Built across 22 hectares by Abu Dhabi-based Enviromena, the plant was connected to the Abu Dhabi power grid in April 2009 and consists of 50% thin film photovoltaic modules and 50% polycrystalline photovoltaic modules.Onsite solar power also is provided by a 1MW solar photovoltaic plant located on the roofs of the first Masdar Institute buildings and which is providing up to 1,500 MWh of electricity a year, approximately 15%-20% of the buildings’ overall energy requirements.In addition to using 100% treated wastewater for irrigation, landscaping targets a 60% reduction in water usage per square metre from BAU through a variety of strategies, including highly efficient micro-irrigation, landscaping design that minimises plant evapotranspiration, and low-water-use and indigenous plants and trees. Water features are generally shaded to reduce evaporation and tend to be flowing down surfaces, rather than, say, fountains.The first six buildings of the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology campus are completed and fully operational. They include three residential buildings, two laboratory buildings and a Knowledge Centre – a total of 35,000m2 of gross floor area. Students live in the on-campus housing within Masdar City, while cutting-edge research, classes and other activities are taking place on the campus. There are a number of retail, services and food and beverage outlets already open and serving customers in the city. Masdar City even hosts a monthly organic farmers market and street fair from April to October every year.Some of the ongoing and future pilot projects taking place at Masdar City include:Smart grid– Masdar City and Siemens are working on an innovative power grid and advanced building management system that will operate with full interactivity all along the grid, from power generation to power consumption, for the first phase of Masdar City.Geothermal– Masdar City is testing the viability of using heat from geothermal sources deep beneath the city to power single-effect absorption chillers that would provide cooling for the city. This would be the world’s first geothermal-powered district cooling system. The pilot is being done in conjunction with Iceland’s Reykjavik Geothermal, a leader in geothermal exploration and project management.Beam-Down Project– This is a concentrated solar power project led by the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, Japan’s Cosmo Oil Company and the Tokyo Institute of Technology. The Beam Down Plant has the potential to convert sunlight into electricity in a more efficient, lower-cost way than other CSP technologies by placing the solar heat receiver at the base of the tower (ground level).EV transportation– Masdar City and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries are testing the feasibility of EV technology as a point-to-point transportation solution for Masdar City, and in particular, testing and validating the performance of EVs and various charging solutions given the region's climate and usage patterns,PRT – Working with 2getthere, the manufacturer and operator of the personal rapid transit (PRT) and freight rapid transit system (FRT), Masdar City is testing this transportation concept, which is still very much in its infancy. Every aspect of this driverless, computer-managed, electric-vehicle system will be studied.Single-effect solar absorption chiller– This single-effect absorption chiller, powered by an 80m2 solar thermal collector field, has shown its high reliability in the Abu Dhabi climate. The entire plant was provided by Yazaki.Double-effect solar absorption chiller– Designed and engineered by Masdar, this system combines several advanced technologies with the goal of creating a highly efficient solar thermal air-conditioning system. It is the first in the GCC, and one of only a handful around the world, to use high-temperature solar thermal energy to run a double-effect absorption chiller. Partners in this project include Sopogy, Mirroxx, Broad and Schneider Electric.Energy efficient air conditioning– A highly efficient air handling unit and 24 active chilled beams – all supplied by Swegon – are providing cool fresh air in an energy efficient system.Passive daylighting system– Daylight-capturing dome lenses and in-dome reflectors redirect low-angle sunlight and reject overpowering summer midday sunlight to provide consistent natural lighting throughout the day to interior rooms. Solatube provided the energy-saving system.Active daylighting system– 3M and Targetti have implemented this energy-saving system that uses a collector with a suntracking mirror array to provide constant and natural daylight to interior rooms.Smart appliances– In a two-year project to be run jointly, GE Consumer & Industrial and Masdar City will test how GE smart (i.e., demand response) appliances and Home Energy Manager (HEM) systems can lower power consumption in the home and offices across the city through two-way communication and built-in advanced energy management functionality that reduces power demand in response to notification of changing “utility prices” and energy demand. It also will measure and transmit real-time power consumption data.Construction of the second phase of Masdar Institute is ongoing and is set to be completed by the middle of 2012; the 10,000m2 Courtyard Building, which will be the first commercial building in the city is expected to be handed over by mid-2012 as well, while the 23,100m2 Siemens Middle East Headquarters Building is expected to be completed by the end of 2012. These represent three projects that will triple the size of the city, from 35,000m2 to approximately 110,000m2 by the end of 2012.At full build-out by 2025, the city is expected to have 40,000 residents and 50,000 commuters.
- The battle to prevent catastrophic climate change will be won or lost in our cities…” (C40 Cities Initiative)Cities account for up to 80% of GHG emissions globally and are home to more than 50% of the world’s population (headed to 60%, 5 billion people by 2030).Resilient cities, those that are working to transition towards a low-carbon economy while also preparing to avert the worst of climate change, are gaining interest and attention from policy makers, city councils and others worldwide. In fact, today, leaders from the public and private sector, supported by ICLEI (see below) and the U.S. Green Building Council, are launching a National Leadership Speaker Series on Resiliency and Security in the 21st Century.If we refocus our efforts on the right solutions soon enough, we can mitigate the worst of climate change while actually improving our city economies and growing corporate profits. Hunter Lovins and I recently published a book entitledClimate Capitalism to share stories of cities and companies around the world who are profiting from that transition to the low carbon economy. Furthermore, the longer we wait the more we will have to pay for adaptation.I have spent the past few months gathering data on what cities around the globe are actually doing to mitigate and adapt to climate change and here I present one of the first ever global rankings of resilient cities.And the Top 10 Resilient Cities Are….1.) Copenhagen, DenmarkIt can’t be much of a surprise that the city where nearly 40% of its citizens cycle to work scores the number one posting in this first ever ranking of resilient cities. Copenhagen was the only city obtaining a perfect score on political commitment. That’s not all of course. Copenhagen tied Curitiba with the lowest per capita emissions and also sets the global standard by seeking to be the first major capital city in the world to achieve carbon neutrality (by 2025). Copenhagen has some work to do on its adaptation planning but does score second in this ranking for parks/capita2.) Curitiba, BrazilWhile not a major capital city, Curitiba has the size (1.7m) to qualify for this ranking and is obviously very deserving of consideration. Curitiba is often the “poster child” for sustainable urban revitalization. Curitiba, through its former mayor, Jamie Lerner, introduced the world’s first bus rapid transit system which is used by 70% of Curitiba’s daily commuters. Curitiba is tied with Copenhagen for the lowest emissions per capita (2.1 Tons CO2e). Curitiba also comes second (to Vancouver) with its renewable energy contribution (82% of electricity generation). Despite being the highest elevation city in this ranking (i.e. no risk of sea level rise) it has the longest running adaptation program of any city in the study. In the 1970’s, Curitiba implemented a flood prevention plan from its nearby rivers by creating a win-win solution-creating 5,000+ acres of parks alongside their waterways.3.) Barcelona, SpainBarcelona only came up one short on political commitment as it is not part of theCarbon War Room’s Green Capital Global Challenge. Barcelona does have a CAP, is a member of ICLEI, C40, and the World Mayors Council on Climate Change and is a signatory to the Mexico Pact. While Barcelona currently has a low percentage of renewables, it is a global leader and innovator with respect to the introduction of solar thermal ordinance which requires all new and renovated buildings in the city to incorporate solar thermal energy, usually in the form of solar water heating. Barcelona also scored high for its adaptation planning because it has integrated adaptation into its plans and has identified key stakeholders and metrics associated with ensuring successful adaptation.4.) Stockholm, SwedenNot surprisingly two Scandinavian cities made the top 5 of this ranking (see Copenhagen below). Stockholm scored high on the political commitment scale and . came second only to Paris in its rail transit/capita use. Stockholm also has the second most impressive goal for GHG reductions, carbon neutral by 2050. Stockholm has a lack of focus on adaptation but also scored first on park area per capita in the study with over 21,000 acres (a whopping 40% of its land mass) dedicated to city parks.5.) Vancouver, CanadaVancouver scores the highest amongst all North American cities in this study. Vancouver was already on its way before its current Mayor, Mayor Robertson took office. However behind his leadership Vancouver is striving to become the greenest city in the world by 2020. Not surprisingly, Vancouver scored among the highest on political commitment, losing just one point for not being affiliated with C40 (although I understand that Vancouver has applied). Like San Francisco, Vancouver aspires to reduce its emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. A big difference however is that Vancouver’s per capita emissions (4.9 Tons CO2e) are already much lower than San Francisco’s (10.1). Vancouver also scores off the charts on renewable energy with approximately 90% of its energy from renewable sources. It has also been investing in its own district energy systems. Two items not included in the rankings because I could not obtain valid comparable data also show that Vancouver is on the right track: 1.) It has the highest number of LEED certified green buildings of any city in North America; 2.) Vancouver would score very high marks for food security as 48% of the food supply for the Province is sourced locally6.) Paris, FranceThe “City of Light” is also making headway towards being a resilient city. Paris shows significant political commitment despite for some reason not being a member of ICLEI. Paris is among the few global cities that have a CAP, are members of C40 and the World Mayors Council on Climate Change, and are signatories to the Mexico City Pact which includes a voluntary commitment to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Paris scored highest on my ranking of rail transit use/capita and was among the leaders in my study on adaptation due to both its “adjustment to climate change” plan as well as being one of the only cities in the study to have tangible adaptation projects underway such as having recently completed planting 100,000 trees and 20,000 square meters of rooftop gardens.7.) San Francisco, USASan Francisco was number 1 in my recent U.S. ranking and continues to be the highest rated U.S. city on the list. San Francisco is doing a lot of things well including substantial political commitment. Unfortunately I could not keep the green building ranking in this study because there is insufficient data from other green building certification groups outside of the Green Building Councils in North America and BREEAM in the UK. (San Francisco has the highest number of LEED certified buildings/capita in the U.S.). San Francisco did however score well on some key metrics in this study including having one of the more aggressive GHG reduction targets (20% below 1990 levels by 2012 and 80% reduction by 2050). They are also among the first cities working to introduce a group purchasing program for solar energy. 8.) New York, USAConservative Mayor Bloomberg is a strong advocate for climate leadership. NYC’s Mayor Bloomberg is the Current Chair of the Clinton 40 initiative. In a recent Clinton 40 Climate meeting, Mayor Bloomberg noted: “If you can’t measure it you can’t manage it.” New York of course is the envy of most cities in the U.S. when it comes to accessibility and use of rail transit. New York also scored quite well on my adaptation ranking for its integration of adaptation into its development permitting process and relatedly NYC scores relatively high on park space/capita9.) London, UKLondon is accustomed to showing up on sustainable city rankings and for good reason. Like Tokyo, London met the political commitment threshold for this ranking and is a very dense city (in fact the most in the ranking). London also stood out in this analysis for its early planning and integration of adaptation into its CAP. And of course congestion zone introduced by former Mayor Livingstone was a bold move which has led to significant reduction in traffic, increased revenue for public transit and is now serving to encourage greener vehicle purchases (since low emitting vehicles are eligible for a 100% discount). London also was an early mover in adaptation by erecting the second largest movable flood barrier in the world. The Thames Barrier, operational since 1982, “protects 125 square kilometers of central London from flooding caused by tidal surges.”10.) Tokyo, JapanThe most populated city in this ranking, Tokyo also is amongst the most dense and has the most used transit system of any city in the world. Tokyo is of course the only Asian city which made the top 10 this year. Tokyo met a key screen (political commitment) by being members of the C40 and ICLEI while also having a published aclimate action plan (CAP). Tokyo, like all cities, still has plenty to work on including an apparent lack of a climate adaptation plan (or meaningful inclusion within the climate action plan), grow its focus on renewables and increase its green spaces as pat of an adaptation initiative. However, I am keen on their focus on private sector innovation and profitable solutions to mitigate climate change. For example in their CAP, the first initiative is: “Promote Private Enterprises’ Efforts to Achieve CO2 Reductions.”
- According to the HPI, Costa Rica is the happiest country on the planet.Eight of the happiest places on the planet are in Latin America and the Caribbean, whileNorwayis the highestrankingEuropean nation at 29th place, and the USA is in 105th position out of 151 countries. Althoughthis index isflawed in manyways, itdoesgive a rough idea of the efficiency of the use of resources, sustainablewellbeing, but lessaccurately the actualhappiness of people on the ground.But doesthismean the rest of the developed world must become more like Costa Rica i.e. lessdeveloped? Or is the answer to redesign the developed world for thriveability?
- The future of sustainability hinges on rethinking the definition of well-being and development in a new frame: ThriveAbility. The corporation’s purpose, mission, strategies and practices, goods and services are key to defining and delivering ThriveAbilityMoving companies from incremental to transformational change requires new forms of performance assessment that align with the core of attributes of sustainability: including: integration across economic, environmental, governance, social dimensions; long-term horizons in designing and implementing corporate strategy and practices; andmeasurable commitment to preserving and expanding the stock of all forms of capital: human, natural, social, financial, and intellectual.If sustainability leaders are to be properly rewarded and sustainability laggards effectively motivated to change, investors, communities, NGOs, and companies themselves must deploy rigorous, credible, and transparent tools for judging progress across all aspects of sustainability performance.
- But how canwe compare suchdifferent places withsuchdifferentcharacteristics, differentstarting points & different cultures?According to the HPI, Costa Rica is the happiest country on the planet.Eight of the happiest places on the planet are in Latin America and the Caribbean, whileNorwayis the highestrankingEuropean nation at 29th place, and the USA is in 105th position out of 151 countries. Althoughthis index isflawed in manyways, itdoesgive a rough idea of the efficiency of the use of resources, sustainablewellbeing, but lessaccurately the actualhappiness of people on the ground.But doesthismean the rest of the debeloped world must become more like Costa Rica i.e. lessdeveloped? Or is the answer to redesign the developed world for thriveability?Finland achieves a Happy Planet Index Score of 42.7 and ranks #70 of all the countries analysed.Finland's HPI score reflects a high life expectancy and high levels of experienced well-being, but is brought down by a very high ecological footprint.Other statisticsGDP per capita ($PPP): 36,473 (just under 80% of the USA's)Population: 5.4 million (#109 of 151)Land area (square km): 304 thousand (#66 of 151)Population density (people per square km): 17.7 (#124 of 151)Governance Ranking (WGI): #1Costa Rica has a continental area of 5 million hectares, extending from northwest to southeast between the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans and internally divided by a mountain range. These characteristics result in a variety of microclimates and different life zones, which support one of the highest levels of biodiversity on the planet, with a large number of endemic species.By the 1960s, Costa Rica had begun to experience rapid deforestation, owing to the expansion of cattle farming and general agricultural development. Between 1973 and 1989, deforestation reached one of the highest rates in the world, with an average of 32,000 hectares of forest cut down each year. Yet today Costa Rica is a pioneer in forest conservation.This transformation has come about through the establishment of an integrated system of Conservation Areas as well as effective legislation, including a ban on future land-use change on all forested land. Specific elements that have enabled progress in environmental outcomes include the successful development of a National System of Protected Areas and the passing of comprehensive legislation to protect Costa Rica's forests.Innovative incentive structures have also been important. Perhaps the most significant innovation has been the establishment of a national Payments for Environmental Services programme (PSA), which provides direct financial incentives to landowners to conserve forests instead of converting them to agricultural land.Key MessagesCosta Rica stands out as having addressed high levels of deforestation through a robust Protected Area system and natural resource management legislation, complemented by direct financial incentives offered to private landowners.Economic reform processes need to be aligned with national environmental priorities in order to achieve policy coherence. Costa Rica's focus on ecotourism as an economic driver has reinforced its national forest policies.Costa Rica has a strong democratic system, in which environmental issues feature in public debate and government policy. This culture of national leadership and local ownership over development has had a powerful influence on environmental progress.List of countries by ecological footprintFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMain article: Ecological footprintWorld map of countries by ecological footprintThis page is a list of countries by ecological footprint. This table is based on 2007 data from the Global Footprint Network published in 2010. Data is given as global hectares per capita. The world-average ecological footprint in 2007 was 2.7 global hectares per person (18.0 billion in total). With a world-average biocapacity of 1.8 global hectares per person (12 billion in total), this leads to an ecological deficit of 0.9 global hectares per person (6 billion in total). If a country does not have enough ecological resources within its own territory, then there is a local ecological deficit and it is called an ecological debtor country. Otherwise, it has an ecological remainder and it is called an ecological creditor country. NB this list does not include all countries; it contains 153 of the 192 world countriesCountry Population EF gha/p Biocap Ecological remainder (if positive) in gha/pers UAE 6.25 10.68 0.85 -9.83 Qatar 1.14 10.51 2.51 -8.00 Bahrain 0.76 10.04 0.94 -9.10 Denmark 5.45 8.26 4.85 -3.41 Belgium 10.53 8.00 1.34 -6.66 USA 308.67 8.00 3.87 -4.13 Estonia 1.34 7.88 8.96 1.08 Canada 32.95 7.01 14.92 7.91 Australia 20.85 6.84 14.71 7.87 Kuwait 2.85 6.32 0.40 -5.92 Ireland 4.36 6.29 3.48 -2.81 Netherlands 16.46 6.19 1.03 -5.16 Finland 5.28 6.16 12.46 6.30 Sweden 9.16 5.88 9.75 3.87 Czech Rep 10.27 5.73 2.67 -3.06 Macedonia 2.04 5.66 1.43 -4.23 Latvia 2.27 5.64 7.07 1.43 Norway 4.72 5.56 5.48 -0.08 Mongolia 2.61 5.53 15.14 9.61 Spain 44.05 5.42 1.61 -3.81 Greece 11.11 5.39 1.62 -3.77 Singapore 4.49 5.34 0.02 -5.32 Austria 8.31 5.30 3.31 -1.99 Slovenia 2.01 5.30 2.61 -2.69 Saudi Arabia 24.68 5.13 0.84 -4.29 Uruguay 3.34 5.13 9.91 4.78 Germany 82.34 5.08 1.92 -3.16 Switzerland 7.51 5.02 1.24 -3.78 France 61.71 5.01 3.00 -2.01 Italy 59.31 4.99 1.14 -3.85 Oman 2.73 4.99 2.14 -2.85 NZ 4.19 4.89 10.77 5.88 UK 61.13 4.89 1.34 -3.55 South Korea 47.96 4.87 0.33 -4.54 Malaysia 26.56 4.86 2.61 -2.25 Israel 6.93 4.82 0.32 -4.50 Japan 127.40 4.73 0.60 -4.13 Lithuania 3.36 4.67 4.36 -0.31 Kazakhstan 15.41 4.54 4.01 -0.53 Portugal 10.64 4.47 1.25 -3.22 Russia 141.94 4.41 5.75 1.34 Poland 38.13 4.35 2.09 -2.26 Mauritius 1.27 4.26 0.56 -3.70 Bulgaria 7.64 4.07 2.13 -1.94 Slovakia 5.39 4.06 2.68 -1.38Turkm’stan 4.98 3.93 3.21 -0.72 Belarus 9.72 3.80 3.29 -0.51 Croatia 4.43 3.75 2.50 -1.25 Nepal 28.29 3.56 0.55 -3.01 Gambia 1.62 3.45 1.10 -2.35 Chile 16.64 3.24 3.83 0.59 Paraguay 6.13 3.19 11.24 8.05 Trinidad 1.33 3.09 1.57 -1.52 Libya 6.17 3.05 0.44 -2.61 Mexico 107.49 3.00 1.47 -1.53 Hungary 10.03 2.99 2.23 -0.76 Brazil 190.12 2.91 8.98 6.07 Lebanon 4.16 2.90 0.40 -2.50 Ukraine 46.29 2.90 1.82 -1.08 Venezuela 27.66 2.89 2.81 -0.08 Panama 3.34 2.87 3.15 0.28 Bosnia 3.78 2.75 1.60 -1.15 Romania 21.45 2.71 1.95 -0.76 Turkey 73.00 2.70 1.32 -1.38 Costa Rica 4.46 2.69 1.90 -0.79 Botswana 1.89 2.68 3.83 1.15 Iran 72.44 2.68 0.81 -1.87 Mauritania 3.14 2.61 5.50 2.89 Argentina 39.49 2.60 7.50 4.90 Bolivia 9.52 2.57 18.84 16.27 Serbia 9.83 2.39 1.16 -1.23 Guyana 0.76 2.38 62.13 59.75 Thailand 66.98 2.37 1.15 -1.22 Niger 14.14 2.35 2.09 -0.26 South Africa 49.17 2.32 1.14 -1.18 China 1336.55 2.21 0.98 -1.23 Namibia 2.09 2.15 7.56 5.41 Papua NG 6.42 2.14 3.75 1.61 Jordan 5.94 2.05 0.24 -1.81 El Salvador 6.11 2.03 0.67 -1.36 Jamaica 2.70 1.93 0.38 -1.55 Mali 12.41 1.93 2.49 0.56 Albania 3.13 1.91 0.87 -1.04 Honduras 7.17 1.91 1.84 -0.07 Tunisia 10.07 1.90 0.98 -0.92 Ecuador 13.34 1.89 2.33 0.44 Azerbaijan 8.63 1.87 0.76 -1.11 Colombia 44.36 1.87 3.98 2.11 Cuba 11.20 1.85 0.74 -1.11 Georgia 4.36 1.82 1.21 -0.61 Madagascar 18.60 1.79 3.07 1.28 Myanmar 49.13 1.79 2.04 0.25 Guatemala 13.35 1.77 1.12 -0.65 Armenia 3.07 1.75 0.71 -1.04 Ghana 22.87 1.75 1.19 -0.56 Uzbekistan 26.90 1.74 0.92 -0.82 Chad 10.62 1.73 3.17 1.44 Sudan 40.43 1.73 2.42 0.69 Guinea 9.62 1.67 2.85 1.18 Egypt 80.06 1.66 0.62 -1.04 Algeria 33.86 1.59 0.59 -1.00 Nicaragua 5.60 1.56 2.82 1.26 Peru 28.51 1.54 3.86 2.32 Uganda 30.64 1.53 0.85 -0.68 Syria 20.50 1.52 0.70 -0.82 Swaziland 1.15 1.50 1.00 -0.50 Dominican R 9.81 1.47 0.50 -0.97 Nigeria 147.72 1.44 1.12 -0.32 Comoros 0.83 1.42 0.29 -1.13 Somalia 8.73 1.42 1.40 -0.02 Gabon 1.42 1.41 29.29 27.88 Vietnam 86.11 1.40 0.86 -0.54 Moldova 3.67 1.39 0.66 -0.73 Iraq 29.49 1.35 0.30 -1.05 Burkina Faso 14.72 1.32 1.30 -0.02C African Rep 4.26 1.32 8.44 7.12 North Korea 23.73 1.32 0.58 -0.74 Philippines 88.72 1.30 0.62 -0.68 Laos 6.09 1.28 1.58 0.30 Liberia 3.63 1.26 2.47 1.21 Kyrgyzstan 5.35 1.25 1.34 0.09 Zimbabwe 12.45 1.25 0.75 -0.50 Benin 8.39 1.23 0.78 -0.45 Morocco 31.22 1.22 0.61 -0.61 Indonesia 224.67 1.21 1.35 0.14 Sri Lanka 19.88 1.21 0.45 -0.76 Tanzania 41.28 1.18 1.02 -0.16 Cape Verde 0.49 1.17 0.51 -0.66 Kenya 37.76 1.11 0.59 -0.52 Ethiopia 78.65 1.10 0.66 -0.44 Senegal 11.89 1.09 1.20 0.11 Lesotho 2.03 1.07 0.81 -0.26 Sierra Leone 5.42 1.05 1.20 0.15 Cameroon 18.66 1.04 1.85 0.81 Cambodia 14.32 1.03 0.94 -0.09 Rwanda 9.45 1.02 0.56 -0.46 Côte d'Ivoire 20.12 1.01 1.67 0.66 Angola 17.56 1.00 3.00 2.00 Tajikistan 6.73 1.00 0.56 -0.44 Togo 6.30 0.97 0.60 -0.37 RepCongo 3.55 0.96 13.27 12.31 Guinea-B 1.54 0.96 3.22 2.26 Yemen 22.27 0.94 0.62 -0.32 India 1164.67 0.91 0.51 -0.40 Zambia 12.31 0.91 2.26 1.35 Burundi 7.84 0.90 0.50 -0.40 Eritrea 4.78 0.89 1.60 0.71 Mozambique 21.87 0.77 1.89 1.12 Pakistan 173.18 0.77 0.43 -0.34DRof Congo 62.52 0.75 2.76 2.01PalestinianA 4.02 0.74 0.16 -0.58 Malawi 14.44 0.73 0.70 -0.03 Haiti 9.72 0.68 0.31 -0.37 Afghanistan 26.29 0.62 0.54 -0.08 Bangladesh 157.75 0.62 0.38 -0.24 Timor-Leste 1.06 0.44 1.21 0.77 Puerto Rico 3.95 0.04 0.14 0.10
- Sustainability advocates have been campaigning for half a century to get us to reduce our impact on our planet, but have failed to motivate the mainstream to shift their thinking and habits toward more sustainable, healthy lifestyles and policies. There are several reasons for this, though the main one has been that environmentalism and sustainability have often positioned themselves as killjoys and fanatics who care more about “nature” than they care about people. While their anger at the damage and destruction we are wreaking on our precious biosphere is understandable, it is also counterproductive. We need to move from impact reduction to thrival maximisation.
- Affluence = Per Capita IncomeGrowth
- Affluence = Per Capita IncomeGrowth
- The triple bottom line of people planet and profit must alsoincludeemotional and spiritual values such as love, family, faith and beauty,
- The future of human thrival hinges on rethinking the definition of well-being and development in a new frame: ThriveAbility. The corporation’s purpose, mission, strategies and practices, goods and services are key to defining and delivering ThriveAbilityMoving companies from incremental to transformational change requires new forms of performance assessment that align with the core of attributes of thriveability: including: integration across economic, environmental, governance, social dimensions; long-term horizons in designing and implementing corporate strategy and practices; andmeasurable commitment to preserving and expanding the stock of all forms of capital: human, natural, social, financial, and intellectual.If thriveability leaders are to be properly rewarded and laggards effectively motivated to change, investors, communities, NGOs, and companies themselves must deploy rigorous, credible, and transparent tools for judging progress across all aspects of sustainability performance.
- ThriveAbility is a response to the failure of sustainability to turn our ship around before we hit the iceberg. Its focus is on what motivates people to change, by providing them with a clear cut logic and set of incentives for doing so. Given that governments and NGO’s are often last in line when it comes to their ability to change, the focus of ThriveAbility is on innovators, entrepreneurs, businesses and enablers in governments and NGO’s who are able to work well in partnership with the business community to make things happen.
- Innovation is perhaps the most overused and least understood word of all time in business. Innovation essentially involves connecting real human needs with new possibilities whether scientific, technological or social. For an innovation to be sustainable it must have a sustainable business model.Needs aren’t just human, they’re systemic. Even if you only care about humans, in order to care for humans, you need to take care of the system— (the environment) that you live in. And this environment doesn’t include just the closed system we call the planet Earth. It also includes the human systems we live in— our societies—and the forming, changing, and constantly evolving values, ethics, religion, and culture that encompass these societies.To take systemic action requires that we act in concert with others, despite our differing approaches. This is what makes sustainability difficult. It is also what poses the biggest design opportunity.Sustainability, then, needs to address people (known collectively as “human capital”), our cultures, our needs and desires, and the environment that sustains us (known as “natural capital”), as well as the financial mechanisms (known as “financial capital”) that make most forms of design thrive. Solutions that don’t encompassor work in concert with others across these aspects of our lives significantly reduce their ability to succeed. Therefore, designers need to find ways to address all of these issues in their solutions.
- I am now going to tell you why innovation is simply evolution in action, to demonstrate why a focus on ThriveAbility rather than Sustainability is needed to transcend our existing limits as a species At every level of human development, the limits to the carrying capacity of our environment change, as we learn to overcome the physical, mental, emotional and social constraints we face at each specific level. Let us consider a few examples. Through nearly all of human history, our ancestors lived as hunter-gatherers. But from about 10 000 years ago - in a variety of locations around the world - they began to take up a settled existence. The reason for this fundamental change in the way people lived was quite simple the population had outgrown the capacity of hunting and gathering to support it. It takes as much as one to three square miles of land per person to support a hunter gatherer lifestyle. The need to feed larger populations forced people to take up agriculture, because farming produces anywhere from 10 to 100 times as much food per unit of land as hunting and gathering. Human ingenuity and technology made this transition possible, because people had by this time learned how to sow crops and domesticate animals. The need to tend and defend their fields and pastures then required the founding of fixed settlements. When this fundamental shift from hunting and gathering to farming, and from a nomadic to a settled existence, began, the earth’s population was still quite small, between five to ten million. People lived only 20 to 25 years on average, and almost as many people died each year from hunger, accidents, or disease as were born.In pre-agricultural, hunter gatherer societies, it takes thousands of hectares to feed one family. In one well documented case, a population of 2,000-4,000 hunter-gatherers were estimated to be roaming over an area of about 6,5 million hectares, or 650 000 square km. This population was grouped into bands of about 50 individuals, and the average population density was no more than 10 people per square mile. Farming, however, concentrates edible plants and animals into a much smaller area of land, ensuring that a given area of land could support many more people. In early agricultural society it took about 10 hectares (25 acres) of land to feed one family. The much greater concentration of population that resulted meant that more stable settlements could be formed. Malthusian fears that population growth would outstrip food supplies have been widely discounted as food production kept well ahead of growing human numbers in the last half century. (While population doubled, food supply tripled, and life expectancy increased from 46 in the 1950s to around 65 today.) Today the average person needs only 2 hectares to provide them with a healthy diet, though in the USA and the UAE that figure exceeds ten hectares per person, due mainly to consumption beef, meats and expensive, lengthy food supply chains.. But of course there are limits to increasing productivity in fossil-fuel enhanced agriculture, including their negative long term impact on our ecosystems. Sustainable agriculture including acceptable technological enhancements, is evolving rapidly, but just consider this: Plants capture a maximum of 1% of the sun’s energy, animals ate the plants and hunter gatherer humans ate both the plants and the animals to survive. Solar panels can now capture between 20 to 40% of the sun’s energy. We cannot of course eat solar panels, but we can use the energy they generate to produce food more effectively and make our biological ecosystems more productive in sustainable ways. So just as there is no real energy shortage, there is also no real food shortage, if we invest wisely in sustainable agricultural systems. We have to apply the ThriveAbility equation in all our activities, strategies and policies.
- I am now going to tell you why innovation is simply evolution in action, to demonstrate why a focus on ThriveAbility rather than Sustainability is needed to transcend our existing limits as a species At every level of human development, the limits to the carrying capacity of our environment change, as we learn to overcome the physical, mental, emotional and social constraints we face at each specific level. Let ius consider a few examples.Through nearly all of human history, our ancestors lived as hunter-gatherers. But from about 10 000 years ago - in a variety of locations around the world - they began to take up a settled existence. The reason for this fundamental change in the way people lived was quite simple the population had outgrown the capacity of hunting and gathering to support it. It takes as much as one to three square miles of land per person to support a hunter gatherer lifestyle.The need to feed larger populations forced people to take up agriculture, because farming produces anywhere from 10 to 100 times as much food per unit of land as hunting and gathering. Human ingenuity and technology made this transition possible, because people had by this time learned how to sow crops and domesticate animals. The need to tend and defend their fields and pastures then required the founding of fixed settlements. When this fundamental shift from hunting and gathering to farming, and from a nomadic to a settled existence, began, the earth’s population was still quite small, between five to ten million. People lived only 20 to 25 years on average, and almost as many people died each year from hunger, accidents, or disease as were born.In pre-agricultural, hunter gatherer societies, it takes thousands of hectares to feed one family. In one well documented case, a population of 2,000-4,000 hunter-gatherers were estimated to be roaming over an area of about 6,5 million hectares, or 650 000 square km. This population was grouped into bands of about 50 individuals, and the average population density was no more than 10 people per square mile. Farming, however, concentrates edible plants and animals into a much smaller area of land, ensuring that a given area of land could support many more people. In early agricultural society it took about 10 hectares (25 acres) of land to feed one family. The much greater concentration of population that resulted meant that more stable settlements could be formed. Malthusian fears that population growth would outstrip food supplies have been widely discounted as food production kept well ahead of growing human numbers in the last half century. (While population doubled, food supply tripled, and life expectancy increased from 46 in the 1950s to around 65 today.) Today the average person needs only 2 hectares to provide them with a healthy diet, though in the USA and the UAE that figure exceeds ten hectares per person, due mainly to consumption beef, meats and expensive, lengthy food supply chains.. But of course there are limits to increasing productivity in fossil-fuel enhanced agriculture, including their negative long term impact on our ecosystems. Sustainable agriculture including acceptable technological enhancements, is evolving rapidly, but just consider this: Plants capture a maximum of 1% of the sun’s energy, animals ate the plants and hunter gatherer humans ate both the plants and the animals to survive. Solar panels can now capture between 20 to 40% of the sun’s energy. We cannot of course eat solar panels, but we can use the energy they generate to produce food more effectively and make our biological ecosystems more productive in sustainable ways. So just as there is no real energy shortage, there is also no real food shortage, if we invest wisely in sustainable agricultural systems. We have to apply the ThriveAbility equation in all our activities, strategies and policies.
- I am now going to tell you why innovation is simply evolution in action, to demonstrate why a focus on ThriveAbility rather than Sustainability is needed to transcend our existing limits as a species At every level of human development, the limits to the carrying capacity of our environment change, as we learn to overcome the physical, mental, emotional and social constraints we face at each specific level. Let ius consider a few examples.Through nearly all of human history, our ancestors lived as hunter-gatherers. But from about 10 000 years ago - in a variety of locations around the world - they began to take up a settled existence. The reason for this fundamental change in the way people lived was quite simple the population had outgrown the capacity of hunting and gathering to support it. It takes as much as one to three square miles of land per person to support a hunter gatherer lifestyle.The need to feed larger populations forced people to take up agriculture, because farming produces anywhere from 10 to 100 times as much food per unit of land as hunting and gathering. Human ingenuity and technology made this transition possible, because people had by this time learned how to sow crops and domesticate animals. The need to tend and defend their fields and pastures then required the founding of fixed settlements. When this fundamental shift from hunting and gathering to farming, and from a nomadic to a settled existence, began, the earth’s population was still quite small, between five to ten million. People lived only 20 to 25 years on average, and almost as many people died each year from hunger, accidents, or disease as were born.In pre-agricultural, hunter gatherer societies, it takes thousands of hectares to feed one family. In one well documented case, a population of 2,000-4,000 hunter-gatherers were estimated to be roaming over an area of about 6,5 million hectares, or 650 000 square km. This population was grouped into bands of about 50 individuals, and the average population density was no more than 10 people per square mile. Farming, however, concentrates edible plants and animals into a much smaller area of land, ensuring that a given area of land could support many more people. In early agricultural society it took about 10 hectares (25 acres) of land to feed one family. The much greater concentration of population that resulted meant that more stable settlements could be formed. Malthusian fears that population growth would outstrip food supplies have been widely discounted as food production kept well ahead of growing human numbers in the last half century. (While population doubled, food supply tripled, and life expectancy increased from 46 in the 1950s to around 65 today.) Today the average person needs only 2 hectares to provide them with a healthy diet, though in the USA and the UAE that figure exceeds ten hectares per person, due mainly to consumption beef, meats and expensive, lengthy food supply chains.. But of course there are limits to increasing productivity in fossil-fuel enhanced agriculture, including their negative long term impact on our ecosystems. Sustainable agriculture including acceptable technological enhancements, is evolving rapidly, but just consider this: Plants capture a maximum of 1% of the sun’s energy, animals ate the plants and hunter gatherer humans ate both the plants and the animals to survive. Solar panels can now capture between 20 to 40% of the sun’s energy. We cannot of course eat solar panels, but we can use the energy they generate to produce food more effectively and make our biological ecosystems more productive in sustainable ways. So just as there is no real energy shortage, there is also no real food shortage, if we invest wisely in sustainable agricultural systems. We have to apply the ThriveAbility equation in all our activities, strategies and policies.
- I am now going to tell you why innovation is simply evolution in action, to demonstrate why a focus on ThriveAbility rather than Sustainability is needed to transcend our existing limits as a species At every level of human development, the limits to the carrying capacity of our environment change, as we learn to overcome the physical, mental, emotional and social constraints we face at each specific level. Let ius consider a few examples.Through nearly all of human history, our ancestors lived as hunter-gatherers. But from about 10 000 years ago - in a variety of locations around the world - they began to take up a settled existence. The reason for this fundamental change in the way people lived was quite simple the population had outgrown the capacity of hunting and gathering to support it. It takes as much as one to three square miles of land per person to support a hunter gatherer lifestyle.The need to feed larger populations forced people to take up agriculture, because farming produces anywhere from 10 to 100 times as much food per unit of land as hunting and gathering. Human ingenuity and technology made this transition possible, because people had by this time learned how to sow crops and domesticate animals. The need to tend and defend their fields and pastures then required the founding of fixed settlements. When this fundamental shift from hunting and gathering to farming, and from a nomadic to a settled existence, began, the earth’s population was still quite small, between five to ten million. People lived only 20 to 25 years on average, and almost as many people died each year from hunger, accidents, or disease as were born.In pre-agricultural, hunter gatherer societies, it takes thousands of hectares to feed one family. In one well documented case, a population of 2,000-4,000 hunter-gatherers were estimated to be roaming over an area of about 6,5 million hectares, or 650 000 square km. This population was grouped into bands of about 50 individuals, and the average population density was no more than 10 people per square mile. Farming, however, concentrates edible plants and animals into a much smaller area of land, ensuring that a given area of land could support many more people. In early agricultural society it took about 10 hectares (25 acres) of land to feed one family. The much greater concentration of population that resulted meant that more stable settlements could be formed. Malthusian fears that population growth would outstrip food supplies have been widely discounted as food production kept well ahead of growing human numbers in the last half century. (While population doubled, food supply tripled, and life expectancy increased from 46 in the 1950s to around 65 today.) Today the average person needs only 2 hectares to provide them with a healthy diet, though in the USA and the UAE that figure exceeds ten hectares per person, due mainly to consumption beef, meats and expensive, lengthy food supply chains.. But of course there are limits to increasing productivity in fossil-fuel enhanced agriculture, including their negative long term impact on our ecosystems. Sustainable agriculture including acceptable technological enhancements, is evolving rapidly, but just consider this: Plants capture a maximum of 1% of the sun’s energy, animals ate the plants and hunter gatherer humans ate both the plants and the animals to survive. Solar panels can now capture between 20 to 40% of the sun’s energy. We cannot of course eat solar panels, but we can use the energy they generate to produce food more effectively and make our biological ecosystems more productive in sustainable ways. So just as there is no real energy shortage, there is also no real food shortage, if we invest wisely in sustainable agricultural systems. We have to apply the ThriveAbility equation in all our activities, strategies and policies.
- Apple has become a master at dematerialization. In fact, Apple’s learned so much about the design, development, and manufacturing processes around this principle that it has become a core differentiator from its competition and has a sustainable competitive advantage. The iPhone is probably the best, though not only, example of this. However, the iPods and most everything Apple produces are also examples of sustainability. To begin, the iPhone has no wasted materials. It isn’t designed any bigger than it needs to be or with parts that are used strictly for ornamentation and serving no purpose. It’s as small as its components—and the human hand—will allow. In fact, it’s nearly a miracle of contemporary engineering. If you were to take one apart, you would be hard-pressed to find any material you could suggest to eliminate—even a bit. This is extraordinary. However, it’s neither an accident nor a fluke. All of Apple’s products are similarly dematerialized, although the mobile products tend to be to the greatest degree. Apple’s desktop computers, like the iMac and Mac Mini, it’s accessories, like its Airport base station, and even its keyboards, use materials more efficiently than all of Apple’s competitors’ products. To be sure, Apple isn’t sacrificing performance with this focus. Its products are some of the mosthigh quality and most technically capable in the industry. Lastly, Apple’s iPods and iPhones (as well as some other phones and portable devices) also have the effect of dematerializing other products entirely. When you buy an iPhone, not only are you replacing your phone, but also your portable audio player, PDA (personal digital assistant), and increasingly your watch, digital camera, GPS device, slide projectors (remember those?), and even television. This is dematerialization taken to the extreme, and it creates a much more beneficial impact than merely reducing the materials in a single product.Top 5 Reasons NOT To Buy The iPhone 5The iPhone 5 is billed as being “bigger, better and faster” than previous iterations, and if you feel like you simply can’t be seen without one, you’re not alone. But please — before you rush to the nearest Apple store to shell out $200-$700 for this new product — stop and THINK.Just because a technology advances doesn’t mean you need it. The world is drowning in an ocean of unwanted electronics, only a small percentage of which are recycled. Most of these e-waste recycling operations are in developing nations where untrained workers, many of them children, melt toxic plastics over open flames just to get at the precious metals beneath.New technology is great when it solves a problem or consumes less energy. New technology for the sake of buying something new is a hoax and a swindle. Apple, like all technology companies, is in the business of making and selling gadgets. For that reason, they plan for their products to become obsolete quickly. They carefully monitor the release of features, ensuring that each release has just enough “new” stuff to tempt you to buy. iPhones aren’t meant to last. They’re meant to be replaced, at a high cost to you and the environment.Here are five important reasons why you don’t need to buy a new iPhone 5. Resist the pressure! And when someone asks why in the world you’re still using your old phone, send them a link to this article.1. You Already Have A Working PhoneChances are, it’s the iPhone 4S which just hit the market a little over a year ago. Even if it’s not, I bet that phone in your pocket still makes calls, sends texts and it might even let you look at Facebook while you’re supposed to be working. Here’s the thing: the iPhone 5 doesn’t even have that many new features. Sure, it boasts a big screen and a faster processor, but it won’t do your homework or work if you drop it in the toilet. In short, there is nothing surprising or revolutionary about the iPhone 5.2. Foxconn Riots/Worker RightsWithin a week after the iPhone 5 hit the market, there have been reports of riots and worker beatings inside the Chinese factories where the phones are made. According to Foxconn, which has come under scrutiny for worker treatment in the past, it was just ”a personal dispute between several employees [that] escalated into an incident involving some 2,000 workers.” Right. And I’m sure the stress of producing millions of iPhones to keep up with consumer demand during the launch week had nothing to do with it.3. Environmental Impact of E-WasteLet’s say that of the millions of people who will buy a new iPhone 5, 20 percent of them actually make an attempt to recycle their old phone instead of throwing it in the trash or stuffing it in a drawer somewhere. That’s a lot of phones looking for a responsible recycling program. Not all e-waste recycling schemes actually make a point to keep all elements of the device out of the landfill. Some merely pack mobile devices into huge shipping containers and send them off to Africa for processing. See, African nations have almost no environmental regulations, so the waste can be burnt or buried for a lot less than it would cost to pay American workers to recycle and reuse it. There are some responsible cell phone recyclers, but you have to take the time to find them.4. You’ll Have To Buy All New AccessoriesStill feeling the pinch of a sluggish economy? Living paycheck to paycheck? Stop and think about whether Apple is the best place to put your hard earned money. Remember what I said about built-in obsolescence? iPhone 5 finally got rid of that prehistoric 30-pin connector and replaced it with a smaller dock connector. BUT a new connector means you’ll need new adapter for accessories. Thus, you will need to repurchase all new accessories that will be compatible with this new feature. That’s just one reason why Apple is considered one of the least green tech companies in the world.5. Apple Is The 1%If you’ve been following or participating in the Occupy Wall Street movement, you know that a major complaint of the 99% is that corporations are stifling the American economy. They lobby for self-serving tax breaks and against environmental regulation. They ship jobs overseas while making record-breaking profits year after year. And guess what? Apple is one of them. Forbes reports that Apple’s overseas cash hoard grew from $17.4 billion in 2009 to $30.8 billion in 2010, all while paying a lower tax rate than you.
- Transmaterializationis a strange word,but the process is a new phenomenonnot easily recognized by most people.Sometimes called servicizing, defined simply,it’s the process of turning a product into aservice. However, many people still can’t understandhow this is accomplished without anexample. (How does a tangible product turninto an intangible service?) So, an example isin order.The Metamorphosis ofTransmaterializationConsider how people bought music in thepast. First, there were records, followed bytapes of different types (reels, eight-tracks,cassettes, and so on), and finally, starting inthe 80s, compact discs (CDs). All of these arephysical products, even though the music itselfwasn’t necessarily physical. (It could already betransmitted across radio waves, for example.)Most people associated music with a physicalobject. Now, however, music is completelydigital and even more virtual. The rise in musicdownloads (both legal and illegal) is displacingthe sale of the physical CDs (though some, likerecords, will probably always be traded by collectors).In this way, the physical product hasbeen displaced by a nonphysical service.The best example of this is Apple’s iTunesmusic store (see Figure 8.1). Not only does theservice enjoy 75 percent of the entire market formusic downloads (and sells more music thanany other company in the U.S.), but it is alsono longer limited to just music. The iTunesmusic store now sells films, television shows,applications (remember when those, too, wereshipped on CD-ROMs?), and even books (asaudio books). Where it would have been unheardof to discuss these products as servicesonce upon a time, we now regularly conceiveand design new systems that do exactly this. Table 8.1The Environmental Impact of Different Forms of Music DistributionScenario* AbioticImpact (kg)Biotic Impact(kg)Water Use(kg)CDs bought inphysical store1.56 0.09 39.52CDs bought online,shippedto homes1.31 0.06 46.73Music downloaded(user burnsCD-R)0.67 0 23.31Music downloaded(no CD-Rcopy)0.60 0 20.29* Inclusion of computer materials impact the same in each scenario
- Design.The word conjures images of effete eccentrics; imposing cuboidal-built environments, clashing color, tortured fashion, and over rated celebrity upon the jaded palates of urbanites with too much money.There have been moments in design’s past where truly great designers showed us that design was also concerned with performance, understanding, communication,emotion, desire, meaning, and humanity itself.How can your organization approach the world in a more sustainable way using design? Design is interconnected—to engineering, management, production, customer experiences, and to the planet. Discussing and comprehending the relationship between design and sustainability requires a systems perspective to see these relationships clearly.Total Beauty is a quantitative framework that offers a point system to calculate total impact of products and services in environmental terms, Created by Edwin Datcheski to redefine the concept of what is “beautiful”.
- A story of two buildings- the first nominated as the world’smostbeautiful building, the second as the world’sgreenest building. The first isFrank Gehry's Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, winner by a wide margin of the World Architecture Survey.This structure is globally recognised as one of the most dramatic constructions of the twentieth century, but has also been criticised by green experts as a “mind-boggling waste”. Yet for Bilbao, the GehryGuggenheimhas brought in 15 million visitors and 500 million euros in revenue plus a few hundred million in taxes, and has transformed the docks and former industrial wasteland on which it is built.We asked the world’s leading architects, critics, and deans of architecture schools two questions: what are the five most important buildings, bridges, or monuments constructed since 1980, and what is the greatest work of architecture thus far in the 21st century? Here are the answers from our 52 respondents, who are listed alphabetically. Bilbao estimates that its economic impact on the local economy in 2001 was worth 168 million Euro to the Basque treasury in taxes. This represents the equivalent of 4,415 jobs. A visitorsurvey revealed that 82% came to the city of Bilbao exclusively to see the museum, or had extended their stay in the city to visit it.” According to an economic impact study conducted in 2008 by the city of Bilbao, Spain, more than 11 million people had visited the Gehry-designed Guggenheim Museum since its opening 11 years before. Moreover, the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao is a leading European cultural institution in terms of self-financing, achieving around 65% of its financing from its own services rendered, again underscoring the power of the building itself as a marketing tool. Throughout his career, Frank Gehry developed a reputation for himself as one of the 20th centuries greatest Architects, and rightfully so. His compositions are striking, fluid and have a certain sense of the surreal that entices and demands attention. His buildings from the mid-1990s present exciting conceptions of enclosing space and bold sculptural forms in architecture, set at angles that seem to defy gravity. He employed the use of cheap, commercial materials such as metal, plywood, corrugated metal and even chain-link fencing, which often challenged local council by-laws and aesthetics.In 1977, Gehry designed the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain. It was designed to provide international exhibition spaces for modern and contemporary art, with up-to-date museum facilities. Gehry designed the museum with separate functional areas focused on a central atrium surrounded by galleries, and with large spaces designed for a range of exhibition purposes. Aesthetically, the museum is composed of stacked sculptural forms, striking at angles, illuminated by the shifting light from the sun on their metallic scales. Gehry referred to the form of the fish with its scales as an innovative form for the surfaces of many of his buildings. He believed the fish-like forms would give the building fluidity, a sense of continuous motion and, above all, a particular sculptural abstraction. The building internal and external orientation is centred around the Nervion River and the town. It is located amongst wharves, towering sculptural cranes, shipyards and industrial warehouses. The structure itself, evokes a large ship that has been run aground on the banks of the River.
- In a similarcompetitionrun by by Architect magazine asking architects what they thought was the greenest building of all, Renzo Piano’sCalifornia Academy of Sciences was selected as the winner out of 150 green buildings nominated. If one compares the two lists of the greenest buildings and the greatest buildings, there are very few buildings that appear on both lists.Beneath the 2.5-acre living roof, a single building measuring 410,000 sf houses the academy components that once stretched across 12 structures. The key elements are the new iterations of the Morrison Planetarium, Kimball Natural History Museum and Steinhart Aquarium. Also included are eight scientific research departments, an indoor rainforest and a coral reef exhibit with some 4,000 fish in a 212,000-gallon tank that the academy says is the deepest living display of its kind. "In addition to the living elements, the academy's roof includes several other energy efficient features. The mounds on the roof are dotted with circular skylights fitted with heat sensors, and the skylights open to further cool the building when a certain temperature is reached. The planted area is surrounded by 60,000 photovoltaic cells that are to supply 5 to 10 percent of the academy's energy needs and prevent the release of more than 405,000 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions annually,Rana Creek Living Architecture worked with Renzo Piano Building Workshop, Chong and Partners Architrecture, SWA Group, ARUP Engineering, and the Academy to design the living roof that covers the vegetated roof with seven dramatic hills - four steeply sloped domes - replicating the surrounding rolling hills. The biodegradable modular greenroof system, BioTray™, was developed specifically for this project by Paul Kephart of Rana Creek and Kurt Horvath of Intrinsic Landscaping (BioTray™ was later purchased by Tremco). Two of the domes are almost 60 degree slopes. Rana Creek supplied approximately 50,000 17" x 17" biodegradable modular "Bio Trays," made from coir from the Philippines. The roof has been planted with nine plant species native to the northern California coast, and approximately 1.7 million plants will blanket the living roof. The three-year research period during which Rana Creek Living Architecture designed, built and monitored a series of living roof mock ups, informed this diverse assemblage of indigenous plants, as well as the soil retention and drainage techniques ultimately chosen for the project. The California Academy of Sciences is unique amongst natural history museums in its dedication to combining research and education under one roof."Padded with six inches of soil, the roof will provide excellent insulation, keeping interior temperatures about 10 degrees cooler than a standard roof and reducing low frequency noise by 40 decibels. It will also decrease the urban heat island effect, staying about 40 degrees cooler than a standard roof. Moreover, it will absorb about 98% of all storm water, preventing up to 3.6 million gallons of runoff from carrying pollutants into the ecosystem each year," (CAS Press Release).According to the Academy's website, "The native plants will provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife. Beach strawberries (Fragariachiloensis) produce berries that attract a number of native birds, self heal (Prunella vulgaris) bears large tubular flowers that are attractive to hummingbirds and bumble bees, sea pink (Armeria maritime) produces pom-pom-like flowers that attract moths and butterflies, stonecrop (Sedum spathulitholium) produces nectar for the Hairstreak butterfly and the threatened San Bruno elfin butterfly, tidy tips (Layiaplatyglossa) attract parasitic wasps and pirate bugs that feed on pest insects, miniature lupine (Lupinusbicolor) and California poppies (Eschscholziacalifornica) provide nectar for bees and butterflies, California plantain (Plantagoerecta) hosts a variety of butterfly larvae, and the bright yellow flowers produced by Goldfield plants (Lastheniacalifornica) attract a wide variety of beneficial native insects."Surrounding the Living Roof is a large glass canopy with a decorative band of 60,000 photovoltaic cells. These solar panels will generate approximately 213,000 kilowatt-hours of energy per year and provide up to 10% of the Academy's electricity need. The use of solar power will prevent the release of 405,000 pounds of greenhouse gas emission into the air," continues the website, referring to additional Sustainable Design and LEED features.
- Whiciis the sexiestperson or thing?Halle Berry- 26%Scarlett Johanssen – 14%iPhone- 6%
- An Airbus concept plane- ready for 2030 andElonMusk’selectric Tesla Roadster, with a solarpowered light aircraft,
- This sounds like a ridiculous comparison, doesn’t it? Most people (as well as common sense) would tell us that the Prius is definitely, even unquestionably, better than the Hummer H2. However, how do we actually know this? On what basis are we making this assessment? I’ve used this example because it’s a famous controversy in the sustainability world. To do an adequate evaluation, it’s important to look at the life cycle of these products. For example, in the use phase of each (in this case, driving), it’s obvious that the Prius is better because it gets significantly better mileage (45 mpg for the Prius, 17 mpg for the Hummer). It doesn’t get much clearer than that.But what happens if we look at the phases of each, namely, the manufacturing phase, (including sourcing raw materials and components, assembling them—often in different places—and transporting them to buyers) and the disposal phase (what happens to them when we’re finished with them, including any recycling of their components). Miles per gallon won’t help us here. How do we measure these impacts and where do we find the data?This presents another critical challenge: customers don’t have access to this data. Again, we need to rely on experts, but in this case, experts don’t have this data either. The only place to get the data (and it’s incredibly complex data) is from the manufacturers themselves, and for the most part, they don’t track this information. Even when they have partial data, they certainly aren’t sharing it. So where does that leave us? Industry experts can estimate this data and probably get reasonably close at figuring out which is more cost-effective, but this is conjecture, not real data. And, when experts do estimate, we have to question what their intentions are. In the Prius vs. Hummer example, one industry group did just this, to controversial conclusions.This particular study showed that, when you take into account the entire life cycle of each car, the Hummer’s impact is less than the Prius. How can that be? In the manufacturing phase, the Prius (and all other hybrids) suffer from increased complexity. Hybrids have two drivetrains and many batteries that both add significant weight and are manufactured from more toxic materials. In addition, hybrid technologies are new and haven’t benefited from as much efficiency derived from design and manufacturing experience. The Hummer (and many SUVs) may actually have an advantage in this phase. In the transportation phase, neither vehicle probably has an advantage over the other for cars sold in the U.S. Both travel considerable distances (the Prius from Japan, at the moment) and the Hummer from Indiana. To really make a determination, we’d have to look at the methods of transportation and the distances traveled.Ships are efficient but incredibly dirty. Trains and trucks a little less dirty (though not by much) but also less efficient per car. We’d have to take into account the types of fuel used as well. For now, let’s just call it a wash. In the use phase, the Prius clearly wins. Even though it carries around two drivetrains, it’s still lighter and its regenerative breaking captures otherwise lost energy. Score a big one for the hybrid. However, once we get to the disposal phase, things flip around. Hybrid batteries use highly toxic chemicals that must be disposed ofcarefully. For those that get junked properly (or will when they start to get old), the costs are much higher than for conventional cars. Proper disposal or not, these chemicals represent a higher cost, both financially and environmentally. To start, although the Prius excels in the use phase, there are questions about themanufacturing and disposal phases. This last point, how many miles to rate each car at, is the focus of the controversy. It’s undeniable that the Prius excels in the use phase. It is probably a tie in the manufacturing phase (a case could be made that either is better, based on material amounts or types and the distance they travel). However, the study in question assumed the Prius would only last 100,000 miles based on the ratings on the battery (implying that the entire battery pack, a critical component, must be replaced after 100,000 miles in order to continue achieving the performance in its use phase). Many people point to this as being unfair, and,in fact, if the same numbers published in the report were amortized over 300,000 miles, just like the Hummer, the final impact scores would be very similar. In itself, this is surprising to most people who don’t know about the mechanics of hybrid systems. Hybrids like the Prius are a kind of compromise. Essentially, they are an electric car with an on-board power generator that runs on gas. It’s a good compromise, based on our current expectations of car performance and the current state of technology, but it’s still a complex compromise that’s anything but ideal.Setting aside the issue of complexity, we don’t really know yet how to rate the longevity of the Prius. Surely, the body and engine should last as long as the Hummer. But how do we rate the batteries (which may last longer than 100,000 miles but surely not as long as 300,000)? Toyota’s response to the study was reactive and defensive and, rightly, challenged many of its assumptions, but it didn’t illuminate any of the questions, and it didn’t provide any data with which experts couldrecalculate the scores. If you read the response to Toyota’s response, written from the organization who created the study (funded by the U.S. automobile industry, by the way), it makes some important points that need to be addressed but it doesn’t make the question (or answer) any clearer.The only way to know for sure is to have access to the data and let a lot of knowledgeable people fight over the assumptions and projections. The problem is that no one but the manufacturers has access to the data and, likely, they don’t even track the data to the level required to do a fullscale LCA. This is a serious problem because it destroys the possibility of claims on either side being validated. In essence, the experts aren’t able to tell us which is better.There are other circumstances as well. For example, the Prius sales figures are sending a powerful message to the car industry about how interested drivers are in environmentally better solutions. That alone may be worth any difference in environmental impact.
- Also known as eco-effectiveness, Cradle to Cradle, or C2C, is a popular framework that demands significant change, for good reason, but represents a high bar to reach for most organizations (see Figure 3.2). It is a powerful perspective on the cyclic nature of waste and food, as well as the need to keep technical and biological materials separated. Great strides have been made under the C2C framework, but it takes commitment and support from the highest levels of an organization to achieve. A new, accompanying certification includes more detailed criteria.The basis for the Cradle to Cradle (C2C) approach involves four principles: • Elimination of hazardous (toxic) materials• “Waste equals food” (changing our definitionof “waste”)• Use the current solar income of energy• Use “upcyclable” materialsStrengths: Business-relevant and friendly. Integrates well with design and business functions.Easy to address in the development process.Easily combined with other frameworks.Weaknesses: Doesn’t cover financial or social issues. Doesn’t propose metrics. Doesn’t describe a development process. Not deeply detailed. Doesn’t favor natural or organic materials and can be biased toward technological solutions. Doesn’t explicitly value local production, transportation, product life span, or embodied energy of components.
- Traditional carpet is terrible stuff, from an environmental perspective. Carpet tile maker Interface changed everything about the materials and processes they used to make recyclable, less toxic carpet tiles that lasted longer, were better for workers as well as customers, and were taken back by the company when customers were finished with them. Interface was one of the first companies to publicly commit to sustainability with the launch of Mission Zero in 1994. One of the pledges made by founder Ray Anderson was to “cut the umbilical cord to oil”. In the late 90s, Interface revolutionized the environmental impact of one of the worst industries in the world. This year Interface launched a new product made from plant-based nylon- 63% of the yarn is made from nylon produced from castor plant oil. This breakthrough brings the company closer to achieving its Mission Zero target, which includes a commitment to end its use of petro-chemicals in its raw materials by 2020.Two thirds of the world’s castor oil plants are grown in India. They are fast-growing, can survive without water for up to 25 days and act as an effective stabiliser in soil that is prone to erosion. In addition to the environmental benefits, using yarn made from these plants also helps rural farmers based in hot and arid regions unsuitable for food production to generate new revenues. Interface’s TacTiles carpet installation system, which does not require glue, is included as standard with Fotosfera products, making it easier to install, remove, reuse and recycle the carpet.However, when Interface took their ideas one step further and tried to reframe carpet from a product to a service (leasing floor coverings), they weren’t as successful. For the most part, business customers just couldn’t wrap their heads around the idea that they weren’t purchasing carpet, but they were leasing great-looking floors. Even though Interface guaranteed that they would maintain the carpet (including replacing damaged sections) and update, recycle, and dispose of it at their own expense, most people still couldn’t make the cognitive leap that they would be paying monthly for something they could otherwise buy outright—even if it represented an overall saving.
- Design.The word conjures images of effete eccentrics; imposing cuboidal-built environments, clashing color, tortured fashion, and over rated celebrity upon the jaded palates of urbanites with too much money.There have been moments in design’s past where truly great designers showed us that design was also concerned with performance, understanding, communication,emotion, desire, meaning, and humanity itself.How can your organization approach the world in a more sustainable way using design? Design is interconnected—to engineering, management, production, customer experiences, and to the planet. Discussing and comprehending the relationship between design and sustainability requires a systems perspective to see these relationships clearly.Total Beauty is a quantitative framework that offers a point system to calculate total impact of products and services in environmental terms, Created by Edwin Datcheski to redefine the concept of what is “beautiful”.
- For decades, Maille, a French manufacturer of condiments, has been selling mustard, mayonnaise, and gherkins in glasses designed to be collected and reused as drinking glasses in the home. Although known for its tasty, premium mustard, the company is as well known in France for its approach to reusing glass jars. The seal and cap are designed for easy removal after use, and the edges are already finished for use as drinking glasses. The company often releases special commemorative series, and the latest glasses are a surprisingly premium design.
- The Mirra chair (see Figure 6.1), by Herman Miller, is an example of rethinking a product’s design around environmental criteria. The inspiration for the Mirra was the success of the Aeron, the (now) ubiquitous chair from the Web boom era. While the Aeron was popular for its ergonomic comfort, its low use of material (compared to traditional, padded executive chairs), and its many adjustments, it was very expensive to build, had many parts, and created a great deal of waste materials in manufacturing. The Mirra is an attempt to keep the popular features of the Aeron while making it a more sustainable alternative. Not only is it 15 percent less costly to build, but its sales quickly surpassed that of the Aeron.The designers of the Mirra, Studio 7.5 in Berlin and Herman Miller in Michigan, selected materials with an eye to the manufacturing process and designed the construction to use as few parts as possible. The result is a chair that is easily disassembled, uses parts made from 42 percent recycled materials, is 96 percentrecyclable, and is even less expensive than the Aeron. Some parts of the chair, such as the back panel, are 100 percent recyclable. Instead of traditional form and fabric, the Mirra uses a natural spring seat of elastomer and a back panel of molded polymer. The designers were also able to substitute nylon for PVC in the cable jacket, and in conjunction with suppliers, specify recycled content in the steel parts. In addition to the material focus, the Mirra is designed to be produced more easily, and at the same time, the simplified production process makes it also easier to both assemble and disassemble.The Mirra chair is certified at the Gold level of the Cradle to Cradle certification, and Herman Miller is one of the few companies to publish environmental impact reports for all of its products: www.hermanmiller.com/CDA/SSA/Category/0,1564,a10-c651,00.html. In addition, all new products developed by Herman Miller go through the Cradle to Cradle process.
- When James Dyson became so frustrated with the conventional vacuum he owned and decided to design something better, it was hardly his first invention. In the late 1970s, the industrial designer decided that a different process altogether could both cut down the number of moving parts, provide continuous and better suction, and not lose that suction at all as it picked up dirt like traditional vacuums did. His dual cyclone vacuum used the principle of cyclonic separation to suck up dirt and dropit into a clear bin (so you could see it) without clogging the motor or requiring a bag.By eliminating the bag, the vacuum cleaner eliminates a lot of material and impact in the use phase. In addition, the vacuum can save energy since its suction isn’t diminished during use. Lastly, the reason why this is an example of durability is that the vacuum itself performs better for longer since it doesn’t rely on costly bag replacements that might, someday, cease to be produced.
- In 2001, two Princeton students started TerraCycle with an unusual premise: they would collect garbage, sell it as garbage, use garbage for packaging—and make a profit doing so.Specifically, they collected food scraps, transformed the scraps into compost via worms, and sold it in reused plastic containers and cardboard boxes they collected from the trash. In addition, they decided to pay people for their garbage and still make a profit off the compost they sold. How’s that for an innovative business model?Tom Szaky and Jon Beyer began by collecting food waste from Princeton’s dining halls, but since then, they have expanded considerably. They now sell their compost through Whole Foods, Home Depot, and Walmart stores. They also buy used bottles, bags, corks, juice boxes, and other trash from schools and online users to use as containers for their many products.They’ve expanded from fertilizer to bird food and feeders, liquid cleaners, deer repellant, rain barrels, bags and backpacks, and unique pots made from electronic wasteBy understanding economic, environmental, and waste systems and rethinking business models, they’ve found a valuable opportunity where others didn’t—not to mention a solution.
- The latest iteration of Puma's EP&L is to compare a soon to be launched biodegradeable sports shoe and T-shirt, against its more conventional equivalents.By measuring the impacts from cradle to cradle, the company has been able to establish that developing more sustainable products is in fact making a positive difference.What the company found, for example, is that the environmental impact of its new InCycle shoe is nearly a third less than its conventional suede shoe and equivalent to €2.95, or 3% of the retail price.The environmental cost of T-shirts is much higher; 17% of the retail value for traditional cotton, compared with 12% for the biodegradeable version.However, much of that benefit would be lost if the biodegradable shoes and T-shirts at the end of their life ended up in landfill or were incinerated.Zeitz said: "By showing environmental costs in euros and cents, our new Puma product EP&L visualises the environmental impacts Puma products cause and makes comparing products in terms of sustainability easy for everyone. It therefore serves as a powerful assessment tool for comparing the sustainability of different products."As the calorie and nutrition information table on your cereal box helps you compare the dietary impacts of one breakfast choice to another, our new Puma product EP&L helps you to judge whether one shoe or shirt is more environmentally friendly, but also to engage our customers and help them make better and more sustainable choices.But will consumers actually be bothered by price tags showing the environmental cost of their goods, if it does not actually affect the price they pay for the products?Zeitz believes it will have an impact. "Many of our customers do care about the environment but they may be confused by lots of labels, but this will change once we have standardised the calculation and put a tag on every product."By looking at every aspect of a product's life, from the sourcing of raw materials and their manufacture, to their use and disposal, Zeitz says environmental benefits will now be much more transparent and quantifiable, and that certain myths will be able to be debunked.For example, companies using leather often trumpet the fact that they use less water in its manufacture then synthetic fibres. But Zeitz says that when you look across the board, it is clear that leather production is a lot more damaging overall.Zeitz also criticised governments for perverse subsidies that make it more expensive to use more sustainable materials, pointing out that if the company switched its suede shoes from leather to more sustainable materials, it would cost an extra €3.4 million a year in duties."I call upon governments to start supporting companies to use more sustainable materials in their products instead of continuing with antiquated incentives, such as import duties on synthetic materials that are in principle much higher compared with those placed on leather goods regardless of the environmental footprint," he said."Governments have a unique opportunity to incentivise corporations so that they can accelerate their evolution to a more sustainable economy through more sustainable practices and products."Zeitz admitted this would be a difficult task because the leather industry would fight such changes, and is therefore going to work with other companies and interested NGOs to try to put pressure on regulators."There is a huge opportunity, now that we have visibility on our true impacts, to change incentives. There are bodies out there that will help and support us. A lot of industry is very traditional in their thinking and there are lobbyists out there who do not want to see change."I will be involved in seeking to take this beyond one company and try to start scaling the impact by working with other business leaders to stop damaging subsidies."We will start positive lobbying. We are open to anyone who is ready to work in a constructive way. This needs to happen with business, as the private sector has a responsibility and we should take that seriously."The enormous support for the company's EP&L has taken Zeitz by surprise. While the company only launched its initiative last November, it has been a talking point around the world, including at this year's Rio +20 conference."I am very pleased and feeling positive," says Zeitz. "I always saw the huge potential and have received an incredibly positive response. There is nobody that I have heard that says this is nonsense."
- Also known as eco-efficiency, the Natural Capitalism framework was developed by three luminaries of sustainability: Paul Hawking, Amory Lovins, and Hunter LovinsIt is described in detail in their influential book 2002 Natural Capitalism. It is a framework for rethinking the value of social and natural resources in the context of business. Easy to understand, it creates a quick foundation for understanding the value of sustainability and the new perspectives around sustainable design and development.Natural Capitalism is based on the notion that the global economy is dependent on natural resources and ecosystem services that nature provides. It recognizes the critical interdependency between the production and use of human-made capital and the maintenance and supply of natural capital, and is based on four principles:Radically Increase the Productivity of Natural ResourcesShift to Biologically Inspired Production Models and MaterialsMove to a “Service-and-Flow” Business ModelReinvest in Natural CapitalStrengths: Clear, simple model of capital and value. Covers social, environmental, and financial issues. Business-relevant and friendly. Integrates well with design and business functions. Easy to address in the development process. Easily combined with other frameworks.Weaknesses: Doesn’t describe a development process. Not deeply detailed.
- The worsteconomic crash in more than 75 years. A world economywith no place to hide. “Always on” connectivity. Widespreaddistrust of business. Activistshareholders and interest groups. So far, leadership in the 21st century has been a walk on the wildside. The biggest challenge facing those who want to succeed in this complex and fast-moving world, is learning to embrace paradoxes.Paradox 1: growth versus sustainabilityIn the past, when asked about their ambition for their organisation, a successful CEO would have responded with grow, grow, grow. Year-on-year growth remains the measure of worth and value of an organisation. Growth as it is currently defined tends to result in an unquestioned and unchecked consumption of resources. Sustainability considerations are generally considered to put a major strain on growth ambitions. The way forward is innovation, but another paradox is inherent within this.Paradox 2: innovating versus operatingIs innovation one of the top values or priorities in your organisation? If it is not then it should be. It is not all about the big, radical innovations, it is also about small, incremental changes; it is certainly not all about products but increasingly about service , process , business model and social innovation.However, focusing on innovation does not mean ignoring operations. Effectiveness and efficiency, cost reductions and streamlining remain critical aspects of doing business. The tricky bit is that the skills, structures, measures and processes that allow operations to thrive can seriously get in the way of innovation and vice versa.Paradox 3: change versus continuityIf you are setting your organisation on course for innovation, what you are fundamentally doing is seeking change. The questions become innovation and change where? How much? In what areas of the business and why? What kind of innovation (product, process, service, business model) and what level of innovation (incremental, radical, transformational) should you be aspiring to? What should stay the same? If you try to innovate too many things at once you will end up with chaos, if you do not change at all your organisation will decline. What is the right balance?Paradox 4: collaboration versus competitionBusiness is inherently competitive, competing for customers, market share, employees, finances and other resources. However, today collaboration is common, with most companies having collaborated with their suppliers and their customers. Beyond this, leading companies are going a step further and promoting collaboration through crowdsourcing or with competitors.Paradox 5: complexity versus simplicityCollaborate, compete. Change, remain stable. Innovation excellence, operational excellence. Growth and sustainability. All of these demands on leaders result in increasing levels of complexity, arising less from the number of options and possibilities, but rather from the number of possible, unpredictable interactions between these. Leaders must find ways to deal with this complexity and embrace and manage it to achieve simplicity.Paradox 6: heart versus mindOn one hand there is the hard-nosed business world where decisions are based on facts and figures. On the other, there is complexity, change and innovation where predictability is hard to come by. Decisions need to be made in the face of incomplete analysis, unpredictable outcomes and changing circumstances. Gaining buy-in cannot be achieved using facts and figures that are truly reliable. People must be brought on board through other means such as vision, inspiration, engagement. The foundations for analysis and factual arguments differ from emotional and visionary engagement; people who excel at one are not necessarily particularly good at the other and yet both are needed.
- Alignment of diversity
- This narrow-angle color image of the Earth, dubbed 'Pale Blue Dot', is a part of the first ever 'portrait' of the solar system taken by Voyager 1. The spacecraft acquired a total of 60 frames for a mosaic of the solar system from a distance of more than 4 billion miles from Earth.The Voyager 1 spacecraft is a 722 kilogram space probe launched by NASA in 1977 to study the outer Solar System and interstellar medium. Operating for 34 years, 11 months and 25 days as of today (30 August 2012) (current operation time), the spacecraft receives routine commands and transmits data back to the Deep Space Network. At a distance of 120astronomical units (1.8x1010 km) as of February 2012,[2] it is the farthest manmade object from Earth. Voyager 1 is now in the heliosheath, which is the outermost layer of the heliosphere. On 15 June 2012, NASA scientists reported that Voyager 1 may be very close to entering interstellar space and becoming the first manmade object to leave the Solar System. Being a part of the Voyager program with its sister craft Voyager 2, the spacecraft is in extended mission, tasked with locating and studying the boundaries of the Solar System, including theKuiper belt, the heliosphere and interstellar space. The primary mission ended November 20, 1980, after encountering the Jovian system in 1979 and the Saturnian system in 1980.It was the first probe to provide detailed images of the two largest planets and their moons.Carl Sagan said:“Consider again that dot. That’s here, that’s home, that’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand. It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.”
- Economies go through mega-crashes roughly once every 70 years. It’s been that way since the tulipmania crash of roughly 1637. What lifts economies from those massive falls? New frontiers, new resources, new technologies; new ways to turn toxic wastes into energy and new techniques that turn garbage into gold. We evolved as humans by turning hostile environments to advantage. We evolved as humans by finding ways to live on the edges of Ice Age glaciers and on the fringes of deserts. We evolved by outfoxing 60 freezes and 18 periods of massive global warming. Today we have a new frontier whose potential is larger than any hostile horizon we’ve ever conquered before. It’s a new frontier not just for human beings but also for entire ecosystems — for meshes of living beings from bacteria and algae to trees, cats, and puppies. It’s a massive niche waiting to be greened. And we are the only beings on this planet that can reach it. We are the only ones who can green it. That vast new landscape hangs above our head.