thinkingstring.com

Fog high above London. Boardroom type table Orbited by a dozen or so suited individuals to which any of the following might apply, but all would be modestly denied…clever, thoughtful, experienced, connected, influential, knowledgeable,passionate, engaged. And I got to be there too. The scene is important I think as a form of context for understanding the fascinating nature of the conversation around the table.

Suited business professionals and members of the industry analyst community (some whom scrub up OK too) engaging in a passionate and informed discussion regarding the need to consider the re-engineering of the long established and pervasive capitalist system. Specifically, to examine how we can recognise and reward the value associated with a steady state economic (and business) model, as opposed to only rewarding a constant growth model as we have for the last 500 years or so.

The serious proposal being that the current systemic economic crisis and associated recessions are an opportunity to start on a new direction, especially given the nexus of the economy, climate change and looming petroleum supply shortages.The conversations themselves are fascinating to listen to, and a privilege to have the opportunity to engage with. What is truly interesting however is the type of people having them, and what that signals as far as the debate on climate change has come.

Valuing a mature sustained state economic model will highlight the value of efficiencies in the service delivery production chain. Currently efficiiencies are only lightly rewarded, at best second to margin growth derived through territory expansion. The correct valuation of efficiency gains would be enabled to no small degree by including the currently externalised economic, social and ecological costs associated with an activity into the financial balance sheet where it all belongs.

Those still debating whether climate change exists, or pointing to sunspots as the cause have unfortunately been left behind in the debate. It is critical to remember that that group is large in size (arguably the majority) , and non optional as far as the need to include them as we further engage, educate and encourage appropriate action around climate change.

Who said what around the table shall remain unattributed for now, but it was all good and thank you everyone.

Thank you and kudos to BT for organising the event, inviting us all along, and having the maturity to encourage unbridled discussion.

More.

Please.

We are have been geared to measure progress by how much growth has been achieved. Has the economy grown or contracted this year? Has output risen and have profits increased year over year? Have we earned more this year than last year? Have we manufactured more widgets, cleared more acres of land, mined more, made more, sold more? More…More…More…More…

Sharemarkets swiftly and harshly punish companies that fail to deliver an endless cycle of growth, while we need look no further than the front pages of our newspapers to understand the corporate and personal fear that results from a succession of quarters in which our overall economy fails to expand. It should be obvious however that expansion cannot however be infinite. There must indeed come a time when the resources that are needed as inputs to the system become short in supply and hence high in cost.

There must come a time when the market is saturated. There must come a time when the growth cannot be sustained in a sensible manner.

We’re there.

The interesting question is…where do we now go from here?

The answer is that we need a different target for success, and a new way of measuring success. Rather than a constant growth state economy (CGSE) we must instead develop and recognise the value of a Steady State Economic (SSE) model. Many will decry this as impossible, improbable, irrational, or even worse “downright disproven, socialist commune speak”. It is after all easy to point to the natural world and declare that “growth is the natural state of things”, and furthermore it is the proven way of successful human social and economic behaviour.

The reality is that the natural state involves both growth phases and balanced steady states. A single tree may grow, bud and be the genesis for an entire forest. However eventually the forest will reach a balanced state, once it has reached the edges of the resource boundaries available to it. At that point the net growth of flora and fauna within the forest ceases for the most part though there can be no denying that within that same forest an incredible richness of change and activity continues. The over expansion of any one element is generally counterbalanced by the emergence of a settling force that ensures the system is kept in check. Opportunities for individual growth and success continue - a steady state model is demonstrably still an active model rather than a static one.

We too are governed by that same reality. We have managed to skirt that only by the trick of externalising the full environment impact of our activities and thus by the sleight of hand of ignoring them as factors in our economic equations we have convinced ourselves that they are at worst irrelevant and at best non existent. AGW is nothing more than the debt of the long ignored externalities having reached a point where they are bursting back out from under the rug where we have too long swept them. Nothing more….and a whole lot more too.

Meanwhile, we must now recognise that one of the fundamental changes we must push through is one of systemic performance measurement. Businesses, individuals and State economies must recognise the inherent value of the “steady state”. This will require no small degree of re-evaluation in how we set targets, reward success, measure performance and encourage desirable action. Lowering the “per unit” ecological footprint of anything produced by business isn’t enough, if the gross output of the business is expected to infinitely rise. Only recognising that a steady state model is actually not only desirable, but also one modelled on the normal course of events in the world will create the necessary formula for truly sustainable economic and human activity.

According to a report in The Independent, a poll of Scientists performed by the paper found almost unanimous support for active engineering of the Earth’s biosphere in a drastic attempt to strip CO2 from the atmosphere. Even though we are living in an everyday life-is-the-experiment form of biospheric engineering (which is how we got into this mess to begin with) it should be easy to recognise that such suggestions are the climate change response equivalent of a plumber sucking air sharply through clenched teeth as he shakes he head in despair of the extent of the work required. I’m afraid Madam, that this is going to be far more inconvenient, painful and expensive than we first thought…. [suck/shake]

To pursue any of the bioengineering efforts that have been suggested, which range from blocking sunlight using spaceborn reflectors to manipulating the ocean’s chemistry and currents in an attempt to increase its CO2 absorption capability, should be rightly recognised as a REALLY BIG ISSUE. Assume for a moment that those scientists are correct in their support for such steps, and that they have also correctly ascertained that the current efforts to curb the flow rates of GHG emissions are wildly insufficient, then we are at the beginning of where it all gets really scary. The moment that must recognised as one of those gravely addressed times when you realise things aren’t quite going as well as you thought, and on the table there are no good options left, only a set of bad ones from which to select the least worse.

It is worth pausing for a moment to just reflect on the enormity of what is being suggested, the risk inherent in the exercise, and potential scope of the end result if we botched it up. In an everyday and everyman’s sense, it is impractical to understand however what all that does really mean on a planetary scale - so instead I will express it everyday terms. Imagine that your domestic central heating system’s thermostat has gone haywire and the house’s temperature is wildly fluctuating. Its 38 degrees Celsius in the lounge room and its 5 degrees in the bedrooms. Biospheric engineering is the equivalent of saying “Look, we tried to fix the central heating system but we can’t make it work properly anymore. So what we’re going to instead is leave the heating system as it is; and remodel the house around to cater for the problem. Of course….a few walls will have to come out in the process….”.

You can imagine that you’d take a long, careful look at that before proceeding VERY carefully.

Similarly, we need to have a number of careful debates regarding biospheric engineering, and a vigorously applied risk management methodology to any path forward. Sure we need to analyse and rank the relative merits of each of the suggested approaches - including for each a matching “back out” plan. We must ensure that part of the risk analysis for each suggested bio-engineering technique is a thorough what-if effort that considers the likely range of undesirable outcomes that may ensue, and what we’d then do to deal with those that arise (and be ready to do it). But if we’re going to have an Intervention, then lets do it properly.

Because if we’re saying that we’re at the point of considering biospheric engineering then we are also saying that Monopoly money carbon trading schemes, non enforceable international protocols, voluntary corporate emissions disclosure schemes and a generally unregulated approach to emissions measurement and management didn’t work. Rather than abandoning all of those efforts however, we should continue with (some of) them albeit in a different way. Taking the path of biospheric engineering should also go hand in hand with direct social and industrial intervention to ensure that what we have collectively failed to achieve through voluntary and half hearted adherence to emissions reductions targets is instead enforced. That reality is the obnoxious truth sitting unacknowledged around the Climate Change Christmas Dinner table. Because if we are going to take the incredibly complex, expensive, desperate and risky path of technical intervention in the planets biosphere we also need to try a different, and more honest approach to reducing the emissions.

Some of the required steps would be enormous ones to take. Forcing an immediate change in vehicle design. Forcing a suspension of a near totality of commercial air traffic. A rigorous change in building design codes, and a strict timetable for retrofitting of existing building and housing stock. A soup to nuts reorganisation of our food supply lines. Redeploy military personnel to a multinational, U.N. type force the mission of which it is to protect from any further degradation those natural carbon sinks that we have left - for example preventing any further logging or burning of the Amazon. It would be untenable to intervene with the workings of one sink - say the ocean - to try and boost it’s capacity while actively degrading another through profit seeking enterprise. When we’ve done those then perhaps we can find the courage to have a sensible debate regarding overall human population targets, in context of the capacity of the biosphere to be able to support us. Its easy to understand why no politician has yet thought it a winning strategy to include such suggestions as elements of an election policy platform.

Lets remember though that we are living in truly interesting times. GM and Chrysler are continuing to negotiate the details of US Federal support, lest they disappear in a fog of their own tailpipe emissions. Is it really too difficult for the conditions to be very simple: “If you want this money, then stop building every other vehicle except for a zero emissions (0em) 2 passenger vehicle, a 0em 4 passenger vehicle, one for 6 passengers, a delivery van, a large van, a small bus and a large bus. You have one year. When you’re done with those, come back and we’ll tell you the next thing we want you to do. Oh…and you’ll co-operate with each other to achieve this. Go. Now…”.

Those unable to continue to jet around the globe will of course go absolutely mental. There’s no great answer to that other than to again ponder the enormity of the implications and risks involved in engineering the biosphere in an attempt to resurrect and boost in the short term the planet’s capacity to absorb the emissions that result from such activities. And that is why this now has the potential to get all very ugly, and why we must take a very deliberate, risk managed, and deliberated approach toward the next steps. Half arsed hasn’t worked, we need to apply some strategic sustainability governance from here on in. Welcome to the topics that will define 2009: Biospheric Engineering, Governance, Risk Management.

I cannot help but point out that the acronym that immediately jumps out from that is B.E. G.Ri.M. Happy New Year.

According to Wikipedia (yeah…I know but its good enough for this purpose) the group named “The Club for Growth” is “a 501(c)(4) political organization and an affiliated political action committee that raises money for candidates who support a low-tax and limited-government agenda. The group claims over 40,000 members.”.

Relevant to me is that they are the major mouthpieces for the US coal and petro industries and that on their behalf it is trying its best to prevent the adoption of “cap and trade” regulations in the US. As the debate continues this week in Congress, and The Club for Growth and their coal industry lobbyist friends “America’s Power” continue their massive disinformation and influence campaign, they’ll probably succeed. Succeed in slowing the necessary political and regulatory changes and accelerating our rush to a climate change crash landing.

The Club for Growth says “Are the unproven benefits of legislation worth the major job losses?”.

It might be time to ask “Are the unproven job opportunities and benefits worth the loss of the planet that sustains the people in the jobs?”.

An increasing number of companies are announcing their “green” strategies, from travel and transportation, to high-tech, to supermarkets. It seems that every CEO has woken up the risks presented by the twin problems of climate change and peak oil. But what concerns me are the number of companies that don’t seem to have quite got their head around what those issues mean. An awful lot of companies seem to be placing responsibility for “sustainability” or “green” into the hands of their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) officers. Now, don’t get me wrong. Most of the CSR people I’ve ever met are very dedicated to their jobs, and the causes they manage to get funding and corporate support for. But I’ve never met one who has said that they feel they are in any way leading the company’s strategic direction and pace. In fact, many have become resigned to the fact that the charitable programs that they manage are at the whim of whoever is the current sales manager; and at the mercy of the discretionary budget.

However, sustainability doesn’t belong in the CSR department. ownership and governance of sustainability belongs at the board and executive management team level (think: CEO). Companies should no more place responsibility for sustainability in the hands of the CSR office than they would place responsibility there for corporate strategy, good governance, and risk management. Because those are the major elements inherent in a true sustainability strategy. If sustainability/green sits in Marketing or CSR, then you can be sure that a company is just painting green lipstick on the pig.

For those companies who “get it”, no doubt we will soon see the creation of a Chief Sustainability Officer - especially in North America where they are particularly fond of creating a new exec’ position and lumping them with a problem to solve. Where that occurs, the thing to watch for is how much influence the head greenie has over sales execution, facilities ops, field staff behaviour (in relation to travel), and strategic company direction.