Green Jobs and Wealth

"But some experts in economics and the energy industry say having more people work in alternative energy will actually lower our standard of living, by making energy more expensive. They say the public will need to balance how much wealth they're willing to sacrifice to protect the environment." - found here while researching about "green jobs".

From Sustainability to Beauty

Talk to company representatives about Corporate Social Responsibility - CSR - and they are likely to see it as an important thing to integrate into their business practices, if that has not already been done. Talk to your neighbours or colleagues, i.e. to "normal" people about CSR, and they are likely to mistrust the whole concept as just another empty promise.

Mistrust is responsible for the seemingly fragile or sometimes nonexisting relationship of companies, brands, institutions or authorities towards their users, consumers, or citizens. Yet, without trust, communities cannot bring about change. We cannot even speak about communities, if there is no trust that knits the players (in CSR terminology: "stakeholders") together.

In terms of sustainability, Michael Braungart, a key proponent of the Cradle-to-Cradle-concept, puts his finger on the shortcomings of sustainability: Sustainability, as it is practiced today, has the empty promise, that people suspect to be there, often built into it. All the talk about reducing carbon footprint or using less toxic material or reducing waste still is about being a little less bad, it is just "guilt management and celebrating mediocrity", as Braungart puts it. More radical approaches are needed: Having a big footprint, but a positive one (like ants). Using no toxic material at all. Eliminating the concept of waste - what we call waste today should be (technical) nutrients. Design that follows these principles is no longer eco design or sustainable design or green design in Braungart's view, but Total Beauty Design ("If it's toxic it is not beautiful.")

Also among designers I noted that Beauty (without quotation marks!) is being charged with new meaning: Beauty stands for natural, unobtrusive design, it is timeless and functional, often biomimetic, it makes you feel connected to the Earth and to your fellow beings.

The great thing is that Total Beauty is a lot easier to communicate than CSR, as it is does not even need words. Beauty can be recognized through the eyes, through touching, tasting and smelling. When people stop trusting glossy PR brochures, they still trust their senses.

Are companies ready to trust their own senses?

Surviving LOHAS

The New York Times recently had an article on Americans who are preparing for the worst - the worst being natural catastrophes like Katrina, blackouts, terrorist attacks or any other incidents that would make essentials like energy or food unaffordable or unavailable: People start to stockpile canned food and medicine, they grow vegetables in their gardens and install solar panels on their roofs.
The phenomenon was coined “New Survivalism” and is backed by authers like Barton M. Biggs, the former chief global strategist at Morgan Stanley, who wrote in his new book “Wealth, War and Wisdom”, that people should stock their homes with “seed, fertilizer, canned food, wine, medicine, clothes, etc. Think Swiss Family Robinson. Even in America and Europe there could be moments of riot and rebellion when law and order temporarily completely breaks down.”

Sounds too gloomy ? Compare this to a sunnier view of the future:

“The LOHAS market forecast is sunny and is predicted to grow to $420 billion by 2010, and $845 billion by 2014. Fortunately, the influential LOHAS market believes that it is important for companies not just to be profitable, but to be mindful of their impact on the environment and society.” (American wellness network – but could have been found elsewhere too)

LOHAS is short for Lifestyle of Health and Sustainability – and people adopting that lifestyle are seen as the pace makers for the economy. LOHAS means consumption. Critical consumption. Green consumption. Sustainable consumption. Therefore, countless surveys, marketing strategies and business cases are developed around the LOHAS market potential. But the LOHAS industry is built on an overly optimistic scenario: Climate change leads to ecological awareness and more conscious consumption patterns. What if climate change and other catastrophes come closer to home? Will people still fall for green marketing and sustainability messages?

The “New survivalists” offer some lessons.

See also my earlier post on likely effects of climate change.

Climate changes what?

Climate change is making big headlines, and rightly so. Yet, when you try to find out what climate change means for you, personally, in the next 5, 10 years, all you get is abstract scenarios (at best): tourism will suffer in certain regions, as will agriculture and transport, we'll see more catastrophes like tsunamis, and the extinction of species ...things like that. And on the other hand, you get ecofriendly technologies, LOHAS, governments discussing ... which is all ok, but i still think that the real topic has not been touched yet. Or am I the only one thinking that upgrading my home and my lifestyle has very little to do with the impact climate change will have on my life?

How are we going to live with limited resources in a more fragile world?

I am not a futurologist. So here some wild guesses that I suspect many share. (Maybe inspired by growing up in the GDR, a country with limited energy resources and a high premium on over-the-border transport as well)

Due to higher costs of transport & energy, prices will rise for all products, including groceries. People will have new priorities when they go shopping: Food is more valued. Exotic fruit will be the luxury they once were and locally produced food the cheaper choice. Overall, the range of brands will diminish - local manufacturers compete with only a few global brands (who often will also source locally). Also travelling will be more of a luxury, hence the world will get smaller. Local bonds will be strengthened with a new interest in feasts and rituals. Who will care any longer what catastrophes happen in a far away country when the disasters in your neighbourhood take up all your compassion.

OK, that may sound like a fallback to medieval times. Which would be nonsense as a complete picture. I am quite sure about the end of consumerism and throwaway society, though. The economic crisis that will accompany this will be a pain and a challenge to the social stability of Western nations... Is this why nobody is interested in writing about such visions? Instead, you get soothing stories about investing in green shares, buying low-energy lightbulbs, driving a conscience-friendly car. I'll keep looking for answers...

Useless Things

Been reading around climate change recently, trying to figure out what abstract notions such as "temperatures will rise" may mean for every day life in the near future. Maybe that made me a little bit intolerant yesterday when my children got chocolate eggs with plastic figures inside for a present. Too much sugar, plastic thingies that don't deserve to be called toys, that are destined to fall apart and be eaten by the vacuum cleaner next Saturday. What a waste of energy! I was reminded of the top 10 list of things everybody could start with to reduce global warming. For short, here just the headlines:

• Project Switch: Change your light bulbs!
• Drive your car differently – or drive a different car altogether!
• Your house – not too hot, not too cold!
• Tame the refrigerator monster!
• Twist the knobs on your other household appliances!
• Don't over-dry your clothes.
• Green plants with less water, more trees to provide shade.
• Buy Green Energy, and invest in green energy stocks.
• Go organic.
• Buy recycled.
• Be a minimalist.

I know its covered somehow already, but I think a special mention is well-deserved

• Let the surprise chocolate eggs rot in the shop.

There are a lot of other useless things for sale, of course. But compared to the hype around seemingly cool innovative products, the useless crap does not get adequate media attention! That's why I like the Bad Product Awards which Consumers International this month bestowed upon:

• Mattel for selling toys with poisonous levels of lead paint
• CocaCola for marketing simple tap water as a premium brand
• Kellog's for marketing junk food to kids
• Takeda for marketing sleeping drugs for kids

More useless products? Add them to the list at brainR !

Renewable emails?

Shocking news: emails, avatars, blogs like this - well everything that is part of the internet is adding to climate change! Süddeutsche wrote today (based on an NYT article) that a single Google search requires the same energy as a 11-Watt-light bulb per hour and a Second Life avatar needs an average 1752 kwh per year - more than some real humans for instance in India. Research from Prognos Institut estimated that electricity consumption for internet is responsible for CO2 emissions of 4 million tons per year in Germany alone, putting Internet on the same level as the aviation industry. As data traffic is constantly increasing, internet is a real (climate) killer application.
This puts a lot of internet offers - from eco-innovation blogs like the one at treehugger to established green brands like greenpeace and every one in the LOHAS (lifestyle of health and sustainability) customer segment at a serious dilemma. An equivalent to recycled paper is needed: Recycled webpages? Well, close: If you choose a black instead of a white background for your site, this will substantially reduce energy consumption for most monitors. For the clear eco-conscience, you can get a CO2 free e-mail address from atomstromfreies Internet an initiative of Greenpeace Energy. A great idea is also to ban email, at least for one day, as U.S.Cellular did with its "email free friday" (see story in Wall Street Journal), an initiative meant to ease workers' overload. Or just pull the plug.