What Do CEO’s, Government, the General Public and Girls’ Softball Have in Common?

Check out this article at the Wall Street Journal. I’ve been hearing this a lot lately. Company heads are waiting for governments to give them clear signals on where they should be placing their R&D, development and marketing bets. In essence, they’re asking for regulators and policy makers to tell them the future. It’s a tall order

Still, that is exactly what regulators and policy makers need to be doing. Yet, signals remain mixed. The reason seems to be that our government leaders are looking for signs as well.

Regarding greenhouse gas emissions, the Japanese government, facing a seemingly intractable showdown between business interests (cap GHG emissions at +4% above 1990 levels) and environmentalists (reduce GHG emissions to -25% of 1990 levels) asked the public to help decide. The Japanese public, not surprisingly, chose the middle path option they were offered (-7% from 1990 levels). Let’s remember that under the Kyoto Protocol Japanese GHG emissions rose roughly 6%. Things are not what they seem. Ah, where is the Oracle at Delphi when you need her?

We are at a time where our conventional decision-making capacities are failing. Too many choices, mounting and multiple risks, way too much uncertainty. Business leaders want to move but are looking for direction. Governments wants to act but, they too, are looking for direction. Public opinion is all over the place. 

So, what to do? Let’s begin with another question: What sustains? We need to take a look at what holds us together. What supports us? What do we need? What sustains?

We need to look at the Value Web and begin boldly designing from and for abundance. Big business, small business, venture capital, entrepreneurs, NPO’s & NGO’s, school principals, teachers & professors, doctors & nurses, housewives & househusbands, village councils, state, provincial & prefectural assemblies, mayors, city directors, governors, presidents & prime ministers–all of us need to be doing this together. NOW. 

Otherwise, we will end up like the three middle school girls’ I remember from my English teaching days in Japan. They were members of the softball team and I was watching their team practice. The coach would line a ball to the shortstop and she would deftly field it and sling it over to first in accordance with her teammates shouts. The girl minding third base did the same. When the coach hit the ball deep to left field, the left fielder chased it down and relayed the ball to the shortstop who then, at the behest of her teammates spun and slung the ball home, to the catcher.

Then, there was this pop fly. A little Texas leaguer that either the girl at third, the shortstop or the left fielder could have called and caught. Instead they all tracked the ball on it’s upward arc and, as it descended, they formed a neat triangle into the middle of which dropped the ball. There was no tried and true response for this situation. The three girls looked at each other. Their teammates stood in confused silence. And, in that moment, nothing happened.

Sound familiar? Who wants the ball?

Catch…

Tags: CEO, climate change, government regulation, greenhouse gases, Japan, Kyoto protocol, the Value Web, Wall Street Journal, what sustains

Economy + Ecology

In case you haven’t been there already, I recommend checking out The Inspired Economist.

They do a great job of sourcing stories that have that special eco-centric mix. They matter both ecologically and economically.

Tags: eco-centric, ecology, economy, Inspired economist

Cradle to Cradle Wisdom

Here’s a couple of perspectives from Bill McDonough and Michael Braungart taken from Cradle to Cradle:

If we were to have intentionally designed the industrial revolution here are some of the specs we would have needed to follow:

• put billions of pounds of toxic material into the air, water and soil every year
• produce some materials so dangerous they will require constant vigilance by future generations
• create gigantic amounts of waste
• put valuable materials in holes all over the planet, where they can never be retrieved
• require thousands of complex regulations-not to keep people and natural systems safe, but rather to keep them from being poisoned too quickly
• measure productivity by how few people are working
• create prosperity by digging up or cutting down natural resources and then burying them or burning them
• erode the diversity of species and cultural practices

Now, if we were to do a redesign around eco-efficiency and other current definitions of doing less harm the specs would look like this:

• release fewer pounds of toxic wastes into the air, soil and water every year
• measure prosperity by less activity
• meet the stipulations of thousands of complex regulations to keep people and natural systems from being poisoned too quickly
• produce fewer materials that are so dangerous that they will require future generations to maintain constant vigilance while living in terror
• create smaller amounts of useless waste
• put smaller amounts of valuable materials in holes all over the planet, where they can never be retrieved

A couple of key points here. No one designed the industrial revolution and, really, we aren’t doing a very good job of designing for a sustainable, much less an abundant future. No one intended to flood their communities with toxic compounds, create large whorls of plastic trash in our oceans, collapse the banking system and kick off a worldwide recession or alter the climate of the planet on which we depend for existence.

We, all of us, just drove on oblivious to the signs warning that a pretty precipitous cliff lay dead ahead. Now we are flailing around with a lot of our energy being expended on figuring out how to drive toward (and off) the cliff more slowly. Not good.

It’s hard. Just ask Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, the rest of the House of Representatives and legislators, policy makers and leaders all over the world as they wrestle with climate change legislation and regulations. Let’s face it, most of us, in some way, depend on the current state of things to get by.

Yet, the question I think we should be asking is not “How to we keep what we’ve got?” but “How do we give up what we’ve got in order to get more for all of us in the future?” In aikido (thanks to the late Terry Dobson)  we call this “giving in to get your way”

So, what to do? We’ve got to get everyone involved. Less bad is still bad. Less bad is unsustainable. As we continue to meet the needs of the present we’ve got to come together and design for a future that is not less bad but more good. While meeting the needs of the present we need to collectively imagine, design and implement a future that gives us, our children and grandchildren our best shot at living lives of sustainable abundance. 

This goes beyond ideology, industry and ego. It is at the heart of community and living and working together well. This is a game we all can play. The rules? Design, develop and implement for a sustainable present and abundant future. Do it together. Do it well. Be present, build resilience. Be disciplined. Do it ASAP. Have fun!

Tags: aikido, banking system, Bill McDonough, climate change, climate change legislation, collapse, Cradle to cradle, design, eco-efficiency, Ed Markey, Henry Waxman, Michael Braungart, recession, resilience, Terry Dobson, toxic material, waste

Nike, Creative Commons and Best Buy Building Collaboration

Interesting post at Worldchanging details an approach by these companies to open up their sustainability innovation using Green XChange:

Combining technology and the Creative Commons licensing structure, Green Xchange provides a platform where companies are able to issue licenses to other companies, allowing them to access patented research. The patent owners determine the terms for use, creating a contract that other interested parties accept before accessing the information. Patent holders can protect sensitive information by screening which types of companies may access it, and they can also set the cost for its use. The funds generated would theoretically provide a revenue stream to fund further research.

Like it. This is the kind of thinking and practice that can make sustainability sustainable. Now we need mindsets to follow practice. As they say at Worldchanging:

The main obstacle in persuading companies to share their valuable knowledge is fear…Green Xchange challenges companies to view them as something transferable, and potentially profitable when shared. 

…If Green Xchange succeeds in changing the way we think about transferring intellectual property and benefiting from shared ideas, it could usher us into a new realm of thinking of sustainability (and potentially other fields like medicine) as a truly collaborative endeavor.

Could not agree more. An abundant world awaits.

Collaboration is where we start unlocking our potential to solve the problems we’re facing at a level higher than the thinking that got us into them. Compliance and Conformity just are not sustainable. Cooperation, though good, is not going to be enough either.

Coherence, a step beyond Collaboration, is where it all comes together-we start being the change we want to see in the world. And if we can start to act in Constellations, our unfolding present and our children’s futures may really begin to shine, brilliantly.

Tags: Best Buy, Coherence, collaboration, Compliance, Conformity, Constellation, cooperation, Creative Commons, Green XChange, innovation, intellectual property, Nike, patents, Worldchanging