My current home is in Bolton, Ontario which, for those who have not visited,  is a great place to live. Ontario has been a wonderful home to me and my family most of my life after starting off in Saskatchewan. In fact, if you have lived in any part of Canada, you know that you’ve been blessed.

But British Columbia, for many reasons, is where my heart is. This is where my parents are, as well as my sisters and their families, and it is difficult to express with the limited words of the English language the intense love I feel for them all.  B.C. is also where my entire family, including my brothers (one from China and the other also from Ontario) gather when we have family get-togethers. One of my brothers is also here right now. And I have some very dear friends here as well.

But there’s much more to British Columbia than family, as the many hundreds of thousands if not millions of annual visitors will attest. British Columbia is rich in resources; forests, mountains, clear glacial waters, fisheries, minerals, and the most spectacular scenary you will find anywhere on earth with it’s blend of rich green forests, majestic grey snowpeaked mountains and jagged coast lines reaching into the green-blue oceans all filled with life. The Okanogan region is a fertile ground for growing fruits of many varieties and the climate is temperate and ideally suited for vegetation and farming. It’s incredibly rich with green growth everywhere along the coastlines and in the valleys. They have old growth forests that boast some of the tallest trees in the world and rainforests in the northern regions of Vancouver Island that are rich in wildlife and biodiversity.  

More than just a pretty place, British Columbia also celebrates the many cultures that share this amazing province in the arts, crafts, music and lifestyles including the adoption of some of the wisdom and contributions of its indigenous peoples and the abundance of festivals of every kind. Everywhere I have traveled in British Columbia, and I preface this by acknowledging my sister Celia for introducing me to her incredibly wide circle of friends, the people of British Columbia seem somehow in harmony with their home, respectful of the place in which they live, many striving for a sustainable living while acknowledging and enjoying the bounties of the land with which they have been gifted. With no salt on winter roads, their cars remain intact for a considerable length of time and many take full advantage of this bounty by driving much older cars, a common sight in B.C. There seems to be, at least based on my limited observations, less of a sense of trying to keep up with the neighbors and more a sense of enjoying what is. Most of the new friends I’ve met are satisfied to drive a 10 or 15 year old car as long as it still works. And it isn’t just about cars. Many of the British Columbians I’ve spoken to are keenly aware of the damage that rampant consumerism can cause and strive to live a lifestyle which is more focused on values, developing friendships, enjoying the arts and nature, and providing services rather than focusing quite so much on material pursuits. The pace of life, at least on the island is just a little slower than other places in Canada. My other sister, Joy, described the complex recycling regime which she goes through in order to maximize the amount of recycled goods and minimize the waste going to the landfill and yet she tells me that there are many British Columbians who are happy to share in this recycling ritual just for the sake of preserving what they have.

To simply share the good of British Columbia would, of course, be a little inaccurate. British Columbia, like every place on earth has it’s challenges. One is that it happens to sit on a fault line that is shared with the entire west coast and it anticipates one of the biggest earthquakes the world has seen. Many studies are being done on earthquake detection, earthquake resistant structures, and sunami warning systems to minimize the impact, but when it hits, they will definitely be in for a shake that will stress the hearts and spirit s and test the ability of British Columbians to pull together and befriend each other through extreme hardship. We don’t know when it will happen, perhaps not in this lifetime.

British Columbia is also suffering along with the remainder of an ailing planet from environmental damage. Invasive species such as giant hog weed which competes well in open areas, pine beetles that ravage vast areas of the forest and which now survive the milder winters, raging forest fires caused by a extreme dought, landslides from extreme rain events, toxicity in farmed fish, coastal areas which have suffered from oil spills and pollution, and fisheries which are suddenly coming up short of various species, are just a few of the challenges they face. In it’s cities, it suffers from traffic conjestion and pollution (especially from those old cars which lack polution controls and burn oil), even though they are fortunate to have the ocean breezes which periodically cleanse the air.

Britsh Columbia has so much to offer but it has even more to protect. It’s vast resources are here to be used and even shared, but managing those resources to ensure sustainability is essential. Thoughtful and reflective planning which adopts the attitude shared by our indigenous friends and neighbors, that the earth is one country, that we are part of the environment, not separate from it, will help us to develop an attitude of service and reverence for our home (i.e. this planet) that will prevent us from claiming it to be our own and believing that we can exploit or abuse it’s resources without limits.

If you’ve never been to British Columbia, visit, you will not be disappointed.

Garth Schmalenberg

P.S. Feel free to share this article with your friends and neighbors by e-mail or by directing them to this site.

Initially, my goal in putting this blog together was to help business leaders in developing sustainable workplaces, providing tips on how to encourage a change in the culture of the organization that would support such efforts, and sharing concepts of communication and psychology of the work place that would help workers adopt sustainable goals, become more productive and be more passionate about their work. It’s still about that, but in the process of studying the many issues related to creating sustainable businesses in a sustainable world economy, I’ve come to believe that there are other considerations that are perhaps even more important.

All the traditional business arguments still exist that sustainability is really about eliminating waste and reducing expenses and that this is ultimately good for the business and the environment. So keep up the good work if you are deploying LEAN processes, adopting LEED standards for your buildings, using renewable energy sources, developing green teams, encouraging recycling and doing what you can towards water and energy conservation. You’re on the right path.

But let’s look at the bigger picture!

The goal of our economy

We operate in an economy that is designed to promote development and encourage economic growth. You’ve heard the arguments for growth and you also probably know that growth is measured by GDP. Economic forces have elevated the measure of GDP to a measure for overall health of a nation and, in some ways, an overall measure of human progress. Whether this is a valid measure is still not very clear. As business leaders, this appears to be a sound political basis because it allows us to create businesses that strive for growth, productivity and innovation all of which lead to competitiveness and shareholder value. As business leaders, we tend to dislike regulations (i.e. someone else telling us what we need to do), we value freedom of choice, we hold a competitive spirit and somehow this translates to more and bigger is better.

From a resource perspective, most supporters of capitalism believe that the forces of supply and demand will eventually prevail and that any resource shortages will eventually cause the prices of scarce resources to rise thus causing competing alternatives to become more attractive and giving rise to new industries and approaches. Government regulation, it is argued, only interferes with this process.

And let’s be fair, I know of very few people or companies who will voluntarily give the government more tax money than they are required to pay by law just to help them increase services or regulations. Most companies and individuals try to minimize what they give, unbelievably even to their own detriment. We like to argue that less taxes make our businesses better and that we can hire more people, but at some point, we have to acknowledge that lowering taxes causes our public services and infrastructure to crumble. Just ask the government workers in California how excited they are to provide the same services to a demanding public for the minimum wage of just $7.00/hr. How many of the most qualified public servants are likely to stay in such an environment and which ones will be left to serve the public?

The impact of Resources on Business

At the same time, we live in a world which has limited resources, although from a short term perspective, they seem almost unlimited and exploitive industries will make sure that’s the message you get. You’ve heard arguments from environmentalists suggesting that growth is leading us to severe global shortages (e.g. peak oil) and you acknowledge the potential that such claims may have validity. You also agree  that certain shared natural resources, such as sea life, water and air, that have no one owner, are being used without recourse by whoever has access to them. Fish, for example, are being harvested faster than they are being replenished because lack of resource ownership discourages companies from spending money on research for replenishing stocks that might be developed, only be harvested by someone else. Such issues tend to encourage the easier option of finding better and more efficient ways of harvesting the scarce remaining resources.

You also recognized that the limited span of an individual in any one role discourages them from looking 50 or 100 years into the future, in favour of the next 5 years at most (and usually quarter to quarter). We suffer from short sightedness, not due to a fundamental disregard of environmental reality or a lack of care, rather due to day to day pressures and stresses, which as business owners and individuals, we try to eliminate not increase. We don’t want to have to worry about sustainability, an ambiguous issue at best, unless of course it’s profitable. Without being totally neglectful, of course, we spend most of our time trying to deal with today issues and so planning for tomorrow takes second place.

We complain about government interventions, regulations and taxes when they impact us, but when we really think about it, if it weren’t for those same taxes and regulations we wouldn’t live in the great countries we live in that provide us with infrastructure, roads, hospitals, health care, schools for our kids, and so many other benefits that we, our employees and even our shareholders and customers enjoy. Those schools educated our employees helping them become resources for our businesses, and helped other to become productive citizens that become our shareholders and customers. The transportation infrastructure help us to reliably get to work, get raw materials from suppliers and transport goods to our customers. The health care systems keeps our workers healthy and productive. All things we don’t have to worry about other than to follow a few regulations and pay some taxes.

True, many government services could be privatized and possibly done more efficiently, but in the end, someone has to manage the process of looking out for the common good, and someone has to pay for it. It is precisely the vision of our countries that we value and the money spent in implementing that vision that makes our countries so great. Ironically, even though we may have less than perfect governments, we tend to feel better when we live in a well structured world. 

The Downfall of Sovereign Government

While I won’t argue that bigger government is better, I will argue that government appropriate to the needs of the general population is ultimately better for the public and for business than governments which are too small. The question lies in what are the actual needs? Remembering that, as business leaders, we are only a small portion of the population, albeit a portion that has the responsibility of serving the needs of many stakeholders; employees, shareholders and customers. We have a disproportionate influence on society and therefore we need to think carefully about what we represent and what we hold as our values.

The question remains, what do we as business leaders truly need from our governments and what does the public need for their good? The dialogue begins in the form of our activity, what we say, what we encourage, what we market, who we support, what we lobby for, and how we vote.

To be fair, governments are far from perfect. They suffer, to some degree, from the same shortsightedness that businesses suffer from due to the fact that no one holds office long enough to pay for serious mistakes such as failing to set policies which prevent degradation of the global environment. They are also limited in a global environment from creating conditions which favour growth in a direction that considers a global vision. For example, independantly, a government can’t regulate air pollution because, while they can set mandatory standards in their own country, other countries will simply violate those regulations and cause polution anyway. The G8 and G20 try to deal with some of these issues but ultimately have no teeth. With weak and unfairly distributed regulation comes unfair competition. And while countries fundamentally agree about many of the issues, their governments, in the hope to increase their own GDP while preserving good relationships and free trade agreements with other countries, are reluctant to impose regulations on businesses which make them less competative in a global environment. And from a country’s perspective, they are correct. However, from a global perspective we need to take a different view.

The Evolution of Government

No business leader, from the perspective of their day to day business, would voluntarily advocate for more government. But business leaders also need to think strategically and long term. What will be good for the global business environment and global competition over the long run?

Historically, we can think of businesses as local enterprises that met the needs of very limited forms of society. As populations grew, it became necessary to settle arguments between nearby villages and slowly local, regional and national governments evolved. Each level of government assumed certain responsibilities and with each there was an improvement and expansion of the economy. The infrastructure and services provided to business leaders and  individuals in the society helped the society to progress. In the same way that invading forces, at the hands of wealth hungry tyrants,caused much pain to both friend and foe in former times, unregulated global businesses have the potential to cause problems not only for others but also for themselves. Just ask the President of Enron or BP. Eventually, we all have to pay the piper.

It is the organization of government and the regulations they impose that ultimately serve the betterment of the society. The fact that they force business to follow guidelines which are beneficial to the society as a whole actually helps good, ethical and relavent businesses to progress and become more competative. Some of the rights of local and regional governments were sacrificed in favour of national governments because it was appropriate at that time to legislate at the national level. And while economies functioned primarily on a national level, that approach worked reasonably well. But whether we like it or not, successful businesses are those which continue to provide products and services within the framework that is imposed, be it through national, provincial, regional or local regulations. Besides the regulation they may occasionally struggle with, they also benefit from the services provided from these various levels of government.

We happily give up certain freedoms to ensure our comfort, safety and security.

But what of the long term view of global issues?

The question is not whether a global government is appropriate at this stage in our planet’s evolution, the need for regulation of the planet’s resources and for serving the needs of all it’s inhabitants is clear. The question is, what role should a global government play, what powers should they have, and what powers and rights should sovereign national governments sacrifice to ultimately enhance life for all of us?

How would a global government impact business for the forseeable future? How do we encourage and support a transition that will create, not just better nations and a better global infrastructure, but also better businesses and a better world?

We may still argue that government slows the pace of business. But consider how businesses may have operated before national or regional governments existed. It is true that businesses were subject to less regulation, but it would be hard to argue that the world was a better place or that businesses were better off.  Businesses had to provide for their own protection from thugs and highwaymen, had to suffer from inadequate infrastructure, and had many challenges in addressing the needs of workers just as they do now in the developing world where mortality rates are much higher and finding skilled workers more challenging. There is little doubt that everyone had a more difficult life including the business owners.

But now, in addition to national issues, we have global issues. Global resources are being consumed at unmanaged rates and, while some companies are benefiting from short term profits, the long term benefits for other businesses is not so clear.

It is true that a global government would ad a layer of complexity to our current situation, but just as having local, regional, provincial and national governments takes away certain concerns from our businesses, a global government would also serve a specific role. We pay taxes now for needed services from other levels of government and a global government could be expected to share in these taxes to take care of the needs which are common to all just as national governments did in their time. And we wouldn’t necessarily pay higher taxes, but we would pay a tax which is more appropriate to the needs of the world we live in. Any world government would, no doubt, take into consideration the need to keep the world economy rolling and would therefore be mindful of excess taxation.

In the same way that we now have pride in our countries and how they function, isn’t it time that we begin taking pride in our world and how it functions? And just as some businesses were likely unable to make the transition when national governments evolved, it is equally true that some businesses will likely fail within a truly global economy.

For example, exploitive companies are mismanaging resources and, as a result, fail to make the transition to a more appropriately regulated approach, wouldn’t it be better for them to fail? In the end, what’s good for the world is also good for all the businesses that continue to exist, those that can compete and survive in a global environment.  Will such a change not provide the long term security that we now lack and the oversight of global development? Will a globally oriented infrastructure not benefit our globally workforce and our customer base and enable us to function more effectively as a human race, to compete without the worry of unfair or damaging practices, and without daily concern of how our future needs will be met?

Global government doesn’t necessarily mean bigger government, just more appropriate government for the time in which we live.

What can we do as Business Leaders?

We need to step back, look at things from a long term strategic perspective, decide what’s best for our world, for our children and their future, from the perspective of employment, food supplies, resources, research, innovation, infrastructure, security and, ultimately, the world that we will leave behind for them.

We need to adjust our values and make our voices heard to our national governments. Just as in the past when national governments became relevant and necessary, people spoke out. Now the time of global government and global regulation has become appropriate. Rather than resisting it, we should welcome and encourage it. As with every evolution, there are some rough patches, but every change starts somewhere.

Just as we now voice our concerns about current government issues, we need to voice our concerns with a view to the future. We voice our concerns through our votes, our participation, what we communicate to our governments, our workers and our friends and our families.

I’d love to hear your feedback even if you have other ideas. If you agree with these ideas or at least think them worthy of consideration, please feel free to spread them widely by sharing this link and letting others read them. You can share this link by clicking on the share button and choosing you favorite or by an e-mail link to this site.

All the best,

Garth Schmalenberg

In a quote from the report the author states that “Today private sector investments constitute the largest share (86%) of global investment flows and are expected to be essential to addressing climate change. A large additional flow of tens of billions of dollars will also be needed for adaptation.”

One of the most effective means of a government to weild it’s financial power is to influence the direction of Private Investment Capital. Rather than trying to “be” the investor as in many of the current government incentive scheme’s which directly invest, wouldn’t it be possible to take a different approach?

The challenge with moving huge amounts of investment capital to Greener Technology isn’t that these are bad investments, it is that most investors want secure returns. They are concerned about loosing money on risky, start-up ventures with unproven technologies. Yet, many of these start-ups, given sufficient infusions of capital would do just fine and would become the eventual market winners in a mature society. And given the current situation, we may only have a few years in which to reach maturity.

Due to lack of investor funding, Governments are forced to fund start-ups directly through Green Tech programs and provide incentives which infuse capital directly into Green Technology start-ups. But this rapidly drains the Government coffers and provides a very limited bang for the buck. Could the Governments instead create Green Technology Insurance programs which would provide some amount of relief to investors in the event that their chosen investment collapses? Since many will succeed with sufficient funding over a longer term, this approach might actually have the effect of providing the necessary security to investors and causing the infusion of sufficient private capital to help the company succeed. Mature investors already take advantage of put options and other hedging devices, but at a cost to them which makes investing in less mature technologies less interesting. And for the average investor, High Tech funds will not seem as interesting because of the issue of secure returns. And this is where Governments might step in to attract additional investment dollars. Obviously proper risk and cost / benefit analysis should be applied to take into account the maturity and potential long term benefits of the technologies.

For every government dollar spent on Green Technology Investor Insurance, hundreds or thousands of dollars of Investment Capital could be tapped. Certainly there would be a need to devise the approach in ways smarter than the AIG scheme of insuring investments without understanding the implication, but we also shouldn’t through out the baby with the bath-water. The fact that Financial institutions and Fannie and Freddy were essentially covered by Government also helped them to survive, albeit at a heavy cost. The concept of providing insurance to investment capital isn’t necessarily a bad one just one that needs to be carefully managed. Many proponents of market economy would argue that we should let badly run companies die. And in the case of mature companies, this is a fair approach. But fledgeling companies are a bit like babies. You have to nurture them and provide lots of love, protection and security. As in any market approach it would be better to see the Investors as the parents, and not the Government. But the it should be the Government role to encourage and assist the parents and provide them the means so that they can do the right thing. Does this have to be done through a branch of the Government? Perhaps not. Maybe a new role for AIG.

Is this already happening somewhere? Well all I can say is that I’m not aware of it so at best it isn’t being marketed as well as it might be.

Companies covered under such a scheme could, as the company grows and begins to generate profits, be required to pay back some of the insurance premiums offered to attract early investors. Other premiums could be collected in the form of incremental carbon taxation that would encourage companies to adopt these green technologies.

While there may be many others ideas on how to move investment capital, finding ways to move it would provide short and long term benefits for companies, investors and our world.

That’s it for now,

Garth Schmalenberg

If you would like to share some ideas of your own, feel free to comment (I do monitor and approve non-spam material), or tell others about this site by book-marking.

When the “clunkers” are submitted in exchange for a $3500 or $4500 rebate, depending on gas mileage improvement over the clunker, (4 and 10 mpg improvement respectively), a black liquid is poured into the engine of the clunker to render it useless, never to be driven again. However, there may be many Americans, (or for the border states, perhaps even people in Mexico) who are driving even less efficient cars than the one’s being turned in, and who simply don’t have the resources to be able to purchase something more efficient. I understand the concept of disabling older less efficient cars to get them off the road, I’m just not so sure that we couldn’t do even better. Why not let them have a chance to exchange for something more efficient than theirs.

For example, someone may have an old Corolla or Chevette or other 4 cylinder model that may not be worth much as a trade-in. If they buy a new hybrid, they are still eligible for the $4500 rebate. But their previous car may have been much more efficient than many other cars still on the road. If we truly care about the environment, why not keep those cars turned in which are still reasonably efficient and make them available for people who drive even less efficient vehicles. Then disable the worst ones so they don’t end up back on the road.

Secondly, one of the things we need to begin doing is changing our concept of transportation to a concept of mobility.  We know that smaller cars, on the whole, are lighter and more efficient. We know that size and weight does matter in terms of energy consumption, and CO2, resource usage (steel, plastics, etc.) and also require more energy in the recycling process after the fact. Sometimes we do things simply because we are accustomed to doing them. Our parents drove larger cars so we also drive larger cars. We don’t necessarily need them but we are comfortable with them. Once we shift our thinking we become familiar with a new way, (i.e. driving smaller vehicles), we start learning about other benefits like easier parking, manuverability in tight spaces and even better efficiency than newer vehicles of the same size as our older ones, and our children also learn a new way of thinking. If you’re going to provide incentives, why not give incentives for reducing size as well.

Thirdly, I gather that the incentive is partly environmental and partly to stimulate the economy. Otherwise, giving $3500 for only a 4 mpg improvement doesn’t make much sense. Why not make the whole stimulus based on building a sustainable economy rather than just a robust economy and set the requirement much higher for the $3500 to say 8 mpg and only $2000 for 4 mpg. Then give an extra $1000 if they reduce the size of the vehicle as well.

As for myself, none of these suggestions will benefit me because I live in Canada. I’m one of those individuals who’s caught in the middle of vehicle purchases. When I last bought a vehicle, the environment wasn’t at the top of my list of issues. I went from a smaller cars initially to a 6 cylinder vehicle because I wanted something quieter for the highway and I still have this size vehicle. Even though it’s relatively efficient, I have changed many of my driving habits, e.g. I car-pool when I can, do more phone meetings rather than face to face and I am also very aware that most of the time my car is empty and just carrying extra weight so I make many less unnecessary trips. Still when I change vehicles, I know that I’ll be looking for something smaller and with a four cyclinder, hybrid or electric powerplant. Most are quieter than the older vehicles I used to drive, so sound quality is not a good reason anymore, and like many of us, we just don’t have the need for a larger vehicle once our children leave the nest or have their own transportation.

As always, ideas are for sharing. If you like these ideas, share them with someone who can make a difference by e-mailing them or through your favorite sharing site by clicking on the share button and feel free to comment.

All the best,
Garth Schmalenberg
Web: http://hbi-leadership.com
Blog: http://sustainabilityculture.com
E-mail: garth@hbi-leadership.com
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/gschmalenberg
Linked-In:
Phone: 416-919-6598

1. How will this crisis affect the renewable energy industry?
2. Will the possibility of creating green jobs surpass the additional cost that a customer would be able to afford to have clean energy?
3. Should environmental consciousness prevail?
4. Would governments change their commitments by reducing incentives to renewable energy in a moment that tax payer money has more important uses?
5. How would a renewable energy company adapt to this market of lower capital and possibly much lower revenues?

1) How will this crisis affect the renewable energy industry?
Orders for PV (solar) panels have dropped or been delay for some suppliers and dipping oil prices have destroyed the growing demand for alternative energy sources. However, we  have a much bigger problem in climate issues and some of the more responsible Governments have kept firmly focused on this issue through education and policy change. The Ontario Green Energy Act  and some of the recent changes in US policy are examples.

Still more work and funding is needed. More of the infrastructure incentives need to be directed at renewable energy and more education for business leaders is needed.

2) Will the possibility of creating green jobs surpass the additional cost that a customer would be able to afford to have clean energy?
In the long run, creating renewable energy and other green jobs is an imperitave and it will happen. The question is, how much environmental damage are we willing to tolerate first, and how much are companies and government willing to invest to making the necessary transitions in their respective businesses and countries. If they don’t make the investments now, many of the opportunites will continue to go to companies and countries that are willing to spend now. And opportunities will aslo go to countries who are willing to do the work at a lower price point. Countries like China and India will gain the expertise, manufacturing capability and market share and this is already happening.

The question is not whether the green jobs will be created, they are being created. Rather where will they be created?

3) Should environmental consciousness prevail?
With CO2 levels at 389ppm and rising, and most climate scientists now having revised their estimates of safe levels down to 350ppm from 450ppm, I think we need to take every available opportunity to focus on environmental concerns. CO2 production is just one issue. There needs to be much more research and action taken on water issues as well. We don’t think about it now too much but both of these issues are impacting the world already and it’s going to affect everyone much sooner than most anticipate.

The good news for business is that being environmentally conscious is actually good for business. Energy reduction methods actually do work and some companies I’ve talked to have saved millions in energy bills, not to mention having positive environmental impact. 

The other good new is that business owners and executives I’ve met are just like everyone else when it comes down to it. They want a better world for themselves and a better life for their children. When they start realizing that their company’s actions are having a negative impact on the future, they do start becoming more conscious. As they become more conscious, they start to get more educated. As they become more educated, they become more active in making changes.

But much more awareness building is necessary for business leaders. Businesses hold a tremendous power to create positive change through their own actions and through their supply chain. When executives learn a little more and they figure out how they can actually save money, save the environment, and please investors all at the same time, most are happy to make an investments in  changing their business culture.

And for the record, I haven’t met any of them who really want to wreck future possibilities for their children. (Still, ignorance or abnegation of responsibility is no excuse for inaction.)

4) Would governments change their commitments by reducing incentives to renewable energy in a moment that tax payer money has more important uses?
It’s good to see that at least some haven’t. Some governments are beginning to recognize climate change as one of the most important issues and, from that persepctive, there aren’t a lot of better uses for their money.

The concept of sustainability is about “meeting current needs without comprimising the ability of future generations to meet there needs”. Clearly if a nation is seriously suffering (e.g. food shortages, HIV, war), then there are some “current needs” that need to be met first or there won’t be future generations. But if we don’t deal with climate issues, there will be some serious issues for future generations in meeting their needs and more govenments are becoming conscious of this fact.

Obviously there is always a balance between current and future needs but the concept of social and environmental justice for future generations is starting to be understood.

5) How would a renewable energy company adapt to this market of lower capital and possibly much lower revenues?
They need to do a number of  things:

First, they need to keep expenses in line to help them preserve cash for as long as they can. Re-negotiating supplier contracts, salaries, etc.

Second, creative marketing especially in areas where Government incentives make sales of renewable energy more likely.

Third, they need to be creative with partnerships, e.g. Design firms, home builders and construction firms, banks. Retrofitting a home or building with solar panels or wind mills isn’t impossible, but incorporating them into every new home or building, is something I think most home or building owners will appreciate because, even though there is a higher capital outlay, there are lower monthly energy costs which make up the difference and there is a higher building value. They need to help the designers and builders do the math for buyers.

Fourth, they need to look for funding sources just to keep going. In the long term, it is highly likely that conventional energy prices will rise again because, no matter how fast we convert, oil consumption can’t go on forever without impacting supplies. Demand for oil will rise and so will prices.

Fifth, they need to keep lobbying Government for support through policy change and funding.

Sixth, they need to support non-profits who are willing to reach out to the business community on issues of carbon reduction.

Summary

There has been an impact. Thankfully, some have been positive. And we can all do more to help. Encourage business owners to purchase from environmentally friendly suppliers, reduce their carbon output, reduce water usage and packaging. Vote for govenment leaders that support sound environmental policies, buy green products where one is available, taking advantage of incentives for environmental changes like purchasing cars with high fuel efficiency (hybrid or other), installation of solar and wind power, installing high efficiency furnaces or geothermal units. If  you’re going to stimulate the economy anyway, spending money on the environment is a good purchase.

If you know anyone who might benefit from these tips and ideas, please share them by e-mailing the content (with links to our page), pressing the Share button or telling someone you know about this site. Please comment or fee free to contact me.

All the best,

Garth Schmalenberg
Web: http://hbi-leadership.com
Blog: http://sustainabilityculture.com
E-mail: garth@hbi-leadership.com
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/gschmalenberg
Linked-In:
Phone: 1-416-919-6598

Can Green Energy Act clean up Ontario’s electricity supply?

My own thoughts: Let’s look at current and future solutions with the goal of learning from our mistakes. Limiting our time-frame is unfair to future generations who are equally entitled to resources we are consuming. Any act which promotes 100% renewable energy is consistent with justice for future generations. Any act inconsistant with that goal denies future generations of their rights.

It is possible that due to urgency related to GHG emmissions and climate change, we may choose to live with a less than ideal short term solution (i.e. nuclear, or flooding regions for hydro). However, as with any “short term” solution, we run the risk of adopting these solutions long term, causing much more damage than anticipated.

Isn’t it better to simply spend our time, energy and money on solutions which are 100% sustainable, (i.e. those which don’t consume uranium, coal, oil, or any other non-recyclable material) even if they are more expensive at first. As we strive for sustainable solutions, we will make mistakes. However, we can learn from our mistakes and slowly improve. And costs will inevitably come down as they become more wide spread.

If we choose the other path and constantly go for short term solutions, we only learn how to do that. This practice puts us into crisis after crisis. 

As for me, I’m literally putting my money where my mouth is, buying wind power from Bullfrog. If the wind power producers get a little richer as suggested by one reader, I can live with that. I can’t live with seeing other nations, especially developing nations, negatively impacted by my negligence or lack of effort in cleaning up my act. I hope that the Ontario and Canadian government can’t live with that either. When I think about the kind of people we are as Canadian’s, and the rich culture we have in diversity, I believe that we all have the potential to put others before ourselves. And the government is ultimately a reflection of our wishes, our comments to our representatives, and our votes. I applaud any efforts they make, and I hope they and we continuously do more to encourage renewable energy and move away from all non-renewable sources as quickly as possible. 

Regarding biofuels, using land where food won’t grow anyway and certainly using waste oil from restaurants is reasonable. But lets make sure our growing world population has food and clean water first before using good land to drive our cars.

Garth Schmalenberg

Please share this or any other article with others or share your comments.

Founder / Executive Coach, HBI Leadership

Web: http://hbi-leadership.com

Blog: http://sustainabilityculture.com

E-mail: garth@hbi-leadership.com

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/gschmalenberg

Linked-In:

Phone: 416-919-6598

Paying attention to bad things, however, only heightens our awareness of the negatives and does little for making the world a better and healthier place to live. As human beings, it’s easy and natural to dwell on the negatives. The brain is designed to shortcut the thinking process by noticing abnormalities in our surroundings and then problem solving them to find solutions. There is a limit to the amount of awareness we can have towards our surroundings without driving ourselves crazy and this is one of the brain’s strategies to limit input.

Unfortunately, this also means that only about 40% of people are motivated by positive goals. The rest are motivated by becoming aware of problems and then finding solutions to those problems. On the down side of this statistic is the fact that focusing on the problems doesn’t really help us on bigger issues that are not immediately perceptible to our self-focused emotions. In other words, if the problem doesn’t immediately injure us or make us feel bad, we don’t really notice how serious it is. This explains why we don’t do much about issues which afflict other people in the world such as starvation, AIDs, homelessness and climate change. The impact to us as individuals in North America is not so immediate that we feel an urgent need to change what we are doing.

So the question is this, if we want to solve the more complex problems of the world, and even more importantly, start working towards a world that is a genuinely healthy place for all it’s inhabitants, how do we make ourselves more aware of the problems faced by others in a way that creates an immediate and personal impact? How do we change the way we percieve these challenges and opportunities?

As organizational leaders, we have an opportunity to educate people. This is part of the solution but not the complete solution. If we can find a way to change the entire culture of our organizations so that they become pro-active, rather than re-active, united in action rather than dis-united, long term and short term thinking rather than only short term, wouldn’t we do that, especially if there is no real down side?

Here are some examples of thinking from a personal perspective vs. from a world perspective:

1) The Economy

Let’s say we work for GM and we are concerned about loosing our job or pension. It is only natural, that we would experience fear and concern. We would naturally be motivated to vote for someone if they showed concern for us and promised that they would specifically take actions to help save our jobs. From a direct and personal emotional stance, this is the most striking problem we may be facing and finding an immediate fix is what we will naturally want to do.

The question I would pose, is this, “Is it the right thing to do and will it benefit us in the long term?”

Here are some thoughts:

a) An individual living in the USA, Canada or Europe for the most part will always have a better standard of living than most people in the world based on our current and immediate observations. Even though we might have fears about our financial situation, it’s not too hard to conclude that the vast majority will somehow survive in relative comfort. We have all been relatively well educated. We can read and write, we have some skills that we’ve gained over our years of work. We have some social safety net and we are collectively able to produce more than enough for our family and therefore are able to create products and services to export or sell to others.

b) In many other countries there is relatively little education. War is rampant, women are raped regularly, children die from malnutrition and disease and people live in dire poverty. They have very little ability to solve even their most fundamental problems.

c) It is only by the grace of God we were born into our own good fortune. After all, how is it decided what your fate will be? If we had been born into that situation, we would also lack an education and the capacity to solve our own challenges. Most of us would find it impossible to imagine ourselves in this situation even for one day when many are faced with this on a daily basis throughout their entire lives. If we were able to get a sense of what this is like, our minds might begin to see this as a more pervasive and serious problem and, in that case, we would naturally start to look for solutions because we would be emotionally motivated to do so.

The challenge is that the emotional pain is separated by geographic, personal and political boundaries from the source of the solutions, namely those who are so fortunate to enjoy the benefits of education.

Let’s think about this a little more. If you think of the world as a whole organic entity, we might think of the individuals and families as cells, the businesses as organs that process the good and provide services to the body, transports systems as the arteries, governments of the world as the skeletal framework, military as th protective layer (i.e. the skin), the information transfer mechanisms, internet, telephone, journalists, librarys, teachers as the nervous system. Looking at the world from that perspective we would have to look at the economy as being lopsided with a fat belly (e.g. first world nations) with mal-nourished limbs. We might see economic cycles as binging and purging, not a very healthy behavior. We might see consumption of our own irreplacable resources as a flesh eating disease and war as an auto-immune disease where one part of the body is trying to kill the other part.

Now looking at it from this perspective, it’s difficult to conclude that putting money back into the fat of the world to continue feeding it and making even fatter, makes any sense. if you had 1 billion dollars to spend, would it be better for the world in the long run to spend it on a car company that is having challenges selling the amount of product it is capable of producing, or would it be better to spend that same billion dollars on educating people to become teachers and then sending those teacher to places where education is desparately required so that other parts of the world can become more self sustainting?

In the end, those other parts of the world, as they become viable and healthy economies, also begin to sustain us.

If each of us was able to feel emotionally the anguish of someone who lives in poverty, would we be more likely to focus on different solutions?

It is wonderful that Barack Obama has called upon all people to take personal responsibility for their own situations. I suspect that he’s quite aware of the needs of the world but as a leader of the US has specific responsibilities. I can only hope that he and other western leaders will begin to focus more of the wealth and resources on creating a sustainable world, not just a sustainable economy for their own countries.

We all need to make an effort to become conscious and start to feel and think on a global basis. Yes, you will always be most aware of your own pains first. This is natural. But by envisioning what the world is really like for people who are less fortunate and then striving to solve there challenges, we ulitmately benefit ourselves as well.

Granted, this is a simplification of how the world works. But if the world is ever to become truly healthy, there is a need for a much greater global consciousness.

In the words of 19th century visionary and prophet founder of the Baha’i faith, Baha’u'llah, “Let your vision be world embracing…”

Garth Schmalenberg

In fact, inertia is part of every human challenge. We are unable to change our own mindset when we are on a different side of an issue and it is only natural that we would come to different conclusions about different issues. We each come from a different background, have different priorities, see different concerns.

In the end, however, we do need to recognize that the world is one place and ultimately with one outcome. The human race will most likely survive all adversities. But what will that survival look like?

Let’s look at one example of why inertia seems to impact our world so significantly.

Just for the purpose of this example, let’s assume that the IPCC is correct and climate change is a very real issue. Since this is an exercise in thinking, emotional reaction and inertia, it is not necessary to debate the issue. But suppose for this example that relatively minor changes in the climate begin to cause massive crop failures and food shortages and we start to realize that massive starvation will happen. We generally don’t think that far down the road because we are busy with the concerns of today and we don’t do much about it because we never anticipate that the people most likely to starve may be us. We have always had an abundance of food in North America and just can’t imagine not having it. And historically, we have always found solutions to the challenges of our world, albeit, not always without suffering and often at the expense of other countries. What if we knew for certain that we would be hungry and that we would see our children starving within ten years? Would we convince ourselves to act differently right now to try to avert the disaster or would we throw up our hands and give up? And if we were unfortuate enough to be born in a country already in need of food, water or shelter, we simply wouldn’t have the energy to do much about our situation. All of our energies would be used on struggling for immediate survival.

So the inertia is this. We who have the ability to do something don’t fully believe we need to do anything and those who are already suffering know that we need to do something but they can’t do anything.

Interestingly enough, there is no guarentee that we will not be impacted by a food shortage or other types of challenge in the future. Most of them we will handle. It’s those challenges that we can’t handle that we must have contingency for.

This year alone we saw minor shifts in “food power”. A simple example: the country of Vietnam which is one of the top rice producing nations, in the face of rising demand on rice, began to temporarily withhold its’ exports. Why? It was a simple reaction to ensure it’s own preservation first and then only after ensuring it’s own food supply it re-opened the exports. It was a measured and reasonable reaction. But what if they had decided not to open their trading again? Or what if their crops had failed. Most of the worlds rice exports are from only a few countries. Now supposing the situation had been even more severe and even more of the rice producing countries had the same reaction of withholding exports. How quickly would the world, including western nations, be facing major rice shortages? True, we wouldn’t likely starve due to a rice shortage. But let’s add to that some other looming economic or ecollogical challenges such as a major crop failure in our part of the world. This year, my wife and I noticed on our daily walks that the local cherry trees didn’t bear any fruits. I don’t know much about cherries so I found this interesting, not threating. But it might be a problem. In the B.C. Okanogan Valley, 25% of the fruit production was destroyed by hail. Other types of challenges can impact us too. What about when the power grid failed a few years back for several days in much of Ontario and across the nothern US states. Gas stations couldn’t pump gas, many people lost the contents of their freezers and food rotted in stores. And that was just a few days. What about the increase in hurricanes in the gulf of Mexico. Recently we’ve all seen more damaging storms. Regardless of whether it is climate change related or not, it does point out that it wouldn’t take that much for our system to start breaking down. And even just due to current economic conditions, at least some North Americans are already having difficulties feeding their families. In some of the eastern Canadian Provinces, rising prices and a weakness in the economy have caused unprecedented food bank demand and lower contribution rates. Malnutrition already exists for many of our northern citizens.

My goal is not to dwell on the negative or predict catastrophic failure. It is to hi-light the potential for these situations to be influenced by our attitudes and approaches to solving them. Inertia is a problem and the type of change we need is a change of heart and action.

Consider this, if we were to reverse the current situation and think of ourselves as the recipients of global aide, how would we feel if the rest of the world failed to recognize our plight and come to our rescue? What if you, as a Canadian or American parent found yourself unable to find work, unable to pay for a home, and unable to feed your family? What if, under the strain of a challenged econonomy, our social system became so depleted that it was unable to help us? Would we hope for the rest of the world to help or would we suffer in silence as so much of the world does now? Would it be acceptable to us in that situation to look back and say that inertia drove us to this situation? We are not suffering severely now but many other countries are. And based on the current notion that inertia has such a great influence, could we expect the world to do very much for us? Not likely.

So my questions are these:

1. Is there a way for us to create a better system of learning, communicating and sharing that will take us all to action more quickly with less resistance, greater coordination and cooperation, and with less impact from the effects of mental and emotional inertia?
2. Is there a way we can make “change” a concept that is easy to swallow logically and emotionally and one which enroles our interest and passion to get the job done as quickly as possible?

Traditional change management theories count on creating projects which enrole and involve the ideas of those they may impact. This is a great start. But have you ever noticed what causes major changes in a human being? In each of us, we have a certain way of thinking based on our history and our defence of that historical perspective. As a coach, I’ve witnessed that simply asking someone the right questions will have them completely drop a long held view and consider something new. We all need to learn how to start asking those kinds of questions and this is especially true of our leaders. Here’s an example. I work with people who are in work and family relationships and some have huge challenges. They disagree as a result of their personal views and beliefs and they argue, shout, insist, blame, defend and then learn to shut others out with the inherent belief that if they explain more loudly or just one more time that they will eventually win the day. One question I often ask is “Is this the way you want your relationship to continue?” or “Is this approach working for you?” These are simple questions but they bring up the need to slowly examine our thoughts and beliefs about the outcome and they to begin to re-think their approach. Before the question is asked, there is an assumption that they would eventually prevail. The question makes them realize that this may not be so. 

We need to have a vision of our future that is inclusive. If anyone is left out, there will always be tension and as long as there is tension, there will be major disputes. This is true of any organization. If we think about the global picture and conceive of what is possible for the world, we can also begin to think about how we do our part and work together. We also need to think about how we support those who will be most negatively impacted by changes that are good for the world but which may not be initially positive for them.

Imagine if we could all agree that some great initiative (e.g. establishing peace or reducing climate change) as something so vital to us individually and collectively, that we all want it desparately and we are willing to forgo the inertia associated with taking sides, holding on to old views, insisting on what is best for us personally, or striving for the dominance of our own perspectives. What if we learned to consult frankly, bring positive ideas to the table with a sense of detachment and maturity, and only with the idea of sharing information and adding to the ideas of others? What if we elected government representitives who demonstrated wisdom, worldly experience, enthusiasm for getting things done and a deep respect for others rather than those who represent a particular party or current point of view (inertia)? What if we gave our politicians manditory training on how to consult effectively and insist that they show respect for others rather than rewarding them for making clever remarks to put down the points presented by others? What if we all simply recognized that we are all the benefactors of whatever world we create and start thinking about how to make the entire world better, not just our own peice of the world? And to be fair, there are many people who already have this attitude and who devoted their lives to making the world a better place for everyone. What if we could, through new methods of communication, have everyone moving quickly together toward a common goal?

What if we really did think of the World as an an Organization?

We all understand the principle of inertia in the physical realm. If a large object is in motion, it requires a force to change that motion. We can think of a large ocean liner or train and how difficult they are to stop. This principle appears to apply in the mental and emotional realm as well. People are resistant to change and often change only when forced. However, are the minds and hearts really bound by the principles of inertia or is it simply that we don’t know how to influence others in ways that make change easier? In addition, what if we were able to make changes that allowed us to use inertia to our advantage by getting everyone aligned to the same goals.

The example we can use to look at change is 9 people in a racing canoe. Five people row in one direction and the other four, who are in disagreement, row in the other direction. How long does it take them to row to the other side of the lake? If they were to change direction and still have disagreement, how long would that change take? How much more quickly could they move if they all row together? How much more quickly would they find out if they were heading in the wrong direction simply by going with the majority, finding the wrong side of the lake, taking notes and then heading off in another direction? This example is similar to resisting change. We believe the change is wrong or detrimental to us personally so we do whatever we can to resist it and slow it down. This is usually out of a sense of preservation of our current situation. But what if the boat we are in is sinking and what if only some people in the boat are able to see the leak and yet others are convinced that it is not so they resist rowing to a specific destination? I’m not saying the world is a sinking boat. I’m just saying that maybe it has a few holes and that we will be better off to row together than to row all in different directions. 

In our current method of change, the higher level of power will ultimately prevail. But how much easier would it be if we could devise systems where we all consult about the most desired outcome, devise measures to ensure that we are reaching those outcomes, work along with the majority even when we don’t necessarily agree, adjust the path to help those who are struggling to keep up, and determine whether our actions have resulted in the predicted and most desirable outcomes? If the outcome is not what we anticipated, we at very least have more information to use for the next leg of the trip which will also be much faster.

Let’s tackle a hypothetical problem. Climate Change. There is an endless amount of discussion about it. Who’s right, who’s wrong, and whether it is caused by human activity or not. Even if you are someone who doesn’t agree with the IPCC position, supposing we accept that this is the majority view. If we were to jointly agree that for the next 10 years we have a serious problem to address that will require the cooperation of every country, every person and every company. We would agree to create and support major initiatives to limit carbon output and create green alternatives, stop the debate and simply do it. We could improve measures and models which determine the results of our efforts and keep track of those results. At the end of that period, we could determine the results of those efforts and decide if the world is better off as a whole and better prepared for the future, or not. Even if there were sacrifices of jobs and positions along the way, even if it caused us to pay higher taxes temporarily (especially those of us who could afford to), even if we had limits on certain freedoms, like how much we are able to drive our cars or how much carbon based energy we could use, we would know much more than by using most of our energies to debate the issue. We would know if the world was improving or not and we would have new alternatives. Many of the people who had lost jobs in one segment would have found positions in another. For example, perhaps some would have moved from the oil patch to green energies and some to agriculture. If this approach made a positive difference to climate, we would know. If not, we would also know. We would have gained experience in knowing how to shift resources in a planned, organized and cooperative way. We would have learned how to take care of those who were displaced by the change. The notion of change for the sake of change is not necessarily the right approach but it has the benefit of allowing us to learn how to be more flexible. Even if the science of climate change ultimately turns out to be wrong, we would know much more and likely with relatively little sacrifice and many potential benefits.

If we learn how to function together, to “row in the same direction” so to speak, we can begin to look at the world as one system and one organization working in harmony. And potentially we can do this on a voluntary basis as we each step forward to do our part.

What does this mean on an individual basis? Of course, speak your mind. Vote for those who you trust to think clearly, who are best able to evaluate effectively what’s best for the world, not ignoring local issues but someone who sees local issues within the scope of a bigger world. And when the directions are set, support them whole heartedly. If you see a social ill, use some of your time, energy and wealth to act on behalf of those who aren’t able to act for themselves. View all the people of the world as having equal rights and do what you are capable of doing to help the underprivileged to achieve all that they can. Learn the secrets of respectful, cooperative and detached consultation. And most importantly, learn how to encourage others to do the same.

What does it mean for a country? Look at the UN as an essential forum for discussion in which all countries begin to recognize and address the global challenges, encourage and support the research that will predict future outcomes based on specific initiatives, strive to encourage open dialogue and encourage a system where the majority of nations become educated to vote for those issues that promote the betterment of the world and suggest the removal of UN Vito’s for certain countries. Within the country, spend lots of money on issues that are essential for the longer term health of the planet especially education.

What does it mean for companies? Companies need to see themselves in a broader context especially from an environmental perspective. They can also take initiatives to learn better methods of implementing change, improving leadership, and ensuring their future viability in a rapidly changing world. They can also invest more of their profits in training, R&D and establish colaborative ventures that will help other companies that are supporting similar initiatives. 

What will I do? I will strive through my writing and through my coaching efforts to devise, learn and share ideas that I see which help Organizations to work together more effectively for the benefit of everyone and promote the green concepts in Organizations. I will strive to teach others how to work together in harmony and to spread the message that we can create a better world for everyone.

All the best,
Garth Schmalenberg