For example, on reading the World Values Survey, there appeared to be a trend toward individualism and secularism until 1980, after which the values seemed to take a little bit of a reversal at least in most cases. While there was no discussion on this point in the chart, I have to wonder if there was a pause to re-think the issue of continued movement towards secularism and individualism.  

What’s even more interesting is that the Happiness Index taken by the World Values Survey suggested decreasing happiness in the US until 1980 (this same period of trending toward secularism and individualism) after which there was a reversal. The US happiness index also increased from 1980 onward peaking at 2006 during the Bush administration, although perhaps by that point with the anticipation of change on the horizon.

 Still, I have to wonder whether the reversal in trend toward secularism and individualism suggests.

Perhaps it is that people are only comfortable with these trends to a degree and then begin to recognize that human choice is ultimately best served when there is an alignment with the Will of God (or acceptance of higher values as represented by religious belief). In other words, people choose to submit their own will to a greater Will and are subsequently happier when they do so. The reasons for this may be related to feelings of altruism or having a greater sense of purpose but it may also be that our happiness really comes from sharing happiness with others. Serving others who are not grateful generally does little to lift the spirits.

There also seemed to be an overall increase of happiness during the period for most societies as they trends toward global consciousness, an increase of wealth and as their ability to make choices increase. Some of this is contradicted by other studies which suggest that too much choice actually causes anxiety, complexity and a decrease in happiness.  In other words, as we spend much more time trying to choose, we become less satisfied because we are confused by our choices and less satisfied after the fact with our choices because we contemplate all the other choices that we are now living without. With simpler choices we simply make the best choice we can of a few items and then moving on with life.  This would suggest that the increase in choices related to increasing happiness is something else. Perhaps this freedom of choice is related more to what we do with our time, our ability to buy nutritious food, our ability to live in decent homes, have better education and our ability to vote. 

Another interesting dynamic is that societies which consider themselves as less democratic have a higher regard for the importance of democracy and yet are more critical of their own country’s democratic structures suggesting perhaps that the more democracy becomes an accepted norm, the more we also learn to take our choices for granted.  

From a sustainability perspective, the increase in happiness related to collective consciousness and a move towards spirituality rather than secular materialism is undoubtedly a good thing. On the other hand, without spiritual or values based education, the increase in economic freedom of the many billions in developing countries also signals a serious challenge to the global environment. Freedom of choice is good when we are educated to think in ways that are good for the world, but democracy and freedom once taken for granted also lead to a sense of entitlement which lead us to believe that we can enjoy the world’s resources with impunity. So while this may bring us temporary happiness, it has also brought us closer to the brink of environmental tragedy. The carbon economy being the most prevalent example, while benefiting our freedom in the western world, has contributed to untold misery of countless millions who we see only as statistics on our big screen HD TVs. If we were to measure the happiness index of Pakistan at this moment, it is certain that there would be a major dip.  

For businesses what do these trends suggest?  

It is difficult to make any firm conclusions in translating these trends to business directions but we may be able to draw some conclusion.

1) Types of Products

If we are actually interested in serving our client’s true happiness, we would read the trends that suggest a move away from individualism and secularism and create more products and services which help us all to operate together as a society in ways which promote an increasing values base and which serve the common good (sustainability being an example), all while keeping choices relatively limited. Interestingly, companies like GM, with the reduction of the number of brands (i.e. the demise of Oldsmobile and Pontiac)  have actually begun down this path of simplification even if for seemingly unrelated economic reasons. Could it be that too much choice was also too much for the consumer? 

2) Quality of Products 

Quality in products also introduces a form of simplification to the consumer. If you don’t have to keep fixing your car every few weeks, your life is more straight forward. The same is true for any product which is more durable.   

3) Conceptual Freedom

When people are free to use their time in service to others, especially those they choose to serve, they tend to be happier. This suggests that while challenge at work is important, finding the right work environment is critical for both the employee and the company. Free time after work is also necessary. Creating a working environment where people are free to learn and interact with others in the work place and which limits their working time so that they are also free to spend time with friends and family will ultimately contribute to a happier society. Creating freedom to interact, however, is generally not enough in a working environment. Often there is a need for education on team work, values based consultation and respect for the contributions of others. Placing a team challenge in front of an aggressive group of competitive individuals (i.e. not a team) is often a recipe for backbiting, smears, conflict and other forms of disunity which contribute nothing to the overall happiness of the organization, nor in the end, to the service of clients.  

4) Social Contribution

Employers do well to make part of their organization about contributing to the common good and allowing employees to participate in socially oriented endeavors. While suggested by recent trends away from individualism, this concept is also supported by studies of what employees value in companies where they are employeed. Salary is important but it’s not everything. Economic studies have proven that people are willing to sacrifice money both for justice and for altruistic reason. And there is no doubt consumers will also be swayed towards companies that hold high values. Ikea is an interesting example of a company which has grow partially as a result of it’s environmental orientation. 

I’d love to hear your thoughts on my conclusions and please share these ideas and  articles with others if you like them, either by e-mailing the link or though the share button. 

All the best, 

Garth Schmalenberg

Among the many brilliant presenters was a young lady who is working on her PhD thesis whose presentation was entitled “What Can Justify Duties of Global Economic Justice? Individual Responsibility, Human Consciousness, and the Oneness of Humankind”. Her name is Shahrzad Sabet. In asking the question, she began by sharing with us the globally accepted UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights. She the began to dissect the responsibilities for the implementation of these rights. To be fair to Shahrzad, I will state that the remaining text is my perhaps feeble understanding of the arguments she so simply and brilliantly presented and perhaps, at some point, I will have a chance to speak with her further to clarify or to refer on-line to her thesis work, but I can only say that after hearing what she had to say, I was completely overwhelmed by her convincing arguments recognizing that there really isn’t a minute to lose in beginning to bring this argument forward on a wide basis, and I am also quite convinced that someday this young lady will be amongst the Nobel Peace Prize winners because these same arguments will force all nations and all people of conscience to take action. Such action will come in the form of adopting laws and practices which will require all citizens of the world (or at least those who have the freedom to vote or make buying decisions), all business leaders and all government leaders to act forcefully in upholding these Human Rights by taking practical, direct and personal responsibility for implementing Global Economic Justice through their votes for responsible government representatives, those who will make the necessary revisions in government institutions, and in turn, through laws which will require all people to make these Human Rights a reality.

In nations such as Pakistan, Haiti, India, Indonesia and many others, billions suffer under the oppression of poverty, the lack of a suitable infrastructure, and through catastophic environmental impacts, while much of the world continues to enjoy their freedoms without paying much attention and governments pay immense amounts of money towards military spending and the expansion of environmentally destructive practices which only serve to further human suffering.

Her arguement goes something like this:

The majority of all nations on earth have accepted the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

A “Right” as opposed to something else (e.g. an idea or a privilege) is essentially the entrenched global and national liability of society to provide something to each individual. As the majority of nations, and their electorate, having elected their representatives, have accepted that this right exists, then the responsibility to implement this right also exists.

She then asks the question “whose responsibility is it to implement these Human Rights?”

Since it is ultimately the responsibility of global agreement and therefore global and national institutions, including national, (as well as regional and local governments) and global (as well as national and local) businesses, and since those government and business institutions are made up of individuals who have power to vote, to make their voices heard, to individually make decisions within businesses, and to take actions such as deciding what goods to purchase and what institutions to purchase from, thereby supporting and upholding these institutions, we also must understand that as individuals we have a legal liability to make decisions which support Global Human Rights (including our own).

While I may not do full justice to her argument, it was too powerful to ignore. And, while it would certainly be better to hear this argument directly from her, owing to the fact that, while my statement of the argument probably has holes in it, she covered off these holes masterfully and it is a message that needs to be heard by everyone and it needs to be heard now, especially by business and government leaders who have yet to act on this responsibility. Any human being who enjoys these essential Human Rights must also acknowledge that if, for some reason, they lost the benefits which are bestowed by these fundamental Rights, they would very quickly be calling for own government to impose laws and regulations to restore them. Since these institutions are the result of our personal choices, we also have the legal and ethical responsibility to make the appropriates choices on behalf of those who have not had the benefit of these Human Rights.

Practical Applications

In writing this article, I am making an appeal that all readers contemplate what they are reading to the depths of their heart, with full consiousness, to recognize their own nobility of spirit and to understand the very real obligation it imposes on them. The responsibility for Global Human Justice is as much yours as it is mine.

What might our actions be?

For one, we can all be making these responsibilities known to every elected government official that we know by writing to them, by speaking to them, by holding sessions with them and by educating them. We can tell them that we expect them to implement these rights Globally. How otherwise can we truely protect our own Human Rights? We can simply present the same arguments to them as were presented to us. The implication of this responsiblity is profound. It would require that all Governments meet together, not just about global economics and not just about global security as in G8 and G20 meetings, but about informing all citizens of the world about their legal responsibilities. Our Government officials would be morally obliged tell the world’s electorate that they are also ethically responsible to vote for those who are best suited to implement these Human Rights regardless of which party affiliation they may hold. The elected officials might in-turn, take efforts to share these concepts with their fellow officials, and to encourage the position of their respective governements to also begin making these Global Human Right their top priority and to initiate a global discussion on how to most effectively implement them.

We might also invite our neighbors to share this message so that each person has the opportunity to deeply understand the implications and to begin to take action on addressing this liability and acting with ethical responsibility. We can do so using all our resources, in our homes, our schools, our government council halls, our churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and other centres of faith.

For those who have the skills to do so, we can speak in public or in business gatherings inviting consultation on the implications for each of us individually and collectively. For those who have the skill to invite, we can invite others and host meetings. We can call upon our business leaders to invite speakers to speak about this approach to every employee.

We might begin to insist that our tax dollars be spent on the reconstruction of our global society by first addressing the most serious Global Human Rights infringements. After all, some day those infringements may be against us. As I am currently sitting on Vancouver Island, which is beautiful but which at some point is destined to experience a severe earth quake, I can only contemplate the rights which have been denied the people of Haiti as a result of a similar force or, perhaps more potently, the Human Rights denied the millions that have suffered at the hands of climate change, and for which we all share the burden of responsibility. What would it mean if all the world’s available resources were spent in solving the most grievious problems first? How quickly would we be able to address our relatively minor local concerns if the world’s government and business leaders would learn how to work together? And at the same time, rather than placing the responsiblity of our relatively minor local concerns on our elected officials, we could work together as neighbors to begin to address our local concerns in service of each other, and encourage our elected leaders to think globally to address the most serious of our personal legal liabilities (i.e. the oppression and poverty of countless millions) on our behalf.

We might insist that our elected officials vote on laws that require our countries’ taxes to be diverted away from military spending, to require that military only serve the purpose of implementing Global Human Rights rather than causing violations of Human Rights. Imagine, for example, that only 50% of global military expenditures went directly into implementation of these legal responsiblities to relieve Human suffering, provide education, protection of personal rights, provide the right to work and to provide adequate food and shelter. How quickly would things change? And in finding global agreement on our personal resposibilities, how quickly would governments be able to jointly resolve issues such as terrorism?

We might ensure that, until these rights are imparted in action to every citizen in the world, we would continue to insist that this be top priority for all governments and businesses that we support.

We might take some time to educate ourselves on the causes and sources of these violations and expose sources that we are aware of (e.g. environmental and other violators of human rights), not for the purpose of condemning them, but for the purpose of raising the awareness of those involved in either actions or through neglect of action, that they (and we) are responsible and help them to make the necessary decisions, providing all assistance we can muster, to rapidly revise their course of action. It is not so much that people wish to do harm, rather that due to human weaknesses, a lack of awareness of the harm we cause, and a lack of discipline (i.e. the lower part of human nature), that we fail to make the efforts required of our higher nature (read that again, it is “required” of our higher nature for what is is after all to be “Human”?)

This is a very deep topic and, I can only hope that others will go deeper than I have and present this arguement with more accuteness and more forcefully than me. I am deeply hopeful and recognize that inside each of us is seed of a higher nature which can grow and which through our collective efforts will grow into a fruitful and beautiful tree bearing many fruits.

I’d love to hear your comments and questions.

Please spread this message in any way you can, by e-mail, by your voice, by inviting people, by speaking on it, by letters, by referal.
Please call if you have any questions.
Please invite me to speak to your group or organization on this vital subject.
Please keep your eyes open for the brilliant potential of the higher human nature wherever it may arise.

My best wishes to you all,
Garth Schmalenberg

http://hbi-leadership.com
http://twitter.com/gschmalenberg
Ph: 416-919-6598

Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren developed a formula for examining environmental impact stating that I = f(PAT) where I is impact, P is Population, A is Affluence, T is Technology. In other words, if we increase global population, which is inevitable, in order to maintain environmental impact, we must reduce either the Affluence, or create Technologies that reduce individual and collective impact. Brown and Garver changed the formula to I = f(PATE) and added the influence of Ethics. They also conclude that each of these variables have an influence on the others. Without going into a deeper description of the variables, we can generally agree that from a world population view, this view of human impact of the planet seems fatalistic because we know that the planet is already stressed beyond limits and on average, Population and Affluence are both increasing.

This would seemingly leave the entire hope of humanity resting upon the ability of Technology or a sudden swell of Ethics to decrease our net impact on the planet. Recent flooding in Pakistan disrupting the lives of 12 million people and leaving 4 million with food shortages, the worst in 80 years, mudslides in China, and a massive block of ice (260 square km and half the height of the empire state building) which recently fell off the ice shelf in Iceland into the water suggest that our climate is still shifting in uncontrolable and potentially dire directions. Ice falling off a land based shelf, by the way, does contribute to elevated ocean levels, cooling of oceans in the immediate vacinity of the ice, and vast amounts of fresh water (i.e. desalination) being dumped into the ocean and affecting ocean flows.

So here’s the question: Can we solve the issues facing us with only Technology and Ethics before our planet is irrepairably damaged and forces our hand on the factors of Affluence and Population?

The short answer is “probably not”! But there are ways in which Technology and Ethics can have an a positive impact on affluence and ethics and here’s how one idea of how a solution could unfold from an individual, business and global perspective.

The Influence of Technology and Ethics

Can technology alone solve the complex issues of planetary degradation? At first glance technology does not seem to have the answers to our current dilemma. We know that technology has vastly improved our ability to communicate, upgraded efficiencies of business through applications like ERP and supply chain management, improved our ability to service customers, enhanced our quality control systems leading to more durable goods and provided the ability to reduce travel costs through collaborative software. Our ability to harness more power from less fuel is also benefitting our automotive technologies and air travel per mile is benefiting from lighter materials, advanced engines and cleaner fuels. But have we actually used these technologies to reduce our net power consumption and CO2 production per capita? Well, perhaps just a little.

Technologies such as “LED” televisions for example, which at first glance might seem much seem more efficient than older CRT technologies, actually use about twice the power for the same screen size or three times for plasma TVs ( although these too are improving with the latest generation of Energy Star ratings). In addition, brighter more beautiful pictures, the requirement for digital boxes, the addition of channels and the larger screen sizes (which also require more power) might tend to increase viewing hours. The power consumption due to newer technologies, in some respects is going up, not down, thus increasing our impact on all fronts. And the effect of having more perceived efficieny leads us to use power more freely.

And let’s face it, if all the other three factors are creating a greater impact on the environment, we would have a  tough time claiming that our ethics are improving.

I = f(PATE) suggests that we currently have a failing grade.

Having said that, many companies have made concerted efforts to implement colaborative technologies. I have personally worked with many individuals and some companies who use skype or conference call technologies to meet rather than meeting face to face thus reducing travel and CO2 emissions. At this stage in technological evolution, meeting in person is still far better, but technology, according to Ray Kurzweil, is continually growing in it’s capability, power and scope of application and, at some point in the not too distant future, meeting virtually may provide an experience which is close to that of meeting in person. The fact that virtually all technologies have continued to advance exponentially and appear to be continuing on this path (despite suggestions of those that hold that Moore’s law will break down) might suggest that solutions are closer than we currently perceive.

Simple examples of recent advances in solar technologies include panels which can catalyze hydrogen from water using only sunlight and CO2, essentially mimicking photosynthesis, as well as new coatings that allow heat to be used advantageously in the generation of solar photovoltaic energy rather than wasting it, making solar cells cost competative with energy developed through burning oil. Carbon nanotubes have proven valuable for many applications including storage of energy and high speed computing, and wireless signals. Communications using quantum attributes such as quantum entanglement are leading to smaller and virtually instantaneous communication approaches. AI (Artificial Intelligence) approaches constantly advance our abilities to understand each other and share information (e.g. through automated language translation devices) and new applications of context based search enable us to more rapidly find relavent information for expanded research sharing. Neural interfaces are already being used for some applications which could theoretically make our ability to access an ever expanding ocean of knowledge almost instantaneous. Google’s CEO reported that in two days we now produce as much information as we previously did through all of recorded history up till 2003. And our ability to mine this information is also rapidly advancing. Although many of these more recent technologies are not yet at their production phases, they are making their way to practical applications through the advanced business practices and through the internet which allows for rapid prototyping and less-expensive mass implementation.

Our challenge is to use technology in an ethical way that recognizes the global environment as the foundation for all of our business and commercial advances and for human life in general. No amount of technology will help if we use it only to mine marketing data to market more products and encourage more consumption. How to use information is an ethical issue which companies like Google and Yahoo are struggling with. Just because you have the information doesn’t mean you should use it for marketing every product. CEO’s of major corporations will need to make major strategic decisions to take global ethics into account and to take an oath similar to the medical oath “do no harm”.

As greener technologies make their way through the business world, production expenses can be “theoretically” reduced through lower resource needs and using renewable energy devices. By lowering consumer prices of green technologies and communication technologies, business leaders can put tools in the hands of consumers which will help them to save energy and resources (e.g. faster implementation of technologically advanced solar cells, electric cars, etc.), thereby encouraging less resource consumption and a greater focus on services. Business leaders who have adopted good ethical practices see the benefit of sharing profits with their workers because it encourages them to become promoters of their products and services. Good economic practices suggest that well paid workers help the economy by providing customers.

Naturally, some problems with new technologies can be anticipated, but according to Kurweil, as more and more of our daily lives become technology and information related and as the power of technology continues to advance expoentially, our ability to become more green through technology could begin to take the same exponential path that other technologies are already benefiting from.

Another trend in technology that may lead to greener outcomes is that of convergence, where cellphones and other mobile technologies begin to occupy more and more of our time, thereby reducing the need for other devices in our lives. Convergence of devices can theoretically reduce our production and energy needs. This, however, also depends somewhat on our ethics and our awareness that reducing production and resource usage is actually a desirable end result. If all we do is continue to add more devices to our already vast collection, we will have gained little.

The implications of exponential technological growth are not well understood by most people. Kurzweil argues that most of us tend to think linearly, not exponentially. If you double capabilities each year, in 10 years you get a 1000 fold increase in capability. If we can make most technologies energy neutral and begin to use the exponential growth capability of new technologies, especially those that are specifically designed to reduce our energy requirements and to supply our energy needs, a 1000 fold improvement in our green technologies over the next ten years may not be out of the question. Technological paradigms such as nanotechnologies which will help us to put more power into smaller devices, artificial intelligence will enhance context based search capabilities, and continued enhancements in solar power collection will benefit from both our growing ability to rapidly market and implement green technologies through mass communication. 

In addition, each year the number of social justice organizations and businesses leaders that support positive social change is growing. As the cost of technology decreases, it also provides new capabilities and a means for educating developing nations, which incidentally has an impact on reducing population. Educating women especially tends to help them set up a family support system that doesn’t depend on having large families to provide for future security.  Technologically advanced devices can lead to vast increases in affluence and education without an enourmous demand on planetary resources.

While Ethics and Technology aren’t the only factors that will play a part in the solution, they are an important component. And if we are to use the technology to reduce our consumption, we must also change our values and elevate our ethical conscience to include global as well as local concerns so we don’t just add capability without changing our ways.

All the best,

Garth Schmalenberg

If you enjoy this article, please share it by clicking on the share link, e-mail, by telling someone about this site or by calling and arranging a speaking engagement.

It’s fairly clear that people are just not ready to give up their holidays, their retirement freedoms or their independent modes of transportation. Even those of us who are aware of the severe issues have difficulty giving up our carbon habit. A book called “Right Relationship” by Peter G. Brown and Geoffrey Garver discusses how we have, for the most part, failed to maintain a right relationship with the planet and suggests how we might re-establish such relationships. But if we are going to maintain “Right Relationship” with our planet while maintaining “Right Relationship” with our friends and our families (who often live some distance from us) and our own sense of well-being which requires exercising some level of freedom, we will need to take a different “tack” than just sitting at home. For those not familiar with this use of the word “tack” it is a method used by sailors when sailing against the wind, whereby they zigzag diagonally across the line of the opposing wind in order to reach their up-wind destination. Ironically, the other way of going up-wind is to motor. Even though sailboats for the most part are powered by the wind, most have on-board diesel motors for travelling in harbors where using wind power is unreliable. Yet another source of CO2.

If we imagine Sustainability as our up-wind destination (i.e. the wind of our personal freedoms seems to blow in the opposite direction). What are the “tacks” we might take in order to reach our desired destination? We want to arrive at a place where we are in “Right Relationship” with our planet and where we have the freedoms we desire. We want to get their without having to motor all the way and creating a problem for the planet and for future generations.

One thing that sailors learn is that if they have to tack, it will also take longer to arrive at the destination. If you’re a business owner or someone who would like your business to be more sustainable, ask yourself some questions:

What would it mean for a company, a city or any service or manufacturing industry to find a “tack” that takes them to their sustainable destination without motoring?

It might imply slowing down and it might also imply using more manpower and technology. Sailboats use a lot of technology in the design of their hull, their materials, their sails, and in their navigation systems. They also use solar powered fans and panels or wind generators for charging their batteries. But sailors who rely on the wind must still develop patience and find serenity in stillness. If the wind stops blowing, sometimes they just wait and enjoy the view. True, if they have no food on-board, they may not have a choice other than motoring, but they prepare for these contingencies by stocking up and many also learn to fish so they can live along the way.

What are the lessons for business leaders? As a business leader, imagine that you have to plan to survive for 1 day without oil (metaphorically: fully under sail).

• What preparations might you make?
• What are the things you would need to store up if you were to take a small leg of the trip under sail?
• What new navigational skills would you need to learn? 
• What heading would you take?
• What kinds of attitudes might you need to adopt in your organization and leadership styles that would help you to relax with the potentially slower pace of progress and yet still find ways to compete?
• What might you do with the stillness when the winds of sales disappear?
• Who would you be competing against?
• Would your market change?
• How might you elicit support and “wind power” from your market, your customers and competitors?
• How might you learn to ”enjoy the journey”, and not be entirely focused on the destination?

If we where all metaphorical sailors in our businesses (i.e. powered by wind or solar) how might we share the ride with others who know less about sailing but would like to learn? After all, once under sail, there is very little cost to keep going.

Don’t get me wrong, sailing is expensive. Similarly, moving towards sustainable solutions costs money in the beginning and it may potentially represent a tremendousshift in pace. But if we do it correctly, that shift in pace will be a welcome one. One of the most amazing parts of the island culture is that it takes the time to enjoy life and the bounties of nature, music, arts and creativity. From that perspective alone, it has something to teach company leaders.

What is one “tack” any company or organization can take as a starting point to becoming more sustainable? Hire a CSO (Chief Sustainability Officer)! Alternatively, and here’s a little shameless self-promotion for a good cause, you can outsource the CSO function by hiring a company like HBI Leadership (and btw, I’m now supporting and speaking to mainland BC and Vancouver Island businesses and organizations) where experience with leadership development and an understanding of sustainability already exists.

Enjoy your summer,

Garth Schmalenberg

Please share any thoughts or ideas from this article with friends, colleagues or other business/organizational leaders that might benefit from insights on Sustainability.

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