Since my last post I have thought hard about what a new picture of progress might look like. On the surface it’s easy to believe that we just need to develop some new technologies and buy more hybrids and we’ll be well on our way towards a green future. True, first steps are critically important. But even these first steps are tiny when you consider the scale of what’s in front of us. To use an old consulting term, we truly need a paradigm shift if we’re going to continue to improve our quality of life while simultaneously respecting the planet.

The environmental optimists attempt to rally the masses with promises of new, high-paying jobs in this new green economy. They sit side-by-side with the environmental realists who implore us to reduce, reuse, and as a last resort recycle…a message which is hard to dispute when you really think about the unsustainable nature of our consumption habits. But the naysayers make a strong argument that this message of reduce, reuse, and recycle will certainly take us down a path to economic failure.

And that’s where the waters get a little muddy. As the naysayers will tell you, “reduce” sounds a lot like “recession”. And it’s a fair question: can you really reduce consumption while simultaneously growing the economy? I’ve been trying to marry these ideals of reduce, reuse, and recycle with the only outcome that we can all agree is a positive one: a better quality of life. Can the 2 really co-exist, and if so, what’s it look like? What is that picture of progress?

Progress as it’s been defined in recent decades can be summed up in the words “better, faster, cheaper.” The next big thing necessarily had at least one of these attributes. In the 1980s the Japanese showed us how to build cars better, faster, and cheaper. Today computers get better, faster, and cheaper at an unbelievable rate. When products meet these criteria, the economic engine continues to hum right along. And as a result, we consume resources at an increasing rate.

So what will progress look like in the coming years? I am certain that consumers will continue to want better, faster, and cheaper. But as they become more aware of the impact their choices have on our planet, a new attribute will become critically important to their buying decision. That attribute is “less”. To make the same product, with all the same attributes and perhaps even better ones, while using less resources. The eco-aware consumer will pay more for these products…allowing the economy to grow while reducing our resource consumption.

An example should help to paint this picture. Today’s TVs are purchased based primarily on size and resolution. But as the problem of ewaste continues to gain in importance, manufacturers will increasingly develop designs and processes that allow for efficient recycling of materials and decreased reliance on toxic materials. Improved design will allow my 45 inch plasma TV to be recycled into a 52 inch super-plasma in the next generation…increasing my quality of life without draining resources.

It is certainly true that “reduce” will mean that some industries will fade away and jobs will be lost. But that is a part of capitalism that we’re all familiar with. Because “reduce” does not mean that we need to survive with less stuff - it just means that the stuff we want will utilize less resources - there will be new sectors in the economy with demand for new skills and workers. In order to get there we need revolutions in design, in material science, and in processes. There will be much dislocation, and many new opportunities, in the less is more economy.

one of the IPCC report authors, speak about our climate crisis last night. He painted a picture of the current situation in stark facts, showing the science behind the problem as well as driving home the enormity of the problem. It starts with the fact that economic progress as we know it is almost perfectly correlated with fossil fuel usage (and therefore CO2 emissions), but the problem of climate change touches nearly all aspects of our lives and our culture. The climate’s stability is connected with food production, land use, population growth, poverty, and a myriad of other factors…and the challenges we currently face in each area will be exacerbated by an unstable climate.As I listened, I was struck by the scale of the changes that we’ll need to make, from how we define progress to how we interact with our neighbors and other nations. On the one hand I am optimistic about the rising awareness and small steps that many of us are making, but I am frightened by the brave new world that we must create in order to sustain ourselves on this planet. My fear, I think, comes from the fact that we don’t have a clear picture of where we need to be. What does a world look like that has double the population, strong economies in China, India, and the developing world, and simultaneously a sustainable environment?

Many of us are trying to develop a roadmap, but where does it lead? What does that brave new world look like? We need a picture of progress that we can make sense of, then we will be able to chart a course to get there.

At last we have a metric that works. The recently formed 350.org, leveraging research done by the noted climatologist Jim Hansen, is beginning to publicize the goal of 350 ppm (parts per million) as the safe amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Currently we’re at about 380 ppm. Yes, we have work to do - but we’ve heard about that for a while. Now we have a hard and fast target, an easily measurable metric, that our global community can aim for.

I see this as a critical moment in the “marketing” of climate change. With the simplicity of this approach, the burden of proof now shifts to the naysayers - if 350 is not the right number, then what is? Why is that a better number than 350? All of the questions that they’ve been asking for years are now turned against them. We now have a consumable, digestible, and consistent rallying cry for this all important cause. Get used to the number - it’s going to become embedded in everything we do.

Corporate America continues to make strides towards a more transparent economy, led by long-time eco-conscious companies like Patagonia and even companies not typically thought of in this vein such as Xerox. Two recent announcements highlight this trend. Patagonia launched the Footprint Chronicles which shows the cradle-to-cradle footprint of several of their products. For their part, Xerox announced a new sustainability calculator that measures the impact of using their products, including a feature that suggests opportunities to optimize usage.

For all the criticism that corporate America gets for its environmental record, we need to recognize and embrace meaningful change when it occurs. And a first and critical step towards sustainability is transparency and awareness. These companies know that the steps they’re taking will not necessarily translate into higher revenues or profits in the near-term. Xerox may find that fewer of their printers are needed in the average office. And Patagonia may find that their environmental record does not run as deep as their brand might suggest.

Indeed, in the area of sustainability, the more we peel back the onion the more issues arise. During the process of discovery, there is little purely good news. Patagonia provides a perfect example: as they examined the cradle-to-cradle impact of one of their “recycled” shell jackets, they found that it contains a harmful toxin in the coating. Bad news? Egg on face? Well, somewhat…but it sure is a better outcome for all parties than continuing to bury our heads in the sand.

I applaud these steps by corporate America. This is what we must do. We need to start by discovering, because only then can we take action.

Predicting the future is an imperfect science, but here’s a prediction you can bet on: 5 years from now the 2008 Beijing Olympics will be viewed as the turning point in the fight for our planet’s sustainability. To be sure, most of the press leading up to the event has focused on the high levels of pollution in Beijing. The environmental concerns are substantial, here are some startling statistics:

70% of all fresh water around the city is undrinkable

1,200 new motor vehicles are added in the city each day

Over 400,000 people die prematurely from air pollution each year

Air pollutants over China increased by 50% in the past 10 years alone

These concerns are shared by the International Olympic Committee which has weighed in with their own assessment, stating that for certain events “there may be some risk” to the athletes. Given the substantial pollution concerns surrounding the event, the IOC and other international groups are setting up a measurement system and fallback plans in case the health risks to athletes are excessive.

Beijing’s “Clean Up” Effort

In an effort to deal with these concerns and avoid a black eye once the eyes of the world tune into the Games, the city of Beijing and the Chinese government have taken several near-term steps. The city has shut down or relocated many factories to places outside of the city and put into place a system of measurements and standards to assess the number of clean air days (called “blue sky days”) each year. Beijing has taken other measures, including trial traffic bans, increased tree planting and ordering its power plants to switch from coal to gas. For their part, the Chinese government established a far-reaching set of rules, guidelines, and goals that are part of a 5-year environmental plan from 2006 through 2010. The 5-year plan includes improving energy efficiency by cutting energy consumption by 20 percent per unit of GDP, along with a 10 percent cut in major pollutants, between 2006 and 2010.

But China is a huge country whose economy is growing quickly, with a voracious appetite for fossil fuels and related pollutants. On the one hand, it’s not realistic that the economy will slow significantly for any event, even the Olympics. Equally unrealistic is that measures put in place within the past 1 to 2 years could have a meaningful impact in such a short timeframe. Indeed, the country’s discharge of sulfur dioxide and COD (a measure of water pollution) saw year-on-year increases of 1.2% and 1.8% in 2006. And the government recently announced that the air pollution goals for 2007 were missed. So what’s the real story? Are the changes going on in Beijing and China prior to the Olympics just for show? Are are they the beginning of systemic changes that will have a global impact?

Turning Olympics Promises Into Environmental Realities

If you read between the lines and dig into the action plans, you’ll see that the Chinese government is taking broad and meaningful steps to address the environmental crisis that threatens the country long after the Beijing Olympics are gone and forgotten. Some of these steps are bold not only in their scale but also in their intent. A few examples:
*Measurement - Hebei Province, near Beijing, has installed over 500 air and water monitoring facilities

*Accountability for waste – the government is testing a new system that charges residents by the amount of trash they generate

*Automobile emissions – the government has placed a ban on sales of cars that don’t meet “China IV standards” (same as Euro IV) from March 2008

*Investment in new technologies – the government has committed to increase investment in nanotech, including eco-friendly applications

As the Games approach and China is faced with global shame amid the spotlight, we will hear a lot of debate about the sincerity and breadth of China’s environmental \commitment. I can hear the claims of greenwashing already. But to me, the symbol of China’s environmental efforts surrounding the games – the water cube – is an appropriate symbol. It’s a perfect example of the meaningful steps taken over the past few years – indeed, 80% of the facility’s water is recycled, it was designed for use after the Olympics end, and it contains a bevy of other green building features. So while the Olympics may have indeed been the catalyst that spurred the Chinese government into action, the combination of heightened awareness among top officials coupled with meaningful actions taken will serve to make this the turning point in the globe’s largest environmental challenge. And as the rest of the world looks upon China, with its huge population and seemingly insurmountable environmental challenges, and realizes that they have taken substantive steps to decrease their environmental footprint in a short timeframe, it should give the rest of the planet reason for hope.