The reluctant greening of America - a continuing series
Since the average temp on the East Coast shot up to 97 all summer and gas prices make SUVs uncomfortably pricey, there has been some hullaballoo about the “greening of America.” Yup, environmentalism is hot again, and we’re going to party like it’s Earth Day, 1979. America’s putting on sweaters, carpooling and getting psyched about solar energy.
I love sustainability - great concept. Doing profitable business without wrecking our kids’ ability to live on Earth: sounds simple and attractive as an idea. As I have said before, to make this attempt at sustainability better than past attempts, there are two people you need to reach:
Yup, Pat Robertson and Wall Street types are the two parties that really need to come on board to make it different this time. Otherwise, the evolution of global industry is going to get caught in the ridiculous “culture war” or “anti-growth” debate. This time, there must be an accord that growth can be good.
As I have mentioned in recent postings, miracle of miracles, Pat Robertson is onboard. Even he thinks that this global warming thing is real. Whoa. OK, great.
Next, I say that Wall Street guys must be into sustainability - and not for public relations. They’ve got to be excited about sustainability just out of the sheer capitalist greed of it. No bleeding hearts, no tree hugging, just pure Return On Investment, baby.
It looks like it’s happening already. Today’s International Herald Tribune has a perfect article about how “cleantech” is producing lots of interest in the financial community. It seems that many companies are looking at the future and believe, quite sagely, that causing environmental havoc is not good for profits.
Nicholas Parker, chairman of the trade group Cleantech Venture Network, is even adamant that this movement is not about being a do-gooder — it’s about cold hard cash. And the cash is showing up. In the first half of this year, venture capitalists invested $379 million in 30 companies that categorize themselves as cleantech, according to the National Venture Capital Association. That is up from $230.8 million in 27 companies in all of 2005. There’s even the issue of many companies trying to look green to attract investment, even when they aren’t especially sustainable.
Now, there’s the sign of change — companies trying to look green for financial reasons, not just to get environmentalists to shut up or to avoid bad press.
When it pays money to reduce pollution and make profitable industry sustainable — now you’ve got the makings of a revolution.
-Garland
Labels: sustainability
The Tobacco Industry: Public Relations Geniuses
This one is too amusing to pass up. “U.S. Report: More Nicotine in Cigarettes”
Man, that is the news I needed! A better world is on the way!
Evidently, the tobacco industry is making a strategic move to keep people from heeding the mountains of data that says smoking is plain old unacceptable in society and deadly to boot: they have juiced the amount of nicotine in the remaining cigarettes, making it harder to quit.
This makes sense. All over the world - even in France and Spain, for the love of Pete - people are cracking down on smoking. Heart disease and erectile dysfunction aren’t that much fun. It’s not allowed in bars in some cities. Cigarettes have got a lot going against their future.
So the Massachusetts Department of Health discovers two things: One, smoking behavior isn’t changing. Two, there is 10% more nicotine in the cigarettes out there.
Does it stand to reason that there would be a reduction in smoking if there wasn’t a higher level of the most addictive substance on Earth added to today’s smokes?
Is this not the tobacco industry’s way to shore up defenses against the inevitable? Note that they do not comment on this.
To quote one of my futurist colleagues regarding tobacco companies: “The question is not whether they are evil. The question is whether they are evil or Super Evil.“
House poor. Cash poor. Working poor. Poor poor.
Let’s talk about the future of housing and real estate.
I live in the Washington DC area. They are trying to sell one bedroom condominiums for $600,000. When I grew up in Vermont, you could buy my entire street for that sum, and you’d get a collective 20 bedrooms, not just one. Granted you’d be near cows and not the famous Kramerbooks in Dupont Circle, but still - we’re talking over a half million bucks, and you can’t fit a good sized couch in the place!
The Washington Post is finally raising some alarms, such as the fact that housing prices outpaced wages in Fairfax County, Virginia twelvefold since the year 2000. The median household would need to spend 56% of its income to afford the median home price.
What’s really ironic is that the Fairfax County executives who did the study live over an hour away in Winchester, Virginia or Frederick, Maryland. To repeat that, somebody who works for Fairfax County couldn’t possibly afford to live there on a government salary.
What is that about?
Says Cathy Hudgins, chairwoman of the housing committee for the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, “I don’t think we’re creating strong communities by forcing people into their cars four hours a day. This creates all kinds of lousy outcomes — children who don’t get to see their parents, workers who can’t make ends meet when gas prices soar, exurban sprawl, roads clogged with long-distance commuters emitting greenhouse gases.”
Yeah, there’s been a few trends that have intersected all at the wrong time:
- Exurban sprawl
- Giant SUVs
- 60% jump in gas prices
- Dot-com-esque housing prices
So we are basically creating communities that are clogged up, expensive, unpleasant, and almost certainly make us fat, stressed, and diabetic.
We’re smart people - did we design it this way on purpose?
Is there a future in smarter urban design?
-Garland
The Future of Futurism is Bright
My word, a mass-media story on futurists and the World Future Society that gets it right. I nearly fell out of my chair.
Michael Rogers, who goes by “The Practical Futurist,” writes at MSNBC.com about future trends and technologies, and his piece “What Do Futurists Really Know?” is a rare bird indeed. He attended the annual World Future Society convention and comes out with an optimistic and balanced view of the actual field of futurism.
Hallelujah!
He gets it right. He depicts the actual balance in the field between professional consulting firms and more visionary types. He quotes Ray Kurzweil’s views of the Singularity (with a grain of salt, as you should) as well as Joe Coates‘ veteran view about how futurists should aim ultimately to be helpful. He mixes those who help corporate executives make decisions, and those who explore the future of everything from spirtuality to sex to “transhumanism.”
This is really refreshing. So often, pieces on futurists either focus on outlandish predictions, or alternately skewer futurists for spouting predictions. Or somebody writes how ludicrous it is that anybody would “claim to know what the future is.” In reality, the field is thriving because it has two equally passionate groups:
There are the futurist-hobbyists, those who are fascinated by what may be next and love discussing all the possibilities - for good and bad.
Then there are the professional futurists (such as yours truly), who are mostly knowledge managers, bringing a wealth of future trend data and analysis to busy leaders who just don’t have time. It’s a profession like any other.
Even though these two futurist constituencies are very different, we interact with each other. This diversity makes us stronger. It’s just so great - and so rare - to see somebody understand the richness of our community, understand that we are not all the same, and reflect that accurately in a public forum.
I sense a real upswing for futurists of all sorts. We have come through the dark period of the dot com crash, Enron, and 9/11, when everyone psychically retreated to their most defensive thoughts. The future, they said — what a crock. It’s all about today. Well, people are coming to realize that the world will be fast-paced and occasionally scary — and we have to manage it anyway. Futurism is a great way to get some much needed long-term perspective. I am very excited to see more and more signs that it is coming back into vogue.
-Garland
Labels: Futurists
Is THIS the future of Rock and Roll?
The above images are the avatars, the virtual online personae, of the legendary Irish rock band U2. Evidently, this is the future of rock and roll — computer generations of rock stars (shown here playing computer generations of fancy vintage guitars) are apparently entertaining the computer generations of fans who “show up” for “concerts” in cyberspace.
As a professional musician who takes this kind of thing fairly seriously, I have a few reactions.
1) First, go read the article about this phenomenon at the Washington Post. The piece is called “Hear the Music, Avoid the Mosh Pit.” Apparently, Suzanne Vega and Duran Duran are opting of this kind of virtual interaction with fans. Interesting read.
2) I have been writing about artists turning to this kind of thing for a while. Back in 2003 I wrote a piece for the Futurist magazine called “Online Music: The Sound of Success” in which I forecast artists looking for all kinds of ways other than plastic discs to reach their fans. After all, most musicians get hosed on record contracts, and concert tours are resource intensive and long and involve increasingly smelly drummers. It’s true. So this is not really a surprise.
3) Now that this particular option is here, I have a few wild, unchecked emotional responses. Principally, is this Rock & Roll? Is this the cultural force that unites the kids, propels us, bathes us in “Three Chords and the Truth?” Is the future of rock & roll, this mystical American cultural force, is that future going to be translated across a broadband connection?
For my first concert, I saw these guys, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, tear the roof off a concert hall in Vermont in 1991. They were wearing flaming hats. There was a mosh pit. Everybody had a great time.
(And the opening band was an unknown bunch of guys from Seattle called Pearl Jam. They went on to, ahem, moderate success.)
I spend enough time alone in front of a computer. My job is collecting and interpreting information about the future, so the computer is a great tool for that. But it strikes me that actual Rock & Roll — or salsa or hip-hop or country — is better experienced in a room with other human beings.
That’s the choice. Online digital avatars or flaming hats.
Folks, I say stock up on your general liability coverage, know where your fire extinguishers are found and pass me the earplugs! I choose flaming hats!
-Garland
Labels: Information technology, society
Advertising seeking more annoying techniques in the future
Advertising and marketing is in a pinch. There has been sort of an arms race for attention span over the last 100 years. Every time there’s a new media, there’s more advertising. People are swayed by the new media, and then learn to block it out. Then there’s a new medium, it attracts attention, and then we block it out. Newspapers, radio, TV, Internet, Blogs, Spam, Splogs…those who wish to sell us goods have ramped up the number of manipulative messages to a point where we can barely think. And we wonder why the number of ADHD diagnoses in kids have skyrocketed? Our attention is constantly under assault. And with increasing power in IT, and all the smart little devices we’re going to have, it’s going to get worse.
Lately, advertisers have been going around the system, paying for ever-more obvious product placements. If people won’t watch our ads, then we’ll be oh-so-sneaky about making sure that our products are the star of the entertainment itself. Remember this?:
Look in the lower right hand corner. “The Italian Job” was not a bad movie, as spending nine dollars to watch Charlize Theron for two hours is never a waste. But the ENTIRE movie seemed to be a long advertisement for the Mini Cooper. Wait, didn’t I have to pay to watch this? Then you sold the rights to BMW to make it an advertisement? Why don’t you make it free, then I’ll stare at Charlize Theron and buy a Mini Cooper right after. Deal? Otherwise, I ain’t payin’ to watch your ads.
Well folks, if you that it was obvious now, apparently, it’s going to get much worse.
According to BBC, product placements are forecast to triple in just the next three years. Ad companies are rightfully terrified of the power digital media gives to consumers, namely the power to command just exactly what they want, and little of what they don’t. In short, block the ads if you want. For an advertiser, it’s a nightmare. The answer? Incorporate ads right into the “entertainment!”
Look for example how Simon Cowell and Paula Adbul are savoring their delicious Coca-Cola while judging America’s finest pseudo-artistic-Whitney Houston-ripoff-unoriginal “talent” on the apocalyptically bad American Idol. Mmm. We savor Coke every week!
James Bond isn’t only cool, his watch is cool, too! And his car. His watch and car are stars of the movie too!
I have a message for those advertising. The younger generations are evolving faster than you are. They know they are being poked and prodded, and this escalation of constant advertising is not going to lead you to the “share of mind” you are seeking. Advertising has been seen as the evil to be endured to get to entertainment. But if you make it part of the entertainment, you risk losing the escapism that makes going to the movies fun in the first place.
Why would a consumer pay $10 to have you remind him that he needs a new car and watch?
Again, if it’s Charlize Theron’s car and her watch, we may be talking about something different entirely.
Labels: media
Wall Street and the New Greening of America
I have been a passionate supporter of sustainability for years. It’s been frustrating to know that there really isn’t a dispute between ecological harmony and business profit, and yet to watch policymakers make decisions to support the waste of fossil fuels and other resources. The fight
between business and ecology has seemed false to me. I am a student of Paul Hawken, author of Natural Capitalism and The Ecology of Commerce, a man who said that pollution was wasted resources, ergo if you reduce pollution, there’s less waste and more profit. Green business may be tricky, but it makes more sound financial sense. This has always seemed to me such a beautiful future to achieve in our lifetime. The idea that growth is not bad, that success is not toxic, that business can be noble.
This discussion has been going on for years, decades. And yet, every time America gets into some sort of ecological scrape - acid rain, ozone layer missing, Cuyahoga river on fire - it’s like we go right back to Square One. We focus on reducing our super-sized ecological impact until it’s no longer “hot.” This is why the cover of Newsweek below frosts me. It’s simply too early to assert that the American consumer - that attractive, affluent, 40-something couple they have featured - is suddenly interested in the transformation of our industrial system.
What we have is not a consumer problem, though they certainly can help. We are faced with an engineering problem and a financial problem, though they are certainly related. We need to transform our resource usage so that our manufacturing does not reduce the ability of ecological systems to sustain life. And then, we have to make sure the financial markets recognize this, and value ecological systems equal. This way, some companies won’t be over-valued for ruining the very ecology they depend on - they can’t hide their wasteful, unprofitable practices in the environment. These are not easy changes, but when they happen, I think our future will be on a different track - one that gets better over time. What a reason to get up in the morning!
OK, so for me to accept that green is hot, I gotta hear guys in Manhattan wearing $6000 suits get excited about ecological systems. And as it so happens, there are some trends that show that this change is finally going beyond the superficial:
- The Wall Street Green Trading Summit. Back in April of this year, hedge traders got together to discuss the best ways to put climate change on the books and trade carbon emissions and negawatts. When the Gordon Gekkos out there are looking to make money on companies that don’t cause global warming - there’s a good sign.
- Goldman Sachs is apparently the first financial company to value “ecosystem services” in its valuation of global markets. As Hawken often says, think of how much the ecosystem does for humans without being asked — it purifies air, sucks in CO2, and filters our drinking water. If we tried that, it would cost trillions, and nature does it for free. Goldman Sachs agrees - and moreover, thinks that climate change is a huge risk factor for its other investments.
- Even Pat Robertson, the multimillionaire industrialist (oh, and yes, televangelist), has finally accepted that global warming is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. If you can possibly wrap your head around that without the aid of hallucinagens.
So folks, I’m not sure if the American consumer is as green as Newsweek would prefer us to believe, but Pat Robertson is on the team now. And that, my friends, officially means that the issue of sustainability is universally accepted.
-Garland
Labels: sustainability
YEE HAW! ENVIRONMENTALISM IS COOL AGAIN!!!
Folks, did I fall asleep and wake up in 1978 again? Let’s scan the headlines and take stock of what’s going on:
- Iran is a big scary menace.
- Lebanon is in strife, and we’re considering sending in the Marines.
- We’re looking at high gas prices, and people are excited about conservation as the new way to fix our addiction to oil.
Seriously, aside from high speed internet, what progress have we made in the last 25 years? Are we going to reelect Jimmy Carter? Marines in Lebanon, high gas prices, and America is patting itself on the back for seeing environmentalism as the future? What’s going on here?
This was my favorite incredulous head-turner of the week:
Excuse me, the environment is suddenly hot? Gas goes up a buck, people start to think maybe buying a car that gets 16 mpg is a little expensive, and this means “environmentalism is suddenly hot?” The solutions being proposed are straight out of the Disco Era: green buildings and high mileage cars?
That’s it? That’s our big burst of innovation on the environment? Those proposals have been out there since, oh say, 1970, but now just because it was really hot in Manhattan last week, people are finally taking them seriously?
Were this true, nothing would make me happier. In fact, if today’s broken pipeline in Alaska puts even more pressure on the system, you might even see actual systemic changes. I have my clients do an exercise where they consider the impact of a $10 gallon of gasoline. Many consider this a fanciful exercise, but hey - it looks like you might want to have a contingency plan for this exact thing.
Regardless, how will you know when the change in “greening” is beyond superficial? When Wall Street takes note.
Business leaders and consumers have both been aware of the systemic damage done by our industry for years now. But the fact remains, there has been no incentive for companies to internalize the damage to the environment. When being un-Green doesn’t scare shareholders, why would a company really care? Environmentalism and sustainability will only be “hot” when company that is green is valued more highly by stockholders. And not before. Otherwise, our industries will do the same old things, because they have the economic incentive to do so.
There are, however, signs that a new way of calculating the value of “green” could be on the horizon. Sebastian Mallaby, in today’s Washington Post talks about how the value of a corporation is being defined more by the worth of its “brand” than by its assets. As such corporations like Wal-Mart and Starbucks are acting green well before the government forces them to, because being a socially responsible brand has tangible value.
Again, when I see a Salomon Smith Barney analyst say, “I wouldn’t invest in them, they just aren’t green enough” then I will believe in a transformative shift in environmentalism. Until then, I just see this as people feeling virtuous for wanting to get 30 miles per gallon.
-Garland
Fleeing France, seeking opportunity
If you follow American politics closely, you may have remember one of George W. Bush’s ironic gaffes a few years ago. He is reported to have said, “the problem with France is that they have no word for entrepreneur.” Naturally, this caused a lot of people to guffaw given the Gallic roots of the word (which were actually introduced into English by the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter, but I digress).
Now, for those of you who know and love the French as I do, you may have chuckled for another reason. Even if Bush wasn’t intending to be ironic, he was fairly correct about the state of affairs. After having lived in Paris, I love the country dearly. But a place to start a new business, lance out on your own it is not. The system of elite schools tends to turn out great minds into government bureaucracy, not into the legions of innovative, risk-taking businessmen. I have thought for some time that this weakness would catch up with them economically.
Check out this article from BBC News, “French youth seek jobs in Britain.” It seems that given the laws of the E.U., young people are free to seek work in any member state. According to this article, the UK simply offers more opportunities and salaries more balanced to the cost of living than France. Young people don’t associate France with a bright future.
Compare this with Europe’s burgeoning crisis from rapidly aging populations. This is not the time to lose a source of young competent people. Smart policy makers will see the loss of youth to other countries as dangerous indeed.
-Garland
Be social