The Sunday Times Green List 2012

‘It is with great regret that we have to inform you that The Sunday Times Green List will not be published in 2012.’
Alastair McCall
Editor, The Sunday Times Green List
8 Nov 2011

This is the time of year that The Sunday Times publishes its list of companies ranked on how green they are, but not this year. The cover of yesterday’s paper had nothing even remotely green in the stories that made the front page.

The Sunday Times Green List was first published in 2008 ‘to reflect the changing mood in the business world’ (as the paper explained when launching the initiative). This year the list has been withdrawn. Is this also a reflection of the changing mood in the business world? Are companies under too much financial pressure to bother to be green and have shelved their aspirations?Or is there something more significant going on?

The reason given by the paper’s owner, News International is that the list has been withdrawn because the supplement did not attract sufficient advertising revenue. Publishing the Green List was simply not commercially viable so has been cut.

A deduction that could be made is that companies have decided that green doesn’t pay so they are no longer doing green. Financial and commercial pressures mean that there is no fat in the budget for going green. If this is true, the logic would be that we must wait until the economy picks up before observing the next phase of greening industry and commerce.

There is a different interpretation of the withdrawal of this high profile media list. Companies have realised that green PR spin aimed at enhancing the reputation of the corporation doesn’t work. Paying the fees to enter the selection, and paying for advertising when it’s published, is not a good return on investment. The companies that really understand green are getting on with building the company, not shouting about their aspirations. In these challenging financial times, effort should go into core business activities. Saving money through more efficient operations (greener) gets funded; paying to be on a list in The Sunday Times does not.

Which of these is right? Is green now dead and no longer seen as a business imperative? Or, are green companies coming of age and building real businesses based on performance rather than green spin?

Looking for the answer, I noted that at last week’s Sustainable Business conference in Birmingham, UK there was an upbeat attitude and reports that the green technology sector had been bucking the trend with strong growth. I believe that the withdrawal of financial support from companies to fund The Sunday Times Green List is a sign of sound commercial objectives replacing fluffy greenery. If there are regrets these will come from News International for backing off from a good initiative without seeing it as an investment in the future.

In-Bed with the Enemy

As an author I keep an eye on what is happening in publishing and notice that the UK high-street book chain Waterstones will start to sell Amazon’s Kindle in its stores. The e-book is threatening to kill off the high street book shop so why bring the enemy inside the city walls? I wonder why Waterstones is sleeping with the enemy.

My aim, as an author, is to get people to read my books to be able to influence policy towards a more sustainable society.  Unfortunately that does not put me on the best-seller list. I have contemplated attempting to make sustainability sexy writing a racy erotic book under the title of ‘50 shades of green’ with sustainability inserted between the bedroom scenes, but would it work? Should I be sleeping with the enemy? Perhaps I should be sleeping with the family dog for my book sales to really take off (we don’t have a dog so that won’t work).

How do we get sustainability noticed and get more people engaged with sustainability? I dipped my pen into the horror genre with my book Victim of Success: Civilisation at Risk but only the first part of the book was a horror story. For most of the book I let my natural optimism shine through in explaining how we can change direction and prevent the horror story from becoming reality. Perhaps my problem was not to embrace the genre enough; I should have provided full-on horror. Perhaps people prefer snuff movies and want to wait for the news stories when the damage is real and the situation is grave.

So why is Waterstones embracing the e-reader in its stores? The reason is that Watestones is listening to its customers. People are increasingly buying e-books and it is not a trend you can buck. Waterstones have to work how to secure their future in a changing world. Book shops may no longer sell books but become meeting places to gather with other readers, to meet authors, and to help decide which e-book to download. As a proponents of sustainability we should also be listening to our ‘customers’.

The lesson for those of us wanting to sell sustainability to an indifferent and sceptical public is to give them what they want. They want to hear how to improve society, how to secure their future and how to have a better quality of life. This is the message that must come out of sustainability: get into bed and seduce our opponents.

Stunned Rabbit Syndrome

‘We are like a rabbit caught in the glare of the headlights of a speeding truck. We can easily escape, but we are transfixed by the situation. Instead of leaping off to the side, we wait to see if the wheels run over us.’

I wrote these words as I grappled with the challenges of coming up with policy for a sustainable world. It was a long slow mental journey because business-as-usual is so deeply engrained, not just in policy and regulation, but in the thought processes we employ. The education system teaches a narrow viewpoint of the world and encourages a selfish and short-term logic in managing our affairs.

The analogy of the rabbit, sitting in the middle of the road caught in the glare of the headlights of a speeding truck, is an accurate reflection of this point in human civilization. One option is to sit it out as the juggernaut of climate change and resource depletion charges over us, hoping that the effects will hit another family, another community or another country. There may be a thin corridor between the wheels if we keep our head down low where we can survive as destruction takes place around us, but it is a huge risk and morally indefensible. Not only a risk, but the consequences of failing to act, will affect everyone as climate refugees look for a new home and the prices of resources climb to unaffordable levels. We will all be poorer as a result.

The rabbit feels happier to sit still hoping the danger will pass. People also do not like to be scared by having reality brought home to them. This I call the ‘Stunned Rabbit Syndrome’. I wish I knew how to cure it. People want to read upbeat optimistic assessments that allow them to be happy and content with their situation. Explaining to people how it really is, switches people off; they become deaf to logic.  Take the other approach, explaining that we have the solutions, people listen but only up to the point where you explain that the solution are not automatic. Effort is required; compromise will be necessary and reining back on material consumption a necessary prerequisite for success. People with stunned rabbit syndrome hear the word ‘solution’ and then switch off feeling happy and trusting that someone else will make it happen.

Are we all rabbits? Or, do enough of us have the courage to face reality and force through solutions?
 Find out if you suffer from stunned rabbit syndrome:

Victim of Success: Civilization at Risk is now out as an e-book on Kindle.

Southern Europe Bail Out

Bail out? yes, but jumping out, not injecting more cash.

There is much talk, again, about raising further loans to shore up the euro. The time has come for this delusion to cease.

In a sustainable single currency there must be a mechanism to transfer funds from the strong to the weak regions. A batch of further loans to deeply indebted southern European countries – which it would be impossible to repay – is not a solution.

A default on loans could help the euro to limp on with its full complement of the existing membership for months, or even years if the default was large enough. Default on loans made through the European Stability Mechanism could have the same effect as a transfer of funds from the weak to the strong Europe economies. The UK should be careful not to be exposed and drawn into such an arrangement. A loan with a good prospect of repayment at some point in the future is low risk (and may even make a profit for the UK if it is made at an interest rate above the UK’s cost of borrowing) but a loan made on the unspoken understanding that it is the first stage of a controlled default would be highly damaging. The UK is outside the euro and not therefore subject to the same commitment to transfer funds to weak euro members. This is the job of the strong members inside the euro zone, such as Germany whose exporters have done exceedingly well from a lower exchange rate than would have been the case if Germany had retained the Deutschmark.

In a single currency, weak regions will need support and strong regions will have to foot the bill. These are the simple economic facts played out within every national economy and a requirement of every successful currency union. The sticking point is whether Germany will pay the price. If not, it would make logical sense for the highly indebted countries to bail out of the euro and go back to national currencies. This is not the ‘bail out’ that the politicians are discussing now but it has a much more realistic chance of success than adding further loans to a flawed system.

The frustrating aspect of all this is that it has been obvious for many years that the euro has fault lines. The solution for greater macroeconomic stability in European economic affairs is through collaboration between separate economies building on the relative strengths of each, not through a union in which one-size-fits all. Europe is a wonderful mix of countries, cultures – and economies. We should accept reality, celebrate diversity and encourage the southern European countries to get on with bailing out of a foolhardy project. The consequences will be unpredictable, and could be terrible in the short term, but not so dire as failing to act yet again.

“Adapt and Thrive”

Looking back from the year 2100 at a compendium of the most influential phrases I hope that these three words will be right at the top:

“Adapt and Thrive”

For the 20th century we have two iconic phrases:

"I have a dream"

These four words are enough to conjure up a vision of equality, human rights and a better society that live on long after the death of Martin Luther King.

“One small step for man”

The mind automatically generates the next words ‘one giant leap for mankind’ and a vision of human society on other planets exploring the universe. “Adapt and Thrive” are words that accurately describe the next successful leap of human civilization; a leap that is still to take place. These particular words will get lost in the billions of words generated on this day in 2012, but the idea represented will live on and grow in importance. They represent shorthand for the vision of a renaissance in society which can be called the Sustainable Revolution. The Sustainable Revolution is now a near certainty. Three critical foundations have been laid and the fourth and final block is waiting to be placed. First, there is a growing lobby of people who are concerned for their own future, and the future of their children, worried about the possible consequences of continuing with business as usual. Second, it is becoming clear that reining back on material consumption need not be reining back on building a vibrant society. Third, the consequences of overconsumption are no longer possibilities that can be ignored but a real and present danger to our security and lifestyle. The final foundation for real action is when the concept of a better and sustainable society goes viral, spreading the idea that it is possible to reconcile people’s concerns with building a better society and ensuring our security. That idea is summed up by the phrase:

“Adapt and Thrive”.

Adapt and Thrive: The Sustainable Revolution is now out on Kindle.

The Third Industrial Revolution

The first industrial revolution began in 18th century Britain when weavers working from home were replaced by the cotton mills. The second industrial revolution of the early 20th century came about with the introduction of the production line and mass production pioneered by Henry Ford. The Economist reports these two revolutions as ‘making people richer and more urban’. In the same special report the Economist newspaper looks forward to a third industrial revolution as manufacturing goes digital. It is interesting to compare an economist’s view of this third industrial revolution with the sustainability perspective. Industrial revolutions bring progress but also problems. The first industrial revolution brought greater efficiency and wealth to mill owners, but the downside was terrible working conditions and ill-health for the workers. The second industrial revolution further eroded the quality of life by requiring workers to behave like robots to fulfil their part in the factory machine. To the economist these consequences are the price of progress. Of course, the sensible reaction to such down-side effects is not to oppose progress to make further change to mitigate them. Many factories now are cleaner than some of our hospitals and many of the robot-like tasks on the production line are indeed carried out by robots.

The third industrial revolution may be driven by the capabilities of highly versatile robots and new automated processes such as digital three-dimensional printing, but it will also have problems that need mitigating. The first of these is increased environmental damage, ushered in by the first industrial revolution, which continues to be a negative consequence of industrialisation today. Humans have always had an impact on the environment but industrialisation gave humans the ability to cause changes to the natural environment on a scale that has planetary significance. We have still to accept the responsibility this power brings. End-of-pipe pollution is being tackled but the demand for input resources dug from the ground or harvested from the forests is growing immensely. The environmental impact of industrialisation, as we enter the era of the third industrial revolution, is now a clear and present threat to society. The second problem is jobs. It is becoming possible to automate almost every aspect of the industrial machine. To the economist this brings efficiency. We can all be richer and consume more as the robots scurry around making all the stuff we need. As jobs evaporate, economists argue for stimulation of the economy to boost demand, but if manufacturing is entirely automated increased output does not provide more jobs. As we search for mitigating these down-side effects, politicians will be searching for ways to engage the population in activities that keep them content and fulfilled. This requires policy that delivers a cohesive society which is easier to craft under the paradigm of sustainability. The third problem is a lack of real foresight. The key players in each industrial revolution play out their roles focussing on the economic outcomes leaving others to legislate to deal with the unintended consequences. It is perfectly possible to look forward to how industry should change as one part of building a sustainable world society. This means that either the politicians legislate in advance of the revolution (an unlikely event) or that industry works out how to meet the legislation even before the politicians have realised it is needed. The third industrial revolution will be driven by technological advances and economic opportunities, but the clever players will future-proof their corporate success by putting sustainability to underpin strategy. Preparing for the third industrial revolution requires a deep fundamental rethink.

Friday 13th

Here are three calamities that could befall us today to confirm the superstition that Friday 13th is an unlucky day:

1. Sovereign debt default by one or more countries in the Euro zone.
2. Passing the tipping point at which the melting of Greenland is unstoppable.
3. A nuclear explosion carried out by terrorists.

It is highly unlikely that any one of these will happen precisely today but all of these are likely someday soon.

1. To solve the euro zone crisis requires that creditors acknowledge the bad debt of the European countries including Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece. The way to prevent these bad debts from becoming sovereign default is for Germany to transfer funds (or forgive debt) to keep the euro alive. Germany does very well from a currency far weaker than the deutschemark would be if it still existed. German exporters, such as BMW which has posted record quarterly sales, are riding high. It is in Germany’s interests to keep the euro project intact. Even so, it is politically highly unlikely that Germany will make the transfers required, so there is stalemate. Each day of delay makes the consequences worse. A clear out of sovereign debt in the euro zone is long overdue and it would be better to start today than delaying further.

2. The world may already have passed the tipping point where carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will lead to melting all the ice on Greenland. If not today, it will come within the next decade (or two) unless there is a major push to reduce fossil-fuel dependency. It would take a couple of centuries to completely melt the Greenland ice sheet, but the arithmetic is worrying. It is fact that if the Greenland ice sheet melts, global sea levels will rise by 5 to 6 metres. This has massive consequences and requires long-term plans to relocate people and cities. We cannot know, but it might be better to accept today as the tipping point, not only to renew our efforts to stop the burning of fossil fuel but to lay down the framework for what to do with flooded coastlines from Bangladesh to London and New Orleans.

3. Renewed interests in nuclear power will inevitably increase the supply and access to material for nuclear weapons. Each new reactor, and each additional country with nuclear capabilities, increases the risk. The low carbon emissions of an operating nuclear power plant are not the only factor to consider. Nuclear weapons should never again be used and the major powers will do all in the power to keep the nuclear peace, but in a world in which there are many more nuclear reactors they may not be able to hold the line. It is unthinkable that a major city would be blown apart by a nuclear device but we must think of this possibility in setting energy policy. It would be better if the security services intercept such an attack at a late stage to drive home the risks and force real preventive action.

That is my list of possible calamities. For those of a superstitious disposition, Friday 13th is a day best spent safely in bed, but that would not be enough if any of these strike us down.