Six insights on the business trend toward sustainability

Peter Madden, chief executive of Forum for the Future, writes a monthly column for Gristmill on sustainability in the U.K. and Europe.

Forum for the Future recently asked a selection of top business and branding folk to give us the lowdown on the recent trend toward sustainable business. The gurus included Rita Clifton of Interbrand, Stuart Hart of Cornell University, William Kramer of the World Resources Institute, and Jonathon Porritt of Forum for the Future. I have distilled their wisdom into six insights.

1. A real sea change is underway. Looking at the current trends and recent announcements, there are signs of real progress and positive signals of change. In an arena that was once confined to the Body Shop and hippies, we're now seeing a major shift in more mainstream businesses. In the U.K., Tesco, Marks & Spencer and Topshop are all in on the act.

2. Progress is partial. Despite the advances, the size of the challenges we face in building a sustainable future means there is still a long way to go. Even the more progressive strategies, such as General Electric's "Ecomagination," do not fully acknowledge -- or live up to -- the scale of change required. Fundamental questions regarding unsustainable business models need to be addressed before strategies can be fully credible.

3. Business is in the driving seat, not consumers. Although consumer interest is increasing, it's not yet strong enough to drive these trends on its own or make up the entire business case. Business strategy can't completely rely on consumer insight or market research. Bold action and leadership is needed from business to drive this change through to the consumer.

‘Church’, from Songs of Shiloh, shows some love for the planet

Often our culture equates caring about the planet with envisioning what could go wrong. (Think of dire visions of societal breakdown, disaster, and ruin -- Cormac McCarthy's The Road, for example.)

The Road is a powerful novel, but one can express love for our planet and our land in ways other than fear of a horrific outcome. (Imagine if the only way we could appreciate a loved one was to imagine his or her annihilation.) Music especially has this ability to express love, and perhaps the best "environmental" song I heard this year comes from a unique record called Songs of Shiloh.

Reportedly found in a cassette demo tape on the floor of a small recording studio in northern California, these songs from an unknown singer named Shiloh inspired songwriter Marty Axelrod and singer Nicole Gordon to gorgeous results. Especially memorable to those who sometimes go walking in the woods will be "Church," which matches soaring vocals to the gentlest sort of love for what we call nature -- or something else.

Take a look at the lyrics below the fold -- or better yet, listen to the song (mp3 file).

Huckabee and Obama have it

Sounds like they’ve called the Iowa caucuses. Huckabee’s the huge winner on the R side, with Romney an anemic second....

Umbra on staying positive

Dear Umbra, I am a new but faithful reader of your excellent column. I’ve learned a lot, but one thing...

How the Monterey Bay Aquarium makes its safe-seafood list

When it comes to safe seafood, the list-makers don’t horse around. Photo: SqueakyMarmot Back in the late 1990s, I happened...

Army Corps climate efforts in New Orleans may not be enough

No one wants to see this again — but can post-Katrina protection efforts keep the Big Easy safe? Photo: NOAA...

The most critical assumption on cellulosic biofuels: yields

My most critical assumption with cellulosic biofuels is on land efficiency: tons of biomass per acre, and hence gallons of fuel produced per acre, and more accurately, miles driven per acre. I believe biomass yields per acre will multiply by two to four times from today's norms.

The lack of genetic optimization and research on cultural practices, harvesting, storage, and transport with would-be energy crops -- miscanthus, sorghum, switchgrass, and others -- means that there is significant potential for improvement. The application of advanced breeding methods like genetic engineering and marker-assisted breeding, limiting water usage through drought resistant crops, and large-scale application of biotechnology (i.e., optimizing the process by which plants conduct photosynthesis, or reducing stress-based yield losses) will also contribute to increased yields with fewer inputs.

More importantly, different energy crops are likely to be optimal for different climates -- jatropha makes sense on degraded Indian land, but not in the American Midwest. Rather than a single dominant energy crop, we are likely to see a variety of feedstocks that allow specialization to local conditions, mixes, and needs, while mitigating the risks.

Guess which type of energy comes in last in a recent poll

GlobeScan, a self-styled "global public opinion and stakeholder research" organization based in Toronto, has just published the results of a survey of 1,000 climate "decision-makers and influencers" from across 105 countries, conducted in the two weeks leading up to the Bali Climate Conference (Nov. 22-Dec. 5, 2007).

According to the firm's website:

Unlike public opinion polls, this survey focuses on the views of professionals in position to make or influence large decisions in their organizations and society. This focus, together with the survey's large global sample and good balance of respondents across all geographies and sectors, makes this survey unique.

A bar chart showing the results in graphic form is found below the fold.

Today: George Waldenberger

In previous editions of the "Inhofe 400," we found some skeptics who were completely unqualified and others who are qualified but not actually skeptical.

Today's "skeptic" falls into the latter category. He is meteorologist George Waldenberger.

In response to his inclusion on the list, George sent an email to Inhofe's staffers that began:

Marc, Matthew:

Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-Made Global warming claims. I've never made any claims that debunk the "Consensus".

You quoted a newspaper article that's main focus was scoring the accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific ... yet I'm guessing some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility.

You also didn't ask for my permission to use these statements. That's not a very respectable way of doing "research".

Wow. He doesn't leave much to the imagination.

A few thoughts.