image missing
Date: 2024-12-29 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00006067

LinkedIn Dialog
????????

Guardian Professional article by Joe Confino

Burgess COMMENTARY

Peter Burgess


seanjcullen 23 November 2013 12:50pm Recommend 4

Mr. Confino hits great points on how our views need to change if we want to be truly sustainable. Nature needs to be treated as a true stakeholder in corporate and social practices. I recently co-authored a book, Nature-centered Leadership: An Aspirational Narrative that touches on much of what is talked about here (http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Centered-Leadership-An-Aspirational-Narrative/dp/1612293336). Thanks for the great article, we need more writings encouraging stronger sustainability efforts; using such visionaries as Thomas Berry and Donella Meadows helps to bridge the work done in the past to what needs to be done for a truly sustainable future.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


jacob123 23 November 2013 8:56pm Recommend 0

Great article - best insight into the conundrum that faces us today

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


Hunter Lovins 23 November 2013 10:26pm Recommend 6

Jo really nails it.

Critics of the current system and advocates for change lack clarity of how their work fits with others, and how any of it aggregates to drive the sort of systemic change needed to bring into being an economy that is in service of life, not degenerative of it. It is increasingly fashionable to denigrate “sustainability” as being uninspiring and insufficient. Some even fault “green” activities as being only “less bad.” Such turf squabbles confuse and distract people facing a world rushing to economic and ecological catastrophe.

As Jo put it when we were talking last Saturday: “The status quo is a huge beast with claws outstretched and teeth bared. At present, all the potential new models that people are pushing are like mice running around bumping into each other.”

John Fullerton's framing of The Regenerative Economy rises above this, showing how the disparate efforts for change are essential foundations, the vital hard work on the ground. It places “sustainability” as a necessary mid-point of the climb, but one that only gets us to back to neutral. Sustainability, viewed from the vast potential that exists but is not yet manifest in the present economic system, is the outcome, not the objective. By looking to natural systems as the model, we see that nature herself is sustainable only because she is regenerative. The essence of life and the evolutionary process is regeneration.

Thanks, Jo, for bringing attention to what I think is the best framing for what it is we are all striving to achieve.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


Sheldor 24 November 2013 12:10am Recommend 1

Until it is able to showcase a plausible paradigm shift

As long as it keeps talking like that, nobody is going to think it's anything other than the latest management fad. [Doug Tomkins says] 'Capitalism is based on a notion and a logic of growth. It goes nuts when it starts to contract' Tomkins clearly has a comic book caricature understanding of capitalism. Capitalism does not in any sense require growth. It does however happen to be very good at providing it.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


johnfullerton 24 November 2013 2:40am Recommend 4

Thanks Jo for you generous affirmation of our work (in progress).

For me, the most poignant moment of the Copenhagen roundtable I was privileged to participate in came at the wonderful dinner afterward - which you Jo missed the best part of because you dashed for the airport! I was sitting next to an under 30 young lady whose name I will withhold. What she said to me was chilling. She accurately summed up the day where a couple dozen so called 'sustainability experts' (it was an impressive group) who could all agree on the problems yet really could not plot a credible path to realistic solutions or even a viable theory of change capable of tackling the enormous well understood barriers. She said simply, 'I feel like I've lost my innocence.'

We went on to discuss how one feels when one learns their parents aren't perfect. She came to this meeting of 'world renown' experts expecting to get the answers to the problems she knew in her bones. Yet she had to face the reality that collectively we were collectively pretty much clueless about a compelling yet credible roadmap forward. Sobering to her, and to all of us no doubt. This is why the 'new story' is so important. I firmly believe such a new story is emerging, with numerous green shoots everywhere even if hard to connect together into a coherent whole. And capitalism (re-imagined) can emerge into a system that does not depend on exponential material growth in the developed world, while lifting the developing world into a life of dignity and prosperity, all without breaking the planet, but this will require a desperately needed transformation of finance.

For readers interested in the executive summary of 'Regenerative Capitalism', our related 'new story' project, 'Field Guide to Investing in a Regenerative Economy', and our symposium highlights, it can be found at

http://www.capitalinstitute.org/blog/beyond-sustainability-road-regenerative-capitalism#.UpFjqWRDuF5 (or search for 'Regenerative Capitalism' at www.capitalinstitute.org)

The full white paper on Regenerative Capitalism is due out in January.

Thanks Jo for your continued path breaking leadership at the Guardian.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


hskoppek 24 November 2013 11:13am Recommend 1

You hit the nail on the head, Jo. As long as companies are satisfied with being 'more sustainable', i.e. less bad, without operating within the carrying capacity of the planet, there will be little progress.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook 3 PEOPLE (1 STAFF), 3 COMMENTS


nocda 24 November 2013 3:37pm Recommend 1

I don't agree with the conclusion of this piece, much as I greatly respect the author & those he cites & those commenting here.

We have oodles of future visions now , do we really need more? We have Porritt's new book, Amory Lovins energy transitions and similar, Impact Investing as a construct and myriads of variations of same, Sustainable Living Plans and much more, but in the current scheme of things, all of these efforts are either utopian visions or just talk. Over 90% of business as usual continues unabated - people drive cars when they can, existing buildings are cheaper to continue using than replacing or retrofitting, flying is projected to break records over the decades to come, food & water & other resources are projected to become scarce, oceanic health is at risk, tipping points loom.

What we don't have is a way to get from the built infrastructure we have and the cost it takes to rebuild/replace vs using what we have at less cost - that transition from the current status quo modes of transportation, consumption, commerce, and built environments is very entrenched and likely much cheaper to keep going than to replace, and in our age of low growth in the developed world, this is our major challenge.

The cost of this transition is the issue - who pays and who doesn't, and we have let money & ownership of resources determine this path or lack thereof - it stops the badly needed COP negotiations from ever being truly serious.

Thanks to all who provide utopian visions, they are important and necessary - what we need is a globally agreed specific transition plan or we will largely keep on down the same environmental & social paths we are on - due to the cost of the transition either being too high, or being perceived that way.

And so how to get on with the global transition required? This is the question we should all be working on - the vision is fine, now how do we actually get there?

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


Guardian staff joconfino nocda 24 November 2013 4:06pm Recommend 2

Hi nocda, thanks for your valuable contribution. I think what I am trying to get across is that while there are some ideas about the future, they have not reached a mainstream audience, which means most people, even those working in the field of sustainability, are not able to articulate where we need to get to. I believe that once we are able to be clearer about this, we will be able to mark out the stepping stones to get there.

At the same time, you quite rightly point out that we also need action, rather than just fine words.

I would say we need both working in unison, but most people have got stuck on the actions and do not have a sense of the vision. That can end up pushing us in the wrong direction.

best wishes Jo

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


NSmith105 nocda 27 November 2013 6:51pm Recommend 0

Was also thinking Porritt's new book soon as I found this article. Haven't read it yet, but from what I've heard so far it is a good template for addressing this very problem that the author highlights. Perhaps just as important is the consistency of that vision, so getting behind Porritt's well-researched idea of a sustainable future, rather than ending up with loads of different narratives that confuse the public.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


Ameliascottage 24 November 2013 5:07pm Recommend 0

It would be a start if the Guardian and other media began discussing Agroforestry so the general public could learn about its value. I've said this dozens of times to no avail.

The environmental movement has failed. No doubt about that. But as Time Magazine pointed out, the movement is now in the hands of Grassroots activists in the food sector. That is where real change is happening. Farmer's markets and organic food (think Whole Foods, Trader Joe's) have made amazing growth.

It's amazing to me though, Jo that anyone would expect Sustainability activists to fix big corporations. Unilever, Exxon, BP, Nestlé, they will always be after the goal of destroying and ripping apart resources while they can. They're not dummies. They know damned well that resources are disappearing.

The onus should be on THEM to motivate US as consumers to support a new vision. They're the millionaires, for cripes sake. But they are evil. Evil, evil.

The power must be with consumers now. There is no other way. The question is, will Guardian get with the agree forestry and shade growing program?

As for consumers, I always suggest one change per month. January: switch to reusable bags. February, invest in travel mugs. march, start a compost pile. Etc etc. much easier this way. Eventually people will differentiate want versus need, products versus investments. Hopefully some day big corporations will vanish as a result.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


murrayjsisskind 24 November 2013 6:29pm Recommend 0

Thanks Jo. I agree with much of this. I don't think we lack for visions of a sustainable future - but we do not have a route-map from here to there that is politically plausible or compelling to the decision-makers who have yet to be convinced.

What is striking is the response of your delegates to Rockstrom's presentation. I would like to know why it did not have a deeper impact. Did the executives concerned not really believe him? Or did they believe him, but assume that technological magic will save the day? Or did they believe him, and avert their thoughts from the implications, these being too radical to contemplate?

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


thesnufkin 24 November 2013 7:42pm Recommend 1

the fall of the Berlin Wall...contemporary example illustrating how the impossible can become the inevitable seemingly overnight when belief systems change.'

Let's see:

  • Economy that fails to correctly price the cost of goods? Check.
  • Political elite who were recruited from a small ideological clique and remote from ordinary people? Check.
  • System which failed to satisfy the needs of most people and left them feeling excluded and unhappy? Check.
Could be a good analogy.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


3sisters4bros 24 November 2013 8:08pm Recommend 0

Jo,

I will try to cut to the chase. A compelling vision. This concept is based on a plan that has both imagination and wisdom in mind. Compelling is an easy sell against a backdrop of the past decade. In almost every endeavour, business is tracking below the baseline. Financial modelling drove decisions that lacked wisdom. For most, the status quo is not a comfortable place to be.

Instead, we are in an era of collaboration, of that egalitarian ideal that the best ideas will surface. Disruptive technology is weakening power bases and creating an awareness that nothing can be taken for granted. Trying something new is a matter of survival. Resources alone will bottleneck progress, but the basics of life in short supply will sharpen the focus. Resilience measured by durability and flexibility will change the mould.

Prioritising is positioned as almost Orwellian yet requires both imagination and wisdom. A vision that requires 4 earths suggests we are heading for a world with ranking based on the ability to see destiny. The paradigm shift will be that there is no distinction between the sustainability movement and the status quo. The drivers of change are the same as they have always been but the past decade has magnified traceability and accountability.

The vision is unlikely to be cast in marble but more likely to be canvas. Wealth will not be just financials but the capacity to learn and develop a culture that can innovate and rejuvenate a grey world.

The pain you see in the system is driven by an attempt to recreate the past.The past has never rewarded ideas generators. Our vision therefore should include a new disruption. Ideas will be placed in the hands of those capable of actioning them. The ball is about to be controlled by new playmakers. And these mavericks will seek ruthless execution of sustainable ideas.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


Brad Bradshaw 24 November 2013 9:51pm Recommend 0

Ultimately, to survive, everything thing we do will have to be sustainable. Everything. Throughout history, societies have faced calamities, to which their collective response made all the difference between survival or collapse. In most cases, societies were unable to perceive much less respond to their inherent unsustainable ways of living, such as the Mayans, Easter Island or the Anasazi. Their societies were based on unsustainable and precarious systems of life support tied to the environment. In some cases, the challenge was recognized and addressed, by perceptive government which was able to implement solutions. The Japanese in the 17th century were faced with extraordinary challenge of galloping deforestation. The government instituted policies including using less wood for construction, putting in more efficient heating stoves, and switched to coal from wood for heating. Japan is currently about 70% forested. It is also good to note that the world did come together to address CFC’s.

As seen in the United States and Europe, our carbon emissions have come down over the past five years. Some may say we have exported our carbon emissions to Asian countries. That can account for some of the change, but it is also important to look at reduced miles being driven, higher efficiency of cars, the switch to lower carbon natural gas from coal in the United States, and the growth in renewable sources of energy in Europe and the United States. The US and European economies are responding to higher oil prices, which has reduced the level of economic activity and reduced deleterious environmental impacts. This provides a clue to our future and solving the problem in two respects. First, economies of advanced countries do have a higher elasticity of oil price to demand than Asian countries. Second, higher oil prices result in lower levels of economic activity, increased efficiency, and reduced environmental impacts. The earth is telling us to cut back on energy, and we are. The pace of the cut back may not be as steep a glide slope as what is sought, warranted or needed. The implication is that we need to do something to (1) accelerate steepen the glide slope in developed economies; (2) reverse emissions growth in developing countries; and (3) address severe economics and well-being inequities around the world.

Governments have to play an important and pivotal role in turning the tide towards and accelerating the move towards a more sustainable economy. The challenge with a capitalist system, well established in the literature and through practice, is the frequent absence of externalities, short time frame decision horizons, and boundary conditions that do not address social issues such as global inequity. Nation states have a hard time being first, taking on large issues. The move to address deforestation in the United States, for example, began with State and regional initiative to set aside parkland in the early 20th century. We can also see more recent examples of localization of environmental initiative with RGGI in the Northeast, the carbon trading initiative in California, and the implementation of renewable energy standards in selected states.

Ultimately, realizing a sustainable economy is in the interest of business, governments and individuals. Without a sustainable sources of resources, throughout our economy, an economic decline, which has already begun, will be inexorable and painful. Forestalling initiatives which align our policies and investments to be consistent with a move to a sustainable economy is not in our best interest. Having a sustainable economy is not inconsistent with our economic interests, in fact, ultimately it is 100% consistent. This central tenant, that increased sustainability and increased economic well-being are one and the same, may perhaps be that new paradigm people are looking for. The interests of sustainability and economics are not at cross-purposes, but are of one. Any society, any collective peoples throughout time, who did not own and embed the sustainability within their cultures, did not survive.

Where does this unified theory of sustainability and economics come from? Two perspectives. One, mentioned earlier, is understanding the history of societies that collapsed. The second is through understanding the source of economic activity within our own economies, and extrapolating the future risks our economy carries without integrating concepts of sustaining the economy going forward.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


Brad Bradshaw 24 November 2013 9:54pm Recommend 0

Continued...

The global economy has grown to an extraordinary degree over the past several hundred years, tied to the level of energy entering the economy. The level of economic activity is explained by two things: one being the level of energetic inputs entering the economy, and the second being the level of efficiency and productivity to which those resources are put. Energy plus Efficiency. If we want to grow our economy, we have two choices, increase the amount of energy resources being consumed, and/or increase efficiency and productivity. This is a very interesting finding, given that we can have a growing economy with a static level of energy resources entering the economy, as long as we improve the efficiency of resource utilization. Second interesting finding is that if we can economically migrate our energy systems away from nonrenewable to renewable resources, while keeping energy use static and improving efficiency, we can once again have a growing economy while simultaneously reducing deleterious environmental impacts.

The cost of energy, however, plays an important role on our level of economic activity. Higher energy costs mean a lower level of economic activity, constrained by efficiency improvements. If sustainable sources of energy are a lot more expensive than non-renewable, then we will see a lowering of economic activity. The pace of the transition will be governed by the relative economics of the alternatives, and the degree of incentives required to level the economic playing field, and the pace of capital formation and its availability. Fortunately, the economics of renewable energy are getting close to being competitive without subsidies, with costs continuing to move down over time with scale economies and continuous improvement. So what is the process to make this happen?

  1. (1) Build a specific vision of where we want to be and when in terms of sustainability. For example, 80% sustainable in 40 years. Great detail and specificity by sector, end-use, activity, etc. is highly recommended.
  2. (2) Identify specific performance metrics to track performance along the way, such as proportion of renewable energy on the grid, transportation, heating, etc.
  3. (3) Implement market incentives to encourage private capital to make investments. Put a price on carbon, set up carbon caps with trading, keep CAFÉ going, eliminate subsidies on non-sustainable resources, reduce transition and market barriers where possible, expand RPS requirements to every state, implement stretch and zero net energy building codes in every jurisdiction in the country, implement net metering tariffs in every state, increase CHP incentives, invest in expanded public transit, etc.
  4. (4) Implement government initiatives to transition government faster than private markets.
  5. (5) Expand incentives and reduce market barriers for investments in energy efficiency and productivity.
  6. (6) Incentivize investments in technology innovation tied to renewable energy and efficiency and productivity.

The prescriptive set of activities identified above are no surprise to anyone involved in accelerating our transition to a sustainable economy. The effort to adopt these steps has to take place throughout society, to build a groundswell of activity that is sound and impactful, building up from the local, state and regional levels to the national and international level. Significant progress has been made in specific sectors and in specific countries, such as Denmark with wind, German with Energiewende, and Texas with wind power. There are many more examples, including renewable fuels and efficiency, but the pace has to increase and the efforts have to expand.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


Globalman 24 November 2013 11:30pm Recommend 0

We have a vision , use less, spend less and still keep the same or better standard of living.

This can be achieved quite easily , BUT some will get hurt, as in any reshuffle, but ones who will get hit the hardest will be everyone.

The fairest and simplest way is to reform the tax system so as to treat everyone equally and fairly , whilst at the same time reducing tax evasion, fraud, and avoidance with a much more cost effective way of collecting the revenue tax that local and national governments need.

I mean replace all existing taxes with a singular NATURAL RESOURCE TAX, collected at near to source as possible, at a rated determined by the environmental and ecological damage it causes and at a level to pay for governments demands.

This tax reform would tackle so many of the issues that area raised so often in the press and so many other places , but no-one wants to redress a system that is corrupt and unworkable as everyone thinks they gain from all the backhanders,highly complex laws that few of us understand, except those who have the money and ware for all, to sift through the tangled mess and reap huge dividends at the expense of the taxpayers.

Your Carbon Footprint and climate change effect is the same size as your salary , or in the case of businesses the size of their turnover.

Money = energy = climate change + environmental degradation.

So So to have this vision of a better society we need new SMART technologies , and SMART new ways of thinking , and with SMART financial and tax systems we will achieve what we desire in the time frame required , but we have to set the agenda and go for it quickly. not in 2050!

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


LJStevenson 24 November 2013 11:32pm Recommend 0

The headline and introduction at least of this article is typical of the failure of industrial civilisation.

Let's be really clear here: people (like myself) who accept the limits to growth imposed by a finite world and who speak out trying to warn society of the dangers ahead, who have chosen not to have children, and lead a 'reduced lifestyle' are NOT responsible for 'creating a compelling future vision' for the rest of society.

This attitude is plain and simple shooting the messenger. 'Oh, we don't like your vision of the future, so we will continue on with business as usual until our planet is uninhabitable'. That is the attitude of selfish ignorant children. Not educated adults.

The only future I am responsible for creating is my own. Something that I have taken steps to protect. Everyone else who chooses to ignore the very loud and clear message, backed by excellent science can take their chances.

And no, those chances don't look good at all.

'So what can we do about this? What I am hearing from numerous experts is that we need to find a new narrative that creates a sense of confidence to take more radical steps.'

And I'm guessing that this isn't going to happen. Our population is too large, our consumption is too high, our environment too degraded. And very few people are willing to have less children, consume less resources, or make any significant sacrifice for the environment.

So perhaps Jo Confino you should be addressing everyone on the other side of this debate. Rather than blaming people like me for not saving everyone else from their own stupidity.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook 1 PERSON, 2 COMMENTS


Jralger 25 November 2013 12:42am Recommend 1

'Fullerton argues that this new thinking can only be embedded in large companies if there is a fundamental transformation in the finance sector.

This would involve, amongst other measures, finance being grounded in a culture of service, whilst also valuing relationships over transactions and transparency over complexity'

Excuse me, but this 'new thinking' is actually 100 to 120 years old, isn't it ?

Or is it that it's new because of the consumer use of Internet, coupled with the need for call centers !

That said, apparently there's a need for the consumer to also value a relationship supported by a handshake.

And where can we get that today, eh ?

tell me.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


Jralger Jralger 25 November 2013 12:45am Recommend 0

Anyway, if this theory is correct, then those industries that work in this simple fashion should be growing by leaps and bounds today !

Big companies you say.

Perhaps it's a pattern.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


Dave666 25 November 2013 5:05am Recommend 0

Its really a cold and dark vision.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


Guardian contributor mikeearthshine 25 November 2013 9:22am

Recommend 0 Paradigm shift? It's already happening, mainly under the radar, and arguably doesn't rely on redundant incumbents, but it is there - be the change! http://sustainableeconomyproject.nationbuilder.com/the_paper

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


Guardian contributor kiwanja 25 November 2013 1:30pm Recommend 0

Although it saddens me to say, I have to largely agree with this post. The sustainability movement has struggled to democratise its message for quite some time, with little sign of things improving. Many of the events I've been to are echo chambers, with the same people talking to the same people over and over again. We do need to seriously get the message out, but everyone (me included) doesn't seem to know how.

I recently wrote about how a similar challenge exists in the alternative economy movement, here: http://www.meansofexchange.com/2013/07/16/time-to-think-message-and-motivation/

Let's hope that discussions like these can lead to some meaningful action. Else there's little point.

Ken

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


VLEARN 25 November 2013 5:54pm Recommend 0

My MBA dissertation was 'A Critical Analysis of the MBA' (I know, don't say it) and one of the things I learned was unless it can be articulated in the form of a model which accountants can understand it won't get buy in. So what we really really really need is a 'Maslow's Hierachy of Needs', a 'Porters 5 Forces', a 'Boston Matrix' which shows why this works. Surely we can come up with this between us. How about a Guardian sponsored competition Jo, the winner get's to have their name on the model and maybe the penny will drop.

BTW here's Tim Jackson... http://vlearn.org/the-growth-delusion/

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


VLEARN 25 November 2013 6:01pm Recommend 0

I truly believe the answer is in education, both school and business schools need to bring through a whole generation of people who get sustianability, get ethics and get equality. Let's cut our losses with todays business leaders and concentrate on students they are the seventh wave, the tsunami that can really wash away the old paradigm. Oh and instead of wasting money on Christmas presents (more landfill) why dont we give each other a bit of time instead.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


Anna Pollock 25 November 2013 6:38pm Recommend 6
Jo, I agree with you 100% about the need for a new Story - if, by that, you mean what Thomas Berry had in mind which is a completely different way of looking at the world and our relationship with it and each other i.e., nothing less than the paradigm shift that Fullerton describes and that would underpin the change of era that Rob Cameron mentions.

Big business is the last place I would expect to see a profound and pervasive understanding let alone expression of such a shift even though we know there are exceptions (the Conscious capitalists are moving in that direction but seem weak on understanding the biophysical imperatives; companies like Interface, and Patagonia 'get it' and the folks that put on Sustainable Brands will be able to identify those companies where sustainability is not just a veneer ) but I cannot understand why you fail to mention the work of Charles Eisenstein, author of Sacred Economics and The Ascent of Humanity which is ALL about a new Story; or David Korten, author of The Great Turning or Peter Russell, John Renesch, Erwin Laszlo, David Suzuki etc etc

The shift in paradigm we need is happening in countless small ways . We don't need corporate executives to come down from the mountain with a new set of prescriptions - we just need a tipping point of people to act on the rising levels of distrust, anger, and betrayal that even Paxman, sitting in his ivory tower called the BBC, now admits is real and growing. Your own newspaper gives plenty of space to Russell Brand who's messianic conversion from hedonism to spirituality is as impressive for its speed as its substance - but you have to agree he does get air time and has experienced something like a paradigm shift in consciousness and caring.

I am no adequate spokeswoman for Charles Eisenstein's work - he is travelling back to the US as I write this - so consider this a placeholder and please keep the comments open until his contribution can be articulated here by him or others better versed. It's too good a topic/post to miss!

Personally I do believe that paradigm shifts can occur in the twinkling of an eye - but after years of unseen, micro events and insights that help us move. A collective paradigm shift is more likely to occur if influential newspapers like the Guardian focus on aspects of the NEW Story as it emerges - piece by piece. Did the Berlin Wall come down in a day or over a period of 10-20 years when internal resistence was invisible?

Great article though and thanks for opening up the topic of Stories as opposed to tactics, projects and geo-engineering.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


trickstare 25 November 2013 8:42pm Recommend 1

As someone who occasionally dabbles in the returning art of storytelling. I can imagine a tale told by someone like Joanna Macy, Charles Eisenstein or even my creative self standing by a roaring fire and accompanied by some fellow adventurers in both systems thinking and just as importantly the ability to live and embody a mythic life.

I sense that this article encapsulated the terrifying territory that so many people find themselves in when faced with the magnitude of the miracle needed to transform our cultural story from one of force and control and our ability to reason and organise nature and people foreign to us as we wish. Then grow into a paradigm where war and hunger is something told in folk tales that our bumbling ancestors used to do before they remembered to key to enjoying life.

There are, as Russell Brand articulates so eloquently many people who have developed possible solutions to such disparate issues as the global economic crisis, how to clean up Fukishima in a relatively harmless way. These brilliant ideas alone will only be enough if the people learn how to live from the heart as well as the mind.

To trust in such unscientific nonsense as intuition and to allow the same stories that took us to wondrous and magical landscapes as children also weave our narrative as adults as we make a journey from being large adolescents to a possible society of adults who live in harmony and from the principles that we are here as a gift and to gift ourselves in service to the people, to the planet and to each other.

The story will change as writers like this, continue to ask for a different story to fill the headlines of newspapers. What would be the collective impact of positive news being read on every bus journey rather than the Metro?

How would our children be raised if we were being told a story that life is mostly safe? How would we treat our neighbours if politicians and business people were able to see a lack of growth as a opportunity to share something with their local communities.

As Tim Maccartney - founder of the Sustainable Community Embercombe in Devon says - we need dreamers, poets and doers at this time and preferably with all three embodied and living within each person. Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


antonalfredo 26 November 2013 12:42am Recommend 0

LIkely, localization will take place not because of encouragement but because of predicaments like peak oil, global warming, environmental damage, and debt-driven economic crisis. Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


ThinkNewParadigms 26 November 2013 2:11am Recommend 0

Almost every bulk energy source has environmental, social, and economic problems associated with the technology. Solar is expense to install, maintain and operate plus since solar farms are exposed to the elements, the risk of damage increases with progressively worsening 'weather on steroids'. Hydroelectric dams destroy arable land and communities, have limited lifespan as the reservoir gets silted up, and of course are highly contrained by geography. Traditional high-pressure solid core U-Pu reactors are well known to have serious long-term health and safety issues. Biofuels are the worst form of renewables in so many ways.

What the human race needs to do to get a compelling future vision, is to look in the natural world for solutions and learn from it. The planet earth produces energy and has for billions of years: thorium and uranium disseminated throughout the semi-molten mantle keeps it hot and plastic. To emulate the highly stable natural planetary nuclear reactor in the form of thorium dissolved in molten flouride salt will give the human race a vastly superior bulk energy source that is inexpensive, clean, safe, scalable, and can be built in all conditions including moon colonies and Mars.

What other vision can beat this?

If LFTR technology is a new concept for you, Kirk Sorenson gave a lightly-technical TEDxYCC talk a few years back.

Thorium can end our energy crisis

More recently, Salim Zwein at TEDxBeirut 2012 examined all the major energy sources and concluded that only LFTRs satisfies strict social, environmental, and economic conditions. How Thorium can save the world This one is not technical.

For folks who have followed my LFTR developments over the past few years, here's an excellent update on LFTR developments given by Kirk Sorenson. Released a few weeks ago.

Flibe Energy LFTR Development Strategy (U.S. energy focus and technical)

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


ThinkNewParadigms 26 November 2013 2:16am Recommend 0

Sorry, above link now fixed.

Flibe Energy LFTR Development Strategy (U.S. energy focus and technical)

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


GilesHutchins 26 November 2013 10:45am Recommend 1

The ‘New Paradigm’ is actually ancient, yet flowing with fresh spontaneity; whether it be sustainable business inspired by nature, organisational transformation inspired by nature, societal evolution inspired by nature or ‘human nature’ inspired by and in harmony with nature through an awakened heart-felt empathetic relation with life.

The answers to our pressing challenges are all around and within us, what is lacking is the will to go deep. Essentially we are struggling to over-come the shallowness of our dominant ego-consciousness (techno-fixes for symptoms, short-term profiteering through private ownership of ideas, tentative policies that tweak rather than transform, etc.). Our collective paradigm is dominated by our ego-consciousness – capitalism, materialism, rationalism, individualism, patriarchy, and so on.

While there are many noble endeavours to transform within as well as revolutionise beyond our collective paradigm, many of today’s ‘solutions’ largely overlook the root cause: our own heart-felt empathetic relation with life: ourselves, each other and Nature. The reality is that life is so much greater, deeper and more profound than anything our rational ego-minds can fathom, yet we continue to attempt to solve problems with the same mind-set that created them – unwise. By example, the discussion of growth and its polarised opposite ‘no growth’ can over-look the deeper insight we find in nature. Growth is part and parcel of life: innovation, growth, conservation, re-configuration, rebirth, innovation, growth and so on through spirals of nested ‘panarchies’. Growth is an important attribute of what makes us who we are, yet to focus on one part of life (whether it be ‘growth’ or ‘conservation’ for instance) while blinkering ourselves to the deeper spiralling vortexes of life is akin to a childish teenager not yet able to see beyond its own ego ‘I’ reflection. Nature beyond the tidy yet artificial confines of our rationalistic ego-consciousness embraces death and rebirth, embraces change and transformation and embraces the co-creative wildness within, through and all around us.

Any vision that overlooks the root cause of our multiple crises will be doomed from the get-go. So let us get back to basics, back to nature, back to our oceanic presence flowing through every moment beyond the narrow blinkers of our rationalistic ego-mind. This is something all wise people throughout the ages agree on and it is more relevant now than ever. Then we can begin: masculine and feminine, yin and yang, rational and intuitive, science and sacred, human nature and more-than-human nature. Yes this requires courage (from the root word ‘coeur’ meaning heart) as the solution is deeply within and through our relations with each other and all of life. We can all en-courage ourselves and each other through our ways of being and doing. Biomimicry, ecopsychology, indigenous wisdom, regenerative and circular economics, and so forth all take inspiration from nature, yet to envision without this deeper presence is to miss the mark. It is time to transform, and that transformation is within, through and all around us: to see more clearly the way of Nature, re-membering our destiny as conscious co-creating participants – a community of subjects. As Hunter Lovins says in her comment above, look to nature, and the deeper we look the more we realise far from nature being about dog-eat-dog competition or individualistic selfish genes, it is much richer, more relational and diverse, it is transformation itself. We are beginning to realise the wave is very much part of the ocean, and the ocean is Nature.

The Guardian and GSB provide a great space for such to be discussed and shared – this is so very important. A big thank you to Jo and the team, with love, Giles www.thenatureofbusiness.org

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


Anna Pollock 26 November 2013 2:26pm Recommend 1

Thank you Giles for your contribution to the discussion so ably initiated by Jo and thank you to all those readers who've drawn my attention to their own work. I have been an amateur student of 'meta change' and paradigm shifts for much of my career and am excited that mainstream discussions are turning in this direction. As we peel back the layers we're getting closer to root cause - hence the need for a radical re-think and for taking the time to answer the most important questions: who am I? why am I here? where am I going? What assumptions are my beliefs based on? What is the Story underpinning my opinions and actions? To me that's the act of becoming conscious and, as I serve the tourism domain, that's why my endeavour is called Conscious Travel.

Here's a perfect example. One of the participants at the recent Natural Capital Forum highlighted this cute animation designed to encourage the business community to value ecosystem services and acknowledge Natural Capital. It's called 'The super-duper-solar-powered-everything-machine'

I agree that it is a step forward to have business recognise that its accounting system has to recognise Nature's positive contribution to their balance sheets and the negative costs associated with waste that cannot be productively absorbed. That's better than treating Nature as an inexhaustible resource or waste receptacle and not paying for such services.

But watch the animation - it's only 1.31 minutes long - and then list all the assumptions about how the world works that are either implicit or clearly stated and check whether they hold true for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZpW2VC60_k

The actions we pursue as a result of perceiving the Earth 'as a machine that needs to be fixed and the cost of fixing it should be paid mostly by people who make the most money from it ' will be very different from the actions we pursue if we see the Earth as 'a larger organism of which we are all a part,and on which each of us depend for air and water, and that it's our behaviour that's limiting Earth's capacity to sustain those life support services.'

Two very different Stories:

  1. a.) the Earth needs fixing and big companies should fix it and
  2. b.) humans need to change their behaviour and we're each equally responsible.
This is why your post is so important Jo. I believe we'd make practical progress faster if this BIG conversation could be raised at every board meeting. We know the technology exists to live in harmony with Nature but as Jeremy Rifkin, author of The Third Industrial Revolution has observed, we have just one generation in which to shift human consciousness - one generation in which to agree on a better Story.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


brianfromcork 26 November 2013 6:16pm Recommend 0

All over the world children are being schooled to earn a living and have a position in a competitive society. They are not taught how to think for themselves. When children everywhere are bereft of this facility, it is impossible to expect that tomorrow’s world will be any different than today’s. What we do today, we are tomorrow, obviously.

The author thinks such people can be reached intellectually or emotionally in their twenties at the corporate or adult stage and somehow be implanted with a new and more sustainable conditioning - that they will placidly reject the old conditioning for a better one. Perhaps someone will suggest that we teach sustainability or love for nature in school. But obviously this is still merely conditioning a child, and certainly love can never be taught. Without changing our schooling system such that children are given an understanding of the workings of their mind and are made aware of their conditioning and are able to come to their own understanding of right living, sustainability etc, there is only incremental change possible. When people speak of global or system change, they really mean partial change, change through legislation, the signing of agreements etc is never a paradigm change, making peoples minds up for them at a high political level.

Can each as a person end the desire to bring about change in the world, end the desire for action, and first examine his own beliefs and motives for his actions, his conditioning, and in addition see to it that his child learns to think for himself? That will bring about a new type of person who automatically knows the right thing to do, who knows it without instruction of any kind, a person who will not need the conditioning of either a capitalist system or a sustainability professional’s system.

'The whole question of how to end fragmentation is wrong. We cannot logically conceive it, we cannot dictate the rules, we cannot legislate it, we cannot write a manual about it. Therefore, in a certain sense, when it comes, it comes by itself. That is, in fact, the only true mode of existence.' - Jiddu Krishnamurti.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


EarthSayer 27 November 2013 2:00am Recommend 1

What Jo's article brings to mind is the recent interview (http://bit.ly/earthsayerlaszlo) with philosopher of science, Ervin László by Michel Saloff-Coste during the World Forum at Lille (France) October 2013. We need to develop a more profound, enlarged consciousness. The business leader who also articulates the role of consciousness very well, and simply, is Dominique Conseil, President of Aveda (http://bit.ly/1b3hvkK) as well as John Fullerton who Jo calls out in his article. John came to a sustainability consciousness after leaving JP Morgan and he talks about this move in this interview, Thinking About Your Children. (http://bit.ly/ImyxEu) Also to reference the circular economy and not Ellen MacArthur is to miss the boat, so to speak, as it was her experiences as a world record holder that led her to give up competitive sailing and focus on a much bigger challenge - to redesign our future. She talks about her path in this video. (http://bit.ly/1ggrysf)

For me the more compelling example of a major paradigm shift, still a work in progress, is achieving equality for women worldwide and that started with and continues to be a challenge of consciousness raising. Rather than focus on things, focus on people. It's a people story in an interconnected universe. What would help is cross-discipline, multi-level, gender balanced, diverse sustainability conferences. Include leaders from among our indigenous peoples who have been shut out completely while their communities are in the territories of extreme resource extraction and the ones suffering most from climate injustice.

This leadership mix EXISTS in the hundreds among those self identifying themselves as sustainability advocates who are committed to thinking about their children, grandchildren and the next seven generation. This I base on my own work over the last six years building earthsayers.tv, voices of sustainability and bringing to one place the language of sustainability. It is a group, however, that remains largely disconnected, a symptom of a disconnected consciousness a condition Julia Butterfly Hill addresses in her words and work and what brings me back to Ervin László.

If we continue to stick with tired meeting formats, fail to live stream our gatherings, and invite the same people over and over again, well, its all talk, no story. John in his comments below mentioned the dinner afterward calling out the most 'poignant moment' of the conference. The next roundtable should begin with this moment and move on to address our collective loss of innocence and lack of awareness. We might then discover the ABILITY to at least peek out of the box we find ourselves in and avoid as Hunter Lovins points out, joining the folks who find sustainability uninspiring and insufficient.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


TomLaForge 27 November 2013 4:19pm Recommend 0

Wow this article and the comments below comprise one the most thoughtful forums on this topic I've seen. Kudos Jo!

Our society is dominated by big business. We even use the currency of business for a great many of our other value exchanges. Where money is present it is not bad, but it does indicate a business mindset - and it's often the dominant mindset even in other domains like psychological wellbeing, social wellbeing, community wellbeing, and environmental wellbeing. Value behaves differently in these other domains than it does the financial domain. In the domain of social wellbeing happiness is infectious, kindness is infectious. One single act of kindness can be witnessed by many and soon all are uplifted. Compare that to money. I give you a dollar then I’m a dollar poorer. No observers have dollars. Toxic myths about money multiple: get mine before you get yours, there is not enough to go around, that’s the way it will always be.

We especially like one other aspect of money: our ability to hoard it as a safeguard for future wellbeing. This alluring stockpiling quality is not present in the other currencies so money has a uniquely powerful appeal.

Overall society is undergoing a shift. Dominate institutions come and go. Currently corporations (and nation states) are the dominant institution but a new one is on the rise. Civil Society – what Paul Hawken called “the Largest Movement in the World.” Civil Society currencies will be focused on psychological wellbeing, social wellbeing, community wellbeing, and environmental wellbeing. This is what the happiness/wellbeing metrics that NEF, Gallup, Seligman, the UN, and others are developing are about. We need mechanisms for visualizing value, for proving to ourselves we have it and will have it in the future. But psychological wellbeing, social wellbeing, community wellbeing, and environmental wellbeing are things you sense and feel with your heart and your gut. They do not accrue in banks accounts and spreadsheets but in faces, streets, communities and forests – things you must experience, sense and feel, to appreciate (what a lovely word in this sense).

The sustainability narrative we need is one that enables people to sense the wellbeing we have, and to believe that creating more for others does not impoverish oneself but enriches all. This narrative needs to dispel money’s toxic myths, particular that hoarding it is a route to future wellbeing. Without dispelling these myths we will be unable to raise our eyes from our wallets and focus on the one thing we wanted the money for in the first place, a sense that everything will be OK, a sense of connectedness and contentment, a sense of purpose and meaning – the experience of wellbeing.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


PeterBurgess 27 November 2013 5:25pm Recommend 0

It is a long time since I was a corporate CFO and engaged with issues of how to manage in the enterprise. One of the tools that is at the center of high performance management is the system of metrics. It is rarely talked about now because it is the norm for a good company to have impressive management information systems.

The sustainability community seems to be where corporate management was 50 years ago before the widespread deployment of corporate MIS. Nearly everyone I have spoken with on this subject seems to be of the view that metrics are not possible or practical in the sustainability segment.

I vehemently disagree. It may not be really simple, but it is possible. Furthermore it must be done using some thoughtful analysis of what is needed. Much of what is being done is not going to be of great use for a variety of reasons, one of which is the cost relative to the benefit ... but that is, in my view, because the best possible approaches are not being used. Progress towards sustainability is a system problem ... and that needs a system solution. A well run corporate organization is a system, albeit smaller than the socio-economic system, but many of the tools (metrics) that are able to help with organizational performance can be modified to suit the system that is the broader society.

My work on this has resulted in what I call Multi Dimension Impact Accounting (MDIA). I am optimistic that a system of metrics something like this will change the way sustainability gets addressed

Peter Burgess - TrueValueMetrics

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


MVOplossingen 27 November 2013 7:37pm Recommend 0

It is true, that this era needs a new paradigm to understand prosperity in a better way, shared wealth by more people without compromising nature like we do today. And it is important that people stand up, to help us look at another horizon. And a last yes, I feel that things progress far too slow.

That being said, we need to realize the era we are living in. Changes come and go with a speed unknown to the past. Companies that did not exist in the former century are opinion leaders in this one. New companies will be able to come up with hew solutions better than the ancient ones.

Another thing we need to realize is that the changes for the good will first come from companies. Society will follow first. And sometimes in the far future government will step in as well. Toffler has explained this in “Revolutionary wealth”: society and government are simply far too slow to create any paradigm shift. Therefore we need to be thankful Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) was invented at the end of last century. However, if we would compare CSR to humans, CSR is still a kid!

CSR provides corporations the ability to define growth in more dimensions than just revenue or profit, enabling managers to steer the company to new horizons. Dutch front leaders like Philips, DSM and AkzoNobel have full grown business models helping them to win new markets with better products. In their CSR Reports one can read how many millions of lives their products have improved. For these mainstream companies CSR is not a burden, it is the current and future way of doing business. That is a promise for a better future.

Following the thoughts of Toffler, we could expect society to accept a new paradigm soon. It is a thrilling thought that customers would start buying ECO+ and Socio+ products in large numbers. That could be a small step for customers, but a giant step for mankind. That is what I am hoping for. That is why I dedicate my work to CSR.

Menno Kuiper
Specialist in CSR Reporting in The Netherlands

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


e3network 27 November 2013 8:23pm Recommend 0

Excellent article - Like the New Economics Foundation, the E3 Network is working towards new economics that focuses on better serving people and the planet. We are launching a Future Economy Initiative RFP asking economists for studies in exactly this evolved-sustainability narrative, new system economics you're talking about; this article is really relevant to that discussion. Can we re-post the entire article or at least a few excerpts on our own blog? (linked above). Please let me know - would love to include this as part of our Future Economy discussions. Thank you.

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


Guardian contributor babarji 27 November 2013 9:21pm Recommend 0

The article calls for a new story which is just where the Transition Movement comes in, with its core focus on imagination and the telling of different stories. While it isn't yet mainstream, it is happening in communities all over the place.

In a recent article entitled 'Imagination: an antidote to the plague of austerity', Rob Hopkins noted that Transition is 'not just about ideas and campaigns, it's about doing stuff, showing that a more just, lower carbon, more localised and resilient approach can not only work in practice, but also can meet our needs better as people, as families, as communities. It's about modelling community resilience as economic development. http://www.transitionnetwork.org/blogs/rob-hopkins/2013-10/imagination-antidote-plague-austerity

With the main stream media concentrated in a few hands and stuck in an old paradigm, it isn't surprising that we don't get to hear about all the new visions and world changing work that is going on. In his book Blessed Unrest' Paul Hawken described the worldwide movement for social and environmental change as 'the other super-power'. He found that 'The movement that has no name, leader, or location, and that has gone largely ignored by politicians and the media. Like nature itself, it is organizing from the bottom up, in every city, town, and culture. and is emerging to be an extraordinary and creative expression of people's needs worldwide.'

I'm involved in a new newspaper called Transition Free Press that is broadcasting the grassroots stories mainstream media doesn’t reach. After one year we are just publishing it's 4th edition this week

http://transitionfreepress.org/

Reply Report Share this comment on Twitter Share this comment on Facebook


whatthefk 28 November 2013 3:01pm Recommend 0

It would have been worth it if this author had bothered to mention the finance sector, the corruption of government advisers, the use of lobbying and the drive for short term profits from corporations.

As Tesco HR director told me - goverment environmental rules are a problem that they wanted to get rid of.

SITE COUNT Amazing and shiny stats
Copyright © 2005-2021 Peter Burgess. All rights reserved. This material may only be used for limited low profit purposes: e.g. socio-enviro-economic performance analysis, education and training.