ANALYSIS — Innovation (a positive social change) is rare. Innovation is needed in environmental issues, not reliance on just scientific solutions.

This means, governments, business, people and their communities need to act. And to varying degrees each of them are.

The Big Innovation Guerrilla/Gorilla in the Room – Our Environment

Your beliefs on Climate Change don’t matter, nor mine. Our environment is the issue.

A reasonable person would agree beyond reasonable doubt that there is evidence of harm to human and animal life attributable to environmental damage.

That is the standard of proof in a court of law, in broad terms.

Further, we could agree that pollution outcomes such as consuming chemical toxins, increased rates of asthma, insect plagues, and dead wild animals are not positive… Examples: Chernobyl, Exxon Valdez, European rivers and Chinese coal plants; as well as vast tracts of marine areas surrounding North America.

The effects of major pollution on lives are numerous and independently documented.

An Environmental innovation: cut pollution

Therefore, it would be a positive social change, an innovation, to drastically slash pollution. Whether that be coal-fired, chemical, industrial, metals, nuclear waste, carbon or other forms.

Is there any debate on this point? If so, don’t read any further. Go polish some chrome.

To not say pollution is a bad thing, is a lie. It’s that simple. End story.

Cut pollution means cut consumption of useless goods

The solution is also simple: cut-back on pointless consumption and activity.

This doesn’t mean living like a hippie, it means consuming that which is important to us and leaving that which is not. It means reducing our consumption of cheap goods. We need to stop thinking ‘disposable’ and ‘cheap’.

In the coming age, where after the Industrial then the Information Age, we are entering the Creativity Age, a new way of consuming is possible, even practical.

In broad public policy innovation terms It could mean factoring in what economists call externalities into price of goods, so the environmental cost is included in the sale price.

Carbon markets/trading are one innovation there. There are more economic pricing signal innovations as well.

But let’s start with the people: and their innovation on pollution.

One response has been from popular blog, GreenAsaThistle, where Vanessa ( a journalist from Canada newspaper) writes a blog, as she tries to ‘make one green change a day’

It’s the big things that count in her personal quest, and Vanessa gave up her car. That’s an innovation, as a positive social change. It takes a lot in today’s car culture, as many people obsess with their car, and belittle those who don’t drive.

Go and read Vanessa’s blog. There are others. Start with Vanessa’s Blogroll or search technorati.com (blogs) or digg.com (news) or good old google.com.

Consumer Icons

A car is the ultimate consumerist icon, all gleaming metal and flash. It’s a very hard thing to give up. And getting a hybrid may not be better, given the extra effort that goes into making them (recent RACV ‘RoyalAuto’ article on CNW study in 2005).

Personally, I haven’t driven for years. We live near the city and use public transport, which inconveniences my wife no end. I ran a business this way, which inconvenienced me no end. But it’s not something I normally share. Why? People with 4WDS / SUVs or even just old deathtrap cars will make fun of you for it. I hire a car & driver rarely when I really need to get around for work.

For me I just never saw a car as that important.

But to give up a car is to give up a status symbol. For many youth, it’s freedom from parental control. For many young men, it’s the best hope of getting married or even a date! For many executives it is a sign of the size of the pay-packet. For night-clubbers it’s a sign of how ‘cool’ you are. It’s a symbol, an avatar if you will.

Why innovation in changing our personal life is hard

Most real innovation requires social change. Vanessa made that change. How long will it take us to adjust? I still see idiots charging along in a V8 sports car pleased about how ‘important’ they are. That’s their symbol, their avatar.

Finally on a personal level many of us have noticed increased rates of eczema, asthma and other responses to an environment of pollution. There are large up-trends in asthma, rashes and the like in babies in countries including Australia, and the USA.

When I was a child I got sick from fumes, constant headaches and respiratory problems. I can’t be sure but I lived near 4 coal burning power-plants, and in a largely industrial town of coal & steel. When I moved to Tasmania I got better.

But whenever I breathe car exhausts and highway fumes I get a headache. You may be the same. Maybe that’s why I dislike petrol and oil-based cars.

But I am a fortunate westerner; now look at the documented proof of birth deformities as a result of chemical accidents, nuclear accidents and illegal dumping or skirting safety in the developing world. Look at the UN reports on developing countries.

There’s enough in Google to fill a few encyclopedias, and that is just from BBC, CNN, Reuters, think-tanks, researchers and reputable sites. Or alternately go to the physical library and read. This either, is not in dispute. Here’s a start at BBC

People as Environmental Innovators, where to from here

So all of this change is cultural (mind-set)not technological. And humans are basically good people, and we are very well-educated these days with vast information at our finger-tips.

Bottom line: Once we adjust to the ideas and changes, people will start to change. It’s about adjusting to the idea, and human beings always take awhile to do that.

Start with Vanessa’s blog & links for ideas:

http://greenasathistle.com/

Or start with the easy lists on Al Gores’ website for ‘An Inconvenient Truth’:

http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/

I think the real change is limiting consumption of mass-produced disposable goods, as these have a compound effect. Resources, capital, manufacturing, labour, shipping, more freight, warehousing, delivery, stock, purchase, delivery, use. All for a $1.00 plastic container largely made out of petroleum plastics. Then throw away.

There is often contradictory advice on the safest environmental option (eg disposable cups, dishwasher, wash by hand) – but I basically put stock in reducing consumption of throwaway goods as the only sure-fire method.

One simple idea for innovation: Start with the food:

The point is, start giving up the easy stuff. The throwaway plastic rubbish. Buy loose fruit & vegetables not pre-packed meals. Look into organics. Buy local where you can and ask shops so they know it is important to customers.

Start going to a market, not a supermarket. Go in small trips on the way home then use public transport, or go once a week and get it delivered.

Support local small stores like butchers, fruit shops and small grocers. Don’t go to supermarkets. Don’t buy disposable plastic rubbish.

Buy a water filter. Drink tap water where you can (it’s not really drinkable in all cities I have found, possibly because consumers are signalling to government it is less of a priority by buiying bottled water enmasse.)
The Government Response – limited innovation on pollution

Governments lag people. There are good ideas, but government in countries who are developed like Australia should be leaders. Whether they are or not, is open to debate.

Australia’s PM is a climate change skeptic now ‘convert’. Our environment minister is a former Investment banker.

However, one of the leaders in climate change thinking is an Australian, Professor Warwick McKibbin, working at Lowy Institute (Sydney) & Brooking Institute (Washington DC). His two-tiered pricing system has a solid theoretical basis.

In Canada I am less aware of government action, http://www.ec.gc.ca is the official site.

However, I can say, that the complaints of Australian’s over high petrol prices indicates where our priorities lie. And it will take some time for the discord between idea (let’s consume less) and reality (that means less driving, more expensive electricity/water) is a reality.

And as a people, the government govern for us. That is democracy. And we are sending mixed signals. Yes we care about climate change, but we’d like cheap petrol and cheap plastic goods from China please.

The key failing of State Government in driving innovation

When governments make a decision to reduce journey times and make public transport safe, then a car becomes less important, except as a ’status’ symbol.

In Australia public transport is reasonable inside cities, but one reason leading Europeans countries are better environmentally than Australians is that they have public transport that is clean & safe, by & large has more extensive routes.

In Australia the various State governments all moan on about how difficult it is, whilst govt people get paid for no outcomes. They basically shirk and announce enquiries until the heat dies down. They say it is ‘private company X’s fault.

Our study of globally innovative cities, the Global Innovation Review 2007, as well as all the other studies we looked at public transport as a key factor in implementing innovation in a city (the ability to move easily around the city) and inspiration (ie. the annoyance and time factor of cities where transport does not work).

Business leaders on Environmental Innovation

Michael Hawker, leader of IAG, has regular interviews on climate change. In his professional capacity as boss of an insurance company (reducing environmental risk) he has been at the forefront of speaking on the topic.

There are many business ventures being started with green at the centre of their development, and many businesses are moving into green headquarters.

Even BMW is looking at hydrogen cars to ‘go green’. Chevron has made overtures. BP has been expanding it’s profile.

But hard real change is up to citizens voting with their wallet. And that once again is up to people.

Before you decry this, having worked in hundreds of organizations: corporates, government and not-for-profits, there is one thing I know for sure.

Businesses are made up of people. Governments are made up of people. people like you and me. US.

Too often we talk about ‘them’, when in reality they are us. But a large business or a government is like a huge ship, it does not turn on a dime. It takes time.

So for environmental innovation to occur: we need to clearly signal business leaders that we mean business and there is a market for this new environmentally friendly outcome.

And we need to signal government that as voters environment is priority number one. When we complain about petrol prices, and global warming that is mixed signals to any democratic government.

‘We wan’t a clean environment, but please give us cheap petrol and cheap goods.‘

So it looks like it is down to people after all. All of US, not them.

Take care,

Christopher