KEY POINTS:
In 1976 Amory Lovins, an American environmentalist, wrote an essay for the journal Foreign Affairs, advocating that the US abandon fossil fuels and nuclear power. He said the nation, hit by the devastating 1973 Opec oil hikes, could do so at a profit. The alternative, Lovins warned, was the prospect by the next century of substantial and perhaps irreversible changes in global climate. No one listened.
What a difference a generation and some extreme weather events makes. Today, Lovins, who founded the Rocky Mountain Institute, the non-profit group that encourages the efficient and restorative use of resources to make the world secure, just, prosperous, and life-sustaining, is courted by corporate chieftains. One of his clients is Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer and second largest corporation, which recently opened its third eco-friendly store in Texas.
The new mantra, from households to corporate boardrooms is: how do we reduce our carbon footprint? It is something that business is beginning to take seriously. Last year's Stern Report, in which the British economist Sir Nicholas Stern warned that the cost of tackling global warming now is far less than the cost of dealing with its impact later, was a wake-up call to those whose first thought is the bottom line.
If the GE food furore is any guide, companies which don't cut CO2 emissions risk losing business. But reducing that carbon footprint requires a bigger shift than merely bunging a few solar panels on the office roof.
Fortunately, a new model - sustainable capitalism - already exists. Smelling big profits, venture capitalists have already embraced clean tech, backing projects such as the Tesla electric sports car, which has a battery range of 400km.
But switching to a sustainable economy will need more. How does New Zealand reduce the carbon footprint caused by exporting goods around the world.? One of the sustainable movement's sacred texts, increasingly read by executives, is Cradle to Cradle, published in 2002 by American eco-architect William McDonough and German chemist Michael Braungart. Nature does not have a design problem, they write. People do.
Business and environmentalism have always been at odds. The first believes growth is good and wants more. The other believes growth is bad and wants less. In the cradle-to-cradle business model, ecologically intelligent design mimics nature's cycle of renewal. Growth is good. Recycling, says McDonough, is a false promise that only slows our plunder of finite resources. We have to balance ecology, economy and equity.
Thus, at a Swiss textile mill he eliminated 8000 chemicals, leaving pollution-free effluent. Don't think what soap customers want, he urges. What kind of soap does the river want? It is a concept embraced by Nike, Gap, Wal-Mart, Ford and even the Chinese Government, for whom McDonough is designing green cities.
Re-jigging traditional economies is an awesome challenge. But, if climate change is any indication, failure is not an option. Growing corporate acceptance of strict carbon emission laws in California, the EU and elsewhere is the shape of things to come. If we wish to preserve our prosperity then radical change to economic orthodoxy is not only beneficial, it's inevitable.
