Humans have always had a difficult relationship with other predators. When I was a boy reading adventure books in the mid 20^th century the theme was often that we needed hunters to protect us from the dangers of big, bad animals that wanted to eat us. Since then, there have been two major changes. Big predators, such as lions, tigers, wolves and bears have become endangered species in much of the world. They have been hunted, trapped and poisoned to near extinction in many regions. The other change is a growing recognition of the importance of predators in maintaining healthy ecosystems. In a recent post David Suzuki takes a hard look at the role we humans play as top predators, and the ways we are disrupting the natural evolution of life in the world. It’s a well-reasoned piece.

A recent article in the scientific journal, Current Biology, found one-tenth of the world’s wilderness has been lost since the 1990s, an area twice the size of Alaska. South America lost 29.6 per cent and Africa lost 14 per cent. The majority of the world’s remaining wilderness, about 30 million square kilometres (some 20 per cent of the world’s land), is found in North America, North Asia, North Africa and Australia. National Geographic has an excellent in-depth article.

By Eric Hellman

This is the seventh in a series of articles on how we can create change more effectively, by my associate Eric Hellman, co-founder of the first Blue box recycling program and creator of a new initiative called “conscious change.”

In my previous article, I wrote about shifting from a “should or have to” attitude to an “I want to” approach towards sustainability. That means helping people find internal motivations that they want to act on. In this article, I’ll explore a practical situation of behaviour change and how our best intentions can create problems, if we leave out people’s thoughts, feelings and experiences.

A Major Goal to go Green

Six months ago, I moved from one major Canadian city to another. My new community deeply values nature and the environment, so much so that its goal is to become the greenest city in the world by 2020. To accomplish this, the city has taken many initiatives, including promoting LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) buildings, district heating, installing electric vehicle charging areas in city parks, expanding bike lanes and acting on climate change. It is moving towards zero waste, local food, a green economy and 100 per cent renewable energy. In order to “drive up the regional recycling rate” the city banned a number of waste materials, including paper and organic/food materials, from the landfill. And that is where my story begins…

Read the rest of this entry »

The Brexit vote in Great Britain sent a message about the need to maintain social stability along with economic development. There was xenophobia and racism before and after the vote, but that can always surface during a period of instability. The most important message is that people were very unhappy with the way economic development was going, and with social changes brought by greater European integration. That unhappiness is not limited to Britain. In the United States, Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for the presidential race this year, is also reaching out to the growing number of unemployed and underemployed who saw good manufacturing jobs move to lower wage countries following free trade agreements. He adds an anti-immigrant message as well. There is similar dissatisfaction with the results of freer trade and unemployment in a number of industrialized countries.

In many industrialized nations, middle class income has been virtually stagnant in recent decades. Meanwhile the rich are getting much richer. In the United States, income inequality, or the gap between the rich and the rest, has been growing for some 30 years. Inequality is greater now than it has been since the 1920s. In a June 29 speech to Canadian Parliament, U.S. President Barack Obama said, “we also see a rise in inequality and wage stagnation across the advanced economies, leaving too many workers and communities fearful of diminishing prospects not just for themselves, but more importantly, for their children.” He continued, “If the benefits of globalization accrue only to those at the very top, if our democracies seem incapable of assuring broad-based growth and opportunity for everyone, then people will push back out of anger or out of fear.”

Much of this pushback is blamed on freer trade, which has allowed corporations to close factories in higher wage countries and move production to lower wage nations. On the environmental side, there are many complaints that companies are allowed to sue governments that enact some environmental laws if those laws reduce corporate profits. If governments do not build in more protections and income equality for their citizens they risk even more reactions against freer trade, which has brought many benefits.

Two new reports bring encouraging news about the badly needed shift to a low-carbon world. They show an increase last year in wind, solar, hydro power and increased energy efficiency, and a drop in coal burning.

According to REN21, renewables are now established around the world as mainstream sources of energy. REN21, the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, is a Paris-based global renewable energy policy network. It said 2015 saw the largest ever annual increase in renewable power capacity. This came from technological advances and reductions in cost, as well as policies, better access to financing, energy security and environmental concerns. There were more large banks active in the renewables sector, and an increase in loan size, with major new commitments from international investment firms to renewables and energy efficiency.

Wind turbines

The latest BP Statistical Review of World Energy also paints an encouraging picture. It said that last year carbon dioxide emissions from energy consumption essentially remained flat, with a slight growth in energy consumption offset by a major fall in coal use and greater renewable and nuclear energy. Renewable energy used in power generation grew by 15.2 per cent with nearly a 21 per cent increase in China. That country is now the world’s largest generator of solar energy. Where renewables were once an insignificant source, they now account for 6.7 per cent of global power generation, with just over half of that from wind energy.

It’s been nearly 30 years since the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland) delivered its report, Our Common Future, calling for a great transition to sustainable development. I’ll bet that very few people in most countries, including Canada, have anything but a vague idea of what a sustainable society might look like.

We need to paint a clearer picture because of climate change. Last December in Paris, world leaders promised to dramatically cut emissions of greenhouse gases. There have been lots of general statements about phasing out fossil fuels, reducing deforestation and changing agriculture, all major sources of greenhouse gases. But what would a low carbon society actually look like? We got a preview in the recently released Ontario Climate Change Action Plan. Two of the biggest changes individuals will see are new power systems for their cars and homes. The Ontario document talks of moving buildings onto renewable energy and heating, such as geothermal and solar power, over a period of decades. Since three-quarters of the province’s homes are heated by natural gas, this would be a huge shift. The plan talks of major renovations to make buildings more energy efficient. What will our homes look and feel like in the future? Do we have examples now?

Hybrid electric vehicles have been on the road for more than 15 years. Pure electric cars are slowly gaining market share as their range improves. Ontario, like many governments, has been subsidizing these vehicles for years. Hybrid buses are being used by some cities. For some time there have been promises to switch commuter trains from diesel to electric. The Ontario plan talks about more renewable fuels and liquid natural gas for heavy trucks. We can easily imagine much quieter cities with electric vehicles whirring by, and much less air pollution in our lungs and settling on our homes. Will the roar of the diesel bus engine fade into history? We will likely see more wind turbines and solar panels. There may be more biogas created from composting wastes. This can replace some fossil fuels. Hydrogen has long been promoted as a clean fuel. Is this likely? We are moving to denser cities with more people living in apartments because fewer can afford to buy houses. How are cities likely to look in a low-carbon world? What about towns?

Political leaders need to spend a lot more time helping people understand what life may look like in a decade or two. They should not be too prescriptive, because no one can predict the economic, social and technological changes that will shape decisions. The process should be a dialogue with people and businesses. It is time to put a more human face on the transformation we must make.

By Eric Hellman

This is the sixth in a series of articles on how we can create change more effectively, by my associate Eric Hellman, co-founder of the first Blue box recycling program, and co-author of the bestselling book “Leadership from Within.”

In my last article, I described how our “convince, control, push and punish” approach to creating change may not be bringing the results we really want. And, that it might actually be increasing resistance, and decreasing openness and willingness to the very changes we want to make.

How we make change now

What I’ve learned from personal experience is that the way we make change comes out of the mindset we hold. A mindset is like a lens through which we see the world, and the primary state of mind we use to respond to it. To better understand how this affects what we do, let me describe again briefly the “two mindsets” in human nature that shape our choices, moment to moment.

One mindset within us operates out of conflict, lack and fear. This might be called the negative ego or separate self. It sees life in terms of scarcity and competition, that there isn’t enough “good” to go around, and it’s my interests vs. yours. It regularly judges and criticizes others, while defending its own beliefs. And it tries to improve life by getting others to do what we want or think is best.

The other mindset in us acts in the opposite way. Coming from a sense of connection, love and sufficiency, it sees our interconnectedness with the rest of life. This part of us – which might be called the whole or true self – fosters collaboration, giving and caring for one another. It respects our feelings and truths, while also listening to and valuing others’. When operating from this mindset, we act on our highest values and deepest insights, not just for self-interest but for the larger good as well.

Read the rest of this entry »

If we are going to deal with many serious sustainability issues, we have to change ideas that have been developed over thousands of years. Much of the world is organized around the idea of the nation state with total sovereignty over its territory. The government decides how to use or conserve its land, water and natural resources. But, this traditional idea of power over territory bumps up against the concept of the global commons, areas that are important to all of us. The commons include the atmosphere, oceans, Antarctica and outer space. They can also include nationally controlled but internationally important resources such as ecosystems, including great forests and genetic resources in these ecosystems. All these can be considered part of the common heritage of humankind.

We started dealing with global commons with agreements such as the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and the 1982 Law of the Sea. The 1987 Montreal Protocol to control substances that deplete the ozone layer marked the first global atmosphere protection agreement. The 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change is the latest step in a long struggle to control greenhouse gases that threaten the stability of the world’s climate. In the case of the climate agreement, huge amounts of money are being promised to help less-developed countries pay the costs of moving to clean energy. But, what about other commons? We still have no system to protect fisheries that lie outside national jurisdictions, the exclusive economic zones. There have been some efforts to preserve rainforests by providing financial compensation for their preservation. Like many people in the 1990s I “bought” an acre of rainforest in Costa Rica to protect it. However, it is usually more profitable for countries to clear cut forests for logs or burn them to plant other crops. This not only destroys ecosystems, but it puts more carbon into the atmosphere, and removes a carbon sink. Maybe the next big step in protecting the global commons for ourselves and future generations should be to work out an international compensation system that makes it worthwhile for countries to protect important parts of their environment as part of the global heritage.

It’s not every day a federal government asks everyone for their opinion about sustainability. The Canadian government wants comments and suggestions on its latest draft Federal Sustainable Development Strategy. The strategy covers about 250,000 federal employees in some three dozen federal departments and agencies. Among the questions the governments is asking during the consultations: What can the federal government do to ensure a more sustainable future? What environmental sustainability targets should we aim for? How can we best measure and report on them? And what are you doing to meet our sustainable development challenges?

The draft strategy, for the period 2016-2019 covers many issues, but has five major goals: climate change; clean technology, jobs and innovation; national parks, protected areas and ecosystems; freshwater and oceans; and human health, well-being and quality of life. There are targets for issues such as: sustainable mineral resource development, sustainable energy and coastal ecosystems. The Canadian strategy links to the global agenda for sustainable development adopted by the United Nations last year.

We have promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but the reality is that we are going to keep producing and burning coal, oil and gas for years until we make a transition away from fossil fuels. Canada’s Leap Manifesto says the move to a more sustainable economy needs to be accelerated, with an end to new fossil fuel projects. Many governments, companies and workers are still wedded to industries that mine, pump and burn fossil fuels that are worsening climate change. Governments have promised to make a transition to clean energy, but it’s not clear when that will happen. The manifesto puts pressure on governments to be more specific.

This document was written last year by author Naomi Klein and her husband, filmmaker Avi Lewis, after meetings with a wide range of people, including unions, the anti-poverty movement, environmentalists and indigenous peoples. It caused a huge storm of controversy when it was raised at the NDP convention in Edmonton earlier this month. The manifesto calls for a number of changes, including expansion of low-carbon sectors of the economy, more local agriculture and more investments in infrastructure, including public transportation powered by renewables. It says that Canada should get 100 per cent of its electricity from renewable resources within 20 years and be entirely off fossil fuels by 2050. As part of the transition, it calls for “training and resources for workers in carbon-intensive jobs, ensuring they are fully able to participate in the clean energy economy.”

The hot button is a call for no new fossil fuel projects, including pipelines. That has brought strong criticism from many, including Alberta’s NDP premier, Rachel Notley, who is pushing for new pipelines. Her government has promised controls on greenhouse gas emissions, but not elimination.

Last Friday, 175 nations, including Canada, signed the Paris climate accord promising to prevent a dangerous increase in global temperatures. That can only be done by major reductions in fossil fuel emissions. Instead of attacking documents like the Leap Manifesto, people need to be discussing how we can make a rapid move to a low carbon economy.

By Eric Hellman

This is the fifth in a series of articles on how we can create change more effectively by my associate, Eric Hellman, co-founder of the first Blue Box recycling program and co-author of the Canadian bestselling book, “Leadership from Within.”

In my last two articles, I described how “human nature” shapes our thinking and behaviour. In the next few, I’d like to share some examples of how we try to create change, the unexpected outcomes we get as a result, and some ways we might do it differently.

The Past 50 Years

The people I’ve known who work for environmental and social change began with high-minded ideals and a strong motivation to make the world a better place. They did their best to raise awareness of the problems, provide good information, and encourage others to take action across a wide range of issues, including waste generation, energy conservation, nuclear power and nuclear proliferation, politics, poverty, AIDS, smoking and world peace. I’ll include myself in their number. So what happened?

Sometimes, people heard the message and decided to change; and that has been both encouraging and fulfilling. However, when politicians, civil servants, business leaders or the public didn’t act the way we wanted, we felt frustrated and tried even harder. We began telling people how they should change; and if that wasn’t enough, often used fear or guilt to motivate them. Still no action? Then we applied more pressure. We pushed governments through the media, write-in campaigns, protests or demonstrations. We pressured companies through economic measures such as boycotts or through public shaming. Each time, the more people didn’t do what we thought was right, the more strident and outraged we tended to become.

Why? Because that’s how you create change. Everyone knows that. If the positive doesn’t work, you go negative. You may not want to, and people might not like it, but it’s what you have to do to get others to act. Pressure, anger, force. And that’s what we’ve have done for hundreds of years, in politics, social change, management, parenting and relationships. The question is, how well does this approach really work?

Read the rest of this entry »

Measuring sustainability is notoriously difficult. When we look at environmental, economic and social issues, we face different measuring systems. It’s very hard to add them all up and come up with a single indicator for sustainability. The World Happiness Report is not a sustainability report, but it does give us a feeling for how people feel about their societies. It also correlates very well with separate economic, social and environmental measurements. The report authors state that happiness is higher in countries that do well in moving toward the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

This year, Denmark heads a list of 157 countries for citizen happiness and a sense of well-being. This is not surprising considering the Danes have a strong social safety net, a solid economy and good environmental performance. Next on this list are Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia and Sweden.

The happiness ranking, the fourth since 2012, was based on responses to a global Gallup poll. People were asked where they felt they stood on a scale ranking from the best to the worst possible life. The report found that differences in social support, incomes and healthy life expectancy are the three most important factors that bring happiness, along with social and work conditions, pollution and values.

The report was prepared by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, an international panel of social scientists that includes economists, psychologists and public health experts convened by the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon. It was edited edited by a group of independent experts: John F. Helliwell, of the University of British Columbia, Jeffrey D. Sachs, a Columbia University economist, and Richard Layard, Director of the Well-Being Programme at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

With the death of Jim MacNeill on March 5, Canada has lost the last of its two global sustainability pioneers. Maurice Strong died last November 28. Both MacNeill and Strong were members of the World Commission on Environment and Development, the Brundtland commission, and Canada was the only nation to have two members.

I remember Jim MacNeill from early 1986 when I was environment reporter for The Globe and Mail and he was secretary-general to the Brundtland commission, and principal authorof its report, Our Common Future. Over the next two years MacNeill spent a lot of time explaining what was then the new concept of sustainable development. After the Brundtland Report was presented to the United Nations, MacNeill, a former senior Canadian civil servant, continued to be a leader in sustainability. He was a founding member of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, based in Winnipeg, and was its chair for five years. The IISD is one of Canada’s contributions to world sustainability.

By Eric Hellman

This is the fourth in a series of articles on how we can create change for sustainability by Eric Hellman, co-founder of the Recycling Council of Ontario and the Blue Box.

Think of yourself on one of your best days, when you feel alive and engaged, and things are just going right. At times like these, we have an inner confidence, enthusiasm and a belief in possibilities. It’s as though we see the world through rich, joyful and powerful eyes. Ideas and outcomes flow easily. We have lots of energy. We willingly share our time, energy and talents with others, and feel richer because of it. And, we also feel more connected to ourselves and to others, nature and the world around us.

Now, for a few moments, think of yourself on your worst day, when life feels like a struggle. Perhaps you experienced a heaviness, fear or desperation, a feeling that nothing you said or did would work, and there was no hope of change. Or maybe it was boiling anger and frustration, when it seemed as if you were losing control and everyone around you was making it worse. In these times, when we most need help or support, we often resist asking for it. Even if others offer it, we may turn it away, believing that no one else understands. We can feel lost, disconnected and alone.

You will have your own words and descriptions for these two kinds of days; I don’t mean to impose my own on you. But the reason I raise them is that they are both personal, and more than that. What I’ve learned is that we all experience these kinds of thoughts and feelings, as part of being human. And this, in turn, touches on the dual nature within us that I referred to in my previous article, and which I will explore more fully below.

Read the rest of this entry »

By Eric Hellman

This is the third in a series of articles on how we can create change for sustainability by Eric Hellman, co-founder of the Recycling Council of Ontario and the Blue Box.

After working in recycling for close to five years, a series of intuitive experiences prompted me to leave the field in the early 1980s and explore new areas. Two questions were uppermost in my mind: Why are there so many problems in the world? How do we get to the roots of them? I also had a sobering realization. Having experienced extensive conflicts among environmentalists, I thought if we are the ones who are supposed to heal the planet, it was not going to happen.

About 12 years later, I was working with the executive director of one of Canada’s main round tables on environment and economy. At the end of a long day, we were talking about the challenges facing the world, and I asked him if he thought what we were doing would be enough. He paused, thoughtfully, and said, “Probably not.” What do you think it will take, I asked. “Probably a change in consciousness,” he replied. His answer surprised me. I had come to the same conclusion myself, but didn’t expect him to say it. And I now had a third question: How will we do that?

For the past several decades, I have been exploring answers to these three questions. My journey has led me from stress management to office services (word processing and staff placement), hazardous materials management, healthy, sustainable communities, leadership and communications, addictions and ghostwriting. I’ve delved deeply into the healing of self and relationships, spirituality, consciousness change and energy healing. I’ve volunteered in politics, hospice care, creating international peace events and helping people with dementia. Yet through it all, my underlying intention has been the same. Finally, in the past two years, insights for how we might practically answer these questions have started to take shape.

Read the rest of this entry »

Canada’s federal environmental watchdog says a number of federal departments do not properly consider the environment in decision making, nor show a commitment to Canada’s Federal Sustainable Development Strategy. In her latest report, Julie Gelfand, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, had strong criticism of a number of departments. She said the federal cabinet has ordered departments and agencies to do strategic environmental assessment so ministers and the public know the potential impacts. Departments are not doing an adequate job.

Julie Gelfand

Gelfand reported on Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canada Revenue Agency, Canadian Heritage, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada performance in 2015. “Overall, we found that none of the entities met the requirements for public reporting on the extent and results of their strategic environmental assessment practices, as set out in the Cabinet directive and its related guidelines. For example, their reporting did not describe how their policy, plan, and program proposals that were subject to a strategic environmental assessment had affected, or were expected to have affected, progress toward Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS) goals and targets, as required.”

The result is that “…ministers were not always getting information on the potential important positive or negative environmental effects of the proposals submitted to them.” She also said that public reporting helps to demonstrate to stakeholders and the public that departments and agencies do consider the environmental effects of proposals and that the environmental decision-making process is open and accountable.

The commissioner’s office was created in 1995 to provide objective, independent analysis and recommendations on the federal government’s efforts to protect the environment and foster sustainable development, to monitor departmental; sustainable development strategies of federal departments, and to audit the federal government’s management of environmental and sustainable development issues.

By Eric Hellman

This is the second in a series of articles on how we can create change more effectively by my associate, Eric Hellman, co-founder of the Recycling Council of Ontario and the Blue Box, and co-author of Leadership from Within.

I was deeply fortunate to start my own career doing work I truly loved. Working in garbage and recycling was a perfect opportunity for me to share both my love of nature, and the power we have to make a difference in the world. At the same time, however, my life was also in deep conflict. Married at 19, my young marriage was being torn apart by arguments, anger and fear. What’s more, I was also experiencing conflicts with other environmentalists, business, government and the public. When people didn’t seem to care, or do what I thought was good or right, I could get very judgmental and critical. I was suffering anxiety in many of my relationships.

To deal with this, I first sought counselling for my marriage. This led me into personal counselling, group therapy and personal growth work. All of these had benefits, but none could really quell the fires burning inside me. My conflicts and inner turmoil continued to grow until the early 1980s, when I came across a book called A Course in Miracles. Intuitively, I felt a need to read it. But when I opened it, I discovered spiritual and religious language that I found totally repugnant. So here was another split I had to deal with. As someone deeply opposed to God or religion at the time, this book went against everything I was raised to believe. However, being in so much pain and with no other alternatives in sight, I had to do something. Finally, after a full year of resistance, I gave in and began reading it, and within moments, I felt a peace that was beyond anything I’d ever experienced in counselling. Reading on, I found a description of the human mind and condition that made sense to me, as well as a wisdom and logic I couldn’t refute. Because of this, I went on to study it in depth and use it as a daily practice.

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s not every day we get heads of insurance, power generation, food and forestry companies, along with heads of environment groups, a youth leader and a former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations in agreement. In a historic letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, they said Canada must green its economy or be left behind in a changing world. “Before long, the strongest economies will be those that have been rebuilt to run on clean energy, conserve resources, reduce waste, provide vibrant and healthy communities for people to live in, and preserve nature,” they wrote under the title of the Smart Prosperity Initiative. “We believe Canadians want to be masters of our destiny and take the steps needed to build an economy that grows stronger, even as we lighten our environmental impact.” They are ready to offer ideas on greener growth that can create “the next generation of good jobs” and help all parts of the country’s now struggling economy.

By Eric Hellman

This is the first in a series of articles on how we can create change more effectively by my associate, Eric Hellman, co-founder of the Recycling Council of Ontario and the Blue Box, and co-author of Leadership from Within.

Many people have asked over the years, “What made the Blue Box so successful?” Why did it become the model for programs not only across Ontario, but in hundreds of cities, provinces, states and countries around the world, and even a symbol of recycling? As someone who was there at its inception, I’d like to offer some thoughts and experiences on what may have contributed to its success.

In nature, the seed is essential to creating the plant. It contains the DNA that guides its growth and development. I’ve come to believe the same is also true in human-led development: the core ideas, intentions and motivations behind our projects guide the outcomes.

With the Blue Box, its success was more than simply the result of a well-designed curbside collection, catchy marketing slogan or colourful container. For me, it was the outcome of some significant shifts in thinking – in what people really wanted and needed – that started it on the road to what it has become today.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Dec. 12 Paris Agreement on climate change was nothing less than the starting gun for the next industrial revolution. The conference, known as COP 21, set a very ambitious target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions enough to slow global warming. The target is to keep the global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius, and to seek to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. The planet’s temperature has already risen by almost 1 degree C since the industrial revolution began 200 years ago. So far, 188 countries have offered climate action plans, but experts calculate these would at best hold the rise to 2.7C.

The agreement reached by 195 countries calls for a carbon neutral world before the end of this century. This means limiting the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally. Scientists believe the world will have to stop emitting greenhouse gases completely in the next half-century in order to achieve this goal. This means switching virtually all electricity generation, heating, cooling, cars, trucks, aircraft and ships to renewable energy. People born today will need to be driving electric cars, heating their homes with renewable energy, such as geothermal or biofuels, and eating a much less meat intensive diet. This is change on an almost unimaginable scale. Fossil fuels will essentially become obsolete, except if cost effective technologies can capture carbon dioxide before it goes into the air. The energy sector needs to be flipped on its head. Now more than 80 per cent of world commercial energy comes from coal, oil and natural gas. We have to reverse that. Given the lag time needed to design and build major energy projects, we need to start a major shift immediately. Fossil fuels will be needed for decades during the transition, but there needs to be a steady phase down and out for almost all uses.

It will take vast amounts of money. The agreement includes a commitment for developed countries to create a $100-billion-a-year fund by 2020 to help developing countries cope with climate change. This includes support both for technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to adapt to the inevitable climate change already triggered by past emissions. At the climate conference, billionaires Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Richard Branson and other high-profile entrepreneurs launched the Breakthrough Energy Coalition. They pledged to spark a “new economic revolution” based around clean energy after launching a new investment drive for renewables. The group will mainly invest in early-stage clean energy companies across a range of sectors, such as electricity generation and storage, transportation and agriculture. The initiative was announced in conjunction with Mission Innovation, an effort from 21 governments to double the amount of public money going into clean energy innovation. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has launched an international solar alliance of over 120 countries.

How can values drive the greatest challenge humans face: moving to sustainability? How can we change development to fit within Earth’s natural limits, and still live a good life? This series of articles takes us through the evolution of some major environmental issues in recent history, looks at visions and principles that can guide us in the future, examines barriers to change and gives examples of leadership for sustainability.

Examples of leadership

In the first article I traced the evolution of environment as a major public issue. In the second I showed major sets of goals and principles to achieve sustainability. In the third article I looked at barriers to achieving sustainability. In this article, I’ll look at examples of leadership for sustainability.

Political leaders

I think the best example of a political leader showing broad sustainability values is former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. Dr. Brundtland was a medical doctor, with a strong interest in children’s health issues. She had been Norway’s prime minister and environment minister when she was asked by the United Nations in 1983 to form a World Commission on Environment and Development. The title of her commission’s 1987 report Our Common Future shows a highly ethical bent. Its most enduring message is that if development is to be truly sustainable, it needs to meet the needs of the present without comprising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Dr. Brundtland and her 21 fellow commissioners offered a vision of greater equity in world economic growth, along with fairer and more cooperative global dealings. The commission said that poorer countries must have the opportunity to develop economically, meaning they needed more ecological space to use resources and discharge some pollution. This means developed countries need to reduce their environmental impacts not only to make room for developing countries but also to bring down the total impact, which is too great for the long term. The report said the well-being of future generations is a moral issue for today, and we can act in a more moral way by reducing consumption and pollution. The Brundtland report said there is an obligation on the affluent to refrain from wasteful use of resources.

Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland

The Brundtland report issued a challenge to world political leaders, and did change global politics. There have been a series of responses, such as the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Agenda 21 from the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, and the UN Millennium Development Goals. In 2015 world leaders agreed on 17 new sustainable development goals under The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. They include an end to poverty, food security for all, gender equity, sustainable energy, and sustainable consumption and production. In December representatives of 195 nations signed the Paris Agreement on climate change, which committed them to dramatically reduce the discharge of greenhouse gases.

Read the rest of this entry »