Hi Bill, I want to say I think you have covered this well, and I myself love the attention and care for detail you are putting on this. This is what the media should / must do!
I do want to comment on your analysis of my input here though. I think in seeking to uncover cynicism, you may have over-interpreted some of my points. I appreciate the element of irony, or the extent to which I am referring to myself may not have carried over, but I'll comment here to make sure you know there's no cynicism - not an iota - in my input, regarding environmentalism and environmentalists.
To be fair, also, you didn't correlate my introductory points to my actual presentation, which is pretty critical. You also, it seems, haven't read or studied any of my actual work (fair enough, but it speaks for itself if you do)!
To start, you seem to have missed the inherent respect I have for all the folks I was quite ironically describing as "nearly extinct". (Most of half of the ones pictured are dead, but their legacy is historic.) Rachel Carson's passionate insight about nature damage, to take one example, was on the launch poster for the first event by Futureperfect, the non-profit I created to raise the quality of the sustainability debate. Futureperfect is the project vehicle through which I worked to contribute to p4, so that might give you some sense of how deeply these folks resonate for me personally. Have a look at the poster.
http://goo.gl/1M1erV
For the other environmentalists 'becoming' extinct - these are all my personal heroes and iconic change pioneers: biz sustainability guru John Elkington, designer Victor Papanek, policy-maker Maurice Strong, campaigner Julia Butterfly Hill.
Secondly, on resources, you are being multiply unfair, I believe. First, Kiruna is literally one of the cleanest mines in the world. And when I say that, I am as cautious as you of the role of the extractive industries. Kiruna is an iron-ore mine, not a fossil-fuel mine, or a toxic mineral mine, and while it disfigures the landscape to some extent, it is not an open-cast and is to all intents totally non-toxic. The specific type of iron-ore that comes of out it is some of the least toxic of essentially non-toxic iron ores, also. And in any case, the work I did on that project is not for the mine itself - to which no-one was invited to contribute - but for the town around and over the mine. So, I hear your concern, and there's no reason why you should know the details, but it's important the record is straight.
Otherwise on resources, did you not see my actual presentation? I situated the entire presentation on the basis that what we as a society (or a set of modern societies) increasingly agree on is "the bad news" of natural resource overextraction. I used the entirely uncynical - and extremely alarm-inducing, but fundamentally science-based - framework of planetary boundaries, I showed the diagram, to set up the whole input I was making.
I even continued to point out precisely what you are most concerned about - that economic growth is a runaway train, a dangerous abstraction - that does not respect these environmental boundaries, calling for an explicitly resource-based economics, so that there can be no more fudging the distinction between environmental sustainability and business sustainability. They are either connected or they are not, and if they are not, that's a serious problem.
If you doubt my professional focus on the seriousness of rebuilding this link, look up with my UN or research work. I think you'll be suitably comforted.
I don't know how you missed this input to the event. I am an environmentalist, and I have no shame in saying so. But I also do believe, and presented this in a rhetorically provocative way on purpose!, that those who have called attention to problem - including me - do not, at least as a function of the alarm-raising, have a guaranteed pathway to solutions. You understand the difference - we all do - between someone who dials 911 (critical to saving a life in one way), and the first responders themselves (also critical, in another, and somewhat more complex way). Both are needed, but in sequence.
I think that, in reacting unfavourably to a certain few of my opening inputs, you might have missed the real content of what I contributed in the presentation. I hope so, anyway.
You may indeed disagree that the alarm has been sufficiently sounded, but I still believe myself that the p4 event is proof of my point - that we are building futures based /on/ the understanding and acceptance of resource limits, not a waving, vague regard for them!
And don't forget, the speakers in the session on Planet were curated by a team including myself! This is no accident. My input was intended to set a forward-looking frame for this, and induce conversation about how these folks in their work - imperfectly but seriously - are basing value-creation (by which I don't just mean money for shareholders, c.f. Larsson / Malmö!, and Nygård / Copenhagen) on a resource-limits recognition.
You may say the p4 event didn't talk up sufficiently enough the problem with 'growth', but again, I think you overlooked my point about the need for scientific, resource-based economics, but by contrast, did you hear anyone call for unrestrained growth? I don't think so - because it was out of the question in the concept of the event.
Finally, what becomes most important is this very debate. You will be aware that any new attempt to bring truly sustainable themes to life in any city with a transitioning economy has to speak to many different constituencies - do you think that the leadership in so many sectors would have been galvanised by an event fixed on Naomi Klein's framework? I don't know, but I am not confident - even while I know Naomi Klein, and believe she is an incredibly effective communicator.
Anyway, I hope this is a useful comment. What I believe and hope going forward is that this quality of analysis and scrutiny - that you have offered - continues to be part of the ongoing discussion. Everyone involved that I have been exposed to is on the look out for cynicism, and I'll make sure - for my part - to clarify the seriousness of the base in recognition of resource limits. This is the first time in my career I have been accused of not being environmental enough !, and so I am taking it seriously!
Recent Comments
I do want to comment on your analysis of my input here though. I think in seeking to uncover cynicism, you may have over-interpreted some of my points. I appreciate the element of irony, or the extent to which I am referring to myself may not have carried over, but I'll comment here to make sure you know there's no cynicism - not an iota - in my input, regarding environmentalism and environmentalists.
To be fair, also, you didn't correlate my introductory points to my actual presentation, which is pretty critical. You also, it seems, haven't read or studied any of my actual work (fair enough, but it speaks for itself if you do)!
To start, you seem to have missed the inherent respect I have for all the folks I was quite ironically describing as "nearly extinct". (Most of half of the ones pictured are dead, but their legacy is historic.) Rachel Carson's passionate insight about nature damage, to take one example, was on the launch poster for the first event by Futureperfect, the non-profit I created to raise the quality of the sustainability debate. Futureperfect is the project vehicle through which I worked to contribute to p4, so that might give you some sense of how deeply these folks resonate for me personally. Have a look at the poster.
http://goo.gl/1M1erV
For the other environmentalists 'becoming' extinct - these are all my personal heroes and iconic change pioneers: biz sustainability guru John Elkington, designer Victor Papanek, policy-maker Maurice Strong, campaigner Julia Butterfly Hill.
Secondly, on resources, you are being multiply unfair, I believe. First, Kiruna is literally one of the cleanest mines in the world. And when I say that, I am as cautious as you of the role of the extractive industries. Kiruna is an iron-ore mine, not a fossil-fuel mine, or a toxic mineral mine, and while it disfigures the landscape to some extent, it is not an open-cast and is to all intents totally non-toxic. The specific type of iron-ore that comes of out it is some of the least toxic of essentially non-toxic iron ores, also. And in any case, the work I did on that project is not for the mine itself - to which no-one was invited to contribute - but for the town around and over the mine. So, I hear your concern, and there's no reason why you should know the details, but it's important the record is straight.
Otherwise on resources, did you not see my actual presentation? I situated the entire presentation on the basis that what we as a society (or a set of modern societies) increasingly agree on is "the bad news" of natural resource overextraction. I used the entirely uncynical - and extremely alarm-inducing, but fundamentally science-based - framework of planetary boundaries, I showed the diagram, to set up the whole input I was making.
I even continued to point out precisely what you are most concerned about - that economic growth is a runaway train, a dangerous abstraction - that does not respect these environmental boundaries, calling for an explicitly resource-based economics, so that there can be no more fudging the distinction between environmental sustainability and business sustainability. They are either connected or they are not, and if they are not, that's a serious problem.
If you doubt my professional focus on the seriousness of rebuilding this link, look up with my UN or research work. I think you'll be suitably comforted.
I don't know how you missed this input to the event. I am an environmentalist, and I have no shame in saying so. But I also do believe, and presented this in a rhetorically provocative way on purpose!, that those who have called attention to problem - including me - do not, at least as a function of the alarm-raising, have a guaranteed pathway to solutions. You understand the difference - we all do - between someone who dials 911 (critical to saving a life in one way), and the first responders themselves (also critical, in another, and somewhat more complex way). Both are needed, but in sequence.
I think that, in reacting unfavourably to a certain few of my opening inputs, you might have missed the real content of what I contributed in the presentation. I hope so, anyway.
You may indeed disagree that the alarm has been sufficiently sounded, but I still believe myself that the p4 event is proof of my point - that we are building futures based /on/ the understanding and acceptance of resource limits, not a waving, vague regard for them!
And don't forget, the speakers in the session on Planet were curated by a team including myself! This is no accident. My input was intended to set a forward-looking frame for this, and induce conversation about how these folks in their work - imperfectly but seriously - are basing value-creation (by which I don't just mean money for shareholders, c.f. Larsson / Malmö!, and Nygård / Copenhagen) on a resource-limits recognition.
You may say the p4 event didn't talk up sufficiently enough the problem with 'growth', but again, I think you overlooked my point about the need for scientific, resource-based economics, but by contrast, did you hear anyone call for unrestrained growth? I don't think so - because it was out of the question in the concept of the event.
Finally, what becomes most important is this very debate. You will be aware that any new attempt to bring truly sustainable themes to life in any city with a transitioning economy has to speak to many different constituencies - do you think that the leadership in so many sectors would have been galvanised by an event fixed on Naomi Klein's framework? I don't know, but I am not confident - even while I know Naomi Klein, and believe she is an incredibly effective communicator.
Anyway, I hope this is a useful comment. What I believe and hope going forward is that this quality of analysis and scrutiny - that you have offered - continues to be part of the ongoing discussion. Everyone involved that I have been exposed to is on the look out for cynicism, and I'll make sure - for my part - to clarify the seriousness of the base in recognition of resource limits. This is the first time in my career I have been accused of not being environmental enough !, and so I am taking it seriously!