Paul Gilding

In my work with companies around the world, one of my key messages is that business strategy needs to be based on science. The logic is simple. Whereas most future planning involves an array of complicated and interrelated uncertainties – like technology shifts, political moods, consumer behaviour, competitor actions – science is delightfully predictable. That’s the thing about physics and biology, the rules were written long ago.

Furthermore, climate science is deeply relevant and material to most businesses and to all economies. Therefore this week’s report (see here for BBC summary) that the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica was melting 4 times faster than it was just 10 years ago, and is now dropping at 16 metres per year, should strike fear into the hearts of oil company executives and bring delight to the CFOs of electric car companies like Better Place (yes, such is the perverse logic of climate science in the business community).

Why is it so significant?

Despite the extraordinary increase in political focus and public attention on climate change, the real financial impact to date on the business community is marginal in most sectors. There is a lot of talk about emerging public expectations, furious lobbying on new government policy and certainly plenty of earnest commentary about corporate commitment, but nothing that really engages the CFO yet. Pine Island Glacier and similar developments could change all that.

As I argue in my Great Disruption writing and talks (see here for relevant links), human history shows we rarely respond to major threats until we declare it a crisis. This doesn’t have to be an actual physical crisis, it can easily just be a shift in perception – where, apparently suddenly, something on the edges of the mainstream leaps on to centre stage.

This is what will happen on climate change. The great weight of evidence that climate change is accelerating will break through the public consciousness and political leaders will suddenly have to deal with high expectations of action.

So that brings us back to Pine Island, one of the world’s largest glaciers. Just ten years ago, the best science said the Pine Island Glacier would melt in around 600 years, now they think it’s about 100 years. (What will be the forecast in 5 years time?) It’s not that this particular glacier is a key tipping point, though its melting could alone trigger sea level rise of 25-30 cm. The problem is that it’s just the latest in countless stories about glaciers and other ice stores melting much faster than expected. (See here for a well referenced overview of this from New Scientist “Sea level rise: It’s worse than we thought” and here for a recent article “Why it’s even worse than we feared” by Newsweek’s science editor, on the increasingly desperate warnings by leading scientists.)

So how will governments respond when the public suddenly comes to accept that we now face the potential for 1 – 2 metres of sea level rise this century? And what does this mean for business strategy?

Governments will do two things. Firstly they will panic about the global economic impact of a huge amount of residential, commercial and industrial infrastructure facing medium term damage or total loss and short-term collapse in value. Imagine for example if all affected housing, airports, ports, power stations and tourist developments were suddenly devalued by 25% for the risk of sea level rise.

Secondly governments will actually take action to cut emissions to reduce this economic risk. This is where it will get really interesting. Let’s take just one example, the auto and oil industries. They face a perfect storm of risk and transformational change when the inevitable sudden shift occurs in the political landscape.

This perfect economic storm already has a number of winds gathering speed. Firstly of course is the heavy government action to protect and boost the global auto industry with tax breaks, direct investment and loans. Secondly, electric cars, long sidelined as a marginal technology strategy are emerging as a serious global contender, driven by the success of petrol electric hybrids and responses like GM’s Volt. Thirdly is the acceptance of high oil prices being the norm, with peak oil a matter of when not whether. Fourthly and most significantly is the reluctant acceptance by the global auto industry of climate change as a game changer. The new assumption is that zero CO2 personal transport is inevitable, just a matter of when and with what technology.

So what would be a simple, politically popular, economically beneficial and environmentally significant action that governments could take if they were suddenly under pressure to act? How about using their leverage over the auto industry, taxes, standards and good old-fashioned political leadership to drive the auto industry towards an electric future, driven only by renewable power. Such a policy position, in the context of a global crisis on a scale commensurate to a war footing, would virtually overnight (i.e. a decade or so) transform the oil and auto industries. The politics and economics stack up very well, with massive job creation and new infrastructure needs along with powerful national and consumer economic benefits. (One of the leading disruptive contenders in the space, Better Place, claims per km running costs for electric cars are up to 70% cheaper, even allowing for amortised battery costs.)

The numbers at stake are staggering. Global oil trade in 2008 was around $3 trillion. The US alone sent $440 billion off shore for its oil, much to the delight of Middle Eastern oil exporters. Even little Australia spends about A$20 billion per year on retail petrol sales. Imagine the consequences of these numbers dropping by 25% or 50% with a focused government effort. Imagine the economic consequences of disruptive electric car companies like Better Place or China’s BYD taking this market away from the oil giants!

Seem far-fetched? Think again. Change at this scale is absolutely possible, in fact I believe an inevitable consequence of the science. In fact the good news for society and the bad news for any business not thinking this way, is that we’ve done it before. To quote Lester Brown from his excellent book Plan B 3.0 where he compares our current challenge to the real world experience in WWII. “The shift from producing cars to planes, tanks, and guns was accomplished within a matter of months. One of the keys to this extraordinarily rapid restructuring was a ban on the sale of cars, a ban that lasted nearly three years.”

So if your company isn’t monitoring the Pine Island Glacier very closely, I suggest your business strategy and your company may soon be under water. The Great Disruption is well underway.

I’m often asked by readers where they can find an overview of my ideas around the Great Disruption and where society is heading, so they can revisit them or share them with friends and family. In our information, media and idea rich world this now of course has to come in many different formats.

Thanks to the University of Sydney’s Institute for Sustainable Solutions my presentation was recorded when I spoke at the Sydney Ideas lecture series and is now available for download. It was broadcast nationally on ABC Radio on Background Briefing so an audio version can be podcast from their site here or you can watch the video in full here, including Rosemary Lyster’s introduction and the question and answer session.

For those who prefer a quick read, my first Cockatoo Chronicles summarises the arguments in 850 words here. Or you can read how Tom Friedman at the NYT sees the question here. The original letter from July 2008 is available from my website here.

For those can only deal with Twitter length commentary, you can follow me here, but I’m afraid I haven’t got the arguments quite summarised to that brevity yet! Perhaps “The revolution is coming hold on for the ride!” or maybe just “Shop less, Live more”

Your suggestions welcome!

After 35 years involved in social change campaigns, I don’t easily get excited about new ideas and campaign approaches. Not that we lack good campaigns mind you. With millions of people now out there pushing the boundaries and creatively exploring new ways to cut through our busy lives, there’s some really good stuff going on. Examples include the 1millionwomen campaign that I’ll be writing about in a future column and the amazing explosion of youth campaigning around the world.

Recently though one idea struck me as having the potential to be a real game changer, not to mention a damn clever idea. I’m writing to you about it because I want you to get involved and lend your support. If this campaign is successful it has the potential to shift the global climate debate in a really important way. Here’s why.

Sometimes in life and in society more broadly, we end up at a certain point that we realise doesn’t make sense but we kind of just slipped into it. Such is the case with the much talked about target of 2 degrees and 450ppm for climate policy. There is no logic to this position and no scientific body has ever argued this is a “safe and stable climate” goal. We just arrived at this goal as being “realistic” and the “best we could do” because after all, even that seems hard enough.

The science on this topic however is very straightforward. Achieving 450ppm gives us an almost certain outcome of very serious damage to the global ecosystem and economy and a reasonable chance, some argue around 50%, of going past 2 degrees and into tipping point territory – where system wide breakdown and self reinforcing feedbacks take over and we then risk civilisation’s collapse.

But nevertheless, we’ve slipped into accepting this 450ppm / 2 degrees as the “strong end” of the range of possible outcomes of global agreements on climate change. If we stay with this goal, in 20 years our children will ask us “what were you thinking?” They will say something like:

“The question was whether or not you should risk the collapse of civilisation and your response was to be “realistic” and “do your best”? What did the scientists say was necessary to save humanity and why didn’t you just do that? Was it impossible or just difficult?”

To quote my favourite climate commentator, Winston Churchill, (yeah sure, he thought he was talking about WWII but we know what he really meant) “It is no use saying, “We are doing our best.” You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.”

So what is necessary?

I recently attended the Tallberg Forum in Sweden and was presenting in a workshop on mobilising communities, along with Bill McKibben and Jeremy Osborn from 350.org. Bill McKibben had a few years ago wondered the same question so he asked some scientists what they thought the science said was necessary (as opposed to “politically realistic”). The answer was simple : 350ppm. OK then thought Bill, let’s make that the target. Simple.

First I should say I think the number is right, based on current scientific knowledge, which I understand very well. You can see this summarised well by 350.org here. I know for sure that I don’t accept a 50% change of runaway climate change, I want the risk to be as close as possible to zero and certainly down below 10%. I want to look my kids in the eye and say we did “what was necessary”. Yes, difficult, uncomfortable and challenging….but necessary.

So Bill McKibben and his very impressive bunch of young campaigners are now going out to the world with a beautifully simple but fiendishly clever campaign. They say “350 is the most important number on earth”. They are not being hoodwinked into debates about what’s realistic, or what the Copenhagen conference can achieve. They aren’t debating what levels of property rights the coal industry should have, or what the relative commitments of different countries are. They know those arguments are being well discussed already and picking them would lose the public and diffuse their efforts. They are simply saying “the science says we need 350ppm to have a safe climate, so if you plan on anything else you’re risking my future”. Period. Nothing else to discuss right now. Just 350. That’s the number.

It’s beautifully simple, but far from simplistic. We have been hoodwinked by the debate and slipped into a very dangerous place, where we have come to accept a dangerous, civilisation-threatening plan for failure. We must not allow this to stand. We must be the generation that puts science at the centre of policy not politics, self-interest and shareholder value.

While we hope our modern Churchill emerges, and it will be great if she does, we must accept that right now, it is we who must set the framework for the debate, we who must educate the world that 350 is the number and that anything less than that is just not good enough.

So go to www.350.org and lend them your support (in Australia email the local CEO blair@350.org), get involved on Oct 24th, donate money and do whatever you can to show your kids that you don’t want to plan for failure. You’re going to do what is necessary. So 350 really is the most important number on earth. Let’s make it ring around the world, all the way to Copenhagen and beyond.

We are on the edge of a major shift in social attitudes that has the potential to radically reshape society and the global economy and despite the clear warning signals most people don’t see it coming. If we’re smart, we can all give this one a hand and in doing so make our personal lives happier and more interesting.

After active involvement in social change for 35 years, I think I’ve learnt a few things about how and when major shifts occur in social attitudes and values. Some sit under the surface for long periods before suddenly emerging. Predicting their timing requires us to observe the weak signals – the under the surface disturbances that are sending out vibrations but have not yet risen to the top of our busy information and ideas rich lives. When they do break the surface they can then sweep the world with extraordinary speed, now accelerated by technology and social networking.

One such weak signal I think is in on the verge of rising to the surface is the movement to rethink consumerism and consumption. While the issue has been around for decades, it’s no longer being discussed just as a philosophical or political ideal, but as a personal and everyday behaviour – as we shop. The level of debate and the number of groups, ideas and campaigns is now verging on critical mass and the so-called financial crisis may just tip it over the edge. Just to make sure, I think we should give it a leg up – so it shoots to the surface with greater impact.

So let’s talk about not-shopping. After all, it may be coming soon to a mall near you and the social and economic consequences can barely be overstated.

Really? I mean it’s just shopping isn’t it? Well no, it’s not just shopping, which is why not-shopping is perhaps the greatest threat to capitalism since communism, except it’s likely to be far more effective because it has one of the key ingredients that communism lacked; the ability for people to take personal action and initiative that directly delivered greater happiness and more fulfilled lives.

Now you’re getting really carried away I hear you say. No, I’ve thought about this for a long time, waiting for this moment, and I really think it’s that significant. Here’s why.

You see shopping boils the whole global sustainability challenge down to its most basic and personal level. The two billion people or so of us in the world, who can afford to, simply buy too much stuff.

We do so in the delusion that it will make our lives better. This delusion is key to the effective functioning of global markets and indeed modern consumer capitalism. We think we’ll be happier if we have more stuff, so we work harder to get more money or to be able to borrow more money. We then buy stuff that we think will make our lives better.

If you think it is not that significant, just think about this. What if we stopped doing it so much? What if we all said, actually I won’t give it up, because I do like stuff, but how about I buy 10% less stuff this year. That couldn’t be so hard, delay a few purchases, live with that thing that works but is a bit boring or the wrong colour, buy a smaller thing, waste a bit less food and so on. If I did that right, my reward could be an extra 5 weeks holiday every year! Five extra weeks having fun, getting to know my community, playing with the kids, listening to music, going hiking, hanging out with friends. Sound good? You bet. And the price we would pay for this considerable benefit is marginal and easy to achieve.

But why would people do this en masse, which is what would be required for real impact? Don’t we love shopping? Isn’t that what defines our success and progress through life – our ability to go shopping? Well yes, but no. Yes we think we like it because of the buzz it gives us when we have that new thing, but then it fades and we need another new thing, so we borrow or we work some more, and we try it again. The trouble is it doesn’t work. We keep doing it because we’re told every day on bill boards, TV and websites that oh yes, that didn’t work, but if you had this one or that one, then you’d be happier. But it really doesn’t work and unlike before, this is now well established with solid global data.

What this data shows, in comprehensive global studies, is that happiness and life satisfaction go up sharply when you go from poverty to an income of between $10K and $20K per person per year. Then it stops. It levels out and stays there no matter how much more income you get. (Though some studies suggest if you get really, really stinking rich, it then goes down again!) If you want to understand the numbers check out the excellent report “Prosperity Without Growth” which can find here.

It’s not only that shopping doesn’t work though. We are now on the verge of tipping the global climate into meltdown if we keep buying more stuff, particularly if we’re successful in getting the rest of the world to follow us over the giant cliff of delusion.  Then our quality of life will seriously be degraded with a collapsing global economy and society.

So it’s time we faced up to the reality that every day our personal credit cards are collectively building up the debt on the planetary credit card. That planetary debt will be due for payment very soon – not by our children, but by us.

Of course most sustainability advocates understand this problem and we all agree that people who shop more than we do are shopping too much. (It’s a bit like driving, where many surveys have shown the clear majority of us think we’re “better than average” drivers. Work out that maths of that!)

The reality is we pretty much all do it more than we need to, whenever we can afford to. We all have our weak spot, it might be eating out, clothes, MP3 players, CD’s, cars, tech gadgets or shoes. Mine is hardware and my particular delusion is that if I have better tools and gear I’ll be a better handyman. Fortunately my wife Michelle regularly points to reality and gets me back on track!

The problem is that we’re all stuck in this cycle of more is better. If only I had this or that, I’d be more comfortable, look better, work more efficiently and besides, I deserve it – I’ve worked hard, I deserve a little treat.

So what do we do about it? I think we need to build a global, open source campaign of not-shopping. It needs to be open source because there’s a lot of powerful people and companies who are going to really hate this, so it’s better if no one is in charge, then there’s no-one to get at! Open source, distributed and viral = unstoppable, global and fast.

We need to grab all the great ideas that have been bubbling away under the surface and drag them into the bright light and fresh air of the mainstream debate. In doing so however, we should resist the temptation to treat this as a moral crusade against an enemy. We should see it more like an addiction – which means we need recovery programs, support groups and a new culture of sufficiency. None of these ideas are new of course; people have been making these arguments for decades. What is new however is the times we are in, which means the time has come. So let’s all rise up and go not-shopping !

Because it is an addiction, we’re going to need help. We’re going to need to support each other with ideas and creativity. Fortunately there is a movement out there with really smart people who’ve thought hard about this and they’re just waiting to all be connected and amplified. For example there’s already a viral campaign around the world broadly going under the name of “The Compact” where support groups counsel each other through a year of buying nothing new except basic needs like food and medicine. Yes, a year! That’s cold turkey addiction therapy, but the stories of their experiences are quite extraordinary.

For those like me not quite ready for the whole program, there’s lots of other ways to start, like an organised not-shopping day you can find here. There’s a book – by Judith Devine “Not Buying It – My Year without Shopping” that you can read about here , countless blogs like this one here by fashion writer Susan Wagner, and even a gospel choir and stage show – Reverend Billy and the Church of Life After Shopping which you can find here. Rev Billy and his flock regular drop by to local shopping centres seeking new converts. The heathen priests of consumer land aren’t very fond of their visits!

If you want to understand the concept of why buying more stuff is big problem in terms of impact, or teach your kids about it, then check out the great website the Story of Stuff which you can find here.  

So let’s all inform ourselves on the issue and give this movement a boost. Write about it, tweet about it, talk about it. Connect all these groups and ideas into your network and onto all your favourite blogs. Talk to your friends, send them this column and most importantly of all, buy less stuff.

Let’s help not-shopping to sweep the world.

Now the world is slowly waking up to the climate threat, passionate debates are raging around the world on climate policy – cap and trade systems vs taxes, renewables vs coal with CCS and global agreements vs national action. From the US, to China, from South Africa to Australia, policy makers are examining their options and vested interests are furiously protecting their turf.

As recently as a year ago I would have been deeply engaged by these debates, deeply concerned that we got the right reduction target, the right policy mechanism, the right strategy in place. Now I find myself watching with an almost surreal detachment, observing with interest but rarely getting excited or disappointed as the debate swings this way or that.

Why?

This is all just shadow boxing, the training session before the game really begins. What happens this year and next, even at the Copenhagen conference is of marginal significance only.  What? That’s heresy! Isn’t the Copenhagen Climate conference the most critical global meeting in history, the one that will determine the future of civilisation? No, not really. Here’s why.

It is now completely clear that all the actions currently on the table by policy makers are based on the wrong science and the wrong assumptions – the science of a decade ago when we thought a target of 450ppm and 2 degrees was radical and bold. When we thought dramatic global reductions in emissions by 2050 of around 60% was going to put us into safe territory and protect humanity from collapse. But that science has been superseded.

The current debates are simply the world of policy and business slowly catching up to the science of yesterday. They’re acting in 2009 on what we knew in 1990. I would have been very engaged if this debate was happening when the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was agreed to by world’s governments, including George Bush Snr in 1992.

I still would have been excited these policies were being agreed when I was in Kyoto, Japan in 1997 when Vice President Gore rode in on his white horse in the closing days of the negotiations and convinced the world to agree to the Kyoto Protocol. Exciting days.

But I’m not in Kyoto and its not 1997. Its 2009, emissions are rising, the ice is melting and most negotiators think that even the inadequate 2 degrees / 450 ppm target is not achievable and if it were agreed, it would be a decisive victory for humanity.

But that’s OK, we will all certainly wake up soon. Then the shadow boxing will stop and the game will get serious.

Don’t get me wrong, I think all the work we’re doing now in this area is useful. I think a strong international agreement, even by yesterday’s standards of “strong”, would be a good thing. I think kick starting the renewable industry and phasing out coal is all worth the effort. After all, when you’ve got a big game coming up, training matters – it makes you match fit for the real thing.

You see what the science now tells us is that climate crisis is not about our children’s children, it’s about us. It’s not about reduction in the economy’s CO2 emissions, it’s about the elimination of net emissions in a few decades and removing billions of tonnes CO2 from the atmosphere every year for decades after that. Nothing else would be a rational response to the level of risk today’s science says we face.  Nothing else gives civilisation a reasonable chance of surviving in its current form with billions of people on the planet. So nothing else would be a logical, rational response.

I take a strange sense of comfort from this being the new reality. The science is so completely clear on these points that it is inevitable that humanity will one day soon wake up, end denial and get to work shutting down coal plants, banning dirty cars, transforming cities and paying poor countries for the use of their forests as carbon sinks. We will proceed to eliminate net CO2 emissions from the human economy and we will do so rapidly and globally.

So my message to all climate action advocates is to relax. Take the time to smell the roses. Keep training, stay focused, but don’t wipe yourself out before the game begins. We’ll need you all there on the big day, match fit, happy and ready for the real action.