Well, those of us that have been focused on the environment have known that petrol prices were likely to rise significantly, so all the hand-wringing and shouting comes as little surprise.

It’s a shame that the emphasis has been on short-term relief by the way of the government dropping the excise on petrol. Although I really feel for the folks that are finding it tough with daily commutes etc. I think that dropping the excise is a terrible idea.

Even if the petrol companies don’t see it as an opportunity to wrestle more profit out of the market (which is a likely scenario) - the price of petrol will only continue to rise, making this a very short-term solution.

Instead the government should announce that it is funneling the revenue generated from the excise into alternatives - public transport in particular, but also better planning of areas to alleviate the need for car transport in the first place.

Another area the government could invest in is building Australia’s R&D capacity in car manufacture. It’s a pet subject of mine - I’ve ranted enough on the topic here that regular readers will know my views. But in a competitive market I find it incredible that the industry, and government in general, continues to subsidise big car development for the middle eastern market at the expense of alternatives like hybrids and electric vehicles.

I did have to laugh, though, reading this article by Richard Glover a few weeks back: Here’s to high petrol prices. Some choice quotes:

HOORAY for high petrol prices. No one wants to say the unpleasant truth, so I’ll say it again. Hooray for high petrol prices. They are changing our behaviour faster than decades worth of hand-wringing over the environment.

… What’s frustrating is that there are real ways in which our politicians could help; not by making false pledges of cheap petrol but by helping us permanently adapt to this new world of highly priced energy.

… Whatever we do, we won’t be able to avoid pain. Australians of past generations showed great fortitude in the face of the global challenges of their time; they proved themselves to be resilient and adaptable.

… Will we need to make sacrifices? Of course. Will those sacrifices be as difficult as those faced by the generation who lived through the Great Depression, or World War II? Um, no.

The biggest irony, of course, is that when I viewed this article, this was the ad that came up:

An ad for a petrol hungry 4WD…

Environmental Leader highlights a Reuters report on the new geo-sequestration plant opening in Victoria.

The basic principle of the “plant” is to pump 100,000 tonnes of CO2 into the ground (and, I suggest, hope that this won’t cause unforseen and/or longer-term issues). I’m dubious about geo-sequestration generally, but that’s not my real gripe with this report. This is the lead:

A geo-sequestration plant, capable of capturing and compressing 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide which is stored two kilometers underground, has opened in Victoria, Australia. Researchers hope the project will help to significantly reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

(Emphasis mine.) Whilst, technically, it could be argued that sequestration reduces the emission of greenhouse gases - because it’s funneling the emitted CO2 into the ground - it’s not actually reducing the emissions. Just storing them somewhere else for an indefinite period.

But the corker is when the voiceover of the report says:

… it uses experimental low-emission technology that has the potential to reduce the burning of fossil fuels.

This is patently untrue. In fact, a successful trial is likely to lead to a continuation, or even increase, in the burning of fossil fuels, as it delays the need for investment in truly renewable energy and allows the continuation of use of coal fired power stations and the like.

I’m astounded that an agency like Reuters would get this so wrong in their report…

I missed it, but Tesla recently announced they’ve gone into production. Awesome.

Just a quick note to let y’all know I’ll be playing an acoustic show at Mars Hill Café (Parramatta) next Saturday 29 March with my long-time friend Kristian Jackson.

By happy providence, the gig spans across Earth Hour, and Mars Hill will be participating in the Earth Hour event. So if you’re looking for a a special way to participate in Earth Hour, or just want to enjoy an night of music, you know where to come

For some time I’ve been saying to friends and colleagues that I think we’ll start to see courier and freight companies go carbon neutral, especially when the “carbon tax” (whatever that looks like) comes into play.

The reason being is that it’s a pain in the proverbial to calculate emissions on externals like freight, so any options that require just a checkbox ticked (or fully carbon neutral operations) will be very attractive to businesses.

Well, it seems DHL have jumped ahead, offering a freight offset option for customers - 3% of the total value.

Like the news that Virgin (then JetStar) were offering offset options (flawed as both offerings are), this is a great step forward - especially coming from a market leader.

It also solves one little part of the puzzle for me starting up Soko Loko - freight will inevitably be involved in the operations, and I was having to work out how to calculate and offset the emissions. At least I know that using DHL, and ticking that checkbox, means one less hassle.

I’ll need to weigh up whether the DHL option is suitable in other ways, but it’s a good sign that more such services will be coming.

Akshay posts a great article on “growth-based climate politics” over a newmatilda.com. The money quote (’scuse the pun):

As Australia’s income grows, the methodology of calculating GDP needs to be revised to incorporate the higher goods that are now demanded by consumers. Current methods of calculating income only explain standards of living up to a certain level, after which they become redundant. If air pollution decreases our standard of living, pollution should be deducted from GDP estimates. Likewise, if reduced risk of catastrophic natural disasters creates a more favourable business outlook, then efforts to decrease the likelihood of adverse climate change should add to GDP. Such a revaluation of income measurements would mean that a transition to a sustainable future would present us with more opportunities for growth, rather than be a threat to our standard of living.

Policy that does not emphasise the growth opportunities of a more sustainable future, concentrating only on emission reduction, is dangerous. The term “emission targets” sends a pessimistic and alarmist message that bad times are coming. The public may react unfavourably to the realisation that more and greater costs will fall on them as a result of treaties which promise emissions cuts.

(Emphasis mine) I’ve been in favour of this perspective for some time. In fact, my new business venture is founded on this principle - that a “bright green” future is what we want. There’s plenty of opportunity, but we have to think differently about what “growth” means - not just hard and fast numbers, but quality of life. Akshay’s suggestion that “the methodology of calculating GDP needs to be revised to incorporate the higher goods that are now demanded by consumers” is spot on the money.

I take issue with two aspects of the article - Akshay points out that:

A quick look at Maslow’s ‘hierarchy of needs’ shows that people first satisfy their basic material needs for food, shelter, physical security and health, after which they satiate so called “higher needs” - including creative freedom, justice, opportunities for political expression and even environmental goods such as clean air, clean drinking water and certainty of their own and their children’s economic future.

Isn’t “food, shelter, physical security and health” directly tied to the environment? Perhaps Akshay’s point is that they’re not perceived as being linked, but it’s clear they are.

Do we really need to continually run on this treadmill of environmental destruction before we realise that it is a primary need? We’ve done it in industrialised economies, and we’re doing it again in China, India and elsewhere.

I also don’t think that we can continually grow ad infinitum - there are natural limits to growth. And suggesting we need to get richer so that environmental issues increase in perceived importance, falls into the same trap that Akshay argues against in the article - economic growth above all else. But I suspect that’s more headline grabbing than central to Akshay’s argument.

Brett’s comment sums up this latter point pretty well.

P.S. thanks to GraemeF, who in the comments said “It’s growth Jim, but not as we know it” - which perfectly sums up the sentiment for me.

This post is a bit of background about the reason I’m embarking on the ethical clothing project again. It’s far from definitive, but I hope it sets the scene for posts to come.

A couple of years ago I had a crazy idea of starting what I called a “fair trade fashion label”. The basic idea was simple: producing fashionable clothing using environmentally friendly materials ensuring that manufacturing was carried out ethically - “from seed to sale” was a bit of a tag line. After initially dubbing the group FWV - “Fashion Without Victims” - eventually we settled on “Huméco”, a made up word reflecting the environmental and social values we were aiming to uphold.

At the time I mentioned the idea to a few friends and we started researching the idea - we were talking to a designer, researching fabrics, looking into the No Sweatshop label. I left the business I was working for to pursue the venture but then stumbled upon the opportunity to work for WWF-Australia which was too good to pass up.

A few months later work and other life commitments meant that I wasn’t able to focus enough on the project to work through some of the challenges we faced, so I reluctantly disbanded the group to focus on other things.

Fast forward a few years. The market for organic clothing is beginning to explode. As an avid reader of Treehugger, it seems that every day a new label is entering the “green” space - and well known designers are jumping on the “green” bandwagon by the minute. Reading Fast Company highlighted Nau - joining Patagonia in doing very interesting things in the performance wear space.

(As an aside: I’m a big fan of both companies - be sure to check out Nau’s Grey Matters and Patagonia’s The Footprint Chronicles for some of the challenges running an ethical business in this space.)

While the internet technically makes many of these labels available here in Australia, and even though there are even some great folks in Australia creating ethical clothing, none are quite the style I’m into and very few are available local to where I live; on the clothing strips where I shop, the options simply aren’t there.

I don’t know about you, but I’m not a big fan of purchasing over the net - I like to try things on, check them out, get a feel for the fabric and the cut.

Over the past few months I’ve been thinking very hard about my future direction - what really makes my heart sing? What am I passionate about enough to get me through “The Dip“, as Seth Godin calls it.

I’m a big fan of sustainable (in the broad sense of that word - environment, social, financial) business, and am bullish on the impact that good design can have creating a sustainable future. I’ve read Cradle to Cradle and I’m a convert.

And then Anita Roddick passed.

Anita was a huge inspiration to me - and her passing really got me thinking about what I was doing with my life - what impact was I actually having…

I brainstormed a bunch of business ideas and the one that stuck in my mind, that wouldn’t let go of my imagination, was the ethical clothing idea. This is not new - I’m far from the first and likely (hopefully) to be far from the last. But I feel it important to give it a shot - to try and make this happen - and I hope I have a few innovative ideas about how to make the business work.

I’m the type of person who doesn’t like talking - I prefer to do. So early next year I have arranged a change in work arrangements to free up 1-2 days per week to apply to this goal.

The label will likely be starting in an obvious place - t-shirts. I’m a big fan of Threadless, band merch and I’ve become a bit of a “t-shirt snob” - so it is fitting that I should start there. But I hope to link up with like-minded people that want to participate in building a business like this to expand the range and ideas that we can explore - focusing on smart-casual mens wear. Stuff you can wear to work and then to a pub or a club.

Although ethical and social concerns will be a major part of the business - the focus will be on great designs that people will want to wear first and foremost. As fashion designer Gary Harvey says:

“The future of Eco fashion depends on designers concentrating on great design and not letting the Eco cause become the only component…after all people wear clothes not causes.”

I know I can’t do this alone, nor do I want to. For those of you that don’t already know me - if you happen across this blog and are interested, please get in touch. If you do know me already and you know someone you think might be interested, please do the same.

I’ll be using this blog to record the journey, a place to share what I learn as I work towards this goal (regardless of the outcome). My hope that sharing my thoughts as I learn and explore might provide value to others.

Seth Godin: “I’m more and more convinced that the best hope for the eco movement is to tell a story of efficiency and growth and ingenuity. More is easy to sell. Less almost never is.”

I, too, am becoming more convinced. I think that communicators working in the environment movement are going to cop an aweful backlash in the coming 12 months unless the story changes. The story needs to be about advancement, a better, healthier life, not “have less”. That’s not going to get traction in the broader market - never has, never will. It won’t get traction in developing countries either.

While there are clearly circumstances where less must be less (i.e. eating seafood and cattle for meat), and I am very aware of the “scientific view” of the world where “technology alone can save the day”, there are many other opportunities where “more” = less - more efficient, more innovation etc. that resonate with both the business community and community at large, if the story is told well.

This seems to me to be very much at the core of the Cradle to cradle philosophy too - let’s be smarter, and have less impact as a result. Not “let’s go without” (I could be wrong there, but that certainly was one of my takeouts.)

It’s a sign of the shifting energy landscape as incumbents in the auto and electricity industry try to maintain the status quo, tech companies like Google are planning to generate 1 gigawatt of renewable energy and electric cars… (not forgetting, of course, the ex-tech-startup led Tesla Motors)

Choice magazine have got an interesting article on going carbon neutral. I found it interesting that in this graph Australia ranks 4th for per-capita emissions. I’d always been led to believe we were second only to the US. Also includes all the usual tips (and usual suspects) for reducing emissions, but doesn’t mention offsetting. A useful guide to pass on to family and friends that are bitten by the green bug…