So I leave the country for just a year and in that time, Playing For Change decides to go on tour. I expect all you people still in the States to go and see them for me.
So I thought it would be helpful for me to start writing down some of my thoughts from lectures here at BTH on my blog. Classes started last Monday and so far, we have gone over the basics of the program, a really innovative way of discussing lots of issues in detail through a process called 'open space', and an introduction to the Natural Step approach.
Our program is entitled Master's of Strategic Leadership towards Sustainability (MSLS). Karl-Hendrik Robert (the founder of the Natural Step) has been lecturing to us for the past few days. He started by introducing his framework for analyzing and implementing sustainability into our companies, governments, and cities. The following day, he then went on to discuss the physics and chemistry underpinning his framework.
But before I get into what was discussed in the lectures, let me give you a very brief overview of the Natural Step (TNS). TNS was started up 20 years ago in Sweden in an effort to bring scientists together in consensus on sustainability. From this point, we would then be able to develop a common language in which to effectively discuss the 'un-sustainability' around us. From that vision, a network of multiple Natural Step's have popped up all over the world in numerous countries to help guide and facilitate companies, governments, and municipalities towards sustainability. This framework, referred to as FSSD (framework for strategic sustainable development) is based upon understanding the systems holding everything together. A common frustration is that we as a people like to specialize in 'things.' And although this is needed in our society, it creates problems because we rarely take the time to look up and see what others are doing in other specialties and fields around us. Such a mindset makes it very difficult to approach sustainability and it is the FFSD that attempts to bridge this gap.
Now back to some of the details from the lecture.
Karl-Hendrik introduced three questions that are key in evaluating 'un-sustainability.'
1) Do you have a definition of sustainability?
2) Referring to that definition, what is your gap?
3) What are you doing to bridge that gap?
The first of these questions is probably the most important. With sustainability being such a hot-topic nowadays, it seems silly that we very rarely actually talk about what sustainability means. Sure we talk about things such as water scarcity, soil degradation, and climate change, but we rarely define sustainability. Without a common definition of the term, it is hard to approach the larger picture, and we end up specializing too soon on the sub-problems rather than the larger picture. After a definition is agreed upon, we can then begin to analyze a our given situation and find ways of striving towards sustainability.
Once answering these questions, we can then move on to look at various strategies for achieving success. Here is the path which KHR suggested:
Step 1 involves understanding the system. This is where understanding basic chemistry and physics is important. This step involves understanding the rules of the game.
Step 2 then defines what success looks like for this specific example. If you don't understand the system well enough (and have a common language to communicate back and forth between one another) then it is impossible to determine what you want (success). This is one of the most commonly lacking aspects of sustainability in the real world.
Step 3 then determines a strategy. It is most often unrealistic to immediately transition to full-sustainability. Just as in chess, it is rare (if not impossible) to win in 1 or 2 steps. However, each move you make (even if it sacrifices one of your own pieces) ideally moves you towards winning. This is the same for making sustainable decisions. Although the intial move may not be fully sustainable, it may facilitiate and allow your next step to achieve success.
Step 4 then identifies those specific actions needed to be taken.
And step 5 includes the tools to get there.
So that is the basic overview of the framework, and then there are numerous steps within this bigger framework which we will be discussing in further detail throughout the year. Some of these we covered in the first lectures but I don't have the time or space to write all of that out at this moment.
However from the lectures, there were some interesting other thoughts that were raised. Here are just a few of them.
"We're looking for knowledge, but we're drowning in detail."
- This refers back to the specializing issue developed in our society. We are so accustomed to knowing more and more but we tend to always look to the detail rather than the system. KHR describes it like a tree - where the trunk and branches are the unifying system and the leaves represent the details. Sometimes we focus so much on our leaf that we forget to look at the leaves around us and more importantly, the branch connecting us to the bigger picture.
"We do not want to become poor now to become rich later."
- Many individuals view sustainability as a poor economical decision. The reality is however that if companies end up making fully sustainable solutions in their company too aggressively, then they will soon drive themselves to bankruptcy and no longer be able to impact those around them. So in fact, it is not in the interest of the company or 'sustainability' to try and push sustainability too fast. The best method is to start by looking for 'low-hanging fruit,' solutions that are financially smart, have a flexible platform, and are in the right direction.
"We don't live our lives to avoid cancer, nor do we live our lives to avoid un-sustainability."
- KHR was originally a medical doctor performing cell and cancer research. For this reason, many analogies and examples of his tend to revolve around cancer or the medical field. This example tries to illustrate how we don't consciously avoid cancer at every second of the day. Sure there are things that we do such as putting on sunscreen and not smoking that help avoid cancer, but most of the time we don't make a conscious effort to avoid cancer. In the same way, many of us don't live our daily lives in a way to be sustainable. Yet there are certain things that we just do such as recycling because it has become a regular habit. The reason we do these unconscious things is because we have developed a framework to understand them - what is needed is to further this framework to better understand the details. This is why there are thousands of cancer researchers throughout the world, now we need an equal amount of sustainability researchers.
"Sustainability is neither top-down or bottom-up."
- Sustainability does not work by educating the politicians and government to make smarter decisions. Neither does it work by educating the general public and expecting them to change the direction of the entire whole. Rather, these must both happen simultaneously. The first step to starting up TNS in Sweden involved something known as the 'Big Mailing.' This involved KHR mailing out a consensus document written by leading scientists on the issues agreed upon relating to sustainability to all households in Sweden. In doing so, KHR put himself in the position to start influencing the upper administration to get things done with the entire public as a witness.
There were plenty of other interesting topics brought up but I won't bore you with all of them right now :) I'm really excited to see how this framework applies to projects and issues I've been involved with in the past. In particular, I am excited to explore how to funnel 'sustainability' into our current culture.
We (at least in the US) are fast-paced and constantly desire to be entertained. This makes it difficult to explain frameworks such as FSSD and other methods to the general public, in less they go out of their way to better understand it. It isn't feasible to get the message across in a short 2 minute overview on CNN. I'm hoping this can tie into my interest in better understanding how organizations such as Disney can impact the public. Walt Disney has a quote "It is not higher education that interests me so much as general mass education." -WD
Disney was one of the first to distinguish that either education can be entertaining or entertainment can be educational (tied to edutainment). How does a structure such as Disney influence 'un-sustainability' - that's what I hope to further explore this year, we'll see where it leads.
Our program is entitled Master's of Strategic Leadership towards Sustainability (MSLS). Karl-Hendrik Robert (the founder of the Natural Step) has been lecturing to us for the past few days. He started by introducing his framework for analyzing and implementing sustainability into our companies, governments, and cities. The following day, he then went on to discuss the physics and chemistry underpinning his framework.
But before I get into what was discussed in the lectures, let me give you a very brief overview of the Natural Step (TNS). TNS was started up 20 years ago in Sweden in an effort to bring scientists together in consensus on sustainability. From this point, we would then be able to develop a common language in which to effectively discuss the 'un-sustainability' around us. From that vision, a network of multiple Natural Step's have popped up all over the world in numerous countries to help guide and facilitate companies, governments, and municipalities towards sustainability. This framework, referred to as FSSD (framework for strategic sustainable development) is based upon understanding the systems holding everything together. A common frustration is that we as a people like to specialize in 'things.' And although this is needed in our society, it creates problems because we rarely take the time to look up and see what others are doing in other specialties and fields around us. Such a mindset makes it very difficult to approach sustainability and it is the FFSD that attempts to bridge this gap.
Now back to some of the details from the lecture.
Karl-Hendrik introduced three questions that are key in evaluating 'un-sustainability.'
1) Do you have a definition of sustainability?
2) Referring to that definition, what is your gap?
3) What are you doing to bridge that gap?
The first of these questions is probably the most important. With sustainability being such a hot-topic nowadays, it seems silly that we very rarely actually talk about what sustainability means. Sure we talk about things such as water scarcity, soil degradation, and climate change, but we rarely define sustainability. Without a common definition of the term, it is hard to approach the larger picture, and we end up specializing too soon on the sub-problems rather than the larger picture. After a definition is agreed upon, we can then begin to analyze a our given situation and find ways of striving towards sustainability.
Once answering these questions, we can then move on to look at various strategies for achieving success. Here is the path which KHR suggested:
Step 1 involves understanding the system. This is where understanding basic chemistry and physics is important. This step involves understanding the rules of the game.
Step 2 then defines what success looks like for this specific example. If you don't understand the system well enough (and have a common language to communicate back and forth between one another) then it is impossible to determine what you want (success). This is one of the most commonly lacking aspects of sustainability in the real world.
Step 3 then determines a strategy. It is most often unrealistic to immediately transition to full-sustainability. Just as in chess, it is rare (if not impossible) to win in 1 or 2 steps. However, each move you make (even if it sacrifices one of your own pieces) ideally moves you towards winning. This is the same for making sustainable decisions. Although the intial move may not be fully sustainable, it may facilitiate and allow your next step to achieve success.
Step 4 then identifies those specific actions needed to be taken.
And step 5 includes the tools to get there.
So that is the basic overview of the framework, and then there are numerous steps within this bigger framework which we will be discussing in further detail throughout the year. Some of these we covered in the first lectures but I don't have the time or space to write all of that out at this moment.
However from the lectures, there were some interesting other thoughts that were raised. Here are just a few of them.
"We're looking for knowledge, but we're drowning in detail."- This refers back to the specializing issue developed in our society. We are so accustomed to knowing more and more but we tend to always look to the detail rather than the system. KHR describes it like a tree - where the trunk and branches are the unifying system and the leaves represent the details. Sometimes we focus so much on our leaf that we forget to look at the leaves around us and more importantly, the branch connecting us to the bigger picture.
"We do not want to become poor now to become rich later."
- Many individuals view sustainability as a poor economical decision. The reality is however that if companies end up making fully sustainable solutions in their company too aggressively, then they will soon drive themselves to bankruptcy and no longer be able to impact those around them. So in fact, it is not in the interest of the company or 'sustainability' to try and push sustainability too fast. The best method is to start by looking for 'low-hanging fruit,' solutions that are financially smart, have a flexible platform, and are in the right direction.
"We don't live our lives to avoid cancer, nor do we live our lives to avoid un-sustainability."
- KHR was originally a medical doctor performing cell and cancer research. For this reason, many analogies and examples of his tend to revolve around cancer or the medical field. This example tries to illustrate how we don't consciously avoid cancer at every second of the day. Sure there are things that we do such as putting on sunscreen and not smoking that help avoid cancer, but most of the time we don't make a conscious effort to avoid cancer. In the same way, many of us don't live our daily lives in a way to be sustainable. Yet there are certain things that we just do such as recycling because it has become a regular habit. The reason we do these unconscious things is because we have developed a framework to understand them - what is needed is to further this framework to better understand the details. This is why there are thousands of cancer researchers throughout the world, now we need an equal amount of sustainability researchers.
"Sustainability is neither top-down or bottom-up."
- Sustainability does not work by educating the politicians and government to make smarter decisions. Neither does it work by educating the general public and expecting them to change the direction of the entire whole. Rather, these must both happen simultaneously. The first step to starting up TNS in Sweden involved something known as the 'Big Mailing.' This involved KHR mailing out a consensus document written by leading scientists on the issues agreed upon relating to sustainability to all households in Sweden. In doing so, KHR put himself in the position to start influencing the upper administration to get things done with the entire public as a witness.
There were plenty of other interesting topics brought up but I won't bore you with all of them right now :) I'm really excited to see how this framework applies to projects and issues I've been involved with in the past. In particular, I am excited to explore how to funnel 'sustainability' into our current culture.
We (at least in the US) are fast-paced and constantly desire to be entertained. This makes it difficult to explain frameworks such as FSSD and other methods to the general public, in less they go out of their way to better understand it. It isn't feasible to get the message across in a short 2 minute overview on CNN. I'm hoping this can tie into my interest in better understanding how organizations such as Disney can impact the public. Walt Disney has a quote "It is not higher education that interests me so much as general mass education." -WD
Disney was one of the first to distinguish that either education can be entertaining or entertainment can be educational (tied to edutainment). How does a structure such as Disney influence 'un-sustainability' - that's what I hope to further explore this year, we'll see where it leads.
Check out my other blog Swedish Stories to read a few updates from my first week in Sweden. Things have been quite exciting and a lot has happened so far.
With surprisingly no complications or delays, Matt and I made it into Sweden with very few problems. Minus the fact that one of my wheels starting falling off on my massive suitcase and that we tend to just point at food items we want to buy when we get hungry - we're doing half decent. Our question of whether or not we need to learn Swedish was quickly answered after checking out the town of Karlskrona and finding that all of the signs are written in Swedish. I think our hostel is on Dropatinginthebucket road or something like that, so we may need to touch up on our Swedish over the next few weeks. For now we'll have to resort to hand signals and trying to communicate with numbers.
Now that we have got our stuff settled into the hostel, we're strolling around the town for a bit to get our bearings and then will hopefully try and get a good night's sleep after all the flying. We managed to feed ourselves, so that was a success. Tomorrow will be the real test though when we have to try and find a place to shelter us, soon we'll have all of our basic needs covered!
Well that's all of the major updates for now, we really have only been here for 2 hours so we can't have too many crazy stories yet - give us time though. We'll hopefully check in soon with updates on the housing search. Hope everything is well back in PA!
Spud
Now that we have got our stuff settled into the hostel, we're strolling around the town for a bit to get our bearings and then will hopefully try and get a good night's sleep after all the flying. We managed to feed ourselves, so that was a success. Tomorrow will be the real test though when we have to try and find a place to shelter us, soon we'll have all of our basic needs covered!
Well that's all of the major updates for now, we really have only been here for 2 hours so we can't have too many crazy stories yet - give us time though. We'll hopefully check in soon with updates on the housing search. Hope everything is well back in PA!
Spud
Tomorrow's the big day - I'll be heading to Newark and flying off to Copenhagen where I will be picking up a train which takes me to Karlskrona, Sweden! Once I arrive, the adventure to find housing begins. Fortunately, because I'm one of the later people to arrive, everyone else has done most of the work and put together some quite helpful documents to assist in the whole process. So hopefully it won't be too bad - if not, living in hostels is always a blast!
I've still got quite a lot of packing to do (if not most of it) and have to move out of State College today. Otherwise things are pretty much ready to go! I'm not sure when the next time will be that I have internet, but as soon as I get the chance to update all of you fine folk, I will make sure to do so.
If any of you are on Skype or gmail, I'm sure I'll be able to video chat with you while abroad. Until the next post - farval!! (swedish for farewell)
I've still got quite a lot of packing to do (if not most of it) and have to move out of State College today. Otherwise things are pretty much ready to go! I'm not sure when the next time will be that I have internet, but as soon as I get the chance to update all of you fine folk, I will make sure to do so.
If any of you are on Skype or gmail, I'm sure I'll be able to video chat with you while abroad. Until the next post - farval!! (swedish for farewell)
Lyrics to think about from Playing for Change:
~ Biko ~
You can blow out a candle, but you can’t blow out a fire
Once the flame begins to catch, the wind will blow it higher
~ Biko ~
You can blow out a candle, but you can’t blow out a fire
Once the flame begins to catch, the wind will blow it higher
The more I've been looking into the culture of Sweden, the more I have gotten excited about the chance to live there for an entire year. One of the draws of studying abroad is that it will let me step into the midst of a new culture and for the first time, have the chance to try and call it my own. Traveling up until now has consisted mostly of 'visiting' other countries, with very little time simply 'being' the country. Sure, it has opened my eyes to other places and ways of viewing issues, but it always ends up by me saying "Aboriginal people feel this..." or "Jordanians would act like this..." or "Jamaicans do things this way..." It will be exciting to respond differently a year from now and be able to finally say, "In Sweden, we thought like this..."
So I've been slowly stumbling through some of the unique features of Swedish culture that I will soon be apart of, and I'm finding that Sweden is definitely a step ahead of us here in the US. Below are just a few of the rankings they have received in the past few years:
One of the more important things to note about Sweden is their carbon tax. Since 1991, Sweden has implemented a carbon tax on much of their society (although certain industries do receive relief or exemption). In doing so, the government has made it more expensive to choose carbon-based solutions over green solutions. Over the years, the tax has slowly increased, transitioning their economy away from fossil-fuel dependency (currently all energy is provided by nuclear and hydro, which isn't perfect but definitely in the right direction). What is really interesting to note however is the impact this tax has had on the Swedish economy. Many critics of a carbon tax claim that such a tax would hinder economic growth and that there is no need to tax a commodity which is already increasing in price (such as gasoline prices).
Sweden poses an interesting answer to the first complaint held by critics. From 1990 to 2006, Sweden cut its carbon emissions by 9% while enjoying economic growth of 44%, showing that it is not valid to make the general statement that a carbon tax will decrease economic growth. In fact, the carbon tax has placed Swedish industries in a unique leadership role and developed a niche global market.
We can also look at the claim that energy costs are rising and a carbon tax is just an unnecessary increase to the price. In fact, as the graph below shows, when adjusted for inflation, the average price of electricity sold by the US electric power industry has not increased gradually over the past few decades. Back in the 1970s there was an increase in energy prices - which started the first movement towards solar panels and similar sustainable technologies. But we can see by 1980, the energy prices were already dropping. Although it appears that energy prices seem to be on the rise once again, we can not rely solely on the price to increase over the next few years, as many critics claim may happen.
Average Retail Price of Electricity Sold by U.S. Electric Power
Industry, 1960-2003 (Chained 2000 Dollars, from EIA)
A valid concern, however, with the specifics of a carbon-tax would be who the tax actually affects. It is one thing to tax the industries and companies directly tied to the fuel sources, but if the tax doesn't affect the consumer to some degree, they will have no monetary incentive to change their current behavior.
In order to meet the goals put forth at the G8 and eventually at COP15, aggressive initiatives need to be put in place to ensure that we make a quick transition to a less carbon-dependent planet. The specifics of such initiatives and whether a carbon-tax would be appropriate for different countries will be left for the experts to decide. But it is encouraging to see that such a plan worked for Sweden and can be used as a case study for other countries.
Further information and sources:
So I've been slowly stumbling through some of the unique features of Swedish culture that I will soon be apart of, and I'm finding that Sweden is definitely a step ahead of us here in the US. Below are just a few of the rankings they have received in the past few years:
- Climate Change Performance Index (2006 & 2007) - 1st
- The Global Gender Gap Report (2007) - 1st
- Corruption Perception Index (2008) - 1st
- Index of Democracy (2007) - 1st
- Environmental Performance Index (2008) - 3rd
- Human Development Index (2007) - 6th
- Global Peace Index (2009) - 6th
- Life Expectancy (2008) - 10th
One of the more important things to note about Sweden is their carbon tax. Since 1991, Sweden has implemented a carbon tax on much of their society (although certain industries do receive relief or exemption). In doing so, the government has made it more expensive to choose carbon-based solutions over green solutions. Over the years, the tax has slowly increased, transitioning their economy away from fossil-fuel dependency (currently all energy is provided by nuclear and hydro, which isn't perfect but definitely in the right direction). What is really interesting to note however is the impact this tax has had on the Swedish economy. Many critics of a carbon tax claim that such a tax would hinder economic growth and that there is no need to tax a commodity which is already increasing in price (such as gasoline prices).
Sweden poses an interesting answer to the first complaint held by critics. From 1990 to 2006, Sweden cut its carbon emissions by 9% while enjoying economic growth of 44%, showing that it is not valid to make the general statement that a carbon tax will decrease economic growth. In fact, the carbon tax has placed Swedish industries in a unique leadership role and developed a niche global market.
We can also look at the claim that energy costs are rising and a carbon tax is just an unnecessary increase to the price. In fact, as the graph below shows, when adjusted for inflation, the average price of electricity sold by the US electric power industry has not increased gradually over the past few decades. Back in the 1970s there was an increase in energy prices - which started the first movement towards solar panels and similar sustainable technologies. But we can see by 1980, the energy prices were already dropping. Although it appears that energy prices seem to be on the rise once again, we can not rely solely on the price to increase over the next few years, as many critics claim may happen.
Average Retail Price of Electricity Sold by U.S. Electric Power Industry, 1960-2003 (Chained 2000 Dollars, from EIA)
A valid concern, however, with the specifics of a carbon-tax would be who the tax actually affects. It is one thing to tax the industries and companies directly tied to the fuel sources, but if the tax doesn't affect the consumer to some degree, they will have no monetary incentive to change their current behavior.
In order to meet the goals put forth at the G8 and eventually at COP15, aggressive initiatives need to be put in place to ensure that we make a quick transition to a less carbon-dependent planet. The specifics of such initiatives and whether a carbon-tax would be appropriate for different countries will be left for the experts to decide. But it is encouraging to see that such a plan worked for Sweden and can be used as a case study for other countries.
Further information and sources:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
