Donating money is easy; changing a lifestyle is hard.

Some of the people I know are extremely quick to offer money to aid and development groups whose goal is to 'serve the poor and underpriveleged.' This is great and I myself support many of these same groups. I don't think any less attention should be focused on these organizations.

However, it seem hypocritical and a cop-out for so many people to willing give their money to causes such as these (because of powerful marketing, inspiring personal stories, or shear size) but then live the rest of their lives with no regard to how personal life decisions impact the same cause that they were so quick to financially support.

So what am I trying to get at here, maybe it would help if I gave an example that sticks out to me. (Although honestly, I'm still looking up many of these issues to understand what it's all about)

As a society we have gotten really good at separating ourselves from the source of things. The Story of Stuff is an excellent summary of this problem, and shows how we very rarely know, or understand, where things that we use and consume come from. We're not taught to think of the larger system and processes involved. Rather we're taught to focus on the final product. I guess this would be one way to describe consumerism.



Let's consider the plastic water bottle as one example. To start, it is made from plastic, which is made from oil, which has a whole list of side-effects such as climate change, increased gaps between rich and poor, and increasing landfills. Plastic water bottles account for 1.5 million tons of waste each year, and require 50 million gallons of oil per year to produce. Sure it's great when they are recycled (although only 20% of all bottles are actually recycled), but is there even a need for the bottle in the first place? Additionally, it takes 'three times as much water to produce the bottle as it does to fill it.' Something just doesn't seem right...

Well let me back down a little bit, I don't want to start pointing my finger too quickly. It's easy to pick out flaws in others behavior (or in this case, partially my own), but I realize there are probably just as many problems that I need to overcome in my own life. None of us are perfect and when we loose humbleness, we loose our ability to empower others.

But back to the water bottles. Coming to Sweden, I made it a goal of mine to carry my aluminum water bottle with me everywhere so I wouldn't need to buy bottled water. So far, so good, and it's been at my side pretty much wherever I go (as evident by the numerous dents and scratches it has picked up over the last 4 weeks).

So the other day I started looking into the larger system and processes behind the water bottle industry that are so often disguised (or we're just too lazy to go look up ourselves). I came across a documentary called 'FLOW' which investigates water scarcity throughout the world and how multinational companies play a huge role in buying up poorer communities water resources to make a profit for themselves.

It's funny, in the past I often got (and still do get) pulled into the emotional side of developing countries having limited or no access to clean water. How can such a large proportion of society (we're talking about global society here, not western society) not have their basic right for water met when the rest of the world can easily go turn on a tap whenever we want? Something didn't seem fair, and who was doing anything about it?

So I often found myself supporting organizations who were drilling water pumps and developing products that sterilized dirty water.

But I never thought about how the water I drank and used in the western world was connected to those people.

What I started to learn from 'FLOW' was that the water I drink is more often than I realized connected to those same people that I always wanted to help - yet not in a very positive way. On top of the fact that larger water companies treat those communities fairly poorly, the money that I spent on their bottled water could have just as easily gone to directly supporting the organizations building the pumps in the developing world.

One estimate from the UN claims that 30 billion US dollars would be needed to provide clean water for the entire world. In just a single year, 3 times that much is spent on bottled water alone (taken from FLOW film).

So then I started looking into the difference between bottled water and tap water and sure enough, there's no difference. As much as the bottling companies would like us to think otherwise, the fact is that tap water is regulated by the U.S. EPA more stringently than bottled water is from the U.S. FDA.

Additionally, one research group found '38 different harmful chemicals, including painkillers, fetilizer and arsenic' in 10 popular brands of bottled water.

The more I researched the issue, the more surprising facts I found.

If you're at all interested in this issue or simply want to be more aware of global water problems, I would definitely recommend 'FLOW.' Check out the trailer and full-length film below.

FLOW Trailer



FLOW Full-length film


So when I start to think of issues like these and realize how little I actually knew about something that I use so frequently (water of all things, it nearly defines me, ha), I begin to realize how important awareness is. The same can be said for any other issue such as climate change, deforestation, sex trafficking, peace, or education.

The key is for our society to start questioning.

To stop being comfortable with what is, and be bold enough to make what should be.

New research published in Nature outlines 10 life-sustaining bio-physical systems for society and shows how they have either crossed a crucial threshold or are near to crossing that limit.

Well, just got back last night from the premiere of The Age of Stupid and I have mixed feelings from the film. The movie accurately portrayed what it may be like 50 years down the road if nothing is done to slow down global warming, however, the film concluded on a fairly hopeless ending. I have no trouble with a film like that if the purpose is to dramatically show the negative effects to those who are interested in climate change but are somewhat on the fence about acting about the issue. For example, it made the point that protests and people pressure are extremely effective (and urgently needed when considering the closeness of Copenhagen) at urging political leaders to make necessary decisions. So I'm sure that group of people will leave the movie feeling assured once again about the importance and urgency needed to act on climate change.

However, for those still new to climate change and unsure about the next steps they can take, the movie was too much of a doomsday downer, with very little motivation to get out and do something. Now granted, there was a follow-up to the movie with interviews from Kofi Annan and others, but I feel like it could have been incorporated into the film itself a little better. Sure this is an extremely important issue that needs an all-hands-on-deck approach, but I believe inspirational leaders are more effective at moving the masses than a primarily negative movie.

The good news however, is that if we look at the whole and this week in general, there is that side of the coin as well. Tuesday in NY, the UN met to discuss climate change and Obama gave his first address to the UN. As with many of Obama's speeches, there are always parts that seem pretty memorable, and one of my favorite lines from this one was:

"But difficulty is no excuse for complacency.  Unease is no excuse for inaction.  And we must not allow the perfect to become the enemy of progress."

I especially like the last line. There are too many people who are expecting the perfect treaty to emerge from Copenhagen, which odds are that won't happen. However, that is not to say that progress will not be made. This is a complex issue, no one is arguing that fact. As a result, we will not end up with a perfect solution, and the process is going to require many iterations before getting it right.

So it will be interesting to read some of the articles that come out about the talks on Tuesday to see what progress was made. Here's just one of them so far describing the confusion regarding the current plateau in global temperatures caused by periodic fluctuations in the sea. Sadly, climate critics are using this as an excuse to downplay the urgency of drafting an international treaty by Copenhagen.

Here's a cool video showcasing Nike's Considered Design project and sustainable product innovation in the shoe industry. They worked alongside the Natural Step Canada to remake this branch of their brand.

Pretty fantastic - a group pranks the New York Post to raise awareness about climate change as we enter into "Climate Week" with a series of meetings and events taking place this week.

Stumbled across some cool stuff PUMA is supporting along with their sustainability reports.

Check out Peace One Day and PUMA Peace (scroll down to see some sweet pics of the soccer matches they've held in support of Peace One Day)

There's been a lot of talk about climate change recently and seems to be the topic-of-choice for the media when it comes to sustainability. The reality however, is that there are numerous other problems that are all interlinked and partially responsible for the current state of the planet and society. Sustainability is such a broad and all-encompasing term that it is beginning to generate some confusion about what it actually means.

Earth System

Regardless of the various definitions thrown around for what sustainability stands for, we can typically draw consensus that it involves systems. At its root, sustainability is about understanding some broader system and how different things interact within it.

Of course the primary system we must consider is the planet earth, but depending on different situations and scenarios, the specific system can be further developed and refined, while keeping in mind that it resides within the larger system of the planet.


The interactions that take place within this large system are extremely important to note. The image above illustrates one view of those interactions. You have the lithosphere on the bottom which is basically the Earth's crust. On top of that layer is the ecosphere, which includes everything from trees, water, and the atmosphere. Within the ecosphere is society, ideally operating within the bounds of the ecosphere.

Each of these three categories interact with the other through various processes. A few of these interactions include:
- Volcanoes (Lithosphere to Ecosphere)
- Mining (Lithosphere to Society)
- Landfill Waste (Society to Ecosphere)
- Nuclear Waste (Society to Lithosphere)

The Sustainability Challenge

So by understanding and recognizing our planet as the key system, what then is the real sustainability challenge?

If you were to try and brainstorm as many issues as you could related to sustainability, you would probably generate a pretty extensive list. A few issues might include climate change, loss of biodiversity, increasing population, loss of good farm land, decreasing fossil fuel reserves, or greater eco-toxicity.

If you then look more closely at that list, you'll notice that nearly every issue is somehow tied to every other in some way or another.

The problem is that too many people view these issues as standard 'everyday' problems that must be periodically overcome, all of the time remaining within some 'safe zone' which society can function and thrive. This is sometimes illustrated by using a cylinder metaphor.


The reality however is that many of these issues will continue to get worse and worse, and in fact, the walls of the cylinder (our supposed 'safe zone') are slowly caving in on us as time goes by. So instead, we have a situation that looks like a funnel.


Depending on the issue, these walls may be caving in more quickly than others. Regardless, by recognizing the funnel, we can see that the longer we wait, the less maneuverability we will have to make a change towards sustainability.

The real sustainability challenge is to recognize the walls and the fact that we are running into them and make systematic moves towards the opening.

How to Plan for Sustainability

So once we recognize this funnel scenario, we need to know how to plan to get to the opening.

As individuals, we sometimes like to plan and solve problems through a process known as backcasting. For example, if you were to move to a new location that you've never been to before (I don't know, let's say Sweden) and needed to find a house you would probably generate a list of neccesary things that must be incorporated with that new house once you arrived. So you might say that it has to be within biking distance of your school, within a certain affordable price range, and big enough to keep all your stuff. You would then envision that perfect solution and once you arrived in Sweden, start looking and making steps towards finding that dream house.

However, when individuals gather in groups, this type of planning typically breaks down and we resort to a planning strategy known as forecasting. Just like with the weather, forecasting involves using your previous knowledge and experience along with past trends to predict what the future might be like. The problem with such a method is that it restricts the future envisioned scenario to past trends and knowledge.
This is of particular importance when planning for sustainability because we need to be able to envision a sustainable society in the future free from today's trends. Then once we have developed that vision of the future (the 'X' in the picture above) we can then backcast to today and develop strategic steps to get us from today to that point.

An example of a potential problem with forecasting related to sustainability may be a case such as energy. Some people may claim that solar or wind energy is the solution for a sustainable society. However, this kind of reasoning is based solely off of our current knowledge and trends. If we were to apply backcasting, we would instead envision energy in the future

Defining Success

So the key then in this whole pictures is that if we want to succeed in a complex system, we need to be able to define what success is. And from there, develop steps to success.

This can typically not be done on the level of detail, and rather, must be built on overarching principles of the system (which for sustainability, means the planet earth). But the problem is that most people who work in the field of sustainability have no idea what the basic principles for sustainability are.

Principles of Sustainability

By having a set of Sustainability Principles that can be used to analyze problems and assist in planning, we are able to create a 'common language' so that everyone working on the problem can properly talk together. A current problem is that experts (who are needed to help solve sustainability issues) get so hung up in their own field that it can be difficult to bring them together and generate consensus. So what are those principles?

There are four basic sustainability principles that have been developed and refined over the past few years by a wide group of scientists through peer-reviewed journals. Of course, as with any science, these are things to be further discussed and refined, but for now, these principles have proven successful and helped numerous businesses, organizations, and municipalities plan towards sustainability.

To generate the principles, scientists came to consensus on four system conditions for a sustainable society. These were built on scientific laws such as Conservation of Mass, the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the fact that Earth is an open system to energy but closed to matter (the sun radiates energy to the planet but matter on the planet cannot leave, only change form).

If those four system conditions were true, then as a society, our main sustainability principles should follow that we do not contribute to those four things which can detract from a sustainable society. Summed up, the sustainability principles state the following:

Our sustainability principles are to eliminate our contribution to systematic...

1. increases in concentrations of substances brought up from the Earth's crust
2. increases in concentrations of substances produced by society
3. physical degradation of nature
4. undermining of people's capacity to meet their needs

In simpler language, we as a society should not be...

1. taking stuff from the Earth's crust at a rate faster than they can return (such as mining or drilling)
2. making stuff faster than it can breakdown in nature (such as plastics)
3. destroying nature (such as deforestation or over-fishing), or
4. making it difficult for others to meet their needs (such as unfair trade or working conditions)

By adhering to these principles, we can start to create a common language to work on sustainability issues. Without such a uniting framework, it becomes too difficult to identify where to start with so many different issues tied to sustainability.

Once we have this basic understanding, we can then start to apply specific planning methodologies such as the 5-Level Framework (discussed in an earlier blog post) or a more specialized approach known as the ABCD Analysis (I'll save to talk about that one for another time).

*For further and expanded information about the stuff previously mentioned, feel free to download the Sustainability Primer from The Natural Step Canada.

Having said that, there are still specific sustainability issues, such as climate change, which are off particular importance in the near future.

Here's a clip from BBC News summing up a few of the concerns and challenges for the Climate Change negotiations to take place in Copenhagen this December. Feel free to jump to around 6:30 for the actual discussions between the guests on the show (or just watch the whole thing - it's tied to 'The Age of Stupid' which premiers next week).

The video gets at a few of the key issues that are hoped to be resolved at Copenhagen. These include:
1) The role that developed countries will play at reducing their emissions.
2) The role that developing countries will play to limit the growth of their emissions.
3) Where will the money come from to help the developing countries.
4) Who will manage that money.

The specific details of the deal may not be reached by December, but if these larger questions can be addressed and answered, then significant progress will have been made in the right direction. The next few days will also launch "Climate Week" as some are calling it, which includes three key meetings in Washington, NY, and Pittsburgh to discuss climate change.