Recycling the Debate of Sustainability - Boeing's Dreamliner 787 Aircraft

May 20, 2012 - PRLog -- What is sustainability? Is it a personal commitment to save the planet or just another opportunity to charge higher prices?  No one really knows.  When you think of the need for sustainability you might envision countries at war over water rights or abandoned vehicles along highways due to gas shortages.  These ominous images are not fantasy but possible realities, unless we, as a planet, can figure out how to curtail the depletion of our natural resources. Who should be in charge of such an undertaking and what can they doing, if anything, to help reverse the inevitable?

Sustainability is a very complex subject.  It is a byproduct of a long chain of technological advancements that over time have created the problem we face today, namely, the production of cheaper products.  As the global population balloons so too does the demand for our limited resources needed to produce these products.  It is only a matter of time before key resources such as iron ore, petroleum, or phosphates (used for fertilizers) are 100% depleted.  Higher prices help fuel additional exploration into harder-to-find deposits, but sooner than later, those new discoveries will get consumed as well.  Perhaps, what is needed is a comprehensive international sustainability plan that buys time to develop substitutes or alternative solutions.  In my quest to gain a deeper perspective, I recently attended three sustainability conferences.  What I discovered may surprise you.

Conference #1 – Sustainability
My first conference was at MIT’s 4th Annual Sustainability Summit (www.stabilitysummit.mit.edu).  Experts, thought-leaders, and entrepreneurs traveled from as far away as South Africa to compare and exchange ideas. Their animated presence gave credence to the dire urgency for a global mandate among our leaders.   The wide range of ideas and opinions that emerged from the Summit sounded hopeful, but also left one wondering, if a solution to such a large problem was even plausible.  I left with a list of nagging questions such as, who should be responsible for implementing sustainability programs, what steps would be taken to monitor progress, and how realistically ‘sustainable’ would these ideas stand on their own for years to come.  I felt as though our society had reached a turning point between progress and preservation, the same way a sailboat feels while turning into the wind to change its course.

Ironically, the same technological innovations (some of which originated at MIT) that helped make our natural resources readily available to the masses is being called upon to prevent its potential demise.  For now, at least, experts are focusing on remedies to slow depletion rates through improved management, communications, and efficiencies, but these changes only postpone the inevitable and do not provide a ‘sustainable’ solution.  At the MIT Summit we heard two presentations that I felt stood out.  One was from Starbucks and the other from the City of Boston.  As they both shared their experiences and best practices, I noticed an interesting pattern that I will later use to compare with my two other conferences.

Starbucks
Jim Hanna, the Director of Environmental Impact, leads the sustainability charge for Starbucks.  Starbucks began by evaluating the carbon footprint of every activity along their supply chain and focused on those areas that offered the greatest positive impact to the environment.  In one case they discovered that the nitrous oxide used to make their whip cream was 300 times more damaging to the environment than it’s equivalent volume in carbon dioxide.

Along with other like-minded corporations, Starbucks subscribed to a green certification process for their 5 roasting operations and, in addition, re-engineered their stores to use 25% less energy and water. They also empowered members of their supply chain to reduce their respective carbon foot print (i.e. paper mills) and supported their revered coffee farmers with fixed pricing, stable contracts, and business know-how.

City of Boston
Jim Hunt, the Chief of Environmental and Energy Services for the City of Boston took a similar infrastructure approach to Starbucks.  His research unveiled that ‘buildings’ and ‘utilities’ together offered a 65% improvement impact, vastly greater than other types of improvements including ‘consumer behavior’, which came in at a surprising 7%.  In conjunction with a third-party advocacy group known as LEEDS, Mr. Hunt’s team focused on new construction and retrofitting of buildings throughout Boston with a goal of becoming a carbon neutral city by 2030.  The improved office buildings would attract like-minded tenants who in turn would offer better jobs. One such building called the ‘Atlantic Wharf’ is rated with distinction as a ‘LEED Gold’ building.  It uses 42% less energy, has a 43% reduction in GHG emissions, and recycles 90% of the rain water for its cooling towers.  This clean energy initiative has rendered more than just savings for the City of Boston.  It has also accounted for over 64,000 clean-energy jobs from R&D to installation.

What struck me most from these two presentations was how both entities focused their resources on infrastructure improvements rather than on consumer or voter awareness.  Their consumers or voters were almost an afterthought and probably not worth the investment.  Perhaps they both felt that consumers/voters would eventually change their behavior or awareness on their own as they adapted to new and improved surroundings at the workplace, especially at companies renting the LEED’s-approved, ‘green‘ office spaces.

...please http://researchpays.wordpress.com/ to view the rest of this press release