Some Social Technologies colleagues and I recently had the good fortune to attend Al Gore's speech in Washington, where he unveiled a new challenge to the US: be free of carbon-based energy in 10 years. His challenge calls for the US not only to be oil independent but also coal-free, relying only on renewable energy. Gore emphasized solar, wind, and geothermal energy as replacements to carbon-based fuels.

Gore also called for a unified national grid, plug-in electric cars, and a carbon emissions tax. He emphasized the need for the US to be the leader, as well as a major innovator, of renewable energy.

Acknowledging his detractors, Gore said, “Of course, there are those who will tell us that this can’t be done. But even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, ‘The Stone Age didn’t end because of a shortage of stones.’”

Here at Social Technologies, we are interested in seeing the actual plan that will implement these changes, since the speech was vague in that regard. In my opinion, it is a lofty, yet admirable goal. Dear readers, what do you think?

It’s official. My family has become the latest victim of “green noise,” that cacophony of conflicting environmental messages and concerns lobbed at consumers by marketers, environmental groups, and well-intentioned do-gooders. It’s simply become impossible to decide which eco-friendly choice is the best.

Here’s how it goes for me. I walk into a grocery store with a vague idea of what I need to get. I head to the produce section and meet with my first roadblock: which organics should I buy? The ol’ grocery budget forces me to pick and choose. The organic bananas seem like a steal at 89 cents a pound--but I’ve read that the less expensive conventionally grown bananas have only minimal levels of pesticide residues, and if I’m worried about the environment, don’t I need to consider that the bananas have racked up a considerable carbon footprint after being transported from South America? Hmm…peaches? The peaches are almost in season and at least were grown in the continental US. Easy decision ‘til – good Lord! Who can afford organic peaches?!

Click to read more ...

In hopes of getting my garden off to a head start this spring, I recently paid a visit to the lawn and garden center of a local retailer. I immediately noticed a new plant food product manufactured by the company TerraCycle. What drew me to the product in the first place were the containers it was packaged in: repurposed 20oz soda bottles. Since the bottles used were from different brands, there were slight variations in color and shape from product to product, making them stand out in comparison to the homogenous appearance of all the other brands displayed on the shelf.

Hanging from the neck of each bottle was a tag displaying the state the bottle was collected and the first name of the person who collected it, which I thought was an interesting incentive to recycle. The product consisted entirely of organic worm castings, or in laymen’s terms, worm poop, which acts as a natural fertilizer. This plant food seemed to be a textbook example of an environmentally friendly product, so when I returned home I immediately checked TerraCycle’s website to learn more.

The worm castings plant food, TerraCycle’s flagship product, is claimed to be the first product made entirely from waste. The bottles are collected through recycling programs, the spray nozzles are other companies’ leftovers, the worms are fed organic waste, and the final product is shipped in misprinted boxes rejected by other firms. In addition to soda bottles, TerraCycle also collects various discarded yogurt containers, drink pouches, and energy bar wrappers to create products such as bags, pencil holders, eco-binders, and planting pots.

If TerraCycle’s business model is successful we could see more companies utilizing waste as inputs. This suggests a number of business implications:

• Companies could develop new revenue streams by sourcing their trash to others.
• Using waste inputs in the manufacturing process could be an increasingly important component of corporate social responsibility.
• Beyond the personalized name tags used by Terracycle, companies could turn to other methods to personalize recycling and make it more fun. For example, product containers could be labeled with 2G, 3G, etc. to correspond to the number of times they have been reused.

I’d be interested to hear any suggestions our readers have for ways in which companies could use waste to create new products.

Image: lerxst/ boycat (Flickr)

When should global citizenry aim for fully-sustainable, zero-environmental-impact business practices, government policies, and consumer behavior?

Right now, says Alex Steffen at WorldChanging.org.

At the moment, he seems to be a lonely voice. Most of the climate change mitigation forecasts I analyze in my work here at S)T base their models on a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to reach some multiple of pre-industrial levels of atmospheric carbon. The common thinking is that doing anything to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and environmental destruction—even if it’s just a little—is better than doing nothing. With a few exceptions, almost no reports from governments or major policy organizations seriously examine the idea of achieving sustainability on a broad scale.

However, Mr. Steffen makes a compelling point—that only doing “something” may no longer be good enough. If most of the things we do, the way we live, and the things we make are unsustainable, then it’s only reasonable that the aggregate effect of adding more people to the globe every year while only making marginal improvements towards sustainability could simply be that nothing really changes.

And he draws a sobering conclusion about the future: by definition, if something is unsustainable, then it is sure to come to an end. In the long run, that could include us humans.

Image: (c) 2008 JupiterImages Corp. 

The flight from Hyderabad to Dubai lasted only four hours, which, compared to the five hours I spent waiting in the airport for my flight, wasn’t so bad! However, the shift from Hyderabad’s airport—where they offer to encase your bags in saran wrap, “just in case,”—to Dubai, a possible site for an S)T expedition on the future of luxury and leisure, was like jumping from a borderline World 2/3 country into World 1.

First up on the agenda in Dubai was a meeting with an architect from FX Fowle, a major international architectural firm involved in green building efforts in Dubai. They are contracted to design more than 7 million square feet of green buildings, in addition to a major automotive and metro bridge project across Dubai Creek. We had a very interesting discussion on sustainability and the future of Dubai—no small issue, given that to support its citizens, Dubai consumes more resources per capita than any other country in the world, including the US. The city is a monument to indulgence, luxury, and, thus far, utter disregard for ecological footprint or sustainability: for example, Dubai currently consumes a whopping 250 million gallons of water per day (around 97% of which is desalinated sea water) to sustain a city of less than 1.5 million people.

So you can see why I was curious to talk about sustainability with a green architecture firm recently brought in as part of Sheik Mohammed’s evolving future vision for Dubai. The Sheik rules Dubai as the head of its monarchy, and is the second most powerful man in the United Arab Emirates, after the Sheik of Abu Dhabi.

Click to read more ...

Feeling guilty about throwing away all that product packaging every time you buy something?

You’re not alone--a study by International Resources, Inc. (IRI) revealed that 30% of consumers consider product packaging a factor when making a purchase decision. In a recent Reuters article, an IRI executive commented on consumers' focus on sustainability:

"Sustainability has evolved from a niche segment concern to a major factor influencing purchasing and shopping behavior across a sizable consumer base," says IRI Chief Marketing Officer Andrew Salzman. "Our survey indicates that consumers are focused more and more on the social and environmental impact of their [consumer packaged goods] purchases, creating a viable and growing U.S. market for sustainable products and packaging with the potential to mirror well-developed markets in Europe and Japan. U.S. retailers and manufacturers are beginning to respond to that demand."

One answer to this packaging dilemma might be surprisingly simple: make the packaging useful and reusable. For example, check out these products with functional packaging featured on Treehugger.com.

An innovative design by Tom Ballhatchet utilizes the exterior protective packaging of a television to make a sleek, attractive television stand (see the picture above). David Gras actually used the packaging as the product itself in his designs for cardboard furniture. Another approach is found in the Lite2go, a lamp with no packaging, which is currently available in stores.

I’m not sure if I am ready for cardboard furniture, but a new TV with a stand sure would be nice.

_{Image: Tom Ballhatchet}

What will likely be the most important scientific and technological breakthroughs with significant commercial value and impacts on the lives of consumers out to 2025?

To begin to answer that question, S)T's Technology Foresight program conducted a virtual, global focus group of experts in technology, innovation, and business strategy. The group included experts from the Association of Professional Futurists, Tekes, Duke University, Hasbro, Worldwatch, General Motors, Shell, Johnson Controls, and Oxford University, among others.

After consolidating input from the expert panel and analysis by Social Technologies' futurists, what emerged was our list of top 12 areas for tech innovation through 2025:

Click to read more ...

The Mall of America. Image: Social TechnologiesIs our consumer society sustainable?

That's the question posed by Public Radio's ongoing series on sustainability, "Consumed."

A brief scan of some of the headlines on the site -- such as "Greed as a disease" -- suggests that they've decided that the answer to their main question is a resounding "no." Still, most of the stories are focused on potential implications and solutions rather than on doling out blame. Anyone interested in how consumerism and sustainability could increasingly clash in the next few years should explore the site.