Gareth's Blog

Recent Posts


News & Views from the front line

25 March 2015

Sustainability Across the Generations


Last Friday we held the tenth Corporate Sustainability Mastermind Group meeting at the wonderful Lumley Castle in County Durham. The topic was 'Sustainability Across the Generations" – how do Baby Boomers, Gen X-ers and Millennials respond to the sustainability agenda?

As usual there was no Powerpoint, just facilitated discussion using one of my large templates (which you can see on the table above). We generated a whopping 78 learning points. Here's a selection of those:

General Generational Issues

  • You need to listen to the pulse of the organisation;
  • Generational profile of customers more important for B2C than B2B organisations;
  • There is an age profile up the reporting structure of established organisations; those with authority tend to be older, but we need to attract the next generation in towards the bottom;
  • As people age they tend to become more pragmatic and less idealistic;
  • There is a regional context – eg US millennials are quite different to Chinese millennials.

Baby Boomers

  • This is the generation which first became broadly aware of sustainability, for example via Silent Spring;
  • Anathema to ‘waste’ may be a more powerful hook than, say, climate risks;
  • Some may fear that their skills will become obsolete in a low carbon world;
  • “We’ve always done it this way” is a tough barrier to overcome;
  • Legacy is a powerful driver – especially for senior management – what kind of organisation would you like to leave behind you?
  • Coaching is often better than training for this generation – ‘arm around the shoulder’;
  • “I would like your help with…” is a good opening gambit.

Generation X

  • Grew up with the maturing sustainability agenda, eg the 1992 Earth Summit;
  • The ‘change generation’ – sees upsides and downsides;
  • This generation is now moving into key decision making positions – an opportunity but also a threat as they have plenty on their plate;
  • Probably the generation where engagement can have the biggest impact;
  • Co-inventing solutions secures ‘skin in the game’;
  • Find ways to communicate “What’s In It For Me” – eg build links between sustainability and their KPIs.


  • First consciously green generation – but they often respond to activism more than working through the system;
  • Can be naïve about their own impacts – eg on upgrading technology/fast fashion;
  • Graduates are definitely applying to companies with good reputations;
  • Less loyal to corporations – if they don’t like what they see, they will move on;
  • Have been educated on the basics of sustainability, need to learn how to implement it in practice;
  • Social media can spread untruths as fast or faster than truths – fosters a lack of fact-checking;
  • A good tactic is to challenge millennials – “if you think this is important, set up a team and write a proposal.”

The Corporate Sustainability Mastermind Group is a small group of senior sustainability professionals from major organisations who meet quarterly to explore a burning question in depth. If you want to learn more click here.


Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

23 March 2015

My Sustainability Brain Dump

cover170x170I was interviewed by Anthony Day for his weekly Sustainable Futures Show podcast recently and we had a great old chin wag which covered a whole range of my favourite sustainability topics:

  • How I got started in sustainability;
  • How others can get started;
  • The business case for sustainability;
  • Sustainability leadership;
  • How to do employee engagement properly (Green Jujitsu);
  • Integrating sustainability properly;
  • How the 80:20 rule can help you accelerate sustainability;
  • Measuring progress.

...and a whole lot more. You can hear what I had to say by clicking here.


Tags: , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

20 March 2015

Green SME Interview: Alex Hurst, Phoenix Taxis

Alex Hurst PhoenixAlex Hurst is the CEO of Phoenix Taxis based in Blyth Northumberland which currently has the biggest operational fleet of electric cars in the UK. In this revealing interview he tells the story of the business and some important insights into running a green business in the real world. It includes the first case I've come across of a sustainable decision being made in response to supplier pressure, rather than customer pressure.

What’s the history of Phoenix Taxis?

Phoenix taxis was started in 1990 by my Dad. Since then we’ve operated within the licensing restrictions of what was Blyth Valley in South East Northumberland. From 1990 to 2009, the company steadily grew to 80 cars. Since then, when the restrictions were relaxed, we were able to expand to the rest of Northumberland and since 2010, when I joined the business, we’ve managed to more than double in size to over 200 vehicles.

And when did the shift to low carbon vehicles happen?

The first step was the Nissan LEAF being the first widespread consumer EV available on the market. We kept an eye on it as, before me, my Dad has always used alternative fuels – LPG instead of petrol or diesel because of the cost savings. When the LEAF came onto the market, the subsidies from the Government made it a cost effective option as a taxi. We then had to get it licensed as a taxi.

We had a lot of trouble as it is quite small – many Councils including Northumberland refused, but we got on to Nissan who persuaded them to grant a license – I’m exactly not sure how! We got funding for six charging posts to accelerate the process, but they didn’t work. That held us up for 6-12 months because we couldn’t get more cars – we were limited to the two LEAFs we had bought in 2012 until the infrastructure was sorted.

However it was about this time, with just a couple of EVs and a couple of hybrids, that we realised that there was a customer demand for sustainable transport particularly amongst large corporate clients. We now have 41 hybrids and 32 EVs – that’s the biggest operational fleet of EVs on the road – I don’t know how long that will last when people cotton on to it!

So, the business case evolved from cost saving to customer demand?

Yes, definitely.

And you’ve now got a Lexus Hybrid and a Telsa Model S – did that come from customer demand? Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

18 March 2015

How not to communicate climate change by the Guardian

Alan_Rusbridger_by_Alessio_Jacona_-_International_Journalism_Festival_2014The Guardian is undoubtedly the UK's best newspaper for covering environmental issues, so it was no surprise when outgoing Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger made climate change his swan song. Unfortunately I can't help thinking the results of this well-meaning effort represent everything that's wrong with our attempts to communicate climate change.

My first gripe is format: lengthy essays stretching over several pages of dense print. I have only skimmed these myself – and I'm very interested in this stuff! How is anybody with a passing interest meant to dip in? How does it speak to those disengaged? Where are the graphics for goodness sake?

My second problem is the attitude. The series started with a couple of lengthy extracts from Naomi Klein's new book on climate change. Klein admits herself that she has only come to climate lately, having made her name as an anti-capitalist. And of course, her prescription is that it is capitalism to blame for climate change, and that those of us trying to fix the problem without smashing the system are deluded. In other words, it's all the 1%'s fault and the 99% are helpless. Might as well give up, then.

Problem is, Klein is wrong – state socialism has proved just as able as capitalism when it comes to destroying the planet – check out Russia or China's record. And, with carbon emissions stalling last year, it is clear that we can make a real difference without some (impossible) wholesale restructuring of society. I am one of many, including radicals like Jonathan Porritt, who believe we can actually make capitalism work for the planet – bringing competition, innovation and economies of scale to cutting carbon.

The paper did redeem itself with some punchy, provocative pieces by Mark Lynas and Jonathan Freedland arguing we need to de-politicise climate change and get on with tackling it, and not sit navel gazing, but these were in the main paper and not part of the climate specials.

The Beeb showed how climate change communication can be done with Climate Change by Numbers on BBC4. The programme hit the most complex and controversial topics – uncertainty, modelling, predictions, dealing with data gaps – head-on using some very clear, snazzy graphics and great analogies. For example, they demonstrated how attribution models work by analysing the success factors in Premiership football teams, building a model and showing how, if you take any Club's wage bill out of the model, then the correlation between model and reality fail. Likewise, if you take anthropogenic carbon emissions out of climate models, then the models and reality diverge sharply. OK, it was taking on a different debate to the Guardian, but it was arguably a more difficult one, yet they made it engaging and fascinating.

The time for preaching to the choir is over. Climate change is not just an issue for the left-leaning middle-class intelligentsia. We must reach out across the political spectrum, to all tribes in society, and inspire people to engage and to help make change happen. And that's going to require a rethink on how we try to communicate the message.


Photo by Alessio Jacona and used under the Creative Commons License.


Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

16 March 2015

Proof: We ARE winning the climate wars

churchillGood news never hits the headlines – unless it's a famous person's baby – but on Friday the International Energy Agency announced that in 2014, global carbon emissions had 'stalled' for the first time outside a recession.

Now first off, this is bloody good news, full stop. If you have contributed in any way, no matter how big or small, pat yourself on the back right now.

Secondly, while I realise one swallow does not make a summer, there's a constant flow of green infrastructure investment in the pipeline – we're investing over $200bn a year in renewables as prices plunge – so we should expect to see this stall start to evolve into a downturn.

Thirdly, it's one in the eye for all those miserablist doomsters who said it would never happen – and those trying to subsume climate change into a wider political ideology. Our first priority is to cut carbon, not to smash capitalism or reject consumer society – although both may reform as we move forward.

So, as I said, big pat on the back all round, then it's back into the trenches for the next battle!


Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

13 March 2015

Sir Ian Cheshire on Sustainable Business Leadership

sir ian cheshireI had a fantastically green night out in London on Tuesday. After an impromptu diversion into a St Patrick's, er, Month drinks reception at the Irish Embassy, my good friend Fiona Harvey, eminent Grauniad environment journo, took me to the extraordinarily posh Oxford and Cambridge Club on Pall Mall for dinner and, appropriately enough, an after-dinner talk.

The talk was 'Sustainable Business Leadership' by Sir Ian Cheshire, outgoing CEO of the Kingfisher Group (which owns B&Q). The knighthood was awarded for "services to business, sustainability, and the environment" and what Sir Ian said showed it was richly deserved – here are the quotes I scribbled down:

  • I am attracted to business with a mission and a purpose.
  • Don’t you want to work for a business which makes a difference?
  • Sustainability is the engine for our business.
  • Diversity in teams leads to a huge step forward; don’t pick people like you.
  • You have to recognise which decisions matter and what doesn’t: 4 or 5 big calls will determine 80% of your impact.
  • We live in a hyper-transparent world, you can’t pretend anymore.
  • Do you want to be moderately less evil or net positive? The latter’s much more exciting.
  • You’ve got to give people permission to try stuff.
  • It takes an incredibly long time to explain sustainability to your business – I found it took at least 5 attempts.
  • You’ve got to make your solutions relevant to the DNA of your business.
  • You’ve got to translate sustainability for people. There’s no Russian word for sustainability, but Russians love their forests and their water quality.
  • If you don’t understand the warp and weft of your business, sustainability will not work.
  • Corporates create space for Governments to act.
  • CEO questions can drive innovation.
  • Our drive for FSC kitchens cost us £30m, but the perception of quality in the marketplace went up.
  • Our biggest problem isn’t greenwash but greenhush. We don’t talk enough about what we are doing.
  • Ultimately you need sustainability solutions which scale. Without scalability, we won’t get sustainability.

My advice for anyone trying to deliver sustainability in their organisation is to plunder that list for ideas.


Disclosure: The dinner was a private one, so I have run the quotes past Sir Ian to check he was OK with them going public.

Photo taken from


Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

11 March 2015

Sustainability Must Scale

go green

I was at a rather posh dinner on Pall Mall last night where the speaker was Sir Ian Cheshire, outgoing CEO of Kingfisher and his topic was Sustainable Business Leadership. I'll write up some more of what he said in a future post with quotes, but the point he finished on resonated with me – the need for any sustainability project to scale.

What do we mean by 'scale'?

We mean the project must not be intrinsically hampered by its own nature – it must be able to flourish. Scale brings down prices – we don't talk about 'economies of scale for nothing'.

For example:

  • If you develop an eco-product for a green market niche, then it will always be limited by the size of that niche. To make it scale, you have to make it attractive to the mass market.
  • If you develop an anaerobic digester – if it is very sensitive to the quality of its feedstock then its use will be limited by that sensitivity. If you want to make a real difference, the technology must be applicable to a wide range of situations, including those you haven't thought of.
  • While community recycling projects are admirable, they will never deliver a circular economy on their own – the existing product design and waste industry needs to be transformed.

Scale is often a matter of mindset – we need to stop thinking small (sorry, EF Schumacher) and think big. Only then will sustainability become the new normal.



Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

9 March 2015

The Comfort Zone of Doom

the end is nigh

I'm reading 'Lean In' by Sheryl Sandberg - the Facebook COO's bright and breezy book on dealing with the disadvantages that women find in the workplace. The main criticism of Sandberg has come from the feminist side - basically accusing her of trivialising the issue and not addressing the deeper sociopolitical issues, as they see them. In other words, she is being slated for cheerfully suggesting simple, practical solutions that work (for her at least), rather than playing the angry victim.

The same debate rumbles on in the sustainability movement. Most commentators are much better at articulating the problem, rather than the solution, and there is a tendency to present any issue as intractable rather than solvable. Most recently we've seen Naomi Klein wade into the climate debate, despite the fact she admits she has no solutions, but she's perfectly happy lecturing the rest of us that we don't understand how big the problem is.

The best solutions in the world are simple, yet any simple solution to major problems is seen not as a way forward, but, again, a form of trivialising the problem.

This is ridiculous.

Doomsaying is as much a comfort zone as denial of the problem. Both encourage inaction when we need action.

As Ross Perot put it:

"The activist is not the man who says the river is dirty. The activist is the man who cleans up the river."

Let's ignore the doomsayers and, like Sandberg, get off our backsides and do something!


Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

6 March 2015

Forget Mindfulness, we need mindless Sustainability

world brainI was once solemnly informed "We won't get to Sustainability without Mindfulness."

If you don't know what Mindfulness is, it's apparently "the intentional, accepting and non-judgemental focus of one's attention on the emotions, thoughts and sensations occurring in the present moment." And it's all the rage.

My response to my pious friend was "Why not?"

He struggled to answer that one. Maybe I wasn't being accepting enough.

And the more I think about it, the more I think he's 100% wrong.

We cannot function as human beings if we have to be entirely conscious of everything we do - we'd spend all our time focussing on breathing and walking and sitting so much we'd never do anything else. If we require a conscious focus on every sustainability-related decision every day, it'll never be fully integrated into our routines. You can only focus on one thing at a time.

Much better to take the sustainable option by default, by habit or because it's the path of least resistance. We need to design our world so you don't even have to think about sustainability - it just happens.

Frankly, I think we have to be more mindful of nonsensical pronouncements that aren't properly thought through.


Tags: ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

4 March 2015

Are we ignoring the 'social' in Sustainability?

In this edition of Ask Gareth, I consider whether we tend to ignore the social when we talk about 'Sustainability' and some of the issues surrounding definitions.

You can see all editions of Ask Gareth by clicking here.

I rely on a steady stream of killer questions to keep this series running - if you want to submit one fire away!.


Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

2 March 2015

Obama's Litmus Test is Keystone XL, What's Yours?

iStock_000004249001SmallBarack Obama knows that his commitment to tackling climate change will be critically tested by his decision whether or not to permit the Keystone XL pipeline which would massively increase the flow of oil from the Canadian tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico. There was something of a false alarm last week as it was reported that he had vetoed the pipeline, but he had in fact vetoed a bill in Congress trying to force approval - keeping the decision for himself (source Grist).

These big decisions can take on a symbolic significance way beyond their actual environmental importance (although this is important). Personally, I would like to see the environmental movement adhere to the same faith in scientific evidence with which we berate the climate change denial movement, but it's a fact of life that symbolism matters. This is a litmus test, whether Obama likes it or not.

You may think your decisions are insignificant compared to the POTUS, but they carry the same symbolism within your organisation. It is relatively easy to start doing 'good' stuff, but the litmus test is whether you will stop doing 'bad' stuff.

Great examples include Interface killing off profitable product lines because they involve hazardous flame retardants and B&Q refusing to stock patio heaters because they were against their environmental commitments. In both cases planet was given preference to profit.

So your litmus test is what are you going to STOP doing?


Tags: , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

27 February 2015

Are we afraid of success in sustainability?

As regular readers will attest, my most recent soapbox has been the use of the 80:20 Rule to get sustainability programmes out of the mire of incremental improvements and 'green tape' and onto a straight, fast road to our goals (see video above).

The awkward question is why does the sustainability movement tend towards the comfort zone of incremental improvements, bureaucratic systems and mediocrity? Why favour activity over outcome? Why stultify creativity and innovation?

screamI think it is, to a large degree, down to fear.

Fear of moving out of our comfort zone.

Fear of rocking the boat.

Fear of taking a punt.

Fear of failure.

Fear, possibly, of success.

Fear is a natural emotion, but we need to programme ourselves, Anthony Robbins-style, to fear the status quo rather than being scared of actually fulfilling our goals.


Tags: ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

25 February 2015

Are eco-labels worth the sticky paper they're printed on?

fairtradeInteresting article in the Guardian yesterday about the drop off in FairTrade sales. Some of this decline is due to squeezed consumer wallets, but there were plenty of coffee and chocolate producers who believe that they go way beyond the guaranteed price of FairTrade and that some of the movements' ambitions are misguided:

“When you get to the bottom of it, [the Fairtrade scheme] is kind of neo-imperialistic,” [says chef Olivier Roellinger] “It’s something we impose on them.” He’s thinking particularly of the pressure for producers to form groups, usually co-operatives, in order to join. “Can you imagine what British farmers would say if their American customers came to them and said: well, I’m only going to trade with you guys if you get together and I can buy from all of you at the same time?”

We have seen this kind of complaint about many others or labels - the inclusion of homeopathy for animals in the Soil Association organic standard is another worrying example.

eulabelThe advantage of any eco-label is they present an easy way for consumers and buyers to ensure they are getting minimum standards of performance against (hopefully) objective criteria. The original EU energy label (right) transformed the market, but the EU unfortunately blotted its copybook by adding extra levels (A+, A++ etc) instead of tightening the criteria on the original A-G rankings. This removed the driver for producers to want to avoid slipping down the scale.

The questions for any eco-label to answer are:

  • Who sets the criteria?
  • Are those criteria scientifically/objectively robust?
  • Do those criteria move with the times to keep pressure on the holders?
  • Are those criteria sufficiently ambitious for the label to mean something? I have been told by a representative of a major corporation that they actively lobby to water down any standard in their sector.
  • Are there any potential side effects of the label?
  • Are the criteria flexible enough to allow breakthrough innovation?
  • What level of administration is required to meet the criteria and is this justified?

My advice for producers on eco-labels is to adopt them if you see a clear benefit for your organisation (ie if the customer wants them), but don't feel obliged to do so if they don't work for you.



Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

23 February 2015

The Circular Economy is Circular, Stupid!

journal circular economy
I saw this explanation of the circular economy in the business section of our local rag last week and it made me grind my teeth.

It was trying to distinguish between a linear economy and a circular economy by adding the '3 Rs' to the linear economy. It's not the first time I've seen the circular economy drawn as a straight line – and it's a really stupid way of illustrating the difference for a number of reasons:

1. It still looks like the linear economy at first glance;

2. Figure 2 is actually the way our economy is at the minute – linear + 3Rs – so no-one would notice the difference between that diagram and the status quo;

3. Psychologically, it doesn't get across the most important difference between the two. In a circular economy, pre-used material is more desirable than virgin material.

If you draw the circular economy as a circle - see below -  it changes the whole way we look at materials. In particular we see the loop as producing quality raw materials at a competitive price, not as a form of waste diversion (3Rs). Yes, you could add in other loops and some minor leakage/input, but the core circle is a very powerful metaphor in our minds and we need to emphasise it.

circular circular economy

So let's draw the circular economy as a circle. The clue is in the name.



Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

19 February 2015

The Only Way is Ethics...

timebombLook at the headlines.

Has HSBC been helping very rich people people avoid tax? Did the Conservative Leader know about it before ennobling an HSBC boss? Did the Labour Leader avoid tax himself on his father's estate opening him to accusations of hypocrisy? Is it OK for a national newspaper to avoid reporting on the scandal given HSBC is a major advertiser? Is it OK to pay tradesmen cash in hand? Did the Shadow Chancellor always get a receipt from his window cleaner?  Are the energy companies exploiting vulnerable customers by keeping them on higher tariffs? Is it OK to kick a robot dog?

In none of these cases did anything illegal take place - they are all about ethics.

So why then do leaders of great organisations still see ethics/corporate responsibility as a side-issue? Why do you rarely hear people talking about doing the right thing in a genuine sense, instead doing what is expedient and hoping for the best? Why are people happy to leave a ticking time bomb under their business?

Doing the right thing may involve a bit of pain at first, but compared to the agony of what can happen in the long run.


Tags: ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

17 February 2015

Most leaders don't understand that leadership is critical to sustainability

Opening eyes

An anecdote from another consultant this week really resonated with me. He had a meeting with a C-level executive at a major client about an aspect of sustainability (you'll have guessed by now that I'm being deliberately vague to protect my colleague). The executive got rather hot under the collar because the consultant asked questions pertaining to the level of leadership on this issue. The meeting didn't end well.

This has happened to me many a time - at middle or senior management levels. When I used to do simple waste minimisation visits on behalf of the now defunct Envirowise, there was always the point where I was taken to the operations manager or production manager as the environmental manager, who had typically invited me in, couldn't answer the questions. So I would sit in the former's office, politely working through my questions while the temperature plummeted. Fierce glances would be fired at the environmental manager who would eventually cut the meeting short.

There's a big lesson for sustainability practitioners here - whether internal or external. People don't like to be challenged on their own patch. And the further up the reporting chain you go, the worse it gets.

This is exacerbated by the fact that many senior managers see paying lip service to sustainability as 'leadership'. It's not - leadership on sustainability almost always involves driving step changes in the way the organisation operates, not just finding the right words.

Unless you have built up a really trusting relationship with that individual, if you even imply that the putative 'leader' is not really leading, things can get very heated, very quickly.

My preferred approach is to help the leader work out for themselves what they need to be doing. Easier said than done, but it does work - and without any bruised egos.


Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

13 February 2015

I've seen the future, and it's a taxi...

tesla taxi cropped

"Fancy a go in a Tesla Model S?" they asked.

"When? Where?" it took a real effort not to scream.

Like many in our sector, I worship Tesla as not only the first company to get EVs right, but as true cleantech pioneers, shaking up traditional business models with their open sourcing of patents and sales of batteries for domestic energy storage. But I'd never actually had a go in one.

And when I saw the Model S, I was stunned. It is a very, very handsome car, clearly aimed at the Jag/Lexus market. I couldn't wait to get going.

The only snag was this one is a registered taxi - the only Tesla Taxi in the North of England, no less - so I couldn't drive it on the public highway. So we set off with Bryan Chater (above, right) of Phoenix Taxis driving, me in the passenger seat, attention split between marvelling at the car and scanning the horizon for a piece of non-highway tarmac so I could get my mitts on the steering wheel.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

11 February 2015

How personal should you make sustainability?

In this first edition of Ask Gareth in 2015, I'm asked about whether it is appropriate to engage employees in sustainability by talking about their private lives. I explain why, with one important exception, I think it's a silly, if popular, idea and suggest my alternative.

You can see all editions of Ask Gareth by clicking here.

If you'd like to send a question to Ask Gareth fire away!.


Tags: ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

9 February 2015

Unsustainable Suppliers: Stick or Twist?

downsizing 3One of the more controversial statements I make on sustainability is that you have to be prepared to drop suppliers who are not pulling their weight on sustainability. After all, their carbon footprint is part of your carbon footprint (and your customers') and their reputation is part of your reputation.

However, many companies - including some big names - tell me they would rather work with suppliers to improve their performance than show them the door. I can understand that sentiment, but I think the full implications of that approach have to be understood (see above).

Here's some thoughts on when to nurture suppliers and when to walk away.

  • Clearly, if the supplier shows no intention of improving, or they present a clear and present danger to your reputation, drop them as soon as you can find an alternative.
  • If you want to build a new supply chain (part of the circular economy, part of the hydrogen economy etc) and your current suppliers are sticking to their traditional technologies/business models, then no matter how well they perform otherwise, you've got to thank them and move on.
  • If a new entrant into the market can provide materials/technology which will revolutionise your ecological footprint, then you should challenge your suppliers to match that and, if they can't, move on.
  • If the existing supplier is enthusiastic about sustainability and keen to solve your sustainability problems (rather than you trying to solve theirs) then keep them - and work with them.

This might seem harsh, but we cannot create a sustainable economy while remaining faithful to suppliers who do not deserve that loyalty. We owe it to ourselves and the greater good to be firm but fair.



Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

6 February 2015

Cheer Up! The planet may depend on it...

Happy as a clown in the corporate worldOK, the bad news - 2014 was the warmest year on record and carbon emissions are still rising. There's still a long, long way to go.

But there are signs of hope.

Take renewable energy - which is is booming - Germany hit a record 28% of power from renewable sources in the first half of last year, the UK is at around 20% and the US 13% with all on a strong rising trend. UK Solar installations doubled in 2014 alone. As demand rises, costs are plummeting.

You might say I'm clutching at straws, but I am unashamedly upbeat for two reasons.

  1. Doom and gloom turns other people off. We have to make a sustainable future an attainable desirable, even sexy, goal to bring people along with them.
  2. Doom and gloom slows me down personally. I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't think we could 'win' and I am determined to help as many organisations as I possibly can. That takes a huge amount of energy and I simply couldn't do it if I focussed purely on the negative.

Back in the days when I used to record my own music, I would muse that it's much harder to write a good happy song than a great sad song. But that's our challenge - being miserable is easy, being positive much more difficult. But ultimately the planet may depend on it.

So keep your pecker up!


Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

Free monthly bulletin:

Learn how to help your business go green from the comfort of your desk..

View events

By Gareth Kane

Everything you need to know to integrate sustainability into the DNA of your business.

Submit button

By Gareth Kane

A highly accessible, practical guide to those who want to introduce sustainability into their business or organization quickly and effectively.

Submit button

By Gareth Kane

The smart way to engage effectively with employees

View events