New Media

As a bit of a follow-up to the article about climate change skeptics I published a few days ago on this blog. As far as I’m concerned, the weird vitriol that resulted in the comments section pretty much proves the point that climate change skeptics are thick-headed reactionaries.

One of the most far-out conspiracy theories mentioned by my critics was that the green revolution was somehow the result of a Soviet plot to undermine the West through carbon taxes or cap and trade programs.

The funny thing is that the very evening I posted that article, I attended a business networking event in downtown Vancouver with representatives from clean tech companies.

The people I met there were the very definition of entrepreneurial — not one Russian accented apparatchik in sight. Though the green technology that they offered was cutting edge, many of them were already profitable or in the process of winning contracts worth millions of dollars (and if some of these technologies start getting exported, as is the plan, we’ll be looking at billions). These firms employ skilled professionals and executives who are earning big bucks and doing award-winning work.

This business reality is diametrically at odds with the view of climate change skeptics.

They still look at the green movement as something that is going to be a net drain on our economy. It’s weird, because most of them are rational enough to recognize the value of what these companies are offering.

Some would certainly see the theoretical appeal of an electric vehicle with excellent range that you never have to fill up. They would see that a company with technology that can lower energy use and utility costs by 15 to 20 per cent is good, too. Hell, they can see the value of a longer-lasting lightbulb.

The skeptics see these, but they cannot see the big picture. Our country has hemorrhaged good-paying manufacturing jobs. China, India and other rapid-growth countries are increasingly eating our lunch. Now, here we are at the start of a technological revolution that can help us start actually building industries again and selling stuff besides oil, lumber and copper.

And what do the skeptics say? “Thanks, but no thanks. We’ll stick to the way we’re already doing things. Things are going just swimmingly.”

Some theorize that climate change skeptics could be persuaded about the need to make significant changes to the way we work and live, if only they would listen to the vast preponderance of scientific studies on the issue. I don’t think so.

I think the main problem is that the skeptics are not, by and large, entrepreneurial. They know little to nothing of running a business. And they wouldn’t see an opportunity if it was delivered to them on the back of a polar bear.

A coffee spill at a BP executive meeting. Hilarity ensues.

Funny, I didn’t even know I was in the running. Looks like I’ve been recognized with an Honorable Mention by the National Magazine Awards for my articles in Granville Magazine’s EcoDensity Special. Congratulations to my fellow honorees!

If you’re curious about what I wrote that deserved this honor, here are the articles that were recognized for extraordinary awesomeness:

• Vancouver: The Greenest City in the West
• Happy city, happy planet
• Vancouver in 2050

It’s safe to assume that the vast majority of people, who are not closely involved with the offshore oil drilling industry, sort of thought that these multi-billion dollar companies had the expertise and resources to plug a leak if something went wrong with their pipeline.

Boy, were we ever wrong.

Nice business model: “We’re going to get this product out of the ground and sell it for many billions of dollars every day. But if there is a catastrophic failure, well… we’ll improvise a solution if that happens. We’re not in the business of crossing our bridges until we come to them, you know? Why set aside significant resources for safety features that will cost huge dollars when our legal liability will be limited to a small fraction of the damage?”

What will Vancouver look like in 2050? Will we serve as a model of sustainability to be emulated around the world? It’s going to take more than just good ideas and innovations in technology; as I report in my latest Granville article, Vancouver in 2050, it may require a redefinition of citizenship in this country.

“Our competitiveness and prosperity are at stake,” said Holland. “This dynamic will have us change the story.”

This is going to take discipline and rewriting of public interests assumptions, he said, suggesting that the capitalist model of our society will not be able to deliver long-term solutions to issues like food supply, transportation, energy and livability.

“We are going to have to redefine citizenship” with a changed focus on obligations and responsibilities, he said.

If cities have to become more sustainable to cope with population growth, we need to be looking at solutions that solve four or five different problems, Johnston says.

Looking at how the city of Chicago has led innovation in this area, he pointed to things like using photovoltaic sidewalks and green roofs that can eat smog, reducing need for lighting, minimizing heat sinks that cause health problems and provide spaces for urban agriculture to improve access to local food supplies.

“We’re not looking for a silver bullet. We need silver buckshot.”

Commentary on the City in 2050: Creating Blueprints for Change