"A child of five would understand this......someone fetch me a child of five" Groucho Marx The official definition of sustainability is “meeting the needs of our generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” An inspiring definition, but how does it help us make decisions? When I look at a project, I look at its economic, environmental and social impacts. This leads to a very simple decision making system: Great ideas: If a project is economically, socially and environmentally friendly all at once I call it a "Triple Positive Idea." If all ideas were like this I'd be sending lots of Christmas Cards instead of kayaking into the Bass Strait Click here to read more about the Triple Positive philosophy
Profitable, and also good for the environment & society
=
Great idea
Good for the environment, but unprofitable
=
nice idea, but can we afford it?
Profitable, but bad for the environment
=
poor idea, needing careful consideration
Unprofitable, and destroys the environment
=
Lousy idea
Click here for examples of great Triple Positive ideas.
Poor Ideas, needing careful consideration
Unfortunately, many projects, while profitable, are socially/environmentally destructive. It is these projects that cause us the most angst, because they create a conflict between two desirable goals: economic growth, and environmental/social enhancement.
What usually happens then is that the radical greenies and the crazy capitalists start fighting each other over which one is more important.
Those of us in the middle are left in the uneasy position of trying to balance the two competing demands.
For this reason these projects are considered “poor ideas, needing careful consideration”
Lousy Ideas
Finally, there are some projects which are just dumb ideas. They are environmentally or socailly destructuve, and though look like they’re going to be profitable when they start off, as time goes on they become less and less acceptable, more and more expensive to run, and soon become unprofitable.
They aren’t just poor ideas, they’re lousy ideas.
A startling number of pulp mills around the world have fallen into this category
Click here for examples where leaders chose lousy ideas instead of good ones.
What sort of idea is the proposed pulp mill? At best it’s a poor idea, needing careful consideration. At worst?
Draw your own conclusions
***Japanese***
"A child of five would understand this......someone fetch me a child of five"
GrouchoMarx
Sustainabilityの公式な定義は『未来の世代への可能性を妥協すること無しに、現世代のニーズを叶えていくこと』、でもそれをどうやって有効に使っていく？僕がプロジェクトを見る時、その経済、環境、そして社会的な効果を考える。簡単に、どういうことかを説明しよう。
|
儲かる上、環境にも社会的にも良い |
= | Great idea, 未来はここにある。 |
| 環境には良いが、儲からない | = | nice idea, でもそんな余裕が？ |
| 儲かるが、環境に悪い | = | poor idea, 考える必要あり。 |
| 儲からない上、環境にも悪い | = | Lousy idea，もはや有り得ない！ |
Great Ideas:プロジェクトが経済にも環境にも社会にも良いものだったら、それは"Triple positive idea"である。もし全ての企画がこうだったら、僕はバス海峡をカヤックで渡る代わりに、年中クリスマスカードでも送る。ココにもっと詳しい"Triple positive philosophy"。
Poor Ideas:残念なことに、儲かるが、環境・社会を破壊するこのアイディアが一番多い。しかしこれは経済成長と、環境・社会を守る意識との間に深い溝と論争を引き起こす、最も苦悩の道と言えるだろう。大体ここで起こるのは、環境学者と資本家による「どちらがより大切か？金か？自然か?」と言った論争だ。そのどちらでもない僕たちは、張り合っているこの2つの間で難しいバランスを取らざるを得ない状況に陥るのだ。
Lousy Ideas:さて、最後にここに最低なアイディアについて。それらは環境にも社会にも最悪な上、最初は利益を生むが、時間の経過と共にさらにひどくなり、運営に金が掛かるようになり、最終的には利益はマイナスに転じる。もはやPoor Ideasでさえなく、ただもう有り得ない。世界中にある驚くべき数のパルプ工場がこのパターンに陥っている。ココにその例が。