GPM | The home of Sustainable Project Management®

Perspectives · Perspectives

Bio-Diversity's freefall can be mitigated through sustainable project management.

Dr. Joel Carboni November 15, 2019
This week, more than 11,000 researchers from around the world issued a report that spoke of the "untold suffering" that will be caused by climate change if humanity doesn't change its ways. (Before anyone poo-poos this, think to yourself, how often do scientists like to agree? #funfact: The don't.) Bio-Diversity as a whole is already in freefall. Over the last 50 years, 20% of the Amazon rainforest has been destroyed. Agriculture is driving vast land conversion and pesticide use to feed a growing population. The US/China Trade war was the root cause of the massive fires in the amazon this year to clear the way for soybean farming. Not to mention the fact that it feels like California being on fire feels like the new normal. At the same time, industry changes to support sustainable energy and environmental practices are being challenged by ultra-nationalistic support for coal and fracking (even though there are better options) and is combating the positive changes and thus, our fragile ecosystem. To answer the question of "What can I do about it?", you first have to understand your role and the power you have and do everything you can affect positive change. Project Management has the power to influence Executive decisions and having the right data behind you is the key. As you read this, you may be saying to yourself "yeah, I know." everyone talks about the sky falling and no one brings solutions.  Here you go! For projects and project management, we at GPM have done the heavy lifting for you and the guidance and tools are free. In our P5 Standard for Sustainability in Project Management, we added an element inversion 2.0 for bio-diversity.

Specifically, for Bio-Diversity: 

The element in the P5 covers the policies, procedures, and practices needed to protect living organisms from all damage by the project's activities or results. Living organisms include flora and fauna in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, as well as the ecosystems themselves.

The project team should:

  • Identify and comply with any relevant laws and regulations.
  • Work to achieve a net positive impact (NPI) on biodiversity by ensuring that any negative consequences from the project will be outweighed by biodiversity gains from conservation projects in the same region.
  • Hold suppliers and their supply chains to the same standards.
This work should be done as part of a P5 Impact Assessment (P5IA) which is outlined in the standard with links to templates that can be used. Once the assessment is completed, KPIs can be developed and put in as quality measures for the project.

Protection of biological diversity helps to achieve the following sustainable project outcomes:

  • Healthy ecosystems that protect food, fiber, medicines, and other potential resources.
  • Future access to land and other natural resources.
  • Improved reputation among regulators and within local communities that are dependent on biodiversity in the areas that the project affects.
  • The continued availability of ecosystem services such as atmospheric regulation, nutrient cycling, and pollination.
This is how project management can mitigate the bio-diversity freefall.  We have to stop the bleeding, push back, and regenerate our eco-systems!

Perspectives · P5

How an organization can avoid SDG-washing. Yes, it is a thing...

Dr. Joel Carboni November 4, 2019
In a recent trip overseas, I was part of a panel discussion where each panelist was to share innovations and thought leadership on environmental stewardship.  As per usual, each one put up a slide about the SDGs, said that their product/solution supported them, and then went on to talk about what their service or product is. Out of curiosity, I asked them afterward how they support the SDGs and the responses were vague.  In short, they were not supporting the SDGs. They wanted to look as if they were. This is what is referred to as "SDG-washing" (similar to greenwashing) and can be best described as when an organization only acknowledges the SDGs or the business makes it a point to say that they are “in support of” or “in line with” the SDGs; but fail to make a meaningful link to how they are specifically contributing to their realization. It happens all the time. To be fair, the SDGs do not have a reliable roadmap for a single organization to follow, and they address symptoms and not the root cause of any one issue.   This is where the private sector needs to take the baton and run.

Here is how to do it:

Step 1. Understand what your business does and which SDGs you believe you can support directly through your work.

  • What products and services do you offer?
  • How are they developed?
  • Who is in your supply chain and what are their practices
  • What are your collective social and environmental impacts?

Step 2. Perform a P5 Impact Analysis on your work to understand what impacts and opportunities exist. (Our P5 and Tools are free)

Note that while P5 is designed for projects, it applies to all forms of work. Download it here

Step 3. Review the targets and goals of the SDG and review them against your impact assessment.

This connects the dots between what you do and how you can align with the SDGs. Your P5 Impact Assessment will provide the risk factors which you can then assess against SDG targets.  Once you have done this, you can establish KPIs as part of a sustainability management plan (SMP). Performing these actions, you will develop measures to take to ensure any potential negative impacts can be mitigated. For example:
  • Identify and comply with any relevant laws and regulations.
  • Work to achieve a net positive impact (NPI) on biodiversity by ensuring that any negative impacts from the project are outweighed by biodiversity gains from conservation projects in the same region.
  • Hold suppliers and their supply chains to the same standards.

Step 4. Develop KPIs based on the outcomes of the analysis and the targets and goals you have reviewed.

Protection of biological diversity helps to achieve the following  outcomes, and as a result of our efforts, we can ensure:
  • Healthy ecosystems that protect food, fiber, medicines, and other potential resources.
  • Future access to land and other natural resources.
  • Improved reputation among regulators and within local communities that are dependent on biodiversity in the areas that the project affects.
  • The continued availability of ecosystem services such as atmospheric regulation, nutrient cycling, and pollination.

Step 5. Communicate your findings and actions with your stakeholders

Let your partners, suppliers, customers know what actions you are taking and how they support the SDGs or publish a sustainability report! It isn’t enough to put all 17 on a powerpoint slide and say "look, these are important" or "Our Company supports the SDGs.”  Share how!  The only way we are going to be able to establish lasting change is by letting others know what breakthroughs are out there and sharing for the greater good!
P5 SDGs

Perspectives · Perspectives

Lessons for Change from Bungee Jumping

Peter Milsom August 28, 2019
I went bungee jumping over twenty years ago in Ottawa at the Great Canadian Bungee Jumping site at Wakefield, Chelsea Quebec. During that memorable experience I was reminded of several important lessons that I believe are valuable for change initiatives.

For context,

"Visualize an amphitheater of solid limestone, 200 ft. high, surrounding a 160 ft. deep aqua-blue, spring-fed lagoon, larger than 3 football fields. This is the only place in the Americas where one can experience a 200 ft. head (or body) dip. Your 160 ft. rebound is higher than the entire jump height at any other site in the US or Canada!" https://bungee.ca/bungee#faqs

 

Change as a Conscious Choice

The following is not a picture of me... I was not that composed nor stylish. The main lesson learned was that it is called bungee "jumping" not bungee "falling" for a reason. Change, like bungee jumping, is a conscious, focused and often dramatic focus, not something you should fall or stumble aimlessly upon.  

The Change Team and Partners

For initiatives that have significant risk (threats and / or opportunities), it is important that you can trust that your change team and its partners are qualified and competent to get the job done. It comes down to the old risk management phrase, do you feel rich (to pay for the delays or threats) or do you feel lucky (that it might actually magically work out)? In this instance, the GCB over the years has been a leader in the industry. You may not require this level of professionalism or leadership for your projects, but when it is something as serious as health and safety or legislative requirements or the sustainability / viability of your organization it certainly should be a serious consideration.
  • The equipment GCB uses meets or exceeds the Canadian Bungee Association (CBA), North American Bungee Association (NABA), British Elastic Rope Sports Association (BERSA), Standards Association of New Zealand (SANZ) and Australian specifications. In addition many of the items also have Union International Alpinism Association (UIAA), ULI and NFPA approvals.
  • GCB uses the latest technology in Bungee Cord design & safety.
  • Since its inception, GCB has been involved in the research and testing of new products, procedures and the development of safety associations and standards.
  • In 1992 GCB helped form the Canadian Bungee Association (CBA) and authored safety guidelines for the organization. These guidelines are now used in several jurisdictions around the world to regulate bungee jumping. The guideline has also been used as a basis for the guidelines of other bungee safety organizations, such as the North American Bungee Association (NABA). GCB, is also a member of the NABA and GCB President sits on its Board of Directors as the Chair of Safety Standards
 

Tailoring Change

Change is also tailored to the organization and the individuals. Do you really need to spend the time, money and deal with the stress? In my case it was good honest peer pressure and I went along with some friends... and I am really glad that I took the challenge. There are always different approaches and ways to manage the project. Business cases help out in choosing the right approach. With bungee jumping you could either jump with an ankle harness attachment or a body harness attachment. I chose the later. You can jump with your eyes open or closed, scream or yell or simply grasp for breath.  Experience and training helps in choosing what to do and not just going through the motions or blindly reacting.  

Conclusion

As with many things in life, I remember being slightly terrified of taking the jump, but I was extremely glad that I did afterwards. That story was similar both for bungee jumping and many of the projects I have managed.

Perspectives · Perspectives

Pollution - Why we replaced horses with automobiles

Peter Milsom May 13, 2019

Henry Ford never said people wanted faster horses, "what they wanted was less horseshit" (Flowers, 2014). It was a little more complicated than that, but you get the general point. The lesson of this post is that too much of anything can be bad, and we need to look at the whole asset life-cycle system taking into account the positive and negative benefits.

For thousands of years horses were the preferred mode of transportation, and during the 19th and 20th centuries, the horse continued to be regarded as one of the most remarkable prime movers on the planet and pretty much ruled 19th century urban life and rural culture (Nikiforuk, 2013). The only other options for the general population were oxen, bicycles or walking. Unfortunately, the growing need for horses caused waste that overtook the local support structures at the time and produced a massive negative impact on society and the environment. As with everything around sustainability, there is a lot of complexity and interconnections.

Benefits of Horses during the 19th and 20th Centuries

First, horses could deal with the dreadful dirt "roads" that existed during this period. Keeping in mind that the U.S. of 1903 had 27,000 miles of muddy dirt tracks roads (Motavalli, 2017).

Second, horses were an extremely cheap and highly effective user of "energy." Horses energy inputs was around five acres of hay and grain per horse, and their outputs (traction) achieved an efficiency of 15 to 20 per cent or more than triple that of a coal-fired machine (Nikiforuk, 2013).

In 1894 it was observed that horses are not only:

“self-feeding, self-controlling, self-maintaining and self-reproducing, but they are far more economical in the energy they are able to develop from a given weight of fuel material, than any other existing form of motor.”

(Nikiforuk, 2013)

Third, the use of horses also provided ancillary jobs like stable owners, feed producers, trainers, veterinarians, road cleaners etc..

Fourth, horses maintained a deep relationship with rural and farmlands, which at the time was critical. Apologies, that still is critical, but at that time there was a true integrated and symbiotic relationship.

Increasing Dependency on Horses during the 19th and early 20th Centuries

In 1840 in North American around four million horses were employed for agricultural work and travel. There were only 18,269,453 inhabitants in North America in 1840 (Statistics Canada, 2015 & Wikipedia 2, 2019). By 1900 there were more than 24 million to plow fields, pull street trolleys, carriages and city vehicles. There were 81,522,168 inhabitants in North America in 1900 ( Wikipedia 3, 2019 & Wikipedia 4, 2019).

Horses provided almost one-third of North America's energy needs. For every three people there was one working horse in the U.S., whereas now there are 1.3 people for every car (Nikiforuk, 2013). By 1890 New Yorker's took an average of 297 horse-car rides per person a year, whereas today they hail an average of 100 cab rides (Motavalli, 2017).

Nineteenth-century cities depended on thousands of horses for their daily functioning. All transport, whether of goods or people, was drawn by horses. London in 1900 had 11,000 cabs, all horse-powered. There were also several thousand buses, each of which required 12 horses per day, a total of more than 50,000 horses. In addition, there were countless carts, drays, and wains, all working constantly to deliver the goods needed by the rapidly growing population of what was then the largest city in the world. Similar figures could be produced for any great city of the time.

(Tarr & McShane, 1997)

However, anything growing in large numbers begins to cause issues, and horses were no exception in causing huge, waste, environmental, health and social challenges

Special thanks to Paul Martin and Patrick Debal for the following image and content from a LinkedIN post (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/paul-martin-195763b_things-to-ponder-on-a-thursday-few-realize-activity-6775861208101867520-WqGt)

"Few realize that we adopted the internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle in part as an environmental response to the disastrous use of horses in major urban areas - and that gasoline was originally a useless waste byproduct of making kerosene for lamps.

But transitions are hard... even ones as obviously beneficial as getting rid of horsesh*t and dead horses from the streets of major cities.

Electric vehicles (EVs) and ICE vehicles were neck and neck in sales until about 1911- around the time that the electric starter signaled the beginning of the end for the "chauffeur".

It took 100 yrs to invent a battery significantly superior to lead-acid to make an EV resurgence possible. And it took the willingness of mobile electronics to pay $3000/kWh to get those new lithium ion batteries to scale."

Growing Challenges with Horses

Due to the increase in numbers, and the nascent state state of social, health and infrastructure maturity, the following challenges evolved (Nikiforuk, 2013):

  • A horse would dump between 20 and 50 pounds of manure a day on the streets along with a gallon of piss... if you add 500 horses per square mile, that is a lot of "waste";
  • In New York in 1900, the population of 100,000 horses produced 2.5 million pounds / 1200~ metric tons of horse manure per day, which all had to be swept up and disposed of (Burrows & Wallace, 2006).
  • The tonnes of manure pounded and pulverized into dust attracted rodents and flies;
  • The result was an ever-present layer of manure that clung to shoes, traveled in the wind and seeped into the water supply;
  • One wild government estimate of the time estimated that 95% of all disease-carrying flies bred in horse dung;
  • Writing in the Times of London in 1894, one writer estimated that in 50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure (Davies, 2004).

Besides the issue with horse excrement, other issues occurred (Hayden, 2016):

  • Dead horses often clogged city streets;
  • In New York City in 1880, 15,000 horses died on the streets, or 41 dead horses a day (which had to be removed);
  • Some place to stable the 100,000+ horses that operated within New York, and food to feed them;
  • On a per capita basis, 19th century horse-drawn vehicle accident rates were similar to those of the automobile in the 20th century.

So the problems then included flies, disease, smell, dried manure dust, soaked manure mire, cruelty to horses and horse related traffic deaths (Flowers, 2014).

With its flies and smells and muscle, “the horse was in your face and it began to make people feel uncomfortable, and that was a factor in getting rid of it” (Nikiforuk, 2013).

The transition from horse to automobile was a logical and sustainable choice at the time.

So the question becomes, did we replace one prime mover that caused intolerable pollution (horses) with another (carbon-based vehicles)? One can argue that the impact of the pollution and waste was far more apparent and in your face with the horse... though as climate change continues to impact human life on earth it does beg the question. This post will not debate that last point, but as shown below from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) 2017 OPEC World Oil Outlook, the transportation sector (road) uses a lot of oil. For context, road transportation uses around 24 Millions of Barrels per Day (mb/d).

Conclusion

Both horses and automobiles have held the position of being the "remarkable prime movers on the planet." However, as with anything, more is not better and often causes new problems as demonstrated by both. Automobiles replaced horses largely because of pollution, and now automobiles are one of the leading cause of the planet's Co2 pollution and other serious problems. We have to look at things systemically and from an asset life-cycle perspective to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

For a more detailed investigation on the impact of transitioning from horses to automobiles I would recommend reading Brandon Keim's article “Did Cars Save Our Cities From Horses?” Nautilus listed in the references.

References

Wikipedia 4. “Population of Canada.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 8 Feb. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Canada

Wikipedia 3. “1900 United States Census.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 19 Feb. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_United_States_Census

Wikipedia 2. “1840 United States Census.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 19 Feb. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1840_United_States_Census

Statistics Canada. Censuses of Canada 1800s (1806 to 1871). Government of Canada, Statistics Canada, 26 Aug. 2015, www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/98-187-x/4064809-eng.htm

Flowers, Erik. “No One Said They Wanted Faster Horses, They Wanted Less Horseshit.” Hello Erik, 1 June 2014, www.helloerik.com/no-one-said-they-wanted-faster-horses-they-wanted-less-horseshit

Chiu, Imes. The Evolution from Horse to Automobile: a Comparative International Study. Cambria Press, 2008.

Wikipedia 1. “Flogging a Dead Horse.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Feb. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flogging_a_dead_horse.

Kohlstedt, Kurt. “The Big Crapple: NYC Transit Pollution from Horse Manure to Horseless Carriages.” 99% Invisible, 99percentinvisible.org/article/cities-paved-dung-urban-design-great-horse-manure-crisis-1894/

Tarr, Joel and Clay McShane, “The Centrality of the Horse to the Nineteenth Century American City,” in Raymond Mohl, ed., The Making of Urban America (New York: SR Publishers, 1997), pp. 105–30.

Burrows, Edwin G., and Mike Wallace. Gotham: a History of New York City to 1898. Oxford University Press, 2006.

Davies, Stephen. “The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894 | Stephen Davies.” FEE, Foundation for Economic Education, 1 Sept. 2004, fee.org/articles/the-great-horse-manure-crisis-of-1894/

Levitt, Steven D., and Stephen J. Dubner. Superfreakonomics. Allen Lane, 2010.

Nikiforuk, Andrew. “The Big Shift Last Time: From Horse Dung to Car Smog.” The Tyee, The Tyee, 6 Mar. 2013, thetyee.ca/News/2013/03/06/Horse-Dung-Big-Shift/

Carlisle, Stephen. “We Traded Carriages for Cars – Let's Embrace the next Disruption.” The Globe and Mail, The Globe and Mail, 16 May 2018, www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/we-traded-carriages-for-cars-lets-embrace-the-next-disruption/article29782316/

Winton, Alexander, and Nicholas Gilmore. “Get A Horse! America's Skepticism Toward the First Automobiles | The Saturday Evening Post.” The Saturday Evening Post, 9 Jan. 2017, www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2017/01/get-horse-americas-skepticism-toward-first-automobiles/

Schlenoff, Daniel C. “The Motor Vehicle, 1917 .” Scientific American, 1 Jan. 2017, www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-motor-vehicle-1917-slide-show/

Hayden, Wallace. “HISTORY: From Horse to Horsepower.” News-Herald, 3 Nov. 2016, www.thenewsherald.com/news/history-from-horse-to-horsepower/article_28d9c9fc-9a94-50c7-9363-9631e26697f5.html

Massaioli, Robert. “Tesla and Horses: What Did People Actually Say? – Robert Massaioli – Medium.” Medium.com, Medium, 10 Apr. 2016, http://medium.com/@robertmassaioli/tesla-and-horses-what-did-people-actually-say-3c53169d9bc

Keim, Brandon. “Did Cars Save Our Cities From Horses? - Issue 7: Waste.” Nautilus, 7 Nov. 2013, nautil.us/issue/7/waste/did-cars-save-our-cities-from-horses

“The Death of the Internal Combustion Engine.” The Economist, The Economist Newspaper, 12 Aug. 2017, www.economist.com/leaders/2017/08/12/the-death-of-the-internal-combustion-engine

Loerzel, Robert. “Before the Car Was King.” Chicago Tribune, Chicago Tribune, 7 Feb. 2015, www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-chicago-auto-show-early-cars-flashback-0208-jm-20150207-story.html

Motavalli, Jim. “When Will Electric Cars Really Take off? Maybe We Should Ask a Horse.” MNN - Mother Nature Network, Mother Nature Network, 10 Oct. 2017, www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/blogs/horses-horsepower-rocky-transition

Kinney, Thomas A. The Carriage Trade: Making Horse-Drawn Vehicles in America.Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004

“Introduction: Transportation in America and the Carriage Age.” The Educational Programming Guide for Going Places, Sept. 2007, parkcityhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Teacher-Background-Information.pdf

Morris, Eric (2007). "From Horse Power to Horsepower." ACCESS Magazine, 1 Apr. 2007 - 1(30), 2-10. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6sm968t2

Joel A. Tarr, “The Horse: Polluter of the City,” In The Search for the Ultimate Sink: Urban Pollution In Historical Perspective, ed. Joel A. Tarr (Akron, Ohio: University of Akron Press, 1996).

Larsen, Lawrence H. “Nineteenth-Century Street Sanitation: A Study of Filth and Frustration.” The Wisconsin Magazine of History, vol. 52, no. 3, 1969, pp. 239–247. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4634439

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). 2017 OPEC World Oil Outlook. October 2017. Available from: https://www.opec.org/opec_web/flipbook/WOO2017/WOO2017/assets/common/downloads/WOO%202017.pdf. Page 118, Figure 3.11 Sectoral oil demand in the OECD, 2016 and 2060.

Oil demand distribution by sector worldwide 2016 | Statistic. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/307194/top-oil-consuming-sectors-worldwide/

Perspectives · Perspectives

Two Technologies that Could Regenerate Our Planet

Peter Milsom March 27, 2019

"Hope is being able to see that there is light despite all of the darkness." Desmond Tutu

With all the conflicts and problems and noise these days it is healthy to dream about how better our future will be. This post comes from a vision of our sustainable / regenerative future from the 1960's courtesy of Star Trek. We have already developed numerous technologies that were shown on Star Trek through the power of projects, many that are widely used today such as:

  • big screen displays
  • technical manuals and literary works seen on rudimentary computer monitors - e-books like Kindle or Kobo,
  • the flip communicator - the flip phone was a precursor to the  smartphone,
  • the wedge-shaped clipboard used by the Yeomen - computer tablets and touchscreens,
  • the universal translator - is comparable to today's smartphone translator apps and other translator devices,
  • the Tricorder - examples like the Scanadu Scout
  • wireless headsets - bluetooth headsets (Uhura had one first)
  • Replicator (cheap) - 3D printers
  • Holodeck (cheap) - virtual reality
  • the multi-colored “microtape”  data cartridge portable memory - 3.5-inch computer diskettes, which later became flash drives,
  • automatic doors
  • the Enterprise’s voice interface
  • main computer that interacted with the crew - Amazon's Alexa and Apple's Siri,
  • teleconferencing or video-conferencing technology - Skype, Zoom, Apple's FaceTime,

Also Dr. McCoy's hypo-spray injects medicine without a needle. As a type one diabetic I used one for a few years which was really cool.

Based on our technological advancements, the following two technologies should be achievable in the near(ish) future through sustainable projects, that will revolutionize humanity:

  • matter/anti-matter energy (or something similar), and,
  • the replicator.

These technologies could solve many urgent and seemingly unsolvable problems, such as resolving our dependency on carbon based fuels and the corresponding impact of Co2 and global warming, waste, the lack of cheap easily accessible sustainable energy for all, child and slave labour, hunger and inaccessible drugs, and even the damages caused by mining.

Sustainability and Regeneration

Though there are many definitions of sustainability, the fundamental point is to cause no harm, specifically for future generations. The notion of regeneration is built on sustainability, but involves also resolving the damage caused by problems we have already inflicted. I emphasize this because these technologies would be able to will provide regenerative solutions.

Technology One: The Matter/Anti-Matter Converter

We need to resolve the energy crisis with a sustainable, scaleable, cost effective and safe energy source like the matter / antimatter reactor, which as I understand it though fun, is not actually possible.

Something along the lines of nuclear fusion, HHO or ortho-hydroxy or hydrogen sources, cold fusion, or sonoluminescence to move forward. Numerous movies have highlighted the potential benefits of a new type of energy source that would be available to the general public:

Energy Crisis

Many regions and industries are held back and financially and environmentally crippled by a lack of access to cost effective and sufficient energy for their current and future needs. China and the US have lots of energy, but as it comes from coal and carbon based sources it is negatively impacting their (and the world's) environment and climate.

Though renewable energy like geothermal, solar and wind are becoming more cost effective and reliable, storage concerns and reliability still remain an issue for continuous energy demands. Hydro is limited globally, adoption of fusion (nuclear) energy which is far safer now with exceptionally reduced radioactive waste concerns would be better but still has consumer acceptance problems. Also, in the future our energy requirements are going to continue to increase exponentially.

All of this could be solved with a sustainable, scaleable, cost effective and safe energy source like the matter / antimatter converter.

The Global Economy & Global Inequality

Tied to the energy crisis, this type of sustainable, cost effective and accessible power would also help propel the global economy. Providing the energy to drive new technologies and innovations will empower a new age of economic development and improve the lifestyles of those currently impoverished.

CO2 Emissions & Global Warming & Climate Change

A new energy source will reduce our requirement for carbon based fuels which will reduce our CO2 emissions. Planes, trains, trucks and ships could also use this new energy source. The energy would also be sufficient for technologies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Technology Two: The Replicator

Effectively this would be a 3D printer on steroids. Imagine a device that could provide standard items quickly and cost-effectively. This would require a sufficient energy source as mentioned previously to be cost effective to rearrange matter at the sub-atomic level.

The Global Economy & Global Inequality

This will provide similar benefits provided by the previous technology. The growing global economic inequality and wealth gap has been growing exponentially for years, forcing a large percentage of the world's population to exist without safe and foundational supplies. In many ways including the loss of hope. The replicator would change the global economy and dynamics, forcing humanity to focus on more valuable and worthwhile investments, priorities, transactions and economic models.

Starvation and Access to Water and Drugs

As on Star Trek, the replicators provide food and drink cost effectively and nutritionally. The shortage of many pharmaceutical drugs could be removed with the replicator as well.

Waste Reduction

Also, the raw matter to supply the replicator could be waste, which would work to reduce our waste problem. Finally a solution to the plastic crisis.

Child and Slave Labour

Cobalt for lithium batteries, along with other rare elements are obtained by the exploitation of child and slave labour. This problem would be resolved with replicators.

Time and Distance

Effectively this would provide almost instantaneous access to anything required, without the overhead and time and cost of acquiring raw materials from far away and shipping them.

Mining and Logging

The environmental and societal problems caused by mining rare minerals or cutting down forests would be resolved.

Conclusion - A Sustainable and Regenerative Future

These two technologies would change the nature of humanity. The potential impact on society and the earth is probably unimaginable at this juncture (both positive and negative). Most importantly though, we would also be able to regenerate the planet by reducing our negative impacts and the problems we have caused from our past. We outlined this dynamic in a previous post, Another Sustainability Model – Evaluating Human Systems and Earth Systems, but the potential impact of these two technologies on the earth system / human system integration would be incalculable!

At least we can dream. If there are project teams developing these technologies... sign me up.

REFERENCES

Blas, L. (2016, September 08). Far-fetched gizmos of 'Star Trek' are today's tech toys. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2016/09/06/far-fetched-gizmos-star-trek-todays-tech-toys/85658282/

Looi, M. K. (2016, September 08). Here are all the the things Star Trek accurately predicted. Retrieved from https://qz.com/766831/star-trek-real-life-technology/

Safa Motesharrei, Jorge Rivas, Eugenia Kalnay, Ghassem R. Asrar, Antonio J. Busalacchi, Robert F. Cahalan, Mark A. Cane, Rita R. Colwell, Kuishuang Feng, Rachel S. Franklin, Klaus Hubacek, Fernando Miralles-Wilhelm, Takemasa Miyoshi, Matthias Ruth, Roald Sagdeev, Adel Shirmohammadi, Jagadish Shukla, Jelena Srebric, Victor M. Yakovenko, Ning Zeng; Modeling sustainability: population, inequality, consumption, and bidirectional coupling of the Earth and Human Systems, National Science Review, Volume 3, Issue 4, 1 December 2016, Pages 470–494, https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nww081

 

Perspectives · Perspectives

An Approach for Sustainability for Everyone - The Scout vs. the Warrior

Peter Milsom March 18, 2019

“A new idea is first condemned as ridiculous and then dismissed as trivial, until finally, it becomes what everybody knows.” William James, 1879

For those who have accepted and endorsed the importance of sustainability and social responsibility issues like the importance of dealing with anthropogenic climate change, livable wages, the problems with waste etc., there are often challenges dealing with individuals that do not appreciate, understand or support these issues. That said, those on the other side of the debate do not understand the sustainability and social responsibility arguments. We have provided a number of posts to show some of these different perspectives: Watching the news, social media and the talking heads one often only sees violent, and frequently irrational, disagreement. Even basic syllogistic logic that we learned in grade school implodes in many of these arguments. The issue is that everyone is yelling and no one is listening, let alone debating. This post will provide useful techniques to help all sides of the political spectrum. This post is largely based on a TEDxPSU video by Julia Galef in February 2016 entitled "Why you think you're right - event if you're wrong." I have "borrowed" quite a lot of the concepts from this presentation as I believe it offers a wonderful model for evolving ones frame of reference from blindly defending our beliefs to be willing to accept other perspectives to empower our own search for reality. Even if these new perspectives contradict or challenge what we currently believe. It is important to emphasize that we are not necessarily looking at major mind shifts or a 180 degree turn in one beliefs. The ability to make incremental updates or refinements is often all that is required. I believe that we need to be aware of and understand the perspectives along the entire spectrum of beliefs for these issues. From a US perspective, we need both the Republicans and the Democrats to work together to develop sustainable solutions. From a Canadian perspective, we need the NDP, the Green Party, the Liberals, and the Conservatives to develop these sustainable solutions. To show how this is possible, Julia's presentation uses the warrior vs.  the scout mindset as metaphors for how we perceive and react to debates and perspectives.

Warrior Mindset

The primary focus of the warrior mindset is to fight to ensure your ideas win and others lose, or to attack or defend ideas at all costs. This represents the soldier mindset, which in the military and combat historically makes perfect sense. The warrior mindset is like confirmation bias or an echo chamber on steroids, where we only read information that confirms to our established opinions and avoids information and groups that contradict our opinions. However, in the sustainability and social responsibility debates, we owe it to each other to consider the other proven scientific perspectives and facts, to understand each other and not to simply put up our defenses to protect our tribal believes at all costs. This is where the scout mindset comes in. This suggestion applies by the way to both the left and right perspectives on the political spectrum.

Scout Mindset

The scout mindset tries to get an accurate picture of reality, even when that picture is unpleasant or inconvenient to your established perspectives. Despite one's bias or desires, it is understood that we must cut threw our prejudices and assumptions. It is important to be curious, intrigued when we encounter something that contradicts our expectations, and being open and willing to test our own beliefs. Recognizing that it is not a weakness to change our mind, and that we are grounded enough to not be tied to a particular perspective. The scout mindset helps us to deal with the psychological stress caused by the mental discomfort of cognitive dissonance, which occurs when a person tries to hold two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The discomfort occurs when someone's belief clashes with new evidence or facts perceived. When we are confronted with facts that contradict our established understandings, we must find a way to resolve the contradiction. Once again, it is not like we have to do a complete 180 and accept the other point of view, but understanding and appreciating certain established facts can go a long way to working together. Some strategies to develop a scout mindset in order to improve our judgement include the following:
  1. Having respect for other viewpoints
  2. Not being intellectually overconfident
  3. Separating one’s ego from one’s intellect
  4. Willingness to revise one’s own viewpoint

Conclusion

You don't have to agree with the "other side", but use these techniques so at least we can understand the other perspectives. We will need the entire "political spectrum" to come up with sustainable solutions to the issues we are now facing, if for no other reason than the acceptance, adoption and integration of the required changes must be acceptable by all. These techniques will help allow us to have a real conversation.  

REFERENCES

Galef, Julia (February 2016). Why you think you're right - event if you're wrong. TEDxPSU. https://www.ted.com/talks/julia_galef_why_you_think_you_re_right_even_if_you_re_wrong Galef, Julia (March 4, 2017). Why you shouldn't try to "'change your mind". YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6PgCN7ySGQ Grimes, David Robert. “Echo Chambers Are Dangerous –  We Must Try to Break Free of Our Online Bubbles.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 4 Dec. 2017, www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/dec/04/echo-chambers-are-dangerous-we-must-try-to-break-free-of-our-online-bubbles. Harman, Greg (November 10, 2014). Your brain on climate change: why the threat produces apathy, not action. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/nov/10/brain-climate-change-science-psychology-environment-elections Konnikova, Maria (May 16, 2014). I Don’t Want to Be Right. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-want-to-be-right Snow, Shane (November 20, 2018 ). A New Way to Become More Open-Minded. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/11/a-new-way-to-become-more-open-minded Popova, Maria (ND). Kahlil Gibran on the Absurdity of Self-Righteousness. Brain Pickings. https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/10/28/kahlil-gibran-the-madman-said-a-blade-of-grass/ Popova, Maria (ND). How to Change Minds: Blaise Pascal on the Art of Persuasion. Brain Pickings. https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/05/20/blaise-pascal-pensees-persuasion/ Robson, David. “Future - The Myth of the Online Echo Chamber.” BBC, BBC, 17 Apr. 2018, www.bbc.com/future/story/20180416-the-myth-of-the-online-echo-chamber. Gilbert, Daniel (2010). ‘Global Warming and Psychology’. Harvard Thinks Big 2010. https://vimeo.com/10324258 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/10/5-recycling-myths-busted-plastic/ Intentional • Immoral • Imminent • Instantaneous Global warming: Silent, amoral and slow and much more dangerous than anything our ancestors imagined The little prince... “If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.” ― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Perspectives · Perspectives

PRiSM is much more than an "eco-friendly" method.

Dr. Joel Carboni March 5, 2019

As our Project Management Methodology PRiSM or PRojects integrating Sustainable Methods is turning 10 years old this year, we are proud that it enjoys success in a multitude of industries; and project types.

There is one area though that is commonly misunderstood as evidenced by the blog-o-sphere. We often get emails and requests to mention PRiSM in a blog and sometimes our members and certified PMs will send us snippets of mentions . One trend that we see though is that it is often seen as a construction methodology and not useful for IT and Change projects. This couldn't be further from the truth.

In reading through many of these blogs, it seems though that the root of the issue is that project managers (or maybe just these bloggers) have yet to dive into what the sustainability competencies for project management are and what all PRiSM can do.

The International Project Management Association (IPMA) states in their Individual Competence Baseline (a free resource) under "Compliance, standards, and regulations" that it is important for project managers to understand this critical aspect when they say:

"The individual is able to assess the impact of the project on the environment and society. Realizing his or her responsibility, the individual researches recommends and applies measures to limit or compensate for negative consequences. The individual follows (or even exceeds) guidelines and rules on sustainable development coming from within the organization and from the wider society and is able to realize a workable balance between the demands of society, impacts to the eco-environment and the economy. " The individual understands that sustainability aspects, measures and attitudes often vary in different countries and cultures. 

— Identifies the social and environmental consequences of the project
— Defines and communicates the sustainability targets for the project and its outcomes
— Aligns objectives with the organizational strategy for sustainability
— Balances the demands of society, the environment and the economy (people, planet, profit) with project processes and products
— Encourages the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies

PRiSM as a methodology looks at the entire asset lifecycle. [From the time the project is born as an idea to the time it is decommissioned from useful life and (hopefully) repurposed.]

In the graphic below, we illustrate one benefit (a big one) of PRiSM. It extends far beyond any other method out there.

Another great aspect of PRiSM is that it isn't just "green/eco-friendly". It is sustainable. Shown below is our ontology "P5". Notice that the Social indicators that PRiSM uses is expansive. Considerations on how the project and resulting product both impact and are impacted by each of these are taken into account. Some and I would say many are never considered by project management, and many create additional benefits to the organization.

A couple of years back, I was giving a talk in the South of France to a PMI Chapter on the Sustainable Development Goals and what they mean to project management. When it came to Q&A time, one of the participants raised his hand. This is what went down.

PM: "None of this applies to me, I work in I.T. as a web developer."
Me: "Do your projects ever include outsourced components/add-ons/modules?"
PM: "Of course"
Me: "Any from developing nations where labor is cheap?"
PM: "Sure"
Me: "Do you ensure or at least ask the question of the supplier "do your employees earn a livable wage?" or "Do you remunerate men and women equally for the same work"?
PM: "I never thought of it that way."

Projects have the ability to create change in two ways. The first is by bringing something new, a change, a product, a something. The second is what happens during the project. We have opportunities to change entire industries for the better by setting up requirements for suppliers and vendors that improve peoples lives, and positively impact nature.

This is what PRiSM does. We don't hug trees, the trees hug us.

BTW Our Standard is free. at www.greenprojectmanagement.org/p5 and we encourage all PMs to take a peek!

Perspectives · Perspectives

Projectors, We need rethink a few things.

Dr. Joel Carboni February 23, 2019

“The true definition of a project, according to modern acceptation, is, as is said before, a vast undertaking, too big to be managed, and therefore likely enough to come to nothing.” – Daniel Defoe, An Essay upon Projects (1697)

This is one of my favorite quotes for a couple reasons.  One being that it is historically the first published work on projects and the second being the perspective that if an undertaking is too vast, it probably won’t result in anything.

Ten years ago, we set out drive change and established what would eventually become GPM or “Green Project Management”.  As an organization, our mission has always been to advance sustainable practices in the project world.  Along the way, people have gotten hung up on the word green and if I could go back in time, I would probably tell myself to rethink the name a bit and while I am at it, I would probably keep going and encourage the good Mr. Defoe to rethink his notion that if a vast undertaking is too big to be managed, then maybe the project isn’t the problem but rather the approach.

As the project management profession matures, it is changing its view of what project success is. The profession is now moving beyond its traditional focus on time, cost, and scope to placing the emphasis on delivering the objectives in the business case while maintaining an asset lifecycle focus.

The next step in the evolutionary process is to adopt a sustainability ethos where projects do not come at the expense of the planet and its limited resources. Project management must make greater efforts to address each project’s social and environmental impacts so that the world we live in and that we are borrowing from future generations can regenerate and be sustained. In order to take this step, project management must move to a wider and well-rounded view of the project’s impact and value as illustrated below.

At GPM, we emphasize that the old model (on the left) is obsolete as it ignores critical factors as purpose and value, just to name a few.

In order to keep the evolutionary wheel spinning, we need to dig deeper.  What project owners, sponsors, and managers must understand is that we can no longer think about the product of the project as an end and the project as a means to it, but rather the beginning of a process that once delivered, initiates a next step of the project lifecycle.

In the graphic below, we look at an asset’s lifecycle.  Almost all project management approaches are completely focused on the initial delivery. This is ridiculous.

If the product of the project continues on after delivery to impact the environment around it long after the project has been delivered, why is "end of life" and "reuse" given little to no consideration? Single-use plastic products, for example, are choking out life all over the planet and yet they are still being developed en masse.  Why?

If value were a key performance indicator based on the project and product’s overall impact to our natural world we might not have to leave our garbage to future generations to clean up if that is even possible. Projects need to adopt regenerative development principles.

How do we drive bottom up change?

Regenesis group argues that “Becoming a regenerative practitioner is as much about developing capability and potential in oneself and one’s teams as it is about developing them in projects and communities. If humans are to be the agents of our own evolution and the enablers of the evolution we seek in the world, we must pursue all three lines of developmental work simultaneously.” GPM advocates for competence as its three components (knowledge, skills, and ability) are a more complete descriptor. 

They also say that If we allow any one of these lines were to drop away, eventually the others will also collapse and we will become increasingly mechanical in how we think and work. This is both the challenge and the reward of taking on regenerative development.”

There was a scene in the first Men in Black movie where Tommy Lee Jones was enlightening Will Smith after his first encounter with aliens. He told him "1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you "knew" that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow."

When so many challenges are facing humanity today, why are we using old methods to solve them?

Why do we ask people "Do you believe in climate change?" and not "Do you understand climate change?" It isn't "should we address planetary collapse", it is how are we not?

I call out to projectors!! (people who work in the project space) Project work comprises, at minimal, 30% of the global GDP. In some countries, it is even higher. With this in mind, our impact is immense! We must start to rethink our relationship between our personal competence, our missions, our teams, and how our projects are contributing to a solution or furthering a problem if we are to survive.

References
GPM Global. Sustainable Project Management; the GPM Reference Guide; 2018
Group, Regenesis. Regenerative Development and Design: A Framework for Evolving Sustainability. John Wiley & Sons P&T, 2016-08-29. VitalBook file.

Perspectives · Perspectives

Why Your Sustainability Report Might be Awful?

Dr. Joel Carboni December 17, 2018

If you parse through the thousands of sustainability (non-financial reporting) online either direct from websites from major brands such as Coca-Cola, Nestle, or Nike, or even the mid-major companies that are trying to do the right thing, you will see something missing; and it is glaringly obvious once you start looking for it.

A common approach, which leaves room for problems to set in later, is that organizations largely focus on the environmental and social aspects of their environment ,social, and corporate governance (ESG) strategies and neglect governancecriteria.

Investopedia describes corporate governance as: the system of rules, practices and processes by which a firm is directed and controlled. Corporate governance essentiallyinvolves balancing the interests of a company's many stakeholders, such asshareholders, management, customers, suppliers, financiers, government and thecommunity. Since corporate governance also provides the framework for attaininga company's objectives, it encompasses practically every sphere of management,from action plans and internal controls to performance measurement andcorporate disclosure.

“Everything that occurs under the corporate umbrella is done so according to governance. Without it, the company doesn't run. Good governance is  demonstrated by a balanced board of independent directors, who support whistleblowing policies in place for employees; while maintaining the mindfulness that
 unless the governance strategy can cultivate the corporate culture, which has more power than any other aspect of the organization, it will die a painful death.”  

The following diagram, taken from our Amazon best-selling book ‘Sustainable Project Management’ highlights that the three Measures of Prosperity, Environment, and People are ultimately driven by three Drivers—Risk Mitigation and Brand Protection, Productivity, and Growth. 

However. While Executive Strategy, the lens that owns corporate governance, sits below Culture It owns that also. So what does all this mean?

It is widely respected that good governance functions like a bicycle tire with each spoke in the wheel representing a tenant of the hub's construct to keep it from getting bent.  The spokes can include:

  1. It follows the rule of law
  2. It is inclusive of everyone and everyone participates
  3. Enjoys consensus
  4. It has hooks in place for accountability
  5. It responds to needs
  6. It is efficient
  7. It’s effectiveness is measures

This isn’t the end-all be-all list but you see the point of where I am going. 

The policies and procedures that this list describes is what needs to be unearthed, dusted off, and given a permanent home in the sustainability report.

In our GPM 2018 Report, which can be found on the UN Global Compact’s website we have listed the policies and procedures that we have in place for governance and also what we hold our vendors and partners accountable for to ensure that what we produce is done so sustainably.

In our report for example, the following items have been included:

  • Includes a CEO statement of continued support for the UN Global Compact and its ten principles
  • Description of actions or relevant policies related to Human Rights
  • Description of actions or relevant policies related to Labour
  • Description of actions or relevant policies related to Environment
  • Description of actions or relevant policies related to Anti-Corruption
  • Includes a measurement of outcomes

All of these pull from corporate governance.  As at the end of the day, you can’t manage what you don’t measure and you can measure what you don’t manage.  Consumers are measuring your products against their competitors so the organization that includes the “how and why we do it this way” in their reporting will reap the rewards in the end.

Perspectives · Perspectives

The Playbook Series: Global Warming

Peter Milsom November 25, 2018
This is a follow on post to "Keep on scammin’ on: The evil brilliance, success and recurrence of The Playbook." The strategies from The Playbook have been employed by industries that are under threat of losing profits when scientific evidence proves that their product causes significant harm to the public, society or planet in some shape or form. The scientific threat of Global Warming has forced the carbon based fuel industry (coal, gas, oil) to fight back with the Playbook strategies that were initiated and successfully executed by the Tobacco Industry. Once again, it is interesting to note that in most industry campaigns, and especially Climate Change, employing The Playbook was never really about science or facts.  It was in actuality a political debate about the role of government, and the threat that governmental control of the economy posed to free enterprise and a liberal democracy. These strategies and tactics have kept the carbon based fuel industry protected from the reality of the deadly impact of global warming for decades.

https://youtu.be/cJIW5yVk__w

The trigger: In 1988, climate scientist, Dr Hansen, presents to Congress his research from NASA around the greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels and global warming. After the colossal amounts of media coverage, there was a general agreement on governmental responsibility and climate change. Then the fossil fuel industry fought back. The oil and coal industry successfully argued against acid rain, risks to the ozone layer, greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and climate change for years by employing strategies from The Playbook. The petroleum industry’s first position was classic: there is no scientific evidence, we do not know enough about it, we need more proof (a delay tactic), and, of course, there is no consensus (surprisingly still used today). The scientific community responded with “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” by Naomi Oreskes in Science 03 Dec 2004. It analysed existing scientific literature from 928 abstracts published in referenced scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 with the keywords “climate change”. It illustrated that there was indeed a strong consensus among experts regarding the very real existence of anthropogenic global climate change (NASA). Despite the allegations made by some groups that no valid evidence proving that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities, the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement that the evidence is clear and persuasive. The petroleum industry’s response was once again classic: they attacked the scientists. Environmental concerns were considered as perceived and presented as new venues for socialism and communism. Environmental scientists were described as creeping communists or watermelons: green on the outside and red on the inside.  These scare tactics became easy ways to draw in more paranoid and nationalistic supporters. The petroleum industry also employed independent think tanks and supposed subject matter experts to argue against the scientific position. The Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Marshall Institute promoted business interests, “free market” economic policies, and the rollback of environmental, health, safety, and labor protections (Oreskes & Conway, p. 125, 2010). Various positions and narratives were developed and aggressively marketed by these group including:
  • The earth is not warming.
  • The earth is warming, but it is not due to humans.
  • The earth is warming, and it is due to humans, but it is actually good for the earth (greening of planet earth, good for plants).
  • The earth is warming, and it is due to humans, but the cost to deal with this is prohibitive and would destroy the world economy.
Such dueling think tank “experts” con the media quite frequently. In 1995, the IPCC presented a major paper that supported the scientists’ anthropogenic global warming position.  The lead convening author Ben Santer wrote, “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”. The industry reaction was to mock and ridicule these scientists and release their contact information to the public which led them to receive eventual death threats.In 1997, the Kyoto negotiations gave the appearance of scientific progress and acceptance but were countered by the Oregon Petition presented in 1998, and again in 2007. 31,000 US “scientists” signed off on the following: We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. Curiously, these “scientists” included Spice Girls, Michael J. Fox, Charles Darwin, and fictional characters from the film Star Wars.  The National Academy publicly disavowed the position... yet it is still surprisingly referred to as a credible source. In 2006, the film An Inconvenient Truth was released and really helped bolster global warming awareness.  It was a major blow to the fossil fuel industry and it was a precursor to the 2009 Copenhagen Summit and agreement where it seemed as though the United States was on board.  However, some stolen emails were released out of context, referring to the scientists as part of a “Climategate” scandal.  After three independent investigations, there was no evidence of impropriety found. In 2015, COP 21 in Paris was a success. At this landmark climate conference in December 2015, 195 countries adopted the first-ever universal and legally-binding global climate deal. Despite this milestone, we saw this a couple of months later:           At this juncture the carbon based fuel industry has, just like the tobacco industry, started to run out of options with using the playbook.

“A new idea is first condemned as ridiculous and then dismissed as trivial, until finally, it becomes what everybody knows.” William James, 1879

As the US is one of the more interesting case studies for popular perception of global warming, the following Gallup poll provided interesting results:
  • Partisan gaps across global-warming measures slightly wider than in 2017
  • Democrats view global warming seriously; Republicans view it skeptically
  • 69% of Republicans, 4% Democrats say global warming is exaggerated
Majorities of Americans overall say most scientists think global warming is occurring (66%), it is caused by human activities (64%) and its effects have begun (60%). Yet, the net effect of increased political polarization over the past year is that opinions on each of these measures have edged down slightly. At the same time, the 45% who think global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetime is the highest percentage recorded for this measure since Gallup first asked the question in 1997. This is the only issue that saw increased concern among both major party groups.
However, a new advocate in politics (possibly fueled by lobbyists) has helped due to the extreme political perspective about the role of government, and the threat that governmental control of the economy posed to free enterprise and a liberal democracy:
President Donald Trump, who has called global warming a "hoax," may have contributed to this widening divide by reversing a number of government actions to address the issue. These included the announcement that the U.S. will withdraw from the 2015 Paris climate accord, the removal of climate change from the list of top U.S. national security threats and the elimination of the terms "global warming" and "climate change" from U.S. government websites and lexicons.

REFERENCES

Bad Science: A Resource Book, 26 March 1993, BN: 2074143969, Legacy Tobacco Documents Library.  https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=qmcj0065 Barnes, R., & Mufson, S. (2015). Supreme Court freezes Obama plan to limit carbon emissions. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-freezes-obama-plan-to-limit-carbon-emissions/2016/02/09/ac9dfad8-cf85-11e5-abc9-ea152f0b9561_story.html Bell, L. (2012). That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not! Retrieved February 14, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#32e39d0c1690 Brenan, Megan & Saad, Lydia (March 28, 2018). Global Warming Concern Steady Despite Some Partisan Shifts. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-steady-despite-partisan-shifts.aspx Brownell, K. D., & Warner, K. E. (2009). The perils of ignoring history: Big Tobacco played dirty and millions died. How similar is Big Food? The Milbank Quarterly, 87(1), 259–94. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00555.x. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2879177/ Carrington, D. (2014). “Climategate” had only fleeting effect on global warming scepticism. Retrieved February 15, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/20/climategate-longterm-level-climate-change-scepticism Chomsky, N. (2011). Noam Chomsky: How Climate Change Became a “Liberal Hoax.” Retrieved February 11, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJUA4cm0Rck Gottesdiener, L. (2012). 10 Brilliant Quotes by Noam Chomsky on How Media Really Operates in America - Chomsky’s observations about propaganda and corporate media are always useful to keep in mind. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from http://www.alternet.org/media/10-brilliant-quotes-noam-chomsky-how-media-really-operates-america Grandia, K. (2011). The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda. Retrieved February 14, 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html LIPTAK, A., & DAVENPORT, C. (2015). Supreme Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Efforts to Regulate Coal Emissions. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-obama-epa-coal-emissions-regulations.html?emc=edit_na_20160209&nlid=71380912&ref=headline Michaels, D. (2008). Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. Retrieved February 14, 2016, from http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Their-Product-Industrys-Threatens-ebook/dp/B0058C6FI6/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me= Moyers, B. (2014). The Relentless Attack on Climate Scientist Ben Santer. Retrieved February 12, 2016, from http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/the-relentless-attack-of-climate-scientist-ben-santer/ No Author (April 18, 2015). “Follow the money”: the finances of global warming, vaccines, and GMOs. The Logic of Science. https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/04/18/follow-the-money-the-finances-of-global-warming-vaccines-and-gmos/ Nuccitelli, D. (2015). Fossil fuel industry caught taking a page out of the tobacco playbook. Retrieved February 11, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/02/fossil-fuel-industry-caught-taking-a-page-out-of-the-tobacco-playbook Oreskes, Naomi; Conway, Erik M. (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition. http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1455072048&sr=8-1&keywords=Merchants+of+Doubt%3A+How+a+Handful+of+Scientists+Obscured+the+Truth+on+Issues+from+Tobacco+Smoke+to+Global+Warming Oreskes, N. (2004). Beyond the ivory tower. The scientific consensus on climate change. Science (New York, N.Y.), 306(5702), 1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full Poynter Institute. (2014). Merchants of Doubt - College Study Guide. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from http://www.takepart.com/sites/default/files/2014-03-06 Merchants of Doubt - College Study Guide.pdf Readfearn, G. (2014). Australia’s renewables adviser scrapes the bottom of the climate denialist barrel. Retrieved February 14, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/feb/24/climate-change-dick-warburton-sceptic-australia-renewable-energy-target-review Seccombe, M. (2015). Tobacco industry playbook used to kill renewables. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2015/06/27/tobacco-industry-playbook-used-kill-renewables/14353272002054

GPM Logo Flat4

 

Making projects sustainable on a global scale since 2009.

© 2009–2026 GPM Global. All rights reserved.

GPM®, Green Project Management®, and Sustainable Project Management® are registered trademarks of GPM Ltd. PRiSM™, the PMI-GPM P5™ Standard for Sustainability in Project Management, the PMI-GPM Practice Guide for Sustainability in Project Management, CSPP™ (formerly GPM-b™), CSPMs™, CSPMx™, CSP™, CSF™, Certified Sustainable Project Manager (Expert)™, GPM360°™, GPM360°™, and PSM3™ are trademarks of GPM Global and the PMI-GPM Joint Venture as applicable. Use requires written consent.

Certification

Online Policies

Organizational Policies

li#itemid-101 > ul.dropdown-menu { display: none !important; }