Since the average temp on the East Coast shot up to 97 all summer and gas prices make SUVs uncomfortably pricey, there has been some hullaballoo about the “greening of America.” Yup, environmentalism is hot again, and we’re going to party like it’s Earth Day, 1979. America’s putting on sweaters, carpooling and getting psyched about solar energy.

I love sustainability – great concept. Doing profitable business without wrecking our kids’ ability to live on Earth: sounds simple and attractive as an idea. As I have said before, to make this attempt at sustainability better than past attempts, there are two people you need to reach:

Yup, Pat Robertson and Wall Street types are the two parties that really need to come on board to make it different this time. Otherwise, the evolution of global industry is going to get caught in the ridiculous “culture war” or “anti-growth” debate. This time, there must be an accord that growth can be good.

As I have mentioned in recent postings, miracle of miracles, Pat Robertson is onboard. Even he thinks that this global warming thing is real. Whoa. OK, great.

Next, I say that Wall Street guys must be into sustainability – and not for public relations. They’ve got to be excited about sustainability just out of the sheer capitalist greed of it. No bleeding hearts, no tree hugging, just pure Return On Investment, baby.

It looks like it’s happening already. Today’s International Herald Tribune has a perfect article about how “cleantech” is producing lots of interest in the financial community. It seems that many companies are looking at the future and believe, quite sagely, that causing environmental havoc is not good for profits.

Nicholas Parker, chairman of the trade group Cleantech Venture Network, is even adamant that this movement is not about being a do-gooder — it’s about cold hard cash. And the cash is showing up. In the first half of this year, venture capitalists invested $379 million in 30 companies that categorize themselves as cleantech, according to the National Venture Capital Association. That is up from $230.8 million in 27 companies in all of 2005. There’s even the issue of many companies trying to look green to attract investment, even when they aren’t especially sustainable.

Now, there’s the sign of change — companies trying to look green for financial reasons, not just to get environmentalists to shut up or to avoid bad press.

When it pays money to reduce pollution and make profitable industry sustainable — now you’ve got the makings of a revolution.

-Garland

Labels: sustainability

This one is too amusing to pass up. “U.S. Report: More Nicotine in Cigarettes”

Man, that is the news I needed! A better world is on the way!

Evidently, the tobacco industry is making a strategic move to keep people from heeding the mountains of data that says smoking is plain old unacceptable in society and deadly to boot: they have juiced the amount of nicotine in the remaining cigarettes, making it harder to quit.

This makes sense. All over the world – even in France and Spain, for the love of Pete – people are cracking down on smoking. Heart disease and erectile dysfunction aren’t that much fun. It’s not allowed in bars in some cities. Cigarettes have got a lot going against their future.

So the Massachusetts Department of Health discovers two things: One, smoking behavior isn’t changing. Two, there is 10% more nicotine in the cigarettes out there.

Does it stand to reason that there would be a reduction in smoking if there wasn’t a higher level of the most addictive substance on Earth added to today’s smokes?

Is this not the tobacco industry’s way to shore up defenses against the inevitable? Note that they do not comment on this.

To quote one of my futurist colleagues regarding tobacco companies: “The question is not whether they are evil. The question is whether they are evil or Super Evil.“

Let’s talk about the future of housing and real estate.

I live in the Washington DC area. They are trying to sell one bedroom condominiums for $600,000. When I grew up in Vermont, you could buy my entire street for that sum, and you’d get a collective 20 bedrooms, not just one. Granted you’d be near cows and not the famous Kramerbooks in Dupont Circle, but still – we’re talking over a half million bucks, and you can’t fit a good sized couch in the place!

The Washington Post is finally raising some alarms, such as the fact that housing prices outpaced wages in Fairfax County, Virginia twelvefold since the year 2000. The median household would need to spend 56% of its income to afford the median home price.

What’s really ironic is that the Fairfax County executives who did the study live over an hour away in Winchester, Virginia or Frederick, Maryland. To repeat that, somebody who works for Fairfax County couldn’t possibly afford to live there on a government salary.

What is that about?

Says Cathy Hudgins, chairwoman of the housing committee for the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, “I don’t think we’re creating strong communities by forcing people into their cars four hours a day. This creates all kinds of lousy outcomes — children who don’t get to see their parents, workers who can’t make ends meet when gas prices soar, exurban sprawl, roads clogged with long-distance commuters emitting greenhouse gases.”

Yeah, there’s been a few trends that have intersected all at the wrong time:

• Exurban sprawl
• Giant SUVs
• 60% jump in gas prices
• Dot-com-esque housing prices

So we are basically creating communities that are clogged up, expensive, unpleasant, and almost certainly make us fat, stressed, and diabetic.

We’re smart people – did we design it this way on purpose?

Is there a future in smarter urban design?

-Garland

My word, a mass-media story on futurists and the World Future Society that gets it right. I nearly fell out of my chair.

Michael Rogers, who goes by “The Practical Futurist,” writes at MSNBC.com about future trends and technologies, and his piece “What Do Futurists Really Know?” is a rare bird indeed. He attended the annual World Future Society convention and comes out with an optimistic and balanced view of the actual field of futurism.

Hallelujah!

He gets it right. He depicts the actual balance in the field between professional consulting firms and more visionary types. He quotes Ray Kurzweil’s views of the Singularity (with a grain of salt, as you should) as well as Joe Coates‘ veteran view about how futurists should aim ultimately to be helpful. He mixes those who help corporate executives make decisions, and those who explore the future of everything from spirtuality to sex to “transhumanism.”

This is really refreshing. So often, pieces on futurists either focus on outlandish predictions, or alternately skewer futurists for spouting predictions. Or somebody writes how ludicrous it is that anybody would “claim to know what the future is.” In reality, the field is thriving because it has two equally passionate groups:

There are the futurist-hobbyists, those who are fascinated by what may be next and love discussing all the possibilities – for good and bad.

Then there are the professional futurists (such as yours truly), who are mostly knowledge managers, bringing a wealth of future trend data and analysis to busy leaders who just don’t have time. It’s a profession like any other.

Even though these two futurist constituencies are very different, we interact with each other. This diversity makes us stronger. It’s just so great – and so rare – to see somebody understand the richness of our community, understand that we are not all the same, and reflect that accurately in a public forum.

I sense a real upswing for futurists of all sorts. We have come through the dark period of the dot com crash, Enron, and 9/11, when everyone psychically retreated to their most defensive thoughts. The future, they said — what a crock. It’s all about today. Well, people are coming to realize that the world will be fast-paced and occasionally scary — and we have to manage it anyway. Futurism is a great way to get some much needed long-term perspective. I am very excited to see more and more signs that it is coming back into vogue.

-Garland

Labels: Futurists

The above images are the avatars, the virtual online personae, of the legendary Irish rock band U2. Evidently, this is the future of rock and roll — computer generations of rock stars (shown here playing computer generations of fancy vintage guitars) are apparently entertaining the computer generations of fans who “show up” for “concerts” in cyberspace.

As a professional musician who takes this kind of thing fairly seriously, I have a few reactions.

1) First, go read the article about this phenomenon at the Washington Post. The piece is called “Hear the Music, Avoid the Mosh Pit.” Apparently, Suzanne Vega and Duran Duran are opting of this kind of virtual interaction with fans. Interesting read.

2) I have been writing about artists turning to this kind of thing for a while. Back in 2003 I wrote a piece for the Futurist magazine called “Online Music: The Sound of Success” in which I forecast artists looking for all kinds of ways other than plastic discs to reach their fans. After all, most musicians get hosed on record contracts, and concert tours are resource intensive and long and involve increasingly smelly drummers. It’s true. So this is not really a surprise.

3) Now that this particular option is here, I have a few wild, unchecked emotional responses. Principally, is this Rock & Roll? Is this the cultural force that unites the kids, propels us, bathes us in “Three Chords and the Truth?” Is the future of rock & roll, this mystical American cultural force, is that future going to be translated across a broadband connection?

For my first concert, I saw these guys, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, tear the roof off a concert hall in Vermont in 1991. They were wearing flaming hats. There was a mosh pit. Everybody had a great time.

(And the opening band was an unknown bunch of guys from Seattle called Pearl Jam. They went on to, ahem, moderate success.)

I spend enough time alone in front of a computer. My job is collecting and interpreting information about the future, so the computer is a great tool for that. But it strikes me that actual Rock & Roll — or salsa or hip-hop or country — is better experienced in a room with other human beings.

That’s the choice. Online digital avatars or flaming hats.

Folks, I say stock up on your general liability coverage, know where your fire extinguishers are found and pass me the earplugs! I choose flaming hats!

-Garland

Labels: Information technology, society