A Worse Hell

$700 Billion is a lot. I cannot conceive of it. It is like thinking about how long ago the dinosaurs roamed the earth. Let's not become extinct because of bad decisions.

If this bailout money follows the money that got us into this mess then hell will be revisited upon our children's children. It is how the money is used now to CHANGE the world, especially the world of business, that will yield a better, cleaner, more vibrant and sustainable world.

Here is what I mean: The auto companies must make much more fuel efficient vehicles, plug-in electric vehicles, CNG vehicles and the like. They must adopt "lightweighting" carbon fiber construction like the next generation of jets. (there is a reason Mr. Mulally went from Boeing to Ford, isnt there?)

See this link for an interview with Amory Lovins about what the car companies need to do.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10112893-54.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

In general, the bailout money for ALL industries must go, in some large part, to fix the dirty industrial cycle that has polluted our world and further segmented our society. It is the R&D into sustainable business and the kinds of goods that get made and purchased that will ensure we do not repeat the dirty industrial cycle. This money cannot revive the same fiscal, environmental and socially unaccountable enterprise that created the problem.

There was an opinion piece in the NY Times Sunday December 28th by Bob Linglis and Arthur B Laffer (Laffer Curve, Supply-Side economist) called "An Emissions Plan Conservatives Could Warm To". I was astonished to read that they support moving gas and oil subsidies into "greener" pastures. They support a tax policy that drives behaviors we want (using less carbon dioxide) and keeps more of what people need (money!). This is strong sustainable thinking. Essentially they agree with Amory Lovins, Al Gore, and others, to say that they, and Conservatives, could support, "a carbon tax offset by a payroll or income tax cut."

I am truly excited about the increasing commentary from Conservatives about agreement on the concepts of sustainability in policy and business. I have not listened to what the likes of Rush Limbaugh are saying on this topic. If Rush is truly a conservative and not a populist wind-bag, then I would expect he would encourage bi-partisan efforts to pass legislation on these ideas and to not identify them as "left" or "radical" etc. But then...how would he get ratings? I do not have faith in him or the radio industry on that topic. But I hope.

The only troubling item stuck in the piece was the support of nuclear power. This is a "sustainability non-starter" Seeing as we are worried about "waste" in the form of CO2 today...why would we not be worried about the grand-daddy of all wastes...the nuclear variety? Makes no sense. Should not be on the table.

So how can we avoid a worse hell for our kids and their kids? Vote with your dollar (you probably already voted with your....vote) and read up on some of these topics. Search for Rocky Mountain Institute on the web, Buy a used copy of Natural Capitalism or Cradle to Cradle or go to http://www.biomimicry.net/ to learn about the concept of biomimmicry.

If you are a business person then please use your knowledge and experience to change just one aspect of your business to be sustainable. Start with energy efficiency. You'll begin to save some money. Put that money to good use elsewhere in your business. Make your impact locally and endeavor to pass along your stories so others can carry on.