Natural Capitalism, Anyone?
Posted on December 18, 2010 | posted by:
In seminar recently, we’ve been discussing the book Natural Capitalism, by Paul Hawken and Amory and Hunter Lovins. It’s an excellent book, which – even if you don’t think of yourself as a designer or an environmentalist – you should consider reading if you plan to live on this planet for much longer.
The book argues that the prevailing economic models in use today are distorted, incomplete, and inadequate. These models measure only financial and material capital and place little or no value on natural and human capital. The result – when the bottom line is the only measure of success or failure – is that natural resources, human wellbeing, and potentially symbiotic relationships between the two are unceremoniously sacrificed for profit when and wherever possible.
Instead of simply pointing out how unfortunate this situation is – like many other books with an environmental agenda – Natural Capitalism goes on to show how unnecessary it is as well. It lays out exhaustive evidence (both statistical and anecdotal) to support the argument that sustainable business practices can in fact be more profitable than the destructive ones in place today.
The problem we keep coming back to in class is that this book was written over a decade ago and even some of the simplest innovations it proposes in its most compelling arguments have yet to be implemented on a wide scale in the private or public sectors. No one seems to be seriously disputing the ideas in the book, but relatively few organizations seems be seriously using them either.
Okay, that’s not entirely true. A lot of the proposed innovations haven’t materialized, but the underlying notion that business interests and environmental concerns aren’t necessarily opposed to one another (as they are so often portrayed – especially in politics) is an idea that was very new when Natural Capitalism was first published and that is finally beginning to take hold now.
But still, it’s hard to understand why “Hypercars” and “smart grids” haven’t become realities when such compelling arguments were made for them so long ago. Other countries (particularly in Western Europe) have made progress in this direction through public policy, but there is some skepticism in our class about whether this kind of “top-down” approach could be effective – or even possible – in the idiosyncratic (to put it mildly) U.S. political climate.
One idea we tossed around was that the argument that sustainability can be good for business also makes a futile attempt to implement environmental reform from the top down. In other words, what is called for is not “the next industrial revolution” – as Natural Capitalism proposes – but a grassroots, bottom-up, popular revolution. People in America won’t have governments or corporations telling them what to do or what to buy; they must freely decide for themselves.
An astute visitor to our class proposed an idea of what it will take to affect this sort of large-scale behavioral change. Environmental arguments and sustainable designs must make a deeper emotional connection, he said. People will continue to support solutions that are against their own (and their environment’s) best interest until they are presented with other solutions that are more emotionally resonant. Maybe Natural Capitalism misses the mark by appealing to our intellects rather than our emotions.
I’m not entirely sure what’s stifling the apparently self-evident solutions proposed in Natural Capitalism (although I would put my money on our politics, and its collusion with the energy cartels). I don’t think that showing commercial and industrial interests the competitive advantage they could gain from more sustainable practices necessarily dictates top-down solutions. If businesses willingly adopt better practices, and people willingly support better businesses – because both parties see the logic in doing so – an entirely organic, self-organizing revolution could emerge.
And, although I recognize the potential of innovations that emotionally incentivize sustainable behavior, I also see the value in avoiding (if only temporarily) the highly charged, emotional lobbying that has characterized and polarized the environmental discourse in this country for so long. The sober pragmatism of Natural Capitalism is a welcomed relief from the usual partisan shouting. Who’s going to notice if we quietly slip some of its great ideas into our designs?