Burgess COMMENTARY

Peter Burgess

nocda 24 November 2013 3:37pm

I don't agree with the conclusion of this piece, much as I greatly respect the author & those he cites & those commenting here.

We have oodles of future visions now , do we really need more? We have Porritt's new book, Amory Lovins energy transitions and similar, Impact Investing as a construct and myriads of variations of same, Sustainable Living Plans and much more, but in the current scheme of things, all of these efforts are either utopian visions or just talk. Over 90% of business as usual continues unabated - people drive cars when they can, existing buildings are cheaper to continue using than replacing or retrofitting, flying is projected to break records over the decades to come, food & water & other resources are projected to become scarce, oceanic health is at risk, tipping points loom.

What we don't have is a way to get from the built infrastructure we have and the cost it takes to rebuild/replace vs using what we have at less cost - that transition from the current status quo modes of transportation, consumption, commerce, and built environments is very entrenched and likely much cheaper to keep going than to replace, and in our age of low growth in the developed world, this is our major challenge.

The cost of this transition is the issue - who pays and who doesn't, and we have let money & ownership of resources determine this path or lack thereof - it stops the badly needed COP negotiations from ever being truly serious.

Thanks to all who provide utopian visions, they are important and necessary - what we need is a globally agreed specific transition plan or we will largely keep on down the same environmental & social paths we are on - due to the cost of the transition either being too high, or being perceived that way. And so how to get on with the global transition required? This is the question we should all be working on - the vision is fine, now how do we actually get there?

This comment resonates with me. There is a big community of people who are thinking hard about the issues, and then writing about them. Many of the ideas are very good, but the issue of how to implement change in a practical way tends to be ignored.

I argue that there is a system problem, and for this there must be a system solution. One of the tools for change in a complex system is an appropriate system of metrics. Look inside a modern corporation, itself a fairly complex system, and you will find metrics that help everyone inside the system to push forward to the corporate goal of more growth and more profit.

We can do something similar with our global society and economy. We need appropriate metrics that pull everything together and help every one of us to make our own contribution to change. This is not sophisticated econometrics, but rather old fashioned accounting, but not merely for money profit, also for impact on people and planet. I call this Multi Dimension Impact Accounting (MDIA). It has economic activity at the center, and these economic activities have impact on many dimensions of society and the economy ... the organization, the place, products, people, resources and environment.

If we change the way the game is scored, we will change the way the game is played. Some good companies are moving in the right direction, but for most companies it is the same old same old money profit and stock price growth

Peter Burgess - TrueValueMetrics