I was expecting little from Copenhagan and I was not disappointed. The idea that we could trust leaders to create a game changing conference were slim. The idea that we might have high integrity and wise decisions that could help move us away from consumption in favor of a sustainable agenda was a dream unfulfilled. What we now have is disappointment, a lowering of expectations and hopefully the catalyst for a global grassroots movement more powerful than the world has ever witnessed.

That movement is the only hope it appears we have to turn things around since our leaders are now proven wimps who have sold their souls. Even if the hundreds of Nobel scientists are off in their conclusions about our fate, it still makes sense to change the game as in first do no harm. But that will not happen anytime soon as evidenced by Copenhagan and we need action NOW. So we will watch for and continue to report on the sprouts of the new movement (See Paul Hawken’s Blessed Unrest), and see who puts forward the most inclusive, compelling and empowering grass roots call to action that connects the large and growing global sustainability movement that will ultimately throw out non-performing leaders in favor of those who will enact the binding legislation we need and even more importantly, create the changes in their personal lives that makes oil obsolete as soon as possible. After Copenhagan (AC) is the new AD. “Accelerate the Transition” is our new moral imperative.

Copenhagen Reveals a Vicious Circle of Mistrust

An Editorial by Christian Schwägerl, http://www.spiegel.de

Copenhagen’s conference ended without a legally-binding agreement to reduce emissions.

Who is to blame for the summit disaster? The US? China? The EU? The G-8? In fact, all of the above. It was a coming together of states that killed off a vital resource for the world: trust.

In Copenhagen, the outlines of a dangerous world were there for all to see. The climate summit did not end in a fist fight between tens of thousands of people, despite the fact that serious global problems were not resolved. Barack Obama did not have to fly out from the roof of a burning conference center. Nevertheless, it was palpable that this is a world in which trust is harder to come by than oil, and where there is more mistrust than CO2 emissions.

And yet Copenhagen has proven that trust is the most important resource for the transformation of the current oil-based system into a green civilization. It is more important than all the money that will be required for new technology, more efficient machines, dams and the survival of forest inhabitants.

It is a question of trust that China does not flood Europe with even more products made using cheap coal-based power, instead of replacing coal with alternative power stations; that Europe is not isolated as an island of environmentalists, while in Africa entire countries are becoming inhospitable; that climate aid amounting to billions does not land in private bank accounts in Africa, while there is not enough money for schools in the donor country; and that America does not come to rely on cheap oil, while China and India curb their fossil fuel consumption for reasons of climate protection.

In order for 9 billion people to live together on one planet, a circle of trust is required, one that rewards solutions and punishes the wrong economic activities of the past. That does not describe some kind of paradise. Rather it is the prerequisite for preventing a world without hope. In Copenhagen a vicious circle of mistrust came in to being, one that engulfed all the good intentions and plans.

The climate deal that was presented by the leaders of the United States, China, India, Germany and around 20 other states was about as worthless as toxic debt from AIG. There are no concrete CO2 targets for 2020 and 2050, there is no clearly distributed financing of the promised $100 billion in aid pledged to developing nations to adopt CO2-curbing green technologies and help pay for the damage caused to those countries by climate change. And there is no consistent monitoring of reductions and of how they are to be achieved. To announce a target of limiting global warming to an increase of 2 degrees Celsius is meaningless as long as there is no limit to the CO2 that humanity allows itself to emit by 2050: 750 billion tons, according to the best available science. At the current level that would already have been emitted by the 2020s. Yet there was not enough trust to commit to this kind of CO2 budget.

The deal reveals a crisis of trust between the states. The fact that Barack Obama flew in, gave a gruff speech, made a separate deal and then simply announced this — before the international community had even been made aware of it or had agreed to it — has corroded the UN process. Obama lacked the trust in this process and the courage to diagnose his own people with a case of energy obesity. Worse yet: At the first opportunity — at the plenum — it was not only the smaller Latin American states and Sudan that distanced themselves from the document, but also those who had helped draw it up: India, Russia and China.

‘Chimerica Versus the World’

One could seek culprits for the debacle: ” Chimerica” or the emerging countries, the EU, the G-8 or the G-77. The closest fit is “Chimerica against the rest of the world.” However, the Europeans could also have done a bit better, by unilaterally upping their reductions target from 20 to 30 percent. That, however, was too much for Italy and Poland. There was plenty of selfishness to go around. Everyone wants to be the first to strike oil, but when it comes to the much more sensible policy of protecting resources, then it’s all about waiting.

But the ideas being discussed at Copenhagen were solutions that would still be sensible even if climate change, despite expectations, turned out to be an illusion on the part of researchers. Fossil fuel reserves are limited, with oil falling into short supply within 40 years and coal within 120 years. The extraction of fossil fuels in Saudi Arabia is not only environmentally destructive, it also makes the potentate richer and terrorists more aggressive. Conserving oil, coal and natural gas is a requirement for security policies, foreign policy — and even education policy. After all, money saved by a society on fuel imports is not only available for other forms of consumption, but also indirectly for new schools and teachers.

One of the few enlightening sentences uttered by former US President George W. Bush during his terms in office was that the West is “addicted to oil.”

‘The Inhofe Supremacy’

The extent of that addiction was apparent in many actors at Copenhagen, but especially in one. He only came for a few hours, but he was also decisively responsible for the chaos that marked the negotiations: James Inhofe, a Republican politician who does whatever he can in Washington to inhibit Obama’s efforts to impose CO2 limits. He is not only ridiculous in describing climate change as made up by “the Hollywood elite,” but outright dangerous. He would rather sacrifice American natural beauty at home and American soldiers abroad than to push his country to the forefront of a green technology revolution. For men of his ilk, oil and coal are tantamount to power, not a curse. They believe that Americans have a God-given right to release twice the level of emissions as the Europeans and four times as much as the planet’s average inhabitant. “The Inhofe Supremacy” could be the name of a film about the man, because the primacy in the world he is trying to secure for his country is enormous. But there are plenty of Chinese, Indians and Australians who think similarly. Working together in Copenhagen, they prevented humanity from starting to work together to solve a number of shared problems — to the detriment of every start-up investment that has the prospect of a hundred years of green profits.

Men like Inhofe, who in Copenhagen warned that nations shouldn’t be “deceived into thinking the US would pass cap-and-trade legislation,” have the effect of poison when it comes to the urgently needed global trust-building. As in nuclear disarmament, the expectation is pivotal that the other side will take the same difficult steps. But as long as the danger persists that a party could again come into power in America that would wipe the findings of climate science from the table and would rather send soldiers abroad than solar power engineers, then there won’t be much trust towards the US. And the Chinese may be talking the talk on climate issues, but as long as they are only spending a small part of their enormous cash reserves on green investments, their credibility will be compromised.

Oil Trumps Green Movement, At Least for Now

The consequences Copenhagen will have on other policy areas should not be underestimated: How can negotiating partners be certain that something similar won’t ensue when it comes to competition for natural resources? And how can people maintain hope that the megaproblems of our planet can be entrusted to the type of major summit round that just took place in Copenhagen?

The trust that is needed right now to revive the seriously injured political process can no longer be expected to come from the top down. Perhaps we now need a totally different coalition of the willing, of people who can set a lifestyle example that is easily adopted around the world. That movement would have to be more aggressive in its stances against special interests that have run astray, like those of the drug dealers in the oil industry. This could be the hour of a new global environmental movement, as Nobel Prize-winning economist Elinor Ostrom says. A movement that isn’t just reflected in dutiful survey answers, but also in the new lifestyle choices it makes and in the persistence with which it raises pesky questions for companies and political parties.

How Much Respect Do You Have for Yourself?

For the time being, the oil movement remains stronger than the environmental movement, the egotists stronger than the people willing to share, the SUV movement greater than that of the train riders. The faction of people who are willing to risk damage to posterity is greater than that of those who would prefer caution.

Those who feel a sense of disquiet in light of the tragedy of Copenhagen, have good reason to be quite furious with the powerful leaders who have squandered this summit. It’s okay to be enraged by the fact that political leaders are scaremongering about our future existence but at the same time are unwilling to accept solutions.

Then you have to go to the mirror and ask yourself: How much of Inhofe’s mentality can I see in myself? How much respect do I deserve for treating the planet correctly? It will take millions and billions of affirmative answers in order to build the trust that can grow into a climate conference more successful than the one that just ended in Copenhagen.

Sustainable Personal Mobility and Mobility-on-Demand Systems (SPM/MoD), submitted by an interdisciplinary team of students at MIT has been selected as the winner of the prestigious 2009 Buckminster Fuller Challenge. The team will receive a $100,000 prize at a conferring ceremony on June 6th, 2009 at 2pm at The Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago followed by a reception and celebration featuring a presentation by design innovator Bruce Mau.

“Given the nature of the crises we are facing, from climate change to economic collapse, what is important is to demonstrate that the approach to design and problem solving at the core of the Buckminster Fuller Challenge – while always thinking big – has the potential to bring about changes in the near-term. The winning project is a perfect example of the kind of radical, transformative change that is possible when we reconceive the old ways of doing things and take a systems-based approach to design,” said The Buckminster Fuller Challenge jurors in a statement about their decision. “SPM/MoD isn’t just about the design of these lightweight, highly efficient, electric vehicles, it is about inserting that technological innovation into the social and cultural environment and designing an intuitive system within which they function.”

To learn more about the winning strategy, visit: http://challenge.bfi.org/winner_2009

“We are thrilled with the selection of a team of students as this year’s winner. Fuller spent a great deal of his life inspiring and being inspired by university students all over the world,” said Elizabeth Thompson, Executive Director of The Buckminster Fuller Institute. “He often chose to work closely with student teams on significant projects. This prompted Fuller in 1961 to propose a ‘design science decade’ in which universities around the world would engage in a ten-year project studying global trends and needs in an effort to make the world work for everyone. MIT’s entry represents the real spirit and substance of such an endeavor applied to a new vision of personal mobility.”

In addition to the winner, the distinguished jury selected a runner up and two honorable mentions from a pool of nearly 200 entries. Dreaming New Mexico (DNM), a Bioneers project with support from Google Earth’s Outreach program, submitted by Kenny Ausubel and Peter Warshall was selected as the runner-up. DNM is based on the strategic premise that “dreaming the future can create the future.” This project provides a systemic template, methodology and collaborative mapping tools for communities to engage in place-based and bioregional planning. Cycle for Health, submitted by Joseph Agoada, Dr. John Baptist Niwagaba, and Patrick Kayemba and Mukuru BioCentres, submitted by Umande Trust and GOAL Ireland, were awarded honorable mentions for their work in Africa to dramatically improve economic conditions and human health.

The Buckminster Fuller Challenge, launched in 2007, promotes a systems approach to design pioneered by Buckminster Fuller which aims to address complex problems through comprehensive, anticipatory design thinking. Through the recognition of outstanding entries, The Challenge supports and draws attention to individuals and teams around the world whose innovative strategies have the potential to help solve humanity’s most pressing problems.

From Greenerbuildings.com

OAKLAND, Calif. — Citing a company-wide responsibility to take sustainable design seriously, HOK, one of the world’s largest architecture firms, announced yesterday that it had formed a partnership with the Biomimicry Guild to incorporate cutting-edge ideas from nature into HOK’s designs for buildings, towns and cities.

The two companies will bring their respective expertises — HOK in green buildings and sustainable design, the Guild in adapting natural technologies to human needs — to bear on projects around the world, with the goal of lowering the overall impact of the built environment on the planet.

Recent studies have estimated that nearly half of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions are attributed to building energy use and building materials, and as much as 75 percent of global energy use is needed to power buildings. As a result, greening the planet’s buildings has become a key element of the design and architecture worlds.

“We have a responsibility to make sure that these buildings are responsible citizens,” HOK’s Mike Plotnick explained in a press conference yesterday. As a result, he said, the partnership will bring HOK to explore the intersections between buildings and sustainability, looking at every possible way of improving cities and buildings.

The partnership has already begun work on a project in India, and is exploring opportunities in the Middle East and North America. The India project is to design a series of villages in Lavasa, India, outside of Pune; over an area of 21 million square feet, HOK and the Biomimicry Guild will be able to test on a large scale some of the most forward-looking bio-inspired ideas.

Chip Crawford, director of HOK’s planning group, explained one of the biggest challenges they face: the region receives between 21 and 27 feet of rain per year, concentrated during the three-month monsoon season. The region gets increasingly drier over the remaining nine months, so the projects at Lavasa will need to manage and maintain water levels in the area while minimizing erosion and topsoil loss.

As part of the project, HOK and the Guild will be working with “ecological performance standards” in mind. The goal of these standards is to ensure that the projects, once in place, match how the sites performed ecologically prior to any construction taking place.

The goal, according to Dayna Baumeister, the cofounder of the Biomimicry Guild, is “to move beyond just looking like nature to actually performing like nature.”

Today’s children are inheriting a rapidly changing world. Unfortunately, most of the world educates students for a world that will no longer exist when they graduate. The Green School in Bali is a a new paradigm holistic educational system that will help prepare its students for a far different future than we are living in today.

Green School opens in September 2008 for students in Preschool and Kindergarten through Year Eight, with highly talented students and faculty from communities in Bali and 15 countries around the world. Our innovative curriculum combines demanding academic content taught through a holistic approach that aims to inspire and enhance all of a child’s capacities. Talented faculty apply classroom lessons to real life through a range of entrepreneurial and environmental projects. Our goal is to foster a spirit of inquiry and a love of learning that prepares our students to thrive in the challenging, complex 21st-century world.

Check out Green School’s brilliant solution at greenschool.org

Here’s an inspiring real life story of people successfully manifesting a sustainable life. Let’s hope this model spreads like wildfire.