This Sustainable Life

Recent guest Bob Litterman spoke highly of Greg and his work at the Climate Leadership Council, a rare bipartisan effort on climate. He put us in touch. In the meantime, I was curious about a climate group started by Secretaries of State James A. Baker and George P. Shultz along with Ted Halstead. But they and other prominent Republicans published The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends.Greg is CLC's CEO, leading that project on the ground working with politicians. If you're curious how it can work, he explains it in our conversation.You'll hear my long-standing concern that people and organizations who focus on climate and greenhouse gases end up increasing other problems. He sees in some areas that if you solve part of the problem you increase it in other areas, like squeezing a balloon, as he puts it, or whack-a-mole, as I do, but doesn't speak about that problem in focusing only on carbon.I also didn't get to ask him about the fourth pillar of the case: "significant regulatory simplification." Could it open the door for more pollution and a net lowering of Earth's ability to sustain life?Still, listen and hear directly from him on the bipartisan effort he's leading.The Climate Leadership CouncilAmericans for Carbon Dividends Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Gernot and I go back a few years from meeting online over sustainability issues, finding out that we lived about a mile from each other, then meeting in person. Our first meeting, we got annoyed at each other, but our second we found we agreed on more controversial topics and had a grand old time. We also ran into each other at the conference where I met his longtime collaborator Bob Litterman, who was a recent podcast guest.Gernot combined economics with sustainability before others did and kept at it, putting him at the forefront of environmental economics. As regular listeners know, I value experience and living by one's values, not just talking about it. How else can you gain relevant experience, credibility, integrity, and character? How else do you know what you're talking about?Gernot has acted plenty. He talks about living more sustainably in his personal life along with his family. (As a side note, you wouldn't believe how many people tell me living sustainably with a family is impossible. It's not impossible for him, nor was it for all humans for 300,000 years. What makes it hard is marrying someone who doesn't share your values, which is another problem from sustainability, but not for Gernot).He talks about how he renovated his loft here in New York City. He also led renovating the house he grew up in in Austria as a teenager.He also shares an experienced environmental economist's view of the world and life. He speaks in plain English, not academic-speak, so I find him engaging and enlightening. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What does the world look like today with regard to our environmental situation? Not the latest news about a disaster we can write off as a one-time event, even if yet another once a once-in-a-century event now common, but what does it look like on the ground. We know there have been record-breaking fires, floods, and storms. What are they like?David travels the United States to record what he sees and reports it in Traveler's Guide to the End of the World. He comes from a literary background, so he puts it in the context of past nature writers. He also has a daughter so asks scientists what the world will be like when she is his age. The book is not always easy to read, but always engaging and fascinating.He represents nature. He declines to lead about it, which, if you know me, I see as the most important course we can take, but there's no denying the value of seeing the world as it has become.In our conversation, he shares his background, motivations, and the process of researching and writing.We talk about ultimate Frisbee too, beyond since we both loved it when we played. It also informed our views of our roles in the world. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

With Peter Singer, I could have picked several topics relevant to sustainability leadership: veganism, vegetarianism, and charity come to mind, as does my post about him six months ago, Fixing Peter Singer’s drowning child analogy for sustainability. The day before recording, I saw him speak live and asked during the question-and-answer period at the end about not flying.He answered thoughtfully and reflectively, not with the usual reactivity and emotional intensity most people do, protecting their feelings of guilt and shame, as I see them (I wrote The reason you feel judged isn’t because environmentalists are judging you. It’s because you have a conscience.) Several audience members told me they appreciated my asking the question. So when we spoke after he finished his stage performance, I asked if he'd mind following up the question in our podcast conversation.So we spoke in more depth about flying versus not flying. I think I can safely say we both learned from each other, though I think he hasn't spoken with many people who have stopped flying to gain from their experience.Coincidentally, his talk on stage was fireside chat-style with podcast guest AJ Jacobs. Small world. If you like intelligent, thoughtful conversation, check out Think Inc., the company that organized the talk. They host events with many speakers who are peers. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

You won't hear many finance people promoting more taxes, though it's increasing. Bob talks beyond our conversation a few weeks before about a carbon tax, integrity, permanence, standards, measurement, and many different angles. He talks about responsibility and holding the companies creating the problems responsible. It just takes courage.Regular listeners know I find that when anyone focuses only on carbon, greenhouse emissions, and climate, they almost always miss our other environmental problems, like plastic, pollution, deforestation, and you know the rest, Bob agrees the tax incentive should apply to these other areas, though I'm not sure he acts on them. It's easy not to change the system, but to make it more efficient and accelerate it overall, even if you lower problems in one part of the system.But mostly I wanted to hear his views and strategies, not press, so I hope I listened more than challenge.He also shared his inside views of people in finance approaching a tipping point of realizing we have to protect our environment -- everything, not just climate. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Matt shared last time about the redwoods I keep hearing about in California that I've never seen but find they transform people.His goal was to plant a tree. He ended up with a new tree, plus he planted other plants. Listen to hear the story. More than what he did, I recommend listening to his emotional experience. Did he have to do all the things he did? Could he do other things that are more mainstream but might pollute more if he wanted?We talked first about the problems with what most people mean when they talk about teaching children, helping poor people experience nature, and a few other tactics people promote without thinking them through, as I believe. They sound great. What are they missing?Matt has thought through such issues more than most and was patient enough to let me share some of my views. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I met Bob at a conference on climate at my old school, Columbia Business School. He knew another participant, Gernot Wagner, with whom I recorded an episode I'll post soon, and was a peer with past guest Mark Tercek. I didn't work in finance, but I understand Bob and Mark were like dieties there.Bob brings two huge new things to climate (he talks about climate almost exclusively among our environmental problems, though we touch on others briefly in the conversation). First, he knows risk management. Most of his career, he didn't think much about the environment, but when he learned about it, he identified that we have to manage risk, so he dove into the issue.Second, he connected with a group of conservative politicians promoting what he sees as the most effective solution: a carbon tax. That he's working with groups normally seen as resisting climate action could bring people together.Also, just after we recorded, the New York Times published a big piece on Bob: A Renowned Economist’s New Idea for Stopping Climate Change.A personal note: I don't challenge his views because I'm learning them and meeting him. I agree our economic system doesn't account for pollution and depletion. Without proper accounting, no business can stay in business that long, nor can any government. So I consider proper accounting essential, but it's only extrinsic. It doesn't change our culture or the values driving it. Since our culture has abandoned, at least regarding how we treat each other when mediated through the environment, Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You, Live and Let Live, and Leave It Better Than You Found It, a tax won't fix a values problem.I didn't challenge Bob in it in our conversation, but I find when people focus on climate and greenhouse emissions they nearly always "solve" them with "whack-a-mole" ideas that increase biodiversity loss, deforestation, and other problems. They claim they're solving one thing at a time, but I see them not addressing the culture causing everything.I look forward to more conversations with him.A New York Times piece on Bob: A Renowned Economist’s New Idea for Stopping Climate Change Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Population modeling can be hard, as is figuring out a prediction's accuracy, therefore how much confidence to give your conclusions. Many people can't hear talk about population without hearing things like eugenics and racism even when they aren't there.But population is one of the most important factors in sustainability. Everything becomes easier when population isn't near or above what Earth can sustain and harder when it's above.I came to Chris from reading his paper on modeling population growth, Footprints to singularity, which showed a couple things. It clarified that UN and peer projections lacked feedback mechanisms so couldn't show population decline. If your model can't show a population decline, it will blind you to the possibility and therefore keep you from preventing or preparing for it. It also leads you to ask, "how do we feed ten billion people" instead of seeing that we can't without causing a steep drop in population soon after, a pattern called overshoot and collapse.Second, it showed a good chance that population would likely decline significantly soon. It and he also reinforced my confidence in Limits to Growth's dynamical systems approach.Chris's paper prompted my contacting Wolfgang Lutz, and I recommend listening to his episode too. I hope to bring them together on one episode to see if they can reconcile their differences.Oh yeah, I also enjoyed and learned from the class slides for his undergraduate course in human population. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In what looks to me like one of the biggest overcommitments of guests on this podcast and participants in the Spodek Method, Dan shares that to free his mind for meditation, he ended up selling his motorcycle and Playstation.Then we spoke about coaching and leading people to reach their potentials, which he experienced on the receiving end in reaching the Olympics twice and does now with others, and he appreciates me doing in corporations and on sustainability. You'll hear we both admire each other and are learning from each other.A curious note: you'll hear me puzzled at his tone, which I couldn't place. It didn't convey the sense of accomplishment and freedom his words did. We're still getting to know each other.I also think he expects acting more sustainably to take more time and money, when I find it frees both. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

People who work at fossil fuel companies are people just like you and me. When you buy what the industry sells, you support it too. You rationalize and justify that your money supports lobbyists, advertising, extraction, pollution, depletion, making refugees, dictators, and so on.Want to stop people working there? I suggest it helps to understand them. We can start by understanding ourselves. Stopping ourselves from supporting that industry is easier than stopping them, so I recommend starting with ourselves.Note: we recorded this episode a few years ago, before I fully developed the Spodek Method. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.