investing | Sustainable Path

Category Archives: investing

2011 — A Pivotal Year for Investors

Written on December 16, 2011 by Roland Van der Meer in Community, Economics, investing, stewardship

Impact Investing, Sustainable Investing. Double Bottom Line. Triple Bottom Line. Investing for Change. Three years ago, these were big ideas and messages that 99% of the world didn’t understand or even care about. They amounted to doing good and trying to make some money. It was the world of foundations and charities trying to express that they are not all giving money away, but rather are trying to use some of the principles of capitalism.

This year we have seen a major shift in the choice of words used to describe what is going on and what investors are willing to invest in. We are in the middle of the shift to investing in key resources that are under pressure or becoming scarce. We are seeing mainstream capital pay attention to the value of these resources and how they are being used. Sometimes, unfortunately, not for the betterment of that resource but for the exploitation of the opportunity, but we will get back to that later.

We are now seeing the first of the mainstream investors stepping up and realizing that not only can they invest in agriculture, water, energy and real estate, but they can do it the right way and take into account the environmental and social costs: By first investing in asset managers that understand and make more money (enhanced Alpha,) and then the asset class as a whole. This is a huge and significant step for capital management and the environment.

In public and liquid securities, 2011 has been a turning point as well. This week, Generation Investment Management published the Manifesto for Sustainable Capitalism, citing what companies are doing, should be doing and how investors can view their portfolios differently to encourage long term gain through better management of resources, assets, environment and people. Clearly this message is going mainstream and it is not just a negative screen or positive screen: It is a new understanding of how companies think about their impact and use of resources. It is becoming definable, measurable and investable.

One of the largest data providers, Bloomberg Data Services, makes it possible to analyze many factors of ESG that public entities publish now. For instance, we can evaluate how efficiently energy, water, carbon is being used compared and crossed with revenue, employees, sq. ft. of space, etc. It looks at the social metrics as well, such as how a company invests into its communities of interest. Bloomberg also tracks the governance metrics that look at policies, objectiveness and transparency. These are important metrics and can only get better over time. There are 5 to 10 other interesting metric providers and we can expect that many of these will get absorbed into the mainstream investing as well.

This is also a key year for B-Corporations, a new type of corporate classification that says we are in business to make money but also count into the equation of looking at the environment and social issues that the business effects. They promise to publish even more data and have more transparency in their business operations. This year 5 more states (New Jersey, Virginia, Hawaii, California, and New York) have adopted the corporate form from the original two (VT and Maryland) and it looks like 10 more will for 2012.

Major investors such as Pension Funds, Endowments, Wealth Management Firms and Private Banks are all looking for products in agriculture, water, energy, land, real estate as well as other valuable resource investment plays. While this is good, and can be better, they do not completely understand which ones are creating a better environment and social construct versus those that just exploit the short term value: For instance, an agriculture investment that improves the land, the soil and the natural systems versus one that uses the industrial system of agriculture and also can deplete soils and ruin the environment will perform better over the medium and long term.

More time is needed to inform investors of what is possible using best practices and methodologies. More investors need to take the time to learn which are the driving forces that can make all the difference. As we look back on 2011, we will remember many key milestones — in politics, innovation and environment — and hopefully move forward in our goals to be better stewards of our planet.

0 Comments - Leave a comment!

Are We Running Out of Natural Capital?

Written on September 13, 2011 by Roland Van der Meer in Economics, investing, stewardship, sustainability

This is not a trick question but an honest ask. We are dependent upon nature. We can not live if the earth that hosts us is being expended, used up, exhausted.

This weekend in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof writes “We’re Rich! (In Nature). The US has fantastic natural resources that we seem to be indifferent towards. He says that we need to get out there to enjoy and walk in nature: It is why we are all here and what we need to center ourselves. Even the US Forest Service has gotten into the act with a fund website and this great video. Yes, we work hard so we can go to the beach, swim, snorkel with fish, watch dolphins, whales, or we go to the mountains and hike in nature, see the wildlife, or go ski and enjoy the beauty and excitement. Or, for some of us we go out to eat fabulous food (food that has to come from a healthy environment.) Nature is what supports us and lets us thrive. If we take it for granted, waste it, pollute it, or destroy it, we will not be here any more.

At the Earth Policy Institute, Lester Brown saw this issue coming decades ago. He describes it best in the Eco-Economy when he discusses that we are now at the point that the Ecological Capital is being depleted and used faster than it can be restored. This is because our economic capital does not value this in its equation, in fact micro economics accerlate the destruction of a limited natural resource.

When a natural resource is starting to be scarce, its value goes up and this drives the push to extract the resource faster until the resource is exhausted. We have to watch out for any natural resource that is being harnessed past its sustainable level or we will all suffer the loss.

For example, the fisheries of the world are in serious decline. Every time we can stop the over fishing we should. In Greece, there are many islands where the fish do not exist as they were all dynamited until their eco systems collapsed. In Scotland, there is a well s tudied fishery, where in the 1890′s the community banned trawling within 3 miles of shore because of over fishing. This worked and the fish returned. Then in the 1980′s, the economic interests put political pressure to reverse this law, and within two decades the fishery was exhausted and not recoverable; and with that, the local industry died. This has played out time and time again all over the world.

In Kristof’s article, he writes about how our national forests are again under pressure where certain industries are pushing for legislation to open up 50 million acres to logging and unsustainable grazing. We have seen this motion before and this is not a good direction.

Lester Brown is urging us to head toward an eco-economy, which is an environmentally sustainable economy that requires that the principles of ecology establish the framework for the formulation of economic policy. Having the two studies integrated is imperative as the differences are fundamental. Ecologists worry about nature’s limits, while economists tend not to recognize any such constraints. Economists have a great faith in the market, while ecologists often fail to appreciate the market adequately. Ecologists see the world as interlinked network of natural systems that cannot exist without one another. Economists see the world as a set of micro economies that can substituted for each other.

There is much to do and so little time, but we do have some very good ideas about how to evolve our economy with the environment. It will just need a lot of political will to get there.

0 Comments - Leave a comment!

Recognizing the Changes We Need to Make

Written on August 14, 2011 by Roland Van der Meer in Economics, Energy, Uncategorized, investing, stewardship

Whether we like it or not the world continually changes. It is never standing still and we continually have to learn to adjust. Our planet is an island and we have reached, or maybe even over reached, its limits. Even with all its beauty and vastness it is still finite, and the changes we will see in the coming decades may be severe. Not just in the climate, but in the way we live as we begin to recognize its resources are running low. The commodities we took for granted will begin to be valued dearly.

A very important piece by Jeremy Grantham, “Time to wake up”, was summarized well here. This research dives into the value of commodities and how the pricing will now begin a climbing ascent into the future. It is well thought out and documented and probably as succinct as I have seen. It is alarming for investors and mankind to read through and begin to understand the trends that have been set in motion.

If you really would like to scare yourself, an Article this week in the Times on Grantham, clearly walks through the scenarios that are pending. It is not for the faint of heart. We have a lot of work to do and need to put our economic and political efforts in motion to stop the draining of precious resources and start investing in their proper care. This is probably the biggest opportunity for investors in the century.

So lets pay attention and start to treat our earthly assets with the value and care they deserve.

0 Comments - Leave a comment!

Exploring the Concept of Shared Value

Written on January 3, 2011 by Roland Van der Meer in Community, investing, stewardship

This month, Harvard Business Review’s cover article is titled, “The Big Idea: Creating Shared Value”. This is a great article. The concept of Shared Value is on the right track and trying to define a needed new paradigm, but it has to reach further to accomplish the bigger objective of stewardship of the land, environment and community.

The real issue is scarcity of resources, environmental and social consideration. We live on a fixed ball in space and need to think about the implications of everything we do holistically and systemically. This of course is very hard to do on a global scale, so then we must push to approach it from as large scale as possible, yet with a local view as possible.

BioLogical Capital, a Denver-based company, for instance looks at the issue from land sizes from 20 thousand acre to greater than 100 thousand acres it will manage. They become the steward of the land; to own and optimize with the community for all services and businesses that can co-exist with the natural habitat. Without this vision for man, nature and the total environment; people will suffer in long term.

So how do you shift this framework to a more global perspective? If you think in as big of scale as possible (space and land); can you optimize the solution for the biggest benefit for the environment and the people while building sustainable businesses. Here is the catch; if each business is self optimized, then by definition whole is not. Enter Regulation to control manage and set rules and standards, which is brought up in the article, yet as mentioned, this never solves this problem, although it tries. So how is this problem solvable? What Porter is trying to do is give a path to a better outcome. To take the best Capitalism has and marry this with the notions of real costs and consequences for people and environment; and in addition, you must take a very long term view. To use a simple example; if you produce food, but your minor toxic run-off that is creeping into the water table is killing your customers over decades; you will eventually put yourself out of business. This piece is the beginning of a bigger framework that needs to be built for the planet and people to succeed.

0 Comments - Leave a comment!

The Conflict of Growth and Sustainability – Part 2

Written on December 3, 2010 by Roland Van der Meer in Economics, agroforestry, investing, stewardship

Economic sustainability is integral for any society. Vibrant and growing economies are better for everyone. In the first part of this series, we discussed the need for consumers to become more conscience of why they buy and what they buy. Consumers can impact sustainability by focusing on quality aspects of living and when they need to consume, consume only that which they truly need or want. Buy the best they can afford, thereby increasing overall satisfaction.

For corporations, the focus is similar: Show your responsibility and commitment to your employees, customers and shareholders. Corporations can express their values to the world and show that they care about people, community, and environment. One way to demonstrate this commitment is to become a B-Corp . A B-Corp is a new form of corporation that publicly and transparently sets higher standards for the company. It is a small yet growing community of corporations that are raising the bar on how to operate in the business world. The momentum is growing, and several states are recognizing a B-Corp as a legal entity with new legal and potential tax benefits.

What is most important is the promise, the statement, a company makes when it raises its hand and says I will hold myself accountable to higher standards of business. In doing so a B-Corp can attract a more loyal customer base and shareholder base who share similar commitments and business will prosper.

A great example of how this is working is a furniture manufacture here in the Bay Area. Furniture is a tough old-line business that has never been too environmentally friendly. They use a every kind of wood, rare exotic woods, volatile and hazardous finishes, synthetic fabrics and foam cushions all treated with heavy doses of flame retardant and spill resistant chemicals, wasted packaging and shipping materials, etc. (It is no wonder that most abandoned furniture factories are Class II environmental hazard sites.)

This company decided to tackle these toxic issues one by one. It cleaned up its act and used simple ideas that brought significant change and helped the business proper. First, it announced its intent to its employees and its customers, and laid out simple ground rules: They would only use renewable resources. That alone almost stopped the production line. What woods could they use? What about the cool veneers that all designers wanted? After they sourced wood from sustainable mills and forests, they found veneers like Eucalyptus and bamboo and ten other renewable and sustainably grown species and showed what could be done with these woods to make them attractive and be not only appealing but cool and hip. Designers also liked the idea and the pitch the natural and renewable resources idea to their customers, who also cared about sustainability. But that was just the first step.

Trying to find finishes that were water-based and non-toxic and held up over time was a challenge. Some were found and some came from an old solution from 400 years ago: Rubbed wax finishes. A bit more care and time is needed, but the beauty is real. The use of natural fabrics caused issues as the selection was limited, but as the awareness grew of how good a natural sustainably grown fabric is for people and the environment, clients embraced the selection.

After accomplishing these changes, the company went further by inspiring its employees to take part in the effort by finding innovative ways to reduce costs and waste. Recycling was integral but so was the idea of doing more and using less. The company challenged employees to be cost effective and resourceful with the packaging of shipped in materials and shipped out product. It would incentivize (read “give part of savings to”) the employees to continually make progress toward sustainability. Suppliers where asked to use less plastic, cardboard or use nothing at all to ship items. If palates were used, they were shipped back on the spot. Once suppliers saw the savings, the idea took hold. Any time an idea worked towards the sustainability goal, even if it didn’t save the company money, they would give an award to the employee.

It didn’t take much to create a new spirit and vibrancy in this company, now being recognized for its innovative ideas and thoughtful service. This effort to transform the company is only half way to its total goals but the focus and effort remains. This is one small example of starting change and watching it snowball.

Sustainability and environmental responsibility builds a community of interest by doing the right things and driving results, and this is the direction of change corporations need to move towards. The values a company expresses are reflected in their interactions with customers and shareholders. Companies can empower their employees, customers, shareholders and constituents to spread this effort and we all benefit.

0 Comments - Leave a comment!

The Conflict of Growth and Sustainability – Part 1

Written on November 20, 2010 by Roland Van der Meer in Community, Uncategorized, investing, marketing, stewardship, sustainability

The big issue facing the US economy is financial. We have an over levered, bloated government which merely reflects its consumers. The solution that is being pursued is one of “inflate and grow” our way out of trouble. Can a very mature, leveraged society grow without a fundamental engine (reason) to grow? We can’t possibly offer the consumer more at this point. We have everything in the world that anyone would desire. So where and how do we go from here?

Best advice for the Consumer: Quality over Quantity

As my mother used to say, when you buy something you want or need, first ask yourself if you really need it and then buy the highest quality. It will perform better and last longer. That is the voice of someone who lived in Europe for part of its depression and World War II. She always had the most beautiful clothes. Very few but beautiful. She had great classic furniture and art. Again few, but the best she could afford. We ate only good food, never junk. We went only sparingly to eat out, but when we did, it was the finest we could afford, not McDonald’s. These are the values that create long term survival.

Patagonia, has a program that carries a very key mantra: Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Recycle. This is the essence of a sustainable society. Yes, we need to do more and yes, it seems in conflict with our government’s ideas about growth of the consumer to carry us out, but these values will be the ones that maintain us and force manufacturers to build lasting high quality products. We may pay a premium at the cash register, but the long term value for ourselves and society far out weigh any short term savings.

The other conflict we all face is the media, glamour and fashion society we live in. The value of the brand and what we are identified with has become more important than who we are. If you spend the time to recollect about the people who influenced you to think differently or impressed you — the people you saw as having substance and values that made you sit up and pay attention — Do you remember anything of what they wore or what they drove or how they lived? You probably don’t unless it was incredibly modest. This is because what really matters is the person, the ideals, beliefs, love and passion that drives them, not what they own. It is never is about the trappings, the brand, or their consumption, which are all ephemeral. Think about the necessity and then the quality of what you need before you buy. If you clearly consider the value you place in that item and that purchase, your consumption will go down and the value and enjoyment to you will go up tremendously. Our true value is in who we are and what we believe and how we act.

My next entry will be about how corporations can thrive and still have impact. Finally, I’ll address the most difficult one: The government and what can be done there.

Corporations have a responsibility to be conscious of consumption. Unilever is now embarking on a big sustainable campaign. It is thoughtful and right. There is a conflict of growth versus sustainability. If we build a better consumer company with the right objects and environmental impact, it should be able to take market share and win business because it is doing it right. The more value and impact you can produce the more successful you will be, if the consumer (i.e. all of us) cares and buys the quality product.

0 Comments - Leave a comment!

Why Aren’t Our Homes… Better?

Written on October 22, 2010 by Roland Van der Meer in Community, Energy, Energy Efficiency, Organic, global warming, investing, stewardship, sustainability

I came across a set of pictures the other day comparing the home building industry to a couple others. The first two pictures compared the framing and building of a house in 1910 and one in 2010. What is shocking is that they looked the same! Now, side-by-side stood two other sets of pictures that were great examples of the progress of two other industries. One in transportation, which showed the horse and buggy opposite a beautiful BMW 750; and one in the communications industry, which had a photo of a candlestick phone opposite an iPhone. Doesn’t that just say it all? We have not evolved our most basic of industries: Housing.

In fact, one might argue that we have gone backwards. From the nice villages, built from the center out, where every resource was shared to one of wasted suburban sprawl. I don’t need to cover the issue of environmental design here, but I really want to address the building and construction aspect of housing.

In the US, we have not begun to use the technology that is available today. From basics such as how a foundation is created, to how houses are framed, to wall construction, to electrical, plumbing, and HVAC, as a country we are positively backwards with our old school view. For a good lesson in the next generation materials, components, modular fabrication, electrical, plumbing, etc, visit Japan or Europe and see first hand how homes are built. You will see that not only are they very functional and practical, but incredibly beautiful as well. There are few design limitations in today’s state of the art solutions.

These new homes overseas are energy, heat, water, and light efficient. And you don’t feel as if you are in outer space. A new home can use less material, less electricity, less water. It is all in the design and layout, the materials, and the systems that you install.

An article in the San Francisco Chronicle, “Energy efficient home in the Wine Country” describes how one home owner had to invest over $1.2M to make her 2000 sq. ft. home “passive.” Come on really, passive? A log cabin or a stone house can be passive although probably not very comfortable. At BioLogical Capital, we studied a new development in the South East of the US and looked at the best housing solutions. It turned out the ideal design was based on the old slave homes. Those homes maximized airflow and minimized sun exposure during the summer and reversed that in the winter months. This is not the modern definition of today’s passive homes but this worked well.

But really this is the future for the US, and it has been elsewhere for the past 20 or 30 years. It is all about energy and resource efficiency, which is critical. If our homes and offices could reduce power consumption by 50% or more and reduce water consumption by over 50% in this country, think of the savings and environmental impact.

A very energy efficient home, or passive, home can be done with careful design and forethought to minimize expense and time. Simply put, the passive house is a well insulated house built almost air tight and employs a simple heater exchanger to allow for cooling or heating and air flow. This wasn’t really advisable for the past several decades as the materials in an air tight house can make you sick. Careful attention to furniture, floor coatings, carpets and the like are critical. It will also require great insulation and windows. The systems that are required are: A solar water heater couple with on demand heating elements, appliances from Europe or Japan, passive and LED lighting and smart power management for electronics, grey water and rainwater catch and recycle systems for all but potable water. It is also essential to pay attention to the materials. Are we still using sheetrock for instance and the poor insulation materials from Home Depot? What type of sustainable woods, metals, installation, etc. is used? To close the loop we need to think about the recyclability of the house. Everything should be able to deconstructed and be reused. This is a completely thought out designed solution.

Everything that I am wrtiting here has been done before. For thousands of years, building a home has been hard and expensive and when it is no longer needed or wanted the materials have been reused in the next home. There was little waste because materials came at great expense. Today is a very different scenario. Let’s stop taking our material world for granted and minimize impact all-round.

0 Comments - Leave a comment!

Holding Off the Tragedy of the Commons

Written on September 24, 2010 by Roland Van der Meer in Economics, investing, marketing, stewardship, sustainability

The very challenging argument of the Tragedy of the Commons misses on a very big note. It lacks a fundamental solution driver called “innovation”. If we don’t create and adapt we will not make it in the long term.

“Tragedy of the Commons” is a paper written by Garrett Hardin, which discusses the case of a shared pasture among herders that has a limited carry capacity. Simply put, it is in each herder’s self interest to add another cow to the detriment of the other herders; which in turn argues the need for government regulation or privatization. We could argue both, but I will claim that both can and probably will fail.

Both governments and corporations are institutions that exist for the reason of self promulgation, actualization, and advancement (to further itself, to continue to exist, to not change). The methodologies that they deploy and back is their best practice, it is what they believe, what they will hold on to and how they will exist and thrive. And this is the failure point. It is not meant to change. It’s very survival depends upon the lack of change.

What is missing is a catalyst for change. Why change? Because what worked best 100, 50, 20 or even 10 years ago is no longer the best methodology or practice.

The institution is good at doing what it was designed to do and it stubbornly holds on to that design at the expense of it’s own destruction or the method it protects. Change is needed.

This is why venture capital has been successful in creating the new innovators. If the incumbent institutions adapted and changed to the new technology or method then there would be no venture industry.

We have huge problems to face in critical industries such as agriculture, waste water, energy, real estate, etc. These asset classes need to undergo massive transformation for the benefit of all. The incumbent companies and regulations are stuck in a process and framework which prevents and disincentivizes change. They even go further to lock out or block change because it would lead to their own destruction.

Which leads back to my opening statement. Any system or methodology is only as good as the best knowledge we have at the time. We need to create the companies, organizations and processes to allow and accept change and adapt to the new. We need to constantly invent and reinvent. It is a challenge that only the best of the best companies have managed to do, like Apple, Cisco, or IBM.

But now this matters more, much more because it is our collective resources that are at stake. We need to be open and create the new enterprises that will create, invent and adapt in the basic resources areas.

I welcome your ideas, input and comments. Do you agree? Disagree?

4 Comments - Leave a comment!

Let Profit be the Motivator

Written on September 2, 2010 by Roland Van der Meer in Economics, Energy, Uncategorized, investing, sustainability

Most of the world is driven by power and profit so let’s use those noble ambitions.

We seemed to forget that we live in a world of finite resources. We are in a small boat in the ocean of the universe. I recently read a fun book, “Solar” by Ian McEwan, that was as crazy fun as it was insightful. Let me quote and paraphrase a few paragraphs.

Coal and oil, amazingly cheap energy sources, have made our civilization, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty subsistence levels. In the past 200 years, Europe, North America and parts of Asia and South America have thrived, now along comes India, China, and Africa. We barely understand how successful we have been.

This is an outstanding way to look at the world and realize without cheap efficient power we could have never lifted our civilization out of an agrarian society.

But oil will run out. Peak production is within the next 10 – 20 years. Prices will rise, production slows down. Politically unstable regions control supply, but worst, is we are pumping tons of CO2 into the air. We either slow down and stop or face economic and human catastrophe in grand scale within our grandchildren’s lifetime.

We are beyond the point of being able to model change to the environment and climate, all we know is that it will change and has become unstable. Look at the Arctic ice melt predictions.

“The planet is sick……. Curing the patient is a matter of urgency and is going to be expensive, perhaps as much as 2% of GDP or far more if we delay treatment.”

No one really knows how much it will cost or how solve the problems, but we do know entire industries must adapt and change processes and that cost can not possibly be measured.

“How do we slow down and stop while sustaining our civilization and continue to bring millions out of poverty. Not by being virtuous, not by going to the bottle bank or turning down the thermostat, or buying a smaller car. That merely delays the catastrophe. ……. This matter has to move beyond virtue. Virtue is too passive, too narrow. Virtue can motivate individuals, but for groups, societies, a whole civilization, it’s a weak force. Nations are never virtuous though they might think sometimes they are.”

A big slap in the face. But this does not mean we should stop mitigation efforts. We need to slow down the negative externalities, so we can figure out the solutions. And, no, we are not as virtuous as we think we are.

“For humanity en masse, greed triumphs virtue. So we have to welcome into our solution the ordinary compulsions of self-interest, and celebrate novelty; the thrill of invention; the pleasures of ingenuity and cooperation; and the satisfaction of profit.”

Ok, now this points to a solution that we can understand! It is little Gordon Gekko-ish “greed is good,” but it is true. Only by strong market forces — market demand — will people be willing and able to develop and invest in the solutions that are needed. Nothing scales without a profit. It will only be viewed as charity. Profitable ventures attract more capital that drive the impact we seek. We need these drivers to create change, and we need government policy to back off the outdated regulations that prevent change and put in place new accelerators that enable change.

2 Comments - Leave a comment!

The End of Many Things

Written on August 24, 2010 by Roland Van der Meer in Economics, investing, stewardship, sustainability

As the old saying goes, “Things, they are a’ changing…”

Recently, Scientific American raised an interesting issue in its cover article, “Eternal Fascinations with the End.” Is it the end? Are we truly facing our own demise? If so, how do we respond to this? Or do we just ignore it?

The facts of the world and what is happening is being bantered about a lot, but how the world will actually change is not at all predictable. The book, “The Next 100 Years” also does a fine job of showing that as much as we think we can extrapolate from science, technology, religion and environmental issues, we still don’t have good way to predict significant outcomes. So, the doom and gloom forecasts that cover the news headlines are really no more reliable then a rosy outlook.

Does this mean we should ignore all the bad news in the environment and the pending disasters? Should we bury our heads in the sand and just hope things work out for the best? Not at all. It just means we need to get comfortable with what we don’t really know. We can not model the future to any accuracy or certainty an outcome worthy of a good gambler. But we can not stand still. We need to act.

We know that the atmosphere composition is changing and that man is pumping ominous amounts of poisons into the air. We know the chemistry and species of the oceans are changing and man is dumping poisons by the giant ship load into them. The soils that grow our food are being depleted and exhausted and run off into the oceans, repeating the toxic cycle. The bio diversity of all creatures is shrinking at an alarming rate, interrupting the natural cycle of life. And we know that the ground we’re standing on is being dug up for all of the earths finite materials. Yes, the world is changing and we, the people, are mostly responsible for this change.

Recently, Scientific American raised an interesting issue in it’s cover article: “Eternal Fascinations with the End” Is it the end? Are we truly facing our own demise? If so, how do we respond to this? Or do we just ignore it?

We can’t know what the true net effect of all this change will be. One thing is certain, however. If you liked what we had in the past and what we still have today, you had better find a way to embrace change. That is unavoidable. And it will not be pretty. If you want a good dose of global reality read “Eaarth” by Bill Mckibben. It will scare the daylights out of you.

0 Comments - Leave a comment!