Can we
find common ground in “Natural Capitalism?”
By Mike Alesandrini
There are a litany of reasons why “environmentalist” and “industry”
folk can’t seem to sustain meaningful dialogue relative to…
much of anything. Those reasons range from pure distrust and/or
disdain to mutually disagreeable perceptions of the state of
our natural environment to inability to agree on a framework
upon which to base conversation.
In an effort to bridge the communication gap, several groups,
including the St. Louis RCGA and the Missouri Coalition for
the Environment, banded together last April to host the first
annual Environmental Summit in conjunction with the “Earth Day
2000” celebration. The event featured author L. Hunter Lovins
discussing the concept of “natural capitalism.” Described in
depth in the book, Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial
Revolution, environmental concerns associated with production
processes are raised in the context of a “conventional” economic
framework with a solution set also proposed/discussed in economic
terms.
Summit organizers were deliberate in their attempt to attract
a diverse audience in an effort to facilitate interaction between
local stakeholders of historically divergent interests and predispositions
relative to the environmental policy. That effort seems to have
proven successful as dialogue amongst a variety of regional
stakeholders has persisted since the Summit in a variety of
forums (Choose Environmental Excellence–Gateway Region, Earth
Day/Environmental Summit 2001, St. Louis Regional Environmental
Conference 2000, etc.).
Summit organizers were also deliberate in their attempt to avoid
protracted debate over basic (resource depletion) assumptions
underlying the natural capitalism theme in order that conversations
could remain focused on the “solutions” asserted by Lovins.
Accordingly, the Summit agenda did remain focused on the four
central strategies of natural capitalism, which are briefly
detailed below, directly from the text of the book:
Radical Resource Productivity
“Radically increased resource productivity is the cornerstone
of natural capitalism; using resources more effectively has
three significant benefits: It slows resource depletion, lowers
pollution and provides a basis to increase worldwide employment
with meaningful jobs.”
Biomimicry
“Reducing waste—indeed, eliminating the very idea of waste—can
be accomplished by redesigning industrial systems on biological
lines that change the nature of industrial process and materials,
enabling the constant reuse of materials in continuous closed
cycles, and often the elimination of toxicity.”
Service and Flow Economy
“This calls for a fundamental change in relationship between
producer and consumer, a shift from an economy of goods and
purchases to one of service and flow. This requires a new perception
of value, a shift from the acquisition of goods as a measure
of affluence to an economy where the continuous receipt of quality,
utility and performance promotes well being. This concept offers
incentives to put into practice the first two innovations of
natural capitalism by restructuring the economy to focus on
relationships that better meet customers’ changing value needs
and to reward automatically both resource productivity and closed-loop
cycles of materials use.”
Investing in Natural Capital
“This works toward reversing world-wide planetary destruction
through reinvestments in sustaining, restoring, and expanding
stocks of natural capital, so that the biosphere can produce
more abundant ecosystem services and natural resources.”
Much of what is presented by Lovins does not constitute a radical
departure from traditional business economic thought. Increased
productivity from raw materials, reduction in costs associated
with the harvest of those materials, minimization of waste and
focus on “utility” of goods and services provided are all, in
fact, standard economic fare. The apparent deviation from traditional
capitalistic dogma is the combination of radical resource productivity
and biomimicry to achieve a “cradle-to-cradle” service and flow
economy. To use an illustration from the book, “rather than
purchase a washing machine, consumers would pay a fee to secure
the service of having clothes cleaned (using a washing machine
maintained by the manufacturer/owner). If the machine ceased
to provide a specific service, the manufacturer would be responsible
for repairing or replacing the machine. Because the machine
would ultimately be returned to the owner for reuse or disposal,
that manufacturer/owner must accept responsibility for any waste,
with all its attendant problems of toxicity, resource overuse,
safety and environmental damage.”
Lovins highlighted another example from the book, Interface
(carpet company) in Atlanta. Leasing floor covering services,
Interface routinely inspects flooring systems for clients and
replaces carpet tiles (overnight) in highly trafficked areas,
leaving the substantially unworn tiles in place (eliminating
waste and cost to replace unworn carpet). Further, Interface
has developed a flooring product that can be completely remanufactured
back into itself.
Whole-System Engineering
Lovins also featured the concept of “whole-system engineering,”
or consideration of the properties of the whole rather than
concentration on the characteristics (cost, utility, etc.) of
the parts in isolation. To summarize another example from the
book: “different renovation alternatives for a sizeable office
space might be accomplished at comparable costs with substantially
different holistic outcomes. Specifically, replacing 20-year-old
windows, lighting and an air conditioning system could be accomplished
by either using newer versions of the old products or by installing
‘superwindows, deep daylighting and efficient lighting/office
fixtures’ in order to reduce the cooling load, thus diminishing
the size of the replacement cooling system.” According to Lovins,
the whole-system engineering process “significantly lowered
annual energy bills in this example (about 75%), and provided
the following benefits as well: radiant comfort, no under-window
radiators, smaller ducts, better blocking of noise and ultraviolet
rays, no condensation, better daylighting and simpler controls.”
Intuitively, a more comfortable, functional work environment
should result in increased productivity and employee satisfaction.
A Wall
Street Perspective
Linda Descano is Director of Social Awareness Investment for
Smith Barney Asset Management (and keynote speaker at the October
18th St. Louis Regional Environmental Conference). She has recognized
the correlation between environmental and financial performance,
noting that improvement over and above that necessary to assure
regulatory compliance is of particular importance, especially
where increased production, enhanced profit margin or improved
market share can be demonstrated.
Common Ground
Discussions with and amongst the attendees at the Summit and
at subsequent events have clearly demonstrated that views about
resources, resource management, economics and the environment
are, and will continue to be, varied and diverse throughout
the region’s many stakeholders. The same discussions have also
illuminated a respectable number of common interests based on
both a sustainable environment and a sustainable economy in
the St. Louis region. As noted by Lovins: “conventional wisdom
is mistaken in seeing these priorities as competing. The best
solutions are based not on tradeoffs or ‘balance’ between these
objectives (environmental, economic and social), but on design
integration achieving them together.”
For more information on “Natural Capitalism” visit www.natcap.org.
or on the Environmental Summit, call 314/444-1144 or e-mail
to drini@stlrcga.org
Mike Alesandrini is RCGA director of Environmental Affairs
