Search

President Barack Obama may consider a summit on climate change during his second term, but that is not fast enough for the editors of the MIT Technology Review. Dismissing the accomplishments and goals the administration touts, the group has urged Obama to confront climate change--or risk having all of his economic, social and political achievements overshadowed.

MIT has joined other organizations, including the World Economic Forum, to tackle global warming seriously. Arguing that any climate change initiatives need to be for the long haul, not part of any economic stimulus package, the letter urges the Obama Administration to do the following:

• Push for new clean energy technologies. Saying that energy sources such as solar are not ready to compete directly with fossil fuels, the MIT editors urge the administration to fund more research and development and establish facilities where companies can share resources and the risks of testing new forms of energy.


• Create market incentives. Since fossil fuels are still the most cost effective forms of energy, the letter insists that the administration consider some kind of market incentive  that would encourage consumers and businesses to adopt renewable energy technologies like a tax or price on carbon.


• Ditch the green jobs argument. Dismissing the green jobs argument as “political cover,” the MIT editors say that the focus should be on reversing the potentially disastrous effects of global warming. While the costs of tackling climate change are steep, the letter makes the point that waiting will only add to the costs.


• Finally, the letter pushes the President to lead:

“The president who takes office that year will thus be facing a far more urgent problem—probably, like you, with no political consensus on how to solve it. But as a president in his final term, you have a chance to take risks. You have the power and the opportunity to lay the groundwork for a new clean-energy policy that will help us avoid the worst consequences of climate change. It is quite possible that if this is not done over the next four years, it will be too late.”

Will POTUS bite? History shows that just because a President was re-elected does not mean he will necessarily go out on a limb and carry out an agenda that ignores politics. Obama will still have to deal with a recalcitrant Congress, and in any event, many presidents run out of political capital quickly: take a look at George W. Bush’s tinkering with Social Security back in 2005. In fact, the usual toxic political climate at home has nudged many Presidents to seek solace in foreign policy. And this is where Obama, if he is really serious about tackling climate change, could advance such an agenda. Since climate change is a global problem, countries both developed and emerging need to work together. Could Obama work with leaders in countries from Canada to the EU to the BRIC nations and agree on some aggressive solutions? As is the case with the more complicated issues that face the U.S., the odds are high that no matter how many public letters like that of MIT, climate will be another can kicked down the road.

Leon Kaye, based in Fresno, California, is a sustainability consultant and the editor of GreenGoPost.com. He also contributes to Guardian Sustainable Business; his work has also appeared on Sustainable Brands, Inhabitat and Earth911. You can follow Leon and ask him questions on Twitter or Instagram (greengopost).

Image credit of Great Dome at MIT: Wikipedia (John Phelan)

In a recent post on his blog, BusinessGreen, James Murray argues that Google's and Starbucks's use of "complex accounting techniques" to minimize their tax bill undermines their efforts to "position themselves as... environmentally and socially responsible businesses."

Murray claims that despite Google's investments in clean tech R&D and Starbucks's success in sourcing ethically produced coffee, to name just two examples of the companies' responsible activities, these companies "deserve the public condemnation that is coming their way" unless they pay more taxes than required by law.

Murray's indignation notwithstanding, he missteps by assigning blame to actors obeying the rules of the system in which they operate, failing to identify the system itself as the proper target of scorn. Publicly traded companies like Google and Starbucks are fiduciarily beholden to their shareholders to maximize profits and minimize losses. Companies that fail to take advantage of tax loopholes made available by governmental tax codes are remiss in their financial duties and might even be subject to commensurate legal repercussions.

The most compelling corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs are as justifiable in business terms as they are in social and environmental ones. Shareholders and board members should embrace a company's CSR initiatives with an enthusiasm greater than or equal to that of environmentalists and human rights advocates.

Indeed, the examples that Murray identifies -- Google's clean tech investments and Starbucks's ethical sourcing -- have strong business cases to be made for them. A similar business case cannot be made for paying more taxes than legally required.

To Murray's credit, he does note that "it is the successive governments that failed to tackle blatant tax loopholes that must take the bulk of the blame for the current situation," but assigning any blame at all to corporations that marshal their resources to maximize profits only serves to distract from the real issue.

The American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC), along with Business for Shared Prosperity and the Main Street Alliance, recently sent a letter to President Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress that blames federal tax law for the revenues forgone because of corporate tax loopholes. In doing so, the signatories properly identify the culprit of the lamentable corporate tax situation.

“The need for revenue highlights the importance of working toward revenue positive corporate tax reform, including closing the nearly $1 trillion offshore tax haven loophole," said ASBC in a statment. "America's small businesses want large corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. Any corporate tax reform must end the rigged corporate tax system that has corporations paying the lowest share of taxes in half a century at the same time as their profits have risen to 50-year highs."

The letter points out that the corporate tax share of federal government receipts has fallen from 32 percent in 1952 to just 9 percent now. Moreover, the current corporate tax code creates perverse incentives for companies to shift jobs and investment overseas.

Such faulty tax codes operate on the state level as well. As a case in point, Shell recently admitted that its ill-fated attempt to move an offshore oil rig from Alaska to Washington state in the waning days of 2012 was a direct result of Alaskan state taxes that incentivized the moving of the rig. "It’s fair to say that the current tax structure related to vessels of the type influenced the timing of our departure," said a Shell spokesman.

Ultimately, publicly traded companies cannot and should not be expected to change their approach to paying taxes. If governments hope to raise additional revenue from corporations operating within their borders, they will have to alter their tax codes accordingly.

[Image credit: 401(K) 2013, Flickr] [Image credit: kafka4prez, Flickr]

My family will soon be moving to Belfast Cohousing & Ecovillage (BC&E) on the midcoast of Maine and we're excited to live in a community that is part of the sharing economy. Cohousing is collaborative housing where residents actively and intentionally participate in the design and operation of their own neighborhood.

BC&E will be a 36-unit community on 42 acres that will soon break ground on an approximately 4,000 square foot common house with a shared dining room, commercial kitchen, laundry room, guest bedrooms, and playroom.

Construction of the private homes is in progress and a majority have already sold. During sluggish economic times, BC&E priced its units between $167,000 and $342,000, much higher than the $150,000 average home value in Waldo County. Providing a unique offering has positioned the project well in a niche market that values shared space, human interaction, and sustainability.

Study of resales prices over the first two decades of cohousing in California has confirmed that cohousing communities hold their value over time, and in some cases even increase in value from their initial costs-based sales price. A report completed in January 2010 by the appraisal firm of Bartholomew Associates concluded that resales in cohousing communities in Northern California sold at 1.7 to 3.12 times the prices of other townhouses and condominiums in the area. When prices were adjusted for specific differences in age, condition and location, cohousing homes sold at 11 to 63 percent premiums compared to the closest comparables. This data was collected through 2009 and thus includes the years of the great recession."  Creating Cohousing: Building Sustainable Communities (New Society Press, 2011).

The fact that many cohousing communities are partially or largely self-financed and self-developed lowers expenses, but requires far more of members than typical housing developments. BC&E has relied largely on word-of-mouth marketing, but have also utilized social media, fliers, and events. Members have proven themselves to be very resourceful and creative, but some have also experienced burnout.

Cohousing offers some intangible benefits that are appealing to certain homebuyers. The BC&E community layout, including restricted access to automobiles with parking on the periphery, clustered homes, front porches on multi-unit buildings (mostly duplexes), a shared tool shed, community vegetable and flower gardens, and a central mail room encourage spontaneous interactions, sharing, and voluntary simplicity.

This layout contrasts most new neighborhoods in the U.S. that are largely automobile-centered, thus significantly reducing contact with neighbors. "I know a lot of people who live in houses with attached garages and they have never even seen their neighbors," says Dan Capwell, a member of BC&E. "All they see is a car enter the garage in the evening and a car leave in the morning."

Walking trails are planned for BC&E and several acres are designated for community gardens and food production. In many established cohousing communities, the garden space brings people together and encourages the sharing of knowledge and resources.

Community gardens and cohousing in general can also reduce resource consumption. "We are farmers and gardeners," says Nessa Dertnig, a member of BC&E. "We have thought about the fact that not everyone would have to own their own rototiller, hoe, or snow plow. We also have just one car and we've thought of car sharing in the future. If there are a few people interested in sharing a car, there can be fewer cars on site. There are all kinds of ways we can share resources and time and it is all so convenient."

Although sharing space has its benefits, it can also create difficult situations. "I've been thinking about how my children have to share a yard," says Forrest Espinoza, a member of Troy Gardens, an established cohousing community in Madison, Wisconsin. "If you were in a typical community, you would invite other children to come into your yard. If your children weren't getting along, you wouldn't invite those kids to come over and play. In a cohousing community, they have to work things out. It was frustrating in the beginning, but our whole family has experienced incredible growth."

Despite the challenges, more than 120 communities exist across the U.S., with many more in the development phase. "Interest in cohousing has grown and I think it is because of a combination of factors," says Jim Leach, president of Wonderland Hill Development Company. "We have the Baby Boomers seeing it as the ideal way to age in place. The social changes that are happening in the U.S. as we deal with issues around gun control or how we economically survive in a changing world make having community and deeper relationships with the people we live near take on more value and is being well recognized."

[Image credits: Jeffrey Mabee of Belfast Cohousing & Ecovillage]

Remember BP, the wind power company? It is easy to focus on a certain event in the Gulf of Mexico almost three years ago, but the global energy titan has a thriving wind energy business, too. Add the incentives for clean energy projects here in the U.S., and BP and other large firms are investing in wind turbines across the country. Partnering with Sempra US Gas, BP has flipped the switch on two new wind farms in Pennsylvania and Kansas--just two weeks after the companies powered up a wind farm in Hawaii. Meanwhile the energy giant is dabbling in other alternative energies, including biofuels.

The latest BP joint ventures with Sempra will generate over 500 megawatts (MW) of electricity across six U.S. states.

Last week BP and Sempra announced that the Flat Ridge 2 Wind Farm in rural south central Kansas became fully operational. BP describes the project as the “largest, single build wind farm in the history of the US wind industry” and touts the 500 construction jobs the project created at its peak of construction. The power Flat Ridge 2 will generate is under a long term project to provide electricity to Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana. Over 140,000 American homes will benefit from the 294 GE turbines that will create 470 MW of power. The total investment, in which BP is a 50/50 partner with Sempra, was over $800 million. So T. Boone Pickens’ plan to turn the middle of the U.S. into a big wind power plant is slowly becoming the reality after all--just not with his involvement.

1400 miles to the northeast, another BP-Sempra wind project launched on Tuesday outside of Scranton. The $250 million Mehoopany Wind Farm promises to generate 141 MW of electricity. Utilities in Virginia, Delaware and Maryland have agreed to long term power purchase agreements with the Mehoopany project under an arrangement arranged with the assistance of the National Renewables Cooperative Organization (NRCO). Together with the Flat Ridge 2 project, BP’s and Sempra’s combined investment in the two wind farms is over $1 billion.

So despite the natural gas boom and occasional controversies over wind power projects, energy companies and utilities still see wind as a viable business. Consumers want it, and wind even survived the “fiscal cliff” deal. Even Apple is interested in wind; so 2013 could yet prove to be a big year for wind power.

Leon Kaye, based in Fresno, California, is a sustainability consultant and the editor of GreenGoPost.com. He also contributes to Guardian Sustainable Business; his work has also appeared on Sustainable Brands, Inhabitat and Earth911. You can follow Leon and ask him questions on Twitter or Instagram (greengopost).

Image credit: NRCO

 

The rise of the sharing economy has led to new business models unthinkable five years ago. Renting someone’s room or that same person’s car for a few hours has become seamless--pesky details such as insurance and liability issues aside. Now the sharing economy, or collaborative consumption, has become far more mainstream.

And some would say a synonym of mainstream is “corporate.” More large companies are dipping their toes into the huge pool of sharing economy ideas that are springing up for just about every kind of good or service imaginable. Last week’s announcement that Avis would buy the grandaddy of the shared economy, Zipcar, was a sign that collaborative consumption has matured; others are terrified at the thought of a multinational taking over a nifty service with the aim of destroying it.

The emerging corporate presence into the sharing economy, however, is because of far more nuanced reasons.

First, the sharing of goods and services is here to stay. The reasons are varied, from the obvious such as money saved to developing a sense of community or the emergence of what some describe as the “asset-light generation.” To that end, companies are now confronting the fact that not everyone wants to own a car, a high-end handbag or the huge credit card bill when they buy their children’s back-to-school clothes. They will, however, gladly share them.

Next, the potential size of the sharing economy is huge, and could even become worth $110 billion. Even if its growth within a few years is only a sliver of that, there is still money to be made. Of course, the true size of the sharing economy will never be known. Nevertheless, for the corner office to ignore the sharing economy would be foolish. The trick, of course, is finding an opening. And one of America’s largest, and until recently, most conservative and stodgy industries, has been the trailblazer when it comes to cooperating, partnering and investing in the sharing economy.

The fact that fewer 16 and 17 year olds are quick to sign up for a driver’s license has long term repercussions on automobile manufacturers. So in the long run, automakers realize they have to adjust their business models for many changes including the change in driving habits. The increase in urbanization means that there will be less space for cars in the cities; and millennials are less and less interested in owning a car and dealing with the accompanying hassles such as insurance and parking.

So RelayRides, the car-sharing company dotted across the country from Silicon Valley to Boston, last year scored investment from GM. The year before that, Ford became the largest source of cars for Zipcar’s car-sharing fleet. Even BMW has dabbled within the sharing economy by partnering with ParkatmyHouse.com, a service that matches parking spaces with commuters. And before we become too distracted by the the Avis-Zipcar deal, remember Hertz’s On Demand service has succeeded with short car rentals for as little as $5 an hour. But it is not only the automakers who are dabbling into the sharing economy.

Retailers are starting to partner with sharing economy startups as well as encourage their customers to adopt more sustainable and responsible behavior. IKEA is tinkering with shared services firms; in Australia, the furniture megastore partners with the car-sharing company GoGet to link shoppers who need to take their crates of furniture home. And in its home country of Sweden, IKEA started a pilot program that allowed customers to sell used furniture, partly as a reaction to similar schemes that started up across Europe. Partnerships may not be a tacit endorsement of collaborative consumption; but companies, including IKEA, realize that to ignore this movement is to overlook potential revenues and new opportunities to build brand awareness.

Established companies are also taking an experimental approach with the sharing economy. One of the most environmentally destructive industries is the textile and clothing sector. Each hour over 100,000 items of clothing are disposed in landfills daily. And while many clothes-sharing services such as ThredUp thrive, watch for retailers to join the sharing economy revolution.

One company changing the relationship betwen us and with our clothes is UK-based Marks & Spencer. Last year, the department store chain started a “Shwopping” campaign that encourages customers to drop off old clothing--even if they were not M&S items--when they shop for new clothes. True, many of the clothes end up abroad or even recycled into new textile fibers; but some are resold within the UK. Encouraging customers to recycle clothes also allows the company to develop relationships with everyone from couture designers to local activists--and also provides fodder for the company to study its consumers’ shopping habits or even add to its historic archive.

The corporatizing of the shared economy is a long way off and, in fact, may never occur. As of now building supply companies such as Lowe’s and HomeDepot have not addressed the fact that most of us use a power drill for an average of 15 minutes a year; electronics retailers including Best Buy have not been quick to find new homes for the dated electronics that once sat on their shelves. Nevertheless, rise of the sharing economy is in part because of its maturity; and that evolution means we will see more large companies attempt to meld their business models in order for them to be part of this new evolution in consumer behavior.

Leon Kaye, based in Fresno, California, is a sustainability consultant and the editor of GreenGoPost.com. He also contributes to Guardian Sustainable Business; his work has also appeared on Sustainable Brands, Inhabitat and Earth911. You can follow Leon and ask him questions on Twitter or Instagram (greengopost).

Image credit: RelayRides.com

As a lead-up to Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week, January 13-17, Masdar sponsored a blogging contest called “Engage: The Water-Energy Nexus.”  The following post was among the finalists.

The water-energy nexus – the fundamental connection between water and energy – may not seem an overly complex concept to initially grasp – and yet its implications are not fully understood in our industrial, resource-strained, climate-changed world.

​The fact is, climate is the third component of the water-energy nexus. No discussion on managing the energy-water nexus for a sustainable future is complete with considering the impacts and consequences of climate change.

Climate change, energy and the hydrological cycle

As climate change disrupts the global hydrological cycle, water-stressed regions, particularly in the developing world, face even greater impacts in the coming decades. Recent studies indicate climate models underestimate the rate of change in the global water cycle by as much as half. Adaptation to climate change is now a reality and the degree to which there is effective mitigation depends on how well – and how quickly – we manage a transition to a new, carbon-free energy economy. But to look only at the energy sector as a path to sustainability in a changing climate isn’t enough. Power plants dependent on water for cooling are already forced to scale back production as water levels in reservoirs and rivers fall due to heat waves and drought.

How do we respond in a world already experiencing rapid climate change and growing demand for power? Transitioning to non-carbon sources of energy is essential, but water implications are almost never a part of the policy and scaling considerations of these energy sources. Solar thermal and especially biofuel production can be more water intensive than the systems they may replace. Adapting to low-carbon energy systems must take into account complete life-cycle water impacts.

Getting the water where it is needed: energy and infrastructure

In a predominantly urbanized world 27 percent of people living in cities lack water pipes in their homes. Where there is infrastructure, it is often woefully outdated. In the United States there are 850 water main breaks every day, costing $52 billion annually and wasting enough water to supply the state of California for one year.

As global freshwater supplies become more strained, the trend is toward more energy-intensive water such as desalination, deep aquifer production, long distance pipelines and inter-basin transfer. As with the energy sector, analysis of water policy most often neglect implications of energy requirements.

“Energy constraints become water constraints. Water constraints become energy constraints,” says University of Texas associate professor Dr. Michael Webber.

Policy fragmentation: putting the pieces together

Despite the inexorable link between water and energy, the policy governing the two is often hopelessly fragmented. At the national and international level, this lack of policy integration is a core challenge for effectively addressing the water-energy nexus in a sustainable society. Only in the past several years has there been serious discussion on the water-energy nexus, let alone designing and implementing effective policy.

The challenge for policymakers is integrating the water-energy nexus in their decision and analytical process at a regional, national and global scale. There is no “one size fits all” solution. A study in Ecology and Society suggests the “first four steps” for assessing regional water security and energy sustainability – in summary:

2013 will see an acceleration in the investing attractiveness of companies embracing sustainability. The three drivers behind this investment trend are:

Emerging sustainability accounting standards. The world's 3000 largest companies face over $2 trillion in liabilities created by their environmental impacts. This is equal to 50 percent of their EBITA profits. The accounting industry is now exploring how to instruct corporations to report this off-balance sheet liability in their 10K. The growing awareness of this accounting change has begun to influence equity investment analysis.

C-suite engagement. There is growing awareness among CEOs, COOs and CFOs on how the solving of root cause problems with sustainable best practices will grow profits through lower costs and increased competitiveness. The result is the greening of the global supply chain and a focus upon product designs that "cost less, mean more."

The consumer search for "In me, on me and around me" solutions. Consumers are increasingly focused upon being smarter, healthier and greener. Consumers are moving past endearing ads about polar bears. They are increasing their focus upon how a product impacts their lives.

Based on these drivers, here are five industry megatrends that every investor should consider running from, running toward or embracing:

Run from coal

Coal is a fuel that the world increasingly cannot afford. Coal’s appeal is its price competitiveness on a therm-per-pound basis. That is a false cost analysis based on coal’s significant externality costs. I have shoveled coal. It is dirty. The cost to clean coal is high and climbing higher. Coal is also on a collision course with water. Producing electricity from coal takes a tremendous amount of water and last summer’s drought brought a curtailment of coal-fired power production due to a lack of water or because water supplies were too warm for effective cooling. China, which now accounts for half of the world’s coal consumption, is confronting a water choke point to its expansion of coal-fired power plants. In a not too distant future, China will have to choose between using water to support coal-fired electricity generation or for the production of food and the servicing of urban citizens. This also applies to U.S. states like Georgia, Alabama and Arizona that use a higher percentage of coal for electricity production and are increasingly confronting water supply constraints. Investors beware! Bottom-fishing for coal companies, or companies that rely upon cheap coal-fired electricity for their competitive advantage, have risks similar to attempting to catch a falling knife.

Run toward natural gas

Hydraulic fracturing has upended the energy industry. Natural gas’ growing supply and price competiveness is stealing market share from coal. It is blunting the growth of renewable energy. It is poised for global revenue growth. A telling example is the recent milestone shipment of LNG from Norway to Japan through an Arctic shipping-lane emerging due to global warming. The only potential overhype for natural gas is its potential growth in vehicle transportation because a gaseous fuel is typically not competitive against liquid fuels’ energy density. While the evidence is still emerging on how hydraulic fracturing might be a long-term risk to water supplies, the natural gas industry has been effective in adopting technologies, operating practices and lobbying that is limiting its current exposure to the type of constraining regulation now confronting coal. Sempra is an example of a company positioned to realize revenue growth from generating electricity with natural gas and delivering its through pipelines and LNG ports.

Run toward LED

Lighting is a significant cost because it accounts for approximately 20 percent of U.S. commercial and residential electricity consumption. LED is a technology solution that cuts electricity costs by using one-tenth the electricity of an incandescent lightbulb. LEDs have a much lower heat signature that reduces the cooling load of a building further saving energy and money. The auto industry has fallen in love with LED lights for their looks and most especially because of their limited energy requirements on a car's battery. LED technologies are benefiting from Moore’s Law that is pushing production costs toward price competitiveness against all other lighting technologies. Winners in this space include the LED lighting manufacturers plus lighting contractors, building owners and cities that benefit from lower operating costs due to LED street and signal lighting.

Run toward car companies

The car industry has embraced sustainability based upon their analysis that the price of gasoline is not going to go down and stay down, no matter how much we drill. Their 2013 strategy is to redefine a "fun" car as being turbo-charged and digitally connected while also introducing fun-to-drive hybrid and hybrid-electric cars that are becoming affordable. Their challenge is the Millennial generation that is increasingly viewing car ownership as a cost to them and their environment that should be minimized. For the Millennial generation, it is Apple’s “Think Different” mentality that drives their car purchase behaviors compared to their parents' “See The USA In Your Chevrolet.” 2013 should see continued record-breaking car sales assuming gasoline prices continue to remain in the $4+ per gallon range and the Fed’s monetary-easing policy continues to make car-financing almost cost-free.

Embrace results

Sustainability's underlying investment appeal is its ability to deliver profits by solving root cause environmental and social problems. Apple and its superior product designs are the poster child for how investors and consumers are focusing upon results. Apple products just work. Apple’s shift to the cloud is reducing costs and waste streams. Apple has become a revenue-generating machine because its digital products, apps and software are just darn cheap, have no consumer waste stream and often are free through seamless updates to an owner’s iPhone, iPad and computers. Apple’s continued results-based success with consumers is setting the performance bar for all businesses. Yes, Apple needs to improve its fair labor practices. Yes, they need to incorporate recycling more aggressively into their product designs. But the great news for Apple, and every other business that seeks to copy Apple’s results-focused strategy, is that consumers are rewarding companies with purchases if they see evidence of "mean more and cost less" results.

The final article in this series to be posted tomorrow is on Sustainable Economics in 2013.

Bill Roth is an economist and the Founder of Earth 2017 He coaches business owners and leaders on proven best practices in pricing, marketing and operations that make money and create a positive difference. His book, The Secret Green Sauce, profiles business case studies of pioneering best practices that are proven to win customers and grow product revenues.

By Symon Hill and Anna Simpson

On-the-go access to energy and communications is changing our relationship to the world around us.

In a touring exhibition that visited London in 2012 and will be at the Sydney Festival until March 2013, the Chinese artist Song Dong displayed all the contents of his mother's flat – over 10,000 everyday objects. Not exactly the contents of a backpack, though there were several backpacks among the halls of a single person's sprawl.

Song's mother, the artist explains, would cling onto everyday objects because they offered her a sense of security – something anyone who has lived through political upheaval or the fear of scarcity will understand. But a new generation of consumers is cultivating a very different relationship to personal belongings. Living light is their aspiration, their daily needs answered by a single object – a sleek smartphone or slender tablet.

In years to come, people may live lighter yet, suggests Gerd Leonhard, CEO of the Futures Agency. These personal devices, with all their cloud-based functionality, will have moved into our minds. If we require energy on the move, our clothes will harvest it through integrated photovoltaic or piezoelectric generators...

We're witnessing the rise of the modern nomad, "defined not by what they carry but by what they leave behind." That's the definition The Economist proposed nearly five years ago, in a feature written in anticipation of a wireless world, called Nomads at Last.

A tide of consumers favor access over ownership

What the author didn't foresee was today's triple whammy of nomad-friendly trends. Anytime-anywhere connectivity is one of them. Then there's the rise of decentralised energy, in which anyone who can afford the kit is able to generate, store and even sell their own power. And finally, there's the tide of consumers who favour access over ownership, met by the rapid growth of peer-to-peer lending and sharing schemes.

With the likes of Airbnb, the light-footed can feel at home anywhere in the world. Already, for many, the bedroom wall has been replaced by Pinterest as a place to hang your favorite things…

So, what does all of this mean for sustainability? Fewer belongings and more sharing may hold promise for resource-efficiency – but it all depends on tight management. One counter-trend could be unnecessary maintenance to ensure hygiene: more washing of clothes, sheets and towels, and so on. Fleura Bardhi, a research professor in consumer behavior at Northeastern University, Massachusetts, is interested in the evolution of "alternative relationships to the material world." After all, new nomadism isn't simply about being on the move: it's about a world in which "your own place" and "your own stuff" no longer make such a difference – to your productivity, your wellbeing, and even your identity.

"Our relationships to place and people are becoming more 'liquid', they're changing constantly," says Bardhi. "It means we also have to adapt and change. The most successful are those who can adapt very quickly."

This could be good news for behavior change: the less attached we are to our bad habits, the more easily we can switch to better ones. But it could also go the other way: a more sustainable action may never become a habit if the context is always changing. For the business community, the implications of a shifting world go far beyond working from home and video conferencing. Daniel Pink, author of Free Agent Nation, anticipates a shift towards self-employment.

"If you look the underlying economics of why firms exist – such as high transaction costs and coordination problems – then, as those forces dissipate, companies themselves might become less necessary," Pink said.

Indeed, if individuals can maintain their professional profile through their own networks, the attraction of an official job title could fade. As Pink puts it: "When talented individuals can have the communications and computing power companies once had, they need organisations far less than organisations need [them]."

What role might these highly adaptable "free agents" play in building resilience around them? Already, greater connectivity is helping relative strangers identify common problems and engage in fruitful collaborations – from spontaneous one-offs to organised "hackathons."

If sharing more space and more stuff means we also develop a greater sense of our dependence on common resources – including each other – then there's much to look forward to.

Content to roam

Symon Hill visited a Bedouin community in the West Bank.

"We'll put it on Facebook," joked Nisreen as she posed for a photojournalist. It's not an unusual comment for a 17-year-old girl. But it was surprising to hear it in the desert.

Nisreen lives in the Bedouin community of Al Rashayda, a collection of tiny tented settlements spread over several miles in the southeastern corner of the West Bank. Once nomadic, its movements are now restricted by the Israeli army's training exercises.

Nisreen's cousin Ali [pictured] is leading goats over the hills. If he needs to contact his family, he will use his mobile phone. Meanwhile, young men are texting on phones that appear to be swinging from the top of a tent. Looking up, I see the tent's wooden frame has electricity sockets, with phone chargers plugged in.

The community's goats and camels are kept well away from the sparkling solar panels that make this communication possible. Funded by UK aid money, they were fitted by Christian Aid and the YMCA, along with a water pipe that the electricity helps to power.

"We thank God the water is here," said Nisreen's mother. It means a bath every three days rather than weekly. Nisreen and her sister Tahany use it to sustain a vegetable patch.

Christian Aid emphasizes that the pipe and solar panels were requested by the villagers themselves. The villagers told me the initiative came from a young woman, who I couldn't meet because she was busy with the olive harvest. She's also studying through the Open University. The internet helps.

Symon Hill is author of The No-Nonsense Guide to Religion. Anna Simpson is Managing Editor, Green Futures.

[image credit: gckphoto: Flickr cc]

Apple may be the world’s valuable company and brand, but to sustainability and corporate social responsibility advocates, the company is often a pariah. A patent application the company filed last year, first revealed on the Apple Insider blog, shows that some of that cash on which Apple is sitting could be invested in a new clean energy technology.

Filed last year, the application describes a set of rotating blades that converts rotational energy from a wind turbine into heat that is then stored in a vessel containing “low heat capacity fluid.” The system would then selectively transfer the heat as needed from that low heat capacity fluid to a “working fluid” and hence would generate electricity. Heat, not rotational energy, would would be the result of the turbine’s blades rotating; and even more exciting, energy could be used when needed, as when there is little or no wind.

The bugaboo of conventional wind power turbines is the inconsistent amount of energy generated due to the fluctuations in the speed of wind. There is not often enough wind during peak demand, and conversely turbines could produce excessive amounts of energy during periods of low demand. Plus the pesky issue of energy storage hinders the ability of wind power to contribute effectively to local grid systems. So according to the lead author of the patent application, Jean Lee, “what is needed is a mechanism for mitigating variability and/or intermittency associated with the production of electricity from wind energy.”

One key component that would allow this technology to work is the friction between the rotor blades and that low heat capacity fluid. That fluid could be ethanol, nitrogen, an inert gas or mercury. In turn that insulated vessel-containing fluid could both obtain and store energy from the wind turbine and generate energy when wind is lacking. During such times a conductive rod or radiator would boil that fluid and the resulting steam would rotate another turbine connected to a generator.

Why would Apple pursue this? As is the case with many technology companies, much of the company’s carbon footprint lies in their data centers that are always ravenous for energy. As Fast Company’s Ariel Schwartz points out, Apple’s business will rely more and more on cloud technologies such as iTunes and of course, iCloud. So as Apple dabbles in clean energy, it would only make sense they develop their own--proprietary, no doubt--technology.

Leon Kaye, based in Fresno, California, is a sustainability consultant and the editor of GreenGoPost.com. He also contributes to Guardian Sustainable Business; his work has also appeared on Sustainable Brands, Inhabitat and Earth911. You can follow Leon and ask him questions on Twitter or Instagram (greengopost).

Image courtesy U.S. Patent Office

The cost of solar energy continues its downward trajectory, but it is still out of reach for many individuals and organizations. Oakland-based Mosaic, however, is doing its part to make solar more accessible and affordable. Its collaborative investment model is leading the way to making the rise of the sharing economy entrench itself within the energy industry.

The way Mosaic works is similar in concept to crowdfunding sites such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo. But, unlike those successful sites, which are generated by donations with occasional promises of incentives, Mosaic provides a rate of return that varies by project. In turn this small startup, which for now has 14 employees, offers the opportunity for investors and true believers to put their money where their mouths are--and for as little as $25 per individual.

The results are opportunities for organizations such as affordable housing communities and nonprofits that seek power from the sun but cannot afford the cost of installing solar energy systems. One of Mosaic’s latest projects is a solar array on top of the Youth Employment Partnership (YEP), Oakland’s largest and oldest youth employment training agency. The 40-year-old nonprofit has trained at least 30,000 youth via various programs and has refurbished 50 homes in east Oakland for low-income families. Last month, YEP held a ribbon-cutting ceremony on its roof after its quest to raise over $40,000 for a 196-panel installation proved successful. Mosaic provided the platform through which over 50 investors could raise enough money to offer YEP a 60-month loan. The project will eventually save the organization a minimum of $55,000 over the next 10 years and, according to the San Jose Mercury News, $160,000 over the life of the project.

Additional projects are on the drawing board, including affordable housing projects in Salinas and San Bruno. The process for investors is seamless. First, Mosaic links investors to solar projects in need of financing. Later, as the solar array generates power, it gains revenue by selling electricity to that solar customer. That project, in turn, uses the revenue to pay yields to those investors. Mosaic so far has received seed money in the form of a grant from the Department of Energy as well as financial backing from San Francisco-based Spring Ventures.

Like any investment fund, pooling money in Mosaic has its risks. Anything could go awry, from bad weather or inverters or other equipment not performing the way the manufacturer had promised; suppliers that go bankrupt or the termination of local government rebate or tax incentives could affect a project’s financial performance as well. Investors have access to prospectuses on Mosaic’s site outlining each project’s risks. Nevertheless, in a world where someone passionate about affordable senior housing, or clean energy--or both--can do his or her part for as little as $25, Mosaic may be onto something that could easily be replicated in other industries. So far, the $1.1 million invested in several projects have benefited from a 100 percent on-time payment rate. So far, this sharing model is working and shining bright.

Leon Kaye, based in Fresno, California, is a sustainability consultant and the editor of GreenGoPost.com. He also contributes to Guardian Sustainable Business; his work has also appeared on Sustainable Brands, Inhabitat and Earth911. You can follow Leon and ask him questions on Twitter or Instagram (greengopost).

Image credit: Mosaic