Choosing the right economic indicator – Gross National Happiness vs. Gross Domestic Product index

Since the days of the Club of Rome and Canada's Conserver Society, the underlying debate about economic growth vs. resources depletion and environmental limits has continued relentlessly. Politicians and governments are focused on GDP growth. Environmentalists are looking for alternatives.

But Oliver Moore in a recent Globe and Mail article reminds us that there is at least one other way of measuring the success of a society: Gross National Happiness. He cites the example of Bhutan, a small idyllic mountainous country snuggled between Bangladesh and China. Faced with increasingly rapid change from the pressure of globalization, which threatened its traditional way of life unspoiled by colonialism, it was looking for an alternative. The country came up with a 9 x 72 matrix set of indicators that would assess the population’s mood.

The resulting Gross National Happiness or GNH index is based on residents’ assessment of nine domains including psychological well-being, time use, community vitality, culture, health, education, environmental diversity, living standard and governance. Each of these in turn is broken down into indicators or variables. For example, for living standard, there are eight indicators, i.e. household income, income sufficiency to meet everyday needs, food insecurity, house ownership, room ratio, purchase of second hand clothes, difficulty in contributing to community festivals, and postponement of urgent repairs and maintenance of house. In total, for the nine domains, there are 72 indicators or variables, each of which has an associated survey question and a resulting index. See the Centre for Bhutan Studies web site for details.

This GNH process has moved beyond a method of assessing the population.

The country's leaders now use it as a screening tool to assess whether decisions fit its criteria. For example, a recent proposal to join the WTO initially appeared attractive. But when it was screened against the GNH criteria, it was determined that the WTO policy would not further the GNH objectives. And so the proposal was rejected. A good analysis of the underlying thought process is given by Mark Mancall of Stanford University in the December 2009 issue of the Journal of Bhutan Studies:

The pursuit of GNH depends upon the affirmation and reinforcement of Bhutan’s ability to exercise self determination in the positing of long-range objectives, short and intermediate-range policy decisions, and the development of the institutions and values in which those long-range objectives will be embedded and the procedures through which they will be realized. WTO membership weakens and diminishes national self -determination institutionally, procedurally, and culturally.

A key Canadian expert who helped Bhutan in adopting GNH is Ron Colman of Nova Scotia, founder of GPI Atlantic. He started by promoting the notion of a Genuine Progress Index (GPI) for Atlantic Canada. He sees progress as being more closely related to quality of life than depletion of resources such as fisheries or forestry.

More recently, the movement spread to the United States through GNH USA, which held a very successful conference last June in Middlebury, Vermont. Countries that expressed interest in GNH include Brazil, which had its own international conference on GNH last year and South Africa.

France is another country interested in alternative measures of progress. It recently published a report on alternatives to GDP as a measure of success through its Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. The French translate Gross National Happiness as…”Joie de vivre”!

Clearly, there is a long way to go before elections are won and lost on GNH progress, but the conceptual foundations are gradually being laid. And in Canada we are off to a good start now that Montreal has been ranked as the second happiest city in the world.

To drill or not to drill, that is the question

We continue to examine barriers to moving toward a sustainable society

The gulf of Mexico BP catastrophe has brought into crystal-clear focus our long-standing dilemma over oil dependency. Should we continue our dependency on oil? Should we risk more Gulf-like disasters, including associated GHG missions from the combustion of fuel? Or NOT? To drill or not to drill, that is the question.

A recent New York Times article reports on conversations with some people in the small community of Dulac, Lousiana, and for them, the choices are very real. The issue has been brought to their front stage with dramatic clarity.

Most people in Dulac are reeling as they watch the local seafood industry collapsing under the body blow of the BP spill.

But there is another crisis caused by President Obama’s moratorium on oil drilling, which the Republican governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jinda, calls "a second man-made disaster". The oil industry is responsible for huge majority of jobs in the area, and Louisiana lawmakers fear the drilling moratorium, could put more than “100,000 people out of work, shutter businesses and destroy livelihoods”.

Federal U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, known to invest in the oil and gas business, overturned the presidential moratorium. Last week, the US Justice Department issued a new moratorium that it hopes will pass muster with the courts.

And the fight continues. But the Dulac community members are beginning to ponder the merits of alternative energy. Those are difficult choices.

The ‘take home’ sustainability challenge can be phrased as follows:

How might we have a sustainable community (with no oil dependency) that can generate good jobs and economic prosperity?

The challenge of maintaining public commitment to sustainability

One of the biggest barriers to the transition to a sustainable society is public attitude. In essence, sustainability involves transforming our economy from one that consumes excessive energy and resources. This requires a focused dedication to long-term objectives over a time period spanning 50 to 100 years. Although there are many other metrics to define sustainability, global warming has been the one single indicator on which we’ve focused to-date. Maintaining public support to address this challenge is critical.

What is distressing is a recent article in the New York Times about the drop in support for action against man-made climate change, especially in Britain - the forefront of climate change initiatives in OECD countries.

The NYT article quotes a BBC poll that finds that “only 26 percent of Britons believed that ‘climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,’ down from 41 percent in November 2009”. UK politicians, including new Prime Minister David Cameron, who have previously led the charge on climate change action are now soft-pedaling the issue. Similar trends though not as strong are appearing elsewhere in Europe.

Causes for this cooling of attitudes have been attributed to the growing visibility of climate change skeptics. Encouraged by the media, they have been making hay with last year’s email scandals at East Anglia University. Other contributing factors were some minor errors in IPCC reports, e.g. exaggerated rate of melting of Himalayan glaciers. And the coldest European January in recent years didn’t help either. The scientific community is beginning to fight back with letters and editorials in prestigious journals like Nature and Science.

But there is a deeper question. Unlike the January 2010 Haiti earthquake which galvanized world attention for almost half a year, climate change is a slowly progressing but far more pervasive and dangerous natural phenomenon. It has to be addressed through mitigation or adaptation strategies and the move to a sustainable society. But making the transition to a sustainable society requires consistent focus. This transition will require some short term sacrifices and tradeoffs. More impoertantly, it will also require a steadfast commitment spanning several elections at all levels of governments.

What’s the take home message? We have a simple challenge: how might we present sustainability as a long term critical societal goal, in a sufficiently attractive and compelling vision, to maintain the commitment over the next several decades.

Any suggestions?

New case study on the transformation of a major regulatory system – The Model National Building Code

This is a special post to announce the publication of a case study examining the National Building Code of Canada. The story is about its transformation from a prescriptive to an objective-based code to become more flexible and allow for easier innovation.

The Model National Building Code is the single most important regulatory infrastructure to shape all buildings in Canada. In examining barriers and obstacles to sustainability – the underlying purpose of this blog -- it is important that we understand how the building code operates. More critically, we also want to appreciate what it takes to modify or change a large regulatory instrument like the building code. That’s an essential part of the process of removing obstacles and barriers to innovation and change.

Codes are very complicated instruments. Changing the basis on which they are built is therefore a complex and lengthy process. The detailed case study, prepared by André Potworowski and three MBA students from the University of Ottawa, provides a narrative account of that historical transformation which spanned a full decade.

This is a classic story of the significant effort needed to re-design a well-established regulatory system to make it more responsive to the needs of society.

One of the key lessons learned, is that once the new code was published in 2005, key stakeholders also had to undergo change. There is a lot of learning and training required to work effectively and take full advantage of this new regulatory framework. An international workshop of code writers and regulators from 17 countries was held in Calgary in September 2009 to share experiences from the transition to new performance- and objective-based building codes. The conclusion: we still have a way to go before the transition is complete and all the benefits of the new performance-based codes are reaped.

Special thanks to Director General Bob Bowen of the National Research Council’s Institute for Research in Construction who agreed to sponsor this project, and to Denis Bergeron and Guy Gosselin who helped throughout the research, data collection and editing process of the final draft.

To access the case study, click here: The Transformation of the National Building Code of Canada: from Prescriptions to Objectives

In search of better indicators, signposts and metrics to help us achieve sustainability – the case of green housing

From our very first pre-workshop research and workshop proceedings two years ago, it became apparent that metrics and indicators were a critical element to the “Making it happen” project and the transition to a sustainable society.

Our first challenge was to define what we meant by a sustainable society, what were the vision and the metrics. So we reviewed over 50 studies, reports, and visions written over the last three decades. We also looked at a number of metrics or indicators used to define a sustainable society, such as energy consumption per capita, water consumed per capita and wastewater produced per capita, garbage generated per capita, and probably the hottest indicator, tons of carbon dioxide emitted per year.

Our main finding is that choosing indicators or metrics to describe a sustainable society, how you define them, what you actually measure and how, and achieving consensus on their relevance is a whole research area unto itself. For example, setting performance metrics or targets for greenhouse gas emissions is a highly charged political exercise – from the selection of the base year to the target year, all the way to deciding on the magnitude of the desired reductions. All these are subject to fierce debate.

More specifically, as we explored the barriers to shifting our residential housing stock to become sustainable or green, where we used the "net zero energy" houses as a benchmark, we discovered other challenges related to metrics.

For instance, a major challenge has to do with how to increase awareness of various stakeholder groups to the opportunity of green housing. This is a pre-requisite for the paradigm shift, and has to be achieved through such interventions as consumer education and information.

An essential component to achieve increased awareness is to demonstrate to all the members of the value chain (builders, vendors, real estate agents, consumers, and banks) the green value proposition, i.e. what is the real market value of an energy conserving feature. For example, most homeowners understand the positive impact on resale value of a house of a new $10,000 granite kitchen counter. Few people on the other hand appreciate the true dollar value of a $10,000 energy retrofit investment, e.g. achieved by installing extra insulation or triple glazed windows. We need clear agreed-upon indicators and metrics to capture and communicate this number down the value chain.

Another consideration is that an energy-efficient or "green" house looks no different from an ordinary house. We need some very clear, highly visible and simple indicators to show what is going on inside these energy-efficient houses, so normal people can readily see and appreciate what make them so unique and valuable.

At the end of the day, what the consumer really wants to know in real time is how much money these energy efficiency features are saving him or her, and what is the net operating cost of that property.

And when time-of-day meters become prevalent, consumers will want easy-to-read displays that make decision-making simple and easy: when to switch on major appliances, or delay it to another time of the day when the cost of electricity is cheaper. Already, gas and electric utilities are experimenting with various models.

On the financial side, the higher cost of green houses has led to a range of innovative financial instruments and business models. But an ongoing challenge is measuring and quantifying the dollar benefits of energy efficiency and environmental features, so that these can be better reflected in the market. Being able to measure the added value of "green" will facilitate the funding and sharing of the financial burden of the incremental cost of building an energy-efficient house.

In short, there is a need for a standardized simple energy efficiency and environmental performance rating system. The Energuide standard is well on the way to provide that. And NRC is developing a new energy building code. But these standards and metrics need to be visible throughout the marketplace, and should be reflected in such normal real estate transaction databases like the MLS. And building designer and inspectors, real estate agents, builders and bankers will all have to become thoroughly familiar with the new environmental and sustainability standards.

So trying to be green is good. But knowing precisely what is green, being able to measure and monitor it over the lifecycle of the product, so you can determine how well you’re doing is more critical.

Changing behavior -- the fun way

One of the recurring challenges throughout our investigation of obstacles and barriers to achieving sustainability, is the ability to change human behavior.

My friend Bob Czerny sent me the link to an interesting Swedish website sponsored by Volkswagen. Called the fun theory.com, it is “dedicated to the thought that something as simple as fun is the easiest way to change people’s behavior for the better.” The site recently organized a contest to identify creative and fun ways to change people's behavior for a better world.

The result is a highly creative collection of videos and ideas where, through a system of simple fun rewards or incentives like sound effects, consumers are drawn to the preferred behavior pattern.

Here are some of the more intriguing ideas:

Encourage people to use (piano) stairs instead of escalators

Throw garbage into garbage cans

Place glass bottles into green recycling bins or “bottle banks”.

Enjoy!

Meeting the new green house gas reduction targets – how do we make this happen?

Earlier this month, the Canadian government filed its official greenhouse gas reduction targets with United Nations. Many environmentalists object that these targets are too low. Others, however, are asking the more basic question: what can the government do to make it happen?

The short answer is that it's not a technology issue, it's a management issue. We don't need new technology to reduce our fossil fuel combustion and greenhouse gas emissions. We already have all the technology. Our research shows that there are no less than 160 such technologies available. They exist, they are on the market and they work. It is not a question of creating new technology. It’s a matter of removing barriers and obstacles to make sure the existing technologies and solutions are fully deployed.

In the housing sector alone, we could reduce our carbon emissions by 60 to 80% before 2030 if we deployed 55 of these technologies in the 10 to 15 million residential units across this country. So what’s really stopping us?

Certainly financing plays a role. In deploying green technologies, homeowners face an immediate up front cost that energy savings would only amortize over decades. Yet this could be addressed through incentives, redistribution of taxes, rebates, different types of mortgages, and even novel business models.

Other barriers show up in the lack of widely approved standards or codes to move in this direction. And an even bigger one is the acute lack of skilled trades to implement and install these technologies. By one estimate, we would need a million skilled trades people to fully retrofit Canada's existing housing stock.

There are many such barriers and taken together, they are slowing down progress toward sustainability to a crawl.

One especially difficult set of barrier consists of the complex patchwork of contradictory regulations and incentives that confuses and misdirects progress.

We all say we would like to encourage the use of public transit, yet we provide highways with a 100% subsidy from taxpayers while partially subsidized transit systems have to charge for ridership.

We recognize the advantages of higher densities in cities yet we tax buildings at higher rates than empty land and we tax high-rise buildings at higher rates than we do low rises.

Becoming green is not rocket science. It involves thousands of small decisions taken systematically and strategically to move toward sustainability.

A compelling example of such choices is offered by the University of Ottawa. Over the past 25 years, the university tripled both its surface area and its population, but its overall energy consumption remained relatively constant. In effect, its ability to use energy efficiently increased by a factor of three!

There was no magic bullet involved, Instead, thousands of individual decisions and choices had to be made relative to water faucets, pipes, air-conditioners, compressors, boilers, heat recovery etc. Through careful monitoring of daily energy use, the plant manager was able to pinpoint opportunities that increased efficiency. The result was that the University saved $28 million and it reduced its CO2 emissions by 30-40%!

What made this possible was the dedication of one individual able to make financial decisions and investments to optimize the energy system because he had the consistent backing of the university administration.

In the same way, we need governments at all levels in Canada to provide Canadians with a consistent regulatory framework that gives them incentives to make choices tending toward sustainability.

Some governments are beginning to realize this. Ontario's new Green Energy Act, passed last year, provides incentives to those wishing to install renewable energy in their homes and sell the excess to the province's electricity grid. But what really makes this piece of legislation remarkable is that it was accompanied by a careful review of other laws to identify those that might conflict with the Act’s core objectives.

The legislators recognized that aggressive promotion of renewable energy demands the removal of many different barriers across many different jurisdictions. So the Green Energy Act includes amendments to no less than 15 other provincial statutes including the Electricity Act, the Building Code Act and the Planning Act governing municipal zoning. It even amended the Co-operative Corporations Act to allow for new renewable energy co-operatives.

In other words, it is not new technology that is needed to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets. Instead, we have to face up to our complex legislative and regulatory systems. We really need the will to get down to the nitty-gritty of identifying and removing the many small institutional and bureaucratic barriers that are stopping us from moving to sustainability.

The biggest manufacturer of green technology in the world

By all accounts, China has become the largest manufacturer of green technology in the world. According to a recent article in the New York Times,

• China is now the largest maker of wind turbines; Vestas of Denmark has just built the world's biggest wind turbine manufacturing complex in Northeastern China;
• It is the world's largest manufacturer of solar panels;
• It is building the most efficient types of coal power plants;
• Renewable energy industries employed 1.12 million people in 2008, and climbing by 100,000 year;
• China is aiming for wind and solar and biomass energy to represent 8% of its electricity generation capacity by 2020;
• It is the world's largest market for power equipment, and the government has committed $45 billion in 2009 to upgrade the electricity grid. Domestic demand for electricity is growing at 15% a year.

China's competitive advantages include interest rates as low as 2% for bank loans, and low labor costs.


The Wall Street Journal also points to the very aggressive efforts by China to develop an electric car.

• BYD Auto Co. recently showcased in all electric car that the Chinese company intends to sell in the US by the second half of 2010. BYD, which stands for Build Your Dreams, is backed by a $230 million investment by Warren Buffett, for a 9.9% stake in the company (i.e. for a total capitalization of $2.3 billion).
• In 2009 BYD sold 450,000 electric vehicles in China, an increase of 160% over 2008 figures.

That's big!