Comments on: Leading Green: The Future of Ecological Leadership http://www.danielgoleman.info/2009/06/02/leading-green-the-future-of-ecological-leadership/ Emotional Intelligence, Social Intelligence, Ecological Intelligence Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:54:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Maggie Chicoine http://www.danielgoleman.info/2009/06/02/leading-green-the-future-of-ecological-leadership/comment-page-1/#comment-1005 Maggie Chicoine Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:26:22 +0000 http://www.danielgoleman.info/blog/?p=217#comment-1005 I appreciate this post and its focus on strategic intention and innovation. In my consulting practice, I've learned that companies need to define "innovation", not just as a concept, but as an operational function with responsibilities for active implementation assigned to champions. Too many talk innovation, very few set standards of measurement, and even fewer integrate into their culture. Kudos for a great new work, once again! - Maggie Chicoine Strategies to Think Ahead I appreciate this post and its focus on strategic intention and innovation. In my consulting practice, I’ve learned that companies need to define “innovation”, not just as a concept, but as an operational function with responsibilities for active implementation assigned to champions. Too many talk innovation, very few set standards of measurement, and even fewer integrate into their culture.

Kudos for a great new work, once again!

- Maggie Chicoine
Strategies to Think Ahead

]]> By: Garacka http://www.danielgoleman.info/2009/06/02/leading-green-the-future-of-ecological-leadership/comment-page-1/#comment-1004 Garacka Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:10:44 +0000 http://www.danielgoleman.info/blog/?p=217#comment-1004 I love the concept in the featured video about changing the metaphor of a product to include the processes and intermediate products used to get the product in your hands. I also think in terms of the ecology, perhaps the greatest and troublesomely difficult one for folks to grasp (because in many ways these things are invisible), are the non naturally occurring chemicals that are released into the environment. If there was just 1 thing we could do, environmentally, I would select that issue. Also, because chemical/biological effects can sometimes be hard to understand in advance, we should err on the side of the precautionary principle. (If you're not sure, either don't use them, minimize their use, and/or monitor for quick response if issues are identified) Note: This approach is loaded with implementation difficulties, especially if taken to ideological extremes. One major worry I have is in regards to the concern about CO2 induced Global warming and its use in flavoring the carbon footprint metaphor. The concern regards credibility for the cause of Environmental protection and thinking. There is a much broader technical recognition then what many hear popularly communicated, that the CO2 scare was a manufactured crisis. As one with an engineering degree who has followed this issue in detail over the last 10 years, I take this position. I originally followed the precautionary principle in the early 1990's, and advocated for CO2 emission reductions to prevent catastrophic warming. The worry then is that as the concern over CO2 having been a manufactured crisis becomes more recognized, does it do more damage to progress in environmental protection or not. I am concerned personally and primarily it is based on the need for us to be truthful. It's even quite incongruous that CO2, which is a gas of life for our planet which makes green plants thrive, is labeled as the boogeyman. Perhaps this reflects more on how far we need to go in educating folks about basic science. I believe the best approach for Global Warming advocates is to stand up and acknowledge the fraud now, so we do not risk too great a backlash. Perhaps it had value in raising awareness, but a recognition now, that it is not a concern, would be a major breath of fresh air, and coming from former advocates would be best. Such a reversal is really not much different than Mr. Goleman's discussion about the complexity of seemingly simple environmental positions such as paper vs. plastic. The position on paper was quickly advocated until someone at each using the life-cycle metaphor. I love the concept in the featured video about changing the metaphor of a product to include the processes and intermediate products used to get the product in your hands.

I also think in terms of the ecology, perhaps the greatest and troublesomely difficult one for folks to grasp (because in many ways these things are invisible), are the non naturally occurring chemicals that are released into the environment. If there was just 1 thing we could do, environmentally, I would select that issue. Also, because chemical/biological effects can sometimes be hard to understand in advance, we should err on the side of the precautionary principle. (If you’re not sure, either don’t use them, minimize their use, and/or monitor for quick response if issues are identified) Note: This approach is loaded with implementation difficulties, especially if taken to ideological extremes.

One major worry I have is in regards to the concern about CO2 induced Global warming and its use in flavoring the carbon footprint metaphor. The concern regards credibility for the cause of Environmental protection and thinking.

There is a much broader technical recognition then what many hear popularly communicated, that the CO2 scare was a manufactured crisis. As one with an engineering degree who has followed this issue in detail over the last 10 years, I take this position. I originally followed the precautionary principle in the early 1990’s, and advocated for CO2 emission reductions to prevent catastrophic warming.

The worry then is that as the concern over CO2 having been a manufactured crisis becomes more recognized, does it do more damage to progress in environmental protection or not. I am concerned personally and primarily it is based on the need for us to be truthful. It’s even quite incongruous that CO2, which is a gas of life for our planet which makes green plants thrive, is labeled as the boogeyman. Perhaps this reflects more on how far we need to go in educating folks about basic science.

I believe the best approach for Global Warming advocates is to stand up and acknowledge the fraud now, so we do not risk too great a backlash. Perhaps it had value in raising awareness, but a recognition now, that it is not a concern, would be a major breath of fresh air, and coming from former advocates would be best. Such a reversal is really not much different than Mr. Goleman’s discussion about the complexity of seemingly simple environmental positions such as paper vs. plastic. The position on paper was quickly advocated until someone at each using the life-cycle metaphor.

]]>