An advert I saw recently for Dick Smith’s Wilberforce Award was a welcome diversion: $1 million on offer to “a young person under 30 who can impress the award organisers by becoming famous through his or her ability to show leadership in communicating an alternative to our population and consumption growth-obsessed economy”.

I broadly agree with the Award’s sentiment (certainly about population growth) although I think the message itself feeds a dangerous mindset. Their under 30 cut-off (other than the fact it excludes me) tends to suggest that they are looking for some ‘new’ solution to our growth-obsession as if ‘the answer’ doesn’t already exist. This isn’t right. Leaving aside the fact that the over 30s have caused most of the problem and so arguably should sort this out (complete with cash incentive), I think we already know what we have to do to resolve our growth fetishism: individuals need to be more discerning about what they consume and consume less of it.

At a broader level we have to factor in the true social and environmental costs and benefits of what we do as a society (ref: SROI Network) http://www.thesroinetwork.org/ apply these to planning and policy decisions. At the end of the day we have to be more accountable for what we consume, contribute more and focus on collecting life experiences than consumption-based surrogates. Only when we get societal shifts in this direction will we start to get politicians seeing value in including this stuff in their election manifestos.

1968: Senator Robert Kennedy speaking at an election rally. (Photo by Harry Benson/Express/Getty Images)

As for whether we need new ideas, the concept of a rethink on what we value and how we measure it has been around for as long as I have. Tell the under 30 year olds to take a look at Bobby Kennedy’s speech in 1968:

Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product … counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armoured cars for police who fight riots in our streets…and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile…

“One of the world’s greatest stories of courage, endurance and adventure will be retold as part of the official centenary re-enactment of Shackleton’s history-making 1916 Antarctic voyage. Today, details of the Shackleton Epic, an expedition to be held in January 2013 and led by renowned British/Australian adventurer Tim Jarvis AM FRGS, were announced.”  MORE

I went on to say that positive environmental outcomes are often thwarted by powerful industry forces that have an unhealthy level of influence over politicians “positive decision-making” and that this story was a pleasant exception to that norm. Robert Redford who wrote the article felt it was a great environmental outcome but that it would come at great risk to Obama politically as he gears up for re-election, and that Obama was apparently made aware of this no uncertain terms by big oil representatives). I agreed.

Well put the corks back in because the inevitable has happened and the White House has U-turned, endorsing the first section of the pipeline. In the words of the Washington Post/Guardian/Financial Review, “the move has been seen by environmental campaigners as a betrayal and designed to insulate Obama in an election year from a key line of republican attack: that he sided with environmental campaigners against US energy security and jobs”.

I don’t know what’s more toxic – the environmental outcomes (the pipeline and the products it transports) or what it says about the nature of US politics that means even the President isn’t immune.

A radar satellite image shows smooth ice over the surface of Lake Vostok, over 3.5 kilometres down

The water in these lakes despite temperatures far below freezing remains liquid because the weight of ice on top of the lakes doesn’t allow the water to freeze. Freezing after all requires water to expand and that can’t happen when you have 4,000m or 14,000 feet weight of ice pushing down from above.

The Russians shocked everyone on 5th February when they announced they’d got there first managing to drill into Lake Vostokdeep below the eastern Antarctic Ice Cap near the Pole of Relative Inaccessibility.  Lake Vostok is not only a long way down – it is in fact some 500m below sea level making it perhaps the world’s lowest lake and at about the size of Lake Ontario it’s not exactly small.

illustration of drilling at Lake Vostok - NewScientist

Why do it? Well, apart from national pride, it’s all about seeing what might live in such an incredibly inhospitable place where subzero temperatures and permanent darkness prevail and that’s been isolated from light, heat, the atmosphere and all other life on earth for over 10 million years. Whatever lives there apart from being pretty tough is going to be unique and may give us a clue as to whether similar life might be able to exist on other icy planets.

I must say it makes a pleasant change to see these 3 nations drilling for something worthwhile for once, particularly if it helps us in our quest to discover life beyond earth. This is a noble pursuit – shame the same can’t be said for the greedy, clamouring, quest for oil they’re involved with up in the Arctic. Looking for life on other planets whilst buggering up our own – there’s an irony here surely.

Worryingly though strategic planning, as far as the environment is concerned, is poorly served by the western political system. Countries, cities and states are often run in silos offering little opportunity for meaningful multidisciplinary solutions to problems. The short tenures of politicians furthermore aren’t geared towards getting the environmental results we want because the slow pace of environmental change means that there’s often no political payback during their term in office. Finally, and perhaps worst, is that politicians are in many cases compromised by those who have backed them who see the environment as a hindrance to progress, job creation or growth. This is particularly true in the US.

I read Robert Redford’s recent article on the Huffington Post with mixed emotions: it was about how President Obama stood up to big oil and rejected a major oil pipeline that was due to run from Canada to Texas and although Redford felt it was a great environmental outcome he also felt it would come at great risk to Obama politically as he gears up for re-election (something the President was apparently made aware of in no uncertain terms by big oil representatives).

Presidential elections every 4 years are one thing but it is the short 2 year cycle for Representatives in the lower house and the extent of financial backing required to get elected that is the real problem (Australia by contrast is 3 years and the UK 5). With such backing comes an obligation to groups whose goals invariably run counter to protecting the environment.

The environment isn’t normally high on the political agenda however you cut the cake. Aside from rare brave decisions about oil pipelines, the need for integrated design with sustainability in mind wrested from the hands of our elected representatives is going to be crucial.

100 years ago today was one of the most momentous – the Norwegian Amundsen reaching the South Pole for the first time. It was an amazing journey and, regardless of what one thinks about his treatment of his dogs (which he butchered routinely for food in a premeditated fashion), was a truly incredible achievement. The man he beat to the prize, Scott, was of course not so fortunate.

Roald Engelbregt Gravning Amundsen

Both men were true explorers. They aimed high and planned accordingly, with the planning process being there only to serve the achievement of their goal, rather than being a goal in its own right. This outcome-focused approach is one I have tried to apply to my expeditions and environmental work over the past 15 years but one that is sadly lacking in the international dialogue around climate change.

Specifically I’m referring to the Conferences of the Parties (COP) negotiations to determine what our international response to climate change should be. Unfortunately COP seems to be all about process and scant on outcomes. The latest iteration, COP17 in Durban (we started with COP 1 in 1995), has been hailed as a great breakthrough with the international community finally committing to develop a legally binding climate agreement by 2020. What this really amounts to, however, is a commitment to more process-based dialogue whilst valuable time slips by.

2020 will mark 25 years of COP negotiations and that is one anniversary certainly not to be celebrated.

Mawson’s own epic survival journey featured starvation, blizzards, debilitating cold, and ultimately, following the consumption of the sled dogs, the death of his remaining companion.  Alone, Mawson then faced ferocious winds, near-fatal crevasse falls, and terrible debilitation, all compounded by the loneliness and danger of solo travel. When he finally stumbled through the door of the hut weeks later against all the odds, his men asked, ‘Which one are you?’ his physical state rendering him unrecognisable.

Tim Jarvis on expedition recreating Mawson's journey, 2007

As I finalise plans to retrace the journey of Ernest Shackleton in 2013, it’s apparent how Mawson went on to achieve greater things in the fields of science and exploration than many of his more famous contemporaries. For this I hope he gets the international recognition he deserves and that my journey to retrace Mawson’s in 2007 played some small part in this.

Surely they had Mawson in mind when they coined the phrase that sums up the heroic era they travelled in wooden boats but they were iron men.

To do this I have started up a not-for-profit organisation called ‘Do-Tank’ - essentially an action-orientated think tank working on environmental issues. It aims to source ideas from web-based contributors as well as generate its own ideas internally via an advisory ‘board’ of high calibre, untenured individuals. Our commitment will be to project manage the best ideas into reality via sourcing the necessary funds and technical skills from our collective networks to make this happen. (All ideas should satisfy some simple criteria being manageable in size and scope, deliverable, and have a repeatable methodology). The intention is to then record all of our experiences from such projects and make the IP freely available to encourage  repeatability.

I basically arrived at the idea of Do-Tank because I don’t see many examples of entities that do outcome-focused work in an unencumbered, multidisciplinary way to arrive at solutions to problems. Think-tanks come close but they tend to focus on a strategic level rather than implementable solutions. Industry/angels/venture capitalists on the other hand tend to engage when there is a vested business case, whilst the public sector/political end of the spectrum tend to run with an idea only once groundwork and preliminary risk-based work has been done. Pressure groups/NGOs do some very good work but it is often for political ends, (and, where the environment is concerned often to remediate an existing problem or support lobbying against some future undesirable activity). Consulting firms alternatively tend to be restricted to the scope of tenders in the marketplace rather than driving new green agendas by undertaking innovative work.

Do-Tank will fill this gap by taking the best of our ideas and yours, making them happen and recording how we went. The extent to which an idea works in the real world will quickly give us the reality of how able/‘enabled’ the environment is to deliver the vision we want, whilst problems and blind alleys we encounter will give us the roadmap for any institutional change that needs to happen.

Website coming soon at do-tank.com

As I was in fact there, the microphone made its way to me and I offered a description of a tool that I strongly believe represents a key element of getting mass uptake of sustainable practices – not a silver bullet but certainly a major part of the solution.

In both Austria and Germany donating ones organs after death requires ticking a box on the back of your driving license. There is a 30% difference in sign up rates (Austria has 21 donors per million to Germany’s 16). It has nothing to do with demographic, linguistic, cultural or racial differences; it is far more subtle than that. It is the way the question is framed: in Austria they operate a system of presumed consent whereas in Germany they do not. In other words in Austria you have to opt yourself out of donating an organ after death whereas in Germany you still have to opt-in if you wish to. The Austrian scheme in no way changes an individuals’ right to choose, it simply reframes the question. In essence it succeeds basically because many people do not feel strongly enough either way, even about such an emotive issue as organ donation, to not go with the default.

This thinking can and should be applied to sustainability issues. Carbon offsets should be automatically included in flights UNLESS people tick a box to say they do not wish to have this happen, domestic electricity could have a small amount of additional renewable power included in ones mix unless you chose NOT to receive it. This should be done transparently and honestly but it should be done. It places the moral onus on people to choose the less sustainable option. No more free moral ride. In the scenario I propose you will have to choose to contribute to the environmental problem, whereas being part of the solution requires you to do nothing.