eing involved in the International GreenAwardsT over the last five years, as ajudge and a trustee, has underlined forme where organisations often go wrongwith "green". Conversely, it also illustrates howsometimes they get it dramatically right, withbreakthrough results. The key to the latter cases iscreativity and co-operation.Green (and sustainability in general) is a net output,a bit like health. It is hence an objective, and notnecessarily the strategy. Some of the greenestcompanies in the world do not even look green. eBay,for example, has saved millions of tonnes of secondhand clothes, electronics and other mass-producedgoods from landfill. The greenest thing you can do ingeneral is stop wasting: a message manyorganisations have taken to heart in reducing energy,packaging and shipping.Campaigns that aim to make normal things lookgreen, are seldom "green" in the true sense. They arelike cosmetic surgery, rather than healthy lifestyles. Iargued in The Green Marketing Manifesto (2007) thatwe should actually be doing the opposite: makinggreen things seem normal. Making normal appeargreen is what has become known as "greenwash". The term was invented by journalist Jay Westerfeld,writing an investigative article about those "hoteltowel schemes" where they ask you to keep yourtowels for further days' use. What else were thesehotels doing, Westerfeld wondered? With theirrecycling, energy, cleaning products, labour rights.?The answer Westerfeld found was "not much", only agreen washing scheme to launder their image (andpass the buck, in the process). Gratifyingly, thegreenwash quotient in entries to the InternationalGreen AwardsT has fallen dramatically. It seemed toaccount for half the entries six years ago. I struggle torecall an example among hundreds of entries I readthis year. But the problem with trying to "green" yourproducts, services or organisation runs deeper. One danger is missing the bigger picture, for instance ifwe encourage people to "save money, save energy"what do those people then do with the money that wassaved? In the UK, where savings ratios hover aroundzero, the answer is they spend it on something else.Whatever you spend your money on, it has a carbon andenvironmental impact, so the net effect is not green.This is a phenomenon (the indirect rebound effect) theWWF used to challenge the whole "green marketing"paradigm (Weathercocks and Signposts, 2008).If people buy "ethical brands" there can be a haloeffect - one pack of organic corn and one of fairtradecoffee is the average in the UK out of over £200 spenteach week on other groceries that go unexamined.Therefore, the net effect is not green, even if theintention is there. Generally, for these reasons (andmany others) the action has moved on; frommarketing to fundamental innovation.Why fundamental innovation? As scientists,economists, environmentalists and politicians warn usrepeatedly, we face what UK chief scientist JohnBeddington described as a "perfect storm" by 2030:as rising demands for energy, food and water are metwith a crisis of limited supply, further compromised byclimate change. To avoid the social dislocation,economic collapse and widespread conflict that wouldderive quickly from such a scenario, we must innovate- something the International Green AwardsT rightlystresses. We must create a step change to morewellbeing obtained from much less resources. AlongGLOBAL PROBLEMS: CREATIVE AND CO-OPERATIVESOLUTIONS040SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTJOHN GRANT, CO-FOUNDER OF ECOINOMY AUTHOR OF CO-OPPORTUNITY AND THE GREEN MARKETING MANIFESTO MEMBER OF THE STEERING GROUP ADVISORY PANEL, INTERNATIONAL GREEN AWARDSTB" "SUSTAINABILITYIS NOT A TECHNICAL MATTER TO BEFIXED WITH A DIFFERENT KINDOF ENERGY. IT IS GIVING DUE WEIGHT TO TODAY'S NEEDS ANDTOMORROW'S

G20 MEMBER COUNTRIES117