Don't waste. (A monk and an old master were once walking in the mountains. They noticed a little hut upstream. The monk said, "A wise hermit must live here" - the master said, "That's no wise hermit, you see that lettuce leaf floating down the stream, he's a Waster." Just then an old man came running down the hill with his beard flying and caught the floating lettuce leaf.) Carry your own jug to the winery and have it filled from the barrel....

Thinking about a zen monastery- one bowl, washed out with tea or water and drunk- leaves no waste.

• How do we eliminate waste in our lives?
• How do we reduce the resources we use?
• How do we reuse the waste we can't eliminate?

Realistically, we can reduce, but the paths to do that can be really hard to see. In this light, is zero waste an option? Is it realistic?

• Thinking about LCA- paradox of reusable vs. recyclable vs. disposable - i.e. how you heat water for washing reusable containers can impact whether it is better to reuse a dish or use disposables. It's all about what you are comparing it to.
• Flipping equations
• Understanding the circumstances and equations
• Most of the population is not knowledgable on these issues when they should be. How do we change that? Knowledge is the foundation on which we build a sustainable future.
• Is cost benefit analysis the appropriate way to look at this? Is this type of analysis a legitimate tool

What measurements should be in place? What are the tools you can bring into play? How do we know whe we get there?

• If you don't have ALL the information, how do you make an informed decision?
• Once practices are efficient, then you can take steps towards making informed decisions about what to reuse and what to throw away.
• Fundamental leakages in information systems are hard to get around
• The only way you can sustain an effort is to establish metrics and measure against them to see progress. You have to make it a part of the process, standardize it.

Zero emissions might be a good goal, but if it's not realistic, it's not the best way to measure success.

Materials flow analysis, second law economics [Georgescu-Roegen], full cost accounting, activities based costing....

Waste=food, as in John Todd's ecological waste treatment systems which produce edible food as well as clean water by running effluents through multiple, different ecologies.

There needs to be a higher level objective set- We all have to get there by X date, and here are the milestones. Then we have to help educate people and corporations about getting the right measurements in place and getting us to those milestones. i.e.There needs to be a way for people to compare their appliances to their detergents or solar power (how many points do you add and subtract for different activities, materials, products, habits?)

Results are greater when people are paying attention! When it becomes part of your life, you start to think in systems and system dynamics. If metrics/monitors/etc are in front of you, you become aware.

Economic perspective: What is different now is that with renewable energy, we are not paying for the actual energy content (limited commodity). The energy is free, we are paying for the equipment to capture that. This isn't being adequately reflected in the economic models. We may need to change thinking about how we talk about energy. Energy is an unlimited natural resource when talkin gabout renewables. This point is not properly understood. The fossil fuel industry has a strong interest in not letting this conversation happen. Comparing fossils to renewable is like comparing actual energy (BTUs) to infrastructure development. Apples and Oranges! We are less than 2% renewables and are having trouble getting national legislation for 25%. We have the technology to get there. Even without legislation, we need to start prioritizing. Prioritization is as much an issue as anything else!

• Geographically, there are some limitations on the availability of resources like solar energy

The effectiveness and efficiency with which we use a resource is a major issue- thinking about net zero energy and even energy positive (producing) buildings.

Conceptually- using the energy and harnessing it to fix and capture the emissions. All the carbon was already there- it was gas, then fixed, now gas again.

Connecting the dots- at the big picture level, the goal is zero emissions but it gets embedded in the mantra of what we should be doing. we may not get there, but embedding it puts us on the path. Creating a corporate/community culture of efficiency, participation, standardization at all levels.

Straight cost-benefit analysis will not get us there unless it's incentivized. Are companies starting to lower the 'bar' or C-B requirement? Longer payback, etc. No net-present-value on carbon. Intangibles are hard to calculate in a cost-benefit analysis- risk management, externalities, soft benefits- "Total Lifecycle Analysis"

Paradigm shift from an energy consumption model to an energy capture and distribution model. Energy as a public service function. Problem- 18 states dergulate the energy model, allowing people to choose alternative sources, but this hasn't created any big demand for it. It's hard to make that switch happen without incentives. There's an inertia out there where people don't want to take the responsibility themselves. Can hand-holidng get us around that? People say "this is hard" "this is expensive" "this is unreliable" and don't try. Someone needs to step in and say "let me help you..."

What does this mean for our competitiveness? Do people use new technologies because of the technology or because of the cost? SunRun- MA company doing power purchase agreements (leasing solar panels) on a residential scale like SunEdison does for big business. Regulations can be helpful or unhelpful, like the MA regulation that only a licensed electrician can touch a PV panel, interrupting the model of small scale solar installers who are not traditional electricians. Chicken and egg thing- we can get around things like that- problem of "activation energy" and the market place can solve some of these, but not others.

What is the time frame on which we need to move? 2015? 2020? 2100? How do we move this boulder and change the context of a consumer culture and society to a sustainable or restoring culture and society.

• Carbon Disclosure Project (CDProject.net)- the ball is starting to roll- varied levels of detail, but measuring is a starting place to move forward.
• Moving out of office of legal council into general operations and multiple business branches
• Multiple nodes of society are moving- adoption curve- get the early adopters and the word will spread. There will be hold outs but we can't just focus on them, we have to move forward.
• Report online of top renewable energy users- does anyone have a link for this? it's not the typical "who's who" of big business.

On the consumer level, the issue may not be cost-benefit as much as reliability- people will pay more for reliability. The perception is not out there that renewables are reliable enough. Maybe there aren't enough options for the average consumer to pick from.

Corporate problem- uphill battle when people push it off to "another department," "the next project," etc. This needs to come to the forefront. Challenges- 2 distinct: supply chain and direct energy footprint/impact.