We focus on projects, project management, the connection between sustainability and project management, projects, and most importantly, YOU – the project manager.

That focus includes ecological but also economic and social continuity and success – in other words, running projects that consider the long term effects of the project’s product on the enterprise financially, for its employees and customers, and for the long-term health of the planet.

We are not tree-huggers, even though the picture on the cover of our award-winning book is of a tree.

But some of our rationale for taking on our work is rooted (pun intended) in caring for our home – Earth.

And we know that there are many of you out there who are justifiably skeptics – even cynics, and deniers, when it comes to climate change.  That’s fine with us.  We are left-brained, engineer/scientist types and we like that type of questioning.  It’s what keeps innovation going.

Still, we think it’s important to keep the project managers out there up-t0-date with news and recent findings with respect to climate change.

The most recent news, unfortunately, isn’t good.  It’s downright scary.

In this article, based on findings from the UN (I can almost hear the groan from some of you, but that’s okay, too), indicates that “heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are building up so high, so fast, that some scientists now think the world can no longer limit global warming to the level world leaders have agreed upon as safe”.

And in this story, World Meteorological Deputy Secretary-General Jeremiah Lengoasa said,  “With this picture in mind, even if emissions were stopped overnight globally, the atmospheric concentrations would continue for decades because of the long lifetime of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”.

Our book has tips on how you can bring these facts to bear on your projects.

No, the sky isn’t falling.  But “the sky” is over, under, around, and inside your project.  So you should know about how it affects your project and its project – and vice-verse.

We’ve tend to stay neutral when it comes to the global climate change debate, although we have tried to arm you with the information we believed you, as project managers, need to make sure you can take advantage of any projects that may arise as a result of any mitigation strategies.  Today, we heard about a couple of disturbing reports due out over the next several months.  Their titles were pretty ominous so we decided to dig a little deeper.

Take a look at some of these headlines and reports to be released and see if you don’t agree that they are unnerving;

NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries 

Earth has been growing warmer for more than 50 years.

And this one a report that is indicative of what is to come.

The Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.

The title says that those extreme events we have been experiencing, a major snow storm in the northeast in October 2011 for instance, are going to continue and we need a risk mitigation process to address them.  Further, we will need to “adapt” to these changes.

Another report coming from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC);

Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation

And finally, an interview from a scientist who has not only been one of the questioners of global climate change, but also his study was partially funded by an organization made up of climate change skeptics.  Dr. Richard Muller, professor of physics from the University of California, Berkeley, and founder of the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature Foundation, undertook an independent two year study of global climate change.

It was not that he himself was a sceptic, he just didn’t believe the likes of Tom Friedman and Al Gore because Dr. Muller believes their contentions were not truly science based.  Here is part of the interview between Dr. Muller and Eleanor Hall with Bronwyn Herbert from the Australian Broadcast Network (ABC).  You can hear the entire interview here.

BRONWYN HERBERT: Richard Muller says he wasn’t convinced the earth was warming, and set out two years ago to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong.

RICHARD MULLER: Sceptics had raised legitimate questions. Many of the thermometers were of very poor quality and poorly placed. There were  djustments being made to discontinuities in the data. There was perhaps undue influence from warming of cities, which was warm, but that’s not global warming.

BRONWYN HERBERT: He says he was particularly surprised that his results so closely correlated with previously published data from other teams in the US and the UK.

RICHARD MULLER: Somewhat to my amazement, none of the effects changed the answer. We wound up getting the same answer that the other groups had previously gotten for the amount of warming. It’s about 0.9 degrees Celsius over the last 50 years. The poor temperature quality data, even though it was at bad locations, the change in temperature I recorded was accurate. The urban heat island, just not that much area of the earth is urban. The temperature adjustments that people made, well those adjustments were made with more care than we could know, and in the end the adjustments didn’t bias the data. We picked five times as many stations as they did. Their selection of stations was sufficiently representative that it didn’t change the answer. So, in the end, the amount of global warming is what they said it was.

BRONWYN HERBERT: So do you now believe that global warming on earth is occurring?

RICHARD MULLER: Oh yes. I certainly believe that now.

And finally, from a report Agence France-Presse (AFP) states that a draft UN report three years in the making concludes that man-made climate change has boosted the frequency or intensity of heat waves, wildfires, floods and cyclones and that such disasters are likely to increase in the future.

“The document being discussed by the world’s Nobel-winning panel of climate scientists says the severity of the impacts vary, and some regions are more vulnerable than others. Hundreds of scientists working under the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) will vet the phonebook-sized draft at a meeting in Kampala of the 194-nation body later this month.

“This is the largest effort that has even been made to assess how extremes are changing,” said Neville Nicholls, a professor at Monash University in  Melbourne, Australia, and a coordinating lead author of one of the review’s key chapters. Mindful of an outcry by climate skeptics over flaws in an earlier IPCC text, those working on the document stress that the level of “confidence” in the findings depends on the quantity and quality of data available.

But the overall picture that emerges is one of enhanced volatility and frequency of dangerous weather, leading in turn to a sharply increased risk for large swathes of humanity in coming decades.”

“Its publication coincides with a series of natural catastrophes around the world that have boosted the need to determine whether such events are freaks of the weather or part of a long-term shift in climate. In 2010, record temperatures fuelled devastating forest fires across Siberia, while parts of Pakistan and India reeled from unprecedented flooding. This year, the United States has suffered from a record number of billion-dollar disasters ranging from flooding in the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers to Hurricane Irene to the ongoing Texas drought. Large swathes of China are suffering from intense drought as well, even as central America and Thailand count their dead from recent diluvian rains.

Most of these events match predicted impacts of manmade global warming, which has raised temperatures, increased the amount of water in the atmosphere and warmed ocean surface temperatures — all drivers of extreme weather.

- It is “virtually certain” — 99-100% sure — that the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes will increase over the 21st century on a global scale;

- It is “very likely” (90-100% certainty) that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, including heat waves, will continue to increase over most land areas;

- Peak temperatures are “likely” (66-100% certainty) to increase — compared to the late 20th century — up to 3.0 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2050, and 5.0 C (9.0 F) by 2100;

- Heavy rain and snowfall is likely to increase over the next century over many regions, especially in the tropics and at high latitudes;

- At the same time, droughts will likely intensify in other areas, notably the Mediterranean region, central Europe, North America, northeastern Brazil and southern Africa.” © 2011 AFP

After reading the front page, top story of today’s Boston Globe, we’re glad we recently finished reading this book.

The Globe story indicates that yes, some of the findings of scientists regarding climate change were wrong.  However, they were not wrong the way some climate change cynics have asserted.  Unfortunately the scientists were wrong in the other direction.  They were too conservative, especially in the area of estimating the sea rise due to climate change.  For folks along the northern part of the Eastern US coastline – especially New England, the outlook for sea water levels rising is, much more near-term than theoretical or distant. According to the Globe, “what was once a problem for our great great-grandchildren is one our children could confront.” The scary news goes on:

“Already, 65 acres of prime Massachusetts coastal real estate is swallowed by the sea every year; ocean waters have crept up about a foot here in the last century. While more land will be eaten away, storm surges — abnormal rises of water during severe weather — layered on top of higher seas could push much further inland, especially in flat coastal areas of New England, and oceanside homes in places like Scituate and Gloucester will be even more vulnerable. Some scientists say that climate change may also bring fiercer and more frequent storms.”

Sigh.

Alas, after such a pessimistic article, it was good to have some optimistic input – some hope – mixed in as well.  With chapter subtitles like “We have all the tools we need”, the book Sustainagility by Patrick Dixon and Johan Gorecki paints an empowering picture that shows how technology can slow the effects of climate change and allow the planet to do some recovering.  For example, it was nice to read that wind turbines, according to the book, “have the theoretical capacity to provide 40 times all the world’s electricity demands if storage and transmission problems could be solved in an affordable way.”

This makes us happy both because of the promise of clean power – but also for the incredibly selfish reason that if an organization wanted to:

• solve a wind turbine storage problem
• increase power transmission capacity and efficiency
• build turbines
• lay cables
• meter the grid
• and on and on and on…

..any of these would be – you guessed it – programs and projects.

The summary of the book says: “Innovation and agility will solve most of the greatest threats to our planet’s ecosystem, argue Patrick Dixon and Johan Gorecki. In “Sustainagility,” they suggest positive ways that businesses and individuals can address these threats while making a profit. “Sustainagility” covers how to encourage green innovation inside an organization, how to develop green technologies faster, and how to adapt rapidly to stay ahead of competition. It includes text boxes containing shocking statistics about the destruction of our planet, short inspiring examples of how innovation has created new profitable business and helped the world, and personal messages from global leaders about sustainable innovation. Case studies of numerous well-known, high-profile companies are featured, demonstrating that companies have successfully used innovative and agile processes to improve their businesses and fight some of the greatest threats to the world’s ecosystems.”

The book’s inviting approach is to use interviews with leaders from the year 2040 (in fact opening with an interview from the UN President from 20-May, 2040), with a retrospective of how close to the edge we were, until innovative, agile companies started solving problems (we would assert – with projects).

The book is interesting and – as we said – uplifting.  We liked two things the most, though.

1. Their use of smashing two words together to get a point across.  They combined Sustainability and Agility, to get Sustainagility.  We combined Green and Quality to get greenality.  In both cases, the authors were driven to communicate a concept by combining two well-known, existing concepts.

2. In the book’s “Afterword” there are “Ten Steps to Profitable Sustainability”.  Again, this is one of our themes – properly completed projects of any kind which are run with “Triple bottom line” thinking – will be better projects, not in spite of, but because of the life-cycle and holistic considerations involved.

Below we paraphrase the “Ten steps for your company”:

1. Make ‘sustainability’ central to your strategy
2. Look at the resources you use, directly or indirectly
3. Take steps to reduce carbon use – but also all resource use
4. Tell your own ‘sustainability story’ better than competitors
5. Link every sale to a triple bottom line benefit
6. Partner with environmental groups
7. Stay profitable -control costs and choose proper pricing
8. Work closely with experienced people
9. Small (incremental) changes do add up, and do count
10. Encourage your suppliers and customers to think with more greenality

The book goes on to provide 10 steps for governments and 12 things consumers can do.

Our point, as it has been from the start, and which we will sustain – excuse the quite intentional pun- is that project managers are at that point in most organizations which is particularly sensitive to getting things done.  The ideas above – remain ideas, until a PM grabs on to one of them and makes it real and can hand it off to the steady-state.

We hope that more and more project managers get this.  And more importantly, we hope that the leaders of the agile and innovative companies at the forefront of these efforts understand how much their project managers and through them, their project teams, matter in these efforts.

Here’s a challenge for you.  We’ll provide some quotes below and have you match them up with the tree-hugging, eco-terrorist, liberal radical socialist lunatic who made the statement.

Answers are at the bottom of the post.

1. “We can’t solve problems with the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”.

2. (speaking in reaction to climate change) “we are headed to a world of inescapable mutuality and a future that is truly alien to us”.

3. “It took a real wake-up call to  start to think beyond the four walls and pay attention to the larger (eco) system”

4. “Businesses need to wake up to the fact that the economy is the wholly-owned subsidiary of nature, not the other way around”.

5.  (speaking of issues such as climate change) ” you need to get out in front of it because if you are not out in front of it, you’re going to get plowed under”.

6. “I don’t know what color this company is going to be in the future, but I can assure you it will be some shade of green.  The CEO title in the future may stand for Chief Environment Officer”.

7. “[we] must work together for common sustainability goals that transcend individual commercial objectives and we must approach this with a sense of urgency”

8. “People are flocking to work on (environmental) issues for two reasons.  First, very smart technical people often have a bias towards environmentalism and sustainability.  Second, they relish the opportunity to work on the most advanced technology.  They’re naturally drawn to doing this work.”

Now.  Put your seat belts on.

Ready?

None of these quotes come from raggedly-clothed, bearded,  sandal-wearing, radical eco-terrorists.  Match them up and you’ll see that leaders of industry – and by definition, those overseeing the portfolio of programs and projects which you manage, are at least speaking this way and we believe are sincere.  And even if they are not, they are leading the portfolio (with the possible exception of a guy named Albert).  So you don’t need to grow a beard, buy sandals, tear your clothes, or join Greenpeace to be a green project manager.  Read our book (okay…okay…one of us does have a beard, but it’s neatly trimmed and very professional-looking) and you’ll see that our perspective is similar to what you see in these quotes.

1. Albert Einstein

2. Mieko Nishimizu, Vice President of the World Bank

3. Jeff Seabright, VP of Coca Cola

4. Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface Carpet, paraphrasing US Senator Gaylord Nelson

5. Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE

6. Edgar Woolard, CEO of Dow Chemical

7. Greg Wittbecker, Director, Alcoa

8. Lorraine Bolsinger, VP, General Electric

This is a follow up to an earlier post.

The California vote “signifies the largest public referendum on clean energy legislation. Tom Steyer, co-chairman of the NO on 23 campaign, stated “In the midst of a major economic downturn, and with a barrage of fear mongering and scare tactics, voters still said they want a clean energy future.”” from  Solar Novus Today (www.solarnovus.com)

Californians rejected the attempt to suspend the state’s global warming law signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  The defeat was by a significant margin, 39 percent to 61 percent, with 93 percent of the precincts counted, according to the Associated Press.

The San Francisco Chronicle states that; “The vote clears the way for a state law restricting greenhouse-gas emissions to go into effect in 2012. The law requires the state cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. It will require utilities to get almost a third of their electricity from renewable sources such as solar panels, and create a market for carbon-dioxide pollution permits.  Proposition 23 was “the largest public referendum in history on climate and energy policy,” said Fred Krupp, president of the New York-based Environmental Defense Fund.”

Although backers of Proposition 23, conceded defeat, they called the outcome “a victory for Wall Street over Main Street” vowing to continue their efforts to “save jobs” and curb energy costs.   I’m a little confused.  When I look at the contributors to the fight for and against Proposition 23, I might say it was a victory for Wall Street over Wall Street, because on one side are the likes of Microsoft and Apple, on the other is Big Oil.  It reminds me of the Harlequin, turn one way it is dark, turn the other it is light, but overall, it is the same, but that’s the subject of another post.

Continuing with the Chronicle, “”Millions of voters have said they see clean-energy jobs as the path forward through a tough economic climate,” Krupp said.”  For us, as project managers, that is key.  We need to continue to “surf the green wave.”  Green jobs mean green projects, mean project managers to manage those projects.

Don’t you think that those sponsors of green projects would rather have someone familiar with the reasons, the driving forces, behind the green wave, to manage their projects?  For further information on how you get SMARTER* on this “green revolution” see our book and follow us on this site.  The revolution is here, evidenced by the defeat of California’s Prop 23 and a continued emphasis on tax incentives for alternate energy development.

*From Green Project Management, CRC Press (Specific, Measurable, Agreed Upon, Realistic, Timely, and Environmentally Responsible)

You may have often heard said that the Project Manager is like the CEO of their project.

You may also have heard that a President is like the CEO of the country.

So, it doesn’t take too much linking logic to combine those assertions to come up with the ‘conclusion’ that President Bill Clinton is at least ‘like’ a Project Manager.

And in fact, Clinton recently addressed the North American PMI Congress in Washington, DC.  One nice part was that he kept his prepared remarks to a minimum.  Attendees were given a little card in their conference materials to facilitate asking him a question.   So, President Clinton had those questions somewhat before he got up on stage.  Acknowledging the quality of the questions posed by PMI Congress attendees, Clinton said (to applause) that he would not talk too long, and would instead devote more time to a question and answer session – an “Oprah-esque” interview by Greg Balestrero, CEO of PMI.  We were in attendance and listened carefully, taking some copious notes.

You don’t have to agree with Bill Clinton to know that he’s a good speaker.  And here he proved that he’s also a pretty darn good interviewee, ready with a quick wit and a great handle on a whole range of facts and knowledge.  Clinton answered a set of far-ranging questions from the audience.  Here we will focus on Clinton’s comments from his prepared talk as well as his response to the questions, which deal with climate change and project management.  And yes, that topic – and our foundation – the intersection of green and project management – was a major thread (perhaps even a rope!) of the conversation.  There were times when we couldn’t help saying to ourselves: “he really gets it!”.

During his prepared speech, Clinton identified three areas in which Project Management needs to play an increased role.

Those three areas are:

1. Global instability
2. Growing economic inequality between rich and poor countries
3. The need for change in the way energy is produced and consumed in the world

We will focus, of course, on the third item.  However, you can get a perspective on all three and the entire event by reading this recent PMI.org blog entry.

On this topic, President Clinton said, “I happen to believe changing the way we produce and consume energy is the greatest single economic opportunity that the developed nations have had, at least since there was mass mobilization for World War II, and this time, we don’t have to kill anybody….I have a climate change project, and I work in at least 25 countries, 40 cities, on six continents, proving that it is good business to change the way you produce and consume energy.”

Speaking of the Kyoto agreement and the effect it had had on four major economies – those of Sweden, Denmark, Germany,and the UK, Clinton said that after they took the agreement seriously, “those countries had lower unemployment rates, less income inequality, more small business formation, and more job formation, given the size of their economy than we did, and the only conceivable explanation, if you look at all the economic variables, is because they made a very serious attempt to either change the way they consume energy or change the way they produce it or a combination of the two.”

Our favorite quote – perhaps because of the way he introduces it, is this one:

“Deutsche Bank, not Greenpeace, but Deutsche Bank recently did a study on the German subsidies of this last decade, during which Germany leap‑frogged the U.S. and Japan to become the number one producer and user of solar power in a country where the average sunlight is what it is in London, England.

So they had to heavily subsidize it.  Deutsche Bank said, even accounting for the drag of the subsidy, Germany netted 500,000 jobs, which, if we had the German program, we would net 1.2 million, since, if we had the same sunlight, since we have twice the capacity, just implementing that would give us 2 1/2 million jobs, at a time when we desperately need them.  So I think we need to make an economic case, a national security case, and a climate change case together.  People are smart enough to figure this out.”

We like the quote, because:

• Like us, Clinton is stating that the evidence pointing to the ‘good logic’ (of initiating green projects and putting more green into projects) is not a radical ‘tree-hugger’ idea, but a sound business principle
• He realizes that people have different ‘channels’ for being convinced of the need to work on sustainability issues.  He combines three biggies here: money, security, and survival.  Pretty basic on the Maslow pyramid, right?  Not too shabby.
• He uses a reference country – Germany – which has implemented solar power despite its not being a model for sunniness.  Project managers and other intelligent people can do the extrapolation that in areas like the southern USA, Australian outback and the Sahara, the justification should be that much easier

So what do you think?  Were you there?  Did you react positively?

If you weren’t there, based on our reflections and recollections above, what do you think of these connections to our profession that President Clinton made?  And, in particular, what do you think of the very specific connection Mr. Clinton made to the intersection of green and project management?

We were hard pressed to think that we would ever write about the alignment of President Obama, Governor Schwarzenegger, James Cameron and the companies of Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Intel, but we are.  These and others, including the California Teachers Association, the American Lung Association, and the CA League of Women Voters,  are banding together to work for the defeat of Proposition 23 in California.  Proposition 23 would effectively suspend AB32, AKA the Global Warming Act of 2006.  Prop 23 ties California’s unemployment rate to AB32.  AB32 would be suspended until California’s unemployment rate sinks to 5.5% or less and stays there for a year.  AB32 is one of the initiatives we document in our book.

On the other side, in support of Prop 23, some strange bedfellows, too, like the CA Firefighter’s Association,  The Coalition of Labor, Agriculture & Business, and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry, traditionally democrat, and the CA Republican Party (sans the governor).  According to http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/03/ab-32-ballot-initiative-global-warming-california-climate-change.html Ted Costa, head of the Peoples Advocate, withdrew initial support  in March 2010, saying, “”Big money interests have come in and shut out the people.”

There’s pretty big money on both sides of the issue.  Louise Bedsworth, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, predicted in April that total campaign spending on Proposition 23 could top the $154 million record set in 2006 by Proposition 87. (http://tinyurl.com/prop23-cost). The largest contributors on the support side are some CA based oil companies, oil refiner companies, or companies and associations supporting the oil and gas industry.   The largest contributors on the “Vote No” side are the companies listed in the beginning of this post.

To quote from our book, “There may be quite a debate around the true causes (of global climate change) are, but one only has to look at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (2007) to answer the question on whether or not there is a significant change in the world’s climate….” the recent trend may or may not be part of a “much larger cycle”, but it is clear that something is going on and that green house gas emissions are contributing to the change.

As project managers, at the least, we need to know how the vote goes.  No one is really sure how many jobs (projects) are being created and maintained while companies work to comply with AB32, but we can speculate that if Proposition 23 passes, those jobs will vaporize, except for those companies who agree with our assertion that “a project run with green intent is the right thing to do…”

At last week’s PMI North America Congress, we were lucky enough to be at sponsor DeVry (Keller) University’s booth signing our new book and getting to chat with many project managers about Green Project Management.  Between that experience, getting to meet many of the really outstanding contributors – you know who you are – with whom we had only previously communicated electronically, and having President Bill Clinton not only address us as Project Managers, but to specifically challenge PMs to take on climate change, it was a fantastic week.

In conversations during the book signing, many of you reflected on situations in which you work in IT and so, you say, have “no effect” on the environment.  Also many of you said that there was nothing besides ‘altruistic’ reasons for trying to change your projects and your companies to do more to work towards sustainability.

We beg to differ.  On both counts.

And lo, upon our return, we were greeted with a great feature in Thursday’s Boston Globe business section called, “Taking a Different Measure”, a story about Akamai Technologies’ command center.  In the article is a great quote from Akamai’s chief executive, Paul Sagan, when asked:

“I’d say half of my rationale was altruistic, but I was also thinking that the day was going to come when our customers were going to expect us to report our carbon footprint, and their carbon footprint, on our network.’’

That’s funny because we responded to some of you with a very similar answer.  We said that half our rationale to create this site and write the book was altruistic, but we also know that this is an area that needs and deserves attention and we want to be there to (successfully) serve the needs of this market.  That’s precisely – almost to the word – what Paul Sagan is saying.  And the irony is that he really knows serving – after all, Akamai operates about 70,000 servers.  Their servers handle peak internet traffic for big name companies – such as Best Buy and ESPN.

The article features a description of how Akamai now includes carbon emissions as a core part of how they measure their performance.  And they are actively reporting to the Carbon Disclosure Project – which maintains corporate climate change information.

We suggest you read the article, and think again about how you can serve this cause – even if only for 50% altruistic reasons.  That’s the reason our book has a tree on the cover – a tree sprouting money.  As we assert – it’s the right thing to do, and it will help you do things right.

As project managers, we often find ourselves at the fulcrum of decisions in which we must take diverse viewpoints into account and make key project decisions, sometimes in the ‘heat of battle’.

For example, does this sound familiar?

Quality Engineer: “We need 5 weeks to do this verification test!”

Product Manager: “They can do that testing in 2 weeks.”

Quality Engineer: “Actually, now it looks like we need 6 weeks!”

Product Manager: “Let’s skip that test altogether, it adds no value!”

So you know this to be true.  We constantly have to make our best judgments based on what we hear, what we benchmark, and we always try to base decisions on facts and not emotion.  That is ‘the way’ for a good PM to work.

A few months ago, the press was pretty bad for climate scientists.  From what you were hearing, it sounded like they made up the whole of climate change.  They were fudging results, sending fake emails, and if you believed some people, were the devil incarnate.

The problem is that now many folks have ‘written off’ the warnings of climate scientists because of that bad press.

Now it turns out that several independent agencies have – with the exceptions of a few minor mistakes of judgment – cleared the findings of the scientists.

In this story, from the BBC, for example, the conclusion of a Dutch government panel was that there were “no errors that would undermine the main conclusions” on probable impacts of climate change.

We urge you to make up your own mind.  One way to do that is to get informed.  And one way to do that is to check out this very well-researched, and heavily hypertexed “discovery of global warming” by physicist turned historian Spencer Weart.

One other resource we’d like you to check out is “The Six Americas”

It’s all about audience.  And whether it’s regarding climate change or scope creep, project managers need to know their audience.  In this case (well, this is EarthPM after all) it is indeed about climate change.

Studies at George Mason University determined that there are really six different audiences – or mindsets – about climate change:

• The Alarmed
• The Concerned
• The Cautious
• The Unconcerned
• The Doubtful
• The Dismissive

The full report is summarized in this compact PDF.

But you can see in the image below that the audience is split along these six mindsets and if you wanted to get your green project message across you should understand each audience.  Again, this could be true for ANY message.

So consider your audience, collect facts, and look at aspects of your project – including green aspects – in a fair and balanced way.

According to today’s Portsmouth Herald, in an article by Rich Beuchesne headlined “Chief: Go Green”, Chief Almir Narayamoga Surui, of the Surui tribe indigenous to the Amazon Rain Forest, is on a high tech quest to help stop climate change and global warming by protecting the rain forest.  “A green economy, we believe, can bring great benefit, clean air and water, and it can also deliver the food we need.”  He further states, “So we’re not saying that the forest has to be untouchable, but it needs to be used sustainably to bring a better future for our people.”  That is what we are saying about project management, and this effort is certainly a project; we’re not saying that greening projects is a must, but what is a must is that sustainability be considered all along a project’s journey.

The Amazon leader has teamed up with Google (Earth), one of the companies we deem “At the Top of Their Game” in our new book.  Google Earth is  mapping  the tribe’s sacred and cultural sites where tribe members hunt and fish as a “way to show the world my culture.  Information is power” says the chief.  The philosophy is spreading to other tribes in the region, too.  The chief also teamed up with Amazon Conservation Team (ACT) to create an economy based on sustainability practices”, something else we at EarthPM strongly believe in.  “Three years ago, my people began discussing carbon credits as part of this sustainability message,” said Chief Almir. “Many people believe this will not work, but I see it as an opportunity to better manage our forest and, by extension, to manage the world.”  Exactly!

A couple of more things he said that particularly resonate with us, “There’s been a lot of deforestation in the name of development of our country,” he said. “When we sat down and talked about our future, we saw how important it was to bring our knowledge to the rest of the world.”

Many people “do not believe in the message of sustainability, so we bring scientific research to prove it can bring a healthy economy and well-being to the world.”

Chief Almir’s 1,300 tribe members are all vested in a green future, he said.  “We get courage and strength to do what we do in the belief that in the long run, we are right in what we are fighting for,” he said, “to create that green consciousness for our future. Resistance can be done through armed struggle, but we believe it works better through awareness.”

We’ll be listening and watching for more information coming out of the region.  You can also check out ATC’s website, and here’s more information on Chief Almir Narayamoga Surui, including a video.