Back on September 9, John Podesta's Center for American Progress released a study called Green Recovery, which promised two million new jobs from a $100 billion investment over two years. That day was also my birthday, so my attention was elsewhere. But nearly two months later in the wake of the financial meltdown, taking a second look at the report seems worthwhile, since now more than ever, a road to recovery for the United States and the world could very well be paved with green bricks. Conversely, it could also be a story of "low carbon prosperity" that sounds good, but ends up dead on arrival. The landscape has changed greatly since September 9. To use one last Wizard of Oz allusion – we are no longer in Kansas. Credit has dried up, global stock markets are in chaos, unemployment is spiking and consumer confidence is at record lows. As a result, does this now put the basic assumptions in the Podesta report in question? ($50 billion in tax credits, or half of the proposed $100 billion, for example, would seem a non-starter today). More importantly, even if the assumptions are unchanged, will the perceived cost of carbon policy at a time of economic instability suck the political will out of Capitol Hill, a place over the last three decades renowned for monumental cowardice in the face of monumental challenge. The stakes couldn't be higher, especially on the eve of an Obama presidency and Podesta heading the transition team. It would be great for the Center to produce an update to their report, taking these new factors into account. But until that happens, some prominent voices in October continued to build a case for this notion of a Green Recovery as a message/vision worth rallying around.  

Deutsche Bank, in its Investing in Climate Change 2009: Necessity and Opportunity in Turbulent Times, argued that the economic turmoil of the past month sets the stage for a one-time windfall:

We believe that, when combined with energy security, climate change policies will play a role in government efforts to stimulate their economies in 2009. Governments now have an historic opportunity to define long-term regulatory frameworks to encourage private investment in climate change initiatives. Additional opportunity exists for governments to boost their economies by funding infrastructure projects that will serve to foster energy independence and climate-proof their economies.

As a result, the debate around climate change has started to shift away from issues of cost and risk toward the question of how to capitalize on investment strategies that span a vast array of asset classes and industries.

Similarly, Goldman Sachs GS Sustain weighed in, citing a "warming investment climate" for sustainability, and an increasingly clear rationale for corporations to view low carbon action as a key business driver: 

Going forward, we expect the importance of climate-change performance to rise further and extend to an increasing number of sectors where the direct costs and benefits of companies’ different strategies may currently be less quantifiable but will, in our view, become increasingly important aspects of their ability to achieve and sustain industry leadership. 

Finally, economist Nicholas Stern has also provided a valuable perspective, noting that the right policies will offer a globally sustainable model for growth:

Let us grow out of this recession in a way that both reduces risks for our planet and sparks off a wave of new investment which will create a more secure, cleaner and more attractive economy for all of us. And in so doing, we shall demonstrate for all, particularly the developing world, that low-carbon growth is not only possible, but that it can also be a productive and efficient route to overcome world poverty.

It all sounds good. Public works programs, a la the New Deal, to make smart upgrades to the outdated grid and public transportation infrastructure, jobs that can't be exported coming from installation of solar panels and other clean energy solutions, cost curves from McKinsey that provide a roadmap of affordable carbon abatement measures including significant savings from energy efficiency, etc.  

But there will also be those that counter with a picture of inefficacy and a price tag that's too high, as we caught a glimpse of during Senate infighting in June over possible climate policy. Already, new messaging against aggressive climate policy is emerging. A recent letter to a Florida paper offered a glimpse of the opposing camp and its messaging, criticizing Gov. Crist's recent recommendations on climate, and warning of a "carbon police state". 

What's so exciting right now from a positioning and messaging point of view, is that the global economic crisis provides the first real opportunity for the clean energy industry to fundamentally pivot away from the politically and emotionally charged topics of "global warming" and "green" (and their polarizing, Al Gore/treehugger affiliation, which turns off a large part of the population) and own outright the promise of growth, recovery and prosperity, issues that everyone can relate to and support.  

The rubber is about to hit the road. The next three to six months offer a chance in the United States for elected officials to be heroes or hucksters. It is no secret that the oil and coal industries have outspent the renewables industry by tens of millions of dollars in the past two years in campaign contributions, so it won't be surprising to see some of our politicians fold. What's needed is a concerted effort on the part of the broader clean energy community – the Apollo Alliance, Cleantech and Green Business for Obama, Environmental Entrepreneurs, Change to Win, USCAP, Evangelical Climate Initiative, ClimateWorks Foundation, US Conference of Mayors, etc – to unite and make sure that the message that is delivered in Washington, D.C. and state capitals is this – climate change notwithstanding, the clean energy economy is a legitimate and feasible road to recovery. It appears that two additional stimulus packages are set to emerge from DC in the near term, one lame duck and one post inauguration. The industry achieved its biggest win so far in the $700 billion stimulus package, with an 8-year extension of the investment tax credit for solar, and it is possible clean energy will benefit from the two upcoming packages as well. But that is just a start, and our thinking needs to be more expansive and inclusive. It's the Recovery, stupid.

Ad Age recently published a special section on agencies involved in green marketing. Of course I am happy to see the Weber Shandwick Cleantech and Planet 2050 practices included, but I have to say that the list seems pretty arbitrary. There are a number of agencies out there that are not mentioned. Just to name a few that I know about: Blue Practice, Antenna Group, egg, Clean Agency and Earth Advertising. The other thing that struck me about the Ad Age list is how different the approaches are from one firm to another, from setting up different practice groups to trying to infuse values of sustainability throughout an organization. Granted, I've only worked in the world of agencies for 3 years, but given what I've seen throughout the industry so far I would have to say that infusing anything into organizations that are typically based on individual P&Ls seems quite a challenge unless is is bottom up. As they used to say in China where the central government is always at odds with regional governments, "On top is policy, below is counter-policy". A good resource for marketing and communications issues around sustainability is Greenbiz.

Last year, I said that a time would come when the term "green" would fall into disuse. I'm now wondering if that time is nearer than I originally thought. I'm already sensing some fatigue from friends in the media. At the consumer level it's also more pronounced (depending on the day, search for "green fatigue" on a leading search engine bring back 500,000 to over 1 million results). Ironically, at the recently concluded Fortune Brainstorm: Green event, Andrew Shapiro of Green Order said that it felt as if 2008 would be the "apex of green". Which of course begs the question: How steep is the downward slope in 2009? Ted Nordhaus (who coincidentally was my childhood neighbor growing up in the southeast quadrant of Washington, DC, back when we both had hair) and his cohort Michael Shellenberger, in 2004 shook up the establishment with their paper called "Death of Environmentalism". They succeeded in pounding the final nail in that coffin. Now green's utility is in question and it is even being challenged by another color – "blue". Sustainability advocate Adam Werbach is now selling blue as the next step beyond green, arguing that blue is more accessible because it, in effect, means having your cake and eating it too (I've tried that, by the way, and I keep biting my hand by mistake). But really, green or blue, aren't we just creating another arbitrary label that will also fade away with time? Aren't we just setting ourselves up for "blue fatigue", when the next Adam Werbach comes along and pronounces the blue movement dead, and argues that its time for chartreuse to have a turn? Not to mention the fact that people in the developing world (I spent 16 consecutive years in China from 1987-2003 so I have some credibility) have just started the Long March to consumerism and couldn't really give a damn about green or blue, unless its related to the color of their new car or the tile in their newly renovated, air-conditioned kitchen.  

I moved into technology because public capital markets (and human activity more generally) are driven by short-term interest and unsustainable growth. Facing a powerful system backed by powerful inertia, it was my conclusion that fundamental change to our behavior around consumption/growth is highly unlikely to happen (to the degree or within the timeframe needed) to address the ecological problems we face. That POV was largely informed by my time in China, where I watched stock markets open, bans on advertising lifted, private cars allowed back on the roads and consumerism return with a vengeance. I witnessed China's boom and how it raised a lot of people out of poverty. The problem is that we can't raise the remaining 1 billion Chinese out of poverty without totally screwing ourselves and the ecology. And China is just the start – Brazil, India and the rest of the developing world are going through the same transformation. Far be it for me to deny others the chance to live lives of comfort. But it is highly naïve to assume that individual Chinese or Indians or Brazilians will have the foresight to look beyond their drive to material comfort and make decisions on how they live based on a moral responsibility for the health of the planet. The West didn't. It just won't happen (no offense Bill McKibben, whose conclusion for our generation – that more is not better – ignores the fact that its mainly people who know wealth who have room to think about less). Only when people are so afraid of the ramifications of climate change or toxic sludge seeping out of their water taps will they be motivated to change behavior (as recent events in Juneau underscored). But of course, by then it will be too late.  

So my bet for overcoming the challenges is technology, broadly defined. The way I see it, technology is the layer buffering natural resources from consumer and corporate behavior. It allows consumers to continue to behave much as they do and it allows natural resources to get a reprieve from that behavior. The more scaleable the technology, the bigger the reprieve and the better our chances. What Lawrence Berkeley National Lab has done with appliance standards in China is a perfect example of this. "Technology buffering" is not a panacea, but at least there is an opportunity to insert new clean technologies into existing products and systems and have a significant and accelerated impact. That's what gets me moving in the morning. (Several new books, The Cleantech Revolution, The Plot to Save the Planet and Apollo's Fire address this movement). 

What interests me from the Fortune event and others that I've attended over the past two years is a shift in the conversation. Many of the people I talk to say green/blue doesn't really matter. I agree. What matters is that "industrial restructuring" takes place. Whether the CEO of Stonyfield Farm ("we don't even use green to describe our customers, but 'quality' or 'educated'"), the chairman of SC Johnson ("we need to move the conversation from going green to transforming industry"), Vinod Khosla ("people's view of green is obsolete, its about mainstream business"), or builder Steve Glenn ("within 15 years green building goes away as a category"), the focus is more and more on creating a technological buffer to reshape the way we supply and demand.  

So let's focus on the technology that is going to get rid of the only color that deserves our attention – the black of oil and coal.