How did the interview go? the one I wanted to give, the one I gace, or the one I should have given. These are my notes for the interview I just gave to the ABC. Some of the points ended up in the actual interview.

I became aware of global warming in 2009. I realised a few things. First, a political solution is very difficult. There are several reasons. The timeline to turn global warming round is measured in decades. Political leaders are lucky to be in power for a few years. So there is a mismatch. Political leaders are elected to act in their constituent’s best interests. But global warming does not respect borders. So the benefit of a lot of the work will just drift offshore. Third, there are no effective international mechanisms. We can’t even stop Somali pirates. 

Second, the scientific method, is against us. You cannot as a scientist say that global warming is a 100% certainty. The scientific method means that all you can say is that this is the best theory that fits what we know today. When I tell you that I am 99% certain I am going to buy your house, what do you hear?  You focus on the 1%.  

Third, the debate has become a moral one. Telling people that what they have been doing for generations is wrong or unhealthy, gets up their nose. People still smoke.

So my view is that we need a business climate change. Instead of focussing on what to do differently in this book I explore the how.

So when I work with clients I help them to become aware of the language that they use. I used to think that language first and foremost described reality. Through the conversations I had when writing this book I saw that language creates reality.

So there is one word that has shaped our civilisation over and above any other, in the past 200 years. That word is change. We treat the world as a problem or puzzle to be solved. Our brains are problem making machines.

What persuades us to change? Three things. Better, faster, cheaper.

However when you embark on change there is a price to pay. You have to limit the scope. That means you have to ignore everything else.

While it seems common sense that every problem has a potential solution, what is less obvious is that every solution creates a problem.  You could say that a problem is just a solution grown up.

So over the past 200 years humanity, as a whole,  has seen dramatic improvements in health and wealth. While there remains many who do not enjoy these benefits every trend is upwards. The lifestyle of most Australians today is better than any king would have enjoyed 200 years ago. But the thing that we ignored is the environment.

Now I am not a pessimist. Quite the opposite. I think that we will look back on this decade and call it the Age of Transformation. So what is the difference?

I want to speak of just one quality and that is the acid test. How do you know when you are creating transformation?  Surprise. Transformation always opens up possibilities that you could not conceive of. Change, on the other hand, engenders boredom. 

In the climate change debate there are two groups. One group is on the supply side. They are making products and services which are designed to mitigate climate change.  For example, battery powered cars or thorium powered reactors. The other group is on the demand side. They are creating the demand for these products through persuasion, tax breaks, funding legislation, carbon trading and taxation schemes. 

However both groups are relatively small. The rest of the world just gets on and does what it has always done.  

I look at this issue from a different perspective. My strength is in association. I can see connections in seemingly unrelated areas. The result was the book - Turning up for Life. The book is a collection of conversations I had with some incredible people around the world in many different industries and societies. I just got on a plane with no plan other than to find the people I needed to speak to. And as soon as I got on that plane the adventure started. I found myself sat next to the head of marketing for Greenpeace and we debated the basic premise of the book.  Later, I met the founder of the first Internet café in the world, the director general of the International Olympic Committee. I almost got killed in a terrorist explosion in India. It was a remarkable journey and one that changed me for ever.

So how do you create a business climate change? My proposal is that if you look closely we relate to each other in one of three ways: sexual, loving or compassionate. I am talking about us as individuals. However when people work together they bring their personal communication styles into business. The language changes. In business we talk of transactional organisations. They are the ones that dominate our society. They focus on getting the product to the client. They use persuasion to get us to buy stuff we perhaps don’t need. They don’t care much about the customer and they don’t care too much about their staff.  So why would they care about the environment. It’s a very unconscious way of working.  The loving organisations invest in the relationship and through building trust they sell products and services.  The indicators are very strong. According to Gallup, caring organisations are 27% more profitable, have 38% above average productivity and have 50% higher customer loyalty.

So if we can encourage business to switch from transactional to loving then the unintended consequence is a positive impact on the environment. You can’t treat people with grace and respect and the environment in which they live as a dump. Your staff won’t let you. Your customers won’t let you.  But the argument is not, “you naught wicked business, you must change.” It’s do this and become more profitable. Again there is a price to pay. But this time the price is one that is worth paying.

Let me finish by speaking of the characteristics of a compassionate organization.  Again there is an acid test. We have all heard of 6 degrees of separation. In the world of compassionate organizations that shrinks to 3. Compassionate organizations are incredible networkers.

In Tasmania, BlueLine Laundry is a compassionate organization. You walk into BlueLine and you see a bunch of people working. You cannot tell who is intellectually disabled. They compete in the market place and win contracts based on their commercial expertise.  BlueLine is the new breed, a social enterprise. A social enterprise is one that competes commercially and has a social intent. They are not dependent on government funding and that is healthy.