I have two concerns. The first is trend-connected: climate change. I'm very aware of the carbon footprint left by 18,000 people taking planes, consuming taxi rides, moving around in air conditioned conference spaces and overly generous buffets. The second is operational. Isn't there an alternative? Do we need to bring 18,000 people together to get the planet moving? Do we need to all meet to get our development agendas coordinated?

My answer to the first dilemma is obvious: moving 18,000 people does not make sense in an era when we tout video conferencing, smart phones and laptops. In fact soon, according to Cisco, the internet will be able to handle multi-million video person video conferences. So maybe, just maybe, we'll be able to finally do things the 'high-tech' way sometime soon. So yes, some day soon we will have huge virtual meetings (today it's still at the hype stage, multi-person 'virtual events' still do not work well enough to be effective.

But there is still the issue of the added value of actually putting the 18,000 people together in one space. Instinctively I am against it. But admittedly, I have been giving this issue some thought for many years now. This is not a new dilemma for me. I started thinking about this the very first time I went to a major conference in 1979. Back then it was not an issue of climate change so much as an issue of efficiency. Time was, I believed, a precious commodity, and traveling 20 hours to just listen and talk about things we can often just view or read… Today, however, it's time and carbon and money and disease and many more issues. So, are these huge meetings good? Do they accomplish something? Did Copenhagen accomplish something? Did Rio (climate)? Do UN general assemblies or World Health Assemblies move the world one or several steps forward?

My answer?

I'm going to, for now, take the risk of saying yes. I think that these meetings do more rather than less. I think that they motivate organizations to do more. I think that they do forge partnerships. I think that they do give us some ideas. But I also think that they are not as efficient and effective as they could be. Let's be honest, most of us come away wishing more had been accomplished. So what's the solution? It lies with us. It is up to us to get things done both at the conference and beyond. Let us not squander the privilege and opportunities given to us by these meetings. Let us act responsibly and aim to learn, teach, partner, pass on and otherwise be great conference participants.

Gotta run, suitcase to pack!

Two days earlier, on the 5th, we arrived in New York from Montreal. It was a gorgeous, sunny Sunday, not a cloud in sight and rather warm. The cab driver was great, an Italian who was all thrilled we were going back to his hometown. We had come to get on board the Cristoforo Colombo that would move us from North America to Europe. The destination port was to be Naples so I imagined all the Italian immigrants, like our cabby, heading home to visit family after years away. Who knows what they would be bringing from America for their relatives? My father chatted him up in his broken Italian and told him if he wanted a nice fare, to pick us up at the Hilton on Tuesday morning at 7AM. He agreed.

The Cristoforo Colombo (29,083 grt, 700 ft. long) was the sister ship of the Andrea Doria. She entered service in 1954. She was sold as an accomodation ship in 1977 and scrapped four years later. But on that day, she was the most majestic sight a child on his way to the glorious old continent could witness.

Fast forward to the 7th. In the words of many who lived through it, "it was the big one." Indeed, as we woke up at the Hilton just south of Central Park, my mother mentions the 'smog' to my father whose pilot eyes quickly realize this is not smog but a major snowstorm. Down we come from the 20th floor to find a lobby filled by stranded travelers. The lobby was simply packed and paralyzed. The trip, we assume is off. We also find out that the dock hands are on strike so we'll have to carry our trunks up the 200 or so steps at the dock by ourselves. But who are we kidding, we're not leaving the hotel today, not with 20 inches of snow outside. But my dad, with his usual cocked smile, pipe in his mouth, tells mom, sis and I to stand by. He walks to the front. Sure enough, there are loads of people trying to figure out a way to travel to the train station, port, business meeting, whatever. Not a cab in sight, the occasional snow plow, the rare daring car with chains inching along. It's now 7:10 AM. A few moments later, as my father is still puffing on his pipe, I walk up to him anxious to go see this snowstorm, and what do we see pulling into the covered drive way? Yes indeed, the yellow cab, with our Italian cabby apologizing for being ten minutes late.

To this day I imagine how long it took him to get to us. I figure he did not live in Manhattan but rather in Brooklyn, Queens or another borough. On a day like February 7, 1967 it must have taken him hours to get to us. What time did he wake up? Was it just for the fare my dad had promised? Was it because we were traveling to Naples? To this day I think it was because my dad and him spoke the same language of trust. The story does not end here. In fact, much more happened on this trip to Italy that reinforced my conviction that fundamentally, we are tribal brethren. When we got to the docks only to discover that the strike really was on, the cabby did not hesitate to help my dad with the trunks, all the way up those steps which I later went back to count, there were 280! I believe there is in each of us the ability to be kind, helpful and bound into a bond of solidarity. Unfortunately, many of these have been lost in the haze of a complex and chaotic social system. May we find our way out of the snowstorm soon.

Just for the record, dad kept his word and dropped him a c-note! In 1967!

--

Images Courtesy of Héctor Cicero from the Björn Larsson collection and taken with rights to do so from here.

If we are to create a new world order based on collective solutions, we need to change our paradigm. Climate change, the Millennium Development Goals, viral pandemics… all these need us to work together. But we also need to work together in our daily lives. Do you want to reduce unemployment? It's simple, as long as 'everyone' participates in the effort. As long as we all make the necessary sacrifices we will succeed. As long as we all base our decisions on our own interest we will not.

I've often wondered where this aggression comes from. Is it genetic? Is it drawn from our ancient tribal past? Do we need to be aggressive to survive? If that were the case then how did we manage to progress so much? Is not science, predicated on open collaboration? Is not education an act of passing on one's knowledge selflessly?

I was recently in a business meeting and the tone just did not suit me. Instead of everyone working towards a common solution, it was all about positioning. What was most disturbing is that the tone of the meeting was rising over the most trivial issues. Later that day, I was at a meeting that was just the opposite. Participants were really willing to compromise both on their positions and the resources they brought to the process. It was about "what can I do for the process" rather than "what can the process do for me?"

As I move into my fifties, I think it's time for me to also rethink the way I deal with staff, clients, partners and even competitors. I want to try to find a gentler tone. I want to start and end a meeting with the intent to achieve collaboration rather than gain. Does this go against the fundamental rules of business? Can one only succeed if one champions over the other? I'm not sure, but I'm definitely going to try. My most hated phrase in the English language: "every man for himself".

I'll leave you with a thought. I like oranges better than bananas because they allow me to share more easily. Just a thought!

For those who have visited Times Square recently, you know what I am talking about. You know about the endless advertising: vertical, horizontal, printed, sculpted, on fifteen story high screens and renewed almost daily. There is so much advertising that I dare anyone to walk around Times Square ten times and on the tenth time not be discovering a new message. I call this the Times Square syndrome of excess advertising.

They are selling cars, TV shows, investment, broadway plays (that one makes sense) and there is even an image of Uncle Sam decrying the United States' multi-trillion dollar debt.

My point? Well, I'm wondering just how I am expected to save, cut back, recycle, consume responsibly when on Times Square, and around the world, the messages have not changed. Sure, they throw in the occasional environmental pseudo-commitment, but frankly, they're still selling jeans on a half naked couple (corner of Broadway and 42nd). They're selling the most expensive and exclusive fashions, travel destinations and watches. More more more is the mantra. When will someone go down the path of less less less. As I write, I can hear the Ad Council fretting. They do, after all, defend advertising as not only a right but a human need. Without advertising, we are told, we could not choose.

Those who know me must be wondering what I'm doing here. I am attacking the very profession that pays my rent. Well, in my defense, not exactly. Show me a Times Square filled with a healthy mix of responsible advertising and good public interest communications and I'll be happier. And yes, there can be a business model based on less advertising, or at least wiser advertising. I have been talking about it for years but I am insignificant in the world of Madison Avenue advertising. But I will continue to voice my discontent and just to put my money where my mouth is, I think it's time I write a report or a book about how I believe we can live in a world of responsible albeit profitable advertising.

To be continued...

So last night I went to a pre-new year's eve party. It was the usual bunch of friends, mostly in their 30's to 60's, no kids, buffet for the middle and upper middle class. Dentists, lawyers, a bohemian, an international civil servant, two high school language teachers, a professional classical musician, a few others and yours truly. The conversation started out innocently enough. What do you do? Do you like oysters? Oh you're a vegan? Gosh, that Christmas tree is just so pretty! Where did you get that shirt, it looks lovely on you. But, as with all dinner parties, ultimately someone tries to show some intellectual muscle and the conversation veers towards something serious. In our case it was climate change. Great, I thought, we can have a constructive conversation on what needs to be done at the policy level. What each person there thinks is necessary at the citizen level. We might, of course, challenge a couple of the consequences. But challenge the fundamental argument? Challenge the reality of climate change? Still? Now?

I am concerned about 2010 becoming the year of the skeptics. Skeptical about climate change, about chronic disease becoming the number one killer, about how wealth disparity is bigger now than it was in the feudal ages (okay, maybe I'm stretching a little there but I just have this conviction that most people simply do not realize how bad disparity has become). Anyway, so back to my dinner: it became a battle of the skeptics vs. the believers. The problem is that — I admit that I may digress into a pinch of arrogance — the skeptics had no arguments. They used the usual 'this is a cycle' argument. I would not have been concerned, or not too concerned anyway, if the skeptic camp was limited to a single voice, maybe two. But instead, the skeptic camp was broad. Even the believers were not 100% convinced. I spoke of arctic ice, of 18% of climate change being attributable to meat, of the carbon curve… nope, sorry, Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, they don't own the science. What? How can people still think that climate change is a political attempt at shifting society left? How can they think that because lakes are icing over, as never before, in Scotland, that the change is not upon us?

As a communicator, my thoughts quickly drifted to 'argument'. How can I argue my point? How can I get these otherwise charming dinner guests to realize that the table full of salami, fish eggs and imported beers were reason enough to care? Are our policy makers making the argument clearly enough? Obviously not. Obviously, despite Copenhagen, too many people still don't get it. Our message therefore needs to change. Telling people about Tuvalu sinking or Greenland melting is obviously not enough. And my point is that I don't want to wait until Marseille or Tokyo residents have three pairs of waders in the closet. I want the message to get out now. But how?

Oh, sorry, yes, best wishes for 2010! May this year be filled with love, happiness, health and the 2,357 other things we need to do to make our planet stable and safe. Meanwhile, I have a real new year's eve party tonight; better hone my debating skills!

By now most of you will have heard and opined on the Tiger Woods saga. Yes, he did cheat on his wife. Yes, he has tried to keep a low public profile about it. Yes, his sponsors initially stood by him, albeit lukewarmly. But no, the story has not gone away. No, his sponsors have not now stuck by him. And no, he won't come out unscathed.

By the time you read this, who knows what else might have transpired, but that is not the purpose of this blog. Instead, I would like to debate if ambassadors do a cause good. Are they valuable attention getters? I've blogged about this before and those of you who read this blog regularly know that I am split. On the one hand I welcome the extra attention but on the other hand, from experience, I know that goodwill ambassadors are often/usually very available for the first three days of their commitment. Then 'whoosh' they vanish. Their agent will always reply they are too busy or away (on some Antarctic research mission no doubt!).

There is another issue: the dark closet. Few people don't have one, especially those whose life has been dedicated to a steep climb, often by all and any means. How can one be sure that there is clarity? One cannot and so one gambles.

My opinion is that ambassadors should be vetted to only include those who want to give genuine time to the cause. Yes, Brad Pitt seems to be genuinely committed to New Orleans. No, Jackie Chan does not seem committed to AIDS. Sorry to be so blunt, but I really do want to increase attention to causes, not to the celebrity. If this is their way of cleansing their sins, stick to your day job. If, on the other hand, you want to really make a difference, join in.

One closing note. I won't name him, but we recently had an interesting connection with one of the Gillette champions. She or he (actually they're all guys) is willing to speak for a razor blade but was not interested in supporting a cause — a major international cause — that was attached to a treaty/convention/accord that was signed in his city; shame.

Let me apologise for the quality of the photo; it was shot with my mobile phone camera. What it shows is two food outlets at the Geneva Cornavin train station. On the left is the 'Bar Santé' which translated means health bar. On the right is a traditional pastry shop with croissants, brioches, rammequins and a variety of other butter-based, cream-filled, mayonnaise-spread foods. The one on the left has no one, the one on the right, the fatty foods one, has a line up. I stayed there for about 15 minutes to make certain this was not a cyclic moment. Well, it was not. During my fifteen minutes on station, I counted one customer on the left for every 22 customers on the right!
This all too informal analysis, I grant you, got me thinking about our social shifting. Are we doing what we are being asked to do? Are we, as citizens, business people or policy makers living up to our responsibilities and changing our habits? Are we, to coin a cliché, going green?
This unscientific observation would show that we are not. People, at least here, are more drawn to their traditional fatty foods than to newer age low-fat, carrot cake. But let's move on to more relevant comparisons. Are we changing our e-waste habits by keeping our electronics longer? Are we car pooling? Are we travelling less? Are we donating money to tropical forest preservation? Are we giving blood? On a corporate level, do we really need the private jet? Isn't flying commercial good enough? Do we really need one laser printer for every three office workers?
Enough. At some point we have to stop complaining and worrying about all the bad things others are doing and start to enact the good ones ourselves. Does this mean carrot cake? Clearly, you realise that I simply use this as an allegory but I'll still come back to these two shops regularly to test my theory. I just hope the carrot cake one does not go out of business; then I'll really worry.

I was at the press conference of the Basel Convention yesterday. It's part of our contract with the Basel Convention so I was there professionally. The conference included the usual fare of speeches from the Basel Convention secretariat and invited dignitaries including ambassadors et al. So far so good. Then comes time for the media's questions.

The first questions were the usual data questions asking for the usual set of figures. The media loves numbers; they make an easy intro paragraph. But then one question came along… It was one of those "I'm going to getcha!" questions. The journalist addressed the question to the Executive Secretary of the Convention. He comments on the increase of transboundary waste movements and wonders if the fact that there has been an increase demonstrates the failure of the Convention whose goal it is to reduce and manage said waste.

My first reaction was to stupidly agree. Ouch. Indeed, an increase means failure. So I wait for the answer. It comes. It is prudent but credible. But I want more. I want to rebut the question. I want to show 'him' that an increase is not a failure. That a failure would be an even larger increase than his increase. But how do I defend that?

My line of defense would be to say that it's not as easy as up or down when it comes to changing the world. It takes time, conditions change, commitments waiver and we change. In the case of waste my own very personal take is that we, yes we-we-we are to blame along with industry. Look back at when the Convention was adopted in 1989. Mobile phones? Computers? Game consoles? Twenty years fast forward to today and what do you have? I don't know about you but I currently have two mobile phones, we have a game console, three computers at home and every appliance in the house has more computing power than NASA had in 1969 when they put a man on the moon. So my own personal reply to that reporter is: how many phones do you have? Do you have a new television? Do you maybe have a PSP or a Nintendo DS? I bet your watch is electronic. I even bet that you have a couple of digital cameras!

If industry, and we, were ready to slow down a little, we'd have less waste, less climate change, less pollution, less stress and maybe fewer stupid questions.

We are having this problem at the office too. Please note that I am guilty as well. It's now really easy to get that quick personal phone call. It's direct. No more sneaking into an empty office to get or make the call. Now your phone vibrates discreetly and off you go to the toilet or into the parking lot et voila, you are talking to your cousin in a plane flying across the Pacific.

We've all seen the image of Maria Shriver getting caught talking on her phone in California, just after her husband, Governor Schwarzenegger passed the law banning such practices. But I think I have found the ultimate in telephone use. This one is even better than the one described in a Dave Barry column I read ten years ago about the SUV driving housewife whose phone was inversely proportional in size to her car. So the phone, he argued, were getting small enough to fit on an earring. Well, my phone story is right up there. It involves the use of a phone by an age old traditional tradesman. Someone so noble in his art that he is seen as the singer of love songs as we meander down the journey of heart throb and life. Yes, this is a man who is associated with romance, passion and history. Not to ruin the image, he also charge about EUR 100 to spend 30 minutes with you, so he's no cheap date. Yes, I am talking about the Venitian Gondoliere.

Venetian gondoliere on cell phone

Look at this photo! It's a Venetian Gondoliere, with his clients, in a canal, in sacred Venice, the capital of romance (I said that already!). And guess what? He's on his cell phone! Who's next, the Oscar winner as he walks up to the podium: "Sorry, I have to take this." as his phone rings on his belt. Or maybe the neurosurgeon as he's rummaging around in your grey matter? No, better, President Obama when he step up to receive his Nobel: "Sorry, have to take this, it's Afghanistan calling."

Forgive me if I take this conversation a little further and now take you into the realm of waste. It's a bit of a jump from cultural heresy to waste management but I happen to be involved on a contract with the Basel Convention that deals with such waste and it strikes me that we have not only trivialised the use of this new technology, but we have also trivialised their renewal and disposal. Which mobile phone are you up to? I'll come out and be the first to plead guilty. I am up to my 14th phone in twenty years. That's 14 phones! Imagine being up to your 14th refrigerator, car or bed in 14 years?

Close up of Venetian gondoliere on cell phone

What's crazy is that the third phone I got, the Motorola 8700 with a flip lid would still work today. The same GSM frequencies are live. Sure, I would not have all the gizmos but 14?! And worse, they were simply thrown out. They were not taken to some specialised recycling facility. No, they were just thrown out with the left over salad.

I think it's time we look at all these items and practices that we have trivialised and ask ourselves how much we really need. Do we need to have the latest and do we need to use it every five minutes when we do? All kidding aside, I have to let you go, my wife is calling on my cell phone!

Today's Venice is a desperate attempt to save it - punto et basta. It feels like a treasure that once was and that is now on the verge of total implosion. At least this is how it feels based on both what I have recently read and what I experienced this past weekend.

You now pay for absolutely everything and anything. Toilets are, of course, all accessible for a fee. Churches, not all but many, are charging a fee to go in. The boat busses have gone up in price; incredibly so to EUR 6,50 for a one way ride from the train station to San Marco. But wait, the worst is yet to come.

Here I am walking past the Doge's palace, family in tow. I proudly announce that the next canal is the Bridge of Sighs canal. It's a macho thing to tell your family that you know a city so well that you know what sits around the next corner. But something is wrong. As we approach, there seems to be a giant scaffolding. I assume this means renovations. But wait, there is an advertisement on it, for Geox shoes. Okay, okay, calm down, I say to myself. There was one in St. Mark's square as well. And wait, now that I think about it, I've seen a couple in the past hour or so. But this is Italy and I've now become accustomed to the giant ads taken out on building-covering scaffolding during renovations. In fact, I think I even thought it was a great idea the first time I had seen it. Why not use the space constructively? But now we've gone too far...

As I near the canal, my mind begins to decipher danger. I see that the Geox advertisement is wrapping its way around the corner and behold, as we get to the canal, I look left in complete horror, disbelief, rage, disappointment… Indeed, the entire canal is covered left, right and center. This is the single largest advertising display I have ever seen, bigger than any on Times Square in New York. It's huge. It's gaudy. It's a travesty.

Now wait, my eye catches a phrase, a small phrase, that says that Geox, the shoe company, is funding (partly I take it, not entirely) the restoration of the Duccal palace. So, if I get this right, the trade off is: we need your money, you want eyeballs on your brand, we let you deface a UNESCO heritage monument while we renovate!

Sorry, I understand the paradigm, but I just can't digest it. It might be argued that if this is the price to pay to save a monument, so be it. But in my mind, philanthropy should still have a place in our corporate hearts. I understand that Geox, or any other company, needs a quid pro quo, but this one is really over the top. I've attached a photo and will let you be the judge. But for those of you who have known the bridge of sighs, for those of you who have seen historical monuments since you were toddlers, for those of you who put culture above commerce, I think you may feel the same dilemma as I face.