Until Copenhagen is not looked at as a hermetically sealed room where we try and sort out that tricky stuff about, you know, the sea and that gas we emit and those islands that may start drowning soon, then whatever is agreed, if anything, will be about as concrete as that bit of paper that bloke Chamberlain waved to the crowd on his return from that country near Denmark.

Does this signify the mainstreaming of sustainable thinking and services or a the dilution of  a bold independent voice in the engineering world? Having had a plenty of dealings with individuals throughout the company over the past three years (most recent of which was Jules Saunderson at Sustainability Now) I’ve always found them refreshing: always with opinions, ideas, thoughts etc. I hope these individual voices aren’t drowned out by the transfer into a multinational and more corporate entity. Thoughts people?

• This problem is not just about climate change. Sustainability is realism: Two statements that have been kicking round my head in recent days. Both linked in respect, and as a response, to scepticism (not denialisim: hate that word). We’ve woefully over-mortgaged the planet and the response is responsibility. You can be sceptical about climate change all you want, but for many who occupy that position it’s just a smokescreen for ignoring the underlying issue. Over-consumption, over-population, dwindling energy and resources.
• Sustainability is not miserabilism. It’s progress: Fascinating to watch the theatrical production of Inherit the Wind this afternoon. There we chuckled at the debate that raged at the beginning of the last century about Darwin’s theory of evolution. How quaint. Yet it touched on the firestorm that science can spark. How it can pull the rug from under long and deep-held beliefs. Yet I was struck by words issued by Henry Drumond, the attorney defending the school teacher that dared to voice science over religion. “Progress comes with a price,” he said, underlying that new thought and theory is never comfortable or comforting. Yet we shouldn’t see the challenges now as reasons for us to cower, to take evolutionary retreats. To see the response to environmental crisis as a retreat in technological, political and economic terms. That is to fall into the hands of an extreme backlash. For all the flaws of it as a term sustainability has to be about progress, not miserbalism.
• We need a narrative: A discussion on cultural responses to climate change on Newsnight Review drew out two thoughts that struck a nerve. One was from Independent columnist Johann Hari, who pointed to a deep-seated human need in responding to phenomenon. “We need to process things twice,” he said. “Once as a fact then as narrative.” For him the way artists depicted climate change was fundamental. The second was from artist Anthony Gormley, whose work is part of the Royal Academy’s climate change inspired exhibition which has just began. He thought that global warming was a catalysts for humans to “find their place, find their nature withing nature. It’s a huge shift in imangination, a huge cultural shift.”
• We’ll get things wrong: I come back to a line from Keith Clarke, chief executive of Atkins and comfortably one of the best thinkers in our industry. He said over 18 months ago that about half the things we do to react to impending climate change will probably be wrong. He’s right. We have to deal with this and continue to argue the case. The argument will not suddenly dissolve or disappear. We’re foolish to think otherwise.

• The Eat Green group, which spawned from one of the founders of sustainable London restaurant Acorn House
• Finnish solid surface manufacturer Durat, who turn plastic into kitchen tops and the like
• How batteries could power houses in the future, according a guy from Siemens Energy Services (not that convinced myself, but interesting idea
• How hydrogen car manufacturer Riversimple is attempting to turn the manufacture and supply of vehicles on its head – save carbon and create a new economic model
• Reducing coffee cup use by using a KeepCup: does what it says on the cup. Simple but rather lovely (and practical) design
• Closer to my specialism, Paul Scrivener from MCM Architecture on making collaboration, and sustainable principles, actually work in construction
• How Buddhist meditation can make sustainable thinking clearer. yes, we did one. No, I didn’t actually feel that awkward.
• The research behind a plan for a bike sharing scheme in New York by a Danish designer from a firm called Goodmorning Technology. More on the scheme proposed on this site

Wow. So what a varied line-up. I wouldn’t of said there were profound patterns or overlaps across the presentations – barring the usual issues of green costs and the scalability of sustainability – but it was thoroughly refreshing nonetheless. One can get so bogged down in the challenges that face your sectors – by that I mean the built environment and media – that listening to a varied set of challenges across a wide spectrum of commerce opened your eyes. More collaboration has been a clarion call in certain circles of construction for over a decade – apparently Rab Bennetts called for more of it after winning two awards at last week’s Building/UKGBC Sustainability awards last week. Paul Scrivener from MCM echoed it the night afterwards. We heard and spoke about it during the event. When will we do actually do it?

It’s uncomfortable but if that debate and others are doing anything it is highlighting some deep-seated qualms, objections, questions and reasoning that environmentalists need to meet head-on. I think it explains the problem we’ve all been grappling with for the past couple of years: why the gulf between talk and action? Why yet another political pledge (step forward shadow chancellor George Osborne today for the latest one)  delivered to a largely apathetic public? I think Solar Century founder Jeremy Leggett put his finger on it last week at a pre-Copenhagen debate at the Danish Embassy, organised by industry ginger group the Edge. In trying to work out the disconnect between us needing to act but seemingly being unable to Leggett said he has been driven to study psychotherapy and anthropology to try and understand the dynamics of inaction. He concludes that there is a “culture of quasi institutional denialism”. By that I think he means that we are all collectively kidding ourselves.

Politicians still believe that there’s some popularity in setting bold targets but still fall back on what really drives voting patterns (taxes, economy, security etc.). We as consumers listen to the advice on turning off plug switches and not flushing toilets but ignore the more challenging stuff. Businesses form committees and groups and launch actions plans… then abandon most of the fluffy stuff when the economic storm starts to rage.

So the phony war is over. After we collectively start to make the small steps in considering our environment we then kick back when the serious steps are presented to us. I can think of no more powerful example than this: authors Brenda and Robert Vale in their book Time to Eat the Dog point out that big dogs emit more CO2 than a 4X4. Imagine if the government planned a curb on dog ownership? Middle England would revolt.

So how does this impact on Copenhagen? I think in the fact that collective political confidence is not there. Leggett’s point last week was that if Copenhagen is to fail it needs to “fail noisily”. Admitting to see-sawing wildly between optimism and pessimism Leggett hoped that the potential failure at Copenhagen would lead to action not from Governments, but from people. That behaviours could reach a tipping point as we do begin to clock what’s around the corner and that environmentalism could go “crazy viral”. It feels a far way off right now but we live in anything if not unpredictable times. Perhaps real dispute will spark real action.

• It pays not to be smug. There I was feeling very good about myself. Cycling to some video recordings at the UK Green Building Council HQ just off Tottenham Court Road. Comparing myself with my colleague, who was toiling with the London public transport system and running late. Not so smug when I returned and had the surreal experience of seeing a different bike chained to the bike stop. Bugger. And looking especially forlorn sat in a tube on the way home with a pannier bag and a helmet.
• Bike theft is prevalent: I’d read some horror stories about this back in the summer but human nature dictates that you begin to forget. Here’s a recent piece on figures for the first half of 2009. The memory especially fades when you’ve made a few journeys and the bike remains. The West End appears to be particularly bad.

I got talking to a friendly chap in Holborn CID whilst reporting the crime. He offered some decent advice but admitted that bikes were “easy pickings” and that theft was rife. He’d just picked up three reports of swiped bikes before I called. Unfortunately the surge in popularity is sparking a surge in crime. A depressing thought as I consider getting a replacement. I either get a cheapo replacement or simply restrict my journeys to ones that I can guarantee include secure gated bike storage. Depressing huh?

Hearing Sinclair’s story – from South London to San Francisco and from a bedroom evening venture to within a decade a global charity and tea (or whatever you drink there) at the White House – and Johnson’s description was no hyperbole. This guy is pretty amazing and he also come across as amusing, self deprecating as well as passionate and driven. How annoying is that?

Anyhow there were quite a few highlights from the lecture, some of which were captured on Twitter. Having the audience of largely young designers in the palm of his hands he urged architects to dedicate some time to the kind of work that his organisation has excelled in, ie. exporting ideas and expertise globally. “I would urge every single designer to spend four hours of you time to impact on other people’s lives” he said. A few main themes to emerge from that stood out for me:

• The American example: Sinclair powerfully drew out his organisation’s work in the southern states in the face of Katrina. As Sinclair was at pains to highlight poverty is not usually that far from our doorsteps in the so-called developed world. He desribed the “criminal neglect” from the Government in responding to the crisis and how Architecture for Humanity actually listened to people affected by Katrina.. and then acted. This is in contrast to those that present wildly ambitious masterplans for area, which rarely if ever lead to change. “If you elevate expectations in communities then walk away it’s worse than if you don’t turn up in the first place”. Sinclair is an arch doer and realised that in order for his organisation to make things happen it needed to get cash before fancy designs. “Ghandi said Be the Change. he was wrong: you have to be the Bank”. This approach allied with and open approach that brought together architects directly with the clients – the residents – bore remarkable fruit. Pretty much all of the East Biloxi was rebuilt without Government money, Sinclair explained. All this through a bottom approach to development, design and construction.
• Openness and agility: Sinclair is a self confessed geek and that has fed through to his organisation’s work, in particular with it’s Open Architecture Network site. It’s heartening to see some of the principles that you hear about – collaboration, open source, community-driven ideas – actually happening.
• Sustainability is survival: The title of his lecture, so not surprisingly a theme that Sinclair came back to. Sustainability means a lot of things to a lot of people for Sinclair it is absolutely integral to his clients. That could be adaptation to climate change that is happening now, to creating houses that are truly affordable in terms of upfront and operational terms for residents.

So all in all inspiring stuff. As many of us get increasingly gloomier about future prospects, whether that is economically, environmentally or socially, we need more Cameron Sinclairs.