Americans’ comfort zone revolves around consumption. Buying “things” is what is most familiar to them. So, how can we take what is familiar and safe, and tweak it? How can we convert the masses in such a way that they don’t even know they’re being converted?

I believe that we can start by providing ecologically and socially responsible alternatives to conventional products. I believe that through conscious consumerism – whether it be eco-luxe or simple products that everyone needs to survive – we have a unique opportunity to change the system by working within the system. I equate it to Gorbachev in the 1980′s. He worked his way into the Politburo by ‘walking the Communist Party talk’, by gaining their trust, by speaking a language familiar to them. Once he worked his way into the system, he changed it. Radically. Perestroika was the name he called it, meaning “openness”, and with that the USSR transformed into the democratic, market economy we know today. (And Reagan thought he could take all the credit…!). That’s the silent revolution we are all working towards. Gracefully working within our system to change the system.

As “They” say, “may you live in interesting times.”

My natural reply is to suggest improved teleconferencing. But based on an EPA study I’m reviewing now, the CO2 costs of data centers (which are the backbone of the modern internet) will surpass that of the airline industry within 15 years. Of course, that cost is spread out over a much larger group of people.

I agree on professional standards of conduct. It would be interesting to propose this issue to the people at BCorp, and see how they think air travel should be measured for companies trying to qualify as “sustainable.”

We did a quick analysis of just the CO2 travel emissions for a meeting that the Innovation Network for Communities held for our partners in Chicago. Thirty five people attended (many from the Chicago region). Total travel-related GHGs amounted to 40.5 tons — the equivalent of average annual emissions for two in the US, and 20 times what our “fair share” of global emissions for one year should be.

We did a follow-up analysis of the overall GHG emissions of INC, and it summed to 130 tons per year. 90% of this was air travel. So for us to acheive the 80% reduction below baseline that is required to stabilize at 350ppm, it means we have to achieve a dramatic reduction in travel. We suspect this analysis would be similar for many other NGOs and professional individuals.

We are coming to believe that there need to be some professional standards in place to govern when we do and do not go to meetings – a “climate protection agreement” for individuals, so to speak. This would help us say “no” to meetings when in-person presence is not critical. We have been checking with environmental and climate change organizations to find out if they have anything like this in place to control when they do and do not travel, and so far we have found nothing.

We’d love to hear from others who are grappling with this issue and have ideas for solutions.