Since the 80’s the amount of cars that populate the world’s roads have exponentially grown to well over 1 billion. This has been for decades an important economic drive as a new car contains a number of taxes while its usage requires yet again a large amount of costs (energy, insurance, roadtax, parking, repairs and maintenance) as well as public investments (road infrastructures, energy and parking facilities, etc). It is not a surprise that the car industry and public mentality around the status and luxury of having and using such device are all key for modern financial household of society. The individual and collective dependence on the car is beyond dispute.

The size now of the car population however also has its counter effects. The growth demanded the increase of infrastructure, destroying along the way our landscape. For some this was justified by the formentioned economic dependence on the system but others started to complain. Landscape is important for other key elements of our human organization. The amount of cars polute so much through emision of fine particals (PM 2,5 and PM 10) that it has become a serious health hazard. The air polution affects long and heart problems which have become a mayor social cost. Children that grow up in high polution areas show also psychological disorders which affect the potential of living a decent, productive life.

Another issue that has become dramatically significant is the dependence of the automotive world on fossil energy which is rapidly running out. Fossil fuels are highly polutant and finite, creating a urgent need for transformation of the sector.

When we look at the property and usage of cars studies reveal that many families have two cars, one for the labor related travel requirements and the other for the short distance, i.e. for shopping, taking the kids to school or sproting activities, etc. The ease of having a vehical parked nearby for immediate use is of such importance to people now that the increase of costs of property and usage does not affect this sense of luxury and need. People rather modify their nutrician than that they get rid of the car(s). In some regions we see an increase at the end of the month of usage of public transportation because one cannot afford petrol anymore until the next pay cheque comes in. Then the car is back in usage until cash again runs out.

Many innovative solutions on individualised and collective mobility have been invented to overcome some or even all of the negative issues related to the cars. But these have difficulty breaking through due to the deeply engrained mentality around the usage of a car. We did a study recently asking people in the city what would be needed to get them to get rid of their car?

Interestingly 80% of the respondants would be willing to eliminate the car out of their lives but not just like that. They would do so if:

* all their daily needs were nearby. Even in cities we do not have that luxury because of the centralization processes of last many decades. We created huge malls where one can find any and everything but one needs a car to go there. So even in cities it is difficult to find everything nearby.

* there would be reliable, cheap, trusworthy alternatives available. That is also an issue. Certain cities have invested in a well oiled public transportation system and additional public services. In those cities you see a large population of people who do not have a car anymore. But most cities and countries have deficiant alternative solutions leaving the public without a choice. Taxi’s run on petrol or gas too and polute equally as cars. So if alternatives are introduced and organized they at least have to solve not only the ownership issue but also social and environmental issues.

We can conclude that mobility is key for productivity in any economy but mobility as it is today is also a mayor hazard and cost for society and environment. The challenge is to bring all back into a sustainable balance. This requires technological innovation and rethinking the system but also addressing the mentality of our users. If you want to take away or discourage the commodity of a car one will have to replace it with an even better option. When one achieves this a whole new world market lies ahead.

Today I had the tremendous pleasure to speak in an elite group of a well known business club of high level business executives of known multinationals. My speech was announced as being focused on “sustainability” while my true purpose of being there was to address the potential of creating a local for local energy cooperation.

Twenty odd people attended the weekly diner in a top restaurant in my neighboorhood and each had a different background. I found an interesting mix of top executives of multinationals, successful entrepreneurs, retired business people, representatives of global creative and art communities, etc.

The contrast of all these top people surficed rapidly as I started to speak. My introduction was relatively short (for my doing anyway) and some discussion was allowed by the chairman. I explained the reason to be of my foundation and the complexity of creating co-creative, multi-disciplinary platforms for issue driven sustainable progress. I finalized with the referred proposition arguing that fossil energy was rapidly running us into problems, that concentration of power in global systems makes us dependent on those systems and that technology is available to become self sufficient.

It was interesting to see a few key standard stereotype firm position to be taken:

1. The large multinational states that energy based on fossil resources is not an issue. We will react with innovation and plenty of energy is available for many years to come. No need to be self sufficient. We can trust that availability will persist through global investments of the mighty.

2. The price conscious business focus (procurement). Energy “a” costs 100, energy “b” costs 105, energy “c” costs 120, etc. I go for 100! Who pays for the difference in costs if I go for another price, whatever the motivation?

3. The local organization that want to be self sufficient and independent in energy all together. No worry about costs and economy of scale of large investors, the fact that one is in control oneself is best.

4. The business that looks at the big picture, not just oneself (cost) but also surroundings and politics (issue).

5. The curious who just watch and listen.

Between the first four all kinds of arguments arise of….. what has been tried before, what publications should be accepted or not, what should be done or not done. Everyone seems to be right and everyone is wrong in the eyes of the others. And in essence they are.

In such setting no progress can be made. The powerful stand up and overshout the others, the ones without vision but prenty of statistics provide proof and the curious just follow.

Who is right?

The ones that proclaim progress as usual and trust the system as it innovates along the way?

Or those who claim the need for a transformative attitude and vision as business as usual will get us into chaos and disaster?

Those two worlds clash. Business as usual has the benefit of the doubt because it has proven itself for many decades and contributed to the Western economies of today. Transformative business is always risky as it demand guts and issue driven vision that could be wrong and needs still to prove it is right.

It became clear during my speech that I was the tremendous minority of the transformative world arguing in the business as usual setting.  Sustainability was a word everyone could live with (whatever they mean with it) but self supportive local 4 local 4 global systems, including energy was beyond their scope of mass concentration of power and economy of scale.

Bottom up or Top down? Do we purposely neglect the signs by digging up those scientific reports that prove us right or do we act in the transformative way by using those arguments that prove us right? Bottom up and Top down are two different worlds that will meet somewhere through the thick layer of people who just look at costs (the easy way) and those who have no clue (the difficult way).

What I find promising is that the circumstances are there now that the comfrontation occurs for the first time, sometimes in unbalance in favor of one stream or the other, but more and more on levels of equality. That I think is the basis of true progress where people take responsibility and become willing to see what happens, one way or the other, without imposition but by true determination, proof of concept and ideological motivation.