Environmental foils: Andrew Heintzman vs. John Baird

The intensely cold, heavy rain signals that winter was triumphing over fall. And the streets around the normally bustling buildings of the University of Toronto were quiet except for a few early morning strollers. Inside a classroom at Rotman Business School, dozens of people had hauled themselves out of bed earlier that late November morning than usual to listen to a visionary named Andrew Heintzman.

Heintzman was there to talk about a new environmentally focused investment company he helped to start. Heintzman didn't set out to be a businessperson. More than a decade ago, before most people knew much about the internet, Heintzman grasped how profoundly the instantaneous flow of information and ideas would transform our personal lives and our culture. Along with the CBC's Evan Solomon, Heintzman co-founded Shift Magazine. It became an iconic barometer of the burgeoning digital age.

Shift is a symbolic signpost of Heintzman's ability to spot important turning points — but more than that, to be a part of shaping people's thinking of what's happening around them. Heintzman added to the gloom of the rainy morning at the University of Toronto by painting a picture of just how slowly Canadian businesses are reacting to threats from environmental degradation and climate change. Heintzman said these shortcomings aren't superficial; they're built right into the DNA of our economic system. Said Heintzman, "The environment is subsidizing our lifestyles."

This is not a point of view he has come to just recently. In 1995, he took a trip to his family's farm. While there, he read a book by Paul Hawken called The Ecology of Commerce. He said Hawken's book made him aware of the flaws in our economic model, one built on the imperative of constant and continuous growth and one in which damage to the environment is hardly taken into consideration.

After, Heintzman bought a dozen copies. He sent them to leaders and decision-makers, including then finance minister Paul Martin and Microsoft CEO Bill Gates. He wanted leaders to realize that there was a blind spot in our economic thinking — one that they could confront by putting it on their agendas and encouraging dialogue about changes that would have to be made.

Curiously, at Rotman Business School, Heintzman did not talk about any of the responses he received, or even whether he received any. Nevertheless, he seems to have absorbed a bigger message from Hawken: it's not enough to simply talk about challenges — you needed to do something tangible.

Hawken, for his part, has combined environmental activism with action. He started one of the first organic food businesses in the United States, called Erewhon — also the title of a book by Samuel Butler based on a type of new society. He also wrote numerous articles and gave speeches.

Slowly, his message began to seep through the concrete ideology of traditional economic thinking. Some of the top business schools in the U.S. invited him to talk about his vision for environmental business strategies. Large businesses sought his input. One, Interface, Inc., built on Hawken's concepts to radically transform its business by turning waste and industrial garbage into new products.

Twelve years later, and the passion ignited by the ideas of Hawken and others has not faded away. There was Heintzman, in one of this country's top business schools talking about a new conception of business.

Heintzman said it's unlikely that traditional businesses will be at the forefront of environmental change. The main reason, he said, is that many of today's established and successful companies and corporations have done well by the present system. Another reason, he said, is that the decisions of CEOs and politicians are mostly driven by short-term incentives.

But he said other ideas and forms of leadership are emerging. Heintzman said the internet is turning out to be an invaluable resource for organizing and sharing information and building support for new leaders. There's a new power bloc, he said, and it's called "Jane Q Public."

About a month later, in early December, another man stepped up to a different podium, this time in Bali. The weather was a lot better. This man represented a government, brought with him eminent advisers — not to mention the inherited diplomatic prestige of a nation. But over the course of several days, Canadian Environment Minister John Baird became seen more as a symbol of obstruction in the discussions taking place at the Bali climate conference. The criticisms came from delegates and Canadian environmental groups. And even from Nobel Prize laureate Al Gore.

In the past, Canada has generally been seen as a dealmaker at this type of international forum. This time, Canada became seen more as a deal-breaker. Baird insisted that Canada would not accept a climate deal unless major polluters such as the China, India and the United States were part of it. Since it was clear from the outset that the likelihood of getting the U.S. to drastically change its stance and accept binding targets was but a fantasy, Baird's position amounted to a kind of poison pill against attempts to find common ground.

It's not that other countries don't see the U.S. as an important part of a climate change deal, it's just that Canada now appeared to have joined the camp of agreement spoilers. A nation's slowly acquired diplomatic equity was put on the line by non-constructive talk and unhelpful gestures. People were now lumping Canada in the same frying pan as the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Japan — the poster nations of anti-climate-change action, so to speak. The Canadian government's message appeared to hinge on the notion of a so-called fair deal — the interpretation of which is that developed countries shouldn't be asked to carry the sole burden of tackling climate change.

Baird also managed to lower Canada's reputation even further by failing to personally attend a negotiating session on the last night of the climate conference. Some said the session was important to overcoming many of the sticking points in the talks.

Everyone seemed perplexed by Baird at Bali. Well, they shouldn't have been. All that was needed to muddle through this riddle was to delve into Baird's speech at the Economic Club of Toronto shortly before he went to Bali. In that speech, Baird talked about the enmeshed character of the U.S. and Canadian economies, especially the auto sector. Said Baird: "We have an integrated market between our two countries and we don't want to see jobs move from Canada to the United States and, if we move together with the United States, we can go farther faster and have a twin impact on reducing smog and pollution in our country."

Baird's performance in Bali appeared to mirror his economic analysis: oppose mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions without appearing to be in the U.S. camp. Instead, talk about a fair deal. This subtle symbolic shift in Canada's behaviour seems to have taken delegates in Bali by surprise. Canadians are not blind to the fact that this country has done horribly in attempting to cut greenhouse gas emissions. But this does not mean that people want to continue down this path.

This is clear from polling done to measure the public attitude towards climate change. Research firm GlobeScan has a long track record of looking at public attitude toward climate change. According to Rob Kerr, vice-president of GlobeScan in Toronto, eight out 10 Canadians agree that human activity is a significant cause of greenhouse gas. And in terms of the threats posed by greenhouse-gas buildup, Canadians have a far-reaching understanding of its consequence. Kerr said people know that climate change may cause water shortages, droughts and even spread diseases.

And what's more significant, said Kerr, is that Canadians see themselves as among the most empowered people in the world. What this means, he said, is that Canadians feel that they can be effective in dealing with this challenge.

"Canadians stand out among all countries in saying they're ready to make significant changes to lifestyle," said Kerr. He adds: "The Canadian public is well ahead of the government."

And perhaps this is the point others picked up at Bali. It's not that outsiders aren't aware of the problems Canada has had reducing greenhouse gases. In fact, it's curious that even though Canada's greenhouse-gas emissions have ballooned despite signing commitments to reductions, few countries have reacted with stinging criticisms. Maybe the reason is that they know Canada will eventually do what it says it will — a reservoir of trust that has been painstakingly built up over generations.

And maybe Andrew Heintzman was also right when he said that it is unlikely that solutions to climate change will come from this country's economic and political elites. This certainly isn't a comforting thought. But as the kerfuffle in Bali shows, politics as usual can go on for quite a long time and the only way to do anything might be to take individual action.

And it seems that's just what Heintzman intends to do with his fledgling environmentally focused investment fund. Cheap coffee and early rainy mornings are no obstacles to him. He has a message and new vision for this country. Let's all hope he succeeds.