Dear R2:1 Members:

Bill Humber has begun a conversation around defining our focus as an organization. See below. Responses are encouraged. Cheryl

He describes it this way:
It’s a conversation starter so the first target has to be media/conference/press opportunities

It’s also a challenge to collaborate with agencies with the interest/knowledge to enhance the measuring process

and it’s an argument which encourages rebuttal/discussion/debate etc. but ultimately standsfast on its approach

I think it’s a winner for anyone who wants to take it on in the public forum and identify with the argument – won’t be me but I’m here to help

Some thoughts on Resilience 2:1

There are a multitude of incorporated, highly professional, accredited and well-recognized entities providing services in the broadly defined sphere of environmental consultancy, project management, and on-site delivery, so a reasonable question is “what distinguishes the Resilience 2:1 organization from these”? Unless that can be briefly stated in a 50 word or less (the proverbial elevator talk), there are few avenues to rise above the noise in the marketplace beyond those which are similar but better placed.

The point of Resilience 2:1 is that it conforms roughly to Canada’s ratio of its bio-capacity (living beings, plant and tree life etc.) to its eco footprint (carbon releases, manufacture of raw materials into functional items, etc.). Why? Large land mass, but small population relative to the country’s size. No moral high ground here!

It’s a heuristic, defined aptly and according to my quick google query as:

“A mental shortcut that allows people to solve problems and make judgments quickly and efficiently. These rule-of-thumb strategies shorten decision-making time and allow people to function without constantly stopping to think about their next course of action.”

In essence it says that for every unit of eco footprint impact we have (and I now mean not only in Canada but also globally), there should be a two unit increase in bio-capacity. I’m not sure how to measure these things but that’s an analytical challenge before us. It acknowledges that an increase in the eco-footprint and associated carbon releases is inevitable but posits a response strategy of ultimate improvement.

As a means of engaging in this broader “marketplace” conversation, here’s one idea:

“Re-imagining what we mean by, how we interact with, and finally how we re-create what we broadly describe as green space, from lawns and backyards, to those spaces around large private and public buildings, to designated parks and valley systems, to regional spaces (moraines etc.) to territories (boreal forest) and ultimately their integration with water bodies.”

Almost by definition, this conversation has to be disruptive, annoying, vigorous, confrontational, challenging, pointed, and invested with the quality of a certain self-assuredness.

It may not be one others want to participate in, but it’s my two-cent’s worth.

Bill Humber