We had a fantastic bunch of business delegates: open-minded, deeply concerned about the state of the earth and climate change in particular, and all incredibly keen to see themselves and their companies as part of the solution rather than the cause of the problem.

For a lot of them, the highlight of the week was the sharing of a new film, Carbon Nation. This picks up from where An Inconvenient Truth leaves off, with 80% of the content focused on developments in energy efficiency and renewables in the US. It’s a smart piece of work, interviewing both the usual suspects (Amory Lovins, Lester Brown and so on) and treehuggers, with some “salt of the earth” entrepreneurs, farmers, community activists and even military types.

It was the first time I’d heard of the Pentagon’s Green Hawks. They’re driving a programme of energy efficiency through the US armed forces (particularly “in theatre” in Afghanistan and elsewhere) which makes most civilian enterprises look weak-kneed by comparison. Its success can largely be put down to its appeal to patriotic and nationalistic sentiments — summed up neatly by Thomas Friedman (author of the brilliant Hot, Flat and Crowded) with the soundbite, “Green is the new red, white and blue.”

This stuff works in the US. Friedman’s latest rallying call is that American environmentalists should give up on their “Earth Day” rhetoric and focus instead on the emerging “Earth Race” — the race between the US and China to become the dominant player in the burgeoning cleantech sector. This is a big deal: the cleantech market is worth around $150 billion a year at the moment, but will need to grow to a minimum of $500 billion a year if we are to meet today’s targets for reducing greenhouse gases.

Tough-talking army officers and aggressive entrepreneurs add a new dimension to the way all this sits with US citizens. But it’s still a tug of war. On the one hand, a Gallup poll in March showed that 46% of US citizens are now persuaded that climate change is caused by natural factors rather than man-made emissions. On the other, a big piece in Time Magazine a few months ago highlighted what it called the new “Responsibility Revolution” sweeping America, with 40% of US citizens claiming to put the environment at the heart of their purchasing decisions.

On one thing, however, everybody agreed: the US political system is broken. Any dreams of bi-partisanship have withered in the face of Republican intransigence; Capitol Hill is besieged as never before by lobbyists of every description; and that good old US “pork-barrel” is as prominently displayed at the heart of Congress as it’s ever been.

The likelihood of getting any climate treaty passed is close to zero. Indeed, the requirement to have a majority of two-thirds in the Senate means that there are already 45 international treaties stuck in the logjam waiting to be ratified. To that resonant election catchphrase “Yes We Can!,” have been added the words “but we probably won’t … !”

And so Barack Obama is increasingly dependent on going over the heads of such a chronically dysfunctional Congress. With the emphasis on energy security, new jobs, skills and innovation, he’s out with a nationwide crusade around the “Clean Energy Economy.” By all accounts, this has hardly been barnstorming Barack at his best, and hopes are fading that it could parallel JFK’s summons of the entire nation in support of efforts to get a man on the moon — before the Russians did!

It’s hard to go over the heads of Congress, directly to the people, if you can’t rely on the media’s help. And that just isn’t happening. When I’m in the US, I’m invariably over-taken by a bizarre compulsion to tune into Fox News, immersing myself masochistically in its melee of misinformation and madness.

What’s most scary about Fox News is that it gives no more standing or authority to science (as in the pursuit of evidence for or against any particular hypothesis) than to political opinion or “received wisdom.” Whether Fox News is simply reflecting a growing denialist trend, or actively fashioning it, the implications for policy-makers are grim. And it’s not just businesses that find this very perplexing indeed.

Editor’s note: This article was written by Jonathon Porritt, Founder-Director of Forum for the Future. This piece originally appeared in Green Futures, which is published by Forum for the Future and is the leading magazine on environmental solutions and sustainable futures. Its aim is to demonstrate that a sustainable future is both practical and desirable — and can be profitable, too. WWF-UK is a Forum for the Future partner. Jonathon’s blog is available as a podcast at: www.JonathonPorritt.com. Listen to Jonathon at: www.ipadio.com/phlog/JonathonPorritt.

“After the failure at Copenhagen and with the G20 stalemated, Davos has an opportunity and responsibility to break the logjam in the reform of the global economy,” says Michael Green, co-author of the book, “Philanthrocapitalism: How the Rich Can Save the World.” “If Davos wants to run the world, it has to show some leadership.”

In their book, Green and co-author Matthew Bishop argue that governments alone can’t successfully tackle such global problems as poverty and climate change. Instead, they say, building a sustainable future will require innovative partnerships involving wealthy entrepreneurs, business leaders and non-profits, as well as governments.

The theme for this year’s annual WEF meeting, set for 27 – 31 January, is “Improve the State of the World: Rethink, Redesign, Rebuild.”

Green says this year’s WEF is uniquely placed to set an agenda for positive change … if participants make the most of the event’s freedom from tiresome diplomatic protocols to take action.

According to Green, that will require new thinking on:

• Financial reform: We need to figure out how to rewrite the rules in a way to make banks more responsible without tying them up in red tape.
• A new monetary order: The financial super-bubble that burst in September 2008 had been inflated by the endless supply of credit flowing into the US from emerging economies running huge trade surpluses. The global economy won’t be out of the woods unless we can fix those imbalances in global finance.
• A “New Deal” between the rich world and the poor one: The less-than-spectacular outcome of last month’s climate talks in Copenhagen demonstrated that we’re at risk of a global impasse in which the poor won’t act because the rich won’t pay.

What do you think? Are governments increasingly hobbled and unable to take action on their own to resolve our most pressing problems? Will the next “New World Order” be created not by elected officials so much as by rich “philanthrocapitalists”? Let us hear your thoughts in the comments section below.

So what are these green oxymorons — the “jumbo shrimp” or “military intelligence” of the eco-world, if you will? Consider these:

A ‘sustainable’ iceberg hotel … in Dubai

Is it just us, or is the Arctic really the only logical place where an iceberg hotel can be considered sustainable? From that perspective, sticking a piece of frozen architecture under the blazing sun of the Middle East seems the antithesis of “green,” no matter how much solar energy you harness. But that’s the idea behind the Blue Crystal, a “swimming world of ice offshore Dubai” that would feature luxury restaurants, an underwater lounge and a five-level ballrooms, among other amenities. Did we mention it would have a “self-sufficient energy system”?

Pardon us for thinking this sounds like a concept straight from the Yes Men.

‘Green’ shopping malls

Never mind how appealing the design and eco-friendliness might be (see, for example, these plans for a 1-million-square-foot shopping mall in Kuala Lampur) … the whole idea behind the shopping mall — cheap plastic stuff from China, “As Seen on TV” consumer gadgets, all the latest fashions, etc. — is, admit it, an unsustainable one. Certainly, a growing number of once-middle-class consumers have come to that conclusion during this Great Recession.

The solar-powered car carrier

As described in Triple Pundit, this ocean-going vessel designed to ship cars from port to port has enough solar panels to generate as much as 40 kilowatts of energy. That’s obviously not enough to provide all the muscle the ship needs to complete a journey — just enough to offset some of the demand for fossil fuels and reduce emissions somewhat. The real problem, however, lies with the vessel’s ultimate purpose:  transporting hundreds, if not thousands, of gas-guzzlers to car buyers around the world. Something tells us it’s not carrying 100-per cent electric cars.

‘Green’ McMansions

Coming on the heels of the McMansion trend — itself now in its death throes — was the Green McMansion trend. And where better to view an example of this type of architecture than in Las Vegas, home to the “New American Home 2009,” with its 8.721 square feet (810 square meters) of space, swimming pool, wine cellar, fountains, courtyard waterfall and 10 high-definition televisions? Yes, it’s chock-full of photovoltaics, natural ventilation and Energy Star-rated appliance. But it’s an 8.721-square-foot house. In the desert. Really, how green can that ultimately be?

‘Green’ armies

The US Army, in particular, has expended lots of effort recently to boost its levels of sustainability and reduce its carbon footprint. One of its goals: to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 3 per cent per annum between now and 2015. But the raison d’etre for a military in general seems to fly in the face of sustainability — especially the US military, with its 3 million-or-so personnel (counting reserve units), $711 billion in annual spending and 700-plus overseas bases in some 130 different nations.

Green oxymoron? As a certain former Alaska governor and vice-presidential candidate would say, “You betcha!”