• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer
  • Contact Us
  • +44 (0) 7976 626 544
terrafiniti

Terrafiniti

Sustainability Consultancy, Sustainability Consultants, Sustainability

  • Sustainability Services
    • Sustainability Strategy & Management
      • Double Materiality Assessment (DMA)
    • Sustainability Training
    • Sustainability Reporting
    • Sustainability Review & Benchmarking
    • Responsible Communications Services
  • Sustainable Business Strategy
    • Sustainable Business Guidance & Resources
    • Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
    • Sustainable Transition
  • About Us
    • Customers
      • 3stepIT
      • 8020 Communications
      • Early Years Alliance
      • RNLI
      • YMCA
      • ISP Case Study
        • Food and Packaging Sector
    • Sustainability Professionals Resilience Group
    • Our responsibility
    • Our Experience & Best Practice
  • Insights
    • Articles
    • Greenwashing
      • The Greenwash Files
      • An Essential Guide to Avoiding Greenwashing
    • Sustainability Issues | Sustainability Trends
      • 2020 Sustainability Issues
      • Trends in sustainable business 2019
      • Sustainability Trends in 2018
      • 2017 – What are the big sustainability issues?
  • Sustainability Books
    • Sustainability Innovation
You are here: Home / Provocations, Thoughts and Big Ideas / Out with the old? 350 or 355 ppm?

Out with the old? 350 or 355 ppm?

“Affairs are easier of entrance than of exit; and it is but common prudence to see our way out before we venture in.”

Aesop

The old phrase tells us that new and old ideas find a natural balance, that the introduction of the new requires that it is also “out with the old”. Indeed, sustainability should be about saying “let’s do something new” rather than “stop doing that old thing”. However, most sustainability practitioners and campaigners spend much of their lives fighting to change existing behaviour.

If you want to get into it, you’ve got to get out of it

Much time is spent rationing unsustainability, rather than doing as Buckminster Fuller advised: “To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

This is to a large extent related to a combination of familiarity, status quo bias, infrastructural inertia and willful resistance to change of vested interests than the conceptual or practical problems of imagining and implementing new ways of doing things.Rarely do we find that the entrance of the new means that it is out with the old.

Indeed, the “new” seldom really is new, built as it so often is upon the ramshackle foundations of the old – not upon fresh footings of its own.

The asymmetry of acceptance and rejection

“Two quite opposite qualities equally bias our minds – habits and novelty.”

Jean de la Bruyere

In technological terms, there is a huge asymmetry between the ease of introduction of new things, be they technologies, products or processes, and the difficulty of phasing them out when they prove to be problematic.

It seems to be the case that the burden of proof required to retire a functioning (definably problematic) technology is far higher than that required to introduce it.

350 or 355 ppm? It is risky dancing on the head of a pin

The introductory narrative for technologies tends to be focused around utility (what this wondrous new technology will do for us) and the removal narrative upon a debate about the probability and extent of risk.

This means that instead of concentrating upon the introduction of innately and undoubtedly sustainable technologies, we tend to waste all our time in discussing and proving the dangerousness of unsustainable technologies already deployed.

We get stuck in internecine, angels on the head of a pin arguments about the exact thresholds of toxicity which are “acceptable” – rationing safety rather than producing products through processes that are innately safe (and for the most part eminently feasible).

The challenge to introduce technology, sometimes high though it may feel, is still lower than that required to remove it.

This is wonderfully demonstrated by the burden of proof seemingly required to demonstrate the blindingly obvious; that burning fossil fuel is a bad idea from pretty much any perspective (other than we are already addicted to it and the withdrawal comedown would hurt).

This level of required proof is way, way beyond that required to introduce a new drug (significant though this is), a new genetic technology or to flood the world with phones and computers full of complex, semi-disposable aggregations of precious metals, intensely energetic processes and scarce elements, produced by workers toiling long days in poor conditions.

Come on in…please don’t go!

“The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones.”

John Maynard Keynes

The height of the hurdles to the removal of unsustainable and deadly technologies are set not only by custom, precedent and vested interest, they are also mandated by systems of economics and finance which seem to find it irrelevant and pointless to evolve the means to value the planet and its people as a going concern over the coming decades.

Just as the thresholds overcome for the introduction of industrial technologies in the 17th and 18th centuries were low, so were the ones required for the introduction of the economic theories which dominate, shape and drive our unsustainable world.

Conversely, the barriers that we face for the reform of our economic theories such that they produce innately sustainable outcomes are set very high indeed. It is not just a fight of fact against fact, but of sentiment, familiarity and private profit, set against the long term interests of us all.

Such a fight with either be long, or will suddenly flip, perhaps as we recognise that money and markets don’t represent the physical world we depend upon for our very existence.

Still, a long fight is no less worth fighting. As Winston Churchill didn’t quite say:

“Sustainability at all costs, sustainability in spite of all terror, sustainability however long and hard the road may be; for without sustainability, there is no survival.”

Article by: Joss Tantram Topic: Provocations, Thoughts and Big Ideas, Redefining Value, Towards 9 Billion

About Joss Tantram

Joss is a founding partner at Terrafiniti, mixing practical guidance and big, hopeful ideas for a sustainable future.

View all posts by Joss Tantram →

Previous Post:values-alone-arent-enough-for-a-sustainable-worldIts not you, its we: why values alone aren’t enough for a sustainable world
Next Post:Traffic Jams – the manifest will of the people?Traffic-Jams-Manifest-will-people

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sidebar

Who Are We?

We are sustainability consultants helping companies transform purpose and performance.

Sustainability Services
Sustainability Strategy
Sustainability Training
Sustainability Reporting
Sustainability Benchmarking

FREE Resources

DEVELOP your sustainability approach – with these insight-packed free guides

DEVELOP your sustainability approach – with these insight-packed free guides

Toward 9 billion Sustainability ebooks Towards 9 Billion Sustainability Books | Innovation for a sustainable future Big ideas, provocations and practical guidance at the cutting edge of sustainability Toward 9 billion Sustainability ebooks
“Short, sharp, accessible insights on what the future might look like and how you should prepare for it.”

Mike Barry, Director - Plan A, Marks & Spencer plc

Categories

  • Blog
  • Innovation
  • News
    • Events
  • Practical Guidance
    • Hints and Tips
    • Tools and Solutions
  • Provocations, Thoughts and Big Ideas
    • Natural Capital
    • Provocations
    • Redefining Value
    • Towards 9 Billion
  • Responsible Communications
  • Satire
  • Sustainability Issues
  • Sustainability Professionals Resilience Group | SPRG
  • Sustainability Reporting
  • Sustainability Shorts
  • Sustainable Business Management
  • Sustainable Business Strategy
  • Sustainable Economics & Finance
  • Sustainable Products
  • Sustainable Transformation
    • Context & Limits
    • Innovation & Transformation
    • Sustainable Change
    • Sustainable energy
    • Sustainable Value
  • Training and skills

Recent Posts

  • Coffee ads banned for misleading ‘compostable’ claims
  • What is Responsible Communication?
  • What is Sustainability Training – and Why is it Important?
  • Carbon Neutral Communications
  • Reputation risk and sustainability – who do you work with?

Terrafiniti LLP

Guildford Institute, Ward Street, Guildford, Surrey. GU1 4LH. United Kingdom

Telephone: +44 (0) 7976 626 544

Email us

  • Consulting In Sustainability
  • About Us
  • Insights
  • News
  • Privacy Notice
  • Our Services
  • Sustainable Business
  • Customers
  • Sustainability Books

twitter  Follow us on Twitter

Link In with Joss Tantram  Connect with us on LinkedIn

1% for the planet

Consulting Website Design by PIXEL PERFECT

Copyright © 2025 · Terrafiniti