The broad approach you describe could also be expressed with the word ‘green’. For example, not using airplanes could be called a ‘green lifestyle’.

Ultimately, words are just a vehicle. It’s up to us to fill them with meaning. They are also dynamic – their meanings change over time.

If in 2010 we think a ‘green car’ should mean a hybrid vehicle, or consider a ‘green airline’ as a hand-gliding outfit, it’s our responsibility to inform and educate the public so that they too make those connections. That requires consensus and hard comms work, but it’s achievable.

Interesting thought, Marko. I just wonder if it will really change anything to simply rebrand…

I actually do like MK’s idea of calling everything ‘green xxx’. But I’d be afraid that we start taking a too narrow approach by doing that. What would be a ‘green airline’? Or a ‘green car’? Don’t we have to re-think the concept of certain products first before we try to make them green?

Sustainability takes a more broad approach. Ideally it means that you look at the balance of different interests and influences of an environmental decision making situation before taking action. The result might be that you decide to not use airplanes anymore or take the bike to go to work instead of your car rather than trying to ‘green’ your airplanes and cars.

Curious to hear what you think about this

Cheers,

Mira

But I thought ‘green [insert noun]‘ was supposed to be precisely that rebranding that your post calls for. It’s short, clear, visual and a universal concept. It’s a cliche, of course, but still useful and valid today.

Change the packaging too many times and no-one will care about what’s underneath….

I remember that I used to exchange books with travellers when backpacking in Australia. We would always write our names & countries on the last page and where we’ve read the book. Nice to be able to read the journey of a book that goes from hand to hand….

Mira

paul