I don't think green is going to do the whole job though, although, as I said, it's been really useful. The thing is, people in suits in boardrooms, the people who can really make a difference in terms of emissions (for example), I think need something a little different to drive change.

If we are going to have labels, whatever works is fine I think – sustainability, clean _____, slow food, eco____. I think Green though, is always going to turn off a certain group of people, perhaps those that can actually make the biggest difference.

So many people spend an incredible amount of hours at work, often to the detriment of their health, friends and family. I know in Australia, on average, we now work some of the longest hours in the world. Laid back Australia is a bit of a myth these days. Many of the people who have made changes, or have been forced to make changes after a health scare (for instance) wouldn't consider themselves Green for doing so.

As far as the labels go, sure marketers certainly love a label. The environmental movement certainly came out of a grassroots thing, and it seems to me like there is a growing movement now that doesn't have a label. Sometimes labels are put on it, but its many things many possible labels – the slow food movement, organics, sea and tree changes, cleantech. To my mind, it's all part of the same thing, and it is grassroots at its core.

I guess time will tell. I'm assuming there will eventually be a price placed on carbon and that will drive a boom in a whole new set of industries and should make some older ones not viable in the long term. I might also say that it could lead to a boom and bust cycle in the area of cleantech, just as we had one in hi-tech at the turn of the century.

There is of course potential there for a sub-prime type investment situation developing, if carbon trading takes off. I can just see people investing in speculative schemes that don't exist on the ground, and then that all come tumbling down.

The equity that has been stored in the term “Green” over the last 20 years is extremely valuable. It may not be the best term, but it's the best we have. It is not time to marginalise an important issue by changing the name, it is time to build on 20 years of discussion, debate and support and bring it to the mainstream.

In the past, I've seen things like health concerns and job concerns and lifestyle concerns bring people over to a greener way of living, without them specifically seeking out Green as such. It's only after they're on board that their tolerance for the label and the more difficult issues increases.

Perhaps we need more of a lifestyle label than an issues-based one. Not a marketing driving one (although I'm sure the PR flacks will co-opt it as soon as we think of it), but a real grassroots thing.