Social Responsibility by Sherri Smith
June 6, 2008
04:57 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
Yeah, here we go again: gas gets expensive, and people who should know better start talking about nuclear.
If ever there was a really dumb idea, splitting atoms to generate electircity is it. This is something I know about: Back in 1974, I did a college research paper on the plusses and minuses of nuclear energy...and I discovered lots of minuses and not a single plus. My first book, co-authored with Richard Curtis and Elizabeth Hogan, was about this.
This week on Democracy Now, Amy Goodman had a tribute to the visionary inventory Buckminster Fuller: inventor of the geodesic dome, the Dymaxion house and car, and all sorts of other groovy things--inventions to make the lives of poor and working people better, both in the US and elsewhere.
One of her guests in this tribute was energy visionary Hunter Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute: an amazing energy think tank that ahs for 30 years focused on intelligent energy use, and if we follow the advice of Hunter and her ex-husband Amory Lovins, we could probably knock at least 50% if not 70 to 80% of our energy consumption, as a society.
About nukes, she had this to say: "Actually, I think Bucky and I stand in about the same place.
We both liked nuclear power, remotely sited 93 million miles away will
do just fine, thank you. He was a big fan of using renewable energy.
And we can meet all of our energy needs, first of all, by using energy
very efficiently—that’s the cheapest thing to do—second, by getting the
remaining supplies that we need from the already available
cost-effective renewables. And in fact, this is what’s happening.
"Nuclear power, the two units outside of Tampa now, are at $17
billion and rising. New nuclear plants will probably come on at
something like $12 billion. Neither McCain nor Obama have done the
numbers. We simply can’t afford it."
Economics is only one of the many reasons why nuclear power is a terrible idea. I don't have space to go into all the details (I wrote a whole book on this, after all)--but here are a few of the dooziest doozies:
- It is only because of a heavily subsidized limited-liability insurance plan called the Price-Anderson Act that there is such a thing as a nuclear power industry in the US: insurers wouldn't touch the plants until the federal government stepped in with this plan, which not only caps the premium well below market rates, but sets the total payout at a tiny fraction of potential damages. Even after the government threatened to develop the plants on its own and drive the electric companies out of business if they didn't step up and get busy with nuclear (this is back in the 1950s), they wouldn't touch it without this mammoth insurance subsidy.
- Talk about terrorist targets! The plants themselves, and many places throughout the fuel cycle, are at high risk.
- Extremely toxic waste needs to be completely isolated from the envionment for many times longer than the span of recorded human history. We don't have a great track record about preserving things in complete isolation for a quarter of a million years. In fact, even 10,000-year-old artificats are extremely rare. And then there's the matter of whether anyone will still be able to read the warning signs.
- Centralized power systems make no sense anymore. We have the technology, using nonpolluting, renewable resources such as solar and wind, to generate power right where we need it, and not lose huge amounts to transmission inefficiencies.
- Accidents are a serious concern: You've heard about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, but there were a number of other serious nuclear accidents too (Browns Ferry, Alabama and Enrico Fermi, in Michigan, to name two).
- And for all this risk, there's no real benefit. Taken as a whole, nuclear power generates lots of carbon and doesn't net us any power. When you count the entire fuel cycle (mining, milling, processing, transport, loading, power generation, storage, reprocessing/waste storage), we're not getting any power, and we're adding a lot to pollution and carbon. Not a good trade!
The best book I know of on nukes (not the one I wrote) is still No Nukes by Anna Gyorgy and friends, from South End Press. If you want to know more, I strongly suggest getting hold of a copy (the Nader book is good too, but it's not as easy to read).
NOTE: This blog will be on vacation for the enxt three weeks.
10:08 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
Need an example of head-in-the-sand behavior! June 12, I found out on the radio tonight, was Carbon Belch Day:
Proud of their antisocial tendencies, these yo-yos wanted to be as
environmentally destructive as possible that day, asking people to unleash their maximum carbon footprint in order to
oppose U.S. participation in the Kyoto treaty or any
such successor agreement, mandatory domestic limits on CO2, and any
federal or state carbon “tax” or “cap-and-trade” system — including the
current Lieberman-Warner bill.
One could make a good case for opposing Lieberman-Warner on the
gorunds that its cap-and-trade system is essentially a giveaway to
polluters–but that’snot the argument being made here.
What’s next: Celebrate Racism Day with the KKK?
01:33 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
So if you're walking down the street sometime
and you should spot some hollow ancient eyes,
don't you pass them by and stare
as if you didn't care.
Say, "Hello in there. Hello."
- Bette Midler (song and lyrics by John Prine)
You don't have to be ancient to have hollow eyes. Look anyone in the eye who has been traumatized by war, rape or a horrendous natural disaster and you will see that they are not all there.
What is missing? After someone is traumatized they go from feeling secure to feeling vulnerable all the way to the their core, because their core has been violated by that event. They often don't know how they survived that trauma, but what they do know (or at least believe) is that they couldn't make it through it again. As a result they isolate from others and try to numb themselves with alcohol or other drugs, which unfortunately causes their imagination to run wild and turn increasingly more every day things into dangerous threats.
Read about PTSD from the Inside Out
Watch Mark speak about: PTSD - From the Inside Out
See and hear Bette Midler sing: Hello in There.
Check out Mark's book: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder for Dummies
And if you are walking down the street sometime and pass someone who is living in hell alone, say, "Hello in there, hello" as if you do care.
(c) 2008 Mark Goulston
07:46 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
The U.S. Senate did a couple of very stupid things regarding energy policy yesterday. In both cases, Democrats were unable to get the 60 votes needed to stop a Republican filibuster.
OK, I can understand the logic of rejecting a windfall profit tax on the big oil companies; the argument *can* be made that this would ultimately lead to higher gas prices and even more dependence on foreign oil (although, in this case, the companies could avoid the profit tax by investing those runaway profits in renewable energy technology).
But for the life of me, I can't see the argument against extending tax credits for homeowners installing renewable energy:
"Shortly after the oil tax vote, Republicans blocked a second proposal
that would extend tax breaks that have either expired or are scheduled
to end this year for wind, solar and other alternative energy
development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and
conservation."
This is incredibly shortsighted. It increases dependence on foreign oil, increases demand, and contributes to the myth that our current energy supplies are limitless. And then people wonder why it costs $70 to fill up their SUVs, and why they can't even sell those SUVs.
11:18 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
(I posted this earlier today on my Fast Company Experts blog and
was encouraged to cross-post it here. I hope you will read it and
contact me if you are interested in collaborating on this important
topic)
I have spent the last few days at the Sustainable Brands conference
in Monterey, CA. The event brings together some of the most infuential
people in corporate, nonprofit, media, and other key arenas for a
conversation about how to operate in more environmentally efficient and
appropriate ways and what impacts of the green movement have on
marketing, branding, and the like. I was a member of the planning
committee for the event and led a discussion about social networking.
(NOTE: I suppose I should make a disclosure about the fact that Fast
Company was a sponsor - though I didn't actually have anything to do
with that).
There have been a few interesting case studies shared, some new
research discussed, and a lot of good networking conducted. It is clear
that everyone here is interested in more than just being successful in
their professional pursuits related to green and sustainability, but
fully committed also to improving life on this planet as well. Still, I
fear that not enough progress was made here in terms of actually
figuring out what the future of green business and communication should
look like. I'm concerned that there was too much looking back -
reviewing who has been successful (and to a limited extent why) and not
enough collaborative learning and problem solving about the major
challenges that still exist.
I want us to make progress. I want companies and organizations to
look at the challenges that face our world as a result of the climate
crisis and commit more time and energy to finding real solutions. I
want companies to see the environment as a business, moral, and other
imperative - not just an opportunity to make money or please
shareholders (and I am not saying all do, but there is definitely some
lip service being paid to this effort still). And I want to be a part
of that work.
I feel as if I have a pretty good grasp of the challenges that
busineses and organizations face. I know what the work companies and
organizations are doing around this effort looks like from the
perspective of a consumer, a parent, an employee, a consultant, a
concerned citizen, a blogger/author/speaker. I have something to add.
And I am not along, there are lots of people like me looking to get
involved.
So, I want to propose that we organize a real, serious effort to solve
the big challenges -- together. I want all the smart, aware,
passionate, experienced, committed people who think the climate crisis
is one of major challenges to work collectively on this. I want us to
go beyond attending conferences and listening to eachother speak about
these issues, and instead roll up our sleeves and truly collaborate. It
happens a little already, but so much more is possible.
I don't know exactly what it looks like or what form it should take.
Maybe it will be an ongoing discussion, a meeting, a summit, an online
community, a few additional blog posts, a manifesto, a TV show. It may
not require a structure at all to be succesful. Or, it might change
structure to accomodate change in the marketplace. But it has to
happen.
So, if you are interested in being a part of the solution, to working on these issues, to being part of something a little bigger than yourself, your company, or other group, let me know.
I'll start collecting names, sharing them around, introducing people,
and seeing where that gets us. And if anyone else is already doing
something like this, I hope they will include me as well.
The Future of Green is about working hard, making tough choices,
breaking down barriers, putting aside ego and organizational
boundaries. It will take everything we've got. And we've wasted too
much time already. So let's get started.
May 5, 2008
10:48 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
Out of six official fair-trade towns in the whole United States, two are one town away from me--Amherst, Massachusetts and Northampton, Massachusetts (I live in the town between them, Hadley--which, small as it is, has at least five stores that sell fair-trade products)--and a third, Brattleboro, Vermont, is only 40 miles away. (The others are Media, Pennsylvania, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Taos, New Mexico.)
Fair-trade towns have publicly endorsed the notion that it makes sense to buy fair-trade goods, where the farmer is paid a living wage. Of course, it also makes sense to buy local and organic (and fair-trade is most often organic as well)--but a lot of us aren't ready to give up products that don't happen to grow near us.
So for coffee, tea, and cocoa, for bananas, sugar, and for a host of other products, let's not build our enjoyment on other people's backs.
I'm a chocoholic, but when I read this article, I knew I didn't want to be a party to child slavery--so I stopped bringing on-fair-trade cocoa into the house. I'm proud of my neighbors in Northampton and Amherst (and my friend Dan Finn of Pioneer Valley Local First, who spearheaded the campaign).
I'm also proud of people in more than 30 countries who have signed the Business Ethics Pledge.
And how about your town?
April 4, 2008
10:20 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
Tonight I attended a panel on sustainability. The main speaker owns Peak Organic Brewery, in Portland, Maine. A marketing consultant and a local-economies activist filled out the panel.
In the Q&A, I asked the marketing consultant--who works with everyone from startups to Quaker Oats--how it felt to walk the tense dance between helping microentrepreneurs change the culture, and moving big companies toward social/environmental responsibility even if at the expense of those startups.
She talked around the question, discussing the passion that not only the brewer, Jon Cadoux, expressed--but also one of her small clients who does a barbecue sauce, and how he hadn't been interested in organics until she was able to hook into his passion.
But then Cadoux responded that if only people like him were brewing organic, it wouldn't make enough of a ripple. For real change to happen, it has to involve the biggest companies. Now that Anheuser-Busch, which buys 50 percent of the US barley harvest, has introduced two organic beers, it will make it easier for Jon--who only does organic and never did anything else--to find sources for organic barley, maybe even local ones.
I think he's got a good point. What do you think?
_____
Shel Horowitz, author, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First
Founder, Business Ethics Pledge
http://www.business-ethics-pledge.org
Blogging on the intersections of ethics, marketing, politics, media, and sustainability
http://www.principledprofit.com/good-business-blog/
12:32 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
I belong to several other networking sites and last week for the second time this year my account was cancelled.. Why? Well it is because I don't fall into the stuffed shirt syndrome of that particular place. So I told a profile that they really weren't a political candidate for the US Presidental race and they were basically lieing to the Americans on that site. So I told some company that his 'free' offer from the company he was representing was nothing more than garbage and he shove it up his ass because really why ask a sports question and then push in there if you had my product you could keep up with the game days. Really now, a true sports fan can tell you the size of the baseball players squeeze in Cleveland thong, what the hell does he need with a scheduling product?
But to have it cancelled, what a joke. Sure it will take me time to reload my contact list there, but you know what buddy I am going to poke at you each time I get. You bunch of toothless lemmings, I must apologise right now to the SPCA that was an uncalled comment on the lemmings as they have more rights.
Sure disagree with me, banter, but to hide behind mommie and get my account pulled, give me a fucking break
02:01 pm | 1 recommendation | Be the first to comment
How and when did brands get so small? It seems that despite the greater availability of tools and engaging media to connect brands with consumers, the impact of brands on society has greatly diminished. Why are the trillions of dollars currently spent on marketing only getting us “Paris Hilton” brands instead of timeless “Liz Taylors?” It seems that this past decade’s media revolution has empowered consumers while making brands more insecure.
Brands that want to be leaders must learn how to lead. They must facilitate what we call “branded movements” – or powerful collaborative statements with non-traditional groups such as grassroots organizations and influencers resulting in powerful brand communities. How do branded movements begin?
Brands should first adopt a more assertive attitude with regards to the roles they can play in society. They should not be afraid to ask themselves how they can change the world. This type of weighty question will naturally guide your brand to true values and give clarity, edge and purpose to your branding strategy. Plus, doing so will also bring you closer with a stronger base of consumers that are already asking themselves that very question of the brands they embrace.
A growing number of examples of branded movements is feeding consumers’ appetite for brand meaning, including General Electric’s “Eco-magination,” Lance Armstrong’s “Live Strong,” Dove’s “Real Beauty”, and Bono’s Red Campaign. At the core of these initiatives is a brand becoming human, inspiring through values, and then building communities through stories and interactions through imaginative use of creative and media.
“Branded movements,” work because they give everyone involved a sense of purpose around the brand and its values. They are also powerful because they allow to brand to touch upon society’s big shifts as well as the themes impacting the day-to-day decisions of individuals and families. The brand becomes both symbolic and relatable, inspirational and accessible. It is then, by being truly a part of consumers’ lives that our shrinking brands can become big again.
02:01 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
How and when did brands get so small? It seems that despite the greater availability of tools and engaging media to connect brands with consumers, the impact of brands on society has greatly diminished. Why are the trillions of dollars currently spent on marketing only getting us “Paris Hilton” brands instead of timeless “Liz Taylors?” It seems that this past decade’s media revolution has empowered consumers while making brands more insecure.
Brands that want to be leaders must learn how to lead. They must facilitate what we call “branded movements” – or powerful collaborative statements with non-traditional groups such as grassroots organizations and influencers resulting in powerful brand communities. How do branded movements begin?
Brands should first adopt a more assertive attitude with regards to the roles they can play in society. They should not be afraid to ask themselves how they can change the world. This type of weighty question will naturally guide your brand to true values and give clarity, edge and purpose to your branding strategy. Plus, doing so will also bring you closer with a stronger base of consumers that are already asking themselves that very question of the brands they embrace.
A growing number of examples of branded movements is feeding consumers’ appetite for brand meaning, including General Electric’s “Eco-magination,” Lance Armstrong’s “Live Strong,” Dove’s “Real Beauty”, and Bono’s Red Campaign. At the core of these initiatives is a brand becoming human, inspiring through values, and then building communities through stories and interactions through imaginative use of creative and media.
“Branded movements,” work because they give everyone involved a sense of purpose around the brand and its values. They are also powerful because they allow to brand to touch upon society’s big shifts as well as the themes impacting the day-to-day decisions of individuals and families. The brand becomes both symbolic and relatable, inspirational and accessible. It is then, by being truly a part of consumers’ lives that our shrinking brands can become big again.
