I’m trying to make a bit more time each day to blog on other sites. As you can imagine, trying to make some level of impact on each of the sites associated with renewables — or with energy more generally — could be a full-time job for dozens of people. But I’ll make an effort; it will be interesting to see which sites attract more readers.
Here’s a piece on greenwashing and clean coal that I just put up on EnergyBlogs.com.
We’ll see what happens here.
I’m not sure how many people clicked on this link on my reference to greenwashing in yesterday’s piece on corporate sustainability, but I encourage everyone to check out this marvelous site. It doesn’t surprise me that GE tries to establish the validity of clean coal, or that Arrowhead drinking water claims that its bottles are eco-friendly because they use less plastic that they did before — or even that the Hummer3 is fuel-efficient because it’s smaller than the previous even-worse versions of this obscenity. But fortunately, thanks to websites like GreenOptions, such blatent examples of greenwashing come at the expense of some pretty heavy-duty ridicule. Good going, fellows.
In response to my recent piece on sustainability, a friend of a friend whose name I won’t use writes:
Thanks for the link, but sustainability can come only after one gets a business started. Day 1 you receive the money, day 2 is about sustainability. Sustainability is also about a term called the triple bottom line …. Now, back to finding the money to start our business.
To which I responded,
(Name):
I don’t want to sound holier than thou, but I respectfully disagree. There’s nothing the matter with being a capitalist; I’ve made a considerable buck in my life as well. But I ask you to look at what you’re saying:
You’re starting a business, (company name), to manufacture electric vehicles and you want money to do that … and you’ll think about sustainability after you get your money?
What’s the metaphor again? Putting the cart before the antelope? No… the wildebeest? No, that’s not it either…
I’m sorry; I’m not trying to be a smart-ass. But trust me here: if you were making potato chips, that would be one thing. But you’ll raise money for this business to the degree that you’re sincere about doing something decent for the other seven billion people on this planet. Do you think we need a new group to build more Hummers, plastic water bottles, or Big-Macs? No. Don’t join the rapists. You have the rare opportunity to make a difference in a positive way; take advantage of this moment.
I’m reminded of the heyday of my marketing consulting business as a (much) younger man. My biggest years happened when I was so busy working to make my clients successful that it was November before I had a chance to ask my bookkeeper, “Hey – have we made any money yet?”
Do yourself and everyone around you a favor — get into it, man. You will thrive to the degree to which your business adds honest value to its customers. Trust me here.
With the White House emphasizing that BP is liable for billions in damages from the Gulf oil spill, it would seem only a matter of time before BP files for court protection under bankruptcy laws. The company would continue to operate, and quite possibly the US taxpayer will get stuck for more of the cleanup costs.
I had lunch last week with Pete May, publisher of GreenBiz and many other related websites. He’s a magnificently smart fellow, and quite well dialed-in to the corporate sustainability movement — attending numerous conferences, and doing everything necessary to keep his finger on the pulse of what’s happening in this space.
I asked him about some of the themes that resonate most with directors of corporate sustainability, and threw out some suggestions. He said, “That’s good, but it’s essentially ‘Sustainability 101.’ These people have consultants coming at them from 15 different directions at the same time. You have to make sure you’re telling them something they don’t already know.”
I have to say that this does strike me as an interesting challenge. I read a whitepaper yesterday that drew the distinction between the thinking of the mid-20th Century from Milton Friedman and Peter Drucker (essentially that corporations exist for the financial benefit of their shareholders) and today’s thinking — that corporations should maximize profit without compromising the quality of life for future generations. Twenty-one pages later, that was pretty much it. It certainly left me thinking about my lunch with Peter. If this whitepaper wasn’t Sustainability 101, I wouldn’t know what to call it.
I’m not an expert in this space, but I’m making a concerted effort to learn more about it. And in this process, I’m betting that the brass ring in corporate sustainability resides in helping businesses actually improve their profitability — not through greenwashing — but by legimitately aligning themselves with nature — developing a meaningful and effective way for strategic planners to learn from natural systems and processes.
Business leaders are looking for a process by which they can extract themselves from old-line thinking, and begin to think like the planet. They want a set of paradigm breaking exercises that stimulate new visions for business products, services, and processes — each inspired by 3.7 billion years of evolution.
We at 2GreenEnergy are teaming up with a wonderful organization called Ethical Impact to provide a series of webinars on this exact subject; we’re very excited about the potentials. Please write me for more details if you’re interested.
I also remind readers: you’ll struggle mightily to invest 23 minutes of your life any more productively than by watching this incredible presentation on the subject by sustainability/biomimicry pioneer Janine Benyus.
My friend and always-welcomed guest blogger Kathy Heshelow has written a great deal on Peak Oil, and now has her own blog on the subject. I urge readers to check it out.
In preparation, she asked me: Are you saying that Peak Oil is irrelevant? No. To clarify: peak oil IS a big deal. But the DATE of peak oil is not a big deal. Whether it happened 40 years ago or will happen 40 years hence, we have a screaming imperative to get off oil.
I try to be judicious in my blogging about the politics associated with renewables, mindful that taking sides can alienate certain people. But guest blogger Cameron Atwood brings up something in response to my piece on Campaign Finance Reform that I think is so major and basic that it’s hard to understand how anyone could be offended.
He points out that there are 11,000 corporate and special interest lobbyists for our 535 congress members – a ratio of over 20 lobbyists per member. He further points out that the recent SCOTUS decision (“Citizens United” vs. Federal Elections Commission) granting the status of human beings to corporations, has fully unleashed this terrible power upon the well-being of the common American. As an example, the financial reform bills now inching their way forward face fierce opposition from no fewer that 1500 lobbyists (mostly representing the interested Wall Street, banking and insurance corporations). That’s a ratio of 3 to 1.
History buffs will remember that our forefathers contemplated the possibility of this very mess at the onset of the Union. In particular, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison knew enough about the potential effects of corporations that they both made very clear statements as to how these entities needed to be regulated with great care so as to avoid the trampling of the democratic process – such as we’re seeing today.
We all want to hope that a leader will spring up with the bravery and determinism to make all this corruption simply evaporate. But how likely is that, given the way our leaders raise funds for their election campaigns?
As the extent of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster comes into clear view, expect its impact also to wreak havoc on the US natural gas industry. Expect greater scrutiny on the effects of shale drilling on the water table (aka, people’s drinkng water). New York City has already sucessfully gone to court to stop such drilling in the state.
One of my golden rules of alternative-energy investing is that, if you want to make money, you’ve to think globally, especially since the US is still out to lunch in formulating policy for a clean-tech energy economy. In two months in Brazil, the government will award contracts for 339 new wind-power farms and 79 other renewable energy projects that will generate a whopping 14,529 MW of electricity. The winning bidders will make a lot of money.
Curt writes:
… Though I have my political opinions, which (thankfully) have evolved over the years – I’m more interested in not knowing the political opinions of people as it can create tension in progressing together towards a common cause of better energy technology making it to the market place. …. Is personal politics going to be a unpleasant but necessary ‘evil’ we must be prepared to deal with? …. I’m here to learn and reply to others opinions on this and future topics.
Thanks so much for writing, Curt. You bring up some really neat points in your much longer and wonderfully astute comments to my piece on John Paul Stevens that I’ve excerpted above.
First, let me point out that I think long and hard before entering my personal politics into the discussion — and for the exact reason you mentioned. Also, I’m completely through bashing the (GW) Bush administration. My rancor on this subject was enhanced by my interviewing 25 people for my book on renewables, most of whom were themselves pretty rancorous about the effects of those years. But carrying on like this is hitting a man when he’s down, and tacitly embracing one form of unseemly power politics while condemning another.
However, I want to point out that it’s impossible to add insight into the migration to renewables while ignoring the politics surrounding the energy industry. Government plays an enormously important role in our energy policy – even it’s just to maintain the status quo, by offering up countless billions of dollars in subsidies to the oil, gas, and coal companies. I know that my own politics – or anyone’s politics for that matter – are going to rankle some people — but I’m afraid there’s nothing I can do about that. I’ll just try to be fair-minded, call ‘em like I see ‘em, and, as always, vigorously and honestly encourage divergent points of view. I’ve never censored a comment regardless of hard its author slapped me, and I don’t plan to make any changes in that policy.
Thanks again for writing. I’m glad you’re here.
