“Imagine Walmart doing distribution for food banks…in which The Gap runs thrift shops…in which The Home Depot is involved in rebuilding.”

This challenge comes from Ron Shaich, CEO of Panera, as he closes a wonderful talk at Sustainable Brands about Panera Cares, a series of pay-what-you-want stores aimed at alleviating hunger. So far, his first charity store, in St.Louis, is more than self-supporting, and they’ve opened a second location in Dearborn (metro Detroit)—both in economically diverse neighborhoods. The idea is that some who can afford it will pay more than the suggested amount, subsidizing those who pay less. And so far, it seems to be working.

Great to see this sort of abundance-based thinking from the CEO of a major restaurant chain.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

The US Department of Labor has asked me to put them in touch with people in the US who can help them define the brand new category of green marketers. If you have at least two years green marketing experience and five years in either marketing or sustainability, you can help:
If you’d like to participate, please email or call Traci Davis (tdavis@onet.rti.org or 877-233-7348 ext 109) and provide the following:
Name:
Daytime Phone number:
Mailing Address/State:
Email address:
Total years of experience:
Traci Davis at the O*NET Operations Center at Research Triangle Institute will respond when you volunteer, and will provide further details

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Once again the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proves that it places the interests of large utility companies and the nuclear reactor industry ahead of the public it supposedly protects.

With its chairman dissenting, the NRC voted to approve the first license for new reactor construction in more than 30 years: two reactors at the already-nuclearized Plant Vogtle site in Georgia, an alarmingly close 26 miles from Augusta. Several others are already on the docket.

This is a betrayal of the American people, once again.

32 years ago, my first book, on why nuclear power is a terrible idea, was published. Last year, in the wake of Fukushima, I was asked to update it for a new Japanese edition. Doing the research for the update, I saw nothing to make me change my mind, and a lot to reinforce my original conclusion that nuclear power is unsafe, uneconomical, and unnecessary.

Following Fukushjima, both Germany and Italy ended their reliance on nuclear power. But the US renews expired licenses and grants new ones. This is a stupid, short-sighted, and dangerous decision, and I hope it will be greeted by massive citizen action in Georgia in the courts and in the streets to overturn the license.

In the meanwhile, it has approved license renewal after license renewal for brittle, unsafe plants like Vermont Yankee that long ago exceeded their useful life.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

@MichelleShaeffr sent me a link to a whole bunch of interesting infographcs.

Some worth highlighting:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdsdigital/3983422906/in/set-72157622404448043: How long before the world’s oil runs out, by country

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdsdigital/4056035804/in/set-72157622404448043: Oil production vs. consumption broken down by US state

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdsdigital/6099961522/in/photostream: Rise of Asian megacities—and their slums

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdsdigital/6044866075/in/photostream: How one Danish island achieved full energy self-sufficinency using renewable and mostly nonpolluting energy sources

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

One of the charities I support just sent me an email with the subject line, “Shel — Jack Abramoff needs you.”

I opened the e-mail, expecting to a sarcastic, ironic letter about how big money has infiltrated politics and sending money would help keep the likes of Abramoff—the deeply discredited lobbyist friend of GW Bush who served time for some of his activities—out of the political process. (He served less than two years of a four-year sentence.)

 

Silly me! this is what I got instead:

Last week, we launched our brand-new, hard-hitting anti-corruption news site, [name deleted to NOT give them publicity]. Former “superlobbyist” Jack Abramoff is a regular contributor, along with some of the best investigators in the country. Together they’re focused on exposing politicians and lobbyists who are auctioning off our democracy and our future. Just like the CIA hires ex-hackers to protect its mainframe, Jack will be using his insider knowledge to hold the worst offenders to account.

Maybe I’m old-fashioned—but this left a really bad taste in my mouth. I quite frankly don’t trust Abramoff to do a decent job here, and I don’t like the idea of hiring someone for a regular gig who was working steadily to undermine the political process for his own personal benefit, and even pitted some of his clients against each other without their knowledge.

Yes, he’s got “insider”knowledge about corruption. But what assurances do we have that he’s no longer corrupt?

Mind you, I’m willing, even eager, to be proven wrong. I’d love to see a year of Abramoff’s “hard-hitting reporting,” and read up on whether his personal lifestyle shows true reform. Certainly we’ve seen true turnarounds from the likes of John (Confessions of an Economic Hitman) Perkins, Philip (Inside the Company: CIA Diary) and John (In Search of Enemies) Stockwell. Will Abramoff rise to the occasion?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Here’s a widely reported AP newswire story saying the federal government doesn’t see major lasting effects from large wind farms.

While I recognize that wind is not without some problems (inlcuding bird hazards and sometimes noise), I welcome this development. Wind is far more benign than any fossil or nuclear technology.

And I’ve been close to operating wind farms in Denmark, Spain, and the US (Vermont), and quite frankly, I never heard noise from any of these.

However, to my mind, centralized power of any sort is a bit of a step backward. The more of our energy we can generate at the place where it’s needed, the less is lost by transmission friction, the lower the cost of installation, the less vulnerable the power grid, etc. etc. Rather than huge installations of dozens of turbines, wouldn’t it be great to have one small one ever city block?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

The new planned city of Masdar, just outside Abu Dhabi, only welcomed its first residents in 2009. Designed from the get-go to minimize the effect of desert heat, and keep motor vehicle traffic out of the city center (replacing them with a system of underground minicars), this green city is very much an experiment in progress, according to this article on Triple Pundit. Considering how many cities in the United Arab Emirates are showplaces of out-of-control energy consumption, Masdar is pretty exciting.

Already this experiment is bearing fruit. Hot desert cities have a lot to learn from this model—and so do the rest of us. Read the article.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

More remarkable for who he is and where he posted than his actual content (which is good but nothing particularly new): it was a pleasant shock to come across this article on Huffington Post making connections between fossil fuels and endangered species by Major General Michael R. Lehnert, recently retired as the Commanding General of Marine Corps Installations West, entitled (somewhat misleadingly) “Top 10 Reasons to Support Clean Energy.”

I’ve known for a few years that the US military has been taking an ever-greater role in sustainability (perhaps to atone for its prior role as one of the worst polluters in the world). Still, it’s exciting when they go public like this.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

And changing the face of our cities by thinking not only building by building, but even through a region that crosses an international border.

This TED talk on rethinking architecture is well worth watching (even if it’s a bit slow at first).

Besides, where else can you see a downhill ski resort in flat, urban Copenhagen—made out of…you’ll just have to watch the video to find out.
With thanks to @FabianPattberg

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

In the Dumb and Dumber department: I opened a letter marked “Personal Correspondence,” knowing full well that it was not. It used a very obvious handwriting font, nonprofit bulk-mail indicia instead of a postage stamp, and a sprayed barcode, and on the back was a Washington, DC mailing address with no name.

Personal correspondence, my arse! I opened it up because I wanted to find out who was lying to me.

Turned out to be a charity group that works on gay and lesbian rights issues, a group I’ve previously donated money to. Inside, there was no longer any attempt to look personal. It was a fairly standard fearmongering letter, some slick full-color inserts and a decal. I separated the decal into the trash, put the rest of it in the recycling—but I kept the postage paid return envelope. I’m going to print this blog post and mail it back to the org at their expense, to make a statement that I don’t like being lied to, do not condone unethical marketing even from causes I support, and to make it a few cents more expensive to treat me as a fool.

Doesn’t anyone vet this stuff before it goes out?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail