There are only three types of potential clients you will ever experience: responsive, neutral and unresponsive.
Responsive people will come across your work and light up. They’ll get excited and want to sign up and hire you after learning a little bit about you. They’ll be curious, want to know more and ask you a lot of questions. These people are a ‘yes’ to what you’re up to in your business.
Neutral people will listen to what you have to say but they won’t react much. They’ll sit there in your workshop politely and take it in. But they won’t sign up for much. They may be cordial and listen respectfully but they for sure won’t seem ‘into it’ like the responsive people do. These people are a ‘maybe’ to what you’re up to in your business.
Unresponsive people will actively pull away, show disinterest, might even be rude. These people are a ‘no’ to what you’re up to in your business.
I think there’s a big difference between those who are unresponsive and those who respond with hostility. So I posted this comment:
Let me “bend the magnet” a bit more and take your analogy to its logical fourth category: those who are actively opposed to what you’re doing. You and I as marketers in the green/socially conscious/cool and groovy/progressive activist space will not only attract the cool and groovy people–we’ll repel the Hummer-driving, cigar-smoking, GMO-loving executive at Monsanto or the local nuclear power plant to the point where they might actually speak out against us–just as WE have spoken out against THEIR actions.
And I’m fine with that. Quite frankly, they are a way to gain the attention of those people in in the uninvolved category, who may be within their orbit but have never thought about these issues. They’re a doorway into media coverage, and give us legitimacy in the eyes of reporters (and their readers) because these big important corporations are actually acknowledging and discussing out issues. And every once in a while, lightning actually strikes and some of them start examining the issues and taking action on our side of the fence (as Walmart has—for its own profit-driven reasons—on sustainability, for instance).
I think of my experience as one of 1414 Clamshell Alliance members arrested on the construction site of the Seabrook, NH nuclear power plant, trying to keep the plant from being built, back in 1977. New Hampshire’s governor at the time, Meldrim Thomson, and William Loeb, publisher of the largest newspaper in the state, the Manchester Union-Leader, called us “the Clamshell terrorists.”
Yet not only had we all pledged nonviolence, we had all actually undergone training in nonviolent protest and joined small, accountable, affinity groups (which continued to function after our arrest); it was a precondition for participation.
Governor Thomson kept the Clamshell prisoners incarcerated in National Guard armories around the state for about two weeks. When we emerged, we found we’d:
Birthed a national safe-energy movement based in nonviolent civil disobedience
Rapidly and throughly raised consciousness about nuclear power plant safety (and the lack thereof)
Created a climate where, unlike previous accidents that had gotten little or no coverage, the Three Mile Island meltdown in 1979 (and later catastrophic failures at Chernobyl and Fukushima) became front-page news.
Seabrook did go online, so we failed in our immediate goal. BUT in an era where former President Richard Nixon had called for 1000 nuclear power plants in the US, Seabrook was the last nuclear power plant to go on line in the US other than Shoreham, NY, which was shut down after preliminary low-power testing and never supplied the electrical grid. I believe the opposition of Thomson and Loeb to our movement helped make it a mass movement, just as the overreaction against civil rights and anti-Vietnam War protestors helped those movements gain strength.
What do you think—do we need our enemies as much as our friends? Can we “ju-jitsu” their hostility into a benefit for our cause? Do you have a great example, either form your own work or something you’ve heard about somewhere? Please leave your comment below.
I can think of no better way to celebrate July 4th this year than to acknowledge the huge honor my hero and friend Dean Cycon, CEO of Dean’s Beans in Orange, MA recently received.
Dean Cycon making music in Rwanda
Dean Cycon is the most ethical business owner I know, and the only person to be a guest twice on the business ethics radio show I hosted and produced for four years, from 2005 to 2009. Dean has done 100% organic and fair trade coffee and cocoa since the day he opened his company, which he located in a depressed area where jobs are scarce. Dean not just funds but also actively partners with people in the villages that supply his coffee to do “people-centered development” projects, led by the folks who live and work in those villages. He also partners with local charities in western Massachusetts to create private label coffee they can sell as fundraisers. Oh yes, and he’s also the author of one of my favorite travel books: Ippy Award gold winner Javatrekker: Dispatches from the World of Fair Trade Coffee (Chelsea Green, 2007). And he’s a fun guy who hasn’t let success interfere with his playful spirit.
Many developed countries have embraced the Precautionary Principle, which states that new processes and products have to be proven safe, and if we don’t understand their effects, we wait.
The United States, on the other hand, passed the “Monsanto Protection Act,” which not only utterly violates the Precautionary Principle, but actually removes the court system’s power of oversight over GMO (genetically modified) food safety, even when the products (developed not only by Monsanto but by other agribusiness/chemiculture companies) and have been found to cause health risks.
This horrible law was slipped into a much larger bill and has the potential to wreak havoc in all sorts of ways—not the least of which is the threat to organic agriculture if their fields become contaminated by windblown GMO seeds (and the further threat to farmers’ livelihoods when Monsanto actually sues the farmers whose fields it contaminates, for using their seeds without permission). Organic farmers have countersued Monsanto, but by logic I don’t understand, the courts have generally sided with Monsanto, ruling over and over again that the chemical giant’s pollution and ruination of organic crops allows Monsanto to collect damages for the illegal use of its products, while denying the organic farmers compensation for trashing their crops.
In all the buzz about Google Glass, some people are raising deep concerns about privacy. Mostly about the privacy the wearer of Google Glass will sacrifice.
But the issues go well beyond that. Mark Hurst’s very thoughtful article, “The Google Glass feature no one is talking about,” for instance, brings up the disturbing spectre of Google creating a world where everyone is watching YOU. In other words, non-users could be deeply impacted, and human behavior may actually shift in response to the Big Brother phenomenon of being under constant surveillance, person-to-person as opposed to camera-to-location.
Yet I think privacy concerns may be far less significant than something I don’t hear anyone discussing AT ALL: the question of whether literally seeing the world through Google Glass’s technology is essentially a radical shift in the human experience: an engineered electromechanical “mutation” that could have results as far-reaching and unforeseen as genetic engineering.
Already, we live in a world where centuries-old patterns of communication have been blown apart by computers, mobile phones, and other disruptive technologies. And for the most part, this is positive–despite idiocies like the pedestrian I saw the other day who couldn’t stop texting long enough to see if it was safe before he crossed the street. But when a device becomes an extension of our bodies to such an extent, I have to wonder: What are the consequences of seeing the world through the Internet and Google Glass, rather than through our own eyes, as we walk down the street? What happens when governments or corporations start filtering and controlling our very sensory input, even when we’re in the “natural” world away from our computers?
I’m not a Luddite. But I do believe in the Precautionary Principle, which states that we should not engage in actions that have potentially harmful consequences if we don’t know what those consequences are. Violating the Precautionary Principle has led to many calamities, from catastrophic climate change to ecosystems being thrown out of balance to the 250,000-year threat of global contamination by nuclear waste leaks. In other words, we should keep our assorted genies in the bottle until we know what we’re about to unleash. And I think Google Glass could be one such genie. Particularly if future iterations in totalitarian states make Google Glass or similar technology less optional, and less easy to remove.
Why do businesses (and governments or nonprofits acting like businesses) worldwide continue to squander and pollute natural resources, even when we all know better?
Because it’s in their economic interest.
And why is wrecking the planet in their economic interest?
One simple reason: they’ve externalized the true cost. In plain language, they’ve passed on the true costs of their destructive behavior to us, as taxpayers, consumers, breathers of air, and drinkers of water. Often, they even get tax advantages for doing so (ever hear the phrase “oil depletion allowance”?).
This MUST change.
If every organization had to incorporate true costs over the entire lifecycle, including environmental degradation, resource depletion, and disposal of waste at the end of the cycle, our economy would turn toward deep sustainability in a very short time—maybe even just a year or two.
These days, Brabeck is saying that 5 liters of water to drink, and 25 for other personal needs, should be the daily right of every human being. But he also says that direct human consumption is the smallest portion of water consumed by humans—just 1.5 percent. The energy and agriculture sectors use far more (and he didn’t even discuss industry in general). He is particularly troubled by “unconventional oil” (such as tar sands), which he says consumes up to 6 liters of water for every liter of fuel, compared with just a tenth of a liter to produce a liter of oil conventionally. Water conservation, he says, is essential—and thus we shouldn’t be using those water-hogging technologies. Of course, there are MANY other environmental arguments against tar-sands oil, in addition to water conservation!
And he notes that when he was born 68 years ago, the world had 2.7 billion people and stayed well within its water budget, using only 40 percent of the renewable water. But now, with 7 billion people on the planet, we’re already exceeding what the planet can renew—and we’re heading to 10 billion.
Note: just because in our daily lives our water consumption far less than what industry and agriculture use, please don’t take that as a license to squander. As individuals, we still have a responsibility to be frugal with the world’s water. Even something as simple as brushing our teeth can be done with about 95 percent less water, just by not letting the water run the whole time—voila, instant water conservation. Wet the brush, turn off the water, repeat as necessary. Use the same principle when washing hands, washing dishes, etc. And when it makes sense (as it does in most of the US, Canada, and Europe), use filtered tap water instead of bottled water. Many people don’t realize how much water consumption is involved in the bottling process—wasting,often, up to three times as much water as actually goes in the bottle.
Go ahead and read the interview. If you’re skeptical about Nestlé, that’s OK. So am I. But I think there’s a lot of wisdom in Brabeck’s thinking, and a wake-up call to the world.
Last night, we drove up to Brattleboro, Vermont, to testify before the Vermont Public Service Board, which is taking input on whether Entergy, the Louisiana-based owner of the severely troubled Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.
We didn’t get to testify; I was something like #78 on the list, across about eleven sites around the state, all televised live. But perhaps that’s just as well, because I’ve spent much of the day going into a lot more detail than I would have had in a two-minute live statement.
I’m going to share the testimony with you. If you’re inspired to give your input to the PSB, you can do so by e-mailing psb.clerk AT state.vt.us, or writing to Vermont Public Service Board, 112 State Street—Drawer 20, Montpelier, VT 05620-2701. You will want to include the docket number. I suggest you use this subject line:
Comment on PSB Docket No. 7862 (Entergy application for Certificate of Public Good)
This is what I submitted. Yes, I know it’s long. But this is one of the most important struggles of our time. If you’re not already familiar with the issues around nuclear power, this will give you some of the basics, as slanted toward an audience of government officials in the US who already know, for example, about the insurance exemption for nuclear power under the Price-Anderson Act that basically means if there’s a problem, the plant owner is not liable.
Dear members of the Vermont Public Service Board,
My name is Shel Horowitz. I am the author of one book on nuclear power and two award-winning books on business ethics and the environment. Like the majority of people who have come before you to testify, I ask that you deny the Certificate of Public Good for Entergy for the continued operation of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.
Dictionary.com provides two definitions for “public good”:
1) a good or service that is provided without profit for society collectively
2) the well-being of the general public
According to both definitions, Vermont Yankee and Entergy fail the test.
Definition #1 has three components:
a. a good or service is provided
b. without profit
c. for society as a whole.
Yes, Vermont Yankee provides electricity and jobs (though, as we will see later, less efficiently than its alternatives). But it fails utterly on the other two components. Entergy’s whole reason for existence is to provide profits for its shareholders and executives (as opposed to the whole society), and the callous way the company has disregarded both public safety and the truth is directly related to valuing short-term profit instead of the public good.
As to the second definition—I submit that Vermont Yankee not only does not support the well-being of the general public, it puts that well-being at severe risk. Vermont Yankee’s continued operation actively threatens the well-being of residents of three states.
I will elaborate several ways in which Entergy fails to achieve these standards. While I recognize that the federal government has preempted the safety discussion, I submit that you, the board members of the PSB, have an obligation to look at the economic consequences of the safety issues, as they apply to the question of whether Entergy is in fact providing a public good. For that reason, some (not all) of my arguments do include safety concerns, because every safety issue has an economic consequence.
Specific points:
Vermont Yankee has a troubling history of severe problems. As far back as 1973 (the last year that full reporting was required), when the plant was only a year old, Vermont Yankee reported 39 Abnormal Occurrences to the Atomic Energy Commission (predecessor to the NRC). A single page of the printout lists six incidents, four of which are potentially significant threats: component failures in both Emergency Core Cooling System and radiation monitoring, and two explosions in the off-gas system within six days of each other. I am enclosing a copy of that printout, along with the descriptive text noting the 39 incidents at Vermont Yankee and 850 AOs nationally when the fleet was only 30 reactors (source: Gyorgy, Anna et al.: No Nukes: Everyone’s Guide to Nuclear Power. Boston: South End Press, 1979). [Click twice on the picture to read the printout (it’s the right-hand side of the graphic)]
one page of the multiple page printout of 39 safety problems at Vermont Yankee in one year
Other well-documented problems include the collapse of the cooling tower on August 22, 2007, and the more recent discovery that not only was Vermont Yankee polluting the Connecticut River with radioactive tritium, but Entergy lied about the very existence of the pipes conveying the tritium. All of these problems are expensive to fix, impacting ratepayers and residents.
Embrittlement and corrosion are severe problems for the nuclear energy generally. Years and years of bombardment by high doses of radiation, the ongoing trauma of New England’s severe winters, and exposure to corrosive chemicals weaken the structural integrity of metal and concrete—aging of the materials was cited as the cause of the cooling tower collapse, in fact. Should these issues start to affect the containment vessel or other key structural components, the results could be catastrophic to the local economy. And the likelihood of deep stress within the plant is high, because this plant was only designed to last 40 years and is now past its life expectancy. It is the height of irresponsibility to continue operating under these circumstances, and PSB’s mandate is to maintain the public good by denying the certificate.
While Vermont Yankee’s supporters cite the “public good” of Vermont Yankee in supplying jobs and baseload energy while not generating greenhouse gasses, none of these claims hold up to scrutiny. Clean, renewable energy provides far more jobs per megawatt. Vermont Yankee’s power is currently spread out over the grid and not part of the Vermont baseload, and in any case is frequently unavailable due to both planed and unplanned shutdowns and power reductions.
To accurately examine the issue of greenhouse gases, and, for that matter, net power generation, we have to remember that nuclear plants themselves are only one small part of the nuclear fuel cycle. The fuel cycle includes mining, milling, processing, assembly into fuel rods, transportation of the fuel, loading them into the reactor, running the reactor, sending electricity along the grid to remote locations (with severe transmission losses in the process), removing the spent fuel, storing it temporarily, and storing longer-term (though, as noted above, reliable permanent storage does not yet exist). Most of these processes are large-scale consumers of energy and emitters of greenhouse gases.
Like fossil fuels, uranium is a finite substance, and it requires extensive work to create usable fuel. Nuclear expert John J. Berger estimated that once the best quality uranium had been mined (by the 1970s), the remainder is of such low yield that a ton of rock yields only 44 ten-thousandths of an ounce of fissionable U-235. Berger also noted that as of 1977, the nuclear industry had consumed five times as much energy as it produced (source: Berger, John J. The Unviable Option. New York: Dell, 1977, pp. 115-116 and 150-151, as cited in Curtis, Richard, Elizabeth Hogan, and Shel Horowitz. Nuclear Lessons. Harrisburg: Stackpole Books, 1980, p. 222 and p. 90).
Routine operation of Vermont Yankee creates harmful radioactive waste that puts its workers and neighbors at risk of health problems (which in turn have a negative economic impact), and that must be isolated from the environment for 250,000 years. Humans have no track record in preserving anything for more than about 30,000 years; we have a few arrowheads and pottery shards from that era. Entergy employs enormous hubris to suggest that when we have no computer data even 100 years old, no languages even 5000 years old, and no artifacts even 50,000 years old, that we will somehow be able to instruct people 10,000 generations into the future on how to maintain the safe and complete isolation of these poisons, even though we don’t yet have any idea how to do this. Obviously, even assuming the language and communication issues can be surmounted, going back in every 50 or 100 years to inspect and rebuild the barriers between these toxic poisons and the environment will be a massively expensive financial burden to future generations of Vermonters—but not to Entergy, which will in all probability not last as long as the problem it is creating.
Like Fukushima, Vermont Yankee is at risk of catastrophe during severe weather events. Hurricane Irene proved that southern Vermont is not immune to weather catastrophe; last year’s tornado devastated Hampden County, Massachusetts, only about an hour away. And of course, just last month, Superstorm Sandy caused major damage not very far away. These damaging weather events will only increase (see, for instance, NASA climatologist James Hansen, writing in the Washington Post: “This is the world we have changed, and now we have to live in it — the world that caused the 2003 heat wave in Europe that killed more than 50,000 people and the 2011 drought in Texas that caused more than $5 billion in damage. Such events, our data show, will become even more frequent and more severe.” <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-change-is-here–and-worse-than-we-thought/2012/08/03/6ae604c2-dd90-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html>, emphasis added).
Items #5 and #6 point to the grave threat in the event of accident (or sabotage). More than 25 years after the Chernobyl accident, large areas in the Ukraine are still uninhabitable, and their land removed from agricultural production. This kind of ecological devastation should be unacceptable anywhere; in an area as dependent on agriculture and tourism as Vermont, it is especially troublesome; it would cause billions of dollars in damage and basically eliminate the local economy.
Once again, the definition of pubic good requires benefits “for society collectively, and not for profit.” However, should there be a major accident at Vermont Yankee, what gets shared collectively is not the benefit, but the risk. As you know, nuclear power plant owners and operators are protected from the financial consequences of accidents by the Price-Anderson Act—a threat to every American’s economic well-being. Entergy takes the profits—but the citizens of Vermont and neighboring states take the risk. And this risks are real; as I wrote in the 2011 post-Fukushima update to my book Nuclear Lessons (published in Japan by Kinokuniya), there have been at least 101 accidents causing loss of life or at least $50,000 in property damage, including not only the 2011 Fukushima accident but also a lesser-known accident there in 2010.
It is hard to make a claim that a company as consistently disingenuous as Entergy can in any way be a partner in the public good. Two among many examples: Entergy accepted a set of conditions giving the State of Vermont power to decide whether the plant should be allowed to continue operating past the original March 2012 expiration date. However, when the state legislature chose not to allow a renewal, Entergy has refused to obey the law and continues to operate while suing the state. Then there were the lies about the tritium leaks. As an expert in business ethics, I see that these two instances demonstrate that this company does not follow accepted standards of business ethics, and should not be trusted to responsibly operate this highly dangerous apparatus.
My final point addresses whether nuclear power is the best way to achieve (public good definition #2) “the well-being of the general public.” Nuclear power is, inevitably, a high-risk proposition involving concentrating centralized resources, combining numerous complex processes, and wasting much of both the natural resources and energy required to produce this power. I suggest that first of all, as a society, we can easily slash our energy use by 50 to 80 percent, using deep conservation and better design. Germany uses about half as much energy per capita as the United States, to achieve a comparable quality of life. Here in the U.S., we have the technology to do even better. We can design buildings that are so in tune with their environment, they don’t need furnaces or air conditioning. We can follow the example of the Empire State Building, which is saving more than $4 million per year following a deep energy retrofit. We can use small-scale solar and wind, in-stream (non-dammed) hydro, geothermal, and other truly clean and renewable technologies to generate the energy we need right where it will be used, eliminating the colossal waste of energy lost in transmission. This is the way to a sustainable future for our children and future generations. This is the REAL public good.
Respectfully submitted,
Shel Horowitz
Hadley, MA
Author, Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green, Nuclear Lessons, and six other books.
