Carmen, Costa Rica: A banana tree is a graceful thing, especially when it gets old and tall. Thousands of acres of bananas may look beautiful, but to me, the vast plantation was the most depressing place I saw in Costa Rica.

Carmen is a company town. Both Del Monte and Chiquita have facilities there, and the banana fields stretch for miles, broken only by thin strips of border plantings separating the fields from the roads and from each other, or by the drab company houses and the packaging facilities.

Most of our trip around Costa Rica has involved protected wilderness areas, and we’ve seen what bananas look like in nature; they grow a few here and there amidst the astounding biodiversity of the rainforest. Thousands of trees in orderly rows would not be found in nature.

A nearby organic farmer told us that this kind of monoculture requires enormous amounts of pesticides and herbicides. Not so good for the planet in this country that prides itself on its eco-consciousness.

That claim is somewhat at odds with what we observed and heard. Yes, the country has done a great job on land preservation, putting aside 25 percent of the country as protected areas. But we saw a lot of people applying pesticides (usually not wearing protective gear) on the fields along the roadsides. We saw almost no organic products in the stores. And a coffee merchant told us that hardly anyone rows organically because the yields are too small (something that’s even more true on a biodiverse farm, where farmers have to harvest different crops in small amounts and develop markets willing to take those small amounts). My guess is that in such a humid climate, it’s really hard to keep the pests down. Even the much smaller banana farms we saw protected the fruit from animals and insects with blue plastic bags (which then make it much easier to harvest the fruit, too.

And then there’s the matter of conditions for the workers. We met someone who had interviewed some of them, and she told us the spraying is done aerially and the workers are unprotected. They work 11-hour shifts with no break and get paid strictly on piecework.

I understand now why I once heard an interview with Barbara Kingsolver, promoting her wonderful locavore book, Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, about eating locally. She said, “some of my friends gave up meat to make the world better. I gave up bananas.”

I’ve been buying only organic bananas for a few years; I think I need to find a source for bananas that are not only organic, but fair trade. The way they are grown commercially is not sustainable, and doesn’t make me feel very good.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

This letter, except for the first paragraph (which I added), was just sent out by the Nuclear Information and Resource Center. You can also call your Rep at 202-224-3121. Note that this page is keyed to me. Scroll down about a half a screen and then click “if you are not Shel”–before you fill in the petition, especially if you’re modifying the text.

If you’re not familiar with the many problems with nuclear power, do a search in this blog on “nuclear”

Dear Representative,

Nuclear power is NOT Green, has serious environmental and security problems, and should not be supported. If we learn nothing else from the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico–we should know not to put our faith in dangerous technologies when people think they can figure out a fix AFTER something goes wrong.

I have learned that the House Appropriations Committee may take up the FY 2011 energy and water funding bill next week.

I understand the Department of Energy is seeking additional funding for new nuclear reactor loans in this bill: a whopping $36 Billion increase for construction of new reactors, That’s taxpayer money that would go to some of the wealthiest companies in the world, companies like Electricite de France, Areva, NRG Energy, Toshiba, General Electric, and the like.

As you may know, these loan “guarantees” are actually taxpayer loans from the Federal Financing Bank. This is not the time to shell out billions more taxpayer dollars for the benefit of one special interest industry.

Please act to ensure that NO new loan “guarantee” authority for nuclear reactors is provided in the FY 2011 energy funding bill. Please tell your colleagues on the Appropriations Committee that they should vote no on new nuclear power loans.

Thank you,

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

What would be the mission of an international trade association for Green marketers? In launching the International Association of Earth-Conscious Marketers, here’s what I hope we’ll be focused on:

1. To use our skills in marketing and our commitment to ethical approaches to create messages that encourage the use of earth-friendly products and services, and the rapid spread and adoption of earth-conscious ideas into the social mainstream.

2. To identify and oppose (both publicly and privately) messages and methods that claim to be Green but are actually harmful to the environment and/or misleading to stakeholders and/or the general public. (Need an example? Read more »

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Yesterday’s post dealt with measuring accomplishment to qualify for membership in the International Association of Earth-Conscious Marketers; today’s is about behavior.

Negative Screens (WHAT AM I LEAVING OUT? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section)
Read more »

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Membership in the International Association of Earth-Conscious Marketers will not be open to anyone who claims to be Green. To provide value in the membership, members need to pass both accomplishment-based standards (employment, education/training, and/or volunteer work) and behavioral screens. We’ll talk about accomplishments today, and screens tomorrow

Here are some I’m thinking about:Read more »

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

As noted in yesterday’s #blog30 posts, I’m using my participation in the seven-day subset of Jeannette Cates’ 30-day blog challenge to flesh out (and get feedback on) ideas for the trade association I am going to start, serving environmentally oriented marketers around the world: International Association of Earth-Conscious Marketers.

Today, I’d like to ask you what roles would be most important for members.

I’ve thought of a few possibilities—and I’d love to hear from you which you think are most important, whether I’ve left out anything crucial, whether any of them are just dumb..whatever you’d like to tell me:Read more »

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

For decades, going back to the 1970s, I’ve had two major passions in my life: making the world better (with a particular focus on environmental activism, land-use planning, and the safe energy movement) and marketing/writing. In fact, my earliest published articles were the coverage of peace and environment demonstrations that I wrote for a high school underground newspaper back in 1972, when I was a 15-year-old student. And one of the first articles I sold as a freelancer, in 1977, was coverage of the Seabrook nuclear power station site occupation and the arrest/incarceration of 1414 protesters—including me.

For most of my career, these two passions were both active, but separate. Starting in late 1999, when I formed a group called Save the Mountain to protect the Mount Holyoke Range (near my home in Western Massachusetts) from the desecration of a large housing development, they began to come together. That campaign, running from the housing project’s announcement in November 1999 to our victory in December 2000, harnessed together everything I knew about organizing for social change AND everything I knew about marketing. And also taught me how much I still needed to learn, as we had people in our large group who knew far more than I did about such tactics as lobbying government officials, working with lawyers, and successful visibility marketing.

I wrote about that campaign in my 2003 book, Principled Profit, and I also included sections on various Green visionaries and the kind of world I want to live in. And I began to discover that there were plenty of other people like me who shared those two passions of Green and marketing. This really accelerated in 2010, with the publication by a mainstream house of my eighth book, Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green: Winning Strategies to Improve Your Profits and Your Planet (co-authored with Jay Conrad Levinson). All of a sudden, I’m finding Green marketers everywhere—and most of them feel very alone.

As carbon footprint, global warming (what an innocuous name for such a dreadful phenomenon) and similar issues have finally reached a critical mass to come into mainstream consciousness, the time seems ripe to move our threatened planet forward. And marketers have to be there, leading the charge, marshaling public opinion, and moving from consciousness that we need to save the planet to actually doing it. I envisioned an organization that would not only provide support to each other, but stake out advocacy positions that would enable governments, businesses, nonprofits, and the public to go more Green and do it faster.

Getting this right will take some thinking and planning, and I hope you’ll weigh in with your ideas. Tomorrow, I’ll tell you more. Meanwhile, if you’d like to be on the notification list, you can leave your e-mail address on the “coming soon” website I’ve set up.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

My friend Paul Krupin of Direct Contact PR sent me this memo from the Deepwater Horizon recovery team. Even if the Gulf of Mexico weren’t drowning in BP’s oil–a situation in which you’d expect the form letters would at least act grateful for the advice–this is one of the worst examples of corporate messaging I’ve ever seen.

From: horizon.support@oegllc.com [mailto:horizon.support@oegllc.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 10:08 AM
Subject: An Important Message from Horizon Support

Dear Paul Krupin,

Thank you for your submission to the Alternative Response Technology (ART)
process for the Deepwater Horizon MC252 incident. Your submission has been
reviewed for its technical merits.

It has been determined that your idea falls into one of the following ART
categories: Already Considered/Planned, Not Feasible, or Not Possible, and
therefore will not be advanced for further evaluation. To date, we have
received over 80,000 submissions with each submission receiving individual
consideration and priority based on merit and need.

BP and Horizon Deepwater Unified Command appreciate your contribution
and interest in responding to this incident.

Michael J. Cortez
Technical Manager
Alternative Response Technology Team
Deepwater Horizon Call Center – Houston, TX

Tell me what you think (in the comment space below. Then scroll down to see what I think.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Here’s what I think it’s bureaucratic, it’s off-message, it’s downright snotty, it doesn’t even mention the specific idea submitted before dismissing it, and it doesn’t even give a brief recap of what else they’re trying or why the submitted plan doesn’t work. Oh yeah, and how about that highly specific and targeted subject line NOT? If this came to my mailbox, I’d have assumed it was spam. Eeeeeeew! Couple this with the combination of hubris, selfishness, corner-cutting, and cluelessness shown by BP from Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg and CEO Tony Hayward on down, and it doesn’t paint a pretty PR picture. Is there any wonder the company’s lost half its market cap? They don’t give much confidence in their ability to solve the problem, their understanding of why this is important, and the steps they might be taking to make sure it doesn’t happen again at a different well.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

On June 1, I wrote an op-ed expressing the hope that President Obama would use the Gulf spill disaster as a platform to launch a major push toward sustainability (you didn’t read it here because I submitted it first to the New York Times and then to Newsweek, neither of which published it). Last night’s Oval Office speech was definitely a step in the right direction.

Here’s my article on the speech I’d hoped to hear, followed by the relevant portion of what he actually said:

MY ARTICLE:
The Energy Speech Obama Needs to Make—But Won’t

If ever there was a “teachable moment” around energy, the devastation spewing out of BP’s Deepwater Horizon into the Gulf of Mexico is it. The disaster provides an opportunity to move away from unproven technologies whose failure can be catastrophic.

President Obama hinted at this with his recent speech on the Gulf:

More than anything else, this economic and environmental tragedy— and it’s a tragedy—underscores the urgent need for this nation to develop clean, renewable sources of energy. Doing so will not only reduce threats to our environment, it will create a new, homegrown, American industry that can lead to countless new businesses and new jobs.

We’ve talked about doing this for decades, and we’ve made significant strides over the last year when it comes to investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency. The House of Representatives has already passed a bill that would finally jumpstart a permanent transition to a clean energy economy, and there is currently a plan in the Senate—a plan that was developed with ideas from Democrats and Republicans—that would achieve the same goal.

If nothing else, this disaster should serve as a wake-up call that it’s time to move forward on this legislation. It’s time to accelerate the competition with countries like China, who have already realized the future lies in renewable energy. And it’s time to seize that future ourselves. So I call on Democrats and Republicans in Congress, working with my administration, to answer this challenge once and for all.

This is good, as far as it goes. But unfortunately, cautious soul that he is, President Obama seems incapable of taking this conversation to the much deeper level we need. Here’s the speech I’ve been hoping to hear for over a month:

“Fellow Americans—and fellow citizens of the world. My heart is heavy as I look out over the Gulf of Mexico and watch the cancer of toxic oil slowly wash up on the beaches of our Gulf States. We have had a tragedy…a catastrophe.

“Only too recently, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita wreaked their own devastation on the shores of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama.

“And now, just as those communities in the Gulf region were slowly returning to normalcy, their world is once again turned upside down.

“But unlike the disaster of 2005, this calamity was not a force of nature. This catastrophe was caused by human arrogance and the human actions. Untested technologies that were never guaranteed to work at depths of a mile or more…and unproven recovery plans in the event something went wrong…combined to wreak havoc.

“This kind of human hubris, to build first and figure out how to deal with it later, has marred progress far too often. Remember the ‘unsinkable’ Titanic? The nearly catastrophic nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island, Browns Ferry, and Enrico Fermi—and Chernobyl? The series of coal mining disasters that have robbed families of their loved ones and breadwinners? And yes, the Exxon Valdez oil spill?

“This crisis blackens our sky and our water. But even as the spilled oil brings literal darkness, there’s one bright spot: the certainty that we must find a different way to power our great factories and offices, our snug homes, and our amazing transportation system. We have the technical knowledge to implement a rapid transition toward safe, renewable, nonpolluting technologies. But until now, we haven’t had the will.

“Following World War II, Europe was a shambles. Buildings had been bombed, infrastructure destroyed, and populations were displaced. Into the void came a beacon of hope: The Marshall Plan—a partnership with Europe to rebuild the devastated continent, even our recent enemies.

“Today, we must once more rise to the challenge. We must turn away from highly centralized, highly dangerous energy collection and generation systems—vulnerable to accidents, terrorists, and to being held hostage by the institutions that control those energy resources.

“Just as we rebuilt Europe, we can create a Marshall-Plan-style push toward true sustainability based on solar, wind, small-scale (non-disruptive) hydro, geothermal, conservation, and other technologies that generate power where it is needed, using methods that don’t pollute, that reduce our carbon footprint, and that can succeed or fail without risking catastrophic systemic and ecological collapse.

“John F. Kennedy brought us to the moon in less than ten years. In the next ten years, we will surpass even that fantastic achievement. Government prime-the-pump investments will create economies of scale and slash prices. Grants, tax incentives and pubic-private partnerships like rent-to-own solar systems and deep-energy retrofits will vastly, rapidly reduce our dependence on polluting, carbon-emitting fossil fuels—by 66 to 90 percent—remove the threat of catastrophic nuclear accidents that could dwarf the spills in the Gulf of Mexico and the waters off Alaska. And we will do this while creating tens of thousands of new jobs, and without sacrificing the American way of life. In fact, we will bring the poor out of poverty, at home and around the world.

“For the good of America, for the good of the world, and for the good of each and every one of us, our children, our grandchildren, and the generations yet to be born…I ask you to join with me on charting, once and for all, a sustainable future. Thank you.”

What the President Actually Said Last Night
The president’s remarks were a significant move forward from the mild and infirm rhetoric of two weeks earlier (you can see a video of the whole 17-minute speech here). This is the section of the June 15 speech relating to alternative energy, and I’ve bolded the parts that most echo my draft speech:

So one of the lessons we’ve learned from this spill is that we need better regulations, better safety standards, and better enforcement when it comes to offshore drilling. But a larger lesson is that no matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days entails greater risk. After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean — because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.

For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we’ve talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked — not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.

The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be right here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.

We cannot consign our children to this future.

The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America’s innovation and seize control of our own destiny.

This is not some distant vision for America. The transition away from fossil fuels is going to take some time, but over the last year and a half, we’ve already taken unprecedented action to jumpstart the clean energy industry. As we speak, old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines, people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows, and small businesses are making solar panels. Consumers are buying more efficient cars and trucks, and families are making their homes more energy-efficient. Scientists and researchers are discovering clean energy technologies that someday will lead to entire new industries.

Each of us has a part to play in a new future that will benefit all of us. As we recover from this recession, the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs -– but only if we accelerate that transition. Only if we seize the moment. And only if we rally together and act as one nation –- workers and entrepreneurs; scientists and citizens; the public and private sectors.
When I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence. Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill –- a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses.

Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And there are some who believe that we can’t afford those costs right now. I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy -– because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.

So I’m happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party -– as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. Some have suggested raising efficiency standards in our buildings like we did in our cars and trucks. Some believe we should set standards to ensure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power. Others wonder why the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high-tech industry does on research and development -– and want to rapidly boost our investments in such research and development.

This is more than I actually expected from Obama. Is it enough? Of course not. Is it a huge step in the right direction? You betcha.

And now it’s up to us, the American people, to make sure he keeps his word on this, and to give him the political support he will need to push these measures through a divided Congress and not be whittled away to practically nothing the way health reform was. And to do so in ways that close the door to technologies we don’t want to see developed. Getting us off fossil fuels doesn’t mean using dirty wood-fired biomass plants, and it doesn’t mean nuclear—a technology potentially far more catastrophic than deep-water offshore oil drilling. It means solar, wind, small-scale (on-intrusive) hydro, geothermal, and of course, conservation.

Let’s get it done!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Recent stories in the New York Times make it clear that Attorney General Eric Holder should be “sharpening his saw” (as Abraham Lincoln said).

BP deliberately chose to use a high-risk sealing method in the days before the blast, and ignored warnings that things were going deeply awry, the paper reports.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail