Category: Energy & Sustainability

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, Politics Tagged with , , ,

The latest sellout of progressives by the Obama administration is on the energy front. The plan announced in his speech today opens huge areas on the east coast and Alaska (click here for a map).

Even Nancy Pelosi is disgusted.

Here’s an open letter to Barack Obama, which I give permission to be reposted, circulated, reprinted, as long as the attribution remains intact.

President Obama, what happened to the bold young senator who understood that our future is not with fossil fuels, and not with nuclear? Our future, if we are to have a future, is in lowering our carbon footprint far beyond the puny standards you set out in Copenhagen, to the shock of a whole world willing to go much deeper. Our future is not in any way reliant on nuclear power…but it is very much aligned with protecting our environmental heritage, something to which you’ve dealt yet another crippling blow today.

On issue after issue, you disappoint. You sold us out on health care, on militarism, on controlling Wall Street, and now again you’ve sold us out on yet another energy issue (at least the third one).

President Obama, do NOT take our votes for granted. I wrote months ago that we would “have your” back if you pushed for the progressive agenda, the change you promised to bring. By the same token, we will desert you if you continue to desert us. Do you really want to align yourself with Sarah “Drill, Baby, Drill” Palin?

Sometimes, the lesser of evils, is still too evil to support. I do not believe you’re an evil man, but your policies, while not based in the malice and trickery of your predecessor, are getting too evil for me to go along with them.

Shel Horowitz is the primary author (with Jay Levinson) of Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green: Winning Strategies to Improve Your Profits and Your Planet

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, Ethics: General, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Politics, propaganda, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , ,

I got a call tonight from a survey company asking me questions about my views on various candidates for Massachusetts Governor, and then about various energy alternatives, and then the obvious real purpose: questions about my views on the large-scale wood-burning biomass projects proposed around the state (including three locations fairly close to me: Russell, Greenfield, and even densely populated Springfield), and a proposed bill to count only solar, wind and hydro as Green projects, excluding nukes and biofuels.

I think this gets an “award” for the most biased survey I’ve ever taken. First, the questioner determined that I was strongly opposed to the biomass plants—which are very bad on carbon footprint, not only from the burning of wood but also the massive deforestation and the huge amount of truck traffic they will generate. Wood is, indeed, a renewable resource. But it sure isn’t a clean one!

Then he asked questions like

  • Would it change your vote if you knew that although the Sierra Club and [I think] the Massachusetts Medical Society support the bill, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Associated Industries of Massachusetts, and AFL-CIO oppose this bill? [Very clever of them to throw in the environmental groups on the other side; my suspicions were not yet aroused. Later, I Googled and could find no such endorsement from UCS, although their research is cited by another group, here]
  • Would it change your vote if you knew that wood-biofuel plants are carbon neutral? [absolutely NOT true!]
  • Would it change your vote if you knew that Massachusetts has more forested land now than it did 100 years ago?

    • After these three biased questions that were clearly tilted toward counting me as an opponent of the bill, I stopped the guy and said I thought this was a survey, and not a blatant attempt to feed misinformation to me in an attempt to change my opinion. He said, “hey, I’m just reading the questions!” I said I understood that, but I didn’t appreciate being manipulated like this, and I ended the interview. My caller ID told me he had a 609 area code (New Jersey), incidentally.

    I am totally sure this so-called survey will be used to trumpet the citizens of Massachusetts’ supposed stance in favor of biofuels and against the proposed law. While the law’s definitions could be sharpened, I actually feel that eliminating nuclear power and large-scale wood-burning biomass plants from being counted in the progress toward a Green economy is a GOOD thing. And I’ll be directing my friends who are active in the anti-biofuel campaigns to this blog, so they can see exactly what their opponents are up to—sleazy and easily discredited “surveys” like this.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, Frugality/Frugal Fun Tagged with , , , ,

    I just found out today is World Water Day, which you can read about at https://liveearth.org/en/liveearthblog/celebrate-world-water-day.

    Water is something far too many of us take for granted, but I believe it will be one of the most important resource issues of the coming years—something that could actually dwarf oil in importance, over time. After all, we have many options to fuel our appliances, vehicles, factories, schools, and homes, among them solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, magnetism, flywheel power, etc. But without clean water, we die—end of story.

    Water is so important that I devote 28 of the 111 tips in my e-book Painless Green: 111 Tips to Help the Environment, Lower Your Carbon Footprint, Cut Your Budget, and Improve Your Quality of Life-With No Negative Impact on Your Lifestyle to conserving and handling water.

    I’ll give you one of those tips now, because it’s a really easy behavior to change and is one of the biggest residential wastes of water:

    #60. Wet the toothbrush with a small trickle of water, and then turn the water off! Turn it back on to rinse the toothpaste off the brush at the end. A family of four could save hundreds of gallons every month just from this simple trick.

    (You can get all 111 tips for the princely sum of $9.95 US).

    We need to look at our “water finprint” just as hard as we look at our carbon footprint. Start saving today.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability Tagged with , , , ,

    Judging by my life this week, the environmental movement is on a growth path:

  • Today, I leave for New York City, where I’ll be speaking tomorrow at the Go Green Expo—I’m speaking at 12:30 and then signing copies of my newest book, Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green.. Organizers are expecting 8000 people over the course of three days and the speakers roster includes Mariel Hemingway and Ed Begley, Jr. (Friday admission is free to people in business. If you’d like to attend the other two days for $10 instead of $25, use the promotional code NYSPEAKER.)
  • Yesterday, a man from Greece whom I met when we both spoke at a conference in Switzerland got me invited to speak at a conference in Romania. 20 years ago, such a conference would never have happened in that country.
  • Earlier in the week, I received news that a Turkish rights to republish Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green were sold (joining the Italian and audio rights that were already sold)
  • I’m in active negotiation to speak at two other large environmental events expected to attract thousands of people.

    • This is amazing growth for a movement that was still somewhat marginal even as recently as 2003. In 1980, a big environmental event like GoGreenExpo in New York would have been in someplace like the 92nd Street Y or New York University, and would have been expected to attract maybe 2000 people—if they did a really good job on publicity and didn’t charge admission.

    The other thing that’s changed in 20 years is the technology. It’s so much easier to go Green now, and you get a lot more for your money. Design improvements in alternative energy systems, as well as growing demand, have made a difference. It’s a very good time to go Green.

    And if you run a business that’s going Green and want to take full marketing advantage of your commitment, or if you’d like to make your business more green, you really should pick up a copy of the book. It costs less than $15 at some of the online discounters, and you get $2600 worth of extra goodies if you register your purchase at https://guerrillamarketinggoesgreen.com/bonuses

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability Tagged with , ,

    I’m speaking in NYC Friday 3/19 at GoGreenExpo’s Business Day. Business
    buyers get in free on Friday. If you’d like to attend Saturday and/or
    Sunday, here’s a discount code (gets you into the Architecture Fair
    also): visit https://www.gogreenexpo.com and use promo code NYSPEAKER when registering for tickets.

    My brief speech on Green Marketing is at 12:30, followed immediately by a book signing of Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green: Winning Strategies to Improve Your Profits and Your Planet (co-authored with Jay Conrad Levinson). Please say hi if you’re attending.

    Here’s the press release about the expo:

    You’re invited to NYC’s premier eco-friendly event, Go Green Expo, coming to Pier 92 next weekend March 19-21.

    Sponsored by CBS Television and co-located with the Architectural Digest Home Design Show, this year’s Go Green Expo is not to be missed! Go Green Expo invites business leaders, eco-minded consumers and their families to explore the latest in every aspect of green living and sustainable business practices including energy, home and building, transportation, electronics, food, and health & beauty.

    For more information and a full schedule of event, visit https://www.facebook.com/l/6d112;www.gogreenexpo.com and use promo code NYSPEAKER for discounted tickets – only $10 for the weekend and it includes complimentary access to the Architectural Digest Home Design Show! (normally $25)

    Joining the lineup of keynote speakers this year are actress Mariel Hemingway, award-winning actor / director Ed Begley Jr. (presented by Enviro-Energies & Water for Life) and award-winning actor / political activist Matthew Modine. Additional eco-celebrity speakers include nationally-renowned eco-friendly interior designer Robin Wilson, nutritional expert and world-class athlete Bobby Williams, Eco-Sex author Stefanie Iris Weiss, award-winning environmental journalist Dan Shapley, eco-author and -blogger Mindy Pennybacker, eco-fashion designer Linda Loudermilk, and more.

    Go Green Expo offers a multitude of interactive seminars and speaker panels led by industry-leading experts including Watershed Program Director Craig Michaels, Senior V.P. Worldwide of Rainforest Alliance Ana Paula Tavares, eco-business leader David Kistner of Green Apple Cleaners and founder / CEO of Go Green Expo, Bradford Rand. NYSERDA will be hosting a panel discussion discussing Workforce Development Initiatives, Green Jobs Green New York, Green Multifamily Buildings and Photovoltaic (PV) Systems. Other topics will include Success Stories of Eco-Entrepreneurs, Creating an Eco-Logical Home, Younger Generations Going Green, The State of Our Environment, and Eco-Fashion and Lifestyle.

    Key exhibitors include The Home Depot, which will showcase the array of Eco-Options available in its stores, automakers Volkswagen and General Motors, earth-friendly paper goods company Marcal, eco-responsible dental care company Aquafree, sustainable printers Print Responsibly and Linda Loudermilk’s eco-fashion line.

    For more information and a full schedule of the show’s events, please visit
    https://www.facebook.com/l/6d112;www.gogreenexpo.com

    WHERE AND WHEN:
    Pier 92
    Westside Highway at 55th Street
    https://www.facebook.com/l/6d112;www.piers9294.com

    Trade Day:
    Friday, March 19 from 10am – 7pm
    Tickets are complimentary to trade professionals, the press and corporate buyers (please bring business card for admission).

    Open to Public:
    Saturday, March 20 from 10 am – 6 pm
    Sunday, March 21 from 10 am – 5 pm

    $25 for a full-weekend pass—open to both business buyers and consumers—includes complimentary admission to the Architectural Digest Home Design Show located next to Go Green Expo. Use promo code GGENYC for discounted tickets.

    Tickets allow access to the entire exhibit floor as well as all panel and speaker discussions. Go Green Expo tickets at the door or online at https://www.facebook.com/l/6d112;www.gogreenexpo.com

    Looking forward to seeing you at the event!

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Advertising, Energy & Sustainability, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies Tagged with , , , , ,

    In the Great Advertising Debate, branding vs. direct response, I’ve always come down on the side of direct response. Every marketing message (not just ads) should have a call to action, a way of moving the reader/viewer/listener forward.

    With the Internet making it very easy to remove material from its original context and share it, I see a lost opportunity in this spoof ad by an environmental group attacking Royal Bank of Canada for its funding of highly polluting and environmentally destructive oil extraction from Canadian tar sands. Here is this stunning video, as flawlessly produced as anything from Madison Avenue.

    On the original page, the action is clear:

    Email RBC’s CEO Gordon Nixon and ask him to stop financing dirty tar sands oil and start funding a clean energy future.

    But inevitably, there will be versions of this video circulating by e-mail or posted on other websites. All they needed to do was have a slide at the end with the URL to take action. That chance will be lost. People will see this video, with no action step at the end, and they won’t know what to do about it. They’ll be a bit more educated on the issue, but will have no place to channel their new concern.

    Also, the letter text itself is another lost opportunity. Mired in passive language and bureaucratic tone, it takes some doing to extract (pun intentional) the actual message. Yes, there’s the opportunity to edit the letter, but the complete rewrite that’s called for will be too time consuming and most people won’t bother. I confess, I didn’t bother.

    Here’s the first paragraph; tar sands don’t even come up until paragraph 2:

    Amidst an unprecedented transformation in the banking sector, RBC clings to the outdated idea that social responsibility is separate from core banking activities. This letter is to encourage you to update its social and environmental practices to meet modern standards.

    This was probably a deliberate choice, to talk to a banker in banker’s language. But I think it’s a wrong choice. I’d have gone for a much more direct lead, like

    RBC’s continued funding of environmentally devastating tar sands oil extraction is not acceptable to stakeholders, and won’t be acceptable in the courts.

    I’m going to use the email contact on their website to send these suggestions, so the page may have been fixed by the time you see it. If so, more power to them. I think Rainforest Action Network does great work, and my goal is to educate, not to embarrass. I’m dong it publicly because I see many worthwhile messages and opportunities similarly lost in the inability to step out of the branding mindset. Next time you send out a political action message, I hope your call to action will be clear and thoroughly integrated.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability Tagged with , ,

    Some good news on page one of my morning paper: In Vermont, the only state that gives the legislature a voice in nuclear plant licensing, the state Senate has rebuffed an attempt by Vermont Yankee to relicense the aging and long-troubled N-plant for another 20 years, after its license expires in 2012.

    The vote was 26 to 4—not exactly close, and to me, living less than 40 miles from the plant, that big margin provides substantial comfort. The plant’s owner, Entergy, would have to work pretty hard to get a majority.

    All the way back to the 1970s when it was new, Vermont Yankee was named “one of the 10 worst nukes in the country” in No Nukes, by Anna Gyorgy et al (South End Press, p. 106)—a book that I used heavily in researching my own 1980 book on nuclear power and still consider the definitive work on the subject. According to Gyorgy, Vermont Yankee reported 39 “abnormal occurrences” in 1973 alone, and was shut down 17 times during a 19-month period.

    Vermont Yankee was only a year old when it had those 39 incidents. Consider this: Nuclear plants do not age gracefully. The corrosive effects of high-level radiation and a toxic chemical stew, on top of normal aging and fatigue, inevitably lead to severe problems. Parts crack, pipes leak, systems fail—and the public’s health and safety are put at risk.

    And like so many nuclear plants around the world, the plant is located near a border, so that other states share any potential catastrophe. In the far southeast corner of the state, the plant sits on the Connecticut River directly across from New Hampshire, is about three miles north of Massachusetts (a ten-minute bike ride). Activists in these adjoining states have used the slogan, “Radiation without Representation.” (Ask the citizens of Denmark how they feel about the Swedish nuclear power plant directly across the Orsund that threatens their nuclear-free country.)

    Vermont Yankee has continued to be plagued with problems. Recently, to name one among many examples, it’s been spewing huge levels of radioactive tritium into the water—at 130 times the safety standard :

    Since then, the levels of contamination found in some wells has risen dramatically. The federal safety standard for tritium in drinking water is 20,000 picocuries per liter, but water from one monitoring well measured nearly 2.6 million picocuries per liter.

    Dr. William E. Irwin, the radiological health chief for the Vermont Department of Health, said Thursday that tritium has not yet been detected in the nearby Connecticut River, but it probably has reached it.

    Not extending the license is indeed a people’s victory. Closing, once and for all, this dangerous plant that should have been shuttered decades ago is long overdue. And President Obama would do well to reconsider his ill-advised push for nukes.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Energy & Sustainability, poverty Tagged with , , ,

    You’d think, by 2010, with some 50 years of bad experience, that the question of nuclear power’s suitability would have been settled long ago. You’d think that anyone with a lick of sense would have figured out that nuclear power brings with it enormous risks to…

  • Health
  • Safety
  • Environmental contamination
  • Vulnerability to terrorism (and in order to protect against that, major threats to our civil liberties
  • Unreliability
  • Economic disaster (including significant danger of default by utilities on our US government investment)
  • Vast power losses in the course of mining, milling, fuel rod production, transmission, and waste processing (including transportation)–turning the industry, by some accounts, into a net consumer of energy

    Yet President Barack Obama announced $8.33 billion in loan guarantees to build two new nuclear power plants in Georgia, and projects another $36 billion in the 2011 budget, or enough for seven to 10 reactors.

    Nuclear power is something I know something about. I did a major research project on it in college, and several years later, wrote first a monthly column, and then my first book on it. Yes, the new plants would be a new and better design—but not better enough!

    You cannot convince me that the waste products can be safely isolated from the environment for a quarter of a million years (think—pretty much the oldest human artifacts in existence are only 1/10 as old)…that centralizing so much energy, and the powerful, highly toxic fuels that power these plants, does not present unacceptable risk at the hands of our enemies, who could create a disaster that made 9/11 look like a fender bender…that driving these toxic stews around the country doesn’t present grave risks just from normal everyday road behavior…that these plants with their terrible reliability record, frequent outages, gross safety violations, and multiple complexities of power generation, plumbing, electricity, and computer systems can be expected to solve our energy problem…that the nuclear power system as a whole, with its dirty mining and milling, its very imperfect waste processing, its reliance on transportation of dangerous substances over very long distances is going to significantly lower either our carbon footprint, our emissions, or our power needs.

    Nuclear power is not necessary. It is not sensible. It opens great risks for small returns that can be much more easily achieved in other ways. It is a gift to the terrorists, a robbery from the taxpayers, a diversion of resources away from better and far more proven technologies that could meet all of our energy needs safely, and a serious threat to the well-being of future generations.

    This “plan” must be stopped.

    • Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Advertising, Energy & Sustainability, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies Tagged with , ,

    Tonight I was reviewing the PowerPoint for the talk on Green Marketing I’m giving next week in Davos, Switzerland. And I was struck yet again by the big case study in my talk: a company that has been producing products from recycled paper for 60 years, but only bothered to tell anyone within the last decade.

    What a marketing advantage they would have had, if they had made this commitment the centerpiece of their marketing–especially in the old days, when it was hard to find recycled paper goods at any price, and their pricepoint was competitive with non-recycled brands.

    Instead, they actually went bankrupt before the turnaround management team rebranded the company and emphasized saving a million trees.

    The lesson: if you’re gong to do the right thing, harness the marketing leverage it gives you! This is something I discuss extensively in my eighth book, Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green: Winning Strategies to Improve Your Profits and Your Planet (co-authored with Jay Conrad Levinson), BTW.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Energy & Sustainability, People Helping People, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,

    It must have been somewhere around 1986, in the early days of my business, that I first encountered the work of Paul and Sarah Edwards, gurus to the home-based business sector that was just beginning to take off back then. I’ve been home-based since I founded my company in 1981, so their message resonated.

    I’ve been corresponding with Paul recently, and am very excited by something they’re into now: Offering the “Elm Street” economy as an alternative to both Wall Street and Main Street.

    Elm Street, in most communities, is typically in a residential neighborhood. In Northampton, Massachusetts (the closest Elm Street to my house), it’s a graceful, tree-lined boulevard of large Victorian-era homes.

    As Paul and Sarah Edwards describe it, an Elm Street economy is also firmly rooted in sustainability, at multiple levels:

    It’s a local economy, composed of locally-owned and locally-financed enterprises, industries, and independent practitioners who are invested in bringing long-term well-being to all living there, including nature. It’s focus is on working together to create dependable, environmentally sustainable way of life that bring basic services, products, and resilience back to our local communities.

    Local Economy
    Be it in a city neighborhood, a suburban sub-division, a small town or rural community, the Elm Street Economy is coming to life. It may look a little different from locale to locale, with urban Elm Street communities growing food on rooftops instead of backyards, for example, but wherever they might be located, they can flourish due to values and characteristics symbolized in this logo.

    • Local production of food, renewable energy and goods.

    • Local development of commerce, government and culture.

    • Reduction of consumption while improving environmental and social
    concerns.

    • Being an exemplary working model for other communities when the effects
    of decline of the existing economy and our natural resources becomes more
    intense.

    In short, very much aligned with the values I’ve been espousing for years, in this blog, in my books, in my speeches, and elsewhere.
    The Edwards’ vision of the Elm Street economy, and their analysis, go far deeper than what I’ve quoted here. Go and read it.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail