The more I learn about biodiesel, the less convinced I am that it is anything more than a temporary feel-good “solution” with problems of its own.

Keep in mind that oil and coal are biofuels: when we burn them, we are burning fossilized plant matter from ages long past.

I don’t have a problem with biodiesel that uses waste oil from fast food restaurants, etc. But when crops are grown to be converted to energy–and that’s what will happen if there’s large-scale conversion to biodiesel–there are a number of issues. To name a few:

  • Corn grown for energy displaces corn grown to feed both humans and animals, and that could mean spiraling dairy prices, among other things
  • Transportation and processing issues, including fuel consumed, increased truck traffic, and greenhouse gases/toxic wastes emitted, are usually not factored in
  • Soybean plantations for energy, for soy-based “environmentally responsible” inks, and so forth, are a major cause of rainforest destruction in Brazil (if that sounds far out, look at this article in National Geographic–not known for its alarmist visions, but known widely for its accuracy in reporting)
  • As for carbon credits, I never liked them, any more than I liked the pollution credits of 20 years ago. They are nothing more than a license to pollute. While buying carbon offsets is certainly better than not buying them, bringing down the level of pollution and greenhouse emissions and global warming impact are better strategies to me than polluting and paying.

    I do think massive tree planning is a good thing, and if the offset programs enable that, it’s a start. But think of the environmental impact of buying a tiny and fuel efficient car instead of a Hummer–or better yet, walking or biking or taking public transit.

    So what are the truly Green approaches? Conservation and solar, for sure. Wind, geothermal, and small-scale hydro (especially approaches that don’t actually dam the stream), if done correctly. And little lifestyle changes that minimize resource use.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    The well-known sustainable business guru Paul Hawken recently wrote that the presence of a decentralized and not-even-connected movement for environmental is not only a powerful force for change, but one for which there’s no precedent.

    Hawken actually tried to quantify the number of organizations working to adopt a river, or ease world hunger, or work for peace, or a whole lot of other causes. Small, grassroots groups–collectively numbering about two million organizations, and thus tens of millions of people. There’s no overal leader, no single agenda–but he sees these splintered fractions coming together as a definable movement for environmental and social justice, and having enormous impact.

    The promise of this unnamed movement is to offer solutions to what appear to be insoluble dilemmas: poverty, global climate change, terrorism, ecological degradation, polarization of income, loss of culture. It is not burdened with a syndrome of trying to save the world; it is trying to remake the world…

    And I believe it will prevail. I don’t mean defeat, conquer, or cause harm to someone else. And I don’t tender the claim in an oracular sense. I mean the thinking that informs the movement’s goal—to create a just society conducive to life on Earth—will reign. It will soon suffuse and permeate most institutions. But before then, it will change a sufficient number of people so as to begin the reversal of centuries of frenzied self-destruction.

    As someone who has been involved with grassroots movements since I was 12 or 13, I think he’s right. In fact, in my award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First, I devote an entire chapter to the intersection of marketing and social change. I even included a case study about one social movement I started that defeated an extremely inappropriate development proposal–when all the “experts” said, “oh, this is terrible but there’s nothing we can do.” Well, we got thousands of people involved–and beat the “unstoppable” thing in just 13 months. (Note: the website hasn’t been updated in years–but it was a vital tool during the campaign.)

    Starting that movement is something I will always feel is one of my greatest accomplishments.

    There are a couple of books I want to write about the power of people to create social and environmental justice–and peace. In the meantime, I’m planning to start a high-level Internet discussion group for marketers who want to create social and environmental transformation. If you’re interested, comment here (with a way of getting in touch) or drop me a note at shel [at] principledprofit.com, subject line: Social Change Marketer Group (if you don’t hear back from me, check in again–email isn’t as reliable as it used to be!

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    Fedco, a cooperatively owned seed company–founded in Maine back in 1978 and specializing in serving organic growers–found itself facing an ethical dilemma when Monsanto, a company known for its experiments in genetic engineering and aggressive filing of intellectual property claims (criminalizing farmers for saving seed, even) announced it was going to buy its and best largest supplier, Seminis.

    Noted for its aggressive advocacy of genetically modified crops and its dominance in biotechnology, Monsanto will now have a major presence in the vegetable seed business for the first time. No one knows if or when they will incorporate transgenes into their vegetable varieties.

    The Monsanto buyout presented us with a serious ethical dilemma. In striving to carry the best possible varieties at reasonable prices, we have based our selections largely on the merits of the varieties, rarely on our supplier preferences. Could we be purveyors of Monsanto products and still sleep well at night? Many of our customers have depended upon Seminis’ good genetics. However much we may think we require these varieties in the short run, they come at a devastating social cost, ultimately the complete alienation of sower from seed.

    Fedco explained a bit about Monsanto and asked its customers to choose among several options, ranging from coding the Monsanto products in its catalog to eliminating them entirely. The membership overwhelmingly voted for immediate withdrawal. So, before the merger was consummated, Fedco bought a year’s worth of Seminis seeds and announced that there wouldn’t be any more.

    Will this cause a hardship? Yes. But the company has taken a principled position that I suspect will ultimately help–and the year of product it bought will buy time to experiment with different suppliers, different seed varieties.

    The company’s statement on this is well worth reading. I hope to get permission to post the whole thing, but in the meanwhile, just follow the link.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    In the ‘who would’ve thunk it’ department. George W. Bush’s Crawford ranch turns out to be a model of environmental sustainability. And the surprisingly modest structure was built since he bought the property.

    I must say I was pleasantly shocked to read that the Bushes employ such forward-thinking technologies as geothermal heating and cooling, landscaping designed to keep the house cool in summer and warm in winter, even graywater recycling.

    Under a gravel border around the house, a concrete gutter channels the water into a 25,000-gallon cistern for irrigation. In hot weather, a terrace directly above the cistern is a little cooler than the surrounding area.

    Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground — one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called “gray water,” and one tank for “black water” from the kitchen sink and toilets. The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater. It is used to irrigate flower gardens, newly planted trees and a larger flower and herb garden behind the two-bedroom guesthouse. Water for the house comes from a well.

    .

    Oh yes, and the funniest line in the whole article: a quote from the home’s architect, David Heymann:

    “We’ve got a lot of economies in the house,” he says, noting the Bushes may be wealthy, but they are “frugal people.”

    It takes a lot to get me to say Bravo to George W. Bush–but this house deserves a whole round of Bravos. And it deserves to be a model for the rest of the country; why is he keeping it such a secret?

    So…my question for Mr. Bush–if in your own private personal life you make such great choices, if you’re aware that the earth’s own technologies can provide all our energy needs–why is your own energy policy such an unmitigated disaster? You’re pushing disastrous technologies like nuclear, fossil fuels that get us into wars…and meanwhile you’ve quite properly created a private dwelling that uses only a tiny fraction of that used by a conventional house. In other words, you know from your own experience that all the green technologies you’ve been dissing and dismissing actually work.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    Sunil Paul has a great blog entry about how he chose to get involved with environmental technology companies first and foremost to help “green” the world, and only secondarily to make profit. The profits, of course, followed.

    My favorite paragraph:

    But it doesn’t have to be a choice between social and economic goals. Clean energy is like the love child of John Muir and Adam Smith. It joins environmentalism with capitalism. Cleantech companies have great value not captured by the price of the good or service. Their entire business model generates excess social return. In addition, the energy market is huge, and is ripe for change – and so the opportunity for profits is tremendous.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    Among some very intelligent calls, such as the inventor of the life-saving MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) technology, the National Inventors Hall of Fame has named John E. Franz, inventor of the herbicide Roundup.

    Pardon me while I puke.

    Roundup has been linked to cancer and many other diseases, as well as some severe pollution issues:

    Roundup is toxic to earthworms, beneficial insects, birds and mammals, plus it destroys the vegetation on which they depend for food and shelter. Although Monsanto claims that Roundup breaks down into harmless substances, it has been found to be extremely persistent, with residue absorbed by subsequent crops over a year after application. Roundup shows adverse effects in all standard categories of toxicological testing, including medium-term toxicity, long-term toxicity, genetic damage, effects on reproduction, and carcinogenicity.

    This kind of “fame” we can do without. Infamy is more like it.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    I’m a frequent reader of Chris MacDonald’s Business Ethics Blog, and through Chris, I found Joel Makower’s list of Top Green Business Stories of 2006.

    This is must reading for those interested in sustainability and how the business world addresses it/markets around it.

    Chris himself explored one of those 10 issues, Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    Fascinating article in the New York Times about changing zoning trends regarding parking in urban cores, and especially near transit stations.

    Although condominiums without parking are common in Manhattan and the downtowns of a few other East Coast cities, they are the exception to the rule in most of the country. In fact, almost all local governments require developers to provide a minimum number of parking spaces for each unit — and to fold the cost of the space into the housing price.

    The exact regulations, which are intended to prevent clogged streets and provide sufficient parking, vary by city. Houston’s code requires a minimum of 1.33 parking spaces for a one-bedroom and 2 spaces for a three-bedroom. Downtown Los Angeles mandates 2.25 parking spaces per unit, regardless of size.

    Today, city planners around the country are trying to change or eliminate these standards, opting to promote mass transit and find a way to lower housing costs.

    As a New York city native who used to draw my proposed extensions to the subway system in my spare time, I’ve always been a strong advocate of public transit (and of bicycle commuting), and one of my only regrets about moving to our wonderful house in the country is that a car is essential to get anywhere. Neither mass transit nor bike is a realistic commuting option with the steep hills, narrow shoulders, and high vehicle speeds along our road, though in special circumstances I do bike to get someplace once in a while. And of course, I work from home but I still have to drive my son to school. And my wife and I ill sometimes go through many hoops in order to coordinate our schedules so we only need to take one car to get places.

    Many cities are well set up for public transit. Even in car-crazy L.A., I’ve found it easy to get around on buses and trains. And in New York, Boston, or Washington, I’ve usually found it actually easier to get around on transit than by car–although Washington’s case is peculiar, where extending the Metro resulted in an ugly pattern of car-centered retail development, and accompanying gridlock, along the suburban rail corridors. In most of Europe, of course, transit is the expectation and private car commuting is an option exercised by only a small fraction. Even very small cities, such as Rostock, Germany, have a well-developed and much-used public transit network.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    Since 1974, I’ve been deeply concerned about the economic, safety, and environmental hazards of nuclear power generation. It was the subject of my first book, published in 1980.

    Today’s edition of my local paper, the Daily Hampshire Gazette, reported that three nuclear plants were awarded a combined total of $143 million in a court judgment, because the federal government has broken its contract to remove the waste.

    The article is subscription-only, but here’s an excerpt:

    It also could foreshadow a series of additional financial awards to operators of reactors nationwide who have argued the federal government broke contractual agreements that promised the waste would be taken away by 1998.

    The award, granted by Court of Claims Judge James Merow on Saturday, was unsealed Wednesday.

    It gives $32.9 million in damages to Yankee Atomic Electric Co., operator of the former Yankee Rowe reactor in Massachusetts; $34.1 million to Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co., operator of Connecticut Yankee reactor, and $75.8 million to Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co., operator of the Maine Yankee reactor.

    Note that first paragraph. As a taxpayer, I am far from enthusiastic about a long series of payouts to nuclear utilities.

    The reason the feds can’t take the waste is they have nowhere to put it, and that’s in large part because there is no safe way to store the stuff for tens of thousands of years, and that’s what would be required. So it’s not surprising that local activists don’t want a waste dump shoved down their throats. This was true even before anyone thought they might be a terrorist target.

    ‘Nuff said–shut ’em down!

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    It’s not some flaming leftist saying this. George W. Bush himself, according to the Reuters newswire, told a German paper,

    “I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound (3.402 kilos) perch in my lake,” he told the newspaper in an interview published on Sunday.

    Pretty sad. An administration so disgraceful, so scandal-ridden, such a failure in both policy and operations that even the president can’t think of anything he’s proud of.

    Georgie, my boy, let me prod your memory a bit–I can think of at least a few proud moments:

  • In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, you made a conscious and I believe sincere effort to distinguish between the terrorists and ordinary Muslims and Arabs. Of course, that didn’t stop various government agencies from coming down very hard on those communities, imprisoning people on spurious grounds, etc.
  • In one of your State of the Union addresses, you advocated hydrogen cars–a good thing, if designed in ways that foster sustainability and independence from the big oil companies. I think that was the same year your State of the Union speech honored Rosa Parks, who was in the audience.
  • And finally, in the very recent past you’ve said we must end our oil addiction. I’d like to think you’re sincere about that, and that you’ll follow up that statement with a significant infusion of R&D money into solar, wind, geothermal, even biodiesel (but not nuclear, for heaven’s sake). In the nearly two years left in your administration, you could go down in history as the president who solarized America–a rather better legacy than catching a fish!

    Your real legacy to date, however, is a lot less positive. To bring up just a handful of the many, many low points:

  • Lying repeatedly to get us into a stupid, stupid war in Iraq
  • Leaving New Orleans to drown
  • Doing nothing to prevent 9/11 even though evidence strongly suggests the attack was widely known, in advance
  • Overseeing an administration dogged by corruption, mismanagement, venality, yes-man-ism, and unwillingness to listen to critical voices
  • Turning over public resources for private gain
  • Squandering both the reservoir of international good will following 9/11 and the considerable surplus you inherited

    And on and on it goes–this list could continue for pages. We’ve had presidents who were outdoorsmen before, including both Roosevelts and Ronald Reagan, among others. But never a president who felt his best moment in office was catching a fish!

  • Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail