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 propaganda, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , ,

    Glen Beck has always represented a weird and radical extremism, but I never expected that even he would go so far as to diss Jesus’ own legacy, calling for congregants to leave churches that talk about social justice.

    Here’s the brief note I wrote to him:

    Dear Mr. Beck:

    When I heard your call to boycott churches that talk about social justice, I had to wonder if you have actually read the New Testament.

    Jesus’ own words are rooted firmly in social justice…in helping the economically or culturally oppressed, fighting back against the crushing pressure of the oligarchs of his day, giving aid and comfort to those opposing the totalitarian Roman regime, and bringing a new message of justice through nonviolence.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Politics, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , ,

    Yesterday, conservative commentator George Will called Barack Obama a “timid progressive.”

    Will is an interesting writer. He’s far more thoughtful and articulate than the bloviators who dominate the talk channels, and he will criticize both the Right and the Left as he sees fit. I’ve often said that one of my secret fantasies is to be “a George Will of the Left.”

    And I’d agree with him about Obama’s timidity. Obama talks a big, bold line, but when it comes to action, his moves are for the most part tiny little reforms, and even those don’t get pushed very hard for the most part. Obama was pretty progressive a few years ago, but his term in the Senate and his desire to be President seemed to have cooled his ardor. By the time he was elected, I figured he was a mainstream liberal, somewhere to the right of Ted Kennedy but well to the left of any recent occupant of the Oval Office.

    Still, although my expectations for Obama’s presidency were pretty low, they haven’t even come close to being reached. On the timidity factor, he’s drowning the hopes of his mandate in the bathtub of timidity. I appreciate Obama’s conciliatory approach—but there’s a difference he doesn’t understand between trying to make common cause with the other side and walking away when it’s obvious the other side doesn’t care, doesn’t want to be engaged, and will do everything in its power to sabotage you.

    Why do I say Obama’s not progressive anymore?
    This is what a progressive agenda would have looked like:

  • Health care: Medicare for All, a one-paragraph or at most one-page unamendable document that would have galvanized support, been hard to attack, and would have passed easily, months ago, with none of the backroom dealing that gave so much leverage to people like Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe.
  • Foreign policy: Rapid withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan (three to six months). Strong condemnation of the Iraq venture as an illegal war waged under utterly false pretenses. Immediate halt on torture, rapid closing of Guantanamo, some sort of legal proceedings (perhaps a Nelson Mandela-style Commission on Truth and Reconciliation) to hold the Bush administration accountable for the rogue state we had become. An indelible message to Israel that its actions in Gaza were unacceptable and would have consequences for US support, insistence on a settlement freeze, and pressure on the Palestinian Authority to both crack down on terrorists and to negotiate in good faith.
  • Domestic policy: Consequences and safeguards around the Wall Street bailout that held the banks and brokerage firms accountable and prevented large bonuses going to executives of failing companies. Economic measures in addition to TARP that addressed working-class and middle-class Americans, especially in the areas of foreclosure and Main Street business help. A Marshall Plan-size effort to move off oil/coal and replace fossil fuels with true renewables (nuclear emphatically doesn’t count).

    • Energy is one area where Obama did make a start, at least. The appointment of Van Jones and the attention to Green jobs were laudable, but Jones was quickly kicked out under pressure from the Right, and the momentum for Green jobs withered.

    Timidity: George Will Was Right
    The other big problem was that not only did his agenda lack real progressive substance for the most part, but he hasn’t been willing to use his considerable persuasive powers to retain his support base and pressure Congress. Nor is he able to simply hold the Democratic Party together long enough to move change forward. The lack of 60 reliable votes in the Senate is a red herring; during the few months he had the supermajority, the Democrats still couldn’t get much done. Look at the GW Bush administration, which never head anything like 60 votes, whose election legitimacy was never certain, and which generated significant public opposition to many of its policies. Bush was still was able to ram through all kinds of things, many of which the country has lived to regret.

    From a marketing and PR point of view, Obama could have taken a leaf from Franklin Roosevelt’s book: When Roosevelt couldn’t get things through Congress, he turned to the people; he appealed directly to voters. He used Republican intransigence to build up pressure, and then at election time, was able to replace some of the obstacles. For the last year, Obama has totally blown the opportunity to blame the mess both on the past administration and on the unwillingness of Republicans to let him through to make the change he promised during the campaign. If he had used different strategy, 2010 should have seen a sweeping housecleaning in the House and Senate and a vast Democratic majority in place for the next two years. Instead, I think Obama’s cushion will be a lot thinner, and he’ll have even less room to work. The result will be a one-term presidency with meager accomplishments, and probably another round of Republican aggression.

    The last Democrat who was willing to use some muscle to move his agenda forward (an agenda that was not at all popular in large sections of the country) was Lyndon Johnson. From his grave, LBJ must be wondering why Obama is afraid to lead.

    Of course, the Left hasn’t had Obama’s back. We’ve given the streets to the tea partiers, where we should have been out there putting pressure on of our own (for example, not letting a health care bill move forward that doesn’t even have a public option, let alone single-payer/Medicare for All), and marshaling support for the few progressive initiatives.

    Obama has eight more months to change the dynamic. Eight months in which he needs to start being very public about why change is not emanating through Congress. Eight months to appeal to the American people for support, and to get winnable candidates in place to challenge the intransigents. I wish him luck.

    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 Publishing, Web 2.0/Social Media Tagged with , , ,

    I don’t think I’ve blogged about it before, but I’ve had serious concerns for years about Google’s placement of access to content far above creators’ rights and copyright, have followed the Authors Guild/National Writers Union court case and settlement, and ended up after some internal debate choosing to remove my own works from the settlement terms. I see the potential for abuse all over this, but a new article opened my eyes up to even more ways it’s troublesome.

    Rather than repeat them here, I’ll give you the link: https://techcrunch.com/2010/02/16/gary-reback-why-the-technology-sector-should-care-about-google-books/

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Media Ethics, media-general, propaganda, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with ,

    My friend Peter Shankman solicited comments from PR practitioners about Tiger Woods’ apology scheduled for later today, and the fact that reporters will not have access to him during the event; they’ll actually be in another building.

    This drew lots of comments on Tiger but basically none other than Peter about how the media will play this. The media, by accepting the unacceptable terms of Tiger’s event-scripting, becomes complicit. If they said, “Hey, Tiger, it’s great that you want to apologize—and if you want us to cover the apology, you have to take questions, or else we’ll sit this one out,” you might have some real give-and-take. But the media has been awed by celebrities and cowed by the access question for too long (look at the unquestioning coverage of GW Bush and the run-up to the Iraq war as another example)—and they’ve forgotten that their mandate is not to unquestioningly amplify PR flacks’ scripts, but to dig deep and find the real story.

    I’ve written two books on business ethics and blog frequently on media ethics, and I think that if the media is going to play the role of enabler of bad behavior, the media must share the blame that the real story doesn’t get told. It is the media that certified Tiger as someone worth paying attention to, rather than, say, someone who’s curing cancer or solving the energy crisis (like the amazing Amory Lovins).

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail