Shiny Green Button

The Sun is setting
The CEO tweets goodbye
New dawn for HR

Photo credit: The Plan8 Podcast on Flickr

We’ll be tweeting our 140-character observations of the trends, technology and speakers at CES 2010. You can follow our tweets at http://twitter.com/AHAwriters. We’ll also compile much of what we observed about communications and sustainability into a couple blog posts here on Shiny Green Button.

A few odds & ends to round out the week:

A recent survey of green consumers found that (a) their biggest priority, by a wide margin, is the economy, not the environment and (b) there is widespread misunderstanding about basic issues, such as the impact of CO2 (e.g., half said that it depletes the ozone layer). The not-so-surprising conclusion? Stereotypes about green consumers limit the effectiveness of marketing communications. See Sustainable Business for the full story.

A column on GreenBiz by Richard Seireeni of The Brand Architect Group makes the interesting observation that Japan’s cultural obsession with perfection is at odds with sustainability. For example, only fruit that looks perfect makes it to the grocery—any apple or pear that has a bruise or even is a bit misshapen is tossed. This culling happens at every phase of the supply chain, from farmer through distributor to the grocery itself, leading to massive waste. Those pieces of fruit that do get through the gantlet are individually and intricately wrapped. Together, this tendency to throw out perfectly good products (including clothes, tatami mats and even cars) and use excessive packaging puts Japan behind the sustainability curve, even as it leads in other areas, such as producing hybrid vehicles. All of which suggests there is an enormous need for a long-term communications effort to raise awareness and change behaviors in Japan. But it won’t be easy, given how culturally ingrained these behaviors are.

Sustainability is a focus of this month’s issue of Harvard Business Review. The lead story, “Why Sustainability is Now the Key Driver of Innovation,” lays out the five stages of adopting sustainability, ranging from compliance to developing new business models and creating new platforms for business practices. It’s not necessarily groundbreaking, but the article does do a good job of using real-world examples to succinctly make the business case for investing in sustainability.

On Sustainablog, this review of Less is More: Embracing simplicity for a healthy planet, a caring economy and lasting happiness, a new book by Cecile Andrews and Wanda Urbanska, sounds promising. It speaks to the growing trend of people pulling back from the stress-ridden, career-focused, material-driven lifestyle (in part because of the economy) in pursuit of happiness and fulfillment. Great. But whenever I get the urge to buy a new book about sustainability or simplicity, I’m caught in a Catch-22—doesn’t the act of buying something go against both of those goals? I could wait for it show up at the library (or invest in a Kindle), I suppose, but it generally takes weeks, if not months, to get a copy of a new book from our local library. And I’m not inclined to drop $300 right now (to say nothing of the longer-term question of e-waste). What’s a reader with a conscience to do?

photo by Kevin Dooley

Here at AHA!, many of us are writers who live, breathe and even dream about messaging. So when the New York Times ran a front-page article, “Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus,” on a soon-to-be-released report that gives climate change messaging a makeover, it got my attention. The report, “Climate Truths: Making the Necessary Connections,” written by EcoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing firm in Washington, D.C., is due out at the end of May.

The writer for the Times, John Broder, who read a leaked summary of the report, generally pans the report’s assertions as misguided advertising techniques. Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Carbon dioxide discussions should be reframed as “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” And, “cap and trade” may gain more traction rebranded as a “pollution reduction refund.”

My first reaction to the writer’s skepticism is why should concepts like “global warming,” “climate change” or whatever you want to call it NOT get the same attention to the nuance of language and research around its perceived meaning among key target audiences that goes into successfully marketing a product, service, campaign or program? I mean, this is the greatest messaging project of the twenty-first century. And clearly, science doesn’t sell itself.

My second reaction is that—if examples cited in the article are any indication—the writers could use our help. I do like “pollution reduction refund” versus “cap and trade.” However, “our deteriorating atmosphere” doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. I share many of the same thoughts as George Lakoff, who responded to the Times article very eloquently on the Huffington Post.

I don’t want to detract from the report with even less information than the Times writer. I eagerly await the published report. I promise I will hang on every word. And, I invite EcoAmerica to contact us immediately to begin work on “Climate Truths 2.0.”

I’m serious. Call us. 360-750-1680.

A whosit?whatsit? The term social intrapreneur, coined in 1978 by Gifford and Elizabeth Pinchot, describes innovators who work to create social and environmental change from within their own corporations. Last month, Net Impact released a really great guide (complete with case studies) for internal changemaker types (and wannabes). “Making Your Impact at Work: A Practical Guide to Changing the World from Inside Any Company” is meant to inspire and empower those individuals who want to make change while they’re working for the man, so to speak. Need some encouragement? Greenbiz.com is kind enough to let you download a PDF of the guide, no login required.

Over at the Financial Brand, there’s an interesting compilation of statistics about the financial services industry. At first glance, it shows an industry in a world of hurt:

• Financial services is tied with the tobacco industry, with a positive rating of 11 percent
• 31 percent of bankers haven’t received a raise lately
• 42 percent of banks have seen a decrease in lending

And not only is business down, many potential bank customers just aren’t making it into the bank. 32 percent of adults and 48 percent of Gen Yers have no savings. What’s more, 41 percent of adults give themselves a C, D or F on personal finance knowledge. So banks aren’t popular, and their customers aren’t motivated to give them business.

Is it just me, or does this seem like a big, big opportunity for someone to make banking appealing? Or even cool? For several years, ING Direct has been chipping away at making savings attractive for normal folks, and before the Chase takeover, WaMu had a thriving retail banking business that made banks seem approachable and friendly. But the opportunity suggested by the above numbers seems bigger than that; it’s a chance to engage a huge and disaffected public as true partner and guide through the financial wilderness we’ve all been cast into. Most of us use banks because we need to. What could banks say or do to make us want to?

Call me a nerd but it’s Friday afternoon and I’m excited because I just found a great new report on sustainability efforts of major American cities. According to the writers, it’s “one of the first-ever assessments of exactly how cities are addressing climate change—and what they need in order to take these efforts to the next level.”

The report, “Green Cities: How Urban Sustainability Efforts Can and Must Drive America’s Climate Change Policies,” by a group called Living Cities, examines 40 of the largest U.S. cities’ progress on reducing emissions and provides recommendations in three areas identified as having the greatest potential for immediate impacts.

While I must admit I’ve only scanned this extensive report, I’ve already learned a lot and can tell it’s a valuable tool for city planners, nonprofits and companies looking to serve the needs of the green economy. 

For a quick hit, go to the back of the report and take a look at some of the survey stats:

• While four in five big cities regard sustainability as a top priority, only three to 10 staff members are focused on climate change in sustainability. Several big cities have just one full-time person.
• Most cities report budgets of $150,000 and $500,000 allotted to reducing greenhouse gases.
• More than 75% of big cities have, or will soon have, detailed plans on how they will reduce greenhouse gases. Nearly all of their targets call for emissions cuts of between 10 to 20 percent in the next five to 10 years.
• More than two-thirds of cities report that state and federal government have had little impact on their work.

Doing some quick math with these staff and budget figures leaves me wondering how big cities will reach their emissions targets with their current resources. However, the report’s recommendations are encouraging, outlining a bottom-up approach that includes retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency thereby creating middle-class jobs (a la Obama’s stimulus bill), reengineering workforce and economic development systems, and focusing on sustainable transportation and compact development. 

It’s heartening to read how cities have taken the lead on tackling climate change and may soon get much-needed support from the federal government. But of course it’s going to take a lot more help and resources to accomplish the goals identified. For starters, I’m going to make a point to look at the sustainability plans of Portland, where I live, and Vancouver, Wash., where I work, and see how I could possibly help.

Nope, it’s not the latest in cheeseball (dairy-free, of course), eco-friendly pickup lines. But consider it yours for the taking if you need it. Wanna Start a Commune? (WSAC) is a new project around some old-fashioned ideas—being neighborly and building community.

WSAC began as a social design project and is now taking on a life of its own. Started in 2008 by Stephanie Smith, architect, social designer* and founder of green design lab Ecoshack, the idea behind WSAC is to help everyday folks create intentional communities.

WSAC encourages potential commune-starters like you and me to share resources, wherever we are—in our neighborhoods, among friends, even at work. Why? For starters, because times are tough and sharing resources can save us time and money, help us connect more deeply to those around us and enable us to do better by the earth. Some suggestions for collaboration include a shared compost pile, weekly potlucks, neighborhood recycling programs, bartering and shared childcare.

WSAC has a few pilot projects, called cul-de-sac communes, underway in the Topanga, Hollywood and Rustic Canyon areas of Los Angeles. WSAC has also been getting a bit of airtime in mainstream channels with a mention in a New York Times blog post and a feature story on NPR’s April 2 “All Things Considered.”

Now before you put your house on the market and move into that big old farmhouse on the outskirts of town with three of your closest neighbor families to work the soil, raise your own beef and put up jars of canned goods, consider starting small. Here’s one communal activity that began just this week at AHA!: Inspired by our collective love of the big salad bowl, every Monday is now Salad Day. Anyone who’s interested brings their own greens and a favorite topping to share, we lay it all out, build our salads and lunch together (like a damn family for once!) in our Commons area. It’s a no-fuss potluck with an emphasis on community, health and sustainable eating.

So, what is that one little thing you could do at home, at work or in your neighborhood to live more intentionally?

 *I need to get me a cool job title like this.

I didn’t have to stray too far afield for amusement today. A stinging analysis of Tom Friedman’s column caught my eye as I scanned the Huffington Post. The writer, David Roberts, skewers Friedman’s critique of the Democratic House climate and energy bill, one assertion at a time, with a skill that is captivating and frightening to behold. Oh how I love the smell of schadenfreude in the morning…

Admittedly, I am a fourth wheel in this discussion, commenting on one writer’s scathing analysis of another writer’s critique of another group’s proposed action. I am the archetypal bastard derivative blogger commenting on something with little information or fear of recrimination, thrice removed from anyone actually working to solve the world’s problems.

My first take is that the critique and the analysis are unproductive. A form of greenbashing or “outgreening” by both writers.  The House energy and climate bill is already being undermined by skeptical, moderate Democrats, in addition to their uber-skeptical Republican counterparts. Now, House Democrats’ efforts are undermined by Tom Friedman, whose credibility on this issue is now being called into question by a writer determined to outgreen him.

On second thought, I think it’s healthy. It’s good to see Friedman playing devil’s advocate when it comes to proposed policy. And it’s good to see luminaries like him pilloried as much they are pedestalled.

For the record, I think Friedman’s misguided in his editorial. However, lively debate over how to address climate change is exactly what we need right now. And this is not the kind of greenbashing served up by the likes of Rush Limbaugh against all environmentalists. Nor is it the well-intentioned, though sometimes rabid, watchdogging form of greenbashing unleashed on corporations such as Apple, that may need a hot cattle prod poked at their brand. This is an intellectual variety of pro wrestling that will occur until a solution is put in place that has any signs of working. And that may be a long time.

My forecast calls for intellectual discourse around appropriate action to continue to heat up, while debate over the existence or cause of climate change begins to blow over for good (no matter what the latest Gallup poll says).

The Green Inc. blog over at The NYTimes notes the results of a recent Gallup poll which reveals, for the first time in 25 years, that more Americans believe that economic growth should be given priority over the environment, even if that means the environment suffers.

Here’s my question–why do these options need to be mutually exclusive? The poll, in effect, reinforces the canard that protecting the environment means sacrificing economic prosperity. I understand why people (mostly Republicans and some Independents, as it turns out) would respond as they did, given the severe recession. But aren’t the underlying causes of this crisis rooted in unsustainable business practices? Long-term economic solutions must come from doing things differently, not perpetuating the false choices that have gotten us into this mess.

My quibble isn’t so much with the respondents, but with the premise of the question. It–and others like it–validates and perpetuates a destructive meme. As long as it sticks around, it will undermine perception of the environment as our best opportunity for sustainable economic investment and growth.

As much as the environment, green technology, sustainable investing and the like have entered the mainstream conversation in recent years, polls like this one demonstrate those issues are still the exception rather than the norm. When Gallup no longer deems the economy vs. environment question to be relevant, it’ll be a clear signal that our public discourse and communications have fundamentally changed.