GreenBiz.com® |
ClimateBiz |
GreenerBuildings |
GreenerComputing |
GreenerDesign |
Greener World Media
Recent Posts by Joel Makower
-
There's a classic, geeky science joke that "Chemists have all the solutions." That's starting to appear true from an environmental perspective, though it remains to be seen whether those solutions will actually come to market. Green chemistry, a common-sense discipline that's less than twenty years old, has been emerging in recent years from the lab and into the marketplace, making inroads in conventional chemical companies and creating opportunities for upstarts. As I've noted in the past, this has been taking place at a slow, almost imperceptible pace, with relatively little fanfare, considering the implications. And there's a long way to go before green chemistry fulfills its catalytic potential to transform the way we make things, doing so in a way that reduces risks to
-
This week's announcement by General Motors that it has joined with more than 30 utility companies across the U.S. to work on issues related to electric vehicles got a great deal of media play. But the coverage only began to scratch the surface of the complexity of bringing plug-in electric vehicles to market in mass quantities. In reality, the GM-utility conversation isn't entirely new. It began in January, at a Vehicle Electrification Workshop held at GM's research center in Warren, Michigan. I had the privilege of attending the meeting, which was facilitated by my colleagues at the sustainability strategy firm GreenOrder. The meeting included more than two dozen utility executives, including a team from the Electric Power Research Institute, the industry-funded consortium that served
-
Jeffrey Hollender, the founder, CEO at Seventh Generation, published a counterpoint to my recent post, How Bad Is Greenwashing, Really? I encourage you to read it here. I just responded on his site, and thought I'd share the conversation here. To wit: Jeffrey, Thanks for your comment. I've long admired your outspokenness on the topic of the green marketplace, and your willingness to be, as you describe yourself, an inspired protagonist. I don't disagree with some of your points, but I think you missed mine. It wasn't about companies that can't handle criticism. And it wasn't about condoning companies that are being misleading or dishonest. As you well know, I have been an outspoken critic of greenwashing myself over the past twenty years. But there is a tremendous amount of
-
Is greenwashing really as bad a problem as some are making it out to be? I've been thinking about this question a lot recently, as the G-word crops up more and more frequently in articles, blogs, reports, and conversations. Of course, the answer depends a lot on one's view of the potential for big companies to improve their environmental performance — and talk truthfully about it — and whether the pace of corporate change is sufficient to address the magnitude of the problems we face. Like "beauty" (and "green"), "greenwash" is in the eye of the beholder. The definition of greenwashing has changed in recent years. In the early 1990s, the term was used to describe deliberate and cynical attempts by companies to mislead the public about their
-
As fuel and electricity prices have ratcheted up, so, too, have the queries about what to do: where can companies, especially smaller ones, go for help? On the one hand, that's a big, vague question. Where you go depends on what business you are in, where you're located, what you need, and how much, if anything, you're able to spend. On the other hand, there's a lot of help out there, much of it low-cost or free, if only you know where to look. Below are just a few of the resources aimed at small and midsize companies. They will be of help largely to U.S.-based companies — apologies to those elsewhere, though there likely are analogs to these resources in other countries. This is by no means comprehensive; indeed, it probably only scratches the surface. But it points to a handful
Sponsored Links
Carbon-Free Energy, Cutting Poverty in Half: Mr. Gore, Meet Mr. Edwards
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Stumble Upon
In recent weeks, former vice president Al Gore challenged Americans to commit to producing 100 percent of electricity from "renewable energy and clean carbon-free sources" within 10 years. And former senator John Edwards launched a Half in Ten campaign "to reduce poverty in the United States by 50 percent within 10 years." Two bold, audacious goals. Same starting dates. Same decade-long trajectory.
So, is there any chance that Messrs. Gore and Edwards might possibly join forces?
Not likely, based on what I've seen and heard to date. That their respective laudable and ambitious goals could possibly be synergistic seems beyond the grasp of these two leaders and their acolytes.
I've covered this topic — the job-creation potential of clean technology and renewable energy — repeatedly over the years (see posts in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008). While the job-growth trajectories may not have been as rapid or steep as anticipated, there's no doubting the rich potential opportunities, especially at the local level. All solar is local, to paraphrase Tip O'Neill, as is all wind, geothermal, wave, tidal, and biomass energy. That is to say, renewable energy has the potential to create jobs in every metropolis, town, and village — and every congressional district.
Why are two campaigns with identical 10-year horizons proposed by two former presidential candidates of the same age and political party (and from adjacent states) being treated as unconnected, separate efforts? Why aren't the initiatives to bolster our environmental, energy, and economic security joined at the proverbial hip? I don't have an answer; let me know if you do.
This is a problem on many fronts. First and foremost, it is a lost opportunity to connect the dots between growing markets for clean renewable energy and the need to create American jobs for the underclass sufficient to raise their standard of living above the poverty line. Beyond that, it evokes the criticism of the "environmental movement" levied in The Death of Environmentalism, the 2004 paper (Download - PDF) issued on the eve of the last presidential election. Adam Werbach, in his a speech on the topic that fall at the Commonwealth Club of California, charged that environmentalism, "an ideology focused on the inter-relationship of all things, came to be an ideology of things" such as seal pups, redwoods, clean air, Yosemite, clean water, and toxic waste. He continued his indictment of environmentalists:
Some of the things they have been taught not to think of when they think of the environment are AIDS in Africa, the tax code, highways, homeless people, asthma, good jobs and the war in Iraq. Each of those things — "environmental" or not — are stripped by American environmentalism and its sister ideology, liberalism, of their native habitat, their context, and their web of connections. They are single "issues," each requiring its own movement and experts.
Four years later, not much has changed. We're still not connecting the dots.
It's not for lack of dots. There are countless competent, influential organizations working in these arenas: Green for All and the Apollo Alliance, on creating green jobs for the underclass; the American Council on Renewable Energy, on rational, national energy policy that gives renewables their due; Gore's own Alliance for Climate Protection; Edwards' Half in Ten, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, the Coalition on Human Needs, and scores of other groups working on poverty issues; and literally hundreds of other organizations. I've checked the websites of all of the above-named groups. None of them mentioned both the Gore and Edwards challenges.
Even Edwards himself doesn't seem to have connected the dots. I encountered the former senator at a reception in San Francisco a couple weeks ago, following an on-stage interview in which he had talked up his anti-poverty crusade. I asked him whether he'd considered joining forces with Gore's campaign to jointly accomplish their respective goals. He listened intently and responded, in effect, that it sounded like a good idea.
It is. Why doesn't anyone seem to get that? Sen. Obama? Sen. McCain? Isn't this year's presidential allegedly dominated by energy prices and the stumbling economy?
Anyone else? Opportunity is knocking, and the time is short.
Climate Sponsor
Integrated Facilities Management Sponsor
Design Sponsor
Document Management Sponsor
Work Environment Sponsor
Environmental Services Sponsor
Charter Sponsor
See GreenBiz.com