Business is not our enemy

I can't lay claim to the idea that climate change and global warming need to be marketed to the public just like any other product (see my June 1st posting at http://cooltheplanet.blogspot.com/2007/06/in-his-may-27-th-posting-on-green.html), but lately I've been struck by how resistant some environmentally-minded grassroots organizations are to this concept.

There seem to be two camps in the environmental conservation/sustainability movement - those who've adopted a traditional business model of marketing and promoting their organization's ideals, while setting measurable, quantifiable goals to meet their objectives, and those who view business as the enemy, and adoption of any business-like practices as tantamount to joining forces with the dark side and abandoning their planet-saving ideals.

As a marcomm consultant with a bevy of corporate business experience, I've encountered a surprising amount of skepticism when I pitch my 'here's how to market your ideas to the public' scheme to some conservation organizations. It seems to be a mixture of suspicion and a knee-jerk reaction to anything that smacks of corporate thinking.

And this, in my mind, is a fatal mistake. Because the most effective way to spread any message in this country - whether it's convincing consumers to buy an enormous, gas-guzzling automobile or persuading them to do the opposite - is to use the existing (and incredibly powerful) marketing machinery. After all, if American marketing could convince millions of consumers to buy rocks as pets, then it can be used to persuade consumers to reduce their carbon footprint and live a more sustainable lifestyle. It's just a matter of successfully crafting and marketing the right message.

Business isn't the enemy of environmental conservation. It may seem like a strange bed-fellow, but once we learn how to use it, we'll leap light-years ahead in our efforts to combat global warming.

The high cost of dirty energy

I'm in Oregon this week, three thousand (and some odd) miles from home, but following with the rest of the country the saga of the miners trapped in Utah's Crandall Canyon Coal mine. These catastrophes are nothing new, and little seems to change - as far as mining practices, safety measures or working conditions - no matter how many lives are lost in the pursuit of cheap coal to feed our quest for cheap energy. It almost seems the country's become inured to the tragic consequences of our coal mining industry, accepting the human loss since as the inevitable price of easy-to-produce electricity since, for most of us, it's far removed from our daily existence.


We don't have to accept the high cost - in human lives and environmental devastation - of feeding our thirst for energy. After all, that's the cost of non-renewable (and in the case of coal, very dirty) energy. Wind, solar, or wave-harnessing power don't carry these exhorbitant costs. Yet in this country, the most formidable obstacle to installing wind farms to harness a (nearly) free source of energy is the all-too-familiar NIMBY (not in my back yard!) phenomenon. It rings vociferously along the shores of Cape Cod, where ocean-front property owners protest that the proposed Cape Wind farm will ruin their view, impede pleasure boats and generally destroy the local tourist economy. None of these arguments are legitimate, of course, since they're really just a rationalization for residents who don't want a wind farm in their "back yard". Hmm, I don't recall hearing quite so much kvetching the last time an oil tanker spilled goo on the Cape Cod shoreline....

The fact is, there's some cost to any form of energy we produce, but why not make that cost - to humans and the environment we depend on - as small as possible. I'm guessing the loss of human life doesn't seem like a worthy trade-off to the Utah miners' families, and it shouldn't be an acceptable price to any of us. It's time to rethink the real cost of feeding our energy thirst, and stop accepting the high cost of non-renewable energy.

Time for a nuclear renaissance?

There's talk these days of nuclear power as a viable alternative to carbon-intensive power production, and part of the solution to finding cleaner, more sustainable forms of energy. Of course, this all depends on your version of "clean", since one of the big challenges of producing nuclear energy is figuring out what the heck to do with all that radioactive waste. But in terms of carbon output, it's far preferable to coal as an energy source, and achieves the goal of reducing the carbon footprint of our energy production.

For anyone who remembers Three Mile Island and the meltdown that inflamed public opposition to nuclear power in this country, the mere suggestion of starting up nuclear power plants - let alone building new ones - can be unconscionable. But even nuclear power's detractors are changing their minds and taking a different view of what constitutes "dangerous" when it comes to our energy sources. Maybe it has something to do with the slightly different world view we have in this country compared to 1979 when the Three Mile Island accident occurred, or the generous nuclear subsidies included in the 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005, but the tide is starting turn back toward nuclear power as a viable energy source. After all, there's clearly an enormous (environmental and economic) risk to continuing with "business as usual" in terms of how we quench this country's insatiable thirst for energy. We have to start weighing risk with a different perspective than we did in 1979, and nuclear power just may turn out to be one of our safer choices.

For more about the nuclear power renaissance in the U.S., check out David Whitford's July 31st article, "Going Nuclear" in Fortune magazine: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/08/06/100141305/index.htm