12.28.2010

Another non-environmental wonder

Not that I usually look to Politico for insightful analysis, but you just can't make up headlines like this one:


"Opinion: Bush's error on run-up to Iraq war"


And yes, that is a singular 'error'.  The introduction is pretty phenomenal, too:


"No one seems to have noted a major mistake in former President George W. Bush's memoir, “Decision Points.” This error is important. It must be pointed out — not to slam Bush, but to clear up the historical record and make sure that readers of this best-seller do not come away with misperceptions."

12.27.2010

Gem of the day

It's true we're operating in a landscape of digital information overload. But in the insular sustainability industry, would it really kill these Grist authors to crosscheck their article triumphantly proclaiming a 'dimming outlook' for coal in the US with this article from the Times circa a month ago?
FYI here's the gem of bad news:
"Traditionally, coal is burned near where it is mined -- particularly so-called thermal or steaming coal, used for heat and electricity. But in the last few years, long-distance international coal exports have been surging because of China's galloping economy, which now burns half of the six billion tons of coal used globally each year."

12.24.2010

Gem of the day

It's the holiday season and we should all be at home--or very close to getting home, barring cancelled flights across Europe--celebrating the festivities.

Unfortunately today is a day I must come out of the holiday zone to address one of the most important gems I've seen yet this year. Headline below:

"Big Oil Money Working to Rewrite History of Gulf Oil Disaster"

Why does this not really surprise, shock or astonish? Don't we expect an industry-wide effort, supported by various networks of privately funded academics and institutions, to minimise the impact of the Gulf of Mexico spill over time?

Well, it still hurts. Case in point: an excerpt below from a lovely pseudo-news article published in our old favorite, the charming Weekly Standard, by none other than a public policy professor from University of Maryland, Robert Nelson (say what?) And yes, the title of the article really is Oil Spill Hysteria.

"The ecosystem of the Gulf itself turns out to have suffered remarkably little damage from the continuous gushing of oil into the water from April 20 till July 15, when the leaking well was capped."

But wait! It gets even better. Here's a proof point Nelson offers to support the above:

"By mid-August, the NOAA was having trouble finding spilled oil."

Because it was creating a ginormous plume beneath the surface, right? No, stupid. Because, according to the folks at NOAA who are always right (ahem):

"It is well known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico."

Awkward. But here's the real gem, no explanation needed:

"The search for damage to the Gulf, it seems, is a bit like the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

Zing! Long live ExxonMobil's academic funding arm.

12.14.2010

Gem of the day

Update: Gazprom's first-ever sustainability report just cruised into my inbox. But wait, there's something not right here. How come it says 2008-2009? That's right. They're not only producing their first-ever report, they're producing it for a period of 2 years ago.

Only from a self-described 'leader of the Russian economy', folks.

I can't decide which is my favorite element: the up-close, 'candid' portrait of Alexey Miller, the company's chairman, the section mysteriously titled 'Employees' Energy: the Company's strategic resource', or the strategically inserted stakeholder 'Viewpoints' which include a mayor testifying to the company's commitment to fund 'certain sporting events'.

Another non-environmental wonder

What's the latest in Fort Worth, Texas? This is the mistake I tragically make of asking myself from time to time. Well, it's this:

"A public bus rolls by with an atheist message on its side: “Millions of people are good without God.” Seconds later, a van follows bearing a riposte: “I still love you. — God,” with another line that says, “2.1 billion Christians are good with God.” A clash of beliefs has rattled this city ever since atheists bought ad space on four city buses to reach out to nonbelievers who might feel isolated during the Christmas season."

Apparently it gets real, real lonely for your average atheist around the festive season. So what does the Christian side of the debate have to say about this war of words playing out on public buses, of all channels?

“We just wanted to reach out to them and let them know about God’s love,” said Heath Hill, president of the media company that owns the van and one of the businessmen who arranged for the Christian ads. “We have gotten some pretty nasty e-mails and phone calls from atheists. But it’s really just about the love of God.”

Nice.

Another non-environmental wonder

So unsurprisingly Nigeria is thinking twice about leveraging the corruption charges it has brought against our old friend Dick Cheney and Halliburton. Looks like somebody in Washington picked up the phone. Case in point: the delicately worded paragraph below from stalwart Bloomberg:

"After “fruitful discussions” with Halliburton officials in London last week, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission is “awaiting further instructions” from the justice minister about whether to drop the charges related to a bribery scandal, Godwin Obla said yesterday in a telephone interview in Abuja, the capital. He didn’t provide details of the discussions."

Ah, justice. So nebulous. TBD.

12.13.2010

Another non-environmental wonder

This actually happened. As the Washington Post bloggers write, it should be watched without any introductory comment.

Gem of the day

Best reason for liking David Attenborough I've ever heard from an average British citizen:

"He's a bit eco, isn't he"

Another non-environmental wonder

Nicolai Ourossoff gives us another masterful description of what Saudi Arabia's planned megacities look like:

"Architecturally they couldn’t be more dreary and conventional — bloated glass towers encircled by quaint town houses and suburban villas decorated in ersatz historical styles. Their gargantuan scale and tabula rasa approach conjure old-style Modernist planning efforts like the creation of Brasília in the 1950s or the colossal Soviet urban experiments of the 1930s, but these are driven by anxiety over the future, not utopian idealism."

12.10.2010

Gem of the day

Thoroughly enjoying this excerpt of Yvo de Boer's Q&A session with readers of FT Energy Source today:

Who are the parties who really don’t want a deal?
Fiona Harvey, FT environment correspondent


Yvo de Boer: No comment.

Another non-environmental wonder

Courtesy of our capitalist friends at Forbes, this is probably the best Wikileaks headline I've seen yet. Prepare yourself:

"Wikileaks' Cable Targets Pfizer"

12.09.2010

Bonus bonus gem

"A Halliburton technician gave testimony on Tuesday that suggested he did not see warning signals that BP’s Macondo well might suffer a blowout because he had left his post just before 9pm to smoke a cigarette."

Thanks, FT. Thursday just got a whole lot more surreal.

Bonus gem

I've been waiting for some good intel on the sticky revolving door between energy companies and foreign governments to turn up from the Wikileaks tour-de-force. Well, here it is--not exactly something you wouldn't suspect, but it's still incredible to see it confirmed:


"Royal Dutch Shell had staff placed in key ministries of the Nigerian government, the Anglo-Dutch oil group claimed in a leaked US diplomatic cable. The group’s top executive in the African state told US diplomats that it therefore knew 'everything that was being done in those ministries.'"

In related news, Shell's massive corporate comms team unsurprisingly declines to comment either way.

Gem of the day

A sad day for coal companies around the world, who looked to him as a beacon of light in an otherwise dark world of demanding environmentalists: Don Blankenship is out.

For anyone who hasn't checked his Twitter feed for awhile--wait, Don Blankenship has Twitter? He has time to tweet from his desk made of coal?--the last one is from way back when in September 28th. Still, it's worth revisiting and you'll see why:

"Affordable coal will raise China’s living standards & quality of life. In America, the gov't tries to limit coal and quality of life."

12.02.2010

Bonus gem

Loving that the British delegates to Cancun are staying in--wait for it--'The Tequila Building'. Apparently it's right on the beach. Good times.

By the way, here's how you get to the conference center, for anyone out there who is [unintentionally] lost:

"The main conference centre is at the mighty Moon Palace resort, which is 35km away from most hotels and actually comprises three separate monstrous complexes. To get to the Moon, people must take off in a bus, travel 40km, go through a security check, and then take another bus a further 10km. When on the Moon, it is nearly a mile between the press centre and the hall where the press conferences take place, and a further mile or so between there and where government delegations hang out."

Gem of the day

I took a well-spent hour last night to watch something I've been meaning to take a look at for awhile--the Yes Men documentary. Conceived, produced and directed by the Yes Men themselves--naturally--the film chronicles the major initiatives the team have pulled on companies from Exxon to Halliburton to Dow Chemical. It's enjoyable in parts, especially when they experiendce the wonder of just how easy it is to dupe and infilitrate the corporate vortex.

But I find it overwhelmingly disappointing. They've done a lot over the years, but haven't been able to maximise the impact of their efforts or achieve lasting change. Even the Chevron spoof campaign from last month, probably their most sophisticated and potentially impactful effort yet, hasn't garnered nearly a fraction of the attention it deserves.

The deranged and greenwash-filled landscape of corporate blah we're facing right now, especially when it comes to the increasingly distorted global debate over the future of energy, needs groups like the Yes Men. Really, really badly.

I salute the general direction of the Chevron spoof--an initiative which mirrored the exact channels and target audiences of the real Chevron campaign, and which began to leverage a global network of like-minded 'armchair activists' to keep it going. There needs to be more connectivity with this network--I think the sky's the limit for people who will be able to relate to and support these kinds of efforts. And I'd like to see the Yes Men take on more on energy and sustainability.

12.01.2010

Bonus gem

Joe Romm has a great post today examining how the New York Times Sunday Magazine, that bastion of convoluted, heaving articles about 'the way society is going' has now equated 'sustainability' with 'consumerism'. Amazing, well done NY Times.

Here's the winning paragraph (Romm's highlights in bold)

"The larger idea is to build a more sustainable economy, or what Chinese leaders have called a balanced and harmonious society. In that economy, families would not have to save 20 percent of their income in order to pay for schooling and medical care, as many do now. They would instead be able to afford more of the comforts of modern life — better housing, clothing, transportation and communication. In time, China would become the world’s next great consumer society."

Right. Does the NY Times have like an intern they can get on sense-checking this stuff? That would be great from my perspective.

Gem of the day

Oh Environmental Leader, how I love the sheer randomness of the headlines you choose to feature. Witness this gem from today's line-up:

"Disney Slashes Pooh's Packaging"

Ingenious.

11.30.2010

Not even a gem

This is not a gem. This is one of the worst pieces of news I've seen in a long, long time. Worldchanging, that venerable institution which consistently is one of my only go-to sources for bright, literally world-changing sustainability solutions, is closing its doors. No more blogs. No more brilliant insightful articles. No more awesome annual books. No more clear, practical thinking on how we can make the world a better place.

Why? Because they've never been able to get enough freakin' money.

And that's bad news.

Gem of the day

This is not the kind of headline I want to be reading on a Tuesday morning:

"UN Considers Putting Mirrors in Space"

11.29.2010

Gem of the day

So airlines are still running trigger-happy with their small-time commitments to biofuels. Ah, aviation--where transformative sustainability innovation goes to die a soggy death.

11.26.2010

Another non-environmental wonder

AdAge is a dangerous site to be cruising on any given day. But I never tire of discovering gems like this one:

"Are Women the New Men?"

As much as I'd enjoy crediting such an ingenius headline to AdAge, it's actually the title of a survey the article discusses by our friends at Euro RSCG, one of those huge global ad agency networks that apparently has the sweet time to sit around and ponder such game-changing questions. Here's the headlines of the top trends from the report, which should be enough to make you really, really, really want a drink before 6pm on a Friday (warning: if you don't currently have access to booze, you probably shouldn't continue reading):

  • "Greta Garbo, they're not"
  • "Looking beyond the job for sense of success"
  • "Move over, boys"
  • "Women seeking a return to chivalry"
  • "Partners, Inc."
Right.

Gem of the day

The Chevy Volt is no excuse for the rest of GM's heavily fuel inefficient portfolio of cars and trucks. But it's a damn electric car, nonetheless, ready for public consumption in the US with the support of a government subsidy.

Which is why I love that Rush Limbaugh is hating on it. Here's a real gem:


"This is the most expensive Chevrolet outside a Corvette.  All the while Obama wants to get rid of coal.  Where does he think we're going to get the electricity to fire these things up?"

11.25.2010

Another non-environmental wonder

Courtesy of the Guardian's sustainable business hub:

"According to Annie Longsworth, Managing Director at the global PR company Cohn & Wolfe, consumers are more willing to trust brands than government. 'Republicans and Democrats meet at the checkout,' she argues."

Gem of the day

I had my say about the Gigaton Awards yesterday. But there's another gem here to note:

"Winners get a trophy designed by Yves Behar founder of the San Francisco design studio fuseproject—that contains a chunk of carbon inside a transparent case."


Wow.

11.24.2010

Something that's actually good

Sometimes you come across something that's both funny and insightful and it really makes your day. Well, aside from the reality that I can't remember the last time that happened before today, read this now.

The good stuff starts with the wonder of acknowledging how obssessed everyone in the sustainability vortex is with home weatherization--hey, it's that elusive 'low-hanging fruit', a boundless source of that poorly defined term, 'green jobs', and a 'win-win-win' for the triple bottom line, right? or is it 'win-win'? whatever--Hiskes gives us precious nuggets of insight into how home energy audits actually work, and why homeowners ask for them.

Then there's the gems. Here's an especially good one:

"I failed spectacularly in my goal to hear from an Ordinary Homeowner. I had hoped to see how a non-enviro-wonk experiences an energy review. By sheer coincidence, Paul's morning assignment sent him to the home of Langdon Marsh, former environmental commissioner for the states of New York and Oregon. Nice guy."

Gems aside, this article hones in on two things: firstly, it's becoming increasingly obvious that when it comes to short term emissions reductions, a lot of the critical solutions we need aren't just national, regional or local--they're profoundly individual. Secondly, and this one is more personal to me, it sends chills up my spine thinking about how radically these individual actions need to scaled up. How are we going to get an energy audit to every single household in the developed world? And what about the changes that need to be installed and activated after these audits? And who can afford all of this anyway? And why do I always leave the lights on in the bathroom when I leave the house? So many questions, so little time.

The UK government has dived head-first into this 'dilemma' with its ambitious Green New Deal, which I spent a recent Green Mondays event arguing fruitlessly over with a bunch of people who brought incredibly unfounded arguments and ideologies to the table. I wish someone had at least brought me a sandwich. Or maybe a beer.

Gem of the day

Anyone who rotates around green business circles these days finds themselves amidst a chaotic frenzy of commitments, marketing campaigns, greenwashing, strategies, evidence-based-evidence and the like. But if one thing's for sure, it's this: there's simply not enough awards programmes out there.

Wait what? Well, I'm assuming that's the perspective taken by the Carbon War Room, the strange hybrid business-policy initiative based out of D.C. and run in part by Richard Branson, as the organisation prepares to launch...drumroll please...the Gigaton Awards.

Unintentionally humorous name aside--and yes, they are indeed part of a larger programme called the 'Gigaton Throwdown Initiative'--the awards seek to "honor businesses for outstanding performances as defined by measurable carbon reductions and quantifiable steps toward sustainability."

So who made the exclusive nominee list? There's some of the usual suspects in there, like 3M--right--and Vodafone, Nike and Toyota. But like literally all other sustainability awards programmes out there, there's some inexplicable choices that could be called, at best, 'random', and more critically, 'greenwash': Coca Cola, anyone? Right. General Mills? I don't think so. How about--Boeing? Really? I mean, really?

Gigaton's creators say they are supposed to be like the Oscars. Here's why: you make it into the top five based on verifiable emissions reductions--oh wait, not really though, since as they rightfully acknowledge in conveniently small print "Carbon War Room fully recognizes that the data available to date regarding emissions reductions is in large part unverified."

Anyway, moving on, the decision on who actually wins is "made by an independent Academy and based on demonstrated leadership, not solely on quantitative measures." Because if there's one thing we need, it's more anointed sustainability leaders based on subjective ideas of what makes...a leader.

My favorite gem here, though, is the initiative's temporarily opaque advisory board. We'll put a TBD on that one, then.

11.23.2010

Gem of the day

BP has chosen not to renew its membership with USCAP, one of the major umbrella organisations stateside bringing together businesses to publicly push for [despite at times obviously being privately against] climate policy. Well, it's no big loss for USCAP. Plus, this is because of causing the biggest oil spill in history right?

Nope, not in the weird and distorted vortex that is BP world. Witness:

"BP shares similar concerns about the lack of a role for natural gas in cap and trade legislation in Congress. 'We don’t think the allowance structure in the bills will create a deep and liquid carbon market,' BP spokesman Ronnie Chappell told the New York Times. 'The markets will be volatile, and so will the price of carbon.'"

Right. So do you have an alternative to suggest, then? Increased domestic oil exploration, perhaps? Ah, carbon markets. If only they were as stable as...financial markets?

11.22.2010

Bonus gem

Social media--an uncontrollable universe of random commentary. So what happens when one of Britain's biggest energy providers dives head in and solicits feedback on energy efficiency? You get gem after gem. Here's one of my favorites from E.ON's talking energy site:

"You are being ripped off by a load of euro con men and your grandparents would turn in their graves if they knew what was going on in the country they fought and died for."

Right.

Gem of the day

BP's head of group media is moving on 'under amicable terms'. And so the FT hands us this gem:



"Bob Dudley, BP’s new chief executive, is shaking up the company’s communications team as he moves to restore its reputation in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico spill."

11.18.2010

11.16.2010

Bonus gem

The report of another anonymous company in the extractive industry: doubtless it will be gem-filled. That's right, today we have Teck, which bills itself as a "diversified resource company committed to responsible mining and mineral development with major business units focused on copper, metallurgical coal, zinc and energy."

Isn't it great that, in addition to this unproven commitment, Teck also now has placement on the DJSI to back it up? And a 19.9MB glossy CSR report too, featuring generic and unrelated nature imagery and the unintentionally ironic theme 'Unearthing our Potential'?

And finally, it simply doesn't get any better than publishing this press release at just about the same time as this CSR joy:

"New Senior VP Appointed to Lead Teck's Coal Business"

"I am delighted to announce the selection of Ian Kilgour,” said Don Lindsay, president and CEO.  “Ian joins Teck at an important time for the company. With continued strong demand for steelmaking coal, Ian will be instrumental in helping us to achieve our growth objectives.”

Oh wait! Yes it does. The HTML address of the Teck website actually contains the word 'generic'. Zing.

Gem of the day

The release of Unilever's Sustainable Living Plan, which my agency helped to name and structure, has generated plenty of buzz in the relentless CSR circuit.  A lot of that buzz has focused on trying to communicate the scale and potential impact of the company's commitments and those of industry peer P&G. Here's two examples, both from the same article:

"P&G calculates that if it could convince everyone in the US to wash in cold water it would reduce domestic energy consumption by 3% and allow the country to meet 6% of its Kyoto commitment."

This works. We get a logical percentage and a contextual understanding of how the commitment fits within larger political targets.

Then we get an example that doesn't work:

"Unilever says that if all its laundry users across the world switched to concentrated detergents, it would save four million tonnes of CO2 a year, equivalent to taking one million cars off the road."

How much is four million tonnes? It sounds like a lot, but in the context of a company with 1,600 products and a global supply chain I can't be sure. Then there's the ol' equivalency metric--wowing us with a hypothetical scenario which actually never happened. It's not exactly greenwash, but it's not good communications by any means. Equivalency metrics are exactly the kind of corporate tendency in the CSR vortex which confuse people about what is actually being achieved.

11.15.2010

Bonus gem

For those of you who have ever wasted five minutes--or more--wondering what the parking garage at the DOE looks like, here's the ultimate gem courtesy of our enterprising friends at the Washington Post interviewing Steve Chu:

"Chu winds his way through traffic along the Mall - where one angry motorist leans on the horn - before entering the Energy Department parking garage, right behind his general counsel's red Maserati with the license plate 'ENERGY.'"

Classy.

Gem of the day

What do you do after being responsible for the biggest oil spill in history? Why, set up your own independent energy advisory service, of course. Yes, this is Tony Hayward's next move. As the Telegraph reports, Hayward's new firm--which so far has only one employee, him--is going to have one of those delightfully ambiguous consulting industry titles, '3E', and appears to have been set up "in anticipation of his future life as a freelancer."

Incredible.

Another non-environmental wonder

Surely we didn't expect anything less from a book written by George W., but it's still amazing to see this gem (especially as reported with carefully calibrated verbiage by the Guardian):

"Bush's account is littered with anecdotes seemingly ripped off from other books and articles, even borrowing without attribution – some might say plagiarising – from critical accounts the White House had previously denounced as inaccurate."

But wait, it gets better:

"Even where Bush is present and is quoting himself, he appears to have had his memory jogged by the accounts of others without finding much to add."

Zing!

11.14.2010

Gem of the day

The USGS, being a subset of the US Department of the Interior, has never been a go-to for climate solutions for obvious reasons. But relatively impartial analysis, usually I'd say sure. Which is exactly why the following gem just makes me want to say--seriously?

Courtesy of the experts at The Oil Drum, relying on USGS estimates is but one of the reasons this year's IEA World Energy Outlook is flawed [yet] again:

"USGS published its last major set of reserve estimates in 2000, but it is not clear that these estimates are very useful in determining how much is actually extractable at prices economies can afford to pay. There are also questions as to whether there have been major mistakes in estimates. Just last week, the USGS announced that most of the oil resources it was expecting in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska were in fact, natural gas resources. (Natural gas reserves in this location are of little economic value, because the natural gas is too far away from markets--yet another low "net energy" issue.) How do we know that other resources (for example, the supposed resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), are not as badly mis-estimated?"

Right.

11.11.2010

Bonus bonus gem

So, not to be outdone by their peers Lockheed Martin, the kind folks at BAE Systems submitted a request for employee engagement to 'raise awareness' to my agency today. That's right, BAE, the world's largest defense contractor.

The only true gems here come as the revelations of reading their CSR report. And yes, they do have a Head of Sustainable Development. And yes, this is the opening line of the message from their CEO:

“Total Performance – not just what we do, but how we do it.”

And I hope the graph below brings as much joy and confusion as it brought me (source here if you'd like to explore further)--ah yes, it is indeed:

TYPES OF ENQUIRY TO ETHICS HELPLINE




You're welcome.

Bonus gem

Experience the wonder that continues to be BP's twitter feed.

It's kind of like watching an episode of Saturday Night Live--oh wait except it's not. This is our global energy future.

Another non-environmental wonder

We all love a good taste of pure democracy and freedom on a Thursday. So please find below some choice statements from resident patriot Joyce Kaufman, incoming Chief of Staff to a lovely Republican from Florida, Rep. Alan West:
  • On immigrants in Florida: "If you commit a crime while you're here, we should hang you and send your body back to where you came from, and your family should pay for it." (2007)
  • On anticipating her trip to Washington: "Over these months I have been blessed to form very wonderful relationships with the West family. I looked at this family and [told] myself, 'How do you not fight and put them up on the pedestal when we've got this garbage up on the pedestal now, people like Nancy Pelosi?'"
Garbage, Joyce, really? Isn't that something your Mexican housekeeper takes out for you?

Gem of the day

Really admiring the White House's crafty use of language to defend itself regarding the 'peer-reviewed' offshore drilling ban recommendation:

"All DOI officials interviewed stated that it was never their intention to imply the moratorium was peer-reviewe by experts, but rather rushed editing of the executive summary by DOI and the White House resulted in this implication."

They must have some team of communications professionals there, I'll say that much.

11.10.2010

Gem of the day

Few would criticise Interface, easily one of the closest companies in the world to achieving a sustainable business model. But can anyone tell me what's wrong with the announcement below from Ray Anderson, an excerpt from an otherwise insightful article published today about the long-term implications of his company's sustainability strategy:

"We are now 10 years from 2020, our target year for achieving zero footprint. And we are marking the occasion with an event in Washington, where we will be joined by Boeing -- one of our customers and partners -- and the Environmental Protection Agency."

11.09.2010

Gem of the day

This should hardly come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the coal industry, but the Guardian reports Coal India's recent IPO did not mention climate change even once in its entire 510 pages.

For a deal which is the largest ever on India's stock exchange, sending major signals to investors around the world, I'd say that's a problem.

11.08.2010

Bonus bonus gem


Few things could be more entertaining on a Monday than the editor of Digg and a blogger for The Atlantic sparring about whose posts are funded by BP vs. whose posts are funded by ExxonMobil. Digg's editor wins when he points out the Atlantic is presented by ExxonMobil--but at the end of the day, kids, it's not really about delivering 'an eye for an eye'. Bottom line: your publications are funded by big oil. Enjoy.

Bonus gem

Ken Cohen, master of ExxonMobil Perspectives blog, made a great point a few days ago about energy policy, on the occasion of US mid-term elections:

"Don’t burden taxpayers with unnecessary energy business risks" 

His description of what this means, though, is where the gem obviously comes in. Here it is:

"Continuing long-term subsidies for alternative energy supplies that are not sustainable in the marketplace is a misuse of valuable taxpayer funds. We’ve seen this happen with the continued government support of corn ethanol, in addition to other renewable energy sources. By intervening in the nation’s energy markets and picking “winners and losers,” I think we’re overlooking more immediate solutions to our economic and environmental challenges."

Protesting against long-term subsidies that can distort the energy market is funny enough coming from the oil industry which receives billions of dollars in US subsidies annually. But for the sake of logic--and my sanity--in general, let's contrast his statement with an earlier point he makes in the same blog post:

"We also must support the development of alternative energy sources when and where they hold economic potential."

The economic potential of renewables obviously hinges on their ability to scale and become competitive with...fossil fuels. Precisely with the help of long-term subsidies. I'd be interested to hear how Ken Cohen thinks we're going to ever scale up renewables without some kind of reliable, consistent government support.

Another non-environmental wonder

George W. on Cheney, from his new memoir mysteriously titled 'Decision Points':

"He was seen as dark and heartless – the Darth Vader of the administration."

Gem of the day

The Wall Street Journal confidently explains to us the difference between Chevron's 'We Agree' campaign and BP's 'Beyond Petroleum'-fest:

"Beyond Petroleum" created unrealistic expectations about the demise of fossil fuels. In 2007, 10% of world energy came from renewables, mostly hydropower, according to the Energy Department. By 2035, they are forecast to represent all of 14%. Oil and natural gas are expected to still account for 52%; coal, 28%.
Chevron's adverts spell out that, when it comes to oil and gas "no other form of energy is as economical, as plentiful or as reliable."

Right.

11.05.2010

Bonus gem

Highlights from Hugh Grant's speech at this year's BSR conference:

"Agriculture finds itself in the middle of a very interesting debate."

"Africa needs to feed itself."

Gem of the day

I never get tired of skimming articles like this one from today's Environmental Leader:

"Businesses Stay the Course on Sustainability"

Firstly, any article that co-ops language from George W. Bush for a headline gets my instant praise. But it's the gem after gem that line the actual content that really delivers joy. In this case, we're given the results of BSR's latest poll of that ambiguous crowd, "people that work at big companies that are BSR members", or, in their words, "survey respondents...drawn from a majority of BSR’s global network of more than 250 member companies".

Their key finding? A sound majority of 84% are "somewhat or very optimistic that global businesses will embrace corporate social responsibility (CSR)/sustainability as part of their core strategies and operations over the next five years, despite an uncertain global economy". Sounds great, I especially love how they combined respondents who answered 'somewhat' with those who were 'very optimistic'.

Here's a few other bonus gems:
  • "Social issues advanced in the rankings this year, with workers’ rights taking the most notable jump, moving to the top of the list of 'very significant' priorities."
  • Second on respondents' list of priorities, "human rights"
Right.

11.04.2010

Gem of the day

More ambiguous thought leadership from the oil industry. Now we have this lovely campaign, 'Let's invent the future', from national Spanish oil and gas company Repsol. "How is creative energy building a better future?" asks the pop-up ad, showing a cartoon of three different initiatives (NB: they all sound interesting, but in a nutshell, whatever).

This is ironic coming on a day when the IEA has announced that, as the central message of the annual World Energy Outlook, it will call on governments to implement pledges to mitigate climate change and cut fossil fuel subsidies.

“The message from this analysis is clear: the weaker and slower the response to the climate challenge, the greater the risk of oil scarcity and the economic cost for consuming countries,” says the IEA as reported by the FT.

11.03.2010

Bonus bonus gem

How is this even deserving of a blog post? I'll give you the gem since you doubtless don't have the time or the inclination to encounter the full chaos of this kind of trash.

"If you watch Chevron’s advertisements they tend to be very caring and sharing, and this line from the UK chief would seem to fit with this approach.

Whether it amounts to anything more than spin over substance is another matter."

Jim Preen
Media consultant
Crisis Solutions

Bonus gem

I'm not sure how I feel about this proposal from Ken Salazar to establish an Ocean Energy Safety Institute as a response to Deepwater Horizon. The institute is described as a 'collaborative effort' that would conduct R&D in areas like drilling safety, blowout containment and a broad oil spill response.

Two things are making me nervous about this: 1., it's still going to be housed in the Interior Department, and 2., do we really need more R&D about oil? Or just immediate, stronger regulations to take away the most dangerous forms of drilling (read: offshore) and actually focus on driving compliance with those regulations?

After all, the goal of any regulatory response to Deepwater Horizon should definitely not be this, as articulated by the Interior:

"...ensure that the United States remains on the cutting-edge of offshore energy safety."

The US doesn't need to be on the cutting edge of energy safety. It needs to be on the cutting edge of radically scaling up new clean energy infrastructure, phasing out the traditional resources (read: oil and coal) that will continue to pollute and destroy. There's a major glass ceiling to how 'safe' we make them.

Let's read between the lines of what the American Petroleum Institute has to say about Ken's idea--that always yields some insight.

“We look forward to continuing to work with the Interior Department to find ways forward to expeditiously develop our oil and natural gas resources, which would create jobs, generate revenues and increase our nation’s energy security,’’API said.

Right. I bet API looks forward to continuing to work with the Interior--that means more ambiguous commitments towards R&D 'in the future' and the business as usual of warm and fuzzy relationships.

I'm going to go ahead and vote no on this one. Especially considering Chevron admitted this week that, in light of the BP spill, its offshore drilling project near the Shetland Islands (which is much deeper than the ruptured BP well) could release "77,000 barrels per day – 25 percent more than gushed into US waters this year."

Gem of the day

No one in their right mind would ever recommend consulting FT's Lex for sustainability insights, especially in the context of the future of energy. But reading gems like this is still a real stunner:

"Of course, the cost to BP may not be counted only in cash. There are also fears that the catastrophe will durably change BP for the worse. Its reputation will take years to repair. It is selling off assets to pay for the clean-up. It will probably become a more cautious company too, with lower gearing and a bigger cash-cushion. The chastening in the gulf may yet turn it into a less profitable entity overall."

And yes, the title of the post is indeed "BP: Room for Optimism".

11.02.2010

Another non-environmental wonder

Shocking memo from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters:

"The 'Little Guy' Is Losing in American Politics"

The gem:

"The fight is about whether the government should protect corporate power to enrich a few billionaires, or restrict corporate power to protect the liberty and property of the average American."

So who's winning?

"I'll tell you who is winning: It isn't the little guy."

11.01.2010

Another non-environmental wonder

We knew Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity would generate countless photo gems. Here's one of the best ones.

Something that's actually good

Alex Steffen, the genius editor of WorldChanging, is almost always a reliable source for Something That's Actually Good. As is the case with this brief post of his from last week. It led me back, once again, to something he wrote nearly a year ago, the key gem of which appears below. It's a call to action to reject incremental change for what it increasingly is these days--a lack of commitment to real change or, worse, greenwash.

"In fact, I'm increasingly suspicious of any proposal to make something less unsustainable, rather than following a measured path to zero impact. Surrounded by a global leadership culture that values above all else civic incrementalism, compromise and moderation (sometimes for very good reasons), many of us tend to assume that progress is gradual and that steps in the right direction are at very least a good start. But that thinking is dysfunctional for the times in which we find ourselves. We need (for really direct and documented reasons) bold, rapid action and the completion of goals on a strict timetable. If any particular action can't make a case for itself as part of a bold and rapid shift, I increasingly suspect it's a sparkly distraction, not a stepping stone."

Ah.

Gem of the day

Can someone tell me what's wrong with the following scenario:

"The coal industry, facing a host of new health and safety regulations, is spending millions of dollars in lobbying and campaign donations this year to influence the makeup of the next Congress in hopes of derailing what one industry official called an Obama administration 'regulatory jihad.'"

I'm going to go ahead and award the current popularity of Islamic terminology in American political circles Most Awkward Energy-related Situation this month. It's especially rich considering that the Chamber of Commerce, that most venerable of business institutions in the US, is funded by a multitude of Middle Eastern interests from the Bahrain Petroleum Company to Gulf Petrochemicals Industries Company.

10.29.2010

Bonus bonus gem

Word on the street is that Lockheed Martin is looking to 'expand its CSR programme and raise its green profile'. I know because they emailed my agency saying precisely that.

Memo to the unfathomably dark place that is the boardroom at Lockheed Martin: your core products and services don’t just have a negative impact on life on earth. They kill people. Social responsibility is in exodus from your business model.

Reflecting on how the world's largest weapons contractor could have ambitions to 'raise its green profile' and get into the CSR game, I created this master positioning graph. Lockheed Martin, consider this a pro bono piece of project work, a gift from me to you. To further enhance understanding of your bottom left-hand corner placement, I've included examples here of companies from other industries, key opinion formers and life-changing publications.


Oh and happy birthday, Steve Smith. Here's to the oceans.

Bonus gem

What better publication to assess the meaning of Chevron's 'We Agree' campaign--and the impact of the Yes Men's spoof--than our old friends, AdAge? Here's the gem:

"Let's face it: We marketers have long tolerated a 'truth gap.' That truth gap is coming back to bite us."

Hey, they said it, not me. But it gets weirder after that. First we suffer through the usual generalisations that people who live in the marketing/advertising/branding vortex seem to assume are de rigeur for writing any kind of article; no insight into or acknowledgment of why a campaign from the oil industry which is essentially discussing the future of energy as we know it should be any different.

Then we get this conclusion:

"Consumers don't own your brands. You do. And it's your responsibility to tell them the truth. Learn from Chevron's mistake. It wasn't a bad campaign. It was a lie."

The major problems with Chevron 'We Agree' shouldn't be extended beyond the energy industry. It's not a simple look-and-learn branding exercise. The reality is, these giant corporations hold a responsibility which dwarfs most other industries when it comes to painting an accurate picture of what they're investing in, what they are actually doing now, and what they plan to do in the future in a world facing the monumental challenge of sustainable development. And none of the Big Oil companies ever paint this accurate picture.

It's also arguable that because of the extraordinary impact these huge companies have on the environment--ExxonMobil, for a prime example, being responsible for 1% of global carbon emissions--consumers actually do own these brands. And not just consumers--everyone. Because directly or indirectly, everyone is impacted by them.

I don't expect the marketing/advertising/branding vortex to understand either of these points. In fact, they'll probably be dead last to get it--right after Republicans in Congress and the communications team at BP. This is why people who work at those kinds of agencies are so dangerous when they get involved in sustainability communications. It ain't like selling widgets, for starters.

Gem of the day

Few things could be a better gift on a Friday than an article in the FT which uses the word 'sustainable' in a non-environmental context to discuss oil industry profits. Harken:

"The resilient performance by the world’s top international producers has helped lift some of the gloom that descended on the industry in the wake of BP’s spill in the Gulf of Mexico in April. Analysts, however, said they remained cautious about the prospects of the results being sustainable."

10.28.2010

Another non-environmental wonder

Highlights from one of those magical New York Times lovefests-masquerading-as-debates between op-ed columnists David Brookes (fake conservative and resident troublemaker) and Gail Collins (semi-humorous, relentlessly progressive, sometime feminist):


David Brooks: Gail, are you coming down to Washington for the Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert Rally to Restore Sanity? I’m pretty sure I’ll go out of curiosity and because I’ve never seen 100,000 Priuses in one place.
Gail Collins: One thing I love about you is that if there’s a rally in Washington, you’re there. Democrats, Tea Party, Comedy Central. If the libertarian cat lovers march on Washington, I count on hearing your personal report.
David Brooks: The problem was I couldn’t be as consistently witty as you and Maureen Dowd and also I could never figure out how to blend the humor with the substantive points. I found that to do humor I had to exaggerate so much it undermined the argument. You manage to write a column that combines wit with point of view. I wonder if you’ve wrestled with this tension that defeated me.
Gail Collins: Well, that would be my life’s work. While yours would be saving democracy.

Gem of the day

Why O Why does Joel Makower, usually a beacon of sanity in the world of all things green business, think the Newsweek Green Ranking is "the best effort yet to rigorously and comprehensively assess the mainstream corporate marketplace"?

Makower completely misses the point in his analysis. Allow me to take this opportunity to pick out the two key statements he makes which are most misguided:

  • "All of the scores are relative, not absolute. That is, companies are judged not on how well they do, but on how they fare in comparison to their peers." What this means is that each company's alleged progress towards becoming a truly sustainable business doesn't really matter. What matters is the incremental innovations which can set them apart in their industry. Kind of an issue.
  • "The work that goes into some of the rankings’ components is subjective, meaning that individual judgment calls are turned into numeric scores that ultimately determine a company’s ranking." So much for the methodology behind the rankings, then. Of course, subjectivity always plays a role in any decision made. But in a ranking that Makower declares has 'become a major metric in corporate America'? Imagine if the Dow Jones included a subjective factor. Right.
Finally, there's the wealth of problems that Makower doesn't engage with. Why does Total Energy rank higher than Unilever? Why is BP even in the top 100 at all? Why is a mining company in the top 20?

I'm disappointed to see this lack of critical perspective from Makower.

Another non-environmental wonder

The New York Times on Obama's appearance on The Daily Show last night:

"Late-night television has come a long way since Bill Clinton, then a presidential candidate, played his saxophone for Arsenio Hall in 1992."

You can say that again.

10.27.2010

Something that's actually good

As a friendly mid-week reminder of what the power of a sensible mind, a decent computer and a relentless thirst to add some humor to the wreckage of oil industry CSR communications can do, I think it's about time we reflected on the success of the Yes Men in hijacking the Chevron We Agree campaign. In fact, the Yes Men effort was so authentic I believe I mistakenly linked to their ingenious version of the actual Chevron site when I originally wrote about this here.

Firstly, the Yes Men replaced Chevron's extraordinarily disingenuous statements--real winners like 'Oil companies should get behind the development of renewable energy' and 'Oil companies should support the communities they are a part of'--with mind-blowing ones. Try 'Oil companies should clean up their messes' and 'Oil companies should stop endangering life' on for size.

Secondly, they put out a press release which was adopted by key journalists even before Chevron had time to respond. The release is a tour-de-force of corporate language, including fake commentary from the ad agency which allegedly created the campaign, and insidious gems like this one:

"The "We Agree" campaign is an evolution of Chevron's "Power of Human Energy" campaign, which launched in 2007 with a series of print, online, broadcast and outdoor ads that all sought to raise awareness and encourage discussion about the major issues facing the energy industry. Though the exact cost of "We Agree" remains confidential, Chevron routinely spends $90 million per year on US advertising alone."

Lastly, in light of my egregious linking error, let's take an additional moment of reflection on what that means. It means that my expectations for what oil companies are capable of greenwashing is so breathtakingly low at this point that I would actually accept the Yes Men campaign as a possibility. This is not an unjustified perspective--it's getting really bad out there. Or, as our friend HST would say, really weird.

Here's to more armchair activism from our friends the Yes Men. I'd like to be fooled again.

Gem of the day


If you haven't seen the Oxfam climate change ad campaign which has been running over the past year, regrettably in some of the busiest placies in the biggest cities in the world, here's your chance to attempt digesting it.

This ad in particular has attracted multiple complaints to the ASA over its accuracy.

I leave you with Oxfam's defence, you can decide whether it works for you or not:

"Oxfam said research had been published by reputable bodies, like the World Health Organisation (Who), and The Lancet medial journal, which showed that people had died – and were currently dying – because of climate change."

Right.

10.26.2010

Gem of the day

What did Bob Dudley say when he gave his first public speech since assuming the reigns at BP, in an address to the CBI yesterday? Well, the usual suspects--BP doesn't plan to back away from Gulf of Mexico or the US markets in general, etc. But hidden inside the speech were two gems:

Gem #1: "I believe it would be fair to say that BP now has more points of contact across the US government than any other company." 

Gem #2: "From a terrible accident and environmental spill grew a corporate crisis that threatened the very existence of our company – a major loss of value and loss of trust."

A 'corporate crisis' leading to a major loss of trust? Right. 

10.25.2010

Gem of the day

I've said in the past, with a nice grain of salt, that it can't get any worse with BP. Well, here's another gem--it's kind of an uber-gem, but not really because it won't come as a surprise to anyone who is: a. Familiar with the relentless cycle of American politics, and/or b. Familiar with the mind-blowing tactics of major oil companies, especially our friends at BP. As trusty stalwart of the progressive scene The Guardian reports:

"BP and several other big European companies are funding the midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites who deny the existence of global warming or oppose Barack Obama's energy agenda."

We're not talking that much money, apparently: a piddling $25,000 from BP. Still, it's $25k too much for a company that is supposed to be tearing its hair out over, oh I don't know, large-scale dilemmas such as how to allocate the Gulf of Mexico relief fund.

But here's where it gets extraordinary. The total sum contributed by BP, BASF, Bayer and Solvay--some $240,000, to winners who include the classic climate denier James Inhofe--actually exceeds that on the books from the Koch Brothers, who came in at $217,000. Caveat: these numbers are, of course, all that is officially on the books. It doesn't include other, shall we say, more 'intangible' forms of persuasion such as lunches at the Four Seasons and such.

What a nice start to a Monday.

10.22.2010

Gem of the day

Toby Webb has a great post today about the absurdity of what he refers to as 'fake green rankings' (I've previously dubbed them 'unintentional greenwash'). The occasion? The latest useless exercise in ranking companies across industries on their sustainability performance, courtesy of Newsweek: The Green Rankings.

As Toby points out, Total Energy (if anyone needs a refresher on how Total communicates on climate and energy, here you go) somehow manages to place higher on the list than Unilever. Then there's the issue of comparing companies across industries--which means that, FYI as usual, FMCG companies don't tend to do as well as their service industry counterparts.

My personal vitriol towards Newsweek and everything it stands for aside, let's take a moment and examine the goal of this ranking in their own words:

"Our goal was to cut through the green chatter and quantify the actual environmental footprints, policies, and reputations of these big businesses. To do this, we teamed up with three leading environmental research organizations to create the most comprehensive rankings available."

First of all, I love the idea of a ranking cutting through 'the green chatter' by identifying itself as....Green. But the real gem is delivered in the methodology behind these 'green scores':


"This score is derived from three component scores: the Environmental Impact Score (EIS), the Green Policies Score (GPS), and the Reputation Survey Score (RSS), weighted at 45 percent, 45 percent, and 10 percent, respectively."

So regardless of your actual environmental policies and initiatives as a company, you can still get 10% for how the public perceives you? I can already hear the communications team at ExxonMobil getting out their credit cards...

And now for the final gem: BP comes in at the magical place of #92. Harken, corporate sustainability! It's here.

10.21.2010

Gem of the day

Shell continues to pull out all the stops, in the process unintentionally delivering us gem after gem. Today's comes to us courtesy of gem finder extraordinaire Joe Romm. He shows us a 'push poll' which hit him not once, but twice while on the Scientific American website.

Let's start with the question itself. It seems clear--we're using a lot of fossil fuels and probably will continue to, so what should we do about it? But inherent in this question is a key message Big Oil has been pushing for awhile. Think of it as 'the anti-Greenpeace' (if their objective is to normalise renewables): it's a message which intends to solidify in our heads the idea that it's impossible to shift away from fossil fuels over the next critical decades. The second part of the question is also crucial: 'managing CO2 emissions'. This implies incremental innovation--that rather than eliminate emissions through clean energy sources, our best bet is to reduce them one step at a time.

Finally, the answer options are hideously disingenuous. Note that the option of a shift to renewable technologies that are available now--solar, wind, geothermal, etc.--is not even included. Instead, the closest option we have is 'continuing to research and develop technologies'. I wouldn't place a penny on that option, considering R&D spending has essentially remained flat for the world's major energy companies over the past two decades, despite record profits.

So here's to you, Shell: you're a greenwash machine.

10.20.2010

Gem of the day

What kind of energy future does Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker imagine? It's a dangerous question to ask, but since it really delivers such a gem, here's his answer, based heavily on anecdotal evidence:

"I was in New York City the other day, and you know what? I saw a bunch of people driving gasoline-powered vehicles. I think we're going to be on petroleum for decades to come."

10.19.2010

Something that's actually good

John Sauven, the director of Greenpeace, has an excellent article in today's  Guardian sustainable business edition. His key points:
  • Corporate 'sustainability' is today mired in increasingly meaningless slogans like 'the 3P model' and 'the triple bottom line' (the latter of which I think made for a great book, but is basically being abused by a lot of companies right now. Just look at a few recent CSR reports.)
  • Governments and corporations need to work together to build sustainable solutions (this might sound 'duh' but coming from Greenpeace it's like a breath of fresh air)
  • China is making game-changing investments. In the short-term, governments who don't make investments like this are going to lose out, both ecologically and economically. Sauven also adds he isn't suggesting everyone should be just like China, but that it's a massive wake-up call in terms of what's possible.
  • We need a new economic worldview that thinks beyond profit.
 All makes sense to me.

Gem of the day

As Hunter S. Thompson would say, "Well and here we go again." Chevron, not to be outdone by Shell, has launched an aggressive new global ad campaign, "We Agree". Here's the headline message:

"Oil Companies Should Clean Up Their Messes"

"For decades, oil companies like ours have worked in disadvantaged areas, influencing policy in order to do there what we can't do at home. It's time this changed. People in Ecuador, Nigeria, the Gulf of Mexico, Richmond, and elsewhere have a right to a clean and healthy environment too."

First and foremost, why? Why launch this campaign, other than to anticipate criticism in the aftermath of the oil spill and deflect responsibility by claiming forethought on these issues?

Secondly, what does the message above even mean? Just as in Shell's 'Let's Go' ads, the words these companies are [ab]using are not just ambiguous--they're deliberately misleading and just plain strange. In this message, it may seem at first that Chevron is admitting to decades of wrongdoing in developing world communities. But it's far from clear what they are actually talking about.

Finally, for Chevron to state in the key messages of this campaign that 'we agree' strong rules to govern oil companies, strict emissions limits, and preventative measures for reducing the risks of oil spills are needed, is beyond disingenuous. We've seen the extraordinary figures spent by major oil companies to lobby Congress in the wake of Deepwater Horizon, with the specific objective to avoid tougher legislation. Companies like Chevron are also directly responsible for the failure of climate legislation in the US, which has had a devastating domino effect on global progress towards putting a price on carbon and sending important long-term investment signals--COP15, anyone?--and I categorically reject the idea that they could run a campaign like this aggressively asking if 'we', the global public, agree that these initiatives are needed.

All of these campaigns are useless, damaging and frankly, insulting use of PR money to try to deflect any real examination of what these companies are actually doing and investing in. I am a strong believer that, given the extraordinary profits of Big Oil, these companies could be driving a transformative shift towards renewables and efficiency solutions in our global energy mix. But you know what? Right now they're not.

And now, because we all desperately need a laugh on a dark day such as this one, I leave you with the predictably wise words of my partner in crime, Casper ter Kuile:

"This is obviously brilliant, but if anyone was fooled by it - they haven't been paying attention. Oh yes, that reminds me, nobody is. Carry on everyone."

10.15.2010

Bonus gem

I've been complaining about sustainability and CSR rankings a lot recently, mostly because they are inherently flawed. But now we get to try this on for size:

Apparently there's an issue in the software used to determine company scores on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. And get this: it means some companies may have 'inadvertently been allowed' onto the index when they shouldn't have been.

Right. Considering that the DJSI is one of the most powerful determinents of investment strategy in the world, this is not good news. In fact, it's treacherous and nauseating news.

Maybe this can explain Halliburton's newly minted place on the ranking this year?

Gem of the day

Is it too much to ask to have a quiet Friday morning? Apparently, because in my innocuous daily foray into the New York Times about five minutes ago, I got hit with an ad for this .

That's right, this is not a joke. It's 'Paper Because', a new campaign from manufacturing giant Domtar. The corporation is the largest integrated producer of paper in North America, and the second largest in the world. Let me run some of the slogans by you now:
  • "Paperbecause..Well-managed FSC certified forests guarantee that future generations will be able to experience nature, not just read about it."
  • "Paperbecause...FSC-managed forests also help protect plant species, wildlife, and the increasingly endangered North American manufacturing job."
  • "Paperbecause...Well-managed forests give wildlife more private places to populate."
This greenwash is truly extraordinary. In fact, I'd say it's giving Asia Pulp and Paper a run for its money--literally. No further analysis needed, this one speaks for itself.

I'd like to just call your attention to the brand of their primary FSC-certified product line, however:

Domtar EarthChoice®

10.14.2010

Bonus gem

FT Energy Source reports:

"Total’s top table was the place to be sitting at last night’s Oil and Money dinner at the Dorchester Hotel in London."

[um]

Wait! it gets better:

"Delegates kept wandering past to congratulate Andrew Gould (right), the chairman and chief executive of Schlumberger, for being awarded the Petroleum Executive of the Year Award – the first service company to receive this award."

Petroleum Executive of the Year? Can I apply?

"Recipients are chosen through a confidential peer selection process involving CEOs and other senior energy executives."

Yep, sounds about right--selection process based on, in essence, sheer nepotism. I guess I'll sit this one out.

Gem of the day

Candidate for best energy-related headline ever:

"Analysts Unimpressed by Early Lifting of Deepwater Drilling Ban"

10.13.2010

Bonus gem

Are you ready for one of the worst CR thought leadership initiatives I've ever seen from a large corporation? Well, you're probably not, but here it is, courtesy of Emerson:

The campaign is titled 'It's Never Been Done Before' with the accompanying slogan 'Consider It Solved'. If that wasn't bad enough to cause you anxiety, fear and despair already, consider it in context. This is an ad which I encountered in Amsterdam airport recently:

"Turn the frigid waters of the North Sea into heat for an entire city with zero global warming impact. It's never been done before. Emerson: Consider It Solved."

Now, the company is pursuing a range of sustainability issues which it frames for this campaign as 'innovation stories'. They all seem decent enough--converting food waste to electricity in the US, reinventing heat pump technology in China.

It doesn't take much insight to notice the imagery Emerson is using in the above ad is total greenwash--a pure mountain scene with no evidence whatsoever.

But what really makes this campaign mind-blowingly destructive is the idea of saying everything is solved. And not just suggesting the problem has been solved--actually instructing public audiences to sit back and relax, because Emerson is at the wheel.

So can I go home and sip an iced tea now, Emerson? Are you on it? Sounds great, thanks.

Gem of the day

So how's it going at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in the US? It's a good time to ask, now that the offshore drilling ban has been lifted early.

Michael Bromwich, the new head of the bureau, has an answer for us:

"Mr Bromwich said on Tuesday that BOEM had “job notices out” for additional inspectors and that BOEM had a pending request for more funds for additional resources."

Wow.

10.11.2010

Gem of the day

So here's a funny one. Contrast this with the image above--see the issue? Right.

10.08.2010

Gem of the day

So apparently in the context of offshore drilling and mining--basically in the major extractive industries overall--forest and natural terrain is referred to as 'overburden'. Yep--a burden on the industry, because it makes the resources harder to get to.

I've been thinking about what it must be like to work on an extremely risky, dangerous venture like an offshore drilling rig, recently. Or even a mine. Or one of the impossibly alienating E.ON coal-fired power stations. This infrastructure is all a relic of rapid industrialisation, designed without humans in mind. In fact, not just designed without them in mind, but specifically with the philosophy that losing a human life, or destroying the planet's natural resources, are both small prices to pay for energy that can fuel human progress.

Well, all I can say is, here's to the next generation of energy.

10.07.2010

Gem of the day

Another mind-blowingly stupid move from the US: West Virginia (which, word to the wise, currently has a Democratic governor) sues the Obama administration AND the EPA over new federal rules on mountaintop removal mining. Witness the pallid justification:

“Over the past year and a half, we have been fighting President Obama’s administration’s attempts to destroy our coal industry and way of life in West Virginia,” Manchin said today. “We are asking the court to reverse EPA’s actions before West Virginia’s economy and our mining community face further hardship.”

Another non-environmental wonder

There's no question that everything Hunter S. Thompson ever published was pure genius. Gem after gem after gem. And so, unsurprisingly, now that The Ottowa Citizen has happened upon a 1958 cover letter Thompson wrote to apply for a job at the Vancouver Sun, we can once again revel in the magic of his extraordinarily incisive writing.

"As far as I'm concerned, it's a damned shame that a field as potentially dynamic and vital as journalism should be overrun with dullards, bums, and hacks, hag-ridden with myopia, apathy, and complacence, and generally stuck in a bog of stagnant mediocrity. If this is what you're trying to get The Sun away from, then I think I'd like to work for you."

10.06.2010

Gem of the day

There's been plenty of hullabaloo, reflection, fear and loathing recently over the validity of ethical indices/sustainability ratings/CSR rankings/whatever you want to call all those organisations that give us wildly varying measurements of how well companies are doing on sustainability.

And so out of this chaotic buzz come the magical Phase Two results of SustainAbility's project, Rate the Raters. It's an impressive methodology they've undertaken: an inventory of over 100 sustainability ratings and their attributes, accompanied by a survey of over 1000 "sustainability professionals" on their perceptions of rankings.

Their conclusions?
  • Of the ratings most prominent today, the vast majority have emerged within the last ten years
  • More than 60% of the ratings in the inventory depend wholly or in part on information submitted directly to ratings organizations, thereby rewarding companies with the greatest capacity to respond.
Seriously? That's it? I wrote about these very issues a few weeks back, admittedly with no robust research to back up my claims other than my own subjective perception of how ridiculous rankings have become. But in all seriousness, I expect more from a major project of this scale than conclusions this tepid.