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.



10.05.2010

Bonus bonus bonus gem

This won't come as a surprise. Here goes though, it's still a gem:

Shell spent $4 million on lobbying in Q2 of this year alone. On what, might you ask? Ah yes, the usual suspects given the blowout, shall we say, since April: offshore petroleum drilling, clean energy legislation, shale gas drilling, and regulation of transportation fuels.

Let's place this number in context. It's nearly double the $2.57 million the company spent last year--that's right, the entire year, not just one quarter--and the $2.27 million it spent in the first three months of 2010.

Proactive stakeholder engagement or trying to prevent basic legislation that's a necessity to avoid future offshore drilling disasters? I leave it to you to decide. Enjoy.

Bonus bonus gem

Can somebody please explain to me the logic in this gem? Perhaps it's a simple case of the Tuesday doldrums, but I'm at a loss to understand the intellectual path that apparently leads from thinking a tree is disfiguring a man-made creation--a parking lot, no less--to reflecting on the importance of trees in nature. And, wait for it: the bold decision to refer to trees as a 'renewable resource' for the packaging industry. Truly incredible.

"On my way to work every morning, I pass a tree which appears to have suffered a lightning strike, and I admit I have questioned why anyone would leave such a disfigured, “half a tree” standing in an otherwise well manicured empty lot. Then I started to think about how important trees are to the environmental health of our planet as well as what a valuable renewable resource they are for the packaging industry."

Bonus gem

What's wrong with this sentence?

"The successful execution of sustainability strategy at Anglo American positions it among the leaders of the industry."

Gem of the day

Well, the world's first-ever census of marine life has arrived--and it comes with robust media commentary, including this statement describing the “yeti crab” from the Pacific Ocean south of Easter Island:

“It looks like it’s wearing big white mittens that look like they belong in Aspen during ski season,” Mr. Ausubel said.

10.04.2010

Gem of the day

Sometimes the introductions to catch-all articles about 'green business' or 'sustainability' deliver unfathomable gems. Here's a good one:

"The challenges to achieving true global sustainability seem more insurmountable as the years roll on."

The actual article is not bad--it makes the case that reporting, in its current shape and form, is pretty much irrelevant and has questionable impact on the sustainability movement. But the author's solution--that most of the answers can be solved if all companies get real-time reporting dashboards--seems like a disingenuously simple remedy to the issue as he frames it:


"The vision of making disclosure on economic, environmental, and social performance as commonplace as financial reporting -- and as relevant to organizational success."

10.01.2010

Bonus bonus gem

Brace yourself because this is actually happening. Unrelated to Deepwater Horizon, BP is being separately fined a record-breaking $15 million to resolve federal Clean Air Act violations at its Texas City, Texas, petroleum refinery.

Here's Dudley making the story complete with his assessment of what needs to happen at the company:

"...to rebuild trust in BP -- the trust of our customers, of governments, of our employees and of the world at large."

Bonus gem

Thanks to AccountAbility, now we know the fundamentals of how to map stakeholders. And yes it looks just like that. It's a Microsoft Office dream.

Gem of the day

How many times, when asked about BP's future commitment to renewables, can the company's new CEO say the words 'broadly' and 'long-term'? Quite a few, apparently. Check this out:

“Broadly, I believe the world is going to evolve over time to a lower-carbon energy world,” he said. “You will see BP committed to certain forms of renewable energy. Biofuels is one. We have a wind business in the U.S. that is successful and will continue to grow. Broadly, long term, the world is going to need every kind of energy, particularly with the growth in Asia.”