THINGS GOTTA CHANGE

And I’m going to take Cleveland, and the “Cleveland Model,” as a new and enlightening nexus point, that is, its cooperative spirit, literal co-ops and bright green focus—and, hoop fans, I’m not talking LeBron James, Shaq, turn$tile revenues (green of another sort) and the concomitant full-glaze opiate common of professional sports. This is—drum roll, please—CHANGE TO BELIEVE IN! And I think we’re all ready for a true (a posse ad esse) annus mirabillis.

Opening of the Evergreen Cooperative Laundry.

WHAT CLEVELAND IS DOING, AND DOING QUITE WELL, is creating jobs, many of them green, generating wealth, spurring growth and enhancing community, through Evergreen Cooperatives, a Cleveland-area partnership between six city neighborhoods and “anchor institutions,” which include the city, the Cleveland Foundation, Case Western Reserve University, the Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals. Businesses launched so far include Evergreen Cooperative Laundry, Ohio Cooperative Solar and (still in prelaunch) Green City Growers—all local, employee-owned and for-profit companies that utilize green best practices (such as LEED silver certification and a small carbon footprint at the laundry). And they’re doing this despite current economic conditions, and in a city not normally associated with growth (Cleveland’s population has halved since 1950 and the poverty rate stands at more than 30 percent).

This cooperative model has been inspired by the MONDRAGON Corporation in the Basque Country of northern Spain, which includes 256 independent companies (more than 100 of which are worker-owned cooperatives) and employs 100,000+ people. MONDRAGON’s governance (instituted by the principle of one worker, one vote) shares its overriding resources with the individual companies, assisting with planning, research, funding and more. While not impervious to the recent global economic downturn, the cooperative has seen a significant €1,324 million in investment—a clear, determined commitment to the future—with no market share or position lost in relation to its competition.

Evergreen Cooperatives, instead of “business as usual,” limits the spread between high and low salaries: no top-management employee earns more than five times any entry-level employee. The Evergreen Cooperative Development Fund, meanwhile, managed by ShoreBank Enterprise Cleveland, offers low-interest, long-term financing; it’s capitalized by $5 million in grants and expects to raise another $10-$12 million, which will ideally leverage up to $40 million in additional investment funds. The fund’s website adds:

In keeping with the wealth building goals of the Fund, the Fund also works to ensure the availability of “wrap around services” so that neighborhood residents may become effective employees and organizes the businesses to have an ownership structure that makes employees into employee-owners, who not only have the ability to earn a living wage, but also the chance to build wealth and assets as part-owners of the companies where they work.

Ohio Cooperative Solar—could the name be much greener?!—is currently installing solar panels on the roofs of the city’s largest nonprofit health, education and municipal buildings, working to meet Ohio’s mandate to generate 60 megawatts of solar energy by 2012 (2 megawatts are presently being generated). It’s also leading the way in Ohio’s weatherization program, ripping a noble page right from Van Jones‘ Green Collar Economy.

What about in-the-works Green City Growers (in a city that can certainly benefit from local, affordable produce)? This co-op will open a 230,000-square-foot hydroponic-food-production greenhouse, utilizing new-tech energy-efficient lighting, of course, and produce nearly a million pounds of basil and other herbs and 3 million heads of lettuce a year. In addition to job creation, this will certainly help supplant an over-reliance on fast food, common in urban “food deserts”—a very healthy benefit, indeed.

A newfangled, new-new-deal-wrangled commie plot to take down the greater system? Hardly. I’d rather subscribe to the theory as espoused in a recent story about the Cleveland model reported in The Nation (March 1, 2010):

The overall strategy is not only to go green but to design and position all the worker-owned co-ops as the greenest firms within their sectors. This is important in itself, but even more crucial is that the new green companies are aiming for a competitive advantage in getting the business of hospitals and other anchor institutions trying to shrink their carbon footprint. Far fewer green-collar jobs have been identified nationwide than had been hoped; and there is a danger that people are being trained and certified for work that doesn’t exist. The Evergreen strategy represents another approach—first build the green business and jobs and then recruit and train the workforce for these new positions (and give them an ownership stake to boot). (Emphasis added.)

Key here is seeing this model not only successful in Cleveland but rolled out across the country. Again, from The Nation:

What’s especially promising about the Cleveland model is that it could be applied in hard-hit industries and working-class communities around the nation. The model takes us beyond both traditional capitalism and traditional socialism. The key link is between national sectors of expanding public activity and procurement, on the one hand, and a new local economic entity, on the other, that “democratizes” ownership and is deeply anchored in the community. In the case of healthcare the link is also to a sector in which some implicit or explicit form of “national planning”—the movement toward universal healthcare—will all but certainly increase public influence and concern with how funds are used.

Change to believe in? Absolutely, albeit it’s certain to be filled with both trials and tribulations, which are part and parcel of any learning process and establishment of something new. This is a true grassroots movement, from the bottom up, influencing larger organizations and players and getting them aboard in supporting roles (those “anchor institutions,” as mentioned previously)—putting power in the hands of the individual and folding it into a galvanized collective, letting workers take legitimate pride in ownership, rather than shake in their boots fearing their jobs may soon vanish overseas to help actualize greater bottom-line profits.

People and the planet figure large in the Cleveland model’s bottom line, that is, the triple bottom line. So let’s get that remarkable year, that annus mirabillis, in gear. Consider this a different form of bipartisanship to believe in—a completely different animal—from Cleveland, with antecedents in the Basque region of Spain. And finally, that said, this doesn’t let state or federal government, not to mention banks, off the hook or free to escape culpability—funding channels, with actual cash flow, need to be encouraged, established and supported.*

—Allen

*See Robert Pollin’s excellent piece, “18 Million Jobs by 2012,” in the March 8, 2010, issue of The Nation for realizable ways to help generate additional funding for sustainable-job-building programs like Evergreen Cooperatives. Related calculation details can be found at UMass’s Political Economy Research Institute.

WHILE FAR FROM A HOUSEHOLD NAME ON OUR SHORES

Sakamoto’s been involved with green pursuits since at least 1994, when he first moved away from plastic-jewel-case CD packaging to biodegradable paper sleeves. And he’s traversed some mighty terrain since then—as he puts it, “turning ego into eco”—which includes his latest release, Out of Noise, featuring two haunting tracks (“Ice” and “Glacier”) inspired by a Cape Farewell Project trip to Greenland viewing imperiled arctic glaciers.

Sakamoto—whose music encompasses classical, experimental, film scores, ambient, pop, jazz and electronica—is at the forefront of a larger movement that’s afoot. The vibrant relationship between the worlds of music and that of environmental concern has unquestionably gained momentum of late, and has seen genuine far-reaching and -ranging adoption (and not mere feel-good, get-on-the-bandwagon lip service to sell more tickets and product) by artists as diverse as Willie Nelson, Radiohead, Melissa Etheridge, the Roots, Pearl Jam, Moby, Bonnie Raitt, the Dave Matthews Band and Green Day. Good for the Earth? Absolutely! Good for your ears? Ditto that, and perhaps coming this summer, in a carbon-neutral manner, to a concert venue near you.
RETURNING TO SAKAMOTO’S ACHIEVEMENTS, before widening the gyre to include larger industry eco-trends and best practices, it’s easy to be inspired by his actions. Consider the following: In 2001 he used a small windmill and solar panel—both portable, of course—to generate energy during a tour; by 2005 he had completed two 100-percent carbon-free tours of Japan. He also used biodegradable cups, plates and garbage bags; set up flyer kiosks where patrons could choose the materials they wanted rather than be presented with a bundle that would end up in the trash; he also requested upcoming concert attendees to utilize as much public transportation as possible. What then remained of carbon emissions were offset with carbon-credit purchases from alternative energy companies. In 2006 his Japanese record label, commmons (the extra m is for music), became the nation’s first green label, operating its administrative activities using alternative, renewable energy, with all packaging completely carbon-free the following year.

And there’s more: Sakamoto established moreTrees in 2007 as a means to conserve and plant trees in Japan and abroad. Audi Japan sponsored his fall/winter 2009 European tour, in support of Out of Noise, to offset carbon emissions (the just-prior Japanese tour even included a carbon-offset cost in the ticket price). Out of Noise, as mentioned earlier, includes two mesmerizing compositions inspired by his Cape Farewell Project trip. Sakamoto includes ambient sounds recorded both above and below the sea—you discern the cry of seabirds and dripping of meltwater within a gently cascading soundscape of acoustic and electronic instrumentation: it’s both ominous and soothing/meditational in an Enoesque “music for …” kind of way, a musique concrete decrying cataclysmic climate change. (Read PopMatter’s insightful review of Out of Noise.)

But Sakamoto can’t do it alone. Other artists (those listed above and many more) and organizations are hoisting high the green banner when it comes to music. Reverb, a nonprofit formed in 2004 that works with green rock tours, regularly sets up eco-villages with environmental displays and activities at shows, provides carbon offsets for attendees, displays eco-slideshows on venue jumbotrons, assists with biodiesel fuelings and waste recycling/reducing, and lots, lots more. MusicMatters, a for-profit, is another leader, practicing “Effect Marketing.” It describes this as “[g]oing beyond just promoting awareness of a cause or product … incorporat[ing] initiatives that encourage consumers to take action and produce quantifiable results on important and environmental and social issues.” MusicMatters works with musicians as well as a wide variety of companies (e.g., Annie’s, Ben & Jerry’s, Clif Bar, Nature’s Path, New Leaf Paper, Utne, Working Assets).

In the greater scheme of things (and doesn’t it always come to that?), do these ventures make a real impact on the environment? According to Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at Carnegie Institution and as reported in The New York Times, “In general, these offsets do some good, in the sense they usually help fund projects that are beneficial.” He goes on to state that the direct benefits are hypothetical as carbon offsets defer future emissions, not what’s being produced by the tour at that time. But these tours, as pointed out, are also utilizing other creative means to curtail emissions (Radiohead’s use of low-power LED concert lighting a few years ago also comes readily to mind) and their green evangelical/educational component is highly significant, which, couched in a pop-culture setting and given a grand stage, certainly doesn’t fall on deaf ears.

From “out of noise” a powerful message can emerge, turning “ego to eco”—it’s as true coming from Ryuichi Sakamoto as it is from Willie Nelson or Green Day. And the audience, potential change agents all, is listening.

—Allen

THE IN-AGAIN TERM “NEGAWATT” CONJURES ELECTRO-DYNAMIC VISIONS

Considered one way, as Planet Green relates, “the greenest power of all is the Negawatt—the power you don’t use. The first thing you should be doing is just doing less, investing in CFL and LED lighting, turning off switches, junking your fridge if it is older than 10 years, and hanging your laundry on a line.”

Another way has it, and this from Thomas Friedman’s “The Energy Internet: When IT Meets ET” chapter of Hot, Flat, and Crowded, is a future realization of the “E.C.E.” (Energy-Climate Era) through a vast, interconnected, back-and-forth smart grid—this is the grandiose view from space, where “an Energy Internet would enable you, me, and your next-door neighbor to do extraordinary things by way of saving energy [negawatt = a unit of energy saved] and using clean power efficiently, and do them around the clock, all the time, whether or not you’re thinking about it.” This is also where individuals, organizations both public and private, big business and government(s) will have to agree on an executable plan (or many), strategy and tactics that efficaciously move forward such a grid, not get tied up in endless red tape, petty squabbling and boardroom fisticuffs that lead to insurmountable impasse and failure.

HERE’S A NEGAWATT DEFINITION I LIKE A LOT: “A negawatt is in essence a negative megawatt, in that it is a megawatt of power that was not required to be produced or expended. In other words, it is a unit of energy saved that would have otherwise not only been made but also used. Perhaps the simplest way to define it is that a negawatt is a measure of energy efficiency. When less power is consumed, the demand for energy decreases.” (Definition from wiseGEEK.)

It seems so commonsensical (less consumed = decreased demand), and ultimately it is, but in a world of constant energy-conservation fission (inherent inefficiencies, laziness, systemic breakdowns, etc.) and ingrained habits of oblivious waste, slippage is commonplace and resultantly energy consumption continues its inexorable climb. The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts “moderate” 14 percent energy-consumption growth between 2008 and 2035, with CO2 continuing its annual climb at 0.3 percent—unacceptable if we want to return to anything like 350 ppm and curb greenhouse gases.

Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute, who is credited with coining the term negawatt (“The NegaWatt Revolution: Solving the CO2 Problem” keynote address at the Green Energy Conference, Montreal, 1989), pointed out how lighting represents a great arena to implement “negawatt savings.” “Think of such a compact [CFL] bulb,” Lovins wrote, “with 14 watts replacing 75, as a 61 negawatt power plant. By substituting 14 watts for 75 watts, you are sending 61 unused watts—or negawatts—back to Hydro, who can sell the electricity saved to someone else without having to make it all over again.”

Now simply extrapolate Lovins’ idea to the current-administration-supported smart energy grid (or Energy Internet, as Friedman would have it) or any number of other forward-thinking applications that connect efficiency and savings in one place by moving that saved or conserved energy to another place. Think of this high-tech smart grid as monitoring all electricity supply flowing into and through it while controlling consumer demand all the way to a granular level: household appliances, lighting, heating, air conditioning, electronic gadgets, etc. Storage (the use of reliable accumulators) is also critical here; think of being able to hold onto solar, geothermal, wind and other forms of energy for times of peak use.

“All actors of the sector,” Ludwig Karg, director of the Germany’s E-Energy, told TerraViva, “from the generators to the consumers, passing through the operators of the grid, must be linked to each other. Every device, every appliance at the consuming end shall be connected to all electricity providers’ regulating mechanism, as in a plug-and-play system, supported by smart meters, to monitor consumption and ponder supply and prices at any given moment, to constitute a smart grid.”

Devices and systems are being developed and built by companies like Comverge, EnerNoc and Echelon that let end users and consumers monitor and adjust electricity use in real time, Tom Raftery reported on the GreenMonk blog. Energy demand management, meanwhile, has opened up the scrutiny of thermostats (think HVAC), bringing diesel generators online and regulating consumption times (such as lighting, storage heaters and pre-cooling buildings in the morning prior to peak demand). ”This is a whole new market which is about to open up,” Raftery wrote. “There are massive opportunities … for people to write software to manage this, to build the hardware to do this, and to aggregate NegaWatts for sale to utility companies.”

Ah, the negawatt: far less elusive than antimatter (with the exception of PET scans) or perhaps a “quantum-plated” alternate universe, but not a gimme by any stretch. And creating a vast interconnected grid—Friedman’s and others’ Energy Internet—is even more of a far-reaching Frankensteinian challenge. Let me close with a Friedman observation (again from Hot, Flat, and Crowded):

While many of the raw materials necessary to make this system a reality already exist in some form, it will not be easy to implement—no revolution is. But this is definitely not science fiction. So keep an open eye and an open mind, and remember what the late, great science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously observed: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Bring on the magic, then, for we have the collective knowhow, and let’s start reverse generating, if you will, those mighty, mighty negawatts.

—Allen

Addendum: See Green America’s suggestions for “Investing in Green Energy.”

STRIPPED TO ITS CORE,

“Is it possible to have a good life without wasting so much?”

Well, depending on your own nature (plus irritability factor), you may want to either scream “YES, YOU MORON, ARE YOU KIDDING?!” or more calmly intone, “Absolutely, Mr. Beavan, I already get it and am doing what I can, but how do we efficaciously spread the gospel far and wide?”

Well, with response two lies the big question, which No Impact Man, the blog, the book and the movie, grapples with to varying degrees of success. As we’re already deep in cliche-ville when it comes to constant reminders of “it’s not easy being green,” do we need another reminder of how our modern world of 24/7 conveniences and heedless mass consumption clash head-on with getting back to planet-preserving simplicity, if not to the non-subsidized, people-powerd farm, preferably off the grid, where the vast majority of GDP-boosting consumer practices are eschewed or pilloried?

I believe the answer’s yes, especially if it sparks dialogue and debate, and seeps, burbles or boils further into the mainstream.

In No Impact Man, the movie, wider viewership (now that it’s on DVD) can be stimulated by its simple “reality TV factor,” which draws the trendy gaze by its train-wreck premise—How is Beavan’s family going to actually do this for a whole year without going batty? Can they survive without—gasp!—toilet paper, disposable diapers for the baby, a fridge, packaged foods, etc.? It becomes as much an intimate character study (there’s a bit of cabin fever on display here, too) as stick-by-your-guns eco-pledge, and it works quite effectively well in this potentially wobbly and at-odds context. It certainly shows the everyday challenges of attempting to live a no/low-impact life (the ice-cooler “cheat,” when it occurs, is entirely understandable and easy to commiserate with).

So if you’re not entirely put off by the book and blog gimmick tie in (Julie and Julia, anybody?), take a gander at No Impact Man while sitting in the dark, and why not? spread the gospel of wasting little and living more.

—Allen

WHETHER YOU CELEBRATE THE HOLIDAYS OR NOT

WILSON REBOUND BASKETBALL “Think globally. Hoop locally.” Hoop it up with Wilson’s first green product, made from 40 percent recycled rubber. The packaging is 80 percent pre- and post-consumer board. A great way to get active and green simultaneously!

POWER MONKEY EXPLORER SOLAR CHARGER This critter cranks, providing up to 96 hours of reserve power for your essential electronic devices—stuff, let’s face it, you just can’t give up and that require (seemingly) constant recharging. With the Power Monkey, you can suck less off the grid.

PRESERVE RECYCLED MIXING BOWLS Gotta love these bright and tough mixing bowls that nest nicely for easy storage. They’re BPA free and made from 100 percent recycled #5 plastic. Ideal equally for slow food or fast meals. And Preserve, the company, has a great green tag line: “Nothing wasted. Everything gained.”

NAU SHROUD OF PURRIN HOODY This attractive women’s soft shell is wind and water resistant, breathable and ideal for outdoor activities (there’s also a men’s version). It’s also very green, made from recycled post-consumer and post-industrial polyester waste, and can be recycled at the end of its life (triple-bottom-line-focused Nau utilizes cradle-to-cradle ECO CIRCLE technology).

SOKOL BLOSSER 2007 DUNDEE HILLS PINOT NOIR A spectacular Willamette Valley, Oregon, Pinot from a deep green winemaker. Sokol Blosser adheres to the Natural Step principles, and is distinctly “fruit forward” when it comes to vineyard and business sustainable practices.

YES! MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION Quarterly YES! Magazine is an exceptional green and socially responsible read all the way through, which makes it a great green gift. And being champions of Creative Commons licensing, these Bainbridge Island, Washingtonians are into sharing what they say and what they’re about.

TOY RECYCLING TRUCK This durable little guy from Green Toys can assist in playfully sending the right message to the next generation. Recycled milk jugs are the primary ingredient in this made-in-the-USA toy. Make recycle time playtime!

FLAMING LIPS REUSABLE SHOPPING BAG Hey, these crazy Oklahomans have an inspiring all-embracing spirituality and playfulness that just says NO! to negative vibes, greed mongering and Abaddon-bent hegemony. While any reusable shopping bag may do, we like the message behind this one—even if you’ve yet to see the Flaming Lips, or prefer Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. Oh yeah, you might also consider their Silver Trembling Fetus Ornament—just in time to skew the holidays.

KOR ONE HYDRATION VESSELS Yet another stylish way to shun the blight of bottled water, these BPA-free containers come in four special-edition designs that represent water-related causes. KOR has also selected four nonprofits for its Thirst for Giving program that will benefit from each purchase: Algalita Marine Research Foundation, The Wetlands Initiative, Container Recycling Institute and Blue Planet Run Foundation.

CROOZER CARGO BIKE TRAILER Okay, enough with hearing lame excuses from your hardcore biking buddies about them not having any, or enough, bike cargo space when it comes to running errands. This trailer has bounteous capacity (66 pounds), a removable cover and is super easy to hitch and unhitch. Any bike-related item pretty much makes a great green gift.

A COPY OF BRINGING IT TO THE TABLE AND A REENCHANTED WORLD Wendell Berry’s collection of essays on farming and food was a delightful release in 2009, as was James William Gibson’s treatise on man’s interaction with nature, the environmental movement and promise for the future. Let’s toss Al Gore’s new book, Our Choice, and membership in the Progressive Book Club in there, too—books make wonderful gifts.

LOVE YOUR STREAM POSTER From Good Nature Publishing Company and illustrated by Sherry Neidigh, this delightful poster is all about clean water best practices—a message worth sharing wrapped in beautiful art.

—Allen

THE MULTIPLIER EFFECT

And with the holiday season upon us, what better time to—if you haven’t already— shop and buy local, and keep your cash, and attendant goodwill, recirculating in your community. So rev up that actions-speak-louder-than-words multiplier effect, it’s small-mart time! And I promise no descents into the vagaries of zero-sums and game theory, trade deficits, WTO WTF?!, China, India or, for that matter, droll laissez-faire Milton Friedmanesque spouts.

“TURNING DOLLARS AROUND LOCALLY [through recirculation] will help to limit the amount of dollars flowing out of the region and be a stabilizing influence,” says Billy Ray Hall, president of the North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center in Raleigh, as quoted in a recent Christian Science Monitor piece. “But it’s when you sprinkle entrepreneurship into the mix and have a commitment to grow businesses locally that you have a sustainable base.” So you need smarts, some demonstrable business acumen in the mix, to battle the big boxes and chains—those that rely on slick national advertising and low, low prices as ultimate enticement—that’s the carrot; the stick comes later when the lucre is siphoned out of town back to corporate headquarters. Merely hanging a BUY LOCAL sign, then, isn’t enough.

Educating consumers, raising awareness of the importance of buying local, which can be achieved by banding together with like-minded businesses (even if you consider them competitors), is a highly recommended strategy for battling the big guys. Many towns and cities have “buy local” or “think local” organizations that can pool resources, hatch joint marketing plans and bazooka out shared PR efforts. Check the American Independent Business Alliance website to see if there’s a branch near you; same with the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies. Also, talk to your business and community neighbors, engage in social media (who, for instance, is tweeting with a “buy local” hashtag in your area?), interact and converse wherever and whenever you can—forge those connections that are the cornerstone of community.

Here in Portland, Oregon, the Sustainable Business Network (SBN) launched a “Think Local First” marketing campaign five years ago to support independent, locally owned businesses (its focus today is “Local First: Choose locally owned businesses”). “This program,” the SBN website explains, “enhances the livability of our community, the stability and diversity of the local economy, and the retention and expansion of independent, locally owned businesses through increasing awareness about the personal, community, and economic benefits of choosing local first.” Choose Local (not associated with SBN), which covers four Oregon cities to date, provides a free loyalty discount card that can be used at a wide variety of local businesses (discounts tend to be 10 percent to 15 percent).

In addition to the tourist-centric Made in Oregon stores, Local Goods opened in Portland this September, its focus on locally made, sustainable products offered at a fair price—if you live hereabouts, it’s well worth a trip to East Burnside to take a look. This is merely the tip of the iceberg lettuce—get out there and explore; the Alliance of Portland Neighborhood Business Associations’ website and  Green America’s National Green Pages are highly recommended jumping-off points.

Simple, fresh, slow, organic, sustainable … and local. When it comes to food (and Green Dynamind has covered the topic in “Back to the Garden” and “A Paean to Organic Agriculture, Oregon Style”), food miles are an additional concern—that is, the distance food travels from its origin to point of sale, which sadly is increasing. Buying local entirely obviates this issue, of course, and is gaining momentum, both locally and nationally. Cost and availability are still major challenges, unfortunately, to be overcome in numerous locations. In Oregon, where we have a plethora of farmers’ markets, CSAs, wineries and breweries, as well as grocers and restaurants that passionately buy local, the Oregon Environmental Council has set up a handy website of resources for buying locally grown food. “Buy local” has certainly made purposeful strides when it comes to food, it’s a trend in ascent, albeit bottom-line price will continue to be a major factor in regards to many family budgets.

Consider these points, and share them, when it comes to buying local (adapted from a list in Green Festival Reader: Fresh Ideas from Agents of Change and at Sustainable Connections, the Bellingham, Washington, chapter of BALLE):

• More money recirculates in the local economy when purchases are made at locally owned businesses.
• Nonprofits receive greater support from locally owned businesses.
• Unique businesses help create a distinctive spirit of place.
• Local businesses have a reduced environmental impact.
• Most new jobs are provided by local businesses; green jobs can be a sizable part of this.
• Customer service and support are superior at local businesses.
• Local business owners invest in the local community.
• Public benefits far outweigh public costs.
• Competition and diversity lead to more choices.
• Supporting local enterprise encourages local investment (and don’t forget local financial-service opportunities like credit unions and community banks).

One last shout out for small-mart (v. Wal-Mart) I’d like to share comes from Ralph Nader’s utopian joyride of an doctrine-stuffed novel, Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us! (and not, alas, from Stephen King’s dystopian trapped-community-goes-homicidally-wild parable, Under the Dome!):

“The general objective is to turn Wal-Mart into a pull-up giant instead of a pull-down behemoth outsourcing its suppliers to China, hollowing out communities, offloading its responsibilities to its workers onto the American taxpayer, and driving its competitors to break their labor agreements and downgrade wages and benefits. Otherwise the vast Wal-Mart sub-economy will keep metastasizing and depress the standard of living for millions of American workers. This is not the way our economy grew in the past.” (See our “How the Light Gets In” for more on righting the wrongs of the “new bad economy.”)

’Tis always the season to shop and buy local first.

—Allen

‘There is a crack in everything / that’s how the light gets in.’ —Leonard Cohen, ‘Anthem’

PROPHETIC WORDS OR AN AGE-OLD OBSERVATION of the way change, by necessity, is initiated, that is, breakdown serves as accelerant? In America at Risk: The Crisis of Hope, Trust, and Caring by Purdue sociologists Robert Perrucci and Carolyn Perrucci (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009), systemic cracks are painfully dissected—with true and actionable enlightenment, hopefully, to follow. The Perruccis’ thesis:

“We believe that the decline of hope, trust, and caring is the unanticipated consequence of the major transformation over the last thirty years in the kind of goods and services produced in America, in the technology that is used in production, and in the people who are involved in the production process. We call the composite of these changes the new economy.”

Their take on our current collective cachexia, all part and parcel of the “new economy,” makes for compelling reading, and the slender book (including index and notes it’s a mere 160 pages) offers up an array of solutions that deserves further exploration, certainly before we move from Cohen’s “Anthem” to Gibbons’ Decline and Fall … (for instance, from Gibbons: “If all the barbarian conquerors had been annihilated in the same hour, their total destruction would not have restored the empire of the West: and if Rome still survived, she survived the loss of freedom, of virtue, and of honor”—just plug in “terrorists” in place of “barbarian conquerers” and “America” in place of “Rome,” and wait for the cookie to crumble).

SO WHAT EXACTLY CONSTITUTES THIS “MAJOR TRANSFORMATION” reported by the Perruccis? They see a troubling trifecta of globalized production, computerized production and flexible work organization as the primary perpetrators—with the greater populace thoroughly disempowered the distressing result. Globalized production—companies looking for higher profit margins shifted investment to countries with lower wages, less regulation and nonunionization—resulted in the loss of millions of U.S. jobs, that is, the deindustrialization of America. Computerized production—made possible by computer-assisted design and manufacturing, as well as “flattening” advanced telecommunications technology—eliminated many jobs and made it even easier to produce products abroad. Computerized production also created a demand for “knowledge workers” who competently handle the technology and “contribute to the growing income and wealth inequality generated by the new economy.”

Flexible work organization, finally, refers to the greater flexibility companies wield in the type of workers they hire and in their work arrangements. Old-school “social contracts” between employee and employer have been replaced by major restructuring, downsizing and outsourcing—resulting in greater job insecurity for blue-collar and white-collar workers. Privatization is another factor the Perruccis see at work here, the provisional shift of public services to private (including foreign) firms operating on a for-profit basis. The authors glumly report: “Thus, the expanded use of the private sector to deliver public services will continue to cut into the availability and quality of services to Americans and their communities, and it will undermine the unions that represent public employees and protect their wages, health, and pension benefits.”

With the stage set (or should that be wrecked?), America at Risk next tackles hope, trust and caring as they relate to our current state of affairs (and this book is post-Wall St. crisis, post-bailout and enamored with neither Democrats or Republicans). The Perruccis write:

“Recognizing that hope, trust, and caring are interrelated is especially important when we start to think about remedies to improve the lives of Americans. For example, it may be technically and politically feasible to develop strategies to improve hope by expanding public employment opportunities. But if the policy excludes Americans who believe that they also are deserving of help, then hope will have been extended at the expense of trust; that is, loss of trust in a political system that helps some but not all who are deserving. Thus, when we begin to think about remedies in chapter 8 [the book's concluding chapter, "Confronting the Crisis"], we will be mindful of the way that hope, trust, and caring can be part of an upward spiral of improvement, or a downward spiral of continued decline.”

The book sharply examines employment, educational, community and familial experiences as they vary across race, age, class, gender and geographic location. Illustrative, eye-opening facts and figures abound (always sourced), and are opportunely employed for maximum effect. For example:

• 750,000 Americans are homeless on any given night, with 20 percent of them considered chronically homeless
• $892 million—the average annual earnings of the top 25 hedge-fund managers in 2007; up $360 million from the previous year
• 2/3—the income level of Native Americans to that of white Americans; 23.2 percent of Native Americans were living below the poverty line in 2000—the highest percentage of any ethnic group
• 2,258,983—the number of prisoners in federal or state prison or in local jails on December 31, 2006—yep, we continue to incarcerate more people than other country in the world

Without belaboring the point (and this is not to contend that the book does!), America is very much at risk, so what’s to be done? Is there still time? Do we, collectively and individually, have the audacity? The Perruccis say yes. The book’s concluding chapter, “Confronting the Crisis,” offers up a number of suggestions, particularly around the plight of the displaced worker, going beyond merely “expanding the social safety net.” “The ideal solution to a societal problem,” the Perruccis write, “is one that can restore both hope and trust because the majority of Americans believe that it is good for the country and for them.”

Evoking JFK’s 1961 call for “a great new American enterprise” to put a man on the moon by decade’s end (not to mention FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society), the Perruccis call for the rebuilding of America’s deteriorating infrastructure, and share the D average of the American Society of Civil Engineers’ 2005 Infrastructure Report Card. How will this be paid for? Public money (taxes) and private money (individual and business contributions) will be required—a hard but necessary sell. Also, a “Jobs for America” program should be established, funded by private and public contributions, with additional funds shifted from the defense budget (read military-industrial complex) and potentially NASA. Workers in the program would focus first on rebuilding the country’s infrastructure (green-collar and green-tech jobs would fit nicely in here, I believe), and then on providing support personnel for schools, libraries, hospitals, nursing homes and prisons—all with enhanced pay and benefits.

The Perruccis also call for a national industrial policy that identifies critical sectors of the economy which require support in times of economic difficulty—”while it is too late now for some sectors, this would have meant helping the steel industry, auto industry, and textile industry in the 1970s and 1980s when they were facing competition from firms in other countries”—and an equal playing field when it comes to educational opportunities (instituting, for example, comparable per-pupil expenditures at all schools). The Perruccis contend that term limits and further accountability should be instituted in Washington and locally to restore trust in government. And finally, in-home and long-term care should get better support, as well as the rehabilitation of prisoners and push for less incarceration of nonviolent offenders. I kind of zoomed over these last points—sorry!—but wanted to show that a lot of ground is deftly covered in this imperative “Confronting the Crisis” chapter.

In the Perruccis’ closing analysis:

“Although America is the richest and most powerful nation in the world, nothing lasts forever, and for the last thirty years or so America has gone down a path that threatens its continued viability as the place where most people want to live and raise their children. We believe that the triple crises of hope, trust, and caring threaten to make America a very different country, one different in ways that only the privileged class of Americans will not recognize or understand. The privileged class will continue to enjoy high levels of income, wealth, and security, and their gated-community lives will protect them somewhat from seeing how the other 80 percent are living. But this kind of polarized society is not sustainable. Eventually those who are continuously excluded from the American Dream will submit a bill for payment of their real grievances.” [emphasis added]

It’s high time to heed the light and mend those cracks, and books like America at Risk, while certainly not pretending to have all the answers to society’s ills, can aid in starting a dialogue, if not actually getting things moving forward.

—Allen

LET’S JUMP RIGHT IN

#1 You should never, ever, ever use the word “green” in your name, tag line, PR or marketing materials.
There is nothing wrong with using the word “green”—if you mean it. Sure, it’s particularly ubiquitous these days and already attached to a multitude of businesses, products, ideas, publications, groups, etc., but it still connotes a space and position and way of thinking that resonates with the public. Co-op America changed its name to Green America, and it’s working out just fine for them. If you attend a Green Festival, you kind of know what to expect—and attendance, and spirits, are high. Don’t make your usage bandwagonesque, tenuous, forced or misleading (let’s call this “fuzzy quasi-green”), resulting in reverse marketing that’ll bite you deservedly in the butt, whether you’re wearing green jeans or not.

#2 Don’t talk publicly about your own green victories, policies or practices—let someone else blow your horn of green goodness, lest you appear a pompous, self-righteous puffer.

If you believe this myth, you might be waiting a long time for notice to be taken—think about a brilliant new shoot sprouting in the forest and nobody around to hear or see it, comment on it, ring the bell, tell the neighbors, alert the media, etc. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with sharing your green goodness—if it’s legitimate. You think Starbucks and 3M are not going to talk about their latest green initiatives and the awe-inspiring (hopefully!) resultant qualitative and quantitative results?

#3 If you tout your greenness, you invite super-intensive scrutiny and withering calls of “Liar, liar! Get the greenwashers!”
Kind of related to myth #2 and equally fallacious. Scrutiny is good—unless you’re not being open, transparent and honest. And if that’s the case, well then, you are being a jellyfish-backboned lying greenwasher. The examined life is the only life worth living, right? Figure out what you’re doing green, determine where you can improve practices and then share the results. Many companies fear sharing what they do that’s green because it doesn’t represent all their activities, and they’re going to get “found out” by drawing attention to themselves. So? Put a plan in place to improve those other practices—and share that, too!

#4 If you call something green, it is perceived as inferior—not to mention overpriced, inconvenient, overtly liberal, just for treehuggers and difficult to find.
Definitely a monolithic myth that needs some serious busting! Perceptions have shifted in this realm—thank the Green Goddess of Goodness!—as has the inferiority marketing complex along with it. Why? Enough green products, services and businesses are of very high quality, often of superior quality, and the populace, or at least an exponentially growing segment, gets this now—unless what you’re proffering is truly shoddy and shouldn’t be out there to begin with (a sorry page ripped right from the syllabus of Bad Business Practices 101). In that case, don’t give green a bad name—you’re gonna be called out and it ain’t gonna be pretty. As Joel Makower writes in Strategies for the Green Economy, “[T]here are encouraging signs that the consuming public is finally ready to vote with their pocketbooks, choosing greener products or products from companies perceived to be green leaders.” Spread the gospel of green goodness!

#5 Just marketing the green aspects of your product or service will turn enough heads to achieve major PAYDIRT!
Boy, if it were only so easy! Certainly while green is good, it shouldn’t be your first selling point (even when you’ve zeroed in on a viridian target market that lives sustainably in a compostable Emerald City—okay, well maybe in that case, or when going directly after the LOHAS savvy, you can make an exception). This isn’t residual bad chi from the sad legacy of myth #4 but, as Daniel Esty and Andrew Winston nail it in Green to Gold, “Selling a product on its environmental qualities alone is a recipe for trouble. If you have a new product that’s cleaner and greener, marketing these advantages can make sense. But be careful. Customers need other reasons to buy. Price, quality, and service will remain core concerns for most of them.” Nuff said here, I think.

#6 Green marketing efforts during times of economic turmoil fall on deaf ears.
Complete and utter balderdash. Green marketing helps promote money- and resource-saving solutions; it pushes efficiency and calls for less waste—and often less consumption, which makes even more economic common sense when times are tough. If ROI is a little down the road after initial investment, spell it clearly out—again I’m advocating being completely open, transparent and honest. Gaining trust, after all, is a key to achieving success.

#7 Traditional marketing and green marketing are pretty much synonymous.
Far from it. While they share many best practices, including strategies, tactics and methodologies, green marketing is more attuned to environmental issues, as they’re usually built into the product, service or business it is supporting. And you better look more than twice at printing and packaging options, your supply chain, where products will end up and what your attuned-to-the-times audience is expecting when it comes to your messaging, placement and ultimate followthrough. Sure, all consumers (and other businesses, you B2Bers out there) are persnickety, but if you’re operating in a green sector, you better walk the walk as well as talk the talk. See myth #3 for additional props on this point.

#8 Adding an eco prefix or mentioning “sustainability” gives you an instant eco-advantage in the sustainability space.
Okay, okay, I said “green” was just fine when shattering myth #1, but here—what?!?!—I’m striking down “eco-” and “sustainability”? Buzz words put you on the bandwagon but that shouldn’t be equated with credibility. You might momentarily capture someone’s interest (or a trawling search engine)—at least until they dig deeper or are just plain tired of everything being eco-this and sustainable that. And what exactly does sustainability mean these days? Everyone seems to be claiming, and clamoring for, primary stewardship of the term. Webster’s New World College Dictionary defines sustainable as “1. capable of being maintained 2. a) designating, of, or characterized by a practice that sustains a given condition, as economic growth or a human population, without depleting or destroying natural resources, polluting the environment, etc. [sustainable agriculture] b) governed or maintained by, or produced as a result of, such practices [sustainable growth].” Use these terms sparingly and definitely don’t expect an instant eco-advantage, a congratulatory call from Robert Redford, a shout out from Kermit (see myth #9), a cuddly hug from the World Wildlife Fund panda, etc.

#9 It’s entirely fine to use the phrase “It’s not easy being green” in your marketing materials or whenever the spirit of dear ol’ Kermit strikes you.
Google, Bing or Yahoo! the phrase and you’ll instantly realize ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! After punching in the phrase, I received more than 92 million hits on Google. Sorry Kermit pal, this pop culture badinage has run its course and is now situated so deep in platitudinous Clicheville that it has very little to absolutely no meaning. It’s now more an indicator of laziness or non-engagement on the part of the user. Work on coining your own phrase or slogan, or perhaps adopting an original mascot (ideally other than a frog or polar bear)—impactful visuals are equally important when it comes to green marketing. I was recently struck by the originality of “Patriotic Polly,” the “trumpeter of truth” spokesparrot adopted in Ralph Nader’s utopian novel, Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us—clever, memorable and entirely on-target.

#10 Green marketing is simply business; it’s all about driving sales, not saving our world.
Well, to the jaded and wholly avaricious, this may be the case, but for the rest of us, this is just NOT TRUE. Green marketing has the task, no, the responsibility, to share the stories, the challenges, the opportunities, the solutions and the victories of the multifarious businesses it supports. “Green (and sustainable) products are not just responsible,” writes John Grant in The Green Marketing Manifesto; “They are better: more durable, cheaper, nicer, healthier, more thoughtful, offering extensions into social communities, belonging to something.” Green marketing, then, is a prime opportunity to educate, inform and empower, while working in an increasingly critical space focused on doing the right thing and achieving a greater good before it’s too late—let me refer to last week’s Green Dynamind post about the Blue Green Alliance and its mention of David Brower’s fateful warning, “There is no business to be done on a dead planet.” Are we talking triple bottom line here? ABSOLUTELY! People, planet, profit; equity, ecology, economy—however you want to slice it. Green marketing, in its own small way, can help save the world—by enabling ecologically sound decisions through pertinent information and education, and by getting more and more people to vote with their wallets on the kind of products, services and businesses they want to see thrive. So get on, or polish up, that green marketing plan—now’s the time to start blowing your own green horn.

—Allen

THE BLUE GREEN ALLIANCE IS AN ORGANIZATION WHOSE TIME HAS COME.

Traditional methodologies and paradigms, and let’s throw in the $787 billion spending package, have thus far not done the trick—far, far from it (okay, the spending package has helped but it is not close to enough). Organizations like the Blue Green Alliance (BGA), on the other hand, are shuffling the deck and dealing new cards, even as they continue to establish credibility and put in place dependable means to get things done—”mission accomplished!” is not something they’ll probably shout anytime soon, but again they’re building that house with a canard-spouting chorus of naysayers over their shoulders, and these things take time—and there’s no time to lose.

Let’s take a closer look at this national partnership of labor unions and environmental organizations (not the odd bedfellows they at first seem) dedicated to expanding the number and quality of jobs in the green economy. Remember, in the words of Cicero, “Freedom is participation in power.” And freedom, as defined, should include the ability to find and maintain a livable wage in a healthy environment.

LET’S TURN THE CLOCK BACK THREE YEARS to imagine, if you will, that first fateful meeting (cue Twilight Zone theme) between the United Steelworkers and Sierra Club which would result in the Blue Green Alliance. What were they thinking? What did they share? Was there yelling, kicking and screaming? Were cute baby owls dipped in demonic smelting pots? I want to think it was more along the lines of, Hey, we all share this planet and its resources, and if there is no planet, there are no resources and there certainly won’t be any jobs—yep, it’s the classic David Browerism, “There is no business to be done on a dead planet.” The alliance also dovetails nicely into Van Jones‘ idea of a “Green Growth Alliance,” where he envisions (as he writes in The Green-Collar Economy) “a coalition that unites the best labor and business leaders, social justice activists, environmentalists, intellectuals, students, and more—all sharing the burdens and benefits, risks and rewards, of the the journey to a green-collar economy.”

So, unquestionably, there was common ground, and a powerful alliance was formed by these august organizations. After all, as Ethan Goffman underscores in the November/December issue of E Magazine, “Well before globalization, labor and environmentalists had reasons to work together. Concerns about environmental toxins harming workers and communities have been around for centuries, from miners suffering coal dust exposure, to communities and workers breathing lead- and arsenic-laced air from metal smelters, to children developing leukemia after drinking water that was contaminated by toxic tanneries.”

An organization like the Blue Green Alliance, then, has long been needed—and didn’t stop there; since 2006 they’ve grown to include the Communications Workers of America (CWA), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA), Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT)—add them up and you’ve got around eight million people. Let me say that again: eight million people—trying to make a difference.

Issues the alliance tackles include passing comprehensive clean energy and climate change legislation; restoring the rights of U.S. workers to organize and bargain collectively; establishing a trade policy that promotes global growth and prosperity with embedded enforceable labor, environmental and human rights standards; and enacting a toxic chemicals policy that protects both workers and communities. How about measures? The alliance, no slouch here, either, has advocated its recent global warming legislative principles, partnered with other advocacy groups and businesses to promote passage of state and federal legislation mandating renewable electricity production, and pushed for the Employee Free Choice Act (for the expansion of workers’ rights) and reauthorization of the Transportation Act (to create green jobs in freight and high-speed rail and other infrastructure projects).

The Blue Green Alliance Foundation, meanwhile, has been focusing on educating the public about the job-spawning potential of environmental investments. This includes an annual Good Jobs, Green Jobs national conference (more than 2,600 people attended this year’s event in Washington, D.C.); a Labor Climate Project in partnership with Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection; Blue Green Alliance state chapters working on climate change, workers’ rights, clean energy jobs, fair trade and green chemistry; and economic development programs in various cities and states.

Recent activity—to give you examples of the Blue Green Alliance in action—includes Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown joining the Blue Green Alliance in releasing clean energy manufacturing recommendations, which, according to the alliance, can help create hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs through development of a U.S. clean energy economy. “Renewable energy, and the green jobs that come along with it, are key to our economic growth,” Michael Langford, National President of the Utility Workers Union of America, is quoted in an alliance press release. “It is essential that in order to lead the world in renewable energy technologies, and create good jobs that support our families and communities, we must look at ways to rebuild and revitalize American manufacturing.” The alliance is also running a television commercial in Pennsylvania to thank Senator Arlen Specter for his vote to move clean energy legislation forward in the U.S. Senate.

There’s definitely positive movement and momentum afoot with organizations like the Blue Green Alliance leading the charge (see also Apollo Alliance and Green for All). Collaboration and the holistic view it engenders are key to clear perspective and synchronized action—yes, blue and green can coexist peacefully, but the peaceful part is going to have to follow a fair amount of strife and conflict up against those who just aren’t going to see it the same way, no matter how compelling the argument, be it scientific proof or continued poor economic numbers.

Here’s how Teamsters President James P. Hoffa sees it: “We have been forced to make a false choice in the past—good jobs or a clean environment. The pundits said that if we wanted clean air, the economy would suffer and jobs would be sent overseas. Well, look what happened—we let the big corporations pollute and the jobs went overseas anyway. But today is a new day.”

And let’s be thankful for that.

—Allen

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

Hit the lights, pop the corn and buckle up: it’s time for some first-rate eco-horror, indeed!

IF THIS ISN’T FRIGHTENING ENOUGH, just wait for the thundering herd of ghost caribou to show up (actually a lot more eerie and effective than it sounds), a circling murder of crows (a bird that figures largely in Native American mythology, and an arresting black-on-white visual for the film), a horrifying plane crash (the mechanical world of man breaks down throughout the film, and always at the most inopportune moments) and what might or might not be the appearance of a Wendigo (an ice-hearted, fast-as-the-wind Native American spirit monster that hungers after human flesh; seek out Margaret Atwood’s essay “Eyes of Blood, Heart of Ice,” which compiles all sorts of chilling Wendigo lore, including how a human can “go Wendigo,” if you desire more about this beastie).

Director, editor and cowriter Fessenden is an indie filmmaker with a penchant for taking horror tropes and turning them on themselves. He’s fiddled with Dr. Frankenstein (No Telling), vampire (Habit) and monster (Wendigo—yes, that critter again) themes and gone places you wouldn’t expect—primarily by mixing intelligent social commentary with complex, interesting characters and then plopping them down in settings unremarkable and commonplace (always sharp contrasts with the goings-on about to ensue); The Last Winter in ANWR (actually lensed in Iceland) perhaps not as much, although a good part of the film takes place in the dull utilitarian camp quarters of North Industries. Thankfully, we’ve got Ron Perlman (“God wants us to drill this stuff!”), a long-suffering Connie Britton (Friday Night Lights), a haunted Zach Gilford (also from TV’s Friday Night Lights), heroic greenie (and indie-film stalwart) James LeGros and always-reliable character actor Kevin Corrigan to keep things lively, that is, before things start getting deadly—remember, this is a horror flick.

I don’t want to give any more away, but I will say there’s an ominous sequence rather reminiscent of, to me, one from Andrei Tarkovsky’s Sacrifice—hey, this global warming/climate change thing needs to be taken seriously; you don’t just shrug your shoulders, walk away and everything’s okay, hunky dory, wheh! it’s only a movie. Can a tiny indie eco-horror flick from a couple years ago help raise a rallying cry, even if only in some small way? I think there’s an audience out there—I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s seen this little gem—and they’re listening, and they’re not entirely passive.

As Gilford’s lost and haunted character, Maxwell McKinder, shares after decrying how fossil fuels are siphoned/ripped from deep beneath the earth, how they’re the ancient remains of plants and animals, that is, ghosts or perhaps vengeful spirits: “WE’RE GRAVE-ROBBERS.” Boy, message received; now there’s a horror-filled thought for you. See The Last Winter, it doesn’t have to be Halloween, and pass it on.

—Allen