A couple of days ago, while doing some research about Dunbar's social limits for this post on stakeholder engagement written for my employer, I stumbled upon this hilarious and, you have been warned, very rude article by David Wong on cracked.com describing what he calls the Monkeysphere.
David Wong's illustration from cracked.com.
The interesting fact about this is not so much the upper limit (150-300) on the number of close social relationships a human being can maintain simultaneously but the way on which the rest of the world is dealt with. Wong puts it this way: "Those who exist outside that core group of a few dozen people are not people to us. They're sort of one-dimensional bit characters." To which he adds: "We are hard-wired to have a drastic double standard for the people inside our Monkeysphere versus the 99.999% of the world's population who are on the outside."
In other words, it is all too easy and natural to think of close relatives and their concerns as individual entities but to aggregate the rest of the world's components into indistinct homogeneous blobs with no individuality: The Russians are fat alcoholic communists spying on the rest of the world; The French are baguette eating beret donning cowards that refuse to go to war; Oil companies are big polluters.
- "Wait a minute, Oil companies ARE great polluters." Yeah, right. Who's using the oil, dare I ask? And who relies most on oil for over sized cars and refused to sign the Kyoto treaty. Hmm, I am that close to overgeneralising, here. Or should that be overgeneraliZing?
Some governments cared.
2010. It's the UN year of biodiversity. So, last week, as a simple experiment, I created this Facebook group inviting people to join and send pictures of anything they thought was related to biodiversity as a alternate way of signing a petition to say "I care" (sorry BP :) ). I posted this message and tweeted very simply. 438 people read the message, 91 visited the group, 1 person posted. Now this is not to point fingers and is fairly typical of "marketing" campaigns (granted, I really did very little to jazz up that Facebook group). It just illustrates quite a few people show their interest (25%) but very very few actually acted on it.
A picture of Bamby no one can resist.
And, ultimately, that's really why oil is spilling in the Gulf of Mexico and why species are disappearing from the face of the earth every day. Governments have formal institutions to ensure proper conduct from organisations doing business on their soil. But the informal institutions (culture) in place have huge inertia and it is up to individual citizens to act on what they think is good.
What are you doing to day to be green? How are you acting today to lower consumption and waste ? Ultimately, it is all about YOU.
In my last post, some of the drawbacks of wind turbines in my very personal point of view were describe:
They are terribly loud beasts to live with
They visually destroy the environment
They are not the friendliest of devices for wildlife (their impact on birds has considerably been lowered with rotor redesign, but their foundation still hurt the habitat of many animals)
As an example, this picture shows La Crau, in the South of France, which used to be a semi-desert no-man's land up to less than 10 years ago host to nothing but exotic birds, rugged merinos sheep and the air force. Several of my "firsts" were "bagged" there (Little Bustards, Pratincoles, Stone Curlew, Egyptian Vulture, Pin-tailed Sandgrouse ...). Today, much of the land has been claimed by illegal Ikea storehouses, sewage plants and wind farms.
I'm sorry, but whatever the carbon footprint or efficiency of a technology, it can never be called green if it destroys a natural habitat as much as wind turbines do. No way. But there may be hope, yet, as described in this Greenbang article: Matthew Luethi, of Luethi Enterprises Limited, has addressed the noise and reliability problems he thinks are the most troublesome in current wind turbine designs and produced a working prototype waiting only for venture capital to spread to the market.
According to its creator the turbine is more efficient, simple and reliable than conventional designs. And a lot less noisy. This makes it a compelling proposition. For me, the greatest attraction is that it seems much more adapted to domestic use than traditional designs, meaning that individual houses, office building, allotments can run private mini farms. This, in turn, means that is could be possible this greenest of energy sources AND spare our natural landscapes the indelible scars that traditional windfarms are inflicting trhoughout the world. And that's the greenest route. You can join Luethi's Silent Turbine Facebook group here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Silent-Wind-Turbine/12444256118 and follow the twitter account : http://twitter.com/SilentWindTurbi
These days it's difficult to take a walk in the hills, at least in the South of France, without facing the sight of wind turbines.
These have had their fair share of controversy:
They're insanely ugly on what used to be pristine hills
Their construction makes use of very un-green composites
Their efficiency is low and it would take immense surfaces to replace mainstream electricity production means
They kill birds faster than hunters on a migration path
They make morning banshees sound like Ulysses' sirens
The list goes on
The fact is that some of these points are correct others are not. Or used to be and are no longer.
Yes, they are still a hideous monstrosity in our few remaining wild landscapes. They'd probably be OK on top of city buildings, but some day, we will no doubt see them sprouting on the Old Man of Storr or in the Milford Sound and I will commit seppuku in despair. Yes, they emit a green sound of horror. Technological advances have made turbines more efficient, but their sound remains unpleasant and loud. Greenfolded (that's blindfolded with green) proponents of wind farms would do well to live next to one for a month before speaking up. Yes, they used to kill birds and probably still do. But the latest generations, equipped with slow moving long blades are much less dangerous to wildlife than the ancestors that got them that bad reputation. And far less dangerous than skyscrapers lit at night for corporate ego and which repeatedly attract and kill night flying wanderers in our cities. But, at roughly 5gCO2eq/kWh the carbon footprint of wind turbines is one of the lowest of all electricity production schemes today. It is the equal of nuclear carbon footprint, about 10 times less than solar or biomass and up to 200 times less than fossil fuels. So the construction argument is cobblers.
So far, so green, then. And the future looks greener still as Joby Energy and their kin are flying kite-like devices carrying high-speed turbines driven by the strong altitude winds (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10217289.stm or the Joby Energy website for more information) as they spin around in circles 'til they run out of breath (The Cure, anyone?). These could launch commercially in 2012 and could significantly lower energy costs.
So, all green to go then! I guess so. But wouldn't you prefer to walk in the hills without these towers overshadowing everything or, tomorrow, without clouds of spinning airborne turbines above your head? All it takes is reduced consumption. Higher efficiency equipment and more intelligent use of our appliances. So much simpler, so much cheaper, so much greener. And this is where all the alternative sources of energy are least green. An oil spill is a potent reminder of the impact of our inconsiderate use of energy. It makes people angry and sad. It reaches parts other pictures cannot reach. Whereas solar panels, wind turbines, palm oil all lure us into thinking we can continue with our lifestile and that miraculous solutions will pop-up from nowhere. I leave you with a little reading: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/034ea838-6d0c-11df-921a-00144feab49a.html (free registration required).
If you've walked into some McDonald restaurants in Europe, you'll have found the walls green and an organic yogourt on an otherwise unchanged menu. That's Greenwashing. Incidently, few terms have spawned Greenwashing as enthusiastically as organic. Shampoos, dishes, moisturisers, paint, clothes ... you name it. All these production lines miraculously changed from vile industrial scrapyards to prairies with faires at the flick of a marketing switch. Which is fast.
When any company buys recycled paper notebooks for its employees and leave headquarter offices lights on 24/7/365, it's also Greenwashing.
Getting the drift?
"So, what?", I hear you say. "Marketing exagerations are nothing new, after all, so why should one this be worse than the others? Why are you getting so green in the face about this one?". Fair question, and there are several answers:
First of all, it's dishonest. OK, call me naïve (I am a marketer, by the way) and let's forget about that.
More importantly, ecology is a response to a real need. Whatever your stance on Climate Imbalance, Ozone holes and alien abduction, you cannot deny the great threats on biodiversity, for instance. So using eco-friendly terms to sell eco-unfriendly products is simply crossing the line. While it's difficult to apply Ethical Marketing in every organisation and every situation, there's a limit to cynism. And even if your mind is too blunt to care, the public ain't that stupid.
Worse, it discredits the efforts that some companies are putting in their production changes and CSR reports. Remember when Climate Warming experts played around with some figures to back their industry incriminating claims instead of admitting to inconclusive results? They lost all personal credibility as scientists but, more importantly, discredited the whole movement and provided ample ammo for the opposing team to shoot it down. When the majority of green elan is hocus, the truthful minority suffers. See this report, for instance: http://greeneconomypost.com/greenwashings-two-edged-sword-9861.htm.>
Finally, innumerable case studies have shown that transparency works far better than old school lies in these social media empowering days.
But today, an even more damaging form of Greenwashing may be at work. A few days ago, the following report from Greenpeace (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/Canada-Boreal-Agreement-100518) indicated a major breakthrough in the protection of the boreal forests. Rejoice everyone. Except that not everyone is. Immediately after the report, other sources voiced serious concern about the ethics of the agreement:
Dead Tree Edition (http://deadtreeedition.blogspot.com/2010/05/environmental-groups-make-surpris... also expresses great surprise at the concessions made by Greenpeace and ForesEthics in this battle and their change of tone regarding strict no-logging policies in favour of "improving the competitiveness of the Canadian forest sector”.
In a slightly more neutral article (http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/an-entente-with-the-tree-cutters/), the New York Times Green blog explains that: "none of the land covered by the agreement is owned by the forestry companies. As is often the case with Canadian forests, it is provincial government land that is in some cases controlled by native groups. No government or native tribe has agreed to limit forestry in the protected areas, although the environmental groups said they are working to change that" and that (1) several very large companies are not part of the deal and (2) most if not all of the land protected by the deal would not have been touched during the 3-year moratorium even without the agreement.
So why is Greenpeace touting this as a major victory? Should the NGO consider applying its Emerald Paintbrush to its own practises? That's not for me to say, as I am not an expert and no situation is either black or white. However, I do think Greenpeace should respond to this criticism very clearly and swiftly. Large corportations are difficult ships to steer even with the best intentions at the helm. And many of these are headed by the type of self centered leaders that would rather cling to personal fortunes they will never be able to spend rather than steer their companies towards ethical policies and sustainable practises, Greenwashing is unfortunately to be expected for as long as it represents a cheap alternative to change. But Greenpeace is Joe Public's entry point into the world of NGOs. It is the NGO that makes prime time TV shows. Not Friends of The Earth, not Global Witness, not Equiterre or any other of the other groups that experts refer to. Loss of credibility for Greenpeace would be a major blow to the whole NGO community. Come on Greenpeace, clear up your PR act and quicklu. The world needs agitators desperately. Clean, transparent, agitators.
What do you think about this topic? If you have more information on this boreal dispute, please leave a comment.
Malaysia is blessed with immense areas of primary and secondary forest. This motorway strait out of Kuala Lumpur cuts through varied vegetation that is typical of a large part of the country's landscape.
This view, on the final stretch of road to Taman Negara (the largest national park in the center of the country) tells a very different story, though:
Palm trees, left, right and center, used to produce palm oil. Though it does look very nice in this picture, it's actually a disaster for the environment. Earlier this year, Greenpeace launched an attack against Nestle for using unsustainable Indonesian palm oil in their Kit Kat product. If you haven't seen the graphic video yet, it is here: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/kitkat/kitkat-action/. Nestle isn't alone in using Palm Oil. In fact, you'll be hard pressed finding any processed food, regardless of brand, not using it and it is central to home cooking in many Asian countries. What Greenpeace held against Nestle is the origin of that oil. Sinar Mas, one of its main providers has been accused of widespread deforestation in protected and sensitive areas, including primary forest and peat lands protected by Indonesian law, as shown in this video:
The Orang Utan has become the unfortunate ambassador of this cause, but many other species are also at risk.
Since then, Nestle has severed all direct links with this provider. So have Kraft and Unilever. However, up to recently, Cargill, however, has continued to supply some of these brands with oil from the the Sinar Mas plantations, thought this should end soon. Malaysia is the world's second largest producer and the first exporter of palm oil. The industry employs around 600.000 people in that country alone. Palm Oil is deeply ingrained in the society and economy. This post is not meant to criticise this fact. However, the expansion of this invasive form of agriculture cannot be ignored when you travel through the country as the pictures below show.
These photographs show "natural" habitat along the road side in various areas of the country.The following ones show plantations in various stages of growth, the radical transformation of the scenery and ecosystem and the incredible amount of deforestation that has been going on and still is today.
I would estimate that between on third and half the country side we drove through (that is all the country except for the norhtwestern corner) was covered in palm trees. Of the deforested zones, about 80% were already previously covered by palm trees but the remaining 20% appeared to be forest and we could see the red trunks being loaded onto lorries at these points.
Another by product of this is the agonisingly high number of trucks (palm fruit or red timber from the deforested areas) to be found on Malaysian B-roads today. Not only do these pollute heavily with their 1950s style exhausts, they also constitute a seemingly infinite string of slow-moving obstacles in an otherwise, shall we say, sporty driver population and a thundering nuisance to tourists (and I mention this not - only ;o) - as a personal rant but because tourism is another even more important aspect of the Malaysian economy, with a RYM 10B contribution and well over 1 million jobs).
Companies need to make money. That is the very purpose of their existence. That money feeds employees and other stakeholders. But is constant growth so important that all environmental concerns must be relegated to the background ? In Malaysia, several high profile conservation actions have taken place and been heavily mediatised. Particularly in Borneo, which, although I have never visited it to confirm, appears to be hit even harder by this dramatic evolution. Giving back to nature is one such example : http://www.mpoc.org.my/upload/Orang_Utan_Gets_Helping_Hand_v6i1_3vi.pdf. All very good, but this is nothing more than a large protected zoo in the middle of a dramatically devastated environment.
Saving a few thousand Orang Utans (if that) for the cameras can't hide the fact that several hundred of species are put at threat (or have already disappeared) because expansion and the rise of profits is the only effective criterion by which our society judges companies in spite of the best efforts of CSR and sustainability practitioners . One (the only ?) way around this is to raise awareness of the public of what is really happening. Whatever companies are doing right or wrong, the fact remains that precious indigenous animals, insects and plants are dying at one end of the planet so that humans can eat candy and packaged food. So, without becoming an eco-ayatollah or changing your life-style from one day to the other, just think, anytime you do indulge in that sort of food, for what is at stakes at the other end of the processing chain. No one needs to stop completely but every measure of restraint and change, to a more natural way of life, helps. Update May 19th
Unilever declared today that it would continue purchasing its palm oil from indonesia in spite of deforestation concerns: "We have not determined which company will take over the contract, but it will be an Indonesian company."
Meanwhile, Sinar Mas has denied allegations of illegal deforesation and Nestle announced two days ago it would resume buying contracts with Sinar Mas if the company was cleared by independent audit.
Come on rest of the world. You CAN make a HUGE difference with your consumer choises ! It's easy to point at ugly Nestle, bad Unilever and Kraft, but the final buyer, the final decision maker is YOU !
