Shiny Green Button

You may have seen the recent video spots by the Reality campaign and wondered, “What was that about again?” The first one takes viewers on a tour of a nonexistent clean coal plant:

This ad winks at the audience, asking us to acknowledge that, like the emperor’s new clothes, clean coal doesn’t actually exist. But as Joseph Romm points out over at the Climate Progress blog, the first Reality ad manages to repeat the words “clean coal technology” seven times, possibly leaving viewers with the idea that clean coal is, after all, a reality. And that’s exactly what the people at Reality don’t want us to come away with. Sadly, for an audience accustomed to soundbites and sloganeering, subtlety and sarcasm can make for flimsy messaging.

The second ad presents a smug, clearly deceitful coal executive perpetuating the myth of clean coal:

This ad, like the first, seeks to debunk the idea that economically viable clean coal technology actually exists today. Again, the helpful Joseph Romm gets to the heart of the matter, this time on Grist: What, exactly do the smart and good-hearted people at Reality want us to do? Are they against the idea of clean coal, or just against the coal industry implying that we have the technology in hand? Should we try harder to develop clean coal or abandon it?

Stepping back from these spots, we can see the larger challenge of communicating about a new era of alternative energy. What exactly is the brand for the new green future so many of us want? What new, desirable reality does the Reality campaign seek, and how should it be represented? The lesson of these ads, it seems to me, is that (to lapse into a sports analogy--sorry) you shouldn’t hide the ball, if you want your team (and your fans in the stands) to follow your game plan.

Over Thanksgiving, I chatted with my mom as she drove from downstate New York to Buffalo. “I wonder if we’re going to hit snow?” she asked. I didn’t even have to check Weather.com—I already knew. Earlier that day, I’d seen Facebook status updates from friends in Buffalo. They were remarking on the snow that was starting to fall. “Drive carefully, mom,” I said as we hung up.

A few days later, I read a story about how Google can predict flu outbreaks two weeks before the Center for Disease control, based on search activity for flu-related terms.

Cool stuff. All these new tools to make sense of this massive amount of information. “I wonder if we could use these tools to solve some real problems?” I thought. “Like climate change, or hunger?”

And then I remembered something I’d seen awhile back. There are people trying to harness this collective intelligence for the common good. They’re called gamers.

No, not your stereotypical trench-coat, combat-boot wearing gamer. Gamers like Jane McGonical, who are creating games with the intent to save the world.

Take for example, McGonical’s game World Without Oil, a massive online role playing game that asked players to envision what they would do in the event of a global oil crisis. 1,900 people joined together to collectively imagine and find ways to deal with such a crisis. Real ways of dealing with it—that can be used in the real world.

So if you’re feeling guilty about spending too much time online, updating your Facebook status and living your Second Life, don’t sweat it. You just might be doing good in the process.

“We shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing, by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium.”
-Winston Churchill in his 1932 essay “Fifty Years Hence”

It may sound like a creepy science fiction book, but meat grown from stems cells in a lab is happening now and it’s a branding puzzle. The Netherlands have invested $5 million into the research and development of vat-meat and PETA just announced a $1 million prize for the individual or group who is “able to make the first in vitro chicken meat and sell it to the public by June 30, 2012.”
Personally, I love the idea of vat-grown meat. It requires no whole animal which means it takes care of the animal abuse and slaughter issue, solving the dilemma many people, including Michael Pollan, have wrestled with. This method could potentially free up land as animals require a lot of space (55 feet of rainforest per hamburger) and cause significant greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA is even exploring the possibility of a “cow tax” because of these emissions.

The benefits to the planet and an ease on our conscience aren’t all this meat has to offer, either. The samples taken to create the meat (it’s a tiny tissue sample) can be selected from the finest, healthiest animals and can be improved with additions of extra omega-3s and other nutrients. This meat could be the best of the best of the best.

But once it’s feasible, then the real work starts. How do you get people to eat it? Sure, a communications company could come up with all kinds of messaging around the health benefits and tiny carbon footprint of this meat, but that won’t change the “ick factor” many people will feel. In fact, people are already speaking up against the unnaturalness of lab-grown meat. And they’re right. It isn’t natural, but neither are eyeglasses or toilets, and no one wrinkles their nose at the idea of either of them.

But this has a huge disadvantage right out of the gate. The terms people have already assigned the stuff, like “shmeat” and “green meat,” are a branding nightmare. No one wants to eat something called “shmeat.” But if the right communications and branding companies got involved this stuff could really take off. So, how about it, PETA? How about a simultaneous contest? A million dollars to the communicator that can make lab-grown meat welcome in people’s diets. It’s a cash cow waiting to happen.

Ah, high fructose corn syrup. How we love to hate thee. Hence why the Corn Refiners Association has shot back with their, um, vaguely offensive ads:

The folks behind Brain have astutely pointed out that the CFA could have taken any number of valid approaches to this campaign, such as focusing on how HFCS has kept food prices low or how it benefits American farmers—arguments with holes, for sure, but at least less offensive and somewhat substantive. Instead, they chose to depict those of us who question the prevalence of the sweetener as social pariahs who make their friends and loved ones uncomfortable by rudely assuming ignorance.

Now, Curt Ellis (of King Corn fame) has responded to the campaign, liking it to tobacco ads of yore. Behold the King Corn version:

Ellis’ critique hinges around the fact that, yes, HFCS is probably safe in moderation, but most Americans don’t actually intake it that way. In fact, the New York Times’ Well blog reported in October on three new studies about HFCS, including one that found that drinking two sodas a day raises your risk of kidney damage by 40%. If “moderation” is considered less than two sodas a day, then I know far too many people who may want to schedule an appointment with an nephrologist.

But the Well blog reminds us too, by way of this Washington Post article, that the effects of HFCS reach beyond public health. Growing corn the way we do—as a monoculture—depletes the soil of nutrients, requiring more pesticides and fertilizers that create damaging runoff.

I don’t need to get all Michael Pollan on you, and I won’t. I couldn’t possibly say it better than he does anyway. Point is that there are many, many issues with HFCS (including, get this, that it may make people fatter faster than other types of sugars do) and a poorly thought-out ad campaign sure as hell isn’t going to make me stop preaching about them.

Consumer power is not dead. It’s just out on a bender.

Strawberry Earth, an online magazine launched in November 2008 that offers readers “lots of good things about the environment,” is prepared to show the rest of the world how consumer power can apply to the sustainability movement. In a recent contest, bars in Amsterdam were challenged to see what percentage of a night’s revenue they’d spend on environmental improvements to their businesses. The contest was well-received by the local bars, and the winner, Café Waldorf, will host the first-ever Strawberries & Cream event.

Here’s a look at the contest and the event.

Imagine it. You, the customer, decide to go to a bar/event where a large percentage of the night’s earnings are used to turn the bar into a more eco-friendly place. You don’t have to leave your conscience at home anymore when you go out at night.

This kind of initiative should be replicated across the globe. Why shouldn’t communities support organizations wanting to give their businesses environmental upgrades? How many people would belly up at your local bar if they knew 60% of that night’s proceeds were going to help sustainability efforts?

Strawberries & Cream presents a solution that helps small businesses increase earnings while spreading awareness about sustainability issues. I can’t wait to see it, or something like it, in my hometown.

I planned to write about the day after Thanksgiving, about Black Friday (massive consumerism) and Buy Nothing Day (complete protest of the shopping day), especially as it’s nestled in a year with conflicting interests. People take their impact on the planet and other people seriously and they want to find a way to keep the economy afloat at the same time. I really wanted to center the subject on the power consumers had on Friday to buy from brands that take CSR seriously. Jill Santopietro blogged over at the New York Times’s The Moment about the best flavor from the multitude of organic, fair trade chocolates out there. We also have tech companies, Apple, Nokia and HP duking it out to make to claim they make the greenest devices. Across industries this fad is only gaining momentum. Green Globe’s efforts to make travel a more environmentally friendly industry and Ikea’s good press all make for an optimistic view of the future. And though they all have a ways to go, the progress is obvious and worthy of a little celebration.

Then I heard about the crowd of people who trampled and killed a Wal-Mart employee, Jdimypai Damour, who opened the doors for them at 5 a.m. on Friday. A few other people attempted to rescue the man and were injured, including a pregnant woman.

I know I’m not alone when I stare, open-mouthed, in shock and disgust. How can something like this happen? What price-cut could ever be worth trampling someone? Sociologists will talk about mob mentality and how common it is for people to lose the ability to make rational decisions in large groups. But the Washington Post also noted that customers “became irate when officials said the store was closing because of the death.”

And that’s when I am no longer able to understand or explain the situation. As a society we may be making leaps and bounds toward creating companies that take responsibility in their actions, but we are obviously still so susceptible to greed that we can actually care about shopping while a dead man lies nearby on the floor. To me that means we have an immense amount to do to make this society and this planet a better place to live.