Monday, March 30, 2009

GDF Suez: Responsible Corporate Citizen


WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1--PARIS: GDF Suez, owner of the coal-burning Mount Tom power station in Holyoke, Massachusetts, today announced a radical plan to tackle global warming. The company has adopted a new policy requiring that all GDF Suez smoke stacks will be green -- literally.

"Nobody can accuse us of standing still in the face of the climate crisis," declared Gerard Mestrallet, CEO of the European power giant. "If anybody doubts our commitment to green energy, they can check out Mount Tom. From now on, every molecule of the one million tons of CO2 that Mount Tom emits annually will pass through an undeniably green chimney."

Political leaders were swift to welcome to the announcement.

"I'm proud that Massachusetts is in the forefront of the green energy revolution," said local Senator Stan Rosenberg. "This is yet more evidence of our leadership role."

The senator unveiled plans to pick up the GDF Suez idea and run with it by expanding the green-painting program across the commonwealth. "In the next legislative session I will be filing a bill that would mandate green paint on all coal-burning power stations in Massachusetts," said Senator Rosenberg, "by 2050."

Governor Deval Patrick also chimed in with praise for the GDF Suez action. "Yes it's your broken climate, and it's your broken energy policy, " said the Governor, "but there's no getting around the fact that Mount Tom is now a very pretty shade of green. It was all my idea, by the way."

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Brown: The New Green


If you read the March edition of the magazine Ode you will find a brief interview with Nick Rosen, who complains that manufacturers, marketers, and advertisers have hijacked the word green. "They have made 'green' into a fashion item. Now everything is green."

As for a remedy to the corporate co-option of green, what does Rosen suggest, with his tongue (I assume) in his cheek? Simple. Adopt a new color, brown, which the advertising industry would never want to hijack because of its earthy connotations.

Rosen has a point. In the language of trademark law, the green brand has become both diluted and tarnished. It is no longer a helpful indicator of a product's or service's origins, ethos, or bona fides. To misquote Richard Nixon, we are all greens now. Even BP is green (do you like their new logo?) notwithstanding being up to its corporate neck in the Alberta oil sands, an extraction project that some real Greens have dubbed the biggest environmental crime in history.

Surrendering the word green to BP and its ilk and starting over with brown would be one way to deal with the problem, I suppose, but it is far from the only way. An alternative to such abject pusillanimity is for Greens to vigorously police the word green the way a business would protect its trademark, sending cease-and-desist letters to companies that claim to be green but really aren't. This idea has the one, but important, disadvantage of being utterly impractical for reasons that are too numerous to go into.

Another alternative to surrender is to fight back, not with legally baseless threats of trademark-infringement litigation, but through what Anne Elizabeth Moore calls mocketing.

I recommend the book Unmarketable, by the way. In the interests of full disclosure I must reveal that (a) I have no connection to Anne Elizabeth Moore or to the New Press, other than having read and enjoyed Unmarketable, and (b) I receive absolutely no commissions, fees, kickbacks, or even free merchandise for plugging the book.

So, on the subject of Green resistance through the medium of mocketing, I leave you with this thought. April 1st, also known as Fossil Fools Day, is just around the corner. Any suggestions?

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Big-Box Swindle

Before I write anything else, let me plug a book well worth reading: Stacy Mitchell's Big-Box Swindle. The True Cost of Mega-Retailers and the Fight for America's Independent Businesses, available at independent local bookstores such as Odyssey Books, South Hadley, and Food for Thought Books, Amherst.

In my last post I railed against our government subsidizing road-building, because the subsidies constitute a huge donation of our money to the fossil-fuel and auto industries and to the other corporations that benefit from sprawl. Big Box Swindle takes a hard look at the many ways policy-makers have served as the little helpers for the mega-retailers, diverting public resources to the private sector, in particular those parts of the private sector that do the most to impoverish our sense of community and humanity.

On the subject of Big Box Swindle, and picking up where my last post left off, let's remember that when politicians talk about "investing in roads and bridges" they are talking about laying down more bitumen, or asphalt. Bitumen is a form of petroleum composed of ancient algae and other living things. Millions of years ago, while alive, these plants and creatures absorbed sunlight. Unleashing the energy from that ancient sunlight releases CO2 that has been stored underground since the days long before our early shrew-like ancestors were dodging the dinosaurs.

Refining, or cracking, the bitumen requires heat from other fossil fuels and releases more ancient CO2 into the twenty-first century atmosphere, thereby exacerbating global warming. If mining and refining bitumen is damaging the climate, why do it? Because bitumen is so profitable. In addition to blacktop, the fossil-fuel industry can use bitumen to produce gasoline and a culture based on car-worship needs both; gas to put in the cars, and asphalt to drive them on.

One simple sentence from an article in ContractJournal.com, the site for Construction Industry News, explains why the price of bitumen is volatile and why it accounts for about a quarter of new road costs:
As oil prices have gone up refineries have found it more economical to crack bitumen for further oil, meaning there is less of the material available.
So whether it's turning the bitumen into gas or into asphalt, the industry makes a profit. For so long as we keep buying its products, it simply can't lose. The only people who lose out are those of us who need a liveable climate for ourselves and our children. While that would seem to include the people who run the fossil-fuel industry and their enablers in the world of policy-making, there's no getting around those short-term profits.

By the way, the nearest source of bitumen is the Alberta oil sands, where the fossil-fuel industry is committing what some environmentalists have called the biggest environmental crime in history. I don't have the stomach to dwell on the enormity of the crime, so please click the link in the preceding sentence if you're curious as to where the blacktop on your street comes from.

To summarize, investing in new roads and bridges means extracting more bitumen, enriching the fossil-fuel industry, perpetuating a car-centric culture, releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere, cooking the climate, and leaving our kids a planet unfit for human habitation. Which is one way to spend our money, I guess. But I believe there's a better way, one that allows us to look our kids in the eye.

Instead of subsidizing the corporations that got us into this mess, we can invest in cooperative independent businesses and local organic farms. We can oppose the land-use laws that encourage sprawl and, instead, enact better bylaws. We can stop building new roads and start reviving the old natural trade arteries, our waterways. We can stop buying power from the polluters and start generating our own power locally through wind, solar, and micro-hydro. We can relocalize and turn our communities into resilient, self-reliant transition towns, ready for a post-carbon era.

That's better than another WalMart, right?

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Stimulating Global Warming

With the economy and climate in crisis, how could burning more coal and building more nuclear weapons possibly help? That's a good question to ask Congress.

Physicians for Social Responsibility(PSR) points out that the Senate version of the so-called stimulus package includes $50 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power and coal liquification. That's in addition to $2 billion for "near-zero emissions" coal-fired power plants and $1 billion for the Department of Energy's oxymoronic "Clean Coal Power Initiative." The Senate also wants to give $1 billion to the National Nuclear Security Administration.

PSR is asking citizens to call 202-225-3121 and tell their Representatives in Congress to get these gifts to the nuclear and coal giants out of the package.

Other big beneficiaries of the public-spending splurge are the auto-and-road lobby and the big-box stores that depend on auto-centric policies. As Greens, we know that our country's car culture is unsustainable.
In the words of James Howard Kunsler, discussing what he calls "the fiasco of suburbia", we have made urban sprawl the basis of our economy.

So how could spending billions on roads possibly steer us toward re-localization? That's a good question to ask our state legislators.

Today's Boston Globe looks at the scramble for federal cash going on at the state level. There are about 4,500 "infrastructure projects" -- primarily roads -- on our elected officials' collective wish list.
Great news for the oil companies and Wal Mart, but not so great for our friends and neighbors trying to run farms and small businesses. What we should be doing is re-localizing our economy by investing in local agriculture -- the center of a sustainable infrastructure -- not bailing out the big-box retailers.

Call the State House (617-722-2000) today and tell your state representative and senator to use public money to tackle the climate crisis instead of making it worse by building more roads.

Monday, February 9, 2009

N.I. Greens Call on Minister to Quit

Northern Ireland's environment minister is trying to stop the UK government from running advertisements that urge people to reduce CO2. The mister, Sammy Wilson, said that he does not believe that human-made GHG emissions are the main source of climate change.

The Green Party's Brian Wilson (who shares the minister's last name but not his views) has called on the him to step down. Brian Wilson, who represents the Green Party in Northern Ireland's legislative assembly, called the comments "grossly irresponsible" and is sponsoring a motion for the mister's removal.
“While the minister is entitled to his own views, he is not entitled to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence that man made climate change exists," said Brian Wilson in a press release.
The Greens won their first seat in the assembly in 2007.

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Australian Greens Connect the Dots


Wildfires tearing across Australia have claimed more than 1oo lives. Bob Brown, leader of the Australian Greens, told the BBC: "It's a sobering reminder of the need for this nation and the whole world to act and put at a priority our need to tackle climate change."

Senator Brown said he joined 21 million other Australians "in putting an arm around those people who have survived this fire".

The fires come as South Australia experiences its worst heatwave since 1908 with temperatures in excess of 100F. Extreme weather conditions are one of the manifestations of the global climate crisis, as Australia's climate change minister explained recently.

"All of this is consistent with climate change, and with what scientists told us would happen," said Senator Penny Wong. Eleven of the hottest years in recorded history have been in the last twelve, Senator Wong told reporters.

Welcome


This is the blog for Greens in Massachusetts. If you're registered G for Green Party, J for Green Rainbow, U for Unenrolled -- or even if you're a Green trapped inside the body of a Democrat -- this is your forum.

There is an opposition-shaped gap in Massachusetts politics, and it's a gap that Greens need to fill. With 100% of the statewide offices and 90% of the Legislature in Democratic control, democracy is in trouble in Massachusetts. For those of us who have a vision of a more democratic, pluralistic, sustainable society, this entrenched one-partyism is a problem. Mass Greens is part of the solution.

The usual rules of online etiquette apply. Keep your comments on point. No profanity, no flaming, and no personal or ad hominem attacks.