Let's discuss greenwashing on St. Patrick's Day...
My friend sent me this article over at treehugger. It got me thinking a few things.
Firstly, the soundtrack on this is pretty good. It sounds like Four Tet to me. Secondly, In the non-business realm, I've been discussing content/depth versus image/shallowness. In the article, they overtly admit that this is conceptual, image-based, a front. It is an idea that may or may not be available. To me, that is the ultimate in greenwashing. The term, itself, essentially is analogous to plating in the metals/jewelry world, is it not? A poisonous/non-green core with a fresh coat of paint? That's the implication when I hear the term.
Sustainability is about integrity; it is about doing it 'real', it is about authenticity, dedication, and re-engineering both your thought patterns as well as your lifestyle. It requires a commitment. And the vast majority of people aren't committed to any one thing. We each have a portfolio of our issues. And that makes change difficult.
I read Sustainable Industries, as I have since 2004. In the past, they had quarterly foci on marketing. They've since done away with it. That has both a positive and a negative connotation. But I think the negative perception of greenwashing has been the overriding force in the removal of this. That, and I know the way that they operate; they use surveys. People who are in to marketing know how to market already. But the problem with marketing, capitalism, the internet, and all of it is an overarching shallowness that people become cynical toward. Green marketing is great, when you have a product ready to market, but ads like this one that are either premature, conceptual, or otherwise simply the gold plating on a nickel ring are doing us as green professionals, sustainability folks, or LOHAS (don't get me started) a disservice. I'm not saying R&D needs to cease, by any means, but we need to not jump the gun and create a media storm when things are contentless (Visit Peer+'s website to see the absolute prematurity I'm talking about). Those who are committed to a vision whereby we, as humans, live off of our ecological interest, rather than principle, are always fighting an uphill battle. That battle is with image, with depth, with culture, with mindsets, with the externalities of capitalism, with our own willingness to be an example. In a culture/world where the nailhead that pops up is the one that gets the hammer, many are too afraid to be an example. In fact, the term 'to be an example' has a pejorative, punishing overtone to it, doesn't it?
While I do agree that green technologies need to be well-designed and to not impose on aesthetics, design concepts, etc., that only goes so far. To the extent that green technologies radically change our way of life, our relationship with one another, the earth, our communities, and our needs, it is those other things that need to change. I've been hearing about emerging technologies in solar the better part of my life. But they hardly ever bear fruit. I've never seen in practice anything other than a regular PV array on a rooftop or a solar water array. I've never seen microinverters in practice, $0.50/W plastics-based, 12% efficient PV panels. When will I see in the market solar tiles, windows, and other distributed technologies? At some point, hope becomes a let-down, and people become cynical, mean, and hardened. And then they hunker down and never want to change.
I'd also like to address, though, the technocratic solution mentality. Working in energy efficiency, I'm already starting to see some things peter out. First of all, CFLs. Let's be honest: they're a crappy technology. They're the perfect example of a stop-gap. But everyone prefers the yellowish light of an incandescent, and even better, the sun. LEDs may be able to help us, but the current ones I have flicker at 60 Hz, something I shouldn't be able to see, but I seem to. But CFLs are how the mainstream energy efficiency programs realise most of their savings. Those energy-saving cows will be slaughtered soon as regulations on lighting change, and efficiency programs will no longer be able to do the 'easy' thing and install CFLs or claim to. The next technology may come along and we may have an LED craze, furthering a tried-and-true mentality.
But I'm arguing for something greater than that, something more. The institutionalisation of energy efficiency is part of the problem. And that has to do with metrics, mentality, and humans' overt laziness. Conservatism, in a way, is a form of this laziness. Many people resist change not because they fear it, but because it injects both uncertainty and risk into the situation as well as requires cooperation and communication. And people, who are blessed with the faculties of language, are the most able species when it comes to cooperation and communication. But it requires effort. And in very large organisations, it requires a LOT of effort. And, back to marketing, when communicating with a wide range of people, simplicity is key. And, back to depth/shallowness: simplicity is not always possible. Distilling a almond-encrusted trout with Bearnaise sauce dinner into a capsule will not yield you the same flavours as if you had eaten it.
Programs that are institutionalised are managed as a product. The metrics for success are based on calculations, savings, and common, industrial metrics. And, I'll be the first to admit, I absolutely love doing those calculations and managerial tasks. It is what I was trained to do in business school. But I think that in order for real sustainability to be integrated into our lives, the real world and the academic world need to coordinate better. When students get out of high school and/or business school, they need to have a way to interpret and apply what they've learned. Otherwise, like me, they end up putting most of the tools they've learned away, where they sit in the back of one's mind and rust, sadly. I'm woefully out of practice in many of my sustainability and managerial tasks because no one sees any value in it. And I have a feeling that this may happen with my greenhouse gas training as well.
In America, at least, it is all 'market-driven'. But the market is not progressive. The market does what has worked, not what is best for people or ecology. The market is not the end-all-be-all of how we operate. Yet in the work world, this is the engine. We're applying non-market technologies and metrics to solve problems created by the market itself. This paradox is my struggle. It is like the quote I heard about free speech: once supposedly 'free' speech is associated with money, it no longer becomes free speech, now, does it? It is, by definition, 'moneyed' speech.
In this life, I'm seeing connections. I'm balancing my vision of the world with reality; I'm seeing systematic impediments to my vision (not even getting started on regulation/incentives), and in a very real way, it makes me both cynical and want to give up. It is the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't paradigm that makes one not want to play the game at all. Because I cannot change human laziness, greed, etc. But I also cannot give into it. I'm damned either way. Certain philosophies cop to these negative attributes; they even consider them ideals. That is truly shallow and inauthentic to my moral compass.
In a very real way, there is a core of me that won't give up, due to this compass. I'll struggle on, regardless until it becomes too difficult to go on. But despite all of these grumblings, I'm quite content with who and where I am. The important things like home, family, and friends, hobbies, and even work are going well for me. I'm starting to work for a client to aid them in their mission to install and retrofit homes with energy efficiency technologies and solar panels. I'm doing my part, and this blog is my part in sharing what it is that I do.
That said, I have more-or-less soft launched my business as of this week. Colourless Green Energy (and consulting) now has a website, and depending on what it is that I do and who I work for, I will likely work on becoming an LLC with it. I think I will continue to moonlight/contract a little bit here and there and try to find a full-time gig or a full-time flexible gig to allow me to diversify. I'm playing the field, and there are a lot of bites, a lot of jobs, and a lot of work to do.
I look forward to these challenges, both to my image, my sense of place, my judgements on marketing, and my future. It is life, after all. Which is messy, chaotic, beautiful, and rewarding.
You can watch this video on www.livejournal.com
Firstly, the soundtrack on this is pretty good. It sounds like Four Tet to me. Secondly, In the non-business realm, I've been discussing content/depth versus image/shallowness. In the article, they overtly admit that this is conceptual, image-based, a front. It is an idea that may or may not be available. To me, that is the ultimate in greenwashing. The term, itself, essentially is analogous to plating in the metals/jewelry world, is it not? A poisonous/non-green core with a fresh coat of paint? That's the implication when I hear the term.
Sustainability is about integrity; it is about doing it 'real', it is about authenticity, dedication, and re-engineering both your thought patterns as well as your lifestyle. It requires a commitment. And the vast majority of people aren't committed to any one thing. We each have a portfolio of our issues. And that makes change difficult.
I read Sustainable Industries, as I have since 2004. In the past, they had quarterly foci on marketing. They've since done away with it. That has both a positive and a negative connotation. But I think the negative perception of greenwashing has been the overriding force in the removal of this. That, and I know the way that they operate; they use surveys. People who are in to marketing know how to market already. But the problem with marketing, capitalism, the internet, and all of it is an overarching shallowness that people become cynical toward. Green marketing is great, when you have a product ready to market, but ads like this one that are either premature, conceptual, or otherwise simply the gold plating on a nickel ring are doing us as green professionals, sustainability folks, or LOHAS (don't get me started) a disservice. I'm not saying R&D needs to cease, by any means, but we need to not jump the gun and create a media storm when things are contentless (Visit Peer+'s website to see the absolute prematurity I'm talking about). Those who are committed to a vision whereby we, as humans, live off of our ecological interest, rather than principle, are always fighting an uphill battle. That battle is with image, with depth, with culture, with mindsets, with the externalities of capitalism, with our own willingness to be an example. In a culture/world where the nailhead that pops up is the one that gets the hammer, many are too afraid to be an example. In fact, the term 'to be an example' has a pejorative, punishing overtone to it, doesn't it?
While I do agree that green technologies need to be well-designed and to not impose on aesthetics, design concepts, etc., that only goes so far. To the extent that green technologies radically change our way of life, our relationship with one another, the earth, our communities, and our needs, it is those other things that need to change. I've been hearing about emerging technologies in solar the better part of my life. But they hardly ever bear fruit. I've never seen in practice anything other than a regular PV array on a rooftop or a solar water array. I've never seen microinverters in practice, $0.50/W plastics-based, 12% efficient PV panels. When will I see in the market solar tiles, windows, and other distributed technologies? At some point, hope becomes a let-down, and people become cynical, mean, and hardened. And then they hunker down and never want to change.
I'd also like to address, though, the technocratic solution mentality. Working in energy efficiency, I'm already starting to see some things peter out. First of all, CFLs. Let's be honest: they're a crappy technology. They're the perfect example of a stop-gap. But everyone prefers the yellowish light of an incandescent, and even better, the sun. LEDs may be able to help us, but the current ones I have flicker at 60 Hz, something I shouldn't be able to see, but I seem to. But CFLs are how the mainstream energy efficiency programs realise most of their savings. Those energy-saving cows will be slaughtered soon as regulations on lighting change, and efficiency programs will no longer be able to do the 'easy' thing and install CFLs or claim to. The next technology may come along and we may have an LED craze, furthering a tried-and-true mentality.
But I'm arguing for something greater than that, something more. The institutionalisation of energy efficiency is part of the problem. And that has to do with metrics, mentality, and humans' overt laziness. Conservatism, in a way, is a form of this laziness. Many people resist change not because they fear it, but because it injects both uncertainty and risk into the situation as well as requires cooperation and communication. And people, who are blessed with the faculties of language, are the most able species when it comes to cooperation and communication. But it requires effort. And in very large organisations, it requires a LOT of effort. And, back to marketing, when communicating with a wide range of people, simplicity is key. And, back to depth/shallowness: simplicity is not always possible. Distilling a almond-encrusted trout with Bearnaise sauce dinner into a capsule will not yield you the same flavours as if you had eaten it.
Programs that are institutionalised are managed as a product. The metrics for success are based on calculations, savings, and common, industrial metrics. And, I'll be the first to admit, I absolutely love doing those calculations and managerial tasks. It is what I was trained to do in business school. But I think that in order for real sustainability to be integrated into our lives, the real world and the academic world need to coordinate better. When students get out of high school and/or business school, they need to have a way to interpret and apply what they've learned. Otherwise, like me, they end up putting most of the tools they've learned away, where they sit in the back of one's mind and rust, sadly. I'm woefully out of practice in many of my sustainability and managerial tasks because no one sees any value in it. And I have a feeling that this may happen with my greenhouse gas training as well.
In America, at least, it is all 'market-driven'. But the market is not progressive. The market does what has worked, not what is best for people or ecology. The market is not the end-all-be-all of how we operate. Yet in the work world, this is the engine. We're applying non-market technologies and metrics to solve problems created by the market itself. This paradox is my struggle. It is like the quote I heard about free speech: once supposedly 'free' speech is associated with money, it no longer becomes free speech, now, does it? It is, by definition, 'moneyed' speech.
In this life, I'm seeing connections. I'm balancing my vision of the world with reality; I'm seeing systematic impediments to my vision (not even getting started on regulation/incentives), and in a very real way, it makes me both cynical and want to give up. It is the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't paradigm that makes one not want to play the game at all. Because I cannot change human laziness, greed, etc. But I also cannot give into it. I'm damned either way. Certain philosophies cop to these negative attributes; they even consider them ideals. That is truly shallow and inauthentic to my moral compass.
In a very real way, there is a core of me that won't give up, due to this compass. I'll struggle on, regardless until it becomes too difficult to go on. But despite all of these grumblings, I'm quite content with who and where I am. The important things like home, family, and friends, hobbies, and even work are going well for me. I'm starting to work for a client to aid them in their mission to install and retrofit homes with energy efficiency technologies and solar panels. I'm doing my part, and this blog is my part in sharing what it is that I do.
That said, I have more-or-less soft launched my business as of this week. Colourless Green Energy (and consulting) now has a website, and depending on what it is that I do and who I work for, I will likely work on becoming an LLC with it. I think I will continue to moonlight/contract a little bit here and there and try to find a full-time gig or a full-time flexible gig to allow me to diversify. I'm playing the field, and there are a lot of bites, a lot of jobs, and a lot of work to do.
I look forward to these challenges, both to my image, my sense of place, my judgements on marketing, and my future. It is life, after all. Which is messy, chaotic, beautiful, and rewarding.