One of the hardest things (I find) is that taking ecological action leads to fear of commitment to further ecological action. Mentally, ecologically, we start to get too far ahead. That’s like going on a date with someone and then she says “I can’t wait to have kids.” Funny how much you can’t wait for that date to be over then. Truth is, the idea isn’t necessarily you turn off, it’s the knowing that date number two leads eventually to meeting the parents… buying a house… then re-mortgaging it to pay for your kids’ college tuition… when all you wanted to do was have dinner and a few drinks.

I start to fear if I carry my plastic drink bottle home to recycle instead of dropping in the garbage on the street that eventually I’ll start using incense instead of deodorant. I’ve seen those environmentalists. You get all enthusiastic and then become insane.

Or worse yet, there’s The Guilt. Because acknowledging once that something could be done better means acknowledging more things that could be done better. Since pretty much everything could be better, the whole change is big and impossible. Also, being the person who always remembers to bring a mug instead of getting coffee in a to-go cup means drawing comments when you forget your mug that day. Can’t I just be imperfect some days? Please?

Everyone appreciates a good deed but at the same time, everyone sees you as That Person (reference above mention insanity). Too much of someone else doing something good just makes me feel like I’m not doing enough. It’s why I will try to make my their harder, just to even things up, Harrison Bergeron-style. Raise your hand if you’ve remind your environmentalist friends how much they aren’t doing. My favorite go-to move was to point out that the whole conundrum is Big and Impossible.

I said “was”; I should say “sometimes is”. I used to point out Big and Impossible all the time, but now only sometimes. I changed- just a little. I got tired of seeing the weight of, and the changing of, the world on the shoulders of others. I was tired of the possibility that weight would shift to my shoulders. So I stopped looking at the world this way.

Instead of trying to tackle the whole problem, I take on bits at a time. And when I can’t or don’t – that isn’t the end of the world, or the end of my good works. I just start over. A friend taught me a simple rule for counting breaths when meditating. Count to one and start over. Otherwise you might lose count and get frustrated. So don’t count. Just do.

I can’t do everything. I can do some things. I will do them imperfectly and irregularly, but I will keep doing things. When the world starts to overwhelm you too, take a deep breath, take one step out on that high and slender edge and don’t look down. We’re not saving the world all at once. We’re just going to walk to the recycle bin.

-chel

I’ve been thinking about stuff lately. I mean, Stuff. My possessions. Where they come from, how I use them, where they go when I’m done. In December, a colleague passed along a link that slammed on my brakes: http://www.storyofstuff.com/. The messenger’s tone sometimes bugged, but the message got through big time.

My stuff demands energy. I have to negotiate my stuff when I get home: groceries, furniture, mail, clothes, appliances. I manage my stuff, or work around it. I have to keep it clean and organized. I have to shift stuff around when I’m looking for a particular item of stuff. Sometimes these labors are worth the trouble, when the stuff is especially useful: A table, an iPod, my slippers, a spoon. Chicken from Pio Pio.

But stuff also takes energy to manufacture, distribute, purchase, take home, de-package, and dispose of when it’s used up. This associated energy lends a paper cup or a freezer bag heavier implications—and literal weight, in a landfill. Stuff becomes a classic First-World Problem.

So, I’ve slowly been changing my relationship with stuff. Besides hauling groceries home in reusable bags, I’m using less disposable…everything. But on a fundamental level, I’ve stopped buying so much. It’s hard, because stuff is cheap. In 2008, it has never been cheaper to have tons of stuff. Even people on very tight budgets seem to have a lot of stuff.

Accumulating stuff feels like feathering a nest. (With global warming, maybe I don’t need so much insulation.) It’s also an exercise of power. When life seems chaotic and I don’t feel I have control, leveraging that spending power can offer momentary relief. Other forces drive me to get stuff: advertising, cultural trends, boredom.

But I believe that buying less stuff is the best thing I can do for the planet right now, even better than recycling. The former begets the latter, when paring down one’s purchases. But there’s a personal incentive: Having less stuff also unclutters my mind and frees my hands and resources for other pursuits. These benefits compel me the most.

When my Costco membership expired last year, I didn’t renew it. Other than their dog food, I don’t miss it. The savings on the kibble nearly paid for the yearly membership. But I bought a lot of other stuff at Costco. Stuff I didn’t know I needed until I saw it. As I saved money, I spent a lot more, on extra stuff.

Now, if I really need stuff, I try to buy it at a market or local store or order it online. I make fewer impulse purchases because “the stuff was such a great deal.” I allocate less real estate to storing stuff. My household generates less waste. I still like to look. But acquisition has consequences I didn’t notice before, and I tally them before I buy. Now, if I really want a larger box-grater, I wait for a tag sale. In fact, I see all the merchandise at Costco (and Pottery Barn and Bed, Bath & Beyond) as Future Tag-Sale Items that will soon be available at deep discount.

If I need them at all.

Which brings me to a point for another post: I know I’m not alone in using less. How do advertisers reconcile a trend that’s a conflict of interest? How do we make money on buying less? I have some ideas, but would love to hear others.

Helen Perri

I am a foodie.  I love good scrumptious, hearty, flavor on an artfully arranged plate, shared with good friends and raucous conversation.  I love the “slow food” concept, the idea that meals are sacred.  They’re a kind of agnostic church, wherever two people come together…  And good food deserves the homage.  I fight for these moments.  I fight for these moments by trying to honor the huge importance, the complex history, and the undeniable medicinal science of food and diet.  For me, this reverence has seeded a desire to re-connect with “the land”, that idyllic nostalgic bounty that we call the earth.  And so I commenced to planting tomatoes in the borrowed sun of my landlord’s back yard. 

Knowing tomatoes alone (especially those nourished in questionable Brooklyn top soil) would not sustain me, I turned to the buying group.  Buying groups are kinda hippy.  They’re like the vestiges of a 1960 flower-power commune project.  They’re like a YMCA for food.  I guess that makes me a flower-blowing, bell-bottom wearing village person!    

A buying group is essentially a collective of individuals (members) who pool they’re purchasing power to take advantage of economies of scale.  Members benefit from wholesale prices by cutting out the middle man (or third or fourth man). 

Like any organization, buying groups reflect the priorities and personalities of their members, so different buying groups engage in different missions.  In the case of my buying group, Kalabash Food Coop, our mission is to develop cooperative economic practices in disadvantaged neighborhoods through the purchasing organic and farm-direct produce.   There are a number of reasons why I chose to commit my grocery money and volunteer time to such a mission, but mainly because inner-city communities face a lack of access and financial resources to buy organic on a regular basis.  I feel good knowing that my efforts help improve access to healthy food options, ensure that the land on which it grows is being treated better than average, and that what I consume is largely unadulterated.  Not to mention, my pocket doesn’t hurt the same way it would if I bought the same items at Whole Foods.

But buying groups don’t exist without community.  They involve like-minded people banding together, and making a mutual financial commitment.  The practice itself reminds us that it takes a village to, well, feed a village.  Like a good meal, a buying group can take a lot of time and effort to prepare, but the rewards are scrumptious and sweet—and taste even better when you have a few friends to join you. 

You can learn more about buying groups and community supported agricultural groups in New York City by visiting www.justfood.org.  

Happy Harvest! 

Candace Hewitt

This morning, while I was getting ready to go to work, I managed to
catch a segment on the Today Show about the new Rockefeller Tree. Matt Lauer
was going on and on about how “green” NBC is being this week; going to
“the ends of the Earth” to help bring awareness to climate change. Even the NBC
logo, the peacock has been all green this entire week – but what Matt said
next made me laugh out loud. And by “laugh” I mean cry because it was truly
the definition of irony. He boastfully stated that this year’s Rockefeller
Tree was cut down entirely by hand so as to save energy and be more
environmentally conscious. BUT IT WAS TO CHOP DOWN A FRIGGIN’ TREE!!!

And that’s when it really hit me. The Christmas tree industry is literally
suffocating us with our own apathy and our unwillingness to make any true
sacrifices. Sure we’ll change a light bulb and start recycling our trash,
but when it comes to Christmas, how many people will actually be willing to
do the “Christian” thing?

In 2006 close to 200 million natural Christmas trees were sold worldwide.
That’s an enormous amount of oxygen that could’ve helped balance out all of
our human carbons. Now I know what you’re thinking, “but these trees are
farmed, so they are constantly growing new ones to replace the mature trees
when they are ready to be cut down.” And that’s just it. They are far from
ready to be cut down. The lifespan of the spruce tree is somewhere between
50 and 100 years. But it reaches maturity in its late teens, similarly to us
humans. So, if they were to leave those oxygen spewing trees alone, they
could’ve been cooling the Earth for another 60 years on average! Plus
there’d be the new ones growing in behind them.

Then how about artificial trees to solve the problem? Unfortunately, they
would be just as bad if not worse than chopping down the real ones; being that
they’re made from oil and industrialized materials that waste a huge amount of
energy in their massive production factories.

I’m sure by now, many of you see where I’m heading and will argue that I am
being blasphemous and simply don’t understand the powerful significance of
the Christmas tree because I am not a Christian. Well, I would argue back
that apparently neither do you, because the entire tradition has nothing to
do with Christ’s birthday. It was a Pagan ritual, practiced thousands of years ago that
also used to take place on December 25th, coincidentally. It was a
celebration created by the Druids who actually worshiped trees and nature.
It was a very charming event and the Christians really seemed to like it. So
they took it. But even if the tree did have this powerful significance as
you say, do you really think this is what Jesus would want? A man who
preached love and tolerance. If you ask me, “what would Jesus do?”, he would
probably tell everyone, “Stop chopping down trees to show your love for my
beliefs. You are destroying your home and your children’s futures.” Instead
I think he would ask everyone to buy a large potted plant to keep in their
homes year round and then every December, to show your faith and tradition,
string lights around it and place your presents at its base.

But will anyone honestly be willing to do this? Will you? After all, if
you’re a Christian, this is your religion we’re talking about.. So I will
leave you with one final question; is it more important to you to have a
place to stick your presents under once a year, than it is to save hundreds of
millions of trees in a time when our very existence on this planet is in
jeopardy?

Are you interested in learning about GREEN buildings in NYC? If so, check out OHNY’s event this weekend.

This weekend OHNY- Open House New York is hosting a weekend-long set of events throughout the 5 boroughs of New York to showcase several green buidlings, outdoor spaces and facilities.

http://www.ohny.org/programs/sustainablenewyork.cfm

http://www.ohny.org/programs/programs.cfm

What: NYC Green Buildings- walking tours and discussion

WHO: OHNY -Open House New York

When: This weekend – Saturday October 5th & Sunday October 6th.

Where: NYC- all 5 boroughs

How: Log onto http://www.ohny.org/programs/sustainablenewyork.cfm to learn more about the specific events or you can stop by any of the locations listed below to pick up an event guide.

Additional info:

• All participating sites and programs are free of charge and open to the public

• Entry is first come, first serve, unless advance registration is required

• To learn more about OHNY- Sign-up for their mailing list to get the latest updates and news at info@ohny.org or call the OHNY hotline at 212 991 6469.

The Sustainable NY events are just a part of a much larger program that will educate, enlighten and entertain you about some of the thousands of buildings in NYC that we pass by everyday. In addition, you will be granted access to many buildings that are normally restricted to the general public.

OHNY- http://www.ohny.org/

Today, Wednesday September 26, 2007 at 12:00pm EST., Advertising Week 2007 will be hosting the Panasonic, ideas for life: Landing the Light Green Consumer. The panel will discuss, “who is the “Green Consumer” and what are they looking for?

Listen live at: http://www.advertisingweek.com/wadvradio.php

Panelist include:

· Heather Stephenson, founder of IdealBite.com- www.idealbite.com

· Steve Hardwick the CEO of Grey Advertising

·  Allen Hershkowitz from the Natural Resources Defense Council

· Gail Lavielle, Vice President/Marketing Public Relations for Sears Holding Company.

· Janesse Thaw Bruce, Publisher and Managing Director of Body+Soul magazine

· Annie Howell, SVP Communications & Public Affairs, Discovery Communications

Advertising Week is built on our fundamental commitment to celebrate creativity. Above and beyond celebration, Advertising Week is about inspiring young people to join our craft; focusing the industry and public at-large on the social impacts of advertising; and shining a bright light on the influence advertising has on our economic fabric. We accomplish these lofty goals through a hybrid of program-ing which includes public events, keynotes and panels, major conferences and expositions, and a wide variety of special events.

http://www.advertisingweek.com/index.php

A few weeks ago I was reading my Rolling Stone Magazine when I came across an article that just about made sick to my stomach. No, not the one about the Britney Spears debacle on the VMA’s. It was about corn ethanol and how UN-green it really is. In fact, about the only thing that’s even remotely green about it is the money that will be pouring into the wallets of greedy corporate cronies, slimy lobbyists and corrupt politicians.

Now before you jump to say, “Those damn republicans!” I have unfortunate news for you. The democrats are just as guilty. Hillary, Obama and even John Edwards have all been drinking the coolaid, one-upping each other with their promises of support to the ethanol industry should they be elected. Why? Two words: The Iowa Caucus. Okay, so technically that’s three words, but you can’t really count “The” as a word, can you? But I digress.

You see, Iowa is one of the largest corn growing states in the country. It is also the place where John Kerry managed to stage one of the biggest political upsets in recent history. So, if you want to win the 2008 election, you need to win Iowa. And if you want to win Iowa, you need to support corn.

But back to why corn ethanol is such a scam. First of all, we can’t grow enough of it to make even the tiniest of dents in our nation’s oil consumption. Currently, all of the ethanol grown in the U.S. only accounts for 3.5% of our total usage. And even if we turned ALL of our corn crops, that includes the corn we use for food, we would only reach a mere 17.5%. Which sounds a little bit better until you consider what that would mean. Deforestation to create larger farms, starvation for third world countries that rely on our corn as an inexpensive form of hunger aid. And worst of all, no more corn dogs, corn bread or corn chips. No corn on the cob and no popcorn at the movies. Plus no high fructose corn syrup either, which is used in just about everything on the supermarket shelves- but considering it’s a chief cause of the obesity epidemic in this country, that one’s probably a good a thing to lose. But we’ll save that for another blog.

So why is ethanol working so well for Brazil? Because it’s made from sugar cane and not corn. What’s the difference? HUGE. There is something called an energy output to input ratio. Meaning, how many units of energy it actually takes to create one unit of energy that you can use in your car. For example, crude oil currently weighs in at about a 5:1 ratio. So, for all of the mining, shipping, pumping, refining etc, you get a return of five times that energy when you hit the highway. Quite impressive, until you compare that with Brazil’s ethanol which yields a staggering 8:1. So where does corn ethanol place in the standings? A pathetic 1.3 to 1, making it absolutely useless.

But at least it burns cleaner than fossil fuels, right? Nope. Not even that. The emissions from corn ethanol are every bit as filthy as the crap we stick in our cars now.

Well, now that you’re as completely disgusted as I am, I’m going back to reading about Britney at the VMA’s.

For those of you out there that still smoke cigarettes, you are keenly aware of bold type font warning label affixed to each pack. After inconclusive evidence proved that cigarettes do cause cancer, the tobacco companies were forced to add this warning to remind smokers the risks involved. Similar type of warning labels are also printed on other products that pose potential health risks. Many toys warn that children may choke on small pieces, or coffee cups that warn consumers of its hot content. These warning labels are to protect the public of their potential hazards. However, are auto manufacturers on track to be the next industry mandated to abide by such strict CSR regulations?

On Marketing Week’s website today, September 20th, Car industry in uproar over cigarette-style ad controls new legislation is being proposed in the European Parliament (EP) which will require future car ads to dedicate 20% of their ads towards communicating the carbon dioxide (CO2) emission levels.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders are obviously not too happy with this proposal stating that, “the automotive sector is already one of the most heavily regulated when it comes to advertising.”

I wonder if warning labels in car ads will actually be effective in persuading a potential buyer into purchasing one car over another based on their emission level? Do you think it would be more effective to concentrate efforts on making the auto industry develop cars that did not harm the environments as much? While the proposal has good intentions, why are they placing the guilt on the consumer, if they want to purchase a less efficient car, than on the manufactuerer who actually produces it?

Visits Ad Shops to Encourage Participation in New Initiative

By Rupal Parekh

Published: September 11, 2007

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) — Grey wants to turn the ad industry green.

At a time when environmentalism is at the marketing forefront, the WPP Group agency is encouraging Madison Avenue to aggregate and share energy-saving strategies with its new “Green It Forward” initiative.

Grey creatives Alison Brown and Troy Torrison helped hand-deliver invitations to join a green initiative to sibling and rival shops in New York.

Created website
The agency has created a website where New York agencies can blog about their internal efforts to stem carbon emissions, and is trying to drive traffic to the site with a full-page ad in the official guide for Advertising Week, which will be held later this month, directing people to the site with a call to action.

“We started this initiative the second I walked in the door,” said Steve Hardwick, who in May returned to Grey, New York, as president after holding the same title at Strawberry Frog, New York. “I kinda had this crazy idea to challenge the industry … through the good work of people at the agency they helped me crystallize this idea.”

To tout the initiative Grey employees yesterday strolled down Madison Avenue, popping into major agencies to hand-deliver invitations (tucked inside boxes of wheatgrass) asking counterparts to join Grey in going as green as possible. Recipients included top executives at BBDO, Bartle Bogle Hegarty, Berlin Cameron/United, DDB, Deutsch, DraftFCB, EuroRSCG, Kirshenbaum Bond & Partners, JWT, McCann Worldgroup, Publicis, Ogilvy, Saatchi & Saatchi and Young & Rubicam.

Grey is beginning in New York but hopes to eventually roll out the program to other cities.

Trying to do better
Mr. Hardwick is careful to point out that Grey isn’t claiming to be the best at being green in the business — the agency is “anything but” these days, he said, though it is trying to do better by switching to Energy-Star-rated computers and copiers, investing in data-sharing and teleconferencing to reduce travel and offering corporate discounts for bike purchases reduce its carbon footprint.

Additionally, the agency plans to seek LEED certification (the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) from the U.S. Green Building Council for its offices.

Mr. Hardwick said Grey timed the launch of the initiative just ahead of Advertising Week, slated for Sept. 24-28, which this year has a heavy emphasis on green marketing. Among other things, this year’s event will feature “Together for a Sustainable World,” an exhibition of 300 environmental and social ads that showed in Cannes during the International Advertising Festival.

Message in a Bottle

I came across an intriguing FAST COMPANY article in their July/August issue on the bottled water industry.

From a marketing point of view, it’s fascinating to see the marketing power of bottled water companies to sell essentially a free commodity at a premium price.

Some interesting Stats from the article.

Americans spent more money last year on bottled water than on ipods or movie tickets: $15 Billion. A journey into the economics–and psychology–of an unlikely business boom. And what it says about our culture of indulgence.

Some Quick Facts from the Article

If the water we use at home cost what even cheap bottled water costs, our monthly water bills would run $9,000.

We pitch into landfills 38 billion water bottles a year–in excess of $1 billion worth of plastic.

Fiji Water produces more than a million bottles a day, while more than half the people in Fiji do not have reliable drinking water.

24% of the bottled water we buy is tap water repackaged by Coke and Pepsi.

Worldwide, 1 billion people have no reliable source of drinking water; 3,000 children a day die from diseases caught from tainted water.

“Once you understand the resources mustered to deliver the bottle of water, it’s reasonable to ask as you reach for the next bottle, not just “Does the value to me equal the 99 cents I’m about to spend?” but “Does the value equal the impact I’m about to leave behind?’”

“Simply asking the question takes the carelessness out of the transaction. And once you understand where the water comes from, and how it got here, it’s hard to look at that bottle in the same way again.”