Words, Words, Words and Actions

Less than a year ago, I had the priviledge of hearing former president Clinton speak in honor of Pace University's 100th anniversary. Say what you will about his politics or pastimes, the man is as poised and charismatic at the podium as Pericles. He noted at that speech that the era of the internet has the capacity to make us all activists. We can all contribute with incredible ease to our favorite charitable organizations. We can all vouch our support for our favorite causes.

Certainly, he has a point. As we know it now, the internet is a global resource for an incredible variety of information. From various perspectives - Shi'ite, Kurdish and Sunni - from sexual liberation to liberation from sex to the idiotic. For us head in the clouds enviros, the internet is indeed a choice location for environmental information and activism.

But Clinton's speech was marked not only by his eloquence and optimism, but by two protestors who stood up at one point and called him a war criminal. He shrugged off the 10-second-long protest with the line "everybody's got an opinion." And it's true. You could call Clinton many things, including key to helping and hurting the environment with his deal with Richard Branson. We live in a culture so stuffed with opinions and pundits that it almost seems to be a rebellion not to have a stance.

This could not be further from the truth. Say what you will about Clinton, he is working for his causes. If I say nothing else in this blog it is this: distinguish between the source and the mouthpiece. Bill Clinton or Bill O'Reilly for that matter likely both have good reasons for their views, but that has nothing to do with whether or not what they say is true. Especially when it comes to the environment, quality information is essential. And when it comes to quality information about the environment, nothing beats going out and exploring it thoughtfully.

Last week, American factories, offices, construction sites and homes lay dormant, save for the flashing of screensavers and the little red lights indicating standby mode on electronic devices. People congregated in great numbers for the national day of homage to the forces that affirm and reinforce our way of life: Black Friday. Oh yeah, and there was Thanksgiving in there, too, for those who still enjoy family – or at least comfort food.

But, Wal-Mart has besmirched this Black Friday, the number one shopping day of the year, by selling cheap early. The gift of choice for our holiday “season” has been the PlayStation3. Wal Mart's early sales of the device led to crowd-pleasing “stampedes”, robberies and violent crimes. But some people survived to drive home with their own PS3.

PlayStation3 has advanced significantly upon the merits of Frogger, Pong and Centipede in the effort to offer the gamer generation a comprehensive alternative to reality. (See the advertisements linked below and think about The Matrix).

But just like The Matrix, the virtual reality is not entirely divorced from the “real” reality. One might ask me “Judd, when I am playing the game, how am I taking part in reality?” I would answer that person by saying: “Nevaeh, while we move realistically in virtual space, our bodies are still living and breathing in the real world. No matter how shrouded in gunsmoke and layered with dead bodies the virtual landscape may be, the natural world in which we live (yes, even the inside of your house can be polluted) the one that still relies upon trees for its breathable oxygen and snowfall for its drinkable water is being consumed to feed this virtual world.”

Here are some thoughts on how video gaming relates to health, environmental and economic problems:

Asthma: Kids may still love the outdoors, but it may not love them.

Energy leakage: These devices leak energy at all times, and the more powerful the machine, the more energy it uses.

Coal and Gas Consumption: we use a whole lot of energy in this country, and, thanks to its cheapness, coal and petroleum provide the majority of that energy, and a lot of pollution on top of that.

My thought: we need to make alternative energies a top priority. We need to make it a matter of public demand that "scrubbers" be put on existing coal plants. It is a public health issue. Pursue it for your kids, and maybe, get them involved in the effort while you're at it.


PlayStation3 ads:
“Smarter than you?”
“More ways to die”
“ The Wait” (Canada)
“Where can you find these real life interactive experiences?” (England and France)
“the baby”

What do we call it when a corporation tries to act like it's environmentally friendly without actually taking the steps to match their words? If you answered "greenwashing" you are correct! Also acceptable: public relations. Yes indeed, you can hardly blame a corporation for trying to do what it sets out to do: get money into the hands of its shareholders. That's like blaming a snake for slithering, or a hummer stretch limo for needing to be refueled every hour (not a joke). Research has shown that it is hard to sell yourself to people who hate you. And because corporations do not often change their charters and survive, it is easier for executives to ask the PR people to "deal with the hatred" than it is to turn the hatred to love by downright good behavior. Besides, corporations don't tell YOU how to go about your business! Or do they…

In any case, this article is not out to complain about corporate behavior. That's like blaming the beach for the case of diarrhea you got after swimming there. This article aims to note that PR can be used not only as a shield, but as a sword as well. Take, as case in point, the recent spinach contamination. Early reports of this outbreak centered upon the fact that the company whose spinach was found to contain e. coli produced organic food. The company claimed that its organic spinach was not the source of the outbreak, but the Center for Global Food Issues (CGFI) put forth a press release trying to break down this defense. As is typical of muck-raking blog entries such as this one, I will now note that CGFI gets its funding from the Hudson Institute, which, in turn is funded by a variety of companies that have a stake in industrial agriculture. The CGFI has a history of brownwashing claiming that organic farming is not as green as it claims to be – while greenwashing – supporting claims that pesticides protect food quality and producing more food in smaller spaces (ie, cramming cows into overcrowded dairies), leaves more room for nature. This is the "sword" of PR at work. It brownwashes over the fact that before World War II, there was no option but organic farming. In fact, USDA organic standards were established to distinguish farms that do not rely upon industrial methods.

USDA research regarding the e. coli outbreak has found that the parasite came from contaminated feces from a cattle farm. In fact, the strain of e. coli that was attributed to the outbreak is known to thrive in the stomachs of cattle. The dirty truth: a company producing organic spinach was linked to the e. coli outbreak, was because it did not distance itself enough from the cattle in the farm next door. As Michael Pollan notes in his recent book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, "we eat by the grace of nature, not industry, and what we're eating is never anything more or less than the body of the world." If we are to live by these words, we should reward the farms that pay respect to this tenet: local farms that sell locally at farmer's markets and grocery stores; organic farms and fisheries that hold themselves to standards of environmental stewardship and fair trade; and even from our own back yards. More info on food standards.

Who would have thought that this year's World Series would provide a battleground for energy politics? Coverage hosted dueling advertisements from General Motors (through Chevrolet) and ExxonMobil. Just as the blue Tigers and red Cardinals echo the political buzz-colors of the election season, these ads more heavy-handedly represented a political split in America: "New Patriotism" versus "Stay the Course" "Political Dynamism"; conservative versus liberal; energy independence versus…stay the course?

On the liberal side, Chevy led its campaign with a John Mellencamp-driven paean to post-Katrina, post-civil rights, post-9/11 America. Entitled "Our Country. Our Truck." The ad shows Rosa Parks, Vietnam, Martin Luther King, Jr., Katrina, Mohammed Ali, Dale Earnhardt, and, of course, big shiny trucks in support of "An American Revolution" – which, if it wasn't obvious, is the Chevrolet Silverado.

Chevy's campaign also features ads in which gas pumps take revenge upon Chevy cars while their drivers are off hunting down pre-packaged meat snacks. This sequence – trumpeting the EPA-rated fuel economy of Chevy cars – boasts that "gas pumps hate us." Chevy aligns itself with home-grown Ethanol (E85) and fuel efficiency, and against oil giants like ExxonMobil.

On the conservative side, ExxonMobil's ads carried the slogan "We understand. We're drivers, too." This campaign consists of a female voice-over sweetly reminding us that life is hectic, crazy, unpredictable... but also fun. The images depict Americans as busy, family-oriented, hard-working and hard-driving Exxon-goers. The advertisement comes at the heels of an Exxon-funded campaign to refute global warming and to promote their generous contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Exxon's ads are designed to repair its injured public image. Global Warming's emergence as a true political issue, thanks as much to USAToday's coverage as to Al Gore's movie, has left Exxon in a predicament. The company is still affiliated with the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other climate change deniers. Yet, they are presenting materials that promote their carbon sequestration efforts. Exxon has to be very careful how they present themselves, because they run the risk of being seen as hypocrites on global warming.

GM, on the other hand, is a member of CERES , an organization that institutes corporate sustainability reporting and recently reported ExxonMobil's lack of planning and corporate governance with regard to climate change. This is a corporate battle that most of America's baseball lovers probably did not see in the ads, but it is just as political as the mid-term elections. Of course, GM is also facing a widening financial crisis. Plus Chevy has its own role in the problem as its consumer generated viral ads reveal.

Of course we still need gas to drive today's cars, so while America's corporations bicker for our affections, we need to find transportation alternatives. Beyond the slogans, the bigger picture is much clearer: we have to develop a new energy strategy as a nation, and we all have to do our part.

----------------------------------
Judd Franklin Shift's media analyst, spends his days trawling the internet for good deals on movie rentals, mortgages and medications. In his spare time, he works towards his Master's degree in Media Studies at the New School, works on sustainability communication strategies, basks in the warmth of his marriage and writes.