Reinventing Fire with RMI

I love this new messaging from the Rocky Mountain Institute: Reinventing Fire. Watch this video and check out their web site. What do you think?

Gas Powered Everything hits the mark

I was watching TV the other night (something I don't do very often) and a commercial for the Nissan Leaf came on the screen. It reminded me that I haven't blogged here in a (long) while and this was something I had been meaning to talk about.

Called Gas Powered Everything, the spot is the brainchild of TBWA and imagines that everything electric was instead powered by gasoline. The implication is that all of these things, from hairdryers to computers, are better running on electricity so why not vehicles?

What I like best about the spot is that it successfully appeals to both its primary target of the environmentally-conscious and the general public. It does so both through humor and by showing the benefits of using electricity to power items everyone uses every day (although ignoring that much of that electricity comes from coal). Here's the 60-second spot:



There was another car in the ad and the manufacturer has since responded. What do you think of the spot?

Plain Green Conference

How can environmentally-conscious people in the Northern plains continue to advance sustainability? Join me at the Plain Green Conference in Sioux Falls, S.D. to find out.

I'm speaking again this year, but on a different topic. Last year, I talked about green marketing, which you can read about on this blog. This year, I'll be on a renewable energy panel sponsored by my company, POET.

Conference organizers have put together a great lineup for Plain Green '11. I'm especially looking forward to the keynote address from Alex Steffen. If you need any more motivation to attend, check out this video from a few of my friends:

Green advertising mirrors news and opinion

How many of the 600-625 advertisements Americans see on the average day have a green message? Unsurprisingly, it depends on the amount of news coverage devoted to green issues and public concern about the environment.

A recent study of "green" ads in four major print publications from Michael Svoboda at the Yale Forum found that they peaked in 2008-09 and returned to background levels in 2010. That rise and fall mirrored major media coverage of climate change and public concern about global warming.

The study also found that most companies preferred uncontroversial advertising messages about their "efficient use of natural resources and their careful disposal of wastes" rather than explicit mentions of "greenhouse gases" or "climate change." Most of the advertisements of climate change appeared to come from oil, nuclear and car companies.

So, which comes first? The news "chicken" or the advertising "egg." the study makes the case that advertising increased along with news coverage of events like the Copenhagen Climate Summit and the resultant public interest. But it also notes the public opinion shaping role of advertising and a recent uptick in green ads.

What do you think? Can "green" advertising from major companies help drive public concern about the environment? Or are they simply following public concern about the environment and "greenwashing" their image?

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4

It's all about the people, right?

The latest report from ecoAmerica is titled "up start with people." The report states that the environmental community has not been successful at wining the hearts and minds because they have focused mostly on government regulation and intervention. The non-profit sees more success being had by those in the movement who are focused on social solutions that are built around people.

ecoAmerica wants to encourage this shift by bringing together NGOs and others for large-scale public engagement programs targeting mainstream Americans with unquestionable benefits. So far, that has been carried out through higher education initiatives like the President's Climate Commitment and green college ratings with the Princeton Review, public outreach like Nature Rocks, along with several others listed in the report and soon will include the Center for Social Solutions on Climate.

Seems like a no-brainer. If you want PEOPLE to care about the environment, you should probably also focus on people, right?

Well, it might take a little more convincing to get the environmental community on board. The Spring issue of Nature Magazine had a cover story about Nature Conservancy chief scientist Peter Kareiva suggested that it was time to move past the man vs. nature debate and get people to understand that nature benefits them.

When I read the article a few months ago, I thought it was a very pragmatic approach and one that could obviously have a broader appeal than trying to protect nature from man. I also wondered what the response would be from the readers.

Well, you would have thought they published an OpEd in the Catholic News suggesting the Pope convert to Protestantism. Although there were some letters in favor, they overwhelmingly castigated Kareiva, saying "people are the problem," comparing the Nature Conservancy to Exxon and, of course, threatening to take their funds and go play somewhere else. The Nature Conservancy set up a special place on their web site to continue the debate and the comments there are even more lopsided against Kareiva. My personal favorite was this gem: Ok, let me first say that I will NOT be supporting Nature Conservancy with donations until Peter Kareiva is fired.

No, please. Tell me how you really feel.

If the environmental community wants to broaden their appeal and convince more people to join their movement, they would be wise to follow the lead of ecoAmerica and Kareiva. Instead, it appears that they're going to act like the activist wing of a major political party that wants to crucify their candidate for moving toward the center in a presidential general election.

If you want to govern, you first have to win. For the environmental community, if they want to be successful, they'll first have to win the public debate. They'll have an easier time winning that debate protecting something for people rather than from them.

Who are the good energy and environment communicators?

Tomorrow, I will chat with people who are looking for organizations that are doing the most innovative communications work on energy, the environment and climate change. They are particularly looking for the groups who have been successful in changing the conversation in ways that get people to take action on these important issues.

I thought I'd put the question out here and ask people to respond. What communicators or organizations are doing a good job in this area? Can you point me to some good examples? The Climate and Energy Project I blogged about comes to mind. Can you think of any others? Leave suggestions in the comments below.

Who is Solar Fred?

If you spend any time following social media in the cleantech world, you’ve almost certainly come across Tor Valenza. That name doesn’t sound familiar? Well, how about his more well-known pseudonym Solar Fred?
It would be hard to not have seen one of his 10,000+ tweets or come across his very popular blog at Renewable Energy World. He has hung out his shingle at UnThink Solar.
But who is Solar Fred and what does he do? Considering his use of social media to promote solar power, I thought he’d make an interesting interview for this blog. Here’s our Q&A over email from last week:

Q. How did you first get involved in solar?

A. The short answer is that I was fascinated by solar as a teenager living in New York. I thought it was really cool to light up the city with power from the sun and had my sights on being a solar engineer. Then I took calculus... But solar always stuck with me, and eventually I realized I didn't have to invent solar, but I could use my natural communication talents to help educate people about it. So I took a few courses, started a solar blog, and it's been solar full steam ahead ever since.

Q. Why the name "Solar Fred?"

A. Another long story behind this, but in the end, it was a branding and marketing decision. When I started my original blog, "Solar Tor" didn't sound right and I wanted a common and somewhat ironic name that people could relate to. Fred was chosen out of an inside joke, too long to go into here.

Q. What is UnThink Solar? What do you do for solar companies?

A. UnThink Solar is very simply a boutique solar marketing and communications company. I develop solar social media strategies, as well as execute some small projects. For larger projects, I partner with other companies who help execute. The more interactive, the better Solar Fred likes it. Strike that. The more bold and interactive, the better I like it.

Q. Is social media a good way to promote solar?

A. Not only is social media a good way to promote solar, I really feel it is the most effective way. From blogging to Twitter, to viral videos and other web-related campaigns, social media works because it relies on inspiring people to get so excited about solar that they want to share that information with their friends. People trust friends and peers, not advertisements. That's why social media is an art. It's marketing, but can't be in-your-face. You have to build trust via providing useful information, simply communicated. That formula is ideal for solar, because buyers need a lot of trust to make that big purchase decision.

Q. What could solar companies do to market themselves better? What does solar need to do to gain greater public adoption?

A. I write a lot about this on my REWorld.com blog. The main theme I try to get across is not only using social media, but also "Stand out and educate." Also, "Be bold for solar." The first means that solar companies need to be more creative with their marketing, but they also must be sure to have substance behind their words. You can't only pull a stunt. My second slogan (both of these are in my email signature) is encouraging solar companies to be unabashedly courageous with their marketing. Solar has a lot of obstacles, from green washing to climate change deniers and general apathy. Plus, there's a lot of government policy that has to be changed. If marketers are all "bold for solar," then I think the U.S. will adopt solar faster. Very few companies have this courage, but I'm trying to inspire more.

Q. Who in the solar industry (besides yourself) does a good job marketing?

A. I don't know the entire industry. It's fairly large and broad. The few that I love are on my radar because I've worked with them in some capacity, so it would probably be too self serving to mention them. That being said, I write about good solar marketers on past REWorld blogposts, so go through those and you'll find plenty of Solar Fred shout-outs. Companies are often "on my list --in a good way." There also those who are my list in a bad way. I try not call them out unless they do something really, really bad for the industry. I'm not going to name them again here.

Q. What social media and web sites do you focus the most on and why (i.e. Twitter, REWorld, etc.)?

A. I go where my solar customers are, and that could really be on any platform. Unfortunately, I only have 10 fingers, two hands, and 24 hours. So, the lesson there is that you simply have to choose your social media community (i.e. REWorld, Twitter, Linkedin, Facebook etc.) learn their rules, and start building relationships on those platforms. If you communicate and build relationships well, you'll be successful. Honest.

Q. What excites you and/or concerns you about the future of solar?

A. What excites and concerns me are one in the same: We have so much potential for solar in the U.S. and the world. That's both exciting...and a concern. I'm impatient. I want people to get how affordable solar is now with creative financing like solar leases and solar ppas. I want people to get how clean it is, and how safe it is. So, I get excited when people get it and are inspired to get a quote. And I get concerned when the rest of the world doesn't do the same next Tuesday. I want everyone to be a "Solar Fred head" like me, but the reality is that different messages and concerns speak to different people. Therefore, I and other solar marketers simply must be creative, be consistent, and keep putting ourselves out there.

Now you know who Solar Fred is. If you want a little more, you can read his full bio here. Who else should I interview for this blog? Leave suggestions in the comments below.

ACORE Webinar: Communications Strategies for Renewable Energy

If you're a communicator in the renewable energy industry, you might be interested in a webinar I'm moderating for the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) titled Speaking Out On Renewable Energy: Communications Strategies for the Renewable Energy Industry. The experts joining me on the call are Justin Rolfe-Redding, Doctoral student and Presidential Scholar at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University and Kathryn Morrison, founder and president of SunStar Strategic.

The webinar is March 23 at 11:00 a.m. central time. There is a $30 administrative fee to participate, but ACORE is a good cause and hopefully it will be worth the money. If you attend, please let me know your thoughts in the comment section below.

No more glowing press coverage for green?

Glowing coverage of corporate greening initiatives is coming to an end, pens Kate Galbraith in the International Herald Tribune. Galbraith, Energy and environment reporter for the Texas Tribune, writes:

Journalists are a little less wide-eyed, and a little more picky. The cutting-edge coverage today does not typically revolve around the greening of fill-in-the-blank company. Instead, topics like “Who’s not going green?” and “What are the difficulties of going green?” are being seen more frequently...Going green, in other words, became so mainstream that it was no longer big news.

Galbraith calls it a "natural evolution" in reporting and my experience in the ethanol industry leads me to concur. As I've said before, journalists' second favorite story goes something like this: "There's this new thing you've never heard of, but it's going to make you healthy, wealthy and wise while saving the economy, the environment and the world." That's often closely followed by their favorite story: "Remember that new thing I told you about? It's actually robbing you blind, making you stupid and ultimately killing you while destroying the economy, the environment and indeed, the world."

Perhaps that's a bit of an exaggeration (which I occasionally am guilty of), but the broader principle fits sustainability news. If you look at where Galbraith sees coverage of green issues heading, it's along the lines of the latter storyline in the preceding paragraph. Journalists are increasingly looking at who is not going green or what the challenges are for companies or industries that want to go green. They're also looking at the "challenges facing renewable energy" rather than carbon offsets or commitments to renewable power.

Are there still opportunities for stories that cast corporate sustainability initiatives in a positive light? Yes. Galbraith sees those stories as "man-bites-dog" (e.g. renewable energy in Texas) or large scale (Walmart). Read the entire article and then follow Galbraith, an excellent and seasoned green journalist, on Twitter to keep learning. To find more reporters like her, join the 222 other followers of my green journalists list on Twitter.

How about your experiences? Are you finding reporters lest receptive to corporate sustainability news? Let me know in the comments below.

Infographic Explains Energy Myths, Misconceptions, and Lies

This is a guest post from Beth Buczynski

We are a society caught between two eras: a past dependent on fossil fuels and a future that will rely on renewable forms of energy. Every day new information floods the media about the latest technologies and how they can reduce our dependency on petroleum, coal, and other "dirty" fuels. At the same time, there are critics who claim we're not ready for a switch to renewable energy, and that doing so would be disastrous for our way of life.

As you know, it can often be difficult to sort out fact from fiction when it comes to environmental gossip. That's why WellHome created this striking infographic designed to address some of the common inaccuracies floating around out there and inform readers of the truth:

The infographic has been featured on PlanetSave.com and CarbonDioxideLevels.com. Another infographic explains Cap & Trade.

Beth Buczynski is the founder of EcoSpheric Blog. Beth works with WellHome Energy Audits to educate the public about energy technology, conservation, and policy through creative content. If you're interested in energy-related infographics for your website, please contact bethbot52[at]gmail.com.

Chevy Volt Superbowl Ad

Unless you live in the Washington D.C. area, California, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey or Texas, you can't buy a Volt, but that didn't stop Chevy from dropping $3 million bucks (the cost of 75 Volts) on a Superbowl ad. Here it is:



I thought the "making history" theme was a little weak. It's like putting the words "unique" or "cutting-edge" in a press release. Because it could be claimed by anyone, it doesn't really mean anything. What did you think?

Environmental PR in February O'Dwyer's Magazine

Environmental PR & Public Affairs is the focus of the February, 2011 issue of O'Dwyer's Magazine. The magazine includes:

• Aric Caplan of Caplan Communications on clean energy politics
• Kevin McCauley on the PR battle that ensued after EPA revoked a mountaintop removal coal mine permit
• Park&Co President Park Howell explaining why "Green" is not a brand differentiator
• Rachel Belew of the GREENGUARD Environmental Institute on greenwashing
• Author Jacquelyn Ottman with seven rules of good green marketing
• Your humble blogger (page 18) on the attempts of clean energy companies to build public support and decrease reliance on government
• O'Dwyer's editor Jon Gingerich on the Republican attempt to role back environmental laws

There is also a very comprehensive list and ranking of Environmental PR & Public Affairs firms. Give it a read and let me know what you think.

Obama: eliminate taxpayer dollars for big oil and invest in clean technology

In his State of the Union Address tonight, President Barrack Obama made a powerful case for investing in clean energy technology. The way he would pay for it is by eliminating taxpayer giveaways for Big Oil. Here's the text:

This is our generation's Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven't seen since the height of the Space Race. In a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We'll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology – an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.

Already, we are seeing the promise of renewable energy. Robert and Gary Allen are brothers who run a small Michigan roofing company. After September 11th, they volunteered their best roofers to help repair the Pentagon. But half of their factory went unused, and the recession hit them hard.

Today, with the help of a government loan, that empty space is being used to manufacture solar shingles that are being sold all across the country. In Robert's words, "We reinvented ourselves."

That's what Americans have done for over two hundred years: reinvented ourselves. And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we've begun to reinvent our energy policy. We're not just handing out money. We're issuing a challenge. We're telling America's scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we'll fund the Apollo Projects of our time.

At the California Institute of Technology, they're developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, they're using supercomputers to get a lot more power out of our nuclear facilities. With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's.

Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they're selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all – and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.

What do you think? Can it happen?

Will new eco-labels increase consumer desire for renewables?

Two new eco-labels came to my attention this week and have me thinking. Could they help drive consumer demand for renewables? (an issue I recently blogged about).

The first is WindMade, the new trustmark launched by Vestas. The concept is fairly straightforward: products that are produced using at least 25 percent wind energy and 25 percent from some other renewable energy source would qualify for the trustmark. The details were laid out in an excellent article for the February issue of Fast Company Magazine.

The second is BioPreferred, a new label from the United States Department of Agriculture that aims to increase the purchase and use of renewable biobased products. As with Windmade the 50 percent threshold comes into play; to qualify as BioPreferred, a product must be at least 51 percent biobased. The label launch was assisted by the green communications pioneers at J. Ottman Consulting as outlined in a blog post.

What do you think? Will companies desire these eco-labels enough to pay extra for renewable energy and bio-based products? Will consumers push companies to use more renewable energy and material in their products?

There is certainly no shortage of eco-labels and far more have failed than succeeded. A recent one from CBS has shown some of the pitfalls that can ensnare the efforts. In some way or another, nearly all of them want to emulate the success of ENERGY STAR.

I'm wondering why WindMade chose to focus only on wind and not broader renewable energy? It seems like that could have broadened the adoption and helped them reach their goal of 1,000 companies signed up by next year. And don't get me started on the blue swirl logo. But, the key difference between WindMade and ENERGY STAR is that the latter typically saves the consumer money while the former will typically accompany something that costs the consumer more. When I shell out an extra $35 for an ENERGY STAR dishwasher (which I recently did), I can do so knowing that I will make my money back in less than two years on the energy savings. WindMade applies to the way that the product was produced, not what it will do once it's in my hands.

Depending on the product, BioPreferred could offer more tangible benefits as consumers are more frequently looking for products with ingredients that are bio-based rather than petroleum-based. However, the new label is not without its critics, who say that 51 percent bio-based doesn't go far enough.

Your thoughts would be appreciated. This the subject of a column I'm writing for O'Dwyer's this weekend so comment soon!

A climate change movie...

...that doesn't even care if you believe in climate change.

I love the idea of this movie, but if it's truly about benefiting from going green regardless of climate change believe, Carbon Nation seems like a strange name choice. And the trailer showcases a lot of the same old people from the climate change movement:



Hopefully it is able to convince people to take actions that avert climate change even if they don't believe in it. We'll find out soon, as Carbon Nation opens in theaters January 14.