Hold The Line. Energy Changes Are a Long Time Coming

 spaceballBy Mike Mulvihill

 42-22793254

 

 Wind Power. Renewable Energy. Green Economy. There is an awesome amount of momentum in the America right now around all of these topics. We’re on the cusp of real change in how we create the gobs of energy we increasingly consume in a manner that is kinder and gentler to Mother Earth.

One problem – we have a power grid infrastructure (i.e., those big transmission lines that cut across the landscape), once the best in the world, that has gone neglected for many years. The current system was built for few big energy on-ramps (like coal-fired power plants and nukes) not a lot of small, variable energy outputs like the on ramps needed for renewable energy sources like wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and biomass. Expanding and updating the transmission system is perhaps the most contentious project you could ever undertake. They are often ensnarled in protests and lawsuits so it takes decades to build even small additions to the grid. And the current transmission grid is far from smart right now.

We’re making progress. Last week President Obama cut loose $3.4 billion dollars worth of stimulus money to roll out the American smart grid. Realistically, $3.4 billion is just a drop in the bucket, but it’s a move in the right direction.

According to ABB, one of the major players in the power transmission game, North America is “not close” to developing a true smart grid. ABB CEO Enrique Santacan, cut a YouTube video where he says:

  • The process of developing and implementing the smart grid is just starting in North America.
  •  Lots of old equipment will have to be replaced.
  •  And, many new automation technologies will have to be deployed in order to get there.

According to Dean Anderson’s blog  the DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory defines a smart grid as having the following characteristics:

  • Self-healing from power disturbance events
  • Enabling active participation by consumers in demand response • Operating resiliently against physical and cyber-attack
  • Providing power quality for 21st century needs
  •  Accommodating all generation and storage options
  • Enabling new products, services, and markets 
  • Optimizing assets and operating efficiently

If you saw this weekend’s 60 Minutes broadcast. we should all be greatly concerned about creating a smart grid that is resilient to cyber-attack. In typical 60 Minutes style, our electrical grid was “exposed” as a prime target for cyber terrorism potentially dropping our nation into darkness and confusion. More alarming was the interview that pointed out that some of the components damaged in a cyber or physical attack could take four months to replace. (I once spent 11 days without power due to an ice storm. I can’t imagine what four months would be like!) Remember that in 2003, a simple tree limb on a power line in Ohio resulted in a power failure that in mere seconds enveloped the Midwest to Broadway in darkness.

It will take time to develop a smart grid system designed to be more like your office and home wireless LAN but less susceptible to hacking.

Patrick Mazza’s blog on Grist from more than 27 months ago  pointed out that “It’s time to bring the grid into the foreground because it positions at the exact center of the world’s most crucial issue, global climate change.”

Two years later, we’re enthralled with harnessing wind and solar, but all that excitement won’t get us far if we don’t address the much more mundane but essential infrastructure needed to turn all that excitement into real progress.

 

Facebook’s Five Power Plants

1353376822_5cb1a93fa8

by Mike Mulvihill

Photo by Laban West.  Lightning over Muskogee Power Plant, Muskogee OK.

Last week the number of the week was 30,000  –  that’s how many servers support Facebook’s operations.  (No wonder, Facebook produces 25TB – yep, tera-bytes – of log data per day).  The numbers comes from Jeff Rothschild,  the vice president of technology at Facebook, who discussed the company’s infrastructure in a presentation last week at UC San Diego.  BTW, this is a pretty rapid ramp up from the 10,000 servers  Facebook has been claiming since April 2008. 

At 30,000 servers, Facebook data operations now consume somewhere in the order of 3,800 MW of electricity,  including cooling and power distribution costs,  just so we can stay connected with our friends.  (Since I don’t know exactly what servers Facebook has in use, this number could be slightly lower or a lot higher.)  To put 3,800 MW in perspective, that’s about five power plants (big electric generation plants of 750 MW a piece).  Not an insignificant footprint. 

Social media is a great tool for spreading information and mobilizing people on lots of topics and issues. Here’s an issue to add to the pot – at what point does the fantastic rise of social networks create enough harm to offset the benefit?    

In a world looking to reduce the impact of energy generation by using less energy, our social media jones is one of the drivers behind the doubling of servers in use in the U.S. (from 5.6 million in 2003 to 11.8 million in 2007).  An individual data center consumes somewhere in the area of 5 MW of energy – the equivalent of 5 million houses of electricity.  Some data centers consume as much as 30 MW.  (I have even seen plans for a 50 MW data center that proudly points out that it would be a very green 50 MW data center.)  In 2005, it is estimated that 1.2 percent of al U.S. electricity was consumed by servers, a 100 percent increase from 2000.  IDC projects another 40 percent to 76 percent increase by next year, which would be about 2 percent of all electricity in 2010.  

I’m not picking on Facebook or even social media, but the point is we all have behaviors that impact our environment, some are just more self evident than others.  Plasma TVs that consume as much as 9 percent of a home’s power consumption mostly in standby mode.  More and more devices consuming more and more energy – if we’re going to try to reduce the number of power plants needed to feed the beast (us), then we have got to change our ways.  Change our behaviors. Do things differently. Energy efficiency – it’s great to talk about.  But are we really having any impact or is all that talking just adding more servers to Facebook?

 

 

 

Live Earth: Love, the Climate

Cross-posted on my personal blog, GeoffLivingston.com.

10429_129578272870_125205977870_2413928_2041297_n.jpg

As part of the social media team at Live Earth, I am thrilled to announce the “Love, the Climate” campaign launching today, and continuing through Friday, the 25th (landing page coming later this week). Before the Climate Bill goes to the Senate floor, Live Earth is calling upon Americans to set aside partisan politics, and join together for a fun, positive and mind?changing effort. For more information on the Climate Bill, see this Huffington Post article.

love_climate2.jpgAce Blogger and Thought Leader David Armano agreed to help, and created this fun alternate logo for the effort.

We need your help, too! Please, demonstrate your optimism and faith. Make our senators feel like environmental rock stars. Encourage and motivate them to support a greener future!

Here are three ways you can Love the Climate:

Leave us a voicemail thanking a senator for improving the world and letting everyone know how much you love the climate. Call 347.422.6392 now to leave your message on the Live Earth message line (this is not a toll?free number) or go to www.liveearth.org and we’ll call you! Live Earth will highlight the best voicemails on our website and forward the best ones to the senators to whom they’re addressed.

Add to the “Love, The Climate” Facebook Page with a note, a message, a photo, or a link to content that shows how fantastic the climate will be after senators have taken action by passing the Climate Bill.

Here’s my cheesy video ;)

Make a video for the climate demonstrating to senators how amazing life has become in a future where the environment is protected. Submit your video at video.liveearth.org. Live Earth will promote the most creative entries, and forward the best videos to the senators to whom they’re addressed.

Your creativity can help you as well as the climate: all participants who register for the campaign will be entered into random drawings for one of our awesome “Climate Love Packs,” as well as our grand prize, a Schwinn road bike. In order to be eligible for the prize drawings, you must submit an entry form to Live Earth at http://joinliveearth.org/page/s/lovetheclimate.

 

Why Environmentalists Continue to Fail

3862272770_2a153530f0

While beautiful with rings of lilly pads, this photo of Cub Lake demonstrates the effects of global warming on Rocky Mountain National Park. On both sides you can see the dying trees that are present throughout the region. More details on the topic: tinyurl.com/n3enko.

A few months ago I wrote a post dubbed, “Green + WIRED = Sexy” discussing many of the ills facing environmental communications. In the post, “eco-marketing” to date is criticized for its failures in compelling people to adapt green lifestyles. There is no greater example of this than the stumbling and bumbling environmental orgs seem to be mired in currently. 

With the Waxman Markey bill coming to Senate floor in the next month, green orgs can’t rally the American public, according to the Washington Post.  Their efforts consisting of tickers and panels about climate change represent more of the same old, school-marmish, conservation finger wagging. Meanwhile, conservative oil and coal lobbies are drawing crowds by giving away T-shirts, and lunches, and hosting concerts.

Beyond simple common sense, the tragedy lies in America’s inability to participate in global climate change movements such as the  Kyoto accords.  With another UN convention slated for Copenhagen this Fall, will the United States go in sans a new environmental bill?

If environmental organizations – and for that matter green technology companies — sincerely want their ideas and products accepted by the American public, it’s time to take off the gloves. Marketing means making your ideas attractive, and right now, green is performing like a 13 year old boy at his first dance.

Saving the world because of climate change reality should be obvious, but people are human. We need more to succeed. That means getting into the actual discipline of marketing products and services, delivering meaningful value propositions, and creating ideas and products that stir people’s hearts. Otherwise, we really will need to wait until the crisis accelerates and threatens human populations across the world.

As a communicator, I find this problem to be fascinating. It’s an issue many of us will be called upon to resolve over the next decade. Are you ready?

Live Earth is planning an effort to help get Waxman Markey passed. If you are interested in receiving updates first hand, join us on the Friends of Live Earth site.

 

Creating Movements

img_51cf4660-074c-4f50-945f-2e4ef04790d0.jpg

This is an excerpt from my keynote speech this morning given to the Young Nonprofit Professionals Network’s “Social Media for Social Good conference.” Valeria Maltoni wrote a great post with the same title featuring ten tips on creating movements just two days ago. Her post was based off of the Brains of Fire Manifesto, “10 Lessons Learned in Igniting Word of Mouth Movements.” Both posts influenced this speech.

Those of us that communicate for nonprofits find ourselves at a crossroads. The new social tools that we are here to discuss are not so new anymore. We’ve seen successes like Barack Obama’s incredible rise to the Presidency. Dynamic movements such as the Iraqi election. And frustrating challenges like fighting off big oil’s influence on the ever delayed climate change bill otherwise known as Waxman Markey.

There have the been the well discussed successes like DonorsChoose and Lil Green Patch. There are the ongoing efforts to fight Swine Flu, or new successes like LiveStrong. And the many, many hyper local and niche causes that touch the lives of their online communities not by the millions, but by the hundreds or thousands everyday.

If you are like me, you are asked all the time to use these media to create movements. BUT.

Yes, that difficult word, BUT.

We are asked to do it in controlled environments. We are asked to ensure brand and message quality. We are asked to contain those people and make sure they do what we want, and also ensure only the “good” ideas are accepted. We are asked to deliver #s of hits or followers. We are asked to master ever evolving technologies. And we are asked to do it with little or no resources. Ironically, if we have time, the last matter is the least difficult.

And that is the crossroads. Movements versus campaigning. Creating open communities with old siloed corporate structures. And yes nonprofits mimic their corporate brethren with siloed structures.

How can you tell the difference? It’s easy. If we are successful, we’re being talked about, rather than talking. People are writing their own stories and ideas about our cause rather than us publishing content. Tweet conversations about you happen instead of links from your Twitter account. Networks, groups, applications, conversations, meet-ups, T-shirts, donations, volunteer events and political actions receive community wide support and in many cases are created by the community itself.

See, the mark of a great social media effort is when the community itself owns it. We can light the match, we can use lighter fluid and kindling, we can fan the flames, but only the community can make our issue, our movement, burn with the full fire of an inferno.

Movements involve people, not Marketing, PR, Comms, Public Affairs, etc., etc. Our job as organizational communicators lies in trying to facilitate a larger conversation by providing the means for people to share, perhaps initiate conversations, and highlight the great work and thoughts of others. But we cannot use these tools to dictate the movement. And that means we must lead our organizations into a new era of communications.

The classic mistake of organizations is to apply the very old publishing content and messages approach to the not so new social media. Don’t make that mistake. And control? Please, why even bother? If you want to control then you don’t understand people, and you are in the wrong business. Get out now. My experience has informed me over and over again that you will fail. Yet, our executives and managers, our internal stakeholders cannot understand the open culture.

Listen before participating, and participate before publishing. Publish shareable information instead of dictating messages. Create relationships instead of transactions. This may as well be Sanskrit to many organizational leaders. And so you are not just asked to change the world, but also your organizations. Patience and consistent efforts, showing results over projects, over periods of time, and most importantly, with newly engaged stakeholders.

Never forget that this is about exciting and enabling people to carry forth the most noble of charges, your cause. You want them to tell their friends over dinner, buy that bumper sticker, make the logo their screen saver, provide an unexpected donation, go out and take pictures, and/or ask their CEO if they can send an email to the company.

See, a movement compels someone to make your cause a part of their life, not just their Facebook profile. It’s always better to have 500 people screaming your wares than 5,000 passive followers who don’t care. Never forget that, either.

Going back to the climate change bill. I cannot help but think of the green movement, and its failure to transcend the environmentalist and conservation movements to the point that American households are doing everything they can to become green. The great failure with Waxman Markey is not how watered down it has become, that big oil is winning, that the bill may never pass. It’s that our congressional representatives can get away with this. The movement is not strong enough.

I began our talk today with my personal nonprofit history. You know I believe this is our generation’s greatest challenge, as great as the fascist threat that faced our grandparents.

It is my hope, my prayer that I can use these god given communication skills, our not so new world of participatory media, and make green something so compelling that it cannot help but become an all powerful movement. I envision a time when people will gladly pay more for green technology, and they will consciously try to reduce their carbon footprint everyday. When disgraces like the Waxman Markey fiasco occur, they will be outraged with their political representatives and demand change, again and again until the right people are in office who will defend our world.

As you go into your sessions today, I ask you to think not about how to get 1000 people into your Facebook groups. Instead, how can you use your Facebook group to engage your fellows, change your work environment, and spark your movement.

 

Traitor Joe Takes Aim at Beloved Brand

traitorjoe.jpg

We hinted in the Mashable article about Greenpeace’s next targeted corporate campaign to end greenwashing. Little did most folks know it was the hipster’s beloved Trader Joe’s. Dubbed Traitor Joe, the Greenpeace campaign has garnered some serious momentum around the blogosphere.

At the same time, the campaign has not made a big impact on Twitter or in Trader Joe’s Google results, yet. It will be interesting to see if the blogging momentum takes off, and spills over into a full groundswell movement.

The heart of the matter is Trader Joe’s claims of greenness and conservation, while the company is in actuality selling several species of red list fish species. Greenpeace ranks Trader Joe’s as #17 on the list of friendly supermarkets (Wegman’s being #1). Says Greenpeace’s Traitor Joe:

You see, I have a bad habit of greenwashing. Instead of telling you how I am destroying the oceans, I bend the truth and tell you that I do everything “green” and look out for the well being of the Earth. But, if you dig a little deeper (and I hope you won’t) you will see that I have a treasure chest (or freezer case) full of red list seafood.

In response to allegations of greenwashing, Trader Joe’s has stated:

The Greenpeace report details that Trader Joe’s sells a certain number of items on their “Red List.” But several of the items that they call out are NOT for sale in our stores. We do NOT sell Chilean Sea Bass, Monkfish, Ocean Quahog or Redfish in any of our stores. In fact, Trader Joe’s sells fewer items on that “Red List” than the #1 ranked grocery retailer in their report.

It’s an interesting effort. One thing is certain, if Trader Joe’s wasn’t on the up with its green marketing, it definitely noticed the campaign and is acting. No matter how far the campaign goes, Greenpeace has to consider that a success. This tactic seems to work for Greenpeace, as one of its more notable social web campaigns was its targeting of Apple’s environmental efforts with the GreenMyApple effort.

Companies thinking green is sexy without actual substantive products/services behind the message should beware. Those interested in learning more about green marketing and avoiding these kinds of issues should read the 2009 Greenwashing report.

 

Five (+ One) Green Initiatives on Mashable

456531371_599a6f069f Last week, Mashable highlighted 75 Twitterers talking green online, but they’re not the only ones. Now with the increasingly widespread proliferation of social media in the corporate world, nonprofits and companies are getting into the mix, too. So I teamed with Mashable to write up five organizations – the United Nations, Dell, Greenpeace, the Environmental Defense Fund and GM – that are using social media to affect ecological change. Check out the post (Image courtesy of Axel_D on Flickr).

Since publishing on Mashable, another initiative has come to my attention that you can participate in today. charity: water is developing a gelaskin to raise money.  They’re asking Internet citizens to vote on which skin they like better via TwitPic comments. Vote today!

13798316

 

Follow on Twitter = Planting Trees

TwitterforTrees_WED The United Nations Environment Programme has engaged in a really cool Twitter campaign. For every follower @UNEPandYou gets by midnight on June 5 — World Environment Day — the Programme will plant a tree, with a cap of 100,000 trees.

The Twitter effort seeks to raise awareness of the World Environment Day initiative by not only getting followers, but also rewarding them with an actionable result. It’s a great PR move, not only for the immediate program, but it helps the UN build a following for the long term.

InsertImage.asp This will be especially crucial as the environmental movement braces itself for the United Nations climate change talks in Copenhagen this December. Having a Twitter network will allow the UN to participate in the social context, answer questions, as well as offer news news and facts.  Social media is something traditional green players are struggling to master while newer online brands like Ecogeek, Treehugger and Triple Pundit have risen to the fore.

This campaign is reminiscent of the Nature Conservancy’s Lil Green Patch initiative.  Lil Green Patch is wildly successful, in large part because of the call-to-action is easy (little badge), and creates a feel good action, saving one square foot of rain forest.

The Friends of Live Earth Network (join today) is supporting the initiative, so I’d like to ask any of my green conscious readers to participate, too.   Go plant a tree by following @UNEPandYou.  If you would like your tweet to be tracked, use the hashtag #t4t.  Thank you in advance!

 

Treehuggers vs. Suits

One of the biggest barriers to success can be traditional political positioning, the legacy of past representations and stances. Organizations can be encumbered with their prior actions, permanently creating a legacy that will always be part of the fabric of their brand reputation. And rebellious types can permanently alienate the establishment. There is no market space that seems to embody this quite like the environmental arena, where “treehuggers” regularly do battle with “suits.”

3560396919_bdfce91a7e_m.jpgUnfortunately, the rebellious treehugger and the corporate suit were very appropriate images as short a period ago as five years. That was before Al Gore put to bed the questioning of global warming’s legitimacy . Now, in my opinion, that dichotomy is hurting the green movement.

While appropriate positions to combat or not combat political activism, it’s time for these antagonistic positions to move on as part of our ecological history. Yes, there is room for further political discourse, but it’s no longer a world of black and white. This is particularly true now that a vast majority of Americans and companies see general environmental action as a good move.

2901331485_a09f2185dc_m.jpgThe common ground has to be taking action, whether that’s using filtered water instead of bottles, or refitting factories and buildings for energy preservation. All actions equal forward motion. That’s the common ground.

What should be viewed as wrong is extremism on either side. The only requirement for participation in sustainability is a desire to participate, from activist to large energy companies. Positive activity fuels more activity. Everyone wins when we all move forward in leaps or baby steps. That’s the positioning of now, and the environmental view we should all encourage regardless of our political stance or history (suit image by Greg Verdino).

We need a sense of compassion for the problem, and forgiveness for past legacies… So long as there is genuine interest to move forward in a progressive fashion (as opposed to greenwashing).

That’s one of the reasons why I really enjoy the Live Earth work. It’s about embracing everyone in an effort to move forward rather than get stuck on old positions. In that sense, it’s a recognition of the very significant problem we have, something that affects every single person on this planet.

 

Green + WIRED = Sexy

Now that almost everyone across the political spectrum agrees that we are facing an ecological crisis, the main challenge of the green movement seems to be getting people to actually change behaviors. But this challenge is greater than it seems. It involves changing lifestyles that have become central to our culture for the past 100 years, ever since electricity has become part of our lives.

3514718410_35d086d399.jpg

One of the best examples of marketing this lifestyle change is the Smart Home Green + WIRED exhibit at Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry (pictured above). This fun exhibit takes green and conservation needs and mixes it with the sexy, sizzle of the geekery known as WIRED! But more on this later. First, let’s take a look at the communications challenge that the green movement faces.

Three Big Hurdles

This inability to get past acknowledging the ecocrisis and actually acting upon it reminds me of an old adage. If a frog decides to jump off a log what happens? Nothing. He just “decided,” he didn’t do anything to actually physically leave the log.

So people talk green, but don’t act green. They keep taking 20 minute showers, leave the lights and computer on, and buy gas guzzlers while avoiding hybrid cars or mass transit. Companies greenwash their marketing message, and then serve bottles of water and print every email possible. As we can see, green is not necessarily pure green, it’s light green, medium green, and dark treehugger green (or any shade in between).

There’s a core of barriers stopping green from achieving immediate movement status with people. These issues are beyond the political differences that stand between the various range of liberal and conservative stakeholders in the ecomovement. For green to be quickly and successfully adapted, these hurdles need to be addressed by environmental groups, companies, and governing bodies alike:

technology_adoption_life_cycle_1-1.jpg

1) Green products and services are technological innovations, too. That means the diffusion of green is suffering from the usual cycle of innovators and early adopters, as discussed by Everett Rogers in his timeless classic, “Diffusion of Innovations.” So while they make sense, they’re unproven, expensive and quite frankly, most people don’t feel comfortable (safe) buying these products yet.

2) The cost of green does not outweigh the cheapness and comfortable lifestyle of the current carbon footprint. And the good samaritan argument is not compelling enough to get people to move forward. Many feel the situation needs to get worse before people act. The most common lament I hear about this from green bloggers and environmentalists is, “by the time the crisis hits, it will be too late!”

3) There’s still a school marmish attitude towards green. I associate the word “conservation” with this attitude. In short, beyond the economics, beyond the fear of new technology, it’s just not cool or sexy to be green. It’s the right thing to do, but so is staying home on school nights. :)

These three factors equal a massive communications problem for everyone, businesses and consumers alike. And to me, this is not a public awareness campaign, more the need for green companies to make their wares attractive to end-users — as opposed to the right thing to do. We need Steve Jobs now, not Al Gore.

Green + WIRED = Sexy

Remember when nerds were really just nerds? You know, dorks?

Well those days are long over. The iPhone culture means being a geek girl or boy is sexy, and popularity contests for follower or friend counts dominate discussions of what makes for a good community member. Social media and tech geekery has become avant garde.

Nothing epitomizes this more than WIRED magazine, which has been at the forefront of the tech revolution for past two decades. Heck, WIRED even has a sexiest geeks contest every year.

One of the more interesting aspects of WIRED editorial coverage is its evolution beyond Internet related matters into the environmental space. Exhibits like the Green + WIRED teaming make environmental technology more than just the right thing to do, or an act of conservation. Accompanying efforts online, include blogs like EcoGeek and ecofriend are adding to the fire.

The geekification of green technology has begun in earnest, and in it lies great promise for societal adoption of environmentally progressive purchasing en masse. The discussion and seeding of green tech amongst innovators and early adopters in today’s geek community hastens the adoption curve. We’ve already seen the widespread adoption of social media and Internet access toys like netbooks and mobile Internet phones over the past few years.

It’s no secret that when there’s an air of panache associated with products, people are willing to pay a higher price for them. Hello iMac! Making green technology products more than the right thing to do, and adding an air of attractiveness to them is just smart.

In our current context, these activities open green tech to a new stakeholder beyond the do-gooder ecologist. And they add an element of sex appeal to green. While the climatologist is necessary, it’s time to move beyond brow beating environmental action into slow adoption. It’s time to market green + geek.