Education is not neutral

"There is no such thing as a neutral education process. Education either functions as an instrument that is used to facilitate the integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity to it, or it becomes 'the practice of freedom,' the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world."

—Richard Schaull, from the foreward for Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire

This Is What Politicians Are Supposed To Do

To be fair, both parties are a wholly-owned subsidiary of Big Business in general. But I wish, with all my heart, that our elected officials would grow some cajones the size of Weiner's and start fighting for the American people, not the American corporation, because that's their job.

Published: Designing for the Greater Good

It's always a kick to see your work in print, and even more so when it's in print alongside a crapload of really good work from a group of really great designers. I just got my copy of Designing for the Greater Good: The Best in Cause-related Marketing and Nonprofit Design by Peleg Top and Jonathan Cleveland, which includes two of my posters.



The first is my No on 8 poster, which is also on display at New York's Center Gallery (hurry, though, the show closes on Wednesday):



The other is my Stop the Spray poster:



Author Peleg Top is generously donating $10 from the purchase of the first hundred copies of the book to Haiti relief, so I'd highly suggest grabbing a copy and sending him your receipt.

Who Is America?

And how will we know when all our voices have been counted?
What will it look like when all our people are protected?
How will each one of us know we have done our part?
America is so much more than our borders.
We, the people.

On Exhibit: Visual Voices

If you're in New York during the next couple of months, you may want to stop by the Center Gallery at Fordham University to see the gallery's current exhibition, Visual Voices: the Freedom of Expression.



On display are posters from fifteen artists and designers, including the likes of Luba Lukova, the Guerilla Girls, and...get this...myself. It's pretty snazzy to be included with such good company.



The show has been extended through February 10th, with a closing reception on January 26th. For more details, download the announcement (PDF).

Visual Voices: The Freedom of Expression
Center Gallery, Fordham University Lincoln Center
113 West 60th Street | New York, NY 10023

Hours: Monday-Friday 10-8 | Saturday & Sunday 10-5
Through February 10th
Closing Reception: Tuesday, January 26th 5-7pm

We Are All Environmental Journalists Now

Interesting take on the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen from the Guardian:

"The problem is getting anywhere near the truth. Most countries do their diplomacy in private and do not want anyone—let alone the press—to know what goes on in the negotiations. Beyond that, the talks are so technical that few can understand them even if they are explained. Moreover, meetings are closed, all decisions are dependent on others and are made in secret, the UN secretariat is opaque, the diplomats and negotiators are unaccountable and speak in code, and because of the insane complexity of the negotiations, there is probably only a handful of people who actually understand what is happening at any moment. The drama at the very end when world leaders start their horse-trading will be genuinely dramatic, but no one will actually see it take place."

[Read the full article]

When Second Place (or Third) Means a Win for Graphic Designers Everywhere

Well, the results are in (sort of) for the Cooper Hewitt People's Design Award. My Re-nourish team has actually waited to post anything about the results because we were trying to find out what our final ranking was. Unfortunately, the Cooper Hewitt won't actually give us that information (nor will they release how many votes each nominee received).

Doesn't matter, though. The fact is, we placed in the top three, and we gave some pretty big players a run for their money. And way more important than that is that everyone who supported us sent a message that it's high time the design industry changes how it defines "good design."

Re-nourish believes design has to expand beyond politics, personalities, and mere aesthetics, and address—in real terms—both social and environmental impacts. Please read Re-nourish's full "thank you," because I think it says a lot about why we're doing this in the first place.

And please, let us know what your thoughts are—either here, or over there.

Thank you to everyone who voted, or has otherwise supported us as we continue to bring independent tools and information to working designers everywhere!

Why We Need "Socialized" Health Care

Thanks to Worldchanging's Andy Lubershane, we now have an easy-to-follow, entirely sensible argument in support of health care reform:



Now, can someone produce a similar short describing Congress' various proposals?

Flow

I finally had a chance to watch Flow, an incredible (and incredibly disturbing) documentary about the privatization of the world's water supply. More than just an anti-corporate diatribe, the film speaks to the inevitability of the looming water crisis, and what that might look like based on where the battles are being fought now. And they are battles.



Water is a $400 billion industry—the third largest behind electricity and oil. My mind kind of explodes at that statistic. We're talking about water. The slow commodification of the natural resources most fundamental to human existence should raise alarm bells in every human being. And yet, one in five Americans refuse to drink anything but purchased bottled water; even though a four-year study by the NRDC found over a third of the tested bottle brands were contaminated with synthetic chemicals, bacteria, and arsenic.

Visit Food and Water Watch to learn more about water issues in the U.S.

This isn't just an "over there" issue impacting the lives of underdeveloped or developing countries: as of May 2009, over 30% of America was experiencing "abnormally dry or drought" conditions. Public water supplies are being handed over to private corporations, who are then denying entire populations access to clean water supplies—and frequently contaminating the remainder.

We can each participate in the change

One of the strengths of Flow is the movie's focus on solutions. There is a growing movement of ordinary citizens across the globe who are banding together to demand safe access to clean water. Here are just a few easy things you can do to help:

• Watch Flow, and talk about it with people you know. Information needs to spread, and you're how it happens.
• Sign the petition to add "the right to clean and accessible water, adequate for the health and well-being of the individual and family" to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This simple act will enable those struggling for safe water a powerful tool in the struggle for access.
• Delve deeper by exploring the various resources and groups working on this issue.

Sustainable Design Town Hall: Nathan Shedroff

Back in early May, I wrote about a group of about 20 or so designers and educators who attended a Designers Accord town hall meeting in San Francisco to explore the subject of sustainable design and exchange ideas. This post is part of a short series in which I continue the conversation with some of the other presenters there about designing messaging that drives measurable, ground-level change.

Previous posts:
Series Introduction
Lynda Grose and the Sustainable Cotton Project

---

Nathan Shedroff is the chair of the MBA in Design Strategy program at California College of the Arts, really one of the only programs of its kind in the U.S. He's a prolific author whose most recent book, Design Is the Problem: The Future of Design Must be Sustainable, outlines a stunningly accessible vision of the future of design. At the town hall in May, Nathan discussed the interdependence of design, business, and sustainability—as he pointed out, "you can't have one without the other."



More recently, I asked Nathan a few questions via email about how individuals and organizations can translate sustainable design thinking into practice. His responses—along with the whole of Design Is the Problem—reveal a pragmatism infused with optimism that is often lacking among sustainability proponents, and that is utterly necessary if real change is going to take place in both the private and public sectors.

Jess: What has teaching this stuff taught you about how people best respond to sustainable design issues? How did that influence the writing of Design Is the Problem?

Nathan: I've been teaching sustainability and product development for at least three years—and some of experiences definitely influenced the book. One of the things that sometimes happens is that people assume sustainability is only about the environment. Another is that a lot of business students, though not engineers and designers as much, aren't terribly interested in sustainability at first. I should note that these aren't my students, luckily.

Next, many students go through a profound kind of depression at first. In the first 6-8 weeks of our Sustainability Studio in the program, our students were noticeably discouraged. It's not that they didn't realize that the impact we've had on the planet and other people was bad, but the extent in both breadth and depth is pretty staggering. It's not until about weeks 8-10 that they really pull themselves out of it, and that's mostly because we not only talk about the tools available and the strategies to create more sustainable solutions, but they actually use these. We don't teach about sustainability [as an exclusive concept], but in the context of making solutions. I think this context is critical because it simultaneously informs and enables, and that sense of enablement is important for sustainability, and is at the core of design.

A lot of this rethinking of the design process seems to require three things: the commitment, the know-how, and the resources to implement. That seems like a tall order for the average American business, which is statistically likely to be small (under 100-500 employees, depending on the industry); how does a single person operating within an organization begin to pull those three things together?

The first thing organizations can do is familiarize everyone in the company with the basic principles and frameworks of sustainability. Everyone should know what sustainability is and shouldn't be afraid to talk to others about it. Walmart has done this very effectively through their engagement with Act Now Productions, now known as Saatchi & Saatchi S.

I was at a sustainability conference recently and there were too many people who got up on stage and essentially said "I'm not sure why I'm here because I don't really know anything about sustainability." I challenged the entire audience not only to be more informed next year but to set a goal that everyone in their organization, by the end of the year, should know enough to be comfortable getting onto any stage and speaking about sustainability. It sounds like a tall order but I don't actually think it's that difficult. It's actually much easier for smaller companies than for larger ones.

Sustainability is just one important business trend but it represents a major failing of most organizations. They don't know how to both engage their own employees and inform them about their own business. Everyone in an organization should know and be able to respond to the organization's strategy, business goals, industry drivers, and customer profiles. It's crazy that most employees can't articulate this and it's the fault of leadership, not the employees. Sustainability is just a new business driver to add to this overall need.

The book spends a lot of time discussing the need for a "systems perspective" and what that means. But it seems to me that American culture and institutions are designed to celebrate the individual—individual experience, individual expression, individual success. First, can you talk a little about the value of a systems perspective and second, how can a society like ours reconcile its individualistic nature with the need for a broader view?

Perhaps we've emphasized the individual over the system too much, in the same way we emphasize competition over cooperation. Neither is better than the other, and neither can exist without the other—not if things are to progress. Evolution wraps these same two dichotomies together as proof that they're both natural and necessary.

Individuals can't function nor be individualistic without a supporting society (which is a set of systems). There's nothing incompatible with supporting both systems and individuals, cooperation and competition, and standards and innovation. Maybe, we simple need to tell the rest of the story. In the U.S. media, we tend to present everything as an either/or choice across one, narrow spectrum. You're either a Liberal or a Conservative, a business person or an environmentalist, etc.

The truth, of course is that life is more rich and complex than these false choices. It used to be common that people identified as "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" but even this has disappeared from the national dialog. We're asked to choose between being prudent or being sympathetic, as if the two were mutually exclusive. Business is seen as being all about money and profit despite that not being the initial history of business in the U.S., nor reflecting why so many people start their own companies.

We have to cast off these false choices and old stories. Even if they were true in the past (and I don't think many of them ever were), they're not relevant now.

Where is this reconciliation happening right now? Where is it most lacking?

It's more lacking in large organizations of all types: businesses, governments, and even nonprofits. The culture of doing business or running an organization must be completely reconsidered, starting with hierarchy, strategy, and instituting a service-oriented culture.

We are grossly inefficient but in ways most pundits don't consider. For example, most every critic of government points to businesses as an example for being more efficient and effective. I'm not sure how many companies they've ever worked in but most businesses aren't a terribly good example of efficiency nor effectiveness. There are exceptions, for sure, but really, our government would have failed long ago if it had suffered some of the disasters business has been responsible for. Local governments have, undoubtedly, moved faster in many cases and are more effective than state and national governments but, again, there are exceptions.

We also need to rethink our economic models. The ones we've been using for the past 5-10 decades were flawed from the start. We've been patching them for years but the patches aren't good enough. You get what you measure and we've been only measuring money—not any other element of a successful society or lifestyle. It's no wonder that's the world we've gotten, and we find it increasingly difficult to value anything else.

You also co-wrote the book Making Meaning: How Successful Businesses Deliver Meaningful Customer Experiences, in which you discuss the many ways businesses can connect to customers to develop deeper, longer-lasting relationships. In a recent interview, you discuss how important it is to use meaning as a way of connecting with people on the issue of sustainability. But is there more to it than that? Is there something inherently parallel about meaning and a sustainable system? Is a sustainable system itself inherently meaningful?

The jury is still out on that. I believe that the more meaning we have in our lives, whether that's from buying and having more meaningful things, experiences or relationships, the less stuff we ultimately need. I don't, however, have research on this and I'm not aware of it. All of my experience is anecdotal but I do see evidence of it all around me.

The people I see with the most meaningful lives have stuff, for sure, but less of it than most others, and they tend to consider their purchases more carefully and in a wider context. They tend to be more engaged with sustainability—and [engaged] more deeply. They're not the people rushing out to "acquire" bamboo floors and green this-and-that for the sake of it. That's largely a fad at the moment. If they were remodeling, they would certainly make these choices but not for the sake of having these things.

I find that the people who live their values more tend to be happier or, at least, more at ease. I attribute this to being more engaged at the level of meaning. So, in a very real way, I believe that helping people live more sustainably will, necessary, need to engage them at the level of meanings and values—at least for any long-term effect. Thankfully, we have models for doing this, now. We just need to use them.

---

You can read about these models in Nathan's book, Design Is the Problem. I highly recommend it, whether you're a designer or communicator, business owner, or simply interested in new ways of thinking about old systems. You can also visit Nathan at his personal website, and learn more about CCA's MBA in Design Strategy.

Roughstock Posters to be Published in "Designing for the Greater Good"

Just got the good news that two political posters I designed will be published in Peleg Top and Jonathan Cleveland's upcoming Designing for the Greater Good: The Best of Cause-Related Marketing and Nonprofit Design. I'm pretty thrilled to be included in a collection that celebrates the power graphic designers have to impact the world around us, and I'm particularly honored to be featured next to some incredible designers.





Designing for the Greater Good is scheduled to be published by Crescent Hill Books in January of 2010.

Food Carts: Two Approaches

In one sweep of my rss feed reader last week, I came across an interesting contradiction. Mission Local recently posted an article on the rising trend of food carts infiltrating the city:

"A declining economy has helped bring about a sudden proliferation of cart-carried delicacies that has elevated street food beyond the bacon-wrapped hot dog. In recent weeks, the Misson's food carteros—generally considered outside the high-tech realm—have been Twittering all the way to the bank, or at least to a following...

Low on cost and high on quality, in just a few short weeks the carteros have created a new Thursday-night dining venue as the carts are joined by other vendors and a rapidly expanding network of customers."

Selling everything from an "amuse bouche" of bite-sized strawberry tarts for $1, to a $5 curry plate, to spring rolls and créme brulees, these unlicensed vendors are creeping up all over the Mission. Interesting that they're relegated to this most hipster of neighborhoods; I wonder how this fare would fare in, say, tony Cow Hollow (not enough foot traffic?) or Pacific Heights. I suspect that the SF police would be far quicker to respond to the lack of proper licensing.

In the very next breath, John Emerson from Social Design Notes points us to what looks like a very cool advocacy project in NYC. The Street Vendor Project supports New York street vendors, providing education, political action, and a general community (there's strength in numbers).



The organization just released Vendor Power! (pictured above), a publication aimed at educating vendors about the city's vending laws, with the intention of preventing infractions and thereby reducing the number of tickets vendors are likely to incur for otherwise overly complex or arcane laws.

In other words, NYC cops are citing street vendors up and down, while SF cops haven't much noticed the growing number of non-Latino vendors. Familiarity breeds contempt, of course, so perhaps an SF crackdown is imminent (it sure will be as soon as SFPD discovers it can milk these vendors for a few extra dollars for the city coffers).

The Tools of Self-Government

This looks fascinating:



Us Now is a documentary film exploring how social media tools are changing the way we handle information, and how that might impact how we govern ourselves. The concept is both timely, and a necessary one to explore given the current state of global affairs. I love exploratory stuff like this.

One Small Way to Fix the AIG Debacle

Greed is either a cardinal sin, an innate human trait, or both, depending on who you're talking to. We wants what we wants and, unchecked, we does what we does to get it. Whether it's shoveling fast food into our mouths every other day, spending 60% of our paycheck on shoes, or purchasing homes we can't afford, we Americans seem to just do it at an inordinate pace. With such inevitability working on behalf of almighty greed, then, perhaps we should focus our problem-solving energy elsewhere: accountability.

Rather than argue whether the so-called free markets are to blame, or deregulation, the right, or the left, let's look at a simple nonpartisan way to encourage better action on the part of AIG and its constituents. According to a letter from New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank, there were exactly 73 recipients of the recent multi-million dollar bonus giveaway by AIG. As you know (or should), AIG paid its Financial Products division employees more than $160 million—the very employees responsible for the credit default swaps that undermined the insurance and banking industries. AIG insists they're contractually obligated to pass the taxpayers' bailout funds onto these clowns, and Congress is "looking into" its options for recovering it. Not one peep from any of the 73 folks actually cashing our bonus checks.

So here's the fix: publish the names of the 73 employees receiving taxpayers' bonus money. Public shaming worked for the Big 3 Automaker CEOs, who agreed to accept salaries of $1.00 (and carpooled to Washington) after being taken to task by a Senate committee during a nationally broadcast testimony. If Congress won't step in and revoke the so-called legally binding contracts that these payments were based on, perhaps the press should share with the American people just who we've given bonuses to. I suspect we'd see at least a few of them agree to forgo said payments if they were publicly called out. Just a thought.

The Good Consumer

[via Bonfire of the Brands]

A Little Perspective on Small Businesses in the U.S.

According to the SBA Office of Advocacy, a small business is defined as an independent business with fewer than 500 employees. The SBAOA provides the following statistics (pdf link), which I find utterly fascinating:

• Businesses with 500 employees or fewer accounted for 99.9% of all business in America in 2007.
• There were 20.4 million businesses with zero employees (i.e. sole proprietors) in America in 2007. Compare this to 6 million businesses with employees.
• 52% of all small businesses are home-based.
  

• Almost 50% of all private sector employees are employed by small businesses.
• 60-80% of all new jobs created each year over the last decade were due to these small businesses.

Now, knowing that small businesses represent almost all the businesses in this country (99.9%!), let's take a look at very small businesses (those with fewer than 20 employees). These "very small" businesses spend:

• 45% more per employee than large firms to comply with federal regulations.
• 4.5% times as much per employee to comply with environmental regulations.
• 67% more per employee on tax compliance.

I can only assume that we small businesses don't know these facts. I'm not a business major, or an economist, and I suspect that most small business owners aren't, either. But that shouldn't prevent us from understanding the big picture—from knowing ourselves and what we're part of. Just a little food for thought.

No on 8: The Musical

Too bad the original No on 8 campaign wasn't this well choreographed...

Should These Votes Be Counted?

Great interactive piece from Minnesota Public Radio, in which readers get to vote on specific ballots that were questioned by the candidates in the recent election.




[via Coudal]

The Hypocrisy of Prop 8

Some very nicely designed posters from Mark Luethi, for the Stop Prop 8 campaign, that cut right to the heart of this issue:







Each poster can be downloaded and distributed by clicking on the images above (or check out the whole flickr stream). I strongly encourage you to do so, and to attend any of the many rallies coming up.

Show/World: An Interactive Map

Here's a really cool map in which countries change size to reflect their role in various global issues, including GDP, legal execution, tourism, Olympic gold medalists, and more.



[via worldchanging]

Recently Read: The End of America

With America's first black president-elect comes a wave of optimism, it seems: things will be okay. But even as the public breathes this collective sigh of relief, it turns a wary eye to Barack Obama and wonders, if quietly, will things really be okay? Because the Bush administration has done real damage to America's democratic structure by limiting civil liberties, creating undemocratic "justice" systems, and otherwise desecrating our constitution. This damage is frightenly cataloged by Naomi Wolf in her 2007 book The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot.



Wolf's basic premise is simple and hard to dispute: when studying dictators throughout the world's history, there are ten patterns of behavior that emerge that contribute to their rise to power, and George W. Bush and his administration has pursued each of these steps. While never outright calling Bush and his posse a fascist dictatorship, Wolf certainly connects many dots and sounds a clear warning. Paper coups are still coups.

The Ten Steps Towards Fascist Dictatorship

1. Invoke an external and internal threat.
   Example: Terrorism
   
   
2. Establish secret prisons.
   Example: Guantánamo
   
   
3. Develop a paramilitary force.
   Example: Blackwater
   
   
4. Surveil ordinary citizens.
   Example: USA Patriot Act and TIPS
   
   
5. Infiltrate citizen's groups.
   Example: Talon and multiple state-level incidents
   
   
6. Arbitrarily detain and release citizens.
   Example: The TSA no-fly list, specific individual arrests
   
   
7. Target key individuals.
   Example: Direct Congressional pressure on academia, attorney firings
   
   
8. Restrict the press.
   Example: The outing of Valerie Plame, detainment of reporters, deliberate withholding of information
   
   
9. Cast criticism as "espionage" and dissent as "treason."
   Example: Revived use of the Espionage Act
   
   
10. Subvert the rule of law.
    Example: Military Commissions Act of 2006 (the suspension of habeous corpus), Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (the gutting of posse comitatus law)
    

Wolf's arguments and examples in most cases are incredibly strong and well documented (including 14 pages of reference notes and a full bibliography). Unfortunately, there are stretches that undermine her message. She too often conflates the media (particularly the right-leaning outlets and blogosphere) with the administration itself, as when she hammers Ann Coulter for her book Treason. But these leaps become a little easier to swallow when we remember that much of Hitler's power lay in his use of ordinary citizens, as well as organized media, to further his message. Just because one's finger is not on the trigger doesn't mean they aren't responsible for the death.

That said, the book is by no means a simple comparison of Bush and Hitler. That would be too simplistic, and could be easily brushed off as left-wing rhetoric. Wolf's arguments transcend this, referencing more than just the obvious Nazi regime (who, after all, were simply better at such tactics than anyone else). Mussolini, Pinochet, Stalin and others all appear frequently to bolster her points. In fact, there are suprisingly few histrionics; Wolf spends much of her writing merely cataloging events and listing actions from different regimes side by side for the reader to compare.

While the book's premise is strongly supported by facts, it's the epistolary format and sheer number of wrongdoings that makes the book a little heavy-handed. Of course, this is the author's intention, but it would have been nice to see a few practical suggestions other than be aware, be vigilant offered to the reader. I suspect this omission is deliberate, though. Wolf's aim is to awaken, not necessarily to direct. She is asking her reader to consider the true meaning of patriot, someone who actively participates in and engages with one's civic society. And to do so, one must first pay attention.

And with chilling examples, Wolf demands our attention. In the end, it's extremely difficult to write off such examples as merely rhetoric, or such warnings as unlikely to occur. Small events become significant when placed against the backdrop of government, as when she describes a TSA agent forcing a mother to prove the substance in her baby's bottle is really breastmilk by drinking it herself: "In Benito Mussolini's era, one intimidation tactic was to force citizens to drink emetics and other liquids...Of course, baby formula is not an emetic. But a state agent—some agents are armed—forcing a citizen to ingest a liquid is a new scene in America."

When the scenes play out, and the layers are peeled back, and the dots begin to connect, what remains are nagging questions: how far does the administration have to go it before its citizens refuse to cooperate? How many democratic protections must be suspended before the public demands its rights back? How many secret armies, Blackwaters, must be formed? How many innocent citizens must be harrassed, jailed, persecuted before their peers step up in their defense? On Tuesday, we heard one answer to these questions.

So, perhaps the recent election signalled The End of America over before it began. What sense is there in rehashing the last eight years, after all, when we all want to move forward? The truth is, it would be dangerous to sit back and rest easy. The Bush administration did a lot of damage; it took an extended series of measured, deliberate steps to maintain and grow its power at the expense of the U.S. Constitution. Those changes will still be operable under the new presidency—we need to know them, to study them, to be able to roll them back.

Wolf's book is, if no longer a warning of imminent danger, at the very least a guide to serious legal issues that need to be addressed by the still-forming Obama administration. So much of the Bush administration's activities were carried out in the shadows of a disinterested, and therefore uninformed, electorate, that one can only hope that Tuesday's engagement was the mark of an extended era, and not merely an emotional hiccup. The end of America may have been delayed, but this book remains a damning documentation of how close we were, and are.

---

Whether you read the book or not, I highly recommend watching the following presentation, in which Wolf outlines her premise and presents incredible evidence to support it. A more polished version (with commercials) is also available from SnagFilms.

Proud Overnight

America can breathe a sigh of relief this morning, but still it feels like there's so much work to do. If I see one change over the coming years, I hope it's in our schools. I hope our schools start teaching how to think critically again.

Nov. 4, 2008: This Is It, Folks

Please, please vote. This is a different kind of election, and it needs to be loud. I mean really loud. In addition to casting your ballot, here are some more ways to engage:


Behind the Candidates:




Polling Place Photo Project:

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

"I don't know why it was that people liked it. The only reason movies are successes is because people like them, and the only reason when they're failures is people don't like them, and everything else is mythology."

—William Goldman, writer (speaking in The Western, 2003)

Mythology is used to explain a lot these days.

Vote No on Prop 8

I am a huge proponent of equality under the law (except for corporations), and California's upcoming election is an important one. In a couple of weeks, Californians will be able to vote down proposition 8, which changes the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman only.

While I understand that a certain portion of the population are morally opposed to gay marriage (me, not so much), I simply don't agree that it's okay to write inequality into the law. I see this as a civil rights issue, plain and simple. The problem is that Prop 8 has some pretty big-money backers, and they've taken some pretty underhanded approaches to pushing Prop 8 on the people, including claiming that by not redefining marriage, it will somehow mean California schools will start teaching kids to be gay. It's a pretty big reach, but anything goes in politics these days. So sad.

Anyway, I went ahead and created a flyer you can download and distribute—hang it in your store front, give it out at rallies, wheat paste it across your town (whatever you do, make sure it's legal).

(New) Instructions for Download:
1. Click once on the image below to open it in a new window.
2. Right-click (or option-click) on the new image.
3. Select "Save Image As" and choose your folder.
4. Select "Save."



The image above is a small, low-res version. For the full 8.5 x 11 image, click on the thumbnail above.

Rights and Permissions!
You may reproduce, distribute and display this poster anywhere and everywhere. You may not sell it, or alter it in anyway. If you distribute it, I'd love to see photos of your event or action.

Vice Presidential Debate Bingo

When your eyeballs are popping out of your head and you're wondering if you really did just hear Sarah Palin say that during tonight's vice presidential debate, be sure to mark your card and holler BINGO! when you hit five-in-a-row. Illustrator Bob Staake kindly provides these "lingo" bingo cards for your vp-fightin' pleasure:

Bailing on the Bailout? Congress Votes No

After I spent two hours reading the full text of Congress' draft economic bailout plan, also known as "The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008," the bill failed to pass on a vote of 229-205. This is a big deal, of course. The stock market dipped, but it remains to be seen just how much of a crisis this will become over the long term. After reading through the bill, I'm relieved at Congress' vote. The plan was sweeping in nature, giving Henry Paulson control over $700 billion dollars of our money. There was plenty of "so-and-so must report to so-and-so" scattered throughout the bill, but very little actual definition of how the bailout would work. Advocates of the bill are going to try again to get it passed later this week.

In case you're interested, here are just a few tidbits that stood out for me on my read-through:

Administrating the Plan

• Henry Paulson will head up a new office responsible for executing the plan he created. This office will be monitored by an oversight board consisting of: Henry Paulson himself, Ben Bernanke (Chairman of the Federal Reserve), James Lockhart (regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), William Donaldson (Chairman of the SEC), and Steve Preston (Secretary of the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development). Given the previous lack of oversight we're now dealing with, I'm not sure whether these men can be trusted to know what they're doing (or, at least, to do anything truly in the public interest).
• The plan does not outline how he will: define "troubled assets" for purchase, purchase said assets, price and value them, or select the managers assigned to manage them. He will, however, have to submit these guidelines either two days after purchasing the first batch of assets, or 45 days after Congress passes this plan, whichever is sooner. It's kind of like the authority they gave to Bush on the eve of invading Iraq.
• There are some decent reporting requirements, but we know the current administration's track record for disclosing information to Congress, even when required by law. They tend not to do it.

Limiting Corporate Profits

• The plan requires Paulson to "take such steps as may be necessary to prevent unjust enrichment of financial institutions participating in a program established under this section, including by preventing the sale of a troubled asset to the Secretary at a higher price than what the seller paid to purchase the asset." The very next sentence, however, excludes what may amount to every bank in question: "This subsection does not apply to troubled assets acquired in a merger or acquisition, or a purchase of assets from a financial institution in conservatorship or receivership, or that has initiated bankruptcy proceedings..." I'd be interested to know exactly how many institutions this excludes.
  
• The plan does allow for certain mortgage loans to be renegotiated via the HOPE for Homeowners Program, which means some people facing foreclosure may be able to negotiate new interest rates and/or take tax credits. This also means some lenders will be forced to take a loss on their loans in exchange for the likelihood of partial repayment (a good thing). None of this is guaranteed, of course; it's simply allowed.
• The so-called "golden parachute ban" is a little misleading. While there is a ban on golden parachute payments (in which an executive is paid for being fired or entering bankruptcy), senior executives can still receive compensation "based on statements of earnings, gains, or other criteria," as long as the financial statements are accurate. In addition, golden parachute payments are allowed for banks who sell assets worth $300,000,000 or less at auction. The golden parachute limitations are in effect only while the feds are managing these purchased assets; they don't apply to corporations not involved in this bailout. So, there is no real long-term reform of this aspect of corporate law. There are several pages at the end of the 110-page document that discuss additional golden parachute definitions—my small mind couldn't wrap itself around these clauses well enough. Feel free to read them yourself and get back to me.
  

Is There a Plan B?

• If the Iraq War taught us anything, it's that every plan needs an exit strategy. This one's strategy seems simple enough, yet I can't see how it's really a feasible option. Essentially, it the plan calls for a 5-year review of how much money is left in the troubled assets fund that we're about to buy/create. If there is a "shortfall" (which I believe means if the assets we buy are worth less in 5 years than they were when we bought them), then the president is to draw up legislation "that recoups from the financial industry an amount equal to the shortfall in order to ensure that the Troubled Asset Relief Program does not add to the deficit or national debt." A nice idea, but will the financial industry be in any position to pay off the debt five years from now if it can't pay it off now? Perhaps I'm simple-minded, but this doesn't seem feasible.

Identifying the Underlying Cause of the Crisis

• The plan also establishes a study of what role leveraging (the practice of putting down a smaller deposit while taking out a larger loan in order to gain more paper equity) played in the onset of this financial crisis. This report will focus mostly on what role the federal government played (wild guess here: complete lack of oversight), and suggestions for future involvement. The report is supposed to be completed by June 1, 2009.
• In addition to the leveraging study, the plan calls for a study of the impact of mark-to-market accounting practices on the financial crisis.
  

The Most Ominous Line in the Draft Plan?

• "The statutory limit on the public debt...is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting '$11,315,000,000,000’."

Whew.

The Mortgage Crisis Explained

Admit it: you only kinda sorta understand the mortgage crisis and how it's managed to eff up everything in its path. You might get that greedy lenders loaned money silly homeowners could never pay back, and you might get that it's all coming tumbling down, but could they all really be that dumb? You bet!



Here's the thing: we (we = you + I + the public at large) have been submissively nodding our heads and pretending to understand how America's financial system works. We kinda sorta get it. We know there's a lot that we don't know, too, but we smile and let the eggheads in charge figure it all out and worry about the details. That's what they're paid (and, occasionally, elected) to do, right?

Problem with this approach is that without the public nipping at their heels and demanding transparency—and, better still, explanations that people can wrap their heads around—these folks in charge get greedy and lazy.And then they pick your pocket. We need to get back involved as Americans. We need to express our patriotism by being informed, by demanding a real system of checks and balances from the top down, and by refusing to allow corporate America to suck at our collective teat.

Period.


Next week: The second installment of Copyrights and Wrongs is coming on Monday!

Miranda July for Barack Obama

Just a great little fundraising site.

Images I Grew Up With: Tomi Ungerer

I am lucky to have grown up with a designer father and a reader mother; one of the first books I remember pulling down from the lower shelves as a tiny rugrat was something about architect Adolf Loos. I was hooked. I practically ate books for breakfast.

Beyond the words I took in, I'm thinking about the visual language that was taught to me back then, and how that language still knocks around inside my head—the colors, the shapes, the sheer bizarreness of the tales told in ink and paint. A lot of it was dark (which explains an awful lot about the other stuff knocking around inside my head), and a lot of it was utterly earth-shattering to my little brain.

At first I was going to just list a handful of these artists as a sort of stroll down memory lane, but I want to share too many images for a single post, so I'm doing this series-style. It only seems fair to provide some sense of the breadth of each these artists; each image, each book, builds on the next, stringing together an entire world in just two dimensions. Let's start with Tomi.

THE UNDERGROUND SKETCHBOOK OF TOMI UNGERER
This book, together with Osborn's the Vulgarians, permanently scarred me for life. I knew they were dangerous when I was reading them, long before I had any idea what they meant, just from the style of illustration. Of course, the sexually explicit imagery had something to do with it, too. The Underground Sketchbook (and other works, like The Erotoscope) seemed to channel all the cynicism and human ugliness that he left out of his children's books and even commercial advertising. Of course, that's not entirely true; his children's books did hint at the darkness and depravity of humanity but, y'know, for kids. The following few images, some of the mildest in the book, are from the copy of the Sketchbook that I permanently borrowed from my parents' bookshelf (it was published in 1964).








CHILDREN'S BOOKS: MOON MAN
Remember those individual film strip players in your grade school library? You'd check out the player at the librarian's counter, choose your film strip story (which were almost always the same selection throughout the year), and then find the furthest-away cubicle and try desperately to load the strip properly. Finally, you'd slide the cassette tape into the slot, align the strip with the sound, and off you'd go. The narrator would read a page of the book, then you'd get the beep (always too loud), and you'd roll the film strip forward one frame. This was how I read Moon Man. It always made me horribly sad to think of such a lonely, lovely figure so alienated from the world around him. Ah, childhood...




CRICTOR
And then there was Crictor, a light-hearted tale of an old woman and her hero snake.




NO KISS FOR MOTHER
I feel guilty to this day for loving this book so much (sorry, ma).






And here, finally, is the man himself:

Sense or Nonsense?

When writing marketing copy, or political reportage, or educational materials, we tend to shrink from notions of creativity and color. My motor really gets running, though, when writers actually take a risk and explore the hell out of their medium. George Saunders' recent New Yorker column is a great example:

"Sarah Palin knows a little something about God’s will, knowing God quite well, from their work together on that natural-gas pipeline, and what God wills is: Country First. And not just any country! There was a slight error on our signage. Other countries, such as that one they have in France, reading our slogan, if they can even read real words, might be all, like, “Hey, bonjour, they are saying we can put our country, France, first!” Non, non, non, France! What we are saying is, you’d better put our country first, you merde-heads, or soon there will be so much lipstick on your pit bulls it will make your berets spin!" [Full essay]

Slacker Uprising: Michael Moore Film Hints at a New Future

No one can argue that Michael Moore is a polarizing figure—but that's why he is so effective. He speaks, people listen. He organizes people, people react. This is a good thing. Now he's got a new movie coming out. Slacker Uprising is clearly an attempt to galvanize America's youth during this year's momentous election:



There has been a mounting buzz about the potential power and growing engagement of America's young voters. At the same time, it's not unusual to hear 30-plussers complain that kids today are apathetic and self-centered. So which is it? Well, here are just a few statistics:

• Almost 25% of eligible voters are aged 18-30 (source).
• On Super Tuesday '08, voters under 30 turned out in record numbers, in some states quadrupling their turnout numbers over the previous election (source).
• Almost 50% of eligible under-30 voters went to the polls in the 2004 election, the highest youth turnout in over ten years. (source).

So, it looks like Moore may be onto something: the kids are getting more involved. And to encourage more of the same, he's giving his new movie away for free to anyone living in the U.S. and Canada. Sign up for the free download here.

(Thanks, Noah!)

I want to laugh, but the thought makes me cry...

Green Jobs Now

Solving two problems with one solution? Well, that certainly makes sense:



Check out Green Jobs Now to learn more about how we can solve our environmental issues and lift people out of poverty at the same time.

A Complete Photographic Mindf&%@

Imagine a camera that doesn't passively take pictures, but instead creates something that isn't actually there. The Image Fulgurator surreptitiously projects an image onto a photographic subject when tripped by a nearby camera flash or other light. The photographer, the subject, and any passersby are completely unaware of the projected image - until the image is processed. It's a fascinating, creepy and ingenious device created by Julius von Bismark - and though he provides footage of the Image Fulgurator in action, it's hard to believe this thing really works as described:

"...An exposed and developed roll of slide film is loaded into the camera and behind it, a flash. When the flash goes off, the image is projected from the film via the lens onto the object...the Fulgurator looks like a conventional reflex camera. As soon as the built-in sensor registers a flash somewhere nearby, the flash projection is triggered. Hence the projection can be synchronized to the exact moment of exposure of all other cameras in its immediate vicinity. Via a screen (ground glass), it is possible to focus the projection and to position it on the targeted object."

Von Bismark created the Image Fulgurator as an exploration into the photographic reproduction of reality, and his examples focus on politically-charged subjects like Checkpoint Charlie and the Reichstag. It's an experiment that seems to owe heavily to the Situationists, and it does beg a few philosophical questions. Although creating a public intervention, the Image Fulgurator interacts on a more personal level, as it makes itself known only after the event - and only to the camera's owner at that. In von Bismark's examples, the projected images draw connections from past to present, across international borders, and between actor and acted-upon. The fact that the device is clearly reminiscent of a gun is not lost, either.

You Gotta be Careful When Making Green Marketing Claims

When TerraChoice's Six Sins of Greenwashing report was released last fall, it brought with it whispers of green fatigue, and raised the specter of Big Business Bullsh--. Could it be that corporate co-opting of sustainability had led to a market full of misleading claims and outright lies? Go figure. But as the public's sustainability discussion moves along, governments are getting involved in an attempt to curb the marketplace. So if you're one of the many companies offering up green claims, it's in your best interest to start paying attention to what you can and can't (or should and shouldn't) say.



The Six Sins of Greenwashing report analyzed over a thousand green claims made by businesses, and found that only one was legitimately honest. The rest committed one or more of the following sins:

1. The sin of hidden trade-offs
   Focusing on one environmental benefit while ignoring other essential issues.
   
2. The sin of no proof
   Lack of third-party auditing to back up any claims.
   
3. The sin of vagueness
   Using words and claims with broad or multiple meanings, resulting in an essentially meaningless claim.
   
4. The sin of irrelevance
   Making a green claim that is already inherent to the product or service being marketed, as though there's something special about this one.
   
5. The sin of fibbing
   Outright lying.
   
6. The sin of the lesser of two evils
   Making claims within a product category that is inherently environmentally damaging (i.e. no matter what green claims are made, the product is by definition bad for the environment).
   

The PDF report (also available here) offers recommendations for both marketers and consumers. The ultimate goal is to prevent consumers from becoming so jaded by misleading claims that they give up on green or sustainable businesses altogether.

In addition to TerraChoice's recommendations, both the U.S. and Canada have issued their own guidelines. Our neighbors to the north go beyond the legal requirements for Canadian labeling compliance, offering fairly in-depth recommendations for businesses who make particular environmental claims. The PDF report is a useful tool no matter what country your business operates in.

Our own government also offers guidelines for environmental claims in advertising. Regulated by the FTC, the bulk of these guidelines are legally binding, although I haven't done the legwork to determine just how frequently and under what circumstances these laws are enforced (keeping up with the marketplace's now ubiquitous green claims would certainly pose a challenge for any organization). An even more detailed guide is available on their site, but be aware that the FTC is in the process of updating these in response to the rise of the green marketplace.

Addressing Your Own Green Claims

Though boning up on the federal regulations is a must for any business flirting with green claims, it's not just the government's ire you need to worry about. Speaking the truth is essential to ensure credibility among your own customers. So, once you understand what you can and can't say, you ought to take a look at what you already are saying. At the very least, you need to ask yourself:

• Are my claims specific?
• Are my claims clear and understandable?
• Are my claims verifiable by a reputable third party?
• Do my claims accurately represent the purchasing issues a customer might face when buying my product?
• Do my claims provide enough context for the customer to make an informed decision?

And remember, if you're not sure you can back up what you claim, don't bother saying it. For more information about gauging just how green a business is, see The Case-by-Case for Sustainability.

Curituba: Making DIfferent Urban Design Decisions

One of my favorite shows, Frontline, has an exceptional story on one of my favorite examples of sustainable urban planning, Curitiba, Brazil:

"Far from an idyllic utopia, Curitiba faces the same problems that metropolises around the world do, including overcrowding, poverty, pollution and limited public funding. What's different about Curitiba is that its planners have come up with some creative and inexpensive ways to go about solving universal problems for cities. They've invested in an extensive bus system that operates for less than a tenth of what a subway costs to operate; developed recycling programs that clean up the environment and also address poverty; attracted new industry while expanding green spaces; and used preserved historical areas to revitalize neighborhoods and grow tourism. Curitiba has a radical approach to city planning, unique not only within Brazil but also globally. I traveled to Curitiba to discover what other cities might learn from this model and to see whether this experiment in urban design will last." [Read the full story]

Popular Green Blog Takes a Hard Line on Dissent

WorldChanging is arguably one of the more popular blogs tackling the trinity of green, sustainability, and social issues on the internet. As a nonprofit organization working to build "a bright green future," it's done well to establish itself as a magazine of integrity and thoughtfulness. So it's interesting to note yesterday's post by executive editor Alex Steffen, in which he not only vows to ban all comments denying climate change, but plays the Nazi card, comparing climate skeptics to Holocaust deniers:

"We will delete comments which deny the absolutely overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, just as we would delete comments which questioned the reality of the Holocaust or the equal mental capacities and worth of human beings of different ethnic groups. Such 'debates' are merely the morally indefensible trying to cover itself in the cloth of intellectual tolerance."

As most of the posters to date acknowledge, the WorldChanging staff is perfectly within its rights to moderate and even delete comments on its site. Yet the way in which Steffen has chosen to word the announcement is so anathema to the stated objectives of the site that it begs the question: what the hell are you thinking? If the producers of WorldChanging are truly interested in "how best to collaborate, how to build coalitions and movements, how to grow communities, how to make our businesses live up to their highest potential and how to make the promise of democracy into a reality," then isn't it a little disingenuous to prohibit open discussion about a scientific theory?

Maybe, and then again, maybe not. According to yesterday's post, WorldChanging's decision to delete such comments is based on the premise that climate change is a scientific fact and, as such, to deny it is "morally indefensible." This is, of course, absurd. It's no different than Christians calling non-Christians sinners and damning them to hell - it makes for a dramatic stance, but casting aspersions isn't really solving a damn thing. Nor is it trying to solve anything. And just to drive the point home, it's not even true.

Let's just say that climate change is a scientific truth and the debate is, in fact, over (you don't hear me arguing). Steffen's position (or is it WorldChanging's? It's not entirely clear, but I suspect we'll get a clarification soon enough) is that denying this physical phenomenon is morally equivalent to denying human equality. But this is an apples-to-oranges comparison; physical science and philosophical constructs are observed and measured on different scales. We could, I suppose, get into an argument about whether or not human equality really is a philosophical construct, but that would lead us to the whole "God-given right" thing, and I would argue that God is himself a philosophical construct. So let's just skip that (or not, you tell me).

Steffen would be much better off simply accusing climate change deniers of being raving lunatics who don't share the same reality as the majority of the population, and prohibit such comments on those grounds. But he didn't take a scientific stand, he took a moral stand. He hopped up on that soapbox and blasted away. Sure, WorldChanging has every right to moderate comments on its own blog. But at some point, an editorial staff needs to decide whether or not such decisions undermine its own credibility. Especially when that credibility hinges on bringing people together using innovative thinking and design models.

The sustainable design model by its very nature must consider all stakeholders when problem solving. And climate skeptics are certainly stakeholders in this environment, whether Steffen and his staff wish them to be or not. That means that if we're going to solve environmental problems - climate change problems - then we need to consider the skeptics as well. By denouncing them as moral sinners and driving them from the fold, we fail to truly address the very issues in which they are so deeply involved.

So if WorldChanging wishes to plug its ears and ignore the skeptics, then as they themselves state, "you're certainly welcome to your opinion." But doing so completely undermines their otherwise important attempts at bridging gaps, deepening understanding, and solving universal problems. And dammit, it gives the rest of us believers a really bad rep.

Public Policy Belongs to the Public

From Pro Bono Junkie's Blog:

"The rise in nonprofits should be a canary in the coal mine for society, telling us that we need to have the courage to demand better public policy to ensure the sustainability of our way of life.

Our local, state and federal governments are not effectively meeting the needs of society. Fortunately, we are a country of entrepreneurial and compassionate people who see the walls of the mine collapsing and are willing to throw themselves against the wall to prevent its fall." [Full post]

The Girl Effect

The Fog of War: Full Transcript

From The Fog of War:

"This is the Secretary of Defense of the United States, Robert McNamara. His department absorbs 10% of the national income of this country, and over half of every tax dollar. His job has been called the toughest in Washington, and McNamara is the most controversial figure that has ever held the job. Walter Lippmann calls him not only the best Secretary of Defense, but the first one who ever asserted civilian control over the military. His critics call him 'a con—man,' 'an IBM machine with legs,' 'an arrogant dictator.'"

Get inside the mind of a very powerful man.

"Forty years ago this country went down a rabbit hole in Vietnam and millions died. I fear we're going down a rabbit hole once again. And if people can stop and think and reflect on some of the ideas and issues in this movie, perhaps I've done some damn good here. Thank you very, very much." —Errol Morris, Academy Awards acceptance speech

Tell Your Neighbors About the Spray!

I'm going to ask that you indulge my "politics" as I get loud for a bit - I'm just really not okay with getting sprayed with chemicals!

So, for those of you who live in California and want to spread the word, please help yourself to this poster. Download a PDF of either version by clicking on the image. Then take it your local copy shop and start passing them out to friends, neighbors and especially local businesses.





The petition continues to grow, with over 22,000 people refusing to be sprayed. Let's keep it growing!

California Plans to Use Citizens as Guinea Pigs: Why Every U.S. Resident Should Care

Beginning this summer, airplanes will fly 500-800 feet over California, spraying hundreds of thousands of California residents with an untested pesticide called CheckMate. This will start one night in June, and will happen again three nights a month for nine whole months. None of us will know which nights our towns are being sprayed, and none of us will be able to stop it. Your children will wake up the following morning, head to the park, breathe in the air, play on the jungle gym, and you will have no idea if their little hands are coated in the CheckMate pesticide. You might even be walking home from the BART station one evening, and hear that low-flying plane hum over you as it drops its load.



This ain't no horror story - it's actually going to happen. The State's Department of Food and Agriculture is initiating the largest aerial pesticide spray in the history of the United States because it's afraid the light brown apple moth will take over our plants.

• Never mind that the evidence suggests that this moth has been with us for decades causing no harm whatsoever (and has, in fact, been controlled by natural predators).
• Never mind that scientists across the globe have dealt with this moth before, and advised California that widespread spraying will do no good.
• Never mind that the State's previous spraying last year resulted in well over 600 reported ill health effects.
• Never mind that a man named Stewart Resnick, an agribusiness man whose farming company happens to own the manufacturer of CheckMate (the pesticide to be sprayed on us) has made generous political contributions to our State's officials.
• And never, ever mind that 19,000 citizens and counting have said out loud that they do not want to be sprayed.
  

And why should anyone who lives outside of California care? One simple reason: we are the nation's guinea pigs. The USDA recently announced plans to survey all 50 U.S. states to see if the light brown apple moth can be found anywhere else. If they do, you can bet that state officials where you live will look to California as an example for how to deal with it. Even though California's approach won't work.

So what can we do? Do we sit back and inhale the fumes? Do we let agribusiness dump pesticides literally on our heads? Close our eyes and hope we don't get sick? This is not a joke, and this is not the State's choice to make for us.

Join the tens of thousands of other residents who refuse to be sprayed! You don't have to become an activist, and you don't have to give up your valuable time. Just pick and choose from the following easy steps, and make your voice heard.

1. Sign the petition to stop the spray.
2. Learn the facts about their plans.
3. Write an email to Gov. Schwarzenegger, who currently supports the spray.
4. Write an email to Sen. Migden, who's filed legislation to delay the spray.
5. Send an email to everyone you know telling them about the spray (or linking to this blog post).
6. Write a letter to your legislators voicing your opinion.
7. Attend the meetings on 4/15 and 4/16 to add your voice.
8. Flyer your block, neighborhood or town to inform your community.
9. Send out a MySpace, FaceBook or other social networking bulletin about this.
10. Blog about the spray, or simply link to this post.
    

Get loud. Get angry. This is your air, and your body. Don't let them f--- with it.

The Accidental Politics of Graphic Design

"'What does it mean,' he asked the other day, after sifting through his work, 'to live a meaningful life?'"

"...His portfolio would soon start filling up with routine projects: the cover of the department's phone directory, photo manipulations showing what freeways would look like with new carpool lanes. Then, in the 1980s, pedestrians started getting killed on California interstates with alarming regularity."

From "The Artist Behind the Iconic 'Running Immigrants' Image," LA Times.

Bill McKibben on Slowing Global Warming and Moving Toward a Sustainable Economy

Bill McKibben, author of Deep Economy and other books, and one of the earliest reporters on global warming, spoke about the movement to slow global warming the other night in an on-stage interview. I found it odd that the conversation wasn't more in-depth considering the audience (imagine a roomful of rich, white San Francisco liberals - kind of preaching to the choir, hmm?), there were a number of points worth mentioning. I'm just going to quicky sketch out some of these below.



The Challenge of Making the Complex Simple
One of the most difficult aspects of communicating about global warming - and sustainability in general - is that it's such a complex, intertwining subject. Everything feeds into everything else, is connected to everything else in more ways than one, impacts and is impacted by everything else. In a world increasingly desperate for easy answers - just push this button - we're faced with laying bare complex issues and attempting to navigate toward not-so-intuitive answers.

Add to that the fact that this isn't exactly a sexy issue and we're faced with quite the uphill battle. As McKibben said, it's a bit like "going to the doctor and being told you have high cholesterol and have to cut the fat out of your diet." No one wants to do it, and those who do are "rewarded" with not being sick. Logically that may be a big, juicy carrot but at the end of the day we're still stuck munching carrots instead of french fries.

The Challenge of a Brand New Movement
The environmental movement has experienced a lot of changes over the decades, and now that the science is finally in (yes, it is), it's been somewhat vindicated. But this shift means that the movement now needs to go beyond merely proving that global warming exists and, instead, tackle the solution. The solution, of course, is massive economic change. I say "of course" as though this is obvious, and it is to those who have done any deeper reading on the subject outside of, say, USA Today. But McKibben points out that the environmental movement, while solid at education etc., isn't necessarily well-equipped to deal with changing the world's economic system.



It seems to me that the movement itself is a little too insular for that. Once derided for its moral overtones and scolding approach, I'm not sure it's really capable of stepping outside that sense of morality. Changing the global economic structure - regulation of the corporate world, public investment in R&D, global manufacturing and transport, you name it - requires the buy-in of so many differing entities that using a moral imperative to drive this change would seem implausible. But maybe that's exactly what we need - a global recognition, from inside the economic paradigm, that our current global economy is simply not meeting the social responsibilities long promised by unchecked markets.

And what of those markets? When McKibben was asked, "How do you minimize growth [McKibben's approach to stopping global warming] without replacing capitalism?" he replied by stressing the need for more focus on local economies. The idea is that a network of strong local economies provides a safety net of sorts for a stronger global economy. "How can I make it bigger?" is the wrong question, says McKibben. We're craving that smaller, local, community connection that the bulk of us [city-dwellers] have essentially missed out on as urbanization and technology has run rampant. But I'm getting on a tangent.

The Challenge of India and China
Although the U.S. is the primary global consumer, this may well change sooner than we realize (or will be ready for). Developing countries have, for the first time in perhaps the world's history, huge leverage in the growth of their own economies. To power the vast populations of China and India, cheap energy is needed. Right now, cheap energy means coal, which is simply too dirty. If these countries rely on coal - as they are currently doing - we'll be powerless to stop global warming. McKibben points to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen in 2009 as an key potential turning point. He's of the mind that the only way to succeed in combating global warming is to convince China and India to abandon coal. Good luck with that.

Marking Collective Success
In spite of all the challenges that lie ahead of us, McKibben was careful to point out that as a society, we are actually making great strides towards effective change. He cited not just the mainstream adoption of the subject, but also the increasing number of creative solutions that are cropping up both locally and abroad. In an effort to harness this momentum and maximize it, he's started 350.org,* which asks you and I to put our heads together to come up with new solutions. As he writes on the organization's website:

"What we need most right now are your ideas for how to take the number 350 and drive it home: in art, in music, in political demonstrations, in any other way you can imagine. We will connect actions all around the world and make them add up to more than the sum of their parts–but we don’t have all the ideas and all the inspiration. We need yours."

And that really is what it all boils down to: each and every one of us needs to make a simple decision. Will I work towards change, or will I continue with more of the same? No need to read more into it than that—as a single human being, you don't have to solve the world's problems nor remove yourself from the life you love. But as a group of individuals working towards change, the momentum becomes unstoppable.


*350 parts per million is the maximum safe level of carbon dioxide we can have in the atmosphere. It's McKibben's benchmark for a halt to global warming.

Advertising and Drug Prescriptions

Frightening statistic of the week:

"Nearly a third (30%) of adults say they have talked to their doctor about a drug they saw advertised, and 44% of those who talked to their doctor received a prescription for the medication they asked about. This means that 13% of Americans have received a specific prescription in response to seeing a drug ad."

[emphasis added, from the report, Impact of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising on Consumer Drug Spending, brought to you by the Kaiser Family Foundation]

Marketers would have you believe that 13% of Americans - that's 39,472,404 people - really, truly needed the drug they requested. If this were true, then 13% of our population are capable of accurately self-diagnosing. If you believe that, then I've got a pill to sell you.

In all seriousness, though, whose responsibility is it? That is, who do we hold accountable for this massive addiction? Most folks would assign blame to one or more of the following:

• Big Pharma: The suppliers earn $4.20 (ironic, no?) for every $1.00 invested in advertising their drugs directly to consumers.
• Marketing and Advertising: The pusherman who facilities the deal (pssst, the first one's free).
• Consumers: Too dumb to know any better?

But whoever you blame, chances are you don't fall into that particular category. It's time to stop asking everyone else to change, and time to start taking responsibility. For consumers, that means doing our due diligence before we start popping happy pills. For marketers, it means taking a stand on what we will and won't help sell. And for business, it means looking beyond financial numbers as the sole measure of success.

It's not an easy pill to swallow, I know, but 9 out of 10 social entrepreneurs recommend it.