In 2004, former Sierra Club President Adam Werbach made by a splash by asking, "Is environmentalism dead?" In a speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, he critiqued his own work as an environmentalist and suggested that the environmental movement was ill-suited to solve the challenge of global warming. Much lively debate and serious reflection ensued.
On the evening of April 10, Werbach will give a follow-up speech, entitled "Birth of Blue," to the Commonwealth Club's INFORUM Program. He'll argue that a new movement is emerging that goes beyond the green movement to incorporate a broad range of human aspirations. [UPDATE: Here's a preview of the speech in the San Francisco Chronicle.] [ANOTHER UPDATE: Here's a PDF of the final speech.] [STILL ONE MORE UPDATE: Here's the speech reprinted in a blog post, with lots of comments below, including a couple from Werbach himself. He's also joined the discussion below.] [FINAL UPDATE (REALLY!): Here's video of the speech.]
We'll post text and video of the speech when it's available, so check back here. In the meantime, Werbach gives the basic rundown on BLUE:
What is the BLUE movement?
People who are part of the BLUE movement aspire to make a difference through the people and products that touch their lives. It encompasses green issues like protecting our last wild places and reducing our output of CO2, but it also includes personal concerns like saving money, losing weight, and spending time with friends and family.
What are the objectives?
There are three objectives of the BLUE movement. First, to measurably improve the quality of life of the people who join. Second, to engage as many people as possible in the effort. And third, to increase their effectiveness in making a difference in their community and the world.
Why do we need a new movement?
Political solutions are only one part of the picture. We also need to make a difference in the way we live our lives and what we buy. There's a gap between the challenges facing our world and the actions people are willing to take in their own lives. While most people say they care about global warming, and many people know that they should lose some weight, far fewer are willing to take the steps needed to solve either challenge. (Of course, personal behavior does not replace the need for government action.)
What's a PSP?
A PSP is a "personal sustainability practice." It's a simple action you take regularly that's good for you, your community, and the planet. Hundreds of thousands of people have taken on PSPs, from sixth graders to Wal-Mart cashiers to CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Examples of PSPs include quitting smoking, eating one less meat meal a week, doing your laundry with cold water, hosting a Sunday night organic meal, or parking your car in the spot farthest from the store so you can get a little exercise on your way in. The goal of the BLUE movement is to have 1 billion people create PSPs, representing over $1 trillion in consumer buying power.
How do you define sustainability?
Sustainability brings human culture and the living world into a healthy relationship. It has four dimensions -- social, cultural, environmental, and economic. Environmentalism and the green movement frequently put the environment in front of all other goals. The BLUE movement holds all of these aspects in balance.
What does BLUE have to do with shopping?
At its heart, BLUE is a lifestyle movement that asks people to create personal sustainability practices and translate them into the things they buy. While political activism is at best a biannual pursuit, shopping is a regular activity for most people on the planet, and if trends continue, for virtually everyone. We can either cede this field to the profit-driven marketeers, or we can use our consumer power to improve our lives and support structural change. Shopping won't solve all our problems -- far from it -- but ignoring the fact that we do shop won't help either.
Why a movement of consumers?
Revolutions have often been led by consumer movements -- from the Boston Tea Party to Gandhi's salt march to the Woolworth's lunch-counter sit-in in Greensboro, N.C. Today, private consumption expenditures in the United States represent about 70 percent of the gross domestic product, and to this day social activists have spent little effort trying to organize consumers to make a difference through the things that they buy.
Who started this movement?
BLUE has been well-known as the symbol of an integrated view of sustainability for over a decade now, largely in Western European nations like Switzerland. In these countries green thinking is not new, and people are looking for something that goes beyond their concern for nature to represent all of their values.
So does this mean I can no longer be green?
No! Green is still alive and well, and there are a growing number of people (although still a very small group) who place green concerns as their top priority. BLUE encompasses green concerns and goes a step further by asking how ecological thinking can help people solve other problems in their lives, from quitting smoking to saving money to spending more time with their families.
How can people join the BLUE movement?
By reading this they've started the journey. Start by developing your own personal sustainability practice. Then start bringing your PSP into the way you shop.
How do I use it in a sentence?
"I'm totally into the environment," she says as she updates her status on Facebook, "but I'm the type of person who's BLUE and not only green."
Seventh Generation launches anti-toxics campaign with wee gimmick
Green-biz pioneer Ray Anderson says sustainability literally pays for itself
Comments
View as Flat
LGT Posted 3:09 pm
09 Apr 2008
what's wrong with calling this by its real name? Permaculture and voluntary simplicity among other names come to mind ...
Care for something a tad more sophisticated like "Homo cosmo-ecologicus," which some friends have come up with?
http://edro.wordpress.com/the-economy/
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:00 pm
09 Apr 2008
http://search.sfweekly.com/1996-06-19/news/looking-a-litt ...
Has he changed all that much since this article appeared?
The "Breakthrough Institute" guys S and N are all about diverting the corporate cash that used to go to the environmental movement into delaying action on GHG climate disaster.
It looks a lot like Werbach is trying to dilute the environmental battle. With the same goal, diverting corporate cash. Greening up Walmart's image with his ad firm. Sold to another big ad firm.
The donations from Sierra Club members and other environmental group members were never enough to support their lifestyle. That's my guess.
When you grow up and join the mortgage generation you need more cash flow than orgs provide. Jet setting is no fun on a budget.
Werbach and S and N are simply going for the green. Greenbacks, dollars, follow the money.
These fellers, like RFK jr and others at NRDC are in the business of selling us out. Selling out grassroots environmentalism to the highest bidder, then they keep the cash and power that goes along with it.
We been had. Environmentalism never died, it was taken over at the lobbying level by professional lobbyists, power brokers who are only after the perks of power. Who scorn idealism as naive. And members of orgs like Sierra Club as rubes to be fleeced.
Werbach has lost the fashion model freshness that no doubt got him the backing of Brower and others on the board. Can this new "blue" advertising/branding vision revive his pop image? I doubt it.
A solution to GHG global climate disaster is too urgent to be diluted and delayed by fashion statements. Sorry Walmart and exxon, trotting out 30 something models won't do the job. NRDC tried using Brittainey.
That isn't working either. Supporting GHG disasters like fuel farmed gas guzzling is going to take much younger fresher models, to gloss over.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:24 pm
09 Apr 2008
"I want to think more about why people care about trees so much," Werbach says. "I really don't know."
How did that all come out Adam? You've had a decade or so to find out.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
johnmcc793 Posted 11:08 pm
09 Apr 2008
Amazing, I agree with your take on this new "Blue".
Sounds to me like a lot of Werner Ehrhart with his "you create your own reality" schtick being repackaged by a progressive environmentalist/capitalist.
What do we not understand abouta how little time remains to get this supertanker turned around before it plows into the parking lot!
Permalink
Easterbunny Posted 11:33 pm
09 Apr 2008
Permalink
JMG Posted 11:55 pm
09 Apr 2008
Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:04 am
10 Apr 2008
http://www.saatchi.com/worldwide/index.asp
On what planet? Not ours john. Do they really own it now? Can we take it back? Argh!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:50 am
10 Apr 2008
Permalink
apsmith Posted 12:55 am
10 Apr 2008
But then I thought a bit more. "blue" and the optimism I was shooting for didn't seem to go together. Besides which, the Democrats seem to have adopted "blue" in the color-coded electoral maps of recent years. And then Howard Dean convinced me that Democrats really can think coherently about science and technology and the future.
So really, "blue" = Democrat, and I'm happy with that. Now, what was this post supposed to be all about again?
Permalink
LGT Posted 2:00 am
10 Apr 2008
lack of oxygen
global climate disaster is too urgent
people
how little time remains
cooking the planet
commodification
Can we take it back
until planet drops
focus on the future
Common subliminal theme?
URGENCY
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:11 am
10 Apr 2008
It's still the same old tune...people being forced to live sheltered lives in destitution afraid to live.
Look! Nuclear Batteries!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:51 am
10 Apr 2008
There are clear labels -- if a person needs labels -- for everything Mr. Werbach wants to encourage people to do. As someone mentioned above, there are permaculture and voluntary simplicity. There are also groups interested in spiritual growth. There are progressives. There are vegetarians and vegans. There are carnivores interested in human treatment of animals. There are organizations devoted to helping a person lose weight, get more exercise, or stop smoking. And so on and so on. Why not let people pick and choose how they want to improve their lives? They'll probably embrace a lot of related and other "good" behavior as well.
There is no need to create an all encompassing MOVEMENT that links everything together into a fundamentalist cult!
What's next... precise dietary rules, guidelines for choosing appropriate brides for your sons, and stoning of people who dare suggest it is okay to cut down a tree?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:58 am
10 Apr 2008
Permalink
wallrock Posted 4:09 am
10 Apr 2008
A lot of people on here seem to think the Sierra Club's role is to convince the environmentalists on the issues, but we really don't need that much prodding. It's the large majority of the public that don't necessarily think about these issues that do need it. If a marketing tactic like BLUE brings a few people on board, more power to 'em.
Permalink
Scott Oterric Posted 4:22 am
10 Apr 2008
We are the 5% that are the leading edge. We don't need to preach to ourselves at this critical moment, or debate whether wind power is better than solar. What we need is to reach the next 50% and show them that sustainability is not weird, but rather can be good for them, fun, and good for their children and the planet, too. The purchasing willpower of that 50% will not change. They are not among our 5% who are ready and willing to hang our clothes to dry and reuse our ziploc baggies until they're riddled with holes. They may get there someday, but they have to start with what they know. So for now, when action is so desperately needed, wouldn't you prefer to see that 50% (150 million Americans) taking the first few steps towards joining our leading edge? They start buying organic because they've heard it's good for them and hey, bonus, it's good for the planet, too. Then they read labels, then they get concerned about chemicals in their food, in their paint, in their bedding materials, then something clicks, and they see...
the big picture.
And then they come join us on the leading edge.
Permalink
lorna salzman Posted 4:43 am
10 Apr 2008
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:50 am
10 Apr 2008
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 5:02 am
10 Apr 2008
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Alex 77 Posted 5:06 am
10 Apr 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:22 am
10 Apr 2008
Now, we've had these debates before: some, particularly of a psychological (and similarly, marketing) bent, feel that, as Scott, argues, you get people to take first steps, and eventually they move into "deeper" water.
Fine! Al Gore is pouring $300 million into a similar, marketing, individualistic effort. I hope it succeeds.
But, 1) what happens after that? While Mr. Wehrbach et al spend big bucks pushing for the individualistic approach, who is going to organize all of these people to actually push for some real change? which leads to, what in my mind may be even more important,
2) a certain amount of cognitive dissonance (to try to use some psychology) -- the planet is about to fry, and all we're asking is that you change you're shopping habits. Now think about this. When we are engaged in wars (well, at least WWII), or big social movements (civil rights) -- two of the highlighted "we can do it" scenes in the "we" commercial -- people are doing something (fighting, sacrificing, working) that is to some extent commensurate with the task at hand.
So the danger with the individualistic messages is this -- yes, we say global warming will destroy the planet, but, you don't have to do much -- therefore, it's really not a big problem, is the implicit message.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:27 am
10 Apr 2008
Permalink
trock Posted 6:01 am
10 Apr 2008
It's better than those single symbol groups like the swatika.
Permalink
anotherID Posted 7:46 am
10 Apr 2008
Permalink
trimtab Posted 10:09 am
10 Apr 2008
I've got a better idea. Drop the labels. Drop the ego. Keep it simple and do the right thing because it feels so right. Your Grandparents and Great-Grandparents would be proud.
Permalink
stewartbrand Posted 1:13 pm
10 Apr 2008
I expect he got a standing ovation. I would have joined it.
--Stewart Brand
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:54 pm
10 Apr 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:10 pm
10 Apr 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:06 pm
10 Apr 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:36 pm
10 Apr 2008
I can't remember how many times I have lamented the fact that he abandoned the Whole Earth Catalogue mode and how much it really would help now that all these technologies that are so unknown to mass media and the public have evolved into practical application.
Just when it would be great to be able to link to various articles on various devices right here on the net. It was made for the net. The Catalogue.
Instead he went nuclear. I've seen his false dilemna fallacies disguised as arguments supporting nukes, pathetic.
Remember Khosla? he never replied to our arguments. Remember Nathaneal greene from NRDC? Nope, no cogent reply either.
There will be none from Werbach or brand either. The rich and famous are far beyond us simple bloggers. So much jet set sophistication, how could they be expected to lower themselves.
The divine right of capital proves they are superior as a species. Hehehey. Gaack! Socrates needs to reincarnate and kick some rich boy ass.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:12 pm
10 Apr 2008
More seriously, I am on record as having serious problems with many loosey-goosey applications of the in principle respectable noun "sustainability." And unfortunately, Adam comes across as an exceedingly loose goose.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:31 pm
10 Apr 2008
Pledge to cut your own greenhouse emissions footprint 5% a year.
Measure your footprint, then plan your changes and execute your plan. If that requires some shopping, fine, shop for those things that produce the needed reductions in your footprint. But mostly we all shop too much and could do with much less while still being happier, healthier, and wealthier.
Spread the commitment. Work on getting your extended family, church, civic group, city, county, and state to make the same commitment--be an "emissionary" for the 5% Solution to the Climate Crisis.
http://oregonpeaceworks.web.aplus.net/site/index.php?opti ...
Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:22 pm
10 Apr 2008
But we see how that all turned out. Too bad Brand and the group assembled for his speech hadn't read it.
I still think it could be made trendy, but in a deeper, quality of life respect. The art chic attitude when adopted by advertising people? Not very deep. Real artists can get away with it, but not glorified salesmen. Ads ain't art. Sorry Adam.
Get 100 billion per year in subsidies for energy corporations diverted to renewables and conservation, now that would be art, hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
iprefertherain Posted 9:02 pm
10 Apr 2008
"Environmentalism" is the term that has brought us to this point in history where we are even aware enough as a society about these issues to debate these superficial terms.
The only departure from environmentalism - as practiced - I've read about is what Van Jones describes as a new philosophy which emphasizes priroritizing lower income communities with green collar jobs, rather than regulation, in some situations. That is a significantly different approach in my opinion.
However, SHellenberger and Nordhouse(or however you spell it) are wrong in that this new philosophy is not a difference in spirit of environmentalism and or in fundamental values from environmentalism, which they seem to think it is. It is simply a different approach.
As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields. -Leo Tolstoy
Permalink
johnmcc793 Posted 10:54 pm
10 Apr 2008
We create rock stars out of nobodies and feed their egos by giving air time and dollars to their every thought, deed, rant and product.
Adam started out as one of the legion of idealists but had not the heart to stay in the trenches.
Instead, he took to the fast lane and moved into a better zip code while others of us stay on the ground trying to make sense of the babble that surrounds US non-policy to placate selfish consumers in a global warming world. Walmart is China's outlet store.
You summed it up:
[The rich and famous are far beyond us simple bloggers. So much jet set sophistication,]
This all makes me really blue.
John McCormick
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:12 am
11 Apr 2008
Usually their part of it is cut short. Generally we who stand on the virtual street corner accept and dole out criticism in order to keep it going.
The powerful tend to keep to themselves, at conferences and in the halls of power. Even the most obvious ideas that evolve on the street tend to be willfully ignored by power.
There's is a closed world view. Shut off from what they see as the distraction of the mob.
I wonder if any of us would be different, were we to be adnmitted to that world? Does a few million bucks make one deaf to the clamour? I think so, the divine right of capital is the illusion that separates.
It's a bizzare phenomenon. More than the actual cash, it's the consciousness of difference that counts.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
SnoDragon Posted 12:37 am
11 Apr 2008
Lifestyle changes are necessary to the solution, but as Werbach noted himself, they are not the ONLY solution. And people aren't going to take the steps necessary to change their lifestyles unless they know WHY. Until then, they're going to chafe at elitist restrictions.
Why not suggest that people start backyard and community vegetable gardens instead of telling them to lose weight? Or suggest they support locally owned and operated businesses instead of Wal*Mart? Label reading is good, but should people really HAVE to read labels? Especially when so many (like "antibiotic free" chicken and "free range" eggs) are so misleading?
Lifestyle changes are not going to come easily. And they won't come at all unless we have systemic change brought on by political action. After all, if the FDA and USDA did their jobs and actually protected the consumer, we wouldn't have such a problem, would we?
Really, the so-called "BLUE movement" should be advocating common sense, efficiency, and a healthy does of skepticism to scrutinize what one consumes.
P.S. Why the all-caps "BLUE?" It's not an acronym, so first-letter capitalization is all that is necessary. Anything else is just silly and pretentious.
Permalink
johnmcc793 Posted 12:37 am
11 Apr 2008
[I wonder if any of us would be different, were we to be adnmitted to that world? ]
That world does not admit persons who have not agreed to buy into the corporate or 'other-entity' (including public interest groups) line.
The powerful do not operate an 'open door' shop.
We are what we are after a certain youthful age.
John McCormick
Permalink
maxgladwell Posted 2:27 am
11 Apr 2008
A movement "that views the existential threat of global warming as a chance to change the way we treat ourselves and the planet."
People "want joy, not guilt; and a little money in their pocket so that they don't have to trade down on yet one more thing in their life."
"You can choose not to work with corporations, but then what's your solution?"
"Green puts the planet at the center of the dialogue. BLUE puts people at the center."
"BLUE integrates all four streams of sustainability: social, cultural, economic, and environmental."
"We live in a consumer-driven economy. We can either deny it or try to leverage it. Denying hasn't gotten us very far."
"A lifestyle movement requires the construction of a set of practices that make up the way we wish to live our lives."
"I'm proposing that we meet most people where they're at today: as busy, complex humans looking to do the best thing for their family and themselves."
"Corporations and consumerism can be vehicles for change...by transforming businesses, products and communications to improve people's lives...and radically dematerializing and de-carbonizing the products they sell."
"We need shoppers to lead the companies from the bottom as emerging regulations press them from the top."
"I want to suggest three Ps: Price, Process, and Purpose:
Price: First, we need to democratize sustainability and make it available to everyone. You shouldn't have to be rich to be sustainable.
Purpose: What's the purpose of what you're buying? First, do you need it? Does it fit into the healthy practices in your life?
Process: What was the process to make the product? Was it energy intensive? Did it use pesticides or petroleum? Were the workers paid a fair wage? How will it be disposed of?"
MaxGladwell.com
www.MaxGladwell.com
The Nexus of Social Media and Green Living
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 3:20 am
11 Apr 2008
I have two sisters, one very wealthy and the epitome of minivan and Prius driving, mcmansion owning soccar mom, the second has been an on-the-ground environmental activist and field biologist. Guess which one struggles to make a living and to get recognition? Not a hard call.
The endless gimrack marketing of environmental causes will never acknowledge that it was endless gimrack marketing of non-services in place of services that got us into this mess in the first place.
Living within the bounds of the world probably doesn't include much space for this kind of prairie pie; cut it out.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
cloud Posted 4:26 am
11 Apr 2008
Thanks Adam Werbach. His programs work well with the Bush administration post 9/11 motto: America open for business. Remember?
Permalink
johnthetreehugger Posted 4:42 am
11 Apr 2008
it seems rather obvious that corporate power is a big part of the problem here.
c'mon, from the War to environmental racism to mountaintop removal to social inequity and everything in between there are common culprits and they are called corporations. They have the best governments that money can buy in their back pockets and they are running amok across the planet in the name of profit and progress.
But do these great "thinkers" include any plans to challenge that power in their "new" ideas for citizen movements? I haven't seen any. Is it because they get paid from excess corporate largesse?
or are they just plain blind to the reality that the free market is all about sacrificing the future for the present?
Werbach, et al... If you don't have any real ideas about changing the power relations in this country and on the planet then you don't really have squat for any kind of solution to the myriad, complex problems facing communities. And, no, even if the Dems win next November, that will NOT substantially change power relations.
If working people and greenies had real power, things would change real quick.
all y'all have a nice day.
Permalink
johnthetreehugger Posted 4:42 am
11 Apr 2008
it seems rather obvious that corporate power is a big part of the problem here.
c'mon, from the War to environmental racism to mountaintop removal to social inequity and everything in between there are common culprits and they are called corporations. They have the best governments that money can buy in their back pockets and they are running amok across the planet in the name of profit and progress.
But do these great "thinkers" include any plans to challenge that power in their "new" ideas for citizen movements? I haven't seen any. Is it because they get paid from excess corporate largesse?
or are they just plain blind to the reality that the free market is all about sacrificing the future for the present?
Werbach, et al... If you don't have any real ideas about changing the power relations in this country and on the planet then you don't really have squat for any kind of solution to the myriad, complex problems facing communities. And, no, even if the Dems win next November, that will NOT substantially change power relations.
If working people and greenies had real power, things would change real quick.
all y'all have a nice day.
Permalink
awerbach Posted 2:11 am
12 Apr 2008
The full text of the speech is posted, and I encourage you to give it a read before you reject the ideas outright.
Let me make three points.
WE NEED TO EXPAND OUR TACTICS BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE DOING ISN'T WORKING. I believe we're not making enough progress fast enough to combat global warming. If you think that our current tactics are enough, and that we'll get to a reduction of our CO2 emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 by continuing what we're doing now, then we'll have to respectfully disagree.
WE NEED POLITICS, INVESTMENT AND A PERSONAL SUSTAINABILITY MOVEMENT: US federal legislation for a carbon cap is necessary. We also need massive new public and private investments in clean energy (starting with the Apollo Project I discussed in 2004's speech and going much further.) In addition, we need to catalyze a new mass movement that goes far beyond green to serve the most pressing personal needs of the global public.
WE SHOULD SPEND MORE TIME SHARING SUSTAINABILITY THAN DEFENDING IT: Ecological thinking, translated into an actionable framework like personal sustainability practices (PSPs) can solve a slew of common challenges facing a large portion of the people on the planet. Yet today the people who know about these practices demand purity, "indie-cred", and perfect compliance rather than welcoming people to a broader movement.
Here are two excerpts from the speech that speak to some points raised:
"I've come to believe that changing the way people look at the world is more important in the long run than focusing only on the marginal ecological impact of the individual actions they take.
Eating organic food should be only one small articulation of the way you take care of yourself, your community and the planet.
You can eat local, co-op grown, organic heirloom tomatoes and still be a bad person.
Green is good, but it frequently breaks down as a strategy when it hits the marketplace. The common green definition of sustainability or "environmental sustainability" is mainly concerned with the fate of the planet and how that affects our lives. For me, sustainability has four integrated streams - social, cultural, economic and environmental. All exist in balance.
That's why tonight I'm speaking about the birth of a new mass movement to compliment and expand our existing political efforts - not for professionals or experts or people who can explain photosynthesis and lifecycle analysis. A movement we can call BLUE.
This movement will have many faces, but at its heart it's a lifestyle movement, a way to live a successful life. Many of us already have a regular practice that can reinforce our values. While political activism is at best a bi-annual pursuit, shopping is a regular activity for most people on the planet, and if trends continue, for virtually everyone. We can either cede this field to the profit-driven marketeers, or we can share the field."
"In developing the thinking behind BLUE there has been nothing more controversial than the idea of a consumer led movement. But I think that our understanding of the power of consumerism can change. Recall that a hundred years ago the word consumption was a way of describing tuberculosis. We are no longer an agrarian society, and it's time that our cultural understanding of shopping -- gathering the things we need to live and thrive - matures.
I recently shared the vision for a billion-person consumer movement with the head of one of the largest environmental organizations and he scowled, "a billion person consumer movement? I want a billion person anti-consumer movement." It's a nice line, and a wonderful sentiment, and I hope he goes out a builds that movement, but what I'm proposing is that we meet most people where they're at today, as busy, complex humans looking to do the best thing for their family and themselves.
In fact consumer movements throughout history have been central to revolutions. The French Revolution was a call for bread, which Marie Antoinette famously and fatefully responded to by saying, "Let them eat cake." In 1960, four African American students sat at a segregated lunch counter at a North Carolina Woolworth's store at the seats reserved for white customers. And Gandhi rallied a nation against imperial British rule with the simple and radical call for a march to the sea to make salt.
Today our response to shoppers as a social movement is much like our response to corporations who wish to be leaders. Which is, I'd rather you just didn't consume, or in the case of corporations, I'd rather you didn't exist. We don't have time for this preciousness. Corporations and consumerism can be vehicles for change. The question is what type of change that will be."
Permalink
mattburstein Posted 4:08 am
12 Apr 2008
Perhaps we're all (rightly) a bit squeamish about using consumer culture as a tool--and if consumer culture was the only thing Werbach was proposing, I'd be terribly skeptical myself--but why deprive ourselves of the most effective tools available for changing group behavior because some people we disagree with have used those tools for ill? If the situation is dire, then ideological purity at the expense of generating the results we need is nothing more than narcissism.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:10 am
12 Apr 2008
Proclamations from on high. Vinod come down from the mountain with the stone tablets from the gods of the divine right of capital. To bring us ethanol (that doubles the gHG per mile driven compaed to gasoline)! Hehey.
We want dialogue. Not dictation.
I can see you have made the same point many here often cite about the world changing power of quality of life over quantity of possesions and consumption. Light that fire as a societal trend and corporate capital will flow to feed it.
We certainly will not eliminate corporate control of mass culture anytime soon. But could we temper the next-quarterly-earnings greed with some longer term values?
How to get them to listen? Corporate CEOs and boardrooms, who mistrust government and the power of the mob even less. Turn the mob into careful consumers? Yeah, that could help. But why would corporatists use ad money to acomplish that?
If you could motivate them, fine.
Meanwhile here at the internet grassroots we would like to rip corporate tax breaks and subsidies from the old energy and ag economy and direct them to renewables and conservation.
Direct to consumers, per GHG free kwh generated and kwh saved with conservation. Direct checks to motivate consumer choices. Money that goes from the bottom of the energy food chain on up to corporations that meet consumer demad.
Instead of only a green ad campaign for walmart, an actual bottomline incentive for Walmart to mass produce and supply devices like solar cogeneration panels for their customers and their stores. Then make the ads about the effort.
Public opinion got to walmart on the lawsuit against their former employee, where they won medical expenses back from her settlement. They voluntarily gave the money back.
Why can't public pressure work with large corporations on energy? it can. If energy markets are freed up so that their customers see a pocketbook reason to demand the mass production of devices to make it happen.
I've got a campaign for you. 10 bucks per month in the next four months before the election, with a note calling for subsidy diversion, sent to candiates of our choice. Times millions of green/blue voices. We have millions of environmentally active voters that would do it, given the fire of a mass media movement.
"Money doesn't talk it swears", time to swear at the corporatists destroying our planet.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
etorbert Posted 4:24 pm
22 Apr 2008
Instead, why don't we work together to make our voices heard? Our values and interests are being overlooked, our tax dollars are being spent on wars instead of public transportation. Buying the newest diet craze won't help you change that, but forming a social movement like the Civil rights movement might.
Permalink