Social Action Through Career Choice

My last post on Friday (Introduction to Link Love posts with examples) had an article on MSNBC/Careerbuilder about "green collar jobs". I would like to, again, reiterate the fact that I am rue to link to anything on Careerbuilder but you're not likely to be inundated with spam by simply clicking on the link (like you will by signing up for their loosely titled "service") so I'll make an exception.

First off, it's important to point out that this article is about as far from me, with respect to intent, as it could possibly be. The point of this article is to point out that there's this great new sector that's likely to grow based on sound-bites from our presidential candidates. The article says nothing about personal responsibility, purpose in life, or altruism through self-sacrifice. Careerbuilder is certainly not going to help you find meaning in your work by guiding you in a direction to make a difference in any way. But I digress; this post is not meant to inaugurate "Bash CB Day."

The article talks, first, about the possibility of new jobs appearing based on forward-looking statements by Obama, Clinton, and McCain. I'll just quote the one that makes any difference whatsoever:

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama -- "We've also got to do more to create the green jobs that are jobs of the future. My energy plan will put $150 billion over 10 years into establishing a green energy sector that will create up to 5 million new jobs over the next two decades."

Brilliant! Hopefully it's clear to you why I'm excited about that but why should you care?

I have seen an interesting phenomenon with my own eyes time and time again and have even participated in it myself. People find it quite easy to remove the responsibility of their own participation in an industry or company by simply explaining to themselves (and others) that "it pays the bills." What can you do? You're working for the man, they pay your rent, it's not really your responsibility to ensure that your job is environmentally responsible or kind to humans and animals or even legal. Does this sound familiar? Is this logic rational? Do you even think about what you actually do at work and what you're contributing to?

Just so we're clear, if I'm pointing any fingers, there are certainly a few pointing back at me. At my last job, animal testing was done on-site. I found myself in a very uncomfortable moral and financial situation, one shared by a colleague. It all came to head (sorta) when a company memo was circulated that advised employees to be aware that animal rights activists might show up on-site. I asked myself if I could casually walk past a group of like-minded people picketing my building and report to my job. I knew the answer was no and I'm no longer employed there (for other, more pragmatic reasons as well).

Your contribution(s) to the job you hold play(s) a part in the success of whatever entity to which you belong. Your good job, good ideas, and hard work will, generally, have a positive effect on the structure above and below you. If this innovation, perspiration, and motivation is sold to a corporation/company/person who strives for environmental sustainability, community improvement, and/or financial equality than you also own a piece of those good deeds. If, on the other hand, your great work belongs to a company that exploits both people and nature, you, in turn, own a piece of that victimization. It's only fair that it works both ways.

As usual, there is an obstacle to making a career choice like this. There always will be ethical ambiguity in all the choices we make and actions we take. Maybe you decide to take a job with Ford Motor assembling Hybrid Escape SUVs. Every bolt you put in, every battery you connect, and every gauge you install moves this vehicle closer and closer to helping someone fulfill their desire to use less gasoline. On the flip side, every Hybrid Escape sold puts money in the pocket of a company named as one of our country's biggest polluter. What's a conscious citizen to do?

Adding "the fate of the known world" into your considerations for a career is a pretty heavy burden to absorb; you're not going to reverse global warming because you chose a company with fleet cars that had better MPG. You're also not going to feel very socially conscious if after talking up your new Prius purchase you have to admit the monthly payments come from Chevron's pockets.

My overall point is this:
Every choice you make has a potential social, cultural, and environmental impact. The first step is being truly aware of this, the next is actually doing something about it.

From the article, here are a few green career options that have my stamp of approval:

- Furniture making (there are some amazing examples of sustainable furniture designers out there)
- HVAC (if you pick your company wisely)
- Green landscaping (something I'm planning on really getting into when I buy a house [soon] and something that I imagine to be very fulfilling and relaxing)
- Green building (again, you have to be company conscious
- Part-time Chemistry student, part-time marketing coordinator, part-time freelance Technology Coach (not sure I would recommend this route).

Statement?

I really wanted to take some time to delve into the chart I posted on Friday but I've had too much fun taking time off so you get something with less words but more impact. Who is that above me?


And, just to make sure the message is clear, here is me and Grandpa with similar sentiments:


Proud of my genes for sure.

The message is clear: time to go GWB. He was a "terrible Governor" and has been an atrocious president. It's time to take accountability for what we've done and make amends to the world.

<><><>

On another note, I found this very interesting at the flagship Whole Foods store in Austin, TX:


This is a "green wall" or "living wall." It's basically an easy way to add greenery to an indoor structure. This takes up no floor space but is still offsetting a bit of indoor CO2.

It was interesting being in the most premium, most organic supermarket in the nation (I can only assume). The store was beautiful: amazing displays, perfect lighting, exceptional design. I was enthralled by all the food and even more taken in by the ambiance and environment surrounding my upcoming meal. I had to wonder whether the whole thing was sustainable. The prices were high, that was a given. But does all of this work have to go into sustainable living? Does your dessert section need 4,000 square feet? In my opinion, if the space does not contribute to the problem then it's fine, even/especially if it costs more. But is it green-washing? Are you really getting the best of the best? Is your guilt absolved if you shop at Whole Foods?

It begs scrutiny... especially now.

Great site - thanks mom!

I know not everyone is apt to spend $20 on this but I couldn't keep the money in my wallet when I read what this site does.


You pay them $20 and they basically remove you from all junk mail lists. That's it, plain and simple. Not only that, they pull you off of catalog lists as well (unless, say, you tell them that you actually WANT 3o copies of the Victoria's Secret catalog every week - because 6 or 7 per week makes sense, you know, but 30? Really?).

This, to me, should OF COURSE be a free service but who would offer it? I guess advertising falls under the "bastardization of free speech" category and, as such, there's not much to do about it besides having recycle days. Still, I find it very disturbing that I can't simply generally opt-out from useless, wasteful, ineffective marketing campaigns. I hate spam and I hate telemarketing but there is nothing worse, in the marketing sphere, than having a pile of coupons and catalogs that go from tree to manufacture to post office to my house to the trash. I find that MASSIVELY agitating and, as such, will gladly pay to stop it coming to my house.

Please, please sign up for this service... $20 is very little and the impact is very important. Also go here...

https://www.optoutprescreen.com/

...and opt out of all those ridiculous pre-approved credit-card notices. This helps keep you secure (no more pre-approved applications floating around) and gets rid of another chunk of mail. It is free and run by the government which is how it should be. It stopped all of my credit card offers (besides the ones from my current company... what the heck?).

Dont conceal, reveal

From Seth Godin's blog:

A different technique is starting to gain traction, though. Working to reveal instead of conceal. My fish monger in Grand Central has started placing signs in front of each fish. They describe exactly where the fish came from, whether it's healthy and how endangered it is. You'll never see fine print saying "previously frozen." They don't have any fine print. The first few times you visit the stand, it's actually off putting. It takes the romance and pleasure out of buying the fish, because you realize that there's a cost to it. The meat guy across the way doesn't have pictures of cows being slaughtered, does he?

But after a while, because the information is out there, because smart fish buyers already know some fish is endangered, the signs give you power. They allow you to make smart choices. They send a message to the customer about the honesty and intent of the seller. They build trust.

This will, by necessity, become more popular as the green economy advances. Hopefully, people won't easily fall prey to the "green" tag without evidence of its extent. I think if you have half a brain (meaning you use half your brain when you buy something), you can skim off most of the bullcrap. But inventive, persistent, well-formed marketing has a way of circumventing our brains instead of appealing to them. Marketing is, unfortunately, value-neutral in so many cases (think cigarettes, fast food, Blackwater). It's hard to figure out how to vote with your money when the candidates are not what they seem (that was meant to be a metaphor).

Brilliant - Silicon Recycling

First off, I'll say that this technology is brilliant:

IBM today announced an innovative new semiconductor wafer reclamation process... The new process uses a specialized pattern removal technique to re-purpose scrap semiconductor wafers -- thin discs of silicon material used to imprint patterns that make finished semiconductor chips for computers, mobile phones, video games, and other consumer electronics -- to a form used to manufacture silicon-based solar panels. The new process was recently awarded the “2007 Most Valuable Pollution Prevention Award” from The National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (NPPR).

If you're unsure, this is a GREAT, GREAT, GREAT win for solar technology. As the article states, solar technology is being held back by a shortage of materials - in specific, silicon. Nothing worse than trying to bring greentech to the people and having it be too expensive because of materials. Briefly:

"One of the challenges facing the solar industry is a severe shortage of silicon, which threatens to stall its rapid growth,” said Charles Bai, chief financial officer of ReneSola, one of China's fastest growing solar energy companies.

IBM and others in the industry use silicon wafers both as the starting material for manufacturing microelectronic products and to monitor and control the myriad of steps in the manufacturing process. According to the Semiconductor Industry Association, worldwide 250,000 wafers are started per day across the industry. IBM estimates that up to 3.3% of these started wafers are scrapped. In the course of the year, this amounts to approximately three million discarded wafers. Because the wafers contain intellectual property, most can not be sent to outside vendors to reclaim so are crushed and sent to landfills, or melted down and resold.

Awesome, it's win-win... but I still wonder...Why did IBM put time and effort into this project? There are three reasons I can immediately come up with

1) The did it out of the goodness of their hearts

Though this is, IMHO, fantastic in the way that the chances of it being true fall somewhere between "slim" and "zip." Which, as you heard in Dumb and Dumber, still means there is a chance. If I started an environmental company, you better believe I would put "green" and "profit" as equal in priority. In fact, I wouldn't start a business I believed to be unsustainable. So, yes, IBM could have had an epiphany. More likely, however...

2) They did it to APPEAR to have good, green hearts

Is that wrong? No. It's predictable, to be sure, but the outcome is the same in the end. Or is it?

Though this is, as I mentioned, a big win for solar power regardless of the motivation. But if this is a marketing opportunity more than anything else, it leaves the possibility of it going away quickly when the benefits don't outweigh the costs for IBM alone. Lets say the recycling process gets a little expensive or they have to hire more people to take care of the process or any number of different things that could happen. Suddenly, appearing green is no longer a priority and the process slows to a halt. The press release already went out so the impact was already felt. Is anyone going to track and report on it if they decide to stop? No one... BUT ME!

Which brings me to the last reason this process might have been created...

3)It makes them money

Between 2 and 3, it's hard to say which one is more likely and, in the end, it's all the same thing (green image leads to more sales). In fact, it ends up being both:

IBM’s commitment to environmental conservation blah blah blah blah blah blah

and

The projected ongoing annual savings for 2007 is nearly $1.5 million and the one-time savings for reclaiming stockpiled wafers is estimated to be more than $1.5 million.

This further proves my (and others') theory on the environment:

things will not change until it becomes profitable for them to do so

Keep in mind I am not saying ANYTHING against IBM. This is a great move on their part and I would not expect an industry giant to do anything but do as it has done in the past. If this is an indication of corporate altruism, then all the better. An environmental win is a win.

The new wafer reclamation process produces monitor wafers from scrap product wafers - generating an overall energy savings of up to 90% because repurposing scrap means that IBM no longer has to procure the usual volume of net new wafers to meet manufacturing needs. When monitors wafers reach end of life they are sold to the solar industry. Depending on how a specific solar cell manufacturer chooses to process a batch of reclaimed wafers - they could save between 30 - 90% of the energy that they would have needed if they'd used a new silicon material source. These estimated energy savings translate into an overall reduction of the carbon footprint -- the measure of the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases emitted over the full life cycle of a product or service -- for both the Semiconductor and Solar industries.

Joshisjosh: Branding Me

I read a lot of marketing stuff lately and I'm not entirely sure why. For some reason, I find the topic fascinating on so many levels. There is the science behind how people read and react to stimuli. There is the creativity that lies within the methods of getting attention. There is the sociology tacit in pushing/pulling people in a certain direction and how you do it.

The more I read, the more I learn. The more I do, the more I understand. Just like with any craft, practice begets ability so my practice is in the form of where I work and my side "jobs." "Jobs," here, gets quote marks because I'm working for free for the time being. One of the projects is for my dad (the Business Ferret financial analysis software [no URL yet]) one of them is a joint project between us ("The Book" those close to me know about... eyesofatexan.com coming soon), one is a mental project for my friend, Jay (computer building business... need an affordable computer? geko010 at gmail.com. Need a gaming masterpiece? geko010 at gmail.com. Most capable, helpful, friendly person that ever graced the computer industry), and one, the one this blog is about, is my own project (me). I'm branding me. Complete with a name, a logo, and a product (me).


I'm a student, a teacher, a resource, a blog, a source of ideas, a motivator, an idealist, a consumer...

How do you brand yourself? By being as you as you can possibly be and making it as public as ever. I'm representing myself as completely as possible with a blog following what is important to me, art and writing from my own hands and screen, and a transcript and resume of work that I am very proud to display. I'm networking the best way I can by being myself instead of trying to fit into something (I do that enough at school and at work). I'm reaching out to people that I resonate with and vice versa to make something happen (change the world or go home, see number 2).

joshisjosh.com coming soon.
Bachelors in Science coming soon.
"The Book" coming soon.
The Business Ferret coming soon.

Lots to look forward to; lots of work ahead of me... that's how I like it.

Do Your Part: Get Wasted

At BevMo last night, I saw this vodka. I was intrigued and almost picked up a bottle but Svedka was on sale for really cheap and that's some good vodka so I put it back. I was in the middle of berating myself for passing up an opportunity to vote with my money when it occurred to me that anyone can claim being "green" to sell more products to suckers like myself. So, instead of buying potentially crappy vodka based on a possible marketing gimmick, I promised myself to check it out first... and then fall for it.

It's called 360 Vodka and they claim to be the "evolution of vodka." They say they concentrate on 3 Ps: Philosophy, Product, and Packaging. Here's the environmental skinny:


Read that label carefully and see if you can help me with something. There are no dates or ranges or anything to that effect. It just says that those things are saved. Is that it? You saved those and you're done now? I'm a little confused though a tree saved is a tree saved, all said and done.

The site is all marketing and, though attractive, doesn't really provide much. They also never say that the vodka actually tastes good, only that it's good and green. I'm a pretty green guy but, until it hits 1984 and all we have left is acrid "gin," I care how my spirits taste, that's all there is to it. The site shoves "4x distilled, 5x filtered" down your throat but even bottom-shelf hooch brags about filtering.

All-in-all, I'm not terribly impressed but I do like all of the recycling and what not. I will certainly do it the favor of at least trying it. But maybe not in one of their recommended recipes:


I think I could power a car with that mixture...

Start your day with fresh quotables

One from Seth Godin:

So I guess my advice would be to either build your product and network along the way to align with exactly what the middlemen want... or reject them and live/thrive without them. It's the middle ground that's really frustrating.

His argument, perpetually, is "build a good product and people will come." His idea is simple and his delivery is honest. You don't have to be a product guru or market trend god to determine whether a product is good or not. You can decide for yourself. Once you truly DECIDE (i.e., you KNOW your product is great, end of discussion), now you're in a position to move and set your own rules.

The same goes for YOURSELF. Once you truly decide that you, as a product, are great, it becomes much easier to distribute yourself. Because we are all, in the end, marketable products ;)

How about something a little more... vintage. Benjamin Rush was a leading physician cum major political factor in the late 1700's. He wrote an essay in 1773 refuting the idea of slavery, an essay that foreshadows how enlightened people today think about racial differences (i.e. different is not synonymous with inferior). The essay, "The Pennsylvanian," is a great read but one quote jumps out at me as important to remember today:

No manufactory can ever be of consequence enough to society to admit the least violation of the Laws of justice or humanity.

What B. Rush just said is that industry and business are not to be considered more important than human rights. Because a pharmaceutical company makes compounds that help people does not let it off the hook for questionable marketing pratices. Because a car manufacturer promotes itself as safe and efficient does not absolve it from resisting fleet-wide MPG increases. Because a clothing manufacturer makes inexpensive clothes does not release it from the responsibility to take care of its employees, regardless of where they live.

Remember that your money isn't just a ticket to more stuff, it's a vote. Choose wisely.

The chicken & the egg: supply and demand

This very short article got me thinking about how consumer-oriented business works these days. First, a blurb:

One of British capital’s top tourists destination-Science Museum-... will showcase two high performance green-machines that can reach speeds of up to 150mph.

Developed by researchers at Imperial College for the Formula Zero competition, the hydrogen powered car runs off hi-tech hydrogen fuel cells. A full-size version could accelerate faster than a Porsche.

The car enthusiasts will also be able to see Warwick University’s 95% biodegradable and Recyclable racing vehicle with a shell sourced from hemp, tyres from potatoes and cashew nut shell brake pads.

Since I have been frugal with the images lately (for no reason), I submit, for the sake of education alone, a picture of a Porsche (2008 GT2 to be exact):



Perfection... but I digress.

I love the idea of eco-racers and other esoteric uses of non-petroleum fuel. They generate excitement uniquely and open people's eyes to the CAPABILITY of the existing alternatives. Both of these alone are great reasons to continue a pursuit like this. But I also like it for a completely different reason.

How does business work in 2008 (I'll call it that since everyone seems to live a year ahead of themselves)? To answer this question, think about where and how people spend their money outside of absolute necessities. There is no reason to figure out where this money comes from, how it could be spent differently or how much each person spends for this example. We're just looking at where money that doesn't keep you alive, sheltered and basically fed.

This money, regardless of source, tends to flow quickly out of your possession into the hands of companies that sell products and services. Maybe you splurge on a pair of jeans or sunglasses, maybe you let yourself buy that sexy little iPhone, maybe, because you were good, because you deserve it because you work so hard, because why should you have to live the ascetic life?, you traded your 4-year-old piece of junk car for something that smells like new polymers and redefines (kg x s)/m^2. Maybe you did all three. You devil you.

What you did in all those cases is fall prey to some type of marketing. Am I judging or condemning you? Not at all, marketing is effective. You don't want the iPhone because you have a primal need for wi-fi connectivity and real-time traffic, you want it because it looks like sex and works like a charm in the pure white womb of the Apple store. Businesses vying for your surplus cash (also known affectionately as "available credit") have to convince you that you need this, they have to install a sense of desire or you will have no reason to buy what they sell.

What I am saying is not new or creative or innovative; I am stating the (hopefully) very obvious. Here is where it gets interesting...

Right now, no one really NEEDS a hybrid or solar panels or hydrogen fuel. Gas can be $2, $3 or $4 and your day-to-day life does not change. The earth can gain 1 or 2 or 3 degrees and, honestly, you probably won't even notice. If you save energy, consume less, re-use more and recycle, you're doing it altruistically and I commend you for that.

But, put plainly, we're not going to improve our general environmental situation with altruism. We're going to get there with money, lots and lots of money. And where is this money going to come from? Trees. That's right, big money trees....

Plan B, however, has the money coming from the same place it always does: the marketplace. Without demand, there simply is no product. If you have a product to sell that does not immediately alleviate some condition, you create some kind of demand for it through creative and/or persistent marketing.

So if you have supply and no demand, you create demand. If you sense a demand without a product, make the product. What if there is no demand AND no supply but a clear reason for both to exist? You have to get creative. You create the demand (the vehicle) without a product (the fuel).

Make things you just can't make the old way. Give people value and innovation and creativity. Build it for the early-adopters, the ones who have to have the the have-to-haves. Open the source up, reach out to the people for ideas, start internet forums, cruise the blogs. Hold eco-racing events, invite people to drive your new ideas, get the buzz going. Explore every possibility, watch all the technologies, experiment perpetually. Uniquely design them, make them stand out and grab people's attention.

Understand that it is the right thing to do. Then understand you will make gobs of money from it. The first company to put it all of this together in a truly sustainable package will set the bar... and rake in the cash.

Make these vehicles and the supply, the power to move them, will follow.

Information + interpretation

All the current alternative fuels broken down for the layman. It's a little bit "butbutbut" in my opinion but still gives a nice broad, objective view.

If you will, pay attention to the "Pluses, minuses" section. How many of the minuses have to do simply with consumer acceptance? Now, I'm business-savvy enough to understand that it is impossible to shape consumers with altruistic products alone. I know that you can't offer an "inferior" (in terms of effectiveness) product and expect people to buy it en masse based on their big, gooey hearts overflowing with love for other people and the environment. Some people will (yours truly) but not the majority.

On the other hand, I also know that consumers as a group typically function like a herd of animals. You can point the group in a certain direction but it is not guaranteed they will go there. You also may find yourself confounded with why they are going some other direction. Examples? Why are girls buying $300 sunglasses and $500 purses when they work at Starbucks? Why are people spending $500 on an iPhone that does all this stuff they never needed before? Why do people spend more money to have a Yukon when they could spend less in general on a Subaru and get the same utility? Because consumers are cows and they will buy into "the cool," plain and simple.

Being energy savvy and CO2 conscious and recycle happy still isn't cool enough to drive people to cut back and do with less, but it's getting there. Who is going to grab this opportunity? Toyota is doing well but it's too conservative. When you watch the commercials, they are geared towards mom and dad, grandma and grandpa. The Prius and hybrid Camry are "safe" and "efficient" and "quiet." Where is the cool? Toyota can do cool - look at their Scion campaign. Scions are cool, period. They look cool, the billboards are cool, the TV spots are cool, they're cool. So what about a Prius-drive train powered Scion? You're out of your mind if you think you can't make this stuff cool. You're also out of your mind if you think that people who buy $15K cars aren't slightly frugal (and, in turn, MPG conscious).

Smart cars are cool. Priuses are cool. Bicycles are cool. Let's all just agree on this and we'll be fine.

Just listen to Josh and everything will be OK, I promise.