The Gulf Coast: The New PR & GR Poster Child for the Green Economy
If you read the title of this post and assumed it was another commentary on the gulf oil spill, I wouldn’t blame you. Many have pointed to the BP oil spill as an inevitable turning point in the debate around energy policy and the eventual harbinger of a national renewable energy standard, a greenhouse gas cap and/or tax, and a number of other measures aimed to push us away from fossil fuels. But anyone expecting an overnight change in the foundation of our country’s energy production probably underestimates what an overnight transformation would do to the economy of states that rely on oil, natural gas and coal production for employment.
But there is a compelling narrative starting to develop in the gulf region which could be exactly what cleantech and green advocates need to make a stronger case for a national renewable energy and energy efficiency policy. It is not a new argument, but a tangible example of how one of the country’s most politically conservative regions is becoming a poster child for the green economy and what it could mean to US economic recovery.
This past week the State of Mississippi announced that Soladigm (transparency alert: Soladigm is a Schwartz client), a manufacturer of electrochromatic windows that improve energy efficiency in buildings, would open its initial production facility in Olive Branch. The plant will bring badly needed jobs to a region that isn’t yet widely known for its green manufacturing prowess, but could be challenging the conventional wisdom that green collar jobs are the sole domain of states like California, Massachusetts, Colorado and Texas.
Soladigm joins Enerkem, a waste-to-energy and chemicals company based in Canada, and Twin Creeks Technologies, a solar manufacturer based in San Jose, as recent cleantech concerns that have selected Mississippi as a site for pilot or full-scale manufacturing. This doesn’t mean that the citizens and state government of Mississippi will become national torch bearers for renewable and energy efficiency policy, but it does become an interesting anecdote for dispelling the notion that the industry is not creating jobs outside a few states. It also will help other parts of the country realize that they have a vested interest in the growth of that industry, even if it comes at the long-term expense of other industries. Bottom line: clean technology can be the mother of all economic stimuli if states are smart and keep cleantech manufacturing in the US.
This is a positive step for the movement toward a better US energy future and the recovery of the gulf coast in general. Economic diversification will help the region better withstand future disasters of the natural, environmental and economic varieties. Relying on fishing, tourism and oil production leaves this region horribly exposed to coastal disasters, and a new and growing sector could provide more stability from which to fund a general recovery.
Mississippi should be congratulated for taking its first few steps toward providing its populace with a more solid and diversified economic future. Supporters of clean energy and energy efficiency should point not to California and Massachusetts, but Mississippi as a shining example of Green Collar jobs.
Tags: bp+oil+spill, electrochromatic, energy+efficiency, enerkem, green+collar, green+economy, green+pr, soladigm, solar, twin+creeks
By Jason Morris on August 4, 2010 5:55 PM
Permalink |
Comments (0)
TrackBacks (0)
Does the Global Warming Movement Need a PR agency?
I tweeted about this earlier in the week and I think the overarching topic deserves a blog post. A study was recently released by the International Energy Agency showing that subsidies for fossil fuels come out to a shocking $550 billion a year.
David Roberts, a blogger with Grist, makes a great point that this is another HUGE win for clean energy that doesn’t receive nearly enough coverage. Perhaps the largest argument against renewables is cost, specifically that the cost of renewables is not competitive with fossil fuels without massive subsidies. Environmental damage and subsequent costs notwithstanding, this study shoots a huge, indisputable hole in that argument, but hasn’t gotten the coverage or national attention it warrants.
This reminds me of a piece I read about a month ago in Wired, by Erin Biba, on why science, and specifically the global warming movement, needs to “step up its PR game”. The message is quite simple: perception of the threat of global warming is muddled and confused leaving the public lethargic and complacent.
The global warming movement needs serious work in relating to the public (get it?). Sure, individual companies and groups do a good job at marketing their products and services, but the overall industry suffers from doubt, confusion and severe skepticism. In the article, Kelly Bush, founder of entertainment PR firm ID, offers some great insight on how the issue isn’t brought close enough to home. Here is an excerpt:
“They need to make people answer the questions, ‘What’s in it for me? How does it affect my daily life? What can I do that will make a difference?’ Answering these questions is what’s going to start a conversation,” Bush says. “The messaging up to this point has been ‘Here are our findings. Read it and believe.’ The deniers are convincing people that the science is propaganda.”
Oddly, the piece doesn’t mention the BP oil spill once, which seems to be the best example of how to make the clean energy movement hit home (even though the consequences of the oil spill are not really comparable to the consequences of global warming). On top of that is the shocking “Gasland”, a documentary that reveals the massive environmental legal loopholes awarded to natural gas companies, and the deplorable impacts of the operations on local drinking water. With examples like these that literally bring the environmental impact to our front door, environmentalists and the clean energy industry should have enough ammo to counter just about any argument. So why can't they?
Tags: bp+oil+spill, cleantech, fossil+fuels, global+warming, green, pr+agency, renewables
By Dan O'Mahony on June 30, 2010 12:23 PM
Permalink |
Comments (0)
TrackBacks (0)
Renewable Energy Gets Oval Office Stamp of Approval
President Obama, facing intense criticism over his handling of the Gulf Coast spill, resorted on Tuesday to an Oval Office address to the American people. This is a first for Obama, who has delivered momentous and stirring speeches about new initiatives and national security in the Rose Garden and other locales that tend to symbolize "the nation," but who had never, until now, used the power and symbolism of the Office as a backdrop. The Oval Office, compared to other frequent national PR and media announcement venues, projects a very specific, intimate image--that of the President as Commander in Chief, solemn, perhaps sorrowful, but ultimately inspirational--and forges a much more personal connection between the President and his country. As NPR's Liz Halloran pointed out on June 14's broadcast of Morning Edition:
"The President, in choosing the Oval Office as a setting for his televised speech, has given the oil spill the imprimatur of a serious crisis. Presidents in the past have used the setting to, for example, announce war, respond to national tragedies like the attacks of Sept. 11, and, in the case of Richard Nixon, to resign."
It is encouraging to note that, although the motivation for staging of this particular address may have been an effort at damage control, Obama nevertheless used this opportunity to issue a clarion call for a clean energy revolution. He spoke of the oil spill, the environmental and economic hardship it has created for Gulf Coast residents, flora and fauna, and he vowed to hold BP financially accountable. Using militaristic language and calling the spill an "epidemic," Obama labeled the spill "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced." But he went beyond mere posturing and finger-pointing when he double-negatively proclaimed, "We can't afford NOT to change how we produce and use energy." He candidly acknowledged that there will be financial burdens associated with the transition to a clean energy economy, but noted that the long-term costs to the United States' security and environment are untenable.
I'm generally skeptical of political posturing, particularly when it's set against a backdrop involving an American flag, but when the President of the United States makes a clear, compelling case for increased investment in and focus on renewable energy and energy legislation, it's hard to hold a little bit of PR scenery against him.
Tags: cleantech+government+relations, cleantech+pr, cleantech+public+relations
By Alison Mickey on June 17, 2010 1:08 PM
Permalink |
Comments (0)
TrackBacks (0)
American Public Gives Boost to Green PR & GR, Says: "Give Us Clean Energy"
It is amazing that as political will and Senate support for cleantech dwindles, the American public supports it more than ever before. According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, 87 percent of Americans support requiring utilities to adopt renewable energy and 78 percent support the passage of stricter energy efficiency standards.
Even more surprising and encouraging is that nearly two-thirds of Americans support putting restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. This would seem to indicate that a cap and trade system or carbon tax should unequivocally be included in any climate legislation.
So where is the political will to get a more renewables and cleantech friendly bill passed?
Tags: cleantech+gr, cleantech+pr, climate+bill, pew+research
By Jason Morris on June 17, 2010 12:55 PM
Permalink |
Comments (0)
TrackBacks (0)
Cleantech Humor Graces New Yorker Covers
I love renewable energy and I love the New Yorker. So I really love that the last two May New Yorker covers have had renewable energy/climate-related themes.
The May 10 cover features a whimsical scene by Bob Staake, called “Tilt”: a rotund little person dressed in Pilgrim garb wielding a lance sits atop a frowning whale while charging a wind turbine—a brilliantly updated version of Quixote’s tilting at windmills tailored to the NIMBY Nantucketers protesting the Cape Wind project.
The May 17 cover, titled “A Novel Approach,” by Joost Swarte, and released in perfect concert with the de-clawed American Power Act, shows a series of vignettes. A bald Tintin-ish man in glasses reads a newspaper and smokes a pipe. His face—featuring a perpetually creased forehead—remains buried in his newspaper for most of the series. In the next frame, the man has put out his noxious pipe, but stands in front of a car trailing more pollutants than his pipe produced. A frame later, mouth agape in alarm at something he’s read, he stands in front of a semi truck spewing diesel fumes. Next, he gazes in concern at some smokestacks belching smoke, followed by a frame in which he smells the methane being released by gaseous bovines. Then, face buried again in the paper, he walks beneath a ferociously frowning sun. In the seventh frame, he looks up from his paper to see a family of forlorn penguins carrying suitcases. In the eighth frame, the man, apparently unaware of the danger, is about to be inundated by a giant wave, and in the ninth, he’s waist-deep in water and being doused by rain. Next, he’s floating in some sort of trash-infested seascape, but in this frame, he has an idea (cue lightbulb): in the penultimate frame, we see his idea brought to fruition as he dons a propeller-topped beanie, and in the final frame, he sits happily atop a cloud, still engrossed in his paper.
While the May 10 cover is satirical and hilarious, the May 17 cover conveys to me a sense of pathos as well as humor, perhaps because I can relate to the pathetic cartoon man. I often feel as though my head is buried in newspapers filled with dire warnings and gloomy prognoses, and that when I look up from the news, I find some other previously unconsidered climate threat staring me in the face. Swarte's cover mocks not only our misdirected attention, climate concerns and inertia, but also the fact that a propellor-powered beanie seems as good an idea as any we have, at the moment.
Nevertheless, it’s encouraging that climate issues have become so topical that two consecutive New Yorker covers have featured cartoons addressing the topic. And I love that I get to work for cleantech companies trying to figure out how to address the issues, despite the fact that sometimes, I'd like a beanie with a propellor, too.
Tags: cleantech, Climate bill, climate change, climate+bill, climate+change, energy, renewable+energy
By Alison Mickey on May 17, 2010 7:43 PM
Permalink |
Comments (0)
TrackBacks (0)
Copy of Climate Bill Available for Download: Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act
The full, 821-page Climate Bill, aka the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, is available here.
Kerry's synopsis, focusing on green collar jobs, national security and the broader economy is here.
We'll have some thoughts on the bill as a whole, including the public relations, public affairs and funding implications for Cleantech Companies soon.
My apologies to the Senior Senator from Massachusetts as the title and focus are better than I expected in terms of targeting economic and national security audiences. That said, I think that legislative communications teams could do a better job of branding bills in advance of their release with more context for the media.
Tags: american+power+act, clean+energy+jobs, cleantech+financing, cleantech+government+relations, cleantech+public+affairs, cleantech+public+relations, climate+bill
By Jason Morris on May 12, 2010 1:51 PM
Permalink |
Comments (0)
TrackBacks (0)
Climate Bill Summary: The American Power Act of 2010
The Hill has a Climate Bill summary document this morning that was circulated among staffers which gives a bit more detail on exact provisions in the final bill. While it is light on details and specifics, it does outline some key initiatives that will no doubt have the Cleantech media, public relations and public affairs waorlds buzzing all day.
Some highlights:
- 95.25% of 2005 emission levels by 2013
- 83% by 2020
- 58% by 2030
- 17% by 2050
Tags: american+power+act, cleantech+government+relations, cleantech+public+affairs, cleantech+public+relations, climate+bill, ghg+emissions
By Jason Morris on May 12, 2010 12:42 PM
Permalink |
Comments (0)
TrackBacks (0)
