eBay has decided to enter the microfinance business with MicroPlace. To my knowledge it is only the second webpage directed to individuals who want to give microloans to entrepreneurs in developing countries - the first being the much-hyped kiva.org, which I whole-heartedly recommend (the first of my so far three loans is soon paid back, and I look forward to investing it again). However, there are differences between the two, and it might be a good idea for any prospective borrowers to have a look at this comparison, for example, before deciding.

Greenlandic broccoli.

One of my favourite magazines, Foreign Policy, has a couple of exclusives on their website while the next issue is sent to the printers. If you are interested in cars (which I'm not, but I appreciate their ability to take me from one place to the next, preferably without too much pollution) then have a look at the models of the future. Lots of ideas, but very few are realised in the end.

Ted Turner, the founder of CNN, also speaks his mind to Foreign Policy. A strange concoction of opinions it would seem: first he claims that the UN should step into the fight against global warming with greater gusto, and next he feels that he can't influence politics as much as he would like to. Sure, leaving decision making to the Secretary General will really enhance decentralised decision-making... Anyway, he wants to make money preventing global warming, and who can argue with that?

Här lite intressant läsning.

http://di.se/Nyheter/?page=/Avdelningar/Artikel.aspx%3FArticleId%3D2007%5C10%5C23%5C253873

Kolla också in andra intressanta artiklar på Dagens Industris reportageserie om klimat.

www.di.se/klimat

Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace prize 2007. Mr Gore is a case in point when it comes to blessings in disguise. Lose some, win some?

Elsewhere, specifically in Potsdam this week, 15 other Nobel laureates convened to discuss global warming.

Finnish Business & Society 2/2007 interviews Hanken's very own Johanna Mattila (among others) re: business and climate change.

There's a special on nuclear power in the latest issue of the Economist. There's an interview with the environment activist Stewart Brand who nowadays advocates nuclear power as the only real option. Also, an explaination of how modern nuclear plants work, and a special on the States' newfound entusiasm for fission. Appearently, no plants have been built for decades, but suddenly 30 or so are planned. The reasons are to be found in the green movement who has waken up to realities, but also in the fact that modern nuclear plants are far safer, cheaper and efficient than the old ones. Good news it would seem, as long as we remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

Chevron, the oil-cum-energy company, is anxious about being seen as responsible. Have a peek at their online game, where you plan the energy supply in a city and see what consequences your choices have.

Anita Roddick, activist, entrepreneur and the founder of the Body Shop, passed away yesterday of a brain haemorrhage at the age of 64. Thoughts go out to her family.

For those looking for a radical, or at least slightly titillating, solution to some of the world's misery - pick up the latest issue of Foreign Policy. The article I'm referring to is the cover story, "Legalize It", where Ethan Nadelmann, director of Drug Policy Alliance, gives his view on the so called War on Drugs. Now, legalization of drugs is hardly a new initiative, but as a believer in free trade in all its connotations I'm happy to see the issue discussed in a respected magazine for once. Nadelmann's points are the basic ones: the "war" can't be won, the demand can't be reduced, prohibition is mostly based on prejudices.

I only wish he would stress the supply/price side more clearly, ie when the US cracks down on, say, opium production in Afghanistan the risk for the farmers increases, which means the prices will go up. Then even more shady types will enter the market with a fresh army of Kalashnikov-toting ragamuffins behind them, and violence in the industry will increase. Then the US feels the need for some more crop killing, and there we go again. For the US to simply buy all the opium i Afghanistan and burn it (which is sometimes proposed, and would be less costly than the current war on drugs in the country) is probably not a good idea either, as Afghanistan produces 90 % of all the opium in the world. Talk about a giant supply deficit!

No, a well regulated legalization seems to be the answer if we at all care about the people of the developing countries. As Nedelmann writes: "The global war on drugs persists in part because so many people fail to distinguish between the harms of drug abuse and the harms of prohibition. (...) Governments can arrest and kill drug lord after drug lord, but the ultimate solution is a structural one, not a prosecutoral one."

Filmen som visas på terminens första filmkväll är The Corporation, en psykologisk granskning av företag som om de vore människor. Utgångspunkten är att företaget i sin blinda strävan att göra vinst mest liknar en psykopat, och precis som när det gäller mänskliga psykopater är ju då frågan huruvida man kan kräva av en sådan person att göra gott. Domstolar brukar i alla fall se psykisk sjukdom som en förmildrande omständighet. CSR må vara fint på pappret, men om det bara används för att öka företagets vinst kan man helt enkelt se det som en metod för psykopaten att nå sitt mål.

Nu på tisdag kl 18 på Casa alltså. Låt inte det faktum att Noam Chomsky dyker upp som talking head i filmen hindra er från att vara med om en intressant visning i sällskap med likasinnade. :-)

Bill Clinton håller ångan uppe. Förutom att vara en försvarlig del av hustrun Hillarys "two for one"-kampanj så har han tydligen ägnat kvällarna i hobbyrummet åt att skriva ned sina tankar om filantropi. Här är åtminstone en recension. Håll med om att undertiteln är smörig.

Mannen som dragit över flera kvinnor under sitt gifta liv än de republikanska presidentkandidaterna tillsammans (inte speciellt monogama killar med tanke på sina kristna övertygelser) är sannerligen inte den första och knappast den sista i att haka på den senaste filantropitrenden. Sedan Warren Buffett lämpade över 30 miljarder dollar i Bill Gates händer och sade "gör det bästa du kan av det" är det många som vill ge sina two cents om filantropins roll i världen, och framför allt hur filantropi bäst ska bedrivas. Ett sätt som kanske inte är det första man tänker på att dela ut pengar som priser till företagsamma personer, eftersom företagsamhet, som vi alla vet, är lösningen på fattigdomen i världen.

För att nu ta glorian av det hela måste ju också tilläggas att egentligen är vi givmilda av precis samma orsak som när vi köper bling bling åt oss själva. Men så länge resultatet är gott får det väl anses vara okej.

Mycket riktigt börjar säsongen igen. Den 11 september, en tisdag, ordnas den första filmkvällen i samarbete med kursen Corporate Sustainability på Hanken. Visningsplats är Casa kl 18, men vilken film som visas är ännu inte bestämt. Det ska kursdeltagarna rösta om, och på torsdag borde resultatet ha uppenbarat sig.

50.000 träd per år slipper malas ned till pappersmassa när flygbolagens samarbetsorganisation IATA slutar använda pappersbiljetter 2008.

A new semester is about to begin, new Net Impact members are joining the Hanken chapter, and a new season of CSR courses is starting. Sounds good.

Wishing everyone a good and sunny first week of September.

The Times discusses green consumption in an article titled "Buying Into the Green Movement."

Sorry about the break! It's summer again... Happy last weekend of June, everyone.

Helsingin Sanomat reports of US electronics retailer Circuit City and their novel layoff strategy. The corporation laid off 8% of their higher/highest paid workers in March, telling them that they could reapply for their old jobs at a lower wage.

"This strategy strikes me as being quite cold," said Bernard Baumohl, executive director of The Economic Outlook Group. "I don't think it's in the best interest of Circuit City as a whole." (Yahoo! News, March 28, 2007)

"Available for a limited time only"... New York Times Magazine's special issue on ecological building design and living.

"Cleaning Up"

“Corporate social responsibility” often means leveraging the concern (or guilt) of the affluent on behalf of those less fortunate: Sell to first-world consumers and redistribute some of the profits to address third-world problems. But a case has been made for a different strategy that involves selling to the poor themselves. In a speech last month, for instance, Harish Manwani, the chairman of Hindustan Lever Limited, pointed to his firm’s marketing Lifebuoy soap to India’s sprawling underclass as an example of its efforts to bring “social responsibility to the heart of our business.”

Hindustan Lever is a subsidiary of Unilever, the packaged-goods giant (it owns brands including Dove and Ben & Jerry’s) that was formed in 1929 by the merger of the British soap maker Lever Brothers and the Dutch food company Margarine Unie. Global brands seem like a recent phenomenon, but Lever was already operating around the world when Lifebuoy entered the Indian market more than a hundred years ago. Another thing that existed a hundred years ago and is still around today is a large number of preventable deaths.

In his speech, Manwani focused on deaths caused by diarrhea-related diseases (the World Health Organization estimates such illnesses kill 1.8 million people a year) and noted that better hand-washing habits — using soap — is one way to prevent their spread. For several years, the World Bank has been involved in initiatives with multinationals, including Unilever, to address the issue.

Hindustan Lever’s Lifebuoy campaign, however, is not philanthropy; it’s business. Throughout its long life, the antibacterial soap has been positioned as a health-and-wellness product: a 1902 ad in Harper’s promised “this wonderful cleanser and purifier” was “the enemy of dirt and disease.” That “core proposition” remains, says Punit Misra, the marketing manager who oversees Lifebuoy and other skin-cleansing brands for Hindustan Lever. Perhaps the most significant change to the product itself in recent years has been the introduction of smaller, and thus cheaper, bars: a half-size, 50-gram bar, for five rupees (about two ounces, for roughly 12 cents), was introduced in the early 1990s. (The small-package approach is now used by many companies in developing markets.) More recently, the packaging was made “more contemporary” by replacing the “strapping young man” on the package with an image of a couple and their children, Misra says.

And five years ago, the company introduced a campaign called Swasthya Chetna or “Glowing Health,” which, boiled down, argues that even clean-looking hands may carry dangerous germs, so use more soap. It began a concentrated effort to take this message into the tens of thousands of villages where the rural poor reside, often with little access to media. “Lifebuoy teams visit each village several times,” Manwani said in his speech, using “a glo-germ kit to show schoolchildren” that soap-washed hands are cleaner. Manwani says this program has reached “around 80 million rural folk” and added that “sales of Lifebuoy have risen sharply.” The small bar has become the brand’s top seller.

C. K. Prahalad, a University of Michigan professor (and Hindustan Lever board member), uses the India Lifebuoy story as a case study in his 2004 book “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid,” which argues that the profit motive can be a powerful force in addressing global poverty issues. Building a campaign around a well-known product like Lifebuoy can be effective precisely because even the world’s poorest citizens can be “brand conscious.” (Hindustan Lever’s Misra agrees, saying that such consumers will stick with a brand they trust, because “money means that much more to them.”)

Still, is this really the right place for the profit motive? Hindustan Lever’s position is that profitable responsibility is the point. “If it’s not really self-sustaining,” Misra says, “somewhere along the line it will drop off.” Prahalad makes similar points. “The question that comes up all the time is: These companies are pushing consumption, but what we need is livelihood improvement,” he told me in an interview. But preventing illness also means a family might avoid a potentially devastating loss of several days’ work. And ultimately, he says, campaigns like Lifebuoy’s Swasthya Chetna should be evaluated not ideologically but by their impact on the global poor. “The alternative,” he said, “is needless death.”

(The New York Times, June 10, 2007)

More Moore

Shopacalypse

Reverend Billy is the founder of the Church of Stop Shopping that preaches against "mindless consumerism." An article and a video about Rev. Billy from a recent episode of the Today Show is here. Billy is a performance artist who has staged corporate "exorcisms" on location at stores like Victoria's Secret and Starbucks.

Earlier this year, Morgan Spurlock of Super Size Me fame produced a documentary about Reverend Billy; the film is called "What Would Jesus Buy?" Apparently the movie will come out in December this year. An interview with Mr Spurlock about WWJB can be found here. A quote from the Spurlock interview:

For the past two years I haven’t bought anyone in my family Christmas presents and I haven’t asked them to get me anything either. I’ve said, “I don’t need anything, I love you guys and the most important thing is for me to get to see you and spend time with you.” So we’ve been planning family vacations. Let’s spend our money on something that we will all enjoy, and be together. That’s what I encourage everyone to do. That’s the most valuable thing you can do-spend time together to talk and communicate and connect. We don’t connect with people at all anymore. How many times do you just send an email to somebody without getting on the phone or send a text message? It’s the world we live in. We continue to get further and further away from real human contact. Especially for people that we love and care about, we can’t let that happen. So for me, that’s the one thing that I’ve really tried to do since meeting Billy.

Somewhere along the line we bought into this whole idea that if you don’t buy a lot of stuff or if you don’t buy a lot of things then you are cheap and you don’t love someone or that they are not as valuable. I think we need to remold that.

From CSR Wire:

Nike Sets Business Targets To Achieve Ambitious Corporate Responsibility Goals

Company more deeply integrates corporate responsibility into long-term growth and innovation business strategies

(CSRwire) BEAVERTON, OR - May 31, 2007 - With the release of its fiscal 2005 and 2006 Corporate Responsibility Report today, NIKE, Inc. announces a series of business targets for 2011 that more deeply integrate corporate responsibility goals into the company's long-term growth and innovation business strategies. The targets set benchmarks to improve labor conditions in contract factories, create a climate neutral company, drive sustainable product design and innovation, and unleash potential by giving youth greater access to the benefits of sport."We see corporate responsibility as a catalyst for growth and innovation" said Mark Parker, Nike, Inc.'s President and CEO. "It is an integral part of how we can use the power of our brand, the energy and passion of our people, and the scale of our business to create meaningful change." The corporate responsibility business targets set by Nike include:

Improve labor conditions by eliminating excessive overtime in Nike brand contract factories by 2011. Excessive overtime is one of the most serious ongoing labor compliance issues the company and the industry face. Nike's priority continues to be improving conditions for the almost 800,000 contract factory workers who make the company's products.

Make all Nike brand facilities, retail and business travel climate neutral by 2011. Nike has exceeded its reduction targets for CO2 emissions over the last two years through the World Wildlife Fund's Climate Savers program. The company also eliminated fluorinated gases (F-gases) across all Nike brand products following 14 years of research and development in the company’s Nike Air cushioning system.

Design all Nike brand footwear (more than 225 million pairs per year) to meet baseline targets by 2011 for waste reduction in product design and packaging, elimination of volatile organic compounds and increased use of environmentally preferred materials. All Nike brand apparel is targeted to meet baseline standards by 2015, and equipment by 2020. Nike is designing sustainable innovation solutions into its products that the company anticipates will create benefits throughout its supply chain and support achievement of its targets.

Invest in community-based initiatives that use the power of sport to unleash potential and improve the lives of youth. Over the past two years, Nike has invested $100 million in community-based sport initiatives. The company is targeting a minimum investment of $315 million through 2011.In addition to setting business targets, Nike continues its commitment to supply chain transparency by updating public disclosure of the more than 700 contract factories worldwide producing Nike product.

In 2005, Nike was the first company in its industry to disclose its factory base to encourage industry transparency and collaboration. For the first time, Nike also has posted on nikeresponsibility.com the company's contract factory auditing tools. The tools help to provide further transparency and insight into how the company evaluates and monitors its contract factories for compliance with company standards.

Well, what do you think? Ambitions and interesting - or overly positive greenwashing? I have to admit that I am impressed by Nike's committment to sustainability, who had guessed? I guess this counts to the the positives of a strong global brand - you can not afford another sweatshop / environmental scandal... a ruined reputation would cost too much. But... would this pressure count for private labels?

New York Times on "Design That Solves Problems for the World's Poor."

British adventurer Lewis Gordon Pugh is campaigning for climate change solutions and against growing CO2 emissions by attempting to be the first person to swim in the North Pole.

On July 15, Mr Pugh plans to swim a 1 km stretch in the -1.8C polar water wearing only goggles, a swimcap and speedos. This has never been done before, because the water used to remain frozen throughout the year.

More on the thrill seeking and obviously warm-blooded Mr Pugh here.

Michael Moore and Blogger's Confessions (Usher Style)

Michael Moore's new movie "Sicko" about the American healthcare industry premieres in Europe in the fall. If you're traveling to the US this summer, you could to catch it as early as June 29.

Here's another story about Moore you might not have heard.

Now...

"These are my confessions
Just when I thought I said all I could say
My resume shows I got to get /
one more thing out of the way


Even though this blog may occasionally make me as a blogger sound green, social justice oriented etc., that's really not the whole picture. My history includes a stint in a New York investment banking team that did deals with managed care organizations, the same firms and CEOs that Moore attacks in "Sicko." Honestly, I have to be the one of the only Net Impact members in the universe that gets totally worked up while reading about Darfur or watching a movie about Edith Piaf who's also worked for a company providing military avionics and another that pitches managed care mergers. Talk about a split personality. There are no other major skeletons in the closet, though.

Okay, fine. There were those board memberships at Talisman Energy, Halliburton, and TJ Group.

In a sense, the reason these issues get me so fired up is having been there and seen some of this stuff up close. Many guys did not leave the office on 9/11 even despite bomb alerts at Grand Central because "defense companies are going to be on fire, man." (...? - Honey, look at me. I have ovaries. And a womb. And I'm wearing a skirt. I know that's rare here unless you're a secretary, but do I look like a man?)

Senior managers talked passionately about raw material prices, life insurance trends and yield curves without mentioning the dead in the city. There was callousness on a level I'd never seen before. It changed my life. As far as managed care goes, even not having seen more than a trailer for "Sicko", it's pretty clear to me Moore is doing the right thing and chosen to raise awareness about an urgent issue. Mr Moore may get a lot of criticism, but looking at it from both sides of the fence, I absolutely know which side I'm on and strongly believe Mr Moore is on the side of the people for whom the healthcare industry exists in the first place: patients, not shareholders.

This was one of the deals done by the group that employed me. (It's old news now in fast-changing managed care. Trigon was bought by WellPoint.) Now, I could say I had no idea what I was getting into (that would be true), I could claim I was assigned to that group (sort of not true, I had befriended a colleague who I still keep in touch with), I could say that I had no choice (yeah, right), but I guess I can't. For a time, I wanted to see Wall Street. Also, I'm from Finland. Most Finns have no idea what American healthcare insurers do or how the system works. "Keeping administrative costs down and keeping health plans competitive" sounded good to me. Besides, my employer's health insurer wasn't hurting me in any way, so there were no negative personal experiences whatsoever. In fact, the bank even paid for everyone's Lasik surgery, worth (if memory serves correctly) about $12,000 each. (When the market melted, they stopped this practice though.) Anyway, at the time the bank had probably the best combination of healthcare plans any company anywhere could ever have. I, for one, am still thankful. Thanks to the bank's private health plan, I have 20/20 vision again.

The job was no picnic, though, but that's a subject of a whole different confession (Usher didn't do Pt. 3, I just might.) I left New York and soon after befriended a New York ER doctor on my travels. We kept in touch. He told stories about people whose only healthcare providers were the emergency medicine doctors and nurses. It was interesting to start reading up on things. We talked about medical malpractice insurance (I had participated in a pitch for a nearly bankrupt med-mal business) and how a lot of doctors could no longer afford to practise because their insurance costs against potential lawsuits were prohibitively high - in the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. There were over 40 million uninsured Americans. Doctors were being squeezed and bullied by insurers and outrageous litigation. Patients were being denied payments by insurance companies. It was quite incredible; as a Scandinavian, you easily take universal healthcare for granted. I began to realize that for the little while that I had spent as part of the American workforce, I had been part of an exclusive group of elite workers and as such, I had received elite benefits. Had I continued, I never would've seen anything different (of course assuming I would've kept ploughing ahead on that same road.) I would've thought everything was just fine.

And then it hit me: why did the financiers orchestrating healthcare mergers never talk about doctors, nurses or patients? Not once. It was as if we operated in a wholly separate universe.

The only answer that seemed in any way credible was that it really didn't matter to us. Nobody even pretended to care. Managed care corporate finance was a business where deals were done one step removed from the CEO who talks to lower level executives who talk to the claims experts who talk to doctors and patients and maximize corporate profit by denying treatments and reimbursements.

Now, there are certainly many things I want to do in life - besides getting a dog. For much of it, money is necessary. Heck, I wouldn't mind vacationing on Mustique one day. But if I don't, I don't really care. And my bottom line is that I sure as hell am not willing to get there by profiting from humanitarians or other people's suffering.

Of course, my former colleagues might laugh at this. I will never forget going to work one mid-week morning from the church. Now, I'm not religious, but sometime in my second year I started volunteering at a Park Avenue church homeless breakfast on my way to work. I didn't tell anyone at the office, I just went. So I got to work that one morning, and my colleagues were just hanging out, laughing. One joked to another, "Buddy, go feed the homeless or something."

I'd like to say this was the turning point that made me resign and change course. Not really. I left the city I love most in the world, but I still went back into finance for a while, unsure of what I wanted to do. Instead of Che Guevara badges and hemp clothing, I still wore heels and the damn pantyhose. I did a bunch of other things. But then I started working at a hospital.

And come to think of it, Che was a med student :) ...

Can't wait to see this movie.

Trailer:

Clip from the film:

Interview:

Organic Food / Corporate Ownership

Cornucopia Institute, an organic food thinktank, links to a chart of corporate ownership of major (American) organic food producers. Some of these brands (Celestial Seasonings, Rice Dream, Ben & Jerry's, Kellogg's) are also available in Finland; you'll get a nice view of who owns what in this growing industry.

• Industry structure in 2002
• Industry structure in 2006
  

The trend towards consolidation is quite clear.

The chart is developed by Dr Phil Howard, a professor at Michigan State University.

Cornucopia Institute's blog is here.

Executive pay continues to grow.

A great article about Interface, the US carpet maker also featured in the film The Corporation, and its CEO Ray Anderson.

Look for the video feature for an interview with Anderson. The company e.g. recycles nylon thread, cardboard boxes, and carpet scraps, and powers production with methane from a local landfill.

Fundera också på vilken fisk ni äter...!

Överfiske i haven är tyvärr ett stort problem. Världsnaturfonden (WWF) har uppdaterat sin lista på fiskarter som man inte skall köpa p.g.a av att de är överfiskade eller hotade och därför håller på att försvinna ur haven.

Därför skall man helst inte köpa följande fiskarter:
- rödspätta
- svärdfisk
- torsk
- vildlax
- ål
- hälleflundra
- blåfenad tonfisk
- tropiska räkor
- marulk
- tunga

Kolla också senaste National Geographic som har en bra artikel om fiske och fiskbestånd som cover story.

Kolla vad för trädslag möbler, golv m.m är gjorda av som ni köper!

Här ett exempel på vad man t.ex. inte skall köpa:

Det tropiska trädet merbau, eller kwila, kan försvinna helt som ett resultat av en ökad efterfrågan på lyxig heminredning i ädelträ. Det visar ”Merbau´s last stand”en ny Greenpeace-rapport. Rapporten visar att en stor andel av merbauprodukterna och timret från trädslaget merbau, som importeras till Kina för att sedan bli lyxiga golv och möbler, kommer från illegala avverkningar, skriver Greenpeace och hävdar att timret ofta smugglas "helt utanför myndigheternas kontroll".

Enligt den internationella naturvårdsunionen IUCN är risken för att merbauträdet utrotas mycket hög. Trots detta har merbau inte införts i det folkrättsliga CITES-avtalet, som reglerar den internationella handeln med utrotningshotade arter, skriver Greenpeace. Nya kartor publicerade av Greenpeace visar att 83 procent av de skogar där merbau fortfarande finns, kommer att stryka med på grund av avverkningstillstånd som har beviljats i området.

EU är också en viktig exportmarknad för merbau. Flera svenska företag importerar, enligt Greenpeace, merbau och merbauprodukter. - Efter att vi granskat den svenska trävarubranschen står det helt klart att den har väldigt svårt att själv se till att de tropiska träslag som används kommer från en hållbar och laglig källa. Därför måste nu regeringen sluta motarbeta EU-lagstiftning mot import av illegalt avverkat virke, säger Dima Litvinov, ansvarig för skogsfrågor på Greenpeace.

Once more about Zimbabwe. So here's how the election process to chair the Committee on Sustainable Development actually works. The election was a secret ballot, and member states voted in blocks. According to the Guardian, the African states as well as other developing countries voted in favor of Zimbabwe 26 to 21 with three abstentions.

The Guardian writes, "Nhema, as a member of President Robert Mugabe's government, is the subject of an EU travel ban, meaning he cannot travel to Europe to meet ministers on commission business. Nhema responded by saying Western nations had the 'right to their opinions'. 'At the end of the day the majority rules as democracy does,' he said."

Oh, Zimbabwe - and Zimbabwean democracy.

---

Speaking of democracy... (I don't know how to bridge this, but...) here is a killer YouTube clip from a few years back, where Emmy-winning comedian Jon Stewart goes on CNN to talk about democracy, politics and the media (this segment was aired in fall 2004). It is almost fifteen minutes long, but you might enjoy it. For those of who that don't know Jon Stewart, he's like the equivalent Peter Nyman. (For an explanation of "spin alley", click here.)

This news week offers a nauseating main course. I'm going to have to start selectively targeting more positive news going forward, because this isn't working. It's not the news, it's me.

Well, in this case though, that's not true. It is the news.

Zimbabwe may become the chair of the UN committee on sustainable development.

Oh, Zimbabwe. The country with a 976.4% official inflation rate (as of 2006), 80% unemployment rate, 80% poverty rate, -4.4% GDP growth rate. Oh, Zimbabwe: transit point for cannabis, South Asian heroin, mandrax and metamphetamines. (That's from the CIA.) Oh, Zimbabwe: source, transit and destination country for women and children trafficked for forced labor and sexual slavery. Zimbabwe: where pimping is safer than politics.

Who cares about a UN committee, really? It is probably not going to be hugely important as far as practical global changes are concerned. But sustainable development? Did I miss something? Either this is some kind of a joke, or else it is a backhanded scheme to reign in on Robert Mugabe by doing this? That would seem like the only reasonable explanation for this, because otherwise this borders on the surreal.

Sadly, however, this kind of association with a dictatorial regime tarnishes not just the reputation of the United Nations, but the reputation of the entire concept of sustainable development. It is not right to misappropriate a concept and associate it with a place that is an antithesis of it. I really, really hope Zimbabwe doesn't actually get elected.

Maybe this is supposed to serve as a warning. Or, as another blogger said, given the economic collapse, at least Zimbabwe's "carbon footprint is admirable."

POSITIVE blog entries next week. I promise.

This semester we were asked by a finance instructor for tips on how to increase the number of women in her finance classes. She said that there is not a single woman in her class; all her finance MBAs are men.

Ethics is elemental (although this has nothing to do with gender.) Finance is often - and this is my personal opinion - taught in ways that purport it is value neutral; the quantitative aspect of it further reinforces this. The work is somewhat presented as pure and practical and free of ethical debates, when in fact so much of what gets done is none of those things. The systems thinking aspect of it is lost in the compartmentalization. Perhaps it is a grave oversimplification, but for some people being involved in, say, a defense deal, is going to feel like they're also indirectly involved in weapons production and its end results. Life isn't always simple, but if I invest in this, I'm going to feel like I'm profiting from this. If you didn't pitch that weapons manufacturer financing - if nobody pitched that deal - where would the resources come to expand production in that segment of the economy?

If you don't water the seeds, they won't grow into trees. And finance courses, in my (limited) experience, don't prepare you to tackle the ethics side of things. What do you do if you are assigned to a group that deals with the producer of WMDs? Many, many women and men alike find even the prospect of such a scenario extremely troublesome. I'll be the first to argue that to do so - to raise the issue of whether, say, financing a certain project or company is ethical - is still more often than not considered naive or self aggrandizing. Someone once accused me of having a big ego (and he may well be right, but it was nonetheless an accusation hard to refute without fueling the fire), when he praised Michael Milken in an introductory CoFi class, and I raised my hand to point out Mr Milken was in prison for insider trading. Likewise, back when it was still legal, I was wondering why banks were taking research analysts to pitches and roadshows. These are (or were) not, some argue, strictly speaking "finance" issues. But they deal with the foundations, the building blocks, the ethos of the field. If legal professionals or healthcare workers were accused of corruption, malpractice, and failure to follow their professional oath, we'd say something - and people do. So why can some other professionals hide under the guise of numbers and the detached middlemannish nature of the business?

What we do and how we do it matters, and it has consequences. You cannot throw a rock in the water and expect no ripples. But as a finance student you are rarely taught or encouraged to approach the value judgments you might have to make in the field of finance, when hundreds of millions of dollars or euros literally start to seem like peanuts and when a deal is supposed to be just a deal, no questions asked. I argue that finance students still aren't taught to engage eloquently and reasonably with the qualitative or ethical side of the subject, and when you think about it, you're sort of lost.

There are sustainable investment ventures, which is great. There are sustainability indexes, which is great too. This blog entry doesn't concern those; it concerns the mainstream aspects of the business, and why someone might be turned off. Many women as well as men are, I believe, turned off from the field of finance, because they sense the arrogance and the detachment from the rest of society. For an industry that sells the tenets of efficiency and change, there are many examples that suggest Wall Street professionals themselves are hardly welcoming of it.

You can't play fair, if people egregiously bend the rules decade after decade and get away with it. I'm not talking about bending the rules a little bit or cutting the corners a little bit. I'm talking about outright misconduct that appears to be obvious to anyone but the offender, who is like the emperor walking naked down Main Street, insisting his subjects compliment his attire. You can't instill the fairness mindset, if individuals who should set the standards abuse the system to their advantage. I have never understood why white collars and years of education make misconduct less reprehensible. You would think people with a higher education are better equipped to tell the difference between right and wrong, reasonable and unreasonable, acceptable and unacceptable. In answering the question, "how would we graduate more female finance MBAs", I would say, these issues must be addressed. How do you address them, especially if most people on the street think there's no problem? I have no idea. This is an issue that polarizes people, compartmentalizes them by class and gender, and easily alienates men from women even further. There's a huge issue there. It's not only about making the business woman friendly; it's about making it fair and ethical and transparent and open minded.

At the grocery store a half hour ago, the line was long enough for me to pull out the Wall Street Journal. On page 24 appeared a familiar face. It was Richard Grasso. Four years ago (now former) New York Stock Exchange chairman Dick Grasso received the highest pay package ever given to the head of a non-profit organization: 187.5 million dollars, consisting of a $139.5 million lump sum and a $48 million guarantee over the next four years.

At the time when the Grasso case kept making the headlines, I was working in finance and had a very amicable and just boss, who sort of agreed with me - nobody, we genuinely felt, especially not the head of a non-profit organization, was worth $187.5 million. It wasn't just that we felt that Grasso's pay package seemed unreasonable. New York's not-for-profit corporation law explicitly states that officers only be paid a compensation that is "reasonable." Does $187.5 million sound reasonable? Not to me, and New York then-attorney general Eliot Spitzer didn't think so either; he sued Grasso. At that time, even though I'm not big on ultimatums, I half vowed to myself that if the courts ruled in Grasso's favor, I would never ever work in business again. It was almost too easy a vow to make, because I never thought the state would lose the case.

But in the world of high finance, apparently things are not that simple. Today, the WSJ and the NYT report that Mr Grasso has just won a key round in a ruling over his pay: the appellate court ruled that the AG "does not have to authority" to bring major parts of its case against Mr Grasso. Consequently, Dick Grasso may be able to keep the money after all. One hundred, eighty-seven and a half million dollars. Grasso has also sued the NYSE for another extra $50 million in compensation and for damages due to defamation after his departure from the NYSE in 2003. Might this have something to do with his legal fees, which some say have exceeded 100 million dollars?

"This lawsuit from my point is about honor", Mr Grasso said in January.

Now, I don't know how Dick Grasso defines honor, but some of us are not yet jaded enough not to find the Grasso case outrageous.

Not-for-profit corporate law states that officer pay should be "commensurate with services performed." Lumping all of Mr Grasso's compensation together and considering it his 2003 salary, consider that the average annual pay of, say, a family doctor in the US is $152,249. Nurses earn about $55,000 a year. Thus, Mr Grasso's pay implies that he is valued at the equivalent of 1,231 doctors or 3,409 nurses. Mr Grasso didn't diagnose cancer. Mr Grasso didn't perform dialysis or assist in heart surgery. Extending this further, Mr Grasso didn't found a company. He didn't even run a company. He didn't inherit a family business. He didn't invent a thing, anything. He was the head of a non-profit securities trading platform, bound by a law meant to limit pay to what is reasonable and commensurate with services performed.

The world is warming. 3,381 American military personnel have been killed in Iraq. 46.6 million Americans don't have health insurance. About 60 percent of 16-25 year-old Americans are functionally illiterate. And some guy can get paid a couple hundred million dollars for sitting in the office and taking clients to Le Bernardin.

I'm not sure what I'm advocating here, but people should really just do something, anything - perhaps start by switching off their television sets and participating in public discourse, because this isn't right. It's wrong on so many levels.

Who Owns Yoga?

Indians have begun a process of copyrighting traditional medicines and physical exercise in an effort to curb corporate efforts to claim title to yoga postures and other Indian traditions. Who owns yoga?

One of the owners mentioned in this article: Bikram Choudhury Yoga, Inc. More on Bikram and its legal battles here.

What about churches? According to this article, nearly all of American churches have incorporated as state (tax-exempt) corporations.

Faith and corporations make for a strange mix.

At some point in the near future, maybe I will take some time to write possible counter arguments to some popular tenets against taking individual measures towards sustainability and (corporate) responsibility. Some of them are more serious than others; some are a bit on the informal side, but maybe you recognize a few. (For what it's worth, by writing these up I don't mean to make fun of anyone or be antagonistic. Some of these are merely arguments I've heard over the years.)

• "That's nice, but I won't do it."
• "That's nice, but do you realize that what you do won't make any real difference in the world?"
• "Let me make it clear: I don't like it when someone tries to control how I spend my money and what I do."
• "You're not being realistic."
  
• "I want [fill in the blank]. I deserve it. I've worked hard for it, and I don't want anyone to come and tell me 'That's wrong.' How come it was right for [fill in the blank] to go ahead and do it ten years ago and now all of a sudden it's all wrong and unethical and whatever?"
• "I like to buy stuff. I'm not going to stop."
  
• "The world is going to ---- anyway, what's the use?"
• "I'm not interested. I don't care."
  
• "You're trying to make yourself feel better, but it doesn't make any real difference."
• "You're trying to make yourself feel better and make me feel worse, because I'm not doing this."
• "It's a fad. People who say these things sound like fundamentalists."
• "I don't believe in global warming. The ozone hole is not thinning anymore."
  
• "I don't like the Green Party. Some of them smoke pot."
  
• "It takes away from the bottom line, and we lose to competition."
  
• [Hmph.] "Just who do you think you are? (Huh?)"
• "Just enjoy life! Why are you that serious? It's just work."
• "Just relax. Better enjoy your life, because you only live once, and do you realize you'll be dead before you know it?"
  

Businesses Try to Make Money and Save the World

STEPHANIE STROM

Published: May 6, 2007

ALTRUSHARE SECURITIES is a brokerage firm, engaged in the sort of things you might expect of a Wall Street outfit, like buying and selling stock, and providing research on companies. Unlike its peers, however, the firm is majority-owned by two charities that each control about one-third of it.

So is it a for-profit business? Or a nonprofit fund-raising machine?

In fact, like hundreds of new businesses starting up around the country, it is both. Altrushare is an example of the emerging convergence of for-profit money-making and nonprofit mission.

The practice is even creeping into corporate bluebloods like General Electric, whose $12 billion Ecomagination business promotes its products’ minimal environmental impact as well as their positive impact on the bottom line.

“We’re a for-profit institutional brokerage, and we have to compete on execution and commissions and do so with the same technology and talent you would expect from a top-tier firm,” said Peter Drasher, a founder of Altrushare, which is based in Bridgeport, Conn. “What makes us different is our nonprofit ownership and our mission, which is to support struggling communities with our profits.”

(continue reading here.)

Globe Hope visit on 23 April -- some pictures from the trip!

The IPCC 4th assessment part 3 "Mitigation" is out; you can find it here.

The voices of the UN scientists have never been stronger. The Guardian writes that the UN scientists warn time is running out and there are eight years to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The Independent says that instead of panicking, people should act. The New York Times stays out of the prescriptive territory and notes that the climate panel has reached a consenses on the need to reduce harmful emissions.

Russia and Estonia

High time to reduce our oil dependency? After recent violent attacks in Tallinn and Moscow, Russia claims energy deliveries to Estonia may be cut due to "railroad repairs." HS reports.

Robert Greenwald's ("Walmart: The High Cost of Low Prices") earlier film "Outfoxed" about controversial American media outlet Fox News is available in full for viewing on Google Video.

The Guardian taps into the case of supermarkets and female workers.

Music Industry 102

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Prominent U.S. hip-hop executive Russell Simmons on Monday recommended eliminating the words "bitch," "ho" and "nigger" from the recording industry, considering them "extreme curse words."

"Our internal discussions with industry leaders are not about censorship. Our discussions are about the corporate social responsibility of the industry to voluntarily show respect to African Americans and other people of color, African American women and to all women in lyrics and images," the statement from Simmons and Chavis said on Monday.

Hard to Make a Stand?

This weekend's New York Times and other papers reported of an argument between White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove and rockstar Sheryl Crow. According to the Times, Ms Crow had approached Mr Rove at a social dinner to discuss global warming. Crow had touched Rove's arm to talk to him about climate change, and Rove had spat back ("Don't touch me"); the argument had escalated from there.

Karl Rove got very mad at Sheryl Crow this weekend, but was Mr Rove perhaps just envious of Ms Crow's stage presence?

Exhibit A: Here's Ms Crow performing Hard to Make a Stand in summer 2006.
We got loud guitars and big suspicions,
Great big guns and small ambitions,
And we still argue over who is God
And I say, "Hey there Miscreation,
Bring a flower, time is wasting"
"Hey there Miscreation,
We all need a celebration"
And it's hard to make a stand

Exhibit B: Mr Rove recently attended the Radio-Television Correspondents Association dinner. Mr Rove joined a group of comedians in rapping on stage.

That was truly terrible. But wait... Mr Rove's performance is strangely reminiscent of a few previous hair-raising moments in home video history. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer loved his company a few years ago, and he really out-of-breath loved it.

Ballmer is really, really frightening. But Karl Rove may also have been inspired by the Bank of America guys. We've seen this before, and it's almost too much to bear.

Now, I'm a non-native speaker, so when a White House spokesperson called Ms Crow's meeting with Karl Rove "Hollywood histrionics" I, for one, actually had to check the dictionary for "histrionics." It means "theatrical performance." Ms Crow's moment with Mr Rove was "a theatrical performance"? Compared to Mr Rove's look-I-can-laugh-at-myself rap? No comment. Men -- can anyone imagine a woman doing anything like Rove/Ballmer/BofA? Nope. No way. Never. If a woman does this, she won't be the President's right-hand woman or the CEO of the largest software company in the world. She's probably taken to - that's right, people - rehab.

Exhibit C: Britney Spears... Britney Spears went bald/ballistic/ballmer earlier this spring, and was admitted to a place called Promises.

Okay, so Sheryl Crow herself may be the first to admit it's hard to make a climate-saving stand at a White House Correspondents' Association dinner, but for what it's worth, in this video below, rocking with Mick Jagger, even Sheryl Crow's jeans make a greater political stand than Rove/Ballmer/BofA probably ever could ("we want to be rockstars" -- no, guys, but you have a lot in common in the silliness department!!!)

(This entry owes YouTube a huge debt of gratitude... Thank yous go out to all those YouTube posters out there posting these great clips...)

Earth Day

Google looks like this today. ->

Clicking on the image on www.google.com brings you here.

Pretty powerful, considering how many people will see that...

Signs of Spring

The Guardian also spots signs of spring in the English countryside.




Wanted to lighten people's day with these images. They were taken in the south of Finland, in Espoo, in the end of March -- early for crocuses in Finland? Thought they were very pretty.

An Astra Zeneca sales manager was fired after making some crass statements in a company newsletter. Mike Zubillaga was a regional manager for cancer drug sales.

The case became widely known after a former Pfizer sales representative Peter Rost copied the article into his blog.

Last fall several leading medical schools in the US began declining visits by pharmaceutical sales representatives.

The Independent's leading article today: "A global warning from the dustbowl of Australia."

The article states that "Australia is in the midst of a crippling drought, the worst on record", calling for urgent action to curb climate change.

Australia and the United States are the only industrialized nations that have not signed the Kyoto protocol.

Knowledge @t Wharton published a fascinating review of emotional contagion and managing emotions in the workplace, based on an article by Wharton professor Sigal Barsade.

Risto Pennanen writes about perception management and corporate responsibility in Taloussanomat today (Finnish only.) He argues that a corporation's day-to-day reality and its public image must correspond, lest the company experience brain drain and difficulties recruiting young talent.

Loyalty vs. Layoffs

I already have an offer for a summer job, but it entails getting up early and riding the metro to work. After the recent rape cases in and around the city, I'm really concerned about being outside alone at 6 am. So at the bank yesterday, I was quite happy when the teller began to recruit me on the spot. She was a lovely person, and she noticed from my information that I have some experience in the financial services sector.

Today I received a call from the HR manager at the bank.

"That's an interesting combination", she said about my study and work experience, "Perhaps it could lead you to X direction."

"Interesting" was most likely code for "I'm confused, where is this leading to?" But does it matter? You guys have a labor shortage, I can sell you hours, I'm not half bad, so it might just work.

When she asked me about my future plans, I candidly said there is no five-year plan (I stopped making them about five and half years ago when I literally saw with my own eyes how life can change in an instant.) It doesn't mean I'm not focused, it just means I'm less stressed out and much happier (that I didn't say.)

I also implied that ten years ago I used to have five-year plans, and I followed through meticulously. And let's say I do have some plans -- would I share something so personal with a human resources manager I have never actually sat down with? My five-year plan includes more than just work. (Hint: one of these days I swear I will get that dog!)

Presumably, it sounded as if she hoped to hear that I was really interested in building a career with this company and very excited about the opportunity. What I'm saying is, in my book that would sort of be akin to meeting someone on the subway and on the following day telling him I'm in love (and that, my friends, would make me a bit kooky -- and not just a little bit.)

Anyhow, when I hung up, it occurred to me that more often than not, it seems a candidate is expected to show an insincere degree of interest and loyalty from the get go ("I don't know who I'll be working with or what I'll be working on or where, but YES, I would LOVE to work for you!"), while knowing that many profitable businesses return neither their loyalty nor their affection, but lay people off without so much as an explanation.

No wonder many people are feeling sick of it. Geez, it's just work!

I swear, if they ask me where I see myself in five years, I will thank them for their time and go outside into the sunshine. And take that metro ride in the a.m.

Teaching sustainability in Business Schools?
This sounds too good, but it is from csrwire.com:

"Colleges and universities around the world are increasingly integrating CSR into their curricula and beyond.Academia is increasingly embracing corporate sustainability and responsibility.

This week, for example, Marlboro College Graduate Center in Brattleboro, Vermont announced the launching of a new, accredited MBA program in Managing for Sustainability. Marlboro tips its hat in acknowledging the influence of trailblazing sustainability-oriented MBA programs such as Bainbridge Graduate Institute in Washington, which topped a recent ranking of sustainable business programs by Net Impact, the global student organization promoting CSR.

And the campus greening trend is truly global, as a group of MBAs from Instituto de Empresa in Madrid recently earned the title of "Global Champions of Sustainable Innovation" from Thunderbird School of Global Management.

Traditional business schools are getting into the act as well. This week Harvard Business School announced its Second Annual Microfinance Leadership Program in collaboration with microfinance pioneer ACCION International.

Earlier this month, Harvard Business Review announced the McKinsey Award for the most significant article of 2006 went to Michael Porter and Mark Kramer's "Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility."

Across town, the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship launched a new magazine entitled The Corporate Citizen earlier this year, extending the center's longstanding contribution to CSR. Finally, academic institutions themselves recently received grades on the social and environmental responsibility of their campus programs and endowment investing from the Sustainable Endowments Institute in The College Sustainability Report Card.

...och glöm inte Net Impact excursionen till Globe Hope nästa måndag! Anmäl dig senast i morgon (19.4).

There is a lot of craziness going on and I haven't posted in days for NI, partly because I was working this past weekend and partly because of family commitments. First of all, thoughts go out to everyone at Virginia Tech.

New York is experiencing flooding this week, with a strong Nor'easter ravishing the state.

The Times' Thomas Friedman, the author of recent international non-fiction bestsellers, is now focusing on green energy. Friedman argues the US ought to take the lead in green business and politics.

My cousin alerted me to a Darfur campaign on Google Earth. It is not for the faint hearted. Download Google Earth and type in these coordinates for Darfur: latitude: 13° 0'23.97"N, longitude: 23°44'43.14"E.

Hej allihopa,

det var trevliga "Green Drinks" med Kauppis Sustainable Business Club i går - vi var totalt ca 10, något jämt fördelat mellan Hanken och Kauppis.

Den 23.4 - måndag om en vecka - ska vi på excursion till Globe Hope i Nummela. Kolla www.globehope.com.

Start ca 15-15.30 -tiden från stan (med buss från Kampen), och tillbaka senare på kvällen, ca 18.30-19-tiden.

Globe Hopes VD Seija Lukkala presenterar företaget åt oss, och berättar om konceptet "ekologisk design", och om själva affärsidén i Globe Hope.

Efter en kort presentation öppnar de fabriksbutiken för oss... så ta lite pengar med, vårshopping garanterat!!

Vi åker tillbaka med buss till Kampen.

Vi har bjudig Kauppis Sustainable Business Club med oss, och några har redan anmält sig från andra sidan gatan.

Anmäl dig gärna på den här lilla & spännande excursionen till
johanna.brotherus (at) metso.com , senast 19.4!

Romania Imports Chinese Labor

Romanian workers are leaving the country for higher wages; Romanian factory owners import Chinese labor. The New York Times reports.

TGGWS in Iltalehti

Over Easter, I quietly fumed about how Iltalehti published a reader comment recommending -- what else? -- The Great Global Warming Swindle to Finnish viewers. Wow. Recall that one interviewee in TGGWS later claimed that he was "the one who had been swindled" as he was "misrepresented" as a climate change sceptic. (The good thing about YouTube's current copyright infringement battle? TGGWS has been removed from the web.) The Iltalehti reader commenting on the film actually argued that, "The issue that we ought to be concerned about is environmental protection... I think it is mostly the media's and politicians' fault that climate change has become a more visible issue than taking care of the world's environment and oceans (sic). They are, after all, two totally separate issues."

First of all, I'm not even sure what I was doing reading Iltalehti, and secondly, I'm sorry, but what the heck? Oh my God. It is hard to fathom someone would genuinely write such a piece. The compartmentalization is simply mind blowing. Since when were environmental protection and climate change separate issues? Since when was the environment separate from the oceans? Despite the incoherence, Iltalehti afforded that piece of writing one third of a page, advertised TGGWS and juxtaposed this with a picture of pretty yellow flowers. It was clearly an effort to provoke, since that's what tabloids are about, but it's irresponsible: polemic that instills complacency.

The least critical and the least educated are the most likely to get their "science" from Iltalehti. Climate scepticism and films like TGGWS may claim to be about enhancing scientific literacy and inspiring dialogue, but most of us do not have the education to fully understand the science of climate change, anyway. The scientists themselves do not claim to fully understand it! None of us fully understand the consequences of our actions and nobody can predict the future, but does it stop us from living our lives? No. We do the best with whatever knowledge we've got, (hopefully) not doubting our every move. So why would anyone let the climate change polemic brew such doubt that they do nothing? How cocky to think that just by observing the weather and reading the dailies one could know better than individuals who've devoted their entire careers to the subject! Scientists have very little to gain from telling us the environment is changing and we're causing it. When thousands of scientists tell us they are confident something is for real, why can we not take it on faith -- are people that untrusting with the so-called establishment these days? Can the tabloids not go back to antagonizing Hollywood?

Here's a link to the discussion. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the original comment on the web; they probably only published it in the actual paper. I especially enjoyed that comment where someone tells another writer to "calm down, you're not going to die," and the other one responds, "I most certainly will, you wanna bet?" Me too, I will most certainly die. It's probably not going to be climate change that will kill me, just like the Greenland ice sheet won't melt next year, but that doesn't mean those things won't eventually happen.

Hej! Net Impact medlem Kristoffer Wilen tipsade oss om följande happening.
Häng alltså med på en liten cykeltur innan Green Drinks nästa tisdag!

Lähde mukaan Kriittiselle pyöräretkelle
Kokoontuminen 10.4.2007 kello 16.30 Havis Amandan patsaalla Helsingissä.
Pyöräilemme niillä Helsingin tieosuuksilla, joissa liikennejärjestelyt
pyöräilijöiden kannalta ovat kaikkein huonoimmat.

Samalla näytämme, että pyöräilijät muodostavat kriittisen massan, joka tulee huomioida
liikennesuunnittelussa ja kaupungin rakenteessa. Ei käy laatuun, että
vuodesta toiseen tuetaan eri tavoin yksityisautoilua, joka saastuttaa
ilman ja tekee muiden kaupunkilaisten elämän hankalaksi. Autoistaminen
uhkaa siirtää elämän kaupungista kehäteiden varsille ostoskeskuksiin.
Autoille varattua tilaa tulee saada pyörien käyttöön. Huonosti
suunnitellut pyöräreitit, huonokuntoiset pyörätiet ja lähes täydellinen
pyöräkaistojen puute osoittavat, että pyörä nähdään lähinnä liikkumis-
eikä liikennemuotona, vaikka samalla puhutaan pyöräilymäärien
kaksinkertaistamisesta.

Kriittisen pyöräretken reitti on vähän yli kymmenen kilometriä pitkä ja
kiertää Kampin, Töölön, Meilahden, Rautatieaseman, Kallion, Sörnäisten ja
Kruununhaan kautta.

Swindle

Readers on a New York Times forum are referring others to the The Great Global Warming Swindle for credible (some argue "unassailable") evidence against human-induced global warming. The Swindle movie is so conveniently available on YouTube that literally hundreds of thousands of people have watched it over the past three weeks.

I posted quotes on the forum from the Guardian and the Independent to discredit Swindle. It was pretty much the same stuff posted here on our blog a few weeks ago. If you'd like to read the forum, my comments are under my first name; someone also responded to me (they got my name wrong and spelled it Kristeen, but just ctrl-F that and my name and there's my slice of the debate if you're interested.)

A forum like that shows the depth of doubt and breadth of opinion out there. I felt it was imperative to comment publicly on this film. People with no scientific background are trying to debate the larger issues by arguing over details that most of us simply cannot understand without extensive science education. The details don't change the big picture: we are putting gas in the atmosphere, hence it warms. Period. Many are using a film like Swindle to infer that human-induced climate change is merely a liberal hoax. All I'm saying is, I'm not an atmospheric scientist (either); sometimes you just have to trust the people who are. These are people who are working for a fraction of what they'd get in industry, telling us this thing is real. Endless debating among lay people without PhDs is what keeps the masses from taking action. Why are we willing to believe marketing and all kinds of hype, but unwilling to believe scientists?

Once the real evidence arrives, it may be too late. This view finds support in Oxford Today, which in its latest issue published an article about green energy:

Likewise, [Good Energy CEO Juliet] Davenport agrees that saving the planet is more about people than science. 'I do believe that humanity is incredibly innovative and incredibly powerful. But for governments to take action there has to be real public awareness of the issue', she says. 'I do believe that we will come up with a way of solving this problem. But to get to that critical tipping-point of public awareness, I fear there may have to be casualties first.'

Ben Franklin said it best: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

Happy Easter / Passover everyone. More blog entries from me next week.

Entertainment Industry 101: From Humps and Lumps to Greater Meaning

It's too bad we can't draw flowcharts on Blogger, but try to picture this.

Universal Studios, like Universal Music, was until recently a subsidiary of Vivendi. We recall Vivendi/Universal Music/A&M were behind the masterful My Humps.

To service some debt a few years ago, Vivendi had to sell a majority stake of Universal Studios to GE. (You with me?) All three are looking for new blockbusters.

Now GE+Vivendi/Universal Studios have picked up a new movie called "The Peaceful Warrior." The trailer is below. The storyline is: a chance encounter with a stranger changes the life of a college gymnast ("Movies aid search for "greater meaning"" from Yahoo! news.)

It is nice if a particularly moving filming gets people thinking, and it's good entertainment, too. The business model here, though, is spelled out below by one of the companies' representatives: creating a market in transformational films.

There are a few question marks. General Electric, the owner of the company that distributes Peaceful Warrior used to produce nuclear weapons. Vivendi reaped gains from My Humps.

Additionally, although General Electric is no longer involved in producing nuclear weapons, the company owns GE-Aviation / Smiths Aerospace ("We Bring Technology To Life", a twist on GE's motto "We Bring Good Things To Life.") Although it's not clear how much of Smiths Aerospace's business comes from the defense market, much of their avionics no doubt go to the military. I once worked for a similar firm (oh, yes, I did and it's a looooooong story) and it was mostly manned by ex-military selling to the military.

Any one of us could read the Bible online, or perhaps the Dhammapada, available for free. But it wouldn't generate revenue. Quoting Reuters,

"Despite the marketing challenge, Fogelson sees further opportunity in the growing audience for such transformational films. "I think there is absolutely a viable and powerful business model in making and distributing films for this audience," he said. "I think it starts with knowing there is a large enough and very passionate audience that can be found and spoken to and served. Whether it can expand beyond that I think is entirely a function of what kind of product is created.""