A Vote Against the Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill is a vote for the Do Nothing Tax of 2009

With so many challenges facing our country and the U.S. government, many people have doubted whether we would see significant action on climate change this year.  They may still prove correct, but with the passage of the Waxman-Markey Bill (the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, or ACES) by the U.S. House of Representatives the wheels are moving.  It was no sure thing that the bill would pass the House, and it’s even less sure that it will pass in the Senate.  There are more than a few who would rather it doesn’t.  I’m going out on a limb though – I think we should do something about climate change.  And to go even further out on the limb, I’m going to say that the ACES bill is a step in the right direction.

While it still has to make it through the Senate this fall, getting approved by the House of Representatives is a historic achievement for a climate bill.   The last major attempt, with the Lieberman-Warner Act, died quietly after a brief flurry of excitement in 2008.

The Waxman-Markey effort targets a 17% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2020 and an 83% reduction by 2050, primarily by using a cap and trade system. One of the difficulties with cap and trade is that most people still don’t get it, not knowing what the term means.  That makes life hard for those working to move the bill forward.

Cap and trade means is that major polluters will have a cap, a limit, on the quantity of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) that they can produce.  Some businesses like burning coal for power produce a huge quantity of CO2 and these will be affected the most.  You can meet your cap either by reducing how much CO2 you produce, or buying something called carbon allowances.  If your business comes in under your cap because you got creative and efficient, then you’re all set.  If you produce more than your allotted share of greenhouse gases though and go over your cap, that’s where the trade part comes in.  The cap and trade system allows you to buy carbon credits, or allowances, to meet your target.   

It’s simpler than it sounds actually, and cap and trade systems like this have been shown to work, helping to greatly reduce acid rain in the U.S. in a short period of time and for a lot less money than the critics said would be needed, for example.  

Over 1000 pages long, the ACES also contains a host of provisions to support energy efficiency and renewable energy production to help us realize these reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.  Still, when you’re reshaping a good-sized chunk of the economy it’s hard to please everyone, stirring a variety of groups to oppose the bill, and a long list of players angling to secure a piece of the action. 

Businesses and states heavily invested in high-carbon industries like coal are not excited about the measure.  This is to be expected.  If you are an operator of a coal-fired power plant, a cap and trade system will eventually have to make your business more costly, or else it won’t work.  Critics of the ACES are saying the cost of implementing the ACES will dramatically increase the cost of electricity as a result.   

The biggest argument against the bill so far goes like this is that it will cost money, and is therefore a tax.  Since few people understand cap and trade and nobody really likes taxes, this is probably a good way to go for opponents of the measure.  But I think the strategy for the supporters should be to compare the cost of doing something with the cost of doing nothing.  

The EPA has estimated that the bill will cost the average household somewhere between $80 and $110 a year, and the Congressional Budget Office has estimated it will cost the average household $175 a year.   

Let’s compare that to what will happen if no action is taken on climate change.  The Stern Report found that failure to take action to slow the rate of climate change could reduce global GDP by 5- 20% a year, a massive impact.  Since the impact would be present every year, and not just for a single recession cycle, and the impact would only grow worse, climate change would be the worse economic disaster ever, not merely an environmental problem.   

This might be a better argument than polar bears for a lot of people, really bringing home the impact.   

Failure to take action on climate change, doing nothing with the present ACES bill, or any others any time soon, would eventually extract an enormous economic cost, and probably a very regressive one, hurting the poorest people around the world and in the US the most.  Let’s call this economic cost the “Do Nothing Tax of 2009”, producing a little bar chart of $175 per household compared against 5-20% of lost GDP.  We can create a campaign to contact senators who oppose Waxman Markey, praising them for their courage in supporting the massive “Do Nothing Tax of 2009”.   

Some environmental groups are also opposing the bill.  One argument is that it doesn’t go far enough.  Greenpeace has already pulled their support, along with others, saying that the measures are too watered down by political compromise to achieve what must really be done.  Others don’t like the role of carbon offsets in the bill to meet climate targets, or they are upset because most of the carbon allowances will be given away at first.   

I’m sure they’re right, that the bill involves compromises, is not perfect, and ultimately may not do enough.  And by the time it gets through the Senate, if it gets through the Senate, further changes are likely.  Getting 60 votes for a bill like this is still no cakewalk by any means.  I’m afraid it’s probably about as good as a climate bill as we’re going to get for now, and I’d really like to see us do something rather than wait for a perfect bill that might not arrive any time soon.  Let’s take this bill and push as hard as we can for it to pass, and then start working on the next round to do even more.   

Glenn Croston is the author of “75 Green Businesses”, the founder of Starting Up Green (www.startingupgreen.com), and the creator of the Green BizBlast, helping green businesses to connect with each other and the world.  His new book “Starting Green” coming out in September 2009 provides the definitive guide to start and grow green businesses.

Use Ethonomics When Crafting A Company’s Narrative

Military experts like Michael Vlahos have spent more than a decade re-exploring the role of “strategic narratives” in war. This is because, as I mentioned in my last post, there has been a shift in the nature of war. In my interview with Vlahos, we discussed how the role of “strategic narratives” has been thrust to the forefront of our arsenal of military tools.

In this context, strategic narratives are considered to be "compelling storylines which can explain events convincingly and from which inferences can be drawn." Or alternatively, “an interlocking framework of ‘truths’” that explain how a conflict came to be, where it is going, and how it should be argued and described.

The story of the September 11, 2001, attacks offer a modern example of what strategic narratives are and why they are useful tools for understanding conflict. In 2003, 75 percent of Americans polled supported the U.S. response to the 9/11 attacks – its offensive against Iraq.

Four years later, in April 2007, 58 percent of participants of the same poll now felt the U.S. attack on Iraq was a mistake.

Many military experts find strategic narratives, or the discourse of the historic event, as a way to explain this shift and manage conflicts so that they can win. This is important because people would naturally rather support the winner than the loser. As Nicollo Machiavelli eloquently put it:

“…because if the two powerful neighbors of yours come to blows, either they are such that, one of them winning, you have to fear the winner, or not. In whichever of these two cases, it will always be more useful to you to come out openly and make a good war; because in the first case, if you do not come out, you will always be the prey of whoever wins, with the pleasure and satisfaction of the vanquished, and you have neither reason nor anything that might defend you or that might give you shelter. Because he who wins does not want suspect friends who did not help him in adversity; he who loses does not shelter you, because you did not want to rescue his fortune with arms in hand.”

This thought process also applies to business because the same human principles operate here. Corporations must build authentic narratives that make people want to belong. As Vlahos said in our interview, "The relationship between customers and the corporation needs to be something more than manipulation by the corporation to get what they want. It has to satisfy their vision of what they are and what they want to be.”

Importantly, Vlahos contends that a corporation’s narrative needs to be in harmony with that of the greater civilization. A business’ actions become the posts of its story, and a company needs to show that ultimately this fits with where the community at large wants to go.

It is that link – between the corporate narrative and the cultural one – where Ethonomics comes in. If people want companies that are moving in the direction of ethics and sustainability, then companies must show that their narratives fit this vision too.

What I loved about this interview was the practicality of it. Here is someone who knows a lot about war and bloodshed explaining the strategic benefit of being “good”!

Using Strategic Narratives to Explain Apple’s Allure

When Vlahos turned to the implication of strategic narratives in business, he picked a prominent corporate “war” to make his point: Apple vs. Microsoft. The narrative view offers a fascinating explanation for what is happening between these competitors.

Microsoft has generated significantly more value than Apple, but Apple has plugged into the national Zeitgeist (our general trend of thought and feeling) more powerfully. Vlahos says that narratives can explain this, and a company’s narrative is often tied to that of its leader.

Steve Jobs, founder and CEO of Apple, has been able to sense the national narrative of being an “underdog” and plugs into it. He represents something that many of us want to be part of. Jobs represents salvation and success through innovation and hard work.

Conversely, Vlahos sees that “[Microsoft Chairman Bill] Gates represents, whether he likes it or not, the gilded age – the age of Rockefeller.”

The gilded age narrative may have been an alluring historical story, but it is no longer the ideal. It does not lead to where the majority of Americans want to see us going – to a place of efficient sustainability where average people have the chance to realize their dreams and monopolies do not win.

The strategic narrative plays a role within the company and outside of the company. Ask yourself the questions below to see how you can craft a narrative that your employees and your customers can support.

1.    What is your company’s narrative?

2.    How does your company’s narrative fit the broader cultural one?

3.    Is the narrative closely associated with your company’s leadership?

4.  How can I share our narrative to inspire others?

Bringing the Twittersphere to Your Content with Tweetboard

At the recent Cannes Lions Advertising Festival digital executives from around the globe championed the idea that digital is much more than just another channel. It's the glue and fabric that holds everything together. Therefore, the challenge remains finding ways to authentically integrate all aspects of your business with the digital universe.

Tweetboard, launched by 140 Ware within the last week, is a new micro-forum application that allows you to get closer to the digital universe by bringing the Twitterati to your Website and content. Available for almost any type of Website (Wordpress, Blogger, Ning, etc), Tweetboard acts as a pull-out tool for visitors, allowing them to comment on content within the Website with other Twitter users.

Each time someone posts (or replies) via the board on your site, a link back to the corresponding conversation is appended to their tweet, creating a viral stream of Twitter traffic to the Website (I've uploaded it to the RaceTalk blog as a reference). 

Of course, destination Twitter sites like ExecTweets have been along for some time, but this is the first time that Twitter conversations have been customizable for almost any Website. That, combined with TechCrunch covering the new app today, made Tweetboard a top trending item on Twitter.

In this age where "every company is a media company," it should be trending. Ustream's integration with Facebook and Tweetboard are leading examples of how marketers and even publishers can try to infiltrate digital communities - especially these two (As they say: Fish where the fish are).

Moving forward, Tweetboard hopes to create a similar feature to Ustream's on Facebook, which will allow tweetboard commenting on specific posts, pages and streaming video - rather than being generic across the entire Website. This will create even more viral opportunities and personalized conversations.

The one thing that will be interesting to follow is which companies are able to implement on their main page / homepages. Sure it's easy to put on a separate corporate blog (different Website than corporate home page), but will legal really allow companies to put it on other content-focused pages within their corporate Website? I would hope so, but in reality I know how sensitive companies are to giving consumers this type of control. Skittles illustrated far too well, what could go wrong. 

Given that, I think that publishers (newspapers, magazines, etc) will be given more leeway than marketers with implementing on core pages. Now let's see how long it takes them to implement.

Is Amazon the New Wal-Mart?

Egos at Amazon must be riding high this month. The retailer sold out of its flagship product, the Kindle DX, not once but twice. Then, to cap it all off, this morning investment research and banking firm Cowen and Company called Amazon a "next generation Wal-Mart."

Analyst Jim Friedland wrote in a research note: "In our view, Amazon is a next-generation Wal-Mart, and we believe the company's focus on lower prices and a superior shopping experience versus online and offline competitors will result in substantial share gains over time."

The reasons for Cowen's vote of confidence are numerous, citing greater penetration in non-media categories, more orders per customer resulting from Amazon Prime (a discount shopping program) and the ability to reinvest profits (a la Wal-Mart) from higher margin revenue sources into lower prices across the board. The report notes that Wal-Mart has 7.7% of U.S. retail share, while Amazon owns only 0.3%. That's a lot of room to grow.

Friedland was particularly impressed by Amazon's positioning as a result of the Kindle's success. The company estimates Amazon will sell 900,000 this year and 1.4 million next year. By 2013, Kindle penetration could reach 10% of Amazon's customer base, or 2% of the U.S. population, the report says.

So is Amazon on the way to Wal-Mart-like highs? Much like Wal-Mart, Amazon's growth potential stems from its ability to sell everything from Kindles and MP3s to patio furniture and kitchenware, and to do so at very competitive prices. A recent push into private label products suggests Amazon has its eye on those non-media categories, and the immediate availability of many Amazon products, its easy searchability, and its investment in customer service lend it a competitive advantage over both online and brick-and-mortar rivals. Much as Wal-Mart redefined the retail model over the past three decades, Amazon may rewrite the book for the Internet age.

[via Reuters, Barron's, ZDNet]

Related Stories: Amazon Taps Its Inner Apple The Fast Company 50 - 2009: #9 Amazon Amazon Plunges Into Private Label Business

Equal Isn't Always Fair

Do you have employees who complain that you aren't treating everyone the same? If so, then you can skip today's lesson providing you are treating people fairly. For the rest of you, here are five reasons why treating all employees the same is a bad decision.

Expectations should vary – Suppose you have two employees doing the same job. One has been on the job for five years and another five months. Would you expect them to be performing at the same level? Probably not. Particularly if they are performing work where experience should improve performance. This means that you should have higher expectations regarding the work performed by the more experienced employee than you would of the less experienced person. Are you treating them equally? No. However, you are treating them fairly.

Pay should vary – One of the biggest complaints I hear from employees is that someone is doing the same job that they are doing and that person is receiving more pay. After further investigation, we see that the person receiving more pay has more education (perhaps a college degree) or more experience than the person who is doing the complaining. Would it be fair if we raised this person’s salary to match the other employee? I don’t think so.

Salary reductions – In this economy, we are seeing a lot of organizations doing across-the-board salary decreases. Is this fair? Not in my opinion. Asking a high paid executive to take a 5% reduction in salary has a different impact on that person than the employee at the bottom of the organization who is just making ends meet. Fair to me in this situation is to reduce payroll by terminating non-performers. This includes people who have been protected for years because of internal politics.

Office space – Who sits where and gets how much space is a really big deal in Corporate America. Many companies avoid this by putting everyone in cubicles. Equality rules, but is this any way to run a business? Certain positions require privacy. For example, if an employee wants to have a private conversation with someone in HR, they need to be able to do so without relying on a conference room being available at the precise time they are having their crises. Or perhaps members of the IT team need  larger offices so they have workspace to repair computers. Use common sense when designing and assigning offices.

Promotions – Making people wait six-months or one year before they can be promoted makes little sense. This just encourages people to maintain their level of performance rather than continually shooting for the stars. Yet, we do this all the time because we believe this is fair. Set expectations, manage performance and promote those who reach the established milestones, regardless of how long it has taken them to get there.

Take a closer look at the impact equality is having on your office. Are you inspiring your workers to be their best? Or are you merely treating them like average employees?

Until next time,

Roberta

Roberta Chinsky Matuson President Human Resource Solutions 413-582-1840 Roberta@yourhrexperts.com www.yourhrexperts.com http://www.yourhrexperts.com Visit our newly updated web site http://www.yourhrexperts.com/generation/ to learn how your organization can leverage generational workforce challenges into opportunities.  Subscribe to our free monthly electronic newsletter, jammed with resources, articles, and tips by clicking: http://www.yourhrexperts.com/hrjoin.cgi Visit Generation Integration blog: http://generationintegration.typepad.com/matuson/