Problem: In North America, the Nokia brand image is confused.

Solution: Target the user who wants both business and fun in one device.

As I outlined in my last post on Nokia’s brand, I think the company needs to make some swift changes in their product and service offering, while unifying their communications from both an identity and branding perspective. There was good reason to think that their new flagship N97 smartphone combined with the Ovi application marketplace could be the “it” combination to tackle their eroding awareness in the U.S. market.

Unfortunately, early reviews are not positive as seen in this TechCrunch post. Apparently, the overall user experience lacks consistency and suffers from poor industrial design (eg., screen tilt is fixed) and materials choices (eg., the primary screen hinge). If this assessment is true and consumer’s begin to feel the same way as the reviewers, Nokia will not generate needed buzz… and that is exactly what they need right now based on the results of personal inquiries.

In my survey, I made certain to target a wide range of age groups that tended to be broken down in to three audiences- senior, mid-age and twenty-something. The following are the direct quotes from my US and European friends.

Each was asked the same question: “what are the first words that come to mind when you think of “Nokia?”

United States

Nokia means cell phones. That’s all I know. (age 72)

The best thing from Finland. The only thing in Finland. Wonderfully cheap Nokia phones that we use in Mexico (true). (age 70)

Are they still in business? I haven’t used one of their products, or considered one of their products, for many years. As I remember them, they were cool, crisp, current, workable, effective tech tools and toys. (age 54)

Nokia…weird brand…techie, not hip, Asian, kind of generic electronic manufacturer, cheap products, not Multi media, no hook like blackberry and iPhone. (age 42)

Innovative… Product design… Dominant outside of the US… Ovi… Friendly… Tech savvy. (age 36)

Outdated phones… did not know they were still around. – Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry (age 34)

I don’t use their phones because I don’t know much about them. They seem to have a lot of “starter” phones on the market. I want the status of owning an iPhone. (age 22)

Europe

The one problem would be that it (N95) takes a week to figure all the stuff out and I am very good with gadgets. And some simple functions related to calling and emails still have me perplexed and I don’t have them working correctly. (age 39)

I have the Nokia N95 (older model) smart phone and love it. It’s like a mini computer. (age 32)

Nokia is the phone I look for when I start a new contract with a carrier. They are dependable and I need that in a phone – which is my life! (age 28)

In general, the above simply shows a lack of awareness in the North American market. In the EU, they have a stronger presence, but this may be country by country. When recently visiting Austria and talking with an 18-year old, he used a Sony-Ericsson and stated that all his friends do as well. He claimed that Sony-Ericsson has 60% of the market in Austria. Who knows if that’s true, but the perception is there and will be hard to change.

In the US market, I think Nokia has a real opportunity if they target the business-user first. Apple controls the conversation around ease-of-use and cool design for the consumer population. If you want to be perceived as hip, you own an iPhone. However, the business-user marketplace is still primarily defended by RIM and I think there is room for competition.

If Nokia can meld the slide-out keyboard and an enterprise software solution with a multimedia device (photos, movies, MMS, etc.) AND an open-source application store, they could really erode the Blackberry market share. This is why the N97 + Ovi combination could be the “it” solution.

It will only happen if Nokia values the total customer experience supply chain (described in the book “Do You Matter? How Great Design Will Make People Love Your Company“). This concept makes the interaction design of the total experience – ie,. every customer touch-point, be it physical or marketing – the overarching directive of all product development initiatives.

In the North American market, Nokia could maintain a healthy price point and revive their image as a solid technology solution if they understand that the business user wants one device for both business and personal use. This could be their sweet spot that once claimed, could change people’s opinions of the brand in both the States and Europe.

As a way for all of us to learn the meaning of the language being used in marketing and business forums, I’ve pulled definitions primarily from the Presidio School of Management. They have a project called “the dictionary of sustainable management.” I’ve included only those terms that seem applicable. Take a look.

————————-

Biofuel

Biofuel is any fuel derived from an organic material that is not fossilized like coal or petroleum. Common sources of biofuel grown for the U.S and European markets are corn, soybeans, flaxseed and rapeseed. Biofuel can appear in solid, liquid, or gas form. It is used to produce heat or electricity, or to power machinery using burners, broilers, generators, internal combustion engines, turbines or fuel cells. Biofuel is a renewable energy, but there is some controversy that it is not sustainable due to the harvesting of biomass and the byproducts produced during the burning of biofuels.

Brand

Often referred to as a promise or expectation, a brand is the collective market understanding or perspective of a company, product, or service (either from the perspective of customers, competitors, partners, or peers).

Brand Experience

Often confused with a corporate identity or package design, a brand experience is the total interaction of customers with a company, product, service, or other offering through all senses, media, and touchpoints (such as television advertising, customer service, product use, etc.).

Carbon Footprint

The total amount of greenhouse gases emitted directly and indirectly to support human activities, usually expressed in equivalent tons of either carbon or carbon dioxide. Carbon footprints are calculated by countries as part of their reporting requirements under the Kyoto Protocol, as well as by companies, regions, or individuals.

CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility)

A business outlook that acknowledges responsibilities to stakeholders not traditionally accepted, including suppliers, customers, and employees as well as local and international communities in which it operates and the natural environment. There are few accepted standards and practices so far, but a growing concern that the actions organizations take have no unintended consequences outside the business, whether driven by concern, philanthropy, or a desire for an authentic brand and public relations.

Cradle-to-Cradle

A phrase invented by Walter R. Stahel in the 1970s and popularized by William McDonough and Michael Braungart in their 2002 book of the same name. This framework seeks to create production techniques that are not just efficient but are essentially waste free. In cradle to cradle production all material inputs and outputs are seen either as technical or biological nutrients. Technical nutrients can be recycled or reused with no loss of quality and biological nutrients composted or consumed. By contrast cradle to grave refers to a company taking responsibility for the disposal of goods it has produced, but not necessarily putting products’ constiuent components back into service.

E-waste

Waste materials generated from using or discarding electronic devices (such as computers, televisions, and mobile phones). E-waste tends to be highly toxic to humans, plants, and animals and contaminate water, air (often when burned), and dirt (where dumped or spilled). E-waste is a particular problem since technological devices are superceded so quickly, causing them to be thrown-out more quickly than many other product. Few of these devices are upgradable, easily reusable, or easily separated for recycling of components or industrial nutrients.

Eco-Labels

Any label that attempts to certify or distinguish a product or service in terms of environmental issues. The ISO 14021-14025 standards outline four different categories of eco-labels:

Type I labels are product seals licensed by governments or third party private entities based on multiple criteria regarding lifecycle impact, such as the US-based Green Seal or Sweden’s Nordic Swan. Type I seals can vary substantially in their criteria, which may or may not be known or understood by customers.

Type II labels are informative, self-declaration seals about the environmental qualities of a product, such as “contains 75% recycled paper.”

Type III labels offer quantified product information based on a life cycle assessment. These labels are best for comparisons between products or services. There are few examples of Type III labels in use. One in development is the Reveal label.

Type IV labels are single-issue seals licensed by companies or organizations. Examples include: the Leaping Bunny (signifying no animal testing), the Good Housekeeping seal of approval, Underwriter’s Laboratories insignia, and the Forest Stewardship Council seal.

Ecological Footprint

A term coined by ecologist William Rees and Mathis Wackernage to describe the total ecological impact (the amount of land, food, water, and other resources needed) to sustain a person or organization. This is usually measured in acres or hectares of productive land. It is used to determine relative consumption and is frequently used as an education and resource management tool. When addressing large populations (such as countries), the total productive capacity of the Earth is sometimes used. For example, on average, the population of the USA consumes so many resources that were the rest of the world’s population to consume at the same level, several more Earths would be needed to meet the demand.

Green

A common metaphor referring to environmental association based on the shared secondary color of many plants. It is often used to associate products, organizations, political parties, or policies with environmentally sensitivity.

Green Marketing

The positioning and segmenting of consumers by ecologically-driven concerns and the development of strategies and solutions that will meet their needs and desires with as little negative impact on the Earth as possible. Products and services which satisfy or appeal to these consumers are often called “green” and their advertising and promotion often make claims of less environmental impact in terms of energy, materials, processes, or toxic substances.

In addition, green marketing includes the representation of a company, product, or service as less harmful to nature. This can lead to greenwashing when this represenation is neither sincere nor accurate.

Greenwashing

A term merging the concepts of “green” (environmentally sound) and “whitewashing” (to conceal or gloss over wrongdoing). Greenwashing is any form of marketing or public relations that links a corporate, political, religious or nonprofit organization to a positive association with environmental issues for an unsustainable product, service, or practice.

In some cases, an organization may truly offer a “green” product, service or practice. However, through marketing and public relations, one is wrongly led to believe this “green” value system is ubiquitous throughout the entire organization.

See a recent post on GM’s commercial for the Volt. Tell me if you agree with my suspicions…

Natural Capital

One of at least four forms of capital used by people, organizations, corporations, and governments, to build and maintain their livelihoods. Natural Capital includes all forms of resources from the environment, including minerals, water, air, sunlight, heat, plants, animals, and other organic matter. Sustainable organizations seek to maximize their effectiveness and efficiency in using natural capital as well as practice policies that sustain the quality and quantity of natural capital sources in the future.

Opportunity Cost

The benefit that could have been received by taking an alternative course of action. Opportunity Cost is used to determine if a business investment is worthwhile in light of other opportunities. It should be a component in projecting cost flows.

Organic

In regards to food (both plant and animal) and other agricultural products (such as cotton), a term describing the absence of pesticides, hormones, synthetic fertilizers and other toxic materials in cultivation. In some countries, “organic” has a legal definition. For example, in the USA, it is defined in the Organic Food Production Act of 1990 and refers to food and products that are at least 95% free of toxic and synthetic materials as described in the USDA National Organic Program.

Pollution Offset

The attempt to offset the results of pollution from some activity of process by improving the environment in an equal benefit. Carbon trading, for example, allows carbon polluters to offset the effect of excess carbon in the environment by trading credits with those whose activities reduce an equal amount of carbon. Pollution offsets can exist for any kind of polluting materials as long as an equal and direct benefit can be established.

Recycle

Recycling is the process of reclaiming materials from used products or materials from their manufacturing and using them in the manufacturing of new products. It is different from Reuse, where products are not destroyed and remanufactured but cleaned and repaired to be used again, also known as remanufacturing. Another strategy to use resources more efficiently includes reducing the use of materials needed for product and process manufacturing, also known as dematerialization.

Many products are now marked with a variety of recycling symbols meant to help consumers and waste managers in separating recycled products and materials. Not all materials and products can be recycled, however. Those designed for disassembly or made from one material are the easiest. Even when used materials and products are recycled, often there is no economically viable market for these materials and they are either disposed of with other waste or stored in warehouses for future uses.

Reduce

One of the most sustainable strategies is simply to reduce the amount of energy and materials we use and, thus, are required to be manufactured. This reduction has an exponential effect as it further reduces packaging, recycling, transportation, cleaning, disposal, and a host of other costs.

Renewable

Any material or energy that can be replenished in full without loss or degradation in quality.

Reuse

Often, the most sustainable option is to reuse materials and objects already manufactured, either for their original or new purposes, rather than recycle them into other products. This decreases further energy and materials use in recreating them into a new form.

Stewardship

Responsible caretaking; based on the premise that we do not own resources but only manage them, and are responsible to future generations for their condition. Making decisions regarding the care of our environment with the goal of passing healthy ecosystems on to future generations.

Sustainability

Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

This definition was created in 1987 at the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission). It is enshrined in the Swiss federal constitution. It is similar to the “seventh generation” philosophy of the Native American Iroquois Confederacy, mandating that chiefs always consider the effects of their actions on their descendants seven generations in the future.

There are many ways to measure or define sustainability. As described in the book Natural Capitalism, in business, these should include the sustainable development and use of, at least, the following four types of capital:

* Financial Capital
* Manufacturing Capital
* Natural Capital
* Human Capital

Sustainable Development

An approach to developing anything that recognizes the need to meet the challenges of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Tipping Point

A way of looking at the way change happens in the world, put forth by Malcolm Gladwell in his bestselling book, The Tipping Point. The book contends that ideas, behaviors, messages, and products spread through society similar to disease, and that societal changes are like epidemics: a tiny force can cause enormous shifts. The “tipping point” is the moment in an epidemic when a virus reaches “critical mass.”

Total Cost Accounting

Total cost accounting (TCA) is a financial tool used to provide a more complete assessment of the true profitability of an entity by taking into account a wider range of direct and indirect costs and savings. It uses longer time horizons that reflect the full economic or commercial life of the project, incorporates the time value of money, reveals hidden costs, and considers uncertain or less quantifiable costs.

Value Chain

Described and popularized by Michael Porter in his 1985 best-seller, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, the value chain identifies the various value-adding activities of an organization or network. Often used as a tool for strategic planning because of its emphasis on maximizing value while minimizing costs.

Waste Reduction

The process of reducing waste material and energy in manufacturing, use, and disposal by techniques such as dematerialization, transmaterialization, recycling, sustainable design, closed-loop supply chains, etc.

Zero Waste

The goal of developing products and services, managing their use and deployment, and creating recycling systems and markets in order to eliminate the volume and toxicity of waste and materials and conserve and recover all resources. Implementing zero waste eliminates all discharges to land, water, or air that may be a threat to planetary, human, animal or plant health. Many cities and states already have set zero-waste goals. For example, San Francisco and other cities have set a goal to create zero waste by 2020.

Go Green!

So what’s up with this “green initiatives” thing? Is it just another fad? This is what some executives are wondering. They might also be secretly hoping that consumer interest in green, eco-friendly, sustainable products and companies will eventually ebb.

A series of questions are revolving around companies embracing not just green initiatives, but fundamental changes to their business operation and green marketing strategy. These are some of the questions that are circulating:

Will consumer interest in green companies and eco marketing go away? How does a company truly understand the costs and sacrifices required to become a “green company”? Will it be a painful journey? How can green internet marketing improve my revenue? And finally, the crux of the matter: Can we make money being an eco-sensitive, environmentally-conscious, social-minded company?

Let’s break it down by addressing just TWO of the most predominant questions.

Question: Will consumer interest in green companies go away?

Last year (2007), U.S. consumers spent about $250 billion on products and services that claim to be good for the planet — from hybrid SUVs to eco-friendly toilet paper — according to the 2007 ImagePower Green Brands Survey. So it’s no wonder companies are handing over big chunks of their own change to marketers who promise them a greener glow.

This begs the question- do the marketers have truthful material to spin? I guess it all depends on the client. Some companies are only making incremental changes in order to evolve public perception, while others are overhauling their entire industry. I am hopeful the momentum has begun towards more rapid and far-reaching changes.

According to Conscious Media and Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability, 63 million adults in the US are considered LOHAS consumers. They are attracted to products and services focused on their health and the environment, and are more likely than the general population to buy a product from a company with values like their own.

Conclusion: Interest in green/sustainable products is on the rise. It presents an opportunity.

Question: How does a company truly understand the costs and sacrifices required to become “green”?

This is the question that Blue Tent is asking itself. We have a bit of an advantage over “old” industries as we don’t have an energy intensive service. Digital marketing predominantly uses electricity. However, the case studies I’ve been reviewing are promising.

Take for instance the 1980’s when the northeast United States was being hammered by sulfur dioxide that turned in to “acid rain.” The health costs to the population and to the environment were frightening. The cost to fix the problem (airborne industrial waste) was highly expensive. The market responded by creating a “cap and trade” system that has not only addressed the issue head-on, but has been highly profitable.

Conclusion: There are opportunity costs, but the upside potential is huge. If there is federal and state support, the cost of re-tooling our industries to create a green economy will provide a new era of prosperity for the U.S. and the world.

Although the above only presents a couple of perspectives on this issue, the need for green initiatives within every company is becoming an imperative- even in slow economic times. First movers will come out of the current recession better positioned to take advantage of the upward moving consumer spending cycle.

In my next post, as a consultant for Blue Tent Marketing, I will look at the terminology of green.

The most salient point is that the U.S. can become almost entirely independent of foreign oil. If we electrify our personal and urban transportation system (think of Chevy’s Volt and electric light rail) we could radically shift the current geo-political balance and renew America’s economic vitality.

I’ve copied the text from the original Earth Policy Institute email and present it here:

A new analysis finds that powering a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle fleet with clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar would have a seismic price impact: instead of paying $4 per gallon at the gasoline pump, we could plug in at home for the wind-generated-electricity equivalent of less than $1 per gallon. The U.S. Department of Energy reports that the wind resources in just three states–North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas–are sufficient to meet national electricity needs.

• The United States consumes nearly 21 million barrels of petroleum per day (7.5 billion barrels per year), one fourth the world total.
• Of the crude oil consumed in the U.S., 66 percent is imported.
• The U.S. is on pace to spend over $500 billion on petroleum imports in 2008.
• U.S. oil production currently occurs onshore in the lower 48 states (2.9 million barrels per day (mbd)), offshore (1.4 mbd, primarily in the Gulf of Mexico), and in Alaska (0.7 mbd).

More Drilling Cannot Make the U.S. Energy Independent

• The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 10.4 billion barrels of oil are technically recoverable in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)—less than one and a half years of consumption.
• The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that of the 59 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the lower 48 states, only 18 billion are off limits under the federal moratorium.
• DOE projects that lifting the OCS moratorium would not increase production before 2017 and that by 2030 production would only amount to 0.2 million barrels per day—less than 1 percent of current consumption.
• Total U.S. proved oil reserves are estimated at 21 billion barrels—less than a 3 year supply at the current rate of consumption.
• Since peaking in 1970, U.S. crude oil production has declined 47 percent. World production could be peaking now.

More Drilling Will Not Reduce Oil or Gasoline Prices

• DOE projects that opening ANWR would lower gasoline prices at the pump by a mere 2 cents per gallon.
• Lifting the moratoria on drilling in ANWR and the OCS would reduce the price of a gallon of gasoline by at most 6 cents—and this would not be seen for at least another decade.
• Oil is traded as a global commodity and its price is set on the world market. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could simply reduce exports to negate even the nominal potential price reduction, a fact acknowledged by DOE.

We Can Move Beyond Oil

• The increase in U.S. automobile fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon of gasoline mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is projected to save more than 1.1 million barrels of oil per day in 2020—roughly half of current U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf. Technology exists to raise standards higher faster.
• Electrifying the U.S. transportation system and restructuring urban transport could reduce petroleum consumption by over 50 percent, nearly eliminating the need for imports.
• Wind-generated electricity could power plug-in hybrid cars, such as GM’s prototype Chevy Volt, at the equivalent of less than $1 per gallon of gasoline.

It’s not for me to say if these ads are true examples of greenwashing, but they get perilously close. I do feel that with increasing frequency our intent to “do good” with our purchases is being preyed upon. Now, being a marketer myself, I understand the opportunity that exists to manipulate consumers on this point. It’s the very reason behind my work on a “green” marketing program for Blue Tent Marketing.

We all want to “pitch in” and make a difference to good ol’ mother earth. However, we just don’t want it to inconvenience our lifestyle choices. I’m just as guilty. I tend to agonize over the issue a bit more than others I know. However, when I hear about another environmental insult, I am no longer able to pause, generate a concerned-sad facial expression and then return to my activities. I’m now feeling each report with greater anxiety, but like so many I know, the little changes of new bulbs and a hybrid automobile aren’t helping me feel better.

I want to know how to do more. I want to feel that American corporations will help me do better. General Motors is doing something to help me feel as if there is hope. They’ve introduced a new automobile and its going to make gas stations extinct!

At least, that’s what their very slick story in :60 told me. I was captivated by the fast paced, time lapse montage of a corner gas station. It starts with a green field at the base of a mountain range. The cross-roads appear, then the first gas station, followed by successive upgrades through the years. It ends with the same green field and no gas station. GM has helped us evolve beyond fossil fuels with the introduction of the General Motors Volt- a completely electric vehicle? Well, the message is a bit confusing on that point as it states it can go 40 miles before fueling… but then why make the gas station disappear? You’ll still need it!

Additionally, we learn nothing about the specifics of the vehicle as it is only a prototype. The car is targeted for a 2010 launch! Targeted… I enjoyed the story arch and then the resolve that helped me feel that we could return to nature. However, I quickly understood the aim of GM and any momentary hope was dashed.

Yes, its a hybrid that may be predominantly electric (not alternating), but the majority of our electricity is fossil fuel generated. That’s just one observation. I have many more. However, GM could really help me feel better if it ran one of the following three TV ads:

• A GM mag-lev and solar powered light-rail system that is so competitively priced that a municipality can’t say no to installing it.
• A GM lobbyist pushing law makers to craft and ratify new policies to subsidize alternative energy and end government subsidies for fossil fuel production.
• A GM executive canceling a golf tee time with a coal company executive and instead making an appointment with a hydrogen energy executive to go surfing.

The “feel good” ads aren’t helping me feel good anymore… but it’s still an entertaining spot.

This new bike frame, from Brano Meeres Engineering, epitomizes the experiments of individuals testing and developing till a new product becomes commercially viable. Traditional bike frames have experimented with new materials over the years with the goal of decreasing the weight, increasing strength and influencing the frame’s flex. Now comes a frame that adds another goal- use a sustainable material.

Reading the designer/developer’s blog entries communicates the challenges and tests using a new material. Not only does this new material have an aesthetic appeal, but from a cradle-to-cradle perspective, it is right on target. FYI- the term of Cradle to Cradle is a phrase coined by Walter R. Stahel in the 1970s and popularized by William McDonough and Michael Braungart in their 2002 book Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things

I hope I’ll be able to find these in my local bike shop in the near future. View the originating site here.

Mr. Krupp is not an environmental extremist. He is a pragmatic realist who sees an opportunity for both the environment and big business. He backs his claim up with facts and communicates a synthesis of the current market, the players and the possible outcome.

Mr. Krupp also pulls no punches. He states that committing our resources to this endeavor is paramount. The state of the planet’s systems demands change, not in ten or twenty years, but now. He clearly communicates that we must make renewable energy and carbon reductions a reality in the next year and a half!!!!

View this educational interview recently conducted with Charlie Rose.

——————————————-

Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul.
-Edward Abbey, A Voice Crying in the Wilderness

Blue Tent Marketing is at the beginning of a new phase of growth. The phase will examine our activities with the goal of becoming a green company. Digital marketing is inherently more energy efficient than other industries merely by the nature of the product it delivers- pixel based communication solutions. But we are ready to go further…

Green… sustainable… energy efficient… socially conscious… environmental… organic…

These terms and more are being bandied about with increasing frequency. They represent the language of a maturing phenomena that is no longer a trend, but a sustained shift being revealed in the world’s top consumer cultures.

The cynic in all of us is skeptical of the marketing of the green movement. Let me repeat that last bit- the marketing of the green movement. This post is not about the social movement towards sustainable living. That is applauded. That is the call to action for our time.

When a company markets, they persuade. As consumers we either decide that their persuasive messages are authentic or not. Can we trust the green claims found in the marketing of our trusted products? How do we know if they are environmentally sensitive? The ability to verify their claims are, after all, nearly impossible.

We have to trust. We have to trust that the message is true.

A great sum of money is being spent every minute to help companies generate persuasive language. The consultants select words to trigger the proper mental images or feelings. If they are successful, we buy. If we are not convinced, we don’t buy.

Very simple… very difficult.

All of this leads to the purpose of this post… green marketing. Right now, we are engaged in becoming green- not figuratively, but literally. We are examining how we do business, how we operate and we’re being honest about the little things. After all, its the cumulative effect of the little things that result in either an integrated or disconnected company.

It is our hope and goal to make Blue Tent green. As the effort achieves results, then we can go out to the world and be honest about our immediate and evolving achievements towards limiting our environmental impact. Hopefully, we can even persuade our clients to become greener. That would be a great marketing story!

In the process, we’ll be learning the language of green first hand. Then once we are comfortable with the language, we can help our clients be true to their words. Only then will we be able to integrate green in to our green marketing.

Over the next weeks and months I will be creating a number of posts to document our journey. We will be honest about our successes and of our dilemmas. Join us by checking back in soon.

cheers/ce

This article clearly relates how the concerns of ranchers, land holders and environmentalists are overlapping. The energy companies have overstepped their privileges. Privileges that were given to them by the Bush administration in a manner that circumvented the will of the people. So much of the work done by the Clinton Administration has been reversed to make way for a sell-out of the people’s common areas. Our interests are of no concern. The energy companies know how to get what they want. They know how to manipulate Washington, Denver, the counties and the private land-owners. They set their sites on a target and have the resources to flood the system with money and favors.

It is my opinion that the Bush Administration, eager to return the favor of their donors, are destroying public and private lands without regard for the long-term environmental and social impact. My family has been approached by Gunnison Energy (a Koch company) and spent six hours with them hearing their arguments for why drilling on our land would be such a benefit. They showed us other drilling wells and the “man-camps” that monitor them 24/7/365. Their enthusiasm for their jobs reminded me of a drunk who is so delighted with his inebriated state that he has no awareness for the harm he commits.

Drawing from his deep knowledge of the Earth’s “little creatures” and his sense that their contribution to the planet’s ecology is underappreciated, he produced what may be his most important book, The Diversity of Life. In it he describes how an intricately interconnected natural system is threatened by man’s encroachment, in a crisis he calls the “sixth extinction” (the fifth one wiped out the dinosaurs).

In this video, E.O. Wilson accepts his 2007 TED Prize. He makes a plea on behalf of his constituents, the insects and small creatures, that we should all learn more about our biosphere. We know so little about nature, he says, that we’re still discovering tiny organisms indispensable to life; yet we’re still steadily destroying nature. Wilson identifies five grave threats to biodiversity (a term he coined), using the acronym HIPPO, and makes his TED wish: that we will work together on the Encyclopedia of Life, a web-based compendium of data from scientists and amateurs on every aspect of the biosphere.

If done properly, this is gonna be huge!!!