Enronmental Nonprofits

The spokes, they may be rusty, but they ain’t broke yet. Bent? Maybe. On that thought, if you haven’t had a chance to build up a set o’ wheels, do it. It’s not as hard as you think and it’s quite a rewarding experience. I liken it to learning to sew. Or, perhaps constructing a wheelset is the bike nerdery equivalent of crocheting. For certain, though, the task is, in one way or another, meditative.

So, what have I been meditating on? Well, for one, I’ve yet to answer whether Higgins was really Robin Masters. I think so, but who knows?

Ehrm… nonprofits?

Yes, of course, that other thing occupying my thoughts- the nonprofit sector.

Specifically, today I found myself thinking of environmental nonprofits. Why? Well, the obvious reason is our lecture/discussion session from class last week… 2 we, ahem, 3 weeks ago. But, unless you’ve had your head buried in that copy of Atlas Shrugged oft found hidden under your mattress, you’ve probably noticed the horrendous spew of oil welling up from the Gulf floor. At the time of this writing, we’ve been subjected to 40 days of an uncontained 210,000 gallons (low estimate) of oil per day. Blargh! Blargh indeed. British Petroleum or, for the acronym savvy- BP, has come under scathing criticism for their handling of the Gulf fiasco. The debacle has brought light to a conundrum faced by environmental nonprofits that have become reliant on corporate funding. As society has become more hip to the environmental needs of our planet, nonprofits once at odds with industries and corporations alike have been awash in recent attention from companies looking to “green up” their image. Conflict of interest? Meh, I suppose. If you’re funded by BP? Good luck.

Check it out: BP oil spill poses PR dilemma for nonprofits or (So Much Drama In the LBC)

LBC?

Alright, well, if you simply cannot find the motivation to read the article, I’ll front ya the low down. Basically, BP funded a sea otter habitat for the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach. In light of the recent drilling botch, the aquarium president had a decision- downplay their affiliation with BP or embrace the mullah. What do you think he did? BP just dropped a cool million for kids to hi-five Long Beach’s finest entourage of smug little sea otters. Can you blame him for taking the money?

Arguably, there is something smart in his choice. BP is in public relations hell. Normally they’d be happy for the headline to read “Petrol Giant BP Coddles Furried Friends”. Instead, the headline somewhere reads “This Just In, BP Is A Hypocritical Jerk”. More than likely, however, the aquarium’s decision was based on continual funding needs. But, one can hope they were snarky enough to at least think of the irony. Admittedly, Americans aren’t real quick to pickup on life’s subtleties. We do, however, tend to hone in on the irony of things. And, ironic as it may seem, we must ask ourselves “Is the problem in the funding that BP provides?” Nope. The issue is that they fund environmental organizations while destroying ecosystems. Now if BP really meant it when they changed their slogan to “Beyond Petroleum”, we probably wouldn’t be in this pickle.

I’d like to think I’m a fair guy. So, I’ll offer the other perspective on this one. BP isn’t necessarily the shining example of eco-friendliness that they prostitute themselves out to be. They have a laundry list of environmental infractions they’d like us to forget. And maybe it’s working. I personally didn’t know the magnitude of their prior offenses. I doubt many do. I can recall the countless ads touting BP’s research into alternative energy production. Reality check. BP’s supplies a mere 4% of their exploratory budget into seeking “green” energy. Dadgummit! I’d been GreenWarshed!

This is what we’re up against folks. Granted not all corporate affiliations rest in such hypocrisy. But, still we, as some component of the nonprofit sector, must query- “Should environmental nonprofits accept funding from such corporations?”

In my tradition of idealistic guarded optimism, yes. To explain, I’ll use Apple Computers as an example. There was a time not to long ago when their laptops and computers contained a bunch of toxic metals. Long story short- now they don’t. How are Dell, HP, or anyone else expected to compete? They need to follow suit. Point being, I don’t feel these marketing types are as smart as they think they are. Right now our culture is in the middle of a green revolution. Corporations are so reactive. They focus on short-term goals and quick money. If Wal*Mart wants to act green? Let ‘em. Nasty companies want to fund nonprofits? Go for it. Really, I think they’re shooting themselves in the foot with this one. If their focus groups indicate this as some trend to tap into, they’re ignoring the obvious. This isn’t a pair of Jordan’s we’re talkin’ ‘bout here. This is a way of life. As environmentalism becomes continually more pervasive, companies will no longer be simply following a trend. They will be part of a much larger requisite shift in how they operate.

TTFN,

Miguel