Book Review: Stirring It Up

Stirring It Up: How to Make Money and Save the World by Gary Hirsberg

Book description: Gary Hirsberg is the founder and CE-Yo of Stonyfield Farm, a company that proved it was profitable to operate sustainably. Hirsberg outlines his own journey in Stirring it Up and highlights other success stories, from Wal-mart to Patagonia, of companies who have embraced a sustainable product, production supply chain, work environment, and culture -- and made it profitable.

I scoffed when I reached the section where Hirsberg points to Wal-mart, the most hated of retail giants, as an example of a company that was working to "save the world." It took me a while to reconcile my view of Wal-mart -- the blight upon rural America and destroyer of the small mom-and-pop stores -- with the Wal-mart Hirsberg described. I had to remind myself there were two sides to every coin. I still find it very hard to believe that Wal-mart's journey to being green was motivated by anything other than . . . well, green, as in money.

And it is true -- being green can save you money. It goes back to the three 'R's of environmentalism we memorized all those years ago. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. Those were the tenents of the do-it-yourself environmentalism. Unfortunately, the first two seem to have been forgotten. They were unpopular in that they reminded us of the need to change our gluttonous and spoiled lifestyles. But, as Hirsberg showed with examples throughout his book, reduce and reuse can sure conserve more than just raw materials. For a business, the bottom line is hugely important.

While I am a believer in green business, I doubt it can save the world because it ignores one of the root causes of most if not all environmental problems: consumption. Green business is still firmly rooted in the capitalist framework and in the free market economy. The belief that the free market can fix everything is somewhat of a sacred cow in the United States. I agree that the market is a very powerful entity but do not think it is the answer for all the ills in the world, mainly because the free market without government intervention will most likely not take into account the externalities into the price of the product. And the free market is still based on consumption. Whenever we buy something from the store, we are directly contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, resource depletion, and landfill waste. Buying "green" should also mean buying less, and reusing what you can (either yourself and giving to others) in addition to recycling.

Still, overall, a great thumbs-up to Hirsberg and other green business entrepreneurs out there.

Book Review: Priceless

Priceless: On Knowing the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing by Frank Ackerman and Lisa Heinzerling

Book description: As heartless as it sounds to express in dollars and cents the value of human lives, health, or the environment, cost-benefit analysis requires it. More disturbingly, this approach is being embraced by a growing number of politicians and conservative pundits as the most reasonable way to make a variety of policy decisions regarding public health and the environment. By systematically refuting the ill-advised economic algorithms and illogical assumptions that cost-benefit analysts flaunt as fact, Priceless tells a "gripping story about how solid science has been shoved to the backburner by bean counters with ideological blinders" (In These Times).

I have to thank Herman Daly for assigning this book for his class. I doubt I ever would have discovered it without him. In their book, Ackerman and Heinzerling critique the political and economic impetus to assign a price tag to everything -- even a human life (which is, incidentally, $6.1 million, according to the U.S. EPA).

The problem with our current system is the fact that "money talks." In order to play on the same field as the business interests, environmentalists and advocates have been forced to place economic value to things that should be without price. The wonderful institution in the Executive Branch, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) demands it, even. In order to leverage political change, a number must be given. And you can be sure that the people on the other side of the debate have their own numbers to wave about -- though it seems that lately, they have been relying on the ambiguous "it will hurt the economy" argument.

So this had led to a system in which things that have infinite value are given a price tag. The authors note this phenomenon with not only a human life, which extends to human health, but natural resources and safety. So if the price tag associated with an action is more than the price tag given to the benefits, then said action is not cost effective and OMB can say it should not be done.

Pretty handy way of arguing what not to do, ain't it? Who cares about health, safety, and the environment anyway, when it's not cost effective to do so?

Something else to ponder -- if a human life is worth 6.1 million dollars, then theoretically, a murderer could pay $6.1 million and get off scot free.