home > earth day resources > earth day dialectic

THE EARTH DAY DIALECTIC

On April 22, 2005, Earth Day celebrates its 35th birthday, the occasion that some impudent developmentalists say marks the dawn of middle age.

This spring, in honor of Earth Day’s rite of passage, The Green Life conducted interviews with 25 Earth Day experts – organizers and sponsors, mostly, as well as scholars, journalists and general observers – to discuss an issue prominent in Earth Day’s past and critical to its future: corporate sponsorship.

Before summarizing our interviews results, with an eye toward Earth Day in years to come, we begin by recounting Earth Day’s history.

“In 1970 there were lots of corporations interested in sponsorship,” states Peter Drekmeier, a national organizer of Earth Day 1990 and 2000. “But the organizers wanted a squeaky clean event so they refused to take any of the corporate money.”

And still the inaugural Earth Day achieved success. An estimated 20 million Americans took part in demonstrations designed to insert a novel issue known as “the environment” into popular consciousness and onto the legislative docket. Citizens took to the streets to protest the destruction of the planet at the hands of industry. They filled auditoriums to strategize about cleaning up their communities.

Television networks ABC, CBS and NBC each aired special Earth Day broadcasts. Public television ran 6 ½ hours of green-themed shows, its longest day of programming given to a single subject.

Congress adjourned for the day so that members could return home and hear what their concerned constituents had to say. Some listened better than others. Months after Earth Day, event organizers campaigned against the “dirty dozen congressmen” up for re-election. When seven of them were defeated, all of Washington took notice. Within a few years, Earth Day led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the passage of landmark legislation including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act.

American Heritage Magazine called Earth Day 1970 “one of the most remarkable happenings in the history of democracy.” As with other auspicious democratic happenings (like elections), Earth Day eventually invited corporate influence.

After two decades of relative dormancy, during which the reforms it catalyzed began to be rolled back, Earth Day resurfaced in 1990. Arriving at a peak of worldwide environmental awareness, as the ozone layer was disappearing and books such as 50 Things You Can Do to Save the Earth and Hints for a Healthy Planet were bestsellers, Earth Day’s 20th anniversary involved a record 200 million participants in 141 countries. Yet the event’s popularity was only part of the story. Social ecologist Brian Tokar described “a day of polite, feel-good commemorations with strikingly little social or political content; many big city events were almost wholly sponsored by major corporations.” TIME was more graphic in its appraisal, labeling Earth Day 1990 “a commercial mugging.”

Betsy Altman, coordinator of Chicago Earth Month, says that “Earth Days are like high school reunions. Everyone goes on a major year, but nobody makes a fuss about other years.” Earth Day 1995 was sullied by a scandalous fundraising effort for a no-holds-barred national event in Washington, DC. For upwards of $30,000, Earth Day USA, the outfit running the sponsorship operation, would license companies the rights to its “official” Earth Day logo. When Earth Day USA’s plans to launch a spin-off group, the Earth Day Corporate Team, were exposed in the press, the White House and the government consortium Project Earthlink opted out Earth Day USA’s entertainment extravaganza on the National Mall. “In the rush to put on the biggest, baddest eco-bash ever,” wrote Bill Gifford in Outside Magazine, “the [environmental] message got left behind.”

Five years later, guided by the Earth Day Network, organizers in 184 nations around the world rallied the common message of “Clean Energy Now!” Unfortunately, few in the U.S. paid attention. Leonardo Dicaprio’s primetime interview with President Clinton on ABC was watched in 3.6 million homes, fewer than tuned in to a repeat episode of “Pretender” (5.3 million) and “Cops” (5.7 million). The interview reached approximately as many Americans as Ford Motor Company did as the exclusive sponsor of TIME’s Earth Day issue.

We have arrived once again at a semi-decennial date. Though Earth Day has another shared theme – “Protect Our Children and Our Future” – events by and large will be scaled back to the local level, where most of our Earth Day experts are active.

THE SPECTRUM ON SPONSORSHIP

A few of our experts have clear-cut views about corporate sponsorship. Carolyn Chase organizes San Diego Earth Fair, attracting 250 exhibitors and 50,000 attendees each year. Chase rarely turns prospective sponsors away, even if she does not agree with their practices. She reasons, “Earth Day is about the Earth. The Earth is a big place. You have to have inclusion by all parts of the Earth.” On the other side of the fence is Center for Media and Democracy executive director John Stauber, who, as a high school student, celebrated the inaugural Earth Day by organizing a trash transfer from local streams and parks to the lawn of city hall. Stauber sees Earth Day as chance to build a grassroots political movement uncompromised by corporate interests. “Why should greens work with corporations on the environment?” he asks. “To heck with sponsorship. It’s a Faustian bargain at best.”

However, most of the organizers we talked to had “mixed feelings,” as expressed by Michael Closson, organizer of Earth Day 2000 events nationwide. “On one hand, I’m delighted that [companies] recognize the environment,” he says. “But I’m sorry to see companies tout their green image if they’re not really green.”

Closson holds a typical view among organizers that companies using Earth Day sponsorship as an initial foray into environmentalism should be given freedom to move in the right direction, if only to help them go further in the future. “I’d rather have acknowledgment first, then push the envelope.” Similarly, Mark Dubois, international organizer of Earth Day 1990 and Earth Day 2000, likens companies to children: “When a child is learning to walk and he or she falls, you don’t chastise the child. You nurture the child. You must truly honor the first steps while holding corporations accountable.” Erika Pringsheim-Moore, director of Earth Day for the California State Parks Foundation, agrees. “It is a slower process with larger companies, but you have to encourage them to continue on the path to sustainability and not push them out.” Even so, patience has limits. While ChevronTexaco, PG&E and others polluters are welcome at CalParks Earth Day, Wal-Mart, which has sponsored the event in the past, was not invited back this year due to recent “issues” with the company’s environmental performance.

Pringsheim-Moore experienced a common progression among organizers. When CalParks Earth Day began in 1998, she sought funding exclusively from government agencies and small green businesses, such as Odwalla (now a subsidiary of Coca-Cola Corp.). Yet contributions proved paltry, and ever since she has looked to large companies to support the event, which consists of volunteer restoration and cleanup activities in state parks.

So too did Jeremy Hofer open the door of Fresno Earth Day, though not as widely. Launched in 2001, the event was initially a grassroots affair free of corporate sponsorship. Attendance amounted to 300, but grew sharply thereafter. “It ballooned in its third year,” Hofer explains. In 2003, to cover the costs of staging, insurance, printing and security to draw and entertain between 3000 and 5000 people – “preaching beyond the choir” – his organizing committee chose Whole Foods and Toyota to serve as sponsors.

MEANS OF SCREENS

As a condition of its sponsorship of Fresno Earth Day, Toyota was allowed to showcase only the Prius and other examples of hybrid technology. Placing conditions on sponsorship is a way of screening through self-selection, versus unilateral decision-making by organizers. In Austin, Texas, Brandi Clarke didn’t want to exclude any companies during her first year as Earth Day coordinator in 2001, but still she intended to put on a genuinely green event. She decided that sponsors would have to agree to produce zero waste. Ultimately, with nearly 100 exhibitors 5,000 attendees, Austin Earth Day generated a total of one cubic foot of garbage.

Organizers can also promote self-selection through policy mechanisms. For example, at previous Los Angeles Earth Day events, which Wendy Wendlandt helped organize, sponsors were required to sign on to a one-page energy platform developed by local environmental groups. “So the approach wasn’t anti-corporate,” Wendlandt says. “We simply wanted to make sure that everybody was supporting tough environmental policies.” She thinks that “Earth Day provides a great opportunity to build momentum for change. If that means music, booths, etcetera, great, but it should always have a political focus.” The policy angle stays true to Earth Day’s original orientation. “As an environmental movement, we need to take a hard stance,” states Kenny Bruno, author of Greenwash: The Reality Behind Corporate Environmentalism.. “We need to have a litmus test.”

When organizers take it upon themselves to decide who’s in and who’s out, they can do so in several ways. They can go local, as did the Citizens’ Environmental Coalition (CEC) Earth Day Committee in Houston, co-chaired by Alesha Herrera. The CEC formerly partnered with Enron and radio station KRBE to put on a giant Earth Day concert that pulled as many as 35,000 people, but lacked concrete environmental content. In 2002 the group came to the conclusion that “the event was a sham,” according to Herrara. “In good conscience, we couldn’t keep doing the event because the Earth was left out,” echoed CEC executive director David Gresham. The CEC started to organize an alternative event that would nonetheless be visible to the community. Its success depended on local companies with large coffers, like Marathon Oil and Waste Management. While each of those companies has had far-reaching environmental problems, the CEC deems them both to be good corporate citizens of Houston. “You can’t go wrong partnering with a local business that has a history of caring for the community and the environment,” asserts Gresham.

Others take a harder line. As executive director of Earth Day Los Angeles in 2000, John Quigley followed a strict set of guidelines that included never undercutting allies by accepting sponsorship from a company that was the target of any environmental campaign, nor giving up the right to criticize sponsors. Caroline Harwood, director of Earth Day Resources, which helped organizers hold greenwash-free events, holds one cut-and-dry rule that “if a company breaks any regulations, you shouldn’t take their money.”

THE THREE VIRTUES OF VETTING

Peter Drekmeier, co-founder of Bay Area Action and a national organizer of Earth Day 1990 and Earth Day 2000, articulates one of a trio of reasons for screening: “Rewarding good companies is essential. You can’t treat all companies the same.” Companies with sound products and a positive message deserve to be connected to potential customers and commended by environmental groups. Furthermore, by interacting with conscious consumers and knowledgeable nonprofits, companies may recognize additional ends and means for going green. “Anybody who wants to be better should be involved,” says Clark from Austin.

The trick with screening, of course, is to recognize who really wants to be better and who is just pretending to improve. The second reason for screening is to avoid enabling corporate greenwash. “There is a big difference between sponsorship and institutional change,” states Drekmeier. “Most companies are interested in sponsorship only for the purposes of greenwashing.” Author Bruno contends that “many events have been greenwashed down to the verge of being counterproductive.” Greenwashing defeats the educational aspect of Earth Day events by confusing consumers about which products and companies are environmentally preferable. “Earth Day has an environmental badge of quality,” maintains Quigley from Los Angeles. “If something is attached to Earth Day, it needs to be truly environmental.”

The final reason is to respect and guard against human nature. “It’s a temptation,” says organizing advisor Harwood. “It’s a test if someone presents a $10,000 check.” Yes, events require funding, but “when the money is involved, people start acting all weird and stop speaking out,” according to international organizer Dubois. By prioritizing funding above the foundational principles of Earth Day, organizers risk running an event that is all style and no substance. “Corporate sponsorships do start to control events if you’re not careful,” cautions Hofer from Fresno. Just as organizers “wouldn’t have an anti-war protest and ask the ROTC to sponsor it,” neither would they seek sponsorship from the local power plant for a clean-air demonstration.

Unfortunately, not all organizers feel they have the luxury of being picky. Either they accept corporate money, or they deny their neighbors a community Earth Day event, heavily coated in greenwash though it may be. “It’s easy to throw stones, but where are the alternatives?” asks Dubois. Pam Lippe, executive director of Earth Day New York, understands that clean money is hard to come by, especially in areas where environmental awareness is largely absent. She recommends that organizers “find sustainability within your funding model.”

But not all organizers peers are so sympathetic. “Why do you need all this money? If you can’t find funding with integrity, don’t do it,” counsels Quigley. “Find ways to make a difference that will actually make a difference. Take yourself away from the mercy of the sponsor.” Harwood seconds the notion: “Why bother to do the event if you have to take money from corporate polluters?”

A HEGELIAN HOLIDAY

posed by screening would be easily solved if companies with deep pockets weren’t only dressed in green, but also were environmentally friendly at heart. Moreover, Earth Day could reinvigorate its original political spirit if participating companies backed policy agenda of the environmental movement. At the same time, the emphasis on green consumerism since 1990 would be become more meaningful with an influx of new green blood.

Such a convergence could be called, say, the Earth Day Dialectic. Conceived George Wilhelm Hegel, a philosopher and historian born precisely 200 years before the first Earth Day, a dialectic consists of three parts: a thesis, antithesis and synthesis. The thesis presented in 1970 held that the environmental movement could remedy corporate environmental destruction without the involvement of corporations. But that internal contradiction guaranteed the emergence of the antithesis, whereby companies took the liberty of involving themselves to protect and promote their interests. After a period of conflict between the thesis and antithesis, characterized by debate about sponsorship, Earth Day is bound to arrive at a synthesis, resolving the conflict between corporate involvement and corporate reform.

The theory is not necessarily fanciful. Increasingly, Earth Day events involve companies that don’t fight reform, but exemplify it. Players in the annual $440 billion “Healthy Products, Healthy Planet” marketplace, including Whole Foods, Ben & Jerry’s, Seventh Generation, Stonyfield Farm and Patagonia, are expanding their Earth Day presence. Better yet, they are acting in concert, forging a progressive movement of sponsors that parallels that of environmental groups. Jason Pelletier, creative resources manager at Seventh Generation, tells of his company’s plans this year to team up with Toyota and VivaTerra to grant prizes of hybrid cars and organic bedding as part of the Seventh Generation Earth Day Sweepstakes. In 2002 and 2003, Eric Hudson, founder of Recycline, maker of recycled hygiene products, joined together with Organic Valley, Seventh Generation, Kiss My Face and Stonyfield to “stress the idea that every day is Earth Day.”

Hudson has a goal of giving 5 percent of Recycline’s profits to environmental efforts, but the company, founded in 1996, is not yet large enough to achieve that goal. He states that if a handful of green businesses can make small commitments to Earth Day sponsorship, they can have a significant impact on events. Vincent Cobb’s company, ReusableBags.com, is the kind of little fish that could help peck away at Earth Day greenwash. ReusableBags.com has yet to give to Earth Day, but is eager to. “For a small business, sponsorship really has to be worth the money and time,” Cobb says. He suggests that one way to facilitate participation among budding green businesses is to form a foundation in which like-minded companies and organizations can pool their resources. In effect, bigger brands would subsidize the Earth Day involvement of smaller ones. As with other initiatives within the growing green market, for example, the Green Business Network (GBN), an Earth Day foundation would benefit all members.

The criteria for Earth Day partnerships could be determined by different methods. Membership in GBN, which is screened by Co-op America, is one immediately accessible qualifier. Alternatively, a sponsorship foundation or some other mediator of partnerships could employ a financial services company trained in screening for environmentally responsible investments.

Whatever track they take, organizers and green businesses both should seek a synthesis aligning Earth Day’s legacy of political action and consumer information (and disinformation). In coming years, as they attempt to do so in coming years, The Green Life intends to lend a helping hand, directing green businesses to organizers and vice versa, while continuing to point out the pros and cons of corporate sponsorship.

home > earth day resources > earth day dialectic