Customer Reviews

Green, Inc.: An Environmental Insider Reveals How a Good Cause Has Gone Bad

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This book usefully (at first) raises many important issues that might make passionate environmentalists uncomfortable and inspire them to look at their activism in a new light. Conservation organizations have become dependent on large donations from corporate polluters who then mislead the public about their "green" contributions. MacDonald also sheds light on some other unintended consequences like the gamesmanship of carbon credits and the displacement of indigenous peoples from third-world preservation zones sponsored by first-world NGOs.

With that being said, MacDonald claims to be an environmental insider and investigative journalist. But she only succeeds in finger-pointing and scape-goating, and offers absolutely no viable solutions to the problems raised (loudly) throughout the book. One is reminded of a pampered college freshman who learns for the first time that there are problems in the world, and then believes she's making a real difference by simply raving about how poorly-defined villains should be stopped. This type of thinking carries no understanding of the longstanding systematic trends of politics and economics that are at the root of current problems and which would need serious long-term reforms before huge global challenges are resolved.

Like MacDonald, many nature lovers would like to see conservation organizations end their relationships with polluting industries and stop allowing those corporate oligarchs to misuse the spirit of conservation for their own marketing purposes. But unlike MacDonald, many are also aware that we live in a globalized economy with an unfair distribution of wealth and political power, and passionate citizens have to resort to fighting fire with fire. MacDonald equally loathes money-hungry conservationists who have sold out their principles, and power-hungry corporations that abuse the public trust and pretend to be green for the PR benefits. So she blames both, inconsistently, as if they were equally culpable.

MacDonald's unsupported polemics are exemplified in one key passage in Chapter 11, noting that a few scientists have recently found reason to doubt whether all types of trees effectively sequester carbon and thus reduce global warming. MacDonald uses this slight uncertainty to accuse Ducks Unlimited of "misleading" its partners in a years-old voluntary tree-planting program. Earlier, in Chapter 5 MacDonald generally condemns the entire worldwide environmental community for ineffectiveness because environmental problems still exist. In all cases, MacDonald's culprit is money, but she's got no solutions other than finger-pointing at interested conservationists, blaming them for failing to miraculously solve deeply entrenched problems caused by systematic structures in international economics and politics.

So with this disappointing book, the "environmental insider" has merely given ammunition to anti-environmentalists who pounce upon the occasional errors in judgment by conservationists who are forced to work in a political and economic world they never made. Also note that MacDonald's opinions have been made available to the public by an organization she criticizes, FSC (Forest Stewardship Council), which endorsed the recycled paper in this book. [~doomsdayer520~]

If it's true, this book is a damning critique of the big green groups. The problem is, it does not appear to be carefully researched or balanced in its approach. It's hard to know what's fact, distortion, or fiction. That's a shame, because global conservation is terribly important and these groups are at the center of it.

Here's one glaring example of MacDonald's disregard for accuracy. In Chapter 10, she writes about a paper that was published in Science in 2007, "Globalization of Conservation: a View from the South." When I read MacDonald's description, I thought, "That's not how I remember that article." So I went back and re-read the original.

The paper is in fact a thoughtful critique of global conservation, the gist of which is that more support needs to go to the small NGOs, rooted in local communities, that are often doing the most effective work.

Here is how MacDonald begins her summary of this paper: "The authors characterized conservation agendas such as CI's Biodiversity Hot Spots and WWF's Global 200 Ecoregions as mere 'branding' strategies, casting doubt on claims that the work is 'science-driven.'"

If that were true, that would be a pretty strong condemnation. Here's what the authors actually wrote:

"These INGOs [large, international NGOs] have developed a range of tools, e.g., Biodiversity Hot Spots (1), Global 200 Ecoregions (2), and others (3) to set priorities and to compete with each other. They often use a corporate "branding" strategy to help raise funds and to define and communicate their niches in a crowded and competitive market. ... Although these brands are derived from conservation science, they are vulnerable to scientific criticism (7). For example, priority-setting plans that target fixed areas for conservation (e.g., Hot Spots and Ecoregions) are insufficient to deal with fast-moving threats such as pathogens or invasive species (8), the alteration of species' ranges due to climate change (9), or spatially dynamic marine ecosystems (10)."

I had heard about some of the controversies surrounding The Nature Conservancy and other big environmental groups, but did not know the details. Christine MacDonald gets down to the brass tacks. I think she is convincing on the need for a review of salaries for top environmentalists. She's also good on reminding environmental groups to be very, very careful when it comes to accepting donations from big polluters. I will definitely be reconsidering some of the groups I donate to.

That said, it seems to me that the real question is whether environmental groups can accomplish more by working with business or not. Is there any point to trying to reform from within? MacDonald apparently thinks that any compromise with polluters is doing a deal with the devil. I'm not so sure. If environmentalists choose not to engage at all with business, will that only marginalize the environmental movement?

On the other hand, MacDonald points out the environmental movement so far has failed, in that deforestation, pollution, climate change, and species extinction have not been halted or reversed. OK, I agree that the environmental movement somehow has to do better. But MacDonald has no suggestions on how to accomplish this, beyond a few vague platitudes.

I do wish the environmental movement would be more honest about what it is going to take to make the economy sustainable. This will not be easy. The fact is that sustainability is going to require an end to most, if not all, mining. Economic growth will be a thing of the past. Ditto globalization. Having more than one child, or a personal automobile, will be the sort of luxury only wealthy people can afford. We're all going to have to learn to do more with less. This is not to say that it will be all bad--many of us might find that better personal relationships and less obsession with buying stuff will make us happier. However, daily life in a sustainable economy is likely to be very different from now. Maybe Christine MacDonald is right that trying to compromise with today's multi-national corporations is pointless. However, you'll have to look to some other book to find solid discussion of these points. (As a start, I would suggest Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update.)

This book is a very level-headed, thoughtful review of the world's top environmental organizations. I found it a quick read even though it is chock full of detailed statistics and tables with hard facts. I enjoyed the author's easy tone, and did not find it angry at all (as one description states), but rather very straight forward and matter of fact. I was also pleased to find that her sources are direct from reports and court records, not merely based on anecdotal information as "from an insider" might imply. "Brown Eyed NJ Girl's" comments give me the impression that she might have her own axe to grind; they do not reflect the book's actual content. I am astonished by the hard facts the author has offered us; at the discrepancies between the public image and the actual operating procedures of these environmental groups. One question really sticks with me: How is it that these environmental groups have grown and strengthened so much over the past 20 years, but that our environmental concerns have worsened? Rather than a scathing indictment I see this as a fairly reasonable question the author has posed. I have often wondered how these huge non-profits operate, and where my donations and good will are really going. Green Inc. gives you the facts and allows you to create your own well informed opinion.

"Green Inc." is a good read and raises a lot of serious questions. I found myself surprised over and over again. It was hard to believe that the heads of these nature groups receive salaries as high as $800,000 a year. But it was even more disheartening to find out they hang out with corporate CEOs and board members and have all kinds of shady deals with oil companies, power plants and other big polluters. It's so sad that environmental groups that began with the ideal of protecting the Earth have devolved into groups that cover up for corporations that destroy places like the Amazon. Saddest of all is that we give money, thinking its going for environmental protection, when it's really being used to pay astronomic salaries and kick Native people off their land. "Green Inc." does an excellent job of explaining how these environmental groups have changed since they were first established. The book also does a good job explaining how globalization is taking a toll on the planet and how the corporations that give big donations to nature groups are some of the biggest culprits. All in all, a shocking tale.

Green, Inc. - An Environmental Insider Reveals How a Good Cause Has Gone Bad is another one of those books that I have tossed onto my "books I never finished reading pile." Why? Because the book doesn't, in my opinion, provide an objective account of what it claims in the title.

Billed as a look at how various environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) have misplaced some of their well-intentioned goals and written by a former journalist, Christine Mac Donald, from this book I expected to get a well-sourced look at what it is that some ENGOs are doing wrong. Instead what I received was more of, what I view as, a harangue against the corporations which the ENGOs target. Criticism of corporations and their environmental impacts is a subject covered in many other books. I expected Green, Inc. to be different.

And the critical statements against the corporations weren't particularly well-sourced. The author does use what I consider to be high-quality sourcing. But she does not use it consistently or comprehensively throughout the book. This lack of consistently comprehensive sourcing, especially from a former journalist, is what disappointed me the most. There are seemingly endless "statements" about corporate environmental wrong-doing that aren't footnoted or referenced, which makes these "statements" just come off as "assertions." After I read about a third of this book, I decided that for the subject matter I sought based upon this book's title, I should look elsewhere.

A sure sign of what's coming is when the author claims no ill-will after losing her job. And it only goes downhill from there. The point of this book seems to be to slam organizations that have grown beyond their birkenstocks. Most of the book revolves around Conservation International - yet 2 of the authors key interviews are with disgruntled ex-CI employees (this is fact, not supposition); and not much fact nor balance about CI or the others. Considering that these environmental groups have brought millions to their causes, positively affected thousands and thousands of lives, protected countless hectares, species, and communities; and drastically changed government and World Bank policies - we could all do without the limited perspective of this disillusioned, disgruntled supposedly objective book.

Green Inc. is a good insider's look at the problems with Gang Green.

That said, if you find much of what Christine MacDonald has written, as far as broader issues, either new or shocking, you obviously needed to be shocked.

Jeffrey St. Clair has been extensively tackling the problems of the domestic-focused portions of Gang Green (which obviously doesn't include the Conservation International where MacDonald worked) for a decade, and in great detail for much of that time.

That said, although MacDonald is tardy to the game, and writes a slim book not much longer than a two-issue magazine expose, she does have a few good points.

One is the salary structure. Contrary to another reviewer here, the highest-paid Gang Gree CEOs don't get $350K, they get $800K. And, even in NYC of SF, $800K is a LOT of scratch.

Two is her look at the international scene on US/Western European Gang Gree folks in developing nations is an area St. Clair hasn't at all covered.

The fact that native activists, in many places, basically detest Gang Green operatives and organizations SHOULD BE an eye-opener to the enviro groups that make up Gang Green. But, it's not.

In fact, in many cases, they say local activists have brought this on themselves.

That said, there's one error of fact and a couple of grammar in the book.

Texas' state bird is the mockingbird, not the Attwater prairie chicken. Where MacDonald got that idea, I don't know.

"Ally," the word she uses in one place, is NOT "allay."

And, it's a minor spelling mistake, but about a HUGE word in global warming - its "Arctic," not "artic" (sic on the lack of capitalization by MacDonald, too).

The mistakes and slim size alone would have knocked this book off the five-star level.

It's a solid 3.5 stars or a bit above, as is. We still can't do half-star ratings here, so it gets bumped to a 4.

For more on Gang Green, including its membership list, go to SourceWatch.org

"Big cars, fancy office, lots of talk and nothing to show for it." This scathing indictment of the environmental group Conservation International was made by United Nations investigators during a 2006 probe into the disappearance of funds earmarked for a community marine center in the island nation of Papua New Guinea. It seems that the project ran out of money while Conservation International executives were squandering huge sums on frivilous things. There is mounting evidence that this was by no means an islolated incident. Christine MacDonald is a journalist who has worked for such prominent newspapers as The Boston Globe, The Los Angeles Times, and the Dallas Morning News. In 2006 MacDonald decided to give up reporting to accept a job as a manager with Conservation International's Global Communications Division. What she would discover during her brief stint with this organization would greatly disturb her. "Green Inc.: An Environmental Insider Reveals How A Good Cause Has Gone Bad" chronicles what Christine MacDonald has uncovered about some of the world's largest and best known environmental organizations. What she has to say will likely shake your confidence in these organizations to the core!

"Green, Inc" focuses the spotlight on some of the most familiar and trusted environmental organizations in the nation including Conservation International, World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy, The Natural Resources Defense Council, The Conservation Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, National Audubon Society, and Greenpeace. What Christine MacDonald discovered is that many of these organizations accept donations from some of the world's most notorious polluters including E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., General Electric, Eastman Kodak, Nissan, Dow Chemical, Wal-Mart and even ExxonMobil of Exxon Valdez fame. The highly compensated leaders of these environmental behemoths justify these relationships by making the argument that such relationships only serve to encourage these companies to operate in a more environmental friendly manner. Sadly, the preponderance of available evidence would suggest otherwise. Most of these companies appear to enter into such agreements primarily for public relations reasons.

In the meantime, Christine MacDonald spends a considerable amount of time in "Green, Inc." focusing on the pay, perks and extravagant lifestyles of many of the CEO's and top executives of these same environmental organizations. Many of these individuals earn salaries in excess of $350,000 placing them in the top 1% of all U.S. taxpayers. Even more outrageous is the fact that the CEO of the Wildlife Conservation Foundation, Steven Henderson, and James Maddy at the National Park Foundation both earn in excess of $800,000 in salary and fringe benefits! And when you discover some of the frivolous perks and exotic junkets that some of these folks partake in one really does have to wonder just what the priorities are. In the book, Christine MacDonald points out that there are more than 12,000 environmental non-profits operating in America today. One has to wonder why we need so many of these organizations in the first place. What "Green Inc.: An Environmental Insider Reveals How A Good Cause Has Gone Bad" makes crystal clear is that considerable reform is needed in the structure and oversight of many of these organizations. "Green Inc." also serves as a warning to those who donate to such groups: Donor beware! At this point I would certainly refrain from financially supporting many of these organizations. This a real shame because there are a great many dedicated people hard at work in the lower echelons of these organizations who will suffer from the negative publicity generated by this book. Other pertinent issues covered in the book are open-pit mines, urban sprawl, the whole idea of "sustainable growth" and something called "greenwashing". "Green, Inc." takes a comprehensive look at these and many other important issues.

Is "Green, Inc." nothing more than sour grapes from a disgruntled ex-employee or is Christine MacDonald on to something here? Read her book and judge for yourself. In my opinion, "Green, Inc: An Environmental Insider Reveals How A Good Cause Has Gone Bad" is a book well worth your time and careful consideration. Highly recommended!

Some of the world's top conservationists have dubious relationships with the corporate world: that's the hard-hitting message of GREEN, INC, which examines the methods and processes of good intentions gone bad. Chapters consider groups and individuals alike, surveying the realities behind 'green' movements and efforts. GREEN INC: AN ENVIRONMENTAL INSIDER REVEALS HOW A GOOD CAUSE HAS GONE BAD is not to be missed by any library exploring environmental consciousness.