Some folks in northern Illinois are complaining about the wind turbines popping up in neighbors' fields.

They say the turbines are noisy, create "shadow flicker," spook farm animals, and create health problems for people and livestock.

They claim farmers who lease their fields to turbine companies are usually more interested in the money than the environment. Rental fees paid for turbine use are higher than fees for leasing farm land for agriculture.

They're also miffed when they sit in the dark during power outages and see the turbines still working - generating power for other communities.

There's got to be a way for good public policy to be implemented without harming people.

There is a big difference between "giving" and "giving back," and too many people confuse the two.

"Giving" is a generous, compassionate act in which a person provides something of value to others who are in need of it. It is done without expectation of receiving anything in return.

"Giving back" is a moral obligation in which people who have amassed a significant amount of value, return (or are prompted to return) some of that value to people who are in need of it. It may, or may not, be motivated by generosity and compassion.

When association executives call upon colleagues to "give back" to the profession, they are really asking people to "give."

You should "give" to your profession, not because you owe it anything, but because you are part of a community, and that community seeks to fulfill aims that you believe in. The profession can do a better job of fulfilling those aims if the members of its community "give."

So, let's get it straight. Billionaires should "give back' because they have too much and don't need it all. The rest of us should "give" because we believe it is important to do so, not because we have taken anything that ought to be returned.

Today's Holiday Showcase, hosted by Association Forum of Chicagoland, featured more than 700 exhibitors, most of them destinations. Strolling the aisles, I observed dessert stations offering scrumptious sweets, booth spaces well-designed and attractive, and some hotel exhibits as lavish as ever.

The only sign of the changing economy was the distribution of brown paper bags, instead of cloth, to stash exhibitor goodies and informational materials. I passed on the oversized doggie bag and grabbed a cloth bag, albeit a low-end one, from a hotel exhibitor.

Green advocates may praise the choice of brown paper bags instead of cloth. I think it was a cost-saving decision, though, not an environmental one.

Besides, brown paper bags cannot be reused. They'll just be tossed in the recycling heap. Cloth bags, however, can be used time and time again. I've never thrown one away.

If you want to cut costs, just don't offer any bag. People can carry their own stuff. They don't need help from a promotional receptacle.

Lindy Dreyer is reminding us about all the issues related to "paperless" meetings, including the absence of paper handouts.

Handouts are a popular discussion item because their availability - in whatever format - is evident to attendees.

Whether lack of paper handouts is a function of time and cost or of genuine green advocacy, a more important issue may be the usefulness of handouts.

Let's see what people report back about this from the ASAE conference.

It’s nice to see a wave of social responsibility washing over corporate America. While environmental issues and human rights generally dominate the discussion, other concerns should be considered, as well:

Is it socially responsible for pharmaceutical companies to sell the same drugs in Canada and the United States, charge Canadians less, yet prohibit Americans from buying those drugs in Canada?

Is it socially responsible for hospitals to practice same-day discharge for women who have had mastectomies?

Is it socially responsible for nursing homes to reduce staffing levels to increase profits?

Is it socially responsible for health insurance companies to deny legitimate claims, knowing the insured will not appeal the decision?

Is it socially responsible for American companies to purchase goods and services overseas, thus avoiding the need to pay American workers?

Is it socially responsible for businesses to terminate employees to increase profit margins?

Is it socially responsible for businesses to amend employment agreements by terminating retiree pension programs?

Is it socially responsible for association executives to represent industries that engage in socially irresponsible behavior?

Hmmm…

Social responsibility advocates talk a lot about the need to “give something back.”

Well, I don’t recall taking anything in the first place, so I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be giving back.

Wealthy corporations and individuals, you can argue, have made tremendous amounts of money from the labor and purchases of the less fortunate. Perhaps it’s appropriate for them to “give something back” since they have amassed an overwhelming portion of society’s valuable resources.

Not-for-profit organizations and many associations, on the other hand, represent people who have not benefited from the largesse of society. We are the ones who help those in need and we shouldn’t be categorized with society’s successful capitalists.

Everybody should contribute to making our world a better place to live because we will all benefit. Make it a positive act, not a negative one, and people will be more likely to help.

Doug Widener, of the U.S. Green Building Council - Chicago Chapter, offers 25 ways of creating an eco-friendly office, in the “Green” issue of Forum (April 2008).

Some are obvious, like “recycle,” “turn off computers and monitors,” and “donate old office furniture and computers.” Others present opportunities to pursue green policies in ways you may not have considered. However, there are implications to many of these, and you need to be sure you’ve taken them into account before charging forward with your greening strategy.

Before adopting a “go paperless” policy, be sure your members support it. Implement a workable method to provide members with information that used to be available on paper.

“Use laptop computers” has its limitations (not just the cost), as evidenced by recent thefts of sensitive data from employee laptops. Ensure that confidential information is stored on a non-portable device and is not transported on equipment that may be left in car trunks, on restaurant tables, or in health club lockers.

If you choose to “invest in modular furniture,” instead of traditional build-outs, remember to preserve private space for performance reviews, conversations with employees and Board members, and other association tasks that are best conducted behind closed doors.

Always offer incentives, not penalties, when encouraging adoption of green policies. For example, many people will continue to drive – regardless of the cost or environmental impact – because public transportation is not available, carpooling is inconvenient, or their work commute combines school pickup/dropoff, grocery shopping, sales calls, or other tasks requiring a car.

Green policies, like any other lifestyle issues, will take hold when people choose them and experience personal benefits.

It seems like everybody is going green this month…and maybe for good.

Forum and Chicago Athlete both published “green” issues this month, outlining practices their readers can easily adopt to add green policies in their everyday lives. Whole Foods stopped packing groceries in plastic bags. CVS Pharmacy is now using recyclable paper bags. Google darkened its screen because black pixels use less energy than color pixels.

The World Wildlife Fund persuaded twenty-six American cities to participate in a voluntary hour of energy conservation by turning off lights for one hour tonight.

Most green marketing addresses the public benefits of environmentally responsible activities. Green campaigns stress the importance of saving our planet and all of the natural resources we rely upon. That message has a reasonably large audience but often strikes people as more political than practical. Even those with eco-friendly attitudes sometimes feel they are being lectured to and begin to ignore green appeals.

Many people do not believe that the earth will ever be depleted of oil, water, or other essential resources. They believe that just as technology has developed ways to make life more convenient it will also develop ways to preserve the availability of these resources.

The most effective marketing message for green advocacy will focus on the personal benefits of going green. People are more willing to save themselves than they are to save the planet:

Explaining how much money they’ll save in utility costs by turning off unnecessary lights and appliances; Demonstrating how much they can save by eliminating phantom energy use by unplugging computers and televisions when they aren’t in use; Clarifying the connection between respiratory ailments and carbon emissions; Showing how government expenses – and individual taxes – can be reduced by minimizing the need for more municipal landfills.

Connecting environmental hazards to personal finances and individuals’ health will have a much greater impact on people than urging them to do what is best for everyone.

If you want people – voters, members, donors, constituents, etc. – to act in a particular way, place the issue in the context of their self-interest. It will be a lot more effective than if you merely preached about the public good.

ASAE & The Center is one of a growing number of associations promoting paperless meetings. Absence of paper handouts is cited as environmentally beneficial. Members are expected to be supportive of this position, and some are.

However, paperless meetings are not member-focused, they are administration-focused. Members like handouts and a member-focused organization will make it easier for members to obtain handouts. Convenience matters most to members and paperless is not convenient.

ASAE & The Center required members to log on to its web site to download handouts. Some files were corrupted and could not be downloaded. Those that could be were then printed on the paper and machines of the members, not of the association. Handouts were not available on-site.

Paperless enables the association to save the time and money of printing handouts. Citing environmental concerns is a “spin” to stop members from thinking of paperless as inconvenient.

If you want to go paperless, check first to see if your members are supportive. You may need to think of other ways to comply with your environmental conscience.

It’s very interesting to see ASAE & the Center promoting social responsibility. I’ve spent a huge portion of my life working and volunteering for public interest causes and organizations, trying to coax donations out of corporate leaders. It wasn’t always easy, since businesses exist to make money, not to do good. I had to show them how “doing good” could help their bottom line.

Capitalists of the past often called upon each other to “give something back” as thanks for their accumulation of phenomenal fortunes. They would spend the first part of their lives getting rich, and the remainder supporting charitable causes. That was their form of social responsibility.

In many other cases, corporate leaders realized that social responsibility was good for business. Ford and Rockefeller, for example, made charitable donations to create a more favorable environment for their business activities. Other corporations gave to public interest causes to enhance their image in the eyes of their customers.

Today, a new generation of business leaders is emerging that reverses that equation. They are committed to social responsibility and believe they can make a lot of money without damaging the environment, disturbing people’s food and water supply, or reducing their health care.

Is it social responsibility or just good business? We’ll see.