Marketplace

Big Three selling jets, but just inching toward efficiency

It looks like it’s not just a buyer’s market for automobiles, but for corporate jets.

After being soundly criticized for arriving in DC via private jets, hat-in-hand asking for $25B, CNN Money reports that Ford and GM now have plans to get rid of their corporate jets (all 5 in Ford’s case, 4 of 7 in GM’s case), with both CEO’s driving to Washington in hybrid vehicles this time. No specifics were provided regarding Chrysler’s jets or their CEO’s travel plans.

Andrew Winston, author of Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage, gave a keynote address recently at a statewide conference hosted by the Southwest Michigan Sustainable Business Forum. Winston made the compelling argument that the Big Three were in trouble long before the U.S. financial meltdown. In May ‘08, the overall car market was down 11% from the previous year, but Ford was down 16%, Chrysler was down 25%, and GM was down 28%. But…

“Toyota was also down after making some mistakes and trying to sell some big vehicles also, but only dropped 4%. Nissan was up 8% and Honda sales were up an astonishing 16%. Let’s repeat that: Honda sold more cars this spring than the year before.”

Winston argues in his blog that “the companies that sell smaller, more energy-efficient cars are doing ok.”

So far, Ford seems to be the only one talking about efficiency, with pledges to boost fuel efficiency and calls for collaboration to develop high-tech batteries domestically. Detroit needs to convince the public that they recognize this sea change, and will be responsible with our tax dollars before they’re likely to garner more support.

• December 2, 2008 by Jim Nicolow
• 4 comments

• tags: Chrysler efficiency Ford GM

"Be all you can be"... with the triple bottom line

The U.S. Army recently released its 2007 sustainability report (opens PDF), which might strike some as odd, but the unexpected can make a good story… though not without some meaty caveats. The report, written in accordance with the well-respected Global Reporting Guidelines, is a hefty 62-page report which follows an earlier decision to incorporate Mission, Environment and Community into all the Army’s plans, processes and actions. The report contains elements not emblematic of most sustainability reports *I’ve *read.

What’s impressive?

• Nearly all of the Army’s 161 installations have environmental management systems which offer an important strategic organizing framework;
• Where possible, the Army is using renewable energy, particularly in their hot-house installations in the desert west;
• 78% of their FY07 Army Military Construction was designed to at least LEED standards;
• Between FY ‘04 and ‘07, they had a 32% decrease in water use; and
• During the same period, a 8.4% decrease in energy use intensity (a way of measuring energy).

But… they’ve experienced what I think is a fairly meteoric increase in hazardous waste generation (35%) and an uptick in both Army “new environmental enforcement actions” and brand-spanking new violations (6% and 8%, respectively).

It’s difficult to make eco-friendly ballistics and with U.S. military actively engaged around the world, these hazardous waste increases are certainly not surprising. Much of the hazardous waste includes nasty TCE (trichloroethylene) which has historically been used as a degreaser for all that massive and complicated equipment.

Very similar to large manufacturing companies, the military is not a monolith and despite admirable attempts by the Army to engage in sustainability, the Pentagon has a long history of rebuffing EPA’s regulatory efforts at getting [insert military branch here] to clean up their Superfund sites. Of the 1,255 Superfund sites in the U.S., the Pentagon owns 129. They are also proud owners of 25,000 contaminated sites across the nation.

This summer Congress lambasted the Pentagon for refusing to clean up a group of Superfund sites that pose imminent threats to the communities in which they are located — in effect there’s a standoff between EPA and the Pentagon while legal minds battle over whether executive policy or EPA policy can force Pentagon compliance. In addition the Bush Administration helped pave the way for greater Pentagon intervention in setting pollution standards for perchlorate and TCE, but then again, chemical companies are sitting at the standard setting table already.

To its credit, when DOD issues a sustainability directive, they probably implement it more efficiently than private sector businesses because there’s not a lot of arguing going on around a Board table about the directives — “yessir!” Once again, look behind the product to the company and read between the lines.

• December 4, 2008 by Heidi Siegelbaum
• 1 comments

• tags: Army military reporting

Obama & co: Make 2009 the Year of Energy Efficiency

To face the long-term problem of global warming we need to be rooted in short-term reality. And the reality of the year ahead is a global recession that will make life harder for almost everyone. So, 2009 is an opportunity to utilize the tool that both cuts costs and lowers greenhouse gas emissions — energy efficiency. Focusing on efficiency over solar isn’t greenwash, it’s common sense.

I’m as big a fan of solar and wind power as anyone, but the recent crash in oil and natural gas prices make them less competitive than early 2008. And with our money problems in the US and beyond, we need our climate mitigation efforts to have a big bang for each buck. That’s why it is the perfect time to focus on energy efficiency.

Energy efficiency has helped US oil consumption fall more than 5% this year, with coal and natural gas demand about equal to 2007. This lower overall fossil fuel use is poised to translate into greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) that are ~2.5% below the 2007 level to the lowest net emissions since the 1990s! If we ramp up efficiency further, we can cut emissions further in the year ahead.

Obama & co. could support rapid efficiency deployment by initiating a federal Energy Corps that employs over a million people from Maine to Hawaii. The first wave of green collar professionals will be needed to do energy audits on homes, offices, and manufacturing plants. And the second wave can then provide the most cost-effective efficiency upgrades determined for each locale — from additional insulation to a passive solar renovation to CFL and LED lighting.

This Energy Corps can focus on markets where electricity consumption is projected to grow to prevent a need for expensive new coal and natural gas power plants and keep GHGs in check. Once the economy begins to pick up (hopefully in 2010), the Energy Corps can put half its focus on accelerating deployment of renewable energy to more than satisfy new demand and help emissions continue to drop even when the economy is growing.

In proposing this plan, I do not mean we should abandon renewables in 2009. We need to renew a Production Tax Credit through 2010 for wind power ASAP that lets wind producers know we support their long-term success. And we’ll need to think of innovative ways to support solar and other renewables along with the Investment Tax Credit recently extended through 2016. The recession will help lower solar panel and wind turbine prices as producers’ supply catches up with rapid demand growth. As long as we ensure renewables producers do not collapse a la the late-1980s they will be poised for more white-hot growth as their prices move toward grid parity in the years to come.

But 2009 is a year for belt-tightening. So, our focus should be on cost-cutting changes that help increase our energy security, mitigate climate change, and lower our energy bills all at the same time. Energy efficiency is the appropriate tool, and Obama and his companions in federal leadership can initiate an Energy Corps next year to deploy it.

• December 8, 2008 by Dennis Markatos
• 5 comments

• tags: Barack Obama climate change energy efficiency global warming oil solar wind

Angie's List invites (encourages) 400,000+ companies to greenwash

Angie's List is providing new tools and incentives for small and large companies across the country to slap on some green paint. They provide consumer-generated reviews for more than 400,000 companies nation-wide.

As the owner of a 105-year-old, four-unit apartment building, I do my fair share of hiring people to fix things up. I, too, joined Angie's List to help sort through the options.

Yesterday, I noticed that The List had added an "eco-friendly" designation to their ratings. I checked out the architects - a small set of companies in the Twin Cities with whom I'm fairly familiar - to see who got the ranking and who didn't. What I saw didn't bear much relationship with what I know about the practices and work of the architects on the list.

I started to dig in - first wondering how companies got the "eco-friendly" designation. I found a members only FAQ definition: "Eco-friendly: company utilizes green work practices and/or materials."

A public FAQ entry gives a little more detail.

Can I search for companies that are green on Angie's List? Yes! On the search results page, you can sort by the "eco-friendly" column heading so those companies that have registered their green certifications with us appear first. There are currently seven designations and a separate icon for each. These certifications are self reported by each company.

I didn't understand the "seven designations," but thankfully they acknowledge that certifications are self-reported (if you read the FAQ).

Knowing the length of many category lists, getting sorted to the top of the list provides a hefty incentive to say "yep!" when Angie asks if you're "eco-friendly." (Plus, you can now justify upping your prices by 10%, because everyone knows green always costs more.)

I wrote to Angie's List to ask for more detail. Tony responded, justifying self-reports. "In other words, we're taking the company's word for it, which is fair since any company claiming a certification it doesn't deserve risks being found out the first time one of our members gives their service a try." Assuming members know how to verify the "certification." And bother. Would you know if your ducts were properly sealed when you installed AC in your house? Or whether the SEER they recommended was eco-friendly?

I also clicked for an hour and figured out about the "seven designations."

1. LEED Accredited Professional
   
2. Energy Star Partner
   
3. Green Building Professional (Green Organizations to which you belong)
   
4. Lead Safety Program
   
5. Professional who uses Green Products or work practices
   
6. National Association of Remodelers member
   
7. National Association of Homebuilders member
   

The first two are useful certifications. 3, 4 & 5 are as valid as the language service providers type in. (I read one that was hogwash.) The last two, who knows. Sometimes there's a link to the NARI or NAHB Certified Green Professional web page, sometimes not. I couldn't find any detail on what the designations mean on the website.

And, I'm not sure whether it's a software bug or what, but in clicking through on 30+ companies with "eco-friendly" designations, I found several whose detail page said, "This company has no Eco-Friendly accreditations."

Angie, you're not doing anyone any favors by skipping third-party certification. You could at least tell members how to verify their designations - and give a word of warning. You have created the most efficient tool I've yet seen for broad-based, unreliable eco-self-promotion.

• December 19, 2008 by Janne K. Flisrand
• 5 comments

• tags: Angie's List certifications

2008's greenwashes of the year

The Greenwash Brigade brings you our favorite greenwashes of 2008. Some good, some bad, some just plain funny — and in no particular order. (Vote for your favorite in the comments.)

• Fiji Water’s new green campaign: Yes, shipping water in container ships from a pristine aquifer in paradise is somehow green. Really? (Heidi)

• Big Three CEOs Drive Hybrids to DC: Taking a more economical and less carbon-intensive mode of travel on the second trip was an obvious choice, after the roasting they got for taking private jets. However, anyone who has done serious carbon footprint analysis on their travel has learned one thing — there’s not much difference in CO2 per mile, unless you up your passengers per vehicle. Using TerraPass, I did a quick round-trip calculation of a first-class ticket on Northwest from Detroit to DC and a 35mpg hybrid (slightly better than the Chevy Malibu Hybrid) and… the flight was 578 pounds and the car was 560. Fiscally and environmentally, it would have been better to fly a commercial carrier — even first class — than drive, because who wants to pay their CEO to spend two days driving to and from meetings? If they really wanted to show serious fiscal (or environmental) responsibility, they would have flown economy or carpooled with each other. The only reason I can think of for them to drive hybrids is to make the companies look green. (Janne)

• Clean Coal? - The ultimate oxymoron. Have a low-fat glazed donut with your clean coal. Burning coal is the leading source of global warming emissions. Burning coal isn’t clean. Mountain top removal isn’t clean. Carbon Capture and Sequestration is a pipe dream at this point. And the 2008 presidential candidates fell for it. Do they seriously think we think they believe it? (Jim/Janne/Dennis)

• Democrats and Republicans both have green conventions to cover for their lack of green policies. I don’t want to make the claim that the two parties have equally bad environmental policies, as a matter of fact I argued that one had acceptable policies (except for the coal thing) and the other had an astonishing lack of policies here. Neither party has policies that come anywhere close to equaling the efforts they put into greening their conventions. (Here’s a less-than-positive report from the Democratic convention, but hurricane Gustav and Sarah Palin seem to have drowned out any post-game news from the RNC, and all I could find was this analysis.) (Janne)

• Shell gets in trouble for greenwashing — though in the UK, not the US. I’m thankful that somewhere, someone has first determined that lying to customers is not acceptable, and that someone with the authority to enforce that law has bothered. (Janne)

• A Greener Apple? - Don’t eat that apple. Despite previous commitments to phase out the use of these chemicals by year’s end, it appears that the latest 3G iPhone’s ingredients include polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFR). Sony Ericsson and Nokia have PVC & BFR-free product lines. Source here. (Jim)

• GM’s “gas friendly to gas free” campaign: The company begging for money from American taxpayers spends far more on its SUVs than on investing in fuel-efficient vehicles. And like its brethren, it continues to spend millions opposing CAFE standards. How about “gas free to full of gas”? (Heidi)

• Beyond Petroleum — BP recognized the public demand to move to a post-fossil-fuel economy. While most of their advertising message has been updated with images of wind turbines and solar, 97% of their investment is still unfortunately in oil and coal. (Jim/Dennis)

Think we missed any top greenwashes of 2008? Add ‘em in the comments below. And don’t forget to tell us your #1 greenwash of the year — and why.

Happy New Year to all our readers!

• December 22, 2008 by Jo Easton
• 14 comments

• tags: 2008 Apple Big Three bottled water BP clean coal DNC RNC Shell