Have you ever had a horrible boss? Someone so completely incompetent yet oblivious that you had no choice but to pull out into the passing lane and scoot right around his or her stalled psyche sitting there broken down on the road to success? What I’m talking about here is a realization that if you want to keep the organization afloat and – more importantly –feel at least a modicum of satisfaction about a job well done, sometimes you have to look past the stifling short-sightedness of your superior (?) and take matters into your own hands.

That, it seems, is just what some Governors are starting to do when it comes to US energy policy. And I say … thank God. Unwilling to wait any longer for this administration to pull its head out of the sand, state leaders appear to be taking charge of the situation.

Earlier this week, for example, Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski made a surprise appearance at the HydroVision Conference in Portland to voice his support for continued development of alternative energy solutions. When asked his opinion about the Bush administration’s energy policies, he carefully remained non-partisan. But, he added (and I’m paraphrasing here), this is a situation where state government needs to take the lead and push policy up, rather than wait for the Feds to push it down.

The next day, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger followed suit by signing an agreement to work with the United Kingdom to combat global warming. Some have called the agreement “largely symbolic.” I say – to some extent – that’s precisely the point.

It’s the point because, while there’s certainly much work to do to ensure this agreement goes beyond political rhetoric, California’s governor has circumvented President Bush and reached straight across the pond to shake hands with Bush’s staunchest ally, Tony Blair.

Think about that for a second. We’re not talking fringe players here. We’re talking about a high-profile Republican Governor distancing himself from an environmentally disastrous Republican administration by doing what most of the world has been waiting for the US to do for oh, say, six years: Acknowledge greenhouse gas emissions are a global problem requiring international dialog and teamwork. And we’re talking about Blair -- the one world leader who’s remained more-or-less in lockstep with Bush on Iraq -- breaking ranks on the environment to seek other avenues into US energy policy.

This is a good thing. Too bad it took Bush thoroughly botching things up before other leaders became emboldened enough to take charge of this situation. But hey – at this point, we’ll take it.

Auto manufacturing plants may not come to mind when you think about environmentally-friendly buildings, but GM is trying to change that. The company's new Lansing, Michigan facility is the first auto plant to receive a gold certification from the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program.

By using recycled materials, turning off lights where robots are the only workers, and collecting rainwater for flushing toilets, GM expects to save 20 percent on its construction and energy costs.

The auto industry, which has received plenty of valid criticism for only improving fuel economy and reducing emissions when forced to by the government, is trying hard to convince consumers that they do care about their footprint.

In Ford's 2005 sustainability report, CEO Bill Ford wrote:

"We have made sustainability a long-term strategic business priority. The reason is simple: we are a 100-year-old company, and we want to become a 200-year-old company. Sustainability is about ensuring that our business is innovative, competitive and profitable in a world that is facing major environmental and social changes."

Of course saving $1 million per year, as GM expects, is motivation enough to be energy efficient. It is much easier to justify constructing green buildings, but hopefully more industrial heavyweights will consider retrofitting existing plants to save with energy efficient devices.

Remember that guy you used to work with? You know the one: he lives alone with his big screen TV and extensive library of movies and XBox games, his apartment littered with the digitalia he spends all his discretionary income accumulating. That guy you've always suspected knows more about obscure Beatles recordings than he does the female anatomy.

Well here’s a news flash: According to a research study published by University College London, it turns out that guy really IS taking up too much space on our planet. He could do us all a favor if he’d at least move back into mom and dad’s basement.

The study shows that sole occupancy households – which are primarily made up of men between the ages of 35-45 – consume far more than their fair share of energy, while simultaneously producing the more garbage (in the form of pizza boxes, beer cans and cartons of Rogane, I imagine) per capita than the rest of us.

“One-person householders are the biggest consumers of energy, land and household goods, such as washing machines, refrigerators, televisions and stereos, per capita,” according to the study. “They consume 38 per cent more products, 42 per cent more packaging, 55 per cent more electricity and 61 per cent more gas per capita than four-person households.”

So let this be a warning to the Dwight Schrute’s of the world: Get a life. Or – for the sake of the future of our planet – at least get a roommate.

A civil engineer recycled materials from a municipal construction project into a modern dwelling. Paul Pedini, who worked on the Big Dig in Boston, carted away steel and concrete that was used to build temporary on ramps to build a sustainable house.

Pedini's idea is to "precycle," or find a reuse, for construction materials while a project is underway. He wants agencies to require that a percentage of materials used by sub-contractors find a second home.

While it is unrealistic to believe that all of a project's materials could be repurposed, thinking about how to dispose of left over materials should be part of the planning stage rather than an afterthought. This strategic thinking should be part of all commercial and government projects. If organizations plan well enough, they could probably make money off of the sale rather than paying someone to dump it in a landfill.