Waiting in traffic that never stops, shopping in huge shopping centers filled with big-box stores, driving at least half an hour to work, owning a big home with land – the American dream, right? Not for everyone.

Urban sprawl is at an all-time high. Metropolitan areas are supposed to develop by building out just beyond the suburbs, and then filling in the areas closer to the city. We've built out and not filled in.

In fact, the average American walks four minutes a day and takes 14 car trips a day. The number of people who travel 90 minutes or more each way to work has doubled since 1990. The average home size was 2,140 square feet in 2000, compared to 1,385 square feet in 1972.

While this may be ideal for many, a small portion of the population craves the opposite. Houses close to stores and parks, where a car is an option, not a necessity, and you might actually know your neighbor: the new urbanism.

This design movement moves beyond bamboo, water-efficient appliances and hybrid vehicles – although those things are all good steps to lowering our carbon footprints. It instead focuses on the big picture of changing our whole lifestyle, not just our possessions and building materials. Unfortunately, LEED certifications don't account for the location of a building – whether people can walk to it or take alternative transportation. The greenest house in America could be far away from stores and its inhabitants would be forced to drive everywhere, but would it really be green? Ideally, we should have both. Our communities should be livable, walkable and of medium-density, and include housing and businesses and shops, and all the buildings should be constructed of environmentally friendly materials and use renewable energy.

In our focus to pick green materials, we should also remember to try a green lifestyle. It could help our communities, increase safety, decrease obesity, and take a bunch of cars off the road – all resulting in lower emissions of carbon dioxide.

Gone are the days of the rickety old, wooden bridges that still linger in some areas of the country. Nowadays most bridges are made of steel, and sometimes concrete. But an innovative Chinese professor, Yan Xiao, who works at the University of Southern California and at Hunan University in China, recently conducted an experiment by building a 10-meter long bridge with horizontal beams of bamboo - the world's first bamboo bridge.

Xiao believes bamboo beams could work for bridges up to 30 meters long, making them a viable choice for pedestrian overpasses or highway bridges. It was strong enough to carry a 16-ton truck, and based on structural testing, could support even more weight.

Using prefabricated beams, it took a team of eight workers one week to assemble the bridge, requiring no heavy construction equipment and thus eliminating the fuel for that equipment. Bamboo is pound-for-pound stronger than steel when stretched, and is more environmentally friendly than concrete or steel. As long as it is harvested when it is fully mature, it can be cut down like grass, leaving the roots still intact, and it soaks up carbon dioxide as it grows. I don't know how long bamboo bridges would last or withstand various temperatures and climates, but this seems like a great use for a readily available and sustainable product.

One man's trashed executive is another man's CEO to treasure.

FreeEnterpriser.com today published a list of it's worst 5 CEOs. The indictment of the CEOs comes not because of malfeasance or insider trading -- it's because the companies dared to consider the environment in their decision making.

"This year's list consists of the CEOs who are actively lobbying for federal regulation of greenhouse gases. Despite abundant evidence that the regulatory scheme designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is terrible for the economy, these CEOs continue to lobby for laws that will harm consumers and their own earnings," said Tom Borelli, editor of FreeEnterpriser.com.

While the Ayn Rand advocators vilify these CEOs, I celebrate them for the exact same reasons. Apparently FreeEnterprisers don't plan on breathing, eating, or live by a coastline in the future.

I'm not anti-capitalism, but sustainability is where the libertarian-ish logic falls apart. Companies often focus on the best short term decisions and do not consider the environmental consequences for the greater public, which in the long run will affect their future profits. Do whatever you want that doesn't affect me, but dumping toxins into the air does effect you, and you, and everyone.

Here is the list of the best (worst) CEOs of 2007, as well as their "crimes" according to FreeEnterpriser. Thank you for having the courage to go against corporate greed and make tough decisions.

BP's John Browne. Browne resigned this year partly because his global warming strategy failed miserably. Featuring the high-profile "Beyond Petroleum" advertising campaign that embraced global warming alarmism, Browne diverted BP's money and management time away from its core business. As a result, maintenance and safety issues took a back seat and the company was responsible for a series of accidents including a deadly refinery explosion and a major oil pipeline leak in Alaska.

GE's Jeff Immelt. "GE's Environment Push Hits Business Realities" -- a front-page Wall Street Journal story in 2007 -- highlighted the downsides of its "Ecomagination" marketing campaign. Because of the global warming fears pushed by GE, the company was forced to defend its incandescent light bulb against legislative proposals to ban the product. In addition, GE's coal business also suffered from cancellations of new coal-fired electricity plants.

Wal-Mart's Lee Scott. Scott's global warming strategy has the company appealing to the liberal elite while selling out shareholders and low-income customers. Higher energy prices -- a certain result of global warming regulations -- will add to the input costs of Wal-Mart's business while simultaneously reducing the disposable income of its consumers.

PepsiCo's Indra K. Nooyi. The company sponsored Al Gore's Live Earth concert to appear in sync with the "environmental generation." Bottled water, however, is the focus of activists and politicians seeking to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Such action will likely harm PepsiCo's Aquafina, the leading brand of bottled water. In addition to banning the purchase of bottled water by some city governments, Chicago will become the first major U.S. city to add a 5-cent tax per bottle. That will increase the cost of a 24-bottle case by about 30 percent.

Caterpillar's James Owens. The construction and mining equipment company's global warming strategy is jeopardizing its future earnings by working against its customers in the coal industry. A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study on the economic impact of so-called cap-and-trade regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would reduce coal production -- a key customer for Caterpillar products -- up to 40 percent.

Green towns get a lot of press coverage these days, and for good reasons – ambition, a rare sense of community, a collective effort to save the environment, etc. But most of them seem to be situated somewhere in Europe. Well, America finally has one, and it's in Kansas of all places.

Greensburg, Kansas was destroyed during a tornado that hit in May and swept away almost every home and business. But city leaders wouldn't let that get them down – they thought the town should come back stronger, and greener, than ever. What better time to rebuild it, get the community involved and help their environment?

Now a town that previously lost nearly every college graduate to the great beyond actually seems like it will keep residents and foster a booming economy. It is eyeing wind, solar and geothermal power, Google is considering it as a potential site for a wind-powered data center and a biodiesel plant is in the works as well. In a recent decision made by the city council, all new city buildings will meet platinum LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification, the highest green building certification.

FEMA is helping to cover about 75 percent of the cost of restoring old city buildings, but only to their pre-storm level, and the city is looking to state and federal grants also. But building green isn't always cheap, so there's still some uncertainty. However, even if residents have to pay some sort of tax, this seems like a worthy investment. It's rare to see small Midwestern towns thriving these days, and Greensburg could become a model for a vibrant community as well as an eco-town.

Contests and competitions are crucial to encourage the next generation to use its skills to protect the environment, to foster optimism and to highlight some bright minds.

The third annual Portland Cement Association's "Concrete Thinking for a Sustainable World" design competition is the latest to come across my desk, and is calling for all international students to submit sustainable design ideas. The categories include designing an environmentally responsible recycling center and designing a single element of a building that provides a solution to real-world environmental challenges.

The prizes total $50,000, and each winning school gets StructurePoint concrete design software worth almost $10,000. Last year's winner, who demonstrated how materials can be diverted from a landfill to create building materials for green structures, is quite a success story. He won the contest and was offered a job in a design firm upon graduation, and is now working towards gaining his LEED certification.

In an effort to ditch the money-losing production of rear-projection TVs, Sony is making the move toward more flat panel televisions, which happen to be more energy-efficient.

Flat panel displays can use as much as one-third the energy as a cathode ray tube (CRT) display. While the newer liquid crystal display (LCD) and the up and coming organic light emitting diode (OLED) TVs typically use less energy than other similar-sized cathode ray tube and plasma televisions, this does most likely mean that the selection of televisions available will all be more expensive. Rear-projection televisions were less expensive than their counterparts but times they are a changing, and consumers are increasingly purchasing more LCD TVs.

While this move is financially-driven, it is a good sign for the environmental friendliness of the consumer electronics market. If the only products available are more eco-friendly, consumers have no choice but to adhere. This announcement follows Sony's initiative to encourage customers to trade in and recycle their old televisions toward the purchase of a new high-definition TV.

GE Money today announced a new financing program for solar installations, and this could be just the ticket for lenders reeling from the mortgage debacle.

Yes, solar today is small potatoes compared to mortgages, but there's no reason why it can't be a profit center for years to come. For the solar industry to grow, innovative financing options are needed, and lenders burned by their aggressive expansion and risky loans should move towards more stable solar financing.

GE Money has created a new lending program that it will offer through Yes! Solar Solutions, a subsidiary of Solar Power, Inc of Roseville, California. It is a positive that GE, which is doing its part in sustainable innovation, is also pushing its lending division to offer solar financing.

“Installing a solar power system is equivalent to prepaying for 40 years of power at a fraction of the cost you currently pay,” said Jeff Winzeler, president for Yes! Solar Solutions.

Financing companies need to develop programs that consider solar differently from other types of home loans. Consumers who buy solar are a distinct demographic, and lowering a home's energy bills needs to be considered when calculating a loan.

About 660 buildings in San Francisco currently have solar installations. But the city hopes to bring that up to 10,000 over the next decade by cutting property owners' costs by at least half.

It's a lofty goal, but one that may actually work. Under the plan, businesses would be eligible for rebates of up to $10,000 and residents could receive up to $5,000 off the costs of installing solar panels.

There's just no getting around it – solar is expensive. However, it does pay off in the long run. With the city's rebate, a similar state refund and a federal tax credit, the city predicts homeowners could recoup the resulting $11,000 costs in less than a decade with lowered energy bills. With cost cuts like this, legislative incentives like this will definitely encourage more people to delve into solar power.

The city would foot the cost of the loans, but commercial and residential property owners would pay back via annual tax assessments on their properties. Voters would need to agree to the loan part of the deal, while the Board of Supervisors could approve the rest of the plan, which Mayor Gavin Newsom hopes to have in place by summer.

Money was tighter but was focused more on green products this holiday season, according to a newly released survey by the advisory firm KPMG.

Socially-conscious gifts became more important this year, with 88 percent of survey respondents saying they were very concerned about the environment. About 74 percent indicated that they buy environmentally friendly products, 60 percent said they were willing to pay more for such items, and 55 percents said they make a concerted effort to patronize retailers with a green reputation.

Also, 40 percent of consumers said they checked the country of origin on potential gifts, with almost a third of them using that information to decide against a purchase. It seems China's bad rap finally caught up to consumers, because about 79 percent of those decisions not to buy an item involved products from China, and toys were involved more than half of the time.

Although spending may not be at an all-time high, this survey shows that shoppers are being more contemplative about what to buy and what retailers they choose to frequent. If this is trend is truly on the upswing, as it seems to be, businesses that want to attract the more eco- and socially-conscious shoppers must continue to increase and market their environmental initiatives, as well as carry products that are kinder to the environment.

The 2007 Annual National Shopping Behavior Survey by KPMG was designed and conducted by The Gordman Group, which randomly telephoned 815 shoppers.

Ford has developed a new painting process that reduces greenhouse gas production while saving the company about $7 per vehicle.

The process can apply 3 coats at once, reducing the time and energy needed to paint a vehicle. According to Ford the paint reduces greenhouse gases by 15 percent and uses 10 percent less volatile organic compounds -- an area that Ford should keep pushing on.

Paint hasn't been looked at as thoroughly as energy or packaging in terms of its sustainability, but that appears to be changing. The new wave of concern about climate change is prompting engineers and chemists to look at manufacturing costs with a new seriousness, which is good for business and our health.

Subway has claimed it can help the world shed pounds by choosing a sub over a burger and fries, and now it's out to show that it can also shed carbon dioxide emissions.

The company is testing the launch of a green store in Kissimmee, Florida, and will compare the profits and energy consumption to a regular store a few blocks away. It's already noticing much lower energy bills after switching to LED lighting, low-water plumbing fixtures, motion-detecting light sensors and passive cooling that uses wind rather than air conditioning.

However, Subway has made changes to all its stores as well, by switching to plastic cutlery made from polystyrene to cutlery and cups made of polypropylene, which is expected to save about 2,800 barrels of oil and 1,200 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. And it recently decided to keep inventory closer to its stores, which has cut diesel consumption by about 1.6 million gallons annually.

Changes like this can make a huge difference with a company that now has 28,000 stores worldwide. McDonald's has about 30,000 restaurants – imagine how McDonald's could cut its emissions and waste if it made similar changes.

Limo companies are just like any other business in that the point of business is to make money. Valera Global – a New York City-based chauffer company – recently decided that it would be too expensive to replace its fleet with hybrids and opted instead to purchase carbon emissions offsets for the miles its vehicles drive. To do so, it joined the Chicago Climate Exchange, and is now legally required to report its vehicle fleet emissions.

Many have criticized the company's efforts, stating that offsetting is just allowing the bad habits to continue. The rich can easily take mass transportation, especially in a city like Manhattan where the options of bus and subway are plentiful, instead of hiring private luxury vehicles that get poor gas mileage to slowly meander through city traffic. In this case, purchasing offsets is really like putting a Band-Aid on a huge, hatchet wound.

The company's CEO, however, decided that a replacement fleet would just be too expensive, and cited the cost of $7,000 replacement batteries required for hybrid vehicles. By merely offsetting, he says he "can spend hundreds of dollars annually instead of thousands to make a green statement. It's a way for us to show our concern and to educate our clients without inconveniencing them."

It's sad that getting into a Prius is considered an inconvenience, and it's sad that this seems to be yet another marketing ploy for a company that considers offsets merely a way to make a statement, rather than a way to actually change the problem. But in the business world, if he was correct in his financial predictions (and perhaps there's no way to know), who could blame him for wanting to make money and not take a financial risk? Would the company have been able to profit if it had replaced its fleet with hybrids, or what if it had only replaced half his fleet? How long would it have taken for the better gas mileage to have paid off, and would customers have preferred his company because of its choice of hybrid vehicles or chosen another company that offered more limos and high-end options? It all comes down to culture – working with it and pushing it to change. We've got to change our culture in order to really change global warming. Offsets aren't the answer, but neither are hybrids. If a large portion of our society believes that luxury, chauffeured-vehicles are a necessity, we'll never move past this problem.