Trying to keep clean air, open roads, and fat wallets for its residents—specifically for those around its capital and largest city, Boston— the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has launched a campaign to to convert Bay Staters from summer road travelers to hip staycationers. 

“Visit the pin” highlights the many attractions within a short drive—or, better yet, a short walk, train, or bus ride—from the nation’s oldest city.  Complete with a local ad campaign and giant pushpins at various points of interest, the program encourages residents to have a fun, relaxing holiday without traveling too far.

While I do like this idea (just imagine the carbon impact of the thousands suffering through hours of stop-and-go driving out to the Cape) it’s unlikely to take hold outside of more compact cities like Boston, New York, or San Francisco. Sprawl alone makes the idea unfeasible in much of the midwest and many southwestern cities, while lack of non-automotive transportation infrastructure further complicates matters. 

Still, the likely prosperity brought to the Bay State this summer by spending less on gas and more at local institutions may inspire other cities to model future development after the compact sustainability exhibited in places like Boston.

I can remember that earlier this year, when the ever-popular polar bear was finally—some would say belatedly—added to the EPA’s list of threatened species, it really brought home the seriousness of the global warming problem for a lot of my friends. Unlike many other environmental efforts, such as the battle again whaling, the struggle against carbon emissions had lacked a cute, cuddly mascot until that point. 

 

Well, a story out of Boulder, Colorado, suggests we might soon be adding Santa Claus to that list. Scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center have been informally betting on whether or not the North Pole will melt away entirely during this summer season.  While not trained oddsmakers, consensus among the researchers seems to be that there’s a 50-50 shot the top of the world will be complete ice-free sometime this year.  

 

Like many people, I’m stunned and saddened by the announcement, but I do hold out hope that the media attention it gets will shock people into realizing the reality of global warming.  Santa is an extremely popular figure in the nation that emits the lion’s share of the the world’s greenhouse gasses, and I feel like it’s a well known fact his reindeer can’t swim.

ECOpreneuring — the new book from John Ivanko and Lisa Kivirist — offers one of the first in-depth guides to growing your own green business. These two innkeepers from Wisconsin share what they’ve learned in their years of running a truly sustainable business.

This book is a phenomenal resource for any entrepreneur. Even if you’re planning to start a business in an industry that doesn’t seem to have a single green opportunity, ECOpreneuring is worth a read. Rather than some green tips scattered in with rambling koans to Mother Earth, ECOpreneuring is a focused look at starting a business, a guide to the hurdles placed in front of entrepreneurial spirit and a thorough overview of the benefits of sustainability. And while Ivanko and Kivirist encourage readers to consider sustainability for sustainability’s sake a good goal, they also are careful to point out the financial benefits of such a route. There is practical advice, from how to handle the taxes of a new venture to choosing insurance, all just as necessary for a green business as any other variety.

One very valuable resource included in ECOpreneuring is the profiles of business owners scattered throughout the book. These profiles showcase the passions of entrepreneurs — not restricted to environmentalism, by the way — and how they run thriving businesses that allows them to enjoy their work. In many cases, the survival of these businesses is intricately linked with sustainability; many of these ventures would not have been possible without a little ecopreneurial effort.

What I found especially interesting about the business Ivanko and Kivirist have built is that they aren’t just ecopreneurs from 9 to 5. Their whole lifestyle is intertwined with their business efforts. It’s impossible to tell where one begins and one leaves off. But what is truly extraordinary is that they live comfortably on an income that would make the average member of the American middle class faint. They bring in perhaps $22,000 a year. That’s all the cash Ivanko and Kivirist need to sustain their lifestyle. They have no debt, grow the majority of their food and live comfortably.

Ivanko and Kivirist’s approach to ecopreneuring isn’t quite as extreme as it might seem, though. A business owner could easily implement a just few of their tips, or use the information in ECOpreneuring to develop a slightly less-green business. Ivanko and Kivirist may have made a more extensive commitment to sustainability than other business owners might choose, but they are careful to document the wide variety of options available to ecopreneurs.

Interested in getting your own copy of ECOpreneuring? It’s available online through our  bookstore, and we are giving away our review copy to one reader who either sends  an email to editor@matternetowrk.com or has signed up for our newsletter. Ivanko and Kivirist also maintain their own website.

Sir Richard Branson founded the Virgin Green Fund (VGF) last year as a way to fulfill his 2006 pledge to invest $3 billion in renewable energy. VGF has just completed a round of fundraising, bringing together $199 million from a variety of investors.

Some of the investors joining VGF include Wolverhampton City Council and Calpers (a pension fund). Calpers’ investment in VGF are part of a growing trend for pension funds to place more of their assets into alternative investments, banking on the fast-growing cleantech sector to make their upcoming payments.

Because of VGF’s backing by both Virgin and Branson, the fund was able to being buying stakes in companies even before completing its first round of raising capital. The fund has seven investments so far, and finalizing a deal to buy DuraTherm, a Texas recycling business with the help of Masdar Clean Tech Fund. The deal has a price tag of over $40 million and would be a leveraged buy-out — unusual for cleantech investing.

DuraTherm typifies the approach VGF is taking to investing: the fund wants to get in on late-stage projects, rather than offering venture capital. Shai Weiss joined Virgin to lead VGF after a stint with ntl:Telewest.

Photo — Chris Ford UK

The first-ever Sustainability Summit for U.S. Dairy was held this month, with the goal of deciding on a set of recommended actions to help dairy producers reduce their environmental impact while improving their businesses as a whole.

There has been a lot said about the methane-producing capabilities of the average dairy cow and dairy producers are willing to do what they can to make their industry more sustainable. "It makes economic sense to find ways to conserve energy and reduce production costs, while recognizing that a growing number of consumers care deeply about the health and environmental impact of the products they buy," said National Milk Producers Federation CEO Jerry Kozak.

Industry leaders, including non-governmental agencies, producers, processors, researchers and government, met for three days in Rogers, Arkansas. Participants included Dairy Management, Inc., the International Dairy Foods Association and the National Milk Producers Federation. The University of Arkansas’ Applied Sustainability Center acted as host. They put together a list of initiatives that, after further testing, will be released to dairy producers. This conference was the first industry-wide effort to address sustainability issues.

As the dairy industry works towards implementing green initiatives, it’s important to remember the wide variety or operations included in that description: everybody from the local dairy down the road to the giant manufacturer who makes cheese has a stake in the matter, as well as an opinion. Bringing such a disparate group of businesses together truly is an achievement.

Photo — James Jordan

A team of MIT students has invented an extremely strong solar thermal system that they plan to be able to sell for $5k, a price that allows it to recoup its value in two years or less.

The students are using the same standard materials that science teachers use for solar oven assignments -- glass and aluminum. But the MIT project uses curved mirrors to concentrate solar energy on a tube of water housed in an aluminum casing. The water heats instantly, and creates steam so hot it can melt steel. The students say that the steam can be put to a variety of uses -- as an electricity source, for heating, cooling, industrial and more. The system is one thousand times more effective than standard panels.

I can just imagine how the conversations will go back at school. “So, Matt, what did you do over summer break?” Matt: “Oh, the guys and I invented a thermal solar system that will revolutionize the market and do a lot to save the world. We lined up some venture capital, created a supply chain and sold one just last night. What about you?”  

Chevy’s Volt has amassed lots of press over the years. So, where is it? What is going on now?

First, some background. The Volt is important because of what it could mean. It is predicted to run an impressive 40 miles per charge, and after that will use a small gas engine to charge a larger battery stack. With hybrids, the battery supplements the engine; with the Volt, it's the other way around. In practical terms this means that many short-distance commuters may never have to gas up. 

As July’s Atlantic exclusive on GM’s process and advances points out, GM’s Volt seems significant not so much because it is an electric car, but more because of what it could mean for GM and for the U.S. auto industry overall. There are going to be electric vehicles in the mainstream in the next five years. Half a dozen car companies are racing to get PHEVs to market. The X prize has produced a range of suitors with either electric cars or hybrids with stunning mileage estimates. So, the fact that the Volt is an electric car is less noteworthy than the fact it will be American-made; apparently GM's corporate culture has evolved to achieve this product.

Although GM grabbed headlines by being the first of the big automakers company to announce plans to build what it considers an electric car, it may not win the race to mass-produce one. GM has set such ambitious targets that it is now unclear how they can possibly meet them AND deliver a quality product.

The Volt’s engineers sound like they're stressed out, obsessed, and unable to vacation without thinking about how to improve battery capacitance.  Well, that's how the Atlantic article depicts the situation, anyway. Lance Turner, battery engineer, told Atlantic, “We’re counting on home runs every single time, and quite frankly, we’re hitting doubles right now.”

On the upside, GM also sounds like it's breaking free from a stale business model. I would bet that, like many enormous, history-rich corporations, GM needed a fresher product, delivery, brand and culture. Thanks to some economic motivation, the Volt could be the first product of a new GM.   

Photo by Autoblog/GM

Though England did solar wrong just a month ago, the country has made up for it with a thrilling swath of renewable incentives that show the UK's commitment to working to meet its green house gas reduction goals. Among other things, the UK’s new greenhouse gas blueprint boasts:

 

- money for businesses that invest in green energy

- longer-term tax incentives

- a higher price for energy sold back to the grid

- removing red tape that stifles projects

- an increase in waste diversion to biomass generators

- incentives and plans for grid expansion and interconnects

- plan to quicken the pace of grid infrastructure development

Some worry that the plan is little more than that -- a plan that is likely to lead to little or no action.  Others are concerned that it is an effort to circumvent EU standards. Personally, I think that it's good, no matter what.

The news of the UK plan came on the same day that the California Air Resource Board released a draft scoping plan for California’s climate change implementation plan of AB 32. In the end, we are talking about important but moderate percentages -- between 15 and 30% reductions over 12 years -- but the pace and the urgency of institutional change is promising. I recall hearing peak oil extremists talking about how all was lost unless a huge numbers of things happened immediately.  The great thing is, a huge number of things ARE happening immediately.  

With Presidential candidates in full campaign mode, gas prices continuing to hit record highs, and the stock market suffering a series of hits, the American people are looking for economic relief.  Consensus seems to be that lower gas prices will keep more money in the pockets of American consumers, providing more fuel instead for the ailing economy. 

 

Republican candidate John McCain has suggested taking advantage of newer, more environmentally friendly drilling technologies to tap known crude reserves the United States has offshore and in protected wilderness areas. Democrat Barack Obama, meanwhile, has advocated for massive investments in the green sector to promote new energy sources and greater use of biofuels.

 

But a far simpler solution may be lurking right under our noses—producing more of our existing, fuel-effecient cars. If the average car in the US auto fleet managed 35 miles per gallon—currently achieved by many domestic models—the reduction in need for gas would result in a relative gas costs of over a dollar per gallon less.

 

Kinda makes you want to buy a Geo, doesn’t it?

Three Presidents and two decades after the fact, the Supreme Court ruled recently that a 2.5 billion dollar punitive decision against Exxon for damages caused by the Valdez Disaster was unconstitutional. 

Ruling that Exxon’s decision to let a skipper whom the company knew to be an alcoholic pilot the 1.48 million barrel oil tanker was “worse than negligent, but less than malicious,” the United States’ highest court declared that the massive settlement against Exxon—already chopped down from the initial five billion settled upon by a jury in the case—was out of scope with existing maritime law. 

Now, I can understand the court’s ruling that, after 3.4 billion dollars already spent on cleanup and fines, a five billion dollar punishment would be excessive.  And I applaud Justice Alito’s decision to refrain from ruling on the case because he holds Exxon stock. But the court’s eventual settlement on a 507 million dollar decision still feels weak. 

Exxon is currently the most profitable company in the history of humanity, making 40.6 billion dollars in 2007 alone. While that doesn’t make Exxon more deserving of an unfair fine, I do think it means that punitive damage findings against them ought to be proportionally higher, to carry the same weight.

Cutting this settlement to the point of near-irrelevance seriously undermines the ability of juries to fiscally punish irresponsible corporations, and, in the words of Warner Chabot of Ocean Conservency, gives  “a get-out-of-jail card to every potential corporate polluter in America.”

One of the key issues in reducing the use of energy is educating consumers on their options, especially in the realm of alternative energy. Ford, through its education program, is helping bring that information to high school students through a new curriculum.

The Ford Partnership for Advanced Studies (Ford PAS) has won awards for its educational efforts. It’s new curriculum, named “Working Toward Sustainability,” will guide students through the issues surrounding energy consumption and fossil fuels, as well as introduce them to alternative energy center. The curriculum is structured to build on students’ existing science knowledge and makes use of extensive hands-on-learning techniques.

The curriculum is being made available to teachers and schools free of charge and can be downloaded from the Ford PAS website. Teachers will also have the opportunity to pick and choose from four modules to help keep the curriculum relevant to their teaching plans and state requirements.

"Ford is excited to introduce a learning module that is generating great interest among students and that will have a clear impact on their futures. Working Toward Sustainability is an example of how classrooms can make a "real-world" connection, in which students offer solutions to the problems we face as a country," said Cheryl Carrier, Program Director for 21st Century Education Programs at Ford Motor Company Fund in a press release.

Ford PAS works with the Education Development Center to expand students’ experiences in science, engineering and math, as well as teach skills necessary in future careers, such as problem solving. Ford PAS instructional materials are already used in 300 sites and across 26 states.

There are a number of benefits that Ford receives from the work of Ford PAS, beyond community involvement. The curriculums are structured to help students develop the skills they’ll need as future employees of Ford — and it looks like Ford has decided that an in-depth knowledge of alternative energy sources is something that its future engineers will absolutely need from the first day of their employment. Ford PAS also engages in a little consumer education, helping prepare the future buyers of Fords that won’t be dependent on gasoline. Not only do schools, teachers and students reap benefits from Ford PAS’ work — so does Ford Motor Company.

The Ford Motor Company Fund, the philanthropic arm of Ford, funds Ford PAS. In turn, Ford funds the foundation. Other educational initiatives have included Driving Skills for Life, an auto safety initiative aimed at teens.
 

The Freedom Prize is a new competition offering more than $4 million for efforts to reduce U.S. dependence on oil. This prize is offered by the Freedom Prize Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy. This prize follows on the heels of others offered by the DOE.

The $4 million in prize money will be broken into prizes of $500,000 to $1 million for five broad categories: military, industry, schools, government and community. Guidelines have not been finalized, but the Freedom Prize Foundation plans to announce both the application process and guidelines this fall. The first prizes will be awarded in 2009. Competitors are asked to check with the foundation’s website regularly for further developments.

The foundation was co-founded by Jack Hidary and Josh Becker. The foundation is also aided in its endeavors by an advisory council, whose members include Peter Diamandis, the CEO of the X Prize Foundation. The X Prize Foundation operates in a similar manner, offering prizes for technological advances. However, the X Prize relies on private donors to fund its prizes. The X Prize has already paid out a $10 million prize for a private space craft and is currently offering an Automotive X Prize that will award $0 million for a production-capable vehicle that can exceed 100 miles per gallon.

Image — Freedom Prize

Packaging is meant to wind up in the trash. Very few consumers think twice about the cardboard, plastic, aluminum and other packaging materials that they come across everyday. Sure, recycling is going up, but reducing packaging is a better long-term option.

Sealed Air, a supplier specializing in protective and specialty packaging, is working with its customers to reduce the materials needed to produce packaging. In a press release, Helios Ruiz, European Marketing Director of the Shrink Packaging Business Unit explained Sealed Air’s approach: "Our innovation process includes a holistic approach that combines expertise in source reduction, recycling and the use of renewable resources. In our own operations, this includes sensible use of natural resources, decreasing energy and water use in the manufacturing process, reducing emissions, efficient use of raw materials and minimising total waste."

The company has gone so far as to provide its customers with free packaging design services in order to help customers make the transition to packaging best practices. Considering that many packaging companies turn a profit on their design services, Sealed Air is making a definite financial commitment to helping their customers create better products.

The materials themselves used by Sealed Air are greener than other packaging suppliers. They require less energy to produce, use recycled materials as much as possible and are recyclable themselves.

Sealed Air has truly demonstrated its commitment to sustainable practices — and provided a better product for its customers in the process.
 

Photo — Sealed Air

When it comes to generating energy, we sometimes fail to remember that we are renewable resources. Not in a yucky Matrix way, but in that we expend about 2000 calories per day going to school, work and social events. Some entrepreneurs are taking advantage of this available energy by incorporating energy generating pressure panels into the sidewalks and the floors of nightclub to generate energy as we dance, live and walk.

Already operating in Holland, a nightclub featuring pressure sensitive floor tiles that work with springs to charge generate electricity and charge batteries that electrify the club is opening in the UK. Club4Climate plans to open similar ecoclubs in major metropolises worldwide.

Related technology has been developed to use the kinetic energy we transfer to sidewalks as we stride. In fact, we transfer approximately eight watts of energy to the floor with each step, and researchers think they can recover at least a third of that. Using the kinetic energy of humanity is being made easier by advances in battery technology, such that one day you may have a battery in the heel of your shoe to absorbs the energy from your steps.

And, example three, the Swedes have figured out a way to heat a building using the body heat of the people within it. The Baby Boomers may have focused on bringing social power to the people, but younger generations seem to think that using the literal power of the people is just as good an idea.

 

Having a university benefits cities and downtown areas. Usually they receive a boost from having universities located anywhere in the general vicinity, but environmental and economic opportunities are maximized when universities locate in the metropolitan downtown area. Hear that, Santa Cruz?

This article refers to the educational disadvantage to University of Buffalo students from not locating the school downtown. The same thing is true of the University of California Santa Cruz, where I spent a year interning with the public relations department, trying to defend chopping down a second growth redwood forest so the university could expand. However UCSC, and universities like it, would benefit by relocating into buildings in the downtown area to both preserve the environment and to enrich the community.

Santa Cruz, in particular, is dying for a tax base, economically hemorrhaging a little more every year. Though the university doesn’t pay property tax, they could pay rent for downtown spaces and increase the density of consumers downtown, dollars that are otherwise spent on campus. Lots of universities face opposition from the surrounding community when they plan expansion. Expanding into the community itself is a wiser course of action and benefits more parties than sprawling on the outskirts of town.  

Biofuels are gaining popularity — but the government hasn’t managed to catch up. Drivers who use cleaner fuels, like biodiesel from used cooking oil, can face fines, forms and a tangle of bureaucratic rules impossible to sort through.

Take the great state of Maryland, for example. If you want to drive a vehicle running on something other than a fuel from a licensed pumping station , you have to do the following:

• Apply for and receive a “special fuel” license
• Obtain a $1,000 bond from an insurance company
• File monthly forms
• Pay a 24 cents per gallon tax — the same amount drivers using diesel pay

If you don’t take those steps within the first month of either purchasing a vehicle that runs on a ‘special fuel’ or converting your vehicle, you face a $1,000 fine. The logic is that the gasoline tax goes to pay for road maintenance and that converting to a fuel other than gasoline shouldn’t get drivers out of their tax burden.

Even after all of that, you may not be driving on the right side of the law. Federal laws still forbid using home-brewed vegetable oil as fuel. In an interview with the Baltimore Sun, Catherine C. Milbourn, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said "All fuels have to be tested before they can be used in a vehicle, because when something goes into the engine and is burned up, something comes out of the tailpipe. And we want to make sure it doesn't harm the environment in any way. Vegetable fuel has not been registered as a motor vehicle fuel."

Drivers running their cars on special fuels face a flat out fine of $2,750 at the federal level. Garages converting vehicles to run on alternative fuels can face federal fines of $32,500 — for each car converted. The EPA has yet to fine anyone who converted their car to run on vegetable oil, but they haven’t ruled the possibility out.

Plenty of companies are successfully selling conversion kits, as well as installing them. Golden Fuel, of Springfield Missouri is one example: they’ve sold hundreds of kits, and have even had to start a waiting list for their product. But, technically, the EPA could shut them down at any moment.

It’s unlikely that will happen, but legislation at both the state and federal level needs to start catching up. Right now, it seems like consumers are willing to try almost anything to pay less at the pump. Considering that many politicians these days also support sustainable advances  it makes sense to legalize them.

Photo — OneOneThreeFour

With attention in the biofuel world turning from purpose-grown crops to waste-matter left over from other agricultural practices, I suppose this story out of Mississippi State University is only to be expected. Still, plans to manufacture biodiesel fuel from discarded bits of shrimp strike me as a little odd. 

 

Compounding the strangeness, it’s not any oils or fats in the shrimp itself that are being processed to create the organism-based fuel, but chitin, the hard, versatile carbohydrate polymer that makes up exoskeletons on everything from lobsters to ladybugs. 

 

Using the method researchers at the university have devised, shrimp waste would be treated with acids, then digested by a special bacteria that break down the chitin and store it as fat. This fat would then be processed into an oil, and shipped off to local manufacturers.

 

While I don’t see as much carbon mitigation in this method as in an ideal plant biodiesel production, given the many different levels of processing, the research data and knowledge gained from the practice may allow other complex carbohydrate polymers, such as plant cellulose, to be similarly utilized in the future. 

As public concern over the environmental practices of large companies has risen, ratings offered by environmental groups have grown in importance. Of all these ratings systems, perhaps the one that has gotten the most press over the years is Greenpeace’s Guide to Greener Electronics.

 The decades-old environmental group released its yearly ranking again today, and this time it was console gaming giant Nintendo that ended up at the bottom of the heap. Quoting directly from the report: “Nintendo comes in last in 18th place with a pitiful 0.8 points out of 10, scoring zero on all e-waste criteria”—ouch. While I appreciate the fact that the report includes some of the world’s largest electronics manufacturers, delineates and explains its ranking criteria carefully,  I am little suspicious that the scoring isn’t entirely objective.  

For instance, when Apple got slammed by Greenpeace in 2006, the company was riding peaks of popularity it hadn’t seen in decades, thanks to brisk iPod sales and a hip, fresh image.  Apple immediately responded and improved its practices, which is good, but later it was revealed that Greenpeace may have—how shall I put this?—bent the truth just a touch in (initially) placing the trendy, media-savy computer company at the bottom of its rankings.

 Two years later, Ninetendo is still riding high on the unprecedented success of its its Wii console, even drawing praise for the system’s ability to get people active. I’m slightly incredulous that, once again, a company that’s been drawing a lot of media praise would find itself at the bottom of the heap. I also suspect it’s no accident that Microsoft finds itself towards the back of the pack, with the attention given to Bill Gates’ retirement and philanthropic efforts.

While I’d like to have a “green ends justify the means” mindset about this, I feel like over-zealousness in accusing companies of being environmentally unfriendly only undermines the soundness of the science that underlies the report. While few would expect Greenpeace, with it’s reputation for direct action and vigor, to be a completely objective observer, it’s still important to keep your facts verifiable and more or less immune to critcism—especially when you’re taking on large and powerful companies.

That having been said, the report does keep large electronics companies honest, and delivers some complicated production information at a level the general public can understand. Because a good deal of the products involved are manufactured half a world away from the people intended to buy them, it can be all too easy to sweep any less-than-desireable effects of production under the rug.

The U.S Government Printing Office (GPO) handles a lot more than the printing for the U.S. federal government. GPO staffers also gather, catalog, authenticate, produce, supply and preserve basically all of the government’s information. When it comes to using paper, the GPO is an expert.

The current head of the GPO, or the "Public Printer of the U.S.," as the position is titled, is Robert C. Tapella. He recently gave a speech called, “The GPO and the American Printing Industry Move Forward with Sustainable Environmental Stewardship.” A full PDF of the speech is available through the GPO’s website.

Under Tapella’s leadership, the GPO has made significant sustainability advances, including distributing the Budget of the U.S. Government as a PDF, saving an untold number of trees. The budget, for the record, is not much more than 100 pages, but when you consider the thousands of pages of supplemental material needed to understand the budget, as well as the thousands of copies produced for the officials deciding on the budget and everyone else who gets a copy, an electronic budget has monumental impact on both the environment and the government’s bottom line.

But in his speech, Tapella outlined further goals, including retiring the GPO’s 1.5-million-square-foot building in Washington, DC and relocating to an LEED-certified building. The GPO continues to look for ways to both save money and improve its environmental impact.

Image courtesy of the GPO

Chief green officer? Director of sustainability? No matter what you call them, more companies are adding sustainability officers at middle and senior management levels in order to position themselves as environmentally-friendly.

Google has a chief sustainability officer, as do scores of other companies of all sizes. But what do green officers do? It’s hard to say — especially when you’re recruiting for one.

In an interview with the Dallas News, Stephen Stokes, the vice president of business and climate change at AMR Research, said, "There's a pent-up demand in the marketplace for sustainable specialists, but you have to ask who wants them and what does the DNA of a sustainable expert look like? Are they a scientist, a PR specialist, a business consultant? And just where does sustainability reside at organizations?"

Despite these questions, sustainability officers are becoming common fixtures in the hierarchy at some companies. Some focus on cutting capital costs through green measures, while others implement renewable energy plans or recycling initiatives. There does seem to be a rule for this growing profession, though: while sustainability officers have to have passion for environmental issues, they also need to understand the business side of the operation. They have to be able to cut costs and improve sales, just like any chief technology officer or chief accounting officer.

Photo — Theo La Photo

Obama made interesting remarks during his address at the U.S. Mayor’s conference, telling the mayors not to expect federal money, but noting that cities were critical: “Yes, we need to strengthen our cities. But we also need to stop seeing our cities as the problem and start seeing them as the solution. Because strong cities are the building blocks of strong regions, and strong regions are essential for a strong America.”

Cities are poised to become the epicenters of activity in the foreseeable future. Demographic trends uniformly indicate influx to metro areas and exodus from the 'burbs. After ten years of top-down might, it is a little unusual to have a presidential candidate argue against top-down solutions. Yet Obama's thought that top-down control will be ineffective in responding to changing urban trends could well be right.

Part of what's been fascinating about the emerging green economy so far is seeing the way it changes by region according to varying energy demand, politics and citizens’ needs. It has also been impressive that, even at varying rates, green activity is stirring in even the most unlikely places in the nation. In many ways, the federal government’s role with regard to regions might be just to enable what cities are trying to do to address their own issues.  

The state of California seems to love mandate labeling of consumer products. This is merely an observation, not a complaint; I love my nutrition facts and carcinogen warnings. Now cars will have a sticker that rates its fuel efficiency and emissions as compared to other cars. The label is meant to help consumers get the information they need to make the most informed car purchasing choices  possible.

We have seen this “educate the consumer to help them choose responsibly” tactic before.  San Francisco, for example. is trying to apply it to parking by offering parking spot info online, which appears to be a good move. The danger inherent in the vehicle environmental performance sticker concept is that the cars may not be rated accurately, thereby misleading consumers.

In addition, the control is hard to determine. There are a range of ultra-efficient cars available in very limited markets. When compared to these vehicles, the entire consumer fleet looks relatively bad. However this is a proposal by the Air Resources Control Board, which is also in charge of the implementation of California’s climate bill, so it isn’t likely that they are going to be industry friendly.

Overall however, any effort to educate the consumer in theory helps better business transactions occur.  

Image courtesy of California’s Air Resources Board

While various attempts at solar undergarments have failed to gain much traction, a recent article in Slate, perhaps inspired by the proliferation of kinetic watches, has suggested a different means of drawing electrical power from that most venerable of unmentionables, the brassiere.

It turns out there is an impressively large body of research looking into the kinetics of the bosom, and many options for converting that motion into charge are, in theory, feasible. Rotary generators, such as are used in certain backpacks, could generate a small charge, though only in bras with larger cup sizes. A far more promising approach involves textiles coated with nanowires of zinc oxide, that generate a charge while rubbing against each other, though wear and repeated washing could limit such a bra’s productivity.

In the end, it looks like there will be any number of more promising technologies for harvesting energy from our everyday movements. But the fact that the concept of an energy generating bra has gotten such widespread—and strikingly scientific—attention clearly reflects current interest and waiting investment for developers of cleaner technology.

Like many large corporations, Cisco Systems, is looking to go green. The company, whose switches, routers, and hubs made the tech boom of the late 20th century possible, aims to ply that very infrastructure to its advantage, reducing carbon emissions by fine-tuning efficiency in its products, reducing unnecessary travel, and better managing its physical plants.

Of course, if this proposed 25% emissions reduction over the next four years is successful, it will make quite a fantastic advertisement for Cisco’s upgraded green systems, and that got me wondering—is it somehow less good to green up your company if self-interest is the primary motivator? After all, most people pursue environmentally-light practices because they’re good for everyone, not just good for themselves.

While it is pleasant to think that some companies are just good eggs and curtail their carbon footprints because it's the right thing to do, I think that’s a naive viewpoint. Companies exist to make money for their shareholders; while profit is often times an ugly, unclean motivator, it is the only proven way to make a company change its act. So as long as we’re not talking about greenwashing, I think that any green is good green.

Over the past few decades, “going green” has seen a dramatic change in social perception. Once the sole domain of hippies and eccentric scientists, fighting the sustainability revolution is now very much in fashion among the young, hip, and successful.  The technology involved in eco-friendly activities has also changed in that time, now incorporating the most cutting-edge technologies available. But that doesn’t mean that simple, hands-on activities can’t still do wonders for reducing your carbon footprint

 

The Wall Street Journal recently compiled a somewhat tongue-in-cheek list of “manly” ways to go green. While I’ve got to object just a touch to the idea that these are exclusively masculine approaches to reducing impact—most women I know can skip showers or drink straight whiskey just as well as any man—I do like the list because it brings the idea of decreasing environmental harm down to a very personal, hands-on level.

While solar-powered iPod chargers and hydrogen fuel cell cars have become must-have gadgets among certain sets, their high price tags and association with an ivory tower elite have elicited a noticeable backlash. For many people in the United States, environmentally sustainable practices mean higher gas prices and higher food costs with no immediately discernible benefits in return.

While demystifying the science of global warming, and refuting some of most widely-held climate change myths is still key to making carbon footprint reduction a key issue for citizens the world over, it’s important to realize that everyone needs to feel like they can help out in some way. And homespun solutions like reusing timber for construction projects, or using a less-fuel consumptive vehicle for non-cargo-hauling trips—preferably a bicycle, though a motorcycle will do in a pinch—can be a huge part of that.

Furthermore, lest those of us using the newest and greenest gadgets forget, a person’s carbon footprint is a holistic measure. It’s easy to feel ecologically superior looking out the window of a Prius at '85 Ford-150, but keep in mind that maintaining an old vehicle -- bad fuel milage and all -- saves space in landfills, keeps a lot of hazardous chemicals out of the ground, and decreases energy used in the production of new cars.  

Consider, too, that the person driving that truck may indeed have the skills to repair or build by hand from scrap materials any number of things the Prius driver would have to buy. Add up the costs involved in industrially creating, packaging, and shipping those goods, it might just be the person in the Prius who’s created the biggest carbon footprint. 

 

Offshore wind continues to be America's almost-here renewable energy source. The Cape Wind project is a shipwreck and many other projects, like the one proposed for Lake Michigan are still on the drawing board. Now Delaware is entering this stormy arena and looking to claim the title of 'America's First Offshore Wind Farm.'

On Monday, utility company Delmarva Power and offshore wind-gineers Bluewater announced a deal to spin up a $1.6 billion wind farm about 11.5 miles from the Delaware coast.

Fifty percent of the blade power will go to Delmarva, satisfying 16% of the company's energy needs, powering the homes of 50,000 of its customers. The rest will be sold off to other power users. According to Bluewater's website, the project will have a 450 megawatt capacity. 

The massive hurricane-resistant masts that will hold the, uh, spinny part will be 415 feet in total length: 250 feet above the water, 75 feet to the ocean bottom, and 90 feet buried into the seabed. Even though each blade will be 150 feet long, officials say they will be all but invisible from the shore.

The Delvarma and Bluewater have a 25-year contract, beginning in 2012 and Bluewater is whirling at the prospect of developing similar projects in New York, Rhode Island, and New Jersey.

The installation would be a big step in the right direction for the nation's 2nd smallest state, which has committed to getting 20% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2019.

Sen. John McCain is offering a bounty of $300 million for a more efficient car battery for hybrid and electric vehicles — assuming he gets elected. That’s $1 for every person in the U.S. McCain called that "a small price to pay for helping to break the back of our oil dependency," in a speech at Fresno State University Monday. McCain kicked off a two-day tour of California with the announcement of his proposal — the state with some of the highest energy prices in the country.

The prize would be entirely funded by tax dollars, unlike many of the technology prizes offered recently for other advances. The proposal has already faced extensive criticism, on the grounds that market mechanisms are already pushing car manufacturers towards vehicles that use a minimum of gasoline.

"McCain's idea is to motivate the car companies to do something more. It's all about the plug-in hybrids now, which are trickling into the test market," said Andy Frank, a University of California-Davis professor and pioneer in developing electric-car technology, in an interview with the Mercury News. "They want to stick their toe in before jumping in. McCain is saying, 'Here's some money, jump in now.' "

The proposal also includes offering tax credits — up to $5,000 — to consumers who buy hybrid and electric vehicles, as long as they have zero emissions.

Photo — Chris Dunn

Magazine publishers in Canada have a guide to green solutions up north. The major Canadian magazine associations, in conjunction with Markets Initiative, have published the Magazine Eco Kit. This 36-page guide is a "a compendium of tips, terms, resources & papers for environmentally friendly magazine publishing."

Dolico Printing produced hard copies, using a new eco-friendly paper, containing 20 percent wheat straw, 40 percent post-consumer recycled fiber and 40 percent completely chlorine-free virgin wood. You can request a copy through Magazines Canada, by emailing info@magazinescanada.ca. The Kit is also available for download as a PDF from the Magazines Canada website.

This version of the Magazine Eco Kit is actually the second edition. It was first released as the Coated Paper Eco Kit in 2004. A key focus is the use of forest-friendly paper, which the Kit covers from multiple angles from issues with cost to working with printers. The developers of the Magazine Eco Kit are especially concerned with the protection of Canada’s Boreal Forest. At 1.4 billion acres, the Boreal Forest contains some of the largest tracts of intact natural forests in the world, comprising 25 percent of the world’s remaining intact ancient forests.

Despite the focus on Canadian sustainability, though, the Magazine Eco Kit is useful for magazine publishers worldwide. It provides an introduction to eco-friendly publishing, as well as tips to get publishers started. It is not a comprehensive guide, but it does not need to be: any publisher worth his salt will take the time to investigate these options thoroughly before changing over his organization to new methods. Instead, the Magazine Eco Kit serves the purpose of bringing these ideas to the attention of publishers who really aren’t familiar with them yet.

“Today, making environmentally friendly choices goes beyond good business practice—we in the magazine industry must do our part to choose the most environmentally friendly papers available to protect and preserve the natural resources upon which we all depend. You are invited to join the growing group of publishers and printers who recognize that the management of paper requires careful stewardship.”

Among the supporters of the Magazine Eco Kit are the British Columbia Association of Magazine Publishers, Alberta Magazine Publishers Association, Manitoba Magazine Publishers Association, Magazines Ontario, Magazines du Québec, Atlantic Magazines Association and Magazines Canada. Markets Initiative is a leading environmental publishing advocate, dedicated to help the book magazine and new paper industries become sustainable.

Image — Magazines Canada

Australian soldiers will be gearing up with uniforms and other equipments embedded with new technology. The new kits are the result of the Australian military awarding a major defense contract to the Australian National University, specifically the Centre for Sustainable Energy Systems (CSES).

CSES picked up over $2 million in funding for developing solar energy panels for security applications. They’ll be concentrating on micro-thin and flexible panels, two qualities are key in the uses planned by the military.

Professor Andrew Blakers leads the project and thinks that solar power is ideal for the Australian military: “Defence personnel tend to spend a lot of time in the field, so it makes sense that they should tap into the abundant and renewable energy available from the sun. The technology will help defence reduce its reliance on batteries.”

Blakers, along with Dr. Klaus Webber, pioneered the SLIVER cell technology — needle-thin solar cells with low production costs and excellent efficiency — at ANU. He will be following up on those developments. Origin Energy is also using the SLIVER cell technology and is currently constructing a $20 million demonstration plant in Adelaide, about 14 hours west of CSES. CSES, along with ANU is based in Canberra. 

Photo courtesy Centre for Sustainable Energy Systems

Police in Georgia are ticketing for traffic violations and the gas it took to nab the offender. Even worse news for the lead-footed among us: police stations across the nation have been calling for advice on how to implement a similar “fuel surcharge”. The surcharge -- $10 or $15 -- is added to the cost of the ticket.

The station that started the trend claims that two thirds of their annual budget goes to affording fuel. Query why they don’t act to mitigate, by getting onto E85, using hybrids, not driving SUV cruisers and by making similar sustainable investments  that are likely pay themselves off in a short timeframe.

The police-fuel-surcharge news may not sound good, but it is. In 2007, when gas prices really started to get "interesting," shall we say, it marked the beginning of a new era: an era of consumers truly feeling their own costs. In the past, people have been insulated from the financial implications of their behavior by mispriced and undervalued natural resources -- gas, water, space and energy were plentiful. Now, we are being charged more accurately for the costs we incur due to environmental degradation and scarcity. Economists call this “absorbing negative externalities.” Before now, the environment or society absorbed the negative costs of our habits.

This type of pricing better fits idealistic models of capitalism, whose fundamental assumptions include consumers possessing perfect information and accurate pricing to help them make purchasing choices that send purposeful market signals. The more closely the price signals we send reflect our actual priorities, the better and more representative the political and economic results.  So, sure, your ticket will cost more, but your ticket is part of a larger economic movement.

Houston's downtown (pictured) rail service has been expanded by five new routes amid great controversy. The city council passed the expansion by a wide margin, 13-2, with notable public comment arguing against the rail line. The metro transit authority has set an ambitious deadline, aiming to finish the lines by 2012 and targeting next month to break ground.

Residents in affected neighborhoods argue that it will change the character of the neighborhood and restrict traffic. An overlooked fact: changing the neighborhood is the whole idea. “Not-in-my-backyard" arguments often surface against proposed public transit projects due to fears of noise, construction, change and increased density. Yet, change is imminent anyway, whether these projects are approved or not. These choices need to be reframed as choosing between how bad things will get, or the relief that could be offered by change. Nothing is static, but opposition to mass transit frequently stems from  groups that hold the mistaken idea that things can stay the same.

In the end, gas price concerns beat out other issues, even in the Houston, historically an oil-town. As Councilman Peter Brown quipped, "I'll say it loud and clear: No longer is the city of Houston waffling on rail. With gas headed to $8 a gallon and oil to $200 a barrel, we have to rethink Houston as the happy motoring paradise."  

“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”  These words, from President John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address, motivated a generation, and created the underpinning for the Peace Corps and a variety of other service oriented organizations founded in the United States.

But now, a movement in Great Britain looks, perhaps, to carry out the vision of President Kennedy on a far more literal level. While private citizens with their own means of electrical generation in the United States and the United Kingdom have long been able to sell excess electricity back to local authorities, a new clean power initiative in England looks to allow homeowners who install their own solar panels to sell electricity they generate to power companies at a substantial premium.

Though existing measures are far from sufficient ($44,000 in installation costs drew $800 in subsidies for one Briton) the new plans could reverse this trend, possibly making the island nation one of the foremost countries in generating clean energy.

 

 

While the scientific community is now largely in agreement about the carbon inefficiencies of ethanol fuel produced from purpose grown corn, research and development of a biolfuel alternative has been somewhat limited.  Though alternatives from sweet sorghum to switchgrass have been suggested, few new technologies have been created to take advantage of the estimated 1.3 billion tons of waste biomass available in the US each year.

 

But a new firm in the American Midwest is looking turn that mess of corn husks, straw and wood leftovers into a viable vehicle fuel—and they think they can do it for $3.63 a gallon. Rather than rely on the fermentation of naturally produced plant sugars to create ethanol, biofuel start-up AlterVia uses “a combination of fluid and supercritical carbon dioxide to break down the cellulose from a plant and isolate it,” before using enzymes to break down the cellulose into usable sugars.

The Financial Times and IFC have selected the Sustainable Bank of the Year recipient for 2008. And the winner is... Banco Real

Based in Brazil, Banco Real was plucked out from more than 180 entrants — out of which regional winners were also selected. Rabobank of the Netherlands is the runner up. Regional winners include YES Bank, India, the Industrial Development Bank of Turkey and Nedbank of South Africa.

Other prizes awarded by the Financial Times and IFC include the Sustainable Deal of the Year (BlueOrchard Finance of Switzerland and Morgan Stanley of the U.S.) and the Sustainable Investor of the Year (E+Co of the U.S.).

The judges had some great things to say about Banco Real, including, “It’s in their DNA. A radical vision for sustainability in Latin America. A bank is only as sound as the society that surrounds it.”

Banco Real’s win is based on the company's willingness to build a green bank from the ground up. Even its product portfolio shows its willingness to investigate all options: microcredit, carbon credits and customized environmentally sound financial solutions. Banco Real stands out because it hasn't just greened up its business practices.  This bank has actually helped its customers make their own businesses more sustainable.

Image — FT Sustainable Banking Conference and Awards

Conspicuous consumption is out, and conspicuous non-consumption is in... at least architecturally. Recently, LEED-platinum-certified homes seem to have become the must-have item for some of Hollywood’s more environmentally-conscious trendsetters.

According to a New York Times article, such notables as John Cusack and Pierce Brosnan have considered buying LEED-platinum-certified homes.  But as much as Brosnan and others admire the principles behind the shift to non-consumption, they still seem to be adjusting to the full implications of the most stringent LEED principles. Brosnan is building his own green home, but, according to a Times interview with his architect, the actor “is not going to live in a 2,400-square-foot home.” His new pad, while incorporating many of the environmentally-sound building techniques that go into an LEED-certified home, will be built on a slightly grander scale.

While many celebrities like the status conveyed by a certified green home, the process is slow going, no matter how rich or famous you may be. In the U.S., 684 homes have received an LEED certification to date — and of those, only 48 have received the lofty platinum ranking. LEED certification requires a great deal of effort of the part of the architect, builder and homeowner, as well. Many people back out of the application process once they realize just how big a commitment LEED certification is. Don’t look for it in your local builder’s menu of options just yet.

Photo — UrbanReviewSTL

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who has had a green bent for many years, is sounding like a treehugger in his calls for reducing carbon emissions, raising fuel economy standards, and incentives for buying zero emission vehicles. (On the other hand, he's also calling for increasing offshore drilling and expanding nuclear energy, so his message is clearly mixed.)

McCain's stance of government intervention in promoting energy independence is politically courageous to a degree as it won't sit well with some conservatives. Spending more on incentives for drilling and electric vehicle batteries is not the free market president that some would like him to be.

Both McCain and competitor Barack Obama have energy plans that would understandably cost money to the American taxpayer because that's what necessary to address climate change and energy independence. But the least expensive option to reduce our oil consumption -- and therefore if this is a free market system lower gasoline prices -- would be to ask drivers to drive 55 miles per hour.

The federal government says that for "each 5 mph you drive over 60 mph is like paying an additional $0.30 per gallon for gas," and that information was posted well before prices hit $4 a gallon.

Setting the voluntary campaign for driving 55. Appealing to individual's patriotism and concern for the environment through an organized media campaign will change some behaviors and cost a fraction of the proposed incentives.

Some drivers are getting the connection that driving fast equates to higher prices, more CO2 emissions and more money sent to unstable oil-rich nations. More and more vehicles -- even non-hybrids -- are putting the miles per gallon information on the dashboard. A study from Duke University indicates that consumers would understand the math better about fuel consumption if information were posted in reverse of today's standards -- gallons used per miles driven. For example, driving a car that gets 25 miles per gallon as opposed to 20 for 1,000 miles in a month saves 10 gallons of gas, or about $40. A change in perspective is all that's needed.

Last week, the U.S. Senate blocked debate on the Energy Independence and Tax Relief Act of 2008. The bill is full of tax incentives for renewable energy sources totaling $17.7 billion. And, because the Senate blocked debate, the fate of clean-energy credits remains unknown.

The renewable energy community has been in limbo itself since that vote, trying to decide the ramifications of the renewable energy industry without clean energy credits. The question is simple: is renewable energy affordable without what amounts to a government subsidy? There are more interesting questions that should be on the table, however.

Can the government afford not to offer incentives to clean energy providers, like wind farms? It seems quite likely that they can’t:

• GE Energy Financial Services has released a study that shows that the wind farms built in the U.S. in 2007 (with the aid of the tax incentives that may shortly disappear) have a net present value benefit of $250 million to the U.S. Treasury. In other words, wind farms are putting more money in than they’re taking out.
• A whole list of renewable energy companies, such as SunPower,  have announce intentions to take their businesses abroad if clean energy credits become unavailable. Between the number of jobs lost and the taxes the government will lose out on, even just a few companies pulling out can have huge ramifications.
• Both presidential candidates, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama, have announced plans to create new jobs by encouraging companies to create green collar opportunities. Without the sort of infrastructure that the Energy Independence Act offered, the winner will be hard-pressed to carry through their plans.

Looking at all of these issues associated with the ‘death’ of the Energy Independence Act, it seems likely that the act — or something very similar — will soon be resuscitated. There is certainly a question of whether politicians will realize the government’s need for renewable energy before the general election, but the number of candidates running on platforms of green collar jobs and inexpensive energy, the revitalization of renewable energy credits after November seems practically guaranteed.

Not all renewable energy businesses will be able to hold on until those credits are brought back, but there won’t be a bubble burst of tech stock proportions. Instead, a lack of tax incentives is an opportunity for renewable energy companies to prove their true cost effectiveness to consumers. That’s not really a hard sell as the cost of energy marches ever upward.

Photo — Warrenski

A significant barrier to the long-term success of the electric vehicle is battery life. Until that problem is addressed, the dream of carbon-free cars is likely to stay stranded at the on-ramp. Like a govenmental AAA, the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is looking to offer some roadside assistance to the dilemma by teaming up with battery-maker A123Systems.

NREL's 3 year contract with the company will support cooperative research and development to improve the safety, power, cost, and, of course, time between charges of the company's nanotech-based lithium-ion batteries. Specifically, the work will focus on thermal management programs and optimization of design.

"NREL’s expertise and state of the art thermal laboratories are an important national asset and we look forward to continue our collaboration with them to further advance the state of the art of Automotive Class Lithium Ion batteries" said Bart Riley, CTO of A123Systems.

As reported on this website in March, A123Systems is also working with the US Automotive Battery Consortium, a program of the auto industry group USCAR.

If the car of the future is going to run from the grid, we're going to need a major upgrade from today's rechargeables.Unfortunately, attempts to build the battery of the future have not resulted in the kinds of capacity and efficiency gains needed to create an electric transport system. As much as I support collaborative efforts like this one, I think the government should pursue a more focused and broader effort to bring about the Model-Tesla we've been waiting for.

Photo by Flickr-er AndyArmstrong.