That's the theme of a new report and video from the Congress for the New Urbanism. Reducing the average vehicle miles traveled per person by just one mile per day would save $29 billion annually, according to a report. "That not a one time stimulus, that's a stimulus every year," said Carol Coletta, the CEO of CEOs for Cities.

Housing prices remain more stable throughout the metro area if they have an urban core, said Coletta, citing data from "Driven to the Brink" a joint CEOs for Cities/CNU study. The study gave an example of the suburb of Buffalo Grove, Illinois, where residents pay up to 28 percent of their income on transportation alone.

Coletta will speak at CNU's 17th annual conference in June 10-14 in Denver.

This year's American Recovery and Act heavily invests in mass transit and transportation, and is indicative of the current shift towards smart urban planning. As architect Scott Sarver points out in Forbes, this thinking isn't new at all -- it's a return to the pre-World War II philosophy of how cities and towns were designed. Governments federal and local are taking the first steps toward undoing the "Levittownization" of the suburbs and restoring sustainability to urban planning.

CNU recently held a contest for a video about the impact of suburban sprawl. The winning video, "Built to Last" mocks sprawl as the greatest threat to humanity. That may be an overreach, but the negative impact on health and economic development is not.

Businesses that rely on imported goods can do little to change the truck, rail and marine miles used in transport, but through a new website, GreenShipping companies and individuals can offset the environmental impact of shipping through UPS, USPS and FedEx.

The website allows for businesses to track shipments for pennies a package and accurately gauge the emissions that result. For example, a small package sent by air produces greater CO2 than a box of similar size sent by ground. With most tracking software, you see arrivals, but not necessarily the entire path. GreenShipping uses Google Maps, and is flush with transportation data (including weather issues). Once your package is shipped, they calculate the CO2 generated by the shipment.

Once the emissions have been calculated, GreenShipping works with a non-profit to invest in wind energy, by purchasing carbon offsets to counterbalance greenhouse gas production. The Bonneville Environmental Foundation’s (BEF) Carbon Offsets have met environmental criteria endorsed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and others. BEF’s Carbon Offsets are also certified by Green-e, which certifies and verifies renewable energy and greenhouse gas mitigation products.

GreenShipping can get consumers and businesses alike to consolidate shipments. With carbon offset efforts like this, pressure may raise on shipping companies for greener initiatives, like hybrid/electric conversions and devices that reduce vehicle idling.

Efforts like this may compensate for situations where one cannot buy local and also stimulate sectors that are beginning to receive government incentive, but are still not receiving the funding they need. GreenShipping and the BEF are working to promote wind over coal, and are hopefully highlighting to consumers the problem of air freight, which consumes more fuel than ground.

GreenShipping.com is a property of Green Ventures, Inc., a start-up incubator in Hood River, Oregon, that focuses on the adoption and use of green technology.

The program announced this week by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, would offer vouchers of $3,500 or $4,500 for drivers to retire their gas-guzzling vehicles and purchase new ones.

As proposed, the program--dubbed "cash for clunkers"--will be authorized for up to one year and provide for approximately one million new car or truck purchases. The program divides these new cars and trucks into four categories: passenger cars, small trucks (and SUVs), large light-duty trucks and work trucks.

The proposal however, would only allow for the purchase of new vehicles and does not require significantly higher miles per gallon (mpg) averages.

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) said the program would do little more than assist automakers in clearing their inventory lots.

Under the program proposed in January, $5,000 vouchers could be applied to the purchase of a new or used vehicle that exceeds federal fuel economy standards by at least 25%. Alternatively, the voucher could have been applied toward the purchase of transit passes at participating local transit agencies.

The newly proposed program requires the new trucks only to be 1 or 2 mpg more efficient than the old vehicle--and cars only 4 mpg more efficient.

"A standard pickup could qualify with a sticker value of only 15 miles per gallon, well below the current corporate average fuel economy standard for trucks," the ACEEE said in a statement.

“I can’t see using taxpayer dollars to sell a Hummer H3T,” said ACEEE Transportation Program Director Therese Langer. “We would welcome incentives to retire gas guzzlers and encourage the purchase of efficient vehicles, but the proposal just isn’t there yet.”

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Business.

In recent years, bamboo - a rapidly regenerating material - has gained popularity as a sturdy, sustainable alternative to wood flooring. Currently, China produces 200,000 cubic meters annually of bamboo plywood.

However, the history of bamboo’s use as an interior and even exterior material goes back way before sustainable buildings became trendy. Native to much of South and Southwest China, bamboo was first used to make paper, calligraphy brushes, and musical instruments thousands of years ago. For well over a century, it has been crafted into a range of household articles including chairs, baskets, mats, cutlery, and cabinets.

Bamboo - which is actually a grass - can be harvested after only four to six years of growth, much shorter than the 30-60 years required for comparable wood species. Replanting is not necessary, as bamboo regenerates on its own; and the speed at which it does so means it offers excellent erosion control.

Jiangqiao, which began manufacturing the green keyboards last October, has already received orders for 40,000 finished units, and is China’s sole producer of bamboo keyboards.

The company says the product is as strong as its plastic equivalent.

Proof that bamboo’s strength surpasses what its flexibility suggests lies in the fact that modern Hong Kong developers prefer bamboo over steel reinforcing rods when constructing some of the world’s tallest skyscrapers.

Jiangqiao faced the same difficulties typical for adapting bamboo for industrial use, including keeping the bamboo keyboard frame from cracking, preventing the bamboo bottom plate from distorting and firmly fashioning the buttons with the main board. However, the company has successfully developed (and patented) its formula, and also developed a bamboo mouse expected to go on the market this spring.

Though Jiangqiao is not the first company to use natural resources in computer accessories, it may be the most eco-friendly. Much of the bamboo used in the keyboards, says the company’s general manager, is leftover scrap from bamboo floorboard manufacturing.

Combining efficiency with aesthetically pleasing design, Jiangqiao is earning a name for itself in innovation and sustainability.

Photo Credit: Cleaner Greener China

Reprinted with permission from Sustainablog

OriginOil’s (OTCBB: OOIL) process, called Quantum Fracturing, uses electromagnetism and pH modification to break the algae’s cell walls, extracting oil from the algae in one step. Once the cells walls are broken down, the oil and biomass separate by gravity, without need for chemicals or heavy machinery, the company says.

OriginOil is a “pure technology company,” CEO Riggs Eckelberry says, with plans to market its developments to “help other companies make more algae oil.” The company, which also develops algae lighting and growth systems, plans to develop a scale pilot project by the end of 2009, and hopes to move into the product phase by 2010, he adds.

In May 2009, OriginOil announced its partnership with international oil extraction technology developer Desmet Ballestra. The two companies plan to explore how OriginOil’s technology may be used to increase the efficiency of Desmet Ballestra’s algae extraction methods, Eckelberry says.

The company, which was founded in mid-2007 and went public in April 2008, in early 2009 announced a partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory, through which the two plan to research algae scalability issues. The lab will also help validate the company’s technology.

The passage of the stimulus bill has created a changing biofuels landscape, Eckelberry says. In May, the DOE announced it is dedicating almost $800 million to biofuels development and commercialization, including $50 million for algal biofuel research.

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Industries.

By Sam Hopkins

They have a different sense of "normal" here in Rio. I've been all over this city in the past week, talking to people in business suits and bathing suits about what they think of Brazilian biofuels.

Having come down to Brazil out of the schizoid Baltimore April weather, I'm enthralled with the Southern Hemisphere's autumn sun. It's warm but doesn't burn.

Brazilians tell me they're cold now. I tell them to come stay at my house in January and let me know if they still think the same thing.

Aside from the weather patterns, energy expectations are totally different, too.

From the world-famous beaches of Ipanema and Corcovado to the favelas, shanty towns scattered throughout the hillsides and suburbs, sugar ethanol is a fact of life.

It's not by accident, either. Brazilian sugar ethanol has been developing since 1975 under the government's ProAlcool initiative, which gave the country a head start on the United States and other economic titans.

Now, Brazilian ethanol costs about 2/3 of what petrol costs at the pump, and even with slightly lower fuel economy (about 2 kilometers-per-liter less than regular unleaded), ethanol comes out on top in consumers' minds. As Brazilian policy has generated the market for this biofuel, international auto companies have conformed to ethanol demand with flexfuel vehicles.

So what's the next normal for this top emerging market's clean energy supply?

Hydro and Wind: a Power "Pas-de-Deux"

Brazil's minister of mines and energy, Edison Lobão, called wind energy the "princess of alternative energy" this week. In fact, I'm hearing enthusiasm for wind energy development in my conversations with government officials, industry heads, and beach bums alike.

And I have an idea who the "prince" of Brazilian renewables may be.

Right near where I am in Copacabana, there's an outcropping where the wind whips around so hard that the beautiful bossa nova music you hear while sitting on the rocks could be your last tune. . . if you decide to take a swim.

That dance of the wind and water extends from the seashores into the depths of the Amazon, where flow-of-stream hydropower is supplanting dam construction as the most environmentally friendly method of bringing electricity to underserved regions.

Lauro Fiuza, head of the Brazilian Wind Energy Association, pointed out this week at the Renewable Energy Finance Forum that hydropower wanes to 50% of capacity in the second half of every year. . .

That's right when wind energy picks up, so Brazil's national bank for development, BNDES, is funding up to 80% of projects to tie hydro and wind in a comprehensive power program.

It's all part of ProInfa, the government's national plan for expanding alternative electricity resources.

What ProAlcool has been to vehicular fuel in Brazil, ProInfa is to power.

And Brazil is committed to leading the Latin America-Caribbean region in renewable energy's contribution to skyrocketing industrial and household demand.

Residential electricity demand in the LAC region is expected to quadruple by 2030, according to Lori Kerr of the Inter-American Development Bank. That includes more rural households coming online and urban households in developing countries being able to afford more electronic equipment by the year (the street markets here are full of Nintendo Wii systems!).

Here's the kicker, though. . . While BNDES and other government support structures are very important to creating concerted national energy strategies, the IADB pegs private investment as the key factor.

80% of the investment required to satisfy Brazil's growing energy needs will come from the private sector! $1.8 trillion is needed in infrastructure development alone by 2030.

That means stock opportunities for international investors who take the trends as seriously as locals do. . .

So we're tracking all the market movements in Green Chip International, especially November's Brazilian wind energy auction — the first the country has ever held, and a huge market-oriented step forward for ProInfa.

You may not be able to get down to Brazil to see all of this with your own eyes, but the view from here is quite promising.

Sign up for GCI to get the first crack at our stock plays on Latin American and Brazilian alternative energy expansion (many of which trade right on Wall Street).

Learn more about GCI right here: http://www.angelnexus.com/o/web/12319

Boa Tarde do Rio! (Good afternoon from Rio)

Reprinted with permission from GreenChipStocks

The recent decision by Ford to transform three American light truck plants into small vehicle factories reflects Ford's recognition that times are a changing.

Ford’s has invested $550 million investment to retool a plant in Michigan that once produced bulky Expeditions and Navigators to produce the all-electric Focus in 2011 as well as Focus hybrids. The all-electric Focus is being developed with partner Magna International, and will be able to be charged through a 110- or 220-volt outlet. Next year in collaboration with Smith Electric, the manufacturer will produce a Transit Connect battery electric commercial van, which provides much more transport room than other hybrid options.

The automotive company will be launching this change by transforming the Michigan Truck Plant, a large SUV factory, into the Michigan Assembly Plant, which will produce small vehicles by 2010. The conversion is expected to result in 3,200 jobs, and additional government tax incentives could encourage even further job growth in the state.

One of the new features of the plant is the implementation of flexible manufacturing, which allows workers to evaluate plant installations through a virtual system. Ford will be converting two other truck and SUV plants to focus on cars— first in Mexico where new Fiestas will begin production next year, and at Louisville Assembly in 2011 which will produce the all-electric Ford Focus.

Michigan, Wayne County and the city of Wayne contributed over $160 million toward Ford’s changes. (The company posted net losses of $1.4B in their first quarter this year.) The plant in Michigan will also be designated as the state’s first automotive technology anchor site, which will open up additional tax incentives for suppliers.

President of the Americas at Ford, Mark Fields, said that they are changing their company focus from trucks and SUVs to a company with a “balanced product lineup… [including] even more high-quality, fuel-efficient small cars, hybrids and all electric vehicles.” Ford announced that in 2012 it will produce plug-in hybrid vehicles.

SUV purchases, in some consumer cases, have historically been the product of perceived safety improvements. Increased numbers of SUVs on the road has caused drivers to grow more concerned for their safety in smaller cars, bringing further popularity, which has slowed to date from a surge in the last decade. As more smaller hybrids and electric cars fill interstates, hopefully the perceived need to be riding in the biggest truck you can afford will be reduced.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a draft rule on Tuesday that aims to cut greenhouse gasses emitted by biofuels, while reasserting productions for targets of corn-based and cellulosic ethanol.

The proposed rule is something of a high-wire act, as the administration attempts to balance the interests of the nation's corn growers with the claims of environmentalists and science.

The new rule confirms the schedule of the 2007 Renewable Fuels Standard, which calls for the blending of 36 billion gallons per year of biofuels into gasoline by 2022 and a maximum blending of 15 billion gallons of corn and grain-based ethanol by 2015.

However, the EPA said its preliminary assessment of ethanol made from corn shows that it does not meet the requirements set by Congress in 2007. Those requirements state that corn-based ethanol must emit 20% less greenhouse gas than gasoline.

Taking into account changes in land use--a contentious model for determining greenhouse gas emissions--the EPA determined that corn ethanol produces only 16% less greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline. And in a separate scenario, using a shorter time frame, the EPA analysis found that the biofuel produced 5% more greenhouse gas than gasoline. 

The administration said it will seek additional peer-reviewed, scientfific feedback before implementing a rule. It also has opened a period of public comment on the ruling.

"Corn-based ethanol is a bridge to the next generation of biofuels," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a teleconference about the draft rule.

By encouraging farmers to shift away from the use of fossil fuels, the administration believes corn ethanol can meet the 20% standard. 

Biofuel Assistance

In announcing an interagency working group for the development of advanced biofuels, the administration also outlined initiatives to speed the development of so-called second-generation fuels and reduce the carbon footprint of first-generation, grain-based fuels.

President Obama directed Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to expedite and increase production of and investment in biofuel development efforts by refinancing existing investments in renewable fuels to preserve jobs in ethanol and biodiesel plants.

The Department of Agriculture will also make renewable energy financing opportunities available within 30 days under the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008. These opportunities include:

• Loan guarantees for the development, construction, and retrofitting of commercial scale biorefineries and grants to help pay for the development and construction costs of demonstration-scale biorefineries
• Expedited funding to encourage biorefineries to replace the use of fossil fuels in plant operations by installing new biomass energy systems or producing new energy from renewable biomass
• Expedited funding to biofuels producers to encourage production of next-generation biofuels from biomass and other non-corn feedstocks
• Expansion of Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program, which has been renamed the Rural Energy for America Program, to include hydroelectric source technologies, energy audits, and higher loan guarantee limits
• Guidance and support for collection, harvest, storage, and transportation assistance for eligible materials for use in biomass conversion facilities

Reprinted with permission from SustainableBusiness

It wasn’t that long ago when it seemed like I spent more time fixing my friend’s Hyundai Elantra than she spent driving it.

It was the basest of base model cars, and it would throw mechanical temper tantrums almost weekly, and I thanked the car gods when she finally splurged on a used Lancer. But the Hyundai of today is an altogether different beast, coming out with cars like the Genesis Coupe, a punky, cheap, rear-wheel drive racer that runs as good as it looks. Now Hyundai is looking to break into the American hybrid market with a California-designed concept called the Nuvis, which debuted a few weeks ago at the New York Auto Show.

This crossover concept is squarely aimed at the young, hip, eco-conscious crowd with sleek styling, lambo-doors, and a petrol-electric motor combo that can run on either engine, or both at the same time. Inspired by fluid and constant motion, the shape is booth aggressive and slick in one fell swoop. The interior looks like the cockpit from a futuristic fighter plane, and even the steering wheel has a slightly avionic look. Power comes from an eco-friendly 2.4 liter Theta II engine backed by a six-speed transmission, and a 40-horsepower electric motor kicks in at lower speeds.

If the Nuvis does go into production in America, it will certainly be toned down, losing the lambo doors and blue-accent bucket seats and gooey-looking center console, but it would certainly be one of the best looking hybrids on the road.

Reprinted with permission from Gas 2.0

Seventy percent of state regulators surveyed by Deloitte in March and April believe electricity costs will go up next year. Eighty percent believe Obama’s proposed cap and trade system will increase electricity costs in their state. Over half (53.3 percent) believe the public would pay as much as five percent in increased rates to reduce GHG emissions. Only 16.7 percent believe the public would accept a 10 percent rate increase, and 23.3 percent believe the public would not support any rate increase.

"Regulators seem to believe that the rate-paying public supports a cleaner energy direction," says Branko Terzic, energy and resources regulatory policy leader for Deloitte and a former commissioner with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

"Consumers understand that some increase in electric rates tied to cleaner energy may be inevitable," Terzic notes.

Moody reported in March that energy prices would rise 15 to 30 percent if a cap and trade system that sells carbon credits for $20 per metric is implemented.

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s energy subcommittee chair, is not sure about the cap and trade program favored by Obama.

“I have serious concerns about how a cap-and-trade program might allow Wall Street to distort a carbon market for its own profits,” Cantwell said. “We are looking at ways that would allow consumers to get something back.”

During an interview in March on CNBC, Warren Buffett in March expressed his concerns about a cap and trade program. “In the utility business, it’s going to be borne by customers. And it’s a tax like anything else,” he said.

Environmental groups have also expressed concern about an emissions trading program. A U.S. carbon trading market could create the same sort of problems that subprime mortgages did, according to a recent report, Subprime Carbon. The Friends of the Earth expressed concern that a carbon market could create “shoddy carbon offset credits.”from “shoddy carbon offset credits,” according to the report.

The majority of the cap and trade bills do not include adequate carbon market regulations, according to the FOE report. The lack of adequate regulations would create a “potentially huge regulatory gap.”

Obama’s popularity might be diminished if an inadequate cap and trade program was created. A recent Zogby poll said 57 percent of voters opposed the administration’s cap and trade proposal. Only 30 percent of voters polled supported the proposal.

Cap and trade programs are “designed to impact a wide range of businesses by creating a market driver for GHG reductions,” according to the World Resources Institute. The impact of a cap and trade program on a company depends on three factors:

1. The company’s energy demand
2. The company’s sensitivity to high energy prices
3. The company’s ability to either minimize or avoid increasing costs

The WRI believes that companies that minimize or avoid exposure to higher fossil fuel energy costs will have a “competitive advantage” in a cap and trade program.

An alternative approach

On April 1, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced the Cap and Dividend Act of 2009. If passed, the Act would auction 100 percent of carbon permits and the returns would go to consumers in the form of monthly dividends.

“The strength of cap and dividend lies in its simplicity and durability. All permits are sold at auction, and all proceeds are given back to the American people. As the price of energy rises, the monthly dividends will keep American consumers whole,” Van Hollen said.

Two years ago a publication called Carbon Capping: A Citizen’s Guide presented ideas for creating a carbon capping system in the U.S. The author, Peter Barnes bluntly stated that the price of “burning carbon” will go up under any carbon capping system. However, with a cap-and-dividend system the returns from auctioning carbon permits will go to citizens which will offset the higher energy costs.

Reprinted with permission from Triple Pundit.

An unlikely savior may be coming to the rescue of the planet’s beleaguered coral reefs: Chris Olson, the founder and inventor of Swell Fuel wave powered electricity generators. Olson has been building and testing small-scale floatable energy converters for a number of years, and they may prove ideal providers of the the low-voltage charge that seems to help coral reefs regenerate.

Wave Power Electricity from Swell Fuel: Smaller is Better

Olson may be on to something with his emphasis on small, lightweight units capable of generating 1,00 watts. They can be linked in a sort of offshore farm to scale up, and for maintenance purposes their small size makes them easy to handle. That’s a clear advantage when you compare Swell Fuel to another company’s rather more ambitious 21 megawatt wave power installation off the coast of Portugal, which was abruptly cancelled after buoyancy problems and other difficulties arose in the first three of its 22 planned wave power energy converters.

Swell Fuel’s Trick is in the Lever

Olson’s patented wave power converter is essentially a buoy that supports a lever or “point absorber,” which moves up and down with the waves. The necessary gears and generator double as a counterweight, and the entire device is designed to shift into a protective position during stormy weather or extreme high tides. The “Trojan,” Swell Fuel’s latest prototype, features additional advances.

Until now the primary interest in Texas-based Swell Fuel has been anywhere but Texas. Olson’s customers are primarily overseas. Mars Symbioscience is testing Swell Fuel’s Lever Operating Pivoting Float in Indonesia. Samkun Powertec of South Korea is also testing a Swell Fuel wave power unit, as is a power company in El Salvadore. Olson is eager to tap the home market in the U.S. and he may not have long to wait. The small-scale Swell Fuel units could be ideal for taking resorts and small coastal communities off-grid. That could include armed forces installations, too, as the U.S. military ramps up efforts to shrink its carbon bootprint.

As for larger communities, San Francisco is looking at wave power to provide green collar jobs as well as electricity. With federal funding finally promised for the long awaited ARPA-E transformative energy program, new grants for developing wave power could be on the horizon elsewhere in the U.S., too.

Swell Fuel and Coral Reefs

Somewhat ironically, Swell Fuel wave power units could also be useful for offshore oil rig platforms, a location being tested by Samkun Powertec. We greenies would prefer to see them bobbing alongside other kinds of offshore installations such as marine research facilities, houseboats, pleasurecraft, and the like.

Swell Fuel’s wave power units look especially promising as a possible provider of electricity to restore coral reefs. Electrically charged metal canopies are being used in various parts of the globe to help restore small areas of coral reef to health, most notably in Bali. A town in Flordia has also recently started an electricity-based coral reef restoration project. So far, the lack of an inexpensive, low-emission power supply has limited the scale of the restoration efforts, and Swell Fuel’s wave power units could provide the ideal solution.

Image courtesy of Swell Fuel.

Reprinted with permission from Cleantechnica

When doing your part to reduce waste by recycling, don't forget to consider what's in the bedroom. If you want to be truly eco-friendly, be adult enough to recycle your sex toys too.

That’s right. Don’t you dare throw any electronic arousal device out with the day’s trash. Vibrators and any other toy that runs on a battery should be disposed of with care for the environment or those toys may leak metals and other contaminants into the environment.

When ridding the nightstand drawer of synthetic and electronic toys, a new online service will accept them for proper environmental disposal helping to make everyone, “sexstainable!

Scarlet Girl collects used and broken sex toys for recycling (not reuse because that would be unsanitary) and then will send a few bucks back to the toy owner in an effort to incentivize patrons beyond just greening their sex life.

Other online collectors are also popping up. The plastics, electronic pieces, silicone, and metals will be disassembled, sorted and then recycled with other like materials. This prevents ingestion by animals who might scrounge the trash or landfill, as well as prevent pollution of soil and groundwater supplies.

Ya know, maybe now green has conquered all. This is ultimate green living. And, why not? At the heart of the issue is preventing pollution, if that means recycling a few unmentionables, do it.

Florida, the capital of East Coast beach getaways, is doing its part to green the vacation hot spot.

This week, the Sandpearl Resort in Clearwater Beach was granted LEED Silver certification and is currently holding the title of first LEED Silver certified resort in the state. While being the first and only is an admirable achievement, let't hope they don’t keep that title for long (let's hope dozens more resorts earn a LEED Silver rating).

It's even a goal of Sandpearl's general manager, Stuart Arp, since Sandpearl's conception, we knew we would incorporate green building materials and energy management systems to limit our impact on the environment; this milestone achievement helps ensure that generations of visitors will enjoy Clearwater Beach as we do today.”

A few of the features that helped Sandpearl earn the certification include a heat recovery exhaust system where recovered heat from parts of the resort can be channeled back in for warmed air. Each room is equipped with an energy management system that allows guests to adjust the temperature level per their comfort, and unoccupied rooms are set to more energy efficient temperatures.

Windows and the glass doors are tinted to block ultraviolet rays, prevent heat from warming a room, and sensors on doors left opened can take advantage of a beach breeze by alerting the air conditioning system to conserve energy as well. An interesting and unique feature relates to sanitizing resort pools.

Instead of treating pools with chlorine and other harsh chemicals, ozone is used.

But, isn't ozone bad? Atmospheric ozone is part of global warming dangers, but naturally occurring oxygen bonded together to form ozone can be used to treat water and then breaks down to oxygen molecules once cleaning is complete. It's an interesting idea. It does limit guest interaction with chemicals like chlorine that can burn skin, eyes, and cause respiratory discomfort. Ozone can be expensive, exposure to it can be just as dangerous as chlorine. Resorts will have to balance the pros and cons for the environment and the safety of guests.

Greening resorts is great for sustainable travel; greening the resort industry in a state that capitalizes on tourism is even better.

Resorts that do so can attract an eco-minded clientele, and leaves an environment to enjoy for years to come.For more information about the resort's green features, visit Sandpearl.com.

"We must invest in a clean energy economy that will lead to new jobs, new businesses and reduce our dependence on foreign oil," said President Obama. "The steps I am announcing today help bring us closer to that goal. If we are to be a leader in the 21st century global economy, then we must lead the world in clean energy technology. Through American ingenuity and determination, we can and will succeed."

The Biofuels Interagency Working Group will be co-chaired by the secretaries of agriculture and energy and the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and will operate in cooperation with the National Science and Technology Council's Biomass Research and Development Board.

The Working Group is tasked with developing the nation's first comprehensive biofuel market development program. It will use existing authorities and identify new policies to support the development of next-generation biofuels, increase flexible fuel vehicle use, and assist in retail marketing efforts.

The Working Group will coordinate infrastructure policies that affect the supply, secure transport, and distribution of biofuels.

And the Working Group will identify new policy options to promote the environmental sustainability of biofuels feedstock production, taking into consideration land use, habitat conservation, crop management practices, water efficiency and water quality, as well as lifecycle assessments of greenhouse gas emissions.

In his directive, the President called on Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to immediately begin restructuring existing investments in renewable fuels as needed to preserve industry employment; and develop a comprehensive approach to accelerating the investment in and production of American biofuels and reducing the nation's dependence on fossil fuels.

Secretary Vilsack told reporters on a conference call this morning that the President's directive creates an "exciting opportunity for USDA."

"USDA must stimulate investment, persuade existing biorefineries to convert away from petroleum fuel to biofuels, and it's an opportunity for communities to convert as well," Vilsack said.

"The directive reflects Obama's commitment to rural America, he said. "It will create clean jobs, provide additional income opportunities for farmers and ranchers, energy security for every single American."

"Our responsibility is crafted, directed and shaped not just by this Presidential memo," said Vilsack, "but also by the energy title of the Farm Bill. Resources are available to farmers to audit their operations on the farm. Steps can be taken to convert to biofuels and away from fossil fuels. Once the audits are finished they can apply to USDA for additional resources to convert their operations to renewable energy. We are a financing mechanism for these changes. First doing the audit, then encouraging farms to move away from dependence on fossil fuel will impact footprint of agriculture generally."

To create advanced biofuels like green gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels, the Department of Energy will oversee the $786.5 million commercial biorefinery effort. The biomass program will leverage DOE's national laboratories, universities, and the private sector to help improve biofuels reliability and overcome technical challenges.

The $786.5 million in Recovery Act funding is a mix of new funding opportunities and additional funding for existing projects. More than half the money, $480 million, will fund integrated pilot-scale and demonstration-scale biorefineries, and an additional $176.5 million will fund commercial-scale biorefinery projects.

Fundamental research in key program areas will get $110 million and $20 million will be spent for ethanol research.

"Developing the next generation of biofuels is key to our effort to end our dependence on foriegn oil and address the climate crisis - while creating millions of new jobs that can't be outsourced," said Secretary of Energy Steven Chu. "With American investment and ingenuity, and resources grown right here at home, we can lead the way toward a new green energy economy."

Researchers at the National Renewable Energy Lab have been working on developing biofuels made from nonedible plants like prairie grasses, wood chips and harvested corn and wheat leftovers. They are close to achieving a U.S. Department of Energy goal - producing by 2012 cellulosic ethanol cheap enough to compete with conventional gasoline.

The President also announced the EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the nation's first Renewable Fuel Standard. This proposal outlines the EPA's strategy for increasing the supply of renewable fuels to reach 36 billion gallons by 2022, as required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Four categories of renewable fuels will be established: cellulosic biofuels; biomass-based diesel; advanced biofuels; and total renewable fuel.

In 2022, the proposal would require 36 billion gallons annually of renewable fuels, of which 16 billion gallons must be cellulosic biofuels; and 1 billion gallons must be of biomass-based diesel. At most 15 billion gallons of the renewable fuel mandate can be met with conventional biofuels, including corn-based ethanol.

Increasing renewable fuels will reduce dependence on foreign oil by more than 297 million barrels a year and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 160 million tons a year when fully phased in by 2022, the administration estimates.

For the first time, some renewable fuels must achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions compared to the gasoline and diesel fuels they displace. Refiners must meet the requirements to receive credit toward meeting the new standards.

EPA also will conduct peer reviews on the lifecycle-analysis methodology and the results for various fuels and feed-source combinations. Lifecycle refers to the greenhouse gas emissions over the life of the fuels.

"As we work towards energy independence, using more homegrown biofuels reduces our vulnerability to oil price spikes that everyone feels at the pump," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. "Energy independence also puts billions of dollars back into our economy, creates green jobs, and protects the planet from climate change in the bargain."

Nathanael Greene, director of Renewable Energy Policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said, "The opportunity to review EPA's proposal will help ensure that developing biofuels won't mean using our most fragile forests for fuel and that biofuels provide real benefits. We plan to submit comments on what EPA has gotten right and what must be improved to make sure the outcome serves our environmental and energy needs."

"We must develop biofuels the smart way, and we are encouraged that EPA Administrator Jackson has offered a science-based proposal to get this done," said Greene. "If we get the rules of the road right through policies such as this one, we can harness the ingenuity of America's farmers, foresters, and entrepreneurs to create a new generation of biofuels that will help create jobs and reduce our dependence on oil."

Bob Dinneen, president and chief executive of the Renewable Fuels Association, said, "President Obama is making clear once and for all that biofuels are critical to the nation's economic, environmental and energy strength. Investments in biofuels, like ethanol, are creating green jobs here at home, reducing America's foreign oil dependence, and helping to meet our environmental goals."

"America's ethanol industry faces an unprecedented set of opportunities as well as challenges," Dinneen said. "Revolutionary new technologies that turn once thought of waste materials into renewable fuel are very close at hand. These technologies will create the kind of economic and green job opportunities, as well as provide cleaner solutions to petroleum use, that President Obama desires."

"Yet, uncertainty remains for many of these technologies as unproven science and questionable logic are being used to penalize existing biofuel producers for carbon emissions occurring halfway around the globe for reasons that may have little, or nothing, to do with U.S. biofuel production," he said.

The ethanol industry is concerned that EPA has attempted to calculate indirect emissions that occur as a result of indirect land use changes from rainforest to biofuels crops, for instance, in the United States as well as internationally.

"The controversial notion of indirect land use changes impacts, including those happening outside the United States, are thought to greatly reduce ethanol's greenhouse gas benefit," said Dinneen.

"We welcome an open and robust science-based discussion of the indirect impacts of all fuels," said Dinneen. "The science of market-mediated, secondary impacts is very young and needs more reliance on verifiable data, and less reliance on unproven assumptions. Done correctly, such an analysis will demonstrate a significant carbon benefit is achieved through the use of ethanol from all sources."

Reprinted with permission from Environment News Service.

Residents and business owners in Berkeley can now log on, view their rooftops, calculate the available square footage for panels, get an estimated size of a photovoltaic (PV) system that would fit their rooftop, obtain detailed information on tax rebates and choose from a listing of available installers. The CH2M HILL solar map reflects elements such as rooftop structures, the slant of the roof, shading from obstructions and takes into account the azimuth of the sun for PV panel placement.

The Berkeley FIRST program, a solar finance program that assists Berkeley residents in tackling the financial hurdles of installing solar panels, is the city’s flagship solar energy program. It provides property owners an opportunity to borrow money from the City’s Sustainable Energy Financing District to install solar photovoltaic electric systems and repay the financing through property tax bills.

Reprinted with permission from RenewableEnergyWorld

Deloitte expects that market forces will eventually drive solar manufacturers to the U.S., but the current government incentives, according to an online debate between Deloitte staffers, “simply aren’t competitive with other countries.”

The Deloitte debaters included points and counterpoints on two schools of thought on the need of further government involvement. Decision makers need to recognize the demand for a commitment to solar manufacturing, and although the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided some necessary incentives, the U.S. federal efforts remain deficient.

Though a report released last month revealed the U.S. to be the largest solar thermal market in the world, manufacturing concerns such as foreign labor cost advantages, could keep investors and decision makers alike away.

Labor costs are an issue when competing in international markets. First Solar Inc, the largest thin-film manufacturer, has achieved significant profits due to lower production costs through Malaysian plants. The ARRA is a step in the right direction, though Deloitte emphasized that it should be considered just a start. Phil Schneider, principal of Deloitte Consulting, wrote of executives speaking of desperately needed additional incentives.

Companies, like SolFocus, are already planning to utilize credits, such as the 30% manufacturing investment tax credit set forth in the ARRA. Arizona developer SolFocus currently has the ability to produce 2 million concentrating reflectors annually, providing over 30 megawatts of power. This tax credit, though considered insufficient by some, brings American factory production costs on par with India. Without the tax credit, American factories would be as costly as Germany’s.

U.S. solar power will owe the majority of its future growth to state governments through efforts such as the $500M solar incentive bill that was passed in Texas last month. Rebecca Ranch, director of Deloitte Consulting encouraged solar companies to take into consideration changes in legislation regarding carbon regulations when deciding on manufacturing locations and echoed that “state incentives will undoubtedly be part of any winning packages.”

Arguments against solar have previously centered on its payback being beyond the perceived equipment lifetime and that it is simply not cost effective The future energy demand of the US is too great to outsource solar needs, and efforts should instead be focused on energy self-sustainability. Hopefully, forward thinking government policies, such as investment tax credits, when coupled with reduced production costs due to advances in technology, will contribute to the future growth of the solar market.

The Broadway house holds more than one thousand and sits inside the Bank of America building. Standing as the only recently reconstructed theatre in over 20 years, the Henry Miller is a tribute to historic preservation. Doors, wrought iron, and pieces of the decorative modeling and other facade features from the previous theatre were incorporated, preserving the history of the original theatre.

Projects that reuse any material are inherently green and one of the many ways a building can earn LEED points. Reusing materials from the previous building is a true tribute to the environment as it prevents the need for raw materials. The recycled timber continues the contribution of a tree long since chopped down in a historic and aesthetic context, and because it prevents the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the transportation of would-be new products.

A few other green features of the theatre include use of environmentally-sensitive construction materials like sustainably harvested wood, recycled content wall paneling, waterless restroom facilities, and slag-laden concrete.

The theatre is looking to achieve gold certification and the building is looking to achieve platinum.

President and CEO of Empire State Development Corporation, Marisa Lago, puts it best by saying, Henry Miller's Theatre is a perfect example of the type of transformational project that we can achieve when the State, City, and the business and non-profit communities work together; one that preserves the city's history and the environment.

By Nick Hodge

You've heard the plans.

We'll double the use of renewables in three years. We'll get 20% of our power from wind by 2020. And so on.

They're lofty goals, and they'll generate serious profits. In fact, fortunes have already been made from the public-facing technologies like wind and solar.

But for the industry to progress as quickly as planned, there are several hurdles that need to be overcome. And that's where the crazy money will be made.

Wind and solar are great. I've made money off them, and I've helped investors profit from those sectors — and I will continue to do so.

But what happens when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine? How can these resources provide baseload power if they are intermittent?

The answer is advanced energy storage. . . and it's worth billions.

The Need for Energy Storage

Here's a blurb from the Christian Science Monitor that puts it in perspective:

While the Obama administration presses to expand renewable energy with emphasis on growing wind farms and utility-scale solar, these efforts could vastly increase the need to build new backup power plants — much of which today involves firing up natural-gas turbines when the winds die down. The only way to avoid using fossil fuels is to develop grid storage.

If solar power isn't available at night, for example, it can never become a source of baseload power like coal or natural gas. Large scale energy storage can change all that.

So when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, some power is delivered to the grid and some is stored for later use — after the sun goes down or when wind speeds decline.

The problem — until now — was that energy storage technology was not advancing as fast as energy production technologies, and costs were not falling as quickly.

That gap is now narrowing, which means profits on both fronts for those in the know.

And the best part is, energy storage is a can't-fail sector. It's critical for the rapid expansion of renewable energy. And Congress is guaranteeing its success.

Investing in Energy Storage, an Introduction

This sector is so vital that it will soon approach inelastic demand. That means suppliers of energy storage technology will be able to raise prices without reducing demand. . . great news for investors.

And like I said, Congress needs this to happen, or their grandiose plans for renewable energy are moot. They are propelling this industry with billions of dollars of stimulus money and other programs through national laboratories and partnerships.

As a side note, energy storage falls under the broad umbrella of smart grid. So, Federal money for smart grid is also funding for energy storage — also sometimes called grid reliability.

It's a big sector with multiple technologies. So before you take the investment plunge, you should be aware of all the different types of energy storage devices that exist:

• Lead Acid

• Nickel Cadmium

• Nickel Metal Hydride

• Sodium Sulfur

• Zinc Bromide

• Superconducting Magnets

• Flywheels

• Fuel Cells

• Compressed Air

• Capacitor and Ultricapacitors

• Lithium-ion

There's a market and a company for each of them. The trick is nailing down the right time to invest in the right sector.

Take lead acid batteries and superconducting magnets, for example. Two companies to watch there are Enersys (NYSE: ENS) and Maxwell Technologies (NASDAQ: MXWL). Look what those two have done recently:

I think it's safe to say there is money to be made here. It's estimated that energy storage will morph into a $600 billion industry over the next decade — not to mention it's the missing link to propelling renewable energy from marginal to mainstream.

And yet, it gets much less attention than its solar and wind cousins, giving savvy investors a brief window of opportunity to beat The Street to the punch.

Reprinted with permission from Energy and Capital

Shimon Peres, the President of Israel helped launch a new solar farm at Kibbutz Yavne this week. The farm uses concentrating solar power to generate electricity and hot water. President Peres said at the launching ceremony, “It is a natural way to fight terror because the oil-producing countries of Iran and Venezuela destroy our lives by terror.” He also called solar power democratic because sunlight is available to everyone.

No government aid was required for the project. It was funded entirely by Israeli venture capitalists. The cost of the electricity generated is approximately 8 cents per kilowatt hour. This price is slightly less than the cost for electricity provided by the main power supplier in Israel, the Israeli Electric Corporation.

Zenith Solar provided the technology for the system. They have a patented CSP device which they say can use a great deal of the sun’s energy: “ZenithSolar utilizes the heat generated at the solar cell receiver to provide usable hot water heating, improving overall solar power conversion efficiency to 75% “. Each of the mirrored solar collecting dishes at the site has 110 square feet of surface area.

A vineyard will be planted between the rows of solar cells. Kibbutz Yavne has 1,500 acres of land for growing field crops, fruit, poultry and dairy. It is the site of the largest chicken hatchery in Israel. About 1,100 people live there.

For more information see the video produced by Israeli National News.

Reprinted with permission from Cleantechnica.com

If making beneficial changes for their own sake isn’t enough, one Web-based tool is hoping people’s competitive nature will spur them to action.

Aiming to harness the power of online gaming and social networks, Cambridge-based Carbonrally issues challenges ranging from ridesharing to planting a vegetable garden that result in reduced carbon emissions. Site users, both individual and teams, accrue points for completed challenges, while Carbonrally measures the aggregate effect of users’ action by emission reductions.

Carbonrally, which was launched in 2007 with angel investor funds, is in the midst of a Series A funding round. As a social networking tool, it also publishes editorial content, which its founder says is separate from the sponsorships that support both teams and challenges.

“Working with sponsors is the front line of our business model,” says Carbonrally founder and CEO Jason Karas.

Companies use Carbonrally to marshal action among their employees or customer bases, Karas says. Several divisions of Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) and NBC are competing in challenges, for example. In Spring 2009, Carbonrally partnered with Seventeen magazine on a print and online campaign. The site’s Go Green with Seventeen team has about 8,500 members tracking the effects of shorter showers and nixing drive-thrus.

The company is also seeking businesses to underwrite specific challenges. San Jose-based eBay (Nasdaq: EBAY), for example, has sponsored three challenges, which urge users to reuse clothing or shop online.

As Caronrallyers invite new users, Karas says the site’s viral element is starting to kick in. Carbonrally’s user base has been growing at about 100 percent per month in early 2009. As of late April, the site had about 30,000 registered users, and reported having reduced carbon emissions by about 2,500 tons.

Reprinted with permission from SustainableIndustries.com

Foreign correspondent Stephan Faris, who was inspired to write Forecast after witnessing climate-change-induced suffering in Darfur, offered the starkest of reminders: Change is coming, no matter what we do. We can act to limit the global warming we already have set in motion, or we can let it go unchecked and gather strength For all those who complain of the cost of reducing our carbon footprint , Faris warned that doing nothing also will carry a cost. A heavy cost. (See the Stern Report and its conclusion that not acting on climate change will cost us $7 trillion in the next 40 years — 20 percent of all the money in the world).

Dan Sperling, director of UC Davis’s Institute of Transportation Studies and author of Two Billion Cars, asserted that a shift to new electric, hybrid and other alternative fuel vehicles is inevitable and will provide a big part of the climate solution, but only if state and federal policies are put in place to nurture and encourage that shift sooner rather than later. On the other hand, Bill Kelly, coauthor of Smogtown, a history of Los Angeles air, suggested the technology for clean and green transportation has been available for more than a decade, yet hasn’t gone mainstream. He chalked this up not to bad tech or lack of policies, but as a matter of values: Too many people want suburban sprawl and the lifestyle it offers, even it it comes with a long commute, and they have sought vehicles that gave them long-range mobility. To Kelly, the signficant part of the battle (not the only part, just a big part) is climate change vs. value change.

As for my perspective, there is merit in all these positions — all, in essence, are correct. But let’s take it a step further: We have the technology, legal framework and the economic incentive to act now to alter our wasteful, global-warming ways. In transportation, energy, land use and sprawl — all the pieces are there, right now, except the will to act decisively.

Here’s the problem: Those who have argued that action against global warming will be too expensive can advance this argument only because we — the media, our leaders, the public — let them conceal the true cost of our current system (also some of them make up their “facts.”).

The hidden costs of, for example, gasoline powered cars are enormous: those costs include the proven health effects of smog and toxic auto emissions; the elevated heart disease, lung disease, premature births and cancer rates near our freeways; the spiraling childhood asthma rates and other lung ailments in our urban areas; the damage to our infrastructure, buildings, even house paint that pollutants associated with transportation cause. Now, who bears that cost? Is it reflected in the current price of gasoline? No. But why is that? If an ordinary citizen does something to make his neighbor sick, and does it knowingly, and doesn’t stop doing it even after the harm is revealed, that person can be held legally liable. He can be compelled to pay, and rightly so. Do carmakers pay for the damage done to health and environment by their cars and the fuel they burn? Do the oil companies? No.

And so, we are subsidizing the apparent low cost of gas and cars. We are paying for it in our sky-high health care and insurance costs, in our tax dollars, and in our lives and the lives of our children. That is the true cost of our current love affair with the internal combustion engine, coming out of consumers’ pockets, so that the hidden but very real cost of gas, right now, ranges from $5 a gallon to $15 a gallon, depending on who’s doing the estimating. Former Cal EPA Chief Terry Tamminen, who is profiled in Eco Barons, puts the cost at about $10 a gallon. We ignore this because “the argument of hidden costs” has so far prevailed in our discourse, skewing the debate, focusing on the price at the pump, which is only a fraction of the cost of the pump. A reality based cost-analysis shows that we will save money, not to mention lives, as we shift to renewable energy and clean cars.

The debate has been skewed in another way: There is a bedrock assumption — a false assumption — that Congress must create new laws to deal with climate change, and so we must wait for the compromised piece of legislation to emerge. The result inevitably will be far too little, far too late. Jim Hansen of NASA calls current legislative proposals little more than greenwash. The truth is that, while the right new laws would be very helpful, we have no need to stand still while we wait. There are powerful laws already in place — dating back 30 years or more — that give us most of the tools we need to act decisively on climate change right now. Indeed, we could have done so many years ago, and it is a scandal and a national shame that we have not.

First there is the Clean Air Act of 1970, which gives the federal government the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The US Supreme Court decided this in April 2007 in Massachusetts v. EPA. The court ordered the Bush Administration to put this sweeping power to use, but the president refused to act. Now it’s up to President Obama, who has taken the first steps to comply with the law. But more must be done, and soon — which comes back to this matter of values, not only those of our leaders, but the rest of us as well. Do we want a forceful regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, which will have a good chance of saving our world for our children and grandchildren — but which inevitably will require fundamental changes in how we obtain and use energy? Will we back such efforts, or well we side with the opposition, once again succumbing to the argument of hidden costs?

The second legal tool against climate change is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, under which the Bush Administration reluctantly extended protections to the polar bear, with a finding that global warming was the extinction threat. This was a pivotal finding, because it gives the government the power and responsibilty to limit the damage to endangered animals and their habitats caused by global warming. Bush issued a rule at the end of his term intended to be a poison pill against using endangered species protections to regulate climate change; Obama has hinted he would repeal that “midnight rule,” but he has yet to do so, despite congressional authority to revoke the Bush rules with the stroke of a pen. This poses a major test of our new president’s commitment to environmentalism. And he must decide this in the next 11 days, when the congressional permission expires.

Truly following the intent of the Endangered Species Act would, once again, require a fundamental shift away from oil and coal, and toward renewable energy, electric cars, smart buildings and developments. But coupled with the Clean Air Act, it is potentially a powerful tool for bringing about that change.

Such change can’t happen all at once, of course, but it is now incumbent on the government to help put a gradual shift in motion by providing incentives and rewards for the clean and green, and penalties for the dirty and wasteful. We have the laws to begin this process. We have the technologies to make it a reality. And so we have a decision to make, as a people, as a country, about how we want to proceed.

We have made changes in the past: we responded to the anti-littering campaign of the sixties and seventies by changing how we behave, cleaning up the litter from streets and roads and rivers seemingly overnight. We woke up and changed on smoking, and drinking and driving, too. Climate is the biggest challenge we have faced since World War II, but America has a history of rising to such challenges. We just need to figure out if we want to be the climate ostrich, or the hawk.

Edward Humes is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist adn the author of Eco Barons.

Last night Keilly Witman from EPA’s GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership, the program that attempts to get grocery stores to reduce ozone-killing refrigerant leaks, talked at EcoTuesday in DC. What I thought might not be our most exciting topic turned out to be one of the most interesting I’ve heard in the 8 months of co-hosting these events.

Ozone-depleting refrigerants are also potent greenhouse gases. One pound of the most commonly used HFC refrigerants has the same impact as about 4000 lbs of CO2. This is why Witman calls the reduction of refrigerant leaks the low-hanging-fruit of emissions control. There are 35,000 supermarkets in the US and each typically carries about 4000 lbs of refrigerant and leaks about 25% of that. So, you do the math: 1000 lbs of high global warming gas from each of 35,000 supermarkets = 35,000,000 lbs leaked each year. And its pretty simple and cheap to cut that number in half, which is where most GreenChill partner markets come in.

According to a 2008 GreenChill press release:

Compared to the rest of the supermarket industry, GreenChill partners are already emitting fewer ozone-depleting refrigerants and greenhouse gases than their competitors, and saving money at the same time. The partners’ savings in operating costs equal almost $13 million.

GreenChill has about 30 supermarket partners. Let’s start applying the Big Green Purse principle and ask: Is your market a Greenchill partner or should you shop elsewhere?

GreenChill now has 19 supermarket chain partners:

• ACME Markets
• Albertson’s
• bigg’s
• Bloom Markets
• Bottom Dollar
• Cub Foods
• Farm Fresh Food & Pharmacy
• Food Lion
• Giant Eagle
• Hannaford
• Harris Teeter
• Harvey’s Supermarkets
• Hornbacher’s
• Jewel/Osco
• King Kullen
• Lucky Supermarkets
• Organic Valley
• Price Chopper
• Publix
• Raley’s/Bel Air/Nob Hill/Food Source
• Shaw’s/Star Markets
• Shop’n Save
• Shoppers Food & Pharmacy
• Supervalu Inc.
• Sweetbay
• Weis/Kings/Mr. Z’s Markets
• Wild By Nature
• Whole Foods

So why isn’t your favorite market part of the program? Its pretty simple to significantly reduce leaks. First, participation in the GreenChill program is free, voluntary and non-regulatory.

But, and this is a biggie, a market cannot participate if it has outstanding and unresolved EPA issues. So, if your favorite market isn’t on the list its likely that it has other, more troublesome, environmental issues above and beyond ozone-damaging refrigerant leaks. All good reasons to shop elsewhere.

That said, GreenChill provides a tremendous amount of marketing support (that Witman says most grocers don’t even take advantage of) including a ton of incredible in-store marketing materials. They offer technical support and data to help with the ROI/cost-savings (the most common refrigerants cost about $9 a lb, so again, do the math) and risk management analysis.

Even better, GreenChill’s program for reducing leaks typically doesn’t require any capital improvements, but rather simply fixing the leaks in the piping throughout a store. Really, just a leak detector, some solder and a soldering iron.

If you are in the grocery, food, food equipment, etc. business look into GreenChill for yourself or your clients. It really is low hanging fruit.

Reprinted with permission from EcoWorldly.com