Results

An unusual measure passed the house last year, tucked away in the energy bill that was made into law in August. Lawmakers who use public funding to lease vehicles will be required to choose those that meet a certain standard of fuel efficiency. The new law, which affects the House of Representatives (senators are not allowed to use office funding for car leases), asks the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prepare a list of “approved” vehicles for congressional use. Those who favored the legislation hope that by setting a good example for the public, our elected leaders will help impact climate change and lessen our environmental impact.

The EPA list of acceptable cars is expected to be out before the end of 2008, and speculation about what will be included is rife. The EPA does host a Green Vehicle Guide website, which rates autos on a 0 to 10 scale for air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and many expect high scorers on that scale will populate the recommendations. These vehicles could include the Toyota Prius, Honda Civic hybrid, Ford Escape hybrid, and other low-impact options.

Reactions in the halls of Congress are mixed, with some representatives pleased to be doing their part and others angry at being forced to change their car choices. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II, a Democrat from Missouri, drives a converted diesel van that runs on used vegetable oil. He has little sympathy for colleagues who must lease green cars. As he told the L.A. Times, “They want their Lexuses and their Cadillacs. I just think it’s a poor example for us to spend so much time talking about energy independence and global warming and presenting to the people an image of fat cats living the fat life.”

Others find the new law to be an unfair limitation. Joe L. Barton (R - Texas) expressed the opinion that it is one’s constituents who should decide if a vehicle is inappropriate for their congressman. “I guarantee you that my district is not upset that I’m driving a Chevy Tahoe.” His district, incidentally, is where his Tahoe was manufactured. Others complained that the list might hurt domestic automakers. “A Prius isn’t made in the United States,” Rep. Elton Gallegly of California noted. Some representatives also pointed out to the L.A. Times that they chose to lease certain vehicles due to mountainous districts and height requirements, which made small cars uncomfortable.

While the bill is undoubtedly controversial, it is also unusual in its specificity. We have many regulations and requirements of our federal representation, but choosing their vehicles for them is certainly a first. It’s not a surprise that some find the move too pushy and personal. After all, their constituents would balk if the situation were reversed; imagine Congress trying to pass a law that required us to buy only certain models of cars. That being said, congressional leaders are not your average Joes. They are using taxpayer money to lease these vehicles, and many of their taxpayers are choosing more responsible cars. While it may not be as flashy, I’m sure a hybrid SUV can climb mountains or accommodate tall representatives just as well as its gas-guzzling counterpart.

Today is the 39th annual celebration of Earth Day, a “holiday” created in 1970 to increase awareness for environmental protection. People around the world will plant trees, conserve electricity and water, stop driving, and make changes to their habits today in an effort to reduce their impact on our planet. Businesses have also taken note of Earth Day, and many of them have enacted policies or planned special activities for today. Companies in many industries are going green not only to improve their green policies, but also to attract employees and customers who care about the environment.

As the L.A. Daily News is reporting, Anheuser-Busch has Earth Day festivities planned at many of their 12 facilities around the country. Employees will telecommute, carpool, and use alternative transportation this week, as well as participate in tree planting and conservation exercises. Their website’s landing page takes visitors to a new section highlighting their involvement in green projects and their commitment to recycling and conservation. As their Employee Involvement section says, “Through these efforts, we hope to foster a community that has a desire to give back in order to preserve the environment around us. At Anheuser-Busch, we realize that we don’t just work in this world. We live in it.”

Another company working to improve their green quotient is Whole Foods, a grocer specializing in organic and healthy foods. Whole Foods vowed to end their use of plastic, disposable grocery bags by today. As a January press release explains, “Together with our shoppers, our gift to the planet this Earth Day will be reducing our environmental impact as we estimate we will keep 100 million new plastic grocery bags out of our environment between Earth Day and the end of this year alone.” Whole Foods is not the only grocery chain to make an Earth Day commitment. Safeway is converting many of its California locations to solar power. They also buy electricity for their stores from wind projects around the country, making them the 3rd largest retail purchaser of renewable energy. In honor of Earth Day, Safeway added two more store locations to their growing solar grid.

Businesses in other industries are also doing their part to participate in Earth Day. On the media front, The Weather Channel’s eco-friendly imprint Forecast Earth is carrying special programming to help viewers understand the global climate crisis. Their campaign, called “Help Make Every Day Earth Day”, gives viewers (and readers of their website) the opportunity to create videos and blog pieces about green issues. Users can submit their own content to share their ideas and strategies for going green. One video highlights the founder of Eco Envelopes, Ann DeLaVergne, whose company reduces the waste caused by reply envelopes. The Weather Channel has a massive audience, and therefore a massive platform with which to make an positive environmental impact. Their willingness to feature green content, and their ability to motivate viewers to do the same, represents the power that Earth Day has to change people’s minds.

Companies who make efforts to become more eco-friendly are not just becoming more responsible, but they are also influencing their customers and employees. Not only are customers looking for green options, but job seekers are become more conscious of their employer’s actions. As a recent Environmental News Network article points out, “A majority of U.S. workers (64 percent) say that their decision to work for a company or purchase its products are “strongly” or “somewhat” influenced by a company’s environmental practices or polices.” Indeed, as a new generation of green young people enter the workforce, a company’s ability to attract them through environmental responsibility may become a major factor for recruiters.

Environmental responsibility is not just an individual value anymore. Businesses around the world are taking up the pledge to honor Earth Day by improving their green policies. These businesses are well-positioned to have a competitive advantage as consumers and employees reward those who go green.

Many businesses are marketing to a new kind of customer, one who recycles religiously, eats organic/fair trade fruits and vegetables, and shops with their environmental impact in mind. This trend towards eco-friendly products is breaking out of the retail and manufacturing industries and spreading into unconventional sectors. Now, even insurance companies are “greenwashing” their home and auto policies, offering customers better rates or environmental incentives for sustainable rebuilding after a disaster. Money has always been a powerful motivator, and insurance policies are cashing in on consumers who want to be responsible in every aspect of their lives.

One way in which insurance companies are appealing to green buyers is through discounts for hybrid owners or those who limit their driving. Traveler’s, Farmers, and other auto insurance companies are offering up to 10% discounts on policies for hybrid vehicles. The theory is that hybrid owners are more conservative on the road and in the maintenance garage than, say, Hummer owners. As Evan Mills, a scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory told Businessweek, “Customers who buy hybrids tend to have a more conscientious profile.” So far, these policies are limited to a few companies, but the trend is expected to grow in coming years.

Many auto insurers are also offering discounts to green consumers who keep their mileage low. Customers of Progressive, GMAC, and Farmers in certain states receive discounts of 25% to 54% for driving less, depending on how many miles they log. The insurance companies use various technologies to track participant’s mileage, from GPS devices to small data-collecting devices that plug into the steering column of certain vehicles. Some consumers are limiting their driving for environmental reasons, though these types of policies equally benefit those who are doing so due to rising gas prices and other economic crunches.

Another trend in the insurance industry is policies which allow customers to rebuild using sustainable, eco-friendly materials and technology. Lexington Insurance, which is owned by AIG, will charge an extra 3% premium so homeowners or commercial owners can replace damaged property with energy-saving appliances, better insulation, and renewable or recycled materials. They also offer a product called LexElite Eco-Homeowner aimed at the growing number of households who actually generate their own electricity. As a recent press release explains, “If a homeowner’s alternative-energy system has a covered outage, LexElite Eco-Homeowner will protect the homeowner against lost income generated from selling surplus energy back to the local energy company and will cover the extra expenses incurred to purchase replacement electricity.”

While many insurance companies are going paperless, offsetting carbon emissions, and making donations to environmental organizations, the trend setters are now trying to pass these values along to consumers through competitive policies. These discounts could be the motivating force that convinces some drivers and homeowners to choose their purchases based on environmental impact. However, not everyone is convinced that an insurance policy is the appropriate place to make an impact. As Consumer Federation of America spokesman J. Robert Hunter told Businessweek, “”Rather than pay an extra 3% for something that may never happen, why not buy better insulation?” As Hunter suggests, these green insurance policies could simply be a marketing ploy that has no real ripple effect in our carbon emissions. Hopefully, though, the idea that buying “green” could save money might be the extra incentive that people need to push them towards environmental responsibility.

A new type of benefit has emerged in businesses across the country, and it’s aimed at helping workers minimize their impact on the environment. Employers, particularly those in the green sector, are offering incentives to employees to live greener lives, both inside and outside the office. While many businesses have worked to improve their energy efficiency at the office, dedicated companies have extended their reach to include the homes and vehicles of their employees, helping their work forces to live carbon-neutral lives.

One company who has helped their employees reduce their carbon footprint is Clif Bar & Co., a Berkeley, CA based organic energy bar company. In the fall of 2006, Clif Bar started a program called Cool Commute aimed at reducing the amount of fuel their employees consumed in getting to work each day. The estimate that before the program, employees consumed approximately 29,500 gallons of fuel a year with 25 miles per gallon fuel economy. To reduce the amount of pollution and carbon dioxide produced by these vehicles, Clif Bar decided to offer incentives to employees who carpooled, used alternative transportation, or purchased a more fuel-efficient vehicle.

Clif Bar employees who walk, bicycle, or carpool to work can earn as much as $700 a year in rewards, tax free. They also offer a forgivable loan program of up to $5000 to help employees purchase a hybrid or biodiesel car. Those who stay with the company for a certain period of time do not have to pay back the loan. Clif Bar also plans to add two more energy-saving incentives for employees. They will now offer loans for energy-saving home improvements and commuter bicycle retrofitting. One of Clif Bar’s five aspirations is, “Sustaining our Planet: Keep our impact on the environment small, even as we grow.” Their employee incentives are great way to ensure that their impact is as small as possible.

Offering green incentives to employees is not just a great way to reduce a company’s carbon footprint. As a representative from the American Solar Energy Society told Renewable Energy World, “offering green benefits can make a difference in a candidate’s decision to join a firm.” More and more people are trying to minimize their environmental impact, and employers who support their efforts will attract top talent. Also, as the Wall Street Journal points out, “more young workers are seeking out employers with a socially responsible mission.” As the work force becomes saturated with younger employees, businesses will find more ways to support their environmental efforts, including commuting incentives, gift matching to green charities, and carbon offsets.

While Clif Bar is exactly the kind of company you would expect to support employees with green incentives, some experts predict that this trend will spread beyond “green collar” jobs. As Joel Makower, executive editor of GreenBiz.com, told the Wall Street Journal, “I think employers are just beginning to understand that, to have an environmentally conscious work force, you need to help them in their every day lives.” Makower expects green incentives to spread into mainstream industries not only because it helps attract employees, but also because of the good publicity it creates for businesses. As these incentives expand throughout the business landscape, workers will have no excuses for failing to do their part to protect the environment.

China has long been plagued by air pollution problems. Rapid industrialization, the reliance on coal and the burning of fossil fuels, and a growing population of drivers have made China the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases, surpassing the United States in 2007. As Beijing prepares to host the Olympic Games in August of this year, China’s government has moved to close factories in the provinces surrounding the capital to curb the pollution problem.

According to the World Health Organization, Beijing has the world’s most dangerous air, measuring 12 times the the “safe” levels suggested for respiration. Of the 20 most polluted cities in the world, China is home to the top 16. Authorities estimate that approximately 750,000 people die every year from respiratory illnesses related to pollution in the country. Chinese authorities and Olympic committee members are desperate and eager to put the right foot forward during the Games, and part of their challenge is to assure the world’s top athletes that it is safe to compete in Beijing.

For this reason, six municipalities and provinces near Beijing will see massive factory closures in the months leading up to the Olympics. Hebei, Inner Mongolia, Shangdong, Shanxi, Tianjin, and Beijing have already begun to close polluting factories and power plants to improve air quality in the region. Factories being closed include coal-fired power plants, cement factories, and chemical manufacturers. China plans to curb driving in the capital city prior to the Games, and though specific plans have not been announced, the Financial Times is reporting that as many as 1 million cars may be temporarily banned from roadways.

All of these environmental measures come on the heels of major athletes and foreign team’s announcements that they will not train near Beijing for health reasons. Indeed, British athletes will wear face masks at the Olympics to protect themselves from the poor quality air. Olympic rules require the competitors to remove the masks before their events, but they are allowed during training and warm-ups. As the Sunday Mirror reports, “The International Association of Athletics Federations have the final say on whether they [face masks] can be worn once events start. If the rule is changed many British athletes will be keeping them on.” According to the Sunday Mirror, the only team which had set up a training facility in Beijing was the U.S. boxing team, but they have since relocated outside the city due to the smog.

While Chinese efforts to improve air quality have been helping the situation, many in the financial world are concerned about the effects the factory closures will have on economic growth. China has consistently grown its economy by 10 percent each year, and analysts fear that it may slow significantly this year. However, if the efforts of the government produce a lasting solution to China’s air quality problems, slow(er) growth will be a small price to pay for a healthier population and a healthier planet.

The factory closures are just one of the many measures which China has taken to improve its environmental record prior to the Olympics. Many of the newly-built Olympic facilities incorporate energy-efficient and water-saving technology, including the stunning “Water Cube“, which will host aquatic events. Environmental watch dogs and journalists are hopeful that these green efforts will not be abandoned as soon as the Games are over. As Holger Preuss, and Olympic scholar and historian, told the Wall Street Journal, “[Environmentalism] may be one of the real Olympic legacies, and not the construction of great sport facilities.”

Following the lead of new legislation in California, utility company Pacific Gas & Electric (PG & E) is aiming to provide much of the current energy it delivers to customers from renewable sources. Under Governor Schwarztenneger, California will require utilities to acquire at least 20 percent of their power from renewable projects by 2010, and a new target of 33 percent by 2020 was recently approved. PG & E has risen to the challenge, and they currently buy 12 percent of their power from environmentally-friendly sources like solar, wind, geothermal, and biogas, with contracts in place for 18 percent. It’s an unlikely move for a power company, but they are preparing for an emerging competitive renewable energy market.

PG & E’s website claims, “On average, more than half of the electricity we deliver to customers comes from sources that emit no CO2 and an increasing amount comes from renewable sources of electricity.” They are working with several Silicon Valley VC-backed energy companies who are pushing solar technology to the next level. They have brokered a 500-megawatt agreement with BrightSource, a company out of Oakland, CA. The deal is enough energy to light up to 700,000 homes at prices competitive with less-environmentally friendly options like natural gas. BrightSource builds massive solar fields in the hottest parts of California’s Mojave Desert, enabling them to maximize the power produced by their innovative solar panel designs. They are just one of a number of companies which PG & E has partnered with to provide clean alternatives to traditional electricity sources.

In addition to buying solar energy from local firms, PG & E also administers a Solar Schools Program, which will provide up to 40 schools a year with a 1 kilowatt solar installation. The program will not only help needy schools control energy costs, but will also provide a hands-on example of how renewable energy technologies work. PG & E is offering training seminars for teachers to help them incorporate the solar project into classroom lessons. Their interest in solar also extends to private businesses, who receive rebates and incentives when they install renewable energy technologies: “Through PG & E’s Self-Generation Incentive Program, nearly 130 customers received incentives of more than $69 million for projects totaling more than 37 MW in 2006.” One of those companies is Google, who installed a solar-paneled carport at their headquarters last year.

The utility giant is also working on an initiative to tap the power of the tides in San Francisco Bay. They’ve teamed up with the City and County of San Francisco and the Golden Gate Energy Company to conduct a study which will assess the technology solutions available to harness tidal energy. This would create a zero-emissions renewal power source for PG & E. The utility hopes that, “future plans could ultimately lead to the development of a full-scale commercial project [in the bay].” Their plans include building two 40-megawatt power plants along the California coast in the next few years.

Why all the interest in renewable energy, especially coming from the largest utility company in California? Peter Darbee, CEO of PG & E, told Business 2.0 magazine, “This is a defining moment for utilities. Are we going to be central players in shaping the new energy economy that is now emerging, or are we going to leave these challenges to others?” His strategy is clearly to embrace the new trend towards renewable energy, and it’s turning out to be a sound business strategy. Darbee has taken the company from bankruptcy in 2001 to profits of $2.8 billion in 2007.

PG & E’s strategy proves that renewable energy is not only the right thing to do anymore, it’s a profitable industry. As other states begin to follow California’s lead in regulating the percentages of clean energy that utilities must distribute, other companies will surely look to PG & E’s business model for inspiration.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it.”

-Upton Sinclair

The quote above inspired the creation of a website called Greenshopper, which is a self-described, “environmental super store and online community for green shoppers.” Founded in 2006 by Zachary Bouchard, the site aims to provide a one-stop location for those who wish to buy environmentally friendly products. The site fills a growing need in the e-commerce world by allowing users to research and buy green products.

The website links to over 200 companies which manufacture organic or green products. While other smaller sites of this type exist, Greenshopper has successfully negotiated a partnership with Amazon which allows them to offer online ordering and shipping through the retail giant in exchange for a percentage of the profits. Their relationship with Amazon enables customers to use existing Amazon accounts to buy at good prices and Amazon’s reliable shipping to receive products quickly. As Greenshopper’s FAQs point out, Amazon is estimated to have a lower ecological footprint than other retailers because they ship directly from manufacturers to customers without the middleman of a brick-and-mortar store.

Greenshopper’s products are carefully vetted to make sure they meet customers’ expectations. They aim to include products which are pesticide-free, made from recycled materials, and/or organic (i.e. cotton, bamboo, hemp, etc.). They also include products which are designed to reduce energy consumption, like weatherization products and low-energy light bulbs. The website explains, “A light bulb by itself is not necessarily made from sustainable materials, but it reduces our coal burning fossil fuel consumption and is the best current green alternative.” The team at Greenshopper individually selects the products featured on the site to offer the latest technologies that reduce our impact on the environment.

In addition to featuring environmentally friendly products, Greenshopper provides funding for various environmental groups. They currently donate 10% of all profits to environmental groups with different focuses each month. Founder Zachary Bouchard makes it clear that the site has no specific political affiliations: “The environment should not be a partisan political issue, as it doesn’t matter if you are a democrat, republican, independent, green party, etc - we all have to have a habitable planet to even be able to discuss politics in the first place!” As the site continues to succeed, Bouchard plans to donate a larger percentage of the profits to environmental charities.

Greenshopper subscribes to the “vote with your dollars” philosophy, meaning that every choice we make as consumers is means by which to influence policy. If we support businesses who produce sustainable products, we are encouraging other businesses to change their environmental policies. Greenshopper’s website argues, “By buying green, we not only protect these ecosystems with our purchase, we expand the reach of the green movement, pushing it towards the mainstream”. Indeed, the website’s partnership with Amazon does bring green consumerism to the mainstream of online purchasing, and other businesses will follow their lead.

But what about the prices, you might ask? To those who complain that green products are more expensive, Bouchard’s service offers a means by which to trade the financial bottom line for the green bottom line. Besides, by fomenting competition among green products and companies, your purchase will also drive down prices and create a more competitive market where consumers can demand lower cost, more eco-friendly goods.

Sometimes, as a society, we won’t believe something until we see it with our own eyes. As the saying goes, “a picture is worth a thousand words.” Non-profit groups are using this stubborn sentiment to their advantage by showcasing satellite images of disturbing environmental changes on Google Earth. Green non-profits who are telling their stories on Google Earth include: United Nations Environment Programme, Appalachian Voices, Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging, Jane Goodall Institute, and the Sierra Club.

These savvy environmentalists use Google Earth Outreach to create unique educational slides and photos that appear as a layer on the satellite maps. The Outreach website encourages charity organizations to use this tool to their advantage: “As a non-profit or public benefit group, you can use Google Earth to capture the work you’re doing, the people you’re helping, the challenges you face and the change you’re helping to enable - all in the visual context of the environment in which these stories take place. By downloading your KML files, anyone, anywhere can fly in Google Earth from where they live to where you do your work. This virtual visit to the projects and people you support gets users engaged and passionate about what you’re doing and builds support for your cause.”

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in particular has incorporated some striking images of our planet in their “Atlas of Our Changing Environment” on Google Earth. Before-and-after images of 100 spots that are facing environmental changes appear in the mapping program. Included in the slides are shocking images of the endangered Amazon rainforest region, the dwindling polar ice caps, the explosion of development in both Las Vegas and Shenzen, and the destruction of massive mangrove jungles in Southeast Asia. Google Earth users can zoom in on these regions and see high-quality images that serve as an educational object lesson. Slides also present content that explains the causes of specific environmental changes and the years the different photos were taken.

These Google Earth-hosted campaigns hope to rally support for their projects and reach the ears of government officials who can legislate to protect these areas. For example, Appalachian Voices uses the program to allow users to enter their location by zip code and see local supplies of coal and the damage mines have done in their areas. Dole Food Co. has also employed Google Earth to show consumers where their bananas were grown, the history of farms in the area, and see aerial images of the farm. The Fair Trade Certified organization also has a Google Earth presence which allows users to virtually visit certified farms producing fruit, rice, coffee, cocoa, and tea. This kind of awareness is essential to changing people’s habits, particularly in an era where homegrown or local food consumption is so rare.

Google Earth supports templates in KML format, and you don’t have to be a programmer to create engaging and beautiful slides to promote your cause. Their Outreach branch offers online tutorials to help users learn how to create slides, incorporate the passage of times into their maps, embed videos, and promote the finished product so it reaches their audience. This innovative idea is a great way to reach new advocates, interest potential donors, and add a visual element to the story of any non-profit. Explore Google Earth’s Global Awareness layer to see the unique tools that non-profits are using to give us a much-needed object lesson in environmental responsibility.

I first heard about carbon offsetting from a friend when planning my wedding. She had heard a news story about having a “green wedding,” where guests buy offsets in lieu of gifts to atone for the carbon emissions created by their air/car travel, hotel stays, and even cocktail napkins. The idea struck me as interesting, but inherently fishy. It seemed somehow dishonest, like indulgences in the Middle Ages, to pay for a clear conscience. However, the idea of carbon offsetting is becoming ever more popular in spite of its controversial nature. Businesses are now buying carbon offsets to supplement their energy saving efforts.

The practice of carbon offsetting is a means by which individuals or businesses can reduce their CO₂ footprint by donating to an organization that promises to spend the money on renewable energy projects, tree planting initiatives, methane recapture, or other means of reducing carbon emissions. The theory is that because global warming is in fact a global problem, it doesn’t matter where in the world or by what means carbon emissions are extracted from the atmosphere. In addition to (or sometimes instead of) reducing one’s own energy use at home, an individual or business can make an impact on the problem by financing a reforestation project in the Amazon, or a methane recapture facility in Oklahoma.

Carbonfund.org, a non-profit vendor of carbon offsets, argues “it is more cost effective and better for our environment to build a 100 MW [megawatt] wind energy farm in Minnesota than a 5 kW [kilowatt] windmill in your own backyard. Carbon dioxide emissions are a global problem, so reducing a ton of CO₂ in Brazil or North Dakota has the same climate change benefit as doing so in your backyard” (see www.carbonfund.org for more details). Their website also points out that since some 60% of a household’s carbon output comes from the products we buy (packaging, shipping, and manufacturing costs), we cannot rely on reducing our energy usage alone. Offsets allow people to make up for the emissions they cannot control. Carbonfund.org allows donors to choose whether they want their money to be used for renewable energy, energy efficiency, or reforestation projects.

Rainforest2Reef, another non-profit which manages carbon offset donations, promises “for each ton (2000 lbs) of CO₂ that you or your household produces, Rainforest2Reef will plant one tree, at the cost of only $1 per tree. This tree will absorb roughly 1 ton of carbon over its 40 year lifecycle” (www.rainforest2reef.org). Both Carbonfund.org and Rainforest2Reef have “carbon calculators” on their sites to help donors decide how much they should give. These two organizations are just examples of the many who promote carbon offsetting as a valid way for the public to reduce their impact on the environment.

Opponents of the practice point to the short-sighted nature of this solution. They point out that if one can simply pay a fee to feel better about global warming, then less of us will take the initiative to drive fuel efficient vehicles, recycle, and reduce our demand for electricity. Environmentalists have criticized tree planting initiatives, suggesting that some have used non-native trees in areas where they impact local species and reduce soil quality. Also, tree planting is only truly effective in temperate zones, where trees absorb CO₂ more readily. One of the most suspicious aspects of the trend is apparent when businesses make claims of “zero emissions” or having a “neutral carbon footprint”. This is often a selling point for consumers who don’t realize that this claim may come from offsetting donations rather than from true implementation of energy saving practices. This seems to be the case with Icelandic Glacial water, which boasts to buying offsets equaling 552 tons of emissions. That figure, however, does not include any shipping impacts after the bottled water arrives in the ports of destination countries (see http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_33/b4046073.htm?chan=search for the full story).

Some businesses are taking a more hands-on approach to reduce their carbon footprint. One trend with high technology firms is to reduce their energy use by replacing old, inefficient server farms. This practice, called virtualization, is not only beneficial to our environment but can also save money. Switching to energy efficient power distribution units, air conditioners, and cooling pumps can make a huge impact on your consumption and expenses. Though the initial payout is daunting (as much as $400,000 per server) these new units replace dozens of old servers and will pay for themselves in electricity savings. If businesses were to take a comprehensive approach to reducing their CO₂ emissions which combined initiatives like virtualization and carbon offset purchases, the impact would be enormously beneficial.

So how do you know if the offset you purchased was impactful and honest? Did they really plant trees with your donation? You don’t know. While some non-profits undergo certification to ensure their offsets are measured accurately, the industry as a whole is unregulated at present. The old saying, “If you want something done right, do it yourself” seems to apply here: to ensure that you are actually doing your part to reduce carbon emissions, you should probably do it yourself. Recycle, use energy-efficient appliances, drive a fuel-efficient car, insulate your home to reduce heating costs, and buy locally whenever possible. Perhaps the best approach is a hybrid one: if businesses and individuals combine carbon offsets with measurable energy savings, we will have the maximum possible effect on the global climate crisis.

European and Asian cities have long been home to tiny, compact cars such as Mercedes-Benz’s Smart fortwo or Ford’s Ka model. Overseas cities without the suburban sprawl of U.S. cities long ago learned to love these miniature vehicles. It seems, however, that the American market is ready for a small fuel-efficient car which can maneuver quickly and easily through our worst traffic and parking nightmares. Urban dwellers may soon be introduced to “CityCars”, the product of a research initiative at Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Media Lab. CityCars are battery-powered electric vehicles with a remarkable wheel design that allows them to be stacked like shopping carts at major transportation crossroads, such as subway stops and train stations.

These remarkable little cars are cleaner than any gas-powered vehicle, even if charged from electricity produced by burning coal. They are recharged when stacked, and can travel for approximately 10 miles on a full battery. All four wheels rotate, allowing the CityCar to be parked almost anywhere. Instead of a traditional drive train, each wheel on the CityCar is equipped with a “wheel robot”, which is an all-inclusive motor, suspension, steering, and brake system. The stripped-down chassis can then fold up and allow the CityCars to be stacked. According to designers, up to six CityCars can fit in one traditional parking space!

The proposed business model for CityCars is delightfully simple: to use one, you would swipe a pre-authorized payment card, remove one from the stack, and drive off. You would be able to return them to any stack in the city, and they would come with digital locks and GPS units to prevent theft. The car will also host a high-tech computer system to help the driver find available parking spaces and avoid potholes. Developers stress that CityCar is not meant as a replacement for a traditional vehicle, but simply a supplement for use in congested city centers. GM is rumored to be following the CityCar’s development closely, and MIT researchers are hoping the auto maker may adapt their prototype to display at concept car shows in 2008.

While vehicle-sharing businesses have been around for awhile (think zipcar), this new initiative is a step towards making the proverbial community bike as environmentally friendly as, well, a bike. But is it just a glorified bicycle for those too lazy or busy to pedal around the city? The CityCar’s size certainly doesn’t make it useful for more than getting from point A to point B (without carrying much of anything with you). Many of my urban-dwelling friends don’t own cars, but do subscribe to a car-sharing service like zipcar for large grocery runs, weekend trips, or buying furniture. The CityCar would be less than ideal for any of these activities. There is also the question of safety. CityCar designers are working towards meeting government safety and speed regulations, but will the miniature car’s compliance be enough to convince SUV-driving Americans of its viability? Time (and oil prices) will tell if we can eschew our gas-guzzling ways, but CityCar is definitely a step in the right direction.