Results

Creative companies are always trying to “think outside the box”, whether that means developing a new, breakthrough product or finding an innovative use for an old stand-by. SkySails, a company which has revolutionized the shipping world with their towing kites, has accomplished the latter. SkySails was established in Hamburg, Germany in 2001 with the aim to reduce the fuel consumption of modern shipping by harnessing wind energy at sea. They were inspired by the historical use of sails to harness wind power, and the emerging sport of para-sailing.

SkySail’s website states: “It’s a simple fact: wind is cheaper than oil and the most cost-effective offshore energy source. Yet, despite its attractive saving potential, it is not presently being used by cargo ships - for a simple reason: so far no sailing system has met the requirements of commercial shipping.” The company has changed the industry by engineering a system that is easy to implement, whether outfitting a new vessel or retrofitting an old one. The entire system is controlled by a computer, which can be incorporated into the existing electronics on the bridge. Launch and recovery are as simple as pushing a button, and it takes about 10 or 20 minutes. The computer monitors the kite and controls its flight path and altitude. It flies higher than traditional sails, which allow it to capture wind that is stronger and more constant. Once it reaches altitude, the engines can be throttled back to save fuel without losing speed. The towing kite itself is approximately the size of a football field, but it stows easily in about the size of a telephone booth, allowing large shippers to maximize the amount of cargo they can carry.

Other design features also respond directly to the needs of cargo vessels. The kite is a double-walled structure made from highly tear-proof material. The double wall mimics the shape of an airplane wing, which allows it to operate not just downwind, but up to 50 degrees to the wind as well. The shape was engineered specifically to avoid heeling, or the tilting of the ship that is common among small sailboats. This makes for a safer ride, especially in high seas, since cargo ships are often carrying thousands of shipping containers on deck.

Rather than being an expensive proposition, this is one example of green technology that actually saves money. Based on today’s oil and gas prices, the system will pay for itself in 3 to 5 years. This type of technology is the key to getting businesses to adopt environmentally-friendly policies: it has to positively affect the bottom line. The most common drawback of green technology is that it tends to be more expensive than doing business the old way, and if more companies like SkySails can buck this trend, more businesses would be happy to do their part to protect the environment. This is the great challenge green businesses will face; if they can make environmental responsibility a money-saving proposition, they’ll be wildly successful. And all of us will benefit.

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.