marc marc
marc
marc marc
blog about books journalism speaking contact

Archive for the ‘Consumption’ Category

Two cheers for Wal-Mart’s CO2 pledge

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

WMT-EDFUntil now, Walmart’s bold sustainability efforts were marred by a glaring omission.

The $405-billion a year retailer has worked hard since 2005 to save energy, reduce waste and sell more sustainable products.

But it resisted pressures to reduce or hold steady its own greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, its carbon emissions have grown, as the middle graphic below shows. (There’s a cleaner version in WMT’s responsibility report, here.) When it comes to global warming, Walmart would appear to be doing more harm now than it was three or five years ago.

en_c_impact1

Today, Walmart made its first major commitment to reduce greenhouse gases–although, in typical WMT fashion, rather than set a tough goal that might affect its own growth curve, the company plans to turn up the pressure on its thousands of suppliers to reduce their emissions. (more…)

Quiznos: Green enough?

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010

People sometimes say we need to save the planet for our kids. I sometimes think our kids are going to save us.

If you doubt it, ask Rick Schaden. Schaden is CEO of Quiznos, the fast-food chain best known for its toasted subs, and the father of five children, aged three to 19. Today, Quiznos is rolling out new packaging (”Eat Toasty, Be Green”) made from renewable or recycled content that will reduce the chain’s environmental footprint. When we spoke by phone yesterday, I asked what led him to make the changes.

“Believe it or not, I was home watching a movie called Wall-E with my kids,” Schaden said. “You think about LEED-certified buildings and hybrid electric cars and all these really high-tech things, and then you watch Wall-E and the world is buried in trash.” The Disney-Pixar animated movie is the story of a robot named Wall-E, who is designed to clean up a Earth that has been overwhelmed by garbage.

Quiznos green packaging

Quiznos green packaging

His kids had always pushed Schaden to be more green at home. “My kids make sure everything is sorted and separated. If anyone in my house would dare to put a plastic bottle in the trash, my 14-year-old would give him a smack,” he said. “It’s the culture of the new generation. It tells you that’s where consumers are heading.”

So, he figured, why not see what could be done at Quiznos, where he is a large shareholder, and where he returned as CEO, after some time away, just about a year ago. (more…)

Why eBay is a green giant

Monday, February 15th, 2010

“These are J. Crew pants,” Amy Skoczlas Cole tells me, pointing at the gray slacks she’s wearing. “I bought them on eBay. A season old, worn once by the seller is what she told me. I’m not going to tell you what I paid for them, but I got a great deal.”

This is called walking the talk. Amy is head of  the eBay Green Team and a lifelong environmentalist, who spent nearly 15 years at Conservation International before joining the Silicon Valley e-commerce giant.

eBayGreenTeamSo, I asked her, did you buy the used pants because you work at eBay or because you are an environmentalist?

Neither, it turns out.  “I bought them,” she replied, “because I wanted a great deal on J. Crew pants.”

eBay, it turns out, is a unique position to do what other big companies and even big environmental groups cannot: It can urge people to consume less.

This is important because, despite what the sellers of compact fluorescent bulbs, stainless steel water bottles, bamboo bed sheets, and eco-friendly dish sponges will tell you, I’ve never believed we could shop our way to a greener planet. To the contrary: Buying more stuff depletes natural resources and generates carbon emissions, pollution and waste. Conventional consumption is a problem, not a solution. (See Wanted: A Cultural Revolution.)

But shopping on eBay, arguably, is different. One mantra of environmentalism is reduce, reuse and recycle. And no one–not even Goodwill or the Salvation Army–does more to promote reuse than eBay. EBay sells $2,000 worth of  junk previously-owned merchandise per second, Amy tells me. “Barely used is as good as new” is how the company puts it in commercials like this one. Or, as she says: “The greenest product is the one that already exists.”

“Our single minded mission is to build a movement in society to use what already exists,” Amy says. “Very few companies can stand up and say to consumers, let’s use what exists in the world today.”

Interestingly, eBay has begun to explore the idea of “sustainable consumption” — if that’s not an oxymoron. (more…)

Why green business is like teen sex

Thursday, February 4th, 2010

Corporate sustainability is like teen sex.

Everybody talks about it.

Nobody does it very much.

And when they do it, they don’t do it very well.

My friend and colleague Joel Makower likes to tell that joke, and it’s as good a way as any to introduce Greenbiz.com’s third annual State of Green Business report. The wide-ranging report was unveiled today in San Francisco at a conference hosted by 100203-sobg1-wJoel. I won’t try to summarize it;  it’s available free for download here, and well worth a read. Among other things, Joel and his colleagues identify 10 green business trends–they include radical transparency, green fleets, toxics as strategy, and the rethinking of packaging–and they measure progress (or the lack thereof)  around 20 different metrics, including carbon transparency, carbon reporting, clean-tech investments and green power use.

The teen sex joke is fitting because the ratio of of talk to action in the green business arena remains high. Particularly when it comes to climate change–now and most likely forever the No. 1 environmental issue for business, and for everyone else–progress has been halting because of the absence of consistent government policy, at the national or global level. Only 34% of the S&P500 companies have promised to (more…)

The power of small changes

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

When Chris McKenna, who manages a fleet of trucks for Poland Spring, learned that the company’s drivers were racking up as much as 1,400 hours a month of idle time, he saw an opportunity to make a difference. Running truck engines in winter kept the cabs warm — the company is based in Maine — but it cost Poland Spring money and polluted the air.

To see which of the company’s 65 drivers were racking up the most idle time, McKenna ranked them, based on data from onboard computers. “All we did was talk to them about it, and put a list up in the break room,” he told me. “Human nature, no one wants to be at the bottom of the list.” To sweeten the deal, the 10 drivers with the lowest idling time got a gift card for fuel they could use for their own cars.

The results were dramatic. Idle time dropped from 1,400 hours in February 2007 to 1000 hours in February 2008 to just 380 hours in February 2009. Depending on fuel costs, cutting idle time has saved the company thousands of dollars a year—roughly $20,000 during 2008, for example.

There are two lessons here. First, as I wrote recently about OPower, changing behavior is a powerful and low-cost way to curb climate change. Second, small changes can add up to big impacts, as the Environmental Defense Fund makes clear in this cool video from its Innovation Exchange website.

As EDF notes, fleet vehicles are driven hard, averaging nearly double the mileage, fuel consumption and emissions of personal vehicles. Currently, EDF says there are more 3 million corporate fleet vehicles in the United States emitting 45 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.

I spoke with Chris McKenna last summer while helping EDF write a series of case studies on greening fleets. (The case studies (more…)

Rich Liroff on BPA: Better safe than sorry

Friday, January 29th, 2010

Today’s guest post is from Richard A. Liroff, Ph.D., the founder and director of the Investor Environmental Health Network (IEHN), a group of investors and NGO that advocates for safer corporate chemicals policies to reduce financial and reputational risk to companies, and grow long-term shareholder value. That’s a mouthful, but in essence, Rich and his allies try to persuade companies to use safer chemicals; you can find a list of shareholder resolutions on safer chemicals policies at the IEHN website, www.iehn.org.

Rich Liroff

Rich Liroff

A lifelong environmentalist, Rich has worked on toxic issues of various kinds since the late 1980s, when he looked at indoor air quality. “That work exposed me to the idea that air pollution hazards from toxics might be greater indoors than outdoors,” he told me. He formed IEHN in 2004 and says: “I thought the best way to move the issue forward was by working with the private sector.” Since then, of course, we’ve heard a lot about chemicals in products ranging from household cleaners to toys to cosmetics. This article is about BPA, which has interested me since I wrote a long story for cnnmoney.com called Wal-Mart: the new FDA in 2008. I worried then that the BPA controversy was more about emotion and entrenched interests (on both sides) than it was about science. I’m not sure things have improved much, but you can be the judge of that. Rich’s column originally appeared at Greenbiz.

On January 15, 2010, The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shifted its position on the safety of the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA), expressing for the first time some concern about safety, announcing further research, and providing tips for parents to minimize infants’ exposure.

As a result, smart companies will change the way they communicate about BPA and as well as search for alternatives to better align themselves with consumer concerns. Some companies could gain reputational benefits and free media attention from supporting proposed legislation restricting use of BPA. (more…)

Electric cars: all systems go

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

Despite the disappointments of Copenhagen, despite the inaction on climate-change regulation in Congress, despite the global recession, the momentum behind electric cars keeps building.

Yesterday, Better Place, the Silicon Valley-based electric car startup, raised $350 million in financing—the biggest clean tech investment ever, the company said, and a validation of a business model that has been scoffed at by the auto industry. The investment round, led by HSBC, values Better Place, which has yet to put a car on the road, at $1.25 billion.

“Electric vehicles are, at this point, inevitable,” said Jason Wolf, vice president of Better Place. “We’ve broken through, and there’s no turning back.”

Big automakers, meanwhile, are pushing forward with their electric offerings, as executives from Nissan and Ford affirmed yesterday during a “Green Car Summit” held at the U.S. Capitol.

Nissan Leaf

Nissan Leaf

Nissan has been taking its all-electric Leaf, which will be introduced next fall, on a 24-city U.S. tour.  “The market is ready,” said Scott Becker, senior vice president of Nissan North America. “We’ve had an incredible reaction from consumers.” He said more than 38,000 people have signed up to get more information about the car.

“This is going to be a vehicle designed and made for the mass market,” Becker said. The car will have a range of about 100 miles before needing a new charge, good enough to meet the needs of 90% of U.S. drivers.

Lots of forces will bring an array of new electric cars to market in 2010 and 2011–technological improvements in batteries, concerns about climate change (despite legislative foot-dragging), worries about the U.S.’s dependence on imported oil and, most of all, the increasingly attractive economics around electric cars, which we’ll get to in a moment.

Having said that,  significant disagreements remain even among electric-car advocates about how fast the new technology will be adopted, and what form it will take. Will gas-electric hybrids like the Toyota Prius or Ford Fusion dominate, or will the market shift to plug-in hybrids like the Chevy Volt or all-electrics like the Leaf? Will electric cars be a niche business, a mainstream product or–maybe, just maybe–will they come to dominate? Or are they being overhyped? Certainly, there’s no shortage of skepticism out there, particularly from auto-industry incumbents.

“Yes, you will have the intellectual guys who drive electric vehicles,” scoffed Stefan Jacoby, CEO of Volkswagen Group of America, who spoke at the “green car” event. But, he argued, mass-market consumers won’t pay a premium for electric cars and they don’t want to deal with the hassle of charging their car batteries.

When Jason Wolf of Better Place opined that 50% of new car sales could be electric by 2020, Jacoby shot back: “That’s totally impossible. We need to be realistic.”

Still, Better Place has made more progress in the last couple of years–during a global economic meltdown–than most people would have expected. It’s got the support of the governments of Israel and Denmark for widespread rollouts, which require

Renault Fluence ZE

Renault Fluence ZE

building charging stations as well as battery-switching operations throughout those two countries. (The Better Place model envisions battery switches for long trips.) It’s got a commitment from Renault build 100,000 electric cars, a new model known as the Fluence ZE (for zero emissions, a car that I wrote about here.) And yesterday’s round of Series B funding brings in new investors including HSBC, Morgan Stanley Investment Management, and Lazard Asset Management. Charles Stonehill, Better Place’s CFO, wrote on the company’s blog:

Our investors represent some of the largest financial institutions in the world, employing exceptionally thorough due diligence processes that are commensurate with the size of investment.

Given Renault’s commitment and the infusion of equity, don’t be surprised if the next country where Better Place rolls out its cars and its unique business model is France. Higher gasoline prices in Europe make Better Place a better business there.

Which brings us to the economics. While you’ll get arguments about the specific numbers, most people who have looked at electric cars will tell you that as battery costs come down, electric-powered engines are more efficient and less expensive to operate that gas-powered ones. Better Place’s Wolf says the cost per mile of fueling an electric car is two to three cents for the electricity, plus another five to six cents for the battery when amortized over the life of the car. Figure a dime a mile. In the U.S., with gasoline priced at $3, powering a car with gas costs 12-14 cents a mile. In Europe, where drivers pay $6 to $8 per gallon of gas, you can double that. The point is, there’s enough money to be made so that carmakers and consumers can both do well as electrics roll out, even though the upfront costs of an electric car are higher.

Not surprisingly, the start-up companies who are building only electric cars expect the technology to be embraced relatively quickly and widely. Established automakers, even those committed to electrics, are more cautious.

“We view this as a revolutionary journey,” said Nancy Gioia, director of global electrification at Ford Motor. Evolution might be more like it: By 2020, she said, Ford expects that between 10 and 25% of its new car sales will be electric. The bulk of those, she added, will be hybrids like the Fusion. With a hybrid, a gasoline engine can be used to overcome what the industry calls “range anxiety”–the driver’s worry that a battery could run out on long trips.

But Kevin Czinger, the dynamic CEO of CODA Automotive (who will be speaking at FORTUNE’s Brainstorm Green), proudly says that his company will be “100 percent independent of the oil industry.” CODA intends to start small, selling cars only in California beginning later this year, but Czinger is counting on market dynamics to both improve the product and drive sales.

“Do I think I can sell 1,000 high quality electric cars in California? Absolutely,” he said. That will signal markets that the business is real. “Do I know what the market will do with that signal? No. But market forces should work to drive down costs and drive up performance.”

He’s got a point. You never know what will happen with a disruptive technology comes along. When is the last time you bought a CD? Or a a new landline phone?

Says Czinger: “We envision an affordable electric car in every American garage.”

OPower, peer pressure and climate change

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

We can solve the climate crisis with the right tools–solar panels, wind turbines, electric car batteries, No. 10 envelopes and smiley faces.

Envelopes? Smiley faces?

Yep. A startup called OPower has learned that by mailing utility customers personalized reports on their energy consumption–and then by comparing them with their neighbors–people can be persuaded to save energy, reduce emissions and help fight global warming.

opower1

Energy hogs learn that they are most wasteful than the Joneses. Energy misers get smiley faces in the mail, and they want more.

Turns out we never escaped high school–we’re always influenced by what other people are doing.

“If I tell you that you’ve spent $1200 on heating this year, you don’t know what that means,” says Dan Yates, the company’s co-founder and CEO. “But if we tell you that you spent $500 more than your neighbor, that tells you something.”

I recently met Dan Yates at OPower’s offices in Arlington, Va., just outside of Washington. Yates is just 32, but OPower is his second startup. He sold his first, an educational software firm called Edusoft, to Houghton Mifflin for $20 million in 2004. He made enough money to spend a year traveling with his then-girlfriend, now wife, from the Artic Circle in Alaska to the southernmost tip of South Africa.

That trip turned him into an environmentalist, he says. Dan then started OPower with Alex Laskey, a friend from Harvard, who had worked in advertising and politics. Dr. Robert Cialdini, a renowned social psychologist who has spent his life studying ways to shape human behavior, is an investor in OPower and the company’s chief scientist, albeit not on a full-time basis. The company’s biggest investor is New Enterprise Associates, a venture capital firm.

How’s the company doing? So far, so good. Customers who get the peer-to-peer companies cut their energy consumption by 1.2% to 2.8%, on average, studies have found.

“Peer comparison reports can create significant net costs and carbon savings, benefiting both individual households and the environment,” said a report by  Yale Law professor Ian Ayres and two students.

A couple of percentage points may not sound like much but it’s enough to interest utility companies, who are OPower’s customers. Because regulators in about 20 states reward utilities for helping their customers become more efficient, utility companies can make money by using OPower. The company’s reports are currently being used by 24 utilities that distribute them to between 1 and 2 million customers.

“If we could get across the country, we could have the emissions impact of the entire wind and solar industry,” said Yates.

Efficiency, it’s often said, is the cheapest form of renewable power. According to Michael Sachse, OPower’s senior director of regulatory affairs and general counsel (and another Harvard man),  the company spends about 3 cents to save a kilowatt hour of electricity. Building a new coal plant to generate that same kilowatt would cost 5-6 cents, wind would cost 10-12 cents and solar can be 25 to 30 cents.

As Cialdini told David Roberts of Grist, social psychology is

the least capital-intensive way of making change…Technology costs a lot. Incentive programs cost a lot (and as soon as they are discontinued, the behavior flops back). Legislation, legal constraints, taxes, penalties of one sort or another–those are costly in terms of social capital, which organizations and governments are loathe to spend these days.

What you have with social psychology is a set of procedures that are essentially costless to enact, but product levels of change that are comparable to those other mechanisms.

While there’s nothing high-tech about sending energy usage reports to customers by mail, OPower is actually a sophisticated operation. It uses  advanced software, customer data analytics, direct-mail techniques as well as the insights of behavioral economics to persuade people to change. Executives have been hired from Amazon (whose personalized software is key to its success) and Capital One (which built a huge credit-card business through direct mail). “We’re constantly experimenting,” Dan Yates said.

Eventually, by combining OPower’s data analysis with smart grid technology, utilities will be able to help people decide whether to conserve energy and save money by replacing an inefficient refrigerator, unplugging a big-screen TV or turning the air conditioning down at night. If we understood the costs of our energy consumption habits as well as we understand the costs of buying food at the supermarket, we’d consume differently. You can listen to a podcast of my interview with Dan Yates at Greenbiz.com.

Wanted: A cultural revolution

Tuesday, January 12th, 2010

pogoplaque“It’s no longer enough to change our light bulbs. We need to change our culture.”

So says Erik Assadourian, senior researcher at the Worldwatch Institute and project director of a provocative and timely new book called 2010 State of the World: Transforming Cultures from Consumerism to Sustainability. Its argument is simple: The most important driver of the world’s ecological crises, including climate change, is not venal oil or coal companies or indifferent politicians but western consumer culture–that is, us.

Global consumption has grown dramatically since World War II, reaching $30.5 trillion in 2006, up sixfold since 1960. This is, in part, a very good thing–billions of people have emerged from poverty–but today’s prevailing consumption patterns are, quite simply, unsustainable. The rich (meaning you and me) are the worst offenders but ecologists say that even at income levels that we think of as substandard–say, $5,000 or $6,000 per person per year–people are consuming at rates that will deplete the earth’s resources, cause catastrophic climate change, wipe our species and generally trash the only planet we have.  About a third of the world’s people live above this standard, and the others, presumably, aspire to do the same.

This is not a message that either business or mainstream environmental groups want you to hear, which is why you don’t hear it often. Most businesses, though not all of then, are in the business of persuading people to consume more. They shaped the consumer culture. And enviros have found that telling their members and donors to buy less stuff is a downer, and not an effective fund-raising message, especially among the well-to-do.

But, as Assadourian said during a conference call with reporters, consumer culture is not only causing environmental havoc, it’s often failing to deliver the well-being that it promises.

Most people understand–and psychological studies of happiness confirm–that after we have achieved basic economic security (itself a cultural norm), what really makes us happy are close relationships, meaningful work, connections to community and good health.

You can’t buy those things at the mall.

“Two centuries of intentional cultivation of consumerism  has led to us seeing it as perfectly natural to define ourselves primarily by what and how much we  consume,” he said. Consumerism is so embedded in our culture today that, most of the time, it’s as invisible as the air we breathe. (more…)

Have Americans stopped loving their cars?

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

2009 was a terrible year for Detroit, the worst in three decades. Americans bought 10.4 million cars — 21% fewer than in 2008 and a whopping 40% fewer than the 17 million or so cars and light trucks sold, on average, in the early 2000s.

A Thunderbird convertible

A Thunderbird convertible

This is normally seen as bad news, and anyone who’s visited Detroit lately understands why. But what if the bad news for U.S. automakers, their workers and the economy of the industrial Midwest turns out to be good for the rest of us?

That’s the argument being made by environmentalist and author Lester Brown. If fewer cars are being driven fewer miles, America’s dependence on imported oil will decrease, as will air pollution, carbon emissions, traffic congestion, respiratory diseases and the demand for new roads or highways.

Because Americans scrapped 14 million cars last year, there are fewer registered vehicles in the U.S. today than there were a year ago–about 246 million, according to Brown, who is president of the Earth Policy Institute. The U.S. now has more registered cars than licensed drivers, of which there are 209 million.

“When is enough enough?,” Brown asks. “Continuing growth in our car fleet is no longer in our national interest or in our interest as individuals.”

What’s more, the drop in car sales may be more than a reflection of a down economy. America’s century-old love affair with the automobile may be coming to an end, Brown said yesterday during a conference call with reporters.

This is a bold claim and, while I’m not persuaded that he’s right, Brown’s ideas are worth thinking about. He says  that an array of forces—ranging from urbanization to rising oil prices to the popularity of text messages and Facebook among teenagers—mean that more Americans are learning to live without a car. (more…)