When you think of New York, you can’t help but think of the Empire State Building.  But what doesn’t pop into your head is the iconic building’s inefficient insulation or its $11 million annual utility bill.
Luckily, the building’s windows (all 6,514 of them) are being refurbished with the goal of reducing the Empire State Building’s energy use by 38%. An innovative company called Serious Materials is doing the work (we had a chance to meet one of their reps at a CCX meeting). They have a $20 million budget that should pay for itself within a decade or so.
This is a big step for New York City, which was recently named one of the greener cities in the US by the Natural Resources Defense Council.  The effort, along with investments in wind power and an outreach program for business owners, should help the city reach its goal of a 30% reduction in emissions by 2030. Even more importantly, this renovation is proof that our country can retain its history and lifestyle without sacrificing the environment.

Renewable energy suppliers have greatly increased over the last few years, largely because money has been available.  A main component of the federal stimulus package under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act went towards investing in anything “green,” including new jobs, energy sources and R&D programs.  But what will happen to these eco-friendly projects once the funding runs out?
Although the industry is becoming more and more competitive, most renewable energy sources are not as cheap as getting energy from fossil fuels. And America’s investment in alternative energy resources pales in comparison to the EU or China.  The federal government needs to extend its funding for renewable energy R&D to not only reduce our dependence on foreign oil and our negative impact on the environment, but also to prevent the loss of thousands of jobs that have been created in the “green energy” sector.
Unlike economically-unsound legislation, like enforced tariffs and quotas, that can shelter inefficient domestic industries, increasing funding for clean energy over time can actually increase efficiency in the energy market. More R&D for renewable energy means lower costs and cleaner air in the future while creating jobs now. Why would the US want to miss out on that?

Over the last few years, people have been clamoring to buy reusable water bottles.  The evidence is obvious almost everywhere you look; from Amazon.com to Target’s or Walmart’s checkout area, you can find reusable bottles in plastic, aluminum, or even a nifty collapsible variety.  But even though these bottles are everywhere, their important counterpart is not: the water fountain.
A lot of sporting arenas are trading in water fountains for either “hydration stations,” or tents that give out small (disposable) cups of water for free, or overpriced bottles of water sold from the typical vendors.  Many venues are against allowing outside containers from being brought in at all. The Huffington Post reports that the University of Michigan’s recently renovated football stadium, the Big House, will not only have zero water fountains available, but will also be giving away disposable water bottles at the first game. This is especially shocking to me, since I’ve heard how many thousands of pounds of plastic the attendants of every game have recycled over the PA system for the last three years.
Hopefully, there will be an increase in the availability of free, clean water nationwide.  The company Thermos has developed an iPhone application that locates the nearest water fountain.  As more reusable water bottles are sold (and hopefully used), basic economics demands that the supply of water fountains should also increase.

The internet and electronic technology have allowed people to access books and the news in situations that were completely unimaginable 20 years ago, from getting your local newspaper halfway across the world to previewing a book for free without getting out of bed. Reading’s electronic revolution has forced magazines and newspapers to shrink or shut down, and publishers have had to completely change their outlook on the market. But is this shift an improvement or setback for the environment?
Although there is some debate over particular numbers used and impacts factored into the analysis, switching from printed books and newspaper to an e-reader like a Kindle or the online edition is decidedly better for the environment. The British paper The Daily Mirror is reported to emit 6.1 ounces of CO2e emissions per 6.4 ounce copy.  With the lower recycled content in American publications (about 35% on average), the relative global warming impact would be higher for your local paper.  While powering the news centers to generate online articles and your computer to read it does require fossil fuel generated electricity, the fact that at least 30% of newspapers end up in a landfill makes the paper version of the news have a bigger carbon footprint.
Kindles and iPads use less energy than a light bulb.  While the manufacturing of these e-reader devices definitely has a larger environmental impact than a paperback, it only takes a few books to break even; the Kindle takes 23 books while the iPad takes 18.  Water consumption is even better for e-readers, with the Kindle and iPad requiring less water after the twelfth book.
Apple reports that iPad users buy on average 3 books per month, and Kindle users probably buy even more than that.  Therefore, switching to an e-reader saves space and the environment.

A survey conducted last year by Boston Consulting Groups reveals that across the globe, the percent of consumers who believe that “green” products are of higher quality than the conventional alternatives outnumber the percent who think they are worse five to ten times over. That means that in the last year, we should see a surge in green purchasing, since the economy is slowly getting better and the majority people in Europe, the US and Asia think green means better. But this has not been the case.
A study by Proctor & Gamble shows that professionals that buy cleaning products, including those in the lodging and health care businesses, are very skeptical towards green cleaning products.  In general, they report that although they do feel sustainability and the environment is an important factor in business activity and growth, they put perceived effectiveness of a cleaning product over perceived “greenness.” This is all despite the fact that green products can clean just as well as those containing bleach and other harmful chemicals.
The Consumer Electronics Association’s recent study also illustrates the gap between their intentions and actions.  While 40% say they are likely to test drive an electric car, only 25% of potential buyers report that they are familiar with electric vehicles, which is a small proportion compared to the numbers of people who have great concerns for the car: 71% worry about running out of battery power on the road, 66% are afraid of not being able to recharge and 59% find limited mileage as a boundary to buying.
In short, consumers’ hearts are in the right place, but their wallets aren’t.

The Natural Resources Defense Council recently named 22 cities as the “2010 Smarter Cities” in the US for efforts to become eco-friendly.  Specific reasons for being chosen were all across the board, with a general theme of reduced carbon emissions and energy efficiency. Here are some of the greenest cities in the US:
- Chicago, IL: the city’s climate action plan is one of the most aggressive in the country, focuses on energy efficient buildings and is the leader in LEED buildings at 154.  Chicago has the Green Office Challenge, a program which encourages energy conservation among companies in the Central Business District.
- Denton, TX: although small, this city is able to get 40% of its energy from alternative energy sources (particularly wind power) and has started a compact fluorescent light bulb exchange program to trade out incandescent bulbs.
- Reno NV: Reno has been able to reduce energy use by 17% since 2005 and harnesses geothermal energy for a significant portion of its electricity.  It also has switched to LED lights for its iconic entrance arch.
- Portland, OR: Known for being home to eco-friendly citizens, Portland was the first city to adopt a climate action plan, which now has a goal of reducing emissions by 80% of 1990 levels within the next 40 years. The city also strives to reduce the carbon footprint of its buildings by improving energy efficiency and insulation.
Read more about these cities and the other “2010 Smarter Cities” winners here.

National Geographic and GlobeScan have developed a new way to measure attitudes towards the environment and consumer behavior, called the Greendex.  By surveying thousands of citizens in 17 of the most economically and environmentally influential countries—including the US, Russia, India, China, Mexico and Brazil—they determined that overall, developing countries have more consumers that exhibit co-friendly behavior. This means, for example, that citizens of China, Argentina and Mexico are more likely to take public transportation, live in smaller homes, and make efforts to buy “green” products. Developed countries in general scored lower on the index, with the US at the lowest, which means that their citizens were less likely to make environmentally-conscious decisions.
This information should not come as a surprise: with a lower standard of living, citizens of developing countries are often not able to own multiple cars, live in big houses or travel in airplanes as easily as inhabitants of developed nations.  But the more interesting result of this survey is the trend in a consumer’s attitude towards the environment. As GDP per capita decreased, a person’s desire to do something to help the environment and fear for the effects of global warming actually increased. This is in line with the results of the Copenhagen climate talks, where it was developing countries that left the most upset about inaction.
So how do you think we can make the developed world—which consistently has high emissions per capita—catch up to the green thinking in developing countries?

A recent study reports that 80% of Americans are environmentally illiterate; the average citizen does not understand the ecological or human systems that create, operate, or potentially destroy our environment, such as watersheds and runoff, ecosystem dynamics or global warming. Given that the environment is the largest growing academic area in a variety of fields—and therefore, an expected source of jobs in the future—people who do not gain environmental literacy are likely to fall behind on an educational and economic level.
With this in mind, there has been a push to incorporate environmental understanding into schools, especially at the lower levels.  Through the controversial No Child Left Behind Act, President Obama has made $100 million in additional funding available for states that bring environmental literacy into school programs. Boards of Education in states like Delaware are trying to adopt statewide environmental literacy programs for all levels of secondary schooling.  The Advanced Placement course in Environmental Science is an expanding program that can grant up to 4 credits to accepting universities. Elementary schools are being applauded for incorporating outdoor exercise and education through projects like the recreation of a wetland on campus to reduce runoff pollution and naturally filter water.
The largest obstacle to this progress is the overwhelming prevalence of environmental illiteracy. Some community reactions are unbelievably negative to increasing our youth’s understanding of the environment, but these responses stem from a lack of knowledge about nature.

Over the past few years, the government has created tax incentives to induce people to become conscious of the environment, including rebates for insulating your home or buying Energy Star appliances and tax credits for investing in alternative energy sources, like installing photovoltaic cells. But now corporations have started to see the value in creating a green consumer.
The cable television conglomerate Time Warner is giving out a series of prizes for customers that enroll in paperless billing.   A whole slew of companies, including Bank of America, Google and Clif Bars, have given rebates or gas allowances to employees who have bought hybrid or biodiesel cars. A bunch of car insurance companies have discounts for customers who buy hybrids, while some hotels give free or priority parking for hybrids. Even the University of Miami takes 50% of parking permits for all students and faculty who invest in a hybrid.
What do all of these breaks for eco-conscious consumers mean in the business world? Is it just a gimmick to draw in customers that would do these green things anyway, or is it a good way to entice more environmentally friendly actions among consumers and employees alike?

Packaging gets a bad rap from environmentalists for its reliance on plastics, which are made from non-renewable fossil fuels and take hundreds of years to breakdown in a landfill.  But a lot of companies are taking a new green approach.
Proctor & Gamble, the corporation behind brands like Pantene Pro-V and Covergirl, has invested in a sugarcane-derived plastic for a significant amount of its packaging.  This shifts their demand form a non-renewable source (fossil fuels) to a renewable one (sugarcane) while still being able to be recycled like any other HDPE plastic.
Stella Artois, with the help of packaging company PI Global, has developed a bottle that is 7% lighter than its previous models.  This reduction in weight means a reduction in environmental impact, due to a decrease in raw material use and transportation costs.
Overall, the packaging industry is feeling pressure to reduce its (traditionally large) environmental impact. Because of previous in flexible machinery—capable of manufacturing different sized bottles and using different materials—many packaging companies are now making the shift from bottles to tubes and pouches, which require fewer resources per container.  This change is a reflection of the demands of their clients, who want to maintain the integrity of plastic in their packaging while also reducing their environmental impact.