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.

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.

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?

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.

A recent scientific journal article examined the general public’s perception of individual energy consumption. Overall, the 505 participants of the online survey reported that efforts to conserve energy—such as turning off lights at home—were a more effective strategy than investing in energy-saving technology: an incorrect perception, according to experts. In addition, the majority of participants grossly underestimated how much energy was requires for high-energy activities, like using a washing machine.
This study uncovers a sad fact about our country: Americans do not know the energy consumption associated with the products around them.  We can’t tell how much energy—and therefore, carbon—goes into making an aluminum can versus a plastic bottle, or the environmental cost of recycling either of them.  But the good news is that making energy-related information clear and readily available could have a huge impact in our daily lives. People do want to reduce their energy use, at the very least in an effort to lower their monthly bill, so a simple educational program that outlines low-cost and efficient ways to lower a household’s draw on the power grid would be well received. Maybe we can follow some Europeans countries that have made carbon footprint labeling of packaged foods mandatory, or perhaps have concise charts comparing the environmental costs of different categories (for example, transportation, packaging or building material).

Australia has one of the highest CO2e emissions per capita in the world. While some Australians are against cap-and-trade and want to stick to the current federal goal of a 5% reduction by 2020, many businesses view a set price on carbon as a way to make educated long-term investment plans.  By creating an industrial market for carbon credits and taking advantage of “low-hanging fruit,” including the country’s reliance on coal-powered plants and opportunities for developing renewable energy systems, experts say that Australia could easily reduce its carbon emissions by 15 to 25% on the same timeline. Many citizens support the introduction of policies to make this change because the country has a lot to lose in the face of what climate change could bring: altered coastlines, poor growing seasons and worse bushfires.
If Australia goes in the direction of definitive climate change policy, it could have a corporate advantage in the future; environmental efficiency often means increased economic efficiency, and therefore better products and higher profits.  With rumors that the climate talks due in Mexico in a few months won’t bring the much-needed international agreement on how to address global warming, maybe it is time for individual countries to step up and curb their inefficient habits. If Australia creates a price for carbon, do you think the US should follow suit?

The US Chamber of Commerce, an organization representing thousands of American businesses, has started litigation to sue the EPA for continuing with its GHG emissions reporting requirement, claiming that the regulation is too burdensome on small companies.  Similar to its stance against the federal moratorium on offshore drilling in the Gulf, the Chamber argues that the EPA is prioritizing regulation over job creation, which is a huge faux pas in our country’s poor economy.
The US Chamber of Commerce represents thousands of businesses throughout the US.  So—assumedly—the Chamber’s decision to start litigation must be a reflection of the opinions of its members. But is that really the case? Do American companies really want to fall behind the EU’s and China’s environmental monitoring standards, a decision that could severely impact business opportunities in the future?
Is your company part of the US Chamber of Commerce? Let us know if you agree or disagree with the Chamber’s proposed legal actions against the EPA!

People have said countless times that a way to reduce your carbon footprint is to change your eating habits, mainly by eating less red meat.  But new findings show that the environmental impact of what you eat is not as straightforward as that. Dr. Frank Mitloehner reported to the American Chemical Society in March that we don’t need to eat less meat, but smarter meat.  In the US, cattle and pigs only account for 3% of our GHG emissions, according to the EPA, whereas transportation makes up 26% of our emissions. The key, therefore, is to decrease the transportation of red meat, not necessarily limiting it.  Actually, Dr. Mitloehner argues that limiting the dairy and red meat consumption in developed countries would decrease the availability of these nutrient-rich foods in developing countries, whose populations really need them.
But switching to locally grown food shouldn’t rule out anything tasty or convenient. Eco-conscious fast food places are popping up all over and are trying to create healthy and sustainable meals on the go (did you know a typical fast-food cheeseburger has 11 pounds CO2e to go along with its 11 grams of fat?). Places like Elevation Burgers and Amanda’s feature red meat entrees and locally grown options that have a better sustainability track record than your favorite drive-thru.

As Congress struggles to pass a bill that can comprehensively address climate change, the federal government is already taking steps to have the main contributors to GHG emissions become conscious of this fact and start reducing.
The government itself is one of the largest CO2e emitters in our country, and with our looming national debt, any effort to reduce energy consumption – and therefore cost – is worthwhile.  Recently, Energy Secretary Steven Chu mandated the installation of light-colored roofs on all Department of Energy offices, a decision that can reduce heating and cooling costs by up to 70% per building. In line with President Obama’s pledge to reduce the government’s direct GHG emissions by 28% by 2020, federal agencies are looking to reduce company vehicle travel distances and locate new buildings near public transit centers.
Companies that work with the government are also facing incentives to cut back on emissions.  The General Services Administration will begin giving preference to corporations that monitor and try to reduce their CO2e emissions when granting federal contracts. This is similar to Walmart’s new policy of vetting companies in their supply chain based on emissions tracking.
If enough key players in our economy decide that the environment should be a consideration before they sign a contract, the pressure will be off Congress to decide on a feasible carbon monitoring system.

At the second “Green Air Show” at an airfield just north of France, there was both hope and skepticism over potential “green” improvements in aviation, an industry renowned for pollution. Major developments in reducing noise pollution were introduced, particularly for helicopters. More interesting were previews of energy-efficient technology.  The Solar Impulse, a solar-powered airplane, completed its first overnight flight this month, and special “airships” have been created for low-energy trans-ocean transport. However, both these options have their hang-ups; the Solar Impulse has a 200-foot wingspan and can carry only one person, while airships could take days to cross the Atlantic Ocean.  Biofuels have been hailed as the new solution to greening airplanes, but there is skepticism towards the safety of using solely biofuels for every engine of an aircraft.
The answer must be in the middle ground, at least for now.  Perhaps the future holds the key to flights that run on zero-carbon energy sources like the sun, but there are compromises available now for the most energy-intensive mode of transportation.  Also, biofuel mixes can be used in part in larger aircrafts, and large-scale recycling programs have been introduced to most airlines.  About $100,000 per gate could be saved by airlines by installing solar panels to power electrical operations when an airplane is grounded, and that adds up to a reduction of thousands of metric tons of CO2e. As we blogged in May, airlines and airports are both doing their part to reduce their impact on the environment, and hopefully these efforts continue to grow with available technology.