November 8, 2011

This seems a bit of an oxymoron. After all, how much can banks contribute to environmental sustainability? Banks do not require a lot of water to operate or release toxic pollutants into the air. To my knowledge the printing of money does not have a large carbon footprint. While banks and all office-based enterprises can be made more energy and paper-efficient, saving significant expense, it won’t save the world.

But in reality the financial industry can have a major impact on global climate change and energy issues by how it finances new projects. Banks provide the capital that every new project or business needs to start and grow. To maximize its payback for money lent or invested and to reduce risk of loss, “green” is being recognized as very important. Several major banks and investment houses are beginning to recognize that investment in green buildings and clean and smarter infrastructure is needed in the U.S. and can result in good returns and low risk of failure. They recognize this as good economics and not being “cool” in any way. A study by AT Kearney showed that between 2008 and 2009 (during the economic crisis), companies that had a sustainability focus (i.e., listed on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index or Goldman Sachs SUSTAIN list) outperformed equivalent companies across the board by 10 to over 25%. That certainly would be preferable companies for financial firms to invest in.

And then there is growing concern about climate change. The banking community is now taking the cue from the overwhelming majority of the scientific community that now believes climate change is real and could potentially do extreme damage to manmade structures and projects. The risks and liability are real. The United Nations Environmental Programme estimated that lost value of buildings and structures because of climate change could total $1 trillion every year by 2040. This is forcing the insurance and banking industries to look into more investments in projects that are less vulnerable to storms, etc. and/or represent positive steps for climate change mitigation.

Finally, many investment houses are beginning to recognize that companies or projects with potential environmental issues represent a major investment repayment risk. Incidents like last year’s BP Deepwater Horizon resulted in reputational issues for the firm, as well as the billions of dollars spent to clean up natural areas and places where people live, work, and play. Companies now realize that the government and the public will expect nothing less than complete restoration of a site to its pre-accident condition, money not withstanding. While BP was flush with cash, most others would have had to declare bankruptcy and not pay back investors. Financial institutions are now including “what if” environmental risk in their calculation of whether to invest or not.

CCES can help your firm develop a viable and recognized sustainability program and can help determine whether projects have potential high climate change risk or not.

October 25, 2011

The International Code Council (ICC) is in the process of rolling out final standards for Green Construction, called International Green Construction Codes (IgCC), in March 2012 (www.iccsafe.org/cs/IGCC). The IgCC is intended to be an enforceable code for municipalities to seamlessly adopt and enforce for future building construction. It is intended to reduce the negative impacts of the built environment on the natural environment for the purposes of reducing the costs of potential adverse effects on a municipality, such as flooding. The IgCC is not intended to be a rating system or replace LEED. Points will not be accumulated. It is meant as minimum requirements for future design and construction and to drive the industry toward more green construction. It is intended to be focused and enforceable by municipal Dept of Buildings officers.

The IgCC will contain a “model” code which municipalities can adopt or modify. There are also unique regional requirements. There will likely be two levels of standards, a “green” building standard and a higher “high performing” standard. IgCC contains ANSI/ASHRAE 189.1 as a compliance option. Minimum standards in IgCC include:

• Energy use conservation and efficiency (zEPI for large buildings, sub-metering)

• Water use conservation and efficiency (rain harvesting, plumbing, irrigation stds.)

• Indoor environmental quality (indoor air quality, HVAC stds., materials use)

• Materials and resource conservation (waste management planning, recycling)

• Site development and land use (protection of parklands, agriculture, floodplains)

• Operations & maintenance (building maintenance stds., building user education).

IgCC will contain separate standards for new and for refurbishing existing buildings. Commissioning will be required for most projects.

The ICC will present the draft standards at their annual conference in November in Phoenix for the public to make final comments. They are expecting to publish them final in March 2012. They plan on upgrading them every 4-5 years, but will do the first upgrade earlier, based on the early results of adoption of these standards in municipalities. Will this become the norm for all or many states or municipalities? This is hard to say, but diverse places, such as the States of Maryland, Rhode Island, and Oregon and Cities of Phoenix and Boynton Beach, FL have already passed resolutions stating it will adopt the IgCC standards as mandatory. Plus others are “on the fence” waiting for the final standards to be published to decide. Therefore, building owners and builders should prepare to understand and potentially comply with these standards.

CCES can help your facility prepare an analysis of the impacts of IgCC on your future buildings and strategize cost-effective options to comply with such codes in your area.

People say we should ignore polls; the country should make decisions based on pure science or pure economics. But the reality is that governments and companies take their cues from public opinion, want to be seen on the “right” side and certainly not in the forefront of something divisive, even if is beneficial. Several studies show a “green gap” between what people tell pollsters about living sustainably and actually doing it. Americans say they want to live sustainably and are willing to pay a premium to do so. But purchase behavior at the store is different. Price and value, not sustainability, rule.

A comprehensive survey by Ogilvy & Mather showed 4 categories of Americans:

• 16% “super greens”, who actually make decisions based on sustainability norms

• 33% “upper middle greens”, who make some decisions based on sustainability

• 33% “lower middle greens”, informed, but make most decisions based on cost

• 18% “green rejectors”.

The problem with the green movement, according to Ogilvy Earth study is that it is too polarized and is trying to counter the green rejectors who are too idealistic to change. The green movement will grow by swaying much of the 33% lower middle greens to be upper middle greens and the 33% upper middle greens to become super greens.
What makes people become more “green”? Two factors: guilt and social costs. If green becomes the norm, people will follow, as they want to show off as “correct” on the issue.

Therefore, to market “green” products better, Ogilvy Earth concluded their research by recommending the 3 P’s: Personal, Plausible, Positive.

• Get away from the “green” tag. Surveys showed that many people perceive that a brand marketed in a highly “green” way is only for the wealthy elite or old hippies, and not for them. Make the product normal and do not scream in big bold letters how green it is. Make prominent that it is a good product that also happens to be good for the environment, if mentioned at all.

• Make it normal. … to be sustainable. Make it personal. On energy bills, there is often a bar graph showing how much electricity you used that month, the same month the year before, and what the “typical” household uses. Surveys show this is very effective in getting people to reduce their electricity usage – that it’s personal and that others use less. Try to do something similar in your messaging.

• Eliminate the “sustainability” tax. Walmart saw that Twinkies were cheaper than apples. How can positive social behavior (eating healthier) succeed when the healthy alternative, already perceived as less satisfying, is also more costly? Walmart made them equal. “Green” cleaning products are perceived as not as effective as conventional ones and more costly. Don’t “tax” virtuous products.

• Bribe shamelessly and punish wisely. Give prizes, rewards for being green. As for “punishment”, one major gym chain charges its members more if they use the gym less than frequent users, hoping to encourage greater use, increasing the chance of renewal. Can something similar happen with “green” products?

• Don’t stop innovating and educating. Introduce new products and designs and educate consumers. Some seek this. For others (lower middle), an innovation may hit home and get them to try things they would not earlier.

• Package normally. Just because a product is “green”, it does not have to be packaged in burlap and colored green. It can still be packaged as stylishly as a non-green product. “Showing” green is outside the norm, which you do not want.

• Hedonism over altruism. Change is more likely occur if glamorous. An example is “organic chocolate”. While this may repel some, this can appealing to people’s strong desires, while assuaging some guilt. Toyota and Ford have marketed their hybrid and electric cars through standard means that it is a good, reliable car with the fact that it pollutes less and saves gasoline costs as a sidelight.

Business Attitudes

According to the Ogilvy Earth studies, businesses are reluctant to go green for a major reason. Managers and the business itself are reluctant to change anything (put their “necks” on the line) for something out of the mainstream without a virtual guarantee of success or major benefit to the company. The company is concerned that either the green efforts will not be appreciated because few people are interested or people will be skeptical about green claims and believe it is greenwashing. It is easier to do nothing.

Present facts of the business benefits of going green to counter worries. The key is not to sell ideology (save the Earth), but instead have a company do good because it will be good for careers and the business. As they get used to the good acts, more will come.

Get more useful information in our blog:

www.CCESworld.com/blog
———————————————————————————————————————

This Environmental News for You is meant to provide background on green attitudes. CCES experts can help you in the technical aspects of your sustainability or “green” program.

July 26, 2011

Despite the rancor in Congress about federal government spending, a new low-cost, money-saving initiative began this year to incentivize energy conservation. President Obama and the Dept of Energy (DOE) launched the “Better Buildings Initiative”, which hopes to channel private sector investment through incentives to upgrade offices, stores, schools and other municipal buildings, universities, hospitals, and commercial buildings. The goal of the initiative is to make commercial buildings 20% more energy efficient over the next decade, reducing the demand for electricity and new plants. The initiative is also expected to reduce energy bills for businesses by about $40 billion annually. To get more details, see: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/betterbuildings.

A summary of the initiative’s five components:

1) Tax incentives – The Initiative showcases existing tax incentives for building owners who perform energy efficiency upgrades, such as a tax deduction of up to $1.80/sf for buildings that reduce heating and cooling energy usage by at least 50%. There is a 30% investment tax credit (ITC) for solar energy and qualified fuel cell and small wind energy property. A 10% ITC is available for combined heat and power systems (CHP) and geothermal heat pumps.

2) Ease financing for energy retrofits – The Initiative directs the Small Business Administration and DOE to increase low-cost lending to small businesses for energy retrofits. The total amount of available loans is currently being negotiated.

3) “Race to Green” competitive grant program – This program will provide grants to states and/or local governments to research and upgrade their codes and programs to encourage energy upgrades and private sector investment.

4) Building construction technology training and tools – This program will create pilot programs to standardize training for workers to implement the next generation of energy auditing and building operations. The program will also enable normally expensive teaching tools to be more affordable.

5) “Better Building Challenge” – This effort will encourage the private sector to upgrade their facilities and make investments to decrease energy use and create jobs. Partners will commit to a series of appropriate goals and will in turn receive public recognition, technical assistance, and best-practices sharing to meet them.

Just how well this program will be funded will be based on the current debt ceiling – federal spending debates going in Congress. But the program will move forward.

Climate Change & Environmental Services, LLC (CCES) can help your building manager assess where it stands now in terms of energy conservation, the feasibility and benefits of different potential energy conservation strategies and technologies, and review available financial incentives offered by the federal government to make such strategies economically viable and maximize the benefits for your building.

July 12, 2011

Sustainability, the concept of using fewer resources and polluting less to be productive while saving our natural resources, is thought to apply only to “those big polluting manufacturers.” Well, that’s not really true. While we poke fun at offices thanks to the brilliant TV comedy of the same name, any office or store, big or small, can make sustainability gains to save resources and also save money and expenses and motivate personnel. Here is a list of common environmental concerns in an office setting:
• Printing of needless documents or excess copies, resulting in increased waste
• Leaving lights on
• Not recycling excess paper or other waste
• Inappropriate climate control or setting of thermostats
• Excessive use of paper products, like cups, plates, etc.
• Coworkers not printing double-sided when they can
• Having to store paper copies of documents when they already exist electronically
• Not powering down computers when going home

These are legitimate concerns and all can be addressed in an office. Many of these concerns can be effectively addressed with conservation. You and your co-workers need to ask yourselves of whether the light bulb, computer, or other device really needs to be on all the time or at the end of the day or during lunch. You can begin an office culture that it’s important to turn off unnecessary devices. This can provide your company with best savings, going from on to completely off. While lights are obvious to turn off, appliances, computers and other equipment use power even in “sleep” mode. Therefore, if feasible, develop procedures to turn them off, too.

Another approach can be use of simple software or technology. Yes, it means an initial investment to purchase and train on the software, but will pay you back if used properly. For example, there are software products with print management capabilities. Such software can manipulate printer commands to significantly lessen ink jet or toner usage. While printers are fairly inexpensive, businesses are learning that the costs of replacing toner and ink jet cartridges are more significant. Printers can also be set to automatically perform double-side copying. Not only will this reduce paper use and cost, but this will also reduce shipping costs and the recipients of your reports will probably be happier to lug around lighter documents and reduce the necessary storage.

Forming an office “team” can effectively reduce expenses and, at the same time, engender company spirit and loyalty and a sense of accomplishment.

CCES can assess your energy, paper, water and other resource use, develop an office carbon footprint, and help you develop realistic solutions of cost-saving alternatives.

June 21, 2011

I recently came across something that made me really worry – about my profession, my country, and my planet. I was driving through rural Pennsylvania, when I came across a segment on a radio show that was a review of a video game of race cars. The reviewer was very excited and praised the “real life” game action. But then he said: “The game even has neat features for the environment,” he said. “Why, you can create race tracks that have mud, snow, or trees, whatever environment you want! This may be the 1st environmentally friendly video game ever!”

I was blown away. This is what the “environment” means to young people; the opportunity to create a scene in a video game with mud, snow or trees? And the reviewer said this proudly. It 60 second commercial spot; it was a detailed review. My worry is that young people listening to this review (I assume it can be read on the web, too) will begin to think that is what the environment is and just a few clicks can change the environment and isn’t that cute. What will our future hold if people think of the environment as a decoration to look at (and drive cars through) and nothing more?

And I’m even more concerned being in our great land because a democracy only works with an informed electorate. However one feels about the environmental, it should at least be based on an intelligent scientific and economic view and not based on a skewed version of what the environment is. I’m concerned with our long term approach.

But I want to end this blog with some good news, though. More and more schools across the nation are introducing environmental education into their curriculum. More schools, cities, and counties are building environmental centers for hands-on learning. Although I worry about the level of support and training of those leading the efforts, this at least is positive. We should all support such activities locally.

And environmental education is hitting the airwaves. Where I live (Westchester County, NY), a local radio station has just started a show devoted to green projects. WFAS (1230 on the AM dial, www.wfasam.com, streamed online) has the show on Saturdays at 12 noon, hosted by my good friend, Bill Bobenhausen, an award winning architect and LEED-AP. Give it a listen and encourage your friends too, so more such shows can get on the air to truly educate ourselves and young people and show off good projects!

CCES can help you in your educational program communicate environmental and green goals and accomplishments to your target audience inhouse or outreach to others.

June 2011
Some companies are hesitant about becoming “green” as they consider it exotic and a non-business issue. Yes, actions to “save the Earth” are not a business responsibility. However, sustainability is now recognized as a valid business concern and that savvy companies who have comprehensively addressed the issue have gained core business benefits. This article presents 9 purely business reasons why a robust “green” program will benefit a company’s bottom line with real life examples.

1. Making the Monetary Case

Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is most commonly achieved by reducing fossil fuel combustion and electricity usage. Given their high costs (>$4/gallon gasoline), such reductions result in significant cost savings. If an energy audit saves your company $100,000/yr, what is the sales equivalent? At 10% profit, sales would need to be increased by $1 M/yr. Which is easier? The answer differs for each company, but for most raising sales is more difficult (i.e, staff, ads, etc.). Also, energy reductions save perpetually; sales must be repeated each year. Finally, there are financial incentives to pay some upfront costs of the efforts and tax rebates later. Example: DuPont reported investing over $200 M in energy reduction projects in the 1990’s. These projects now save them over $300 M per year in energy costs. Reducing GHG emissions can also result in sellable carbon credits. The U.S. voluntary market can result in real revenue if reductions are certified properly.

2. Create New Products and Sell More

Re-branded “green” products can give you a competitive sales edge. Example: GE’s Ecomagination is an example of re-branding existing products as “green”, leading to doubling of sales in three years.

3. Meet the Expectations of Customers and Suppliers

More customers care about product “carbon” data. Examples: Walmart requires many suppliers to submit GHG emissions data for eventual posting. According to Automation World, T-Tek Material Handling sells a beverage pelletizer using less energy than competitor’s. Being “green” as its main selling point, sales soared.

4. Raise Employee Morale

Replacing an employee (find, train replacement) and worker motivation are major business issues. Firms with “green” programs have reported that many employees develop a new devotion to work and the company. Example: Ray Anderson, Founder of Interface, “I have never seen anything equal to sustainability as far as attracting, motivating, and bringing people together.”

Also, a company implementing building upgrades to meet LEED green building standards will likely see an increase in productivity and reduction in sick days.

5. Fast-tracking Future Projects

Green programs can be used as the moral high ground to negotiate for a project that some may dispute. Example: In the proposed buyout of TXU power plants, implementation of a climate change program was a major factor in the agreement for a proposed expansion. A number of ardent environ-mental groups signed on to allow new coal-fired plants because a robust climate change program would be implemented. This ultimately saved TXU much money and time in avoided litigation.

6. Improving Efficiency

A “green” program resulting in reduced fuel and electricity use while growing operations will result in better operational efficiency throughout the company’s business, spanning all operational aspects. This results in improved profit margins, as well as avoidance of tripping other environmental limits.

7. Evaluating Climate Change Risks

Scientists have forecast potential grave climate change effects, such as more intense storms, water shortages, and disease outbreaks. How may these affect your business, such as more frequent and intense storms impacting your ability to bring product to market? What would the effects of hotter weather, tropical diseases, water shortages be on consumer choices? Example: A major tobacco company performed a modelling study of future tobacco farming and determined that it will need to shift existing farming areas. A climate change risk program allowed them to strategize to reduce risk.

8. Improving Your Image

A growing number of people use environmental image in product purchase decision making. Example: Toyota is using its hybrid Prius to counter its recent poor image due to product recalls. Your company can use “green”, with an undeniable metric (GHG reductions) to show a positive image in reports and website. Several registries exist to show certified GHG emission reductions.

9. Company Valuation

A recent published study shows among S&P 500 companies that those that emit lower quantities of GHGs have a higher value, based on stock price, than those that emit more carbon. Lower emissions may indicate to the market that those companies are more efficient, effective, and business savvy.

Read more useful material in our blog: www.CCESworld.com/blog
———————————————————————————————-
CCES has the technical knowledge and real life experience to help all kinds of firms set up “green”, climate change, and sustainability programs that result in many of the benefits listed here. We can help you organize your program, as well as gain the maximum financial benefits possible. And we can help you get the most publicity out of the program results and train you to run your own program independently in the future.

April 19, 2011

This blog has provided many reasons to go “green”, both for companies, as well as the nation and the world. Here is another that has not been mentioned yet: a serious attempt to go green will spur technical innovation, new inventions, and cut costs on others. We have seen this already with the space program. While it got us to the moon in 1969, perhaps more important, it lead to the patenting and development of many technologies that directly influence our lives today (i.e., better performing engines and tires, the Internet). The quest for “clean” energy and less polluting activities has already spurred some new inventions taking reasonable steps to achieve this.

A North Carolina State University team has successfully demonstrated preliminarily that water gel-based solar devices (called: “artificial leaves”) can act like solar cells to make electricity. According to an article in the Journal of Materials Chemistry, bendable units composed of water-based gel infused light-sensitive molecules (like plant chlorophyll) coupled with electrodes coated by carbon materials can successfully generate electricity. Some researcher believe the best way of developing renewable energy sources is to make them more closely imitate nature. Such units could be more beneficial to our environment than the present standard silicon-based solar cells.

Another example is an invention marketed by a company called DEC Green called “Big Belly” Trash Compactors. These are solar-powered trash compactors placed in outdoor areas, such as parks, to compact trash placed inside of it, saving the municipality labor in terms of number of times garbage is picked up in a large park and the energy of their existing services compacting whole trash. In addition, such trash compactors is a very visible symbol that a municipality is looking to “go green” and save energy.

Finally, comes the ambitious plans from a company called A Better Place to provide electric cars which will not burn gasoline and cause emissions at the ground level. Cars will be run on batteries powered from electricity derived from a power plant some distanc away, whose emissions at least exit from a more efficient turbine at a high point and more diluted before it reaches ground level. A problem with this technology is that no one would drive such a car without the opportunity to recharge or replace the battery at convenient intervals. A Better Place is focusing on Israel and Denmark and parts of Ontario and of California to install the infrastructure to have frequent stations to remove and replace batteries in a matter of minutes for the convenience of the driver. This is a big gamble and investment, but could go far to wean many off of gasoline in the future.

CCES can help you research new and innovative technologies to save you considerable energy use and costs and provide you with information about them, their ability to work for you, their advantages and disadvantages, and cost savings of such technologies.

March 22, 2011

There is a growing trend for companies to seek out certification for being “green” and/or that its carbon reductions are genuine. As firms in an unregulated industry, some have chosen to provide an easy route to certification by selling a “certification” without actually checking the data or accomplishments. Companies have to beware such a certification. A recent egregious example is demonstrated by the settlement of a case brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against a firm called Tested Green.

The FTC claimed that between February 2009 and April 2010, Tested Green aggressively marketed a deceptive environmental certification program to prospective clients. The company claimed to be “the nation’s leading certification program,” and that it was endorsed by two organizations. The two endorsing organizations were actually owned and operated by the owner of Tested Green, yet it never disclosed this connection in its marketing materials.

The FTC also alleged that Tested Green did not actually test a customer’s products or services to determine whether a certification was deserved. Tested Green only asked for customers’ credit card information. Those who paid the required amounts received a link to the firm’s “customer verification page” as well as the firm’s logo, which they could use on their own websites and in marketing materials to indicate that their business was certified as “green.” None of the 129 companies that were “certified” had to provide any operational or environmental data to Tested Green to substantiate their green activity.

The FTC Consent Order required Testing Green to halt all certification-related activities, and imposed stringent record-keeping requirements. It is interesting that it did not require Tested Green to pay a fine, nor did it require that they reimburse any of the clients who paid for the false certifications.

In October 2010, the FTC issued draft revisions to its Green Guides involving seals of approvals and certifications (a summary of which can be found here). The entire list of proposed revisions can be seen here. The important points are that businesses must:

• Disclose any material connections to one’s certifier

• Use clear language explaining the basis for the certification

• Be able to substantiate their claims

In summary, in an unregulated market like this, if you are seeking green certification or certified carbon credits, research the certifier, be prepared to submit detailed data for scrutiny, and keep detailed backup records for your claims.

CCES can assist your company in finding the right certifying firm and in helping you address the technical issues necessary for the certification or to make necessary changes to qualify as a certified green company.

March 1, 2011

The business landscape is changing these days for suppliers. Gone are the days when retail stores or customers bought your product just because of your reputation. Now, the rules are set by the customers, mainly due to the IT revolution. At retail stores it used to be common for the supplier to tell the store which brands to sell at what price. But now through IT, stores know exactly how many extra large blue cashmere sweaters or small sized banana yogurts sold in a time period. They now call the shots on how many of what brand they want to meet customer demand. For some suppliers, there is little choice but to meet customers’ product requirements.

With that in mind, some customers are now requiring their suppliers to provide environ-mental information. This may be done to provide customers with environmental life-cycle data of products on display. Stores want to show customers information for them to make informed choices on products if environmental metrics are important.

In some cases, stores are requiring suppliers to change their environmental policies to show progress on showing a “green” supply chain, such as reducing a product’s carbon footprint, producing less hazardous waste, or protecting natural resources. Such data also informs all of potential environmental risks, such as use of hazardous materials.

This is not an abstract matter. According to the Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Resource Center (PPRC), the following companies require the following of its suppliers:
• Nike mandates no wood-derived materials from old growth or frontier forests, and energy-efficient office equipment.
• Eli Lilly has purchasing specifications to eliminate lead in raw material they purchase (for the purpose of eliminated lead in their waste sludge).
• General Motors, Ford, Toyota, and other auto manufacturers require suppliers to certify implementation of an EMS or ISO 14001 compliance.

Therefore, a supplier needs to plan on how to address requirements from customers to submit data or change their environmental practices. Care must be taken to gather the proper data accurately to satisfy the customer’s environmental requests. Good communications is essential to understand those specific areas that the customer wants addressed. Develop environmental information about your products and company that addresses these needs. Work with the customer so that you are not providing too little or too much data and that it is focused to meet its goals. Determine early on how your customer intends to use the data you supply. Presentation may be important to put your products in a positive light. Finally, be sure you have backups for all of the information you provide. If not the direct customer, someone else may ask where data comes from. It’s important that you can find its origin quickly and demonstrate its accuracy.

CCES can help you meet any environmental requests of a customer or stakeholder.