SEPTEMBER 11, 2008

Most of my posts are sparked by something I’ve read, and this week is no different.  This time, I was struck by a news article talking about IKEA’s $77 million commitment to clean-technology start-ups within the next five years.  Talk about putting your money where your mouth is. 

IKEA’s Green Tech fund  has been operating for eight months, and it could invest in up to 10 fledgling companies in the next few years, perhaps first in Europe, where most of IKEA’s business is centered.  It will then sell the resulting products in its stores - anything from solar panels to efficiency meters, lighting, and sustainable materials.   As the article mentions, this could change the furnishings industry.

It’s clear from this example that companies can meld their business success with societal goals and actually be an agent for change.  Companies don’t have to be followers.  They can be leaders.  What matters is their degree of commitment and ability to act early, before everyone else has already jumped on the bandwagon. 

Jimmy Rogers at Geeks are Sexy helps us to visualize the store of the future.  

Imagine, if you will, a possible ‘future IKEA.’  In any section of the store that includes electronics, there will be a bin full of solar cells.  A lamp could be charged up during the day by a panel with suction cups for a window.  They could even sell home kits for roof-mounting solar cells to offset some of your normal electricity needs.

As Rogers goes on to say, IKEA’s aim is to make a good profit.  I like the synergy that IKEA has found between doing good for the environment and doing well for its business. 

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

JULY 3, 2008

Because I used to ride the D.C. Metro every day, and a lot of my coworkers take advantage of riding the Metro (not all of us have Phuong’s love of commuting), I am always fascinated by news reports surrounding public transportation issues.

One article in particular, published in May in The Wall Street Journal, made me wonder: can public transportation handle the recent strain caused by budget-conscious people who are deciding not to drive?  I’m not so sure it can.  From the article:

After decades trying to gin up enthusiasm for their services, public transit agencies are now having trouble meeting rising demand as more commuters dodge high gasoline prices by hopping on a train or bus.

Under normal circumstances, the surge in ridership would be a boon to the agencies, which have long argued that public transit is one of the best ways to combat social ills such as traffic congestion and global warming.

But at the very moment they should be investing to expand their services, the same driver that is ballooning ridership is crippling transit budgets: steep fuel bills. As record numbers of people board buses and trains, higher costs are forcing public transit agencies to scale back on services, further straining capacity. Local transit agencies fret that the capacity problems may squander the opportunity to convert more Americans to public transportation.

The WSJ piece states that 66% of people would change their commute if gas prices rose to $5.00/gallon.

Although I am a big advocate of saving fuel and money, wherever possible, I am worried that commuters may pay a price for flocking to the stations all at the same time.  Hopefully the public transit industry will not sacrifice service because demand is so high that they think they can get away with anything (much like my enemy, the airline industry, has done).

[Comments(2) »] [TrackBack »]

JULY 1, 2008

I recently returned from a fun weekend visit to my favorite U.S.  tourist destination: Las Vegas.  Personally, I can’t think of a better place to spend a couple of days. It’s an adult playground, with so much to do: people-watching, sunbathing, shopping, eating, shows… not to mention gambling, which I adore. I’ve probably been to Vegas eight times in the last five years, and I always have a good time.

On this most recent visit, though, I came to a realization. My beloved Vegas is in the crosshairs of a whole range of pressures and trends that, I fear, are going to impact the city quite negatively in the coming months and years.  There’s a perfect storm brewing out there that we Vegas-lovers simply can’t ignore.

Consider this:

1. The economy. The economy’s tanking, if you hadn’t noticed. People are being laid off, disposable income is down, and discretionary spending is being cut. A weekend trip to Vegas - the ultimate frivolity - is going to top any list of household budget items that can be slashed.

2. Flights. Airfare increases will also dampen tourism to Vegas. Flights to Vegas have historically been inexpensive, so to increase profitability, airlines have already drastically cut the number of flights to Sin City. So people have less money to spend to get to Vegas, and yet there are fewer and more expensive flights to get there. I just don’t see that changing anytime soon.

3. Gas Prices.  The price of gas is clearly helping drive up airfare, but it’s also going to impact tourist life in Las Vegas. There is no public transportation to speak of in the main tourist area, just some monorails off the Strip that connect adjoining hotels. If you want to get, say, from Mandalay Bay to Caesar’s, as I did last Saturday night, your only option is to take a cab or walk, and it can be a long walk in 107 degree heat.  As a result, the city is full of idling taxis. They line up at the airport and at the casinos, and they sit in traffic on the Strip and on the highway that runs along the tourist area. All that gas, just to move people short distances that could be covered by a public light rail loop. Fares have to go up in order for these drivers to make money, and if fuel becomes scarce, I have to imagine that this set-up is going to come under fire.

4.  Water. Las Vegas is in the middle of the desert. However, it’s easy to forget that when you’re surrounded by lush greenery, fountains, wave beaches, man-made canals, and golf courses. Surprisingly, according to the BBC, the hotels and casinos in Vegas account for only 7% of the city’s water usage, and the casinos say that outdoor uses account for only 30% of hotel water use. Regardless, some environmentalists are predicting that water supplies in the Las Vegas area will run out in 50 years, and have pleaded for “massive reductions” in the amount of water consumption by the city’s residents.  Check out those beautiful Bellagio fountains when you can - who knows when they will be turned off.

5. Environmental Responsibility. So we know that Vegas uses up a lot of water and gas. But there’s another reason that it’s a disaster from a green perspective. Stand at a blackjack table for more than five minutes and a cocktail waitress will bring you a bottle of beer, or hydrate with a few bottles of water out by the pool when you’re sitting out in that desert sun. But try to find a recycling receptacle for your empties, and you’re out of luck. I couldn’t find a single place to recycle a bottle the whole time I was there. How long before Vegas comes under fire for the sheer waste of recyclable materials that are being tossed into the trash? And I haven’t even started in on the neon lights - everywhere, flashing, all night long. Yes, it’s part of the glitz of Vegas, and the skyline at night is breathtaking, but that’s a lot of energy being spent for no good reason, when it comes down to it.

6. Security. I hate even to write about this, but every time I go to Vegas I think about the lack of security screening in the casinos. Yes, there are cameras everywhere making sure I am not counting cards or stealing chips, but I have yet to pass through a metal detector or have my bag checked before entering one of the casinos. That city - perhaps the most obvious symbol of American consumerism - is frightfully vulnerable to attack. Maybe I am ultra-sensitive on this topic, living in DC, but I think about it all the time.

This post was definitely a downer. I hate to think of how any of these trends, taken alone, will impact Vegas in the coming years. Their combination scares me even more. Vegas, I hope you’re listening.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

JUNE 9, 2008

This article in today’s BrandWeek made me wonder — are Americans pretending to care about the environment, or do they really care?  People seem to be talking the talk…but will they walk the walk when effort is required?

We love to divert blame when it comes to underlying reasons for things like global warming, environmental efforts, pollution, and practically everything else that has become a problem.  Younger generations blame the baby boomers for many of these issues they are forced to deal with, saying that the boomers are the ones that created a huge mess for us to solve.  Baby boomers, on the other hand, like to blame younger generations for the carefree attitudes they have about supporting causes that aren’t intrinsically selfish.  Either way, pointing fingers gets old, and it’s counter-productive.

The section of the article titled ”Looking for Earth Mothers” is fascinating.  I was especially intrigued by the argument that people are more concerned about the environment when they have children that will be impacted by environmental issues –parents are partly willing to sacrifice some convenience because they feel that their children are scrutinizing their actions.  So in actuality, it’s not the sake of the cause, it’s the desire to set an example because of underlying feelings of obligation.  To me, that just seems a bit backwards!

I think that we are all wrapped up in our own stressful lives and living the classic “American dream” we have grown up striving for.  Do I think we are selfish?  No.  I just think we are designed as humans to instinctively do what is easiest and best for our lives and time-line.  Although we are drawn to what’s new or trendy, the simple and routine seem to always overshadow anything that requires us to change our habits.  I don’t think we are doomed — but I do think we’ll be forced to adapt.  This whole environmental panic thing is new to us… we’ll get the hang of it eventually.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

MAY 22, 2008

I’ve always been a big recycler. I hate throwing anything away that could potentially find a new home. Craigslist, Freecycle, my neighborhood listserv - I have used many methods to breathe new life into things like bookshelves, old frames, packages of diapers my kids have outgrown, even styrofoam peanuts.  And I like to buy used things too - I am a regular at used book sales that feed my book obsession, and a few weekends back, I picked up a skirt at a yard sale for $2. I wore it to work a few days later and even got a few compliments on it.

Last week, I cleaned out my closet and filled five bags full of clothes that I just don’t wear anymore. I took them to Goodwill during lunch and decided to stop in and take a look around. I left with only two paperbacks (grand total: $2.69), but the store was impressive. Well-organized, very well-stocked, and excellent prices.

I am far from the only one emphasizing the “recycle” in the old “reduce-reuse-recycle” trifecta. According to this article in The New York Times, 16-18% of Americans shop in thrift stores, while 12-15% shop at consignment stores.  The resale industry itself is growing at a rate of 5% a year.  And thrift store shopping has become the provenance of the fashionable - the NYT article cites one San Francisco shop owner as saying, “A lot of the neighborhood men who shop in our store are very style-conscious. They can recycle their clothing and not wear it into the ground.” There are even fashion blogs associated with thrift stores, such as the DC Goodwill Fashion Blog, where the Fashionista reports weekly on her fashion finds at the Washington, DC area’s Goodwill stores.

This increased commitment to recycling goods, instead of just throwing them away, extends well beyond clothing. Here are some other organizations helping people recycle what they no longer need:

• First Time Computers will fix donated computers and give them to low-income students. (Here’s a site that lists other companies that recycle old computers).
• Bikes for the World has shipped more than 8,000 bicycles this year to non-profit agencies in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean.
• Re-Stores are thrift stores run by Habitat for Humanity to raise money for low-income housing by selling used building supplies such as lighting, cabinetry, windows, flooring, doors, and furniture. (Here are some other sites that accept used or leftover building materials).

Reducing consumption and waste are clearly important steps toward cutting back on the environmental damage caused by landfills and reducing the energy needed to meet the world population’s increasing needs. I’m thrilled to see the creative ways in which our unneeded, but perfectly functional, goods are finding new lives in new places.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

MAY 15, 2008

OK, I know everyone is all green-conscious these days and concerned with efficiency, especially as it relates to cars, but I have something to confess.  I have a soft spot for muscle cars, particularly antique Chevy Corvettes.  Something about the low wide stance and curvaceous exterior design gets my attention.  And then, you hear it.  It idles at a low, throaty rumble.  It accelerates at a pace that dominates the road.  All eyes on you.  Seeing is nice, hearing is better, but driving is the ultimate experience of the senses.  You’re behind the wheel, practically hugging the asphalt, gripping the stick, just waiting for your moment to flex.

I think my obsession with this American muscle car started with the first Batman movie and the infamous Batmobile from the 1980’s.  I asked my dad, a gearhead himself, what kind of car that was.  He said it resembled the Chevy Corvette, and from that moment on it was love.  Every holiday road trip was spent competing over who could spot the most Corvettes on the road. 

The Corvette quickly became my “someday-I’ll-own-one-of-those” cars.  And that someday came when I was in high school, after saving up and working out a plan with my parents.  Yes, I drove a 1975, T-top, 4 speed, red Corvette in high school.  Spoiled, I know, but believe me, I really appreciated it.

With all the horses and aerodynamics involved, it’s easy to see why my little red Corvette got not-so-great gas mileage. And these days, driving around just for fun really doesn’t fit into any lifestyle.  I understand that there’s a need for prioritizing how we drive, but does the current emphasis on fuel diversity and advanced engine technology mean the death of the muscle car?  Along with so many other aspects of our New Persuasion world (like news gathering, education, and entertainment), will we simply redefine our reality, or permanently alter our thinking and behavior?

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

APRIL 29, 2008

In the days following an enlightening conversation about what life would be like in 25 years and a similarly-themed Washington Post article, I’ve been shuddering at the thought of the future.  A lot of what I heard and read was pessimistic, filled with images of imminent dangers ranging from terrorist attacks and information security breaches to devastating natural disasters.

I found myself pondering these ideas further on a road trip I took this Sunday (my 24th birthday).  As I drove, thoughts gathered as I aged another year closer to 25, overwhelming me nearly to the point of an early quarter life crisis (Note to self: remember iPod for distraction on long car rides). 

And then, as I was on the brink of an emotional breakdown, juxtaposed by my soundly sleeping passenger as we neared our urban destination, I saw it.  Hope.  Hope amidst a weakening dollar, a struggling housing market, employment worries, and rising energy costs.  No, it wasn’t the apparition of Jesus Christ, or a billboard announcing I had won the lottery.  I saw hope in the distance as a tall, thin, white structure, surrounded by many others just like it.  Three prongs atop them, like desperate fingers, reached out into the air to capture as much energy as possible in a space shared by equally graceful soaring birds.  Yes, I saw hope in a windmill.

Their massive presence was impressive and their existence, not merely on their own, but as an addition to an already crowded urban landscape (which I’m sure big business developers and real estate entrepreneurs would much rather see devoted to new hotels or waterfront residential property), was the inspiration for my new outlook on our future.  The windmills represented the ability to change, to go against conventional thinking.

Relieved, for the moment anyway, that our future may not be so bleak after all, I glanced over at my still soundly sleeping companion and smiled, knowing that there are people out there who believe in positive change, who don’t shy away from complex issues in the face of adversity, and who aren’t afraid to take risks, standing out in the company of others who don’t have the courage to do the same.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

APRIL 22, 2008

Since today is Earth Day, I wanted to share my new catch phrase for the environmental movement – “greenology”.  I’ve seen a few uses of  this word, including a blog that has it as its title, but is not yet mainstream. So when this term makes its way into Wikipedia, I want credit for being one of the early adopters.

“Greenology” is the recent enlightenment of individuals, corporations, and politicians of the importance of being carbon neutral, environmentally friendly, renewable, earth conscious, cleaner, greener, sustainable, and efficient.  Companies in particular aim to “inspire solutions to the environmental crisis,” “reduce company greenhouse gas emissions,” and “move ‘green’ from costly dream to routine.”  They are “moving to greener pastures,” “implementing scientifically sound, practical solutions,” and “investing in a sustainable future.” 

This wave of corporate eco-awareness spurred by consumer guilt over global warming (thank you, Leonardo DeCaprio and Al Gore, for your conscience-tickling global warming campaigns) is invading every aspect of corporate philosophy.  Companies not on board have a lot to lose.  A recent poll found that 59% of surveyed employees thought their company should do more to be environmentally friendly.  And, 48% of surveyed U.S. adults say they make an effort to support businesses that use ”green” products and/or environmentally friendly practices.  

Polls also show that our collective conscience has become convinced that fundamental change is needed to preserve our long-term survivability. Most people think global warming’s effects are already being felt, and a majority believe the extent of changes brought about by global warming over the next 50 years will be extreme or major.  According to Gallup, 34% of Americans think drastic and immediate actions are needed concerning the environment, while an another 52% think some additional actions need to be taken.

That’s why I am giving it a name.  “Greenology” is not a trend, it is a transformation.  We may have dabbled with environmentalism in the past, but like the women’s movement and the civil rights movement before it, this environmental movement is going to bring lasting change.  And any company that hesitates to see that is lost. 

[Comments(2) »] [TrackBack »]

APRIL 15, 2008

Kermit the Frog said, “It’s not easy being green.”  But was he right? 

Last Friday, General Electric Co. shocked Wall Street by reporting a sudden drop in earnings. Since GE is seen as a bellwether for corporate giants (as it is the fifth largest US company by revenue), some are saying that this plunge in profits “showed the widening credit crisis and economic slump is reaching even the healthiest U.S. businesses.”  For GE, the 12-percent decline in first quarter profits – its first in five years – made its stock plunge the biggest in twenty years for the company.  As my colleague chimed in upon learning of GE’s report, this is bad news for any domestic stock holder.

Moreover, GE was recently cited as an example in Wired’s business trend article as a company that talked a green game but, because of corporate profits and stock price, “strayed more than once from the path of environmental virtue.”  While environmentally sustainable actions can attract good press, they can also “disrupt established ways of making money” since “corporate profits still come largely from doing business the old, dirty way.”  Specifically, GE was seen as a leader in 2005 when CEO Jeffrey Immelt supported a nationwide limit on carbon dioxide emissions and “committed to spending $1.5 billion on clean-tech R&D by 2010.”  However, GE’s stock price didn’t rise dramatically and now Immelt “is defending his older, browner ways” by contributing over “$2 billion into the petroleum industry and continu[ing] to invest in coal-fired power plants.”

While it may not be easy for corporate giants to be green, is this something that you expect of them even if, as Kermit says, it isn’t easy?  Is being green a virtue or a legitimate business interest?  And will the seemingly-inevitable economic slowdown prove to be the demise of the sustainability movement?  Or will it further solidify notions of sustainability for American-based businesses?

[Comments(3) »] [TrackBack »]

APRIL 14, 2008

There’s something amusing about movements that ask consumers to stop using one product vs. another for the good of society, the environment, humanity, or whatever, including the accusations that often volley between the accused product and any alternative products.

For example, consider the paper versus plastic debate. A couple of months ago, we talked about the push to ban plastic grocery bags that is sweeping the globe.  What started as a tax on plastic bags in Ireland’s grocery stores is now springing up in the United States with reform and legislation in San Francisco, Hawaii, Wisconsin, Florida, New Jersey and New York – and companies like Whole Foods voluntarily taking action.

The plastic bags you might see serving as tree ornaments along any highway are an ugly reminder that most aren’t biodegradable, which makes it hard to deny the need to present an alternative.  And so the debate begins.                                                            

In this case, paper and reusable totes fall victim to what I call the “alternative option curse.”  A microscope is often taken to any product that is touted as the “better” choice than the formally and visibly accused product.  In the paper versus plastic debate, every aspect of paper is scrutinized - the environmental impact, the manufacturing process, and the time it takes to decompose.  Paper fires back with, “paper may take up more space at land fills, but plastic never leaves!”  Plastic shoots, “People reuse those plastic grocery bags more than you would think.” 

Canvas bags are an alternative, but they have also been criticized for their cost and for being less convenient. Plus, one needs several canvas bags to tote home the average American grocery haul.

Companies should be prepared to take on this “curse” by creating products they can stand behind, products that satisfy what their customers really want - in this case, products that make the smallest environmental impact.  In doing so, not only will their affliction be treated, their actions won’t go unnoticed by consumers and the healthy buzz from customer satisfaction will keep the “curse” in remission.

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]