Driving and Stopping Smarter

Who loves driving in stop-and-go traffic, only to break through and be stuck at the next 7 straight red lights? Even if there is abnormally fantastic music playing, that scenario is quite far from the quintessential "relaxing evening". What might surprise you is that the environment agrees; from a "green" standpoint, maximizing efficiency produces the least impacts, in this case, a smooth drive home.

The difference in a vehicle's city and highway mileage is directly related to the increased acceleration and braking experienced in typical city driving. On highways, the engine is able to settle into an ideal pattern, generating the proper energy for the speed you desire, more so if the speed is kept in all car's optimal range (55-60). When city driving, much of the distance covered is while the car is speeding up from a standstill, a process which consumes far more fuel (and produces more emissions) than driving steadily at one speed.

As mentioned in a previous article, my car has a real time fuel consumption computer which I've referenced for other statistics. In strictly stop-and-go urban driving, the car usually manages about 22-25 MPG. While accelerating, however, that number falls to 10 or below! Consider this: the first light turns green, and the traffic flow begins moving towards the next set of lights, which promptly turns red. At this point, the momentum the car generated is wasted in braking for the next intersection. Therefore, for this area of travel, the vehicle's mileage was likely less than half even the EPA rating!

There is another aspect to consider: idling. As much (or as little) as a non-hybrid vehicle sips fuel when driving, they all get 0 MPG when idling. According to the Canadian Office of Energy Efficiency, the average engine consumes between ¼ to ¾ of a gallon for every hour it is left idling. Considering the average Canadian (American drivers are likely quite similar) leaves their engine idling for 5-10 minutes daily, assuming $2.00/gallon, the car generates about 2.5 pounds of carbon dioxide and directly costs the owner 5-10¢...daily. A good methodology to follow is to turn off the engine if it will be idling for more than about 30 seconds. Modern engines use less gas to restart than they do to operate for 15 seconds. Contrary to popular belief, it is no longer necessary to leave the vehicle idling when cold; it warms up more effectively when being lightly driven.

So it's been established that idling wastes fuel (and generates more CO2), while consistent red lights decrease gas mileage, both contributing to increased costs of vehicle ownership (and increased emissions), but how do they relate?

While the American Federal government is attempting to take a leadership role in reducing emissions and maximizing efficiency, without any detraction to those efforts, it is likely they will be slow to implement. However, development of climate change task forces by local community and county governments have great potential for effecting immediate and substantial change. While traffic elimination is a pipe dream (but something that both "green" and "non-green" citizens would welcome!), one issue that is rarely discussed is traffic light timing.

In most urban and sub-urban regions, nearly all traffic lights on major roads are networked on a central timing system, affected normally by time of day, individual car sensors, and emergency vehicles. The goal of such a system is to promote a smooth flow of traffic in all directions, while maximizing safety in your commute. Additionally, most have a "magic speed" configured, in which, assuming no traffic, one could hit every green light the entire road through. Unfortunately, in many regions, there are certain lights that always seem to be red. It isn't a coincidence, though it might be an accident.

How can you help? Encourage your local climate change task forces (if you have) as well as your city and county commissioners to push for traffic light timing programs. This is probably the first place you've seen it written, but nevertheless: Go green with traffic light timing! By decreasing stop-and-go driving patterns as well as reducing idle time of commuters, localities can make a substantial affect on their own emissions, thereby taking a worthwhile step in their green efforts.

Joseph Winn is the President/CEO of GreenProfit Solutions, Inc. which assists businesses in becoming environmentally responsible. You may view their website at www.greenprofitsolutions.com or e-mail Joseph at jwinn@greenprofitsolutions.com .

Alternative Disposables

Yes, I know. Before all of you start yelling Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle, please understand there are times when disposable items are the only practical option. For example, how about when you ask for that doggie bag at your favorite restaurant? Suppose your folks are over for a summer BBQ? Or your company is planning an event or conference?

Most restaurants today provide Styrofoam® to package your take out foods. In the United States, the word styrofoam® is often used as a generic term for expanded polystyrene foam, such as disposable coffee cups, coolers, or packaging material. These goods are typically white and constructed of expanded polystyrene beads, a petroleum product. Unrecycled polystyrene, which does not biodegrade, is often abundant in the outdoor environment, particularly along shores and waterways, and contributes to solid waste pollution. According to the Wikipedia, polystyrene can be recycled, a “6” under the familiar plastics numbering system.

Now, here’s the kicker. Even though polystyrene carries a #6 recycling symbol, the actual process required to recycle the material is often more costly than initial manufacturing. So what does that mean? Even if you carefully place all recyclable Styrofoam® into the appropriate recycling bins, it will likely still end up in a landfill…for thousands of years. When it does finally break down into its lowest basic form, it remains a major pollutant for wildlife and water supplies. Is it any wonder some cities are attempting to eliminate it? Seattle is leading the charge by becoming the first US city on record to completely ban Styrofoam® products.

What about typical clear plastic cups, utensils, or even paper goods? The clear plastic cups and utensils are still made from petroleum. Even though some of these items can be recycled, “contamination” by food products excludes them from the process and diverts them to the landfills anyway! Additionally, we are still supporting a non-sustainable industry…of which 80% is controlled by non-domestic companies. Paper goods are made from trees, a renewable resource, and they will eventually biodegrade without leaving toxic remnants. This potentially could be a sustainable industry, however, the Forest Stewardship Council reports that less than 10% of the paper used worldwide is from sustainable forests.

One of the newest sustainable alternatives are items manufactured from Polylactic Acid (PLA), a polymer derived from corn, also known as “corn plastic”. This material mimics clear plastic, yet does not biodegrade in a natural or landfill environment, but instead requires commercial composting, a service not available in many areas. Other items, including packing materials, are made from corn- or potato-starch. These begin degrading immediately upon contact with water.

Another alternative is Bagasse. This byproduct of sugar production resembles the appearance and properties of Styrofoam®. As with PLA, bagasse also biodegrades quickly in a commercial composting facility yet also breaks down in a landfill environment within a reasonable time frame. However, this presents its own set of problems. Landfills are not designed for their contents to rapidly break down, and waste management managers are concerned about such products creating “holes” in their fills after exactly that occurs.

So what’s the answer? Right now, there is no one solution. We will need to approach the sustainable disposables issue from a variety of paths. Perhaps one can embrace bagasse for utensils and coffee cups, PLA for clear plates and uninsulated glasses, and recycled/certified paper containers for take out purposes (Advantage: Cardboard containers don’t dissolve in the microwave!). While this remains non-ideal due to the shortage of composting facilities and valid concerns with corn products raising food prices, it is in everyone’s interest to start the transition away from the damaging disposables so prevalent in our lives today.

*Styrofoam is a registered trademark of Dow Chemical Company

Joseph Winn is the President/CEO of GreenProfit Solutions, Inc. which assists businesses in becoming environmentally responsible. You may view their website at www.greenprofitsolutions.com or e-mail Joseph at jwinn@greenprofitsolutions.com .

Greenwashing – The Dark Side of the Green Movement

For every positive action in nature, there is an equal negative reaction. Yin and Yang. And so it has been since history began. The Green Movement is no different.

Now that a growing number of consumers are becoming educated on the environmental issues facing us all and wanting to do their part to protect the health of their families, employees, communities and planet, a new evil comes lurking out of the shadows. This evil is not easily recognized as it is dressed in friendly green garb, and comes with promises of purity and environmental benefits.

It’s known as “greenwashing”. The watchdog and testing agency, Terra Choice Environmental Marketing/Eco-Logo defines greenwashing as: “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.” With the amount of money being spent each on year on green products and services increasing at a rapid pace, it’s no wonder individuals and companies who prior, had little concern for the environment, are rushing to portray themselves and their products as green.

What is the extent of this practice? In an effort to describe, understand, and quantify the growth of greenwashing, TerraChoice Environmental Marketing Inc. conducted a survey of six category-leading big box stores. Through these surveys, they identified 1,018 consumer products bearing 1,753 environmental claims. Of the 1,018 products examined, all but one made claims that are demonstrably false or that risk misleading intended audiences.

Each of these greenwashing claims fell into one of six categories, labeled by TerraChoice as the “Six Sins of Greenwashing”. The categories included:

1. Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off – a product is claimed “green” for a single attribute
2. Sin of No Proof - A “green” claim that cannot be substantiated.
3. Sin of Vagueness – Claim is either too broad or ill defined and easily misunderstood by consumer.
4. Sin of Irrelevance – Claim may be truthful, but unimportant in making a decision on that product.
5. Sin of Fibbing – Making environmental claims that are simply false.
6. Sin of Lesser of Two Evils - These are “green” claims that may be true within the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater environmental impacts of the category as a whole.

The Green Movement is still in its infancy and is just starting to build trust among people now concerned about the environment. These are people who, in many cases, are now willing to pay more for a green product. Should that product not be green or live up to its promises, many new green consumers will lose faith in the movement as a whole.

It’s easy for companies to tout their own horn on how green they are. When possible, consumers should look for product certifications from governments and standard setting bodies such as EcoLogo and Green Seal. However, not all small and medium size companies can afford the fees required for testing by these agencies. Companies in this category, and those in the service industry, should review their own company practices, set a plan for their own green initiatives, and strive for professional third party recognition of their efforts. With all that is at stake, no company can afford to be on the “dark side” and lose the confidence of the new green consumer.

Joseph Winn is the President/CEO of GreenProfit Solutions, Inc. which assists businesses in becoming environmentally responsible. You may view their website at www.greenprofitsolutions.com or e-mail Joseph at jwinn@greenprofitsolutions.com .

Green Building – LEEDing the Way

Going Green today encompasses much more than just recycling and changing to CFL bulbs. With a global energy crisis, combined with climate change, companies are just now beginning to look into a relatively new concept: Green Buildings. The online Wikipedia defines a Green Building as “the practice of increasing the efficiency with which buildings use resources — energy, water, and materials — while reducing building impacts on human health and the environment during the building's lifecycle, through better siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and removal.”

Green Building is based upon the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification standard developed by the U.S. Green Building Council. In the commercial arena, LEED buildings are typically healthier work environments and have lower operational costs than conventionally designed buildings. LEED incorporates a scoring system to achieve various levels of certification which are: Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum. These are based upon the following criteria:

• Sustainable sites
• Water Efficiency
• Energy and atmosphere
• Materials and resources
• Indoor environmental quality
• Innovation and design process

Since LEED’s inception in 1996, there are now more than 14,000 projects in 30 countries. CitiBank began its LEED building program back in 2006 and has so far opened several new LEED Gold facilities in Irving, Texas, Queens, NY and in Germany. The company has committed $10 billion in green real estate initiatives over the next 20 years. On a smaller scale, Navy Federal Credit Union completed their new LEED Gold Call Center in Pensacola, FL which currently houses 300 employees. This is the first stage of a four building corporate campus which will eventually house over 3,000 employees. Their studies show a 25-40% reduction in energy usage and their employee turnover rate was reduced from 60% to only 17%.

Typical costs for new LEED building average only 2% above conventional building. However, other factors such as availability of sustainable materials and unfamiliarity of LEED processes may cause delays which could affect the costs. However, when averaged over a building’s 40 year life span, the benefits clearly outweigh the costs.

While the new construction makes the news, LEED construction is also making headway in the refurbishing and renovation of existing buildings. Due to original construction limitations, LEED renovated buildings rarely receive a rating of higher than “Certified”, although based upon how thorough and extensive the renovation, a rating of Silver is possible.

You can find complete information on LEED at www.usgbc.org.

Joseph Winn is the President/CEO of GreenProfit Solutions, Inc. which assists businesses in becoming environmentally responsible. You may view their website at www.greenprofitsolutions.com or e-mail Joseph at jwinn@greenprofitsolutions.com .

Corporate Social Responsibility - Is it Good for Business?

Going Green today is more than just setting up a recycling program or using e-statements. While many businesses are familiar with the old concept of social responsibility, wherein companies, on a voluntary basis, reached out to assist their customers and communities, the definition now has been greatly expanded. Possibly due to the growing environmental issues facing our communities and planet, a new concept is being applied.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a concept that organizations and mostly companies, have an obligation to consider the interests of customers, employees, shareholders, communities, and ecological considerations in all aspects of their operations. Just like the old definition of social responsibility, this obligation is seen to extend beyond their statutory obligation to comply with legislation.
This concept applies to all businesses in all industries. Regardless of whether the company is a white collar office based service organization or a blue collar based manufacturing facility, there are steps that must be considered and taken to alleviate the impact of the company’s activities on the environment. While a factory belching smoke has obvious environmental impacts, other industries impacts may not be as apparent. Consider the nice clean white collar office building. How much energy is it using? How much paper? Ink? Water? All of these factors , and many more, while unseen, have an deleterious impact on the environment.

How? Let’s just consider water for now. For every gallon used, the water must be cleaned, processed and re-purified. This is an energy intensive procedure and requires substantial use of electricity, most of which is produced today from fossil fuels. Processing paper from wood pulp typically requires enormous amounts of water usage, not to mention the trees destroyed and chemical emissions released into our atmosphere and sometimes, waterways. And it’s not just the factories using water. Think of it this way: each time you flush the toilet, you are indirectly releasing additional CO2 into the atmosphere, speeding global warming.

Of course, we are not advocating that you send your employees into the woods whenever nature calls, but an overall policy of CSR should include a systematic program on water usage reduction. Most importantly, your CSR policy should consider not only local effects of your business activities, but also the far reaching effects.

Besides the rewards of “doing the right thing”, there are monetary rewards for CSR: recent surveys indicate a growing number of your prospects and customers now take a company’s environmental policies into consideration before doing business. Companies that truly Go Green enhance their marketability, improve their employee relations, and reduce their energy costs. As they used to say, it’s a win-win-win for everyone.

Joseph Winn is the President/CEO of GreenProfit Solutions, Inc. which assists businesses in becoming environmentally responsible. You may view their website at www.greenprofitsolutions.com or e-mail Joseph at jwinn@greenprofitsolutions.com .

photo credit: Swisscan on Flickr

Saving Money, Saving Fuel: Is the Hybrid Worth It?

Car buying - you cringe just at the thought of it. The tedious search for safety testing results and drivability reviews is at hand, not to mention the new set of payments that will go along with this vehicle. This is the point at which to decide to go new or used. Both have their benefits and downsides, and their balance varies depending on the situation. Of course, those tasks exclude the other decisions inherent in the process: Style of vehicle (sedan, SUV, crossover), engine size (the 4-cylinder is efficient, but the 6-cylinder has a great kick), color, and packages (GPS and audio system or just the audio, but what about the moonroof?). Recently, a new option is under consideration by the average car buyer: hybrid or conventional? At first glance, the appeal of a hybrid is overwhelming; the improved fuel economy, partial silent operation, and green appearance all make it a difficult treat to resist. However, with all the hoopla around hybrids, seeing through the marketing spectacle is important to make an informed decision on whether they are a beneficial option for you. Indeed, the impact on your wallet may actually be higher if you purchase a hybrid!

Let’s get a few things out of the way. First, hybrids don’t automatically mean amazing gas mileage. Yes, they will be better, often significantly so, than their equivalent conventional model, but all too commonly, the difference is not nearly large enough to expect to pay less in the long run. I recently purchased a new vehicle, and was torn between two sedans, one was a hybrid, and the other was a normal 4-cylinder. With the hybrid, research found that I should expect an average of 35 MPG for my driving style (40% city, 60% highway). On the other hand, the conventional vehicle (which I drive now) has demonstrated an average of slightly above 28 MPG, based upon the on-board computer. Now, I’m all for reducing our usage of oil, but was the hybrid worth it? Looking into the costs, I discovered quite a sticker shock - the hybrid was nearly $8,000 more! Assuming I drive 10,000 miles a year, at 28 MPG, the conventional engine burns 357 gallons of gasoline. At $2.00 a gallon, the annual fuel cost is $714. With the hybrid, getting 35 MPG, I’d have used 285 gallons, resulting in an annual fuel cost of $571. Therefore, the hybrid would only save me $143 annually in fuel costs. At this rate, to pay off the $8,000 premium, I’d have to drive for 55 years (or hope fuel prices rise substantially)! Ignoring the 10-year lifetime of the batteries, the payoff simply was not there.

In my case, the decision was simple. The costs were simply too high. To partially offset the diminished mileage between my vehicle and the hybrid, I practice the standard efficient driving techniques, driving under 70 on the highways, accelerating and braking at moderate speeds, and coasting, instead of driving, towards red lights, just to name a few. Only a few days ago, I found myself on a local road with a posted speed limit of 50 MPH. Setting the cruise control to 53 MPH, I took a look at the real-time fuel consumption meter, and then did a double-take. The car was consistently getting over 39 MPG! This non-hybrid vehicle was performing better than the hybrid equivalent, and all it took was careful and intelligent driving.

The point to drive home (pun intended) here is not that hybrids are bad or a poor financial decision, rather, their usefulness is extremely dependent on your normal driving patterns. Consider a hybrid when the price variance is less than a few thousand, you tend to drive mostly in the city (hybrid mileage is opposite conventional cars, the city range tends to be higher), and the difference in mileage is significant. Also, this entire situation assumes a new car purchase with no leasing.

Joseph Winn is the President/CEO of GreenProfit Solutions, Inc. which assists businesses in becoming environmentally responsible. You may view their website at www.greenprofitsolutions.com or e-mail Joseph at jwinn@greenprofitsolutions.com .

New or Used Car - Which is Greener?

As much as you try, bicycling and public transportation just won’t cut it. Perhaps your home is far from a transit hub, or you simply live in a region where public transportation is ineffective. Bicycles are out of the question for any length of trip because your bike lanes are approximately 12 inch strips on the right side of the road (welcome to my city). Even carpooling, while beneficial for certain destinations, cannot always assist in getting groceries and other necessities. So, as green as you strive to be, there’s no way around having a car.

Do not despair! There are many options available that can help minimize your impacts. The first decision should go without saying, but with marketing messages coming from all angles, rational thought can be swayed by its influence. Most simply, buy the largest vehicle you need, yet the smallest you can manage. While that new 7-seater with half-ton pickup bed seems like a great idea for transporting landscaping supplies concurrently with the soccer team, you have to ask yourself; will the majority of this vehicle’s use be embracing its many features? If not, you can likely look to a smaller, more efficient, and cheaper mode of transportation.

Now that you have identified the class of vehicle, it’s time to decide between new versus pre-owned. Unfortunately, from an environmental standpoint, there is little agreement amongst researchers on which is the “greener” choice. While an older, inefficient vehicle is obviously less desired than a new and extremely efficient hybrid or compact car, further questions arise on the fate of the original one and energy/resources used for the construction of the new vehicle. Without delving into conjecture and independent statistics, leave it at this: If you absolutely need a car, pursue the best value for the dollar over its lifetime, including both new and used in your consideration.

Use the EPA’s Green Vehicle Guide to learn about the overall emissions and fuel usage from a variety of vehicles, including your own to use as a baseline. While you may not see a direct impact on your wallet from reduced emission levels, you are making a choice that benefits everyone, at no additional cost to yourself. As an example, an EPA SmartWay or higher rated vehicle is so clean, it would have to be driven many thousands of miles to equal the air pollution generated by running a lawn mower for one hour (Of course, this raises many valid questions about the lawn mower). In addition, residents of certain states may purchase vehicles with a Partial Zero Emission Vehicle (PZEV) rating, nearly the same standard hybrids such as the Civic and Prius are required to meet. The tailpipe emissions of these cars are often cleaner than the ambient air in your own city! Don’t take that as an endorsement to breathe through your car’s exhaust, but understand the improvements being made on vehicle emissions.

One final note: In 2008, the EPA changed their MPG reporting standards. This means that vehicles of model year 2008 or later are using the new numbers, however, 2007 and earlier models are based on a separate calculation. When shopping for used cars, it may appear that an older model achieves substantially better fuel economy than the new model, but this difference is more than likely attributed to the changed reporting. Why was this done? To confuse the consumers in an already stressful situation? No, rather, the new fuel economy standards should better reflect the normal usage of a vehicle (A/C on more often, driving at faster highway speeds, etc.). What does this all mean to you, the consumer? Finally, the numbers you see on the sticker are likely what you will see when driving. On the Green Vehicle Guide mentioned earlier, the EPA has posted adjusted MPG numbers for some older model year vehicles for appropriate comparison.

Now if only they would help decide between the hardtop and convertible...

Joseph Winn is the President/CEO of GreenProfit Solutions, Inc. which assists businesses in becoming environmentally responsible. You may view their website at www.greenprofitsolutions.com or e-mail Joseph at jwinn@greenprofitsolutions.com .