Slashdot Mirror
Company Incentives for Going Green?
Greenie asks: "With fuel costs reaching record highs and more eco-friendly vehicles on the market than ever before, one has to ask, is it making a difference (yet)? NewEnough.com is an online retailer of new and surplus/wholesale motorcycle apparel based in West Texas. Recently, they posted a letter to the public on their website about how they've 'gone green,' and are offering incentives to their employees for switching to modern, fuel efficient vehicles (hybrid electric, diesel, bio-diesel...). While the specifics of their incentive program were not discussed, has anyone ever heard of larger companies offering a similar incentive program? According to Fortune.com, Wal-Mart is the largest employer in America. If Wal-Mart, McDonalds, UPS, GM, and Ford, the five companies that Fortune lists as having the most employees, all offered a similar incentive, more than 2,865,700 people would be eligible for incentive to go green. That could really start to make a difference for the environment. Now imagine the environmental benefit of every company in America making this same incentive offer..."
If they really want to push more efficient automobiles, perhaps we could wean the American preference for the large SUV? I wrote about this some time ago here, talking about small car companies like Smart who really should be looking harder at the American market and employing creative marketing approaches to specific markets that would be most receptive to the small car.
Of course a real way of going "green" would be to simply make it easier for people to telecommute. We saw a huge interest in telecommuting a couple of years ago, but since then, many corporations have cut back on telecommuting or reversed earlier policies.
Programs to make broadband more ubiquitous and accessible would enable inexpensive video conferencing technologies (like iChat with an iSight), audio conferencing and the ability to be persistently available, which could be a bad thing for salaried employees though
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
In fact, if you wear a green cardigan on Saint Patrick's Day, you could win a team spirit award.
Trying to buy it probably won't work.
Google benefits page: Fuel Efficiency Vehicle Incentive Program
They don't care, the factories in China that produce the majority of WalMart's goods spew pollution wholesale.
Blar.
Whilst I personally would encourage anybody to "go green" - its indicative of how "un-green" america is when the incentive is for getting a car that does "over 40mpg" or simply get a diesel.
To a european this just sounds daft.
My small ford does 50mpg without even trying and thats before I start thinking about pouring veg-oil in the tank.
Come on america... raise the bar a little bit !
Meanwhile, shouldn't employees at a motorcycle leathers maker ride, uh, motorcycles? Or does "motorcycle" nowadays just mean sticking an Orange County Choppers sticker on the rear window of your SUV and going home to watch TV shows about motorcycles?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Here is an entire post to "Ask Slashdot" without a question mark in the body. What is the question?
Maybe it would help if the Government endorsed green fuels a little more. Here in Australia, we have a Government that taxes extremely highly, but doesn't provide any incentives to green fuel companies.
Anonymous Coward
You know, everyone in my company recently donated $5 to a scholarship for a disabled kid.
If everyone in China, Russia, the US, India and Brazil, the LARGEST countries in the world, donated $5 per person, we could buy this kid a new pair of legs!
C'mon, geeks are too realistic/sarcastic/pessimistic for this type of a /. submission. I hope.
Wal-mart: Buy a smaller car, cuz next week we're going to start paying you less.
McDonald's: Buy our salads and lose weight; it will cut your fuel costs by not dragging your fat butt (which you must have got at Burger King and not here) around.
UPS: Don't take it there and waste gas yourself, pay us to.
GM and Ford: Trade in that old, fuel-inefficient sedan for a new, advanced-fuel-utilization sport-utility vehicle. You know you want to!
Not just to mock this, but what incentives do these companies really have for their bottom line that would inspire them to make this an issue? As a rule, top companies stay out of potentially politically-charged issues, and this is, unfortunately, one of those.
The problems with company-sponsored incentives is that they add additional bureacracy to the company, which means higher costs to the consumer. Plus, there's a hidden cost to going green. I submit that the world would be greener if people kept their existing cars rather than trading them in prematurely for ones that offer a marginal improvement on environmental stress. The cost to the environment of producing all those "green" cars is worse than keeping your existing ones.
My father mentioned that his employer offered a rebate to employees who biked to work four days per week (I believe on the premise that biking to work to reduced parking lot crowding, but I can't remember the details).
I know that my city offers a rebate if one purchases a water saving washing machine (I live in a dry area). It seems cities should offer a similar rebate to those who bike to work (less traffic impact, less wear and tear on the roads, less pollution), or those who drive cleaner cars (less pollution). Proving one bikes/walks/etc. to work may be too difficult... Or perhaps the cost of roads is already built into vehicle registration.
Green is not black and white.
"If Wal-Mart, McDonalds, UPS, GM, and Ford, the five companies that Fortune lists as having the most employees, all offered a similar incentive..."
Recall that Ford and GM missed the hybrid boat big time, and are now struggling to catch up with Honda and Toyota (who are developing prototype hydrogen cars already). Further, the Ford Escape hybrid (Ford's first hybrid), while technically a hybrid, has roughly the same fuel efficiency as the standard model; the electric engine is used to better performance, not efficiency. Thus, it's not clear how much green benefit society would get from Ford employees buying Ford hybrids.
Something tells me that Ford and GM wouldn't subsidize purchasing their competitors' cars, especially given their dire financial situation. Don't expect Ford and GM to jump on this bandwagon.
That would be a step in the right direction. However, the added costs of buying a hybrid car still don't outweigh the money saved on gas. Not to mention, most employees of Wal-mart and McDonalds probably don't have a lot of money to be throwing around, regardless of their view of the environment.
So, if you could offer an incentive that would be enough to counterbalance those factors, then you might have something. Until then, saving the environment will be left to those of us who have the luxury of spending a little extra. Sad but true.
Is anyone else bothered by all these paternalistic, lead-the-unwashed-masses-by-the-hand approaches? Just give me my salary and I'll decide how I want to spend it. I'll make an exception for little things done in the name of tax efficiency though (buying bus passes for employees because it's a business tax deduction, etc), and even then only until the Flat Tax can be passed (alas, it won't be by President Bush).
Man, I got fired from my last job because of the green...
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
They have the best customer service, the best prices, and their product pages are some of the most useful I've seen. It's a company that is run by actual, real-life people, and there's a lot to be said for that.
That said, I wonder why they didn't include the discount for those who commute to work on their (40mpg+) motorcycle? It's Texas, so that should be feasible year-round.
Synergy is your friend
A lot more companies could go green in a different way - encourage their employees to turn off their lights and monitors when they leave (yeah, I know, ya gotta SSH/RDC, so leave the machine on...)
This would save a lot more energy than expecting employees to buy a new car just because they get a bit of an incentive.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Frankly, if I wanted to support 'greenism' at the cash register, I'd buy MYSELF a green fueled car. I don't really want to buy one for someone else, so I'd probably wind up looking up at companies whose prices aren't inflated by such things...
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
What's the point of the fake incentives? It will just add cost to American products and hurt out competitiveness. As a stockholder I demand my companies make the most money possible.
I've heard numerous times that it's cheaper in terms of energy to buy a used and inefficient car than to have a factory manufacture a new gree car... Thoughts?
The incentive here is to be just a little greener, and verifiably so, than your competition, and to shout it from the rooftops. If the American consumer REALLY (and are they???) is interested in 'being green' (whatever that means), then they'll come to you. Your competition counters with similar moves, so you go 'greener', until one of you reaches the point where you can't absorb the cost without raising prices to the point that suddenly your market stops caring about being green.
... but that confuses the power of the dollar with the power of the gun, so its not part of logical discourse.
Other than that, there is NO incentive for 'being green', unless you count Government regulation
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Look, as much as I love the idea of the SmartCar, no way in hell am I going to be driving one on the roads around here, with all the monster SUVs on the road. I'm green, but I'm not suicidal!
Some better ideas are coming along shortly, though. VW is coming out with their "twin-charger" engine cars (Polo & Golf, and in 2008, a Scirocco successor, possibly named the Rivo). A twin-charter Polo may get up to 69mpg - on gasoline.
Another idea is to use an efficient diesel auto - like the TDI Volkswagens currently available in most U.S. states. The TDI Jetta & Golf can get over 45mpg (some get slightly over 50; depends on how you drive, I imagine). Since these are diesels, you can run them on biodiesel and not only get great gas mileage, but also have much-improved emissions at the same time.
VW recently announced they're switching to common-rail diesels, so as to improve emissions.
And all this without resorting to an overly-expensive (not that VW is cheap, mind), overly-complex, not-so-safe-for-emergency-workers hybrid.
I'm really hoping that hydrogen injection system, H2N-Gen, actually comes to market and works as advertised. This is a device that injects hydrogen into the cylinders during combustion to enable around 97% of the fuel to be burned, thus almost eliminating emissions; should work on any internal combustion engine (gas, diesel, or natural gas). Let's hope it's also relatively affordable. "Another fine Canadian product (based on an American invention)"
I now return you to your regularly-scheduled Slashwhining, already in progress...
GM and Ford are not in a position at present to offer additional incentives to their employees unless they will have a direct impact on their bottom lines. This is likely to remain the case for the next several years.
Oh hell yes, lets do! If there is an area of our private lives that the Federal, State now local government can't find a way to micromanage for us, by all means lets bully private industry into doing it instead. I'm a fscking moron who could never make a sensible decision on my own so please have someone else make it for me.
Yea, right. The fact that crap like this makes the front page of slashdot instead of being silently deleted along with black helicopter chaser posts that I'm sure they get a hundred of every day tells me this stupid idea isn't being seen as stupid by nearly enough people.... so expect it to be the next 'big thing' in freedom reduction by the leftist moonbat activists.
Democrat delenda est
The problem with Americans is that they need an incentive to go green. Why put the burden on employers to offer incentives to their employees, when the employees and citizens themselves should see the incentives of reduced fuel costs, decreased housing energy cost decreased pollution, etc. I think this is a consequence of the instant gratification mentality of the US, i.e, I need to receive money in my pocket right now for doing this.
Green motorcycles exist. They're called mopeds.
Because of rising gas prices, SUV popularity has dropped substantially. If companies want to improve the environment, they should invest r&d money into more energy friendly products. I don't really see the incentive to encouraging employees to "be green" for a company, since this costs money, and there's no return on the money, other than marketing your company as environmentally friendly.
Vote for Pedro
JPL lets you park on lab if you have a hybrid. That may not seem like much but it is better than the 10 minute walk from the East lot.
Are there pollution taxes in the USA? If the goods had been made there, then would they have been taxed? If so, then perhaps it would be a good idea to apply pollution tax to imports as well, with a rebate if the manufacturer could prove that they had already paid pollution tax in the country of origin. Goods manufactured in countries that agreed to impose similar pollution taxes would be automatically exempt.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
In California there's a market for "landfill credits". Corporations get landfill credits they spend when filling land with waste. They can trade their unused credits in a market. I used to work for a recycling company that was paid to haul off several shipping containers each week from Silicon Valley firms, which then traded that volume in credits for cash. Big "customers" of ours included Apple, HP, IBM, Lockheed, Bank of America. We resold and recycled all that material, redistributing technology around the Pacific Rim in partnership with our Phillipine and Australian branches. California managed its landfill expansion, corporations had a market for their participation, material got distributed more around the world, and we made a bundle. And I got to play with the craziest Frankenstein lab ever, right on the shore of the San Francisco Bay - even buying my first BMW for $300 as "salvage" - and my first SGIs and VAX, too, along with all kinds of Akihabara-grade tech mutants. The landfill market monetized the hidden costs of the product lifecycle which otherwise would be paid by everyone in pollution costs, while still making clear that "we're all in it together". When the actual costs are included in the economy, the incentives for "going Green" are simple and obvious.
--
make install -not war
Too much of our GDP is in oil and oil related industries. Thats why there isn't an active pursuit of affordable alternative energy sources.
Hybrid vehicles are often difficult to work on, non-serviceable (if something breaks it must be replaced rather then fixed) and the training offered by the factory on performing the work is long and in my opinion not enough qualified mechanics to provide quality service in reasonable time and at a cost consumers can afford.
While there are a significant amount of trained mechanics/technicians, an influx of 2.6 millions possible new consumers might very well lead to a shortage of skilled labor in this field. Imagine bringing your hybrid car in for service and being told you can have it back in a month due to a backlog of work. You take it to dealer #2, and he says a month and a half, now you bring it back to dealer #1 the next day just to find out the wait list turned into 2 months...
It would be far more convenient to live for ten days at work, working sixteen hours each day, and then take twenty days off, repeating the cycle every month. One could then take twelve vacations per year.
Republicans do NOT hate the environment. It's a great resource...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Can diesel really considered to be "going green"?
Seriously, what do they expect of "big corporations"? They're big, sure, but not always profitable, or able to throw money around as much as we'd like to think.
But do motorcycles haul groceries? And do they haul diagnostic equipment for on-site computer service? A compact petrol-hybrid or diesel car does.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There are basicly two Americas now: the red states (rednecks) and the blue states (blue noses). This isn't a state division so much as it is an urban vs. rural/suburban division. Its roots go back to the division between the original settlers of the USA who came two-three hundred years ago and the people whose ancestors immigrated here a hundred years ago.
The reds are not going to go green - ecology - earth-friendly - global-consciousness or whatever you want to call it. They are direct descendents of the Indian killers who believe that God has given them America as a promised land to do whatever they want with it with His blessing. They are the ones with the $30000 absurdly oversized giant 4x4 trucks parked out in front of the WalMart. These are the people who form the alliance between the fundamentalist churches and the multi-national corporations. They consistently vote against their own economic interest in the belief that allowing the global corporations free reign will get them a guaranteed ticket to heaven. They vote for the most reactionary politicians, fly flags on their giant trucks, and support with their children's blood any crypto-fascist or bone-headed foreign policy war or adventure. They support Jesus; they hate big government and liberals. As as the US economy holds together and they keep getting their checks from the feds, they will be 100% against any form of going green or environmental protection simply on principal. These people would rather kill you than listen to you explain about the long-term consequences of their bone-head mentality. These people aren't unique to the USA, but there are some many more of them in the USA than elsewhere because the USA has so much more money than other places.
The blues are primary city people. They are much more open to adapting to international environmental policies and going green. However their only hope of implementing a change in US government policy is to break the connection between the fundamentalists and multi-national corporations. Since they don't have the ability to offer the reds a ticket-to-heaven and would impose restrictions on the pollution generated by the corporations, their current prospects are bleak (Especially since they don't count the votes). These people will individually buy 'green' products, but they won't have any influence on the policies of the major corporations. As for getting WalMart to do anything progressive, forget it. It's a lost cause there.
The only way to get the USA to adopt 'green' policies is unbalance their economy. Whether this will happen without any serious organized international attempt to do is currently anyone's guess. But will the American people voluntarily adopt 'green' policies, don't hold your breath. It's most unlikely.
A number of economists agree that the simple tactic (from your intro microeconomics class) of imposing a tax on the consumption of gasoline will do a lot more social good than harm. You can read more about it at the excellent blog http://www.env-econ.net/
Of course, no one wants to pay even more for gasoline! Many Americans don't realize that they already pay much less than people in other parts of the world.
Translation: I don't want to change my energy gluttonous habits so I'll copy and paste some anti-science diatribe and sit back smugly and pray in the very back of my small, pointed, pseudo-scientific head that those guys aren't right about global warming.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Recall that Ford and GM missed the hybrid boat big time, and are now struggling to catch up with Honda and Toyota (who are developing prototype hydrogen cars already).
It will take 20 years for US automakers to catch up, as Honda and especially Toyota have patents on the technology. Just be glad that Cher isn't going around lobbying for patent term extension.
Because the only thing standing in the way of the Wal-Mart "associate" with 2 kids working for minimum wage 31 hours per week or the 16 year old kid flipping burgers at McDonald's buying a US$21,000 Prius is the lack of corporate incentives. Sure both companies have their share of white collar work force, but let's keep in mind who the vast majority of the foot soldiers are.
Unless those corporate incentives amounted to about US$20,990 I don't think so. Half these people would kill for any reliable transportation, much less some slick hybrid. Give it ten years for plenty of them to leak into the used market, then we'll talk.
Game... blouses.
Ooo wait. They all ready have. I can get my home installed with solar cells and New York State will pick up the tab.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
Corporations should not be doing "green" things for the sake of the environment, they should be doing it for the sake of their bottom lines. The fact is, increasing operating efficiency will not only reduce energy use and ultimately green house gas emissions, it can also significantly reduce operating costs and increase profit.
Well, when the wheat belt moves up and out of much of the United States, and you have to come beggering to us Canucks for your hamburger buns, you might think differently. But have it your way. I do love to watch ostriches sticking their hand in the sand and talking out of their asses.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Why not let capitalism be the incentive?
As fuel prices increase, everyone has an incentive to do _something_ that reduces their fuel consumption, walking, better mpg, moving home etc.
The government should be the ones nudging the course of the economy and environment by taxing fuel and penalising pollution the right amount. For too long *some* countries in the world (no names) have been taking fuel for granted, im sorry but you just cant all spend your life driving everywhere you go in a 12 mpg truck, the economics of that lifestyle on mass are just not compatible with the worlds resources and atmosphere, your hummer is causing a deficit somewhere, and somehow that deficit needs to be collected, whether its from fuel tax, emissions ratings or whatever.
Yeah I know in reality capitalism probably doesn't work like that, but there is definitely something wrong when I can't afford to have a car because in my country the costs are through the roof and in other countries you can't afford not to have a car because the costs are so low.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Vancity, a large credit union on the west coast of Canada offered (and i believe still does) low-interest car loans if you're purchasing something deemed to be a cleaner car (hybrid, efficient). Not sure exactly how the criteria are worked out.
Because, after all, the US was the *FIRST* country to vote in favor of the Kyot... :( nevermind.
I work for GE, and they have launched a campaing doubed ecomagination that goes all the way from research to (of course) marketing. While this is not a campaigne aimed at getting employees to go green, its a business modle that bets on a future industry centered around competitive advantage through environmentally friendly/friendlier products.
How about a discount for those that drive 5 miles instead of 25 miles?
I imagine that the discount would be designed to relocate people and their families closer to the workplace. In order for that to happen, the discount would have to be deep enough to cover the higher rent on living space that's close to job sites. Besides, now you've just replaced commuting to work with commuting to your kids' school, or is your partner staying home so that she can home-school the kids?
I think the problem isn't so much being 'green' anymore but a neccesity, born of shrinking energy reserves that will motivate people to save/produce energy. If you are interested in this type of news/diy projects there is an excellent website : FutureCrisis
HA HA!!! The US has done it's best to kill it's industry! Between all the EPA, OSHA, and other agencies, American manufacturing is pretty much dead. I don't mind the regulations to make this a safer/cleaner place but, I do mind that they give a Hell-Hole like China MOST FAVORED TRADING status after killing American industry.
They enacted all sorts of anti-manufacturing laws/rules and open the doors wide open for other polluting countries to dump goods! They should level the playing field a little WITH pollution tarriffs.
It's not fair to American companies that they can't afford to manufacture in the US due to rules and then allow (basically) un-regulated countries to dump goods.
Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Wouldn't it make far more sense to first build a truly supportable case for 'going green'?
On a personal level, there are few 'green' technologies that are functional, reliable under widespread use, and don't have massive potential downsides
This plan would incent people to buy hybrids that can't possibly pay back their additional costs over their useful lifetime, have environmentally unsound battery packs chock-full of heavy metals, and a potential battery disposal nightmare.
Solar panels you say? In some cases, they still can take more energy to manufacture than they will produce in a 10 year period.
There is nothing intrinsically "destroying" about using energy. The world has more than enough raw energy for us. We just have to figure out how to harness it.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
We know better than you do, asshole. Sure, we act like we like you - especially if you are brown - but inside we think you are really too stupid to think for yourself.
Some energy is invested in the process of manufacturing hybrid vehicles then some more energy is used to produce the electricity used by the vehicles. The only clear benefit is reduced emissions at the final stage, so the oil has already been burned. I'd like to think that all kinds of factories are strictly powered by hydroelectric, wind, or nuclear sources but it simply is not the case. Somebody's burning a T-Rex somewhere.
I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
Giving incentives to "go green" is noble, but I wonder if such incentives really make sense economically and if they really are making the right kind of difference in terms of the environment. The fact that given the choice of sticking with your current vehicle, already paid for, and switching to a hybrid or newer car involves a cost that wouldn't be recovered for something like 100,000 miles for the average car owner. Furthermore efforts such as electic or even hybrid cars, as popular as the media makes them out to be, are not making car manufacturers much money. GM has all but canceled its hybrid program. The irony with GM is that the only place where hybrid made any sense at all is in the big SUVs.
Another big problem with "going green," though is that even if a large percentage of the population bought in, we still wouldn't be reducing gas mileage or green-house gases by very much due to all the older cars still on the road. For example, one 1960 or 1970s car could emit as much pollution (and guzzle gas) as 10 newer cars! Even cars in the 80s (big station wagons anyone?) burned more gas and were dirtier than cars today, which, as dirty as they are, have never been cleaner. So even though most of us drive fairly new cars, the old cars still compete for emission totals rather well.
So my point is that "going green" is a good idea, but we have to work on the underlying economics of it all. There are lots of little things that can dramatically reduce emissions and lower gas consumption right now with existing technology. Besides getting rid of old vehicles, the new systems that shut the car off at a red light can increase fuel efficiency by almost 20%, some studies have shown. That increase alone brings a non-hybrid car almost on par with a hybrid, at least for average driving, but makes it significantly more cost-effective than hybrid. Another study once showed that just altering people's driving habits (mostly impossible) to drive less agressively can also reap significant gas and emissions benefits. You've seen drivers that punch off the green light just in time to slam on the breaks at the next red light.
Biodiesel might have something; we'll just have to see. In the meantime we can do a lot to cut our fuel consumption and emissions, even without incentives, or even buying a new vehicle.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
You're still naive, man. I'm sure the GP post was made by someone hired by THESE companies full of crap. Just as I'm sure the "quake 3 under linux" troll has been posted by a Microsoftie or SCO guy.
Real people don't need to post as Anonymous Cowards when talking about politics.
Tim Hortons is basically our juggernaut, and they still encourage the purchase of disposable cups which end up littering our highways, rather then giving a discount for bringing your own cup.
~jennifer.k~
The companies you outlined, walmart, ford, GM, mcdonalds, are not the companies that should be targeted simply for economic reasons. walmart has very LARGE revenues and very small profits, they wouldn't have the ability to offer suitable incentives to their million employees even if they wanted. GM is about to go bankrupt, ford is not much better off, and mcdonald's which is not on good financial footing to begin with doesn't pay it's employees enough to buy new cars anyways. What you need to do is target many high tech companies instead of doing it the lazy way and targeting a few mega corps. Ian
> I do love to watch ostriches sticking their hand in the sand and talking out of their asses.
Guess that's why you live in Canada then, eh? I too agree that Canadians have their heads up their asses.
Your assertion that the wheat belt will move north of the US is laughable on so many levels. And if it wasn't, thinking that having envirowackos impose their bullshit rules on Walmart would have any impact should be justification for being certifiably fucked in the head.
It was around eight in the morning in the vast convention hall in Kyoto. The negotiations over a worldwide treaty to limit global warming gases, which were supposed to have ended the evening before, had gone on through the night. Drifts of paper--treaty drafts, industry talking points, environmentalist press releases--overflowed every wastebasket. Delegates in suits and ties were passed out on couches, noisily mouth breathing. And polite squadrons of workers were shooing people out of the hall so that some trade show--tool and die makers, I think--could set up its displays.
Finally, from behind the closed doors, word emerged that we had a treaty. The greens all cheered, halfheartedly--since it wasn't as though the agreement would go anywhere near far enough to arrest global warming--but firm in their conviction that the tide on the issue had finally turned. After a decade of resistance, the oil companies and the car companies and all the other deniers of global warming had seen their power matched.
Or so it seemed. I was standing next to a top industry lobbyist, a man who had spent the last week engineering opposition to the treaty, huddling with Exxon lawyers and Saudi delegates, detailing the Venezuelans to change this word, the Kuwaitis to soften that number. Right now he looked just plain tired. "I can't wait to get back to Washington," he said. "In Washington we'll get this under control again."
At the time I thought he was blowing smoke, putting on a game face, whistling past the graveyard of corporate control. I almost felt sorry for him; it seemed to me (as sleep-deprived as everyone else) that we were on the brink of a new world.
As it turned out, we both were right. The rest of the developed world took Kyoto seriously; in the eight years since then, the Europeans and the Japanese have begun to lay the foundation for rapid and genuine progress toward the initial treaty goal of cutting carbon emissions to a level 5 to 10 percent below what it was in 1990. You can see the results of that long Kyoto night in the ranks of windmills rising along the coast of the North Sea, in the solar panels sprouting on German rooftops, and in the remarkable political unanimity in most of the world on the need for rapid change. Tony Blair's science adviser has repeatedly called global warming a greater threat than terrorism, but that hasn't been enough for Britain's Conservatives; the Tory leader (the equivalent of, say, Tom DeLay) rose last summer to excoriate Blair for moving too slowly on carbon reductions.
In Washington, however, the lobbyists did get things "under control." Eight years after Kyoto, Big Oil and Big Coal remain in complete and unchallenged power. Around the country, according to industry analysts, 68 new coal-fired power plants are in various stages of planning. Detroit makes cars that burn more fuel, on average, than at any time in the last two decades. The president doesn't mention the global warming issue, and the leaders of the opposition don't, either: John Kerry didn't exactly run on solving the climate crisis. The high-water mark for legislative action came in 2003, when John McCain actually managed to persuade 43 senators to support a bill calling for at least some carbon reductions, albeit much lower than even the modest Kyoto levels. But given that it takes 60 votes to beat a filibuster and 66 to override a veto, and given that the GOP has since added four hard-right senators to its total, it's safe to say that nothing will be happening inside the Beltway anytime soon.
IT WAS NEVER going to be easy. Controlling global warming is not like the other battles (dirty water, smog) that environmentalists have taken on, and mostly won, over the years. Carbon dioxide, a.k.a. CO2, or just "carbon" for short, is not a conventional pollutant. It's tasteless, colorless, odorless. Unlike carbon monoxide, which is what kills you if you leave your car running in the garage, CO2 doesn't do anything to the human body directly. It does its damage in the lower atmosphere by holdin
Im sorry but the technology is still to expensive and still to impractical without someone intervening. Take solar energy for example. The government provides incentives for people to install it because you would die before you would ever actually see any savings.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
I noticed GM in that list. First, they are not going to give their employees an incentive to buy anything but a GM car. No company could be expected to do something like that. Second, they already do offer incentives to buy their hybrid pickup trucks, but not just to employees; they offer everyone a discount, making the hybrid trucks cost about the same as the gasoline versions. The problem is that not that many people want pickups, and most of those that do, don't trust hybrids (I have no statistics to back that up--just a guess.)
You're probably right. I can definitely see Big Oil getting together and hiring a cabal of slashdot astroturf posters to troll with stories from the Fox news website. The group opinion here is certainly important enough to bother with that, and this sort of thing is very swaying.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Y'all need to stop and get a mental picture of the old men and women greeting customers upon entry to Wal-Mart driving (priuses, priuii).
This is the best answer here. If something is really more efficient, it will be cheaper to operate and own in the long term. If the goverment or a company has to subsidize something, it's probably not efficient enough for the free market (ie. ethanol)
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
"...if Wal-Mart, McDonalds, UPS, GM, and Ford, the five companies that Fortune lists as having the most employees, all offered a similar incentive"
Most Wal-Mart employees are limited to fewer than 32 hours of work per week simply to avoid giving them any benefits, so I doubt they'll offer up any enviromentally friendly car benefits soon, not that most Wal-Mart employees could afford a new car on their salaries in the first place. McDonald's is even less likely to hand out benefits - especially since a large number of McDonald's employees work at franchises, and doesn't pay well enough for most of it's employees to afford a car at all. GM is on the verge of bankruptcy and slashing benefits, while Ford isn't too far behind, as they're about to announce plant closings and thousands of job cuts. UPS pays pretty well and has great benefits, but their employees generally work long hours as drivers, so UPS would do better by just using greener delivery trucks.
This one isn't going to happen any time in the near future, and between rising health care costs and the continuing demise of American manufacturing, corporate America isn't too likely to jump on this one in the near future. What's really going to drive adoption of green products is Chinese production of them for use in China as they start dealing with the environmental impact of their population. Once China starts pumping out mass quantities of hybrid car batteries, solar cells, and fuel cells, all at dirt cheap prices, humans can enter a new age of green living.
Now that's funny. If only I had some mod points right now :)
interesting technology being developed in sweden.
t m
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4112926.s
(first biogas train)
basically its using the parts even macdonalds wouldnt use.
organic matter rots produces gas that can be used as fuel.
if you google around for biogas and sweden.
The EU has targets for bio fuels of around 2% off hand (uk is hoping for 0.3%)and where this technology has been developed usage is around 6%
from what i caught of a tv article about this its possible to mix in bio fuel with your regular fossil fuel to a small percentage without adapting the engine(5%).
one problem that will have to be overcome is the new car buyers willingness to buy fuel guzzling transport.
I guess if you can afford the cost of a new car, you can afford the fuel to go in it. Plenty of us can't afford a new car and so get the fuel choices made by the folks with the money.
in my experience GM seems better than Ford at making fast efficient engines your milage may vary.
how many funnys will there be after mentioning biogas on slashdot.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
I mod your post +1 ignorant dipshit
Walmart already provides their employees with incentive to use eco-friendly transportation. By paying wages at or below minimum wage, employees are compelled to rely on second-hand bicycles, hitch-hiking or jogging to work. Better-off employees sometimes even have the luxury of using local bus service, if available.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Geez, there ought to be plenty of parking at JPL these days!
There's no way to dislodge the big subsidies, so "feel good" rebates are about the only way to go. Unfortunately these just beget new unfair subsidy schemes.
I ride a bike to work, but I don't qualify for the "Low Emission Vehicle" tax credit. I love Big Brother!
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
Smart is trying to sell in the US, and received Department of Transportation and EPA certifications months ago, but is currently blocked by CA state government. I wonder who could be behind that move?
There are several hundred millions of dollars worth of 'Americanized' Smart cars currently sitting in a California wharehouse, waiting for distribution by the company called ZAP: "ZAP has spent in excess of $10 million on this project and there are numerous jobs at stake." Some Smart cars were even ceremoniously donated to politicians.
This is what happens in a fascist government: corporations conspire with politicians to maintain profits at the public expense. Thank you, good night, and we don't care.
Damn, you got me.
At first I was incredulous that anyone would actually believe all that claptrap -- much less mod it INFORMATIVE, of all things. Then I realized I had been suckered, and that you were actually satirizing the way people in New York, Boston and L.A. see residents of the rest of the country.
Nice job! I agree that this is a ridiculous, paranoid vision. I especially like the part where "These people would rather kill you than listen to you." Hilarious!
My only quibble is that your satire went a bit too far; remember, it has to be *believable* to really hit home, and your vision of what blue-staters think is a little too cartoonishly exaggerated to believe. But overall, well done.
Best regards,
- AJ
PS: Kudos to the moderators, too! Playing their part by labeling your ingeniously childish rant "Informative" -- the single most inappropriate mod! Beautiful!
but it'll be cold and ice in a month up here, and there isn't a lot of daylight, either.
Newenough rocks, I got my gloves, jacket and helmet from them.
Overly complex compared to, what? Yes, they're different than a regular car engine.
Compared to a regular car. What else would I have been referring to?
Compared to a "regular car" in what year? I had a 1976 Chevey Monti Carlo I removed the engine from, dismantled then rebuilt the engine in my yard. I did the same for a 1979 Chevey Luv truck's transmission. I wouldn't even attempt to do these on new cars in a shop. If I were to attempt to on my Saturn, I'd need special tools to do anything, forget the diagnostic test equipment needed.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Wal-Mart, McDonalds, UPS, GM, and Ford? Ugh, can anyone image any worse companies that will most certainly NOT turn green any time soon? It has to go the other way around. All the young little guys pushing up will eventually change the senile corporate mind of those companies.
When the wheat belt moves north, we'll just grow wheat in Alaska.
Google has a shuttle between SF and their offices in Mountain View. It significantly reduces the number of car trips and it also runs on biodiesel. Its incentives are that you don't have to be bothered with driving and you can use the wireless on the trip.
I'd rather see companies offer discounted bus passes (many companies subsidize parking for their employees in downtown areas) and shuttles like this rather than encouraging employees to buy "green" cars.
Even better, encourage bicycle use and/or locate your office in a dense neighborhood where employees can live close to work. I'd rather work in a dense urban area (not necessarily downtown, but a neighborhood that is consistently 3-4 stories tall (or on a bike trail, like OmniGroup)) than in a suburban office park.
"If Wal-Mart, McDonalds, UPS, GM, and Ford"
....
Mod me flamebait, but here is what I think:
McDonalds: industrial killing of animals + crap quality food = bad for the environment and people as well
GM & FORD: yes they could offer such a good will initiative, however they like to sell big trucks, big SUVs and by just looking at their commercials nothing matters for most of their buyers but never used horsepower (or at least that's all I see on TV)
I don't know too much about UPS and Walmart so I do not make critics on them.
disclaimer:
I am a treehugger, a vegetarian and I ride a 250cc bike or a small VW and I felt bad and guilty when I had a 4.0liter company SUV
I don't just mean it I do it whereever I can and I have a bad opinion on US consuming habits and their misuse of OUR planet
so why do we pay companies (in tax breaks) to keep on doing something that is bad for the environment?
Would I pay my son to stop hitting his brother? - So why should I pay a company with my tax dollars to stop polluting. It should be the other way around. Penalize them, then we'll see a bunch of companies go green quick!
I completely agree! It's a horrible idea to use the power of the government to convince citizens to contribute to the public good! Obviously, the best way would be to just avoid giving the public any incentives to avoid behavior that is dangerous to public health, because it's never the case that what is most beneficial in the short term for an individual can lead to long-term problems. All sarcasm aside, perhaps you have never heard of the tragedy of the commons? I suggest you look it up, it's one of the best ways to see that self-interest can lead to problematic results for the community. I think you are somewhat emotional and irrational in your dismissal of 'paternalistic' tax incentives and the like to encourage behavior which benefits the community in the long term but is immediately somewhat difficult for individuals without help. Governments fulfill important functions besides making sure that the rich don't have to worry about the poor stealing their money, among these is the protection of public health and the long-term prospects of that government's society (environmental concerns being a key component of this, obviously).
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
I'm really hoping that hydrogen injection system, H2N-Gen, actually comes to market and works as advertised. This is a device that injects hydrogen into the cylinders during combustion to enable around 97% of the fuel to be burned, thus almost eliminating emissions; should work on any internal combustion engine (gas, diesel, or natural gas).
As I know, hydrogen embrittlement effects steel. I'm not sure how it effects cast iron, forged piston heads, rings, or valves. I tried doing a search on google about this topic and found nothing in regards to long term effects on a standard engine block. I can only assume one of two things.
1. No information is available due to lack of study.
2. The hydrogen burns fast and clean and thus makes the issue moot.
Life is not for the lazy.
The company I work for has an incentive program for employees to buy green cars: http://www.hyperion.com/driveclean/
Just imagine the mechanic shortage when there were no cars at all, and then they started selling them! Or the shortage of tech people when the first desktop computers were sold (I don't know if you are old enough to remember, but everybody made it through that transition ok). The bottom line is, if there were suddenly 2.7 million more hybrids sold next year than predicted, mechanics would up and get trained, to meet the demand. It's how economics works to drive training in a society where technology advances. Don't worry too much about the number of mechanics, new things happen, this is certainly the kind of change that can be absorbed.
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
more refineries would allow us to begin refining shale
I'm not a chemical or petroleum engineer but I do know that refining shale oil is a very different beast and requires different refineries than oil that comes out of a well. One can't be used for the other. Are you volunteering to have one of each in your backyard?
FalconShould there be a Law?
- Hydrogen sucks. As of yet, we lack a good source of hydrogen, meaning it has to be refined from another source. The energy for this refinement would have to come from traditional fuel sources
,meaning approximately the same quantity of fuel would be burned anyway.
- Hybrids suck. In fact, hybrid cars are so expensive that it takes YEARS to recover the purchase cost in gas savings. The instant they become more cost effective is the same instant that they do something meaningful other than allow auto manufacturers to tap a niche market.
- Solar power is cool for small applications, like creating hot water and a warm indoor environment. Solar-powered cars have not yet been practical in any way, shape, or form.
- Good luck with the nuclear car, the geothermal car, the ocean-currents car (boat?), the hydroelectric car(disposable boat?), etc., etc.
:-D
As for the companies listed, aren't most of them (near) bankruptcy? GM's bonds are rated as "junk," for example, and they've posted a loss of ~$4 billion, give or take. (Remember, $4 billion has a lot of zeroes.) How are they going to subsidize an ill-fated green movement? And isn't the SUV's newfound lack of popularity a sign of such a green movement? If anyone has a more practical "green movement" I'd love to hear it. I admit that I haven't kept up on the bleeding-edge green technology, so I'd be very appreciative of hearing of any advance towards a comercially-viable solution I am ignorant of. Please don't eat my soul.DATABASE WOW WOW
It's good enough for me. My family owns two cars and at least one of them is usually available. My parents offered to pay for driving lessons, all applicable testing fees and my insurance. And yet I choose to take the bus, for environmental reasons.
Green stuff McDonald's could do:
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
The SUV argument is so worn out. Give it up already. Unless you live in a box and hunt squirrels for food you have no sense in complaining about your neighbor's V8. The world is being destroyed by your mere presence in this society at a rate far more consequential then some guy's extra cylinders. Please realize the externalities of your own excessive lifestyle.
Exciting stuff - if they're going to be oppressing their suppliers they might as well achieve some environmental gains while they're at it.
Comparing notes with the boss (who drives a Hummer). Forget the corporate incentinves. I'll stick with the 1995 truck that gets 22MPG.
One of the S.V. companies was offering $5K towards a hybrid, sometime in the last year. Not sure now, maybe 3com.
The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
A lot more incentive would be there if the government tried to charge all companies a direct cost for all clean-up required by the manufacture and expected usage of their products. And, if things were impossible to clean up (air pollution) charged for potential side-effects. After all, I'm going to have to pay for the crap they do sometime, so I'd rather if they had to pay for it now.
And, of course, the companies would pass the costs on to the customers and the prices of things that require a lot of pollution to produce or produce lots of pollution would skyrocket.
Right now, the US Government does everything on a very select basis, rather than trying to follow a reasonable and broad rule. For example, the way that nuclear power plants are massively charged for their nuclear waste while coal plants don't pay hardly anything for all the air pollution they put out that we can't possibly clean up.
Besides, that's the way capitalism should work: the product that is *actually* cheapest becomes the most popular. Right now, we just ignore tons of the expenses.
Who's talking about backyards?
The post I had replied to talked about how no more refineries were being built. If you want more then they need to be built somewhere.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You won't find many SUVs among WalMart greeters or people with MacJobs ... or even ordinary cars. These are public transit people, one step away from sleeping under a bridge.
Tom
The average Wal-Mart employee does 32 hours a week. So I can't imagine MOST employees do less than 32 hours a week.
As to things getting green when China starts making mass quantities of hybrid car batteries... China already does make almost all of the lithium ion batteries in the world. Why? Because making them DESTROYS the environment locally. And China doesn't give a rip about their environment.
China making solar cells? They already do that too. Making gallium arsenide solar cells requires arsenic and other heavy metals. That's not great for the environment either.
I personally think living green will require a bit more conservation. That might mean that everyone won't have a 300HP, 0-60 in 7 seconds car (and 9 seconds truck).
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
The Walt Disney Company has a company wide "Environmentality" program where it encourages employees to take alternative transportation / rideshare / alternative work schedules (you can earn $1 a day on this program).
*HOWEVER* when you look in the Executive parking lot at the Disneyland Resort, it is full of the standard company vehicle -- the Chevy Tahoe. I can understand offering executives a company car, however, the Tahoe is hardly an "executive" vehicle. On top of that, the company services and fuels these vehicles.
It's very difficult to want to spent 45 minutes riding the bus, when you can spend 15 minutes driving up the road. (BTW, I drive a 4-cylinder econobox that gets 30 MPG.)
Where will all those "old" cars go, to the 3rd world countries...?
Sheesh, where's common sense when you want it on /.?
We are going to it some for production people. They can't
telecommute and soon travel costs and travel time will
decrease by 20%.
More jobs should offer a 4x10 - even encourage it.
Diesels are less complex, more effecient, and cheaper than hybrids. Oh and they are safer and more environmentally sound. There is no argueing this point. IT'S A FACT JACK.
One of the telecommunting models is for firms having large numbers of employees from a distant concentrated area (e.g. firm is downtown Atlanta with 60 employees, ~30 employees come from Cobb County (30-60 minutes north)). The firm rents a small storefront office in Cobb County, paying 25% of the downtown cost for similar square-footage. The firm installs computers and phones and high speed Internet access. 20 - 30 of the Cobb County employees goto the storefront instead of the downtown office. They save $gas/$parking/time/frustration.
The firm reduces its office space downtown to account for the reduced headcount. The firm saves $rent on the office area reduced, and enjoys improved employee morale and reduced turnover. Some firms report greatly increased productivity from taking the workers away from close proximity to the MBAs. YMMV.
Disclaimer: I am an MBA guy.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Green=GREEN PARTY -it's the only one that's ACTUALLY GREEN
What is socialist about a direct democracy?
Democrat!=Democracy -there is NOTHING democratic about a democrat
What is democractic about 'elected officials' governed by coporations and greed?
Liberty is Free?
I think it's called double speak.
I live in Seattle area and over here it's IMPOSSIBLE to buy a diesel based vehicle without either overpaying A LOT, or getting onto multi-year waiting list or both. I was in the market for a second car, and I ended up buying a "fun" GTI VR6 instead of Golf TDI because TDI are sold out until 2007. Incentive wouldn't do me any good in this situation.
It would take less fossil fuels to make new plastic than to recycle it.
Admittedly not all and not originally but some plastic is made from petroleum, so the question then is does it take more petroleum to recycle or to make virgin plastic? I haven't seen any analysis or study either way.
But what about the forests cut down to make the paper? Simple... they were planted in the first place to make paper out of. At least 99% of paper comes from farmed timber. These tree farms are a good percentage of what we have left for forests and provide a good environment for many animals.
I don't see how these tree farms can be considered environmentally friendly. Forest in their natural state are biologically diverse whereas tree farms are typically monocultures, thus have less species than natural forests.
Increasing demand for virgin pulp would increase the demand, and therefore the acreage devoted to tree farms.
Even better would be hemp farms. Per acreage hemp produces more paper pulp than trees do. Actually this is one of the reason hemp was made illegal via the Marijuana tax Act of 1937. One of those who supported making hemp illegal was newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst who happened to own thousands of acres of forest which he harvested to not only supply his own with stock but also other newspapers. Another was DuPont and his financial backer Andrew Mellon. Hemp was a good source for making plastic yet DuPont had been issued patents on making plastic from oil and coal.
Recycling paper causes just as much water pollution, as the material has to be repulped and the inks bleached out.
There's more than one way to bleach pulp for paper. Today chlorine is mostly used for bleaching, and is what causes the pollution from paper mills. However oxygen can also be used for bleaching. So while using oxygen doesn't create pollution, the question then becomes if the "manfacturer" or purification of oxygen creates any, and that I don't know.
And if you don't believe me, just look at the cost of 100% post-consumer recycled paper. A significant amount of the increase in costs comes from... extra energy needs.
You may be right, I don't know, but I've read elsewhere that the reason recycled content paper costs more is because there are hardly any paper mills that recycle paper. If so then an increase of these mills would mean an increase in supply which would drive costs down. As for 100% post consumer recycled paper, I haven't found any. When I buy paper I look for the paper with the most post consumer content and about the highest I've seen is 30%. Now whether it's true or not I don't know but I read one tyme about how recycled paper won't have the quality of paper from virgin pulp.
large amounts of concrete also recycle well into the sand and gravel used to make new concrete. Concrete recycling is generally only done on the scale of contruction/demolitions. How can you tell that recycling these materials saves energy? Recycling centers will PAY to take them.
Uhm, I haven't heard about this. Years ago for a few years I worked for a concrete/masonery contractor and what was said then was that using recycled concrete could be hazardous. Things may of changed since though.
Go get a sub to go, and as they are picking up the sub (already wrapped in deli paper) to put it into the bag simply say "I don't need a bag" (try not to sound arrogant here.) You will get the strangest look.
I've gotten those looks. When I shop I bring cloth bags I have and I'll get one of those looks when I whip out a bag and say I don't need another one.
FalconShould there be a Law?
-10 points. See me after class.
if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll);
Isn't there some decent way to easily turn paper into insulation? All the cellulose stuff is, I'm led to believe, is paper that has some sodium silicate added to retard fire.
One thing we're doing here is not throwing out bubble wrap and shipping foam. Instead we're insulating atttic space with it, bit at a time. You can never have too much and damn you get a lot if you buy computer stuff off ebay.
Has anybody here made their own SIP's by urethane gluing OSB to pink foam boards?
Need Mercedes parts ?
WHOA! Most two stroke engines are terrible for the environment if you don't use bio-diesel to power them. Yeah, they get good gas milage, but they spew all sorts of crap (have you ever smelled one driving by? It isn't very pleasent). Bio-diesel, OTOH, smells like french fries and you can get it for pretty much free if you have some restaurunts around that have relativly clean grease. (Asian food places had the best grease when my friend toured the country in a bio-diesel bus).
Or perhaps the cost of roads is already built into vehicle registration.
The cost of building roads should be paid for by a user tax, taxes on the fuel. The more you drive the more fuel you buy and the more tax you pay.
FaclonShould there be a Law?
Hmm... GM and Ford. Yah, I can just see the two biggest truck makers in the world offering incentives to their employees to drive more fuel efficient vehicles.
"Hey boss, I have a great idea. Why don't we raise the price of our cars so that we can help our employees buy our competitors products." I'm sure that will go over real well...
At any rate, I think there are enough incentives out there already for fuel efficient vehicles (in Colorado for instance, hybrid car buyers get a state tax credit for the difference in price between their hybrid and and the equivalent non-hybrid.) What I'd like to see is more incentives for not driving at all. My company (about 160 people) started offering incentives a few months ago for employees to ride their bikes in to work, ride the bus, or car pool. Likewise, employees at my wife's office get free bus passes. Of course this requires companies to locate their offices in places where such methods of getting to work are an option for most employees, i.e. not in giant suburban office parks. But encouraging people to take their cars off the road entirely would be much better for the environment than encouraging them to spend extra money on a car that gets 15-20% better gas mileage.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
I work at the Disneyland Resort (not the crappy IT department, thank god) and they have a really good incentives program called commuter assistance. They will subsidize pretty much any method of public transporation (I ride the bus for free), give you preferred parking for carpooling (nice in a lot that size), and have an entire department set up to coordinate carpools/vanpools/walking partners. They offer an emergency ride service for when your clean air commuting method fails (biking in a hailstorm, carpool partner leaves to pick up a sick kid with the car, etc.) It's available to everyone from the lowly ride operators and hot dog stand vendors to resort executives. The best part - if you use an approved method of clean air commuting - bus, train, carpool, walking/biking/etc., or even a 4/10 or 9/80 workweek - they will give you $1 for each day you use it. This can be added straight to your paycheck once you accumulate $10, or you can get gift cards to various places. They often have special contests as well. I believe this or a similar program is available to most Disney employees in the US (about 120,000 people last I heard). I don't know how many people take advantage of it, but it has to be one of the better corporate programs out there.
i do know that disney will do this for employees, offering up to $3 a day for using environment friendly ways to get to work, such as carpooling, taking the bus, biking, walking, or using electric of hybrid cars.
Less waste and streamlined procedures both helps the Earth and the bottom line.
:)
"Efficiency is the only thing that is 100% efficient" as they* say, and thus you get your best returns from working that aspect. [*] They being the laws of thermodynamics
In most cases it makes economic sense to e.g. save money on power costs. The stock holders may not care (as much) about the positive environmental side effects, but who cares about motivations if the result is good.
Interestingly, Big Oil and other "polluters" often have the most low hanging fruit to pluck here, and stand to benefit the most from cleaning up their act (internally). e.g. BP and Shell have both made great strides and are more healthy in a overhead costs and liability sense today than e.g Mobil/Exxon.
What is working against this is head-in-the-sand & it's-less-career-risky-to-do-nothing corporate mentalities. The solution is CEOs with foresight and balls (what they are hired for really) and gov't regulations to give them a kick in the pants to get moving. As long as there is enough lead time and all players are on a somewhat level playing field (why Kyoto needs the US to work as well as it could), it's not a competitive burden within an industry. The buggy whip manufactures get upset sure, but the world moves on.
You don't like gov't regulations as you think they just slow down the efficiency of the market? Well, selling babies on EBay is illegal even though it might be a more efficient form of connecting mothers to adoptive parents. Tough.
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
Wow I feel dirty reading that. Your divisiveness and labeling are what is wrong with this country.
Now just picture a nice volcano... So much less polution in the air for the year and then BOOOM! Many times the amount of greenhouse gasses that we humans produce in a whole year, all in a few hours. Seriously, its not an Ice-Age, so it must be global warming... On the flip-side I 3 new technology so w00t! for the fear. Love fear of the future, it jump-starts innovation!
What a crock of shit.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Seriously guys, there are more people out here you know.
McDonalds have business throughout the world, perhaps the incentives could be implemented there too...
PLEASE! When will someone finally reveal that Hybrids are a complete useless hype. The Hybrid sytem requires so much extra weight in the car that the tiny bit of regenerative energy from braking is wasted in dragging huge lead acid batteries and a heavy electric engine around. Just compare the milage of the Toyota Prius and the Volkswagen Lupo and Polo Diesel and you will see that VW gets considerably better milage while offering the same power and more space (like a true trunk). But pressure on car manufacturers is so high, that even VW, who did extensive research on hybrids in the 80s, is now planning to release one. Why? Not because it makes sens, but only because the market is demanding it and paying well. Still not convinced? Consider these points as well: turning a gas engine on and off raises and lowers the temperature of the engine block, creating high stress on the engine block, so expect your engine to die much sooner. That is not only bad for your pocket, but even worse for the environment, because building that engine block uses a lot of energy as well. Then, how much copper goes into that electric motor? And finally, what happens to the lead acid batteries when they are dead after three years? Recycling those takes energy and causes poisenous chemicals. DOH!
Along with subsidies on buying electric vehicles in the first place, this might well kick start the revolution, because as more people buy an electric runabout the prices should come down, better infrastructure (eg plug in to parking meters for a top-up charge and automatically be debited for the juice and the parking?). It is most likely that these vehicles would be used for the short, town-based, trips which should reduce pollution in towns.
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
2,865,700 people would be eligible for incentive to go green
The whole idea that people should received an additional incentive or reward for doing something is a big part of the problem.
The biological objective of greed in natural selection to asure resources to procreate. However, if the world suffers a slow energy death or fast bio-sphere collapese what future do your ofspring have ?
Simple survival should be the only insentive people should need.
Some of it's great, like the walk across the hall in the morning to my "office". Sometimes there can be a bit of a snarl up if there's a queue for the bathroom, but usually it's a pretty uneventful journey.
Some of it sucks, like not having any human contact. I really find I start to go stir-crazy after a while, and have to force myself to leave the house and go for a walk, which is an oddly difficult thing to do - I guess that's part of the "stir-crazy"ness - cabin fever.
I reckon if you could telecommute if you wanted to, that would be ideal. Telecommute for the first couple of hours of the day, then commute into work when the roads are empty, or (certainly in the UK) when the trains are cheaper and empty! Similarly, be able to leave early and finish you day at home. As a previous (or maybe postious?) poster mentioned, if you need to wait in for a delivery. But it is really good to be able to mix with your co-workers.
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
There was a Scientific American article about this not long ago. There's not many practical tips, but it shows that going green and efficient can be very profitable indeed.
this is why biodiesel or bioethanol is the way forward: grow it like a crop, pay the farmers accordingly...PROFIT!
Give tax breaks to companies that encourage working from home, carsharing pools, put on buses to take employees that last difficult mile from the station.
My dad's in the CNC machinery business and a business associate of his in Windsor, Ontario knows this guy who's invented a similar thing. It essentially aligns the air molecules in the fuel making it burn more efficiently, practically eliminating (or completely?) emissions. It takes about 6 months or so to work optimally but in the end it improves fuel economy roughly by 30%. It costs around $400 CDN or so.
They're basically magnets.
Anyway, regardless of how it works he's seen his fuel economy go from 13 to 8-9 (litres per 100 km). He drives a big sedan (Chrysler). I believe with bigger cars you tend to notice the difference more.
I don't know the name of the product but last I heard the inventor was trying to get some major car company to get them installed in all cars. I'll find out the name of it and an update from my dad later on tonight (9pm est) when I see him.
People insisting on the lowest possible price for a good did this. WalMart helped by bringing extra-cheap crap to the market knowing it would be gobbled up by people who don't think long-term. Pollution controls did not drive out industry, our desire to pay the lowest price did.
Sometimes you need to pay the lowest REASONABLE price. DO you want to buy the more expensive good that came from a green factory which employs your fellow countryman, or do you want the less expensive good from a polluting factory in another nation?
Ignorant, un-fettered consumerism is what has trashed our economy.
Blar.
No, "bicycles".
How about everyone with a drivers license gets a magnetic strip card that's swiped at the pump and is allowed 50 gallons of gasoline a month tax free. As soon as you get over 50 gallons you pay a 100% tax on the gas that pays for the cards/management/enforcement and public transport.
/.-ers and people in general are so obsessed with new technology and cars that they're often ignorant of the little things they can do to make things more green.
The same goes for the workplace. Give older computers to people with lower system requirements. Make people turn off their PCs when they're not using them and when they go home. Take one tube out of each flourescent fixture. Relax dress codes so men aren't forced to wear suits and sport coats in the summer and women can wear stuff to keep them warm in the winter, and get adjustable thermostats that turn down the HVAC automatically after business hours. Switch to LCD displays (and recycle the old CRTs).
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
I would think a motorcycle apparel company would be more than happy to point out how fuel efficient most motorcycles are while talking about "going green." I realize there are some monster bikes out there that aren't all about efficiency, but ~50MPG seems to be the average for the bikers I know. I'll admit it's not viable for hauling groceries and things like that, but for a work commute vehicle... Where I live most people that drive cars don't look for motorcycles so commutes tend to be interesting while on a bike. But that would be much improved if more people used them/got used to being aware of them.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
How difficult is it to start one of these up, or find one in my area? I do this on a small-scale basis, but I don't find a lot of recycling opportunites / markets for resale. It's mostly done for my personal gain and keeping machines out of the landfill.
If you could provide some more information on this, it'd help a lot. Thanks!
The only kind of green that Wal-mart, McDonalds, etc understand is the kind printed with dead presidents.
The people driving electric vehicles get to park near the building entrance and get free electricity for their car. I guess those are incentives.
Think about how we (speaking of mainly America here, but could apply anywhere) use energy in total, and the amount of waste of that energy. Look at any city at night - notice something? No matter what time it is, there is always light everywhere. Now, I am not suggesting we shut off all lights in a city, they do have a purpose, after all. But I think we could be more efficient in our use of lighting. For instance, why do so many places leave lights on inside the buildings when nobody is there? I have seen lights left on inside quik-lube shops in the middle of the night. What about store signs: why leave them on if you can't shop at them at night? What is the point? Do you really gain that much in advertisement? Also, why is so much light being wasted lighting up the night sky? That is wasted energy. In many of these cases, simple lights for security, maybe with some on motion sensors (which use electricity also - but nowhere near as much as a light left on) - would be sufficient.
How about how we build and use our buildings? Why is it that we are stuck with stick-frame construction when there are so many other and better methods to construct houses? Why do we stick with square-frame houses which take more energy to heat and cool (because of surface area among other reasons) than using dome structures (monolithic dome structures are cheaper to build, take less energy to heat and cool, and have lower maintenance issues)? What about using rammed earth? What about adobe (ever visit a pueblo in the middle of summer - cool living via thermal mass)? There are tons of other options, yet we continue to stick with cheap stick-frame houses, built on-site one 2x4 at a time (yeah - I know the answer here, too: they are cheap to erect for the builder which translates into big profit $$$$ - to hell with the buyer and the environment).
Why is solar water heating not standard on most homes? Why aren't homes built and oriented to take advantage of the sun? Just about anywhere in North America can use some form of solar heating. Even a simple passive "greenhouse" attached to the house properly can warm a home if built right. Set up properly, polystyrene beads can be blown in at night between double layer glass to insulate the house at night (preventing night-sky radiation - which, by the way, can be used for cooling and making ice), then vacuumed out in the day to continue heating. Solar heating can be used in a myriad of places where we currently use natural gas or electricity. You can even cook with solar heat (I built a solar oven out of trash that I have cooked rice and cornbread in) - people have built ovens with circulating fluid setups so that the fluid is run to a panel, and circulates around the indoor oven "box" to heat it up - so you can cook with solar while staying cool inside. Solar heating panels are cheap and easy to build, taking little more than some glass, 2x4's, plywood, black paint, caulking, and copper tubing to assemble.
There are tons of ways we could be doing things better, using energy wiser, using the energy from the sun - all of these little methods and changes (among many, many more which I haven't mentioned), if they were implemented and used by society - they would all go a long way to lessening our dependence on oil as a fuel source, while being cheaper in so many ways in the long run. I bet that if we were to all do these things, we would see a drastic reduction in our fuel needs, possibly more so than the equivalent reduction we would see from better/different automobiles. Performed in concert with automobile changes, the difference we would see would likely be enormous...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Put the engine in a Mustang, a Camaro, etc...you know, a car with some style. Heck, even the more common cars like the Beetle and Cobalt. That for so many years, "hybrid" was limited to the God forsaken pile of scrap Toyota called the Prius and other equally ugly...things...was the very model of stupidity. Yes, they are getting a little better putting them in SUVs but isn't it still stupid to so marginally affect these big vehicles that still don't end up as efficient as the average V6 car?
When hybrid engines are available in cars that sell well or people want to buy (ie, the popular GrandAm vs coveted Corvette). Why can't the big 3 automakers understand this?
Then again, Pontiac is/was run by a complete retard who picked up on the muscle car vibe enough to choose the "GTO" name but was too braindead to see how slapping it on a stock GrandPrix wouldn't work...
I've been to Timberlands coporate headquarters and noticed that the front row of parking was reserved for hybrid/alternative fuel vehicles.
it's called "Drive Clean to Drive Change"
Just remember: If you can telecommute 100% of the time, so can some dude in Mumbai. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, from a whole-humanity perspective, but it's just something to keep in mind.)
Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
I read your post and got the "They took er joerbs" vibe from it. I am a big proponant of the 'invsible hand' but see your point, and I suppose there is no sure answer as to what influences the situation to what degree. Considering recent events (http://www.cnn.com/money/2005/10/27/news/economy/ pension_worries/index.htm?cnn=yes) it appears that the current gov't is still working to screw their bosses.
In light of this new trend, I guess I would have to agree with you. The invisble hand isn't good for the people when their own leaders have their finger on the balance and are tipping it away from their citizens.
Even NAFTA, widly regarded as bad for America isn't good enough for these guys...it's too...well...protectionist I would guess given the attitude towards cannada and the lumber tarrif dispute.
Blar.
Vodafone is pretty large, at 100k employees world-wide. I don't know about the policies group-wide, but in the UK there are cash incentives for not taking a car to work, and for car-sharing. There are also interest-free loans for buying bicycles and rail season tickets, and there is a bus system to and from the local station, calling at all the Vodafone sites in the Newbury (where the HQ is).