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..."

Comments

Going green

[BWJones]

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 :-)

Re:Going green

[punxking]

If they really want to push more efficient automobiles, perhaps we could wean the American preference for the large SUV?

Boy am I all for smaller cars and getting people to give up their SUVs (although I'm certainly not holding my breath). It's frustrating to see so many of these (ahem) "sport" vehicles that will never go off a city street and almost always have one person driving sans any passengers. What's the point? My wife and I finally gave in and bought a minivan recently, not because we needed that much space or wanted a large vehicle, but because we have two young children and it seems like half of the state of California is in Pick-ups and SUVs. In the event of an accident, if we were in a normal car, the other guy's bumper is likely right at head level (add to that the "flow" speed on the freeways here, when not congested, is about 75 miles an hour).

I wish I could go the public transportation route, but thanks to the pitiful bus system in greater San Diego, I'd have to take 3 busses for approximately 2hours each way to get to work (to cover 20 miles) and with a slim margin for connections if any of the busses were late.

Re:Going green

[Arandir]

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.

Bingo. The idea that companies should offer incentives for "green" cars is bizarre, because there is no benefit to the company for employees having "green" cars. Companies are not in the business of pure philanthropy, neither are they social experiments. For a small company it might be possible if enough of the shareholders lean one way or another politically, but it's not viable for larger companies.

It's one thing for a company to organize a weekend charity drive, but to actually redirect revenues towards political posturing is nuts. If the cost savings for fuel efficient cars isn't enough incentive for employees, then maybe they're not the global panacea everyone says they are.

But telecommuting *benefits* the company, so it makes sense to encourage it for those jobs where its practical.

Re:Going green

[TheRaven64]

Easy, just put up fuel prices. In the UK, we are paying around 90p per litre - around $6 per gallon. If people were paying that sort of price, then they might be more keen to drive something that gets more than 20 miles per gallon.

Ideally, this should be coupled with non-profitmaking public transport, which is exempt from fuel tax.

Re:Going green

[MightyMartian]

Translation: I've got this mother fucking hog of a vehicle, and I want to come up with some outrageous bits of hyperbole to justify me still driving the vehicle that ultimately gives Middle Eastern despots control over my country, pollutes the atmosphere and is starting to make my pocket book and the overall economy crumble.

Re:Going green

[happyemoticon]

If they really want to push more efficient automobiles, perhaps we could wean the American preference for the large SUV?

Completely the right way to go. If you live in a typical geek habitat like the SF area or Seattle, you don't realize how much people in Arizona, Southern California and the midwestern states prize their SUVs. A friend of mine went to visit some distant relatives out in Phoenix and was astonished that each adult owned a minivan or a Suburban. There was only one person in the entire gathering (aside from Andy, he drives a Geo Metro) who had a mid-sized sedan, and that was because he had to commute (which was a very foreign concept to all of them). The apologized profusely when he had to ride in the piddly sedan, as if it was a grave and serious offense.

These monsterous vehicles are a way of life for many Americans. They're home away from home: air-conditioned little worlds with 800 watt sound systems and DVD players. That's a hard mindset to budge.

As far as telecommuting, the people in my workplace would probably not suffer from coming in 2-3 times a week and telecommuting the rest of the time. The problem I have is that for me, work has a very large spatial component. Home has way too many pleasurable distractions, and not just the video games: my girlfriend, for instance. I wrote most of my essays in college in the kitchen, the school library and cafes. The only way I could telecommute is if I had a study or something. Or an SUV parked near a Starbucks.

Re:Going green

[IamNotWitchboy]

Somehow, I dont see GM or Ford offering incentives to its employees for buying Toyotas.

Re:Going green

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Please indulge me and let me be an ass: Minivans are about as bad as many SUVs as far as MPG- why they get a free pass, I'll never know.
Please- climb off your high horse- No one else needs a large vehicle, but you can justify yours... I am not trying to be a dick, but many who have big vehicles think they need one, but no one else does....
Many people with SUVs have kids...
Dodge Caravan: City Mileage: 19-20 mpg
Dodge Durango: City Mileage: 14-16 mpg
Buick Terraza: City Mileage: 17-18 mpg
Chevy Uplander: City Mileage: 17-18 mpg
Kia Sedona: City Mileage: 16 mpg
Nisaan Quest:City Mileage: 18-19 mpg
Honda Odyssey: City Mileage: 20 mpg
Acura MDX SUV: City Mileage: 17 mpg
Chevy Equinox SUV: City Mileage: 19 mpg
Honda Pilot SUV: City Mileage: 17-18 mpg
Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV: City Mileage: 15-17 mpg
And on and on on on on and on... Source Edmunds.com

Re:Going green

[TapeCutter]

"there is no benefit to the company for employees having "green" cars."

Society benifits so the company does too, however the benifit is not cash so it doesn't make their bottom line look good.

"it might be possible if enough of the shareholders lean one way or another politically," Pepole from all across the political spectrum are "green", but somehow in the USA it is a "Liberal" idea.

But I think you are right, I doubt it will take off and TFA is probably just a gimmick to advertise motorbikes.

Re:Going green

[Heian-794]

Easy, just put up fuel prices. In the UK, we are paying around 90p per litre - around $6 per gallon. If people were paying that sort of price, then they might be more keen to drive something that gets more than 20 miles per gallon.

Ideally, this should be coupled with non-profitmaking public transport, which is exempt from fuel tax.

"Simply" taxing fuel more won't help the average person unless those taxes go directly towards your second proposal of public transport, and these taxpayers get to weigh the costs and benefits of driving their own cars. The public transport has to be available to a significant-enough percentage of the population, otherwise the people out in the sticks are still stuck driving their cars, only now they have to pay even more for fuel.

In a small country like England, this might be feasible, but in the US and Canada you just can't plan train and bus routes over the vast expanses of places like Wyoming. For people out there, driving is the best solution (and pollution is less of a factor in their air quality, given the lower density of cars).

How about variable fuel taxes based on the proximity of public transportation?

Re:Going green

[SorryToHaveTaTellYa]

Ha ha ha ha ha! Funny.

Let's see, the Alaskan oil fields would supply, what, 1% of our oil needs, but won't come on line for a decade or so?

Actually, it would supply at least 10% of our supply, and that is what we know. What we don't know is how much more it could provide. And, if we were to relax legislation on the refineries (something I also advocate), we'd get there a lot quicker, but standing around saying we can't get there tomorrow doesn't help us get to that oil, which will help.

Refineries process oil, they don't produce it, and have jack schitt to do with the oil despots and oil supply. New refineries might marginally lower the cost of gasoline in times of consumer panic, but it won't supply new oil.

Actually, they would have a LARGE impact on the prices. There are two reasons for our current prices: 1) the cost of supply vs. demand and 2) the cost of complying with frivilous legislation. More refineries would mean lower prices. More refineries means greater capacity to refine oil into gas and other such goods. As well, more refineries would allow us to begin refining shale which would provide us with yet another source of oil and gas which is currently untapped. Therefore, more refineries would enable us to drastically reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil by both form and function.

Oh! Saudi Arabia is #3 in our suppliers (Mexico and Canada top #1 and #2 respectively). Beside that, we get oil from South America (Venezuela) and Africa, both higher numbers than any other Middle Eastern supplier. So, we have an oil despot, not oil despots in the Middle East. So, yet more reasons why we are not dependant on oil despots. It is a reality. A little more drilling and a some more refineries and we could do a lot better than we are. And why don't we have those? I refer to my last post.

If you want to keep translations going, here's yours: "I didn't actually think this through. I got emotional and just spouted off."

Re:Going green

[Omestes]

In fact, the very word "green" is political, as it refers to a progressivist liberal party.

Bollocks. I didn't know my recycling, or riding my bike instead of driving was a political action, I thought it was a moral action. But we live in a time of political idealistic wackos, who think that a proper rejection of a claim is to call it the opposite end of the political spectrum.

A human and citizens job should be in part to steward the enviroment for the future. I see no reasons that corporations should be exempt from this. I think they have MORE responsibility to the enviorment than an individual citizen, since they have more means, more profit, and more culbability to the problems that exist today. there is no ethical way to reject that premise, really. (but I forget that this is /., where greed reins supreme, and ethics sit in the corner, a poor slave to greed)

I don't see the word FORCE anywhere in the parent, no one is FORCING you to do anything. They are offering an incentive to do something good. It is sad that the incentive needs to exist, much less that people like you are arguing that there shouldn't even be that.

Whats wrong for a company to act responsibly, and offer a means for their employees to do the same? A lot of companies have earned a name for not being purely greedy, but also trying to do something good above and beyond profit.

Re:Going green

[philipgar]

The auto companies have no incentive to make their SUVs more fuel efficient? Are you retarded? With gas between $2.50 and $3 a gallon the auto manufacturers are starting to see the incentive. SUV's have sold poorly since gas rose in price. The reason is obvious, consumers don't like paying so much in fuel costs, and when gas is $2.50 a gallon they start to think more about getting something that is more fuel efficient.

If you want the majority of cars sold to be extremely fuel efficient the easiest way would be to artificially increase the costs of gas through taxation. If gas were $10/gallon with no chance of lowering people would A: Drive a lot less, and B: when they purchase a new car the fuel economy would be much more important to them.

The thing is the cost of ownership of a new car is kind of hard to judge, and depends how long people will be driving it. Assuming a 7 year ownership (beyond that it gets much more complex due to the car breaking down etc) we get a yearly cost of about (Purchase cost)/7 + yearly insurance cost + (Miles Driven/year)*(Cost of a gallon of gas)/(MPG). For many people if they actually did the math it works out that even with gas being $2.50/gallon it's cheaper not to buy a hybrid car! Wasn't there a study not too long ago showing that?

Of course people don't really use these equations when buying a car, but many rough estimates are considered, and it's probably remarkably accurate. Of course than the category of car (how fancy, status symbol, etc) come into play as well. But even than gas prices will likely factor into the purchase (unless the person is wealthy enough that they wouldn't bat an eyelash at paying $20/gallon).

That being said I'm completely against the whole idea of the government getting that involved with the affair. As far as companies giving incentives to employees. . . WHY the hell would they? If Walmart gave employees credits for buying hybrids they'd either have to pay their employees less, or raise prices or profits. Does that make any sense to them? I don't know what world /. thinks we're living on, but without an incentive to do this there's no reason a company would. Maybe some small operation who's owners are willing to lose profit (or their employees are willing to lose some pay) will follow this, but I can't forsee the major company's doing this. Of course the government could do this, but this essentially works into pay cuts for everybody and a benefit to those who buy the hybrids. Of course who gets helped the most by the deal .. . those who drive THE MOST!!! Those are the ones with the most incentive to get a more fuel efficient car.

Phil

Re:Going green

[deacon]

If they really want to push more efficient automobiles, perhaps we could wean the American preference for the large SUV?

Let's not lose track of how we got to where we are now.

Gov mileage quotas spelled the doom of a vehicle that many people wanted:

The Station Wagon

Or the Shooting Brake for EUians.

Look at an SUV today: 4 doors and a tailgate/hatchback.

Now look at those station wagon images I linked..

Only diff is that the station wagon is 3 feet (1 meter) lower and will not roll over at the drop of a hat.

SUVs are a seperate mileage catagory from cars, and by moving the "station-wagon" product from the car catagory to the truck catagory, automobile makers managed to provide what people wanted to buy and avoid that pesky mileage/safety regulation.

It's a classic case of unintended consequences of regulation: A regular station wagon could be less heavy, more fuel efficient, and less likely to roll over than its replacement, the SUV. The station wagon is dead, thanks to CAFE regulation. The SUV has sprung up to replace it, since it is a "truck" and exempt.

Re:Going green

[laughingcoyote]

Not specifically necessary, though. My wife has a 1999 Mercury Sable that gets about 19 mpg city/27 highway (and when I've tested gas mileage between fillups it actually averages about 25.) I also still have my old Toyota Corolla that gets 30/35 (and usually nearer the 35) which we'll generally use for commuting to work or any other time we're not taking the kids, and sometimes even for a short trip with them. Having a kid does not mean you need to run out and get the newest Ford Excess. Of course, part of the waste as well is in people feeling the obsessive need to buy a new car every couple years, and it takes a ton of resources just to build a car and get it to the dealership. Why? My 16-year-old Corolla still runs great with almost 180000 miles on it. I've taken care of it, but nothing special aside from routine maintenance. I'd really prefer not to have another car payment, thanks anyway.

Here's a big part of the problem, though (excerpted from fueleconomy.gov):

The Gas Guzzler Tax Exit EPA disclaimer is imposed on manufacturers on the sale of new model year cars (not minivans, sport utility vehicles or pick-up trucks) whose fuel economy fails to meet required levels, to discourage the production and purchase of fuel inefficient vehicles. The fuel economy figures used to determine the tax are different from the fuel economy values provided in the Fuel Economy Guide. The tax is collected by the Internal Revenue Service and paid by the manufacturer. The amount of the tax is displayed on the vehicle's fuel economy label (the window sticker on new cars).

Apparently, the same idiots work at the EPA (and in Congress, but if you didn't know that...) as work at FEMA-THOSE ARE THE GAS GUZZLERS! Why are they exempt from this tax? I could see making certain exceptions based on need (pickups for farm and construction work, SUV's/minivans for youth organizations that routinely haul 7 kids somewhere, vans/pickups for delivery companies, etc.) but those that want them for "status" (and yes, some people do get pickups for status, there are as many wannabe "cowboys" as anything else out there) should be paying the same premium as the guy buying a Corvette or a Viper for the same reason.

So, in a large sense, everything but "performance" type cars gets a free pass on their consumption.

Re:Going green

[supabeast!]

"...Minivans are about as bad as many SUVs as far as MPG- why they get a free pass, I'll never know..."

Minivans get a pass because people who drive them do so out of necessity, while most SUV buyers get them as a status symbol. When was the last time you saw someone driving around town, alone, in a Luxury-branded minivan with 20 inch magnesium wheels? The minivan is a sign of dedicated parents willing to drive a car that handles like a yacht, while an SUV is a sign of some asshole dumping money into a depreciating asset.

Re:Going green

[Saanvik]

You said,

Assuming a 7 year ownership (beyond that it gets much more complex due to the car breaking down etc) we get a yearly cost of about (Purchase cost)/7 + yearly insurance cost + (Miles Driven/year)*(Cost of a gallon of gas)/(MPG). For many people if they actually did the math it works out that even with gas being $2.50/gallon it's cheaper not to buy a hybrid car!

Unless the insurance on a hybrid is much higher than on a non-hybrid, your math is way off.

Honda Civic Hybrid: 49 mpg city, 51 mpg highway, MSRP, $21,850
Honda Civic: 30 mpg city, 40 highway, MSRP, $17,310 (you can get it cheaper, but that's comparably equipped)

Cost difference: $4,540
Take off the federal tax benefit of $2k, and the cost difference is $2,540

Let's round the MPG difference to 10 mpg on average and assume the average cost of a gallon of gas over the lifetime of the cars is $2.50 (probably too low, but let's leave it there because that's what you suggested).

2540 / 2.50 = 1,016 gallons of gas before breaking even.

If you exclusively drove on the highway, that's 40k miles to break even.

If you split your driving evenly between city and highway (35 mpg), that's 35k miles to break even.

If it's mostly city driving, it's 30k miles to break even.

AAA says that a person, on average, puts on 75k miles in 5 years.

So, back of the napkin math says a Civic Hybrid will break even in 2 to 3 years.

Add to it car pool benefits (in California, at least), and the value question becomes even clearer. Take the car pool lane over the Bay Bridge every workday? Save $3 a trip, or $750 a year, not to mention a heck of a lot of time.

Now here's the real clincher - the reason people should drive a more fuel effecient car isn't because they'll save money, it's because they are doing the right thing. Drive less, and if you must drive, use a more fuel effecient vehicle. It haa a bigger positive impact than recycling beer cans.

Back to your question - why should companies give incentives to employees that are more fuel effecient? Again, it's the right thing to do. As a side effect they'll also benefit from it. More exercise (from biking, walking, etc.) = a healthier workforce. Indirect and direct benefits for promoting more car pooling or using alternative means of transportation. Oracle saves a huge wad of money every year by encouraging their employees to take public transit so they don't have to build more parking. California give tax benefits to corporations that have alternative transportation programs.

Re:Going green

[philipgar]

First a couple flaws in your math. The government gives a tax break of $2000 . . . That doesn't equate to $2000 in your pocket. That means that if after other credits you "earned" $50,000 the goverenment is only going to tax you on $48,000. Unless you're in the 100% tax bracket that doesn't work into a $2000 savings. Plus this savings is only for this year.

Assuming the person is paying 30% in taxes that works into a in hand cash savings of about $600.

$4540-$600=3940, over 7 years thats a difference of $563/year. This equates to need to save 225 gallons of gas per year by using the hybrid.

so miles/40=miles/50+225
so that requires driving 45,000 highway miles in a single year!!!

if your doing pure city driving
miles/30=miles/49+225
here you only have to drive 17,408 miles in a year. While more reasonable, this is still a faily high number.
With a more reasonable mix of highway and city driving it would likely require driving between 25,000 and 30,000 miles a year to break even.

Looking over your math I didn't get the same numbers you did even if the government discount was $2,000 and not .3*2000, think you confused a yearly and 7 year value.

Also on top of it after 7 years your standard civic is worth a lot more than the hybrid. Once the batteries on the hybrids die the car is essenitally a junker. Just not worth the $10,000 or whatever it costs to replace them.

One of the biggest flaws with my arguments is the safety factor of smaller cars. This isn't an issue of hybrid vs non hybrid here, just smaller more fuel economic cars versus larger less efficient cars. Basically it comes down to the fact that human life is highly valuable, and there's no way around the fact that materials being the same, if you get hit by a large truck in a massive SUV you've got a much better chance of surviving than if you drive a small little car. small cars can get crushed easily. When a family buys a car they look into the safety of their kids. To many of them it's worth the extra money spent in gas for their childrens safety.

>

Reading this I don't see how promoting more fuel efficient cars effects any of this. An incentive to ride a bike to work or something can make sense from what your saying, but as my math just showed someone who rides a bike to work saves less by having a hybrid car than someone who has lots of commutes. Saving parking spaces makes sense, but driving a hybrid doesn't accomplish any of this.

Basically everything comes down to simple economics.

Phil

Re:Going green

[davesag]

If you really must drive an SUV then at least be good enough to pay for the environmental damage you are doing. I pay a monthly subscription to buy enough carbon credits to offset all of my personal greenhouse gas emissions. But I guess I should, as I am a part owner of one of the few companies in the world that retails CO2 credits to individuals. I don't drive a car unless on holidays. I live in Amsterdam and ride a bike. I don't shop at supermarkets, I go to the farmers' markets on my bike every weekend with a backpack and get everything I need for that week from the people who make/grow/slaughter it. Since we started doing this the amount of household waste we generate has dropped from one bin-bag every three days to one every two weeks. We make our own yoghurt (so easy, just add old yoghurt to fresh milk and keep it warm overnight) and as such we now don't throw out a plastic container every day. In Amsterdam we recycle most stuff - paper, glass, plastics, although deep down I suspect they still all end up as landfill in China.

I live a fairly ecologically neutral life these days and have made it my business to enable others to do the same. If you really give a damn about climate change, and you believe, as I do, that human activity is the cause of this change, then I urge you to act now and at the very least offset your CO2 emissions. You may be doing your 'green' best but still not be able to avoid polluting. Now however you can, at the very least, pay to clean up your mess.

Re:Going green

[AGMW]

I remember hearing about the amount of petrol that would be saved if cars in the US were on average 3 MPG more efficient [ aha ... here's a reference http://www.harpers.org/Oil.html ]

Cut and pasted from that page :-

Gallons by which daily U.S. oil consumption would drop if SUVs' average fuel efficiency increased by 3 mpg: 49,000,000

Gallons per day that the proposed drilling of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is projected to yield: 42,000,000

Now tell me that your sick of people picking on SUV drivers! It really does matter. For those who haven't figured it out yet, the 3 mpg improvement would be like opening up the Alaskan oil reserves every year.

That is why we harp on about it. That is why you get picked on. That is why you should change. And that is why your Government should put up the price of your gas!

Re:Going green

[Alex P Keaton in da]

You make an excellent point- But you can take it even further- What if people kept their same cars, but increased their fuel efficiency. Almost no one gets the CAFE rating mileage. Most people get far less, a few get more. If everyone laid off the accelerator a bit (A little slower on the freeway, not punching the gas when the light turns green), tuned up their cars, kept the tires properly inflated, slowed down for a stale red light rather than race up to it, slamming the brakes, and then jumping on the gas etc etc etc.
If every American made a commitment to use a less gallon a week (which would be easy for most of us) you are talking about tens, maybe a hundred million gallons of savings...

We do this here at Halliburton

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, if you wear a green cardigan on Saint Patrick's Day, you could win a team spirit award.

Google

[ornil]

Google benefits page: Fuel Efficiency Vehicle Incentive Program

WalMart?! Bahahaha...

[FatSean]

They don't care, the factories in China that produce the majority of WalMart's goods spew pollution wholesale.

Ummm...

[Otter]

Sorry, do Wal-Mart and McDonalds really seem like companies that are likely to give hefty bonuses to their employees to buy a Prius? Good question, though...

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?

Re:Ummm...

[periol]

You can affordably retrofit a motorcycle to run on an electric engine. Your mockery aside, it is the most feasible way for an average person to green up their morning commute (not that many people will do it, but I am considering it).

Re:Ummm...

[RY]

There is a motorcyle engine made by f1 engineering. The MPG is in the 100MPG range. I just checked the site as the engine and motorcycle were only availible to the military. Now a civilian version of the M1030M1 Diesel Motorcycle is now available to the general public. The engine has multi-fuel compatibility and can use;

a) Commercial Diesel Fuels, including low sulfer fuels, such as CARB Diesel
b) NATO Military Spec Diesel Fuel
c) Bio-Diesel (B20 or B100)
d) Aviation Kerosene including JP4, JP5, JP8, and AVTR
e) Kerosene

Http:\\www.f1 engineering.com

Government Stopping It

[Kinky Bass Junk]

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.

The incentives...

[drmike0099]

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.

Rebates for Alternative Transportation

[fossa]

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.

Ford and GM: not likely

[rgoldste]

"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.

A step in the right direction, but...

[dslauson]

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.

Paternalism

[Brian Stretch]

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).

Re:Paternalism

[Foamy]

Just give me my salary and I'll decide how I want to spend it.

I'm sure you'll be more than happy to go out with all your tax savings and personally do things like, oh, build interstates, build electricity distribution networks to *everyone*, research, design and implement military weapons systems, create regulations that provide clean drinking water and food products, pay for basic research and development in the Sciences, educate our citizens, police our borders, train spies and intelligence agents, make sure there aren't carcinogens in my air, food, water, police our cities, fight our fires, make sure pharmaceuticals won't kill me, send satellites into space so that I, and everyone else (except Brownie), knows that Hurricane Katrina is a Cat5 and heading towards NoLa, etc, etc, etc..... Oh that's right, corporations will do those things cheaper, faster and better than the big bad government.

I'm not sure if Libertarians are willfully ignorant, just plain ignorant, or lazy Republicans.

Pffft...Green...

[BushCheney08]

Man, I got fired from my last job because of the green...

Turn off your monitors and the lights...

[Myko]

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

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Incentives aren't free ya know...

[djrogers]

Basic economics - if The 5 companies you mentioned offered incentinves to their 2.7million workers, we the customers of said companies would be the ones paying for it. This is simply wealth redistribution on a corporate level, and I doubt we'll see much of it...

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...

the SmartCar

[Tumbleweed]

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...

Re:the SmartCar

[Anonymous Coward]

There's lots of reasons to consider bio-diesel:
- cleaner burning
- more efficient, so you use less fuel, and create less CO2
- The canola or soy oil is probably locally produced so you're not contributing to the trade deficit
- ...or funding governments you may not want to fund.
- The canola/soy plants used up some CO2 when they were growing, so you can argue its green-house gas neutral
- if you're not burning petroleum you're helping delay "peak oil" and soften the blow to our economy

Re:the SmartCar

[mmurphy000]

And all this without resorting to an overly-expensive (not that VW is cheap, mind), overly-complex, not-so-safe-for-emergency-workers hybrid.

Let's take that one at a time.

overly-expensive

Overly expensive compared to, what? There are plenty of car models that are more expensive than the most popular hybrids (Toyota Prius, Honda Insight, Honda Civic Hybrid, Honda Accord Hybrid). Besides, if somebody wants to plunk down hybrid-sized money for a hybrid, that's their choice.

overly-complex

Overly complex compared to, what? Yes, they're different than a regular car engine. Kinda like a manual transmission is different from an automatic transmission, a catalytic converter is different from a carburetor, and an electric start is different from that godawful hand crank the Model T's used. Considering that the repair track record for the hybrids, as reported by Consumers Union and others, is pretty stellar, it's not clear how this incremental complexity is causing anyone much trouble.

not-so-safe-for-emergency-workers

Not as safe as, what? It's not like a tankful of gasoline is exactly the epitome of safety. Yes, there are new challenges for emergency workers. Yes, it will take time for emergency workers to be as used to hybrids as other types of cars. This is similar to emergency workers having to deal with undeployed air bags, particularly in new locations (e.g., side-curtain), and their possible accidental deployment in dealing with a wreck. Emergency workers have to adapt to new technology frequently — hybrids are just another change.

Re:the SmartCar

[Tumbleweed]

>> overly-expensive
> Overly expensive compared to, what?

Compared to their non-hybrid versions. (for hybrids that have non-hybrid counterparts (Civic, Accord, Escape, etc.), the hybrid version is always more expensive, if not much more so.

>> overly-complex
> 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?

>> not-so-safe-for-emergency-workers
> Not as safe as, what? It's not like a tankful of gasoline is exactly the epitome of safety.

And a hybrid has one of those as well.

Re:the SmartCar

[lucifuge31337]

not-so-safe-for-emergency-workers

Not as safe as, what? It's not like a tankful of gasoline is exactly the epitome of safety. Yes, there are new challenges for emergency workers. Yes, it will take time for emergency workers to be as used to hybrids as other types of cars. This is similar to emergency workers having to deal with undeployed air bags, particularly in new locations (e.g., side-curtain), and their possible accidental deployment in dealing with a wreck. Emergency workers have to adapt to new technology frequently -- hybrids are just another change.

First, I'd like to apologize for posting on /. and actually knowing what I'm talking about.
Second, I've been a firefighter for 14 years (most of them volunteer), and a state (PA) certified VRT (vehicle rescue technician) for years.

Yes, hybrids cause problems for us. When we pull up on one we have to pull our the emergency response guide for the vehicle to know where we can cut. We had to re-train on them so we don't get killed.
That being said, I'd rather cut a hybrid apart any day than a newer Mercedes or Range Rover (and increasing other vehicles) with airbags ALL OVER THE PLACE. They're in the A posts, in the B posts, in the doors, in the roof. You name the spot, there's a pyro that has already fired, or worse yet, has not fired that you do NOT want to be cutting into. And which very likely may fire at any time after an accident (disconnecting the battery is not enough....some air bag systems take in excess of 15 minutes after being disconnected to be "safe".....15 minutes you DO NOT HAVE when you're trying to get critical patients out). It's much more hazardous than hybrids, which typically involve shutting the "ignition" off, and pulling the high voltage fuses, usually located in the trunk. The high voltage battery is typically surrounded by steel, and is typically located behing the back seat. This is an area which is very unlikely to be deformed by mechanical damage in any kind of colision other than one so sever it just rpis the whole car apart, making the whole extracation thing more of a body recovery/get out the coal shovel exercise anyway.

So, that being said, if you want to try to protect firefighters who are performing vehicle rescues, don't get rid of airbags, don't get rid of hybrids.....SLOW THE HELL DOWN when you approach an emergency scene and GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY when we need to pass you. Oh...and don't do stupid things that make us come rescue you in the first place.

Re:yeah but...

[homer_ca]

I believe the Brits use Imperial gallons so 1MPG in the UK != 1MPG in the US. Also, petrol cars are just less efficient than diesels. Even the smallest conventional petrol cars sold in the US (Civic and Echo) get about mid 30's MPG.

Greenbacks

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Today's work habits are silly anyway.

[Ivan Matveitch]

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.

Re:Silly rabbit

[shmlco]

Republicans do NOT hate the environment. It's a great resource...

Going green? The USA? You're kidding!?

[Simonetta]

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.

Support the gasoline tax!

[Chalex]

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.

Haha... right

[lewp]

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.

Gee why not get the government involved

[technoextreme]

Ooo wait. They all ready have. I can get my home installed with solar cells and New York State will pick up the tab.

Re:Fuck the environment and you enviroweenies

[MightyMartian]

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.

Natural Incentives

[t_allardyce]

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.

Keep dreaming

[supabeast!]

"...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.

Don't be so quick to judge Walmart...

[cffrost]

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.

Re:Buying New and Green vs. Buying Old

[NaruVonWilkins]

Only for the first few thousand miles. Then your increased energy use and pollution from the used car make up for the manufacturing energy. It's always better to use a bicycle, though.

overly-complex

[falconwolf]

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.

Falcon

penalties not incentives

[heidmotron]

we all know that mass amounts of pollution is bad for the environment.

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!

hydrogen embrittlement

[DigiShaman]

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.

recyling

[falconwolf]

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.

Falcon

incentive

[Martin Spamer]

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.