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

[IamNotWitchboy]

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

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

[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

[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

[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!

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?

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.

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.

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).

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

[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.

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.

Re:Silly rabbit

[shmlco]

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

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.

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.