Extreme Makower: GreenBiz.com's Founder InterActivates
GreenBiz.com founder Joel Makower weighs in on Fair Trade, sustainability metrics, green printing, and environmental careers, among other hot topics.
Earlier this month, GreenBiz.com founder Joel Makower participated in Grist Magazine’s InterActivist series, answering readers’ questions on business, the environment, and the bottom line. Joel weighs in on Fair Trade, sustainability metrics, green printing, and environmental careers, among other hot topics.
Please provide a list of criteria for discerning serious, substantial, and ongoing commitment to positive environmental policies and practices by corporations. -- Jim Crowfoot, Ann Arbor, Mich.
JM: I've worked with enough companies to understand first-hand that the definition of a "good" company, environmentally speaking, differs widely from sector to sector, and even company to company. And it depends on whether you're looking at it in relative terms (how one company compares to its peers) or absolute terms (how it compares to an ideal), or whether you do as I do, which is try to balance both.
Not everyone agrees with me on this, to put it mildly. A few years ago, my erstwhile coauthor John Elkington wrote a book titled Cannibals With Forks, in which he deliciously asks, "If a cannibal eats with a fork, is that progress?" In other words, "If a polluting company with a flawed business model pillages the environment a little bit less, is that progress?" John's answer, of course, is "No."
So, what do I look at? First and foremost is the company's commitment: its specific and measurable promises about reducing its environmental performance. And who's behind the commitment -- the CEO and board of directors ... or a couple of enthusiastic dudes down in shipping. (Not that there's anything wrong with that; some of the best ideas and initiatives I've seen have bubbled up from the rank and file.)
Second, of course, is what the company is actually doing to meet or exceed those commitments, and what kind of progress it's made. Third, how it compares with other companies in its industry, or other companies in general.
But it's far more than that. What's the company's sustainability vision -- for itself and for the world? And what part does it see playing in that vision -- in other words, how much does it intend to be not merely less of The Problem, but more of The Solution?
Figuring all this out isn't easy. You have to wade through a lot of corporate platitudes -- you know, those commercials in which you can't remember who the company was, but you know they love ducks? And you may have to dig into their data, just as you have to delve into accounting minutia to understand their financial performance.
Moreover, it's not black and white (or green and not green): Some problematic companies have one division or product line that's doing something innovative and green, perhaps creating a paradigm shift in their industry. And some eco-groovy companies are the subject of lawsuits or protests about things they're not doing right.
I think what's important is to make your voice heard in the marketplace -- to communicate with companies about what you want them to do, environmentally, and to encourage them when they start to move in the right direction. For companies, as for people, success begets success: The more strokes they get, the more they'll be willing to do.
What role do you see sustainability metrics playing within a large organization to move them toward sustainability? What metrics currently exist? How important is it that these types of metrics are standardized? What companies are doing this the best? -- Alex Hausman, Charlottesville, Va.
JM: There's that trite old adage, "What gets measured gets managed," and it's truer than ever when it comes to business and the environment. Companies that measure and track their environmental impacts -- their use of energy, materials, water, and other resources, and their production of waste and emissions of all types -- are far more likely to do something about them. There are literally hundreds of stories of companies that have reaped significant financial rewards in the process. (We've got a storehouse of them at GreenBizLeaders.com.)
Unfortunately, there are no standard units of measure, or metrics, that are used across the board. Some companies measure their impacts in such terms as "energy inputs per dollar of revenue" or "emissions per dollar of revenue," but those are only two examples.
Other companies are using more sophisticated techniques or tools. For example, my colleague Gil Friend, CEO of Natural Logic, has created software that tracks Business Metabolics, the key performance indicators of a company's environmental performance.
How successful do you think Fair Trade is in helping the poor of developing countries, and do you foresee any other movement or vehicle achieving success in this area? -- David Bridger, Plymouth, U.K.
JM: The Fair Trade movement is doing a great job of helping to bring better wages and working conditions to artisans, farmers, and others in developing countries by forming partnerships and sales channels that bypass those who would otherwise exploit them. (You can find a directory of Fair Trade stores, catalogs, and wholesalers at the Fair Trade Federation Web site.)
But Fair Trade, however helpful, is just a start. The real goal of the environmental justice movement is, as the U.S. EPA puts it, "the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." It's about low-income communities fighting big companies and government bureaucracies to stop or reverse leaky landfills, spewing factories, or asbestos-laden schools that would never be tolerated in middle- or upper-class neighborhoods. (The Center for Health, Environment, and Justice, formed by Lois Gibbs of Love Canal fame, is an excellent resource on the topic.)
And in developing countries, environmental justice is about ensuring that the billions who live on less than $2 a day -- millions without access to electricity or clean water -- have access to life's basic needs.
As you can see, Fair Trade is only a small part of the solution.
The company I work for, I'm embarrassed to say, does no recycling. There seems to be an attitude that recycling is only marginally cost effective, that transporting, sorting, and reusing the material ends up costing so much and burns so much energy that recycling is somehow counterproductive. Yet, I cringe every time I pass the full dumpster out back. What are the economics of glass, plastic, and (especially) paper recycling for small businesses? Are there sources you can recommend for study results or more information? -- Jack Dare, Skokie, Ill.
JM: I think the challenge you face is bigger than simply the costs and benefits of recycling. Take a look at what's in that dumpster. Why so much waste? Are there ways to reduce it in the first place before you figure out how much of it can have a second or third incarnation?
The most profitable thing your company can do is to find alternative solutions to waste: things with little or no packaging; things that can be used more than once; things that can be repaired instead of tossed out. It may be that the most important person here isn't the janitorial staff but the purchasing department.
And what about practices inside the company that are creating all that waste? Those endless memos that could be distributed electronically, not printed. Those one-sided documents that could be cut in half by two-sided copying and printing? Those printer cartridges that could be refilled or recycled instead of tossed?
The problem, Jack, isn't in the dumpster, it's in your and your colleagues' heads -- a failure to imagine ways to reduce or eliminate the dumpster's contents. The savings from, say, paper purchases could alone make the "business case" for recycling. Add in some revenue from selling cardboard or aluminum or other metals, and you may find that recycling is a source of revenue, not cost.
I agree that "tax-shifting toward a system that honored and rewarded just and sustainable production and consumption, and heavily taxed wasteful and polluting ways" is about the most leveraged way to make eco-progress. Which nonprofits are doing the best job out there on making progress on this goal/aim? -- Marshall Glickman, Williamsville, Vt.
JM: There are several. Redefining Progress' Sustainable Economics Program, which is widely considered the premier organization in the U.S. focused on building a sustainable economy, has been on the case for years. Another leader is Northwest Environment Watch, formed by ex-Worldwatcher Alan Durning.
On the state level, I'm on the advisory board of a new organization called Sea Change: The Sustainable Business Interest Group, which advocates sustainable business policies and practices on behalf of sustainable businesses in California (and, we hope, someday the U.S.).
By the way, one of the best overviews on the topic comes from Bernie Fischlowitz-Roberts of the Earth Policy Institute. It includes a table with examples of environmental tax reform measures around the world.
What do you think are the main communication failures in sustainable development, and what are the reasons for those failures? -- David Haggith, Seattle, Wash.
JM: "Sustainable development" is a vast, global subject, so I'll stick to what I know best: environmental issues in the U.S. The fact is, even "simple" environmental issues involve unbelievable complexity. For example, to understand the environmental implications of "paper versus plastic," or a foam coffee cup versus a ceramic mug, involves complex science -- not just chemistry and physics, but social behavior. Even the experts don't agree on the numbers, let alone what they mean, so it's little wonder that the general public is dazed and confused.
Having said that, there is plenty of good science out there. For example: We know what cars, power plants, and other things do to alter the climate. We see firsthand what happens to rivers when you cut down all the nearby trees and cause erosion. There's no question about the health effects of pesticides on children living near farms. And we know the solutions to all of these problems.
But awareness of the problems and solutions remains low. Our schools do an abysmal job of teaching us about the environment, and especially the environmental impacts of our actions. Compounding matters, big companies and their trade associations have created school curricula that teach kids their side of the story: oil companies providing lesson plans on America's energy future; plastics companies and associations talking about the wonders of plastics; paper companies teaching about the forests; and -- my personal favorite -- the American Nuclear Society's coloring book, Let's Color and Do Activities with the Atoms Family.
And then there's the whole culture of consumption, exemplified by publications like “Lucky: The Magazine About Shopping.” (It's not enough that we have magazines with ads about shopping -- we now have magazines consisting entirely of articles about shopping.) There's nothing inherently wrong with shopping, of course -- if we were buying products made of naturally sourced, infinitely recyclable ingredients, using processes that create little or no waste. But something like 99 percent of all the materials used in our society -- all of the raw materials, packaging, and the goods themselves -- have a lifetime of less than a month before they become waste -- more often than not, ending up in landfills.
I've barely scratched the surface of the reasons.
Point is, we're up against some tough issues, and no one's helping us become smarter. And exactly whose job is it to do so? Companies? Schools? Activist groups? Governments? Our parents? Ourselves? The correct answer, of course, is: Yes.
I'm a student at University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point working to improve the energy efficiency of our campus. Do you have any suggestions for getting started on such a huge project? -- Jessica Liszewski, Stevens Point, Wis.
JM: Before you reinvent the wheel, you should spend some time learning what other schools have done to green themselves. Check out the Campus Greening Network or any of the dozens of individual colleges and universities that have green initiatives, like Harvard, Brown, George Washington, and the Green Campus Consortium of Maine.
As of now, I work in real estate, but would like to make a transition toward my environmental and business interests. With no specific environmental or energy training (only personal research), no easy access to applicable jobs, and a desire for financial stability, where would you recommend that I, or someone like me, start, or what other advice would you have for getting into environmental business? -- Andrew W., Stamford, Conn.
JM: I don't believe for a moment that it requires "specific environmental or energy training" to be an environmental change agent inside a company. Consider your own area of expertise: real estate. Some of the hottest areas of the environmental movement involve real estate -- green building, smart growth, brownfields, and anything else that has to do with land use and development. Your professional experience could be valuable to developers, architects, builders, conservation groups, government agencies, and others seeking to align environmental responsibility with the built environment.
The same is true for most other professionals: accountants, artists, marketers, operations managers, computer programmers, purchasing agents, janitors, and on and on. Anyone can play -- and should!
I own a small print shop and would like to shift all of our work to high post-consumer-recycled paper. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate a source of such paper at the price I am currently paying (can't increase my prices to pay for more expensive paper). Any suggestions? -- Steven Langer, location not provided
JM: Recycled paper is getting better, cheaper, and much more widely available than just a few years ago. One of the best resources is Conservatree, a nonprofit organization that maintains an extensive listing of environmentally preferable papers. We also have some good environmental resources for printers on GreenBiz.com.
I am currently a junior in college. I will graduate with a degree in accounting, but I would really like to know what I can do or where I can work to help the environment the most. Are there certain companies that would be better than others? -- Andy Keegan, Collegeville, Minn.
JM: It depends what you mean by "better" companies. Would you prefer to work for a company that's already trying to do the right thing, or one that really needs help? Which, for you, is "better"?
To start, I recommend the Career Tools section on GreenBiz. It's got profiles of real people doing environmental jobs in mainstream companies, detailed descriptions of more than 25 different environmental jobs ... oh, yeah -- and actual job listings.
Do you use solar power in your home, work, or other? Did you know that California would "pay" for a portion of your solar system should you decide to use a photovoltaic grid-tied power system or a solar domestic hot-water system or mayhap a solar radiant-heating system? When do you want me to install these systems for you so you can begin to walk your talk? -- Solar Richard Thompson, Tacoma, Wash.
JM: We're just finishing a significant renovation at home and would love nothing more than to have included solar panels as part of the package. But we didn't for the same reason so many of my enviro friends and colleagues haven't: The economics don't yet make sense. And I live in California where, as you point out, the state will pick up half the cost of my system. Even still, it could take seven to 10 years to generate enough "free" solar energy to pay off the investment. Again, that's with the state paying 50 percent of the price tag!
Sure, you're probably arguing, if all of my enviro friends and colleagues would "walk our talk" and pitch in, the price would come down. It's a nice thought, but not realistic, for two reasons. First, it will take a massive acceleration of demand -- many times the current rate -- before prices come down much. Second, there's something of a solar war going on right now between Germany -- which is paying generous subsidies to consumers for "selling" excess electricity back into the grid -- and the rest of the world. As a result of the subsidies, solar has become so popular in Germany that it is causing shortages of solar modules in California and elsewhere, keeping prices high.
By the way, the economics of solar are much different if you're buying a new home, because the price of a solar system is a relatively small part of the overall cost of the home. And because the panels can be integrated into the design and electrical system, there may be other savings that bring the price down. I can't imagine building a new home these days without solar panels.
If you're interested in the nitty-gritty of the solar marketplace, my Clean Edge colleagues and I have authored several reports on the solar market and what's needed to bring it "to scale" where it compete with conventional electricity costs. That's the point at which going solar will be a no-brainer. (And that's when I'll be calling you to install my system.)
The economics of solar will change over time -- during the past few years, the price has continued to drop and the quality improve -- but for most homeowners, it's not ready for prime time.
While it is probably not the only solution, I think nanotech will be part of the mix of technologies leading the move to hydrogen. Would you agree? -- Rupert Leach, Guildford, U.K.
JM: I agree: Nanotech has great potential for a wide range of clean-tech applications, but it also poses some risks.
And it's not just solar hydrogen production, though that application alone offers great potential. Several companies -- Nanosolar, for example -- are using nano (or nano-like processes) to create solar cells that break through today's price and performance barriers.
But the potential danger of nano particles is no small matter. Some observers, like Bill Joy, former chief scientist at Sun Microsystems, say no-no to nano. They worry that left unchecked, nanotech (among other technologies) could unwittingly replicate out of control. Joy's classic treatise on the subject, written in 2000 in Wired, is worth a read.
On balance, I agree that nano will more likely be part of the solution than the problem.
We have a technology that maintains working oils in better than new condition in operating machinery for years. Even though the system pays for itself, it is very difficult to get U.S. companies to adopt the technology, although Japan and Europe have readily taken to the system. Why are other countries leading the way in new technology adoption while we lag behind, and what can be done to accelerate that process? -- Charles Mitchell, Rocky Hill, Conn.
JM: I've met dozens of entrepreneurs with promising environmental technologies -- amazing people with amazing products and services -- trying without much luck to find funding, markets, and the like. And many, like you, have found that the best markets and customers exist outside the U.S., particularly in Western Europe.
The problem is especially egregious when it comes to clean energy, like solar and wind power. Both technologies were birthed in the U.S. (O.K., the Dutch had the windmill thing going centuries ago, but we're talking about modern wind turbines.) Today, the Japanese (Sharp, Kyocera, Sanyo) are the biggest producers of solar panels, and Denmark (NEG-Micon, Vestas), Germany (Enercon), and Spain (Gamesa) control the wind industry.
It's not a technological problem at all. We have great technology -- witness your own innovative products. Regaining American leadership in clean technologies like yours boils down mostly to political will -- and leadership. (Can you say "regime change"?)
--------
This article has been reprinted courtesy of Grist Magazine, a GreenBiz.com news affiliate. It was first printed on Oct. 8, 2004.
Please provide a list of criteria for discerning serious, substantial, and ongoing commitment to positive environmental policies and practices by corporations. -- Jim Crowfoot, Ann Arbor, Mich.
JM: I've worked with enough companies to understand first-hand that the definition of a "good" company, environmentally speaking, differs widely from sector to sector, and even company to company. And it depends on whether you're looking at it in relative terms (how one company compares to its peers) or absolute terms (how it compares to an ideal), or whether you do as I do, which is try to balance both.
Not everyone agrees with me on this, to put it mildly. A few years ago, my erstwhile coauthor John Elkington wrote a book titled Cannibals With Forks, in which he deliciously asks, "If a cannibal eats with a fork, is that progress?" In other words, "If a polluting company with a flawed business model pillages the environment a little bit less, is that progress?" John's answer, of course, is "No."
So, what do I look at? First and foremost is the company's commitment: its specific and measurable promises about reducing its environmental performance. And who's behind the commitment -- the CEO and board of directors ... or a couple of enthusiastic dudes down in shipping. (Not that there's anything wrong with that; some of the best ideas and initiatives I've seen have bubbled up from the rank and file.)
Second, of course, is what the company is actually doing to meet or exceed those commitments, and what kind of progress it's made. Third, how it compares with other companies in its industry, or other companies in general.
But it's far more than that. What's the company's sustainability vision -- for itself and for the world? And what part does it see playing in that vision -- in other words, how much does it intend to be not merely less of The Problem, but more of The Solution?
Figuring all this out isn't easy. You have to wade through a lot of corporate platitudes -- you know, those commercials in which you can't remember who the company was, but you know they love ducks? And you may have to dig into their data, just as you have to delve into accounting minutia to understand their financial performance.
Moreover, it's not black and white (or green and not green): Some problematic companies have one division or product line that's doing something innovative and green, perhaps creating a paradigm shift in their industry. And some eco-groovy companies are the subject of lawsuits or protests about things they're not doing right.
I think what's important is to make your voice heard in the marketplace -- to communicate with companies about what you want them to do, environmentally, and to encourage them when they start to move in the right direction. For companies, as for people, success begets success: The more strokes they get, the more they'll be willing to do.
What role do you see sustainability metrics playing within a large organization to move them toward sustainability? What metrics currently exist? How important is it that these types of metrics are standardized? What companies are doing this the best? -- Alex Hausman, Charlottesville, Va.
JM: There's that trite old adage, "What gets measured gets managed," and it's truer than ever when it comes to business and the environment. Companies that measure and track their environmental impacts -- their use of energy, materials, water, and other resources, and their production of waste and emissions of all types -- are far more likely to do something about them. There are literally hundreds of stories of companies that have reaped significant financial rewards in the process. (We've got a storehouse of them at GreenBizLeaders.com.)
Unfortunately, there are no standard units of measure, or metrics, that are used across the board. Some companies measure their impacts in such terms as "energy inputs per dollar of revenue" or "emissions per dollar of revenue," but those are only two examples.
Other companies are using more sophisticated techniques or tools. For example, my colleague Gil Friend, CEO of Natural Logic, has created software that tracks Business Metabolics, the key performance indicators of a company's environmental performance.
How successful do you think Fair Trade is in helping the poor of developing countries, and do you foresee any other movement or vehicle achieving success in this area? -- David Bridger, Plymouth, U.K.
JM: The Fair Trade movement is doing a great job of helping to bring better wages and working conditions to artisans, farmers, and others in developing countries by forming partnerships and sales channels that bypass those who would otherwise exploit them. (You can find a directory of Fair Trade stores, catalogs, and wholesalers at the Fair Trade Federation Web site.)
But Fair Trade, however helpful, is just a start. The real goal of the environmental justice movement is, as the U.S. EPA puts it, "the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." It's about low-income communities fighting big companies and government bureaucracies to stop or reverse leaky landfills, spewing factories, or asbestos-laden schools that would never be tolerated in middle- or upper-class neighborhoods. (The Center for Health, Environment, and Justice, formed by Lois Gibbs of Love Canal fame, is an excellent resource on the topic.)
And in developing countries, environmental justice is about ensuring that the billions who live on less than $2 a day -- millions without access to electricity or clean water -- have access to life's basic needs.
As you can see, Fair Trade is only a small part of the solution.
The company I work for, I'm embarrassed to say, does no recycling. There seems to be an attitude that recycling is only marginally cost effective, that transporting, sorting, and reusing the material ends up costing so much and burns so much energy that recycling is somehow counterproductive. Yet, I cringe every time I pass the full dumpster out back. What are the economics of glass, plastic, and (especially) paper recycling for small businesses? Are there sources you can recommend for study results or more information? -- Jack Dare, Skokie, Ill.
JM: I think the challenge you face is bigger than simply the costs and benefits of recycling. Take a look at what's in that dumpster. Why so much waste? Are there ways to reduce it in the first place before you figure out how much of it can have a second or third incarnation?
The most profitable thing your company can do is to find alternative solutions to waste: things with little or no packaging; things that can be used more than once; things that can be repaired instead of tossed out. It may be that the most important person here isn't the janitorial staff but the purchasing department.
And what about practices inside the company that are creating all that waste? Those endless memos that could be distributed electronically, not printed. Those one-sided documents that could be cut in half by two-sided copying and printing? Those printer cartridges that could be refilled or recycled instead of tossed?
The problem, Jack, isn't in the dumpster, it's in your and your colleagues' heads -- a failure to imagine ways to reduce or eliminate the dumpster's contents. The savings from, say, paper purchases could alone make the "business case" for recycling. Add in some revenue from selling cardboard or aluminum or other metals, and you may find that recycling is a source of revenue, not cost.
I agree that "tax-shifting toward a system that honored and rewarded just and sustainable production and consumption, and heavily taxed wasteful and polluting ways" is about the most leveraged way to make eco-progress. Which nonprofits are doing the best job out there on making progress on this goal/aim? -- Marshall Glickman, Williamsville, Vt.
JM: There are several. Redefining Progress' Sustainable Economics Program, which is widely considered the premier organization in the U.S. focused on building a sustainable economy, has been on the case for years. Another leader is Northwest Environment Watch, formed by ex-Worldwatcher Alan Durning.
On the state level, I'm on the advisory board of a new organization called Sea Change: The Sustainable Business Interest Group, which advocates sustainable business policies and practices on behalf of sustainable businesses in California (and, we hope, someday the U.S.).
By the way, one of the best overviews on the topic comes from Bernie Fischlowitz-Roberts of the Earth Policy Institute. It includes a table with examples of environmental tax reform measures around the world.
What do you think are the main communication failures in sustainable development, and what are the reasons for those failures? -- David Haggith, Seattle, Wash.
JM: "Sustainable development" is a vast, global subject, so I'll stick to what I know best: environmental issues in the U.S. The fact is, even "simple" environmental issues involve unbelievable complexity. For example, to understand the environmental implications of "paper versus plastic," or a foam coffee cup versus a ceramic mug, involves complex science -- not just chemistry and physics, but social behavior. Even the experts don't agree on the numbers, let alone what they mean, so it's little wonder that the general public is dazed and confused.
Having said that, there is plenty of good science out there. For example: We know what cars, power plants, and other things do to alter the climate. We see firsthand what happens to rivers when you cut down all the nearby trees and cause erosion. There's no question about the health effects of pesticides on children living near farms. And we know the solutions to all of these problems.
But awareness of the problems and solutions remains low. Our schools do an abysmal job of teaching us about the environment, and especially the environmental impacts of our actions. Compounding matters, big companies and their trade associations have created school curricula that teach kids their side of the story: oil companies providing lesson plans on America's energy future; plastics companies and associations talking about the wonders of plastics; paper companies teaching about the forests; and -- my personal favorite -- the American Nuclear Society's coloring book, Let's Color and Do Activities with the Atoms Family.
And then there's the whole culture of consumption, exemplified by publications like “Lucky: The Magazine About Shopping.” (It's not enough that we have magazines with ads about shopping -- we now have magazines consisting entirely of articles about shopping.) There's nothing inherently wrong with shopping, of course -- if we were buying products made of naturally sourced, infinitely recyclable ingredients, using processes that create little or no waste. But something like 99 percent of all the materials used in our society -- all of the raw materials, packaging, and the goods themselves -- have a lifetime of less than a month before they become waste -- more often than not, ending up in landfills.
I've barely scratched the surface of the reasons.
Point is, we're up against some tough issues, and no one's helping us become smarter. And exactly whose job is it to do so? Companies? Schools? Activist groups? Governments? Our parents? Ourselves? The correct answer, of course, is: Yes.
I'm a student at University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point working to improve the energy efficiency of our campus. Do you have any suggestions for getting started on such a huge project? -- Jessica Liszewski, Stevens Point, Wis.
JM: Before you reinvent the wheel, you should spend some time learning what other schools have done to green themselves. Check out the Campus Greening Network or any of the dozens of individual colleges and universities that have green initiatives, like Harvard, Brown, George Washington, and the Green Campus Consortium of Maine.
As of now, I work in real estate, but would like to make a transition toward my environmental and business interests. With no specific environmental or energy training (only personal research), no easy access to applicable jobs, and a desire for financial stability, where would you recommend that I, or someone like me, start, or what other advice would you have for getting into environmental business? -- Andrew W., Stamford, Conn.
JM: I don't believe for a moment that it requires "specific environmental or energy training" to be an environmental change agent inside a company. Consider your own area of expertise: real estate. Some of the hottest areas of the environmental movement involve real estate -- green building, smart growth, brownfields, and anything else that has to do with land use and development. Your professional experience could be valuable to developers, architects, builders, conservation groups, government agencies, and others seeking to align environmental responsibility with the built environment.
The same is true for most other professionals: accountants, artists, marketers, operations managers, computer programmers, purchasing agents, janitors, and on and on. Anyone can play -- and should!
I own a small print shop and would like to shift all of our work to high post-consumer-recycled paper. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate a source of such paper at the price I am currently paying (can't increase my prices to pay for more expensive paper). Any suggestions? -- Steven Langer, location not provided
JM: Recycled paper is getting better, cheaper, and much more widely available than just a few years ago. One of the best resources is Conservatree, a nonprofit organization that maintains an extensive listing of environmentally preferable papers. We also have some good environmental resources for printers on GreenBiz.com.
I am currently a junior in college. I will graduate with a degree in accounting, but I would really like to know what I can do or where I can work to help the environment the most. Are there certain companies that would be better than others? -- Andy Keegan, Collegeville, Minn.
JM: It depends what you mean by "better" companies. Would you prefer to work for a company that's already trying to do the right thing, or one that really needs help? Which, for you, is "better"?
To start, I recommend the Career Tools section on GreenBiz. It's got profiles of real people doing environmental jobs in mainstream companies, detailed descriptions of more than 25 different environmental jobs ... oh, yeah -- and actual job listings.
Do you use solar power in your home, work, or other? Did you know that California would "pay" for a portion of your solar system should you decide to use a photovoltaic grid-tied power system or a solar domestic hot-water system or mayhap a solar radiant-heating system? When do you want me to install these systems for you so you can begin to walk your talk? -- Solar Richard Thompson, Tacoma, Wash.
JM: We're just finishing a significant renovation at home and would love nothing more than to have included solar panels as part of the package. But we didn't for the same reason so many of my enviro friends and colleagues haven't: The economics don't yet make sense. And I live in California where, as you point out, the state will pick up half the cost of my system. Even still, it could take seven to 10 years to generate enough "free" solar energy to pay off the investment. Again, that's with the state paying 50 percent of the price tag!
Sure, you're probably arguing, if all of my enviro friends and colleagues would "walk our talk" and pitch in, the price would come down. It's a nice thought, but not realistic, for two reasons. First, it will take a massive acceleration of demand -- many times the current rate -- before prices come down much. Second, there's something of a solar war going on right now between Germany -- which is paying generous subsidies to consumers for "selling" excess electricity back into the grid -- and the rest of the world. As a result of the subsidies, solar has become so popular in Germany that it is causing shortages of solar modules in California and elsewhere, keeping prices high.
By the way, the economics of solar are much different if you're buying a new home, because the price of a solar system is a relatively small part of the overall cost of the home. And because the panels can be integrated into the design and electrical system, there may be other savings that bring the price down. I can't imagine building a new home these days without solar panels.
If you're interested in the nitty-gritty of the solar marketplace, my Clean Edge colleagues and I have authored several reports on the solar market and what's needed to bring it "to scale" where it compete with conventional electricity costs. That's the point at which going solar will be a no-brainer. (And that's when I'll be calling you to install my system.)
The economics of solar will change over time -- during the past few years, the price has continued to drop and the quality improve -- but for most homeowners, it's not ready for prime time.
While it is probably not the only solution, I think nanotech will be part of the mix of technologies leading the move to hydrogen. Would you agree? -- Rupert Leach, Guildford, U.K.
JM: I agree: Nanotech has great potential for a wide range of clean-tech applications, but it also poses some risks.
And it's not just solar hydrogen production, though that application alone offers great potential. Several companies -- Nanosolar, for example -- are using nano (or nano-like processes) to create solar cells that break through today's price and performance barriers.
But the potential danger of nano particles is no small matter. Some observers, like Bill Joy, former chief scientist at Sun Microsystems, say no-no to nano. They worry that left unchecked, nanotech (among other technologies) could unwittingly replicate out of control. Joy's classic treatise on the subject, written in 2000 in Wired, is worth a read.
On balance, I agree that nano will more likely be part of the solution than the problem.
We have a technology that maintains working oils in better than new condition in operating machinery for years. Even though the system pays for itself, it is very difficult to get U.S. companies to adopt the technology, although Japan and Europe have readily taken to the system. Why are other countries leading the way in new technology adoption while we lag behind, and what can be done to accelerate that process? -- Charles Mitchell, Rocky Hill, Conn.
JM: I've met dozens of entrepreneurs with promising environmental technologies -- amazing people with amazing products and services -- trying without much luck to find funding, markets, and the like. And many, like you, have found that the best markets and customers exist outside the U.S., particularly in Western Europe.
The problem is especially egregious when it comes to clean energy, like solar and wind power. Both technologies were birthed in the U.S. (O.K., the Dutch had the windmill thing going centuries ago, but we're talking about modern wind turbines.) Today, the Japanese (Sharp, Kyocera, Sanyo) are the biggest producers of solar panels, and Denmark (NEG-Micon, Vestas), Germany (Enercon), and Spain (Gamesa) control the wind industry.
It's not a technological problem at all. We have great technology -- witness your own innovative products. Regaining American leadership in clean technologies like yours boils down mostly to political will -- and leadership. (Can you say "regime change"?)
--------
This article has been reprinted courtesy of Grist Magazine, a GreenBiz.com news affiliate. It was first printed on Oct. 8, 2004.