What Does 3% Mean To Us?

3% sounds like a trivial number, but it is not, in terms of the annual increase of greenhouse gas emission.

International researchers announced Thursday that: "worldwide greenhouse gas emission, the principal gas that causes global warming, rose 3% from 2006 to 2007". Some scientists described it as "scary" because they expected a downturn in the emission since the slowing economy might have consumed less energy. But the result was surprising to the scientists and was worse than the worst case scenario forecast by a Nobel Prize-winning group of scientists in 2007.

LA Times article quoted Richard Moss, vice president and managing director of climate change at WWF (World Wildlife Fund): "We should be worried, really worried," because "this is happening in the context of reducing emissions."

So what does this 3% really mean?

It means in 2007, the greenhouse gas emission has reached the equivalent of almost 10 billion tonnes of carbon. This made the greenhouse gas concentration the highest in the last 650,000 years, probably during the last 20 million years.

LA Times article said the consequence of further temperature increase will be disastrous:

"The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that an increase of between 3.2 and 9.7 degrees Fahrenheit could trigger massive environmental changes, including melting of the Greenland ice sheet, the Himalayan-Tibetan glaciers and summer sea ice in the Arctic." To further understand the severity of the situation, take a look at NASA's report on Global Temperature Trend 2007.

Ironically, as the worldwide emissions growth went beyond the highest growth in fossil fuel predicted just two years ago by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the two pollution leaders, China and the US, are busy blaming each other for not taking measures.

While the US urged China, who surpassed the US in 2006 to become the world's number 1 emitter, to take responsibility, China argued developed countries were responsible for 80% of historic emissions and, therefore, bore an "unshirkable responsibility" to take the lead in cutting down the emission. China blamed US for not signing Kyoto Protocol to refrain its emission level and also argued that if listed by capita, China is the 121st biggest emitter in the world.

It is like fighting with your neighbors when the whole neighborhood is caught on fire. Instead, this might be a good time for all the countries to stop thinking about its economic growth for a minute and act together to at least slow down the worsening, before we all miss the chance to put out the fire before it spreads out of control.

Environmental-Friendly Branding: More Than Just Lip Service

As far as environmental-friendly branding goes, it has grown more imperative than ornamental in the US in the past few years. Customers have incorporated more environmental friendly lifestyle in daily lives.

I went to buy body lotion at The Body Shop on Broadway in New York last week. When I told the cashier to save the bag, she said: "I hear this so many times a day!" Before I stepped out of the store, I did a quick research, within the next 15 minutes, 8 out of 10 customers saved a bag.

An increasing environmental awareness among customers offers a great opportunity for companies to market green brands, but, on the other hand, exerts more pressure as well. Customers are looking at what companies do than what they say, because talk is cheap.

The best example is the non-green automobile manufacturer Toyota. It obviously hit the home run with it's fully hybrid Prius. (See the comparison of MPG here) As a result, Toyota goes around with a big badge of environmental-friendly brand.

Some customers bought Prius despite the fact that they didn't like Toyota. A new Prius owner eDevin commented in an online auto-forum that:

"I've never liked Toyota,"..."But, the fact of the matter is that they, at this particular moment make the best and most efficient car and sell it at a reasonable price."... "I do love driving my Prius, but I consider myself a Prius-driver instead of a Toyota-driver."

But for Toyota, whether someone is a Prius-driver or a Toyota-driver doesn't make a big difference. By producing Prius, Toyota has successfully reached out to the customers that actually "dislike" Toyota. What a great success!

Other success stories including American household brand names such as Whole Food (grocery) and Sub-Zero (Appliances). Those are the companies who have devoted years in pushing their environmental-friendly images.

Whole Food, for example, identified as the greenest brand in the US, has reaped the benefit from this trend. The grocery store speciallized in natural food started for a niche market but soon evolved into mainstream. As other food markets tried to catch up to offer organic alternatives, Whole Food still takes up 23% of the natural food category.

The less successful marketers are among travel, online technology and petroleum industries. Those industries are known for their big carbon footprint and extra effort are expected before they resonate with customers. Among them, there are Southwest Airlines, Google and BP.

A 2007 survey Green Branding 2.0 Report that done by Cohn & Wolfe, Landor Associates and Penn, Schoen and Berland, there is a detailed illustration of which American brands are doing well on marketing their environmental friendly images.

"From the brand perspective, many companies have witnessed the affects of greenwashing and recognize that being a green company is truly more than marketing or public relations," Annie Longsworth, Executive Vice President at Cohn & Wolfe, said: "It requires (companies to have) a C-level (top level) commitment, years, in some case, of system changes, and a deep exploration into every nook and cranny of the business to address its impact on the environment as well as having a relevant and differentiated product offering."

See the top 10 environmental-friendly brands in the US:

1. Whole Foods
2. Wild Oats
3. Traders Joe's
4. Toyota
5. Honda
6. Sub-Zero
7. IKEA
8. The Body Shop
9. GE
10. Aveda

Google Taps Into Renewable Energy

Last Wednesday, Google announced to get into the renewable energy business with GE. The plan is to invest in technologies for environmental solutions, build renewable energy plant and promote plug-in electricity cars.

The project, Renewable Energy cheaper than Coal, first of all, is to reduce Google's own coal footprint and energy cost. Google's massive data center, which allows Google to respond to searches speedily, contributes a lot to global warming gas emission.

By planning to produce one gigwatt of renewable energy capacity, more cheaply than electricity generated by coal, Google expects to see a significant reduction in emission, as well as its energy cost.

The amount of electricity generated is "enough to power a city the size of San Francisco," according to Google.org, the philanthropic arm of Google that is in charge of the environment projects.

Google has also been investigating the possibility to generate electricity for its headquarters in Mountain View, Ca. by using solar panels on the roof since last year.

Google's new endeavor also includes an ambition to promote low CO2 emitting cars and invest hundreds of millions into transforming the nation's electricity grid.

Some analysts questioned Google's new move as distraction to its core business and might hurt shareholders' benefit, Google's CEO Eric Schmidt responded in an NPR interview with Michele Norris:

"Understand that the energy prices drive the cost of Google. So if we can spend money now to save money in the future, that ultimately produces better long-term shareholder value."

Goolge's "Don't be evil" motto has long decided the company's idealism. An earlier NYT article cited Google's Letter From the Founders before the company’s 2004 initial public stock offering, Mr. Page and Mr. Brin wrote: “Our goal is to develop services that significantly improve the lives of as many people as possible. In pursuing this goal, we may do things that we believe have a positive impact on the world, even if the near-term financial returns are not obvious.”

Eric Schmidt stressed again in last week's radio interview:

"Is it good for the country? Absolutely. Is it good for Google and GE? Of course it is. What's wrong with that?"

Too Eager to Stand in The Right Lane

Two world leading oil giants might be too eager to change their polluting images. Within the last 5 weeks, Both Shell and Exxon Mobil both put up ads claiming their environmental-friendly projects, but were both shot down by ASA (Advertising Standard Authority), the British regulator for advertising industry.

ASA's tough stance is appreciative.

In August, Shell's advertisement in the Financial Times (above) said "the firm was investing heavily in new technology to safeguard shareholders and future generations". ASA required an immediate withdrawal because neither of the two projects cited, a massive oil sands extraction in Canada and the USA's largest refinery, was environment conscious projects. 

Shell argued that "the process involved in the Canadian sands project would produce 10 per cent fewer CO2 emissions than other methods and that the project had a voluntary green code", according to report by environment Leader website. 

After World Wildlife Fund UK refuted that either project Shell is involved in didn't help building a sustainable environment and urged it to be taken off, Shell said it a one-time ad and would not be repeated.

On September 3, ASA gunned down another ad by ExxonMobil claiming "natural gas is one of the world's cleanest fuel" and "ExxonMobil... taking on the world's toughest energy challenges." 

The ad was broadcast on British television over summer, four complaints were received from audience challenging the oil giant about the credibility of describing natural gas as the cleanest fuel. ASA said the ad was misleading and requested that "the ad must not be broadcast again in its current form."

In response, ExxonMobil said in a Reuter story: 

"We maintain that our ad was accurate and truthful, and are considering an appeal of the Council's decision."

These aren't the first time oil companies' ads to be banned. Last year, Guardian reported another Shell ad that was banned because it showed refinery chimneys emitting flowers.

Post Olympics Syndrome

August 31, 2008 should be written in the environment history of China. That day, Beijing's air quality reached level 1, the level World Health Organization (WHO) declared safe. Major publications in China praised it was the bluest sky in the city in the last ten years. But will the beautiful sky stay in Beijing after the Olympics?

Credit has to be given to China government who invested $10 billion altogether in battling the air pollution by generating alternative energy for Olympics venues, chasing away cars and closing down factories.

The air quality, especially during the later part of the Olympics, has steadily reached level 2, China's national level of "blue sky day".

Then there was August 31. For anyone who had any experience in hazy Beijing weather, the picture (shown above) seems unreal. A Beijinger said: "I can't believe how blue the sky was that day!"

It's a crucial time for China government to either grasp the opportunity to improve the air quality or act in a typical two-steps-forward-one-step-back stereotype to let people down. For a country that believes in "timing" (天时) for everything, the timing cannot be better.

Beijing citizens have quickly gotten used to the "blue sky" during the Olympics and they obviously want the beautiful days to stay. 80 per cent of the respondents of a survey done by a major Chinese portal Sina.com say they would like the government to continue the same measures, even if it means to replace cars with public transportations for a few days each month.

SEPA (Ministry of the Environmental Protection) official said shortly before the Olympics that most of the measures will be adopted in a long term, though not all of them.

Three weeks after the games, it's time for a reality check. Unfortunately, what I have heard is all the construction sites have resumed work and the sky has gone back to hazy.

Photo credit to Bug

Clean Truck Program's Unfair Game

When the Clean Truck Program was put forward in California in April last year, everyone was excited. Nearby residents were celebrating for the long-expected cleaner air, media was raving about how this "bold plan is going to reduce the local air pollution by 80% in five year," 300 truckers of Los Angeles and Long Beach gathered in the street in June expressing their support of the stricter pollution standards. 

The reason for such jubilation is obvious. A wife a Long Beach trucker told LA Times:

"It's sad to see my husband is mistreated; I cry with him," she said. "He can't breathe at night. Sometimes he shares the respirator we bought for the children." 

But atmosphere changed shortly. 

The costly Program, $2 billion in replacing 16,000 aging fleet, though partly funded by the State, is going to add extra burden on trucking companies, especially the small ones.

The extra cost of trucking companies, besides the approved extra charge of $35 levy per loaded 20-foot equivalent unit from the loaders, is also likely to hit individual truckers eventually. 

At the same time, port of LA is changing the contractor trucker system, which currently takes up 90% of truckers in the port, to employee system, for more efficient management. That means, small trucking companies now need to pay employee's medical insurances and might be soon out of business. 

A lawsuit was filed on July 28 by American Trucking Association (ATA) against the ports and opposed the program all together. A federal judge doesn't suspend the project.

But it doesn't look like a fair game. The assistant director of communication of Port of Long Beach, Art Wong, seems to share the similar opinion. 

He said in a phone interview: "It seems to be unfair to demand small truck owners to switch to a new employment system and also be burdened with financing new trucks. They are in a disadvantageous position."

Port of Long Beach recently steered to a more lenient "concession" method, that allows the trucking companies to choose between self-financing or receive financing from the port. 

Continuous lawsuit shadows the project. Federal Maritime Commission is in the process of requiring the ports to supply more information on several key points, which might delay the October 1 start. 

If I Hear the Word "Green" One More Time

What's the big deal about being "green"? It is just a trendy way of saying living a life with environmental consciousness. Isn't everybody supposed to do that? 

Adding the label "green" does more harm than good. It suggests it's cool to be environmental conscious but it's okay not to. Such misconception, ironically, defends people's behaviors that are detrimental to the nature. 

As a result, many developers have been brushing off the idea of environmental friendly buildings for its higher up-front construction cost. It is like admitting they would rather waste more energy or natural resources in order to save money on expensive materials that do less harm to the environment.

Many major publications also supported that idea. New York Times carried an article in 2003 titled "Not Going Green is a Matter of Economics".The story noted that "a compelling case demonstrating the economic rewards has not been made". 

NYT's point is misleading. An article published by AIA (the American Institute of Architects), a professional association with over 83,000 members, said last year that "a sustainable building could be achieved with little or no increase in construction costs and that a minimal 'upfront investment of less than 2 percent of construction costs yields life cycle savings of over 10 times the initial investment.'"

To put it in a more comprehensible way: Developers pay more up-front and get a return of over 10 times in a long run.

The NYT article also quoted someone saying "the financial reward are unproven" after such an environment-friendly building was built. "It is an economic thing," said a source in the article.

But is it just an economic thing?

I would like to introduce a recognized concept of triple bottom lines: people, planet, profit are the three criteria to evaluate any investment (which is social, environment and economic evaluation), including the environmental buildings.

To "go green" is not to become a hippy. For not being able to "stay green", we are suffering from polluted air, new diseases, and higher cost for buildings. Instead of embellishing it, I suggest using "going de-grey" because we are just trying to go back to the norm of how our ancestors have lived for centuries.

Play An Environment Card in the IT Business Game

Obviously IT giants are always competing their operating systems and latest applications to get ahead, but as Microsoft recently announced its promotion of a Windows specified power management software, it might be a good sign that the environment concept has heated up in gaining the new edge. 

The product, Edison, is designed to help individual PC users to save power and reduce carbon emission. The startup that developed Edison, Verdiem, has a similar product, Serveyor, only for corporate users. It charges $20 per computer a year and an extra $3 for annual maintenance. But Edison is free. 

So who is paying the bill? Though not specifically mentioned, the numerous times the name of Microsoft mentioned in the news and Verdiem's website probably suggests the leading computer company might have some investment in the game. And, this is gold well spent.

Yeah, we know the product is free, but what left unsaid is: it is free (as long as you have a PC with Windows XP or Vista operating systems). Look at the requirements for the free download on Verdiem's website, it is all about Microsoft. The "free candy" is a hook to keep users, to a certain extent, stay loyal to Microsoft's operating systems, or convert new users to not-so-popular Vista.

Microsoft's marketing department must be applauding too. There is no better advertisement to say Microsoft is environment aware and savvy, a great image boost. Many are appraising Microsoft's effort of becoming environment friendly. New York Time's article said:

"Household electricity bills could also be trimmed by $20 to $95 a year for each PC" using Edison,  

But it really is not the $20 that everyone in this game is concerned about. 

Edison also outsmarted Mac's Power Manager 3, a similar product developed by a British company DSSW. Power Manager 3 is designed for both corporate and individual users. It charges $28.95 per year. I personally think the interface of Edison looks cooler than that of PM3. 

More importantly, it carries the most attractive feature that Power Manager 3 missed. It tells you how much less carbon has been emitted from your computer and how much money you have saved from your electricity bill. That definitely gives a sense of achievement. 

Remembering the battle lost on the search engine against Google, Microsoft, doing a lot more along the environment line, deserves the thumb up in this round of the game.