Search

By Lee Broughton

TheCityFix.com website – a highly respected online resource for sustainable transport news, research and “best practice” solutions – recently suggested that the just-announced acquisition of Zipcar represents a watershed moment for car sharing.  I beg to differ.

Don’t get me wrong. Automated car-sharing technology has made certain transportation alternatives available around the clock and even more convenient. But the fact is, local car rental – just like local car sharing – has always offered accessible and affordable mobility options right where people live and work.

That’s precisely why I was so heartened to read about Northeastern University’s Fleura Bardhi and Suffolk University’s Giana M. Eckhardt, two curious researchers who got together to independently test the car-sharing hype and media frenzy. Indeed, as reported in ScienceDaily.com, their study challenges the "romanticized view of access understood as a form of collaborative consumption and altruistically motivated."

Those in the car-sharing business already know about the industry’s legal and financial challenges. But this study – Access Based Consumption: The Case for Car Sharing – confirms that affordability and convenience, rather than a sense of community, actually are the primary factors driving consumers’ participation in car-sharing programs:

“….we find that our informants do not have or want to have communal links with the company or with one another. There is a distinct lack of community among Zipcar users, even though the company is attempting to build one. Our informants do not relate to the brand as much as they do to the attributes of the offerings. They also do not feel a connection to other Zipcar users.”

The study also reveals that clean, well-maintained vehicles, as well as access to new and different models, are critical issues for car-sharing customers. None of this is exactly news here at Enterprise.

We firmly believe these landmark findings should serve as a reality check – a big wake-up call – for anyone who believes in car-sharing technology and transportation sustainability overall. Today’s car-sharing customers, just like car-rental customers, are demanding up-to-date vehicles and first-rate customer service.  Moreover, the best way, the only way, to make car-sharing service scalable is to ensure that it is flexible, responsive and competitive in the marketplace.

For example, after acquiring car-sharing programs in Philadelphia, New York and Boston, we quickly updated and increased those local fleets with newer makes and models, including more fuel-efficient vehicles and hybrids. And today, we operate Enterprise CarShare as an extension of our unique Enterprise Rent-A-Car neighborhood network, which includes almost 1 million vehicles and more than 5,500 offices located within 15 miles of 90 percent of the U.S. population.

The most recent car-sharing research underscores – for urban planners, elected officials and other visionary leaders – why transportation needs to not only be environmentally, but also operationally and financially, sustainable in the communities we all serve. In addition, the research reinforces Enterprise’s public and long-term commitment to urban mobility, which was addressed by our Chairman and CEO at the 2012 Corporate EcoForum annual meeting. In his keynote speech last summer, Andy Taylor noted that hourly car sharing has a role to play in the urban mobility equation, stressing that, “at Enterprise, we already have the scale and structure to implement car sharing in virtually every urban market.”

Consider that, more than 15 years ago, Enterprise Rent-A-Car trademarked the term Virtual Car® when it recognized the strength and energy of local car rental service – regardless if it is for an hour, a day, a week or longer – and especially for those who rely on mass transit during the week or who simply cannot afford to purchase or maintain a vehicle on their own. But no matter what you call it – car rental or car sharing – this is just one more way that our industry is committed to offering transportation alternatives that meet customer needs and that make good business sense.

 

Lee Broughton heads up Corporate Sustainability for the most comprehensive service provider in the car rental industry, Enterprise Holdings, which – through its regional subsidiaries – owns and operates the Alamo Rent A Car and National Car Rental brands as well as its flagship Enterprise Rent-A-Car brand. Under Broughton’s direction, Enterprise Holdings’ Corporate Sustainability initiative focuses on the “triple bottom line” – global economic, social and environmental sustainability – and how those interdependencies impact the car rental industry. The company’s www.DrivingFutures.com website highlights its sustainability initiatives.

[image credit: Kim Wood: Flickr cc]

The Notbox Company, a seven-year-old venture led by former Wall Street financier Thomas Hellman, has announced that it is bringing its "leaner, meaner and greener" packaging solution to North America. The London-based Notbox, which has been serving European clients for several years, offers reusable packaging products that provide alternatives to unsustainable cardboard packaging.

"Currently, cardboard is used to ship 90 percent of all products in the U.S. but the growing focus towards sustainability by businesses and consumers makes this the perfect time to bring Notbox to the market," said Hellman, who spent 25 years as an institutional trader on Wall Street. He hopes his innovative products will help his company grab a piece of the $119 billion North American packaging market.

"Reducing corrugated cardboard excess is one of the fastest and most effective steps a company can take to reduce waste and is high on the corporate agenda," he said. "We can demonstrate not only the environmental benefits of using Notboxes but also the cost advantages, especially for the supply chain sector where vast quantities of products move in cycles between distribution centers and retail stores."

Compared with a cardboard box, which is usually used for one trip before being discarded, a Notbox can make 20 or more trips, providing financial and environmental benefits.

"We see a huge potential with organizations and consumers that are interested in the benefits of using an eco-friendly alternative to single-use cardboard boxes and plastic containers," said Shelley Slaughter, who has been named Vice President, North America, and will be responsible for business development and marketing.

"Right now, we're focused on working in partnership with companies who want to be ahead of the curve with their commitment to sustainability. The bottom line is that throwing things away costs money - and the bigger the business, the greater the costs."

Notbox offers one of several alternatives to cardboard packaging that have hit the market in recent years as sustainability becomes the packaging industry's most pressing challenge. Unlike Notbox, which touts the reusability of its packaging solutions, many alternatives are derived from resources that are more sustainable than petroleum and paper. Sustainable alternatives can come from a variety of sources, including dairy, recycled fiber, and biomass.

In a recent blog post, Oliver Campbell, Dell's director of procurement for packaging and packaging engineering, discussed his company's efforts to use mushroom-based packaging to promote sustainability.

"The final product looks and acts like Styrofoam," wrote Campbell, "only this is organic, biodegradable and can be used as compost or mulch, which makes for easier and more environmentally-friendly disposal. In addition, this material is also surprisingly durable and tough."

Campbell added that Dell’s packaging strategy has cut costs by more than $18 million and eliminated 20 million pounds of packaging between 2008 and 2012. "With the rapid development of technology and alternative packaging solutions being studied constantly, these benefits have the potential to be far greater in the future for anyone who chooses to adopt a sustainable approach to packaging."

Notboxes, which include coolboxes for home use as well as by specific industries such as the healthcare sector, fold flat for easy storage and backhaul, come in many sizes and colors and are easily branded.

"We chose the Notbox because it’s reusable, lightweight, durable and good value for money," said a spokesperson for Ten Group, a UK-based concierge service. "Our customers can use their box for picnics and storage, and it won’t add to the heaps of landfill already out there."

Okay, I’m looking at Ford’s new energy-saving partnership with Whirlpool. Let me see if I’ve got this straight. If I connect my car to my refrigerator, I can save up to 60 percent on my household energy bill. Have I got that right?

Hmmm, not exactly, but that’s not as far off as you might think.

In fact, according to a new Ford-led collaboration called MyEnergi Lifestyle®, there are substantial opportunities to reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions by taking a big picture perspective of your household energy use that carefully manages not only what you use, but when you use it.

The whole concept, which some are calling a domestic micro-grid, is a partnership between Ford, Eaton, Whirlpool and Sunpower. It is being unveiled this week at the 2013 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas.

The whole thing revolves around a computer model developed at Georgia Tech that is apparently extremely clever at squeezing energy savings out of electrical devices, providing they are willing, and able, to cooperate.

It starts by deferring electrical consumption till off-peak hours. Things like making ice cubes, drying clothes, heating up water, and of course charging up your electric car and other devices can usually wait until nighttime when electric rates and, as it turns out, carbon emissions are lower. Yes, during the off peak hours, the renewable portion of the power generation mix tends to be higher which means shifting loads till then will reduce CO2 emissions.

Ford cars can now do this automatically with value charging technology which won last year’s Innovation Design and Engineering Award at CES. Value charging uses a proprietary online database of utility rate schedules which automatically charges the car at the most economical time.

Of course, adding on-site solar generation and super-efficient appliances to the mix improves the overall performance, which is why Sunpower, Eaton and Whirlpool are included in the partnership. Other companies involved are Infineon and Nest.

According to the Georgia Tech model, if all the homes in America were on this system, the 60 percent potential cost savings (or 55 percent carbon savings) would be equivalent to removing 32 million homes, the equivalent of NY, California and Texas, from the grid. This is equivalent to an annual CO2 reduction of 9,000 kg (almost ten tons) per home.

It’s all about the synergy, being able to transfer the cheaper and cleaner nighttime electrons from the storage provided by the car’s batteries during the day, supplemented by the solar panels when the sun is shining.

It’s not clear from the information provided, how much of these savings come from what. But if deferring the electric loads from daytime to nighttime really makes such a big difference, then I’m wondering why we don’t just run everything we can on batteries and then charge all the batteries up at night.

[Image credits: inhabitat, cthoyes: Flickr Creative Commons]

RP Siegel, PE, is an inventor, consultant and author. He co-wrote the eco-thriller Vapor Trails, the first in a series covering the human side of various sustainability issues including energy, food, and water in an exciting and entertaining format. Now available on Kindle.

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter.

Last July, we reported here on the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC), an industry-wide group of leading apparel and footwear brands, retailers, suppliers and NGOs, and its new Higg Index that measures the environmental performance of apparel products. This coalition includes over 60 members, including the latest addition that was announced last week - ANN INC., the parent company of the leading women's specialty retail fashion brands Ann Taylor and LOFT.

ANN’s decision to join the SAC was described in the press release that followed the announcement as a win-win move – it “underscores the Company’s commitment to environmental stewardship” as well as “widens the scope of the SAC within the apparel industry.”

With 962 stores and $2.2 billion sales, I have no doubt that ANN is a significant addition to the SAC, which includes both large (Walmart, VF, Nike) and smaller (Loomstate, Patagonia) companies. At the same time, I was curious what ANN’s environmental record was so far, and if the company was one of the leaders or the laggards before taking “a leadership position in joining the SAC” as Paula Zusi, Executive VP and Chief Supply Chain Officer at ANN, put it in the announcement.

The first place to look for evidence on ANN’s efforts was the retailer’s sustainability website ResponsiblyANN.com. Presented on the homepage, the company’s commitment is very straightforward: “We act responsibly. The Ann signature stands for more than fashion and style. It signals our commitment to operating our business responsibly and thoughtfully. This commitment means that our clients can look great and feel great about the clothes they wear and, it means as a business we are holding ourselves to high standards.” Well said, but is it well done?

The company’s sustainability journey, which started in 2011 with the formalizing of its social compliance program and code, has transformed into efforts and activities in three main areas: supply chain, environment and communities.

When it comes to its supply chain, ANN has “rigorous programs, policies and procedures in place to provide a positive impact on the lives of the workers who make our products.” The company is working closely with its suppliers to ensure their compliance with its global supplier principles and guidelines and reports that 93 percent of the factories that produce branded apparel for ANN were reviewed in 2011. At the same time, it doesn’t report how many cases of incompliance with its guidelines were found in these audits.

Another supply chain program that is worth mentioning is At Connect. This is a program for select top tier suppliers who work with ANN’s special compliance teams to create specialized worker engagement projects for their factories. These projects, ANN explains, “targeted reducing worker turnover and improving worker morale, resulting in increased productivity and reduced working hours.” In 2011, this program included 70 percent of the supply chain (in terms of business).

Under environment, the company mainly makes efforts to reduce its carbon footprint, conserve energy, eliminate waste and, in general, develop more efficient approaches to its operations. Most of these commitments do not have quantifiable goals and are presented in general terms – for example, “we are investing in our knowledge to better understand water impacts throughout our business” or “at our prototype stores, we continue to test more sustainable materials and procurement practices.” Only energy efficiency and carbon emissions are presented with figures, showing some progress in both cases between 2008 and 2010.

The last area, communities, includes the company’s work with communities and employees to promote various causes, from breast cancer research to children in need to relief funds helping Haiti after the 2010 earthquake or the Philippines after it was hit by typhoon in 2009. ANN’s charitable work also includes collaborations with organizations and programs such as Good360, Goodwill Industries and Materials for the Arts.

From all the above you can see that ANN is no stranger to sustainability. But how advanced is it in its efforts compared to other retailers? To find the answer, I looked at CSRHub, which provides CSR and sustainability data and ratings. According to CSRHub, ANN’s CSR ratings are very similar to the average ratings of retail and specialty retail industries. The main differences are in the areas of governance, where the company’s rating is 65 compared to 57 for both specialty retail and retail, and environment, where the company’s rating is 41, 4-5 points lower than both industries, mainly due to a low grade on policy and reporting.

In other words, ANN is neither a leader nor a laggard when it comes to sustainability compared to its retail peers. Nevertheless, joining the SAC and using its Higg Index can provide the company with a great opportunity to improve its sustainability performance and become a leader.

For example, ANN can use the Higg Index to enhance the environmental sustainability of its supply chain, where its efforts are currently mostly focused on compliance with guidelines concerning employees’ working conditions. It can also use the Higg Index to enhance its work on making the materials it uses more sustainable, as right now it seems that this area is also lagging behind. In other words, SAC can help ANN move to the next level. Hopefully, the company will take advantage of this opportunity.

[Image credit: Ann Taylor]

Raz Godelnik is the co-founder of Eco-Libris and an adjunct faculty at the University of Delaware’s Business School, CUNY SPS and the Parsons The New School for Design, teaching courses in green business, sustainable design and new product development. You can follow Raz on Twitter.

That’s it, it has started, for real! Carbon allowances are now available for sale in California. Companies that emit more than 25,000 tons of carbon-dioxide equivalent a year (CO2e) in the power, oil, and industrial sectors will now have to turn in permits for every ton they emit this year and the years to come. Things are moving fast in California right now, so here’s a primer on what’s happening and what to expect for the coming months.

Are people really buying carbon permits?

Yes. Currently California Carbon Allowances (CCAs) are trading for about $15 a ton on the secondary market. Point Carbon reported a big spike in volume traded since January 1st, as a lot of new companies have entered the markets and are cutting their teeth on West Coast-style carbon trading.

The Governor’s California budget, released on January 10, shows that the state expects to raise $200 million for budget year 2012- 2013, and $400 million the following year. Auctions let private companies buy allowances directly from the state. As explained in an earlier post, the permits auctioned have a minimum (reserve) price of $10.71 per ton, but in reality those permits could sell for a higher price if a lot of compliance entities decide to buy allowances rather than reduce their emissions.

What happens next?

Companies are due to surrender their carbon allowances only in 2014, which gives them time to become more familiar with the program and gives time to the market to settled on its "fair price." The program has two lawsuits pending against specific provisions, but none that would threaten the very existence of the market at this point.

However, several pending regulatory developments could change the outlook for California’s program, and will be settled in the first half of 2013. For one thing, California is looking at “linking” its market with a similar program in Quebec. This would bring in a few more emitters, more carbon allowances too, and another layer of complexity as Quebec has its own rule, economic outlook and, oh yes, a different language too. Quebec emitters could buy from and sell to California companies, and vice versa.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB), the regulating agency, is also tweaking some fairly important program rules. One sets a price cap for the market – the agency is looking at simplifying the current provision, and setting the price cap at $50/ton. We’re far from this level right now, but when the cap tightens prices could climb quickly, so this is a way to reassure emitters in California that things will not get out of control.

Finally, CARB is making some more complex changes to the allocation rule and to the treatment of imported power. This is to ensure that the California program doesn’t cause “leakages,” where a decrease in in-state emissions causes a corresponding increase in out-of-state emissions.

How will this impact climate change?

California’s program will impact climate change in two ways. First, well, it will force emission reductions, by imposing a cap on overall emissions and letting the market figure out where the reductions should take place and at what cost. That’s the “cap” part of cap-and-trade. Second, the “trade” part, especially the part where the state sells permits to emitters, means that California has extra money to play with, which will be invested in emission reductions. The Governor’s budget established that the focus of these investments would be on transportation, electricity and water.

What does it mean for businesses?

The start of the California market will change the face of business in many ways. Power utilities, oil companies and industrial companies now have an economic incentive to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – this will force energy efficiency investments and many more innovative ways to keep carbon under control. Carbon markets also create a number of opportunities – and economic growth – for service providers and entrepreneurial people. Companies like Hara and SAP thrive on helping companies measure and monitor their GHG emissions. Project developers like Environmental Credit Corp. and EOS Climate have built a business out of providing carbon credits, called offsets , to regulated entities. The list of the larger ecosystem created by carbon markets is long, which supports (clean) economic growth and contributes to California’s political and economic influence.

What do you think – do carbon markets create more risks or opportunities for businesses?

*** Emilie Mazzacurati is Managing Director at Four Twenty Seven, a climate consultancy firm. Emilie has published extensively on federal climate legislation, regional programs and the interaction of carbon with other commodity markets. She will be teaching a training course on the Nuts and Bolts of California Cap-and-Trade in San Francisco on February 6th.

Image credit: Thomson Reuters Point Carbon

By David Thomas

Looking ahead to 2013, what can we see? The biggest feature on the horizon in terms of UK environmental legislation appears to be the Green Deal, designed to be a "new market framework" for retrofits.

Explaining the green deal

"A new market framework" - those are the words of Member of Parliament, Greg Barker, who has been the most vocal proponent of the green deal, the UK government's flagship new environmental program. The reason the UK "needs" a new program is, it has pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 50 percent by 2020, up to 80 percent by 2050. To do so, it has consulted financial advisors and energy companies to come up with what it calls the green deal.

The Green Deal is for people who live in homes that are hard to heat. It allows them to make improvements worth up to ten thousand pounds. The improvements are paid for in installments over the next twenty years. The innovation is, these installments are added to their energy bill, which will have been reduced by the home improvements. That's the theory. Underlying this is the "golden rule," stipulating savings should exceed monthly repayments. Or, in other words, you should never pay more than you save. This is the green deal hook the government is dangling in front of UK citizens.

The other movement in UK sustainability

In offering the green deal to private companies instead of funding it with government money, the hope is that the program will flourish organically and, I suppose, evolve according to Darwinian economic theory into something absolutely fit for purpose. Let’s hope it works.

But there's something else going on in the UK, that has to do with quantifying, and thereby reducing, energy use. Energy monitoring technology available on the market is making it easier for gadget lovers to save money. They do much to open people’s eyes to their energy consumption. Seeing your own energy use depicted on a graph with peaks and troughs will teach you more about your energy overheads than anything else, including a bill. Anyone with an appreciation for specialized instruments can pick up an energy monitoring system for around a hundred and fifty quid.

The monitor I’m most familiar with is the Wattson, because I’ve met the team who designed it a few times. The Wattson can be hooked up to your computer to project all your property’s energy consumption data into clear, attractive visualisations. Energeno, the company behind the device, also make modem units that beam your data into the cloud, wirelessly and in real time, so you can check your household’s usage wherever in the world you happen to be.

Using an energy monitoring system, you can see the difference in energy usage between a kettle and a half-kettle, for instance. The effect on a family that takes an interest is lasting. Mark Elliot, Director at Energeno, told me his sister calls her Wattson "the silent nagger," because it’s the only thing that can persuade her son to switch off his hi-fi, and go easy on his Xbox hours (in principle, at least).

If you think energy monitoring systems are very middle-class, they are. The number of people willing to spend money on an energy monitoring system is significant, but it's not the majority. Personally, I believe the device encourages enough saving that it essentially pays for itself. But if you live in a cold house, you live in a cold house, and the only thing that will change that is insulation. And so, back to the green deal.

What stands in the way of the green deal being really successful?

The green deal doesn’t have to inspire the nation, it just has to work. During the first months of 2013, we are expecting to see the green deal gather momentum, but so far it’s not catching on as hoped.

Personally, I believe the type of hype it’s been laboured with has done the green deal no favours. Greg Barker has made many appearances in the past year, projecting that the country will use the green deal to transform itself out of fuel poverty, in the biggest housing retrofit since the reparations made after the Battle of Britain. He has worked hard to enthuse, even inspire us with the green deal.

I don’t know if trying to inspire people was the correct route to choose. Put very simply, the green deal is a way to improve your home without an upfront payment. The most common improvements will probably be boilers, double glazing, and insulation. The effects will be the reduction of your heating bills, and an increase in comfort and the value of your home. When communicating these things, simple is best. For Greg Barker, as a new Minister, this has been a tempting opportunity to spin some impressive speeches, but I’d argue simplicity or even understatement would have been more appropriate.

Many times in 2012, Greg painted a picture of households undergoing complete transformations, and of the diversity of improvements available. Here’s an excerpt from a speech he made at the Eco Technology Show:

“We have to go way beyond the sorts of program that have gone before. We’ve got to make energy efficiency something that’s aspirational and that people want… And that’s why the Green Deal will be about so much more than loft insulation and cavity wall. It potentially could be about glazing, it could give you a new front door, lovely new LED lighting, new temperature controls, heating systems; it could actually transform the front of your home.”

The rhetoric needs to be calmed down. The green deal can improve parts of your home but it’s not a miracle. For most people, it’s absurd to transform an entire property. Instead they make changes to one room at a time, starting with the rooms they spend the most time in. I welcome the principle idea behind the Green Deal: to remember the fundamentals of good housing design, like retrofitting insulation and other improvements, and above all, keeping it simple.

---

IF YOU have any insights or opinions related to the Green Deal, please join the discussion by writing a comment below.

About the author:

David Thomas writes about energy efficiency and legislation concerning sustainability for GreenDeal.co.uk.

---

SLDI is pleased to announce the WWW Premier of “The Beginning of the Sustainable World” Conference, Film & Music Forum  - This event has been months in the making, and we would like to thank the POCSA performers, collaborators, audience and screeners who provided valuable feedback … and everyone else who made this a historic event! We want to specifically thank PortOrford.TV, Sustainable Man, Green Fire Productions and The Seattle Channel for giving us permission to use the video on the web as it was presented at the event. We would also like to thank Port Orford Community Co-op who presented at our forum. And, of course, we couldn’t have done it without the crew at the Savoy Theatre, our editor, and the artists who shared their talents with us that evening.

Grassroots education, not hype

Stakeholders in the Port Orford Community Stewardship Area (POCSA) are beginning to take transformative action. Perhaps the most important part of their efforts lie with successfully engaging and educating not just the “industry pros,” but the public on the real meaning of the triple-bottom-line principles of “people, planet and profit.”

To do so they held a conference, film and music forum to promote and educate people on sustainability on the southern Oregon coast. The public event included presentations from Port Orford Mayor Jim Auborn and newly elected Curry County Commissioners Susan Brown and David Smith, as well as a gifting of one of the world’s first clones from a champion redwood tree to the local Port Orford/Langlois High School from Ocean Mountain Ranch and Archangel Ancient Tree Archive. Together, they covered the subject of the need for and what a triple-bottom-line approach really is.

The goals of this event were to increase participant knowledge, and encourage partnerships within the area in a “triple bottom line” approach to a people-planet-profit philosophy for community sustainability. The event also included a synopsis of the recent efforts at becoming more sustainable.

Transformational systems, not Band-aids for cancer

In 2006, the local non-profit Port Orford Ocean Resource Team (POORT) used Ecosystem-Based-Management (EBM) to guide them in forming the Port Orford Community Stewardship Area (POSCA).  The Stewardship Area encompasses the traditional fishing grounds and the upland watersheds that feed into them.  In total it covers 1,320 square miles - 385 miles of terrestrial and 935 square miles of ocean habitat.

Environmentally conscious forestry interests, working with other conservationists, including sports fishermen and the local Audubon Society, successfully promoted the establishment of the Grassy Knob Wilderness Area in 1974 and the Copper Salmon Wilderness in 2009 to protect the head-waters of the Elk River.  They are presently working on establishing additional protective measures for some of the tributaries that feed into the Elk River.  The Elk River Land Trust has recently been reconstituted as the Wild Rivers Coast Heritage Land Trust covering the terrestrial portion of the entire Stewardship Area and beyond to the California border.

Port Orford has been a leader in the formation of one of the first marine reserves in Oregon through the Redfish Rocks Community Team (RRCT). The Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and Marine Protected Area were established in a location and size through collaborative work of RRCT and state agencies.  The community team continues to work with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to monitor and manage the area.

A Community Fishing Association (CFA) was also established to secure long-term participation in commercial fishing.  A CFA is a community-based organization that is allowed to buy, hold, lease and sell commercial fishing permits and quota on behalf of a defined fishing community. This is a tool the community can utilize to offset the negative economic and social impacts of “catch shares”  that consolidate fishing permits and quota into large commercially traded efforts that leave out small boats and small fishing communities.

Preserving a sustainable future

Non-profit Archangel Ancient Tree Archive and local SLDI partner Ocean Mountain Ranch planted champion redwood and sequoia tree clones in the POCSA in order to preserve the genetics of the largest and oldest livings organisms on Earth. This tree planting is in concert with an effort to assist with the migration of the species during coming climate change. In addition to preserving champion tree genetics for future research, the planned planting at the local high school will provide a focal point for ongoing model terrestrial sustainability initiatives within the local community stewardship area and surrounding Curry County, Oregon -- a rare place on earth where beautiful wild and scenic rivers tumble down through steep canyons and the tallest and largest carbon-sequestering forests in the world on their way to the mighty Pacific Ocean.

Reference Information:

THE BEGINNING OF THE SUSTAINABLE WORLD

Ancient redwoods, giant sequoias to be 'archived' on Oregon coast - The Oregonian

Ancient Cloned Trees Planted to Begin New Forest of Redwoods (photo essay) - The Oregonian

Nurseryman plants clones of long-dead redwoods, sequoias - Associated Press

Roots of regeneration - Curry Coastal Pilot

Planting The World's First Champion Redwood and Giant Sequoia Forest In The POCSA

More Information About POCSA

http://www.pocsa.net/

• Port Orford Stewardship Community Area (Map and Overview)


• Definition of Port Orford Community Stewardship Area (City of Port Orford)


• Oregon Fishermen Protect Ocean, Way of Life (Ocean Frontiers)


• SeaWeb Assists EBM Communications and Outreach in Port Orford, Oregon (SeaWeb)


• Southern Oregon Coast Mixing Nature, Tradition and Economics for a Sustainable Future (Triple Pundit)


• SLDI Project Goes Carbon Negative (Triple Pundit)


• “You are brilliant, and the Earth is hiring” (Triple Pundit)


• A Sustainable Development Effort One Hundred Years in the Making (Triple Pundit)


• The Dawn of a New Era in Ocean Stewardship (Ocean Frontiers)


• Sustainability (Port Orford Sustainable Seafood)


• Ecosystem Based Management Comes to Southern Oregon Port (Triple Pundit)


• Will The Country Follow Its Ocean Pioneers? (Ecotrust Blog)


• Co-ops: Sustainable Solution for Economic Growth (Triple Pundit)

More about the Port Orford Community Co-op

In Wednesday’s State of the State Address, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced his goal to accelerate the state’s clean tech economy. Central to that strategy is the creation of a $1 billion New York “Greenbank,” a fund that would match public funds with money from the private sector to spark investment in clean energy and other green technologies.

In addition to the Greenbank, Gov. Cuomo announced other initiatives including a plan to increase solar installations for homes and businesses over the next 10 years; an expansion of the state’s electric vehicle (EV) charging stations; and the appointment of a statewide “energy czar.” With the aftermath of Sandy still a searing recent memory, Cuomo’s suggested policies show that government and business have got to work together to solve the long term problems climate change poses.

Details on how New York’s state government will financially support the Greenbank are lacking. Nevertheless, environmental organizations including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have applauded the plan. Funds from the bank would be matched with private sector money to offer low cost and lower risk financing for energy efficiency and clean energy projects. New York’s greenbank would be the second in the country; Connecticut launched its version of a greenbank in 2011. As Forbes’ Todd Woody pointed out yesterday, such a finance mechanism for green technology could soon pit New York as a strong rival to California on the green technology front.

Gov. Cuomo also suggested ramping up New York’s solar jobs program at $150 million annually for 10 years. The plan would allow thousands of homeowners and businesses to install solar on their roofs and therefore save money on electricity while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Another initiative that would tackle emissions is the Charge New York program, an investment in an electric car network that would reduce the state’s residents reliance on fossil fuels. According to the NRDC, the plan could lead to as many as 3,000 public and workplace charging stations.

Finally, Gov. Cuomo announced the appointment of Richard Kauffman, a senior advisor to Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, as the state’s “energy czar.” Prior to joining the DOE, Kauffman was CEO of Good Energies, a private equity fund that invests in the energy industry.

As some observers have noted, the real test is whether New York state will actually fund these programs. But so far Gov Cuomo’s administration has scored high marks for other reforms his administration imposed in the two years since he took office. And as it stands this is amongst the most aggressive statewide energy campaign any U.S. state has taken.

Leon Kaye, based in Fresno, California, is a sustainability consultant and the editor of GreenGoPost.com. He also contributes to Guardian Sustainable Business; his work has also appeared on Sustainable Brands, Inhabitat and Earth911. You can follow Leon and ask him questions on Twitter or Instagram (greengopost).

Image credit: Wikipedia (Pat Arnow)

Even if you’re addicted to Cinnabon there’s not really a good reason to schlep to the local mall unless it’s within walking distance. But then that’s not what malls are all about, right?

Last month in the Atlantic Cities blog, Jeff Jordan considered the “Death of the American Shopping Mall” and he has the charts to back up his thesis.

Simply put, America has too many malls, too much retail space in those malls, and vacancy rates are increasing. This is due in large part to stagnant consumer demand, but the major factor is the rise of e-commerce.

“Many traditional brick-and-mortar retailers are being threatened with ‘economic destruction’ by their advantaged online competition,” Jordan writes. This is not a particularly new idea or threat, but after examining the issue, he says, “I believe we’re seeing clear signs that the e-commerce revolution is seriously impacting commercial real estate. Online retailers are relentlessly gaining share in many retail categories, and offline players are fighting for progressively smaller pieces of the retail pie.”

Physical retailers such as Circuit City, Borders, CompUSA, Tower Records and Blockbuster have fallen due to online competition and many others aren’t doing so hot.

Jordan continues: “These mall and shopping center stalwarts are closing stores by the thousands, and there are few large physical chains opening stores to take their place. Yet the quantity of commercial real estate targeting retail continues to grow, albeit slowly. Rapidly declining demand for real estate amid growing supply is a recipe for financial disaster.”

It’s not a pretty picture when one looks at three measures of retailer health in 2012—total sales growth, comparable store sales growth and number of stores.

Total sales growth, according to Jordan, who looked at the National Retail Federation’s list of the Top 100 retailers in 2012, is mixed and is in negative numbers for 20 percent of the sample. “Comp store sales growth—arguably the key measure of retailer health—is also mixed and a quarter of the sample is negative.”

And many of the sales results include retailers’ online segments, so the performance of the physical stores becomes cloudier.

Finally Jordan notes that store counts “are simply stagnant—about as many top retailers shrank their store count as expanded it, and precious few are expanding aggressively. The largest retailers in the U.S. do not look very healthy. And if they’re struggling, it’s likely that their more marginal physical competitors are struggling even more.”

These trends are making it tough for most of the largest owners of retail real estate. The The Wall Street Journal reported that Green Street Advisor, an analysis firm that tracks REITs, has forecast that 10 percent of the roughly 1,000 large malls in the U.S. will fail within the next 10 years and be converted into something with far less retail.

Briefly put, malls are overbuilt and under-nourished. It’s likely that in the near future hundreds of malls will need to be repurposed or demolished. (BTW check out this fascinating site, deadmalls.com, featuring tales of hundreds of already or soon-to-be dead malls.)

It’s also likely that the strong malls in strong (meaning prosperous) areas will stay strong for a while, but check that broadband connection anyway, because the shift of retail spending from offline to online will continue to gain momentum.

Starting a new retail brand? Do it online.

[Image: Mall Daze- #31 by Patrick DB via Flickr cc]

By Neal Gorenflo

Zipcar’s acquisition by car rental giant Avis closes the first chapter of the history of carsharing.  Zipcar’s mixed success raises questions about the future of carsharing and the sharing economy.  What lessons can be gleaned from Zipcar’s record?

The most important lesson is that Zipcar proved there’s demand for car sharing in America, the most car-obsessed culture on the planet. They made it possible for urbanites to act on a growing attitude and impulse around cars and car use – that cars are no longer a meaningful source of identity or freedom as they had been in the 20^th century, and that access to them trumps ownership.

The importance of this shift can’t be overstated.  The car is a linchpin of the consumer economy, at least in the U.S.  It makes the high carbon, high-cost suburban lifestyle possible. When you loosen this linchpin, you begin to shift the entire pattern of consumption for the better.

For instance, carsharing often eliminates the second highest household expense. For each car eliminated, a U.S. household saves $9,900 annually. Much of that additional disposable income may be spent locally boosting local economies.

Then there’s the environmental impact. Carsharing makes urban life more attractive to born-in-the-burbs millenials, who are flocking to cities and the low-carbon lifestyle available there. A conclusive UC Berkeley study showed that one shared car replaces up to 13 owned cars.  And 50 percent of new members join in order to gain access to a car.

There’s no other model of consumption that can reduce resource consumption, increase access to resources, and boost the local economy.  Zipcar showed the world a dramatically better way to consume – and the world ran with it. Entrepreneurs applied the sharing model to innumerable asset categories - from textbooks to tree forts. For individuals, carsharing is a gateway drug to the sharing economy.  A 2010 survey showed that carsharers share across significantly more asset categories than non-carsharers.

Zipcar not only proved there’s demand for carsharing, but also popularized the shared-access model of consumption. They arguably catalyzed the rise of the sharing economy.

So how did Zipcar gain mass appeal? If I had to pick one word, it’d say convenience.  Yes, a great brand, appealing cars, and OK pricing were useful, but Zipcar wouldn’t have gained mass appeal unless it was easy. In their core markets, customers could walk to a car, open it electronically, and drive away.  This was an entirely new experience.

As important as Zipcar has been to carsharing (and the sharing economy), it largely failed as business. While they proved the demand for carsharing, they never became a reliably profitable business. The main culprit was huge fleet costs – cars, maintenance, insurance, and parking.  Acquiring customers profitably was also a challenge.

The lessons of cost control and convenience are not lost on the new wave of carsharing entrants such as Wheelz, RelayRides, and Getaround that represent the future. As peer-to-peer services, their fleets are provided by their customers. The leaders favor electronic access over key exchanges. RelayRides’ partnership with GM’s OnStar service gives them an advantage in acquiring customers. They can potentially onboard millions of OnStar equipped cars through OnStar’s satellite technology.

Still, the cost challenge remains for peer carsharing services. In most case, 60 percent of the rental fee goes to the car owner, the rest to the car sharing company. A 40 percent commission is the highest in the sharing economy by far (Airbnb is 3 percent for hosts, 6-12 percent for guests). The reason is insurance. Up to three quarters of the fee goes to cover insurance.

At the center of this is the issue that cars that are not built for sharing. Few are equipped with access technology at the factory (OnStar cars excepted). Most are over-featured, over-priced, consumer products that appeal to customers' vanity. Repair costs are rising with their increasing complexity. These built in expenses make car sharing expensive. Bottom line - the high rental commissions and cost of cars may make it unattractive for most people to rent out their car.

Peer carsharing companies also face challenges Zipcar didn’t. Renting out your car turns your automobile into a business asset, and commercial use is not covered by most policies in the U.S. This is only a problem if a claim exceeds your peer carsharing company’s coverage. And in most states, insurance companies reserve the right to cancel or non-renew for commercial use, though this is rarely if ever done.

Mass adoption of carsharing requires significant institutional change. Zipcar and the Great Recession broke down cultural barriers to carsharing (and sharing in general), but insurance, regulation, and the product itself need big change for a breakthrough adoption and profitable carsharing businesses. There’s a lesson here for the entire sharing economy.