Search

There are three drivers that are pushing sustainability into an investment megatrend in 2013.

Driver #1: Emerging sustainability accounting standards

One of these drivers is the accounting industry’s investigation into accounting policies and practices that will account for the financial liability of a company’s environmental impacts. KPMG, in their “Expect The Unexpected” white paper, reported that in 2008, the world’s 3,000 largest public companies by market capitalization were estimated to be causing $2.15 trillion of environmental damage.

This off-balance sheet liability is equivalent to seven percent of their combined revenues and 50 percent of their EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortization). In response, a Sustainability Accounting Standards Board was launched in 2012 with funding by the Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Rockefeller Foundation. The organization’s main goal is to establish and maintain industry-specific sustainability accounting standards for use in Form 10-K and 20-F. What this means for investors is that sustainability is now a CFO issue. A Deloitte white paper entitled Sustainable Finance: The risks and opportunities that (some) CFOs are overlooking reports that half of surveyed CFOs are planning capital investments that support the implementation of sustainability initiatives.

Driver #2: Sustainability is now a C-suite area of focus

Sustainability is now being adopted by the C-suite as a valuable tool for growing profits and competitive advantage. Walmart’s CEO, Mike Duke, has embraced a corporate strategy to advance Walmart’s everyday low price competitiveness through sustainability. He hosts two milestone meetings per year for his leadership team focused upon adopting sustainable best practices in operations and merchandise procurement. Similar to achievements by Ford and DuPont, Walmart’s CFO, Charles Holley, reported at a recent milestone meeting that Walmart now earns $230 million annually through its waste management program.

Driver #3: Consumers are demanding smarter, healthier and greener solutions

The consumer is the ultimate driver in sustainability’s emergence as an investment megatrend. But consumers don’t call it sustainability. They are actively searching price competitive “in me, on me and around me” solutions that are healthier, smarter and greener. Attractive investment opportunities that are emerging as smarter, healthier and greener solutions win price competitiveness through manufacturing economies of scale. Much maligned solar power is an example.

If oil had dropped in price as much as solar panels it would be selling for $10 per barrel. A report by ILSR projects that unsubsidized solar will grow from .1 percent of U.S. electricity supply to 10 percent by 2023, as it wins price parity against utility supplied electricity. Hawaii provides a current example where the price of rooftop solar is now lower than utility supplied electricity resulting in a 75 percent leap in construction applications to install rooftop solar electricity systems.

Tomorrow's article will profile five sustainability trends shaping stock valuations in 2013.

Bill Roth is the Founder of Earth 2017 He coaches business owners and leaders on proven best practices in pricing, marketing and operations that make money and create a positive difference. His book, The Secret Green Sauce, profiles business case studies of pioneering best practices that are proven to win customers and grow product revenues.

We humans are a funny bunch around new ideas.

Yes, we’re excited to hear about them. But far less keen to act on them.

Certainly, when it comes to green innovation, there are plenty of obvious reasons for non-adoption, as the Exposing & Closing The Green Gap study highlights.

But even if you eliminate barriers like high price, it’s difficult to start the surge. Why?

In a conversation with Jim Nelson, a marketer at BC Hydro, I learned more about the myriad of subtle, not-so-rational reasons that stop us before we start.

Hydro’s expertise on the subject stems from its own particularly tough sell. As Nelson says, “We’re trying to convince consumers to save energy in a market with few incentives – BC’s power comes from hydro dams, so it’s clean. And our energy has one of the lowest price tags for power in North America. So people see no big benefit in saving energy from a wallet, or smog perspective.”

Certainly, incentives and programs have moved the needle. But the Hydro team also understands there are more subtle barriers to action they need to cross, seven of which Nelson mapped out for me. If you’re in the business of marketing green innovation (or any innovation, for that matter), these might be the keys you’ve been looking for. At the very least, they give us a glimmer into the irrational world of our own psychology.

Status Quo Bias Status Quo Bias is an irrational preference for the current state of affairs. What’s interesting here is that the bias isn’t against inferior alternatives, or a lack of information on alternatives. It’s against ANY change from the status quo.

Semmelweis Reflex The Semmelweis Reflex is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or knowledge simply because it contradicts established norms, beliefs or paradigms.

Mere-exposure Effect The Mere-exposure Effect  is a psychological phenomenon where people tend to develop a preference for things merely because they are familiar with them. It can be something as simple as preference for a face you’re familiar with, or ‘warming’ up to an idea only after being exposed to it a number of times.

Loss Aversion Loss Aversion refers to people’s tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses over acquiring gains. Some studies suggest that losses are twice as powerful, psychologically, as gains – I would hate to lose $100 much more than I’d feel great about winning $100.

Knowledge Bias Knowledge Bias refers to the tendency of people to choose the option they know best, rather than the best option. This includes well-known principles like the curse of knowledge, when having in-depth knowledge of a subject prevents us from thinking about it from a less-informed perspective.

Anchoring Anchoring is the tendency to rely too heavily on a past reference or one piece of information when making judgments. Think of how we judge a "good" price for a product based on the first price we see – any subsequent price we see is judged high or low based on our first price.

Hyperbolic Discounting Hyperbolic Discounting is our preference for rewards that arrive sooner rather than later. And the longer the delayed reward, the less we value it. Think long-term payback through energy efficiency vs immediate reward via lower equipment price.

So what to do with my green innovation?

Unfortunately, once a negative perception to a product or behavior is established, it’s difficult to detach. This explains our collective frustration at not moving more quickly to shift to more sustainable behavior, despite the knowledge that inaction is to our detriment.

That said, forewarned is forearmed. In Hydro’s case, understanding these drivers enables the marketing team to adjust programs and fail forward faster. How will they impact your next green innovation?

[Image credit: cuantofalta, Flickr]

Last week Qatar-based Al Jazeera Media Network announced that it will acquire the American cable news channel Current TV. Co-founded by Al Gore and Joel Hyatt in 2005, the supposed left-leaning rival to MSNBC had problems attracting viewers and keeping hosts. Terms of the deal were not publicly disclosed, but the purchase of the struggling cable TV news channel could have cost Al Jazeera as much as $500 million. Current TV most likely will disappear within a year and a new Al Jazeera America will be headquartered out of New York City.

Not everyone is thrilled with the news. Time-Warner Cable announced almost immediately after the deal that it would remove Current TV from its lineup. Some observers are foaming at the mouth because of the inconvenient truth that Current TV was sold to the emir of a fossil fuel-rich nation. Charges of Al Gore’s hypocrisy, incidentally, are nothing new: the Gore family has had a long history with Occidental Petroleum and Armand Hammer.

The real truth, however, is much more nuanced: as the Washington Post’s Dominic Basulto reminds us, Al Jazeera is paying for potential eyeballs, not Current TV’s content. Considering the sad state of cable TV in the U.S. (look what happened to Oprah Winfrey’s dis-OWN’d new channel), this is by far the best possible deal that Gore and Hyatt could snag.

Critics who are quick to slam Al Jazeera for its scathing coverage of the Second Iraq War miss an important point: this media company is far more than a channel with a critical voice on American involvement in the Middle East. Al Jazeera is a font of information on regions of the world (The Balkans, Latin America) that often go underreported, and has not been shy about criticizing the governments of its neighbors (though it's relatively silent on Qatar, of course).

Then there is the attack over Qatar’s status as the bastion of the oil and gas industry. No breaking news here, folks: Qatar ranks high globally on the carbon footprint per capita index. The little thumb in the Gulf has a long way to go before it can say it is a serious hub of sustainable development. Yet Qatar is emerging as a clean energy and sustainability laboratory. Its leaders understand that oil and gas are finite resources, and the country needs to diversify if it plans to maintain the high standard of living its citizens, and expat guests, enjoy. And besides solar energy or green construction, technology and media are a couple additional ways for Qatar to diversity its economy.

So, even though Time-Warner’s political move temporarily dented Al Jazeera America’s future reach, the purchase of Current TV is still a winner for Al Jazeera. Currently only 4.7 million U.S. homes have access to the channel, but that can increase to as much as 40 million once the deal is finalized. And Al Jazeera could reap even more opportunities here in the U.S.: the company’s English web site garners about 40 percent of its site visits from the U.S. Add Al Jazeera’s brilliant The Stream, a web community that integrates social media and live news. Coverage of sustainability is not yet a focus of Al Jazeera, but do not be surprised if that changes.

Despite the large media companies telling us otherwise, there is still a dearth of international news on cable television. Sure, Fox’s Bill O’Reilly may fume at Gangnam Style and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow updates us on Uganda’s homophobic government, but a serious analysis of international events is still lacking on most cable TV packages. So the banter over Gore’s cashing out is just that: banter. Not only was this the best possible deal for a dying cable TV news channel, but the acquisition of Current TV could be positive news for a TV audience who struggle to find a decent source of--news.

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). He writes frequently about sustainable development in Qatar.

Image source: Al Jazeera English

There were a number of food recalls last year. The latest one, a voluntary recall, was of protein bars possibly contaminated with salmonella. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that every year 3,000 Americans die of foodborne diseases, 128,000 are hospitalized, and one in six (or 48 million people) gets sick. In January 2011, President Obama signed the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act into law. Two years later, the FDA has finally released the first two of five new rules.

It is interesting that the rules are released just a month after two non-profit advocacy groups, the Center for Food Safety and the Center for Environmental Health, filed a lawsuit against the FDA for not releasing the proposed rules to implement the Food Safety Modernization Act. The lawsuit claimed that the FDA missed deadlines.

The first two rules released by the FDA are:

• Preventive Controls for Human Food: This rule sets safety requirements for facilities that process, package or store food for people. It requires that food facilities implement "preventive controls," a science-based set of measures intended to prevent foodborne illness.


• Produce Safety: The food-safety law requires that science-based standards be set for the production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables, and FDA is proposing such standards for growing, harvesting, packing, and holding produce on farms.

Under the new rules, most food facilities would be required to create a written plan that does the following, according to the FDA's website:

• Evaluates hazards that are reasonably likely to occur in food


• Specifies the steps that will be put in place to minimize or prevent those hazards


• Specifies how these controls will be monitored


• Maintains routine records of the monitoring


• Specifies what actions will be taken to correct problems that arise

"While the plan will come from the food companies, the planning and execution are done under the watchful eye of FDA, " said Donald Kraemer, senior advisor at FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. "The agency will evaluate the plans and will continue to inspect the facilities," Kraemer said.

One of the three other new rules yet to be proposed would require foreign supplier verification for importers. This rule would require importers to verify that foreign suppliers follow procedures that "provide the same level of health protection as that required of domestic food producers," according to the FDA. The other two rules are:

• Accredited third party certification


• Preventive controls for animal food: This would implement similar preventive controls as those proposed for human food

Hopefully, it will not take the FDA another two years to release the other three food safety rules.

Image credit: Flickr user, SodanieChea

By Jeffrey Hollender

Consider this common scenario: raw materials are extracted from the earth, transported to a processing facility and with the use of various chemicals and human labor, are transformed into a product. This product is transported again, to a store, where it is sold.  You buy it, and assume you are paying a fair price because all the costs to produce, transport and sell the product are included in the price you pay.

Wrong! Only some of the costs are included in the price – the rest are actually born by society as a whole.

If we look more carefully at everything that happened to get our product to the marketplace, we see a host of costs not accounted for in the price tag. For example, perhaps the raw materials were mined in a way that forever altered the landscape or geology at the site. Or, consider the pollution costs due to fossil-fuel-based manufacturing and transportation. And think about the employees at the store, who may be paid minimum part-time wages, which they need to supplement with government assistance for food or healthcare.

Few consumers are aware that the prices they pay for most products and services are artificially low and don’t reflect the full cost.

Businesses are free to use, abuse, consume, and destroy nature with no financial consequences thanks to a phenomenon called cost externalization. Tacitly blessed by governments and the accounting profession, the externalization of costs is a tradition that’s become deeply imbedded in our economy. But its days are numbered, just as our planet’s resources are limited. The more we see the environmental and social destruction that it is responsible for, the more we see that this accounting trick is, in a word, unsustainable.

While some leading businesses are voluntarily taking responsibility for some of these costs by either internalizing or, better yet, simply eliminating them, what really needs to change are the ground rules. We need agreed upon standards on how to measure these externalized costs, incentives to fully document these costs and ways to provide accountability.

The U.S. economic system subsidizes businesses that harm the public welfare and creates an uneven playing field for businesses that do it right. We need new policies that create incentives to do good, which includes accounting for the full cost of doing business so that those who already internalize those costs can thrive. We need an economy that is responsible to the environment and puts community accountability ahead of profits.

The good news is that there are already creative thinkers figuring out ways to make this happen. In many cases, the search for cost effective solutions takes creativity, systems-based thinking, and most effectively, transforming the root of the problem. Going beyond the traditional cap and trade, and polluter pays principles, there are new laws, policies and initiatives being explored that reevaluate what we as a society consider important.

For example, my home state of Vermont is taking a cue from the country of Bhutan by implementing a policy that requires the state to analyze “progress” in an entirely different way. Instead of measuring progress by the traditional GDP, this new measurement evaluates progress in terms of the effect on public welfare as a whole, which takes into account community relationships, public spaces, environmental preservation, and the standard of living for each individual and family. Initiatives like this are springing up all across the country (and world) and could be a promising start to full cost accounting. When the focus moves from simply focusing on profits to how the business impacts the public, external costs will be internalized by the business itself, or eliminated completely.

Another promising practice we have seen is the emergence of worker-owned cooperative networks that are growing throughout the world. Networks such as the Mondragon Cooperatives and the Evergreen Initiative in Cleveland allow the workers to own their enterprise and network with other owners to develop sustainable business strategies. They have the ability to put a higher priority on democracy, education and the sustainable development of their surroundings, rather than solely maximizing profits at the expense of their community. While cooperative developments do not avoid externalizing costs all together, having ownership over an enterprise is an important step in directing where the costs of externalities go.

Nothing will change unless the people and organizations involved in correcting issues begin to collaborate, pool resources and realize that at a very fundamental level, many of us are working toward a common goal: the pursuit of a better future. Multi-sector organizations that bring a strong unified voice to distinct groups to set forth a new economy are crucial in transforming our system. A partial list of these important organizations includes: the American Sustainable Business Council,  Green Recovery (Energy), Embrace Obama’s Agenda, National Council on Science and the Environment (biodiversity in a rapidly changing world), AME, UNEP – Green Job, New Economics Institute, NEW (New Economy Working Group), NER (New Economy Round Table), Business Alliance for Local Living Economies, Social Venture Network, Social Enterprise Alliance, B Lab, Fourth Sector Network, and New Voices of Business. These are the leaders who can best push for the policy changes – both in Washington and in board rooms – that put in place new rules that will end the practice of externalization.

These organizations, policies and initiatives are critical to establishing a new economy: one that works in harmony with the planet and puts human welfare above profits.

Jeffrey Hollender is co-founder and former CEO of Seventh Generation. He is the author of the bestseller, How to Make the World a Better Place, a Beginner’s Guide, as well as five additional books, including The Responsibility Revolution and Planet Home. He is a board member of Greenpeace US and Verite and also co-founder of the American Sustainable Business Council.

Policy Points is produced by the American Sustainable Business Council. The editor is Richard Eidlin, Director – Public Policy and Business Engagement.

[image credit: Autoneum: Flickr cc]

This post originally appeared on ESCM

By Oliver Campbell

The attitude of many companies is changing when it comes to prioritizing "green" initiatives and focusing attention on sustainability in the supply chain. The effects of climate change are real, the consequences are serious, and businesses are recognizing ways in which they can help by reducing their carbon footprint.

At the same time, companies are striving to make their supply chains more efficient, and environmental efforts can prove key to increasing productivity. Sourcing materials, production, travel and waste management should all work in tandem with a company’s broader green initiatives to deliver the most effective results.

With the economic downturn, one might assume that companies would abandon their green initiatives in favor of cheaper alternatives but a PwC report released earlier this year, Sustainable Packaging: Myth or Reality, discovered quite the opposite. It found that sustainability investment has increased rather than decreased during the economic downturn, as companies are paying greater attention to the effective use of resources. Companies are more conscious of finding ways to make every aspect of their business more efficient from production to sourcing materials.

Packaging is a key part of this process. Any company which supplies physical equipment needs to consider packaging, and the efficiencies packaging can provide. It is now more feasible than ever to create packaging that is beneficial to the environment while also being valuable from a business perspective. Businesses can minimize the impact of business operations, while at the same time create new possibilities for customers to reduce their environmental impact.

Many different materials can be used as green alternatives to traditional packaging. One example of a natural material is bamboo, which is a rapidly renewable member of the grass family with tremendous tensile strength that serves as a great alternative to more commonly used molded paper pulp, foams and corrugate. In addition to being highly sustainable, bamboo also helps promote healthy soil and, when harvested correctly, doesn’t require replanting, making it an ideal renewable resource. Also, bamboo is the fastest-growing woody plant in the world and can grow up to 24 inches per day, so the material is practically always readily available, which is vital for large companies which often need substantial amounts of packaging.

Sustainability can also be built into all processes associated with the production of the bamboo. In our own experience for example, after it is harvested, the bamboo is mechanically pulped at a nearby facility. During this process, 70 percent of the water is reclaimed and used in the process (the other 30 percent is lost to vaporization). Nothing is poured out, and no toxic chemicals are used. If it's sunny, the pulp is dried by the sun, reducing electricity use.

Another rather unusual source of a highly durable packaging solution is the humble and unassuming mushroom, which we at Dell are currently piloting as a packaging material for our servers. The mushroom bioscience is based on using common agricultural waste products: cotton hulls, rice hulls or wheat chaff are placed in a mold and injected with mushroom spawn. Five to ten days later, the mushroom root structure completes its growth, having used the energy residing in the sugars and carbohydrates of the agricultural waste instead of external energy sources such as petroleum. The final product looks and acts like Styrofoam, 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.

More common alternative solutions can kickstart green packaging in your organization. Other options include: high-density polyethylene (HDPE), which is made using recycled-content plastics derived from recycled milk cartons and detergent bottles; molded paper pulp; lightweight air cushions that can be dramatically minimized before disposal. The alternatives are evolving practically every day.

The case of sourcing materials responsibly has become equally important when it comes to manufacturing your packaging. Every step of your packaging process presents an opportunity to minimize your carbon footprint. Sourcing materials locally and packaging locally by creating an "in-region" solution means that you cut down on the carbon you would emit if you were sending transporting materials back and forth over long distances. This could help you save on the overall costs of shipping materials, while also helping reduce carbon emissions in the long run.

Customers, governments and other stakeholders are paying more attention than ever to the sustainability and efficiency of the supply chain, and packaging is a pivotal part of this. Not only do these new alternatives offer the chance to reduce your carbon footprint but they can also contribute to substantial savings. Dell’s packaging strategy has eliminated 20 million pounds of packaging between 2008 and 2012 and also cut costs by more than $18 million, demonstrating that there are real and tangible benefits. 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.

Oliver Campbell is director of procurement for packaging and packaging engineering at Dell, Inc. 

For further information, visit: www.dell.com/poweringthepossible.

[image credit: Dell, Inc.: Flickr cc]

This piece was originally published on Think Progress.

By Rob Honeycutt

Climate scientists are in the unfortunate position of being the messengers of bad news. So in a way, climate change denial is a massive attempt to shoot the messenger.

There are so many existing technologies to address climate change that are positive messages that too often get lost in the noise.  I want to share what I see coming from my industry, which is manufacturing.

Specifically, I want to address how things are manufactured rather than technological solutions.

The big picture

As we all know, over the past 30 years, vast portions of the world’s manufacturing base has moved to Asia, primarily China.  What you find there is a spiderweb network of small factories supplying parts to each other forming a distribution chain of goods.  Those goods are all being delivered by tens of thousands of these little blue diesel trucks, each belching out heavy particulates, CO2 and any number of unhealthy substances.  None of the factories are located in any rational proximity to each other; it’s fairly random.  The surface streets they travel are generally choked with traffic.  Then, each of those factories is running on the Chinese grid, fueled by a lot of dirty coal.  Most factories also keep back up diesel generators running, since the Chinese grid is often unreliable.  I’ve even seen small, clearly unregulated, coal-fired generators tucked away back in various coves and backstreets putting out very heavy smoke.

Then, of course, all the finished goods are trucked to port, loaded onto an unending train of container ships crossing the Pacific and heading out to all corners of the world.  Each of those is burning bunker fuel, which is something akin to asphalt.  And on top of that you have designers, engineers and execs flying back and forth to Asia numerous times each year to manage their projects.  I have one friend who does 8 to 10 trips a year to China as a product designer, and that’s pretty normal.

Taiichi Ohno and Toyota

Some 70 years ago a man named Taiichi Ohno pioneered Toyota’s incessant quest to ferret out waste from their production systems.  His work heralded in a new wave of manufacturing efficiency.  You may perhaps remember how the Japanese were crushing the U.S. auto industry in the 1970s and 80s.  This was primarily due to systems developed by Ohno.

Taiichi Ohno identified what he termed the “seven forms of waste” or “muda,” as it’s referred to in Japanese.  One of the primary forms of muda is “transportation waste.”  Moving product was always to be kept at its barest minimum since it adds no value to the end product.  There are reams of research on this, and yet, over the past 30 years, transportation waste has exploded to epic proportions.  None of it adding value.  All of it putting vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Not even thinking of CO2, and only being focused on efficiency, what Toyota did to minimize this was to work in Keiretsu’s.  They were “families” of suppliers who maintained their facilities in near proximity to the main Toyota assembly plants and they operated their supply chain on hourly delivery schedules.  Over half a century ago Toyota and Taiichi Ohno showed us that operations should always be located as close together as possible.  This got lost in the mad rush to move production to China.

Efficiency improves quality

The work of Taiichi Ohno and Toyota eventually lead to the “Lean manufacturing” movement.   Hand-in-hand with elimination of transportation waste came the reduction of in-process inventory levels.  One of the first things a company learns, and often why companies will abandon Lean, is that reducing inventory exposes problems.  With high inventory levels and extensive transportation, problems get hidden and passed along downstream.  With Lean, problems can’t hide and have to be fixed or the entire factory shuts down.  What this promotes (demands, actually) is a process of continual improvement.

Practicing Lean manufacturing over long periods of time translates into ever improving quality of goods.  As manufacturing guru, W. Edwards Deming, was always quoted to say, “Quality always costs less.”  As counterintuitive as that sounds, it is a fact.  The implication is that by eliminating transportation waste and leaning out production, you create far more efficient systems, and produce far higher quality goods for less. In this you can vastly reduce CO2 emissions and create more profitable businesses.

The present opportunity

There is a new movement emerging to start bringing manufacturing back to the U.S., partially evidenced by Apple’s recent comments that they would be bringing some of their production back to the US.  But I see a much larger opportunity here.

My background is in manufacturing, with 23 years experience in both domestic and off-shore production across a wide range of products.  I am launching a new product on the Kickstarter website to set up a domestic factory in the SF bay area producing a simple consumer electronics product; a set of bluetooth earbuds.

Though initially I’ll be just looking to set to do final assembly, the long term plan with this business is to create a vertically integrated process where, in house, we run a large portion of the creation of the product.  We will look to bring in printed circuit board assembly, injection molding for the outer case and earbud parts, and the extrusion process for creating the earbud cords.  We will eventually even bring in the printing processes for creating the product packaging.  All this so that no process is anything more than a few yards from the next step in assembly.  Then the cherry on top will be to have a solar PV installation powering the whole thing.

In this, we would eliminate huge inefficiencies and remove nearly all the middle supply chain CO2 emissions related to the product by removing nearly all the transportation waste, and at the same time creating a more profitable domestic manufacturing business.

One of the goals of this business will be to show other businesses what the opportunity is.  Too often people get the idea that addressing climate change will involve higher priced goods.  I believe that’s wrong.  These methods can give people reason to want to give the messenger a great big hug because, yes, we can mitigate CO2 emissions and actually have a stronger economy for it.

If you’d like to support this project, click here.

Rob Honeycutt is the founder of the bag company, Timbuk2.  He was the first to implement an online “build-your-own” mass customization, which became the inspiration for the NIKE iD program. He also has extensive experience with off shore production, having worked with over 100 different factories in China.  Rob lives in Berkeley with his wife and two children, and is a contributing author at Skeptical Science.

[image credit: Chris: Flickr cc]

By Danielle Stewart

230 Park Ave, also known as the Helmsley Building in New York City, will be lit up every night for the first time this new year.

The system being installed is an environmentally friendly LED light system that is very similar to the lights in the Times Square New Year's Eve Ball. Every night the lights will be slightly different except for their energy efficient status. The computer
-controlled LED light system changes color and can be programmed to put on quite a show. The lighting crew says due to the programmable controls, the exterior can go from “tame to wild” in a matter of minutes.

NY1 reporter Adam Balkin interviewed a spokesman for the company that retrofitted The Helmsley Building, and he said, "The building's going to pop, it's going to stand out and it's going to be visible from 40 blocks away -- something that's never been this way before."

What is very interesting about this retrofit and other recent retrofits like this is that not only is this a pretty sight to be seen, it also shows the world that historic buildings and iconic structures can all change and become environmentally friendlier; it only takes people becoming more aware of not only the visual benefits but the long term environmental benefit as well. In 2010, this very building became the first pre-war office building in New York to earn Gold LEED status.

"Typically what we're going to do is we'll come up with one static look, it'll stay that way for 20 minutes, or 27 minutes, and then there will be a three minute dynamic change into a different color set," Says Al Borden, spokesmen for the lighting company.

As an energy-efficient lighting manufacturer, Precision Paragon [P2] loves sharing inspirational stories such as these to spread the word about retrofits and promote all the amazing uses for LEDs inside and out of buildings new and old.

 

By Chris Long

When storms and other natural disasters strike, small businesses are especially vulnerable to power outages. While larger companies may have multiple locations that can pick up the slack while operations at one site shut down, the same is usually not true for the typical small business.

As a result, small business owners should take every available precaution to protect themselves from the wrath of nature. In fact, failure to plan for a power outage could result in a loss of business, inability to communicate with customers or clients, temporary (or even long-term) closure, and loss of inventory.

Companies can combat these potential issues by obtaining a generator, which will help restore electricity in the event that power goes out. Regardless of whether you're a one-man show or a rapidly growing small business with numerous employees, having a generator onsite can help avoid the pitfalls that might otherwise ensue in the event of a power outage. The information below outlines some basic information all small business owners should consider when determining whether to purchase a generator.

Different kinds of generators

Two basic varieties of generators are available on the market. Automatic, or standby, generators are permanently connected to a building's electrical system. When the power shuts down, those generators automatically detect the problem and restore power to the building. On the other hand, portable, or backup, generators run on gasoline or diesel and have to be manually installed once a power outage occurs. While automatic generators require little or no work for the business owner, portable generators are typically less expensive.

Safety first

When it comes to generators, safety should be the first priority. Portable generators often emit potentially harmful levels of carbon monoxide. Therefore, they should never be placed indoors when operational. Instead, most manufacturers and industry experts recommend placing standby generators outside at least ten feet from the building it is servicing. That reduces the possibility that harmful emissions will enter the building through windows, doors, or other openings. However, as an extra precaution, management should ensure that buildings are equipped with operational carbon monoxide and smoke detectors. In addition, use heavy-duty, grounded extension cords that are designed for outdoor use.

Never refuel gas-powered generators while they are running. In fact, it's best to let the generator cool off completely before refueling to avoid a fire or explosion.

Capacity

Before making a purchase, discuss your energy needs with a company representative or salesperson. A typical generator cannot harness enough wattage to power an entire commercial building. Therefore, focus on what your main priorities will be in the event of a power outage and ensure that the model you select can satisfy your needs.

Properly operating a generator

First and foremost, you should always operate a generator according to the manufacturer's instructions. Consulting local building codes may also be necessary depending on the kind of generator you select. And never be shy about asking questions of the retailer or a licensed electrician. It's much better to get all the information upfront rather than scrambling to find answers in an emergency situation.

To minimize potential operational problems, generators should be tested periodically. Again, don't wait until you're in a bind and actually need the generator to find out that it isn't working properly. In addition, take great care not to overload a generator, as that could cause a fire or damage appliances.

Noise

Unfortunately, noise is a normal byproduct of generator use. And some models are particularly loud. Therefore, operate the generator only when necessary to avoid disturbing neighbors. Automatic standby generators are generally quieter than portable models.

Conservation

Operating a generator only when necessary is important. If no power is needed at a given moment, make sure to turn off the generator to avoid waste. Also, keep in mind less expensive alternatives to running a generator. For example, in certain circumstances, battery-powered lights might work just as well as light fixtures fueled by a generator.

A generator may not be a foolproof solution to keeping your small business going during a power outage. However, generators can be helpful in minimizing the problems that going off grid can cause.

Chris Long is a store associate at a Chicago-area Home Depot. Chris writes truck rental tips, steam cleaner rental tips and a variety of other equipment tool rental topics.

It gives us great pleasure to announce the launch of The Rise of the Sharing Economy, our first crowdfunded article series and something we hope will create a tremendous impact well beyond our core readers.

We’re very thankful to everyone who kicked in and shared the campaign page – especially corporate sponsors like Wheelz, HUB Bay Area, Skeo, Saatchi & Saatchi S, uSwapia, Munchery, ISOS Group, EcoSupply, TrustCloud, Collaborative Consumption, hylo, and Profit Through Ethics.

Remind me what this is all about...

To understand what we're writing about, here's a rundown of the sharing economy concept: Let’s say you need a pickup truck to move some furniture. Your neighbor lends you his truck, and you pay him for the time. Now, extend that model to anything and use web-based social networking to connect with the entire world – not just your neighborhood. That’s the sharing economy. We've written for years about this concept - sometimes called the access economy, or even "collaborative consumption."

In a sharing economy, anyone can run a small business on the side, and you can have easy access to hundreds of things you never had before – without the financial, environmental, and time cost of ownership.  Most significantly, a sharing economy can help build local economies, strengthen communities and reduce the consumption of resources.

What to expect:

The purpose of this series is to help mainstream the sharing economy as a conversational topic. More specifically, we'll explore the various business models that make up the sharing economy. Not just explanatory stuff, but all of the following and more:

• Regulatory and legal issues


• Real measurement of the sharing economy's economic and environmental impacts


• Role of large companies in the sharing economy


• Startup profiles


• The "sharing economy" meme - is this really the best name for the subject?


• Marketing the sharing economy

Can I still get involved?

Yes, on a case-by-case basis, we'll consider additional guest posts as well as topic suggestions. Companies looking to partner with us on distribution, advertising, or other ideas are also welcome to get in touch.