Green Marketing: Suggestions and Future Predictions

In lieu of my previous post on greenwashing, I decided to explore the blogosphere and discover what others are saying about green business practices. In my search I came across two posts in particular that I felt examined this topic exceptionally well, prompting me to leave comments for both. The first can be found on the Green Options website written by Olga Orda, a print journalist whose previous work experience includes providing communication and social expertise to the UN Development Program, Prudential Realty, and the City of Vancouver. Olga also was employed at the global Public Relations firm of Edelman. In her entry entitled "Hippocratic Oath for Green Business Leaders-Beyond Ghettoized MBA Curriculums" she discusses the possibility of implementing a green Hippocratic Oath alongside the educational courses of young MBAs, thus shifting the focus of businesses to that of a more socially responsible one. The second came from one of my most frequented resources, TreeHugger. Jerry Stifelman (pictured below), a successful brand strategist and creative director of sustainable and green marketing organizations, including his own brand strategy and design agency The Change, created the post "Rebirth of the Producer" where he outlines the basic strategy sustainable businesses should employ in order to be considered truly environmental by the public. Both comments to their respective blog entries can be found by following the links provided to the posts, but as I have done before, I have provided my responses below.

Green Options "Hippocratic Oath for Green Business Leaders-Beyond Ghettoized MBA Curriculums"

Comment:

Olga, thank you for a well researched and interesting post. I can see from your background that you have extensive knowledge and experience in sustainable businesses. Your expertise comes across in this post regarding the possibility of a green Hippocratic Oath for business managers. My initial reaction was that this is a great move on the parts of business professionals to force others in their industry to be held socially responsible for the actions of their company. It is smart to incorporate these ideas in the MBA curriculum of young up and comers. I am sure that it is much more difficult to convince an older manager to change his ways than someone who has yet to enter the real business world. I agree with you that CESR practices have to be embedded into the courses rather than taught as a separate subject entirely in order to be effective. But the more I think about it, the more I feel that this may be an idealized proposition that will face strong opposition and probable failure. There is a reason why the Hippocratic Oath only exists in medicine and law and that is because these professions are centered on the general welfare of the people. In marketing, the focus is on profits and economy. Do social issues and economic issues have to exist on two different planes? Not in my opinion. However I am sure that many in the business world do view it in that manner. Even if young MBA professionals entered the industry with great plans and ideas for sustainable company practices, it is unlikely they will be able to enforce them as the “rookies” at their jobs. So long as older generation managers are reluctant to make any real green changes to their business, it will be nearly impossible for this new educational program to succeed. The issue with many companies is that they view things in a short term manner rather than long term. What may be good for the environment and planet overall may not necessarily be what is going to provide the greatest amount of profits right now. I am not a business major and cannot say that I understand the ins and outs of this profession, and perhaps I have become too jaded about the possibility for socially responsible companies. Do you believe this is something that will really work? I noticed that you also have some Public Relations background working for Edelman. Do you think that because many companies have found ways around being truly sustainable (i.e. through greenwashing techniques) there will not really be a need to honestly change one’s business practices? If you can successfully market and promote yourself as being greener than you really are than why bother making the effort to do any more? I am in no way advocating this. I would welcome a change to create more eco-friendly corporations and companies. I just have doubts as to the effectiveness a Hippocratic Oath would have in the business world. I am interested to hear your own thoughts on this.

TreeHugger "Rebirth of the Producer"

Comment:

Jerry, your post was both insightful and informative. I must say that TreeHugger is my favorite resource to use when researching sustainability news. I commend you on this latest post of yours regarding green business practices. I recently posted on my own blog about the negative consequences of greenwashing (devious greenwashing demon pictured left), a term I am sure you are familiar with. What I liked most about your post was how you chose not to focus on the negatives that exist out there, but rather on the positive changes that companies can make to be truly sustainable. It is easy to criticize and throw blame, but it is much more difficult to offer real and practical solutions as you have done here. Nevertheless, everything that you suggest seems incredibly simple and straightforward. It makes me wonder why more businesses have not chosen to adopt these methods. Will we ever see the day when businesses put a green priority above a profit priority? I guess the better question is: will companies ever stop seeing the two as separate and incompatible facets of the industry? To me, employing sustainable practices does not necessarily mean a loss in profits or an increase in expenditure. Even if it were the case that more money would have to be spent to convert to greener methods, it seems to me that consumers these days are more interested in seeing honest businesses that produce safe and well made products, and that alone would be enough to increase profits and make up for any extra costs acquired. Am I being overly optimistic when I say that?

Another reason I enjoyed reading your post is because I am planning on entering the realm of public relations upon graduation. It was really interesting to look at your suggestions from a PR perspective, and you truly do offer some very good advice. "I don't know" is probably one of the worst things a publicist can say because it is precisely their job to know everything about the company they work for. I definitely agree that the less that phrase is used, the better for all parties involved. However, it is troubling how businesses with even the most microscopic and immaterial green practices seem to tout it as one of their major platforms. I find it frustrating when being "eco-friendly" is more of a marketing ploy than a sincere attempt at helping the environment. What is perhaps even more irksome is the fact that as consumers, it is so easy to be misled. Companies publicize every green detail about themselves but never openly discuss any of their less sustainable actions. Ideally, there would be complete transparency, as you discuss in suggestion number five. However, we don't live in an ideal world and the truth is constantly being obscured by irrelevant facts that are meant to distract us from the reality of the situation. Do you actually know of any companies or corporations that follow all of your steps? Are there certain ways we can detect if a company is being completely open about their green behavior? As of right now, I cannot think of a single business or manufacturer that meets all those standards you have outlined . Do you think the day of the truly open and honest big business will ever arrive? I myself remain skeptical but hopeful.

Faux Green: The Deception of Greenwashing

As I was searching the internet recently, I came across Christopher Hawthorne's LA Times article regarding the new Whole Foods Market in Pasadena. The store utilizes many different types of sustainable building material such as Neapolitan bamboo and Fireclay tile, both of which are incredibly eco-friendly substances. So why is this architecture critic so unhappy? Apparently, Hawthorne sees the mega-mart as ineffective in its purpose to create a "greener" environment. By constructing an obscenely large grocery store with high ceilings and endless underground parking spaces, the executives at Whole Foods Market have succeeded in creating a very non-sustainable structure. This trend of overly hyping up a company's environmental aspects is known as "greenwashing" and can be seen more often with every passing day. But my question is, why exactly is "greenwashing" viewed so negatively? Greenwashing is essentially a marketing technique used by businesses to attract consumers on the basis of their sustainable practices, making it impossible to employ this strategy without first implementing the green practices to begin with. Should we not be applauding the efforts of companies to convert their old ways in order to approach the consumer market on a more environmental level? I was prompted to further delve into this topic to discover the answer for myself.

To the average person "greenwashing" may be a wholly unfamiliar term and was something even I was unaware of prior to reading Hawthorne's article. According to Greenwashing Index, the term functions on the same premise as "whitewashing," but in an environmental framework; it is "a coordinated attempt to hide unpleasant facts." In other words, businesses spend more time, effort, funds, and energy in touting their "greenness" rather than actually implementing truly sustainable practices. This is done through visual or textual misrepresentations, obscure claims regarding their environmental impact, exaggeration of a product's sustainability, and a failure to provide a complete picture by leaving out essential information. Greenwashing Index also goes on to discuss what precisely the problem with this deceptive tactic is. It is true that not all instances of this marketing technique amount to the same level of unacceptability. Some companies may be unknowingly doing so in a very mild way while others may be purposefully misleading their customers. In general greenwashing poses potential risks to the environment, to the consumer, and to the business carrying out the act. It can be environmentally damaging if it encourages the public to support companies that actually do more harm than good, which in turn causes buyers of supposedly green products to invest their money into brands that do no such thing. Although businesses may initially profit from an increase in sales, they ultimately suffer when the truth is discovered about their practices, possibly marring the company's reputation and public standing beyond repair.

Looking back at the Whole Foods Market example in Pasadena, it is unlikely that this is one of the more severe cases of greenwashing, but as Hawthorne writes in his article, "Somewhere along the way, for both organic grocers and the corporate patrons of green architecture, the line between planet-saving and aggressive marketing became blurred." Nonetheless, Whole Foods loyalist will continue to shop there for the organic produce and goods, despite the fact that the existence of this giant emporium runs counter to the company's core beliefs, such as reducing resource consumption. In my opinion the decision makers at Whole Foods Market did not want to create a huge energy wasting building but realized that with their company expanding at a rapid pace, it was somewhat of a necessary evil to create this behemoth grocery store. As far as large structures go, it is fair to say that this is one of the greener ones that at least makes some attempt at sustainability. However, it is misleading to the public for the company to boast their use of eco-friendly materials when they have countless television sets turned on all day and all night long. What people need to be wary of in this instance is the negative impact the store could be causing despite their attempts to maintain a green building.

I came across a second instance of greenwashing on the Green Living Tips website where author Michael Bloch recounted his experience at a supermarket. The culprit this time was not the actual store, but rather a particular brand of eggs being sold at the store. Bloch stated, "It had an eco-type brand name in bright packaging and proclaimed how buying those eggs are good for the planet.... I was about to purchase a dozen but there was a big, but subtle, gotcha. In a color very similar to the packaging I saw the words 'Cage.'" This brand extolled its many green customs such as using recycled material for the egg cartons, using recycled water, and planting trees, but the one very significant detail that the company failed to display prominently on the package was the fact that their eggs came from caged birds. In many cases the conditions that caged hens live in are extremely barbaric and inhumane (see picture to the right); it may not have been the case for this particular company, as the author was unable to find any evidence of the living arrangements of the fowls through the company website, but the reproachful thing that still remains is the manner in which the brand conveyed this message to their consumers. Rather than placing it on their product in a way that was easily seen, as they did for every bit of green information regarding their eggs, they chose to disguise it, making the lettering nearly the same color as the package. This represents a clear example of a business's attempt to mislead through visual and textual means.

In the end, it is becoming painfully clear that the public is not as incompetent as marketing companies may believe them to be. Greenbiz.com reports that in a recent survey conducted by Brandchannel.com, readers did not think there was a single company that could be considered truly green or to be going green. "Almost 20 percent of the 2,000 survey respondents said no brand is serious about being green." One reader stated, "Very often, the 'green' aspect of the business is far outweighed by the 'non-green' areas." Sound familiar? Surprisingly enough, the respondents to the Brandchannel.com survey were mostly those who work in marketing. It is perhaps this familiarity within the field that makes them attentive to the greenwashing tactics of businesses. But as our society continues to grow and advance in the realm of sustainability, it is unmistakable that companies who are falling behind or who willingly choose to manipulate their customers into believing they are more green than they truly are, suffer from negative publicity and a downturn in consumer loyalty. Greenwashing may be evidence of a change in the market to meet the higher demand for environmentalism, but it is also indicative of a serious problem with businesses who try to use this platform in a false and deceptive manner. It is most certainly not something that should be applauded as progressive but rather chastised. The best way to counter this misleading tactic is for the public to be aware and alert in its consumer choices. It is something for us to all keep in mind the next time we decide to go out and spend money on a product we believe to be green.

Linking to the Web: More Online Resources on Sustainability

A few weeks ago, I created a post discussing ten exceptional websites pertaining to the sustainability movement. Further research of the web has led me to return with ten additional websites, which were analyzed using the IMSA and Webby Awards Criteria and have conveniently been added to my ever expanding linkroll on the left hand side of this page. I have attempted to find a balance between well written blogging sites as well as reputable organizational websites and will discuss each one briefly. However, I encourage each person to take the time to visit these websites; there is a repository of unique information available for every source listed here. One of the organizational websites discovered in my search was GreenerCars.org. Living in the car obsessed city of Los Angeles prompted me to find this website that provides consumers with information about how environmentally friendly every car on the market is. Well designed, easily navigable, and with a wealth of useful knowledge, GreenerCars.org makes an excellent resource. Similar in quality is The Alternative Energy Store. Although it is more directed toward those do-it-yourself types who enjoy building and working on things at home, The Alternative Energy Store is an online retail store that provides green materials to anyone interested and also has information to help those less adept in their mechanical skills. Keeping my last post on hydrogen power in mind, I came across the U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen Program page, and granted, it contains some bias as to the effectiveness of government hydrogen programs, it is nonetheless a good source of information about hydrogen energy in our country. Earth 911 is a mass notification platform that aims at relaying messages on a large scale regarding sustainability. At first glance, the site appears to be overly broad and unfocused in its purpose, but further investigation reveals a highly developed networking webpage that is extremely user friendly. Lastly is a rather unusual source for green information. The Sundance Channel, an institution for small independent films, contains a branch of their website called Eco-mmunity where visitors can read up on the latest environmental news as well as get involved in various environmental causes. Eco-mmunity understandably does not delve as deeply into the subject as some of the previous websites listed do, but I love and appreciate the fact that this significant entity in Hollywood is exercising some social responsibility and finding a way to incorporate sustainability into the movie industry.

Coincidentally enough, where my discussion on green organizational websites ends is where my discussion on green blogging sites begins. The Sundance Channel also has three blogs on their Eco-mmunity section. The Green is an up to date blog discussing a myriad of environmental issues all across the globe. Despite the fact that there is no information about who is writing the posts, the blog appears to present legitimate information and is maintained daily. The second blog, Environmental News, focuses on just that. Rather than broadly discussing issues as The Green does, Environmental News focuses on the politics of sustainability around the world. However, the same criticisms about The Green also apply to this blog as well. Moving away from the Sundance Channel, I came upon Green Option, a blog site that covers every topic, from money and business to food and health. The upside of this site is there numerous bloggers who keep Green Option updated daily, often with more than one post per day. The negative is that not all seem to be experts in the field. Gristmill is another environmental journal meant to inject humor in a field that is too often characterized as dull and overly serious. They attempt to keep things interesting by covering the unconventional but still pertinent sustainability news. The problem with Gristmill is that seemingly anyone can post an entry, regardless of their qualifications or lack thereof. Lastly is MTV Switch blog, a branch of MTV that covers green news of relevance to the younger generation. Not one of my most favorite sites, I still believe it is important and admirable for MTV to have this online resource that continues to inject important issues to our youths in a manner that is relatable to them.

Turbulent Turbines: Mayor's Plan Stirs up More Than Just the Water

The possibility of turbines being placed in the San Francisco Bay (pictured on the left) has been in discussion since 2003 when the city's Department of the Environment director, Jared Blumenfeld, and Mayor Gavin Newsom proposed the idea, and it is not an entirely new subject by any means. What is new are the findings of the United Research Services (URS) study that were just recently released. The study was paid for by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and indicates several major problems with this plan. What initially began as a genuinely positive step toward finding an alternative source of energy has quickly spun into a mess of stubborn politics, financial improbability, and inadequate amounts of research. Although hydraulic technology provides the cleanest and most efficient form of electricity, the Mayor's proposal to place turbines in the bay severely lacks sufficient research to be implemented safely and intelligently. As the leader of San Francisco, it is his responsibility to act in a sensible and conscientious manner while maintaining the best interest of his citizens as a central priority. However, his actions following the release of the URS Study only seem to implicate an unwillingness by Mayor Gavin Newsom to act in this mature capacity.

Tidal energy is a largely unexplored source of energy in the U.S., where the majority of our states and cities have no access to large natural bodies of water. However the history of this technology goes back all the way to around 900 A.D. when waterwheels were used to activate grinders for grains. The first commercial tidal energy power plant was constructed in Brittany, France during the 1960s, and the waterwheel gave way to the much more technologically advanced hydraulic turbine and generator. Today France's La Rance Tidal Power Plant still remains the only large scale commercial power plant in the world and has been functioning for the last forty years without any major malfunction. Throughout the years, a number of other tidal plants have emerged in various locations all across the globe, including Canada, Switzerland, Wales, and China. Although found to be reliably effective over time, history has also shown that they are not without their fair share of problems. From 1974 through 1987 a myriad of studies were conducted to determine whether a proposal to dam the Severn Estuary that spanned the distance between Wales and England would be feasible. The Severn Tidal Barrage proposal (STB) was ultimately put aside in 1987 as a result of "economic problems". In addition, there were found to be several environmental obstacles such as fish migration impediment and disruption of delicate intertidal zones that would have most likely prevented the creation of the barrage.

Fast forward to 2008 and we are finding many of these same obstacles reemerging in the San Francisco Bay proposition. Originally, it was believed that the water around the Golden Gate Bridge was a large source of untapped energy for the city and was even projected to be capable of producing 38 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 38,000 homes. Jared Blumenfeld proudly touted that "Within 10 years, San Francisco could build enough clean energy tidal power to meet its daily energy needs, as well as generate surplus energy to sell--all with a price tag of about one-third the cost per megawatt of solar power." In reality, the URS study has found that only one to two megawatts would be produced at a cost of millions of dollars in maintenance fees, thus raising the estimated price of electricity from anywhere between 80 cents and $1.40 per kilowatt hour. In comparison, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company currently has a commercial rate of 12 cents per kilowatt hour. On top of these financial complications lies the fact that much of the environmental impact on marine life has gone largely unstudied. "Just imagine a giant tube being placed at the base of the San Francisco Bay underneath the Golden Gate Bridge," Mayor Newsom stated in regards to his plan. Yes, let us imagine this "giant tube" which will likely be over fifteen feet tall sitting on the bay floor and purportedly have no effect on the underwater ecosystem. It is hard to believe that a foreign object of that magnitude would be unnoticed by the fish and other creatures in the bay, especially if Mayor Newsom has his way and establishes an entire underwater power grid of turbines. There have been many issues with trapped fish and seals, and a 100% guarantee of safety to the surrounding wildlife can never be fully provided. The truth is that there is no real way of predicting the effects that the plan could have on the environment. Tidal flows could be altered, migratory patterns interrupted. It is very likely that placing these hydraulic devices in the bay could introduce an entirely new set of problems in place of the energy problem it is meant to resolve.

The politics of Mayor Newsom (pictured on the right discussing the turbines) have also raised more than a few questions from critics of his plan. When faced with the results of the PUC funded study, the mayor's response was, "I am going to find a way to make it happen... I don't care about the arguments against it. I care about the arguments for it." This is precisely the kind of deterministic attitude that will get bad policies enforced and give a bad name to the whole alternative energy movement. Instead of taking the negative critiques personally, Mayor Newsom should be using them to reevaluate the plan. By ignoring "the arguments against it" he is choosing to ignore the faults that may potentially arise should his efforts come to fruition. Another controversy arose when the General Manager of PUC, Susan Leal, was fired from her position late last February despite having two more years in her contract. Consequently, her severance package amounted to over $400,000, a fee that will have to be paid by the citizens of San Francisco. Many have speculated that Leal was let go partly as a result of her decision to back away from the mayor's initiative to create a tidal power plant after she received the results of the URC study. Leal also gained the reputation as being too independent and not a team player during her three and a half years as general manager. I find it to be a troubling sign when powerful officials use their authority to manipulate other influential minds into sharing their ideologies as it appears Mayor Newsom has done. A third study to be conducted by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company is now underway, which Newsom is hoping will yield more favorable results. As the political leader of San Francisco, it is his duty to act responsibly for the well being of his city and all its inhabitants. However, his actions and statements have only shown his narrow minded approach to the energy crisis situation.

It is no secret that California has been suffering from a deficient amount of energy for a number of years. As a result, the state has become a pioneer in exploring alternative energy sources; the interest in harnessing hydraulic power and converting it into electricity very much exemplifies this fact. Tides are arguably the best source of energy as they are reliable, consistent, completely reusable, and emit zero waste. Nonetheless, that does not mean that plans for a tidal power plant can be enacted without thorough research beforehand. It is important that changes toward sustainability occur in a smart and thoughtful manner in order for them to remain effective permanently. Mayor Newsom's continued determination to create turbines in the bay of San Francisco despite research that indicates their financial impracticality is suggestive of a deeper political agenda. If Newsom is truly looking to improve his city and relieve California's dependence on environmentally damaging sources of power, he should take the criticisms to his plan seriously to see if any adjustments could be made to address the problems rather than ignoring them with reckless abandon.

Links Galore: Some of the Best Online Resources For Everything Green

My intention in writing this blog was to create an online forum that others could look to as a reference for legitimate and accurate data. Therefore I felt it necessary on my part to search the web and provide a number of sources that readers of this blog could turn to for further insight on the green movement. During my research, I kept in mind both the Webby Awards Criteria and the IMSA Criteria to evaluate websites as well as blogs. The sites I discovered offer a multitude of information, not just limited to California, and cover all different aspects of sustainability. One such resource that I often visit, and can frequently be found on my feed items, is TreeHugger, a comprehensive, interactive website dedicated to all things green. The creators' main goal in launching TreeHugger was to push sustainability into the mainstream, and with over a million different viewers, one could easily make the argument that they are well on their way to succeeding in their endeavor. I find TreeHugger to be one of the best places for information; not only do they have a thirty post per day blog, but they also provide a daily and weekly newsletter for quick and easy access to current information. My only criticism would be that with such a vast amount of material in one location, it is easy for viewers to become overwhelmed. Thankfully the "About" section of the site provides helpful suggestions on how to best navigate TreeHugger depending on each individual's specific needs. Got2BeGreen is another similar website. Like TreeHugger, Got2BeGreen supplies readers with a variety of green knowledge through articles and blogs. It lacks the same amount of popularity as TreeHugger but as it is only recently launched, Got2BeGreen has garnered a significant amount of attention and only continues to grow. Another resource I have previously utilized is Green Tech Gazette, a weblog that presents information on new green technology. Despite the fact that the exact credentials of the author are unknown and posts are not always updated on a daily basis, the topics are consistently relevant, of the utmost interest, and seem to be drawn from reliable primary sources. Many times green products have the connotation of being inferior or technologically behind non-green products, but this blog continually proves that is not the case, promoting cutting edge sustainable inventions. Stepping away from the blogging community, I chanced upon Smart Growth America, a coalition of numerous organizations on a national, state, and local level. This group's website is dedicated to improvements in building for cities and towns all across the country. I found this website to not be quite as informative as some others I have come across but was nonetheless a good source of information and simple to navigate. A better example can be found in the U.S. Green Building Council page. This non-profit organization is devoted to promoting the expansion of sustainable building practices throughout the United States. USGBC is a much heftier coalition uniting over 13,500 building industry organizations under this cause, and their members include engineers, architects, designers, and government agencies. This website is highly authoritative but at the same time seems to be directed more toward knowledgeable professionals in the field rather than the average citizen. The Green Home Guide is much more suited for the everyday layman who may not be quite as well versed in the world of sustainability. This San Francisco based website was created with the intention of providing simple and trusted advice to the masses. Green Home Guide allows their visitors to engage with professionals in the field who will answer any and all questions they may have when it comes to building a greener home. An easily navigable page, simple and pleasing design aesthetic, and wealth of reliable information make this website one of my favorites. Building Green is yet another resource for sustainable architecture and design. This independent company's mission is to transform the building industry using a whole-system perspective, improving environmental conditions for the outdoors, indoors, employees, owners, and associates. Unlike Green Home Guide, this website serves a much more commercial purpose for those in the industry. Narrowing my search to California centered web pages, one of the first to come up was the U.S. Department of Energy site for California. It provides the latest government news regarding anything that has to do with California energy and also provides a list of upcoming events in the state. The benefit of this website is its authority since it is a government organization, but the negative would have to be the relatively small amount of information that can actually be translated into something useful by its readers. For all that the U.S. Department of Energy lacks, the California Energy Commission's Consumer Energy Center provides. It is in fact the very premise of this website to supply the public with knowledge on how to effectively utilize energy in our homes, work, and vehicles. Simple and straightforward, the Consumer Energy Center is the ideal resource for everyone, regardless of how informed or uninformed they may be. Lastly is Environment California, a citizen-based advocacy group that fights for the protection of the state environment. They cover all environmental issues from clean water and air to state legislature. I found this site to be a particularly strong source for California specific information. To visit any of these website simply click on the corresponding link provided in my linkrolls.

New Innovations: The Good And The Not So Good

With the presidential elections underway, it seems as if there is hardly anything ever going on in the news that has to do with anything else. There certainly has not been much coverage recently of any interesting occurrences in the world of environmentalism, but since I find it hard to believe that the wheels of sustainability have stopped in the presence of this election, I decided to research the online blogosphere to see what people within the field are talking about amongst themselves. During much research, I quickly came to realize that there is an innumerable amount of information to cover. Breakthroughs and new innovations are constantly created on a daily basis. It would be impossible for me to even attempt to mention them all. As a result, I have chosen two different blogs I found to be of particular interest, each for their own unique reasons. The first post, Feelin' Bloovy, comes from the egglog website. Created as a blogging branch of the egg company website, egglog is a forum where members of the company can post about issues relating to marketing and sustainability. Egg is a brand communications agency "that focuses exclusively on sustainable brands and organizations." Although the post does not have any specific relevance to California, I felt that it was an important overarching issue that goes beyond the regional demographic. The second post I discovered had an entirely different kind of invention. With Los Angeles and Hollywood's obsession with all things luxurious and flashy, I felt that the post was much more fitting to a Southern California motif. Green Tech Gazette, a blog for both environmentalist and "techies", recently wrote, in their aptly titled post Rinspeed SQuba Underwater Electric Car, on a new type of electric vehicle called the Rinspeed SQuba. The purpose of choosing this second post is to exemplify the wide array of innovation occurring in the world of environmentalism and to also emphasize that not all are necessarily created with the intention of progressing the sustainability movement in a practical manner. My response to both posts may be found by clicking on the links provided but for your convenience I have included the comments below, beginning with the comment to egglog and followed by my thoughts to Green Tech Gazette.

egglog "Feelin' Bloovy"

Comment:

I commend you and your company for campaigning under such a worthy and notable cause. Issues of environmentalism and sustainability continue to grow and become more pressing with each day. I believe that changes being made in the marketing and business world will do well to set a precedent for others to follow in their footsteps. Your post on "blue" becoming the new "green" was of great interest to me. As a student at the University of Southern California who wishes to pursue a career in public relations, I find it intriguing how companies use environmentalism as a PR tool. It had never occurred to me, prior to reading this post, that there are still many negative connotations that are associated with "green" terminology and that this might deter businesses from using environmentalism as a publicity platform. "Feelin' Bloovy" made me realize that as far along as we have come in the realm of environmentalism, there is still a certain amount of fanatic and ultra-liberal implications that people attach to the word "green". This transition from green to blue is, in my opinion, an amazingly smart move for everyone involved. Any negative connotations that "green" might elicit in the minds of the public disappear and simultaneously the word "blue" gives the sustainability movement a fresh new look that is not only more versatile but also more palatable. I also agree with you that the term "blue" does a much better job of embodying what sustainability is all about. Many people still assume that environmentalism is about tree hugging and keeping the Earth green, when really it has become more about keeping the Earth clean and sustainable for our future progeny. Issues of this nature have become more than just a trend; it has now become a full on movement driven by a concerned nation and empowered by its youth. Organizations like the Energy Action Coalition, an alliance of forty six youth led organizations both in the U.S. and Canada concerned with clean energy, only go to prove how motivated the people of my generation are to improving the environment and how seriously they take this issue. My question to you is where exactly did this transformation from green to blue originate? I would be interested to know who was (or were) the creative mind(s) behind this process. Also, what do you believe is the best strategy for promoting this new "blue" term?

Green Tech Gazette "Rinspeed SQuba Underwater Electric Car"

Comment:

Your post on the Rinspeed SQuba was quite the interesting read! I think the video that was created to showcase this luxury car’s abilities does a very inadequate job of doing so due to poor production skills. However the main concept of the car comes through very clear: an electric scuba car! An amazing accomplishment indeed. But I must question why so much time, effort, money, and technology went into the creation of this car. Just from one look at the video, several things become blatantly clear. First and foremost would be the complete and utter impracticality of the vehicle. As far as I’m concerned, most people tend to only have a need for cars on dry roads rather than traversing through and under water. Secondly, from the features available in this car, even not including its underwater capabilities, it looks completely out of the price range of the average citizen, and in fact it is. I feel that innovations in technology, especially ones that are meant to be environmentally friendly, should keep in mind the everyday user. The best way for sustainable living changes to persist is if they can be easily incorporated into our daily practices. Driving would be a perfect example. The makers of Rinspeed had an opportunity to use their resources to create a great (and practical) electric car available for ordinary people such as myself. I currently drive a Honda Civic Hybrid and am constantly frustrated at the lack of vehicles hybrid drivers have to choose from, and I cannot even recall the last time I saw an electric car on the road! With rising gas prices and longer commutes, it seems that car companies would feel pressed to create more fuel efficient cars that people could actually purchase. The rapid and continued high sales of Toyota’s Prius show that there is a great demand for these kinds of automobiles. In all fairness, I realize that Rinspeed is a German company and European cars are mostly known as luxury vehicles, but the fact remains that there is a large, untapped market that no one seems to want to touch. Is it truly that difficult to create an electric car that can be affordable to the public? It does not necessarily mean it has to be cheap, but with the Rinspeed SQuba approximated at $1.5 M it is a luxury that many cannot afford. It seemingly caters only to those elite few whose only use for the car would be to efficiently drive it to their private beach front homes before driving it into their private beach front shores. If the Rinspeed cannot reasonably be made available for public purchase, then I at least hope that its creation will spark renewed interest in the field of electric automobiles and hopefully lead the way for future, more practical endeavors in that direction.

California Colleges: Leading The Way Or Falling Behind?

In a time when people are becoming more aware of environmental issues, it is no surprise to see college universities hitching their horses to the green bandwagon. The state of California has been a definitive front runner in this movement and has seen a myriad of environmental changes in the past few years. With so many different entities making the move toward greener practices, both government and private businesses alike, one would think that the leading educational institutions of our state would be quick to follow suit, if not be the ones leading the way. In reality, many of our most established universities have failed to show a strong commitment to sustainability, including my very own University of Southern California.

In a recent issue of the Daily Trojan, an article discussing USC's new sustainability committee made front page news. The Sustainability Steering Committee differs from the previous Operations Sustainability Committee in that it directly involves administrators of the school who have the actual authority to enact the changes prescribed by the committee. One cannot argue that this is indeed promising news, but it should not simply be taken at face value. Further analysis of why and what things are changing should be taken into consideration.

The Sustainable Endowments Institute, created in 2005, issues a report card every year of 200 leading educational institutions both in the United States and Canada based on their environmental and endowment practices. The 2008 report showed USC's grade to be at a C+, a significant improvement from its D grade in the previous year. The weakest area was the Endowment Transparency category, which should come as no surprise considering that USC is a private university that keeps most of its financial ongoings extremely private. Failure to make available details of their funds toward sustainability initiatives resulted in an F grading. However, USC scored highest in the Transportation category, receiving an A for their full-time rideshare program and use of electric and hybrid vehicles by the facilities department.

Improvement or no improvement, it is in my opinion that a university with the funds and resources of USC should not be receiving anything lower than a B grading. Issues of the environment have been a growing concern since the start of the new millennium and it seems that USC has been slow on the uptake to make any serious changes to their sustainability practices. In fact, I question whether any real significant changes would have occurred if it were not for the 2008 College Sustainability Report Card or the recent changes made by Stanford University.

A recent article by the Center For American Progress details the numerous green programs that Stanford already has in place. Much of Stanford's environmentally friendly practices are being led by The Initiative On The Environment and Sustainability which combines the expertise of researchers and scholars as well as leaders in the field to not only create a more sustainable campus, but a more sustainable world.

Not surprisingly, Stanford was named one of the 25 Campus Sustainability Leaders and received a B+ grade in the 2008 Sustainability Report Card, slightly lower from the A- they received in 2007. (sketch of Stanford's plan for a green dorm to the right)

So the question begins to emerge, are these recent changes in USC a genuine effort to make the campus more sustainable or a result of their attempt to become more like their competitors? As a school that touts itself as an institution equal to any ivy league school, most notably Stanford, it leads me to suspect that USC strives to become more green in an attempt to match their rivals. Change has to be about more then just a PR stunt to improve ones reputation in the eyes of the public. The college recruitment arena is a highly competitive realm that continues to get tougher with each passing year. Although many colleges and universities before Stanford have been employing green tactics, Stanford seems unabashed to let the world know just how green they've become. Is it the case that USC, too, would like to use their recent push toward environmentalism to garner more attention and possibly draw more students to the school?

Some may think that as long as changes are being made for the better, it should be of no consequence why they are being made to begin with. But I must argue that motives do indeed play a crucial role. They determine whether these new sustainable practices will actually be pursued and continued or remain nothing more then optimistic plans. Environmentalism is a hot topic now, but the public has a short memory. Would these changes persist if issues of the environment began to fade into the background as they have in the past? I have my doubts.

I do not doubt that there are many involved in the new Sustainability Steering Committee at USC who have great intentions to make the school a model of energy efficiency. What I question is the commitment of the administration to keep this school a sustainable entity. If it is the case that the school is simply following the green trend and making only half hearted attempts at real, substantive changes, then the future for an environmental campus seems short lived. If however, the administration sees the true benefits sustainable design has for the surrounding area as well as the school and continues to strive toward these goals despite the direction others around them may choose to go, then the potential for a green future seems limitless.