Students pursuing MBAs are looking for courses able to provide them with environmental perspective. And while the average business student seems to be interested in working for socially responsible employers, there is also an element of practicality involved.
Just a few years ago, corporations weren't specifically worried about greening business practices. There has been a rapid transition in the consumer psyche, and greener companies have had a marketing edge. Now, running a business in a sustainable manner has become essential rather than a marketing gimmick. Students have paid attention to this change and have realized that they have a lot to learn to join capitalize fully on the sustainability revolution.
Students have made a push for including environmental classes into business school curricula. No longer do they have to head off for special programs to learn environmental stewardship. The Aspen Institute has even started ranking schools on the basis on their environmental curricula — Stanford University holds the first spot on the institute's 'Beyond Grey Pinstripes' list.
According to a poll by Experience Inc., 81 percent of students say that it is important to work for a green company and 79 percent say that they would be more likely to accept a job offer from a green company over other options, assuming the offers were similar. Up until now, the real question has been whether those students -- with brand new MBAs in hand -- would be able to find the sort of socially responsible jobs they hoped for.
These days, though, there are no questions. Corporations need to fill positions that didn't exist ten years ago — jobs like environmental consultant, corporate governance specialist and ethics officer — and they're turning to students to take on the challenge. In only the past four years, the number of CSR jobs has grown 37 percent, according to Net Impact.
The number of educational opportunities available to students interested in the field could still use a little improvement, however. Because of the relative youth of the field, internships are often limited. Many schools are still working to implement green curricula, and quite a few are still in the absolute beginning stages of the process. Many students are looking for educational options with more depth than those offered on many campuses. They're looking for classes that cover environmental issues on a macro level: how alternative fuels might affect shipping options, the costs and benefits of carbon offsets and similar issues. These students want case studies, facts and figures, and even textbooks. MBA programs are still working on providing them.
Consumers have begun to look for more accountability from the fast food industry, and it looks like they may get it. Menu changes are becoming visible — one of the major issues with fast food has been the question of health. More restaurants are providing healthy eating options, like salads.
While consumers' health issues are important, though, a new question of accountability is growing. How do we know if a given fast food chain is making an effort to protect the environment?
Ellen Kennedy, a senior social research analyst at Calvert Group, identified four issues that investors should consider when looking at fast food chains: the company's environmental footprint, workplace issues, animal welfare and product safety, and marketing to children.
In an interview with WhatPC?, Kennedy expanded on that list: "Like Wal-Mart, large fast food companies can influence whole categories of suppliers by virtue of their purchasing decisions. So one way to think about fast food operations is to start with each ingredient and follow it through the supply chain to disposal or recycling. For example, we know that global seafood supplies are predicted to crash in the 2040s. Does the company sell fish species that are threatened? Does the company have good seafood supplier standards that are independently monitored? Does the company source shrimp that have been farmed with high levels of pesticides or antibiotics? How is the fish processed, transported, and refrigerated? What does the company do with trash and organic waste?"
It isn't just investors who are keeping an eye on fast food chains, though. Consumers are looking for more and more transparency from their favorite eateries. Groups like the National Restaurant Association are making an effort to help lead fast food restaurants to greener practices. "Some of the most clear-eyed critics of the industry are the long-time NGO advocates who have developed relationships with companies over years, or even decades," Kennedy says. "They often have a sense of which companies 'you can work with' and which ones give the run around."
The process remains fairly slow. While the number of certified green restaurants has been growing, they still make up only a fraction of U.S. restaurants. Not all restaurants recycle, make their buildings energy efficient or even refuse to use Styrofoam containers (about 40 percent of restaurants currently use Styrofoam take-out containers). To date, there isn't even a definitive guide showing which restaurants are green. But progress is underway, aided by the fact that consumers want sustainable fast food and will support it with their purchasing power.
While I retain a fair degree of skepticism about the possibility of a hydrogen-fueled economy, powerplans were unveiled this week by Hydrogen Energy International—a joint venture of petrochemical giant BP and mining company Rio Tinto—that could have a dramatic impact on the world’s clean energy future. The plant, which will produce hydrogen fuel from an oil refinery byproduct, will be the first power plant to employ carbon sequestration on an industrial scale.
Richard Muller, a professor at UC Berkeley and author of “Physics for Future Presidents," regards sequestration—the idea that heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions can be captured and safely stored before entering the atmosphere—as something like a modern Apollo Program. As Muller recently told NPR’s On Point “People say ‘we haven’t done it yet,’ but the engineering I regard as straightforward, it’s almost certainly going to work, and early tests will show us whether it’s going to work or not.”
If successful, this plant operation would provide a major stepping-stone toward the hydrogen economy so famously touted by President Bush. On-site carbon capture would all but eliminate the carbon footprint of industrial hydrogen production. Combined with improved fuel cell technologies and longer-range fuel tanks, this is a major step towards overcoming the technical challenges of creating a viable hydrogen-powered vehicle to replace today’s gas-guzzlers.
It’s also worth noting that the same carbon sequestering technology applied here could also be used to capture pure carbon-dioxide from almost any single industrial source, including coal power plants and coal gasification plants also capable of creating hydrogen gas fuel.
I’ve never been a fan of the notion that coal is America’s best choice for solving its current energy crisis, but coal power does have some impressive and obvious positives. First, considering price alone, it’s extremely inexpensive, generally selling at well under five dollars per kilowatt hour. Part of this low cost is due to the fact that the United States has tremendous coal resources, meaning less time and energy required for transport, a lower chance of price fluctuations, and more income flowing back into the domestic economy.
So, if Professor Muller is correct, and sequestration attempts will prove their worth after only limited viability testing, then this plant reflects a tremendous development in providing the world with a clean, reliable energy source.Failure means a quick redistribution of research funding into other solutions, and success is a tremendous victory for humanity against the specter of global warming, though other negative aspects of fossil fuel use, such as groundwater contamination and habitat destruction, will also still need to be addressed.
It’s no stretch to say that the market’s a little bit volatile these days. The Dow staggered further downward, despite another significant drop in the price of oil. Traditionally reliable companies like General Motors are continuing to post record losses, and even some of the world’s strongest banks in the recent crisis are starting to suffer. However, increased inflation on the US dollar, and historically low federal interest rates continue to pressure American businesses and individuals to find investment options to keep their money accruing value over the long term.
There’s also tremendous interest in investing in greener businesses. Aside from the attraction of providing financial backing to industries and firms that coincide with a sustainable world outlook, the environmental sector is widely predicted to be one of the most active over the next few years. And with high oil prices, carbon taxes, and other price increases hitting conventional energy sources, green energy could turn out to be a very profitable investment as well.
But how to tell the next Google from the next theglobe.com? Despite the buzz over the green sector, there are generally very few clean energy companies receiving endorsements from major investment firms. But one company, First Solar, has begun to distinguish itself, bringing in impressive earnings and becoming one of the few solar companies to receive a “buy” rating from investment banking giant Merrill Lynch.
It’s not hard to see why: First Solar began 2007 trading at $28 a share, and is currently selling at $267, a time period during which the SP 500 actually lost value. Merrill Lynch analysts continue to expect powerful growth from the firm, setting a price objective of $350, and upping earnings-per-share predictions. Like many American firms doing business with Europe, a weak dollar has made it an attractive purchase, especially in countries where governments provide incentives to encourage solar purchases, and sales volumes are outstripping predictions, returning impressive results for the second quarter of 2008.
Far from being a recent green-boom darling, though, First Solar was founded in 1999, and makes thin-film cadmium telluride solar cells. While more efficient photovoltaic technologies exist, the lower cost and larger range of operating conditions more than make up the difference. As a result, the company delivers an industry-best cost-per-watt. While past growth has been impressive, the firm’s investment in a less-cost-intensive production facility in Malaysia, scheduled to go on line at the end of this year, along with long-term foreign and domestic contracts worth nearly 6 billion dollars, establish it as a strong longer-term consideration in a burgeoning industry.
Clothing manufacturer Icebreaker has made it easy for buyers to discover how the company's garments are made. With Icebreaker's 'Baacode,' customers can trace a garment through every step of Icebreaker's production process.
Icebreaker has previously committed to creating sustainable garments through ethical practices. Their Baacode is a masterstroke: not only does Icebreaker promise to provide sustainable clothing, but the company has also made itself transparent in an effort to support its promise. Consumers don't need to rely on third-party certification to decide whether the product is sustainable — they just go online and trace the process themselves.
According to Icebreaker founder and CEO Jeremy Moon, transparency is integral to the company's mission. "For us, sustainability is about transparency and being able to show the whole design of the business, which starts with the growers and continues through every step of the supply chain," he says.
The Baacode system allows a buyer to track a garment right back to the source: Merino fibers bought from New Zealand farmers who comply with a set of stringent guidelines covering long-term environmental practices, animal health and welfare and fiber quality. Customers see the living conditions of the sheep on the specific station or farm where the fibers for their garments come from and meet the farmers responsible, as well as examine the production process.
While other companies have introduced a level of transparency by offering access to their production facilities and methods, very few go to the lengths to which Icebreaker goes to link a product right back to the people responsible for materials. Remember, these sheep farmers are not actually part of Icebreaker's company. Legally, Icebreaker has no obligation to check the methods they use to produce merino fibers.
"We made the decision to put this information online to give consumers a clear understanding of Icebreaker, and of our deep commitment to the environment and to social ethics," Moon says.
According to the Ecology Building Society (EBS), eco-mortgages have been available for British consumers since 1981, despite this week's call for green mortgages by British Gas and the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR).
IPPR and British Gas announced the need for "the creation of new green mortgage packages by banks and energy companies to pay for the installation of energy saving technology." There are, however, several financial options available in the U.K. for covering the costs of energy saving technologies, such as the EBS' C-Change Home Improvements mortgage (a refinancing package which helps home owners make their homes energy-efficient). The EBS notes that when the whole cost of a house is considered — including the energy costs — a C-Change mortgage makes financial sense.
EBS's chief executive, Paul Ellis, told AboutProperty.co.uk, "Our C-Change mortgage borrowers are already greening their streets and making a direct contribution to reducing carbon emissions, while benefiting from long-term discounts which don’t rely on switching every couple of years."
U.K. lenders are not alone in offering eco-mortgages. Several U.S. lenders have started offering green loans, such as Location Efficiency and MortgageGreen. Location Efficiency offers mortgages to individuals who live in location-efficient communities — they can walk to stores, works, etc. MortgageGreen focuses on providing mortgages that cover the cost of creating a carbon-neutral home. Furthermore, many more traditional lenders have begun offering additional funds or rebates for home buyers improving their houses' energy efficiency. These loans make it far easier to handle the expenses associated with improving a home's energy efficiency: sure, such improvements pay for themselves in the long run, but that doesn't really help home owners during the renovation process.
It is still relatively difficult to find loans for building a green home from the ground up, but there are several possibilities. The same holds true for business owners looking to improve or build sustainable buildings for their company. There are also other incentives (government rebates, tax incentives) that can help handle the costs of going for greener real estate.
But green lending is still a new concept. Some lenders have been known to describe themselves as 'green lenders' because they have reduced their own carbon footprints. If you are interested in finding an eco-mortgage, it is crucial to read the fine print — even more so than with traditional lending products. There is very little consistency between the various companies offering green mortgages.
After the most expensive spring and summer seasons on record, the price of oil has finally settled down to between 120 and 130 dollars a barrel. While there’s no telling if that price is stable, it sure sounds cheap to consumers living in fear of $150 and the $4+ gas prices that come with it.
Historically speaking, though, $120 is still incredibly expensive.So expensive that many other energy sources more or less ignored over the past few decades suddenly seem like a fantastic bargain. In many ways, this is good news for environmentalists, as it lends renewed economic viability to all sorts of green energy projects, from biofuels to battery-electric vehicles. As a result, many in the green sector are hailing these high oil prices as one of the best things that could possibly happen to a world facing the imminent consequences of global warming; a veritable economic salvation for a world of carbon polluters. But such an assessment is woefully simple-minded.
The free market is an equal-opportunity environment, and while they may have lost the press and public relations wars to their greener rivals, several carbon-emitting fossil fuel technologies can also offer a competitive product in a more expensive oil market.Oil shale, for example, becomes a viable source of crude at a price somewhere between 70 and 95 dollars a barrel.And with massive oil shale resources within borders of the Continental US, it offers the additional allure of increased domestic revenues and energy independence.
In oil-shale-rich Western Colorado, a firestorm has exploded over new regulations designed to ease extraction. Predictably, the debate over the regulations, which reduce the costs oil companies must pay the state to begin drilling in oil-shale lands, has broken across party lines. Democrats accuse the Bureau of Land Management of carrying out Bush administration orders for a last-minute energy grab, before an administration likely to have less friendly ties with the energy industry takes over the White House.
Republicans have countered, accusing Colorado Democrats of acting like “white knights” for political gain, fending off oil companies that have always had fair access to the land, and the potential energy source below it. Regardless of political posturing, though, oil shale, like many of its biofuel counterparts, is still years away from commercial viability, due to the time required to build the infrastructure that delivers the resource. Shell, which already has an experimental plant in place, anticipates that viable levels of production cannot begin before the next decade, at the earliest.
In the interim, it will ultimately be the American people who decide which fuels fill the supply gapindicated by the high price of oil. Through the representatives they elect, voters will decide whether or not carbon-heavy fuel sources, like oil shale or gasified coal, face extra taxes, and through the decisions they make at the cash register, consumers will determine whether increased costs associated with Earth-friendly products prevent them from becoming viable products. Only time will tell which energy resource reigns supreme in the new millennium.
Gazelle is a new option for getting rid of your old gadgets without filling up landfills. The company buys used gadgets and either resells them or recycles them, depending on the state of the item in question. All you have to do is go to the Gazelle website, answer a few questions about your gadget and mail it off. Gazelle even sends a prepaid mailing envelope so there's no need to worry about postage.
Of course, if there's no resale value for your gadget, you only get the prepaid envelope — no payoff. But Gazelle does provide an easy way to recycle your electronic leftovers. You don't need to hunt around for a local recycling program, which may or may not be available in your area. Those gadgets that are usable are sold on eBay, although sellers don't need to wait for the sale to finalize to get their money. Gazelle pays for gadgets when they receive and inspect them.
You may remember Second Rotation, a startup with pretty much the same business model. Gazelle and Second Rotation are actually the same company. Second Rotation rebranded and relaunched as Gazelle, and added in a few new features. Gazelle actually buys back a wider variety of gadgets than Second Rotation. While Second Rotation bought cell phones, MP3 players, digital cameras, GPS devices, camcorders and gaming consoles, Gazelle has added laptops, satellite radios and portable hard drives to their list.
One of the key programs that Gazelle has put in place is a bulk recycling process. For businesses, schools and other organizations with larger amounts of electronic waste, Gazelle offers an estimate process to handle bulk sales. Considering the number of organizations that update their hardware before their current gadgets become obsolete, it looks like Gazelle could make a big profit on bulk recycling — definitely more than reselling iPhones and digital cameras piecemeal.
What is truly interesting about Gazelle's business model, though, is that they bill themselves primarily as a recycling operation. But they absolutely have to focus on their resale operation — it's how Gazelle makes money. The website says, "Gazelle believes that electronics recycling starts with reuse." Reuse may be a more sustainable business model, though.
Gazelle has plenty of competitors, like FlipSwap and TechForward. But these companies are in a big market: the EPA says that in 2005, the U.S. generated 2.63 million tons of electronic waste. Only 12.5 percent of that was recycled. I'm sure that the various companies focusing on buying back electronic gadgets can think of a fair way to divide the 2.3 million tons left over.
It’s been one of the most world-changing and unheralded developments of the electronic age. Open source development—that is, the creation of a product where anyone can provide their own input or make their own modifications—has all but changed the world. The text editor I’m writing this piece on, the browser I’ll use to upload it, and the operating system that runs both of them; all contain at least some sections of freely-available, user-modifiable code.
But is it possible that these same philosophies of openness and collaboration can be applied to projects outside the world of software programming? A group of Finns dubbed “eCars - Now!” thinks so, and is applying the same approach that Wikipedia uses to compile knowledge to gather up and disseminate information and insights on how to develop plug-in electric cars by converting existing models.
The Finns have an impressive history in this collaborative arena, most notably the Linux operating system, which was an open source project initiated and directed by Finn Linus Torvalds. In 1991, Linus found that commercially available operating systems couldn’t take full advantage of his new computer’s processor, so he began writing his own. A similar situation faces the members of eCars - Now!; while nearly every major manufacturer has stated intention to produce at least one fully electric vehicle, a growing group of consumers is still left wanting to purchase fully-electric vehicles that do not yet exist.
As much an online community as a knowledge repository, the group aims to connect potential consumers with sellers of suitable used cars, suppliers of lithium ion batteries, and mechanics with the technical knowledge to perform the conversion. The group’s current objective, to create a handful of fully electric Toyota Corolla conversions, should cost $40,000 per vehicle. The end product should have range of roughly 90 miles per charge, and a top speed of around 75 mph, which compares to the forthcoming all-electric Think City, which will sell for $31,000, get 110 miles per charge, and have a top speed just above 60.
While some sources, such as Juhani Laurikko of the Technical Research Centre of Finland, are critical of the project, saying it should attempt to convert older, dirtier cars, I think this is an excellent development for environmentalists, and perfect example of what happens when large businesses overlook or intentionally ignore the demands of their consumers. With a massive gap in the market, it’s only natural that grassroots efforts would arise to fill it; think of it as the next logical step in the fuel-saving eco-modding that’s taking hold among domestic car enthusiasts.
The especially good thing for consumers is that all the developments and breakthroughs created by eCars - Now! will be freely available to all car producers, meaning that no intellectual property laws will keep a groundbreaking electric vehicle development from appearing in any model of car it can improve. While this also means that profits directly off that development won’t provide additional income for any one manufacturer, the lost income should serve as ample incentive for carmakers to invest more heavily into technological research in the future.
Like many environmental problems facing the world today, the specter of global warming is a multi-faceted issue; because human beings contribute to the production of greenhouse gases in so many different aspects of their lives, there’s no simple blanket solution.The most successful strategies will inevitably be the ones that address each method of pollution separately.For the energy generation and industrial sectors, many sources consider a cap-and-trade plan to be the best solution, as it imposes monetary penalties on polluters and monetary incentives to cleaner companies based on market models that are inherently efficient.
Transportation, however, which accounts for the largest share of America’s greenhouse gas emissions—some 27% of the total heat trapping gasses created—would be far more difficult to regulate in such a fashion.With more than 250,000,000 registered passenger vehicles as of 2006, a cap-and-trade system targeted to individual drivers would be nearly impossible to manage, and, with private citizens far less closely monitored than large corporations, immensely prone to corruption.Still, though, the massive carbon footprint created by personal vehicles needs to addressed in some way.
A recent study conducted by the Bookings Institute’s Hamilton Project has arrived at a novel solution to the problem: pay-as-you drive car insurance. While laws in every state mandate that all registered cars be insured, insurance rates are set based on driving history and demographics such as age, gender and location—with no consideration given to miles driven.But by charging a per-mile rate for auto insurance, insurers could effectively incentivize reduced driving habits; the study estimates that the driving reduction over lump-sum insurance could be as high as eight percent.
This situation offers tremendous advantages over other driving reduction solutions.Unlike an increased gas tax, which would penalize all drivers, the study found that per-mile insurance would end up saving money for two-thirds of consumers, at an average of $270 per car, while leaving the extremely high mileage drivers accountable for the ozone, smog, VOCs, and global warming pollution their driving habits create.The total savings to society are estimated at an impressive $50 billion to $60 billion dollars.
While I love the way this plan functions using efficient market mechanisms, it’s not completely perfect. Unlike a gas tax, it creates no direct government revenue for developing less carbon-heavy infrastructure, such as mass transit, or government research grants for developing cleaner technologies. In fact, because it will initially result in lost revenue for insurers, it will likely require large government subsidies at first to appease industry lobbyists.
The plan will also have a fairly limited impact on overall heat trapping gas emissions, effecting overall reductions of only two percent in carbon dioxide, and only four percent in oil consumption.Still, in conjunction with other measures, such as improved CAFE Standards, wider adaptation of fuel-efficient cars, and the development of commercially viable zero-emissions vehicles, pay-as-you-drive insurance could drastically decrease the negative impacts of transportation on the environment, on both a global and local level.
Students pursuing MBAs are looking for courses able to provide them with environmental perspective. And while the average business student seems to be interested in working for socially responsible employers, there is also an element of practicality involved.
Consumers have begun to look for more accountability from the fast food industry, and it looks like they may get it. Menu changes are becoming visible — one of the major issues with fast food has been the question of health. More restaurants are providing healthy eating options, like salads..jpg)
While I retain a fair degree of skepticism about the 
It’s no stretch to say that the market’s a little bit volatile these days. The Dow staggered further downward, despite 
Clothing manufacturer 
According to the Ecology Building Society (EBS), eco-mortgages have been available for British consumers since 1981, despite this week's call for green mortgages by British Gas and the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). 
After the most expensive spring and summer seasons on record, the price of oil has finally settled down to between 120 and 130 dollars a barrel. While there’s .jpg)
Gazelle is a new option for getting rid of your old gadgets without filling up landfills. The company buys used gadgets and either resells them or recycles them, depending on the state of the item in question. All you have to do is go to the Gazelle website, answer a few questions about your gadget and mail it off. 
It’s been one of the most world-changing and unheralded developments of the electronic age. Open source development—that is, the creation of a product where anyone can provide their own input or make their own modifications—
Like many environmental problems facing the world today, the specter of global warming is a multi-faceted issue; because human beings contribute to the production of greenhouse gases in so many different aspects of their lives, there’s no simple blanket solution.