The Article No One Will Read

Wow. I just had a wake up call, maybe even an epiphany. While this may not be a completely green topic, it does refer to email, so unless you are printing your emails (and why would you do that?), I guess we can consider this a sustainable article.

Maybe I am the loner, but when I receive an email, and decide to open it, I generally read the whole message. These are from friends, family and known business associates. I do the same when I receive an email newsletter. After all, these are publications I subscribed to, so most of the content would be of interest to me. After sending out an important email to my friends and family, I found out that I am most definitely in the minority.

I sent out an email to about 60 people close to me, explaining an important topic, and asking their help in performing a 2 minute task. I ....wait a minute, are you still there? OK - I had to resend it 3 times so far, each time, re-explaining in different ways, as dozens of otherwise intelligent and computer savvy people were hopelessly lost. I finally had to build and send an instructional video.

Most writers of emails and newsletters track by Open rate. That’s totally irrelevant, because statistics and research tell me that MOST PEOPLE WON’T EVEN READ THIS. That’s right. And it’s because of a newly diagnosed syndrome, called Email Attention Deficit Disorder (EADD).

Due to information overload, it is estimated that there are over 2 billion people with this syndrome. Symptoms are:

• Simply scanning the first word or two of each sentence or paragraph;
• If the first word does not catch their attention, they skip to the next paragraph;
• If the paragraph has more than a few lines, they don’t even bother scanning;
• The average EADD sufferer spends less than 51 seconds scanning an email.

What does catch their attention?

• Highlighted important words – in red
• Bulleted topics
• Short, easy to manage paragraphs
• Videos – it’s easier than reading

What are the consequences of EADD?

• Sufferers generally miss the important points of the story
• If there is a task required in the email, ironically, they spend more time trying to perform it
• Very little knowledge is gained
• Increases confusion on topic

DO YOU HAVE EADD? If you are still reading, then you’re probably OK.

Pharmaceutical companies are ramping up research on this affliction and I’m sure we’ll soon see TV commercials to “Ask Your Doctor” for the latest and greatest new drugs…I don’t suppose they will have an email campaign.

OK, OK..my friend the Doctor just called. EADD is not an “official” syndrome….I just made that up. But the statistics and “symptoms” are real. Keep these in mind when writing your emails and newsletters and you will get more Opens and even more importantly, more people understanding your content.

Keith Winn is the VP Marketing/COO of GreenProfit Solutions, Inc. which assists businesses in becoming environmentally responsible. You may view their website at www.greenprofitsolutions.com or e-mail Keith at kwinn@greenprofitsolutions.com .

Is Your Seafood Sustainable?

Fishing practices worldwide are damaging our oceans, depleting fish populations, destroying habitats and polluting the water. Informed consumers can help turn the tide. However, before finding a solution, we must discover the problems facing marine ecosystems. The following three issues can be solved through the same strategy, consumer choice. So what are these global challenges facing fisheries? And what does this have to do with your financial institution?

Overfishing
With an ever-growing world population to feed, fisheries worldwide are strained to their limits, in a state of decline, or, in worst case scenarios, have already collapsed. In the western Atlantic, cod were once so plentiful that fishing trawlers had a hard time just pushing through them. Today, they are almost nonexistent. When a fishery collapses, thousands of people are forced out of work and the fish species itself becomes in danger of extinction. Worldwide, fishing fleets are taking fish out of the oceans faster than they can reproduce. It is important to know which fish are most vulnerable to overfishing. Generally long-lived and slow growing species, including the Chilean Sea Bass (formerly known as the Patagonian Toothfish), living at least 40 years, and the Orange Roughy (Slimehead family), known to survive for over a century, tend to mature late and have low reproduction rates. Effectively, even relatively minor fishing pressures can have devastating impacts on such fisheries.

Habitat Destruction
Another major issue facing global fisheries is habitat destruction. Some trawling techniques employ an extremely efficient method of dragging nets along the ocean's bottom, scooping up nearly every fish in its path. While it results in large catch rates, it also has the unfortunate result of destroying any life on the ocean floor as large rollers are used to weigh the nets down. This leaves a flattened seascape, unable to recruit new life in the now-barren habitat.

Bycatch
This is another serious problem in global fisheries. Most prevalent in the previously-described trawling style of fishing, it is the unwanted or unintentional catch of non-target species. Worldwide, it is estimated that fisheries dispose of 25% of their catch for this reason, resulting in a nearly 100% mortality for those unfortunate enough to be caught. For example, it is estimated that for each pound of shrimp caught in a trawl net, an average of two to ten pounds of other marine life is caught and discarded overboard as bycatch. In addition, dolphins, whales, turtles, and sharks are frequently caught in trawlers’ nets and long-line operations, often severely affecting their populations.

Solutions
So how can your financial institution help? Well, education is always the most powerful means, followed by using yours and the combined wallets of your customers and members. Encourage patronizing of establishments which support sustainable fisheries while making an effort to educate those who have yet to understand the issues. Certain grocery stores have committed to stocking sustainably harvested fish as well. How can you tell? Look for the Marine Stewardship Council seal on produce counters or in restaurants. But what about fish which aren't under the MSC guidelines? The Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch has compiled and published a series of Regional Guides which you may download free of charge. These handy pocket guides show you which fish to avoid, good seafood alternatives, and best choices for both health and sustainability. Prefer a paperless alternative? A free iPhone app (opens in iTunes), complete with all regions and their respective seafood recommendations, is available, making sustainable seafood choices accessible anywhere your iPhone or iPod Touch travels.

Photo credit: Monterey Bay Aquarium

Water

Being based in South Florida, water is a regular part of our lives. On the west, we are bordered by the Gulf of Mexico, while the Atlantic Ocean graces our eastern shore. The southwest region of the state is entirely dominated by the Everglades, a region of enormous biodiversity and importance. This completely notwithstanding the Florida Keys, the only living barrier reef system in the continental United States. For us, water isn’t just a drink or the recipe for a fun weekend; it is our livelihood. As the top tourist destination on the planet, we entertained over 76 million visitors in 2004, providing a $57 billion effect on our economy . Much of this is due to our shores and underwater treasures. From airboat tours to SCUBA diving trips, our natural resources are invaluable economically and environmentally.

So how can we balance their environmental preservation with our own social growth? The draining of the Everglades has been covered nationally as one of the most ambitious land reclamation projects ever conceived. Looking back, was it a bad idea? Absolutely, it disrupted the natural flow of freshwater from the Lake Okeechobee region into the Everglades and subsequently, the Florida Bay. We’re now spending billions of dollars and countless work hours in an attempt to return the system to some semblance of the original design. However, by drying up a large part of the historical Everglades in the early 20th century, it accomplished the original intent of the Army Corps of Engineers. Massive population centers in South Florida would not exist as we know them had the region not been dried and water flows redirected into canal systems. Permanent building was impossible due to the constant variation in water levels before the canals. Much of the reclaimed wetlands was initially used for farming, a natural fit due to the rich swampy “muck”. Our economy grew from those farmers, fast-forwarding to Flagler’s Railroad and the first tourists. Some of those visitors constructed winter homes in the area, slowly converting the region from the next agricultural frontier (which it remains to this day in some regions) to the must-visit destination of the U.S.

Of course, even then, tourists came here not for the mosquitoes, humidity, or sunburns (well, maybe the tanning), but for the water. Since the water they craved was ocean, there was need for another source of water to drink. Underneath the southern part of the state lies the Biscayne Aquifer, the primary source of our water supply. While other regions have large, well-filtered aquifers buried thousands of feet below the ground, the Biscayne Aquifer is essentially our water table. It fluctuates with rainfall and is directly accessible from the surface. While it makes extraction very simple, it presents a number of significant issues. Fertilizers and other toxins readily make their way into our water supply. Additionally, when over-pumping or periods of drought occur, saltwater intrusion becomes a serious problem. Ironic that the state which receives more rainfall than nearly anywhere else in the continental United States is most at risk for water shortages.

“Thanks for the history lesson”, the reader might say, “but what’s it to us?” Especially here, where the environment is so closely linked with our economic well-being, the need to consider sustainability along with growth is essential. The advice for Floridians is valid anywhere. Nutrient overload is causing damage to our nearshore water quality, reef health, and wetland viability. This originates from agricultural facilities, yes, but also from the average family’s green lawn. How can you make a difference? Take care to avoid fertilizers and pesticides unless necessary, then using only the natural varieties. Time-release formulas can positively affect our water supply as they only use what is needed at the moment, minimizing runoff. It may not be apparent, but no matter where you are, every chemical you pour into your soil eventually makes its way to a waterway. Native plants require fewer, if any, fertilizers. A growing trend nationally is xeriscaping, or planting native flora. My home county has a NatureScape Broward program which highlights homes and businesses who have met a xeriscaping goal. These yards require less care and watering, thereby lowering their total cost of upkeep.

Reducing total water consumption also helps to preserve the natural environment. In a way, it is unfortunate that, for most users, water is so cheap as to render a financial savings extremely minimal. At a rate of ~$2 per 1,000 gallons, even massive reductions will not result in significant savings. However, there is another reason to save water — it’s a limited resource. Though we may not have a direct eye into our own supply, know that the less each of us use, the better off all us will fare.

A number of technologies, both old and new, are available to help reduce our depletion of valuable aquifers. Low-flow toilets, shower-heads, and faucets can more than halve indoor usage. Atmospheric water generators allow drinking water to be produced straight from the humidity in the air, purified for instant enjoyment. For irrigation purposes, cisterns connected to building gutters can retain the water necessary to keep the plants green through the hot summer or dry spring seasons.

Whether it be flowing down a plain in the Everglades, surrounding a healthy coral reef, or sitting in an ice-filled glass, water is an essential resource. Please treat it as such.

Joseph Winn is the President/CEO of GreenProfit Solutions, Inc. which assists businesses in becoming environmentally responsible. You may view their website at www.greenprofitsolutions.com or e-mail Joseph at jwinn@greenprofitsolutions.com .

Greening Your Financial Institution's Paper

Paper. It comes in countless forms, be it for magazines (shiny), newspaper (thin), or office printers. The material is used for more than just traditional sheets; there are sticky notes, mailing envelopes, and packaging that embrace its varied purposes. Of course, all paper, at its base, is the same, right? The conventional wisdom reads: paper = tree, with the primary variations being in what quality level is desired. Unfortunately, this isn’t entirely true. There are many aspects to consider, from recycled content (and is it pre- or post-consumer?) and certification level, to chlorine content. Let’s go through in that order.

Recycled paper products have been available for many years, and are perhaps the most widely used of the “green” office supplies. The premise is that the paper is produced from other paper as opposed to new trees. It can originate through pre- or post-consumer material, but what is the difference? Pre-consumer content may have been paper, but for a variety of reasons (off-cuts, misprints, poor quality, etc.) failed to be released from the production process. Much of this is immediately recycled, therefore explaining the high prevalence of pre-consumer content in recycled products. Post-consumer content originates from the paper you place in your office recycle bin. The percentage seen on the recycled paper packaging at the store is the sum of both these paper formats.

So, now you’re wondering why all paper isn’t simply 100% recycled (with varying pre- and post-consumer content)? Well, different compositions are better suited for differing purposes. Beyond 35% post-consumer content, the pulp is unreliable for commercial printing, but is normally fine for personal and office use. Paperboard, cardboard, and other packaging materials do not require a high quality, and are therefore often 100% recycled. All of these forms can be recycled approximately seven times, at which point the fibers are too short for reuse.

With no defined standard on what makes paper “recycled”, it is up to the consumer to know what they are purchasing. Seek the highest percentage of post-consumer content in the quality you need, but remember, you will likely be unable to find more than 35% due to the limitations explained previously. As new experts on recycled paper, there’s a large question that is not addressed by the recycling process: any takers? It deals with how the virgin wood pulp is harvested, thus leading the discussion to certified paper.

Certified paper is the exact same paper you’re used to, however, it originated from forests managed in a standardized way with consideration for a variety of environmental and social factors. The process is third-party monitored from tree to paper by one (or more) of three primary certification agencies: Forest Stewardship Council, Sustainable Forestry Initiative, and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification. FSC is the largest and was set up by the United Nations, while SFI was put together by the paper industry in North America, and PEFC by the same groups in France and Europe. Each operate similarly, and a producer may seek multiple certifications. This paper may also contain recycled content, however, since its production results in minimal to no net tree (or biodiversity) loss, it makes paper a more renewable and sustainable resource.

Finally, chlorine usage in the paper production process can result in large chemical effluent from the facility. To minimize this pollution, chlorine-free paper is now in production. According to the Natural Resources Council of Maine, however, there are three different labels one might see : TCF (Totally Chlorine Free), PCF (Processed Chlorine Free), and ECF (Elemental Chlorine Free). TCF means both the virgin and recycled content are chlorine free, while PCF only provides assurance the virgin fibers are free of chlorine (recycled content may contain chlorine). ECF only refers to the type of chlorine used, has no bearing on the chlorine in the paper, and therefore does not avoid the production of dioxins in the effluent.

In review, recycled or certified paper is good, certified paper with high recycled content is better, while certified recycled paper rated TCF (Totally Chlorine Free) is best. Of course, the standard practices of reducing and reusing still apply.

Enjoy your newfound paper wisdom, and print wisely!

References:
Forest Stewardship Council: www.fsc.org
Sustainable Forestry Initiative: www.sfiprogram.org
Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification: www.pefc.org
Natural Resources Council of Maine: www.nrcm.org/chlorinefreepaper.asp

Joseph Winn is the President/CEO of GreenProfit Solutions, Inc. which assists businesses in becoming environmentally responsible. You may view their website at www.greenprofitsolutions.com or e-mail Joseph at jwinn@greenprofitsolutions.com .

Driving and Stopping Smarter

Who loves driving in stop-and-go traffic, only to break through and be stuck at the next 7 straight red lights? Even if there is abnormally fantastic music playing, that scenario is quite far from the quintessential "relaxing evening". What might surprise you is that the environment agrees; from a "green" standpoint, maximizing efficiency produces the least impacts, in this case, a smooth drive home.

The difference in a vehicle's city and highway mileage is directly related to the increased acceleration and braking experienced in typical city driving. On highways, the engine is able to settle into an ideal pattern, generating the proper energy for the speed you desire, more so if the speed is kept in all car's optimal range (55-60). When city driving, much of the distance covered is while the car is speeding up from a standstill, a process which consumes far more fuel (and produces more emissions) than driving steadily at one speed.

As mentioned in a previous article, my car has a real time fuel consumption computer which I've referenced for other statistics. In strictly stop-and-go urban driving, the car usually manages about 22-25 MPG. While accelerating, however, that number falls to 10 or below! Consider this: the first light turns green, and the traffic flow begins moving towards the next set of lights, which promptly turns red. At this point, the momentum the car generated is wasted in braking for the next intersection. Therefore, for this area of travel, the vehicle's mileage was likely less than half even the EPA rating!

There is another aspect to consider: idling. As much (or as little) as a non-hybrid vehicle sips fuel when driving, they all get 0 MPG when idling. According to the Canadian Office of Energy Efficiency, the average engine consumes between ¼ to ¾ of a gallon for every hour it is left idling. Considering the average Canadian (American drivers are likely quite similar) leaves their engine idling for 5-10 minutes daily, assuming $2.00/gallon, the car generates about 2.5 pounds of carbon dioxide and directly costs the owner 5-10¢...daily. A good methodology to follow is to turn off the engine if it will be idling for more than about 30 seconds. Modern engines use less gas to restart than they do to operate for 15 seconds. Contrary to popular belief, it is no longer necessary to leave the vehicle idling when cold; it warms up more effectively when being lightly driven.

So it's been established that idling wastes fuel (and generates more CO2), while consistent red lights decrease gas mileage, both contributing to increased costs of vehicle ownership (and increased emissions), but how do they relate?

While the American Federal government is attempting to take a leadership role in reducing emissions and maximizing efficiency, without any detraction to those efforts, it is likely they will be slow to implement. However, development of climate change task forces by local community and county governments have great potential for effecting immediate and substantial change. While traffic elimination is a pipe dream (but something that both "green" and "non-green" citizens would welcome!), one issue that is rarely discussed is traffic light timing.

In most urban and sub-urban regions, nearly all traffic lights on major roads are networked on a central timing system, affected normally by time of day, individual car sensors, and emergency vehicles. The goal of such a system is to promote a smooth flow of traffic in all directions, while maximizing safety in your commute. Additionally, most have a "magic speed" configured, in which, assuming no traffic, one could hit every green light the entire road through. Unfortunately, in many regions, there are certain lights that always seem to be red. It isn't a coincidence, though it might be an accident.

How can you help? Encourage your local climate change task forces (if you have) as well as your city and county commissioners to push for traffic light timing programs. This is probably the first place you've seen it written, but nevertheless: Go green with traffic light timing! By decreasing stop-and-go driving patterns as well as reducing idle time of commuters, localities can make a substantial affect on their own emissions, thereby taking a worthwhile step in their green efforts.

Joseph Winn is the President/CEO of GreenProfit Solutions, Inc. which assists businesses in becoming environmentally responsible. You may view their website at www.greenprofitsolutions.com or e-mail Joseph at jwinn@greenprofitsolutions.com .

Alternative Disposables

Yes, I know. Before all of you start yelling Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle, please understand there are times when disposable items are the only practical option. For example, how about when you ask for that doggie bag at your favorite restaurant? Suppose your folks are over for a summer BBQ? Or your company is planning an event or conference?

Most restaurants today provide Styrofoam® to package your take out foods. In the United States, the word styrofoam® is often used as a generic term for expanded polystyrene foam, such as disposable coffee cups, coolers, or packaging material. These goods are typically white and constructed of expanded polystyrene beads, a petroleum product. Unrecycled polystyrene, which does not biodegrade, is often abundant in the outdoor environment, particularly along shores and waterways, and contributes to solid waste pollution. According to the Wikipedia, polystyrene can be recycled, a “6” under the familiar plastics numbering system.

Now, here’s the kicker. Even though polystyrene carries a #6 recycling symbol, the actual process required to recycle the material is often more costly than initial manufacturing. So what does that mean? Even if you carefully place all recyclable Styrofoam® into the appropriate recycling bins, it will likely still end up in a landfill…for thousands of years. When it does finally break down into its lowest basic form, it remains a major pollutant for wildlife and water supplies. Is it any wonder some cities are attempting to eliminate it? Seattle is leading the charge by becoming the first US city on record to completely ban Styrofoam® products.

What about typical clear plastic cups, utensils, or even paper goods? The clear plastic cups and utensils are still made from petroleum. Even though some of these items can be recycled, “contamination” by food products excludes them from the process and diverts them to the landfills anyway! Additionally, we are still supporting a non-sustainable industry…of which 80% is controlled by non-domestic companies. Paper goods are made from trees, a renewable resource, and they will eventually biodegrade without leaving toxic remnants. This potentially could be a sustainable industry, however, the Forest Stewardship Council reports that less than 10% of the paper used worldwide is from sustainable forests.

One of the newest sustainable alternatives are items manufactured from Polylactic Acid (PLA), a polymer derived from corn, also known as “corn plastic”. This material mimics clear plastic, yet does not biodegrade in a natural or landfill environment, but instead requires commercial composting, a service not available in many areas. Other items, including packing materials, are made from corn- or potato-starch. These begin degrading immediately upon contact with water.

Another alternative is Bagasse. This byproduct of sugar production resembles the appearance and properties of Styrofoam®. As with PLA, bagasse also biodegrades quickly in a commercial composting facility yet also breaks down in a landfill environment within a reasonable time frame. However, this presents its own set of problems. Landfills are not designed for their contents to rapidly break down, and waste management managers are concerned about such products creating “holes” in their fills after exactly that occurs.

So what’s the answer? Right now, there is no one solution. We will need to approach the sustainable disposables issue from a variety of paths. Perhaps one can embrace bagasse for utensils and coffee cups, PLA for clear plates and uninsulated glasses, and recycled/certified paper containers for take out purposes (Advantage: Cardboard containers don’t dissolve in the microwave!). While this remains non-ideal due to the shortage of composting facilities and valid concerns with corn products raising food prices, it is in everyone’s interest to start the transition away from the damaging disposables so prevalent in our lives today.

*Styrofoam is a registered trademark of Dow Chemical Company

Joseph Winn is the President/CEO of GreenProfit Solutions, Inc. which assists businesses in becoming environmentally responsible. You may view their website at www.greenprofitsolutions.com or e-mail Joseph at jwinn@greenprofitsolutions.com .

Saving Money, Saving Fuel: Is the Hybrid Worth It?

Car buying - you cringe just at the thought of it. The tedious search for safety testing results and drivability reviews is at hand, not to mention the new set of payments that will go along with this vehicle. This is the point at which to decide to go new or used. Both have their benefits and downsides, and their balance varies depending on the situation. Of course, those tasks exclude the other decisions inherent in the process: Style of vehicle (sedan, SUV, crossover), engine size (the 4-cylinder is efficient, but the 6-cylinder has a great kick), color, and packages (GPS and audio system or just the audio, but what about the moonroof?). Recently, a new option is under consideration by the average car buyer: hybrid or conventional? At first glance, the appeal of a hybrid is overwhelming; the improved fuel economy, partial silent operation, and green appearance all make it a difficult treat to resist. However, with all the hoopla around hybrids, seeing through the marketing spectacle is important to make an informed decision on whether they are a beneficial option for you. Indeed, the impact on your wallet may actually be higher if you purchase a hybrid!

Let’s get a few things out of the way. First, hybrids don’t automatically mean amazing gas mileage. Yes, they will be better, often significantly so, than their equivalent conventional model, but all too commonly, the difference is not nearly large enough to expect to pay less in the long run. I recently purchased a new vehicle, and was torn between two sedans, one was a hybrid, and the other was a normal 4-cylinder. With the hybrid, research found that I should expect an average of 35 MPG for my driving style (40% city, 60% highway). On the other hand, the conventional vehicle (which I drive now) has demonstrated an average of slightly above 28 MPG, based upon the on-board computer. Now, I’m all for reducing our usage of oil, but was the hybrid worth it? Looking into the costs, I discovered quite a sticker shock - the hybrid was nearly $8,000 more! Assuming I drive 10,000 miles a year, at 28 MPG, the conventional engine burns 357 gallons of gasoline. At $2.00 a gallon, the annual fuel cost is $714. With the hybrid, getting 35 MPG, I’d have used 285 gallons, resulting in an annual fuel cost of $571. Therefore, the hybrid would only save me $143 annually in fuel costs. At this rate, to pay off the $8,000 premium, I’d have to drive for 55 years (or hope fuel prices rise substantially)! Ignoring the 10-year lifetime of the batteries, the payoff simply was not there.

In my case, the decision was simple. The costs were simply too high. To partially offset the diminished mileage between my vehicle and the hybrid, I practice the standard efficient driving techniques, driving under 70 on the highways, accelerating and braking at moderate speeds, and coasting, instead of driving, towards red lights, just to name a few. Only a few days ago, I found myself on a local road with a posted speed limit of 50 MPH. Setting the cruise control to 53 MPH, I took a look at the real-time fuel consumption meter, and then did a double-take. The car was consistently getting over 39 MPG! This non-hybrid vehicle was performing better than the hybrid equivalent, and all it took was careful and intelligent driving.

The point to drive home (pun intended) here is not that hybrids are bad or a poor financial decision, rather, their usefulness is extremely dependent on your normal driving patterns. Consider a hybrid when the price variance is less than a few thousand, you tend to drive mostly in the city (hybrid mileage is opposite conventional cars, the city range tends to be higher), and the difference in mileage is significant. This entire situation assumes a new car purchase with no leasing.

Joseph Winn is the President/CEO of GreenProfit Solutions, Inc. which assists businesses in becoming environmentally responsible. You may view their website at www.greenprofitsolutions.com or e-mail Joseph at jwinn@greenprofitsolutions.com .

New or Used Car - Which is Greener?

As much as you try, bicycling and public transportation just won’t cut it. Perhaps your home is far from a transit hub, or you simply live in a region where public transportation is ineffective. Bicycles are out of the question for any length of trip because your bike lanes are approximately 12 inch strips on the right side of the road (welcome to my city). Even carpooling, while beneficial for certain destinations, cannot always assist in getting groceries and other necessities. So, as green as you strive to be, there’s no way around having a car.

Do not despair! There are many options available that can help minimize your impacts. The first decision should go without saying, but with marketing messages coming from all angles, rational thought can be swayed by its influence. Most simply, buy the largest vehicle you need, yet the smallest you can manage. While that new 7-seater with half-ton pickup bed seems like a great idea for transporting landscaping supplies concurrently with the soccer team, you have to ask yourself; will the majority of this vehicle’s use be embracing its many features? If not, you can likely look to a smaller, more efficient, and cheaper mode of transportation.

Now that you have identified the class of vehicle, it’s time to decide between new versus pre-owned. Unfortunately, from an environmental standpoint, there is little agreement amongst researchers on which is the “greener” choice. While an older, inefficient vehicle is obviously less desired than a new and extremely efficient hybrid or compact car, further questions arise on the fate of the original one and energy/resources used for the construction of the new vehicle. Without delving into conjecture and independent statistics, leave it at this: If you absolutely need a car, pursue the best value for the dollar over its lifetime, including both new and used in your consideration.

Use the EPA’s Green Vehicle Guide to learn about the overall emissions and fuel usage from a variety of vehicles, including your own to use as a baseline. While you may not see a direct impact on your wallet from reduced emission levels, you are making a choice that benefits everyone, at no additional cost to yourself. As an example, an EPA SmartWay or higher rated vehicle is so clean, it would have to be driven many thousands of miles to equal the air pollution generated by running a lawn mower for one hour (Of course, this raises many valid questions about the lawn mower). In addition, residents of certain states may purchase vehicles with a Partial Zero Emission Vehicle (PZEV) rating, nearly the same standard hybrids such as the Civic and Prius are required to meet. The tailpipe emissions of these cars are often cleaner than the ambient air in your own city! Don’t take that as an endorsement to breathe through your car’s exhaust, but understand the improvements being made on vehicle emissions.

One final note: In 2008, the EPA changed their MPG reporting standards. This means that vehicles of model year 2008 or later are using the new numbers, however, 2007 and earlier models are based on a separate calculation. When shopping for used cars, it may appear that an older model achieves substantially better fuel economy than the new model, but this difference is more than likely attributed to the changed reporting. Why was this done? To confuse the consumers in an already stressful situation? No, rather, the new fuel economy standards should better reflect the normal usage of a vehicle (A/C on more often, driving at faster highway speeds, etc.). What does this all mean to you, the consumer? Finally, the numbers you see on the sticker are likely what you will see when driving. On the Green Vehicle Guide mentioned earlier, the EPA has posted adjusted MPG numbers for some older model year vehicles for appropriate comparison.

Now if only they would help decide between the hardtop and convertible...

Joseph Winn is the President/CEO of GreenProfit Solutions, Inc. which assists businesses in becoming environmentally responsible. You may view their website at www.greenprofitsolutions.com or e-mail Joseph at jwinn@greenprofitsolutions.com .

Junk Mail – How Can It Be Stopped?

Financial institutions seem to get it… By reducing your paper use, you can also dramatically reduce greenhouse gases. By promoting services like e-statements and online bill pay, your institution can also save money. For those of us who do not understand the correlation between paper and climate change, here are a few facts:

It takes trees to make paper…lots of them. Trees are the planet’s “filters”. A tree takes in carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) and produces live-giving oxygen. According to Conservatree, just 1 carton (10 reams) of 100% virgin copier paper uses .6 trees, and 1 tree makes 16.67 reams of copy paper or 8,333.3 sheets. Now, let’s factor in pulp processing. Besides the tremendous energy usage to operate these paper mills (that’s more greenhouse gases), the converting of pulp to paper takes a tremendous amount of water which also has to be reprocessed and re-filtered…again, more energy and greenhouse gases. And last, the inks. Most printing is still performed with petroleum and solvent based inks. Not only does that keep our country dependent on oil, but these inks contain toxins which can eventually end up leeching into public water supplies through old landfills.

So, let’s get back to how you can rid your company of the most common annoyance and help the cause: junk mail. Nobody wants it, you did not ask for it, yet it continues to show up in your PO boxes, day after day. In fact, the organization 41pounds.org estimates that weight to be the amount of junk mail every American receives in just one year. If your organization is diligent, then you might try to sort through those items which can be recycled, but for the majority, this so far is not the case. Most junk mail gets thrown out with the trash, and ends up in landfills. Here is just some of the impact:

• More than 100 million trees are destroyed each year to produce junk mail. 42% of timber harvested nationwide becomes pulpwood for paper.
• The world’s temperate forests absorb 2 billion tons of carbon annually. Creating and shipping junk mail produces more greenhouse gas emissions than 9 million cars.
• About 28 billion gallons of water are wasted to produce and recycle junk mail each year.
There is an easy solution: Catalog Choice offers a free service wherein you can use their website to unsubscribe from various mailings. As mentioned earlier, www.41pounds.org , also offers, for a nominal fee, a comprehensive unsubscription program to help your company in stopping that annoying flow of unwanted catalogs, coupons, credit card offers, and just about anything else you do not wish to see in your mailbox.

You can do your organization a favor and help your community and planet in the process. Now, can someone tell me how I can stop that endless flow of junk e-mail?

Photo courtesy of TELportfolio on Flickr.

Joseph Winn is the President/CEO of GreenProfit Solutions, Inc. which assists businesses in becoming environmentally responsible. You may view their website at www.greenprofitsolutions.com or e-mail Joseph at jwinn@greenprofitsolutions.com .