GreenProfit Solutions FI

New SEC Guidance on Climate Change Risk Disclosure – Part 3

2010-07-19T16:18:00.000-07:00

In our last article, we examined the details and requirements of the new SEC guidance. In this article we will discuss the steps to assess and measure risk, potential benefits of a certification program, and also how climate change disclosures can be applicable to non-public companies.

Practical Steps to Assess and Measure Environmental Risk

What steps should a public issuer take to assess and measure its environmental compliance risk?

Some companies approach environmental compliance in an overly simplified manner: do what the law requires and nothing more. While this is not a bad starting place, it is not a complete answer and it does little to help public companies assess their risks for disclosure purposes.

In the same way that public companies adopted risk assessment methods for the assessment of control risks when making their certifications of internal control adequacy for Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, public companies should also adopt risk assessment methods for environmental risks. (While the assessment method may be the same as that adopted for Section 404 purposes, it does not necessarily have to be the same.)

An assessment method will identify the universe of compliance risks and, for each risk, assess its immediacy, its potential impact, and methods for controlling that risk. A rigorous control protocol will also track the design and implementation of controls for material risks and include a testing or audit regime to test both the design and the efficacy of those controls.

The COSO methodology adopted by most public companies for Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 controls provides a convenient approach for developing environmental risk assessments and controls. In addition, an alternative environmental management system such as ISO 14001:2004 (International Standards Organization) may also apply.

ISO 14001:2004

The ISO 14001:2004 system was referenced in Executive Order 13423, which directed federal agencies to adopt systems for improving environmental compliance, reducing the consumption of natural resources and reducing air, water and waste emissions and improving overall environmental stewardship. As applied to federal agencies through subsequent government announcements, it requires federal agencies to implement plans to:

• Educate employees on environmental and sustainability issues;
• Implement procurement practices to reduce energy usage and improve sustainability;
• Reduce water consumption;
• Shift power consumption from fossil-intensive methods to green or renewable methods of power production;
• Reduce environmental impacts by shifting to more efficient buildings, production systems and transportation systems; and
• Reduce the environmental impact of the disposal of electronic devices by improving disposal methods and encouraging the use of electronic devices with minimal environmental impact upon disposal.

Through its rigorous method of identifying, assessing, controlling and managing risk, the ISO: 14001:2004 method (or equivalent) has been adopted by federal agencies for their compliance with Executive Order 13423. Likewise, public issuers might also adopt that same method.

An environmental assessment and management system under ISO 14001:2004 embraces the concept of Plan, Do Check and Act (PDCA), a system made popular by Dr. W. Edwards Deming, considered by many to be the father of modern quality control. Once Objectives, Roles, Resources, and Procedures are put in place, a GAP analysis is performed to identify areas of non-conformity or non-compliance. An Implementation phase is initiated, followed by monitoring and review to identify areas of opportunity for improvement. The system also calls for the establishment of a continuous improvement process.

ISO 14001 – Good for the Banking Industry?

ISO 14001:2004 is not industry specific and therefore lends itself for use by a myriad of industries and organizations, including banking. In 1999, UBS was the first international bank to obtain ISO 14001 certification for its worldwide environmental management system. Even local banks have seen the value in ISO 14001. Alpine Banks of Colorado has earned and re-certified in the ISO 14001 standard since 2006, and has won many awards for its sustainability initiatives, including the Green Leaf Award from Bank News. The time frame for the entire process, from start through certification can vary dramatically based upon a variety of factors including organization size, number and locations of branch operations, type of industry, management buy-in, and staff training. Organizations which currently have an established management system, such as ISO 9001:2008, already have an existing framework and understanding to more easily and quickly implement an ISO 14001:2004.

Typically, an organization should be ready to allocate at least 5 months and sometimes up to one year to reach certification status. Organizations have several options for implementation. The traditional method is to utilize the services of professional consultant/trainers. Additionally, with the growth of ISO 14001:2004, there are now a number of software programs which have been primarily developed to assist organizations in streamlining their record keeping and reporting responsibilities. Worldwide, as of 2007, over 154,000 certificates have been issued to organizations in 148 countries.

Measuring Greenhouse Gas Emissions

As GHGe (Green House Gas Emissions) have become the accepted unit of measurement for reporting and regulatory purposes, ISO has incorporated these measurement and reporting tools within the ISO 14001 family. ISO 14064 parts 1, 2 and 3 are international greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting and verification standards which provide a set of clear and verifiable requirements to support organizations and proponents of GHG emission reduction projects. ISO 14065 complements ISO 14064 by specifying requirements to accredit or recognize organizational bodies that undertake GHG validation or verification using ISO 14064 or other relevant standards or specifications.

It would follow therefore, that properly initiated, an environmental management system would include all conceivable steps in assessing, measuring and mitigating risk. Reverting our focus back to the various disclosure requirements which were enumerated in part 2 of this series, now armed with real data, measurements and impact reduction objectives, an issuer could conceivably translate that to a more positive disclosure report.

Private Companies

While this series has focused on the SEC Guidance and its effect on public companies, there have been some regulatory actions proposed and adopted that could affect private companies. The EPA recently issued reporting requirements for 10,000 facilities in the U.S. At present, those reporting requirements are mostly applicable to mining, minerals production, wastewater treatment and carbon dioxide sequestration facilities, but the EPA has suggested that it intends to broaden the scope of its GHGe reporting requirements over time. The most recently adopted provisions, announced in late June 2010, will begin taking effect in 2011.
On the legislative front, the proposed Kerry-Lieberman Bill (American Power Act) sets up a framework for cap and trade: the buying and selling of carbon credits. Other bills have also proposed cap and trade arrangements. While there can be no guarantee legislation of this type will be adopted in the U.S., the European adoption of cap and trade following the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol, indicates that the cap and trade framework is one that will be on the horizon for some time to come if it is not adopted in 2010.

Regardless of whether environmental reporting is legally mandatory, companies that wish to take a leadership role in environmental stewardship can do so through their approach to reporting. By assessing, measuring, and controlling environmental impacts, and reporting on the results of those efforts, companies are able to lead in this effort by their own example.

About the authors:

Keith Winn is vice president of marketing and chief operating officer of GreenProfit Solutions Inc., a Ft. Lauderdale based sustainability consulting, certification and contracting firm. You may contact him at 800-358-2901 or kwinn@greenprofitsolutions.com.

Jonathan B. Wilson is a corporate and securities attorney at the Atlanta law firm of Taylor English Duma LLP. Mr. Wilson is also the founding chair of the Renewable Energy Committee of the American Bar Association’s Public Utility Section. You may contact him at 678-336-7185 or jwilson@taylorenglish.com.

New SEC Guidance on Climate Change Disclosure - Part 2

2010-05-15T12:49:00.000-07:00

In our last article, we spent some time on the steps and actions leading up to the new SEC Climate Change Risk Disclosure guidance (hereinafter, the “Guidance”). In this article, we will examine the details and requirements of the new SEC guidance. In a following article we will discuss the potential benefits of a certification program, and also measure the relevance this action has on non-public companies.

What the Climate Change Guidance Really Means

The most important thing to realize about the Guidance is that it is not law, it is merely guidance. The requirements of public company disclosures, as set out in the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”) and Regulation S-K have not changed. The Guidance merely provides some gloss on how the SEC might interpret a disclosure issue if one arose. In addition, to the extent SEC staff provides comments on a public issuer’s financial report discloses, SEC staff are likely to refer to the Guidance when commenting.

The 1934 Act requires quarterly and annual financial reports (with quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and annual reports on Form 10-K) for companies with registered securities (defined in the regulations as “registrants”). The public disclosure requirements of the 1934 Act apply to all publicly-traded companies (i.e., those whose shares are traded on public exchanges like the NYSE and the NASDAQ) and those few companies who have so many shareholders that the public reporting requirements apply to them.

Attorneys, accountants and business people accustomed to working on financial reports under the 1934 Act are familiar with the touchstone of disclosure in those reports: the company must disclose those material elements of its business that a reasonable investor would consider to be material. Nearly all of the other regulations and guidance concerning financial reports spring from this basic principle. Information is considered “material” for disclosure purposes if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider it relevant in deciding how to vote or make an investment decision.

Item 101 of Regulation S-K requires that the registrant disclose the material effects of compliance with any laws that might apply to the registrant. The Guidance states what should be obvious, that Item 101 “requires disclosure of the material effects that compliance with environmental laws may have on capital expenditures, earnings or the competitive position of a company”.

So, by way of example, if a registrant operates facilities with significant air or water emissions, the registrant should disclose in its financial reports its cost of complying with the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws and the potential financial impacts of non-compliance. In contrast, a public company with no material air or water emissions would not have a duty to disclose its hypothetical liability where there is not reasonable likelihood of that liability coming to pass.

With respect to climate change, the general rule of disclosure under Item 101 means that the registrant must also disclose its actual costs of legal compliance and the potential costs of non-compliance. For example, if legislation imposed a system of emissions cap and trade, companies whose emissions exceed the stated caps, will be forced to buy “credits” and perhaps pay fines. Conversely, companies with emissions under a stated level, will be able to “sell” their credits and potentially improve their financial position. In addition, countries around the globe have and are continuing to assess fines to companies they believe are inflicting environmental damage to their nations.

Importantly, a registrant is not required (and is, in fact, prohibited) from making disclosures that are speculative. Unless and until emissions cap and trade legislation becomes law, a disclosure about the potential benefits of a cap and trade system would generally be ill-advised. In the same way that the benefits of prospective legislation are too speculative to disclose, the cost and expense of potential future legislation would also be too speculative to disclose.
Public reporting companies disclose in their quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and their annual reports on Form 10-K pending legal proceedings. Item 103 of Regulation S-K contains specific requirements about the extent to which particular items of litigation must be disclosed. Again, in general, materiality is the touchstone of disclosure.

The Guidance states that litigation disclosures under Item 103 must include any environmental enforcement actions and orders material to the registrant. As the Guidance notes, there already have been enforcement actions (notably in the State of New York) with respect to the accuracy of environmental disclosures in financial reports. There are also several lawsuits pending in which private litigants have sued companies over alleged climate change resulting from the emissions of those companies. Public companies who are defendants to such suits would be required to disclose them, applying the same materiality standards applied to any other kind of litigation.

If national climate change legislation, including a cap and trade system, became law, disclosures of potential or hypothetical litigation might be appropriate under Item 103. Until such potential legislation becomes law, however, disclosures of hypothetical or potential contingencies under Item 103 are premature. Disclosures must include “such further material information, if any, as may be necessary to make the required statements, in light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading.” See 17 CFR 230.408 and 17 CFR 240.12b-20.

In quarterly and annual reports, public issuers provide a discussion of the issuer’s financial results and future prospects called “Management’s Discussion and Analysis” (or “MD&A”). Item 303 of Regulation S-K requires an issuer “to disclose known trends, events, obligations or uncertainties that will, or are reasonably likely to, materially affect the company’s liquidity, capital, resources or operations”. In addition, companies are also required to disclose any other information the company believes is necessary to an understanding of its financial conditions, changes in financial condition and results of operations.

Discussing “known trends, events, obligations or uncertainties” is a potential bottomless pit. While management will be aware of immediate and obvious trends (such as increasing or decreasing sales, or increasing or decreasing costs of goods sold) there is an infinite list of potential contingencies that might impact the issuer’s financial performance. In the MD&A, however, the issuer is not required to identify every possible contingency, but rather only those “known trends, events, obligations or uncertainties” that are “material” to a reasonable investor’s decision to invest or vote securities.

Item 503(c) of Regulation S-K helps issuers draw the line between “known trends” and mere speculation by providing that the issuer must disclose "the most significant factors that make the offering speculative or risky" (emphasis added).

By way of example, an actual lawsuit that is pending is more significant than a threatened lawsuit that has not been filed. A threatened lawsuit is more significant than the risk of a possible future lawsuit that has not yet been threatened.

Put into this context, the disclosure of climate change impacts should be ranked against the issuers other known trends and contingencies. If the issuer reasonably believes that certain environmental or climate change impacts are more significant than other contingencies, that belief should guide its disclosure.

By way of example, if an issuer had facilities in low-lying coastal areas that might be threatened by an increase in sea level brought about by an increase in global temperatures, that might be a contingency with the potential to impact the issuer’s financial statements. Whether that risk is one that should be disclosed in a financial report, however, will depend on the relative immediacy and potential impact of that risk in comparison to other risks that the issuer faces. Ultimately, while the Guidance discusses these types of disclosures and provides some color on how issuers should consider them the Guidance does not change the law regarding disclosures and does not necessarily require issuers to disclose new or different kinds of risks.

The practical impact of the Guidance, however, is to raise the awareness of public issuers regarding environmental and climate change risks and costs. In light of the Guidance, public issuers should not reasonably be able to claim surprise if future enforcement actions challenge the adequacy of disclosures of these kinds of risks.
Because the disclosure of contingencies, however, requires a weighing of immediacy and impact against other potential risks, a well-advised issuer will adopt a consistent theoretical construct for considering and weighing the immediacy and impact of risks for disclosure purposes. Part of that theoretical construct, many issuers may conclude, is a process for assessing and measuring the potential impact of environmental and climate change risk. It is to this end that we will address some practical steps issuers may take to perhaps mitigate their environmental and climate change risks in Part 3 of this article series.

About the authors:
Keith Winn is vice president of marketing and chief operating officer of GreenProfit Solutions Inc., a Ft. Lauderdale based sustainability consulting, certification and contracting firm. You may contact him at 800-358-2901 or kwinn@greenprofitsolutions.com.

Jonathan B. Wilson is a corporate and securities attorney at the Atlanta law firm of Taylor English Duma LLP. Mr. Wilson is also the founding chair of the Renewable Energy Committee of the American Bar Association’s Public Utility Section. You may contact him at 678-336-7185 or jwilson@taylorenglish.com.

Cutting Costs with Green Tax Incentives - Part 1

2010-04-23T20:46:00.000-07:00

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) is one of the most comprehensive and sweeping energy legislation packages ever passed. Signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 8th, 2005, the bill authorized massive tax benefits, reductions and deductions, plus loan guarantees in an effort to spur action on a new energy policy.

Buried among these voluminous new initiatives now part of the IRS Tax Code, was the new Deduction of Energy Efficient Buildings granted under Title 26, now known simply as Section 179D. Specifically, Section 179D offers substantial tax benefits to commercial property owners to upgrade their buildings and make them more energy efficient. The legislation was targeted to expire in 2008, however, the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 extended the benefits of this bill through 2013. Perhaps due to the enormity of the legislative package, or a lack of understanding, the IRS reports that less than 2% of all commercial property owners have taken advantage of this tax saving opportunity.

There are special rules for government owned buildings, wherein the tax benefits may be transferred to a project manager or architect, but for purposes of this article, we will focus on how banks, as building owners and leaseholders, can leverage these benefits.

About the Actual Deduction

Under Section 179D, deductions are based on areas of energy savings and total square footage of a building. The regulation provides commercial building owners and leaseholders with a deduction for implementing energy-efficient commercial building property in their buildings between December 31, 2005, and January 1, 2013. The deduction is available whether the respective space is new construction or already existing and applies to the year in which the energy-saving property was made ready for its intended use. It is divided into three categories:

Lighting
HVAC & hot water
Building Envelope

The maximum deduction of $1.80 per square foot requires a 50% reduction in total annual energy and power costs (compared to a reference building that meets the minimum requirements of American Standard of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 90.1-2001), not to exceed the amount equal to the cost of energy efficient commercial property placed in service during the taxable year. A partial deduction of $.60 per square foot requires a 16 2/3% reduction in energy consumption, and can be achieved through improvements in one of the previous 3 categories (Lighting, HVAC, Building Envelope). With recent technological advances in lighting, as well as the generally lower costs compared to the other categories, this deduction is considered the “lowest hanging fruit”. A partial deduction for Interim Lighting affords the bank a deduction between $.30 - .60 per square foot and requires a 25 – 40% reduction in lighting power density (50% in the case of warehouses). As many banks have multiple branches, and this is a per building incentive, the deductions can be quite substantial.

To summarize:

Improvements can be made in three categories

Lighting
HVAC
Building Envelope
Each can achieve a $0.60 deduction per sq. ft.
Lighting is considered the “low hanging fruit” due to rapid ROI and lower upfront costs

Three Year “LookBack”

What about banks which may have already made significant investments in energy upgrades? Fortunately, the IRS rules allow banks to take deductions on qualified upgrades completed during the 3 prior tax years. For qualifying institutions, this is simply found money.

Certification of Qualified Property

To insure receipt of expected credits, the taxpaying entity must certify the property meets all energy-conservation claims, and establish the total annual energy savings required for obtaining a partial deduction. The guidelines provide information about the software programs that must be used in calculating these power and energy expenditures.

Additionally, the property must be certified as an energy-efficient commercial building property by a qualified individual. These individuals may not be related to the taxpayer and must be an engineer or contractor properly licensed in the jurisdiction where the building(s) is/are located. The certification need not be attached to the tax return, but Section 1.6001-1(a) of the IRS regulations state that taxpayers are required to maintain books and records that would satisfy investigation into the applicability of the deduction.

Note: The preceding article is not legal nor accounting advice and should not be relied upon without the advice and guidance of a professional Tax Advisor familiar with all relevant facts. It is always highly recommended that you consult with your own attorney and accountant regarding any IRS Tax Code issues.

Joseph Winn is the President of GreenProfit Solutions, Inc. a sustainability consulting, certifying and contracting firm. For more information, please contact Joseph at 1-800-358-2901 or email jwinn@greenprofitsolutions.com.

New SEC Guidance on Climate Change Disclosure - Part 1

2010-04-14T13:18:00.000-07:00

What does the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have to do with sustainability? On January 27th, 2010 the SEC published guidance for public companies on the reporting of impacts potentially contributing towards climate change. Additionally, they disclose the effects climate change may and can have on a company’s profitability. While some public and corporate officials are stating that the risks cannot as yet be properly assessed and the requirements are premature, most major investors, which have been supporting the new guidelines, are pleased. Why has the SEC taken this action and is this information really pertinent to an investor?

Let’s take a look at what has been occurring over the past decade. Many states and local governments have enacted their own legislation resulting in greater regulation of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). GHG legislation on climate change is currently pending in Congress after the House of Representatives approved a bill, later amended in 2009 by the Senate, to limit a company’s emissions of greenhouse gases through a system of “Cap and Trade”. Even the EPA has begun to require large emitters to disclose and report their data.

Since the 1990’s, 186 countries have supported the efforts of the Kyoto Protocol, and the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) which is the mechanism that controls the Cap and Trade system of allowances and credits for carbon and other greenhouse gases. While the U.S. has never ratified this treaty, U.S. companies doing business in those countries are required to comply.

Climate change risk has not gone unnoticed by the insurance industry. In their 2008 report, major investment firm Ernst & Young stated that climate change was the top strategic risk. They explain it as being, “long-term, far-reaching, and with significant impact on the industry” (Climate Change Greatest Strategic Risk to Insurance Industry). It remained on the top 10 for 2009 (Top 10 Risks Most Likely to Affect the Insurance Sector During 2009). Partially as a result of these reports, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) created an industry standard of mandatory disclosure. Designed for state regulators, it highlights potential financial risks due to climate change as well as actions taken to mitigate them. New actuarial models are in development along with new products specifically designed to cover these new risks.

So what are the risks to a public company? Legislation and new regulations can certainly have a significant effect on capital expenditures. Cap and trade allowances could also force a high emitter to buy credits, creating a negative effect on cash flow. Even companies not subject to new regulations could be affected if their own supplies and services are suddenly only available at a higher cost. As with any challenge, there will be companies well-positioned to benefit from current and proposed legislation. For example, those with “credits” (businesses emitting below their quota) may be able to sell them as investment instruments to improve their own capital position.

Let’s not forget the potential physical effects of climate change. Sea level rise, melting of permafrost, availability of clean water, greater temperature extremes, and increase in storm intensity can all have deleterious effects on a company’s operation and even demand for their products. For example, warmer winters may reduce seasonal demand for heating supplies, while a burst of extreme cold can overwhelm distribution infrastructures; banks holding significant debt in coastal properties could be at higher risk; drought or flooding could negatively impact agricultural firms.

According to the SEC, the new disclosure guidance is simply an extension of regulations pertaining to environmental issues implemented in the early 1970’s. Focused primarily on disclosure guidelines, the original rules sought to monitor compliance regarding material discharge and environmental protection, for use in potential litigation. The current standards have evolved to “provide that information is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider it important in deciding how to vote or make an investment decision, or, put another way, if the information would alter the total mix of available information.” (SEC Release #33-9106 (PDF))

To the CFO, properly assessing risk can be a complex issue, especially when considering the effect climate change may have on future company operations. Granted, there is a delicate balance in disclosure between compliance and stock valuation and demand. Currently, companies who are making some efforts on disclosing climate change risks are simply “burying” them in their 10-K form. It appears this practice is no longer acceptable with the new guidance requirements.
Are there any actions a company facing climate change risks may employ to comply with the full disclosure requirements and still show the company in a positive light? One method suggested is certification, primarily through an internationally recognized program and certification body. The International Standards Organization (ISO) has developed their ISO 14001:2004 Environmental Management System to assist companies in developing or transitioning to more sustainable systems and practices. Their newly developed standards ISO 14064 and 14065 provide an internationally accepted framework for measuring GHG emissions and verifying claims.

In our next article, we will examine the details and requirements of the new SEC guidance, discuss the potential benefits of a certification program, and also measure the relevance this action has on non-public companies.

Keith Winn is the VP Marketing/COO of GreenProfit Solutions, Inc. a sustainability consulting, certification, and contracting firm. You may contact Keith at 1-800-358-2901 or email kwinn@greenprofitsolutions.com.

KPMG Survey Suggests Green Shift in Car Buying

2010-01-08T08:57:00.000-08:00

It appears the Auto industry is finally starting to focus on more fuel efficient vehicles. This according to a new global survey of 200 auto executives recently published by KPMG. Could it be they are finally listening to the public?

Hybrid vehicles placed at the very top of their list of alternative fuel technologies for the next five years, followed by battery electric, fuel cell electric and bio-diesel respectively.

Biodiesel technology is low on the list of priorities for auto industry research, according to the survey that was released Thursday.

When asked to rate which were the most important alternative fuel technologies to the auto industry over the next five years, hybrid systems were ranked first followed by battery electric power, fuel cell electric power, and biodiesel, respectively.

In the past, styling was ranked as major feature. No more though. The feature auto executives believed makes the biggest impact on customers' purchasing decisions is fuel efficiency, which was ranked the highest, while the "environmental friendliness" of a vehicle ranked second, followed by safety innovation in third. Styling did not even make it into the survey results.

"Automotive manufacturers are in the challenging position of being asked to compete on both technology and cost. With global consumers still feeling the pinch of the recession, those OEMs who can deliver on this equation will be in the driver's seat," Gary Silberg, national automotive industry leader for KPMG, said in a statement.The survey was conducted September through November 2009.

Now, let's see how they can make those large suv's and trucks truly more fuel efficient. A listing of fuel efficiency and emissions and interactive chart can be found at the EPA's Green Vehicles website.

Manufacturers also hinted at offering incentives on hybrid vehicles, something, until now, was only reserved for large vehicles with conventional gas-powered engines.

With this news, can financial institutions create an auto lending program to attract this new market of borrowers?

The survey was conducted September through November 2009.

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.

The Article No One Will Read

2009-09-02T14:44:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-07-22T12:42:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-05T13:37:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-01T16:15:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-01T14:04:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-27T14:36:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-02-27T04:15:00.001-08:00

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?

2009-02-04T14:59:00.000-08:00

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?

2009-01-12T13:30:00.000-08:00

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 .

A National Recycling Standard

2008-12-20T12:31:00.000-08:00

I recycle, at least, I try to. Lifelong dedication to the environment, and I still wonder whether that envelope I’m holding is accepted in our paper recycling program. Are the plastic windowed ones allowed? If so, does the window have to be under a certain size? What about shiny paper? Usually it is excluded, however, junk mail is specifically mentioned as accepted. Of course, that doesn’t cover the plastics. Bypassing the issue of the numbers, a separate discussion altogether, take the example of plastic shopping bags. These items must be deposited elsewhere for recycling (the thin bags get trapped in the machinery and clog it), even though they are tagged with otherwise-included numbers. Did I mention that if otherwise excluded items wind up in the recycling pile, the entire batch is considered contaminated and subsequently thrown away? No pressure. Move to another city and the accepted items are likely completely different. With such a convoluted system, what hope does the average person trying to do their part have?

Recent news reports from USA Today, claim that the incoming Obama administration will be appointing former EPA administrator Carol Browner as energy “czar” to “coordinate energy issues across the federal government” . An entirely new position in the United States, surely her responsibilities will solidify as she grows into her role. Coordination is a wonderful idea; by keeping a unified focus in all federal activities, real progress can be made in energy policy. Energy, however, is not nearly as closed a field as implied. To make substantive impact on the global environment, they will need to focus on all aspects of energy use, and guarantee that we are using our energy efficiently and intelligently.

This is where the stories converge.

Recycling, at its very core, is intended to reduce the need to expend resources in making something new when an already-produced equivalent exists. If one were to ask a person why they might use recycled paper, a logical answer may include the following: “So we don’t have to cut down more trees”. The same goes for bottled water or a can of soda - why go through the effort of producing more virgin plastic when a recycled bottle already sequestered the necessary energy? In essence, recycling is the act of being more intelligent with our energy (and resource) use.

Suddenly, recycling sounds like a topic upon which the administration will wish to focus, but how to do so? Waste services are privately owned enterprises operating independently or on contract with municipalities, not the federal government. It is doubtful they would be open to nationalization, nor is that necessarily a good idea, but what about some standards? Is there anything else the federal government has a hand in regulating by allowing its operation by the private sector? Bingo, organic foods. Currently, the USDA provides standards for independent certifying bodies to inspect operations for compliance. If approved, they are permitted to use the USDA Organic seal on their product, providing standardization and ease-of-use for consumers.

I propose a similar system for recycling. Instead of the current labyrinth of policies, simply have a universally-recognizable logo printed on all products meeting the federal government’s recycling standard. The EPA (presumably the lead agency on the issue) will then go about assisting and approving existing waste disposal/recycling companies. Upon certification, they will be capable of processing a given criteria of materials, for example, plastics coded 1-6, clear and green glass, aluminum, and specific forms of paper, for all of their existing customers. The difference now is that on the disposal end, we do away with the traditional recycling logo and affiliated marks, and replace them with a custom EPA Recycle logo, in the same vein as the USDA Organic logo. For citizens living/working within a service area of an EPA-approved waste disposal company, they can rest assured that if they place an EPA Recycle labelled product in their recycle bin, it will be properly recycled. Market forces will push waste operators to achieve the EPA distinction to accommodate the demands of their clientele, as well as product manufacturers adopting its use on appropriate products.

Such a system eliminates the consideration of plastic code numbers (many people don’t even know they exist), cardboard versus paperboard recycling, or any number of other issues that can and do arise daily. Reference the success of the USDA Organic seal. Average citizens regularly seek out organic options, a change partially brought about simply by the addition of a standardized logo.

We have a golden opportunity ahead of us as we welcome a new administration strongly committed to the environment. A national recycling standard will help bridge the gap between the U.S. and, according to Swiss Recycling News, Switzerland, the global leader, standing at 76% . As of 2007, the EPA reports the United States had a recycling rate of approximately 33%, a value needlessly diminished by confusion, contamination, and general ignorance of the current situation . Americans want to recycle, but when presented with a hodgepodge of policies nationwide, it can make even the most green of people simply throw it away.

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 Holidays

2008-12-01T15:05:00.000-08:00

With the Holiday season fast approaching, our thoughts here at GreenProfit Solutions, as everyone else, are turning to plans for celebration with good friends and family. We started wondering how we could combine the Holiday festivities with Going Green. After doing some research, we came up with a few ideas:

The results of our research estimated that in America alone, over 2 billion holiday cards will be printed and mailed, over 38,000 miles of ribbon will be used, and more than 50,000 square miles of wrapping paper will decorate all of those presents Santa will deliver to all of the good boys and girls. (Hmmm...I wonder if reindeer powered sleighs are eco-friendly?) And what about the traditional Christmas tree? Millions of those will be left on curbs, and hundreds of thousands of artificial trees will find their way to landfills. So how can we all enjoy our Holidays and be still green conscious?

Here are a few tips:

No Plastic Bags - we didn't mention those in the above estimates but Americans send over 350 million tons of plastic bags to landfills each year! (The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that between 500 billion and a trillion plastic grocery bags are consumed worldwide each year). Plastic bags are petroleum based, the inks used may contain lead, and are not recyclable through residential or most commercial recycling programs. Many end up as litter, negatively affecting our wildlife on land and in our waters. Why not keep a supply of reusable fabric bags in your car, and use them when you shop for gifts? Then after the holidays, they make heavy duty carriers for your food shopping, at the home improvement store, and everyday use.

No Artificial Trees - these are also made from petroleum products and are not recyclable. If you can, buy a live tree and plant it in your yard after the holiday. You may also be able to donate the tree to your community or city. What about a cut tree? Unfortunately, most conventional tree farms use large amounts of chemical pesticides and fertilizers. A better option, if it is available in your area, is to buy an organically grown cut tree. Green Promise has compiled a list of organic growers. Regardless of which cut tree you buy, many municipalities now collect these and turn them into mulch.

Go e-Cards - Traditional paper cards not only take a toll on our trees, but also add huge amounts of carbon to our atmosphere to process the pulp into paper. Most of the inks used are solvent based and contain toxins which can find their way into water supplies. There are so many great interactive e-cards you can buy online, or better yet, create your own with family photos, music and even videos. Try creating one free at Save A Tree Cards or 123Greetings. Save trees, save paper and with no postage required, save money!

Go Real for Tableware - Use real plates and silverware, especially if you have an Energy Star efficient dishwasher. If you must use disposable items, make sure they are recyclable. Check the number in the triangular recycle logo. If it is a 3 or less, chances are it can be recycled IF you make sure it is not "contaminated" with food. Avoid buying Styrofoam, as this normally cannot be recycled and is also a petroleum based product.

Wrap it Up - Have any magazines, decorative paper bags or old posters around the house? Here's your chance to reduce your clutter and put it to use as wrapping paper. If you must have traditional wrapping paper, you can purchase recycled paper and cotton ribbons (some are also made with non-toxic soy based inks) online at Fishlips Paper and Paper Source.

Let It Shine - With the popularity of LED's, you can now purchase strings of lights and even decorative ornaments made with these ultra low power Light Emitting Diodes. These use much less power than traditional bulbs, (about 60-80% less), thereby not only reducing your Holiday "carbon footprint", but also reducing your energy costs. You may also want to consider purchasing a timer to save even more!

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 .

Green Your Thanksgiving

2008-11-29T05:52:00.000-08:00

As the Holiday Season approaches, we all tend to resort to our own family traditions, which may not include any thought of sustainability. One possibility? Start some new Green traditions. Here are a few ideas for a Green Thanksgiving from Lynn Colwell, and her daughter, Corey Colwell-Lipson, authors of the book: "Celebrate Green":
Decorations:
— It's easy to make Thanksgiving decorations green because so many of them are edible. Colwell likes to decorate with gourds and berries. "It looks beautiful, it's colorful, it's enjoyed first and then consumed," she said. These items could also be composted.
— For place settings and wreaths, gather natural materials you can easily find in your own yard - branches, pinecones, beautiful autumn leaves. Not only will it create less waste, but you'll also have fewer items to store, since everything is disposable. It's fun for kids, and better yet, it's free. For daily green decorating tips with a natural feel, check out decorator Danny Seo's blog.
—Find new uses for things you already have. "We were setting a Thanksgiving dinner for a talk we gave, and we didn't put too much planning into what we would do. We did a hunt around the house," said Colwell-Lipson. "We had a fun time opening cupboards and putting things together, and came up with 90 percent of what we needed there. We found a glass bowl, and had idea that if we filled bowl with leaves, pinecones, berries, and put a glass plate on top, it became a seasonal centerpiece. We found some table cloth that wasn't so fancy - it was my grandmothers. It's not something you would have picked up at the store, but with everything else it worked."
Place Settings:
—"Many people don't have enough glassware and they buy disposable items," said Colwell-Lipson. "It's not good for the planet. So, to bring meaning into the place setting, you could ask each guest to bring their own, and tell the story behind it. It could be their grandmother's, or it could be from a thrift store. People laugh and learn and reduce their footprint."
— You could also try a thrift store for place settings, tablecloths and flatware. Mix and match to add character to your table.
Giving Thanks:
— Colwell's idea for a new tradition: Ask each guest to bring an item that represents something they're thankful for. "Put the items in a glass bowl or spread it down your table, and ask everyone why they brought each thing," she said. "You create a tradition, start a conversation, and ask a question that many people never ask on Thanksgiving."
— If you need to cut back a little this Thanksgiving, whether you're doing so in a green way or not, "look at it as an opportunity and not as a punishment," said Colwell. "When you were a child, you were creative. Talk to your family about how to make it fun and spend less money on food. Get neighbors together for a potluck. There are wonderful ways to do it."
— Look to the past. Ask grandparents how they celebrated with less, and how they brought together the family. "We've been convinced that we need more than we do, and we need to spend money to be happy," said Colwell. "We don't believe that's true."

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.

Differentiating by Going Green

2008-11-22T11:46:00.001-08:00

As any experienced financial institution marketer knows, differentiating your business from your competitors is a primary key to attracting new prospects and members or customers and retaining them once they decide to do business with your institution. But will the same “hook” that attracted them to become your customers/members be enough to maintain their loyalty? Let’s examine a few strategies:

Low Price: As people are always price conscience, especially in this slow economy, this can be an excellent method to attract new customers/members. However, unless your company plans on being a “discount house” operation, you will need to evolve a different strategy to retain those customers/members, otherwise they will simply seek out the next big discount elsewhere.

Great Products: Every business advertises great products. Why is your product better than your competitor? Provide your prospects with a reason to walk in your door. Then make sure your products are updated and tweaked regularly to ensure a competitive edge.

Great Service: This strategy typically does not attract new customers/members, unless you detail how your service will exceed your competitors. On the surface, there is nothing to differentiate your company from your competitors. Of course, great service is a major key to customer/member retention.

There are many other innovative marketing strategies being employed in the marketplace which are based upon surveys. These studies can give you an understanding of your target market’s concerns as well as focus on the latest trends. One such trend which every major survey (Harris, Nielsen, Mintel, Intellitrends) has been following is Going Green. With unstable fuel prices, new energy tax credits, and the promise of an upcoming New Green Economy, there has never been a better time to incorporate Green into your company’s business practices and products.

Will Going Green help attract new customers or members? According to Intellitrends, nearly 35% of those surveyed considered a company’s environmental policies before purchasing. Monster Trak reported that, for college graduates, this number was above 80% and 92% of these “Gen Y’s” were seeking to work for a company with a solid environmental and corporate social responsibility policy.

Even with all of the news and surveys on Going Green, business journals have estimated that less than 2% of all small and medium sized companies in the U.S. have begun any green initiatives at all. Pity. According to the Makovsky Green Gap survey, people are looking for businesses to take the lead in improving the environment. That could be a once in a lifetime opportunity to differentiate and really make a difference.

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.

How is Your Institution's Indoor Air Quality?

2008-11-13T11:36:00.000-08:00

Sounds like a simple question, with a simple answer. But based on several recent studies which showed various levels of contaminants in many company facilities, it may be time to take a serious look at what the air quality is at your place of business. Going Green does include minimizing or eliminating any inherent health hazard.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): "In the last several years, a growing body of scientific evidence has indicated that the air within homes and other buildings can be more seriously polluted than the outdoor air in even the largest and most industrialized cities. Other research indicates that people spend approximately 90 percent of their time indoors. Thus, for many people, the risks to health may be greater due to exposure to air pollution indoors than outdoors."

Over the past 20 years, many states, such as Florida, Pennsylvania, NY, California and others have passed legislation creating their own Indoor Clean Air Acts. These acts referred primarily to tobacco smoking and the proven harmful effects of second hand smoke. Decades prior, federal legislation banned the use of asbestos in building products and lead in paints. Based upon their health endangerment, these factors were of course, the most obvious. But there still remains other less obvious factors that can affect air quality.

Many of us are aware of mold, which has serious health implications, and can normally be controlled by adjusting temperature and humidity. However, even the smallest unnoticed water leak can eventually cause mold to multiply. Also, emissions from your building's HVAC source must be consistently monitored. While the EPA encourages proper ventilation, this method simply shifts the emissions to our atmosphere. A healthy green strategy would be to eliminate or drastically reduce all emissions.

Indoor air quality is also greatly affected by Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). VOCs are gases emitted by a wide array of products numbering in the thousands. Examples include: paints and lacquers, paint strippers, cleaning supplies, pesticides, building materials and furnishings, office equipment such as copiers and printers, correction fluids and carbonless copy paper, graphics and craft materials including glues and adhesives, permanent markers, and photographic solutions. Little testing has been done on the health effects of these gases, and virtually no testing on the effects of combinations of these gases, which is evident in most business facilities. The best advice is to seek out and use products with No or Low VOCs.

A green facility or business can not only create a healthier workplace, but also reduce employee sick days and turnover adding to more financial benefits for your 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 .

Photo credit: Dboo - Flicker

Funding the New Green Economy

2008-11-01T13:27:00.000-07:00

We have heard lots of talk and seen lots of news on the so-called “New Green Economy”. It was a central theme in the U.S. Presidential debate, where some candidates estimated it would bring 5 million new, high paying jobs over the next ten years. With fuel prices hurting consumers at the pumps and, with winter coming, many northern people looking at paying out close to $1,000 USD per month to heat their homes, combined with the feeling that outside influences are controlling these costs, the concept of energy independence will certainly fuel this budding industry.

But where will the needed billions in investments to start us on the road to new, clean energy come from? Here in the U.S. it has already started, and from an unlikely source. The banking crisis. Unbeknownest to most people, not all of the monies will go towards bailing out the banks and fat cats who created this mess. The same $700 billion bailout of the banks, which is officially named the Emergency Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (EESA 2008), has officially started the green ball rolling. EESA includes billions of dollars in energy tax credits for consumers and businesses, as well as companies engaged in the development of these technologies. These include credits for solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric and other alternative energy producing devices. Looking towards the future, the Act also provides tax credits for purchasers of plug-in electric vehicles. Upgrading to more energy efficient appliances is not forgotten and also receives tax credits. In fact, there are 32 sections of the 442 page Act, which refer specifically to energy tax credits. There is even a section on tax credits for bicycle commuters!

Many of these credits are extensions and enhancements of federal programs which were due to expire in December 2008. And these could not come at a better time. Even with the downturn in the overall economy, surveys from bizJournals Green, still show the green industry as “the one bright spot”. However, as with any good news, there is bad. With the recent credit crunch, according to American Public Media, start up companies are finding it more difficult to get the funding they require. Those with solid funding acquired prior to the Wall Street fiasco will have a green light to take advantage of consumer and business purchases through the tax incentives.

It will still take some time before financial institutions realize the opportunities and develop marketing strategies of their lending products to take advantage of EESA. And it will also take some time to reduce the overall public fear in the economy in general and move consumers back into consuming.

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 .

Photo credit: Steve Wampler on Flickr

Is Your Instititution a "Grey" Business?

2008-11-01T11:06:00.000-07:00

During the past year, news outlets have been littered (forgive the pun) with stories highlighting Fortune 1000 companies investing in new green initiatives. Throughout 2008, numerous surveys released by Harris Interactive, Intellitrends, Bentley, and Mintel indicate an increasing consumer awareness in going green. Similarly, a growing consumer segment now assesses a company’s environmental policies before making the decision to purchase a good or service. This trend has not gone unnoticed by professional marketers. “Grey” companies, those publicly displaying a cursory interest in environmental sustainability, are surely receiving briefs involving these surveys. In response, many are scrambling to repaint their products and corporate images to match the expectations of a Green business. World-renowned names including CitiBank, Bank of America, Wal-Mart, and Clorox each have allotted billions of dollars into various ecocentric technologies and strategies. Industry experts see this transition of capital funds not as a simple fad, rather, a long-term trend in the way business will be conducted beginning now and stretching far into the future.

Companies engaged in a restructuring of their sustainability policies are reaping the benefits by virtue of an increasing sales volume, a decreasing employee turnover rate, and, of course, diminishing energy costs.

So what exactly is a Grey business? In the past, the terminology “grey to green” referenced initiatives for river cleanup efforts stemming the negative effects of storm water runoff. As with many words and phrases over time, the modern meaning is shifting; it now relates best with environmental sustainability. In the growing “green” diction, a Grey company may either represent one which is not sustainably producing environmentally friendly products (and may be engaging in greenwashing), or simply a conventional business that has yet to adopt more sustainable operating practices. A continuously updated Green language dictionary may be found on this Community Portal.

Too often, media attention gravitates towards either large Grey companies announcing enormous green investments, or on new environmentally focused startups. Left out of the spotlight (and the green movement) are existing small and medium sized companies, representing 90% of the nation’s enterprises. Currently, most are simply weathering the economic slowdown, and few, if any, possess the assets to duplicate the initiatives of certain Fortune 1000 examples. However, if expert claims and public surveys are correct in predicting the continued growth of environmental sustainability from a growing trend to a human necessity, companies not adopting sustainable practices may suffer.

Fortunately, modifying a company’s environmental policies and practices does not necessarily require any large investments. Likewise, once a company has adopted a series of guidelines, their marketing efforts can be modified accordingly to take advantage of these changes. Businesses seeking advice and assistance may smooth the process by taking advantage of packaged programs including the Approved Green Business offered by GreenProfit Solutions, Inc. According to Keith Winn, COO/VP Marketing, small and medium size companies in nearly any industry can simply and affordably move from Grey to Green by utilizing their affordable stepwise program. Included within an Approved Green Business Program is assistance for marketing services as well as green benefits for employees, customers, and members, if applicable, to best promote and educate on a variety of green concepts.

With both national and international attention now firmly set on efforts to mitigate and reduce climate change, increase sustainability in all regions, and create energy independence, going from Grey to Green is a strategy every financial institution should consider.

Photo credit: motoed 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 .

Green Building – LEEDing the Way

2008-10-28T14:41:00.000-07:00

Going Green today encompasses much more than just recycling and changing to CFL bulbs. With a global energy crisis, combined with climate change, companies are just now beginning to look into a relatively new concept: Green Buildings. The online Wikipedia defines a Green Building as “the practice of increasing the efficiency with which buildings use resources — energy, water, and materials — while reducing building impacts on human health and the environment during the building's lifecycle, through better siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and removal.”

Green Building is based upon the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification standard developed by the U.S. Green Building Council. In the commercial arena, LEED buildings are typically healthier work environments and have lower operational costs than conventionally designed buildings. LEED incorporates a scoring system to achieve various levels of certification which are: Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum. These are based upon the following criteria:
• Sustainable sites
• Water Efficeincy
• Energy and atmosphere
• Materials and resources
• Indoor environmental quality
• Innovation and design process

Since LEED’s inception in 1996, there are now more than 14,000 projects in 30 countries. CitiBank began its LEED building program back in 2006 and has so far opened several new LEED Gold facilities in Irving, Texas, Queens, NY and in Germany. The company has committed $10 billion in green real estate initiatives over the next 20 years. On a smaller scale, Navy Federal Credit Union completed their new LEED Gold Call Center in Pensacola, FL which currently houses 300 employees. This is the first stage of a four building corporate campus which will eventually house over 3,000 employees. Their studies show a 25-40% reduction in energy usage and their employee turnover rate was reduced from 60% to only 17%.
Typical costs for new LEED building average only 2% above conventional building. However, other factors such as availability of sustainable materials and unfamiliarity of LEED processes may cause delays which could affect the costs. However, when averaged over a building’s 40 year life span, the benefits clearly outweigh the costs.

While the new construction makes the news, LEED construction is also making headway in the refurbishing and renovation of existing buildings. Due to original construction limitations, LEED renovated buildings rarely receive a rating of higher than “Certified”, although based upon how thorough and extensive the renovation, a rating of Silver is possible.

You can find complete information on LEED at www.usgbc.org.

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 .

The New Green Language

2008-10-28T14:09:00.000-07:00

Embracing new, environmentally sustainable ideas is often confusing. New terms like “Greenhouse Gases”, “Carbon Footprint”, "Greenwashing”, and even the “Three R’s” (nope, not what you learned in school) are tossed about by a new generation of green techies but for most of us, they may as well be speaking in Latin. Before a financial institution can truly become green, the principals must understand the dynamics, procedures, and the corresponding terminologies.

Let’s start with Recycle. Sounds easy. Most of us are familiar with recycling glass bottles, plastics, and newspapers. The confusion starts with plastic coding, that little number inside the recycling logo on the product. All recyclable plastics are now coded with a numerical value between 1 and 7, representing the type of material used to produce them. However, in most parts of the country, only plastics coded 1-3 are generally being recycled. The others end up in a landfill for the next eon or so. So, instead of simply recycling, we now use the 3R’s: Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. Carefully consider the waste before purchasing an item; try to purchase an item that can be reused at least several times; and, of course, continue to recycle what you know can be recycled.

Greenhouse gases refers to all gases in our atmosphere, but generally refers to the elevated amount of carbon dioxide (CO2 ), a major contributor to global warming. A carbon footprint is a measure of human activity on the environment in terms of greenhouse gases produced, in units of pounds of carbon dioxide. Just about everything we do, from washing our clothes to driving a car to lighting an office building, increases our impact or carbon footprint. The major environmental goal in Going Green is to become as close to carbon neutral as possible.

Greenwashing is the intentional or unintentional misleading of consumers into believing their product or service is environmentally sustainable and comparable or more effective than it’s conventional counterparts. Institutions must take extreme care to not overstate green offers, and make sure to back its claims, or members and customers may lose faith in green services, setting back the entire movement.

These are just a few examples of the new green jargon. A more complete listing can be found at the online GreenProfit Community portal. Learning the new green language can not only make you green savvy, but can also help you to develop a healthier and greener business environment.

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 .

Greenwashing – The Dark Side of the Green Movement

2008-10-28T13:45:00.000-07:00

For every positive action in nature, there is an equal negative reaction. Yin and Yang. And so it has been since history began. The Green Movement is no different.

Now that a growing number of consumers are becoming educated on the environmental issues facing us all and wanting to do their part to protect the health of their families, employees, communities and planet, a new evil comes lurking out of the shadows. This evil is not easily recognized as it is dressed in friendly green garb, and comes with promises of purity and environmental benefits.

It’s known as “greenwashing”. The watchdog and testing agency, Terra Choice Environmental Marketing/Eco-Logo defines greenwashing as: “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.” With the amount of money being spent each on year on green products and services increasing at a rapid pace, it’s no wonder individuals and companies who prior, had little concern for the environment, are rushing to portray themselves and their products as green.

What is the extent of this practice? In an effort to describe, understand, and quantify the growth of greenwashing, TerraChoice Environmental Marketing Inc. conducted a survey of six category-leading big box stores. Through these surveys, they identified 1,018 consumer products bearing 1,753 environmental claims. Of the 1,018 products examined, all but one made claims that are demonstrably false or that risk misleading intended audiences.

Each of these greenwashing claims fell into one of six categories, labeled by TerraChoice as the “Six Sins of Greenwashing”. The categories included:

1. Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off – a product is claimed “green” for a single attribute
2. Sin of No Proof - A “green” claim that cannot be substantiated.
3. Sin of Vagueness – Claim is either too broad or ill defined and easily misunderstood by consumer.
4. Sin of Irrelevance – Claim may be truthful, but unimportant in making a decision on that product.
5. Sin of Fibbing – Making environmental claims that are simply false.
6. Sin of Lesser of Two Evils - These are “green” claims that may be true within the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater environmental impacts of the category as a whole.

The Green Movement is still in its infancy and is just starting to build trust among people now concerned about the environment. These are people who, in many cases, are now willing to pay more for a green product. Should that product not be green or live up to its promises, many new green consumers will lose faith in the movement as a whole.

It’s easy for companies to tout their own horn on how green they are. When possible, consumers should look for product certifications from governments and standard setting bodies such as EcoLogo and Green Seal. However, not all small and medium size companies can afford the fees required for testing by these agencies. Companies in this category, and those in the service industry, should review their own company practices, set a plan for their own green initiatives, and strive for professional third party recognition of their efforts. With all that is at stake, no company can afford to be on the “dark side” and lose the confidence of the new green consumer.

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 .

Corporate Social Responsibility - Is it Good for Business?

2008-10-28T10:46:00.000-07:00

Going Green today is more than just setting up a recycling program or using e-statements. While many businesses, particularly credit unions and community banks, are familiar with the old concept of social responsibility, wherein companies, on a voluntary basis, reached out to assist their customers/members and communities, the definition now has been greatly expanded. Possibly due to the growing environmental issues facing our communities and planet, a new concept is being applied.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a concept that organizations and mostly companies, have an obligation to consider the interests of customers, members, employees, shareholders, communities, and ecological considerations in all aspects of their operations. Just like the old definition of social responsibility, this obligation is seen to extend beyond their statutory obligation to comply with legislation.
This concept applies to all businesses in all industries. Regardless of whether the company is a white collar office based service organization or a blue collar based manufacturing facility, there are steps that must be considered and taken to alleviate the impact of the company’s activities on the environment. While a factory belching smoke has obvious environmental impacts, other industries impacts may not be as apparent. Consider the nice clean white collar office building. How much energy is it using? How much paper? Ink? Water? All of these factors , and many more, while unseen, have an deleterious impact on the environment.

How? Let’s just consider water for now. For every gallon used, the water must be cleaned, processed and re-purified. This is an energy intensive procedure and requires substantial use of electricity, most of which is produced today from fossil fuels. Processing paper from wood pulp typically requires enormous amounts of water usage, not to mention the trees destroyed and chemical emissions released into our atmosphere and sometimes, waterways. And it’s not just the factories using water. Think of it this way: each time you flush the toilet, you are indirectly releasing additional CO2 into the atmosphere, speeding global warming.

Of course, we are not advocating that you send your employees into the woods whenever nature calls, but an overall policy of CSR should include a systematic program on water usage reduction. Most importantly, your CSR policy should consider not only local effects of your business activities, but also the far reaching effects.

Besides the rewards of “doing the right thing”, there are monetary rewards for CSR: recent surveys indicate a growing number of your prospects and customers now take a company’s environmental policies into consideration before doing business. Companies that truly Go Green enhance their marketability, improve their employee relations, and reduce their energy costs. As they used to say, it’s a win-win-win for everyone.

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 .

photo credit: Swisscan on Flickr

Environmental Responsibility vs ROI…Is There a Balance?

2008-10-28T10:41:00.000-07:00

Green is truly the new black on the American business balance sheet. We read almost daily announcements citing Fortune 500 companies and small, but well funded, start-ups engaging in new green initiatives, all speaking of exciting technologies and strategies rapidly becoming a part of daily life. Fueled by the ever-increasing consumer demand for sustainable products, companies are seeking to couple environmental and social responsibility with an enhanced bottom line. Recent surveys by Intellitrends, LOHAS, Bentley College, and even Sun Microsystems share the consensus that going green is not a fad, but a new trend in business. While it may seem everyone is going green, the truth is only a fraction of small and medium size companies, including financial institutions, are actually participating. The question is, with all the survey evidence and news coverage, why wouldn’t a financial institution just jump in and go green?

The answer is two-fold: Cost and Education. While we all read about industry giants including GE, CitiBank, and Navy Federal Credit Union investing heavily in major projects and initiatives, the same numbers are simply far out of the reach of even the most well established small to medium size institutions. Such extreme proposed investments are also made more difficult during a slow economy. Watching the industry giants build new LEED certified buildings, construct wind farm installations, or invest in Bio-Fuel research and technologies, while impressive, creates an uninspiring mood for smaller institutions, and helps to widen the gap between “the big boys and the little boys”. As a result, a huge market segment of financial institutions is becoming rapidly excluded from the going green efforts. This group, comprising more than 90% of active community banks and credit unions is mistakenly being led to believe that Green requires green.

What most institutions do not realize is that they can initiate small-scale and far less expensive changes to their own business practices, while still realizing financial savings and increased profits through becoming community leaders in environmental sustainability. We have all read how a homeowner can make a simple change from incandescent to CFL bulbs that will save thousands of watt/hours per household, and provide a long term savings return on the initial investment. Such an example of a transitional change also has indirect benefits: the CO2 reductions due to lower power requirements as well as a waste stream reduction (CFL’s last 5-10 times longer than incandescent bulbs). Now imagine this homeowner passing on that knowledge to their friends and family. Small investment = large returns.

In coming issues we will provide ideas that any size financial institution may embrace to affordably journey towards becoming models of environmental leadership. Readers can expect to learn about various strategies covering methods of capitalizing on the emerging green marketplace. We will also examine the “dark side” of the new green industry, now called “greenwashing”, and some tips on how to recognize the specter of false promises and keep your institution’s image truly green.

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

Photo credit: HaMeD!caL on Flickr