Sustainable Writings

The Rewards of Being Green

Friday, January 15, 2010 by Leonard Zangwill

   I recently received a mailer from American Express, pitching their ZYNC charge card. It is basically an a la carte version of their Membership Rewards program. The base fee is less than the usual membership rewards programs; however, a cardmember can gain extra rewards by signing up for “packs”. These are merchant groups where s/he will gain extra rewards (2% vs. 1%). The packs are “social”, “go”, “connect”, and “Eco”. Essentially, the cardmember can customize the overall rewards package.

   I found the Eco pack particularly interesting. First, it exists in the first place. I am more used to credit offers for double points at grocery stores and gas stations—not for being eco-friendly per se. Second, of the four “packs” available with the ZYNC card, only the Eco pack comes without an extra fee (The others are around $20-$25.) The no extra fee is definitely an encouragement to add the Eco-Pack. Third, all of the qualifying ECO-Pack merchants have been rated by an independent third party. The idea is to prove their, well, “eco-cred”.

   The rewards network as screened by Amex’s certification vendor Greenopia is impressive. It covers many cities across the country, and also contains numerous categories. In fact, there over nearly 20 main categories (baby food, coffeehouses, grocery stores, airlines) with many more subcategories spread over almost 100 cities. For example, the newest listing in the Philadelphia area (as of this writing) is a compressed natural gas fueling station (operated by PECO, the local electric utility).

   American Express has identified a group of prospective “green” customers who would be attracted to a collection of eco-friendly merchants. I think it is telling that American Express judged “eco-friendly” to be as potentially important to the ZYNC target market as travel, socializing, and communicating with friends--important event to build a merchant grouping around. Hopefully, the eco-friendly aspect will be as prominent in other market segments. I am waiting to receive the next credit card offer from an AMEX competitor that includes its own “eco-rewards” product.

The Relevance of Climate Change

Monday, December 14, 2009 by Leonard Zangwill

   I recently saw an article in the Washington Post Weekly connecting climate change to the food supply. This article is among the minority that translate the abstract thought of global warming and rising sea levels to tangible, concrete daily life concerns. For all my environmental activism, I have never really focused on climate change, global warming, or carbon footprints. I have been much more concerned with everyday actions that an individual could take to reduce his/her environmental impact. Most of the media coverage of climate change, on the other hand, has been about what might happen in 40-50 years due to global warming.

   Which is why “Will We Have Enough to Eat?” is so interesting. In the article, Lester Brown draws a link from the effects of climate change, to potential decreases in key food supplies, to political stability, and to the cost of food worldwide. He cites wheat and rice in particular, but the lessons are applicable to other commodities as well. He draws theoretical, albeit plausible, connections between the Himalayan glaciers and wheat as well as ocean levels to rice prices.

   Suppose the Himalayan glaciers decrease so much that the annual snowmelt is affected. This snowmelt provides water during the dry season to irrigate a noticeable percentage of China’s wheat supply. Less water can potentially lead to less (wheat) production. Suppose China’s wheat yields begin to fail. Would China then begin to compete against American consumers on the global wheat market? What would happen then to the price of wheat--and everything else made from wheat ?

   Another scenario is the rising of oceans to potentially flood the rice fields. If in Vietnam or Thailand, for example, the wrong fields flood, the world’s rice supply might decrease enough to affect prices. Last year’s rice shortage is very instructive. There was a (perceived) declined in rice yields in several key rice exporting countries. So they stopped exporting and kept it for themselves. Rice prices around the world were impacted very quickly and very sharply. Food riots followed shortly thereafter.

   So if global warming and/or climate change does eventually even minimally impact any part of the food system, we could be in deep trouble. These examples become a very believable scenario for me because of the volatility in the commodity markets over the past several years. Gold, oil, rice, and electricity have all seen wild price swings over the past few years. They have affected both national economies as well as people’s wallets.

   These scenarios are only potential scenarios. There is by no means any certainty that they will happen. But they are much more potentially related to my life than most of what I read about in the press regarding climate change. My issue has not been with whether man has aided and abetted global warming (I think so). Rather, it has been with relevance of it. Now, it seems like it could be a lot more relevant to my life sooner rather than later.

Article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112002906.html

On the Road Again

Friday, November 6, 2009 by Leonard Zangwill

The automobile, with its gas engine, is perhaps the strongest symbol of an economy powered (and driven) by fossil fuels. It may surprise the reader to learn that at one time, the gasoline engine was only one of numerous competing technologies. In the early 20^th Century, the gasoline engine won. In the early 21^st Century, there is another competition for engine technology. The incumbent is the standard gas engine, while some of the challengers are gas-electric hybrid, electric only, diesel, diesel-electric hybrids, etc. From a sustainability perspective, none of the challengers have to dethrone the incumbent; they just need enough people to buy them to keep them in business. If these technologies are commercially successful at all, then the amount of petroleum needed for transportation will go down, even if only incrementally.

Model years 2010 and 2011 (and to a lesser extent, 2012) are shaping up to be critical years for automobile engine technology. The most well known challengers are gas-electric hybrids like the Toyota Prius, Honda Insight, Ford Escape, etc. In 2010, for the first time in recent memory, a primarily electric car will be on the market, courtesy of the GM Chevy Volt—40 mile range, around $40,000. Nissan is promising a 100- mile range vehicle (the Leaf), available in the US by the end of 2010. Renault’s all electric entry, announced at the recent Frankfurt Auto Show, will follow in 2011. (If you are a lucky New Yorker, you are road testing an all-electric BMW Mini Cooper slated for launch in 2012). All of these electric cars feature rechargeable batteries.

At the same time, other “greener car” technologies are in various stages of development. Companies like Toyota and Ford are expanding and improving their hybrid product line. Volkswagen is testing diesel-electric models. Diesel is also gaining more attention as a fuel-efficient alternative to the conventional gas engine. Subaru is one company (along with Volkswagen) working on this kind of technology. And, other companies are trying to make the conventional gas engine more efficient with better gas mileage.

All of this activity implies that the manufacturers feel that a market exists to buy some kind of electric car. Does it? That is open question. Some elements of the auto industry are rather dubious. The head of Audi North America has been quoted as saying that no one will pay $40,000 for a Chevy Volt (electric) when there are numerous competitive gas engine options for $25,000. And there have many comments to the effect that buying a Toyota Prius does not make sense because you cannot save enough in gas money to make up for the hybrid price differential. So therefore, the argument goes, only a few people will buy these cars. This flies in the face of the success of the Prius and other hybrids, especially during last year’s spike in gas prices.

Even if the “green car” buyers are only a segment—so what? There are many segments of the auto market. There are SUV buyers, truck buyers, muscle car aficionados, family minivans, cruisers, etc. Those segments thrive. The evidence is anecdotal, but I do think that there are enough people to make a segment of buyers for some version of electric or hybrid cars. After all, almost all of the world’s carmakers are developing some sort of non-gas engine technology.

The skeptics are also forgetting that new technologies in many fields tend to come down in price as they get introduced into the market place. Also, if something becomes fashionable, cost becomes a whole lot less important if it is competitive. If enough people buy these cars, then “electrics” or “hybrids” will become a sustainable segment in the auto market. When it comes time for me to buy another car, hopefully I can join one of these segments.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/sep2009/gb20090917_962378.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/business/energy-environment/16electric.html?sq=electric%20cars&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=2&adxnnlx=1253667664-lNOjX6nAZ5dETLpEXnIFpA

Parenting and Sustainability

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 by Leonard Zangwill

   There is nothing like the birth on one’s first child to command one’s attention—as in my first child, (David Joshua), a couple of weeks ago. The demands of being a parent can be rather overwhelming; sustainability has somehow become slightly less important with 2 am diaper changes. Hopefully I can incorporate my values of sustainability into my parenting. This is both a short term and long term issue (as is parenting, for that matter).

   The most obvious environmental issue for new parents is diapers—specifically cloth or disposables. However, since I firmly believe that there is more to parenting than diapers, I will for now not discuss cloth vs disposable diapers (I will in a future post). Babies have other needs beyond being diapered—like clothes, food, and myriad other “stuff”. If I did not know this before my wife got pregnant, I certainly discovered it when filling out the registry at the baby store.

   This was not a happy experience for me. I wanted to be as sustainable as possible, but we needed so much stuff. I was now part of the demand for more baby “stuff”. I had one general success in that I did manage to find some sheets and pads made from organic cotton vs regular cotton. I figured by buying organic cotton when possible I was doing less damage to the environment. I highly recommend Confessions of an Eco-Sinner, by Fred Pearce. Pearce examines the sources of many items of Western consumerism, including cotton clothes (and other items), Suffice it to say that conventional cotton production has devastated many areas where the cotton is produced. Also, we have found the organic cotton to be softer—must be the lack of hard chemicals in the production.

   For other purchases, sustainability was not the operative factor. For example, we found a double sided mattress that had a harder infant side and softer toddler side. The mattress with the organic cotton could not compete. And being able to lift the mattress in the middle of the night to change a sheet was a key consideration. So this is one of those times when sustainability was nudged out as a basis for purchase of a particular product. This also applied to the stroller—the operative criteria were light weight and ease of collapsing. I do not know what specific materials are in it, but I do know that it is really easy to work with.

   Another critical question new parents face is whether to breastfeed or to use formula. Breastfeeding is clearly better for everyone involved—if it works. While both Mommy and Baby are set up for breastfeeding, success is by no means guaranteed. We are very lucky; for us breastfeeding is working, and we can avoid the chemicals and expense of formula. But feeding the baby is by far the paramount concern; if breastfeeding did not work, we would have gone to formula with no questions asked. (After breastfeeding, we will continue to buy as much organic and/or relatively locally sourced food as possible).

   The above is only a very small part of the stuff needed to raise a baby, toddler, and child. From a sustainability perspective, parental demand for stuff increases as the baby becomes a toddler, then a child, then a teenager, and then a young adult. Parents with siblings or friends who have had children have an advantage when it comes to sustainability. This is because these siblings or friends give them the clothes, toys, etc that their own kids have outgrown. So they do not need to buy a new item, thereby demanding less stuff. Another alternative is consignment shops and buying used, but this may not always be feasible.

   We were told that parenting will completely change our lives. On one level, it has; but on many others, it has not. We still have the same values this month as we had last month before David was born. I still want to incorporate sustainability into my life as much as possible. How much I can do so while being a parent at the same time is an open question.