Let's face it, the Great Recession has not been a plus for the green movement overall. Most ordinary Americans are still sympathetic to the cause, but their willingness to spend even a penny extra for environmentally friendly products has been dampened by four dollar gas, five dollar cereal and loss of equity in their homes.

On the other hand, a positive by-product of all this is a lot less enthusiasm for what used to be part of the American dream: a McMansion of your very own, and the extra cars, boats and even planes that went along with this be-careful-what-you-wish-for icon. I know many successful boomers who are now moping around their 8 to 12,000-foot monuments to capitalism (many of them rendered in classic McMansionesque Tuscan style architecture) wondering what to do with the unused acres of space. "The Brady Bunch house seems like a shack compared to the dream of the typical middle class homebuyer/builder," said New York copywriter Jenny Lazar in an email to me on this subject. Indeed, her point is well taken, what used to be considered a large house is of modest dimensions by today's standards.

This is not meant to pass judgment on a long-standing tradition and part of the American Dream as we used to know it: a large, spacious home featuring huge foyer, high ceilings, many bedrooms and bathrooms, giant dining room and eat-in kitchen, multi-car garage, and more. Instead, this is to point out that perhaps America's long-standing love affair with this type of -- not very green -- home has finally run its course?

I can think of a number of successful friends who live in houses of this description. Surprisingly, many of them are empty-nesters or have only one or two children, which is hardly enough to fill a home with six to ten bedrooms. Other than the several times per year that they host major parties, community events and/or charity functions, they just aren't getting the value out of their super sized abodes. And a lot more often than you'd think, these homeowners are saying, "boy, if I could get out of this place whole, I'd like to sell it and downsize to a smaller house..."

Why do they want out? Usually, it's not only the unused space, but the carrying costs. Heating, cooling, cleaning and maintaining huge homes is an expensive proposition. Not to mention, the property taxes. The care and feeding of a large home is a big responsibility that seemingly never ends.

Indeed, magazines like DWELL, and websites such as Inhabitat.com -- both leaders of architectural style and design - showcase smaller homes for families of up to four members. Usually these are in the 1,000 to 3,000 square foot range, built with fully sustainable materials and state-of-the-art energy efficient HVAC systems. Real ecological living spaces. Upon considering this trend versus the longer-standing bigger is better, Sierra Club Green Home.com proposes a new industry standard that balances our longtime desire for lots of space with the current and future need to downsize: one thousand square feet per inhabitant, max. So, a family of four would get up to 4,000 square feet, a childless couple would have 2,000 feet or less, and so on. Sorry, pets don't count as people (although my personal bias is that having a large dog in a very small space is not healthy for the animal).

No doubt hardcore environmentalists will think this plan is too liberal, but I believe we have to start somewhere and we have to be realistic about the ability to change long-standing philosophies overnight. Perhaps ultimately downsizing should mean 750 or even 500 square feet per inhabitant? For now, however, in this first incantation, I think the 1,000 feet per person proposed by Sierra Club Green Home makes sense.

One small problem presents itself in all this: what do we do with the multitude of huge homes that are on the market now and will be even more plentiful once the downsizing trend catches fire? Indeed, McMansions in most major cities can be bought for hundreds of thousands if not millions less today than at the peak of conspicuous consumption, 2007. This probably won't change given the dynamics of the market. Think about it, the older empty nesters increasingly want to voluntarily downsize, for sustainability among other reasons. And to their credit, the new, younger generation of successful people don't seem to want the huge homes. They are gravitating toward the smaller, hipper, more sustainable structures featured in DWELL and Inhabitat.com. Which is great for sustainability in general, as these younger opinion leaders are setting a new standard for what is considered "making it" in American business.

Overall, too many McMansions on the market could be viewed as a positive. How they will be absorbed by the marketplace overall is an issue, but in general, we see a very real possibility that downsizing may become "the new black" in terms of what's considered chic, hip, cool AND sustainable. And that's a good thing overall.

Does your current living arrangement meet the measuring stick? We want to know, let us hear from you, thanks!

Follow Jennifer Schwab on:

Facebook: www.facebook.com/sierraclubgreenhome

Twitter: @SCGreen_Home

A recent New York Times article, in classic "all the news that's fit to print" fashion, declared that the bevy of green consumer products introduced over the past five years is going the way of the buffalo and Circuit City, i.e. headed for extinction. It should be noted that normally, I consider the New York Times to be the best journalism around (along with ProPublica) so much so that I am happy to pay over three dollars a week to read it via iPhone.

Not surprisingly, this got a number of folks from the green movement -- including yours truly -- up in arms. Not only do I strongly disagree, but, to borrow not quite literally from Mark Twain, reports of the premature demise of green products have been greatly exaggerated.

In the story, the dramatic rise then decrease in sales of Clorox Green Works is cited as the most overwhelming proof of the Times' assertion. It is true that GreenWorks home products took off like a Roman candle when initially launched in 2008, and sales were down nearly 40 percent from that peak as of last year. (I should note here that Green Works has an endorsement from Sierra Club). Being very close to this subject at Sierra Club Green Home.com, I can tell you that indeed, consumers are spending less on elective premium priced green products as a result of the recession. If a green product does not offer marginal utility vs. a non-green competitive product that sells for less, odds are it will be second choice for a general public that is struggling with $4 gasoline and skyrocketing grocery prices.

That said, just this week I saw a brand new launch ad for a green motor oil, of all things. Valvoline introduced its NextGen motor oil made with 50 percent recycled content. It will be sold right next to comparable Valvoline and competitive products, and at the same price! This is great news because our research at Sierra Club Green Home.com shows that over 70 percent of consumers are sympathetic and supportive of using green products -- so long they perform the same as "regular" products as it does not cost them a premium. Valvoline seems to really understand this with the pricing and positioning of their new recycled product.

Another potentially important new product introduction is from Alcoa; it's an aluminum architectural panel with special titanium dioxide coating that literally "eats" smog when sunlight contacts the surface. In sunny weather, the chemical reaction with the panel actually cleanses the air, says Alcoa. Then when it rains, harmless matter collecting on the panels is washed away. Alcoa is not often accused of being green, but it should be noted that they were one of the very first major corporations to promote recycling. The Pittsburgh-based aluminum giant ran programs in support of aluminum can recycling as early as 1980. Remember Armstrong floor and ceiling tiles? They just announced a new formaldehyde-free ceiling tile, which improves indoor air quality. Admittedly these products would most likely be found in office buildings where consumers work as opposed to your home.

Back to consumer "everyday" products. Pentel sells its RSVP retractable pens, made from 59% recycled plastic. This product is doing well in sales, as are Earth by Staples notebooks made from 80 percent sugar-cane based recycled waste. They are offered in a variety of earth tone colors and interestingly, are made in Egypt. At a $2.49 price point, they are cost competitive with comparable items. In fact, they are cheaper than fashion notebooks which are made with coated plastic over cardboard.

The Times used Clorox Green Works as an example of green products costing a lot more; the Staples Sustain Earth brand is actually less expensive than non-green national brands at $1.99 for their multi-purpose cleaner. I could go on -- and on. The point is, these are not "fringe" products from tiny mom and pop green firms. These are all important product launches from major national companies.

The Times story was based upon a study which concluded that green products sold by major national marketers are on a serious downward trend. We would submit that the examples cited above are but a few of dozens and dozens of current and planned introductions of new green products by national marketers. If they didn't think these products can be profitable and grow market share, they would not spend the time and effort to introduce them. To paraphrase leading green industry researcher Suzanne Shelton in a recent blog, the key is for marketers to research, position and price their green products carefully and strategically. Finding that sweet spot of all these variables can be a challenge, but we are confident that ultimately, there will be many more success stories about green products that consumers can't live without in coming years.

What is your experience with green consumables? Are you willing to pay more for them? Please comment to let us know your thoughts, and as always, thanks for reading!

Follow Jennifer Schwab on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SCGreen_Home

PARK CITY, UTAH -- Sundance to the film industry is like the NCAA championship in collegiate basketball: the best of the best in what is designed to be a purist format. It's about the film makers and directors and actors, the writing and the plots, not unlike the two best amateur teams in the world playing on a neutral court, for all the marbles.

It's an ultimate experience for movie buffs. The vibe is so low key that you truly don't notice the famous Hollywood types since everyone wears jeans and a sweater. No paparazzi, no limos, no swanky parties with designer duds. The awards ceremony was held not at the super elite St. Regis or Montage hotels, but at the Basin Recreation Fieldhouse at Kimball Junction. That pretty much says it all about the atmosphere at Sundance. It's about the movies, not the money or the glitz. Of course, commerce is still done, films are picked up for distribution, directors are scouted, and new stars are discovered. Robert Redford sightings are very rare so I didn't get to ask him in person, but he's got to be happy with what he has created: a full-on minor league development system for the film industry.

I came to Park City specifically to view environmental documentaries, as Sundance is well known for its role in premiering important films about social and environmental issues. One of this year's most important movies of this genre is The Last Mountain. This riveting film examines one of Sierra Club's least favorite subjects: coal mining (in this case, coal blasting, literally blowing off the top of a mountain to access its motherlode of coal) and its effect on the environment and the people who live near the mining site.

Here is the quick "official" synopsis of The Last Mountain: "Focusing on the devastating effects of mountaintop coal removal in West Virginia's Coal River Valley, filmmaker Bill Haney illustrates the way residents and activists are standing up to the industry and major employer that is so deeply embedded in the region. With strong support from Bobby Kennedy Jr. and grassroots organizations, awareness is rising in the battle over Appalachian mountaintop mining." You can view the trailer at TreeHugger.com.

Yes, The Last Mountain is another Fight The Power flick. But it's also much more than that. This film reminds us that we are all indirectly supporting the coal mining industry, every time we turn on the lights. It also shows us how important grassroots movements can be. And Robert Kennedy Jr.'s role as champion for the townspeople is depicted for what it is: a sincere, non-grandstanding example of pure volunteerism that lends some celebrity credibility to a legitimate cause.

Mountaintop coal removal is not only destructive, but until recently, it violated the Clean Water Act and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Unfortunately, industry-friendly federal and state agencies mostly looked the other way when it came to enforcing these laws. When the courts and local communities attempted to make the mining companies comply, the Bush administration changed the laws to allow mining companies to continue to dump rock and rubble into the valleys and streams below. Communities throughout Appalachia are fighting back against this blight on the earth that harms the environment, health and quality of life of local citizens. Bank of America even pledged to curtail commercial lending to companies that blow the tops off of mountains.

I'm no film reviewer, so you can search other sites if you'd like to know how the critics rated The Last Mountain. I do have some additional thoughts about this subject, no disrespect to the movie, that need to be brought out. First, it appears that the big bad coal company (none other than Massey Energy, yes the same guys who had the terrible explosion and fatalities last year, and just last week was acquired for $7 billion by Alpha Natural Resources) wins the battle and blows up the mountain anyway. Thanks a lot, George Bush. I say that because the film brings to light the fact that those regulating the coal industry were largely energy industry cronies of Mr. Bush, previously lobbyists and coal company executives hired by the Bush administration. And while the Obama administration has been sympathetic to the cause, they have yet to overturn any important legislation that will keep the mountains intact, prevent coal companies from dumping their waste, and protect the inhabitants of Appalachia. Not sure what they are waiting for?

The Last Mountain provided wake-up call for the general public and those of us who do not live in Appalachia. Actually, there has been a lot of activity in this area for many years. By the end of 2010, Sierra Club lobbying and legal efforts helped stop the construction of 149 coal mines throughout the country with its "Beyond Coal" campaign. NRDC and other leading environmental organizations have also made huge contributions toward stopping this incredibly damaging and dangerous activity. One nitpick I had was at the end of the film there is a call to action to visit The Last Mountain website, i.e. soliciting donations. I found several smaller organizations that need assistance to stop coal mining. Although I am a proponent of grassroots efforts, dollars will go much farther if given directly to existing programs such as Sierra Club or NRDC which have full legal staffs, specialized expertise and years of experience. Why create yet another non-profit to do the same thing when some of the best are already in place?

In case you are a coal mining supporter, right now asking, "so what will we use to turn on the lights if we don't have coal mining?" the answer is, renewable energy. Some combination of wind, solar, fuel cells, petro algae, natural gas and other technologies will ultimately take the place of foreign oil and domestic (and imported) coal to power our country. This will happen, it's just a matter of when. Stopping coal mining will help expedite this process, and anybody who sees The Last Mountain will most likely become a zealot for ending the madness that is mountaintop coal removal.

Photo obtained via a Creative Commons license

Follow Jennifer Schwab on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SCGreen_Home

Somewhere over the Grand Canyon at 30,000 feet -- I was sipping from a plastic cup of cool water. The flight attendant swept by in short order with a plastic bag to collect the "trash." Not an hour later, along comes the metal cart (keep your knees and elbows in if you're on the aisle) with another drink service, and another hard plastic cup, including the funky-smelling, sandpaper-like logoed napkin. So what was wrong with the previous ones? I'd sipped from the cup which was completely unscathed, and never touched the napkin. I would have been happy to hold onto both for an hour to re-use for the refill. Even if I switched to soda, so what?

Soda in an airline plastic cup. Photo courtesy of Russell J. Smith via Creative Commons license.

Apparently this nonsensical system is so ingrained in the flight attendant's routine that my request to NOT use a new plastic cup and just give me the can of cranberry juice upset the apple cart, so to speak. With a look of mild disdain, she slammed a fresh cup onto my little tray along with the full can. Well excuuuse me for trying to be green!?

This scenario is played out millions of times per day throughout the world. The net effect is untold tonnage of plastic and waste paper, some that will be recycled and probably even more that will end up in landfill. Some finding their way into waterways and oceans. As we know, clear hard plastics can last seemingly for decades as they just don't degrade. What an unnecessary tragedy of anti-sustainability. One that seemingly would be so easy to fix.

I have given this a lot of thought and attempted to speak with the airlines to find out why a better system is not in place. Such as, give people the aluminum cans, wipe off the tops, and allow them to drink directly from the easily recyclable can. No napkin unless the customer asks. Thus NO plastic would be needed. For those who don't want a full can of beverage, why not paper cups? And if it's a longer flight with two or more drink services, why not ask passengers to keep their first cup and simply re-use it. This alone would save literally millions of plastic cups and napkins per year. Not to mention, save the airlines sizable costs. Sounds rational, right?

Stacks of plastic cups. Photo courtesy of John Loo via Creative Commons license.

Our staff at Sierra Club Green Home contacted several leading airline PR departments, seeking an answer to this seemingly simple question: why use so many plastic cups, and what happens to them when the plane lands? To our surprise, it was difficult to obtain a straight answer to this question, and even more difficult to figure out why. Most of the responses we received from the major carriers talked about recycling programs in varying degrees, as well as their commitments to reduce carbon footprint and save energy. Most of these initiatives target reducing volume of jet fuel consumed, an appropriate goal indeed. Yet not one carrier would specifically answer us about why they are compelled to use two or three cups and napkins per passenger instead of one on most flights? Maybe the cup and napkin manufacturers are the brother-in-laws of major airline CEOs?

There was only one airline that responded to our queries with a professional, well researched series of answers. That was Liz Landau of US Airways, Corporate Communications. Here are excerpts from our dialog with Landau:

Does US Airways compost food waste, recycle cans, plastics, etc.?

• Two thirds of our 104 domestic stations have a recycling program; US Airways participates in 80 percent of these programs.


• Aluminum cans consumed in-flight are recycled in many locations. All trash collected off flights within New York state is recycled.


• Waste oil, tools, equipment batteries, battery cores, aluminum and other scrap metals from all Maintenance and Ground Service Equipment (GSE) locations (several dumpsters for collection are readily available) are sent to recycling centers. Radio, phone, and all miscellaneous batteries are collected and recycled; money generated goes to the US Airways Education Foundation.


• US Airways has a computer recycling program that recycles beyond economic repair hardware including computers, monitors, printers, keyboards, fax machines, phones, and other accessory equipment (e.g. mice, external hard drives, etc.).

How many plastic cups are thrown away on an average, full capacity, longer distance domestic flight?

• On a longer 757/A321 segment, we use an average of 350 cups for a full flight (includes two beverage services).

Why aren't customers asked to reuse their cups or better yet, just take the cans on long flights?

• We don't usually ask customers to reuse cups due to hygienic/health risks associated with flight attendants handling the cups a second time. Additionally, if customers choose to switch beverages, they might not want to mix their leftover tomato juice with a soft drink.


• As it relates to cans, pouring allows another opportunity for our flight attendants to provide excellent customer service. From a cost perspective, pouring into the cup does save money as we can generally provide two customers with beverages from one can.

We appreciated US Airways' thoughtful and detailed replies. Their admirable list of sustainable activities -- and there are many that we are not listing here -- is impressive. However, as you can read above, when it comes to plastic cups, there is still a long way to go. Just yesterday I asked a Southwest flight attendant for just the can, no cup, and I ended up with not one but two cups in addition to a can of sparkling water. Not sure how that happened?

Perhaps the most nonsensical response came from United Airlines. "We have looked at the questions and our challenge is one of timing. I trust you know that United and Continental merged effective Oct. 1, 2010... there are elements of our two operations that we can harmonize now in advance of the FAA approval. Our approach to recycling and sustainability is one of those areas we begin to harmonize... Bottomline: I do not have answers for you and the answers are likely to evolve as we harmonize the approaches of our two airlines. My fear is that the answers will be misinterpreted by readers and they may assume the approach indicated is for both United and Continental, especially since the Continental brand name is going away," explained Michael Trevino, PR representative for United's Chicago headquarters. In fairness, United's Corporate Responsibility Report tells an impressive story of what the airline is doing to cut its carbon footprint and consumption of jet fuel. And they do claim to have a recycling program for on-board waste. That said, what am I missing here? How about an answer as to how United itself, pre-merger, handled the tons of plastic cup waste? We did ask for this but got more of the same as a reply.

What about Delta, which with its acquisition of Northwest is a dominant international airline? When our team asked "why don't you force customers to reuse their cups or better yet, just take the cans on long flights?" Our answer from their Corporate Communications representative, Trebor Banstetter, consisted of, "We're swamped with winter weather issues today so I haven't been able to find answers yet to most of your questions. We do, however, have robust in-flight and on-the-ground recycling programs. I'll let you know ASAP if I can find anything else." ... "Sorry we couldn't do more right now. Maybe in the future we'll have an opportunity to revisit the issue." To be fair, I dug into their corporate responsibility report and found detailed statistics about the success of their recycling program. The report states, "We instituted the first comprehensive in-flight recycling program in the industry in June 2007. ..."our in-flight recycling program has diverted 4.1 million pounds (2,053 tons) of aluminum, plastic and paper products from community landfills between June 2007 and June 2009." ... "We currently collect passenger recyclables on domestic flights into 25 cities."

Attention airline CEOs and Sustainability Directors: why not do something right now that doesn't require expensive R&D, or teams of engineers and prototype fuselages and engines? Not to mention, one that cuts costs and increases profitability? I'm sure your Boards and shareholders would love this idea.

If anybody out there is a flight attendant and can explain why this lunacy continues, please explain, we'd love to hear from you. In the meantime, tell the flight attendants you want just the can, no napkin, next time you need a shot of carbonated caffeine while in the air. This is how we will make the world more sustainable -- one small, but in this case significant step, at a time.

Follow Jennifer Schwab on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SCGreen_Home

I have been anxiously awaiting an alternative to conventional electric power and the economic benefits that follow. Of course solar comes to mind, and while I love solar power, it can be expensive and because of the space requirements for panel installation, it is not for everybody.

My prayers were finally answered, as ClearEdge Power of Portland, OR, has rolled out the first home fuel cell. Initially available only in California, the ClearEdge5 self-contained fuel cell was actually announced last year but that was somewhat of a well-kept secret. The availability of this product marks the first time in America that fuel cell technology has become available to individual consumers. The ClearEdge5 can create energy that can power, heat and cool your home, and swimming pool, without using electric power from the utility company. You'll reduce the power you pull from the grid while using natural gas - the cheapest power source available at least for now.

"After significant private equity investment and seven years of research by our 50+ R & D team, ClearEdge Power is proud to be the first to offer this groundbreaking technology to California's homeowners," said Russell Ford, CEO of ClearEdge Power. "This is a major development in America's push to become energy independent. We hope to roll this product out to other states, beginning with New York in the early part of 2011. But California is the first, and homeowners can receive federal and local incentives up to $17,500 by installing a ClearEdge5 kilowatt fuel cell."

Fuel cells provide an alternative to solar, wind and other types of renewable energy. They can also work in concert with solar, wind and other renewable energy sources to power a home or commercial structure. Fuel cells were once considered the technology of the future, but have finally become a clean energy solution for today.

A fuel cell is an electrochemical device which converts a source fuel into electrical current. The electricity generated inside the cell is a reaction between the fuel and an oxidant. Fuel cells can operate indefinitely, so long as the necessary reactants and oxidants are replenished. A hydrogen fuel cell uses hydrogen as its fuel and oxygen as an oxidant. Fuel cells can also use hydrocarbons or alcohol as fuel and chlorine or chlorine dioxide as oxidants.

Unlike petroleum-based fossil fuels, fuel cells are a clean energy source creating virtually no toxins or pollutants. The main byproducts are water, heat, and carbon dioxide. The CO2 emissions are substantially less than those produced by conventional power systems.

I contacted a real-world customer of ClearEdge Power to find out more about how the home fuel cell actually works. Gary Dillabough, of Atherton, CA, is a green industry professional who wanted to find an energy alternative with a smaller footprint than solar panels. "The payback is just over three years," Dillabough explained. "I think several of my friends will also adopt this technology after seeing how well it works." Admittedly, Dillabough is a sophisticated investor and early adopter of advanced technology, and the ClearEdge5 penciled nicely for his larger home. As should be the case for a pioneer, he is among the first people in the country, if not the world, to try a home fuel cell. But hopefully his favorable experience is a precursor to much more volume, and lower prices as the technology progresses.

You may have heard of the other significant fuel cell provider, Bloom Energy. Unlike ClearEdge Power, Bloom has received tons of publicity. While Bloom focuses on commercial applications - their initial deliveries to corporate headquarters buildings for Google, E-Bay and FedEx among others, attracted lots of attention - I think ClearEdge Power can potentially be even a bigger player in this space because of its suitability for single family homes and small commercial applications. The hype surrounding Bloom has yet to be proven, as the cost to install and run those commercial applications still exceeds the savings by a significant margin. (I should disclose here that I personally have a small investment in Bloom Energy).

Billions of dollars have been invested in alternative and renewable energy technologies. Bloom is rumored to have spent over $450 million to date, and its product is still in the developmental stages. ClearEdge Power is a true pioneer in America's vision to create energy independence. You can now power your home while reducing your energy bills by as much as 50% and reducing your carbon footprint by as much as 40%.

I should note that initially, the ClearEdge5 makes most sense for homes with a larger footprint and power needs, but as the technology is further developed and power costs continue to rise, future CEP models will become accessible to homeowners with smaller homes. We urge you to visit the Sierra Club Green Home website to learn more about this stunning new technology.

Follow Jennifer Schwab on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SCGreen_Home

LOS ANGELES -- Shades of '99-'00, it feels like the Tech Boom Act II. Otherwise known as the Solar Power International show, held Oct. 12-14 at the L.A. Convention Center.

A feeling of seemingly limitless optimism filled the hallways and auditorium, as 1000s of senior executives from top renewable energy and solar companies participated in SPI. For those who think the solar business is a fringe industry, think again. Many of the world's top venture capitalists have plowed hundreds of millions if not billions into solar power, much less the governments of China and Germany to name a few. If any naysayers don't believe in the power of green jobs and the positive impact the solar industry can have on the U.S. economy, I sincerely wish they could have been in attendance to see and feel the continued momentum of the solar industry.

The lack of a federal energy policy has hurt the U.S. solar business to be sure, but federal, state and local subsidies have been what's needed to overcome this problem in the interim. Did you know that about 80 percent of the world's solar panel production goes to supply Europe, as the Continent is way ahead of us in creating consumer acceptance for home solar and subsidies to match. Germany has the world's best incentives, which has fueled the growth of the European solar market. This was reflected in attendance at the SPI show, as a hefty percentage of the exhibitors were European.

After exploring booth after booth of traditional, clunky solar panels, one thing caught my eye -- the prominence of CPV development. CPV stands for Concentrated Photovoltaics, and it represents a new technology that generates significantly more power and efficiency per square inch of solar panel. The benefits of this are obvious: fewer and smaller panels can make and store even more power than their conventional photovoltaic panel counterparts. According to SolFocus VP of Sales and Marketing Nancy Hartsoch, CPV is a nascent technology that will work best in desert-like conditions, as in very hot, sunny, dry climates like Nevada, Arizona, or inland Southern California. Product has been deployed commercially as we speak. I was particularly impressed with examples being developed by SolFocus of Mountain View, CA. SolFocus has raised over $200 million, and is being hotly pursued by Aminox, another CPV startup with backing from Kleiner Perkins. Another promising CPV cell developer is EPIR of Naperville, IL, outside of Chicago. (I should mention in the spirit of journalistic integrity that I have done some consulting for EPIR.) By 2011 we will hopefully see 150 MW of CPV deployed and by 2012, up to 515 MW. If these figures are correct, CPV could be a huge step forward in finding a tipping point for both the consumer and utility markets. Continued improvements in technology and price cuts are essential for solar to go en masse.

Speaking of which, one of the most interesting characters I met at SPI was Lyndon Rive, the South African-born CEO of consumer solar provider SolarCity. Foster City, CA-based Solar City is essentially a full-service provider of home solar panels and installation, providing the key additional services of leasing packages and assistance filing all the necessary forms to obtain federal, state and local incentives and rebates. SolarCity uses panels made by leading solar companies such as Yingli Green Energy, First Solar, Kyocera and Sharp, among others. Currently operating only in California, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona and Texas, Solar City has aggressive expansion plans and employment is scheduled to grow from around 1,000 to over 2,000 by the end of 2011. Like many green businesses, profitablility is not happening quite yet because of the sizable investment required for a startup of this magnitude. However, Rive says that SolarCity is cash flow positive, they just have to recognize revenue according to GAAP accounting procedures so this occurs over a 20 year period on each lease. As the company expands into other states, profitability should dramatically increase.

I hope you can feel the excitement that continues to build around home (and commercial) solar electricity that permeated the L.A. Convention Center's Solar Power International. Next time, I'll tell you more about this compelling conference and the companies that participated. Amidst the uncertainty of our economy and rampant unemployment, this is a bright spot -- one that you should be thinking about when you cast your votes for various candidates and state propositions on November 2nd.

Follow Jennifer Schwab on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SCGreen_Home

I am not old enough to remember, but I have heard plenty of stories from older folks about how a literal cloud of smog once hung over downtown Los Angeles. On a perfect sunny morning, you could see only the lower floors of buildings, no real skyline. This is hard to imagine now, as air quality has improved SO much over the past three decades that downtown L.A. can now join the ranks of other major American cities with its own signature views.

Photo: Los Angeles Times Photographic Archive/UCLA Library

Downtown Los Angeles; January 2010

California has always been a leader in environmental legislation, perhaps to a fault. Many in the oil and automotive industries have accused the state's lawmakers of trying to "legislate technology" by mandating virtually impossible reductions in carbon emissions spewing from the tailpipes of our autos. Funny how after all the complaining, they managed to do so, to the point that literally one 1959 Cadillac, like the ones Elvis used to drive, makes more emissions than 100 of the new Cadillac CTS models that are commonly seen around Los Angeles.

The results of this technology improvement are obvious on most mornings. I can see clearly now, as the Johnny Nash song goes, the skyline of L.A. is very visible on a bright sun-shiney day. As the old cars are scrapped and the age of our national fleet is modernized, the improvement in the air we breathe continues. Being able to actually see this only adds to the proof of concept: sometimes "legislating technology" can actually work.

Despite this improvement in science, technology and air quality, it comes as no surprise that a movement is heating up to set aside the Global Warming Solutions Act, which became law over four years ago. Why? Well, oil companies and their backers contend that with California's 12.4 percent unemployment rate, continuing to make the clean air laws tougher will cost jobs and cause higher prices at the pump. You know the drill.

Port of Los Angeles Air Quality Report Card 2005-2009

At the same time, there is a contingent of intelligencia led by former Secretary of State George Schultz, who claim that the new laws are fostering the birth of the green economy and should be upheld. Makes sense to me -- and the large venture capital firms who already have hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars invested in alternative fuels and renewable energy development plays.

Please contact your legislator no matter where you live to reaffirm your support of California's Global Warming Solutions Act, otherwise known as A.B. 32 -- and your opposition to the sentiment that gave life to Proposition 23, the move to suspend A.B. 32. As we know, many states follow California's lead on things environmental, so if Prop 23 is successful, shock waves will be sent throughout the country.

A lot of folks will be watching closely on November 2nd. Please support A.B. 32 and "just say no" to Prop 23.

Thanks for reading, as always, comments please....

Follow Jennifer Schwab on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SCGreen_Home

We've all seen images of birds and fish, with plastic grocery bags in mouth. Disturbing indeed, and don't think this is propaganda from PETA. Plastic bags are entering our food chain through oceans, rivers and the stomachs of wildlife. The toxins they carry are nearly impossible to eliminate as we don't really know how if ever they break down naturally.

You might ask well how do all these bags get into our water supply, most people throw them away when they unpack their groceries, right? You'd be amazed how these little wonders of mass production have nine lives, so to speak. They go to landfills, where they blow away due to their zero weight, almost like kites on a gentle breeze. Gulls and pigeons carry them for the food scraps inside. You get the idea. For a compelling visual of how this works, view the video "The Plastic Bag" (trust me it's a lot more entertaining than it sounds, very well done).

There IS one way to stop this madness, and it's called California Assembly Bill 1998. Finally, government is taking action to eliminate this blight on the environment. Governor Schwarzenegger has already pledged to sign this piece of legislation, it needs now to get through the state Senate. Please express your support for this measure, write your representatives. The city of San Francisco passed the nation's first ban on plastic bag in 2007 and today, having saved over five million bags per month, you can see the difference as you walk the streets. Bill 1998 would take effect in 2012. Consumers would have to pay for paper bags if they don't remember to bring their own reusables.

This is not only for the progressive environmental legislation in California. Other states need to follow the Golden State's lead and take action against this costly problem: the Plastic Pollution Coalition.org, a group dedicated to stop plastic pollution and its toxic impacts on humans, the environment and wildlife, says the cleanup costs to pick up and dispose of littered bags is in the billions of dollars.

Buried in Plastic PSA Plastic Pollution Coalition from Dianna Cohen on Vimeo.

If you are among the lucky few who do recycle their plastic bags, or even better yet, bringing your own bags to the grocery store, then thank you! I have stocked each of our cars with a trunk full of re-useable fabric shopping bags, and it is really a no-brainer to get into this habit. Plus, these fabric bags are much stronger and larger than the plastics, they can hold a full load of canned goods, gallons of milk, anything large and heavy, with virtually no danger of breakage. No more driveway full of yogurt while the profanities fly. You can't argue with that.

This kind of reminds me of the stop smoking ban. When it first was passed, it seemed reactionary and maybe even an invasion on our freedoms. Now, most public places in American are smoke-free and for the most part, everybody loves it. As does our indoor air quality.

Let's hear your thoughts on AB 1998. If you are from California, call your state Senator. Everywhere else, be a leader in your community and get the conversation going with your legislators. Your waterways, streets, and landfills will thank you! We appreciate your support.

Follow Jennifer Schwab on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SCGreen_Home

So I was wondering, why is it that commercial air travel is considered so non-green? It seems unjust that my efforts to live green all year are negated by a few flights to Sierra Club headquarters and a trip or two to visit my parents.

Most carbon calculators - but notably not ours at Sierra Club Green Home (www.sierraclubgreenhome.com) - penalize even the dark green citizen who is required to fly commercial for work. Let's say you're a sales manager, you diligently recycle, you watch the thermostats, you have low-water landscaping, you eat organic vegetables, you're doing everything right except your job requires you to fly from Denver to Cincinnati twice a month. According to most evaluations, you are a serious carbon emitter. I don't think this is right, it's not fair to call this person a polluter. His or her lifestyle and home are green, and should be respected as such.

Although a pitch to the boss for teleconferencing in lieu of so many business trips is the best antidote, the real modern day quest is to achieve eco-friendly air travel. And what about the concept of full vs. empty flights? Nobody will dispute that the least green way to travel (sorry celebrities, CEOs and pro athletes) is by private jet. The amount of carbon produced vs. the number of people moved is not a favorable equation. Consider a 727 stretch packed with 300 people. It would seem that this calculation would be a lot more efficient in terms of carbon produced vs. passenger miles traveled. Kind of like watching a mom drive thru a Starbucks with her 25 pound kid in the passenger seat of a giant SUV - can it get more non-green? Whereas, you can justify driving a stretch Chevy Suburban if it is packed with six or seven passengers and their baggage, this is highly efficient per passenger mile, even at 15 mpg. A better way to quantify your transport emissions would be number of people miles moved per gallon.

Speaking of automobiles, the gains made in emissions control over the past 40 years are mind-blowing. As in, it would take about 50 2009 Corvettes to match the bad exhaust gases produced by one 1969 Corvette big block in an hour of driving. The introduction of computer-controlled engine management and high tech catalytic converters makes this possible. This also explains why the cloud of smog that used to hang over Los Angeles has dissipated significantly over the past few decades. You now can actually see the skyline!

So why, then, haven't airplanes matched this remarkable improvement demonstrated by the car industry? Or have they? To find out, we called Boeing, the world's largest maker of commercial aircraft. We spoke with Billy Glover, Managing Director of Environmental Strategy for Boeing's Commercial Airplane division. In this role, Mr. Glover is primarily responsible for all environmental aspects of the next generation of commercial jets that Boeing will build.

"Fuel efficiency of commercial jets has improved since the 60s by 70 percent," Glover declared. "This must be balanced with the economic consideration that our customers face: their number one cash expense is fuel. They demand improvements each time they order new aircraft."

The efficient marketplace has greatly improved fuel efficiency and reduced emissions accordingly. Not to mention, the noise, unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and other yucky stuff produced by commercial jets has been significantly reduced since the 90s. Indeed, take a look at the sky next time a big commercial flight passes overhead. Remember the deafening sound if the plane was below 5,000 feet? And how much visible smoke used to trail behind? That deafening noise has been replaced by near-silence, and those jet streams are for the most part no longer visible. What we are no longer seeing or hearing is technological improvement and reduced emissions. "This has been accomplished by a fundamental change in the architecture of the engine design. The high bypass engine moves higher volumes of air at lower speeds, thus noise is reduced and fuel is saved," explains Glover.

This is all great, but what's next for the sustainable airplane? Boeing and others, most notably Richard Branson's Virgin Air are working on commercial jets that will fly on sustainable biofuels. An industry trade group, Sustainable Aviation Fuels Users Group, is working to establish a sustainable biofuel supply that all aircraft can run on without costly conversions of existing jet engines. One example of biofuel in action was a test in January 2009 -- Continental took a Boeing 737 up for a test flight burning a 50/50 mixture of conventional jet fuel and biofuels. In this particular scenario the biofuel came from algae. The results indicated that this mix could work and it would save the airlines a lot of fuel expense dollars.

Hopefully, advances in jet engine efficiency and emissions control will accelerate, so that at some point our poor sales manager from Denver won't be penalized by the green world for having customers in Cincinnati. A lofty (I can't resist an occasional bad pun) but seemingly achievable goal.

Let's hear from you, as always we encourage and appreciate your comments. Is our sales manager green, or is he/she a carbon villain for flying? You decide. Thanks for reading!

Follow Jennifer Schwab on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SCGreen_Home

ESCONDIDO, CA -- Ever been to Chicago on St. Patty's Day? The river is dyed green, and the hundreds of Irish Pubs scattered throughout the city offer green beer. Thanks but no thanks.

As a big fan of microbrews -- the slightly larger producers brew what is properly called "craft beer"-- I am always on the lookout for environmentally friendly labels. In Escondido, about 20 miles north of San Diego, is what is surely among the greenest breweries in the world - Stone Brewing Co. The idea of an environmentally friendly brew house seems out of synch with one of their best-selling labels, "Arrogant Bastard?" But we will forgive them, after all, it is fabulous marketing tool that has encouraged beer enthusiasts from around the world to come witness this green suds establishment.

The story of Stone Brewing Co. begins with the two founders, Greg Koch and Steve Wagner. Koch owned recording studios in L.A. and Wagner was a studio musician who rented space. Serendipitously, they ran into each other at a "How to Make Microbrews" seminar and, as they say, the rest is history. Since its founding in 1996, Stone Brewing has become one of the largest craft beer producers in America, with annual output of well over 100,000 barrels.

What makes Stone green? Only the largest, operating room clean, state-of-the-art facility you've ever seen, a huge 100,000 foot building tucked in an anonymous area of Escondido. On a guided tour with Stone's knowledgeable Director of Communications, Ken Wright, we learn that the hundreds of thousands of pounds of by-product created during the brewing process (it looks like wet sawdust) is fully biodegradable and trucked to local farms for use as cattle feed. The plant has a full gray water recycling capability to help cut water consumption (this is critical because the brewing process is very water-intensive), and the roof is adorned with solar panels to help reduce the enormous energy consumption brewing requires by almost one-half.

All Stone bottles and cardboard carriers are fully recyclable, and the plant was built using a variety of reclaimed woods and other metals. One of the most impressive features of the tour was seeing the process from brewing the hops, to bottling, to hauling off for distribution. Unfortunately a rarity in modern day American culture - a vertically integrated manufacturing process. There were costs involved in making Stone a green operation, but the founders determined that this was worthwhile investment for business and environmental reasons. Stone has not really advertised a green marketing strategy, instead preferring to let the sustainable design speak for itself and hope the word spreads virally and by reputation.

A beautifully designed one-acre beer garden lies adjacent to the brewery; visitors can meander along the heavily landscaped pathways and walkways while sipping the wide variety of ales, hefeweizen and seasonal brews. Although I am a Belgian-only beer drinker at heart, the spectacular facility produces increasingly good seasonal beers such as Levitation Ale and Ruination, as well as their mainstays Stone Pale Ale and IPA, and of course Arrogant Bastard.

Our only criticism of the entire operation, and this is echoed in many internet reviews by consumers, is the food. The restaurant is very appealing visually, the design, green building techniques and materials used are breathtaking. Unfortunately, the grub leaves a lot to be desired. I do, however, admire the Bistro's "Meatless Monday" promotion. As a greenie, even if the food is horrendous, you gotta love their enthusiasm for vegetarianism! They are the largest consumer of locally grown, organic ingredients in San Diego. The Meatless Monday credo is as follows:

"If you have dined with us before, you already know that we use locally grown, organic ingredients as part of our dedication to sustainability, community, and better health. Now we are kicking it up a notch by offering a meatless menu on Mondays. Meat dishes are available on request but we encourage you to make a commitment to your health and the environment by trying our Chef's fantastic vegetarian creations. You won't miss the meat!"

Tours are available twice daily. Take one you'll be pleased to see how even an inherently non-green activity such as craft brewing can be made much more energy efficient and sustainable with some forethought, commitment and investment as demonstrated by Stone Brewing Co. As always, I invite your comments and recommendations of other green brew-ha!

Follow Jennifer Schwab on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SCGreen_Home

I had a chance to drive the fascinating Tesla Roadster this past weekend. In a word, it was, well, electrifying. The power and performance of a Lotus Exige, without the noise and pollution. More on this in a moment.

We were at a special "Bastille Day" event held by L.A.'s Petersen Automotive Museum in Malibu. Everybody dressed in white, great cars were everywhere, and Tesla was offering demo drives to this select group of automotive opinion leaders. In case you've not heard of Tesla, it is a Bay Area startup run by CEO Elon Musk, who made a couple hundred million by selling his previous Big Idea, PayPal. Tesla plans to build an electric car that will be affordable, but the initial product really is not. It sells for about $125K, plus extras such as the deluxe charging station, sport package upgrade, etc.

Let's evaluate the car first, not the price. It is based on the Lotus Esprit chassis, or platform as the car industry calls it. I have always loved the Lotus and confess to taking a special Lotus driving school in my previous life. As fast cars go, it is very lightweight, gets close to 30 mpg, corners like a mother, runs zero to 60 in less than five seconds and does this running a four cylinder Toyota engine. It is also very hard to get in and out of, has little storage space, poor visibility and is not very practical as a daily driver.

The Tesla is thus based on the Lotus, and looks are rather similar -- at a glance it's tough to tell them apart. Upon further inspection, the different wheels and trim do give the Tesla a different look. Tesla claims zero to 60 in less than four seconds, and while I didn't test it with instruments, it did seem possible. All you do is turn the key, punch a round button on the center console to choose "P" or "R" or "D" and off you go. No shifting, it is a direct drive transmission, just stab and steer, so to speak.

This thing really lights it up from low speed. A strong, firm push in your lower back, a shrill but jet-like whistling sound, and you are doing over 60, just like that. No traction problems, either, Tesla puts the power down. Despite lots of carbon fiber and other lightweight materials, you can feel the difference in weight as opposed to the Lotus. Indeed, Tesla may look very similar but achieves speed and efficiency with a heavy battery pack, mounted behind the passenger compartment. This is reflected in the steering, which can feel rather heavy in certain maneuvers.

Handling felt good on Highway One and nearby twisties, but the road was very smooth so we couldn't really say how it does on rough pavement. Tesla claims range of nearly 250 miles, but this can be as much as 75-100 miles less if you are climbing hills in hot weather, and/or if you are hammering the throttle -- which is kind of addictive especially with zero noise or pollution.

In case you can't tell, I loved the Tesla driving experience, and the idea of literally plugging it into the wall when returning to your garage and NEVER visiting a gas station, ever. That said, it is on some level more of a novelty than a green solution. At it's price point, Tesla is more a rich man's toy than everyman's solution to fossil fuels and global warming. The price point makes it cost prohibitive to the general public, which financial access to these types of vehicles is an absolute priority if we are really going to reduce global carbon emissions.

Yes, I know that Tesla, and its competitor Fisker, are planning to sell mid-sized family sedans priced at less than $45,000 by 2012. Even so, I am not sure I agree with the government investing over $500 million of our tax dollars in either of these companies. Why not just incentivize the consumer instead? Anybody who buys an electric car gets a $5,000 rebate or perhaps a 30% federal tax credit similar to how the government incentivizes solar could apply to electric cars. Seems like a better way to encourage us to drive electric vehicles, no?

Nissan will be bringing the new Leaf, a full electric, next year, as well as GM coming with its Volt. Toyota is also planning a fully electric Prius. And Chinese maker BYD is also threatening to bring an electric model to U.S. shores. Bring them on, the more the merrier. I only hope they can be sold at prices low enough to touch middle America and get some volume -- and thus measurable energy and environmental benefits -- into the electric car segment.

It will be intriguing to see how this shakes out. In the meantime, if you can afford it, buy a Tesla you will not be disappointed. As always, thanks for reading, and we love to read your comments.

Follow Jennifer Schwab on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SCGreen_Home