Company Incentives for Going Green? 427
Greenie asks: "With fuel costs reaching record highs and more eco-friendly vehicles on the market than ever before, one has to ask, is it making a difference (yet)? NewEnough.com is an online retailer of new and surplus/wholesale motorcycle apparel based in West Texas. Recently, they posted a letter to the public on their website about how they've 'gone green,' and are offering incentives to their employees for switching to modern, fuel efficient vehicles (hybrid electric, diesel, bio-diesel...). While the specifics of their incentive program were not discussed, has anyone ever heard of larger companies offering a similar incentive program? According to Fortune.com, Wal-Mart is the largest employer in America. If Wal-Mart, McDonalds, UPS, GM, and Ford, the five companies that Fortune lists as having the most employees, all offered a similar incentive, more than 2,865,700 people would be eligible for incentive to go green. That could really start to make a difference for the environment. Now imagine the environmental benefit of every company in America making this same incentive offer..."
Google (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Greenbacks (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ummm... (Score:3, Informative)
Gee why not get the government involved (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Going green (Score:3, Informative)
Please- climb off your high horse- No one else needs a large vehicle, but you can justify yours... I am not trying to be a dick, but many who have big vehicles think they need one, but no one else does....
Many people with SUVs have kids...
Dodge Caravan: City Mileage: 19-20 mpg
Dodge Durango: City Mileage: 14-16 mpg
Buick Terraza: City Mileage: 17-18 mpg
Chevy Uplander: City Mileage: 17-18 mpg
Kia Sedona: City Mileage: 16 mpg
Nisaan Quest:City Mileage: 18-19 mpg
Honda Odyssey: City Mileage: 20 mpg
Acura MDX SUV: City Mileage: 17 mpg
Chevy Equinox SUV: City Mileage: 19 mpg
Honda Pilot SUV: City Mileage: 17-18 mpg
Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV: City Mileage: 15-17 mpg
And on and on on on on and on... Source Edmunds.com
Re:Ummm... (Score:2, Informative)
a) Commercial Diesel Fuels, including low sulfer fuels, such as CARB Diesel
b) NATO Military Spec Diesel Fuel
c) Bio-Diesel (B20 or B100)
d) Aviation Kerosene including JP4, JP5, JP8, and AVTR
e) Kerosene
Http:\\www.f1 engineering.com
Re:Buying New and Green vs. Buying Old (Score:3, Informative)
Re:the SmartCar (Score:5, Informative)
Let's take that one at a time.
Overly expensive compared to, what? There are plenty of car models that are more expensive than the most popular hybrids (Toyota Prius, Honda Insight, Honda Civic Hybrid, Honda Accord Hybrid). Besides, if somebody wants to plunk down hybrid-sized money for a hybrid, that's their choice.
Overly complex compared to, what? Yes, they're different than a regular car engine. Kinda like a manual transmission is different from an automatic transmission, a catalytic converter is different from a carburetor, and an electric start is different from that godawful hand crank the Model T's used. Considering that the repair track record for the hybrids, as reported by Consumers Union and others, is pretty stellar, it's not clear how this incremental complexity is causing anyone much trouble.
Not as safe as, what? It's not like a tankful of gasoline is exactly the epitome of safety. Yes, there are new challenges for emergency workers. Yes, it will take time for emergency workers to be as used to hybrids as other types of cars. This is similar to emergency workers having to deal with undeployed air bags, particularly in new locations (e.g., side-curtain), and their possible accidental deployment in dealing with a wreck. Emergency workers have to adapt to new technology frequently — hybrids are just another change.
Re:Going green (Score:4, Informative)
Let's not lose track of how we got to where we are now.
Gov mileage quotas spelled the doom of a vehicle that many people wanted:
The Station Wagon [google.com]
Or the Shooting Brake [google.com] for EUians.
Look at an SUV today: 4 doors and a tailgate/hatchback.
Now look at those station wagon images I linked..
Only diff is that the station wagon is 3 feet (1 meter) lower and will not roll over at the drop of a hat.
SUVs are a seperate mileage catagory from cars, and by moving the "station-wagon" product from the car catagory to the truck catagory, automobile makers managed to provide what people wanted to buy and avoid that pesky mileage/safety regulation.
It's a classic case of unintended consequences of regulation: A regular station wagon could be less heavy, more fuel efficient, and less likely to roll over than its replacement, the SUV. The station wagon is dead, thanks to CAFE regulation. The SUV has sprung up to replace it, since it is a "truck" and exempt.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Going green (Score:3, Informative)
Not specifically necessary, though. My wife has a 1999 Mercury Sable that gets about 19 mpg city/27 highway (and when I've tested gas mileage between fillups it actually averages about 25.) I also still have my old Toyota Corolla that gets 30/35 (and usually nearer the 35) which we'll generally use for commuting to work or any other time we're not taking the kids, and sometimes even for a short trip with them. Having a kid does not mean you need to run out and get the newest Ford Excess. Of course, part of the waste as well is in people feeling the obsessive need to buy a new car every couple years, and it takes a ton of resources just to build a car and get it to the dealership. Why? My 16-year-old Corolla still runs great with almost 180000 miles on it. I've taken care of it, but nothing special aside from routine maintenance. I'd really prefer not to have another car payment, thanks anyway.
Here's a big part of the problem, though (excerpted from fueleconomy.gov):
The Gas Guzzler Tax Exit EPA disclaimer is imposed on manufacturers on the sale of new model year cars (not minivans, sport utility vehicles or pick-up trucks) whose fuel economy fails to meet required levels, to discourage the production and purchase of fuel inefficient vehicles. The fuel economy figures used to determine the tax are different from the fuel economy values provided in the Fuel Economy Guide. The tax is collected by the Internal Revenue Service and paid by the manufacturer. The amount of the tax is displayed on the vehicle's fuel economy label (the window sticker on new cars).
Apparently, the same idiots work at the EPA (and in Congress, but if you didn't know that...) as work at FEMA-THOSE ARE THE GAS GUZZLERS! Why are they exempt from this tax? I could see making certain exceptions based on need (pickups for farm and construction work, SUV's/minivans for youth organizations that routinely haul 7 kids somewhere, vans/pickups for delivery companies, etc.) but those that want them for "status" (and yes, some people do get pickups for status, there are as many wannabe "cowboys" as anything else out there) should be paying the same premium as the guy buying a Corvette or a Viper for the same reason.
So, in a large sense, everything but "performance" type cars gets a free pass on their consumption.
Re:Going green (Score:3, Informative)
Honda Civic Hybrid: 49 mpg city, 51 mpg highway, MSRP, $21,850
Honda Civic: 30 mpg city, 40 highway, MSRP, $17,310 (you can get it cheaper, but that's comparably equipped)
Cost difference: $4,540
Take off the federal tax benefit of $2k, and the cost difference is $2,540
Let's round the MPG difference to 10 mpg on average and assume the average cost of a gallon of gas over the lifetime of the cars is $2.50 (probably too low, but let's leave it there because that's what you suggested).
2540 / 2.50 = 1,016 gallons of gas before breaking even.
If you exclusively drove on the highway, that's 40k miles to break even.
If you split your driving evenly between city and highway (35 mpg), that's 35k miles to break even.
If it's mostly city driving, it's 30k miles to break even.
AAA says that a person, on average, puts on 75k miles in 5 years [csaa.com].
So, back of the napkin math says a Civic Hybrid will break even in 2 to 3 years.
Add to it car pool benefits (in California, at least), and the value question becomes even clearer. Take the car pool lane over the Bay Bridge every workday? Save $3 a trip, or $750 a year, not to mention a heck of a lot of time.
Now here's the real clincher - the reason people should drive a more fuel effecient car isn't because they'll save money, it's because they are doing the right thing. Drive less, and if you must drive, use a more fuel effecient vehicle. It haa a bigger positive impact than recycling beer cans.
Back to your question - why should companies give incentives to employees that are more fuel effecient? Again, it's the right thing to do. As a side effect they'll also benefit from it. More exercise (from biking, walking, etc.) = a healthier workforce. Indirect and direct benefits for promoting more car pooling or using alternative means of transportation. Oracle saves a huge wad of money every year by encouraging their employees to take public transit so they don't have to build more parking. California give tax benefits to corporations that have alternative transportation programs.
Re:Going green (Score:3, Informative)
I live a fairly ecologically neutral life these days and have made it my business [carbonplanet.com] to enable others to do the same. If you really give a damn about climate change, and you believe, as I do, that human activity is the cause of this change, then I urge you to act now and at the very least offset your CO2 emissions. You may be doing your 'green' best but still not be able to avoid polluting. Now however you can, at the very least, pay to clean up your mess.
Re:Going green (Score:5, Informative)
Cut and pasted from that page :-
Gallons by which daily U.S. oil consumption would drop if SUVs' average fuel efficiency increased by 3 mpg: 49,000,000
Gallons per day that the proposed drilling of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is projected to yield: 42,000,000
Now tell me that your sick of people picking on SUV drivers! It really does matter. For those who haven't figured it out yet, the 3 mpg improvement would be like opening up the Alaskan oil reserves every year.
That is why we harp on about it. That is why you get picked on. That is why you should change. And that is why your Government should put up the price of your gas!
Re:the SmartCar (Score:5, Informative)
Not as safe as, what? It's not like a tankful of gasoline is exactly the epitome of safety. Yes, there are new challenges for emergency workers. Yes, it will take time for emergency workers to be as used to hybrids as other types of cars. This is similar to emergency workers having to deal with undeployed air bags, particularly in new locations (e.g., side-curtain), and their possible accidental deployment in dealing with a wreck. Emergency workers have to adapt to new technology frequently -- hybrids are just another change.
First, I'd like to apologize for posting on
Second, I've been a firefighter for 14 years (most of them volunteer), and a state (PA) certified VRT (vehicle rescue technician) for years.
Yes, hybrids cause problems for us. When we pull up on one we have to pull our the emergency response guide for the vehicle to know where we can cut. We had to re-train on them so we don't get killed.
That being said, I'd rather cut a hybrid apart any day than a newer Mercedes or Range Rover (and increasing other vehicles) with airbags ALL OVER THE PLACE. They're in the A posts, in the B posts, in the doors, in the roof. You name the spot, there's a pyro that has already fired, or worse yet, has not fired that you do NOT want to be cutting into. And which very likely may fire at any time after an accident (disconnecting the battery is not enough....some air bag systems take in excess of 15 minutes after being disconnected to be "safe".....15 minutes you DO NOT HAVE when you're trying to get critical patients out). It's much more hazardous than hybrids, which typically involve shutting the "ignition" off, and pulling the high voltage fuses, usually located in the trunk. The high voltage battery is typically surrounded by steel, and is typically located behing the back seat. This is an area which is very unlikely to be deformed by mechanical damage in any kind of colision other than one so sever it just rpis the whole car apart, making the whole extracation thing more of a body recovery/get out the coal shovel exercise anyway.
So, that being said, if you want to try to protect firefighters who are performing vehicle rescues, don't get rid of airbags, don't get rid of hybrids.....SLOW THE HELL DOWN when you approach an emergency scene and GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY when we need to pass you. Oh...and don't do stupid things that make us come rescue you in the first place.