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..."
Rebates for Alternative Transportation (Score:3, Interesting)
My father mentioned that his employer offered a rebate to employees who biked to work four days per week (I believe on the premise that biking to work to reduced parking lot crowding, but I can't remember the details).
I know that my city offers a rebate if one purchases a water saving washing machine (I live in a dry area). It seems cities should offer a similar rebate to those who bike to work (less traffic impact, less wear and tear on the roads, less pollution), or those who drive cleaner cars (less pollution). Proving one bikes/walks/etc. to work may be too difficult... Or perhaps the cost of roads is already built into vehicle registration.
Turn off your monitors and the lights... (Score:2, Interesting)
This would save a lot more energy than expecting employees to buy a new car just because they get a bit of an incentive.
Re:Going green (Score:3, Interesting)
Ideally, this should be coupled with non-profitmaking public transport, which is exempt from fuel tax.
On Lab Parking (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Going green (Score:2, Interesting)
What if I buy a Prius, but run my ac at full blast in my big old house in the summer, and have the heat at 85 all winter in my big old house, and commute 80 miles to work each way, and when I change the oil in my Prius, I let the old oil run right into the river, and when I don't want my Prius anymore, I throw the batteries in a landfill. Do I get an incentive then?
The MPG is the only indicataor of your green-ness argument is a simple argument for simple minds, and doesn't belong on Slashdot.
How about these actors who drive a Prius and preach, and then get in a private jet and air condition a 30,000 sq foot house that 2 people live in?
Re:Going green (Score:3, Interesting)
Completely the right way to go. If you live in a typical geek habitat like the SF area or Seattle, you don't realize how much people in Arizona, Southern California and the midwestern states prize their SUVs. A friend of mine went to visit some distant relatives out in Phoenix and was astonished that each adult owned a minivan or a Suburban. There was only one person in the entire gathering (aside from Andy, he drives a Geo Metro) who had a mid-sized sedan, and that was because he had to commute (which was a very foreign concept to all of them). The apologized profusely when he had to ride in the piddly sedan, as if it was a grave and serious offense.
These monsterous vehicles are a way of life for many Americans. They're home away from home: air-conditioned little worlds with 800 watt sound systems and DVD players. That's a hard mindset to budge.
As far as telecommuting, the people in my workplace would probably not suffer from coming in 2-3 times a week and telecommuting the rest of the time. The problem I have is that for me, work has a very large spatial component. Home has way too many pleasurable distractions, and not just the video games: my girlfriend, for instance. I wrote most of my essays in college in the kitchen, the school library and cafes. The only way I could telecommute is if I had a study or something. Or an SUV parked near a Starbucks.
Natural Incentives (Score:5, Interesting)
As fuel prices increase, everyone has an incentive to do _something_ that reduces their fuel consumption, walking, better mpg, moving home etc.
The government should be the ones nudging the course of the economy and environment by taxing fuel and penalising pollution the right amount. For too long *some* countries in the world (no names) have been taking fuel for granted, im sorry but you just cant all spend your life driving everywhere you go in a 12 mpg truck, the economics of that lifestyle on mass are just not compatible with the worlds resources and atmosphere, your hummer is causing a deficit somewhere, and somehow that deficit needs to be collected, whether its from fuel tax, emissions ratings or whatever.
Yeah I know in reality capitalism probably doesn't work like that, but there is definitely something wrong when I can't afford to have a car because in my country the costs are through the roof and in other countries you can't afford not to have a car because the costs are so low.
Re:the SmartCar (Score:2, Interesting)
- cleaner burning
- more efficient, so you use less fuel, and create less CO2
- The canola or soy oil is probably locally produced so you're not contributing to the trade deficit
-
- The canola/soy plants used up some CO2 when they were growing, so you can argue its green-house gas neutral
- if you're not burning petroleum you're helping delay "peak oil" and soften the blow to our economy
Re:Going green (Score:5, Interesting)
Easy, just put up fuel prices. In the UK, we are paying around 90p per litre - around $6 per gallon. If people were paying that sort of price, then they might be more keen to drive something that gets more than 20 miles per gallon.
Ideally, this should be coupled with non-profitmaking public transport, which is exempt from fuel tax.
"Simply" taxing fuel more won't help the average person unless those taxes go directly towards your second proposal of public transport, and these taxpayers get to weigh the costs and benefits of driving their own cars. The public transport has to be available to a significant-enough percentage of the population, otherwise the people out in the sticks are still stuck driving their cars, only now they have to pay even more for fuel.
In a small country like England, this might be feasible, but in the US and Canada you just can't plan train and bus routes over the vast expanses of places like Wyoming. For people out there, driving is the best solution (and pollution is less of a factor in their air quality, given the lower density of cars).
How about variable fuel taxes based on the proximity of public transportation?
Re:Going green (Score:2, Interesting)
Ha ha ha ha ha! Funny.
Let's see, the Alaskan oil fields would supply, what, 1% of our oil needs, but won't come on line for a decade or so?
Actually, it would supply at least 10% of our supply, and that is what we know. What we don't know is how much more it could provide. And, if we were to relax legislation on the refineries (something I also advocate), we'd get there a lot quicker, but standing around saying we can't get there tomorrow doesn't help us get to that oil, which will help.
Refineries process oil, they don't produce it, and have jack schitt to do with the oil despots and oil supply. New refineries might marginally lower the cost of gasoline in times of consumer panic, but it won't supply new oil.
Actually, they would have a LARGE impact on the prices. There are two reasons for our current prices: 1) the cost of supply vs. demand and 2) the cost of complying with frivilous legislation. More refineries would mean lower prices. More refineries means greater capacity to refine oil into gas and other such goods. As well, more refineries would allow us to begin refining shale which would provide us with yet another source of oil and gas which is currently untapped. Therefore, more refineries would enable us to drastically reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil by both form and function.
Oh! Saudi Arabia is #3 in our suppliers (Mexico and Canada top #1 and #2 respectively). Beside that, we get oil from South America (Venezuela) and Africa, both higher numbers than any other Middle Eastern supplier. So, we have an oil despot, not oil despots in the Middle East. So, yet more reasons why we are not dependant on oil despots. It is a reality. A little more drilling and a some more refineries and we could do a lot better than we are. And why don't we have those? I refer to my last post.
If you want to keep translations going, here's yours: "I didn't actually think this through. I got emotional and just spouted off."
recyling (Score:3, Interesting)
It would take less fossil fuels to make new plastic than to recycle it.
Admittedly not all and not originally but some plastic is made from petroleum, so the question then is does it take more petroleum to recycle or to make virgin plastic? I haven't seen any analysis or study either way.
But what about the forests cut down to make the paper? Simple... they were planted in the first place to make paper out of. At least 99% of paper comes from farmed timber. These tree farms are a good percentage of what we have left for forests and provide a good environment for many animals.
I don't see how these tree farms can be considered environmentally friendly. Forest in their natural state are biologically diverse whereas tree farms are typically monocultures, thus have less species than natural forests.
Increasing demand for virgin pulp would increase the demand, and therefore the acreage devoted to tree farms.
Even better would be hemp farms. Per acreage hemp produces more paper pulp than trees do. Actually this is one of the reason hemp was made illegal via the Marijuana tax Act of 1937. One of those who supported making hemp illegal was newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst who happened to own thousands of acres of forest which he harvested to not only supply his own with stock but also other newspapers. Another was DuPont and his financial backer Andrew Mellon. Hemp was a good source for making plastic yet DuPont had been issued patents on making plastic from oil and coal.
Recycling paper causes just as much water pollution, as the material has to be repulped and the inks bleached out.
There's more than one way to bleach pulp for paper. Today chlorine is mostly used for bleaching, and is what causes the pollution from paper mills. However oxygen can also be used for bleaching. So while using oxygen doesn't create pollution, the question then becomes if the "manfacturer" or purification of oxygen creates any, and that I don't know.
And if you don't believe me, just look at the cost of 100% post-consumer recycled paper. A significant amount of the increase in costs comes from... extra energy needs.
You may be right, I don't know, but I've read elsewhere that the reason recycled content paper costs more is because there are hardly any paper mills that recycle paper. If so then an increase of these mills would mean an increase in supply which would drive costs down. As for 100% post consumer recycled paper, I haven't found any. When I buy paper I look for the paper with the most post consumer content and about the highest I've seen is 30%. Now whether it's true or not I don't know but I read one tyme about how recycled paper won't have the quality of paper from virgin pulp.
large amounts of concrete also recycle well into the sand and gravel used to make new concrete. Concrete recycling is generally only done on the scale of contruction/demolitions. How can you tell that recycling these materials saves energy? Recycling centers will PAY to take them.
Uhm, I haven't heard about this. Years ago for a few years I worked for a concrete/masonery contractor and what was said then was that using recycled concrete could be hazardous. Things may of changed since though.
Go get a sub to go, and as they are picking up the sub (already wrapped in deli paper) to put it into the bag simply say "I don't need a bag" (try not to sound arrogant here.) You will get the strangest look.
I've gotten those looks. When I shop I bring cloth bags I have and I'll get one of those looks when I whip out a bag and say I don't need another one.
FalconRe:Going green (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming the person is paying 30% in taxes that works into a in hand cash savings of about $600.
$4540-$600=3940, over 7 years thats a difference of $563/year. This equates to need to save 225 gallons of gas per year by using the hybrid.
so miles/40=miles/50+225
so that requires driving 45,000 highway miles in a single year!!!
if your doing pure city driving
miles/30=miles/49+225
here you only have to drive 17,408 miles in a year. While more reasonable, this is still a faily high number.
With a more reasonable mix of highway and city driving it would likely require driving between 25,000 and 30,000 miles a year to break even.
Looking over your math I didn't get the same numbers you did even if the government discount was $2,000 and not
Also on top of it after 7 years your standard civic is worth a lot more than the hybrid. Once the batteries on the hybrids die the car is essenitally a junker. Just not worth the $10,000 or whatever it costs to replace them.
One of the biggest flaws with my arguments is the safety factor of smaller cars. This isn't an issue of hybrid vs non hybrid here, just smaller more fuel economic cars versus larger less efficient cars. Basically it comes down to the fact that human life is highly valuable, and there's no way around the fact that materials being the same, if you get hit by a large truck in a massive SUV you've got a much better chance of surviving than if you drive a small little car. small cars can get crushed easily. When a family buys a car they look into the safety of their kids. To many of them it's worth the extra money spent in gas for their childrens safety.
>
Reading this I don't see how promoting more fuel efficient cars effects any of this. An incentive to ride a bike to work or something can make sense from what your saying, but as my math just showed someone who rides a bike to work saves less by having a hybrid car than someone who has lots of commutes. Saving parking spaces makes sense, but driving a hybrid doesn't accomplish any of this.
Basically everything comes down to simple economics.
Phil
Re:Going green (Score:1, Interesting)
SUVs just create the image of safety while not providing it and actually making it more dangerous for everyone, the driver, the other cars and the occupants.
and btw, most accidents dont involve large trucks so that is really immaterial. and no, the just in case factor doesnt come into play.