Here’s a new building material that is not just carbon neutral, but is actually carbon negative. What makes it carbon negative? There is more CO2 locked-up in the process of growing and harvesting of the hemp than is released in the production of the lime binder.

Hemcrete® is 100% recyclable, is seven times stronger than concrete, weighs half as much, and is less prone to cracking. It’s also waterproof, fireproof, insulates well, and does not rot. Demolished Hemcrete® walls can actually be used as fertilizer.

Hemcrete® has been available in the UK for years but it’ll take a while before it hits North America since it’s currently illegal to grow the species of hemp used in the mixture (although I’m not sure if it’s illegal in Canada… hmmm). If the market in Europe becomes profitable though, it’s likely that lawmakers might re-access their own laws to consider this alternative building material as well.

I’ve been sitting on this blog post for a while now and it almost got left unpublished. I came across it just after getting back from San Diego Comic Con. I spent a week there, exhausting myself to new degrees of human fatigue… and I loved it! So, when I saw a new post in my RSS feed titled “Dark Horse Goes Green” supported with a comic strip promoting it, I was enthusiastic!

“Of course! why NOT?!” I thought. Comics are paper, right, so using recycled paper, or partly recycled paper might make sense–at least in concept.

I was wrong.

As I read the companion strip my enthusiasm turned to over-whelming disappointment. The concept of “greenwashing” has been a topic I’ve been talking to Nikki about for almost a year. I’ve wanted to write an article about greenwashing after collecting dozens and dozens of news posts over the last year. Then the topic seemed to loose some steam in the blogging world and I thought: “Hum… maybe companies are aware of their deceptive or ignorant practices and smartening up.”

Then this: Not only did a respectable company like Dark Horse take a leader step forward, commanding respect and encouraging others to follow… they also did it wrong and even backed up their reasons for NOT going green! Absurd! Especially when tied to a green PR stunt meant to draw the awareness of green enthusiasts.

Just to break down what “greenwashing” is for people who are new to the term (including those at Dark Horse marketing presumably), here’s a definition:

Greenwashing is a term used to describe the practice of companies disingenuously spinning their products and policies as environmentally friendly. It is a deceptive use of green PR or green marketing.

Let me breakdown the ways Dark Horse and the strip above wantonly stride with ignorant abandon into the land of greenwashing:

1. High-quality bags: At the con, “schwag bags” are handed out like Halloween candy to Con-goers with seemingly endless sweettooths to take EVERY bag they pass by. Dark Horse making “high-quality reusable bags” isn’t that big a deal. The argument that they aren’t “plastic bags that’ll go in the trash” doesn’t make them bags that WON’T go in the trash by those who have no interest in keeping a dozen bags from different companies with promo art on them after they get home from the Con. I, for example, have high-quality PLASTIC bags that I reuse constantly as grocery bags. Some of the plastic bags I saw being handed out at the Con were equally reusable by those with the mindset to REUSE them. It’s not the bag’s material–it’s the bag holder’s choice.
2. What else does Dark Horse do for the planet: They have their comics on Myspace and the iPhone. Congratulations. This isn’t being done to “help the planet”, so please Dark Horse, don’t lie to yourselves and don’t confuse consumers. These same comics are also printed. The online options are just that: Options. They don’t fully replace paper comics, they help reach new readers who might come into a comic store and buy paper comics. If they were series that were ONLY digital, then they win this point. If not… shame… moving on…
3. But Dark Horse still prints comics! What about all the waste!?: Comics become waste. Sure, there are collectors who will save them for decades (and eventually over a century when their kids take the collections over), but at the end of the day: Comics are a waste product. Just like G.I. Joe toys, He-Man toys, My Little Ponies toys, vinyl records, stamps, Bazooka Joe bubble gum strips–you get the point I hope. An object “being a collectible” doesn’t exempt it from eventually going the way of the trash bin, or recycling bin.
4. Trying recycled paper, but it’s not good enough quality: Thinking it’s OK to use virgin paper for comics because you THINK they aren’t “bound for the landfill” doesn’t mean that the possibility they WON’T end up in a landfill doesn’t exists. You’re ignorant otherwise.
5. Paper is recyclable: Congratulations for pointing that out. Defending the choice to print on virgin paper by saying it “is a renewable resource” does NOT make your actions green! You know what ELSE is a renewable resource? RECYCLED paper… oh right… too bad you aren’t happy with the paper stock. Fail.
6. At Dark Horse, they love the environment: This may be true… but don’t PR that you’re “going green”. This is not acceptable from a publishing company with such a great history in the industry. It’s disappointing to someone who considers this publisher to be one of the comic industry “lead voices”. Doing something like this is a huge strike against the company from my opinion–and that sucks for me to say.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t want to suggest that Dark Horse’s intentions weren’t good. They jumped onto the green choo-choo train without having a better strategy than the one above. As a comic book lover, I’m a fan of good quality books, sure–I love books that stay in good condition for as long as possible. Any book. Would I purchase a comic on less quality comic paper? Sure, just make it cheaper as well. Would I purchase ONLY digital comics if the right technology was out to support it–cough Quicksilver cough–abso-frikkin-lutley. But I’d still by the trades for the collections I liked.

There’s always going to be paper products for people like me. I wouldn’t want publishers like Dark Horse or any other to change their distribution model to 100% digital. What I would like to see though is companies of all kinds to STOP this kind of Green PR tactic just to be part of the trend train. Think before your market.

Starting from the bottom up, let’s consider why. Recycling has hit the mainstream public consciousness as second nature to many. It is certainly an important part of living sustainably, and has economic benefits as well by creating demand for processing recycled materials. However, in comparison to the other two R’s, it has a couple of main elements that keep it my 3rd choice:

1. You can’t recycle everything.
2. The process of recycling has its own pollution element that offsets some of the benefits.

Essentially, you have a limitation and an offsetting element that hinder the potential benefits. Here are two links for those interested in more detailed information on some of the benefits and disadvantages of recycling.

Moving along, consider the act of reusing. Reusing is my second favourite option, as it works hand in hand with the act of reducing to lower demand for new products by reusing old.

Of course, not everything can be reused. However many things can, and eco-minded (and plain old conservative minded) folks can be innovative in what they reuse and how they do it. For example, check out this article on innovative ways to reuse common household items for crafty individuals (via @GreenSmith on Twitter). Using some of the ideas, one might envision their next gift giving event becoming that much more sustainable**, as follows:

Reuse an egg box to mix paint, that you can then splatter on reused newspaper with an old, reused toothbrush for nice, crafty wrapping paper. You can even skip the tape and reuse a string or ribbon to tie it! And if you need to glue anything for added effect, reuse a burnt out match stick as a dabber.

I may or may not have purposefully used the word “reuse” as many times as possible in there for added emphasis! In other words, if you can find a “re”-use for it, give’r. Not only can it be fun, but reusing can be more sustainable than recycling as well.

Finally, we reach my top choice of the three R’s: Reduce. Reducing is available to everyone, and applicable to everything. It undermines the need to have to reuse or recycle in the first place–the less you use, the less waste you will create to throw out/recycle/reuse. In some cases, this can include a lower cost financially as well–such as reducing the amount of lights you leave on at home.

In spite of the passive nature of the act, I believe that reducing one’s consumption and in turn, environmental footprint, is a strong proactive approach to maintaining a sustainable lifestyle. You have to make the choices to forgo certain comforts or use less of certain products than you or people you know normally would, and these are not always easy to do.

The concept itself, however, is as straightforward as it gets–live simply, tread lightly; in other words, use less. As Adam Shake from Twilight Earth puts it: “Sometimes the greenest thing to do is to do nothing at all.” In a great example, he notes how it is “greener” to recycle your water bottle, but even better to not buy bottled water in the first place — a point expanded on from his post on “pre-cycling”: “Recycling is great, but keeping recyclables out of the recycle stream is Greener than recycling.”

Ultimately, the no-limits, accessible, extra-benefit approach makes Reduce the clear first choice against Reuse and Recycle–and again, this is not to say the other two are not important.

There are a lot of grey areas I haven’t touched on in my very brief and general analysis of the three R’s here. Whether or not you agree with my assertions, the point is to get you thinking about making conscious choices, considering your intentions and what your actions mean for the environment.

**Even more sustainable would be to find ways of spending time or other non-consumerism-related activities to “give” (working with the notion of reduce).

Creative Commons Attribution: “KL Design Week 2009“, Flickr, myadlan

“Nike has set a great precedent for Timberland, Adidas, Reebok, and Clarks to follow,” said Greenpeace forests campaigner Lindsey Allen. “Brazil’s cattle industry, which supplies leather for shoes, is responsible for about 80 percent of all deforestation in the Amazon. In fact, the Brazilian cattle industry is the largest single source of deforestation anywhere in the world. And deforestation in turn causes one-fifth of all the greenhouse gas emissions in the world, more than all the world’s cars, trucks, trains, planes, and ships combined.”

You can read the detailed Greenpeace article on this topic on their website.

1. First of all, tell us more about yourself and Go Green Etc. What does it do, how and why did it get started, and what is the vision behind it?

My name is Beth; I live in So Cal with my husband and our three children along with a myriad of pets. The concept behind Go Green Etc is very simple, introduce people who want to purchase eco friendly products with people who sell eco friendly products. The way we accomplished this was by creating an online mall, where people could go buy or sell green products. Go Green Etc was founded out of my frustration that I could not find the right earth friendly products in my local stores. I know there is a demand for these products, so the team that I work with at Go Green Tube, decided we would build an online green mall.

2. Run us through the process to create a store. How are sellers reviewed? Similarly, the website explains that one or more of the following qualities must be an element of the product for it to be considered “eco-friendly”: Reuseable, made from recycled material, Carbon Neutral, Vegan, All Natural.

If a person is interested in opening their own shop, they simply register. Once the shop is registered the seller is able to upload their products along with the description, photos and a video of the product. At that point the seller will tell us what makes the product eco friendly. Once the shop is opened we take a look at their products to ensure that they are indeed a product that is a good choice for the environment.

How does Go Green Etc. ensure that sellers are not simply “green washing” on these qualities to reach eco consumers (to see how green-washing could work with these qualities, see this article by Terra Choice Environmental Marketing, and provided on the Go Green Etc. website)

3. Go Green Etc. emphasizes the environmentally friendly nature of shopping online because there is less driving to/from stores and less of a footprint from not having the physical space of a conventional store. What is your opinion on the environmental footprint of shipping?

Shipping is a huge concern for us at Go Green Etc that is why we have our charity program. Right now we give 10% of our profits to CarbonFund.org, to purchase carbon credits. This is a way to offset the damage done by shipping products.

4. Do you provide incentives for consumers to purchase from more locally located stores or to buy in bulk to minimize shipping? If so, how? If not, would you consider doing so and how would you approach it?

At this point we do not offer any incentive for purchasing locally, however in the future this is something we would be very interested in to implementing.

5. Why do you think Go Green Etc. provides an important service for individuals?

I truly believe people want to do the right thing for the environment, both on a global level and the environment of their home. Go Green Etc, is an easy way for people to find green products that they might not find in their neighborhood.

6. The website outlines that 10% of GoGreenEtc.’s profits will be donated to charity (yay!). How do you select the charities? More specifically, can charitable organizations contact GoGreenEtc. to be considered and/or can shoppers or sellers recommend a cause?

Back when Go Green Tube was founded we developed a great relationship with CarbonFund.org so it was natural that we would start with them as our charity. Our goal is to have several charities that focus on the environment in different ways. Right now we are interested in hearing what charities our sellers and shoppers would like us to donate to.

7. While the focus of this interview is on Go Green Etc – the mall – we want to talk about you as an eco-entrepreneur for a moment. You also run a green video community called Go Green Tube, can you summarize that project for us as well?

Go Green Tube is a wonderful website, where people can post videos that they have made about going green, or watch videos about going green. Every time a video is watched one carbon credit is purchased through Carbonfund.org. We have been so lucky to form some great partners, such as National Wildlife Foundation and the Sierra Club. I am really proud of Go Green Tube, and would invite you to check it out.

8. How has your interactions on Twitter helped advance your projects — ie: through marketing, resource sharing, inspiration or otherwise?

My interaction with Twitter has been huge, but I must admit Twitter did not come easy to me. By nature, I just don’t talk a lot so Twitter was very foreign to me, I was so lucky that a great guy named Paul Smith @greensmith took me by the hand and answered all of my questions. Now I can’t imagine running any company without Twitter.

9. What advice would you offer to individuals interested in the green movement on creating and sustaining a project or venture?

If you are interested in creating any project or venture you must always start by writing it out. Set your goals, and then write out the steps to make your goal happen I would suggest finding a person who has been successful at business and ask them to take a look at your plan. Starting a new venture is scary and hard, ask for help from people around you and on Twitter, you will surprised what great advise you will get this way.

10. Finally, is there anything else you’d like to share with our readers about either project, yourself or anything else?

I would like to offer five months free to any of your readers who would like to open their own shop, just use coupon code “Rocket”.

It always affects me negatively when I read headlines that seem to be degrading to the human race in general. I sit baffled at my computer reading and wondering: But how?! HOW can this be an issue considering what goes into STOPPING it from happening? It can’t be a question of organizations saying “we need more money”–I mean, it just can’t, not in my opinion–and I want to stress that this is all it is!

I’m not a professional statistician or world-wide animal activist or committee head. I’m just a guy frustrated at the human race. Most people spend their time concerned about themselves and getting ahead in life that they forget that parts of the world are in trouble until it’s plastered all over CNN or Fox News.

So let me start this blog post very simply, with statistics that are easy to scan over and consume. The short of it is that rhino poaching worldwide is poised to hit a 15-year-high driven by Asian demand for horns which for the most part are believed to have medicinal value. The report was presented by the WWF, IUCN, and TRAFFIC to the 58th meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Standing Committee in Geneva (July 6-10, 2009) and further discussed at the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, which will be held in Doha, Qatar March 13-25, 2010. The call to actions was for local governments to acquire “an accurate and up-to-date picture of the status, conservation and trade in African and Asian rhinoceroses … so that firm international action can be taken to arrest this immediate threat to rhinoceros populations worldwide.”

Here is a breakdown of other stats I’ve gathered online:

• An estimated three rhinos were illegally killed each month in all of Africa from 2000-05, out of a population of around 18,000. In contrast, 12 rhinoceroses now are being poached each month in South Africa and Zimbabwe alone (WWF)
• Growing evidence of involvement of Vietnamese, Chinese and Thai nationals in the illegal procurement and transport of rhino horn out of Africa. (WWF)
• Rhino poaching is also problematic in Asia. About 10 rhinos have been poached in India and at least seven in Nepal since January alone—out of a combined population of only 2,400 endangered rhinos. (WWF)
• Almost all rhino species are listed in CITES (the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) in Appendix I, which means that any international trade of any rhino parts for commercial purposes is illegal. (WWF)
• Increased demand for rhino horn, alongside a lack of law enforcement, a low level of prosecutions for poachers who are actually arrested. (Steven Broad, Executive Director of TRAFFIC)
  • In September 2008, a gang of four Zimbabwean poachers who admitted to killing 18 rhinos were also freed in a failed judiciary process.
• The biggest threat to the surviving five species of rhino in Africa and Asia is poaching for their horns to make into traditional Oriental medicine. It is also used for the handles of ceremonial daggers. (Save the Rhino Foundation)
• The current international moratorium on rhino horn trade did not prevent officially permitted hunts taking place – “but the hunters will not be able to sell these horns”. (Dr Dave Balfour, a senior official at the Eastern Cape Parks Board)
• In one case, the rhino horns are suspected to have been sold to the eastern market between R18 000 to R25 000 a kilogram with the horns weighing between 8 – 11 kilograms. (TravelWires.com)

There needs to be a proper punishment for poaching. Plain and simple. These animals are endangered species, none of this should be going on. I’ve read comments on some of the blogs posting the WWF news by individuals who are ignorant enough to believe it doesn’t matter and that people come first. Listen, this isn’t about starving people–that’s it’s own problem (mainly caused by crappy distribution models, not a lack of food in the world). This is about preserving life in the general sense to reflect on the positive aspects of what it means to be human. It’s about breaking laws, especially internationally accepted laws. And finally it’s about inhumane actions that have no place in this world, against people or otherwise. Period.

Rhino horn poaching persists because the punishment for getting caught still makes it a profitable opportunity. In January 2009, a joint operation by various disciplines of the South African Police Service including the Mpumalanga, Limpopo & North West Organised Crime Units, the Gauteng Provincial Task Team together with South African National Parks who have arrested and charged 11 suspects of various nationalities in connection with the poaching of black and white Rhino. With the assistance of a dedicated specialized prosecutor the team is attempting to securing convictions as well as the severest punishment possible for all the suspects.

Here’s to hoping that the upcoming discussions at the international meetup Conferences helps start a new trend in international laws that benefitthe preservation of endangered species.

Sources:

• World Wildlife Foundation
• International Rhino Foundation
• TravelWires.com

Creative Commons Attribution: “White Rhinos“, Flickr, Martin Pettitt

This video is from the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit, and has regained popularity amidst the growing online media and environmentalism movements.  The child speaking in it is Severn Suzuki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Cullis-Suzuki, daughter of famous Canadian environmental activist David Suzuki http://www.davidsuzuki.org/ When she was 9, Severn and several friends founded the Environmental Children’s Organization (ECO) to raise awareness of environmental issues amongst children.  At age 12, Severn and other group members travelled to the UN summit to deliver the above presentation.  Severn’s words left a deep impact on the delegates and continue to do so today as the video re-emerges as a viral piece online.  Her speech is a powerful, provocative and fiercely spoken piece with the kind of passion that makes you want to listen.

Severn has since pursued education in science and biology (most recently post-graduate studies in ethnobotany), and continues to promote environmental awareness throughout her life.

I found the transcription of the speech from SASS Magazine:

Hello, I’m Severn Suzuki speaking for E.C.O. – The Environmental Children’s Organisation.

We are a group of twelve and thirteen-year-olds from Canada trying to make a difference: Vanessa Suttie, Morgan Geisler, Michelle Quigg and me. We raised all the money ourselves to come six thousand miles to tell you adults you must change your ways. Coming here today, I have no hidden agenda. I am fighting for my future.

Losing my future is not like losing an election or a few points on the stock market. I am here to speak for all generations to come. I am here to speak on behalf of the starving children around the world whose cries go unheard. I am here to speak for the countless animals dying across this planet because they have nowhere left to go. We cannot afford to be not heard. I am afraid to go out in the sun now because of the holes in the ozone. I am afraid to breathe the air because I don’t know what chemicals are in it. I used to go fishing in Vancouver with my dad until just a few years ago we found the fish full of cancers. And now we hear about animals and plants going exinct every day — vanishing forever. In my life, I have dreamt of seeing the great herds of wild animals, jungles and rainforests full of birds and butterfilies, but now I wonder if they will even exist for my children to see.

Did you have to worry about these little things when you were my age?

All this is happening before our eyes and yet we act as if we have all the time we want and all the solutions. I’m only a child and I don’t have all the solutions, but I want you to realise, neither do you!

You don’t know how to fix the holes in our ozone layer.
You don’t know how to bring salmon back up a dead stream.
You don’t know how to bring back an animal now extinct.
And you can’t bring back forests that once grew where there is now desert.
If you don’t know how to fix it, please stop breaking it!

Here, you may be delegates of your governments, business people, organisers, reporters or poiticians – but really you are mothers and fathers, brothers and sister, aunts and uncles – and all of you are somebody’s child.

I’m only a child yet I know we are all part of a family, five billion strong, in fact, 30 million species strong and we all share the same air, water and soil — borders and governments will never change that. I’m only a child yet I know we are all in this together and should act as one single world towards one single goal. In my anger, I am not blind, and in my fear, I am not afraid to tell the world how I feel. In my country, we make so much waste, we buy and throw away, buy and throw away, and yet northern countries will not share with the needy. Even when we have more than enough, we are afraid to lose some of our wealth, afraid to share. In Canada, we live the privileged life, with plenty of food, water and shelter — we have watches, bicycles, computers and television sets. Two days ago here in Brazil, we were shocked when we spent some time with some children living on the streets. And this is what one child told us: “I wish I was rich and if I were, I would give all the street children food, clothes, medicine, shelter and love and affection.”

If a child on the street who has nothing, is willing to share, why are we who have everyting still so greedy?

I can’t stop thinking that these children are my age, that it makes a tremendous difference where you are born, that I could be one of those children living in the Favellas of Rio; I could be a child starving in Somalia; a victim of war in the Middle East or a beggar in India. I’m only a child yet I know if all the money spent on war was spent on ending poverty and finding environmental answers, what a wonderful place this earth would be!

At school, even in kindergarten, you teach us to behave in the world. You teach us:

not to fight with others,
to work things out,
to respect others,
to clean up our mess,
not to hurt other creatures
to share – not be greedy.

Then why do you go out and do the things you tell us not to do?

Do not forget why you’re attending these conferences, who you’re doing this for — we are your own children. You are deciding what kind of world we will grow up in. Parents should be able to comfort their children by saying “everyting’s going to be alright” , “we’re doing the best we can” and “it’s not the end of the world”.

But I don’t think you can say that to us anymore. Are we even on your list of priorities? My father always says “You are what you do, not what you say.”

Well, what you do makes me cry at night. You grown ups say you love us. I challenge you, please make your actions reflect your words. Thank you for listening.

This animated video by GOODmagazine breaks down the impact of the world’s “oil addiction”, on prices and other social, environmental and economic factors.

How has oil gotten so expensive?

The story begins with a visual and statistical representation of the world’s exponential population growth over the last 150 years or so. Growing population and technological development has led to an increased demand for energy. According to the video, 85% of the world’s energy is now produced from fossil fuels. Combine this with increased demand, speculation and fear of shortage, and oil prices have skyrocketed. A price surge over the past 5 years has led to a rise from $25 USD per barrel to over $144 USD per barrel.

What are the consequences of such a change?

The fear of oil shortage and increased prices per barrel has put global pressure on the development of alternative fuel sources such as biofuel. In 2009, the U.S. will transfer 1/3 of corn output towards making 9.3 billion gallons of ethanol. This means crops are being diverted away from food production, and the prices of staple foods such as corn are rising, affecting the lower income classes around the world. In face, the price of corn increase 73% from 2007 to 2008, adding to the already increased food prices from droughts, floods and other agriculturally detrimental natural disasters.

The video also provides images and linkages of natural disasters, floods, and climate change as an implied representation of the environmental impact of the oil addiction, and their combined effect on the globe.

Ultimately, it is a simple overview of a complicated situation, but it presents a provocative message:

“The World: Love it, or fix it.”

The electric car regained attention during the late 1990s as the environmental movement began to twinkle in the public eye.  This was especially the case in California, which suffered from some of the worst air quality in the country. To alleviate this, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in Sacramento, CA passed a zero emissions mandate requiring an increasing percentage of cars sold in California to have zero tailpipe emissions.  In 1998 the requirement was 2 per cent, in 2001 it was 5 per cent, and in 2003 it was 10 per cent.  The policy caused much controversy, including Federal Government involvement, and resulted in a set of lawsuits by various automakers concerned about the lack of short term profitability of an electric fleet.  Check out the film Who Killed the Electric Car for details on this situation–while one-sided, it certainly raises some valid questions.

In the meantime, during the zero emissions mandate California saw the re-emergence of a fleet of electric cars from various companies.  While this fleet had all but disappeared by 2004 in favour of the Hybrid, the electric car is again regaining attention around the world.  In Amsterdam, Netherlands, the city will install 45 ChargePoint stations as part of a two-year public demonstration project.  This will be followed by an additional 200 stations by 2012, with the expectation of having enough stations to fuel 10,000 electric cars by 2015.  Similarly, London recently saw its 100th electric car charging station installed by a company called Elektromotive.  This is in accordance with Mayor Boris Johnson’s plan to make London the “electric car capital of Europe”, with 25,000 charging stations in London by 2015 and a requirement that all new developments and 20 per cent of all new car parking spaces be equipped with charging points.  In these areas as well as in North America, automobile companies are coming out with new and improved EV models, with better mileage and more efficiency.

So what is the deal with the electric car?

From the consumer side, EVs are cheap to operate and maintain, not requiring the usual oil changes and other such maintenance costs of an internal combustion engine (ICE).  Of course, the argument that driving the EV car is cheaper is subject to price changes as the market demand for electricity rises.  Another major benefit for countries like the U.S. in adopting EV technology is decreasing dependence on foreign oil — “a matter of national security” as former CIA director asserts in Who Killed the Electric Car.

On the other side of the debate, EV owners face many structural challenges in operating their car.  Electric cars have a limit on how many miles they can drive before needing to charge again.  While the limit is well above the average miles driven in a day and increasing with research, there is still the need for supporting infrastructure within and beyond the market to support electric cars and mitigate their driving limits.  This would include the development of charging stations mentioned above on a wider scale.  Furthermore, the initial investment hurdle make short term profits for producers an issue, creating less incentive for automakers.  The cost of production and in turn, cost of the vehicles, create room for a government subsidy to help develop the market.  In the UK, for example, the government has pledged £250 million in subsidy funding.  If the EV is indeed worth its noted value, such a market intervention can help stimulate the economy.  However, with the financial burden to support the technology, there is quite a bit debate over the value of the electric car.

Turning to the environment, the most obvious benefit of an electric car is its deviation from the use of gasoline to drive.  In countries with low-carbon power sourcing, the replacement of oil by electricity creates significant potential for reduction of carbon emissions.  Many studies that examine the life cycle analysis of the environmental impact of EVs (also called the “well-to-wheel” (WTW) assessment), find a generally lower carbon footprint in electric vehicles than petrol based ones.  However, while the majority of them demonstrate at least some reduction in emissions, the numbers, methods and calculations are highly varied.

Does this mean the EV is not worth it?  In spite of some of the data, I’d argue no.

According to Pike, “the complete replacement of all 30 million passenger cars in the UK, which form 12 per cent of the UK carbon footprint, can be shown to lower this figure to just 10 per cent at best.”  While this may not be much, it’s something–although Pike is rightfully concerned about the cost/benefit portion of the analysis.  Similarly, the U.S. Department of Energy finds WTW efficiencies (including all transition stages, from raw materials to motive power at the drive wheels) at 17% for EVs versus just 11% for gasoline-fueled vehicles.  In other words, the EVs can indeed be more efficient in fueling by plugging into the energy grid than using the gasoline burned in an ICE, even if by a lesser factor than it may initially seem.

Ultimately, like any “eco-friendly” product on the market – greenwashed or not – creating a consumer movement from the notion of conserving the environment only helps fuel the demand for more efficient and environmentally sound technology.   Not only this, but behavioural changes from eco-minded individuals can have powerful impact on an aggregate level.  Simple actions of knowing a limit to your daily mileage may cause people to plan their day more efficiently to reduce overall KM drive.  The opposite is also possible — one might get into the habit of driving MORE because it “costs less” per kilometre — but at least the economic conservation of the EV generally comes with a similarly attached environmental conservation awareness.

Moreover, because of this very debate, the transition to electricity for fuel with the attached environmental awareness is and has been encouraging further research and development in the renewable energy sector.  With renewable energy added to the equation, electric cars are starting to look a bit more like that utopian vision after all.  Check out the report from the recent Summit of the U.S Department of Energy on the topic, including the knowledge of over 120 experts in the field here for more information. We may be “miles” away (literally and figuratively), but we’re getting there.

Creative Commons Attribution: “Electric car outside the office“, Flickr, renaissancechambara

What would you do for $20,000 ?  National Geographic and Frito Lay’s Sun Chips want to know.  The Green Effect is a contest that asked U.S. residents to submit an original idea for an eco-iniative to make a difference in their community.  2,000 responses later, the judges — ranging from celebrity Ed Norton to corporate [green] suits — are ready to reveal ten finalists.  From there, five will be chosen to receive  a $20,000 grant, a profile in National Geographic magazine, and the opportunity to share their projects with environmental leaders in Washington, D.C.  One of the winners will be determined by popular choice of the online community — voting begins July 7th, 2009!

Take a moment to check out the entries and send in your vote!  Some of the ideas are pretty inspiring and it’s exciting to see communities truly work together on an issue this important.   As the contest title implies, the effect is to inspire individuals, groups and communities in taking green initiatives to make a difference.  The more these ideas become part of a dialogue, the more they will come alive and effectively spread to the next community, and the next, and so on, to create a stronger grass-roots “green” movement.  The contest also provides a wicked opportunity in its effort to bring the projects to Washington; in other words, a chance to bring real, functional community and individual environmental ideas to the people in charge.