What's Happened to Earth Day?

I’m old enough to remember the very first Earth Day, in 1970. It was my senior year at Skyline High in Oakland, California. Many of us walked to school that day (as opposed to taking public transit, my normal means of getting to class). There was a student fair with a few rickety card tables displaying information about how to recycle, use less water, pick up litter, stuff like that.

And then there was the car.

This, in fact, is my main memory of Earth Day 1970: Someone, somehow, procured an unwanted sedan — a Ford Fairlane, as I recall — and parked it outside the cafeteria. Students took turns pounding the crap out of it with a sledge hammer. (Clearly, this was before schools were taken over by lawyers and safety geeks.) Members of the football team and other would-be he-men went at it with a vengeance. I have a distinct image of one kid standing on the roof of the car and bashing in the rear window just below his feet.

It seems a bit odd looking back that the principal activity of highschoolers on Earth Day 1970 was to bash a car to smithereens. It was mostly about protest and symbolism then.

Earth Day 1990 was another matter altogether. The run-up to that event became media extravaganza. Nearly every media outlet — TV, radio, magazines, newspapers — produced an Earth Day special of some sort. The organization behind the event had conscripted some of Madison Avenue’s finest to ensure that Earth Day 1990 would miss no one’s attention. As I wrote in my 2008 book, Strategies for the Green Economy:

The event’s advertising work was done by Pacy Markman, the agency veteran who crafted Miller Lite’s indelible slogan, “Everything you always wanted in a beer, and less.” Earth Day’s organizers sought major corporate sponsors and hired a Los Angeles company that handled merchandise licensing for such movies as Platoon and Robocop to generate revenue from Earth Day–branded clothing, gear, and souvenirs. Perhaps ironically, given that the original Earth Day in 1970 was a protest against corporate environmental misdeeds, Earth Day 1990 may have been the world’s first major green marketing campaign.

What about today? What has Earth Day become?

It’s a question I’ve been asking as I’ve watched the run-up to this year’s 40th anniversary celebration unfold. Earth Day is 1,001 events — possibly more — of every conceivable description, from the ridiculous to the sublime.

From where I sit, watching the corporate world, Earth Day has taken on a variety of hues. As my colleagues at GreenBiz.com report, companies are engaged in a wide range of activities. Some have shunned the event, viewing Earth Day as a sort of red herring — something that distracts us from having to think about environmental issues the other 364 days of the year. Every day should be Earth Day, they believe.

My colleague John Davies recently surveyed more than 2,300 members of the GreenBiz Intelligence Panel, a group of corporate executives we poll from time to time, about their Earth Day attitudes and activities. Fully 72 percent said they celebrate Earth Day at their company, with about half staging some kind of on-site employee event, and nearly as many engaging in employee volunteer activities. Fifty-two percent said their company’s involvement in Earth Day activities has increased compared with five years ago; only 2 percent said it had decreased. More than 81% agreed with the statement “Earth Day is valuable because it shines a light on an important topic.” That’s an overwhelmingly positive response.

It’s the marketing side of Earth Day that starts to get worrisome. My GreenBiz.com team reports being deluged with PR come-ons this year — far more so than any year in memory.

Is that because more companies are engaged? I’m not so sure. I think it has more to do with the fact that Earth Day has become like many other annual holidays — an excuse to sell stuff. Or, at least, sell your ideas, no matter how thin the thread to the notion of environmental sustainability. I could fill pages with examples, but my colleague, Matthew Wheeland, has already done a splendid job of that.

During the precise moment I was writing these words, an e-mail popped up in my in-box with a press release headlined: “Innovative Ecofeminist Smart Phone App Aims to End Dry Cleaning Pollution for Earth Day.” I rest my case.

I don’t mean to diss Earth Day (or ecofeminists, for that matter). I’m generally pleased that for at least one day a year — and maybe a week or so leading up to it — there is increased attention paid to environmental problems and solutions.

But when I step back and look at what Earth Day has become, it sometimes feels little has changed: Earth Day seems largely an exercise in symbolism, much like that car-bashing of 40 years ago: a series random acts that allow people to feel environmentally engaged, even powerful, at least for a day.

---

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER

CLICK HERE TO RECEIVE AUTOMATIC E-MAIL UPDATES WHENEVER A NEW ARTICLE IS PUBLISHED TO 'TWO STEPS FORWARD'

Earth Day and the Polling of America, 2010: Me First, Planet Later

It's April. The flowers are bursting with color, trees are coming back to life, people are smiling, walking a bit more jauntily; hope abounds. It can mean only one thing: Baseball season has begun.

That, and the latest crop of pre-Earth Day surveys has invaded my in-box.

The news this year is not encouraging. The Great Recession has taken its toll, as has the "controversy" created by climate deniers — those advocating that climate change either isn't real, or that it isn't caused by human activity, or if it is, that the "fix" is too costly, especially during tough times. Interest in and commitment to environmental problems and solutions has dropped among Americans. With the exception of committed environmentalists — a relative sliver of the populace — the mood has switched from "What can I do to be helpful?" to "What's in it for me?"

Suffice to say, that self-centeredness makes it a tad tough to save the commons.

Herewith is the 2010 edition of what has become a (mostly annual) tradition: My assessment of what market researchers, academics, and others are finding out about Americans' desire to shop — and live and vote — with the environment in mind. (See previous installments here, here, and here.)

Spoiler alert: It's not a pretty picture.

"Americans are today no more environmentally friendly in their actions than they were at the turn of the century," begin the findings of a new poll from Gallup. And even the things Americans are claiming to do seem suspect. Example: A whopping 90% of Americans in 2010 say they are more likely to recycle household waste than any of the other environmentally friendly actions Gallup tests, the same percentage as in 2000. Frankly, I'm more than a little skeptical that nine out of ten Americans "voluntarily recycled newspapers, glass, aluminum, motor oil, or other items" in the past year, but that's what they're telling Gallup. However, if putting the plastic bottle in the right slot in a recycling bin from time to time qualifies someone to answer "yes," perhaps Gallup's finding is technically true. But talk about greenwash!

Similarly, Americans also say they're no more likely now than in the past "to engage in activist behavior to promote environmentally friendly actions by organizations, politicians, or companies," says Gallup. "Far less than half report engaging in any such actions, and again, those numbers have hardly changed over the past decade."

So, too, with those who say they have "voted for/worked for candidates because of their position on environmental issues" (28% in 2010); "been active in a group or organization that works to protect the environment (17%); or "contacted a public official about an environmental issue" (17%). The only appreciable change came in the number of Americans who "contacted a business to complain about its products because they harm the environment" — they declined 39% since 2000.

Gallup also found that, over the past two years, Americans have "become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence." Said Gallup:

The percentage of Americans who now say reports of global warming are generally exaggerated is by a significant margin the highest such reading in the 13-year history of asking the question. In 1997, 31% said global warming's effects had been exaggerated; last year, 41% said the same, and this year the number is 48%.

All of which syncs with yet another Gallup finding: that Americans grew more content over the past year with the overall quality of the environment in the country. Their "excellent" or "good" ratings now total 46%, up from 39% a year earlier. Reports Gallup:

There has been a 25-point drop since 1989 in the percentage worried a great deal about air pollution, and an equal drop in worry about contamination of soil and water by toxic waste. The decline in worry over time has been rather dramatic for some of these threats. For example, in 1989, 72% of Americans said they worried a great deal about pollution of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Worry about this environmental issue averaged 62% in the 1990s, 54% in the 2000s, and is 46% today.

Those findings concur with the latest findings by the Green Confidence Index, the monthly tracking service published by GreenBiz.com. In March, it found American consumers pulling back from their earlier optimism on environmental issues, reversing a four-month trend. "The leveling off of unemployment has not translated into increased green confidence,” according to Chief Research Officer Amy Hebard of Earthsense, whose company creates the Index.

What about today's youth — specifically, the Millennials, a.k.a. Generation Y, the 80 million or so Americans born during the last two decades of the 20th century? They've been dubbed the green generation, having come of age in an era of recycling, energy conservation, Al Gore, and Kermit the Frog. But according to the latest Eco Pulse survey, produced by the Shelton Group, "Millennials are only just starting to put their money where their mouths are," writes Shelton's Karen Barnes. She adds:

Across the board, Millennials are more likely to be talking about energy and water conservation, preservatives and chemicals in food, global warming and VOCs, but those conversations aren't producing change — yet. Millennials are 23 percent less likely to have changed behaviors or made green purchases than the overall population.

So much for the power of youth.

Of course, one might cite the Great Recession as a key reason why Americans have slowed down (or in the case of Millennials, never sped up) on environmental habits and purchases. Indeed, a recent poll by Ipsos Public Affairs on behalf of Procter & Gamble found that "More adults cite saving money than any other reason why they would take measures to reduce waste, save energy and save water in their home." When asked to select the two most important reasons for taking environmentally-friendly measures, 64% of 1,000 adults surveyed selected saving money.

Close to three quarters (74%) also report they would switch to a different brand if it did not cost more and helped them reduce waste, save water or save energy in their homes.

Some surveys continue to defy economic realities — and common sense. According to Mintel's latest report on green living, the environment remains a concern for the majority of Americans. "More than one-third (35%) of survey respondents say they would pay more for 'environmentally friendly' products."

That finding is hard to swallow. But it makes at least a lick of sense when one learns that "Food and beverage and personal care are the two most mature categories and account for the majority of green products in the marketplace," according to Mintel senior analyst Chris Haack. Of course: Food and beverage purchases are one place where consumers often "indulge" during tough times. Moreover, there's a reasonable chance their "environmental" concerns in this case are concern over toxic residues they may be feeding their families, not necessarily over the groundwater runoff, topsoil depletion, or greenhouse gas emissions associated with getting the food on their plates.

Clearly, green consumerism these days is more about self and family than community and planet. At a time of economic uncertainty, "What's in it for me?" seems to have become the tacit rallying cry of the environmentally concerned shopper. Their appetite for environmental activism has diminished inversely with concern over their incomes, home values, and pensions.

That's okay to a point. To the extent that "me first" prods manufacturers to eliminate price premiums or other trade-offs in designing and marketing products with environmental attributes, that's helpful. Even before the recession, Americans were clear about their lack of desire for trade-offs in buying green. That hasn't changed. For example, a recent survey by Accenture found that six out of 10 consumers in five countries, including the U.S., are more likely to buy a hybrid or electric vehicle "only when it is superior to gasoline-only models in every way." Accenture counsels:

So while automakers are increasingly focused on addressing the demand for greater fuel efficiency and economy they should also address those areas that continue to influence the consumer. "Green" is not enough by itself.

I concur, and have long advocated that to succeed, "green" must equal "better."

But I'm not convinced that even better products will always win in today's shaky economy. I fear that "me first" has become a handy excuse for Americans to push green shopping out of their consciousness.

I can't say my skepticism was buoyed by the findings of a recent study cited by Britain's Guardian newspaper that green shoppers are "less likely to be kind and more likely to steal."

According to the study, published in the latest edition of the journal Psychological Science by Canadian psychologists Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong, people who wear what they call the "halo of green consumerism" are less likely to be kind to others, and more likely to cheat and steal. "Virtuous acts can license subsequent asocial and unethical behaviours," they write.

As the Guardian reported:

The pair found that those in their study who bought green products appeared less willing to share with others a set amount of money than those who bought conventional products. When the green consumers were given the chance to boost their money by cheating on a computer game and then given the opportunity to lie about it — in other words, steal — they did, while the conventional consumers did not. Later, in an honour system in which participants were asked to take money from an envelope to pay themselves their spoils, the greens were six times more likely to steal than the conventionals.

For the record, the Guardian notes that the findings have been challenged by others.

Whether or not green consumers actually are lying, conniving thieves is, at best, subject to debate. It may be that Mazar and Zhong simply amplified green shoppers' desire to look out for their own interests first, an attribute that likely doesn't separate them much from the masses.

Whatever the reality, the findings of this year's crop of surveys and polls are implicit if not explicit: Today's consumers — young and old, idealistic and not — aren't feeling particularly magnanimous toward Mother Nature. They have their own wants and needs, including the need to be fulfilled in an age of personal and economic sacrifices. Until they feel those needs are met, it's "Me first, planet later."

---

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER

CLICK HERE TO RECEIVE AUTOMATIC E-MAIL UPDATES WHENEVER A NEW ARTICLE IS PUBLISHED TO 'TWO STEPS FORWARD'

When It Comes to Cars, ICE Is Still Hot

If you were to believe the mainstream media, the future of transportation is electric. And so it seems: In the coming year or two, we'll see a parade of electric vehicles (EVs), hybrid-electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and extended-range electric vehicles (EREVs) — and probably a few variations on those themes — all of which employ kilowatts where gasoline once reigned. They're coming from both the world's biggest car companies and some of the smallest.

But the conventional gas-powered internal combustion engine (ICE) won't be going away any time soon. While the spotlight belongs to electricity, off in the shadows the auto industry remains in high gear to ensure that the century-old ICE technology doesn't go the way of the buggy whip.

There's good reason: Even the more optimistic estimates put sales of all of types of EVs at only 20 percent of the U.S. market by 2020. That's a good start, but it leaves millions of new car sales employing ICE technology, not to mention nearly a billion ICE-power cars already on the roads, hundreds of millions of which will still be on the road a decade from now.

As a result, the world's major car companies, in both collaboration and competition with dozens of Fortune 500 companies and startups, are turning up the heat on ICE technology, seeking to improve the fuel and greenhouse gas performance of both new and existing vehicles.

The fortunes of some of these firms rose last week when the Obama administration set new greenhouse-gas emissions standards for automobiles and light trucks, a long-awaited and much-needed move to prod the U.S. transportation system in the right direction. The first-ever national greenhouse gas emissions standards "will significantly increase the fuel economy of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States," according to the U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which jointly issued the standard.

Of course, the big automakers, not to mention the rest of the free-market crowd, viewed the standards as a needlessly expensive, technologically infeasible, and counterproductively intrusive mandate that will crush a U.S. car industry just coming out of bankruptcy, along with the jobs that come with it. And it will raise car prices, too, though the added cost will be more than covered by fuel savings.

But improving ICE technology turns out to be not that hard, technologically speaking. And much of the technology already has been invented, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out last week, referring to "a number of more mundane solutions to reduce fuel consumption of vehicles that look and operate like cars now."

Among some of the incremental solutions: more-efficient tires, low-friction engine lubricants and added gears. Auto makers also will use technology to build four-cylinder motors that can deliver the power of six-cylinder engines and replace V-8 motors with more efficient six-cylinder versions. More use of turbocharging allows for reduced engine size while maintaining performance.

There's no shortage of companies working on these things. A January report on the topic by analysts at the financial services firm Robert W. Baird & Co. listed some of the products and technologies that can improve internal-combustion engines, along with estimates of their benefits. They include diesel (30% to 35% potential fuel-efficiency improvement), turbocharging (7% to 8%), direct injection (11% to 13%), cylinder deactivation (6% to 8%), variable valve timing (4% to 6%), continuously variable transmission (5% to 7%), automated manual transmission (5% to 15%), stop-start ("micro-hybrid") technology (7% to 9%), and low-resistance tires (1% to 2%). Many of these are in the market, or close to it. Behind these are still other technologies, says Baird, with exotic names like "homogenous charge compression ignition" and "advanced torque transfer technologies," each of which brings further improvements.

Put several of these together — and throw in some lightweighting, thanks to advanced carbon-fiber materials — and suddenly, Obama's new standard — fuel economy of 2016 model cars about 34 percent better than last year's models — seems like a relatively low bar.

Such technologies represent a significant business opportunity for the auto industry's biggest suppliers — companies like BorgWarner, Eaton, Johnson Controls, Navistar, TRW, and Visteon — as well as dozens of startups — firms with a far, far lower profile than electric-vehicle darlings like Tesla and Better Place, among them Achates Power, EcoMotors International, Pulstar, Fallbrook Technologies, Transonic Combustion, and Zajac Motors.

And then there's the question of what to do with the current stock of cars on the road. Is there a way to retrofit them with enhanced technologies, or to convert them to hybrids, plug-ins, or other EV technologies?

Felix Kramer believes there is. The founder of the California Cars Initiative, better known as CalCars.org, last year launched an initiative "to 'fix' a large fraction of the 250 million U.S. vehicles and 900 million globally to run partly or fully on electricity, thereby gaining millions of cleaner, more efficient vehicles that are cheaper to drive, while creating many jobs and providing new revenue streams to automakers from vehicles they've already sold."

Kramer and his team point to a a dozen or so companies and organizations already in the process of converting ICE cars to hybrids, including ALTe, Bright Automotive, ElectraDrive, Linc Volt, and Poulsen Hybrid. It's a market that's scarcely tapped, with blue-sky potential — literally and figuratively.

What will it take to turn this potential into real business — and jobs? It won't likely happen through individual consumer purchases of these upgrades. More likely will be fleet buyers — the thousands of government agencies, taxi companies, rental car companies, and corporations that own hundreds or thousands of vehicles — that will create a demand for ICE upgrades and retrofits. (My colleague, Tilde Herrera, recently reported on the billions in fuel savings fleet buyers will enjoy from the new Obama emissions standard.) But what will motivate them? Tax incentives? High gas prices? A price on carbon? Public pressure?

Another key challenge is how to accelerate the pace of innovation in the design of new cars, shortening the long product cycles now typical of the major car companies, thereby allowing more rapid adoption of new technologies. The Chevy Volt, for example, an EREV that will be in the market this fall, was first unveiled in late 2006  and formally announced in early 2007. Assuming its conception goes back at least a year earlier, that suggests the Volt took fully half-a decade to get to market. Even then, Chevy plans to make only about 10,000 of them in the first model year. How can tomorrow's cars get to market in half that time?

That will be a challenge for car makers going forward: creating scale and speed. We know how to make cars, even green cars, accelerate wicked fast. The next hurdle will be to bring new, clean technologies to market at similarly impressive 0-to-60 speeds.

Of course, all of this addresses only automobile technology — the nature of the vehicles themselves. That omits the larger picture — the notion of buying mobility services, as opposed to owning vehicles. There's vast opportunity for innovation in business models that provide alternatives to owning vehicles in the first place.

Until entrepreneurs and big companies focus their sights on that part of the transportation picture, all these techno-fixes will drive us to making good time going in the wrong direction.

---

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER

CLICK HERE TO RECEIVE AUTOMATIC E-MAIL UPDATES WHENEVER A NEW ARTICLE IS PUBLISHED TO 'TWO STEPS FORWARD'