Clean Technica - Solar and Wind Power Growing

Just today, I was looking through environmental blogs and found myself looking at Clean Technica. Clean Technica is a blog dedicated to Clean Technology, mainly focused on solar power, wind power, energy efficiency, and clean transport. It's goals are to inspire individuals to take action and support clean technology, and to share information about clean technology and debunk myths about sustainability. 

I was reading a passage about the growth of solar and wind energy and decided to post a comment. Check it out! Here's the comment copied here for readability.

"It's great to see that solar power and wind power are both growing in numbers and availability. I truly think that solar power is one of the easier ways to achieve sustainability in the near future. The Climate Reality Project once said that the sunlight hitting earth is over 4 times greater than the energy we actually require as a population. If we can harness some of that power, especially in arid desert-like regions where the sun always shines, solar power can become our main energy producer.

In terms of governmental initiatives, I think the European governments have done well in encouraging solar power, but as Spain and Italy's taxing systems are being challenged and this will lead to a slowing of growth, the governments need to step up to continue to endorse solar power. Solar power is not quite at the level yet where it can spread perfectly without support from the government. And if the government does support solar power, the nation can gain a solid long-lasting (and sustainable) infrastructure that is environmentally friendly. Although it may require a few more years of financial support, it is a undertaking that is more than worthwhile to provide for the needs of the future.
As Matt Lucky, Worldwatch's reporter, co-author, and Sustainable Energy Lead Researcher stated, Solar and Wind power are poised to grow. Many have said that there needs to be more solar companies taken out of the market, and the lowering of solar power's stock price will hopefully achieve that. Overall, Solar power seems to be a very strong candidate for growth in the future, and possibly the main solution to our current issue of sustainability. Here's to the sun!"

Works Cited:


"Growth Of Global Solar & Wind Energy Continues To Outpace Other Technologies."CleanTechnica. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Aug. 2013. <http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/01/growth-of-global-solar-and-wind-energy-continues-to-outpace-other-technologies/>.

Bulls, Kevin. "Why We Need More Solar Companies to Fail." MIT Technology Review. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Aug. 2013. <http://m.technologyreview.com/news/512516/why-we-need-more-solar-companies-to-fail/>.

Sustainability on Twitter - GRI Reporter

If you know your sustainability metrics, I'm sure you know the GRI, the Global Reporting Initiative. If not, the Global Reporting Initiative is exactly what it sounds like: a program for worldwide reporting and transparency. The GRI is a one of the collaborating centers of the United Nations Environment Program, a international program dedicated to sustainability. GRI acts by creating international sustainability metrics that all companies can use to judge sustainability within their own corporations, and more importantly, customers and stakeholders can use to judge and differentiate between companies.

GRI has a basic set of indicators, that fit within the economic, environmental, and social performance areas - very similar to the idea of the Triple Bottom Line. For example, within social performance, GRI requires investigations and reporting on fair labor practices, human rights (especially in factories), the societal environment (focusing on the company's impact to the society in its vicinity), and product responsibility, referring to the health and safety of products. In addition to this, the GRI also produces more specific regulations for various business sectors, which are constantly being added. For instance, the GRI on Media focuses around the idea of a "brainprint"as opposed to a "footprint", as the media can impact attitudes, behaviors, and public opinions. In fact, according to the media GRI, one of the media's greatest responsibilities is transparency and accurate reporting, on information that matters, such as sustainability issues.

And if you've been on the internet, you've probably heard of Twitter, a social media platform characterized by short to-the-point posts, within a 140 character limit. Twitter is a unique way to gain important information fast, amongst a world of ever decreasing attention span.

For this reason, I highly endorse all of you to follow the GRI Secretariat on Twitter. Coming from the fantastic GRI background, the GRI Secretariat posts very important information relavant to GRI and sustainability in general. Just recently, the Secretariat posted about Ban Ki Moon speaking on transparency in the NYSE stock exchange. The feed has also linked to videos about the lastest 2013 GRI conference, GRI's July newsletter, and the Sustainability Disclosure Database. The Secretariat posts links and information that is helpful for anyone looking to improve their knowledge about sustainability or the GRI, which is a key part of making sustainability a global cause.

Go follow the GRI Secretariat now!



Works Cited:

"Global Reporting Initiative." Global Reporting Initiative. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Aug. 2013. <https://www.globalreporting.org/Pages/default.aspx>.

"GRI Secretariat." Twitter. Twitter Inc., n.d. Web. 2 Aug. 2013. <https://twitter.com/GRI_Secretariat>.

Investing in Sustainability - PAX World

Mutual Funds are an easy way to invest nowadays. A mutual fund is essentially a "stock of stocks". It's a company that invests in the stock of many different companies, often with a theme, such as the furniture industry, for example. These funds are a great way to diversify portfolios within a chosen sector, and mitigate the risk of failure. In the case of furniture, if IKEA suddenly fails, perhaps another company will rise, and the loss our (the investors) part is minimal. Also, mutual funds are a good way to gain profit from the whole of a sector. If we expect furniture companies to explode in value, perhaps because an increase in the construction of houses, then by investing in a furniture mutual fund, we can see huge profits. With all this in mind, why not invest in a sustainability mutual fund?


PAX World is a environmental mutual fund. Their mission, according to their website, is to aim for long term growth, rather than short term growth (a feature of most mutual funds), but do to so in the realm of sustainability. PAX (Stock symbol PXWGX) invests in "innovative companies" that are focused in improving energy efficiency, smart and sustainable water use and infrastructure, and waste management devices, as well as any other service or company developing technology that is highly beneficial to the environment. By investing in PAX World, you invest in all of these sustainable areas. Additionally, the fund is also diversified within the sustainability market. 40% of investments are in non-US companies. PAX doesn't limit the fund to one size or type of company, and instead buys in small, medium, and large corporations, and can invest in both "growth" or "value" stocks - stocks for profit or security.

PAX World's stock also has a positive market trend, if we look in the long term, as we should with mutual funds. Over the last year, PAX gained two full dollars in it's stock price. If we go back even further, PAX World's stock price has more than doubled in the last five years, following the financial collapse. Of course, some growth is to be expected from all companies, but I think PAX's growth, especially recently, can be attributed to the growing green movement among investors. Investors realize that green technology is the way forward, as we will soon have to solve the global energy and ecological crisis.

PAX World's stock is a fabulous investment for anyone looking to support alternative sources of energy besides the unsustainable fossil fuels, and for those who want to invest in a stock that promotes sustainability in all sectors. By investing in PAX's stock, you're (in a very small way) helping sustainable companies, and therefore helping to solve the sustainability crisis.



Works Cited:

"A Leader in Sustainable Investing." Home. Pax World Management LLC, n.d. Web. 02 Aug. 2013. <http://www.paxworld.com/>.

"Our Products." Pax World Global Environmental Markets Fund. Pax World Management LLC, n.d. Web. 02 Aug. 2013. <http://www.paxworld.com/our-products/pax-world-mutual-funds/global-environmental-markets-fund>.

"Pax World Growth Fund - Google Finance." Google Finance. Google Finance, n.d. Web. 02 Aug. 2013. <https://www.google.com/finance?q=MUTF:PXWGX>.

"SkyActive Technology" - The Dangers of Greenwashing

Advertising often comes under fire these days. Advertising stretches the truth or even just lies, and that is why we hate it. Simply, advertising is a way to push a project, often one we don't want or even need. Therefore, everyone is wary of advertisers telling us the next way to perfect our skin, or the next phone we need, or the next line of shoes we "must have". But in the attacks against advertising and the rising "green" and "sustainable" movement, are we clever enough to notice the same effects of advertising in green products? Take a look at this Mazda ad from 2012. 

Notice anything past the cuddly Lorax? I certainly hope so.

This is an example of the lowest form of greenwashing possible. This advertisement is just ridiculous. First off, we should remember what the advertisement is actually for: a Mazda car with higher miles per gallon. Yes, it is beter than a car with lower miles per gallon, but it's still a car; it still emits tons upon tons of CO2. It is not good for the environment no matter the miles per gallon it has. However, Mazda is trying to distract us from this fact. Instead, Mazda shows its cartoon car driving through the wilderness to create a link between the car and nature, in an effort to deliberately greenwash its viewers and make the car appear sustainable.

Secondly, what exactly is SkyActive Technology? The ad doesn't offer any kind of explanation, except to somehow link it to sustainability. The words "SkyActive Technology  are repeated over and over again, in a vein effort to give them meaning - but they have none. Likewise, the car is supposedly awarded the "Truffula Tree Friendly" award. Again, this means absolutely nothing. The car is not environmentally friendly in the real world, nor the Lorax's world. Mazda is making a extremely poor effort to make their product seem sustainable.

It's obvious that Mazda is not making any effort to be transparent here, or even make sense. Mazda's only goal in this respect is to "greenwash" it's viewers - to make its product seem more green than it actually is. Mazda does not back up any of its claims. We have no idea what SkyActive Technology is, or how it makes the car more environmental, and perhaps worthy of the "Truffula Tree Friendly" award. I rated this ad on the Green Washing Index and gave it a 4.9/5. (Higher being worse.)





Works Cited:Mazda. "2012 Mazda - Dr. Seuss' The Lorax Spot 45 Sec." YouTube. YouTube, 20 Feb. 2012. Web. 01 Aug. 2013. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjRisj1vaDo>.
Carty, Sharon Silke. "Greenwashed Car Ads Make People Feel Good About Polluting."The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 20 Apr. 2012. Web. 01 Aug. 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/green-cars-ads-polluting_n_1440830.html>.

LEED or GreenGlobes? - Solutions for the Built Environment

Buildings and the Built Environment (buildings, houses, highrises, stores, ect.) all have a massive impact on the environment. In fact, they may be the largest impactors of the environment today. Think about it. Buildings require cooling, heating, copious amounts of electricity, gas, and of course all the materials needed to make the building itself. Buildings often need wood, which is taken from trees often countries away. Any plastic used has to be synthesized with potentially harmful chemicals - and cannot be easily disposed of. The steel and metal needs to be mined from the earth in dangerous and unsustainable mining operations. Concrete driveways and parking lots create the issue of rainwater runoff (water unable to permeate into the ground). 

Even more problematic is that we all need buildings. For business, retail, residential, or recreational use, we need buildings. We cannot brave the rain and storms. We need shelter to survive - and that won't be changing any time soon. 

So the best we can do for our planet is to try to make our buildings sustainable. But how do we achieve this, and more importantly, how do we measure this? Currently, there are two main competing methods of measuring a building's sustainability in North America: LEED and GreenGlobes.

LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, developed by the United States Green Buildings Council, claims to be a "green building tool that addresses the entire building lifecycle recognizing best-in-class building strategies." The main factors LEED awards credits based on are the smart and efficient use of water and energy, the use of sustainable building materials, recycling, indoor environmental quality, and lastly the building's site.

GreenGlobes also is a method of assessing a business's sustainability. However, GreenGlobes was orginally developed in Canada by the Green Building Initiative  an American National Standards Institute accredited standards producer. GreenGlobes measures sustainability through energy, water, resources, emissions, indoor environment, and environmental management. Within these subheadings are categories such as haz-mat waste, air quality, noise, recycling, environmental awareness.

All in all, the two sound quite similar. But there are some extremely important differences between the two. First off, the main focus of LEED is certification. Through LEED, companies can prove that their buildings are certified. A company completes reams of paper proving its claims, and then sends them off to the USGBC for approval. GreenGlobes, on the other hand, is primarily a tool for a corporation to use itself to determine its own sustainability, not to flaunt it. GreenGlobes essentially an online survey filled out by the corporation itself - no ridiculous amounts of froms. And if the company wishes, GreenGlobes will send out a person to verify the corporation's claims, for a small fee.

This brings me to the second difference between the two: money. Because of the complexity of applying for a LEED certification, often a company will have to hire an outside agency, such as Jones Lang LaSalle. Application feeds are compounded by paying the agencies, and the cost of registering skyrockets. GreenGlobes is much simpler, as it designed mainly as a tool for companies themselves to use. The forms use more general and easily answerable questions, and mostly no outside agency is required. Also, if a company does wish to have the GBI certify their GreenGlobes rating, the company only needs to pay to have the GBI agent sent out. In short, GreenGlobes is much cheaper and more viable for smaller companies.

Let us also consider the criteria by which each system rates buildings. One obvious difference between the two is GreenGlobes's inclusion of the "environmental management" category. In this category is the most important factor of sustainability: environmental awareness. A company cannot strive to be sustainable if it does not know if it is sustainable, or what quantifies sustainability. LEED does not have a factor strictly based on awareness alone.

Overall, in my opinion, GreenGlobes is the obvious winner of the LEED v. GreenGlobes battle. GreenGlobes is easier, cheaper, and just makes more sense. For smaller companies, a huge evaluation like LEED is almost always impossible. GreenGlobes provides small businesses with an opportunity to evaluate their own sustainability, as well as proving to its customers that it can be sustainable.

I say companies should go green with GreenGlobes.




Works Cited:
"LEED." U.S. Green Building Council. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Aug. 2013. <http://www.usgbc.org/leed>.
"Green Globes®." Green Globes and LEED, a Green Building Certification Comparison. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Aug. 2013. <http://www.thegbi.org/green-globes/green-globes-leed-green-building-certification.shtml>.
"Green Globes." Building Environmental Assessments. Green Building Initiative, n.d. Web. 01 Aug. 2013. <http://www.greenglobes.com/>.