U.S. Corporations Go Green

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-31-2008/0004746831&EDATE=

U.S. Corporations Go Green

WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 /PRNewswire/ -- America's largest corporations are switching to "green" power in record numbers -- pushing an already hot renewable energy industry into overdrive. In its latest quarterly rankings, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognized Intel (Nasdaq: INTC), PepsiCo (NYSE: PEP) and Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC) as America's three leading corporate purchasers of "green" power.

According to the EPA rankings, many companies making the switch to renewable energy choose wind. Some, including Wells Fargo, sourced fully 100% of their corporate energy consumption, from wind. In total, the EPA estimates America's largest corporations now purchase 5 billion KWh of renewable energy -- exceeding the EPA's goal by 30%.

The impact on the wind energy industry has been dramatic. Last week, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) reported total wind power generating capacity grew by a staggering 45% in a single calendar year. U.S. wind energy companies spent $9 billion adding 5,244 MW of generation to the nation's energy mix in 2007 -- enough power to supply 1.5 million homes.

According to an online survey of Wall Street analysts, the companies building new wind energy facilities -- particularly power producers and utilities -- appear to be the beneficiaries of America's accelerating demand for wind power.

...

[LiberalEsto]

1. How terribly nice of them

to toss us a teensy bone, to give us the public-relations illusion that Corporations are Our Friends.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. How terribly liberal of you

How about this: How about acknowledging the corporations who are doing something; and focusing your ire upon the many who aren't?

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Fifty-three Fortune 500 Corporations Surpass EPA Green Power Goals; Intel Corporation Leads Nation a

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/6c85f7cb2c4e0380852573de005d3732!OpenDocument

Fifty-three Fortune 500 Corporations Surpass EPA Green Power Goals; Intel Corporation Leads Nation as New No. 1 Purchaser

Release date: 01/28/2008
Contact Information: Dave Ryan, 202-564-4355 / [e-mail]

(Washington, D.C. - Jananuary 28, 2008) In response to EPA’s nationwide challenge issued in December 2006, 53 Fortune 500 companies led by Intel Corporation are now collectively purchasing more than six billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of green power annually. These purchases surpassed the goals set by EPA’s Green Power Partnership and equal the avoided carbon dioxide emissions of more than 570 million gallons of gasoline each year or the equivalent amount of electricity needed to power nearly 670,000 average American homes annually.

“EPA applauds our Fortune 500 partners for protecting our environment by purchasing green power,” said EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. “By voluntarily shifting to renewable energy, EPA’s environmental partners are proving you don’t need to wait for a signal in order to go green.”

Intel Corporation now leads the nation among EPA Green Power Partners as the top buyer with a purchase of 1.3 billion kilowatt-hours per year. PepsiCo is second, followed by Wells Fargo & Company, Whole Foods Market, The Pepsi Bottling Group, and Johnson & Johnson. Cisco Systems and Kohl’s Department Stores recently made sizable purchase increases to place them at seventh and eighth on the list, respectively. Rounding out the top ten green power purchases are Starbucks and DuPont Company.

EPA's Green Power Partnership works with more than 850 partner organizations to buy green power voluntarily as a way to reduce the environmental impacts associated with conventional electricity use and to support the development of new, renewable generation resources nationwide. Overall, EPA Green Power Partners are buying more than 13 billion kWh of green power annually.

...

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Fortune 500 Challenge: as of January 8, 2008

http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/toplists/fortune500.htm

[hatrack]

8. They'd best hurry up - I don't think phrases like "redoubling their efforts" overstate the case

US Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Consumption & Flaring Of Fossil Fuels (Millions of metric tons):

1980: 4,747
2005: 5,956
Net increase: 25.4%

North American Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Consumption & Flaring Of Fossil Fuels (Millions of metric tons):

1980: 5,431
2005: 6,987
Net increase: 28.6%

Asian Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Consumption & Flaring Of Fossil Fuels (Millions of metric tons):

1980: 3,551
2005: 10,362
Net increase: 192%

World Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Consumption & Flaring Of Fossil Fuels (Millions of metric tons):

1980: 18,330
2005: 28,192
Net increase: 53.8%

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. Let's look for a bit more detail

(Are we beginning to cut the increase at least?)

Drawn from the same table (thank-you.)

US Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Consumption & Flaring Of Fossil Fuels (Millions of metric tons):

Percentage year-over-year increase/decrease
1981 -2.57% (Reagan following Carter)
1982 -5.25%
1983 -0.84%
1984 5.64%
1985 -0.30%
1986 0.22%
1987 3.54%
1988 4.61%
1989 1.84% (Bush the Elder)
1990 -1.16%
1991 -0.97%
1992 2.11%
1993 1.95% (Mr. Clinton)
1994 1.50%
1995 1.06%
1996 3.54%
1997 1.24%
1998 0.67%
1999 1.29%
2000 3.01%
2001 -1.72% (Bush the Younger)
2002 0.70%
2003 0.86%
2004 2.11%
2005 0.36%


A graph of the data seems to show that we are decreasing the rate of increase.

[hatrack]

11. Well, I think that pretty much captures the concept of "Pyhrric Victory"

It's all well and good to note that the rate of increase is slowing.

However, the only thing that matters is a net carbon reduction, and even then only if such reductoin is massive, and if it it takes place year after year after year.

Unless we are able to reduce net carbon output by hundreds of millions of tons, and do so in the space of five to ten years, it's pretty much out of our hands, especially if (and time will tell whether he's correct) James Hansen's call of 350 ppm is correct; i.e. the target we need to steer for to maintain the enterprise we so fondly refer to as civilization.

Atmospheric carbon is now at about 390 ppm. It's on track to hit 400 by around 2012, and the potential for additional natural releases (permafrost, peat bogs, forest fires) becomes greater with every single day that passes.

I can't deride corporations for attempting to cut their carbon and ghg output, even if it is solely for reasons of dollars and cents. The problem two-fold: the massive scale of the climate inertia now underway, combined with time we don't have much of.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. It's a step

Here's what Hansen wrote last year:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_3.pdf

...

The Energy Department says that we’re going to continue to put more and more CO₂ in the atmosphere each year—not just additional CO₂ but more than we put in the year before. If we do follow that path, even for another ten years, it guarantees that we will have dramatic climate changes that produce what I would call a different planet—one without sea ice in the Arctic; with worldwide, repeated coastal tragedies associated with storms and a continuously rising sea level; and with regional disruptions due to freshwater shortages and shifting climatic zones.

...

First, we urgently need to stop the increase. Looking at the last 25 years and saying it increased a lot isn't all that helpful. A more important question is, "What's happening now!?"

[Javaman]

5. I wonder how many them are actually "green" and not just investing in

carbon offsets.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Are we green? Or are we just investing in carbon offsets?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=131870&mesg_id=131886

You and I purchase our "green" electricity. Some of these companies do the same; some have had solar panels installed on their roofs.

Who's greener?

[Javaman]

7. My point is, many a corp does the "I'm green" dance, but the devil is in the details.

corbon offsets are just bullshit cover up with smoke.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. Consider...

Who is greener? The company who buys carbon offsets? or the company that does not?

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see substantial efforts made, but I'm willing to give credit to a company for at least making some effort. Even if they're only "greenwashing" at least they're acknowledging that I'd like to see them be "green."


However, consider the case of Pepsi. I haven't seen a big media blitz about them going with 100% "green" power. So, I'm going to guess that their efforts are sincere.

[Dogmudgeon]

12. This is not completely altruistic

It would be nice to think that businesspeople are "getting it", but they clearly are not, not most of them, not on a level of doing business. Nearly all these campaigns for green-ness are PR efforts. They are jumping on a bandwagon that requires little more of most of them than new advertising. They run ads on the cable news channels heavily; there is even an ad for the Volt car, which won't even be out for two years, barring delays. It is not there to get you to buy a Volt, but to think that the company (Chevy?) is a Good Corporate Citizen. It well may be, but they are still paying for mind-share as well as flowers.

The corporate move into "green energy" is not new, either. The AWEA is as much of a corporate support body as any of the less-centralized nuclear industry PR firms. Wherever you stand on nuclear energy, it is not and never has been the only corporate player in the world sandbox. The solar industry is the same -- nearly all solar technology patents are owned by the semiconductor industry, even those for solar thermal. If you check out the companies behind renewable energy, there are many of the same names that come up in lists of corporate bad guys -- GE, Mitsubishi, France Electric, Kyocera, Abengoa, etc. It is not a bad thing to be supported by corporate interest, no matter what industry is under discussion, and we have to realize that no big undertaking will happen without organization -- usually corporate. But ...

We can not count on our favorite "flavor" of energy to provide an automatic political fix for what ails us. There is a strong need to rein in corporate power on a political scale and make it work to the benefit of the community. Backyard windplants and solar panels on the roof can not disentangle us from the current tyranny of the corporate entity. We must address political power as it is, not through indirect methods. Because whatever feint we can come up with, and whatever "alternative" we can invent, they can buy it out. We ought to focus on political AND technological development as tandem, not identical, necessities.

--p!

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. Of course it isn't

I'm sorry, let me play my broken record again.

I would love it if all of the businesses got together and said, let's save the world, so we have customers 100 years from now. (Seems like good business sense, but, it requires the long view.)

I would love it if every company erected their own solar and wind farms, and became totally energy self-sufficient. This isn't really practical for every company.


So, here's the thing, consider that Pepsi appears multiple times on the list of 100% green power purchasers. (Apparently, they have a number of corporations.)
http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/toplists/partner100.htm

Coca-Cola on the other hand doesn't appear on the list at all. According to the EPA, they're at a meager 2%

The cynic says, "Eh... Pepsi's just doing it for PR." Okay, so let me ask the cynic a few questions:

• If Pepsi's just doing it for PR, where's the accompanying advertising campaign? (It's only good PR, if you tell people about it!)
• If it's such good PR, why isn't Coca Cola following suit?
• Which company do you feel better about dealing with?

In the end, if companies "go green" to satisfy their customers, that's good enough for me. It's better than a company that ignores their customers' concerns.