SteveH’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Probably one of the most important parts of any climate bill will be the visible reinvestment of increased energy costs into energy efficiency. As a voter and taxpayer, and a visible advocate for sustainability in the community, the impression people need is that their hard earned cash spent on modest increases in their utility bills is coming back to them in some form. Most importantly, energy efficiency efforts tied to government regulation of carbon should make the legislation more palatable to at least some of our congressional representatives in the midwest. What I believe Auden and Dr. Romm (Jessie, I see you trying to make character attack by calling him Mr. Romm) are advocating is that efficiency efforts come first. It makes no sense to put money into clean energy if the energy is wasted on inefficient homes and business. The last thing we want is for our money to be squandered on the promise of clean energy generation, when it is a better use of our money to fund efficiency efforts and support the development of local green building codes.On Energy Trust and the Big Hope posted 3 weeks, 4 days ago 13 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  With increasing requirements for utilities to offer efficiency programs, it really makes a whole heckuva lot of sense to develop well-funded, statewide programs. The required fee is one that I do like as well, as the alternative is for the utilities to raise rates without a true accounting for their efficiency programs. I live in an area with a progressive efficiency program within a not-so-progressive municipal utility. But if I were to live a mere one mile further north, I would have a co-op as my electric utility. Now these guys are top-notch linemen, but their efficiency programs are virtually non-existent. Statewide programs modeled after Energy Trust would be a good thing to include in the cap-and-trade legislation. Oh, and regarding your solving climate change is going to hurt line; a good comparison is a pinch in your wallet now or punch in the gut later.On Energy Trust and the Big Hope posted 1 month ago 13 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Newsweek's analysis provides a nice comparison to the DJSI. But, like a mayor's trying to grasp why their city failed to fare as well as the prior year in a Forbes' ranking, the answers to the CEO's questions about how to perform better may not be clear-cut. From my brief look at this report, it seemed to highly rate those companies that would be at SOL's compliance level, or slightly above. To be ranked high in future years, leaders in these organization will need to understand that merely matching what the leaders in this group are doing will not be sufficient. Interesting is the lower ranking of companies like Coca-cola or Unilever, companies where arguably have developed and implemented strategies that reflect sustainability as a core concern. McDonalds, for example, is highly ranked but only recently began to make real efforts beyond protecting rainforests. In other words, this index seems to promote those who've talked the talk, but haven't necessarily walked the walk. While I have issues with usability of the DJSI by consumers, in the end I think its indexing system is better.On Inside Newsweek's new green corporate rankings posted 2 months, 1 week ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Simple answer: No.

   

  Not that DJSI is necessarily poor in or execution, but because consumers must have the drive to purchase sustainabily for the index to matter a lick.  And then the index is for the company, not the products or services produced.  So while it would be ideal for a consumer to utilize this index, I think its more likely that an index produced by a NGO, such as is done by several groups for seafood, would have a greater impact than DJSI.  I'm not going to research every single company that makes the products I purchase, and only 2 or 3 of the global supersector leaders even produce something that I would buy.  Long-term, I see value in the DJSI, but its not a consumer-oriented device that will lead to better consumption.

   

  On Is the Dow Jones Sustainability Index worth a damn? posted 2 months, 2 weeks ago 9 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The thing to remember is that buying local is usually greenwash to begin with.  We know that fossil fuel use is less with most organic produce compared to local, standard food production.  Keeping money out of the distributors' pockets does leave more for the producer, so that's a good thing, but not guaranteed with local products.

  In a sense, buying local, no matter reduced impacts or increased payment to producers, offers a non-offending way to make more people concerned consumers -- the first step to improving the demand-side conditions for wider adoption of sustainable production.

  On 'Localwashing' in pictures -- bogus marketing at its finest posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago 32 Responses