GreenPepper Blog

Green-Conscious Diners, Beware of Lights!

By Mari Abe, GreenPepper

Nowadays, locally sourced vegetables or fish, organic chicken and grass-fed beef are commonplace in restaurants trying to appeal to a new generation of green-conscious diners. But if restaurateurs are going to walk the talk, they must account for their footprints both in the kitchen and in the dining room. According to an article  in today's New York Times, restaurants all over the world (except Miami where modern is cool) are reverting back to energy-guzzling, exposed-filament bulbs to attain a certain aesthetic - a warm glow that flatters the plate and the crowd.

While design has come a long way in promoting green in commercial and residential buildings, there seems to be a gap when it comes to restaurants. As an avid diner who believes eating out can be an experience on par with a theatrical performance given the right food, ambience and service, I can most certainly vouch for the importance of décor and lighting. However, if a restaurant touts an organic menu, but uses inefficient light bulbs, it dampens the whole experience. Moreover, not only are the light-bulbs inefficient, they also create a lot of heat, requiring air conditioners to work harder to keep the place cool. And that most certainly will translate to a higher bill (at restaurants, food costs are typically only 28-35% of the check).

So the next time you sit down at a fancy restaurant with a sustainable menu, check the light bulbs. If you see the exposed-filament bulbs, take a pass and find a place that uses good old candles instead. It's just as romantic and better for the environment.

ENERGY STAR Rating Encourages Mediocrity

By Mari Abe, GreenPepper

As seen in a recent Washington Post article, there is a wide variance in the performance of ENERGY STAR rated products. Simply put, the rating works on a pass-fail system. Because the rating only has one set of standards and one label to hand out, high-performance products are jumbled with mid to low performance products. According to the article, government data shows that in 2008, 79 percent of all the televisions sold in the United States carried the ENERGY STAR logo. This leaves the average consumer at a gross disadvantage when shopping for appliances, TV’s and more. How can the very best products shine when you can’t distinguish it from an average one?

While I applaud the Department of Energy (DOE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for doing its part to ensure that all products are energy-efficient, perhaps it can take a cue from the MBDC Cradle-to-Cradle rating where products are rated as Platinum, Gold or Silver based on a certain set of criteria such as materials chemistry, efficient use of water, recyclability at end of life and more. Contrary to ENERGY STAR, Cradle-to-Cradle is set-up like an A-F grading scale. This allows consumers to make informed and educated purchasing decisions. Furthermore, it lets companies like office furniture manufacturer Steelcase*, shoot for the best certification possible without feeling the pressure cheat or take shortcuts to achieve one. Because while an entry-level task chair may only qualify for Silver, their high-end ergonomic chair is considered Platinum.

In the simple ENERGY STAR rating system, companies like Whirlpool*, who have always gone above and beyond to bring energy-efficient products to the end consumer loses out to newer manufacturers who barely make the cut. More importantly, it hinders innovation and slows down the rate at which better energy-efficient products are brought to market. After all, we all know that a college student taking a class pass-fail, rarely shows up for class.

*For full disclosure, these companies are Peppercom clients.

A Bird's Eye View of Energy Solutions

When we talk about energy, the same topics are rehashed constantly: efficiency, alternative sources, energy independence and climate change, but impact on bird populations, not so much.  However, a government report released last week shows that this may well have to become part of our everyday rhetoric when discussing energy solutions, as, over the past four decades, bird populations have diminished drastically, with energy production serving as a factor in the decline.

Now, I’m probably the furthest thing from a bird lover.  I think they’re annoying and gross, and tend to believe the pigeons in NY find entertainment in aiming at people’s heads as they walk unsuspectingly down the street.  Despite this, I recognize that birds play an important role in our ecosystem and feel the loss of any species, regardless of my personal opinion of it, is a tragic blow to the world overall.  But unfortunately, or perhaps, ironically, in our efforts to find energy sources that have less impact, we may just be contributing to the eradication of multiple species of birds as they fly into wind turbines, or their homes are converted to farms to produce biofuels.

Don’t get me wrong, I am in no way advocating that we should abandon wind farms, biofuels, or any of the other clean, renewable energy sources that may be contributing to bird loss, especially considering global warming is another major factor in declining populations.  I’m merely saying, in our search for solutions, let’s be well aware of new problems we may be creating and do our best to mitigate those problems.  There may never be a perfect solution, but we simply cannot turn a blind eye to outcomes we don’t like.  Otherwise, the next generations will be left with an entirely new global energy crisis to clean up.

Solar Not Ready to Shine in Glitzy L.A.

By Ann Barlow, GreenPepper

While LA is teeming with eco-celebrities, it also continues to be the nation’s leading city in producing greenhouse gases.  This week, Angelinos had the chance to begin changing this dubious distinction by voting for a solar energy plan.  Known locally as Measure B (I think some of our PR brethren could have come up with something a bit more meaningful, don’t you?), the plan called for solar panels to be installed on buildings around the city and for LA’s energy utility to produce 400 MgW of power from solar by 2014.

Unfortunately, the measure failed by about 1000 votes.  But I have to say, I can’t entirely disagree with those who voted no, because the exact cost of the plan lacked real detail.  The consultants on either side of the measure varied in their estimates by a whopping $2 billion.  That may seem like chump change in these days of trillion-dollar federal budgets and hundreds of billions of dollars in stimulus investments, but Angelinos just couldn’t get comfortable with so many unanswered questions.  Nor, apparently, were they terribly excited about the fact that all the jobs created would be through the unionized workforce of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

So for now, expect to continue seeing the smog when you next visit LA.  What a lost opportunity.  I only hope others will learn from what went wrong in LA-LA Land.

Big Three Need to Use Green Sense if They Want Our Cents

By Ann Barlow, GreenPepper

Yesterday I read that Pres. Bush doesn't want to make additional environmental standards part of any potential bailout agreement. But, assuming the bailout takes place -- and I think it should; after all, unlike Wall Street, they actually make a product -- we need something in return.

Ford, Chrysler and GM have to ditch all their old assumptions about designing cars.  They CAN make cars that are energy efficient and they should be required to do so in exchange for use of our hard-earned money.  In time, they'll find they can make cars that are not only efficient, but also stylish and affordable.  That will ensure that they themselves are sustainable as businesses.

To me, if no energy efficiency standards are called for, then I would ask Congress not to help.  Hey, let the oil companies pay for the bailout in that case. They'll still rot the planet together, but at least it won't be with our money.