Ed Begley, Jr., in the Klamath Siskiyou region of CaliforniaFor nearly forty years, actor and environmental activist Ed Begley, Jr., has both talked the talk and walked the walk in advocating for a healthier human relationship with the natural world. Ed is perhaps best known for his role as Dr. Victor Ehrlich on television’s long-running St. Elsewhere (a role for which he earned six Emmy nominations), but has appeared frequently in feature films, television shows and stage plays. His recent HGTV reality show, Living with Ed, has been a hit with viewers, and the network recently extended the show for thirteen more episodes.

Ed’s decades of environmental work and leadership have earned him numerous awards and accolades from a variety of organizations, including the California League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, The Coalition for Clean Air, Heal the Bay and the Santa Monica Baykeeper.

Despite success and fame, Ed still lives in a modest home in Studio City, CA, that sports solar panels and an organic vegetable garden. He often cooks with a solar oven, and makes toast in the morning with a toaster powered by a stationary bicycle. He’s been known to show up for big Hollywood events on a real bicycle.

I spoke with Ed by phone on March 15th. We talked while he was driving his wife’s Prius to the bottler of his cleaning products, Begley’s Best.

Green Options: Since you’re in the middle of a trip for Begley’s Best, why don’t we start there. Now, let me clarify: this isn’t a case of you simply licensing your name and image for a product, right?

Ed Begley, Jr.: No, no, I have no employees, and I do it all mysef. I’m driving to my bottler’s in San Bernadino to drop off some product, and pick some up. That’s one of the wonderful things about doing this on my own: shipping costs are so high now, that it costs about $80 for me to ship, say, four cartons of the product to a supermarket in Santa Barbara. And, of course, they don’t pay me for the shipping — I have to do that myself. If I drive it up myself, I spend about $7 in fuel at today’s gas prices. This way, I sell it at a competitive price, and the customer’s happy, the store’s happy, and I’m happy! And, you get some very personal time with people like the grocery buyer, the store manager, and that means a lot.

The very first order I got was from a store called Lassen’s Market. Lassen’s ordered one case of this product I sell. So, I put the product in my electric car, and drove it the 35 miles to their store. The guy who signed for it, a really nice guy, was a little shocked to see me, but he signed for it, and I left. When I got home from the trip, there was a message from my broker asking “What did you just do?” I told him “I dropped the product off. You said they ordered it, so I took it to them.” He said, “They just called, and were so amazed that you brought the product to them that they want to order four more cases!” I told him, “OK, whatever you say,” and so I drove back again.

That’s the way it’s been; that personal touch helps a lot. I ship every order myself that comes in over the internet. I don’t bottle it myself — the bottling company does that, and puts it in cases, but, after that, it’s all me. And that works very well.

GO: So this is truly a home-based business?

EB: Yes, it is!

GO: So, how involved were you in actually developing the product?

EB: I didn’t invent the product at all — it came from a fellow named John Watts, who I met at Real Food Daily, this vegetarian restaurant. He saw me at another table, and said “Oh, my God, I’ve been looking for you! Let me run to my car.” I thought maybe he had a picture or a DVD he wanted me to sign. He came back with a bottle. “What’s this?” I asked. He said, “It’s a non-toxic cleaning product. I want you to help me sell it.” “OK…,” I said. “It’s got to be non-toxic, though.” “Oh, it is,” he said, “totally non-toxic.” “Do you have any testing data to support that claim,” I asked. “Oh, yes,” he said. “Here’s the MSDS, and all that.” “Fine,” I said. The testing data was good, and I took it to a lab myself to have it tested, and it came out good there, too. It’s a great product: it cleans great, and it’s non-toxic!

GO: Sounds great! So, why should I buy your product instead of, say, a product from Seventh Generation, or one of the competing products that’s out there?

EB: Oh, I wouldn’t try to talk you out of buying anything from Seventh Generation! I’ve been buying Jeffrey Hollender’s stuff for years, and it’s a great company. They sell so many wonderful products, and they do it nationwide. I’m selling mostly in Southern California, so his products are much more available than mine. I will say about my product, though, is I have a spot remover that really cleans great, and they don’t have a product like that. But their glass cleaner is all-purpose, and works great. I wouldn’t try to divert any sales from Seventh Generation to Begley’s Best. What they give back to the community, their mission statement… everything about the company is superb!

GO: On a personal note, how well does that spot remover work for pet stains? I’ve got four cats and a dog, and have been looking for something.

EB: It works great for pet stains!

GO: Great! I’ll have to give that a try! Since you’re driving in your Prius, I’ll go ahead and move on to vehicles. I know you’ve been promoting the Phoenix Motorcars SUT, and have talked about that to a number of other publications. Do you think electric vehicles have finally reached the point where they can move into the mass market?

EB: I think so — yes I do. I think because of advances in the battery technologies, electric vehicles are at a place where more people can use them. They’re not for everybody; they’re not even for all of my trips! If I’ve got to go to Santa Barbara, I don’t drive my electric car; I drive my wife’s Prius like I’m doing now. Now, with the greater range on this new truck, I might be able to do that. But for short trips, and for driving around LA, I’m going to take the electric car. Both it and the Prius are great vehicles. We’re fortunate enough to be a two-car family, so we have the ability to trade cars — that works out pretty nice!

GO: What do you think about other EVs or hybrids either in production, or being released as concepts? I’m thinking particularly of the Tesla Roadster, which has received a lot of press, or the Chevy Volt, GMs new concept? Do you have any thoughts on those?

EB: I think those other cars hold a lot of promise. I haven’t had a chance to drive the Volt, of course, but I can’t wait to see it and test drive it.

There are so many tools in our toolbox to clean up our air and lessen our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Electric cars are one thing, hybrid cars are one thing, and natural gas cars are another. Biodiesel is very exciting. You know, my friend Daryl Hannah has been driving a biodiesel car for a while. It’s very exciting to see what Daryl, Willie Nelson, and others are doing to promote that technology. It’s got great potential to power a lot of our trips in this country in a very clean manner. So, I’m very much in favor of biodiesel, too.

GO: Of course, the major automakers have taken some heat for not embracing some of these cleaner car technologies more quickly. Do you think the established auto makers are getting it that there’s a demand for these cars, and a need for them?

EB: I hope so. I really hope so. I like to buy American cars: that’s why I drove a GM EV1, and why I drove a Ford Contour natural gas car for years. I like to buy American — I think that’s the way to go. Unfortunately, they don’t offer anything like the RAV4 electric vehicle that I drive every day. They don’t offer anything like my wife’s Toyota Prius that I’m driving to San Bernadino and back. When we bought the Prius, they finally came out with the Ford Escape. I have friends that have one, and who’ve driven both cars, and say the Prius is the better vehicle. That’s a shame. I wish that weren’t the case.

GO: Let’s spend a few minutes talking about your newest television show, Living with Ed. Now, that’s been renewed for 13 more episodes, right?

EB: Yes, it has!

GO: Congratulations on that! What do you think has made Living with Ed a hit?

EB: I think, having tried environmental shows in the past… you know, I had a show on the Discovery Channel called Today’s Environment that was on at like 4 in the morning. It was a very nice show, but it didn’t get a wide viewership. Other people have tried them, [HGTV] has tried them, but they just haven’t taken off! Now, you can argue about that, you can be upset about that, but it’s a fact: no one’s really watched these shows. We did this show with the idea that we would make it entertaining as well, that we would show a hint of our reality, me and Rachelle, and the sometimes funny way we have of dealing with each other. And it clicked — people watched it.

Now, there are people who say “I don’t need to see jokes on your show. Why don’t you just stick to the way you put up solar panels and such?” I respond, “I’m glad you want to see that; sadly, there there’s not a lot people like you.” The show is entertainment, and we have lots of take-aways in every show, and lots of people are watching. It’s a first! But, you know, we’ll see if it sticks around for a while.

GO: Of course, Living with Ed is a “reality show”; how much “acting” or role-playing goes into what we see?

EB: You know, I keep it quite real. They regularly come to me and say “Ed, tomorrow we want to shoot this or that.” What? “I don’t want to hear it,” I tell them. “Don’t tell me what we’re going to do tomorrow. You don’t even have to tell me what we’re going to do later today. Just tell me what we’re going to do right now: you’re going to get the rain barrels that you ordered, and now we’re going show people how you’d install them.” So, I’m putting them up. And, according to my wife, this was not a set-up: she comes home while I’m putting up the rain barrels… unplanned. She goes, “What’s that?” (Believe me, you don’t have to prompt her with this kind of stuff!) “What are you doing there?” I tell her, “We’re going to collect rainwater, honey. Isnt’ that great?” She says, “Great? That isn’t great at all! That’s ugly!” So I tell her, “OK — calm down. I’ll get some paint. We’ll paint them. If you don’t like the color…” And she says, “No. It’s not just the color. It’s ugly. We’re not having a rain barrel. I come from Georgia, people think I’m a cracker, and I’m not going to put a barrel in my back yard! Get it out of here! Even if you paint it…” So, I say, “Let me ask you this, Rachelle? What’s uglier: the fish flopping around there in the dry river bed because we waste water here in LA, or all the people wearing dust masks up in Owens Valley because of all the water we stole from them, and now they’ve got a dry lakebed? What’s uglier? You tell me.” And we get into it, and it’s funny, and it’s engaging, and it’s real!

GO: And the show certainly is about you two, as much as it is about your own environmental activities. The folks at Ecorazzi awarded you and Rachelle their Big Hearts Celebrity Couple award.

EB: Yes, they did!

GO: So, I wanted to ask, is the concept of sustainability, or some other environmental concept, something that applies (in a metaphorical sense) to your relationship with your wife?

EB: You know, you also have to have sustainability in your relationship. We seem to have a very different point of view about a lot of things, and we do. We find common ground, and most importantly, we laugh a lot. We see the humor in our different points of view. Neither of us keeps our opinion to ourselves, but we try to engage each other with humor… and that counts for a lot. If you can laugh, I think that’s a big part of making any relationship successful. Don’t take things too seriously! Of course, some things you have to take seriously, and I’m not saying always laugh everything off. But, having said that, as much as you can, try to take as few things seriously as you can. I think that’s the best way.

GO: Let’s talk about the bigger picture here for just a minute. You’ve been involved in environmentalism for nearly 40 years, right?

EB: Yes. I started in 1970, so that’s 37 years.

GO: The movement’s certainly changed since then, as much as it is a movement. How would you compare environmentalism of the 1970s to what exists now?

EB: I think we’ve come a long ways since then. A lot of the stuff we talked about back then seemed very far out: “Ozone depletion? That’s the craziest thing I’ve ever heard of! Global climate change? Get away from me! That’s nutty!” But, a lot of the things that were talked about, and seemed quite unusual years ago, now have a great deal of scientific consensus. And, this is just as important: all of these things that we thought would help clean up the air in LA, and lessen our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, did work. There are ways. It did not break the state of California. It did not break the nation to put smog control devices on vehicles. Or, stationary source reduction: it did not break factories to clean up the emissions from the smoke stacks, and to be a model for the nation. That stuff worked! We predicted it would work, and it did. The air in LA is not dirtier since 1970; it’s cleaner. And there are four time the cars on the road, so it should be much, much dirtier. We have four times the cars since 1970, but only half of the ozone [pollution]. Give everybody a medal! This stuff can work with the right technology. Technology has gotten us into some of these problems, but I also think it can get us out.

GO: And on technology — a different kind. You’ve talked to many of us in the online community; you’re a guest judge for Treehugger and Seventh Generation’s Convenient Truths contest; you given interviews to Ecorazzi and other web sites. What role do you think the web, and other communications technologies, have played in making people more aware of environmental challenges, and perhaps more concerned?

EB: The internet is the single biggest benefit to environmental awareness that I can think of. By that, I mean people can hear me talk about global climate change in my opinion. They hear Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity talk about climate change in their opinion. “I wonder who’s right,” they ask. “Let me do a Google search on global climate change, and stay away from all the environmental websites. No Greenpeace, nothing! Let me also stay away from all of the conservative web sites: let me just stick to the sites I trust. Who do I trust? I think I trust NASA. I think I trust NOAA. I think I trust Columbia University.” It doesn’t matter… just pick someone you trust. National Geographic. NOAA. See what they say. And you’ll see that, according to their experts, according to peer-reviewed studies, it is real. You don’t even need to own a computer: you can go to a library and find out this information. So, the web cuts to the chase. If people wish, they can stick to websites that follow their own views. That’s their choice; I think it’s foolish. I think you need to stick with good science and peer-reviewed studies. You know people say “It’s in the mainstream media, in Time and Newsweek…” I say “I wasn’t talking about Time and Newsweek.” “They just publish this stuff to sell more magazines,” they say. I say “I didn’t tell you to go to Time and Newsweek, or the LA Times or the New York Times.” I think that’s all pretty reputable stuff, because they have reputations to maintain. But I’m not saying go to them. I’m saying go to NASA. I’m saying go to NOAA. I’m saying go to Science magazine, to Nature magazine, where the top people in the field publish their findings in a peer-reviewed manner. Go there. And when you do that, whether by extreme good fortune, or however you choose to characterize that, it proves a lot of the points I’ve been making.

GO: Yep, it’s hard to argue with the peer-reviewed science. What about celebrity environmentalism over that same period — how has that changed?

EB: Thank God all of these people have been so outspoken, and gotten the word out there! Because I don’t think there’s time to go door-to-door to say “We have a problem.” You use the media, you use the microphone, the megaphone, the soap box, and you make sure you do it responsibly. You get your information from the best, most credible people — again, peer-reviewed studies, Nobel Prize-winning scientists, the best people — and if you do that, I think you’re going to be fine. Fortunately, it’s what people are doing!

GO: Do you have any thoughts about accusations of hypocrisy made against celebrities: “Oh, you fly in a private plane; you drive an SUV.”

EB: Yes, I think everybody needs to consume less and use less energy — Al Gore’s gotten a lot of criticism for that lately. I think it’s wonderful and commendable that he, as a former Vice President, with all that goes with that, with the security detail on site, that he’s mitigating all of that with carbon offsets. But, yeah, I think he should use less, too; I think I should less. You know, Sean Hannity was quite clear about his opinion about Al Gore, that he should use less energy, and I agree: Al and Tipper should use less, I should less, Sean Hannity should use less. I think it’s in our nation’s interest to lessen our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, to clean up our air, to put money in our pockets. That’s what’s not being talked about enough: the incredible savings that are available!

I’m going to look at my odometer right now as I talk. I’ve got 130,747 miles on this car. I’ve done lube and oil changes regularly. At 50,000 miles, I paid maybe $600 for regular maintenance. At 75,000, I paid maybe $800. That’s been it! People talk about, “Oh, it’s a hybrid; it’s going to cost more.” You get it back in gas savings. You get it back in service. And it’s not just a mileage game: what’s coming out of the tailpipe is so much cleaner! It’s good in so many different ways, and people are forgetting that.

GO: Oh, you’re absolutely right! We don’t talk about the cost savings enough, and that’s what’s going to get the larger mass of people to listen to what we’re saying.

EB: I think so.

GO: I’ll go ahead and get to my last question or two here. You mentioned carbon offsets when you were discussing Al Gore. On one epidsode of Living with Ed, when you and Rachelle were planning your trip to the Sundance Film Festival, you got on the computer and bought some TerraPass offsets. Rachelle’s initial response to this was “You’re only trying to alleviate you guilt.”

EB: Yes, that’s what she said. Let me speak to that: it’s true what people say. They tell me “You’re not doing anything to eliminate pollution at the tail pipe.” That’s true! That’s very real. But if you admit to that, you’ve also got to say that there’s a very real amount of green power that these companies buy, and that’s going on to the grid. That’s eliminating a very real amount of coal being burned. So, the emissions coming out of the tailpipe: those are real, and you can’t get away from that. But it’s also real at the power plant that is using that much less fuel to make power. Both are real — I won’t argue with you! But, eventually, when enough people start buying a TerraPass, they’re going to shut down power plants. There not just going to have them on a little less; there going to say “You know what: we don’t need that power plant in Indiana any more.”

GO: So, when you talking to someone about greening their life, how highly do you tell them to prioritize buying offsets?

EB: I think it should be on everyone’s top ten list. I really do. The number one best thing we can do is to drive less, whatever that means. It can mean, weather and business permitting, riding a bicycle. If you have it available in the city where you live, maybe it’s public transportation. If you’re fortunate enough to live, as I do, in a sustainable neighborhood, maybe it means walking a lot, which I do. All of these things are very postive: they’re good for the environment, they’re good for your health, they’re good for your pocketbook. So, I encourage people to pick the low-hanging fruit first: do what’s cheap and easy first, and then move up the ladder, and do the next thing, and then the next, and then the next. You don’t sprint up Mount Everest. You put one foot in front of the other, you get to base camp, you get acclimated, and then you go higher when you’re ready.

Well, it seems we're all getting a little media attention lately. I had my turn last week; this week, David gets to shine in an interview with Entrepreneur 27, a site devoted to promoting entrepreneurship in the tech sector and featuring young business leaders. We like to think our boss qualifies there (and I'm not just saying that because he's my boss…). Here's a sneak peak at the interview…

Where do you see Green Options a year from now?

We have many projects in the pipeline, most of which I can’t talk openly about yet, but suffice it to say that web 2.0 media is only a starting point for Green Options. There is so much information out there that is waiting to be formatted and marketed correctly in order to make it accessible to the rest of society. Hopefully, 2008 will see GO providing a wider variety of innovative tools to accomplish that goal. There are angles to take that can make a solid case for sustainable living to people of every persuasion and perspective (except maybe Dick Cheney), including those who feel belittled or condescended by preachy rhetoric. Those people need to be included in the process to create change on the scale necessary, and that starts with making information accessible to a wider range of audiences.

Check out the rest at Entrepreneur 27.

Andy Ruben is the Vice President for Corporate Strategy and Sustainability for Wal-Mart. Green Options’ Senior Editor Jeff McIntire-Strasburg spoke to Mr. Ruben on January 16, 2007 by phone. The company was preparing for the opening of its first High-Efficiency (HE. 1) store prototype in Kansas City, MO.

Green Options: The new high-efficiency store opens in on Friday. What can you tell me about the store, and how it’s different from those in McKinney, Texas and Aurora, Colorado?

Andy Ruben: Though we never set out with the goal to build experimental stores, the McKinney and Aurora locations gave us room to try a wide range of high-efficiency techniques. In Kansas City, the new HE. 1 store takes the successful elements from McKinney and Aurora stores, and rolls them into a working prototype.

GO: And how well will that work? In other words, what kinds of efficiency levels do you expect to attain?

AR: We expect the Kansas City store to be 20% higher in efficiency than our other prototypes being built today. It’s a step towards a larger goal of a prototype store that achieves 25-30%, which we expect to create by 2009. We’re going to achieve that by focusing on three major energy-consuming systems: refrigeration, heating and air conditioning, and lighting. Each of these represents roughly one-third of the total store efficiency goals. Additionally, we’re incorporating things like white roofs, daylight harvesting systems, light-emitting diode [LED] signage – all technologies that we’re currently putting into all of the new Wal-Marts, Sam’s Clubs and Neighborhood Markets.

We’re also taking advantage of technologies that allow us to harvest waste heat from one element of the store, and use it in another. For instance, the Kansas City store is at optimal efficiency during the winter because 100% of the heat generated by the refrigeration systems is reclaimed by a pump and boiler package that uses water to move heat into the store space. Additional waste heat will be used to heat water for public restrooms and kitchens.

GO: This all sounds a lot like William McDonough and Michael Braungart’s “cradle to cradle” concept.

AR: McDonough and Braungart’s ideas are our guiding principles in designing these systems. We’ve worked with McDonough, and continue to work with one of his “disciples.” We’re looking at everything from products to store design in terms of “cradle to cradle” thinking. It gives us a chance to look at the built world, and to figure out what we can do right now. That’s particularly exciting for me, because it gives me the opportunity to look at different parts of the business, and try to figure out how we can implement practices that align with these principles.

For instance, we built the first commercial building in the US that integrates a closed-loop CO2 system. One of our competitors came to take a look, and proceeded to build the second such building. We’re now in the process of building the third. I’m coming to realize that the indirect opportunities for change may outweigh the direct one.

GO: How is all of this working out with your suppliers? Wal-Mart’s known for keeping a pretty tight reign…

AR: Across the board, it’s working well. But let me address that perception first, because our relationship with our suppliers isn’t exactly like that. We’re a customer of our suppliers. We don’t get to go in and say “We’d like you to do X.” And that’s for the best: our suppliers know much more about their business then we do.

As far as our sustainability goals, we’re willing to let our suppliers grow into these roles. Sustainability is a personal journey in which people need to see themselves first. We’ll encourage our suppliers to look at transportation costs, packaging, and environmental savings. We’ll show them the positive wins we’ve created by addressing these issues. And then we hope that they’ll use their talent and expertise to innovate.

We can’t go in and dictate solutions, though. We expect our suppliers to work through their own sustainability journeys, and to create open-ended solutions that work for both companies.

It is working for them, though. Dana Undies, for instance, claims it has realized 50-70% energy savings by implementing practices that we’ve put into place.

GO: One solution that Wal-Mart is considering is solar power: news leaked out in December that the company had issued a request for proposals (RFP) on solar systems for some stores in five states. How does renewable energy in general figure into the company’s sustainability plans?

AR: Our long-term goal is to be powered 100% by renewable energy, and solar power is certainly part of that goal. We wanted to set such long-term goals to align the whole company around thinking big and new for all areas of the company. It’s certainly important to have near-term goals, also, and the RFP plays into that. I can’t really say much more, though, as that request is still very much in process.

GO: Where is the company in terms of the long-term goal?

AR: Currently, renewably-produced energy accounts for only a small percentage of the power we use. At this point, it doesn’t make sense to simply add more renewable power, and ask our customers to pay more for that added value. So, we’re focused on the long-term value of renewable energy. We believe that we’ll create more value if we work to change the way people think about these things.

The RFP is one way to do that. We believe that the competition it creates is a good thing, and that the overall market will benefit.

GO: Let’s move on to some of the criticism of Wal-Mart’s sustainability plans – it’s certainly out there! One of the major issues I hear is that you’re not really in this because of environmental concerns; rather, you see sustainability simply as a way to save money. How do you respond to that kind of criticism.

AR: That’s not where we focus. We understand where that criticism comes from, but we ask our critics not to focus on motivation, but on results. Measure us by our actions. We’ve set goals, and we know we can get a lot better. Setting those goals means people show up to work every day thinking “What can we do better?” We then focus on solutions: on organic cotton clothing, on bamboo, on Fair Trade coffee.

That doesn’t mean that we don’t hear the criticism. It can be helpful, and we learn from it. We can’t get enough feedback from our critics. At the same time, we know that some critics will never be satisfied with our efforts. Criticism comes in varying levels of intensity: we focus on feedback that helps us become a better company.

GO: One near-term goal the company announced was doubling its offerings of organic food? Where are you on that?

AR: Actually, I can’t verify that we said we’d double our offerings. What I can say is that we’re responding to customer demand. We view organics as a preference that allows customers to make better choices for themselves.

GO: How do you respond to criticism that Wal-Mart will end up “watering down” organics, or at least the meaning of the word?

AR: We understand the concern, and are taking a hard look at how things are produced… including where they come from.

I had the opportunity to take part in an event called the “Earth-to-Earth Summit,” which was run by [executive vice president of merchandising] Claire Watts. In this meeting, we brought together people that had never sat in the same room together: people who represented the life cycle of our food products along every step of the way. We get a lot of value out of sessions like that.

One of our biggest wins in this area involves tomatoes. There are a lot of local tomato growers who produce fruit that might look strange to many shoppers – it has a different shape, for instance. After meetings like the Earth-to-Earth summit, we started thinking about food miles, and the heavy footprint they create. We started to wonder why we don’t have greater options for buying produce, including the local option: buying from farmers that live and work near a particular store. So we’ve gone back aggressively to those local tomato growers, and started working with them to create a more marketable product.

There’s no downside to these kinds of developments: we get fresher produce, and local farmers and communities benefit economically.

We’ve also started thinking about alternative locations for growing products. Cilantro, for instance, has traditionally been grown on the West Coast, but the climate in Florida is ideal for it. We’ve worked with Florida farmers to start growing the crop, and now source all of the cilantro for our Eastern Seaboard stores from them. That allows for a significant reduction of food miles on that one product.

GO: It sounds like the company has adopted a “learning organization” approach?

AR: Exactly! We want to find out what lenses work for getting people to see things differently. That’s a learning process, and one that we’re engaged in.