As many of you know, Green Options is not my first foray into the world of green blogging: I started sustainablog in 2003, and have written for Treehugger for about 14 months. Since Green Options launched, I've had to curtail my blogging a bit — I cut back on my Treehugger schedule, and put sustainable on hiatus at the end of May.

Things change, though, and during a recent discussion with TH founder Graham Hill about the direction and success of Green Options, we decided that it was a good time for me to "call it a day" as a TH contributor. I've got nothing but respect and admiration for the folks at Treehugger, and thoroughly enjoyed my time writing for them. But, it is time to move on… I've got plenty to handle here!

At the same time, a blogger blogs… and I'm definitely a blogger at heart. So, I've decided that the split from Treehugger means it's a good time to get sustainablog going again. I also looked at the calendar and realized that tomorrow, July 10th, is sustainablog's fourth anniversary. So, to celebrate that anniversary, I'm relaunching sustainablog. While I should probably wait until tomorrow, I'm just too excited… my baby comes out of hiatus tonight.

Please come by, say "Hi," and let me know what you think. I'll keep my writing at sustainablog largely separate from the work I do here — maybe an occasional cross post, but, otherwise, I won't be "GO's Senior Editor and Content Director" there. Rather, I'll go back to where I started: a passionate student of and advocate for sustainability in all of its myriad forms. I can't wait…

Rural Renaissance: Renewing the Quest for the Good Life: New Society Publishers, 2004Editor's note: Welcome to the Weekend Review, another addition to our weekend lineup. Each week, one of our writers will review a book, film, event, multimedia product, etc., that will relate to your quest to green the good life.

Ever dreamed about quitting the nine-to-five routine, getting out of the city or suburbs, and moving to a little farm in the country to raise organic vegetables and chickens? Of course you have: most of us trying to live more sustainable lives while maintaining an otherwise conventional existence likely share some version of that dream. John Ivanko and Lisa Kivirist's Rural Renaissance: Renewing the Quest for the Good Life gives a reader a first-hand account of their efforts to live that dream, and shares the knowledge and wisdom they've gained while building both a business and a family in central Wisconsin.

I expected a "how to" book when I first started reading. What I found, to my surprise and delight, was much more eclectic and fascinating. There's a wealth of practical information on renewable energy systems, strawbale building, food preservation and water conservation, but all of that is wrapped in the compelling story of how this couple transitioned from full-fledged yuppiehood to country living with a light footprint.

While not a traditional, straightforward narrative, all of the "how to" sections of the book connect with John and Lisa's personal journey and transformation. A reader will not only learn about different kinds of solar and wind power systems that can be integrated into a rural homestead (or other residences), but also how the couple went about choosing the equipment they now use, how they financed it, and even how new friends such as "Super" Bob, and Phil and Judy, played integral roles in helping these homesteading newbies make the right choices and install their systems. In the spirit of these helpful neighbors and friends, John and Lisa share ample lists of organizations, web sites and books that can help others wanting to build a more sustainable lifestyle. In many cases, there are personal connections here, too: the couple has worked with many of the non-profits and government agencies, met and spent time with authors, and used this information in their own effort.

The book's title might lead a reader to believe that Rural Renaissance concerns the "rebirth" of rural communities that have fallen into economic and cultural decline in recent decades. That's certainly a part of the book, but the renaissance described in its pages is much more varied, nuanced and complex. John and Lisa themselves are "reborn" as they transform the farm into Inn Serendipity, their home and "funky" bed and breakfast. They experience the birth of their child Liam, and the forging new friendships with rural neighbors from a variety of backgrounds. The share fellowship and community with other rural residents, b&b guests, and fellow devotees of "right livelihood." And they discover a way of life that's bursting with connection: to the land and environment, to the people around them, and to each other.

I got a chance to meet and chat with John and Lisa before we opened for business on the first day of the Chicago GreenFest. After reading their book, I hope our paths cross again. They're created a lifestyle that's both enviable and inspiring — I hope they'll continue to share their stories with those of us still dreaming…

For more information on John and Lisa's activities, visit the Rural Renaissance website.

Editor's note: Today we start our post swap with LighterFootstep.com, a new site we've really come to like. We're happy that editor Chris Baskind has agreed to this swap, as we believe that GO and Lighter Footstep have similar missions: making green living accessible to everyone. Today's post was originally published on Tuesday, April 24.

Judging from reports coming in today, this year's Earth Day celebrations were among the largest and most optimistic in recent memory. Largest — thanks to attention being focused on climate change by movies like An Inconvenient Truth; and most optimistic — thanks to you.

Things happen when people get together. That's nothing new, of course, but people are finally uniting behind the idea of sustainable change.

The job ahead

It won't be easy. It won't be fast. But even if you set aside the entire issue of climate change and its controversies, we face a century of growing populations, shifting food and water supplies, increasingly fragile oceans, and the certainty that the age of cheap, plentiful petroleum energy will soon be behind us.

These are global-sized challenges. I spent some time this weekend answering comments on Lighter Footstep and elsewhere about whether or not a single person can make any difference when you consider the scale of the problem.

Ever heard this?

"Changing your air conditioning filter?" wrote one commenter on a major social bookmarking site. "It's feel-good nonsense to suggest anything like that matters when you have China and India opening coal power plants faster than we can even clean ours up. It's stupid."

One one level, he's right. Pulling a bit more efficiency out of your home cooling system is a drop in the bucket when you think of big energy-wasters — such as lit, climate-controlled office parks which stand unused outside the work day. Open freezer cases at the grocery. Or all the unnecessary travel which happens in cities without adequate public transportation.

But he's also wrong — very wrong — on two important fronts.

First: Sustainability is personal. Resources are getting tight. Things are becoming more expensive. By identifying more sustainable ways of conducting your life and lowering your overall environmental footstep, you (or your business) reap immediate personal benefits. You don't have to wait for government or big industry. Start saving money, living healthier, and making better use of the things you already own by taking that first step toward Sustainability.

Second: Global change is generational change. Admittedly, there are some things that need to be done as quickly as possible to make sure the 21st Century is a landmark, rather than a headstone. But it took the Industrial Revolution and a couple centuries of abuse to get our soil, air, and water to their current state. Maybe it will take as long to put it back. It's also taken us decades to teach our children that thoughtless consumption is an acceptable way of life.

Small now, big later

So every time we purchase a CFL, cut our water use, and carry home our groceries in reusable bags, we're making an investment in the future. If we can pass these habits to our kids — and if they do the same — a single act of conservation in the present will be multiplied manyfold through the years. That's not just a low-flow showerhead you're installing: it's a warehouse full of earth-friendly technology that hasn't been invented yet.

That's what happens when people come together and commit to change. Even the small ones.

The Green Web is amazingly vibrant. New sites and blogs pop up every day. Lighter Footstep and Green Options have experienced what could only be described as explosive growth. Our readership expands from week to week.

This is all happening one person at a time — one idea at a time; one intention to make a positive change at a time.

And that's how we're going to make Earth Day happen every day.

—-

Chris Baskind writes about environmental issues. He's also the publisher of Lighter Footstep, a web-based magazine devoted to Sustainability and learning to live more lightly.

John Addison publishes the Clean Fleet Report (www.cleanfleetreport.com) and is the author of the 2008 book Save Gas, Save the Planet. Part One is available here.

Santa Monica goes beyond clean electricity to be a city that models clean transportation. Use of electric vehicles increases every year. The city has over 30 electric vehicles including battery-electric Toyota RAVs and light EV GEMs.

The city is now planning on two Phoenix sport utility trucks: one for the water department and one for the library. The Phoenix trucks have an impressive 130 mile range. Santa Monica will do a nightly trickle recharge at 220 volts, rather than use Phoenix’s fast recharge option.

Rick Sikes, Fleet Superintendent, showed me a wide range of clean vehicles. A total of 265 city vehicles run on natural gas, include heavy trucks and street sweepers. The city negotiated a favorable contract for CNG costing the equivalent of $2 per gallon. 21 city cars are hybrid.

Over 80% of the city’s 519 vehicles are either alternate fuel (alt-fuel) or electric. 100 of Santa Monica’s Big Bus fleet is liquid natural gas (LNG), which they state is 77% cleaner than diesel. LNG provides a 300 mile range. 88 buses run on B20 biodiesel. Only about 20 older buses run on standard diesel.

5 of the city’s fleet of Toyota Priuses were converted by Quantum to run on pure hydrogen. The city has a Proton electrolyzer that splits water (H2O) into hydrogen and oxygen. Because the city buys renewable energy for the electricity that runs the electrolyzer, resulting in the hydrogen Priuses producing no green house gases, on a “well to wheels” basis. Over the next few years the city fleet will get cleaner. Hydrogen can be mixed with CNG to make many of the existing vehicles run cleaner.

For jobs like parking enforcement and quick commutes inside the city, the zero-emission vehicles are perfect, as are the 70-mile range hydrogen Priuses.

Santa Monica commuters are encouraged to burn less oil than the national average. Only 69% drive solo vs. 76% as the national average. In Santa Monica, 19% carpool, 7% bus, 3% walk and 2% bike to work. The city is making progress. In 1993, the average vehicle ridership was only 1.1; by 2005, it had jumped to 1.4.

Rideshare programs are encouraged. Financial incentives work. The City of Santa Monica implements a mandatory “Parking Cash Out” Program, which is a State law requiring employers of fifty or more employees who lease their parking and subsidize any part of their employee parking to offer their employees the opportunity to give up their parking space and rideshare to work instead. In return for giving up their parking space, the employer pays the employee the cost of the parking space. The city provides this for its only employees, achieving an AVR of almost 1.8.

Santa Monica has the potential to be a model of clean transportation, energy efficiency and renewable energy for other cities around the world. Each year, Santa Monica shares its progress, demonstrates the latest vehicles, and showcases expert speakers. Include October 20 and 21, 2007, in your calendar for the Alt Car Expo.

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.

John Addison publishes the Clean Fleet Report (www.cleanfleetreport.com) and is the author of the 2008 book Save Gas, Save the Planet.

With panoramic views of the ocean, over 86,000 make Santa Monica their home. On the edge of Los Angeles, Santa Monica is a desirable place to work and live. Residents want to keep it that way and make the city a model of sustainable living.

Santa Monica plans to be the nation’s first “Net Zero” city. Through energy efficiency, solar and other renewable energy, the city envisions generating clean energy that matches its total energy consumption.

Santa Monica currently has over 60 buildings with solar power. Other residential and commercial buildings are in the process of installing solar roofing.

The Civic Center Parking Structure will have 250 kW of PV. Where the city government does not use solar power, the city has contracted with Electric America to supply the City with 100% renewable electricity. Electric America has the flexibility to use a mix of renewable sources including geothermal, wind, biomass power plants, and solar.

Solar Santa Monica launched a two year program on January 1, 2007. The voluntary program will start with 50 residential and commercial buildings. With the benefit of what is learned from these 50 projects, the program will be made available to all. The 50 buildings will include 30 to 35 residences, 5 to10 business and 5 municipal buildings.

Susan Munves estimated that over 20 years, $1.4 billion is the probable investment required to achieve being a “Net Zero” city. This is likely to be less than the current utility electric costs. The city will only invest a small part of that investment. The city’s primary role is facilitating and project management. Santa Monica’s 20 year plan would eliminate electricity produced by coal and natural gas power plants, and all the resulting greenhouse gas emissions.

Stuart Cooley, Energy Efficiency Engineer for the city, explained that a detailed GIS database was developed of all the roofs of the city. Aerial photography was used to identify over 100MW of available rooftops on the 17,500 roofs in the city. With future solar PV technology, the roofs could represent even more solar energy potential.

Solar Santa Monica makes it easy for citizens to participate. To prevent excess expensive solar power from being installed, the city offers energy audits and identifies solutions from efficient fluorescent lighting to energy saving appliances to cut usage. The city is prequalifing “preferred partners” to install efficiency upgrades. Prepackaged PV and solar thermal systems are offered to residents and include preferred pricing, streamlined purchasing, permitting, installation and financing.

For commercial properties, Solar Santa Monica will provide comprehensive energy assessments for both the property owners and the leasing businesses. Proposals will be delivered with energy bill analysis, system specifications and pay-back analysis. Tax advantages will be detailed. Preferred financing sources will be offered.

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.