The following editorial reflects the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of Progressive Engineer.
We look forward to your comments on our Message Board, which may be accessed at the bottom of the editorial.

Green Technology: Froth or Foundation?

By Jim Lorick

Much ink has been devoted to celebrating the promise of "green technology" as an environmentally responsible and fiscally sound alternative to older "dirty" technology. But do these technologies, at their current price points, actually make economic sense for business and industry? The answer is a definite yes if you are in the business of selling technology you can brand as "green", but a cautious maybe if you’re looking for "green" to meet the bottom-line needs of your business.

The issue of what makes a technology green is still very much up for debate. Even if we define green technology in simple terms as a technology that offers a more environmentally friendly solution compared to an existing technology, we’re still left with the problem of assessing the real environmental costs of the two competing technologies. The move to fossil fuels was clearly a major factor in stopping the deforestation of Europe and North America. Does that make coal a green fuel? Are electric vehicles green because they don’t generate any air pollution where they operate? Or are they dirty because the fuel that must be burned to create the electricity to run one for a year (using current technology) creates more pollution than a modern internal combustion car engine does in that same year?

While scientists, philosophers, and ethicists work on the puzzle of the real costs of going green, the appeal of the green promise has intrigued national and regional governments around the globe. First-world countries have made long-term investment commitments to create economic opportunities by directly funding the research and development of green technologies and by providing tax breaks to make the application of current green technologies financially palatable. Investments in green energy technology have also received a boost from the current instability in the world political climate. Even the unabashedly petroleum-friendly Bush Administration is paying lip service to green technology, such as hydrogen fuel cells, as part of a long-term solution to the problem of dependence on "foreign" oil.

For business, as well as governments, green technology must be viewed as a long-term commitment to be economically viable. The 1980s saw a boom in the development of alternative energy projects in California. These projects were fueled by tax preferences and high conventional energy costs. The revocation of the tax preferences, the availability of comparatively cheap energy, and the regional economic bust of the 1990s led to the near collapse of the alternative energy business. In 2004, solar is hot once again, as appealing tax incentives, high energy prices, and new technology drive a boom in solar products. But even under these favorable conditions, solar only makes sense if a business can afford to make the initial investment and wait the typical three to six years for the payback.

Companies and institutions with vision, a socially conscious operating philosophy, and substantial resources are making investments for the long haul in the form of entirely green buildings or campuses. While choosing to build green may drive up initial construction costs by as much as an additional $50 per square foot, these companies and institutions have faith that paying the hefty green premium in the short term will provide immediate benefits as well as long-term savings.

For the Chicago Center for Green Technology, developed by the Department of the Environment of the City of Chicago, a state-of-the-art green building was developed on a city-owned environmentally degraded site. The Chicago Center project provided the Department of the Environment with an opportunity to support and showcase a green approach to restoring the site and to refurbish an existing building. In addition to serving as a promotional and educational tool for the department, the campus provides a home for public and private entities committed to environmentally friendly technology.

The center uses solar energy in several ways. Approximately 20 percent of its electrical power is generated by three photovoltaic arrays. Window and skylight placement maximize passive solar for lighting and heating. While the greenhouse on the campus uses traditional passive solar heat (as do all greenhouses), the building is designed with a three-foot-thick filled rear wall that acts as a heat sink to radiate heat back into the greenhouse at night. The center also uses a smart lighting system that saves energy by monitoring the natural light and adjusting the level of artificial light accordingly.

The design for the Chicago Center also addresses concerns about issues of urban runoff and responsible water use. The design includes a green roof of water-absorbing plants, with downspouts disconnected from the municipal sewer system and water directed into cisterns to supply landscaping water in dry months. Winter overflow feeds into bioswales, ditches with plants that allow water to percolate back into the ground.

For the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, institutional credibility required that they tread lightly on the land as they designed and constructed a new headquarters building. The challenge was met by the Philip Merrill Environmental Center, arguably the greenest building of its size in North America. In addition to energy-efficient lighting, heating, and passive solar capture, the location of the center allowed for the inclusion of a wetlands that acts as a biofilter for the building's wastewater. The building’s designers also placed importance on using recycled materials and those with long useful life to avoid the environmental damage inherent in the cycle of disposal and replacement. The environmental concern is even evident in the choice of cork as the flooring material, since cork bark is harvested without killing the cork oak.

Because environmentalism has become a firmly entrenched value for most citizens of the first world, corporations and industries that have been associated with dirty technology have put a green face on their operations to silence critics and please shareholders. For some, the green awakening comes with an understanding that it is more cost-effective to avoid polluting than to be held accountable for toxic waste cleanup. Sometimes through a commitment to real change, and sometimes through a commitment to public relations, pesticide manufacturers, mining concerns, and oil companies are all eager to be seen as part of the latest green revolution.

Beyond the green PR spin from old fashioned mega-polluters, the fact that green is once again in fashion presents real opportunities for companies that can position their consumer goods and services as green. Many people are looking for ways in which they can go green at home. These committed green consumers have significant amounts of disposable income and are willing to pay hefty premiums for products they believe will protect the health of their family and the planet. Like the cash-flush socially conscious businesses for whom many in this class work, the wealthiest of green families are willing to pay a premium to incorporate green energy technology in their homes and to build dwellings with newly-developed green materials, such as the light concrete called Syndecrete, that have a high percentage of recycled content.

While the present state of technology requires governmental subsidies to support moving to a greener economy, the green technology movement continues as a fertile area of business growth and opportunity. As the technology continues to mature, it appears as if the latest incarnation of the green revolution will gain sufficient momentum to ensure its own sustainable growth.

Jim Lorick is a corporate communications consultant in California. He wrote this article for Larta (www.larta.org), a think tank for technology businesses, and this was reprinted with permission from Larta.