By Paul von Paumgartten, Director of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Johnson Controls

Google “carbon calculator” and you’ll get – ready for this? – 214,000 results. Follow one of those links, and you’re almost certain to find an interactive tool that works something like this: you’re asked a series of questions about how you use energy at work and home, given a score showing how you stack up against a national average, and then shown a list of things you can do to improve your score. 

For some people, this can be an interesting exercise. It may even encourage a few to turn down their thermostats or think about carpooling. But I can’t help but wonder if these seemingly simplistic calculators are really doing anything beyond that – like convincing large numbers of people to make the dramatic changes in their behavior that will be required to actually make a dent in how much energy we use and how much we’re harming the environment.

I kind of doubt it. Why? Because these calculators don’t address two very important factors that will convince me to make a dramatic change in my lifestyle: how much effort it’s going to take and how much impact it’s going to have. Being completely honest here, if I think something will require a lot of effort on my part, I need to know it will make a big difference before I’ll even consider it. And visa versa: even if it will have only a small impact, I’m much more likely to try it if I know I won’t have to break a sweat.

That’s why I’m excited about Greenprint – a new kind of carbon calculator (www.mygreenprint.org). Greenprint asks regular people like you and me how often we do things such as buy energy-efficient electronics, recycle everything we can or park in the shade so we don’t have to use our air conditioning as much – 30 different activities that influence how much energy we use at home, at work and in our vehicles. But Greenprint goes way beyond that.

Greenprint also asks us to rate how much effort we think these actions require and how much impact we think they have in protecting the environment. Then the interactive tool actually quantifies the impact of many of these actions. For example:

• Who knew that warming up soup in a pot that’s the same size as the burner on your stovetop can save 40% of the energy?
• Would you have guessed that drinking coffee out of a reusable mug instead of disposable cups eliminates nearly 23 pounds of waste every year?
  
• Do you know that turning off the water while you brush your teeth saves two gallons of water every minute?
• Or that unplugging (instead of merely turning off) just one TV in your home when you’re not watching it can eliminate 17 pounds of carbon dioxide every year?

Once you’re done, Greenprint does tabulate your score, but it also shows you specific actions you can take to improve your score – things that you’ve just indicated you’re not already doing, with special emphasis on the actions that you rated as not requiring much effort. In short, Greenprint shows you the easiest route to using less energy, reducing your impact on the environment and saving more money.

Johnson Controls teamed up with the Natural Resources Defense Council to create Greenprint, with high hopes that it will go beyond carbon calculators and help motivate more people to take the next steps on their paths to more sustainable living. Give it a spin and let us know what you think. Click here http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/publish/us/en/news.html to view a news release about Greenprint.

By Steve Thomas, Manager, Global Energy and Sustainability Communications, Johnson Controls

Everyone knows that journalists tend to be skeptical, especially about marketing claims from corporations. This year, though, the pessimism seemed to over-ride the skepticism at the annual gathering of the Society of Environmental Journalists (www.sej.org). There was a sense that environmental journalists take pride in some of the battles won, but feel that the environmental movement may be losing the war — even after all these years of awareness and concern. And we are losing both in spite of and because of all the Green Products being offered across America.

The setting in Western Virginia, with visits to the mountaintop mining coal fields of West Virginia, may have set the tone for pessimism. Seeing hundreds of acres of former mountains, valleys and streams turned to flat, grey pits full of mining equipment might appeal to some. But not to environmental journalists. The fact that the environment has taken a back seat in the presidential campaign did not help. 

Add the accelerating impacts of global warming and the predictions that we are at the beginning of the end for hundreds if not thousands of species through extinction because of loss of habitat and rising temperatures — and it is hard not to be pessimistic.

And then there’s the Greenwashing. As hybrid SUVs and carbon-neutral air travel flood the marketplace, it’s not clear to anyone that we are getting enough environmental good from all the "greenness" that we are buying.  One session I attended on this topic was moderated by Beth Daley from The Boston Globe.  All the panelists at this session seemed to agree that the current American way of life is inherently in conflict with our goals to save the planet. There was some difference of opinion about whether any green claims by marketers can be trusted.

Scot Case, Vice President of Terra Choice Environmental Marketing, defended the idea of "green marketing" but agreed that there is a "Green Overload" at the moment, making it very difficult for most consumers to differentiate between the "good guys" and the "bad guys." He is most concerned about the corporations that are inventing their own "Green Marks" and "Green Labels," which he called "fake" environmental logos. He suggested that www.ecolabels.org is a good place to check out the various green claims and green labels.

Brian Czech, President of the Center for the Advancement of a Steady State Economy, claimed that our way of life is like "Shoveling Coal for a Runaway Train," which is also the name of a book that he wrote on the topic. "The greenest approach is to consume less of everything," he said. 

Most journalists in the room seemed familiar with a web site at www.myfootprint.org, which is run by an organization called "Redefining Progress." The site allows you to calculate how many "earths" would be needed to allow everyone on this planet to enjoy the same lifestyle that you currently enjoy. The smallest number of earths I heard referenced was two, with most people coming in at three or four — or more. According to James Barrett, the Executive Director of Redefining Progress, if you consider the needs of the current global population on an average basis, we already need 1-1/2 earths to maintain everyone’s current lifestyles.  

So the world’s environmental account is overdrawn. Just like the world’s financial account.  

I guess it’s not hard to see why environmental journalists are pessimistic. We need efficiency now. It’s never been more important.