Image: Intel Corporation
It is no longer enough to just conserve energy. More and more corporations, government agencies and entire cities are making large, long-term commitments to ensure that the power they do use comes from renewable sources. To recognize these trendsetters, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publishes a quarterly list of the top American users of green power: organizations that generate their own renewable energy, buy it from suppliers, or purchase offset credits to compensate for their traditional energy use. To put things in perspective, the average U.S. home consumes about 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity a year. That means number 25 on the list buys enough green energy to power more than 14,000 homes.
The most direct method to make energy consumption more sustainable is for a user to generate its own power by, for example, installing solar panels or by burning waste gas. A major do-it-yourself project, however, might not fall within the expertise of, say, a clothing retailer, so some entities hire outside operators to do it for them.
See what we're tweeting about
14 Comments
Add CommentRUBBISH! Offset credits should not count. Totally load of rubbish, you should be ashamed of yourselves for printing this article in a "Scientific" publication without pointing to quantitative evidence that the schemes these companies are following have any merit
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreenwashing twits
How exactly do offset credits work?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if any one added up all this green power and compare with all actual green power generated and delivered. Such as power credits from a "texas wind farm" that is not connected to the users grid. Do I sense an Eco-Con job?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs individuals model our errand delivering representatives, eco-con jobs boost melioristic moral overall.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDupont (#23) funded the <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition">Global Climate Commission</A> in order to siderail attempts on green energy. Biggest consumption of renewable energy doesn't mean it's green.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere was SMUD (Sacramento Municipal Utility District) or Oberlin College? Was there a "scientific" approach to this list?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am impressed that Whole Foods is on the list! See what produce you should buy organic on www.thebuzzonlife.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBwhahahaha. Really? Offset credits? Who's to say that they really do purchase the offset credits. Its like George Kastanza donating money to the Human Fund. Where is the scientific proof that these credits are paid for and being used? Who are the companies that provide them? What is their revenue? Are they public so we can actually see what they do. I cant believe this article got published.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Intel paragraph refers to "offset credits", but describes renewable energy credits (REC's). REC's are good, as provide revenue directly to RE projects. The author must be more clear in her presentation for us to understand what's going on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article would have been much more effective if they hadn't included companies purchasing carbon offsets with companies which are purchasing renewable energy. These are two very different commitments at the management level of the companies involved. Buying renewable energy based electricity is a pro-active choice, whereas buying carbon offsets is like an apology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe comments here are really spot on, and point to some serious flaws in the article and the analysis that led to it. In fact, Scientific American itself discussed how poor the system carbon offsets is: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-mechanism-of-hot-air What it comes down to is that carbon offsets do not clean up the domestic mess -- they simply transfer money to developing countries to (maybe) prevent future messes... and in doing so, create perverse incentives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article should have focused on Renewable Energy use and credits. The former measures real progress toward cleaning up the domestic problem and the creation of simple, direct incentives to develop more renewable energy projects. The latter measures sponsoring future efforts to avoid the domestic problem, which is far larger than any other country's. Renewable Energy use and RECs are hard, traceable data without the taint of bad accounting and perverse incentives.
Turning food into fuel isn't really green. Windmills and solar panels are green but expensive. Yellowstone National Park has 50% of the world's geothermal features. Why not change the law that makes the cleanest, cheapest and most abundant energy source in America off-limits for developement? America has another 20% (yes, 70% in all) of the world's geothermal features located outside Yellowstone. Most of thoughs are also protected from developement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was a bit surprised to hear about all the exciting innovations happening in Dallas. But - after learning about the Urban Re:Vision project (www.urbanrevision.com/dallas) I can see why Dallas made this list. I look forward to the day when Dallas and sustainability don't seem odd when juxtaposed... and it looks like Dallas is well on its way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrent times when we have used so much of non renewable source of energy....no we need to think of some another alternate for it.Its a very pleasing experience reading this post.It was really very good to know about the 25 Green Energy Leaders and the work done by them.Hope I get to know more about it in the near future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://www.sunrisesoftware.co.uk/main/about_us.php">service desk software</a>