The Policy Farm Team

Nicholas Santos
University of California, Davis

Growing up in California, I have been fortunate enough to see the many levels of prevailing environmentalism that the state has gone through in the last two decades. First, we were encouraged not to waste water because the state was in a drought. Next it was “don’t waste paper – recycle it or reuse it.” Then came the full blown recycling systems which did cans, plastic, and paper (but which are only now becoming full recycling systems). I still remember the song from the radio – “recycle, reduce, reuse – close the loop.” Next, we conserved our energy, not because of any sort of environmentalist ideals, but because of mismanagement of the state’s energy policy and the resulting years of energy crisis. This crisis led me to continuously annoy my family by regularly moving through the house turning off lights, though they often were not done with the room I had turned off a light in.

Now, the movement has shifted to a consumer-driven campaign for sustainability (the new buzzword). The buzz in the business community seems to be about how businesses can reduce their carbon footprint and appear to be more sustainable to their clients  in the hopes that a “green” image will pick up new a new niche of clientele. I know it works for me, and many businesses are smart enough to capitalize on this.

However, government is not as quick to respond. Our environmental law seems perpetually stuck in 1894. The major federal laws governing mining claims were passed in the 1870s, despite massive changes in how mining is done. California’s law still fails to recognize the significant connections between surface water and ground water with potentially disastrous results for the state’s agricultural economy. While there have been some bills aimed at reducing energy consumption, many of them have failed (except for a few wildly successful greenhouse gas bills here in CA (See AB32 and AB1493). Some comprehensive national efforts have been made, but with little success.

Most of these current efforts seem to be focused on efficiency or offsets (which are themselves somewhat dubious), and ignore the low-hanging fruit: using less energy. I work for a relatively small unit of the University of California (my position is not directly affiliated with any one school) that shares a building with four other units of the same department. Despite being a building full of environmental, conservation, and sustainability geeks, this building is woefully inefficient. Dozens of lights remain on 24 hours a day, regardless of usage. Machines remain in standby mode overnight. Air conditionin systems have often had tight schedules that cool at 74 degrees and heat at 72 degrees, contradicting the thermostat in the next room over. Despite availability, natural light is rarely used as a primary lighting source, with many people opting to keep blinds closed.

This inefficiency has led me to what I call my carbon-office sets. What I do (and encourage all of you to do in your respective offices) is turn off things that are likely to go unnoticed. My building has fewer than 10 males, but the bathroom light is on all day and night. So I turn it off. What I have discovered is that with the natural light in the room, most of the men don’t even bother turning it back on (until the next day when it is turned on after cleaning by the custodial staff). The copyroom is used only a few times per day (as is the lunchroom), but also has full-time lighting. So I turn off the lights. The switches are available for those who want to use them, and nobody seems to care. My coworkers’ monitors and speakers remain in standby, leaching that extra bit of energy away. So when they leave, I turn them off.

Each of these changes is small, but adds up significantly due to the amount of time that these lights and machines are off. Yet, the fact that these inefficiencies remain at all points to a need for more education campaigns of the type being put out by PG&E. Remind people of the cumulative effects and they will change their lifestyles. Right now, they simply don’t understand the impacts. Another important factor to consider is that many people who might pay attention to these lights at home will not pay attention at work. Maybe this difference is due to a feeling that the decisions have already been made at the office and that they should not intrude – or maybe it’s simply because it doesn’t cost them at work. Offices can address this by encouraging workers to pay attention to efficiency (and save the company money) and remind people that even if they don’t pay the monetary costs, they will pay the costs of their energy usage in time through carbon emissions.

So what does it actually mean to be a green business (or state agency)? Delivering a product that is harvested, produced, and delivered with sustainable practices is one thing, but if your business is inefficient in its office, then it is missing a huge portion of the equation.  So do your part as a buiness. Don’t just purchase offsets; do your office-sets as well.