Green Greed is Good

Today being Earth Day, I had the pleasure (and/or annoyance) of having pretty much every e-mail in my inbox reference Earth Day in the subject line. Most of them were boring and standard ("Happy Earth Day," "Earth Day Resolutions," "Call Your Senator/Representative This Earth Day," or "It's Earth Day: Give Us Money!"), but one of them really stood out, and it was from one of my favorite daily newsletter senders: Urban Dictionary. Their tagline: "Green Greed."

Urban Dictionary defines Green Greed as "companies and people who don't care about the environment at all, except when it will make them money."

So that got me thinking: is green greed really that big of a problem? Sure, I won't pretend I'm not irked to see GM hopping on the green bandwagon (and making crazy money on it) after they spent 20 years convincing people to buy giant, unnecessary gas guzzling SUV's and after literally killing the electric car. But that fact of the matter is that with the help of GM, people will have more access to green transportation over the next few years then they would have if GM hadn't gotten on the bandwagon. At the end of the day, that's all that really matters right?

As I've said before, I do enjoy some things that aren't good for the environment, and it seems to me that the best way to make sure those things get greener, and the best way to make sure those greener versions get into the hands of ordinary 'Mericans, is to applaud green greed. That doesn't mean we need to forgive GM their sins, that we shouldn't take them to task for the problems they still have, or even that we need to be their #1 cheerleader. But as far as I am concerned, why companies go green is not nearly as important as that they do go green.

You know what -- I think that is my Earth Day resolution. To paraphrase the immortal Gordon Gekko: green greed is good -- just don't forget who you're dealing with.

GM-Segway "PUMA" Hybrid - ROWR?

Wow, the blogosphere is really blowing up over this announcement. Apparently, GM and Segway are partnering to design a new "car" called the PUMA (Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility), a small, two wheeled vehicle designed to ease congestion and pollution problems in cities. So far, it seems to be getting mixed reviews.

According to GM, the PUMA runs on lithium ion batteries, can reach 35 miles per hour, and can travel up to 35 miles between charges. It also boasts some other sweet futuristic features, like the ability to know where other PUMA's are on the road, leaving the door open to the possibility of an eventual autopilot feature.

The attacks are coming from several places. Many people believe (I think correctly) that this is a PR stunt to clear GM of the stigma associated with the fact that it killed the electric car, and to boost its general standing as it attempts to restructure with help from the Obama Administration. I think these both go without saying, but it doesn't really bother me as long as we get a sweet, viable electric car out of it.

Others are miffed that a bicycle, a pair of shoes, public transportation or even a rickshaw are cheaper, more environmentally friendly alternatives. To these people I reply that comparing a bike or a pair of running shoes to the PUMA is comparing apples and oranges. We can't compare two products based on what they can do (get a person from place to place), but rather based on who will buy them (ie. potential market share).

I had an argument along these lines with a good friend back when the Segway first came out. To me, it seemed like the Segway was just the lazy person's bike (or worse, feet). Years before Wall-E, I was already envisioning a world full of fat lazy people who never had to walk anywhere.

The point my friend argued, which I now (mostly) agree with, is that the intended market share for the Segway was short distance commuters, ie. the people currently driving their cars short distances, not biking or walking them. The Segway was not meant to decrease market share for bikes or take over sidewalks -- it was intended to serve as a viable replacement for cars in urban areas. And it would have too, if not for the fact that (guess who!) the major car companies successfully lobbied to have Segways declared not street legal.

I see this new Segway/car the same way. The main difference is that this new version will now be labeled street legal because one of the Big Three has a vested interest in it. I have no intention of turning in my bike for one of these things, but I know a lot of short distance commuters who might be easily convinced to substitute it for their cars.

Although PUMA, guys -- really? I understand that you have a cool acronym there, but can't you at least come up with some sweet animal name that hasn't been used yet?

Ford Puma:Not so sweet.

Actual Puma:
Sweet.

Images provided by coltmaverick, exfordy and bslmmrs

How GM Destroyed the Electric Car - Video

We all know that the electric car (EV1) was created by GM and then discontinued a few years later. There has been much discussion as to why this is, and some "conspiracy theorists" think that GM orchestrated a malevolent ad campaign against their own car to make it look bad so people wouldn't buy it. I thought it would be a good idea to look into this a little further and see if we could tease out the truth. Here is a commercial GM made for the EV1 but which never aired:



Pretty good right? Here is the commercial GM actually aired:

Now, as someone in the advertising industry, I can break down for you in very technical ways which one of these is a good commercial and which one isn't. That being said, I don't think anyone reading this really needs my help there.

One looks futuristic and very similar to other car commercials we have seen. The other has dark music, lightning storms and living appliances scrambling around a creepy house.

One of these is hands down a better commercial then the other -- in fact -- the other is a downright bad commercial. Yet that is the one GM chose to run during the superbowl when those ads where costing literally millions of dollars for a thirty second spot. Conspiracy or stupidity? You be the judge.