Fetzer Vineyard installed a 40 kilowatt solar photovoltaic system on its administration building in Hopland, California, as part of its 20 year old commitment as “an environmentally and socially conscious grower, producer, and marketer of wines.�

The system of PV panels generates about 52 kilowatts of energy per year, 75% of the building’s electrical needs. Patrick Healy, Fetzer’s environmental manager, says that even with the state and federal incentives, PV is hard to justify, based strictly on its return on investment. “Even with the discounts, the systems aren’t competitive.�

So rather than depend on PV’s to supply needed electricity, Fetzer designed a low energy building from the ground up, to reduce demand. The administration building, with its rammed-earth construction, remains comfortable during the sweltering summer heat without air conditioning. In addition, Healy says that Fetzer operations produce no greenhouse gases because the company has purchased 100% renewable energy since 2000. “We support alternative energy. After commissioning an emission study, we switched to 3 Phases Energy.� Fetzer is the country’s sixth largest producer of premium wines, but the largest producer of certified organic grapes with 2,000 acres in Northern and Central California.

According to Healty, Fetzer established a five acre organic garden at its Hopland ranch in 1984. “Our original intention was to provide fresh fruits and vegetables at events for our distributors.� The experiment was so successful the company decided to convert all its vineyards to organics, beginning in 1989. Next Fetzer instituted a company-wide waste reduction effort. “We have reduced our waste stream by 94% since 1990, even though we’ve increased our volume of production,� says company spokesperson James Caudill.

In 1998, Fetzer worked with UC Davis Extension to create a natural filtration system—otherwise known as a pond. Water used in the wine production process drains into a pond on site. Reeds line its shore, sand and gravel cover the bottom, filtering out the impurities. The treated water is then used to nourish the vineyards and gardens at the Valley Oaks Ranch in Hopland. Fetzer is now taking its sustainable business practices to the 200 growers from whom it buys grapes.

The company sponsors courses on organic viticulture, supports research on organic methods, and has produced a handbook on Growing Organic Winegrapes, as part of its effort to move the industry “more quickly toward sustainable and organic farming practices.�

Corporate American knows something about the U.S. consumers that travel businesses would do well to recognize: Americans care about the environment and these environmental concerns affect their purchasing decisions.

Some businesses respond to consumer demand and tastes by instituting environmentally-friendly practices, but others choose to engage in misleading public relations campaigns, aka “greenwashing.” The term has made it into the popular lexicon and the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines the practice as, ““disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image.â€?

The Green Life has initiated a campaign to expose corporate greenwashing. In their annual report, “Don’t Be Fooled: America’s Ten Worst Greenwashers,” author Geoffrey Johnson argues that greenwashing “creates market distortions,” which hurt environmentally responsible businesses.

“Endowed with bigger marketing and public relations budgets, greenwashers shut the door on genuinely green business struggling to get a foothold in the marketplace. A few, notably organic food producers, have broken through, yet most, among them green-building contractors, renewable energy providers and organic apparel retailers, remain on the outside, obscured from potential customers.

Johnson also takes issue with voluntary corporate programs.

“it is apparent that self-regulation is no substitute for government mandates. Researchers studying voluntary environmental programs such as the chemical industry’s Responsible Care and the logging industry’s Sustainable Forestry Initiative have concluded that without concrete standards, independent oversight or the threat of enforcement, companies are not compelled to clean up their practices.

Green Life identifies greenwash as “an environmental problem, one that will persist, and likely worsen, until it no longer pays.” The report advises:

“. . . consumers can refuse to buy from companies that they discover are out to fool them – whether through in-depth research or merely by turning the page from the image ads to the news. The same goes for investors, who should understand that companies are not always as they appear on paper. And policy makers must weigh the results of voluntarism more heavily than they do the guarantees of companies to go green of their own accord.”

According to the report, the top ten greenwashers for 2005 are:

1. Ford Motor Company
2. BP
3. United States Forest Service
   
4. ChevronTexaco
5. General Motors
6. Nuclear Energy Institute
7. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
8. TruGreen ChemLawn
9. Xcel Energy
10. National Ski Areas Association

The author cites the National Ski Areas Association initiative “Sustainable Slopes” as a voluntary program that is “easily exploited by companies seeking public relations benefits without compliance costs.”

“Researchers compared the environmental performance of participating ski areas to that of non-participants and found that, on average, the former fared worse. . .The NSAA should make Sustainable Slopes meaningful by setting concrete standards; employing third-party monitoring; and sanctioning poor performers by putting them on probation or expelling them from the program altogether. The net results would be a stronger, more dependable Sustainable Slopes for the ski areas that remain, and a bolstered case for effective climate change regulations.”

The European Union has enacted a series of strict environmental laws that will affect every corporation that wants to do business in Europe. According to an article in the Grist Magazine, written by John Elkington and Mark Lee, the new E.U. environmental standards are changing the global marketplace:

“Two factors ensure that the new laws aren’t an issue only for E.U. companies. First, all those wanting to play supply and demand in the region must comply. Second, as California demonstrates in the U.S., there is a tendency for the highest standards prevailing in any key market to dictate the wider market’s evolution — as Europe goes, so might the world.”

While the new regulations aren’t popular with European companies, which are lobbying to weaken the rules, they are popular with citizens of the 25 countries that comprise the European Union. For this reason, U.S. travel destinations should take note.

A growing number of Europeans are traveling to Latin American, Africa, Australia, Southeast Asia for various forms of eco-adventures–biking, hiking, kayaking, rafting, scuba diving. And they’ve demonstated their preference for staying at environmentally-friendly establishments that support the local community.
California destinations, lodges and outfitters are missing an opportunity to market the state’s natural wonders to these travelers. To attract these adventurers, businesses need to “go green” by adopting sustainable business practices, such as:

• Serving locally grown, organic foods;
• Reducing their greenhouse gases and their environmental footprint by converting to solar power, using biodiesel and hybrid vehicles;
• Developing green buildings and landscaping with native plants;
• Reclaiming stormwater runoff and reducing water use; and
• Purchasing products and services from local businesses, and employing local people.

And California’s green travel businesses need to develop a marketing and promotion strategy.

The state legislature killed the governor’s “Million Solar Roofs” bill last fall, but the California Public Utility Commission will revive the initiative when it votes on January 12, 2006 to provide $3 billion in incentives to encourage the installation of solar technology over the next 11 years.

The goal of the California Solar Initiative is to increase the state’s total solar energy output from 101 megawatts now to 3,000 MW by 2017. See the attachment for a summary of the initiative.

As a first step, the commission voted on December 15, 2005, to provide $300 million for the CPUC’s Self-Generation Incentive Program in 2006. Even though the commission reduced the rebate level for photo voltaic systems from $3.50 to $2.80 per installed watt next year, the CPUC expects interest in the program to remain high.

The commission will take up the issue at its January 12 meeting, beginning at 10 a.m, at its San Francisco office, 505 Van Ness Avenue. The CPUC will take public comments on the initiative at the January meeting.