A paler shade of green

If there was ever a question about our progress in "sustainability," an article in the NYT titled Urban Hotels - An Eco-Trend Moves Out of the Wilderness offers a cautionary answer as it reveals flimsy criteria for determining "how seriously a hotel is taking environmental issues:"

IS IT GREEN?

If you want to know how seriously a hotel is taking environmental issues, here are six questions to ask:

- Does it have any renewable energy sources, like small hydro, solar, wind or geothermal systems?

- Does it avoid using harsh chemicals, such as scented laundry supplies, carpet cleaners and air fresheners?

- Does it donate things to charities, like food scraps and old sheets and towels?

- Does it practice energy conservation: long-life light bulbs, good insulation, energy-efficient appliances?

- Does it support local causes and community conservation efforts?

- Does it try to educate its guests about being green, either on its Web site or through material provided in the room?

At least they didn't suggest that those questions get to whether the hotel is actually a "green" hotel, whatever that turns out to be but merely "how seriously" management takes the issue.

Three of those six questions don't at all get to whether an enterprise is environmentally sustainable. Supporting "local causes," and educating guests about environmental issues and donating to charity are all very good things. An enterprise which does so should be acknowledged and lauded. But they are not criteria for measuring the "greenness" of a hotel.

Two (energy conservation and avoiding harsh chemicals) could be done by (and it would be fine if they did) by even the largest hotels in Las Vegas so they offer a very low thereshold and ought not be even noted as particularly progressive. Energy conservation in a day of rising energy costs is just plain common-sense business.

Only the item on "renewable energy sources, like small hydro, solar, wind or geothermal systems" is germane and it's not clear to me that, say, putting a windmill on your roof — which wouldn't work an awful lot of places — actually has (when all factors of production are factored-in) a lower carbon footprint than buying electricity from a high-efficiency power plant run on natural gas. It may or it may not. I'd like to see the numbers.

I laud the intent of the effort to advantage the green in the marketplace, but I don't think these criteria cut it. Oh well, we are just starting to take "sustainability" seriously I am not sure that we have much of a handle what "environmentally sustainable" can realistically be. I guess I'd look to Japan to see what is possible.