Editor’s Note: This is part four of an exclusive sit down I had with Hideaki Watanabe, Nissan’s Division Manager of their Global Zero Emission Business Unit, at last week’s U.S. debut of the LEAF in Los Angeles. Part one is devoted to battery swapping, part two to battery leasing, and part three to the quietness and safety of EVs.

During the Frankfurt Motor Show in September, Renault invited Gas 2.0’s own UK-based Chris Milton to an exclusive event detailing the company’s electric car strategy. The event introduced some rather quirky (and quirkily named) electric cars, including the Twizy, the Kangoo, and the Zoe. These aren’t just concept cars, they are cars that Renault intends to build and sell—some by next year.

Based on those releases—and the fact that Nissan hasn’t invested anything in battery swapping while Renault has jumped in head first—it started to seem that the Renault-Nissan Alliance was taking two completely different paths on the road to EV world domination. On the one hand you have Nissan with the rather mainstream-looking LEAF and plans for a luxury Infiniti electric car. And on the other you have… the Twizy.

In my recent sit down with Hideaki Watanabe, Nissan’s Division Manager of their Global Zero Emission Business Unit, I asked him to explain why Nissan and Renault were apparently moving in opposite directions.

Read more of this story »

Editor’s Note: This is part three of an exclusive sit down I had with Hideaki Watanabe, Nissan’s Division Manager of their Global Zero Emission Business Unit, at last week’s U.S. debut of the LEAF in Los Angeles. Part one is devoted to battery swapping, part two to battery leasing, and part four to the different zero emissions directions of Renault and Nissan within their alliance.

Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn made it a point to highlight how quiet the upcoming Nissan LEAF electric car will be during an event in Los Angeles last week to mark the car’s U.S. debut. “LEAF has no engine, no tailpipe, no fuel tanks,” he remarked. “As a result LEAF has zero carbon emissions, zero particle [emissions] and zero noise. It’s quiet and clean.”

The gathering crowd of electric car makers has been drumming this “quiet mantra” since day one, and, indeed, it is certainly a great selling point. But recently the quietness of EVs has come under scrutiny as a potential safety hazard to the blind, the elderly, and children; if you can’t hear the car, it’s one less warning you have of an impending accident.

Read more of this story »

Editor’s Note: This is part two of an exclusive sit down I had with Hideaki Watanabe, Nissan’s Division Manager of their Global Zero Emission Business Unit, at last week’s U.S. debut of the LEAF in Los Angeles. Part one is devoted to battery swapping, part three to the quietness and safety of EVs, and part four to the different zero emissions directions of Renault and Nissan within their alliance.

As the Nissan LEAF nears its release to the consumer market, the topic of whether or not the battery will be leased or purchased with the car has come to the forefront. In many ways, Nissan has had an on-again, off-again relationship with the topic—leading to confusion among the media and potential customers about what, exactly, Nissan is planning.

In truth, Nissan hasn’t done the best job of presenting a clear picture of the topic. So I was surprised when, at last week’s U.S. LEAF unveiling, Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn made the most definitive statement I’d heard on the subject to date: “The battery will not be sold, it will be leased, and the lease will be calculated in such a way that for the average U.S. citizen—which today drives between twelve thousand and fifteen thousand miles per year—the cost of the lease of the battery plus the cost of electricity is lower than the cost of gasoline.”

As expected, many in the media latched on to this statement as the final say on whether or not the LEAF battery will be leased, but based on Nissan’s past experience with this topic, I had a hunch that wasn’t really the full story. So I asked Hideaki Watanabe, Nissan’s Division Manager of their Global Zero Emission Business Unit, to elaborate.

Read more of this story »

Even a year gone since the failure of Lehman, fundamental questions remain regarding the core underlying assumptions of our financial system.

Though currently derivatives trading and black boxes appear out of favour, what will replace them in terms of helpful and productive uses of capital still has yet to be determined. This question was what the Conference on Social Capital Market’s, or SoCap09 tried to give some structure to; while the trend towards sustainable investments and long-term ROI seems to have taken the place of actively managed funds seeking 20x returns.

Read more of this story »

Even a year gone since the failure of Lehman, fundamental questions remain regarding the core underlying assumptions of our financial system. Though currently derivatives trading and black boxes appear out of favour, what will replace them in terms of helpful and productive uses of capital still has yet to be determined. This question was what the Conference on Social Capital Market’s, or SoCap09 tried to give some structure to; while the trend towards sustainable investments and long-term ROI seems to have taken the place of actively managed funds seeking 20x returns.

Read more of this story »

Even a year gone since the failure of Lehman, fundamental questions remain regarding the core underlying assumptions of our financial system. Though currently derivatives trading and black boxes appear out of favour, what will replace them in terms of helpful and productive uses of capital still has yet to be determined. This question was what the Conference on Social Capital Market’s, or SoCap09 tried to give some structure to; while the trend towards sustainable investments and long-term ROI seems to have taken the place of actively managed funds seeking 20x returns.

So what does this world presently look like? For one, It is not as easy to quantify as the Deloitte’s of the world would want it to be. In fact, Christopher Park from the company referred to standard accounting metrics as “a warm blanket” when compared with the confused and nascent metrics which provide assessment in this space.  Secondly, these markets are not as tested as traditional investment options. The oldest of these players, Calvert Foundation has only been around for ten years in it’s current form. The new-kid-on-the-block-phenomenon is both Social Capital’s largest asset, since apparently Wall Street pre-2008 logic wasn’t exactly perfect, as well as being it’s biggest challenge. Though the perception of Social Capital investments as a novelty, coupled with a palpable unfamiliarity with the valuations make this space seem unlikely to attract traditional capital, maybe ‘Social Investing’ is just a new word for a very old idea.

From the start of capitalism there have been players whose goals were multiple. From the massive endowments of the Rockerfellers and Carnegies to the educational scholarships committed by what today are called ‘high net-worth individuals.’ These acts of philanthropy were the yin to the yang of free-market capitalism. The question now is whether metrics and forcastable, and market-rate ROI can be properly delivered by such investments. Fittingly, Rockerfeller Foundation and Deliotte among others are behind the current push to bring the metrics of high finance down into the social sphere. One such project, called IRIS for ‘Impact Reporting and Investing Standard’s’ goal is to set agreeable metrics so comparing between these investments will be simpler. These metrics will require reporting of data such as: job’s created, revenue, etc., and are the underlying piece to developing the GIIRS, or ‘Global Impact Investing Rating System’, which will be similar to rating agencies in other asset classes. These new elements will undoubtedly smooth the road between capital and investments, if only just through the process itself introducing these actors to one another. There will have to be strong deliberative processes since the space constitutes of everyone from hedge funds to single social entrepreneurs.

While metrics and ratings are one solution to the problem of moving capital into the social sphere, other problems remain. One refrain at the conference was that investors feel comfortable either maximizing their investment returns or giving away money to charity. Oddly enough investors who were asked to invest in these blended value products had so much difficulty bridging these two worlds that they often wanted to  offer the money as a charitable donation. Though there are some reasons for making donations above proper investments due to tax laws, by-in-large this kind of response is nonsensical. Social funds not only infuse money towards inherently sustainable models, which need seed or growth funds, but they can often provide returns on the investments which in some cases exceed market-rate.

To combat this cultural wall, members of the Social Capitorati made the case that in order to attract capital, would-be ambassadors must use only the language of traditional finance. Jed Emerson of Uruhu Capital, who has espoused such social investments for many years discussed how at his fund he only speaks in phrases like ‘risk management’ and ‘qualitative assessment’ which, while they might seem euphemistic, could succeed in bringing down the barriers present for capital infusion into the space.

What is unclear still is how these investments will fit into the traditional investment paradigm-if they eventually are seen as being reasonable options for investors. One way to frame this comes from Skoll Foundation’s Dan Chrisafulli, who said that small and medium enterprises are “durable assets which are very good as part of a blended portfolio.” This seems to be the view of many with regard to the micro-finance space already. What was said as a goal for the sector at the conference is an eventual infusion of between 5 and 15 percent of total assets under management. My question is, what are the distinct borders of the space? As companies large and small begin to analyze more of their unintended consequences, and non-profits find that relying on grants limits their growth possibilities, aren’t we all moving closer to the middle by default?

Lastly, more capital will not mean that social entrepreneurs will have any less challenges- quite the contrary. Just as venture capital creates a few winners (in the neighborhood of ten percent of funded companies really find those 20x returns which fuel the industry), so too will social ventures find challenges along the road to high impact. Juggling multiple goals makes reaching each one infinitely more complex, and without the simplicity of singular attention on profits, running either a business or social enterprises now will  be a much more multifaceted endeavor. This hearkens true for the supply-side of capital as well. While old investments really could boil down to ROI over the short-term, liabilities are everywhere for companies making an impact ( which is inherently larger at scale). The days of only focusing on the bottom line are done. The flip side is that we are no longer living in a bifurcated world where money and meaning are painted as mutually exclusive. While definitions of value will have to become hammered out through intense deliberative processes, only two eventualities could possibly exist: either irreconcilable challenges will emerge, or reasonable fusions are going to be found.

One thing is sure, when the convener of the conference Kevin Jones called Social Markets “the intersection of money and meaning” a year ago at the first SoCap conference, a nebulous middle-path emerged which could-with enough work-make the science of economics just a little less dismal.

Image courtesy Flikr user Sociate via creative commons licensing.

The article skips many of the basic things that many people considering solar are already well aware of, such as that a solar PV system needs to be installed on a south or southwest facing (for installations in the northern hemisphere); those are covered in his preceeding article. Both articles provide good information, and are highly recommended reading, especially if you are seriously considering buying a solar PV system.

However, the most intriguing item to me in the article was the line "You can buy a solar system for no money down." For many homeowners with concerns about the costs and cash flow, PV panels are seen as a pricey addition that they just can’t afford to pay for right now. But that’s not necessarily the case. As Karney explains,

"You can buy a solar system with no money down. If your credit is sound, you can take out a home improvement loan for the entire cost of the system. If your monthly electricity bill is more than $150, the amount you spend paying back the loan plus your small residual electric bill will be less than you’re paying now for electricity. In other words, your PV system will put money in your pocket every month from the first day you install it. Once the loan is paid off in 15 years or so, the amount of positive cash flow will jump dramatically."

One very important caveat to this, however, is that this is from an article written for San Francisco Bay area residents, where a competitive market for solar power systems and high electricity costs combine to make this scenario more likely. It may not necessarily apply to everyone’s situation, but it useful to consider nonetheless. My own electric bill is not nearly this high, so this doesn’t apply to my situation. But there are many people who live in higher rate regions and who use more electricity for whom this approach makes good sense.

Additionally, he offers the reminder to add your PV system to your homeowner’s insurance after it is installed. And, the question of solar PV systems taking more energy to manufacture than they can produce during their lifetime is also addressed:

Some solar system critics have said that the energy produced by solar panels is less than the energy it takes to make them, and this is simply false. The energy required to manufacture your solar panels and inverter and transport them to your home is equal to about 1 to 3 years worth of the energy produced by the PV system.

The article also offers some of the same advice that we have recommended many times before, but it still bears repeating: "Before you buy a solar PV system, do what you can to reduce your consumption of electricity. Conservation is cheap compared to solar panels. Search the web for "conserving electricity", read the suggestions, and implement as many as you can." Reducing the amount of electricity that you regularly use is both the most cost effective form of conservation as well as the greenest step you can take. Keeping the coal unburned is the best way to help green the planet.

Along with Karney’s two articles, I also recommend the recent article Shane Jordan had here on Green Options about "How to Get Your Home Ready for Renewable Energy" that has a number of good suggestions about getting your home ready to install solar power.

Article: "10 MORE Things to Know Before Buying a Solar Electric System"

When was the last time we saw so many major companies make a mad dash to become more "eco-friendly"? From oil companies to banks, "green" is becoming pretty hot these days. And it's not just another "consumer trend" either…the financial sector is paying close attention too. "Going Green" is not just about changing your lightbulbs anymore; it's something that has managed to trickle over to the financial market, attracting major investment dollars as well some of the world's most sophisticated investors.

It seems that energy saving alternatives for just about everything are springing up these days. There's always a more 'eco-friendly' version of this, an organic version of that, for nearly every consumer product known to man. So, what about investing? Is there a way to make your investment dollars….greener?

There are plenty of ways for the average investor to start greening their nest-egg now, in a rather more profitable & secure way you might think.

So, where to start? Depending on your investment objectives, you'll probably want to have a little chat with your financial advisor first. If you don't have one already, and investment bankers creep you out, you can find someone that suits your style at SocialFunds.com.

Green Banking

When it comes to choosing the right bank, there are tons of options. All of them are scrambling to offset their emissions and throwing money at climate change, so which are bluffing? Which ones have a widest range of investment tools and financial products? If you're looking for an eco-friendly 'one stop shop' (banking, advising, investing, etc.) you might want to look into the following:

• HSBC - Committed $90 billion to environmental initiatives. HSBC will also help you green your accounts, go paperless for everything, give discounts on eco-friendly products. Bonus: If you pay 3 bills online, they'll even give you a free "Green Kit"!
• Citibank - Just committed $50 billion to fight climate change; $30 billion of that is specifically for financing investments in geothermal, solar, wind and other renewable energy projects and technologies (guess they had to try and top Bank of America)
• Bank of America - Committed $20 Billion to make green loans to "eco-preneurs" with environmentally friendly/sustainable businesses and finance environmental projects around the world. They also recently unveiled plans for a new online carbon trading program. Bonus: Employees get a $3,000 incentive towards the purchase of a new hybrid

I'll give Wells Fargo an honorable mention. This bank has topped it's fair share of 'Eco-Friendly Lists' lately, seeing as 40% of the company runs on renewable energy. As far as services & products for consumers, there is no doubt that Wells Fargo is competitive, however, they like to play hard-ball with fees.

Need Solar Financing?

Besides Bank of America and Citibank briefly touching on this topic, here a few other smaller green lenders that will help you go solar:

• Wainwright Bank -Some green banks will give you loans to slap solar panels on your house at low rates (which helps you save some green for the future)

• New Resource Bank - Get solar just by paying your monthly utility bill

Greener Returns

If you're not skilled trader, odds are you're probably leaning towards a broader, more diversified group of investments. For many American's, this means stocks. Yet again, prepare to be overwhelmed with choices. The most typical, and easiest way to get started, are usually index funds, mutual funds, and exchange traded funds (EFTs). Before you dive in head first and throw money into an investment vehicle, make sure you have a nice, long chat with your financial advisor first. If you don't already have one, you can find one at SocialFunds.com

Just how profitable is this new wave of socially conscious investing? Well, according to an article found in Newsweek, the returns have proved to be rather hefty:

"Wall Street's own change in climate is nothing less than astonishing. "Save-the-planet" investing has suddenly, well, heated up. Four major investment banks - Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and UBS - have recently issued fat global-warming reports looking at stocks and industries likely to gain or lose. Investments in clean energy have more than doubled, to $70.9 billion worldwide, in just three years. In just six years, assets in U.S. "green" mutual funds have soared by 695 percent."
Read more: Newsweek

Determining Investment Objectives

Are you looking for something high growth? Or do you prefer security & risk management with a smaller, more conservative return? Small-cap or large-cap? Do you want fund that is entirely "green" or one that just focuses on alternative energy? Do you just want to avoid investing in cigarettes and alcohol, or do you want stocks that are environmentally sustainable and produce 'fair trade' products? The list of criteria you can apply are endless…Need something to narrow your search? Try the Social Investment Forum.

There's a great research firm called Innovest Strategic Value Advisors. They're an independent third party that just objectively analyzes and ranks companies according to various eco-friendly, social criteria. They've even made a list of the top 100 Most Sustainable Companies in the World.

Environmentally Sustainable Indexes:

• Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes - Includes 300-400 companies said to represent the top 10% of leading companies committed to sustainable practices worldwide.
• ABN AMRO Climate & Environment Total Return Index
• Claymore/LGA Green (GRN) - Claymore tracks an index of 225 large stocks in all the major industries…yes, even mining and oil, but they choose only the "greenest" companies.
• KLD Indexes - Constructs indexes for investors who integrate environmental, social and governance factors into their investment decisions. KLD's indexes are designed to be transparent, representative and investable
• Next-Generation Energy (NGE) Index - Fuel cells, solar power, alternative fuels, energy storage and other supporting technologies

Social Investment Funds

• Winslow Green Investment Funds - Out-performed the S&P 500 and the Russell 2000 for 5 years in a row
• Calvert Social Investment Equity - has outperformed both the typical large-cap blend and the S&P 500)
• Vanguard Calvert Social Index - growth-orientated fund
• TIAA-CREF's Social Choice Equity - mid to large cap fund
• Domini Social Index Portfolio - oldest and largest
• Green Century Funds
• The Spectra Green Fund

However, other stories are more complex. Take, for example, the case of Dupont (NYSE:DD). After decades of resisting pressure about their ozone-depleting CFC's, the company learned that CFC-substitutes not only soothed environmentalists, but also increased profits. This caused the CEO to direct his team to find similar innovations. The result is a reduction in greenhouse gases on the order of 76 percent. Of course, as with many of the most astounding cases of reduction, it logically follows that they were heavy polluters to begin with. Other features in the article include Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) and their project financing innovations, Swiss Re (OTC:SWCEY) and its weather-derivative innovations, and Hewlett Packard (NYSE:HPQ) and its industry-leading e-waste initiatives.

Socially Responsible Investors often fall into three categories. Some object to owning companies involved in dirty businesses. For these, Dupont will never be acceptable. They do, after all, still make Teflon which has been shown to have ill health effects. Another category accept that, as long as the company leads its field, and makes genuine efforts (without greenwashing), it is worth owning. Waste Management (NYSE: WMI), for example, is clearly in a dirty business, but among waste companies, it has a pretty respectable agenda for accomplishing its economic reason for being without trashing the planet. The third category, and the one I find most exciting, is the customer who recognizes that there is money to be made in being more efficient.

Which one are you?

Mark Brandon is the owner of First Sustainable, a Registered Investment Advisory, catering to socially responsible investors. His column appears in Green Options on Mondays.

Image source: CNNMoney.com