One of my clients who recently bought in the City of Charlottesville sends this note –
We are officially a 1-car family now, I sold my car and bought a bike over the weekend. Look for me huffing and puffing up JPA Extended and Alderman Road.
That will help financially, plus I would rather burn fat (of which I have plenty) than gasoline. With a 1.5 mile commute I cannot say gas prices have been hurting me, but every bit helps. What’s more, it will be very satisfying not to pay the stupid city car tax and insurance too.
My unsolicited two cents: As a consumer, let me say that I don’t give a rip about the environment. However, I am cheap. All this green marketing is going right past me, unless they focus on cost savings. Show me how my new windows will pay for themselves in 8.5 months, and keep the feel-good environmentalism to yourself- the only green I care about is the stuff with portraits of dead presidents.
Bolding mine. He’s not alone.
In some instances, the LEDs might still win out. The New York Times cites, in a recent story, a company that spent $12,000 more than the $6,000 needed to light a buildin’s exterior with a mix of incandescent and fluorescent bulbs. The energy trade-off is quite dramatic, though, and the purchase pays off far faster than that trendy rooftop solar panel: the company saves $7,000 a year in energy costs, will earn back its investment in under two years, and won’t need to change a bulb for 20 years.
It is a simple theory: do all the little things we prattle on about, like improving your car’s fuel economy (save $884 per year); sealing the leaks in your home and save a little on energy ($129); turning back your thermostat ($85) and brownbaggging your lunch. ($1,560). Take that $3,758 and invest it. What have you got in 30 years? $ 678,146.
Suddenly the genre and going green looks very, very interesting.
Update 08/21/2008: Andy points out in the comments that one survey shows consumers are willing to spend more for green stuff.