Inconvenient questions?

Kermit the Frog lamented that “it’s not easy being green.” But government agencies and departments across the nation are demonstrating that being “green” (doing the right thing for the environment) and doing the right thing for their constituents is not all that complicated.

In my home state of Ohio, the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) recently instructed state fleet managers to purchase the compact Ford Focus—in lieu of the midsize Chevrolet Impala—for state employees who normally drive alone or with one other passenger. The directive could affect approximately 2,700 take-home and motor-pool vehicles used by state employees.

A DAS spokesman told me that the switch to the Ford Focus should have an immediate fiscal impact. The state of Ohio expects to purchase between 150 and 200 Focuses this year to replace state employees’ midsize cars that have reached the end of their service life. Factoring in the improvement in gas mileage, the price of the vehicle and the projected costs of ownership, the DAS estimates that the purchase of those 150 to 200 Focuses will save the state $242,000.

The switch from midsize cars to the miserly Focus certainly makes a lot of economic sense in Ohio, where Gov. Ted Strickland recently projected a $1.9 billion budget shortfall. In relatively high-profile fashion, the directive fulfills the state’s fiduciary obligation to do right by the taxpayers.

The directive also coincides with the state’s efforts to do right by the environment. Here in Ohio—as is the case in many states—the governor’s office is pushing the state government to reduce its energy consumption and minimize its “carbon footprint.” When announcing the directive to purchase Ford Focuses, the state emphasized that most other vehicle purchases—the state’s overall fleet is comprised of roughly 11,000 vehicles—are and will continue to be flex-fuel cars and trucks. In Ohio, any state vehicles capable of using flex fuels are required to use them.

When I hear this kind of news, my first reaction is to feel warm and fuzzy. But eventually my cynical side taps me on the shoulder with some inconvenient questions:

• Assuming that scientists are right about the imminent threat of global warming, can government agencies really make a significant impact by purchasing environmentally friendly products and services?
  
• Was Kermit right when he declared that it’s not easy being green? In other words, can we really minimize, or even reverse, the effects of global warming simply by purchasing fuel-efficient and/or alternatively fueled cars and energy-efficient light bulbs and appliances? There’s a maxim that declares “no pain, no gain.” When it comes to rebuilding our environment, can we get the “gain” without the “pain,” or is it going to take a far more concerted, comprehensive and exhaustive effort than simply changing our buying habits?
  
• In our fickle society of instant gratification (remember dial-up Internet?) and short attention spans, how long can we sustain our interest in and focus on being green? Will global warming/environmental activism continue to be an issue that attracts mainstream attention, or is it simply the flavor of the month (like Amy Winehouse)? At what point does the general public start to perceive the global warming drumbeat as white noise (like reality TV)?
  

If you’ve visited our Web site lately, you might have noticed that we recently asked you to weigh in on a question along similar lines. A recent Quick Poll question asked: “Can government agencies really make an impact by purchasing green products?”

The possible responses were: “definitely”; “maybe”; “not at all”; “I don’t believe in global warming”; and “we’re all doomed.”

The responses to the poll did wonders to squelch my skepticism. The majority of poll respondents—55 percent—indicated that they believe that government agencies definitely can make a difference by purchasing green products. Another 15 percent of respondents said that they’re on the fence about whether green purchasing can make an impact, and 21 percent indicated that they don’t believe in global warming at all.

Obviously, our Quick Poll is about as unscientific and unofficial a means of gauging the pulse of the government buying community as you can find. Still, the results are encouraging.

It might be years before we know the answers to my questions. Until then, I can tell you this: I believe that global warming is a legitimate phenomenon and, consequently, a legitimate threat to our survival. And you and I are well-aware that the U.S. government (at the local, state and federal levels) is the world’s largest consumer. So for now, until we know more about the magnitude of the problem, I think it makes a lot of sense for public entities to be green, just like Kermit.

I’d love to know what you think.