fall 1999 mountain institute · power plant into light from a standard bulb is only three percent....

ContentsBad Guys & Good Business 5

Practice Makes Perfect 6

The Green Dream Factory 7

Building a Better Workplace 8

Hypercar, Inc. Hits the Road 9

Night of the Living Dam 10

All Change at RMI 11

Financial Recap 13

Institute Supporters 14

ROCKYMOUNTAININSTITUTEN E W S L E T T E R

VOLUME XV NUMBER II

FALL 1999

Before the Industrial Revolution, therewere few machines to multiply labor. A

worker’s output was essentially fixed, like ahorse’s: if you wanted two horsepower, youliterally had to have two horses.

Now, of course, wecan fit several hundredhorses under the hood ofa car, and our per-capitaoutput is vastly higherthan what our ancestorsproduced with handtools and beasts of bur-den. Which is the mainreason material standardsof living have risen sodramatically over the pastcouple of centuries—andwhy labor productivityremains one of econo-mists’ and industrialists’chief preoccupations.

But conditions have changed since thestart of the Industrial Revolution. Then, nat-ural resources were abundant, people rela-tively scarce. Now, there’s a surplus of peo-ple, while nature is in decline. Saddled withan outdated view of the world, our econom-ic system wastes both resources and people.

The next industrial revolution, like thelast one, will be a response to changing pat-terns of scarcity. It will transform industrialprocesses and business practices to econo-mize on what is now the limiting factor ofproduction—natural capital. It will createundreamed-of new wealth for its practition-ers and for society.

And it’s already under way.That’s the message of Natural Capitalism:

Creating the Next Industrial Revolution, thenew book by bestselling author Paul Haw-ken and RMI co-founders Amory and

Hunter Lovins. Agroundbreaking blueprintfor a new economy, itdescribes a hopeful futurein which business andenvironmental interestsmerge, and in which cor-porations will play a piv-otal role in bringinghumanity back within itsplanetary limits.

AS IF

“Natural capital” refersto the natural resourcesand ecosystem services—air and water purifica-

tion, climatic stabilization, waste detoxifica-tion, and so on—that make possible all eco-nomic activity, and indeed all life. Ecosystemservices are of immense economic value;some are literally priceless, since they have noknown substitutes. Case in point: in1991–92, the $200-million Biosphere IIproject in Arizona was unable to sustainbreathable air for eight people. Biosphere I—Earth—performs this task daily at nocharge for six billion.

Current business practices essentiallyassign no value at all to ecosystem servicesother than the indirect costs imposed by

NATURAL CAPITALISMCreating the Next Industrial Revolution

(continued on next page)

FALL 1999 ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE NEWSLETTER

environmental regulations. As a result,“industrial capitalism” defies its own logic.Instead of reinvesting in its largest stock ofcapital, it’s spending its 3.8-billion-yearstore of natural capital as if it wereincome—and at the current burn rate it’ll

be largely gone in a century. That’s not agood survival strategy for a company or forits customers.

Maybe someday business will be forcedto value natural capital properly, but don’thold your breath. Fortunately, we don’thave to wait. It’s usually more profitable todo business as if natural capital were prop-erly valued, even when (as now) it’s valuedat zero. And thanks to efficient new tech-

(continued from page 1) nologies and techniques, the businessopportunities are increasing all the time.

Natural Capitalism offers hundreds ofexamples of companies that are pioneeringthe next industrial revolution by availingthemselves of these opportunities. They’reimproving their bottom lines today and

giving themselves a competitive edge fortomorrow. Not only that, their leaders andemployees are feeling better about whatthey do: firing the unproductive tons, gal-lons, and kilowatt-hours often makes itpossible to keep the people, who foster theinnovation that drives future success.

The journey to natural capitalisminvolves four major shifts in business prac-tices. They go together as a package: any

Nat Cap Fact:

Today’s best techniques for using wood fiber more productively could supplyall the paper and wood the world currently requires from an area

about the size of Iowa.

2

If this article makes youwant to know more aboutNatural Capitalism—heck,even if it doesn’t—checkout www.naturalcapital-ism.org. The site is chock-full of information, includ-ing the entire book indownloadable format,browsable excerpts, discus-sion groups, updates,reviews, a calendar ofevents, and media materi-als. All that and not a sin-gle tree cut down!

Natural Capitalism on the Web

www.naturalcapitalism.org

one is worth doing on its own, but thegreatest benefits come from implementingall four together.

RESOURCE PRODUCTIVITY

Back in the mid-1700s, if anyone hadpredicted that in 70 years one person coulddo the work of 200, he would have beenlaughed out of the pub. In the same way,most of today’s leaders scoff at the idea thata gallon of gasoline or a board-foot of lum-ber could be used ten or 100 times moreproductively than it is now.

Yet given finite resources and a growingpopulation, that’s what must happen if wehope to enjoy sustained prosperity whileenabling poorer nations to satisfy theiraspirations.

As it happens, we’re so darned wastefulnow that it shouldn’t be hard to achievesuch radical gains in efficiency. Only sixpercent of the vast flow of materials in theU.S. economy—more than a millionpounds per American per year—ends up inproducts, and much of that is packaging.The efficiency of converting fuel from apower plant into light from a standardbulb is only three percent. And after a cen-tury of development, today’s cars use onlyone percent of their fuel energy to movethe driver. The difference between thesedubious achievements and what’s possiblerepresents a vast business opportunityworth several trillion dollars a year in theUnited States alone.

Advanced resource productivity is theno-brainer of natural capitalism. Efficientnew products—from lighting to air-han-dling systems to vehicles—are readily avail-able and constantly improving, the savingsare reasonably quantifiable, and almost anybusiness can make stellar returns by invest-ing in efficiency. Moreover, efficiency typi-cally produces collateral benefits such asgreater comfort (efficient buildings are lessdrafty), cleaner air, less noise, and greateremployee satisfaction (which, incidentally,can translate into higher productivity).Natural Capitalism is full of examples ofprofitable advances in resource productivityin the automobile, real estate, timber, man-ufacturing, agriculture, and water indus-tries.

VOLUME XV NUMBER II

http://www.natcap.org

With resource productivity, no one hasto choose between business and the envi-ronment: what’s good for one is good forthe other. In fact, the massive inefficienciesthat are causing environmental degradationalmost always cost more than the measuresthat would reverse them.

Resource efficiency postpones depletionwhile improving environmental health,buying time for even better techniques.And the money it saves can finance invest-ment in natural capitalism’s other threeprinciples.

ECOLOGICAL REDESIGN

The standard industrial model of ourage is a linear sequence of “take, make, andwaste.” Raw materials come from some-where (enter nature, stage left); productsare made; and the wastes from productionprocesses, and soon the products them-selves, are somehow disposed of some-where else (exit waste, stage right). Nature’s

ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE NEWSLETTER FALL 1999

VOLUME XV NUMBER II 3

The buzz about Natural Capitalismstarted before it even hit the bookstores.Here’s a sampling of news bulletins report-ed at www.naturalcapitalism.org:

22 August: Hunter and Amory Lovinsmanaged to catch a few minutes withPresident Bill Clinton and First LadyHillary Clinton at an Aspen fund-raiser,and presented the Clintons with pre-pub-lication copies of Natural Capitalism andan article based on the book that appearedin the May–June Harvard Business Review.Separately, mutual friends presentedcopies to Republican presidential front-runner George W. Bush and Democraticcandidate Bill Bradley. So it looks likelythat natural capitalism will be on the cam-paign radar in 2000.

16 September: Hunter Lovins metbriefly with Vice President Al Gore after areception for ECO (Earth Communi-cations Office), a Hollywood environmen-tal organization on whose board sheserves. Lovins gave the Democratic presi-dential hopeful a copy of Natural

Capitalism.30 September: The American edition

of Natural Capitalism sold out before itspublication date, and publisher Little,Brown rushed it into a second printing(it’s since gone into a third printing, and afourth is planned). A separate British edi-tion waspublishedsimultane-ously byEarthscan.The bookwill be translated into German and pub-lished by Bertelsmann in early 2000, andtranslations into French and Mandarin arein negotiation.

5 October: President Clinton pluggedNat Cap at a Democratic NationalCommittee dinner: “It used to be thatyou couldn’t grow a modern economy andget a whole people rich unless you burneda lot of coal and oil. That is not true any-more.…There’s a new book out I com-mend to you by Paul Hawken and Amory

and Hunter Lovins called NaturalCapitalism, and if you read it, you will beconvinced that whatever you’re doing andhowever well you’re doing it, you couldmake a lot of money on the side by get-ting into alternative sources of energy andenergy conservation. This is a huge deal.”

15 October: The following item ranon the front page of The Wall Street Jour-nal: “CLINTON CREDITS his readingof Natural Capitalism: Creating the NextIndustrial Revolution for sparking a ‘bigidea’ that he repeats regularly. Developingcountries don’t need to be energy hogs tobecome rich; that was the old-style patternof the industrial revolution.”

Further updates will be posted regularlyat the website under “Nat Cap News.”

Nat Cap Buzz

capacity to provide materials and absorbwastes isn’t really the concern of thismodel. Needless to say, it’s processes likethis that are eroding our stock of naturalcapital by depleting resources and replacing

them with wastes.Biological systems, in contrast, operate

in closed loops. There’s no waste—everyoutput either is returned harmlessly to theecosystem as a nutrient, like compost, orbecomes an input for another process.

Closed-loop industrial systems would be

more common in the United States if gov-ernment subsidies didn’t reward waste andmaintain artificially low prices for virginmaterials. In Germany, where most com-panies are legally responsible for disposing

of their products, manufacturers are moti-vated to design cars and computers forremanufacture, turning waste back intovalue.

But even without such legislation, theeconomics of resource productivity are


Nat Cap Fact:

STMicroelectronics—the world’s ninth-largest semiconductor firm, and aclient of RMI’s Natural Capitalism Practice—announced in October its

commitment to zero net carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. The companyplans to meet that target through a combination of cogeneration,

efficiency, and tree planting.


4 VOLUME XV NUMBER II

already encouraging industry to shift tobiologically inspired production modelsthat don’t just reduce waste but eliminatethe very concept of waste. Eco-industrialparks provide venues where one tenant’s“waste” is another’s “food.” DuPont is nowclosing the loop on its $800-million-a-yearpolyester film business—thanks to a newprocess of “unzipping” polyestermolecules, the company is ableto take back used film from itscustomers and recycle it morecheaply than making new filmfrom virgin materials. Manyother companies—from palletdistributors to makers of “dis-posable” cameras—are findingprofitable ways to reuse or recy-cle their products.

Meanwhile, growing compet-itive pressures to save resourcesare inspiring companies to turnaway from mechanical systemsrequiring heavy metals, combus-tion, and petroleum, andinstead emulate nature’s life-temperature, low-pressure, solar-powered assembly techniques,whose products rival anythinghuman-made. We can look for-ward to the end of the witches’brew of dangerous substances invented thiscentury, from DDT and PCBs to CFCsand PVCs, that were created to accomplishfunctions that can now be carried out farmore efficiently with biodegradable andnaturally occurring compounds.

SERVICE AND FLOW

Dow Chemical sells industrial solvents,but nowadays it prefers to lease “dissolvingservices.” Dow owns the solvents, loansthem to its customers as needed, thenrecovers them for reprocessing and reuse.

That’s the third principle of natural cap-italism: moving from the sale of goods tothe delivery of a continuous flow of ser-vices. This subtle shift in the producer-con-sumer relationship can have profoundimplications. When you’re in the businessof selling products, you have an incentiveto make them cheaply and persuade con-

sumers to buy lots of them; how long theproducts last, and how much it costs tooperate or dispose of them, are secondaryconcerns. But when you lease the servicethat the product provides, suddenly youand your customer are on the same side ofthe table. You’re both rewarded for accom-plishing the service in ever cheaper, moreefficient, and more durable ways. Not only

that, the producer benefits from reducedrisk (no inventory backlogs and surpluses),while the customer gets automatic up-grades without the responsibility of owningand disposing of the product.

Almost by definition, this “service-and-flow” business model is better for the envi-ronment because it rewards the producerfor reducing, reusing, and recycling. Thatreinforces natural capitalism’s first two prin-ciples—especially when it reveals ways to

satisfy the end use while eliminating theproduct altogether. For example, instead ofbeing paid by the square centimeter ofparts degreased, Dow’s German subsidiarycan even be compensated for improving acustomer’s process to reduce or eliminatethe need for solvent in the first place. Airconditioner manufacturer Carrier nowoffers cooling services, where its specialists

work with clients to retrofittheir buildings so that theyneed little or no air condition-ing—better service at lowercost.

INVEST IN NATURAL CAPITAL

Investment in natural capitalis the last, and so far the leastimplemented, of the four prin-ciples. Companies in certainindustries—forestry andtourism, for example—haveclear incentives to look aftertheir own stocks of natural cap-ital, though even they don’tnecessarily do so. And as far asmost of the others are con-cerned, investing in naturalcapital seems to make no sensebecause the returns on anyinvestment have to be shared.

That situation may be changing,though. As natural capital becomes scarcer,its price is going up, even if companies andgovernments don’t actually reflect it ontheir balance sheets. Certain signals—high-er landfill fees, insurance claims from cli-mate-change-related storms, consumerpreference for green companies—are influ-encing business decisions and makinginvestment in natural capital look moresound.

A case study that rates its own chapter in Natural Capitalism, Curitiba,Brazil is perhaps the world’s best example of natural capitalism at themunicipal level. This photo shows one of Curitiba’s innovative “tube sta-tions,” an integral feature of a bus system that provides all the convenienceand capacity of subway trains at less than one percent of the cost.

Amory Lovins

(continued from previous page)

Nat Cap Fact:

Seeing that their students were annually turning $8,000 worth of reagentsinto hazardous waste that cost $16,000 to dispose of, University of Zurich

chemistry professors redesigned some exercises to teach instead how to turn theresidues back into reagents. Result: a 99-percent reduction in waste, and

annual savings of $20,000 in operational costs.



Capital begets more capital; a companythat depletes its own capital is eroding thebasis of its future prosperity. In time, com-panies will realize that the forms of capitalthey’ve been investing in—manufacturedand financial capital—are ultimatelydependent on the health of natural capital.

A WAY FORWARD

There are many things that can andshould be done to protect the environ-ment; Natural Capitalism focuses on theones that are profitable. It doesn’t preach orbash big business, but instead builds apowerful case for the sheer money-makingpotential of a more environmentally friend-ly business model.

That emphasis may not appeal to someenvironmentalists, concedes co-authorAmory Lovins, but he makes no apologyfor it. “I think profits honorably earnedcan serve the wider society as well as theshareholders,” he says. “We offer a set ofoperational principles for right livelihoodthat anyone should be proud to pursue.”

But the book taps into more than justrational self-interest. “As we go aroundtalking to business people, we’re finding anincreasing number of them don’t want tobe part of the problem,” notes HunterLovins. “Their motivation is not, How doI make the most money in the shortestamount of time, but rather, What legacycan I leave for my children and for theworld? And they’re realizing that there isnot a contradiction between makingmoney—making a lot of money—andleaving this legacy.”

Natural Capitalism resolves this contra-diction. Transcending ideology, it offerssolutions that every reader—from environ-mentalists to corporate executives—canagree on. It shows a way forward thatseems truly achievable because, as thebook’s closing words state, “it is necessary,possible, and practical.”

—DAVE REED

Natural Capitalism is published by Little,Brown in the United States and by Earthscanin Europe. You can order it from RMI for$26.95 plus shipping and handling (see page12).

In 1994, U.S. Coast Guard jetsnoticed a black slick behind Royal

Caribbean’s cruise ship Sovereign of theSeas. According to a recent New YorkTimes story, the ship had been releas-ing oily wastes, bypassing pollutioncontrol equipment to save money.Shortly after the company admittedthe crime and paid $9 million in fines,another Royal Caribbeanship was caught dumpingwaste.

The story struck a nervefor me. A self-containedcruise ship ought to be aprime candidate for a nat-ural capitalist approach towaste reduction: find waysto reuse the waste so youdon’t have to treat it, or,better yet, design the sys-tem from the beginning so it has nowaste and is cheaper to run.

“We could help that business,” Ithought—“and the ocean, while we’reat it.”

Some environmentalists think we’redaft: the multinational ocean linercompany should be considered theenemy. Half of the world’s hundredlargest economic entities are no longercountries, they’re companies. How doyou regulate that? Yet RMI has longargued that corporations are the lever-age point for change. We must, ineffect, enlist the world’s major pol-luters to save the planet. It’s temptingto say, “That dog don’t hunt.” I guessour job is to teach it to, even if theprocess is controversial.

And plenty of companies are learn-ing—enough to fill a book, in fact.When we set out to write NaturalCapitalism (see main story) we knewof a few of them, but as we got deeperinto the research we were heartened tofind that dozens of firms are puttingthe principles of natural capitalism

into practice. Consider Interface, the world’s

largest carpet-tile maker. It’s imple-menting three of the four principles ofnatural capitalism. Five years agoInterface started on the first—resourceproductivity—when it made a compa-ny-wide commitment to eliminatewaste. Next it created the Evergreen

Lease, which is transform-ing Interface’s businessfrom selling carpeting toleasing floor-covering ser-vices—exemplifying thethird principle. Since only20 percent of a typicaloffice carpet suffers 80 per-cent of the wear, Interfaceonly has to install a fifth asmuch carpet to provide thesame service. Earlier this

year, the company began redesigningits processes along biological lines—the second principle—with a newproduct, Solenium, the first carpetingthat truly closes the loop by becomingthe raw material for new carpet. Com-bined with the Evergreen Lease,Solenium cuts materials and energyuse by 97 percent—that’s more than athirtyfold increase in resource produc-tivity.

Isn’t such a commitment to sustain-ability costly? Nope. In the first fouryears of following these practices,Interface more than doubled its rev-enues, nearly doubled employment,and tripled profits. It increased rev-enues by $250 million just by mininginternal waste.

How’d it happen? CEO RayAnderson read Paul Hawken’s lastbook, and committed his company tochange. Still think the big guys have tobe the bad guys? Personally, I’d rathershow them how to be good guys, andlet the Coast Guard get back to moreimportant duties.

BAD GUYS AND GOOD BUSINESSBy L. Hunter Lovins, co-CEO (Strategy)

PERSPECTIVES

N atural Capitalism is full of ideas andinspiration, but many people want

more personalized coaching. That’s whyRMI has created a new service to helpcompanies and communities put the prin-ciples of natural capitalism to work.

In a way, this is nothing new. A self-styled “think and do tank,” RMI hasalways complemented its research with cor-porate and institutional consulting—which, incidentally, also earns income tosupport further research. The difference isthat the release of Natural Capitalism opensa window of opportunity to speak to manymore organizations and make a greater dif-ference.

In concert with its strategic restructuring(see page 11), the Institute is unifying itsconsulting teams into a single Natural



PRACTICE MAKES PERFECTPutting Natural Capitalism’s Principles to Work

Capitalism Practice. Clients will still haveaccess to specialized RMI services, but theunified team will provide more compre-hensive, cross-disciplinary solutions. Forexample, a client that contacts RMI foradvice on greening a new facility mightfind that the “Nat Cap” team can also helpit redesign its manufacturing process tomake the facility even more efficient, andredefine its relationship with its stakehold-ers (e.g., suppliers and customers) and itshost community to realize still other bene-fits.

In the past three months three newsenior staff members have joined thiseffort: Christopher Juniper, ManagingDirector of the Natural CapitalismPractice; and Karl R. Rábago and ThomasFeiler, Managing Directors of the practice’s

corporate component. Experienced trans-portation and industrial engineering con-sultants are expected to come aboard inthe coming months.

The practice won’t be limited by in-house capabilities: Feiler and Rábago areexpanding the Institute’s worldwide net-work of contractors at the leading edge oftheir fields to round out the team as need-ed. RMI is also exploring strategic partner-ships with business consulting firms inorder to provide maximum leverage of itsunique expertise.

For more information on the NaturalCapitalism Practice, visit www.naturalcapi-talism.org and click on the “Consulting”button.

SEMINARS

On a related note, RMI researchers aredeveloping a series of regional seminarsand multimedia tools to help participantsapply natural capitalism in their companiesand communities. Grants from two foun-dations are supporting work to gain moreon-the-ground experience and to experi-ment with different presentation formats,target groups, and geographical areas.

In Pittsburgh, staff organized two full-day sessions and an executives’ breakfastbriefing as part of a long-term effort, spon-sored by the Heinz Endowments and incooperation with local partners SustainablePittsburgh and the Pittsburgh TechnologyCouncil, to help make that city a sustain-ability showcase (see the fall/winter 1998newsletter). The second seminar, inOctober, attracted more than 90 businessand community leaders.

Meanwhile, with funding from theJoyce Foundation, RMI staff have begunworking with the Western MichiganSustainable Business Forum, and will helpmember businesses explore the competitiveadvantages of natural capitalism at thegroup’s annual meeting in November. Thenext step is to direct implementation workwith up to a half-dozen firms willing toserve as natural capitalism test cases.

—DAVE REED &CHRISTOPHER JUNIPERRMI’s Amory and Hunter Lovins speaking with President Clinton at an August fundraiser in

Aspen. The President accepted a copy of Natural Capitalism, and has since taken to referringto the book’s thesis in speeches (see page 3).

Planting a “Big Idea”

James Ritchie, courtesy of Joan Klar

and a healthy respect for the environment. Lucas’s Letterman Digital Arts “is one of

the most fun clients we’ve ever workedwith,” says Browning. “They’re committedand passionate about the environment andemployees’ quality of life, and extremelycreative. They’re cost-conscious, of course,but they’re an incredibly well-capitalizedcompany, so if it makes sense and it’s theright thing to do, they’ll say let’s do it.”

The Letterman Digital Center combinesjust about everything in the green develop-ment cookbook, from energy-efficient con-struction to low-impact stormwater man-agement. And at nearly a million squarefeet, with one of the world’s most famous

corporate tenants, it promises to bean excellent showcase for the powerof green thinking.

One of the plan’s most remark-able features is that nearly all thecenter’s 1,500 parking spaces willbe underground, a decision that foralmost any other company wouldbe impossibly extravagant. Thismakes it possible to create a largepublic green space, which no doubtappealed to the Presidio Trust. Butwhat’s even more impressive, from agreen development perspective, isn’thow many parking spaces will beplaced underground, but howfew—only enough for about two-thirds of the 2,500 employees. It’srare that a major employer is will-ing to buck parking rules of thumb(typically a one-to-one ratio), butthe Letterman plan counts onextensive public transportation,ridesharing programs, and nearbyemployee housing to cut down onsingle-car commutes. (The Lucascompanies together already operate

one of the best employee traffic-manage-ment programs in the Bay Area.)

As for the buildings, their thin cross-sec-tions and internal courtyards—consciouslyechoing the historic Presidio style—willmaximize daylighting and natural ventila-tion. An ingenious cooling system usingraised floors (see page 8), combined withSan Francisco’s mild climate, minimizes the



found itself assisting with both the semifi-nalists’ bids. But Lucas was the more seri-ous about creating a truly green develop-ment, says Browning, who was one ofthree people tapped to make Lucas’s pre-sentation to the Trust.

The Force was with the Lucas team; it

was chosen for exclusive negotiations onthe lease in June. By the time you read this,detailed design work should just be gettingunder way.

PASSION AND MONEY

All architects dream of that client withdeep pockets and impeccable taste. Greenarchitects dream of a client with thosequalities plus imagination, an open mind,


Security was tight the day RMI’s BillBrowning and Huston Eubank went

out to Skywalker Ranch last January. StarWars: The Phantom Menace was still inpost-production, and any number of rabidfans would have braved a squad of Imper-ial Storm Troopers to sneak a peek.

Browning and Eubank were vis-iting the special-effects Mecca tomeet with Letterman Digital Arts, acompany formed by George Lucasto develop a new high-tech head-quarters for his companies withinSan Francisco’s historic Presidio.RMI’s Green Development Serviceshad been brought on board toincorporate sustainable design intothe plan.

Lucas himself attended the meet-ing—considering the timing, astrong indication of the importancehe attached to the project.Appropriately, a film crew was onhand to record the proceedings.

THE FORCE WAS WITH THEM

The team’s first task was to winthe right to build on the site. AnArmy base since the mid-1800s, the1,800-acre Presidio was designatedas the nation’s first urban nationalpark in 1996. To cover its costs, asrequired by Congress, six parcelswould be leased for commercial develop-ment. Lucas’s team was vying with 16others for the 23-acre site of the oldLetterman Hospital, within sight of theGolden Gate Bridge.

The Presidio Trust had set sustainabilityas one of three major criteria by which allproposals would be judged. Green Devel-opment Services, which had participatedin the original Presidio planning process,

GREEN DEVELOPMENT

THE GREEN DREAM FACTORYLucas Goes Over to the Park Side

Green features: 1) light shelves promote deep daylighting; 2) raisedfloor allows for displacement ventilation; 3) ground-source heatsink reduces need for artificial chillers; 4) old hospital foundation isretained for rainwater storage; 5) underground parking. (Notshown: public transportation and ridesharing programs.)

Letterman Digital Arts

need for mechanical systems and the ener-gy they consume—a major achievementfor such a large, computer-intensive officecomplex.

BYE-BYE HOLLYWOOD

The Letterman Digital Center will pro-vide office space for Industrial Light &Magic and four other Lucas companies. Itwon’t be your traditional Hollywood pro-duction facility: except for one soundstage,almost all the indoor space will be config-ured for animation workstations, drafting,and model making.

Competition for skilled employees isfierce in the digital arts industry, so a bigpart of the design strategy is to make thecenter as cushy as possible for them.Among other things, that means ensuringhigh indoor air quality and providingcomprehensive individual control overlight levels and ventilation.

In community meetings, some citizenshave questioned why Lucas’s proposal waschosen over others that featured more rus-tic activities such as organic agriculture andsolar aquaculture. Without second-guess-ing the Presidio Trust’s thinking, it’s worthnoting that the Letterman Digital Centerdemonstrates sustainability techniques thatare more widely applicable to industry, andtherefore have a greater potential for revers-ing environmental harm. In fact, it mightnot be too much of a stretch to say thatcompanies like Industrial Light & Magicare putting the first principle of naturalcapitalism (see cover story) into practice:they’re radically increasing the resourceproductivity of moviemaking by replacinghuge, disposable sets with miniature mod-els and recyclable electrons.

Now if we could only start influencingwhat’s portrayed on screen. Memo to GL:Is there any way to incorporate passivesolar design into those Death Stars? Howabout having the Jedi knights upgrade tocompact fluorescent lightsabers? Okay, sothe story took place long ago and far, faraway, but we don’t want it to start lookingdated, do we?

—DAVE REED



(continued from previous page) BUILDING A BETTER WORKPLACEA Green Twist Turns Office Buildings Upside Down

Big office buildings are typicallydesigned by a process that could be

called “infectious repetitis.” Energy engi-neer Eng Lock Lee describes how it works:

1. Take previous set of drawings2. Change the box that indicates the

name of the project3. Submit drawings to client4. Building is constructed5. Client gripes about discomfort6. Wait for client to stop griping7. Repeat processNot exactly a formula for innovation.

Yet while office building design hasremained all but stagnant for years, whatgoes on inside certainly hasn’t. Workersusing computers require different lightingfrom those using typewriters or pencils.Photocopiers and faxes change the thermalnature of a space and affect indoor air qual-ity. These and many other types of officeequipment increase electricity demand.Even the way people sit is different.

RMI’s Green Development Services has

helped design dozens of innovative officebuildings that address these issues whilesaving resources and money. Now a newprototype project offers the chance to moveits ideas into the mainstream.

The “modern building prototype” is aninitiative of commercial real estate giantHines, along with a team of consultantsfrom Green Development Services, engi-neering firm Flack & Kurtz, and GenslerArchitects. Two years in development andstill evolving, the prototype is a design con-cept that can be tailored to the specificneeds of different clients and locations.

Naturally, the prototype employs stan-dard green techniques such as high insula-tion, superwindows, daylighting, and effi-cient lighting and mechanicals. And as inother good green designs, it integrates theseelements in a way that produces the bestperformance—environmental and other-wise—for the buck.

But there’s a new twist. Instead ofputting the air ducts in the ceiling and

RMI senior research associate Chris Lotspeich presents a Japanese-language copy of Factor Four(the forerunner of Natural Capitalism) to Muneo Suzuki, Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary forPrime Minister Keizo Obuchi. Invited to Japan by the Osaka Jaycees to speak on environmen-tally friendly business, Chris also presented a translation of RMI’s “Climate: Making Sense andMaking Money” to the Emperor and Empress.

RMI in Japan

Noboyuki Kuritani



TRANSPORTATION

HYPERCAR, INC. HITS THE ROADIf You Can’t Beat ’Em, Join ’Em

RMI’s Green Development Serviceschalked up another honor in April when itreceived a National Award for Sustainabil-ity in the Green Buildings/Real EstateDevelopment category.

The President’s Council on SustainableDevelopment and the national environ-mental nonprofit Renew America present-ed the prestigious awards on Earth Day toGDS and 23 other organizations thatdemonstrate leadership and excellence inintegrating environmental, economic, andcommunity sustainability.

“These awards celebrate the ways inwhich Americans are working together to

protect public health and the environmentand to demonstrate that a healthy environ-ment and a growing economy really do gohand in hand,” lauded Carol Browner,Administrator of the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency.

The winners were selected from amongmore than 300 applicants by representa-tives of the National Awards Council forEnvironmental Sustainability and thePresident’s Council on SustainableDevelopment.

GDS WINS NATIONAL AWARDforcing heated or cooled air downward tomix with the air already in the room, theprototype concept is to channel fresh airunder a raised floor and let it seep upward.That might sound like a minor technicaldistinction, but it turns out that such a sys-tem is easier to install and maintain, savesenergy, allows for better and easier rear-rangement of office lighting, and producesbetter comfort and indoor air quality.

And here’s the kicker: separating the airdistribution from the wiring for overheadlighting, while switching from a steel-and-concrete to an all-concrete structure, saves afoot or more of vertical space per floor—enough to fit in six stories instead of theusual five before triggering expensive high-rise code regulations. That’s worth bigbucks to developers. (The extra floor canalso promote better land use by makinginfill developments more economical.)

More than just a design concept, theprototype also incorporates a proprietarydecision-making process that cuts severalmonths off project timelines—producinggroundbreaking savings before ground-breaking.

Big deal, says the “just do it” crowd—prototypes are a dime a dozen. But this isdifferent. The team is already testing ele-ments of the prototype in five new build-ings in a suburban office park, and Hineshopes eventually to make the process stan-dard procedure. That latter thought packs awallop, since Hines is one of the world’sbiggest names in commercial development.

Clearly, when developers say they wantto be on the cutting edge of environmen-tally responsible building design, it’s not allaltruism. They realize that as green build-ings catch on, customers’ expectations willrise. Buildings that cost more to run andmake their occupants feel worse will simplystand empty.

That future may not be far off, and it’seasy to imagine the newspaper ads thatwould result: For sale: new office building.Energy hog, unpleasant interior space. Willsell for below market value, or B/O. Flip tothe obituary section, and there’s a relatednote: Old-school developer dies. Autopsy sug-gests victim suffered from infectious repetitis.

—AUDEN SCHENDLER & DAVE REED

Readers interested in efficient vehiclesmight have noticed that RMI’s

Hypercar CenterSM has gone relativelyquiet in the past year and a half. Actually,the team has been busier than ever—theyjust couldn’t talk about what they were upto.

Until now. Since 1994, the Center’s role has been

to build industry acceptance for theHypercar™ concept that RMI first pro-posed in 1991—a combination of an ultra-light, ultra-low-drag autobody with hybrid-electric drive and other features that pro-duce radically better fuel economy. Initially,the Center’s nonprofit status ideally posi-tioned it to get the Hypercar concept inplay: instead of patenting and auctioningthe intellectual property and hoping thebuyer wouldn’t sit on it, the Center wasable to put most of it into the publicdomain to get everyone fighting over it.

The strategy paid off. By early 1998,most automakers were known to be devel-

oping cars that embodied at least someHypercar principles, and the pace ofchange was accelerating. But compromiseswere still diluting the concept’s full poten-tial, and meanwhile, the more serious com-panies got about Hypercar-like designs, themore secretive and less accessible theybecame. It was clear that the HypercarCenter could no longer best influence theindustry as an outsider. It was time to exertdirect competitive pressure.

So began the long, strange trip ofHypercar, Inc. (HCI), a for-profit venturethat spun off from RMI this past summer.

Like most startups, this one proceededalong a circuitous and often bumpy path.Hypercar, Inc. was formally incorporatedin July 1998, but it took more than a yearfor the company to reach escape velocityfrom RMI. The startup team—initiallycomprising five Hypercar Center research-ers—recruited management with strongbusiness, financial, and technical expertise,


and spent late 1998 and the first half of1999 developing a business plan and seek-ing venture capital.

A lead investment from VTZ, a Swissinvestment fund thatspecializes in greentechnologies (motto:“Green Money for theBlue Planet”), enabledHCI to set up its ownoffice and begin formaloperations in August.As of presstime, theventure had raised 80percent of the $4 mil-lion needed for its start-up phase, and had seven employees.

HCI can’t say much about its businessplan, except that the company is focusedon developing and applying new technolo-gy and business models to the automotiveindustry based on the Hypercar concept.According to Jonathan Fox-Rubin, vicepresident for business development, HCI isworking with Lotus Engineering (the engi-neering relative of the British sports carcompany) to produce a “technology

demonstration vehicle,” and is examiningpotential markets such as the “lifestyle mar-ket of Generation X and Generation Ycustomers.”

Hypercar, Inc. will no doubt face manychallenges as it makes its way in the corpo-

rate world, but the spinoff is a one-way betfor RMI. The Institute’s investment wasalmost entirely in the form of intellectualcapital and intellectual property. In return,RMI owns nearly half of Hypercar, Inc.’sstock, which if successful will generate anew stream of unrestricted income to sup-port further cutting-edge work.

This isn’t the first time RMI haslaunched a for-profit venture. E SOURCE,the electric-efficiency information service

that it spun off in 1992, has proved a suc-cessful precedent both financially andstrategically (see page 11). The Institutealso helped ex-staff found two other com-panies, one of which, efficient-lighting con-sultancy Rising Sun Enterprises, is still

going strong.The Hypercar Center remains at RMI,

but with minimal funding and only onepart-time staff member. The Institute iscurrently seeking funding to carry out fur-ther transportation research.

—DAVE REED

Note: to make room in cyberspace forHypercar, Inc., the Hypercar Center’s webaddress has changed towww.hypercarcenter.org.




NIGHT OF THE LIVING DAMDriving Another Stake into an Unnecessary Project

Even in these environmentally sensitivetimes, a bad dam proposal is harder to killthan a horde of zombies.

Consider the King William Reservoir ineastern Virginia, which the Newport NewsWaterworks first proposed in 1990. Anumber of regional organizations have con-sistently opposed the project on ecologicaland environmental-justice grounds, charg-ing that it will flood more than 400 acresof federally protected wetlands, lower waterlevels on two rivers, and harm the Matta-poni Indian tribe’s historic shad fishery.(The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and

WATER

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyhave voiced similar concerns.)

In 1997, during the public commentperiod on the final environmental impactstatement, RMI introduced a compellingnew argument. At the invitation of theSouthern Environmental Law Center,water researcher Scott Chaplin reviewedthe proposal and found (as is often the casewith proposed dams) that the utility hadoverestimated future demand and underes-timated the potential to reduce demandwith much cheaper efficiency measures.

The Army Corps of Engineers, which

issues one of the two required permits,commissioned two independent studies toanalyze the utility’s assumptions. Both cor-roborated Chaplin’s conclusions.

And on 4 June of this year, in anunprecedented move, the Corps itselfagreed. In issuing a preliminary decision todeny the permit request, the Corps’Norfolk District found that the reservoirwasn’t necessary because the utility hadoverestimated Newport News’ future waterneeds by a factor of two, and because thereservoir’s environmental and socialimpacts were too severe.

End of story? Alas, no. Four days later,Virginia Governor James Gilmore appealedthe decision at the city’s request, kicking itup to the Corps’ North Atlantic Division,where it now rests.

It sounds like a never-ending saga, buthere’s the good news: as hard as it is to killunnecessary dams, it’s getting even harderto build them.

http://www.hypercarcenter.org

ameba,” “the dog bone,” and “the double-yolked egg.” (It’s never been easy to fitRMI into standard molds.)

EVOLUTION

The whole process is more evolutionthan revolution, says Pickett: the goal is tobuild on RMI’s strengths, not throw thebaby out with the bathwater. For example,she notes, “one of the great things aboutRMI is that it has been opportunistic—when a new cutting-edge issue comes up,RMI has been able to react quickly and runwith it. But we need to make sure that’sbalanced with some long-range vision ofthe kind of institute we want to be.”

Unfortunately, the strategic planningprocess has imposed an unexpected finan-cial burden on the Institute, as severalfoundations have apparently delayed majorgrant renewals until the plan’s completion.This is expected to result in a substantialoperating deficit for 1999—our first in fiveyears. But we see this as a long-term invest-ment to ensure that RMI remains lean,effective, and on the cutting edge of inno-vation.

—DAVE REED



You know how it is. You’re going alongyour merry nonprofit way, a new pro-

ject here, a couple of extra staff there, andone day you look in the mirror and realizeyou’re a multimillion-dollar organizationwith nearly 50 employees.

Well okay, it didn’t come out of the bluejust like that, but RMI’s 17-year growthhas prompted a good deal of internal intro-spection in the past few years. Is our mis-sion still on target? What’s our proper size?Do we need to restructure? Where shouldour funding come from? Last October, theInstitute’s management and Board ofDirectors moved to settle these questionsby initiating a formal strategic planningprocess to be led by outside consultants.

At the same time, they agreed to a man-agement-level reorganization to be phasedin over six months. In April of this year,Marty Pickett—previously RMI’s VicePresident for Organizational Affairs andSpecial Projects—was appointed ExecutiveDirector, with responsibility for all theInstitute’s day-to-day functions. FormerExecutive Director Hunter Lovins andResearch Director Amory Lovins weremade co-CEOs with responsibility forstrategy and research respectively.

BLOWING OUT THE COBWEBS

Though still in process, the strategicplanning is going exceedingly well. Inmany ways it’s confirmed what we alreadyfelt we needed to do, but it’s also blownout the cobwebs and inspired plenty ofinstitutional creativity.

In July, after several months of funda-mental probing, management consultantsLynne Yeannakis and Libby Dietrichhelped us arrive at a surprising—or perhapsnot so surprising—consensus about RMI’sfuture. Everyone agreed the Institute hadoutgrown the old “mom and pop” organi-zational model, which was too heavily cen-

RMI NEWS

ALL CHANGERMI Embarks on a Major Strategic Planning Process

tralized around founders Amory andHunter Lovins and too reliant on Amoryas the chief idea generator. The vision thatemerged was of a more mature, broader-based organization, though not necessarilya bigger one; an Institute that placesgreater emphasis on recruiting experiencedteam leaders and fostering original think-ing, and that remains flexible and diversi-fied by subcontracting work to a networkof “virtual” staff; and a strategic shift ofemphasis from education to appliedresearch. (The latter dovetails with the newNatural Capitalism Practice—see page 6).

This October, the Board, staff, and con-sultants added flesh to the vision, thinkingthrough staffing and resource-allocationissues, finalizing RMI’s first bottom-upannual budget, and refining organizationalcharts. The latter task was good for a fewlaughs: various versions were labeled “the

SO LONG, E SOURCEserved as a model for enterprise in the non-profit world, RMI owned all of E SOURCE’svoting common stock and received royal-ties based on the subsidiary’s revenues. Itwas a fruitful relationship that enabled ESOURCE to expand rapidly, furthered RMI’smission in the private sector, and providedunrestricted funds to support the Institute’spublic-interest work.

But by late 1998, it was time for RMIto let its most successful spinoff go. Havinggrown bigger than its parent ($7 million inannual revenues, 58 employees), E SOURCE

needed access to more capital to reachbroader markets, and the Institute saw anopportunity to gain greater financial securi-ty.

This past June, RMI sold its E SOURCE

stock to Pearson PLC, a UK-based compa-

Back in 1986, when RMI was youngand focused mainly on trying to

reform the electric-utility industry, the lackof up-to-date technical information on effi-cient technologies was stifling progress.Since nobody else was doing it, RMIstepped up to the plate and formedCOMPETITEK, an in-house information ser-vice aimed at utilities and large energyusers.

COMPETITEK was so successful that by1992 it was straining at its leash, and RMIdecided to spin the unit off as a for-profitsubsidiary, capitalized by a program-relatedinvestment by the John D. and CatherineT. MacArthur Foundation and privateinvestors. The new company moved toBoulder, Colorado, and renamed itself ESOURCE.

In an innovative arrangement that has (continued on next page)

New Staff

piece in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch compar-ing transgenic crops to nuclear power. 2pages, $2. (B99-11)

TRANSPORTATION“Uncommon Knowledge: Automotive

Platform Sharing’s Potential Impact onAdvanced Technologies,” MichaelBrylawski. Technical paper presented at theInternational Society for the Advancementof Material and Process Engineering’sSeptember 1999 conference.18 pages, $5.(T99-10)

FORESTRY“Saving Forests from the Demand

Side,” Amory Lovins. Printouts of an over-head presentation to the World ResourcesInstitute. 12 pages, $5. (F99-14)

WATER“Re-evaluating Stormwater: The Nine

Mile Run Model for RestorativeDevelopment,” Richard Pinkham, BruceFerguson, and Timothy Collins. Full-colorreport on low-cost measures that canreduce sewer overflows, restore urbanwatersheds, and revitalize communities (see“Rain, Rain, Go Away,” fall/winter 1998newsletter). Wirebound, 32 pages, $24.95.(W99-15)

Please note that our price for GreenDevelopment: Integrating Ecology andReal Estate is now $60.00, due to a priceincrease by the publisher. If you’re interest-ed in the book you’d do well to act fast,because we’ve been informed that the priceof the next shipment’s books will be $70.

NEW PUBLICATIONSThe following new publications can be

ordered from RMI, either by phone(970/927-3851) or online (www.rmi.org):

NATURAL CAPITALISMNatural Capitalism: Creating the

Next Industrial Revolution, PaulHawken, Amory Lovins, and HunterLovins. See cover story. Hardback, 416pages, $26.95. (NC99-13)

“A Roadmap for Natural Capitalism,”Amory Lovins, Hunter Lovins, and PaulHawken. A readable summary of thebook’s basic business case reprinted fromthe May-June Harvard Business Review (thepiece will also appear in the upcominganthology Harvard Business Review onBusiness and the Environment). 16 pages,$4. (NC99-8)

ENERGY“Energy Surprises for the 21st

Century,” Amory Lovins and ChrisLotspeich. A good summary of RMI’s per-spective on energy trends. 8 pages, $2.50.(E99-16)

BIOTECHNOLOGY“A Tale of Two Botanies,” Amory and

Hunter Lovins. Uncut version of an op-ed



ny that owns such brands as Simon &Schuster Publishing, Penguin Books, andThe Financial Times. The sale resulted in acash payment to RMI that will produce anincome stream roughly equal to the expect-ed payments from E SOURCE.

“E SOURCE has been an importantsource of revenue for RMI,” says RMI co-CEO Hunter Lovins. “More important,the company has done a better job than wecould of providing information to the pri-vate sector about the profitability of usingenergy efficiently.”

RMI is proud to have founded and fos-tered the success of E SOURCE, and wish itsuccess in the big wide world beyond thenest.


Welcome aboard to gardenerPaul Buch, web coordinatorBill Simon, executive assis-tant Marilyn Wien, andNatural Capitalism Practicemanaging director Christo-pher Juniper. (Not pictured:Karl Rábago and TomFeiler.) Hasta la vista todeparting staff MardellBurkholder, Judy Moffatt,José Gomez, the wholeHypercar crew (MikeBrylawski, David Cramer,Jonathan Fox-Rubin,Timothy Moore, and DavidTaggart), and interns ChadLaurent, Ken Ritsher, andJennifer Schwager.

Norm Clasen

RMI Shipping & Handling ChargesOrder Amount U.S. Canada$ 0.00–12.00 $3.50 $4.5012.01–20.00 4.50 5.5020.01–35.00 5.50 6.5035.01–50.00 7.00 8.50

50.01–100.00 8.50 10.25

We normally ship by first-class mail orUPS. For larger orders, express delivery, orshipments outside North America, pleasecall RMI. Shipping charges may be higherfor multiple books, so again, please call.All charges are in U.S. currency.

ANNUAL REPORTRMI’s 1998 annual report is now avail-

able—late, but worth the wait. Completelyredesigned and now in full color, the reportsummarizes an eventful, transitional year inthe life of the Institute. If you would like afree copy, please contact Karl Clauss at970/927-3128 or [email protected].

http://www.rmi.org



1998 FINANCIAL RECAPA Record-Breaking Year for RMI

RMI made welcome strides toward its goal ofincreased financial self-reliance and stability in

1998. The Institute achieved its fourth annual operat-

ing surplus in a row (its biggest ever), greatlyincreased its proportion of earned income,strengthened its development staff, and expandedcredit to stabilize cashflow.

Here are fiscal highlights of the year, based onaudited financials (excluding the Windstar capitalcampaign):• Net operating income was $545,000, exceeding

the target by $365,000, or 202 percent.• Operating expenses—68 percent for people—

rose by 41 percent, from $2.53 million to $3.56million (due mainly to a one-time transporta-tion design workshop).

• Total accrued revenues rose by 39.3 percent to$4.11 million, surpassing the increase in expens-es by $129,000.

• Program areas accounted for 81.6 percent ofexpenses, fundraising 6.2 percent, and manage-ment and administration 12.1 percent.

• Earned income was 48 percent of total revenue,up from 33 percent in 1997. This was attribut-able to increased implementation advisory ser-vices (notably the transportation design work-shop) and E SOURCE royalties.

• Foundation grants provided 41 percent of rev-enue in 1998, down from 49 percent in 1997,due mainly to the higher earned-income per-centage. Individual and corporate contributionsincreased by 19 percent, or $60,000.

• Total assets rose from $5.06 million to $5.50million; net worth, from $1.57 million to $2.43million. Most of this surplus was used for capi-tal improvements and to repay loans.

• A program-related investment from a long-timedonor secured for RMI a $100,000 line of cred-it, representing a nearly two-week operatingsafety net. (Not nearly enough, but a lot betterthan zero!)

• The Development department grew from twoto four full-time-equivalent employees, improv-ing grant-writing and planned-giving capabili-ties.

Total Expenditures by Program: $3,564,284

Total Expenditures by Category: $3,564,284

Total Sources of Revenue: $4,109,522

EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM

EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY

SOURCES OF REVENUE

Thanks



BENEFACTORS$10,000 AND OVER

Compton Foundation Inc.The Educational Foundation of

AmericaThe Energy FoundationThe Environmental Protection

AgencyEQUUS Consulting GroupMary & John Frantz, in memory

of Margaret FrantzGap FoundationHoward Heinz EndowmentVira I. Heinz EndowmentThe Home DepotThe Roy A. Hunt FoundationThe Joyce FoundationLouisiana-PacificLouise A. Maddux

Environmental TrustCharles Stewart Mott FoundationNew-Land FoundationThe Scudder Charitable

FoundationSun Hill FoundationUnited Technologies Carrier

Corp.The Watt Stopper, Inc.

PATRONS$1,000–$9,999

The Airport Business FoundationAnonymousAnonymous, in honor of Mother

EarthMatthew Bucksbaum Family

FoundationRev. & Mrs. C. Frederick

BuechnerSarah R. ColeThe Estate of John DenverEarth Share (3)John B. GilpinDonna R. & Bernard E. GrauerPaul HawkenBarbara & Gerald D. HinesHoly Cross Energy (2)Colleen & Bud Konheim, In

memory of Eric KonheimJean & Larry LeJeuneHenry P. McIntosh IVThe Alice P. and L. Thomas

Melly FoundationMatthew MorganJohn W. Pope Foundation, Inc.Salisbury Community

Foundation, Inc.Robert J. SchlossJane Valant SchultzSusan & W. Ford SchumannArent H. Schuyler, Jr.Seymour SchwartzAndrew TobiasFrances K. TysonCharles Veley

SPONSORS$100–$999

Adobe Matching Gift ProgramDaniel AlpertDorothy H. AndersonLorraine P. AndersonStuart H. AndersonAnonymous (6)Arc Executive Network LtdArthur A. AtkinsonJill & Walt AuburnPeggy Badenhausen & Thomas

F. KellyMary J. Baggerman & Mr. Philip

W. JohnsonTeresa & Don K. BarthMr. & Mrs. Edmund BartlettRex L. Bavousett, in memory of

John DenverIris Behr & John MuirJoan & Kevin BockmanJohn L. BoehneDaniel H. Boone, In memory of

Daniel R. BooneRichard C. BourneDeborah BradfordAnnie BreckenfeldDonna Brenner, in memory of

Phillip BandoRichard R. Brigham & Sally E.

Stapp-BrighamWilliam BusickShirley Caldwell PattersonJoe R. ChovanSandy & Albert ChristensenCarole & Peter ClumHilary & John Cole (2)Virginia & Roy W. CollierEwen CoxworthJames E. CummingsSue & Russ DarrowRuth & Dennis DemmelJean & John A. DistlerMary K. Dougherty & Erik

Neumann, In memory of EricKonheim

Margaret M. Dunford & WilliamB. Maxymuk

Earth Share (3)Mark FalconeKathy & Christopher J. FastnerHoney S. Fishman, In memory

of Eric KonheimTed Flanigan & Pam WicksMary Jane GarthHorst GoebelJack W.L. GoeringGrace E. Gray & Benjamin H.

WhiteCharmaine & Kinard HadenRichard HeedeBenita Helseth, in memory of

Walter MobergCatherine & David HillsMichael J. Holtz, A.I.A.Laurel W. Horne & Andrew P.

DuncanColin M.H. HutchinsonTom L. Ickes

Nancy Jackson & EberhardRamm

Walter E. JohnstonJane & Joseph Kasov, In memo-

ry of Eric KonheimIllene & Leon KaufmanDennis R. KellerCalleen King Letaconnoux, In

memory of Eric KonheimNancy & Bryan KirkpatrickJulia & Howard Klee Jr.Bernice & Charles C. KlostermanPaul O. Koether, In memory of

Eric KonheimBarbara Kolb & Seymour AugustBernard W. Konrady Jr.Shelly & Scott M. KruseArie KurtzigValerie & Patrick LallyCarol R. Langner & Fred

FritschelKnud LarsenPaula & Bill LeakeDalia & Laurence C. Leeds, In

memory of Eric KonheimJean & Larry LeJeuneNell F. LePla (2)Cynthia R. Lewis, In memory of

Eric KonheimJohn P. LindermanCamille LioneMargaret & Paul M. Lurie, in

honor of Jacob Rickower LurieMeg MacleodAllison McDonough, in honor of

Debi Tenner and in memory ofJohn Denver

J. Michael McGean, in memoryof Lois

Craig Melby (2)Nicole J. Miller, In memory of

Eric KonheimPeter H. MillerBenjamin C. MooreMary Sue & William F. MorrillMr. & Mrs. Kenneth F.

Mountcastle, Jr.Themelis NickolasEdwin Nystrom, Jr., in memory

of Evelyn Grace NystromAvis R. OgilvyJon OwensGlenda C. PehrsonLynne Pfrimmer MaceBenjamin C. PierceBernard G. Post, In memory of

Eric KonheimPeter J. Powers, In memory of

Eric KonheimSergio PradoRebecca R. PritchardChris D. QuartettiJean & Dan I. Rather, In memo-

ry of Eric KonheimXiaomei Li & Joseph ReckfordJoanna ReeseLawrence M RiceEvan RingquistJack RobertsEstelle & Steven J. Rose, In

memory of Eric Konheim

Marietta & Pier L. RoselliniMaggie & Ernest RosenbergJennie & Harvey M. RosenblumGinnie & Walter N. RothschildSan Bernardino County LibraryDiane & Kenneth J. SaulterLinda & John SawyerMarnie C. SchaettiGeorge L. SchloemerJulianna Shaull & Eric W.

HowlandPhyllis Shock, In memory of

Frederick A. "Fritz" ShockPhilip Silber, In memory of Eric

KonheimDakota Smith, In memory of Eric

KonheimDouglas J. SmithJean Spicer SmithMitchell SmithJoseph J. Snyder IVR. Lee StaytonJohn Steiner, In memory of

Marjorie S. SteinerJoy & Timothy StoneKae Takase & Shen ZhongyuanEtel & Joseph B. Thomas IVRodney D. VanderwallLeslie & Val R. VeirsCatherine Viscardi Johnston, In

memory of Eric KonheimSuzanne E. Walsh & Joseph

MontuoriThomas WarrenFred E. WeedJames H. WegleyBetty J. WeissJeri L.Weiss & Walter S. BaerMargaret & William E.

WesterbeckEdward White Jr.Pam Wicks & Ted FlaniganMr. & Mrs. Pietro WidmerBette & Perry R. Wilkes JrWodehouse BuildersShane WoolbrightGolbon Zakeri & Mark Curtis

Wilson

ASSOCIATES$1–$99

AAB Building System, Inc.Robert S. AbbottBunny & Tom M. AckerlyJennifer & Paul R. AdamsAnthony J. AlagnaMichael S. AlmonSid AndersonAnonymous (11)Aron AnthonyJonathan R. ArcherAlan ArmbrustE. Coury ArmstrongDaniel AronsonKelton & James R. ArthurNancy & John ArtzNancy & Tom AtchisonAudubon Expedition InstituteJim BairdWilliam M. Baldwin

INSTITUTE SUPPORTERSOur sincere appreciation is offered to these friends who have contributed to RMI. Please let us know ifyour name has been omitted or misspelled so it can be corrected in the next issue. Donations received

between 1 January and 31 August 1999 are listed. Numbers in parentheses indicate multiple donations.

GENERAL SUPPORT DONATIONS

STOCK GIFTS:LEAST-COST

GIVINGHas the value of your investment port-

folio grown lately? Facing some big capitalgains come April 15?

Consider making a gift of stock toRocky Mountain Institute. Giving appreci-ated securities is better than giving cashbecause you get the tax deduction on thedonation at its appreciated value withoutpaying capital gains tax on the apprecia-tion. You’ll be providing the same level ofsupport to RMI, but at less cost to you.

For example, suppose the shares youbought in XYZ Corp. for $500 now have amarket value of $6,000. If you donatethem to RMI, you not only can offset the$6,000 donation against income, you’ll alsoavoid the tax on the $5,500 capital gain.(That’s why it’s better to transfer the stockto RMI rather than selling it and givingRMI the money.)

This program isn’t just for the well-endowed. Since the beginning of 1998,RMI has received stock gifts ranging from$150 to more than $30,000. And just incase you were wondering, RMI immediate-ly liquidates donated stock—we’re not inthe business of speculating on the stockmarket—and doesn’t have to pay tax onthe cash raised from its sale.

Think of your gift to Rocky MountainInstitute as a savvy investment in naturalcapital—one that yields dividends on aglobal scale!

If you have questions or would likemore information on making a gift of secu-rities, please contact Karl Clauss, RMIDevelopment Coordinator, at (970) 927-3128 or [email protected].

ECO-ESSAYS: R.I.P.It was a noble attempt, but RMI’s

involvement in the ECO-Essays radioseries, announced in the last newsletter, hasbeen suspended for lack of funding.

With a grant from the ARIA Found-(continued on page 16)

Thanks



Catherine S. Bardsley, Esq.Joyce & Gerald C. BarkerMartin J. BarnettPete BaroneThomas J. BarryPaul BartchMary Louise & Joseph C. BatesBeverly & Steve BeanThomas W. Behan (2)Bernadette Bell & Kenneth

WachterMeg Page BentleyTrevor BerrillCrissy BirdsongJim, Regina, & Becky BockMargaret B. BodtkeSarah A. BondJill & Mark W. BoyceGlenna & P.J. BrattonLois C. BraunCheryl & Philip C. Brown Jr., In

memory of Carleton R. BrownFaith & Ed Brown, in memory of

John DenverJoyce BrownJean & William C. BullardElaine & Bruce W. BurleyBrian J. BurroughsDonna & Jack Robert BurrowSally Ann & Thomas J. CahillJean & John Cairns Jr.Campbell Alliance GroupCatherine CarterDavid E. Carter, in memory of

Robert E. BenzeJoy & Sam M. CaudillSimon Chungshan MuiSuzanne ClareKenneth ColburnDavid R. ConelyConsolidated Manufacturing Inc.Controlled Environments Inc.Peter B. CookJames N. CopelandLesley B. CoughlinBernard A. CoyneRobert CramerCharles W. DahlgreenR. Gordon Dailey Jr.Stephen Y. DalvetLois Ellin Datta (6)David E. DeanGeorge Don DeanMary Alice DeBoltCarol & Edward J. DeFranciaJoseph Daryl DelsignoreEdward DenhaanDiane H. DepuydtCarel DeWinkelEric D. DodgeDeborah & Michael J. DonleyDavid C. DormanAntonia DosikMary & Jim DowntonElisabeth Eberle Weber & Armin

W. EberleGeorge EhrhardtJohn M EllwoodThomas L. ElmoreJohn M. Ely Jr.Vickie EnloeCornelius EockampMark G. EricsonEloise & John C. ErkkilaLinda B. FabeDawn FarkCarlo FedericoniDonna FeinerLisa A. FigueroaMatt FischlerNancy Flynn Silva (8)Juliana Forbes & Tyler NorrisJeff ForwardKaren FredricksonHoward A. Freedman

Alison C. FullerBill FunkMarjorie & Brian GaffikinTerry GallowayAmanda GaltmanKip GardnerSteve GeorgeRay V.D. GerhartLisa & Mick Gilbert, In memory

of Grampa Sam PinilesAlice Jean & George E. GlessSandy GoldVictoria B. Gordon & Robert L.

BradleyCharles T. GordonRenuka & T. GovindarajBobby GraysonPeter A. GreenbergRhonda & William E. GriffithJoyce & Paul D. GudatLarry D. GuentherMr. & Mrs. Arvid HagenCherie J. HalesLuria Sue & Charles P. HamiltonEva HarrisKelly L. HarrisCindy & James D. HarveyRae Ann HassellShirley Hathaway & Linda EllisLouis R. HellwigZachrey HelmbergerCarol & Tony E. C. HendersonGary HensonGerson Higgs DesignLoren HockemeyerConstance M. HoguetMargaret & Charles A. HollowellDwight Holmes, In honor of

Douglas HolmesKevin L. HolmesRobin & Jack B. HomerLinda HoneMolly & Lou HouckPeter G. HowseAlyson HueyWilliam A. HughesGerald W. HundleyEleanor & Raymond C. IngersollG. K. InghamLaura B. Jaffee & Alfred

SaundersLee JinMary & Newell A. JohnsonKenneth Jolly JrAnne & Brooks JonesKent Owen Jones & Nicholas

VavrichekMaria Hanna JosephDana Judy & Susan A. WeisnerPaul KameczuraJohn E. KassaySteven KaufmanJulie & Russell Keaten ReedMichael Kenniston & Rosemary

A. DiNardoPamela L. KingNoreen KinneyMike KohnJames R. KomatinskyRobert KuchtaChris KuykendallLori & Mark C. LaCroixJanet Moody LampmanKa’u Landing & Michael GibsonVirginia D. LappalaMark LarsonSuzanne & Kevin R. Law, in

honor of Noah James PutnamAnn M. LawlerTressa & Jeffrey M. LeahyEleanor & Jerry LeeperShirley & George LeitnerMarion & Warren P. LeonardMarvina Lepianka & Charles

Jaffee

Geoff LewisJanet K. LewisJon Li Institute for Public

Science and ArtSheila Sue Lidstone &

Christopher C. WebberWalter LienhardLisa LindenDeanne R. LindstromConnie & Michael E. LivingstonKaren & Eglis T. LodeWendy B. LorenJune Loucks Evans & Warren

EvansMichael J. ManganRonald A. MargolisGeorge E. MarshallNancy C. MartinMarcia & Stephen P. MartinsonJohn P. Masone (2)Anne Kraus Matter & Stephen S.

MatterMarguerite MatthewsJoseph F. MatyJoAnn & John F. MausAndrew H. McCallaSarah S. McCoyLaurie & Craig McDanielLaura E. McNeill, in honor of

Laura McNeillTimothy McNerneyMadeline McWhinney DaleGeo MelvilleAnnette T. MenteAnnette Mercer & Alexis P.

WielandLaura & Jay P. MiddletonElizabeth & James MijanovichMurray Vincent MillerCindy & Paul MinerCynthia & Joseph G. MoffatYvonne & Bruce MohrTim MorrissetteKenneth W. MorrowGaard MosesSara MossmanDavid B. MoyerMary & Herman J. MuenchenPatricia Muldoon & William

ThompsonEdward C. MyersVeronica Needa, in honor of The

Citizen’s PartyLouise & Erik K NelsonJane M. NicolichJonathan K. NiermannWendy & Dirk NordbergJudith NortonKathy Oberle & Cecil H. HallConnie & John W. O’BrienM. Brigid O’Farrell & T. James

GlauthierNed OliverRuthanne & William E. O’NeillJoy PardiDoug ParkerLoren J. PassmoreJohn PeetJuliana L. Perez & James G.

SackettPinellas County Board of County

CommissionersF. Adele PlouffeGail & Joseph M. PokornyAmanda PotterRichard M. PuskarFrances & Albert RaboffDavid RaphaelGregg M. RaymondKathryn & Daniel D. ReadChristine J. ReichertJanet M. ReitlerTheodore L. RiceChad Richardson

Skylar F. Rickabaugh &Theodore F. Fremd

Ann Risch & George BoodyWilliam J. RobinsonMartha Rounds & William

ManningBarbara & Eli RubinsteinJohn RuskisJeremy W. RussoCatherine I. SandellPatricia & Michael S. SandersBeatrice SantoriniDavid A. SchallerWendy & Edward W. SchmittJoyce & David SchmoegerKathleen & Jon T. ScottSusan Ashley SeagravesRobert J. SeldonNancy & Martin F. SellersJerome L. ShainSusan B. SheridanCullin ShiffrinJeffery S. Shoaf, In memory of

John DenverMarcia ShullFred Siebert, IIISierra Solar SystemsFrantisek SimekMatthew SimonNaomi & Sidney H. SimonDiane M. SimpsonMark SkinnerLaura & Gary SmithScott SmithMary & Peter A. SmithC. Diane Smock & Bradford W.

WycheSnowmass General Store & Deli

(2)Richard SolerMichele & James V. Spacek Jr.Gail & Gregory C. SpeerHugo SpowersHarry SpruytAvraham & Dena SteinMildred E. Stevens & Jean

Barrieu StevensRuth & Albert B. StewartNancy Jo Stockford & Mark R.

Huston, In honor of WallaceHuston & Chip Stockford

Jeffrey StohlGayle H. StoneMarion & Thomas A. StonerJohn G. StrommerJ. StuartChristine L. Sutter & William M.

QuinlanLucetta SwiftNancy K. TaylorRichard TheisDonald K. ThompsonBeth & Scott ThompsonSuzanne & Robert K. TojiTerry & Gary TraunerAlycia TullochDavid TupperRegina & James R. TurrentineWanda L. UnderhillUnited Way Combined Fed

Campaign of Umatilla Co.Richard B. WaidJane Walker PfisterWilliam R. WaltersRussell D. Ward JrLiz WashburnDavid WassermanWendy & Richard WeeksLinda Supon Weiss & Martin D.

WeissJohn WellsWilliam J. WellsMarcie & Robert B.H. WelshAnn & Timothy Wheeler

The NewsletterThe Rocky Mountain Institute

Newsletter is published three times a yearand distributed to more than 20,000readers in the United States and through-out the world.

Please ask us before reproducing, withattribution, material from the Newsletter.

LETTERS TO THE EDITORWe want to hear your comments, crit-

icism, or praise relating to any articleprinted in the Newsletter. Please addressall correspondence to:

Dave ReedNewsletter Editor

Rocky Mountain Institute1739 Snowmass Creek RoadSnowmass, CO 81654-9199

tel: (970) 927-3851fax: (970) 927-3420email: [email protected]

web: www.rmi.org

About the InstituteRocky Mountain Institute is an inde-

pendent, nonpartisan, nonprofit researchand implementation organization with avision across boundaries.

Seeking ideas that transcend ideology,and harnessing the problem-solving powerof free-market economics, our goal is tofoster the efficient and sustainable use ofresources as a path to global security.

Rocky Mountain Institute believes thatpeople can solve complex problemsthrough collective action and their owncommon sense, and that understandinginterconnections between resource issuescan often solve many problems at once.

Founded in 1982, Rocky MountainInstitute is a §501(c)(3) /509(a)(1) publiccharity (tax-exempt #74-2244146). It hasa staff of approximately 45 full-time, 48total. The Institute focuses its work inseveral main areas—corporate practices,community economic development, ener-gy, real-estate development, security, trans-portation, and water—and carries oninternational outreach and technical-exchange programs.


PATRONS$1,000 - $2,499

Above It All Balloon Co., Inc.

FRIENDS$100–$499

AnonymousJohn L. Boehne

Pamela & Alan B. Tompkins

ASSOCIATES$1–$99

Kim & Marshall Evans (2)John P. GlismannSherry & Ted GuzziMargaret and David H. Penoyer

(2)

Mrs. Archer WilcoxPerry R. Wilkes, JrJoanne J. WilliamsJoan Lee & Lynn T. WinterJennifer Wollman

Roy W. WoodDouglas WoodardYour Personal ChefAtis Zviedris Sustainable Energy

Thanks


Rocky Mountain Institute1739 Snowmass Creek RoadSnowmass, Colorado 81654-9199

Printed on 100-percent recycled paper with soy-based inks

CHANGESERVICEREQUESTEDWINDSTAR LAND

CONSERVANCY DONORS

PATRONS$1,000–$2,499

Kathi M. Kerr, in memory ofFrances DiNatale Kerr

James H. Woods Foundation, inmemory of John Denver

Unicorn Balloon Company ofColorado, Inc.

SPONSORS$500–$999

Diana & Phillip G. Adcock, inmemory of John Denver

AnonymousAnonymous, for John Denver

and his landEllen Bigelow, in memory of

John DenverBette & Philip Danse

Barbara M. Fleming, in memoryof John Denver and in honorof Erma Dentschendorf Harris

Allison Kenny, in memory ofJohn Denver

Sherrill SchoepeAlaine & John M. Seastrom, in

honor of the marriage betweenEma Tibbetts and TimKwiatkowski

StarsEnd CreationsJoy & Timothy Stone, in memo-

ry of John DenverSymphony in the Valley

ASSOCIATES$1–$99

Grace & Bryan T. Bailey (7), inmemory of John Denver

Annalisa & Bennet A. Berns

Diane & Frank J. Busateri Jr. (5)Patricia A. Cavanaugh, in loving

memory of John DenverLaura, Patrick, & Susan CosgriffBarbara M. Fleming, in memory

of John DenverWilliam F. GratzKarlyn & Larry Hicks, in memo-

ry of John DenverIBM International Foundation, in

memory of John DenverPeggy Kitch, in loving memory

of John DenverMary & Joseph M. Lechuga, in

memory of John DenverPatricia & Howard Liddic, in lov-

ing memory of John DenverCheryl L. Markvart (2), in loving

memory of John Denver

Patricia & Raymond F. MuellerMarie & Daniel T. Mullowney, in

memory of John DenverThomas Ray Perryman, in mem-

ory of John DenverRonald L. RichElizabeth K. RichardsShirley Ann & Alfred H.

Richardson, in memory ofBarbara Johnson, who was anavid fan of John Denver’s

Shirley Schmitke, in memory ofJohn Denver

Jeffery S. Shoaf, in memory ofJohn Denver

Eileen Stein, in loving memoryof John Denver

Cynthia & Lawrence Woytowicz

SECURING THEFUTURE DONORS

(continued from page 15)

(continued from page 14)

ation, RMI teamed up with producer PeterJohnson earlier this year to create threemonths’ worth of daily three-minute radioessays encouraging “environmental aware-ness and responsibility.” The lively spotscovered everything from green buildings togreen power, and from biotech to biodiver-sity.

By the time the funding ran out, theseries was reaching 7 million listenersworldwide through National Public Radioand the Armed Forces Radio Network.Indeed, many stations are still rerunningECO-Essays.

Our sincere thanks go out to readerswho donated money to “adopt” ECO-Essays, and especially to AES Corporationand The Watt Stopper, whose gifts enabledus to contribute six of the essays in thefinal installment in August.

ECO-ESSAYSNON-PROFIT

ORGANIZATION

UNITEDSTATES

POSTAGE PAID

SNOWMASS, COLORADO

PERMIT NUMBERTHREE

fall 1999 mountain institute · power plant into light from a standard bulb is only three percent....

Documents