Renewable Energy Should Not Be PR

It's rare when I see something that is pro-renewables yet makes me want to wretch.

But that's how I feel about the Vestas Consumer Wind study and its accompanying Corporate Renewable Energy Index, both available as PDF files from here. 

The first study says that people like wind. Wind is popular. Wind has a halo effect, and this can be transferred to companies buying wind power.

This is a stupid business case. Invest in us so people will like you? Really? Really. No, invest in us because you will make money, at at least because you will advance a technology that can make money for you down the road. A business case based on PR is charity, not business.

The second study names names. These companies are wind's BFFs. Starbuck's. Sprint. NTT. Credit Suisse. JP Morgan. Staples. Far more interesting is the “Top 20” chart, showing which companies actually get more of their energy from renewable sources, whatever that means.

The surprise leader? Kohl's, the discount clothier. They actually produce more renewable energy than their stores consume. Whole Food's does nearly as well. I'm sure this doesn't count the energy used in warehousing and distribution. But it's something. It's faintly interesting.

Perhaps the most embarrassing part of the whole chart is the fact that Vestas itself, a wind turbine producer, only ranks 7^th on its own list, getting 73% of the energy it uses from renewable sources.

There's also a chart here on procurement, who is buying the most renewable energy. The answer there? Intel. They bought nearly 1.5 Gwatts of energy from renewable sources in 2010, edging out Kohl's. News Corp., Cisco, and Lockheed-Martin also appear on this list.

Here are the companies putting real dollars behind their sustainability rhetoric , writes Marc Gunther. Fine, but the case for renewables can't be rhetoric, sustainable or otherwise. The case has to be be based on numbers, on the opportunity for profit, or rhetoric is all it's ever going to be.