Tue 13 Nov 2007
Some call it “The Big Razor,” a play on its corporate namesake. To others, it’s simply “Foxborough,” as in the Massachusetts town home to it and its dumpy predecessor. A few unbalanced types think of Gillette Stadium, the dwelling of the National Football League’s New England Patriots, as an oppressive Albert Speer knockoff housing the cheatingest gridiron squad on dry land. Most of us are bitter Bills fans.
But more to the point, did you know the stadium was built with an on-site wastewater treatment facility? And even more to the point, were you aware that the Patriots recently agreed to purchase 2,400 megawatt hours of offsets to match their gameday electricity consumption? Well, that’s kind of the point. And, obviously, there are Eph footprints all over this bad boy, starting with Jonathan Kraft ‘86.
But today, the Kraft Group will announce that Midwestern wind will fuel the Gillette Stadium lighthouse, the 612 blazing light bulbs shining down on the field, the scoreboards, and more than 40 concession stands that are juiced with enough power during each game to run 2,269 households for a day. …
“Obviously, energy is vital to our game-day operations and we have made substantial efforts to enhance our energy efficiency,” the Patriots’ president, Jonathan Kraft, said in a statement.
“This not only reduces our carbon footprint, but could help build awareness that other organizations have an opportunity to make a similar choice for the environment.”
The renewable energy credits will be purchased from Constellation NewEnergy, a subsidiary of the Mayo Shattuck ‘76-helmed Constellation Energy, as part of an extant power agreement between the Pats and their energy supplier.
There are, naturally, a few doubters.
The idea of buying certificates to offset pollution has its critics, who say some companies may “greenwash” without making substantive changes.
“People have made the comparison to Catholic indulgences - we’ll continue to sin, but look, we’ll send this to the Church,” said David Chernushenko, author of the book “Greening our Games.”
Previous EphBlog discussion on this topic here.
The Krafts have obviously been into the green-conscious thing for a while, so as much as I’d like to claim they’re simply looking for a much-needed PR boost here, that doesn’t really hold water. But the good press doesn’t hurt, huh? And, indeed, it’s part of the stated rationale for the transaction.
“We have been incredibly proud to serve the New England Patriots since 2003, and now we are pleased to support their sustainable environmental practices by securing clean, renewable energy sources to match the electricity usage for home games throughout the season,” said Michael Kagan, president, Constellation NewEnergy. “Given the national prominence of the Patriots, this significant action sets a terrific example for other companies and businesses preparing to introduce renewable energy into their portfolio as part of an overall strategy to address climate change.”
Now, I tend to think Kagan has a point here. The Pats’ appeal (and, perhaps, their influence) cuts across all sorts of social and economic lines, and as a a result, their green example might just carry more weight with the average consumer than would such a move from the average business. Depending on how much overlap one believes there is between the pro-wind power crowd and the pro-Randy Moss contingent, the Krafts are quite possibly helping to expand the roster of environmentally conscious citizens.
2007-11-13 23:02:23
Possibly but not probably to any great extent.
2007-11-14 00:10:17
They can’t even win over their own senator (see, e.g., “Hyannispawt”). I think that, being a windbag himself, he’s probably afraid of the competition.
2007-11-14 00:56:43
The difference is that indulgences can’t actually reverse the effects of sin, while offsets can and do reverse the effects of emissions. You can claim that a particular seller of offsets might be a fraud, but to compare offsets in general to indulgences is idiotic.
2007-11-14 06:40:27
this is not a factual accounting of the people that purchase offsets. TerraPass a leading offset provider studied thier consumer. They found that the average person purchasing offsets is more likely to bike to work,and monitor their thermostat. The average purchaser is 200 times more likely then the typical American to have solar power. People that purchase offsets want to balance out what they can’t reduce, not balance out their over use.
You can read about the study here http://carbonneutraldigest.com/?p=89
2007-11-14 07:47:24
There is definitely a big overlap in the pro-Moss and pro-wind power contingents. As evidence see the enormous wind turbine that the IBEW in Dorchester set up in their parking lot, towering over I-93. Maybe it is just another union make-work project like the big dig.
In any case, make-work here beats having a totally free market that incidentally underwrites international terrorism.
2007-11-14 09:03:35
The typical Patriot fan doesn’t give a fig for conservation or consumption unless it increases or reduces his cost of watching his team.
2007-11-14 10:22:04
This is 10% (at most) substance and 90% misleading spin. (Not that there is anything wrong with spin, which is just another name for corporate politics.)
First, nothing changes at Gillette! They are using the same amount of power from the same dirty sources that they used last year. Just as much carbon is going into the atmosphere. (And, by the way, do you think that the Kraft’s fly commercial when they go to away games? I doubt it! In fact, I bet you a lunch at Owl Feather War Bonnet Wind Farm that the Krafts take a separate private jet from the one that the team uses. No worries, though! They are buying offsets.
Second, why can’t a newspaper article like this quote any skeptics? Why not just reprint the Patriots’ news release?
Third, did you note the key number that is not reported? How much money did the Patriots spend on these offsets? As far as we know, it could be $1! The entire rest of the article would still be true even if no real money was used.
Fourth, even if some non-trivial amount of money was used, what is the real world substance? Was less carbon put into the atmosphere? Not that I can see. At best, those dollars subsidize wind power, thereby encouraging firms to build more windmills. Maybe that is a good thing but it is not clear that this meaningfully decreases carbon emissions. That only happens if this wind power displaces carbon-power that would have been used in its place. Is there much evidence of that? Not that I can see.
2007-11-14 10:41:22
Certainly puts a whole new spin on America’s Favorite Pastime…
“Get yur solar-cooked, organic hot dog here!”
2007-11-14 12:03:46
David: To go off on the tangent which you provided - spin is a form of dishonesty.
2007-11-14 14:58:59
… and yet we have to start somewhere.
Is there any value just to getting the issue on the table? Or do the yammering and almost meaningless action begin to shut our ears and numb our minds?
Might there be some good byproducts? Might increased demand for wind-generated energy increase interest and investment in the area and ultimately lead to technological breakthroughs, social acceptance of turbines, and efficiencies that lower the cost of such energy and/or increase the types of situations where it might be viably produced so that wind-generated energy would start actually replacing coal- and oil-generated energy?
When I get pessimistic about these things, I remember that thirty years ago, people all over America smoked just about everywhere, including hospitals and nursing homes. Similarly, although we still have a distance to go on racial issues, we have come a very great distance from where we were fifty years ago. I’m not for getting snookered by hype and spin but I also don’t want to be broadly negative about nascent efforts.