Over the past 16 years, I have been involved in 5 successful startup companies ranging from an energy company, to several .com companies. Now I am focusing all of my attention on creating the tipping point in the sustainability movement by pushing initiatives in government, business and the broader social landscape. 
Many people are curious, what I am doing since I left Powerset. Well, the short story is that I have decided to dedicate myself to what I call the new Green Economy and I am working on several initiatives with other leaders in government and businesses that all fall under the responsibility of non-profit that I am founding called SF Green. 
In a controversial decision, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to require taxi cab companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20 percent lower than their 1990 levels by 2011.
The net affect of this legislation, which follows on the heals of NY City Taxi legislation, is that taxi cab drivers' who drive a low-emissions vehicle are charged an additional $7.50 gate fee. The idea is that the $7.50 goes to the cab companies to support the purchase of these new vehicles and the taxi cab drivers, who have to pay for their own gas, will theoretically make up the difference in by needing less gas.
Announcing the new legislation, Mayor Newsom said "Transportation accounts for over half of San Francisco’s greenhouse gas emissions. The legislation I am signing today complements the pledge I made in 2006 for an all-green taxi fleet and provides a mandate for cab companies to convert their vehicles." Mayor Newsom’s 2006 State of the City Address challenged the Taxi Commission to create a 100% "green" taxi fleet. Approximately 15% of today’s fleet is either Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or hybrid vehicles. This legislation is expected to increase that percentage to 100% by 2011.
It sounds great right? Well, there are two sides to this story according to many taxi cab drivers who are claiming that this legislation really just a scam enabling cab companies to increase revenue while cutting the working driver's income.When I caught a hold of this news I really tried to understand the good, the bad and the ugly of this new legislation. Why? Because I believe that one of the most dangerous things that can, and will to some extent, happen in government, is GreenWash legislation - that is legislation passed under the guise of being good for the environment, when really is it legilsation that is simply good for companies with strong ties to political leaders. In this case, I am not claiming that this legislation is greenwashing, but many other people are, so I thought I would try my best to give you the information so you can make you own decision.
What the Proponents are Saying:
Generally the supervisors and those that support this legislation, primarily Luxor and Yellow Cab say that the gas savings from taxi cab drivers who drive low-emissions vehicles, like the Toyota Prius, more than makes up for the increase of $7.50 in the gate fee.
As for Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, she said thata "This legislation came about because the status quo gate cap cannot continue. I’m pleased we found a way to green the taxi cab industry without bankrupting the companies and without doing so on the backs of cab drivers."
The Board says drivers will be better off, “If you drive a Crown Victoria, which gets 10 mpg, and figure gas at $3.48 a gallon, it costs $40 a shift,” said Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier. “But a Ford Escape Hybrid gets 25.6 mpg and would cost $15 a shift. Even with the $12.50 increase, that’s a gain of almost $13 a shift.”
What the Opponents are Saying:
The loudest opponents, like Bud Hazelkorn are saying "The bill ... is a reverse Robin Hood straight from the George Bush playbooks. The Board of Supervisors pretend to fight global warming by granting a raise to the cab companies - and forcing the drivers to pay for it. Gas prices are headed for $4 and more per gallon."
Mark Gruberg, another Taxi cab driver and opponent says "They're saying we're going to save $25 with hybrids," he said, "and then they are taking half of that back."
The Chronicle also weighs in on the issue and highlights the concerns of taxi cab drivers.
And the opponent with the harshest words for the Mayor is the SF Taxicab blog who says:
"Make no mistake about it, this legislation was purely strategic. It began not as a green legislation but as a gate increase of $18.50 only for the City's biggest cab companies. The gate increase was cut to $5.00 for all cab companies plus an additional $7.50 for vehicles that are categorized as clean energy by the Taxicab Commission. Michela Alioto-Pier is quoted in the release as saying, "I’m pleased we found a way to green the taxi cab industry without bankrupting the companies and without doing so on the backs of cab drivers". Really? Let me see, the cab drivers are going to pay more money to the cab companies so that the cab companies can do more of what they do already, buy cars, hack 'em up and lease them to drivers. But somehow this is not on the backs of the drivers? Michela, are you aware of what you are saying? I'm not calling you a liar but you said it and the money is coming from the cab drivers. That by definition means that this policy is being carried on the backs of the cab drivers.
This legislation is complete and total garbage and should never have been approved. It is San Francisco politics at it's most embarrassing. It is embarrassing to the people who wrote it, it is embarrassing to the people who approved it and it is embarrassing to those who supported it (that's you Taxicab Commission President Paul Gillespie, you let us down, again)."
Why I say:
Passing this legislation will not even put a dent in SF Carbon Emissions. Why? Even though Gavin Newson accurate states that 50% of San Francsisco's carbon emissions come from transportation, he did not state how much of the transportation emissions comes from public transportation versus private vehicles or even taxis versus buses. The reality is that very little of San Francisco's carbon emissions actually comes from taxi cabs and you can figure this out simply by doing a back of the hand calculattion. If you estimate that San Francisco has millions of cars traveling through it and in it every day and you count that there are only 7,000 taxi cab drivers in San Francisco, you quickly can see that even if we eliminated the taxi cab fleet all together it wouldn't even touch our carbon footprint.
However, I would vote for this legislation all day long! Why you say? Because although this legislation won't directly solve global warming, it does provide a basis for sending a message every single day to anyone that ever takes a taxi. i.e. you couldn't hope for a better marketing position than being able to state your position on every taxi in the city. I think that if San Francisco did convert all of its fleet to hybrids it could help push the tipping points of the green movement.
The Final Word: I think that any legislation that involves taxi cabs will always be contentious in the city and I defintely think that the Mayor should have been more upfront of the true value of this legislation and the supervisors shouldn' have pretended that it would have a dramatic impact on our carbon footprint. But in the end, that's just messaging - I truly believe that the supervisor do understand the value of this legislation and they are trying to be leaders in the United States. The reaction of this new legislation really highlights how careful legislators will have to be when passing new "green" legislation because sometimes good legislation will be called GreenWashing by opponents who are simply trying to look out for their own best "business" interest.