Printer manufacturer Ricoh yesterday joined the growing ranks of IT vendors providing schemes to offset the carbon emitted operating their equipment by donating towards a fruit tree planting project in Africa on behalf of its customers.

Under the new scheme firms buying Ricoh printing equipment can sign up to have their printer and copier usage monitored, then for every 100,000 photocopies or prints produced a tree is planted.

Chas Moloney, associate director of marketing at Ricoh, said that the company's calculations meant that this meant the emissions generated operating the machine would be offset. "100,000 prints may sound like a lot but we overestimated the emissions in the calculations to ensure that we can say with confidence that the scheme covers the emissions generated," he said.

Customers will then receive green, bronze, silver, gold or platinum e-certificates based on the number of trees planted on their behalf.

The scheme, which is operated by charity Seeds for Africa, also has social and economic benefits according to Ricoh as the fruit trees are planted near schools in Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda and form part of a wider programme to educate young people in sustainable agricultural practices.

Moloney said the move marked a step forward in the company's environmental and CSR efforts. "In the past we have donated to tree schemes where the cash has gone towards tending to trees, but this takes it to the next level and ensures trees that wouldn’t be there if we hadn’t put the money in are planted," he claimed. 

The scheme is likely to be welcomed by green minded customers, but should receive a more mixed response from environmentalists who will argue that offsetting printing is still significantly less beneficial than avoiding printing in the first place.

However, Moloney insisted Ricoh was committed to limiting customers' environmental impact, arguing that while the paper-less office remained impractical for many firms the company's printers were configured to help reduce paper use. "All our printers have duplex [double sided printing] as their default mode and we have also invested heavily in R&D to limit the environmental impact of our production process and enhance the energy efficiency of our products," he said.

The news came as a new report from the Centre for Economic Business Research (CEBR) claimed that UK organisations waste £1bn a year on printing through a combination of poor print management processes and ill-conceived print outsourcing contracts. The report, which was commissioned by OKI Printing Solutions, argued that millions of pounds, not to mention swathes of trees, could be saved by organisations simply improving the organisation of their printing processes.

Posted by James Murray on January 31, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Microsoft's long anticipated launch of Windows Vista was somewhat overshadowed today by accusations the new operating system could result in "massive" environmental damage.

The accusations were led by Tony Roberts, chief executive of UK charity Computer Aid International, which provides refurbished second hand computers to education and social projects in the UK and developing world economies. He argued that the stiff hardware requirements needed to run Vista will force many users to upgrade or replace existing PCs that are still perfectly effective.

According to Computer Aid International as many as 10 million PCs could be discarded in the UK over next two years as they are replaced by Vista compatible hardware. 

Roberts said that this glut of unwanted IT kit could lead to an "environmental disaster", noting that with the new WEEE legislation governing the environmentally sound disposal of IT kit not coming into effect until July many of these unwanted machines could find their way to landfill sites.

"If you imagine each of these 10 million machines contains lead and many other toxic chemicals then we really are storing up an environmental disaster," he said. "It is essential all this e-waste is properly disposed of through licensed schemes."

He added that even where firms do dispose of their kit responsibly through approved schemes millions of machines that could otherwise continue to be of use will be broken up. "Given the huge amount of resources that go into manufacturing a PC it is vital that we use it for its full natural life," he argued. "Re-use is the only way to achieve that and PCs donated to us tend to last another three or four years after they were initially discarded."

Computer Aid's environmental concerns were endorsed by lobby group Greenpeace International which claimed that Microsoft had not shown enough consideration of the environmental impact of its product.

"There has been one study that suggested that only 6 percent of business PCs in North America were ready for the premium version of Vista," said Zeina Alhajj, campaigner at Greenpeace. "That means masses of IT kit is going to be discarded and in some cases dumped."

Alhajj argued that the IT industry as a whole had a responsibility to address this "chain of obsolescence" and make it easier to upgrade the parts of a machine needed to run new versions of software.

She added that until vendors resolved this issue corporate customers had an environmental responsibility to ask themselves if a system upgrade is genuinely necessary. "It might be that your design team does need the new functionality [offered by Vista], but you have to ask if your secretary, for example, really needs an upgrade to Vista," she said.

Where upgrades are unavoidable both Greenpeace and Computer Aid International recommended firms should donate unwanted equipment to charities and other organisations that will reuse the kit.

"Choosing re-use over recycling allows IT equipment to be used until the real end of its productive life, enabling individuals and businesses to reduce their environmental footprint," said Roberts. "Only when a piece of IT equipment is no longer of use should it be broken down."

He also argued that future versions of Windows and other software packages should show greater consideration for the existing hardware environment. "I look forward to a time when software upgrades don't compel us to throw away perfectly good computers," he said.

Microsoft was unavailable for comment at the time of going to press.

Posted by James Murray on January 30, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (2)

Ever been too strapped for cash to buy a new PC? So you thought you'd have a wander on to eBay or over to one of the resellers of second hand PCs?

Well it might save you some cash, but there are risks as well. I once had to troubleshoot a relative's recently bought second hand PC and it was packed to the rafters with malware. What is more the internet cache had things in there a young innocent from Barnsley was never meant to see.

Fortunately, the original disks were there. So a couple of hours later it was patched and ready to take its place in society again, all for a knock down price. And there's the rub, you need the original disks because when hardware gets resold X years down the line, a bona-fide Windows OS usually needs to be there.

"Bang a Linux distro on it!" I hear you techies shout, and rightly so, because shelling out for XP or Vista, would amount to spending maybe five times what the hardware is worth.

In short, if you've got the nous to deal with any unwanted cyber nasties and install and manage your own open source software then buying second hand can save you cash, while limiting the environmental impact of a new PC being built and an old one binned.

But can second hand bargains also work when businesses are looking to buy enterprise class network kit?

Well, there are plenty of firms out there who do successfully buy second hand network kit from enterprises or leasing companies. Some enterprises refresh their kit every three to five years and lease companies pick up the kit after the lease runs out so both can supply a steady stream of second hand equipment to the market.

Some critics would question the reliability of such aged machines, but remember, this kit has typically been sat in a nice, environmentally controlled datacentre, and if it had the right configuration programmed in when it was installed, then the only hands that might have touched it are those of a network technician just plugging in the requisite cables. After that, it's remote management all the way.

In these circumstances three year old network kit still has plenty of life left in it and companies that normally could not afford the new equipment probably could afford it second hand. Unless it's had a catastrophic failure, all the hardware is probably well 'burnt-in' and could have years of life left in it

As with my relative's PC, purchasing second hand network kit saves new equipment being needed and avoids having to bin kit that can still give good service. It is a case of easy money and environmental sustainability in one.

Dave Bailey

Posted by James Murray on January 30, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Moixa launched its USBcell rechargeable batteries back in September but the arrival of various new gadgets at Christmas finally forced my hand into using these clever units for the first time this month. In a word: brilliant.

The USBcell charges via any powered USB port with simple light alerts to show when the units are charging, nearly charged and charged. The plastic cap protecting the USB connector is removable and attaches via what would appear to be an elastic string that may look a bit flimsy but feels robust.

Two AA batteries cost £13 but with garage shops talking fortunes on Christmas day to feed insatiable toys, games and other devices, that's not such a bad price. At least I now have a working radio in the bathroom.

Of course, the ability to recharge batteries is not new but if, like me, you carry a laptop around with you and have a poor record on remembering peripherals, this is a convenient way to mitigate forgetfulness - not to mention the financial and environmental cost of constantly buying new disposable batteries.

Moixa has a strong UK retail presence and several ingenious ways to apply its trick to forthcoming AAA and other battery form factors so look out for more USB rechargeable batteries later this year. 

Martin Veitch

Posted by James Murray on January 29, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Dear Mr Gore,

I'm just writing to say congratulations on the two Oscar nominations for your film An Inconvenient Truth.

I caught it at the cinema and thought it was an excellent documentary - forceful, intelligent, urgent and vital in almost every respect. It takes some doing to make something akin to a PowerPoint presentation interesting, but you managed it.

What is more, it seems that the film has recorded that rarest of feats and actually had a political impact. In fact some might say you proved more successful convincing people of the need for action on climate change with this film than you did during your entire eight years as vice president of the United States. But let's leave that debate for another day, I'm sure it was a tricky job and you obviously had other things on your mind.

The film was of course only one of the many factors that made 2006 the year the environmental movement finally hit the mainstream, but it certainly made one of the biggest contributions in raising the profile of this most important issue.

So, like I say congrats, you deserve it.

However, if I may be so bold I'd like to offer a suggestion on how you can increase the impact of this film still further.

The other inconvenient truth is that no one will have shelled out for ticket to see this film if they did not already have an interest in global warming and a pretty strong conviction that it is a major problem.

You may have given those climate change deniers an intellectual kicking, but none of them were listening. You may have pointed out to business leaders how they could make money through green business models, but those who doubt this is the case simply weren't in the theatre.

You were preaching to the choir.

The only way to get round this is to reach out to those who missed the film first time around and stick it right under their noses. I know you have attempted to achieve this with some grass roots distribution, but much more is needed.

It may go against your central message that we can all make money and help save the planet at the same time, but what I'd suggest is that you distribute the DVD free of charge to every CEO, CFO, CIO and chairman at every listed firm in the world.

Once that is done I'd broker an agreement with the Financial Times, the Economist and other leading business titles and get them to distribute the DVD. A lot of copies will end up in the bin - you can't convince everyone - but if just a small percentage of this intended audience sit down one evening and watch the film its impact would be multiplied dramatically.

Of course this would cost you and your producers millions of dollars in lost revenue, but you can't have everything. Besides the film has already broken box office records for a documentary, grossed almost $36m worldwide, and served its secondary purpose as a 90 minute long advert for Apple - where I think I'm right in saying you are on the board of directors.

Now I know this is a pretty leftfield suggestion, and it could even be argued that it is a bit elitist just to target those making the decisions at the top of the corporate ladder. You could also argue that as a former vice president you already have the ears of many of these people. But if you are serious about reaching as wide and influential audience as possible then this is an idea that at least deserves consideration.

Let me know what you think.

Yours faithfully,

GBN

PS Next time you are at an Apple board meeting could you try and get to the bottom of why the company is getting a kicking from Greenpeace. Cheers.

Posted by James Murray on January 26, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Flexible working – you know it makes sense.

OK in certain circumstances you can't work from home, but for those of us who just need a bog-standard word processor, email and maybe access to a smidgen of back-office data.

Just think of all that time wasted battling through London's transport infrastructure, especially when six evenly distributed snowflakes settle on railways lines leading to Paddington, Euston, King's Cross, Liverpool Street, Victoria and Waterloo.

And now the TUC and the CBI seem to agree that flexible working is the way forward.

The perennial opponents joined forces with lobby group Work Wise UK earlier this week to sign a new concordat committing them to promote the "development and implementation of smarter worker practices" as part of a programme to significantly increased adoption of flexible working practices by 2011.

The proposals seem wholly positive for people's work-life balance and, according to the concordat, major environmental benefits will also accrue if flexible working takes off, including:

• Reduced congestion, for example, through staggered travelling hours.
• Reduced emissions, which will benefit noise and overall pollution levels.
• Better utilisation of the capacity of our existing transport infrastructure.
• Reducing the need for future additional infrastructure.
• Slowing down climate change.
• Making our air cleaner to breathe.

Meanwhile, new legislation is also playing a role in encouraging flexible working with a recently introduced law meaning that from April this year anyone who is a registered carer will have a legal right to ask their employer for flexible working conditions.

The downside of this drive towards flexible working practices for many businesses is that IT managers and helpdesks will have to roll out infrastructure to support home working initiatives. But personally if I don't have to commute for two hours per day, that's two hours extra work I could be doing, putting extra wonga on the firm's bottom line, and probably paying for any such rollouts pretty quickly.

Firms wishing to embrace flexible working can join companies such as BT and Transport for London by signing up to the concordat by emailing concordat@workwiseuk.org

Dave Bailey

Posted by James Murray on January 26, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

As Britain battened down the hatches ahead of last week's fatal storms scientists gathered at a joint press conference of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) in London and Washington DC to give symbolic confirmation to the sense of impending doom that defines the meta-narrative of our times. The magazine announced that the Doomsday Clock that has famously adorned its Chicago offices since 1947 would have its minute hand moved two minutes closer to midnight.

According to the concept timepiece, which marks humanity's proximity to disaster, we are now just five minutes away from midnight - and global apocalypse. 

The decision to tick the clock forward was made following a meeting of the magazine's directors and affiliated scientists - including Professor Stephen Hawking and president of the Royal Society Martin Rees - where it was decided that for the first time climate change should join nuclear war as the gravest threat faced by mankind.

In a statement BAS said that while nuclear proliferation was contributing to the growing sense of global insecurity, climate change now posed an almost equally serious risk. "The effects may be less dramatic in the short term than the destruction that could be wrought by nuclear explosions," the statement read. "But over the next three to four decades climate change could cause irremediable harm to the habitats upon which human societies depend for survival."

Two days later and reports emerged that increases in atmospheric CO2 last year were significantly higher than expected. The sharp increase does not match the steady rises in green house gas emissions recorded over the past year suggesting that as the planet continues to warm the ability of forests and oceans to absorb CO2 is deteriorating. In short we have even less time than scientists thought to reduce our carbon emissions. It looks like BAS will have to move the minute hand forward again.

Faced with these scientific assessments it is all too tempting to adopt the Private Frazer mentality and accept that we're doomed. But there is also a silver lining to this gloomy outlook and it is not completely illogical to argue that these terrifying predictions also present our last best hope of survival.   

In the same week that the scientists were predicting disaster and the gales were wreaking havoc both Tesco and Marks & Spencer pledged to spend millions on environmentally sustainable business models. They are just the latest in a long and growing line of firms that are now publicly committed to reducing their carbon emissions. Many reasons have been put forward for this remarkable volte face in the global business community's attitude towards the environment, including rising energy prices, increasingly robust legislation, and heightened consumer concerns. But while all of these factors have played a part none are truly sufficient to drive so many global companies to overhaul their entire operations.

The fact is that these factors have been in place to a greater or lesser extent for well over twenty years. Lowering costs by improving energy efficiency has always made sound financial sense; environmental red tape has been getting steadily tighter for decades; and public concerns about the environment were in the mainstream long before the major corporations took any action – I remember myself and my classmates being scared by global warming when first taught about it twenty years ago at primary school.

No, for the real driving force behind the green business movement we have to look back to those scientific doom-mongers. It is no coincidence that real action on global warming has coincided with the moment when the predicted dates for climatic disaster have been pulled within the expected life spans of the world's political and corporate leaders.

It is the selfish and unimaginative side of human nature that has got us into this mess, but we are also ingenuous and committed when it comes to their own survival. The pleas of scientists during the eighties and nineties to think of the kids fell on death ears, but now with 2050 slated as the date we can expect to inhabit an unrecognisably hostile planet, anyone in their forties or younger is realising there is a good chance they'll be around to see the results of their actions.

And even if people are inclined to disbelieve the scientists they also have the evidence of their own eyes in the rapidly changing weather patterns of recent years. In terms of driving our transition towards greener societies the El Nino Effect that is predicted to warm up the atmosphere still further this year could not have come at a more opportune time.

It is this sudden sense of political and corporate urgency that suggests that the massive, but not impossible, changes needed to develop low-carbon economies may prove both achievable and economically profitable. And, most encouragingly of all, these new initiatives, be it Tesco's pledge to label products with their carbon footprint, M&S' commitment to go carbon neutral, the EU's emissions trading scheme, or even President Bush's embryonic plan to embrace bio-fuels, are being driven by that most positive, motivating and unifying of human emotions – fear.

Posted by James Murray on January 25, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Computacenter has become the latest IT services firm to launch a new green consultancy service designed to help IT chiefs limit the environmental impact of their hardware.
 
Unveiled yesterday, the new Green IT Advisory Service offers customers six new support and consultancy services designed to help firms complete their "journey towards IT sustainability".

Heidi-Lynn Mitchell, product services director for Computacenter's hardware division, said that the company anticipated a lot of customer interest in the new service and insisted it would be available for only a small premium on normal services. "We want people to engage with this service and we don't want cost to be a barrier to this happening," she said.

Under the new initiative customers will first be offered a simple self service checklist designed to highlight opportunities for them to limit their IT department's environmental impact.

They can then sign up to a full IT estate audit from Computacenter that will measure energy consumption and identify where hardware or configuration changes could limit power usage.

In addition to the auditing service Mitchell said Computacenter would also offer an employer awareness programme designed to encourage firms' staff to turn off their IT equipment; a green IT reporting service to notify customers of the energy consumption of new products and the value of re-marketing end of life equipment; and a consumables service to assess and advise on the environmental impact of consumables such as ink cartridges.

Completing the new portfolio is a wide reaching IT environmental sustainability service designed to help firms minimise the impact of their IT estate and offer them the opportunity to offset the full carbon footprint of their IT equipment.

"We will help firms select new kit based on its full lifetime usage costs rather than just the up front costs and will configure all new equipment to minimise energy consumption based on the company's  business needs," she said. "We have also gone a step further than the offset schemes offered by vendors such as Dell [that cover the energy used powering a PC during the three years of its life] and calculated the typical carbon footprint for the manufacture, transport to the UK, distribution, usage and recycling of IT equipment."

She added that firms would then be given the final figure, allowing them to offset the true carbon cost of their IT estate if they so choose.

Computacenter also announced that customer deliveries will now be undertaken using biodiesel fuelled vehicles from its courier partner Business Direct and that a new trolley technology would allow the supplier to deliver new PCs to customers without packaging them up.

Meanwhile, closer collaboration with Computacenter's IT re-marketing and disposal subsidiary RDC will see the company offer customers a buy back price when they purchase new kit. "By showing firms there is a re-marketing value to IT equipment when they purchase it we can encourage greater reuse and reduce the amount that gets thrown out," explained Mitchell.

Posted by James Murray on January 25, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Energy conversion chip developer Eneco announced its first commercial customer yesterday, inking an alliance with US energy systems provider Proterra Energy that will see the company deploy the chip technology at various industrial sites and power networks.

Under the terms of the partnership - which Proterra estimates will be worth in excess $2bn to the two companies over the next seven years with Eneco taking a 10 percent cut - Eneco's heat-electricity power conversion chip will be integrated with Proterra's thermal management system to help reduce carbon emissions and transform waste heat into electricity at Proterra's existing district power projects and new industrial projects in "the US, the UK and elsewhere".

The deal has also seen Proterra invest $20m in Eneco, which the company said would provide it with capital for further expansion.

Proterra provides a range of products for heating, power and cooling systems designed to reduce and clean emissions and enhance the efficiency of industrial systems such as boilers and furnaces. Eneco chief executive Lew Brown said that this capability fits in neatly with the companies new conversion chip technology. "Proterra has the skills for working on industrial sites and the technology to transport waste heat into an environment where our chips can take effect," he said.

The two companies are currently in negotiations with a steel mill in the US to deploy the new technology to generate electricity from waste heat produced by the steel furnace. "Currently Proterra works with the mill to clean the gasses coming off the furnance, but to do this the gas has to be run through a duct where water cools it down before it can be treated," he explained. "We'll replace the water jacket with our conversion technology to generate power for the plant."

Another customer is also lined up in Canada, where the company is planning to install the chips on a boiler being used to heat agricultural "hot houses", Brown said.

According to Brown, Proterra's emission neutralisation and sequestration technologies have also been used on firms' waste furnaces, offering another environment where the Eneco chips could help capture and convert waste heat into usable electricity.

However, Eneco confirmed that the chip itself is still in the "pre-manufacturing" stage and that the company is still working on resolving certain "packaging issues" surrounding how best to integrate the small chips together into an effective module.

Brown said that Proterra would begin laying the groundwork for the joint projects the companies are committed to and that the chips would be delivered by the end of 2007 to complete these projects. He insisted that Proterra was comfortable with this arrangement and confident that the chips would be delivered on time and prove effective in an industrial environment.

Brown also insisted that Eneco was looking for further partners to help take the chip to market and repeated his claims of last year that the company is poised to exploit a massive market opportunity. "It is estimated that 50 percent of the energy produced by fossil fuels is wasted through heat," he said. "I you could capture that it would be worth $1 trillion a year."

Posted by James Murray on January 24, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (2)

UK firms were last week advised that they will have to introduce financial incentives if they wish to change employee's behaviour and encourage them to reduce electricity costs and carbon emissions through energy efficient working practices.

That was the main conclusion of a survey of over 1,000 public and private sector employees undertaken by IT services specialist Logicalis, which found that employee's responsible attitude to energy conservation in the home was not being repeated at work. The survey found that while 94 per cent of people switch off lights at home and 85 per cent switch off their home PC after use, only two thirds switch off lights at work and almost half fail to turn off their PC of an evening.

Chris Gabriel, head of solutions at Logicalis, said the difference between home and workplace attitudes could be at least partly explained by the lack of incentive for staff to save energy at work. "More and more people are eco-warriors at home because they have seen their electricity bills climb and have both an environmental and a financial incentive to turn things off," he argued. "On the drive to work that financial incentive is lost."

He added that this was particularly apparent in the IT department where many IT directors do not have to pay their energy bills despite them representing a significant and growing proportion of IT's running costs. "CIO's should be given control of their electricity bills and told that if they can reduce them they can have a cut of the savings in the form of an annual bonus for their team," said Gabriel. "Given the average datacentre used up £5m in energy last year that would prove a significant incentive to improve things."

Gabriel argued this incentive model could be repeated across the business. "Almost all environmental savings generate cost savings, so if you want staff to drive environmental improvements and feel involved you should give them a cut," he said.

The survey revealed support for this idea with just under two thirds claiming their employer should offer incentives for being green in the workplace.

The report also uncovered widespread dissatisfaction with firms' green policies with just under half of respondents arguing that their employer is only paying lip service to the environment and failing to draw up a coherent company-wide strategy. "We found that around half of respondents now had remote working capabilities, but only 19 percent had contracts that allowed them to use it," said Gabriel. "There really needs to be more joined up thinking and improved leadership to drive these types of green initiatives."

Posted by James Murray on January 23, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (3)

Regular readers will be aware that late last year GBN reported on a new energy conversion chip that its manufacturers vowed would revolutionise the clean energy industry.

The Thermoionic energy conversion chip had been developed by US-based development company Eneco and promised to capture waste heat energy - produced in industrial environments, IT equipment or cars for example - and convert up to 30 percent of it into electricity.

Dr Lew Brown, CEO and president at the company, told potential investors that it was "a genuinely disruptive technology", comparable with "the invention of the transistor, or the TV, or the first aircraft".

Such bold claims prompted quite a debate amongst readers who posted a wide range of comments questioning the chip's viability, praising its innovation, suggesting further applications and requesting details on how exactly this seemingly miracle technology works.

In response to the comments GBN sought clarification from Eneco on some of the points raised and now Brown has responded via email with answers to some of your inquiries.

Here are his unedited answers:

GBN: What is the difference between this technology and thermo-electric chips being worked on by Power Chips Plc?
Lew Brown: ENECO investigated this approach and has a patent position for this type device, Tunneling-effect energy converters, US Patent No 6,946,596.

The Abstract of this patent reads:

“Tunneling-effect converters of thermal energy to electricity with an emitter and a collector separated from each other by a distance that is comparable to atomic dimensions and where tunneling effect plays an important role in the charge movement from the emitter to the collector across the gap separating such emitter and collector. At least one of the emitter and collector structures includes a flexible structure. Tunneling-effect converters include devices that convert thermal energy to electrical energy and devices that provide refrigeration when electric power is supplied to such devices.”
 
This is interesting science but with major technical and cost barriers to commercialization.  The most serious technical problem to solve in order to commercialize this technology is maintaining atomic dimension spacing required between electrodes over a macroscopic area without shorting out by accidental contact.  It is relatively easy to demonstrate the physical principle over a tiny area, say with dimensions on the order of nanometers, but useful devices need to achieve active conversion areas with characteristic dimensions of millimeters and centimeters.   We overcame this severe limitation by moving to an entirely different approach with our Thermal Chips, which use a semiconductor “gap” instead of a vacuum separator and use a semiconductor “emitter” instead of the metal electrodes.

You can see this difference by referring to our patent, Solid state energy converter, US Patent No 7,109,408.  The abstract of this patent reads:

“A solid-state energy converter with a semiconductor or semiconductor-metal implementation is provided for conversion of thermal energy to electric energy, or electric energy to refrigeration. In n-type heat-to-electricity embodiments, a highly doped n* emitter region made of a metal or semiconductor injects carriers into an n-type gap region. A p-type layer is positioned between the emitter region and gap region, allowing for discontinuity of corresponding Fermi-levels and forming a potential barrier to sort electrons by energy. Additional p-type layers can optionally be formed on the collector side of the converter. One type of these layers with higher carrier concentration (p*) serves as a blocking layer at the cold side of the converter, and another layer (p**) with carrier concentration close to the gap reduces a thermoelectric back flow component. Ohmic contacts on both sides of the device close the electrical circuit through an external load to convert heat to electricity. In the case of a refrigerator, the external load is substituted by an external power supply.”

Thermal chips need NO vacuum system, their manufacturability derives from standard semiconductor industry processes and practice, and they can have arbitrary sized areas to match the application. Plainly stated, we can make these, they work and we can demonstrate that 24-7.

What does converting 30 percent of heat energy mean from a layman's perspective?
It means that of the heat energy that passes through the chip, 30% is converted to electricity that available to the electrical load.

Are there problems with the stability of the semi conductor laminate?
If the question relates to the thin films, which I suppose someone might consider laminates, the answer is that these DO NOT de-laminate. 

How is the chip different from a peltier device?
Peltier devices are the thermoelectric heat pumps. We are not a thermoelectric device.  We DO share the characteristic that we can use a power supply to provide electrical energy to the device and we also will work as a heat pump. Our performance will be an improvement over the peltier device due to our high efficiency, which applies equally to our Power Mode and Cooling Mode.

Why not stack the chips to use the waste heat not used by the first layer? And why not use a conductor on one side and a heat dissipation material on the other rather than a ceramic on both sides?
The conversion efficiency only depends on the High and Low Temperatures available, not the number of intermediate stops.  So there is no advantage in principle.  Sometimes you see this "segmented" approach with thermoelectric converters because the highest temperature may not be tolerated by the most efficient material, so a high temp material will be used at the highest temperature even though it is not inherently as efficient as another choice and another material will follow the high temp material operating at the reduced temperature presented.  With Thermal chips we do not need to take this approach.

Posted by James Murray on January 19, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (3)

Tesco yesterday became the latest supermarket chain to unveil a major new initiative to tackle climate change, pledging to slash carbon emissions from its stores, distribution centres and supply chain and announcing it will put "carbon labels" on its products so that shoppers can compare the carbon cost of a product in the same way they check a product's calorie content.

Tesco said the plan - which comes just days after Marks and Spencer unveiled a five year initiative to become carbon neutral - would establish the supermarket as "a leader in helping to create a low carbon economy".

Unveiling the new plan at an event hosted by the Forum for the Future think tank, Tesco chief executive Sir Terry Leahy said that while the company had been criticised in the past for its environmental record its status as the UK's largest retailer meant it had a valuable role to play in encouraging green consumer habits.

"Tesco has come to be portrayed as part of the problem," he complained. "This could not be more wrong. When you want to reach and empower the many, Tesco is a big part of the solution."

Under the new plan Tesco has committed to cut CO2 emissions from its stores and distribution centres by 50 percent by 2020 and also reduce emissions from its distribution network by 50 percent within five years.

It also pledged to slash the prices of energy efficient products such as light bulbs; emulate Marks and Spencer by labeling any product that had been air freighted into the UK; and develop a new labeling system to inform customers of the carbon footprint of each product.

Peter Madden, chief executive of Forum for the Future, said that the announcement should have a knock on effect for other retailers. "When you have a company as powerful as Tesco and a boss as influential as Terry Leahy giving serious attention to climate change, the rest of business has to listen," he said. "Tesco's commitment to count and display the carbon cost of every product is groundbreaking. It shows that they are serious about tackling climate change and intend to do it by helping millions of customers make straightforward and affordable choices."

Posted by James Murray on January 19, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (1)

The government has today unveiled new standards for carbon offsetting schemes in an attempt to increase consumer confidence in the growing market and eradicate cowboy operators.

But the proposals have received a mixed reception, with some offset providers claiming that smaller, community-based carbon reduction projects will find it impossible to attain the standard.

The government standard and code of best practice are based on the existing Kyoto carbon market where carbon can only be traded if the offset project goes through a rigorous certification process such as that provided under the UN Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

Environment Secretary David Miliband said the standard would raise the bar for the offsetting industry and provide consumers with assurances that when they pay for offsets the money is spent on projects that deliver genuine carbon dioxide emission reductions. There have been growing concerns that some cowboy operators have been guilty of selling the same carbon credit several times over and operating projects with limited impact on emissions.

"People need to be sure that the way they offset is actually making a difference," Miliband said. "The Government's standard and code of practice, with a quality mark so people can check easily before they choose an offsetting product, will help to provide that certainty."

The standards are now be open to consultation until the 13th of April, but the government said it had already secured support for the proposals from four carbon offset providers - PURE the Clean Planet Trust, Global Cool, Equiclimate and Carbon Offsets Ltd - as well as First Choice Holidays, Lastminute.com and Rough Guides travel books.

However, just four of the UK's 61 offset operators have endorsed the standard so far and many of these firms claim that the narrow criteria imposed by the government standard will exclude a large number of valid carbon reduction projects.

"We thoroughly welcome the government's involvement and recognise the need for robust standards," said Michael Buick of offset provider ClimateCare. "But the standards have to be appropriate and there are a lot of smaller projects that simply can't afford to go through the Kyoto accreditation."

He pointed to ClimateCare's well publicised project to deliver fuel efficient stoves to developing world communities as the type of community level project that reduces carbon emissions but would struggle to afford the registration and auditing costs required to gain CDM approval. He added that ClimateCare had also been involved in the development of two offsetting standards - the Climate Group-backed Voluntary Carbon Standard and the Gold Standard for Voluntary Offsets – as it too attempts to drive cowboy operators out of the market.

Bill Sneyd of The CarbonNeutral Company – which also operates projects in accordance with its Carbon Neutral Protocol standard – agreed that the new government standard would exclude valuable smaller projects that can not meet the bureaucratic requirements.

However, Philip Wolski, head of fundraising at Pure, said that the UN-backed certification schemes were the only way of reassuring customers that they are contributing to projects that deliver quantifiable reductions in carbon emissions. "The UN backing is mainly focused on major clean technology investment projects, in areas such as wind farms and hydroelectric, that deliver tangible emissions reductions," he said. "Also, because it is UN-backed you know proper planning and development protocols have been followed to limit the impact on the indigenous population."

He added that Pure's approach meant that when it buys carbon credits off of UN-approved projects they are taken off of the global carbon market, ensuring firms operating in the EU trading emissions scheme can no longer buy them and effectively use them as a license to continue to pollute.

"Projects like planting trees and sending efficient domestic equipment to developing nations are laudable and have great benefits in terms of bio-diversity and alleviating poverty," he argued. "But in terms of climate change their impact is negligible. If people want to donate to support wildlife or combat poverty they should, but if they want to tackle climate change the investment needs to focus on large projects."

Both ClimateCare and The CarbonNeutral Company dismissed suggestions that the impact of smaller projects were negligible and argued that projects with a "human face" were also more attractive to public and corporate customers considering offsetting.

"The CDM projects are enormous, but getting an airline customer engaged on climate change with a project on destroying harmful gasses in a Chinese factory is difficult," said Sneyd. "We are responding to demand for projects that also offer an element of [economic and social] sustainability."

However, he added that The CarbonNeutral Company was also involved in CDM projects alongside its voluntary offset projects and planned to expand its investment in UN-approved projects as demand increases.

Similarly, Buick said ClimateCare's project development teams were investigating sourcing projects from the Kyoto market and claimed that if DEFRA does go through with the proposed standard then the company would offer Kyoto-based credits to customers.

Though he did warn that such credits would be more expensive, due to the cost of compliance. "It'll be interesting to see if customers prefer to buy the Kyoto-backed offsets or the projects with a more human face," he said.

However, a spokeswoman for DEFRA insisted that smaller projects would not be automatically excluded from the new standard, claiming that almost half of CDM projects were small-scale projects and that recent changes to the initiative had lowered the levy small projects had to pay to enter the scheme. She added that the UN was also working to improve the distribution of approved projects, particularly in Africa.

"We recognise that there are benefits to some projects beyond certified emissions reductions that people might take into account when choosing an offset product -- like landscape benefits or biodiversity benefits," she said. "The standard we have proposed is about saying that if a consumer wants certainty and clarity about their offsetting product -- that the emissions reductions haven't been double counted, that they are actually avoiding emissions elsewhere in the world, that there is a clear audit trail -- then the proposed Government standard will be able to provide that."

Posted by James Murray on January 18, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (1)

For years the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has firmly adhered to the environmental philosophy of the world's leading fictional industrialist, The Simpsons' C. Montgomery Burns.

Namely that "nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she's losing. Well I say, hard cheese."

Yet in recent years the CBI's stance on environmental matters has gradually softened and with the recent departure of former director general, Digby Jones - a man whose crusade against UK environmental legislation and, shall we say, relaxed understanding of corporate accountability has more in common with a nineteenth century mine owner than a modern, socially conscientious business leader - a full sea change appears to be underway.

This shift in attitude was fully confirmed last week when the CBI set up a major new climate change task force involving some of the UK's biggest companies.

The 14-strong group will be chaired by BT chief executive Ben Verwaayen and includes high profile business leaders such as Barclays chairman Marcus Agius, head of the London Stock Exchange Clara Furse and Tesco chief executive Terry Leahy.

The taskforce will present a report to the government and UK businesses later this year featuring recommendations on how the business community can tackle climate change while retaining its competitiveness.

CBI director-general Richard Lambert, who brought the group together, said that businesses had a key role to play in tackling climate change and that urgent action was required. "The time for debate about whether human activity is changing the climate has passed," he said. "The science is clear. The challenge now is for the business community, Government and society as a whole to decide how to respond. This poses a challenge to business, as a major source of emissions, but it also presents significant opportunities."

Separately the CBI also broadly welcomed the EU's latest proposals for establishing the world's first low carbon economy.

In the past, the CBI has appeared suspicious of such proposals, noting that if onerous green regulations are only imposed within the EU European firms would be operating at a competitive disadvantage to international rivals operating in less stringent regulatory environments such as China and India.

But while Lambert insisted that work needed to be done to ensure there is a clear framework by which businesses can meet the EU's targets on renewable energy without risking their international competitiveness he also accepted that "until there is worldwide agreement on how to tackle [climate change] the EU is correct to take sensible, unilateral action".

Posted by James Murray on January 17, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Marks & Spencer yesterday announced a major new environmental sustainability strategy designed to transform every part of the business and establish it as the UK's leading "green retailer".

Under the far-reaching five year plan - entitled Plan A, "because there is no plan B" - M&S has pledged to spend £200m on becoming fully carbon neutral, ensuring no waste goes to landfill, overhauling its supply chain to limit its environmental impact, enhancing its ethical trading initiatives and educating customers on healthy and green living.

"M&S will change beyond recognition the way it operates over the next five years," vowed M&S chief executive Stuart Rose. "This is a deliberately ambitious and, in some areas, difficult plan… [But] doing anything less is not an option."

The scale of the 100 point plan - which covers not only M&S' 500 stores but also its network of partners including 2,000 factories and over 5,000 farms – won praise from environmental campaigners who branded it a watershed in the UK retail sector's attitude to the environment.

"This plan sets a new benchmark in the way businesses should be tackling critical sustainability challenges like waste, fairtrade and climate change," said  Jonathon Porritt, founder director of Forum for the Future and an advisor on the M&S plan. "It raises the bar for everyone else - not just retailers, but businesses in every sector. We all know that even at the end of these 5 years there will still be a huge amount for M&S to do but we warmly welcome the scale of the ambition of this plan in particular the commitment to include customers and suppliers."

Central to the new strategy is a commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2012 and offset the remaining emissions in order to make the company carbon neutral.

In order to achieve this M&S said it will improve company energy efficiency by a quarter and power its stores using renewable energy, including a trial of new anaerobic digestion technologies designed to create energy from food waste from the company's stores and farms.

It has also vowed to overhaul its supply chain by increasing the proportion of food sourced from the UK, using 50 percent bio-diesel in its lorries, and labeling products that have been flown in from abroad in an attempt to make it easier for customers to choose products with fewer "food miles".

Offsetting carbon emissions will only be used as a last resort, according to Rose, and where the business does offset the cost will be assigned to the relevant business unit thus creating a commercial incentive for managers to limit CO2 as much as possible.

Beyond efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions the company committed to stopping sending waste to landfill sites; slashing its use of packaging by 25 percent; selecting packaging materials that are easy to recycle or compost, including new biodegradable plastics; and reducing its use of plastic bags by a third.

Procurement strategies will also receive an overhaul with the company committing to expanding its fair trade programmes, only using wood and fish from sources that have been certified for their environmentally sustainable practices, and increasing the use of recycled plastic and organic cotton in its clothing ranges.

A spokesperson for M&S said that besides the environmental imperative for the new strategy there was a clear business case for investing in green business practices and reinforcing the company's reputation for social responsibility.

"Customer awareness of environmental issues has mushroomed to the level where 97 percent of customers are saying we should be doing more in this area," she said. "We found that the Look Behind the Label marketing campaign we released last year had considerable resonance with customers and that has led us to develop this company wide philosophy."

The company also rejected suggestions that the £200m budget would prove insufficient for such an ambitious business transformation initiative, claiming that with separate funds already committed to a chain-wide refurbishment programme much of the extra spending would be integrated into existing investment plans.

"It is an estimate of the investments we'll make in new areas," said the spokeswoman. "And we could mitigate that investment if customers like what they see [and it helps drive revenues]."

Posted by James Murray on January 16, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (1)

Finance directors increasingly regard green issues as important to their organisation, but many lack information on how best to limit their firms' environmental impact and are unimpressed by the government's efforts to encourage more sustainable business models.

That is the finding of a recent survey from GBN's sister magazine Financial Director, which revealed environmental issues are taking a central role in many firms finance departments.

The survey of over 100 finance directors found that almost 85 percent regard environmental issues as either quite important or very important to their business, with those at large companies with sales of over £100m the most likely to consider the environment important.

Encouragingly for other executives requesting budget from their finance department for environmental projects, almost two thirds of finance directors claim that environmental considerations play a role in their company's decisions right from the outset of a project. This dropped to just over a third for smaller firms, but only 12 percent claimed that environmental factors had no role to play in decision making.

However, the government was widely criticised for failing to provide enough guidance or support in the transition towards greener business models. Almost 85 percent of respondents said they did not believe revenue raised from so-called green taxes would be re-directed into environmental projects, while just one percent said that government incentives had encouraged them to engage in activities aimed at combating climate change.

The government also came under fire for failing to make current incentives accessible, with one respondent claiming that getting the climate change rebate was like "getting blood from a stone". Meanwhile, opinion on green taxes was divided with some arguing they would diminish UK competitiveness without a global scheme and others claiming the government is not going far enough.

As one respondent told Financial Director: "If it is the most important issue facing humanity, why does the prime minister say it won't do anything to damage business. We appreciate that some of the measures may be initially unpopular, but what is the government doing to take the electorate on a journey to the right decisions?"

But overall the survey revealed a positive attitude towards green business models from the nation's finance departments with the bulk of finance directors sold on the bottom line and brand benefits of moving to tackle climate change. And if those holding the purse strings are increasingly in favour of green business projects that has to be good news for the rest of the business.

Posted by James Murray on January 15, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Confusion is mounting over the environmental credentials of Apple's portfolio after research from the US Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) appeared to contradict recent claims from Greenpeace that the company's products are some of the most environmentally damaging on the market.

The EPEAT research, which is backed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), instead ranked some of Apple's products amongst the most environmentally friendly available, granting relatively high rankings to several of its notebooks, desktops and monitors.

The EPEAT ranking system gauges products based on 23 mandatory criteria and 28 optional criteria covering areas such as the product's energy efficiency, take back scheme, ease of recycling and use of hazardous components and chemicals.

Firms have to achieve all mandatory criteria to gain a bronze ranking, a further 50 percent of the optional criteria to gain a silver ranking, and all the mandatory criteria and over three quarters of the optional criteria to be awarded a gold ranking.

While none of the assessed firms achieved a gold ranking, Apple was amongst the best performers achieving a silver ranking for all its assessed products, including its Mac Pro, MacBook Pro and Cinema HD monitor.

The research prompted several reports highlighting the apparent discrepancy  between the two ranking systems' conclusions and led to plenty of gloating from Mac enthusiasts who have long claimed Greenpeace produced bias research in order to target Apple and exploit the company's high profile.

However, Scot Case, marketing director at EPEAT, insisted there was no contradiction between the two ranking systems' findings and that neither could be used to prove the inaccuracy of the other. "My initial reaction was that comparing the two systems was like comparing apples and oranges, but on closer inspection it is more like comparing apples and cows," he said. "EPEAT focuses on ranking the products, Greenpeace is looking at the whole company."

Greenpeace agreed Apple's contrasting position in the two ranking systems could be explained by their different criteria. "If both reports used the same criteria and had such different rankings then one report would have to be bogus," said Iza Kruszewska, toxics campaigner for Greenpeace International. "But we are using very different criteria."

According to Kruszewska, the criteria used in Greenpeace's own report were narrower in focus, only looking at the chemicals used in the products and the manufacturers' eWaste policies, but more stringent in these areas compared to EPEAT.

"For example, one of the mandatory criteria for EPEAT is compliance with the RoHS directive," she explained. "But we don't give companies credit for that as compliance with RoHS is something they should be doing across the board as a minimum."

Similarly, one of the mandatory EPEAT criteria states that "all flat panel video display devices manufacturers shall report on the amount of mercury used in light sources in all covered products". But Kruszewska said that Greenpeace's system required firms to "ban Mercury, not report on it", in order to gain a high ranking.

Another difference is found in the two ranking systems' attitudes to PVC and brominated flame retardants. Whereas EPEAT states that ensuring large plastic parts are free of PVC and hazardous flame retardants is an optional criteria - one which the 16 ranked Apple products admittedly met - Greenpeace wants firms to commit to eliminating PVC and brominated flame retardants from the whole product and publish a timeline for achieving their elimination.

"We've got commitments from many manufacturers to be free of these chemicals by 2009 or 2010, but Apple has not given us any such commitment," said Kruszewska. "These chemicals are toxic and they are persistent within the environment."

Greenpeace also marked down Apple in its report for failing to clearly define the precautionary principle it follows in material selection and refusing to provide more detailed information about the substances used in its products.

The protest group further argued that Apple would not even qualify for the EPEAT bronze ranking if the criteria were applied globally as it does not operate a take-back scheme – mandatory under EPEAT's ranking system - in every region that the company operates.

However, Case rejected suggestions that the EPEAT standards were not stringent enough, noting that no product had yet achieved the higher gold standard ranking. "What EPEAT is trying to do is create market-based incentives for companies to improve the environmental standards of their products," he said. "We're educating corporate purchasers to buy EPEAT approved products and that has created an incentive for manufacturers to move towards achieving the gold ranking."

Apple said in a statement that it disagrees with Greenpeace's rating and the criteria it chose. "Apple has a strong environmental track record and has led the industry in restricting and banning toxic substances such as mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium, as well as many BFRs (brominated flame retardants)," the statement read. "We have also completely eliminated CRT monitors, which contain lead, from our product line."

But Kruszewska insisted Apple was falling behind in the race to improve the environmental sustainability of IT products. "Between the first and second edition of our report other companies - including some of the Asian players who are operating in far less stringent regulatory environments - have made substantial improvements to their environmental policies," she said. "But Apple has done very little."

She added that Apple's resistance appeared to be at least partly a result of their secretive corporate culture. "They don't like to be pushed and have told us that they don't give commitments about future products - they just get on and do it. Well if that's the case we wish they would just hurry up [and release greener products]," she said. "They are design leaders and we expect them to do far better."

Posted by James Murray on January 12, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (3)

Dell has revealed it is to publish a demanding set of new targets designed to reduce the company's environmental footprint over the next five years.

Speaking exclusively to GBN, Lena Pripp-Kovac, head of corporate responsibility and sustainability for Dell in EMEA, said that the company was preparing to announce a series of new environmental five-year goals as part of its annual sustainability report, which will be released in the next few months to accompany Dell's annual report.

She said that the targets would include raising customer awareness of environmental issues and improving the energy efficiency of products. "We want [environmental] goals across the whole lifecycle of the product," she explained.

More specifically, the company is considering a five year goal to ensure the use of renewable energy technologies at Dell manufacturing sites, according to Pripp-Kovac.

The revelations came a day after Dell launched a major new carbon offsetting initiative that will see it offer customers the opportunity to donate towards a reforestation programme designed to offset the carbon dioxide emitted from powering their new equipment throughout its expected three-year lifespan.

Pripp-Kovac said the Plant a Tree for Me service would be rolled out in the UK in April and that Dell was currently looking for a local environmental management partner to run a reforestation scheme in the UK similar to those schemes underway in the US.  She also confirmed that UK customers keen to offset would be asked to donate the same as their US counterparts, meaning they will be able to offset a laptop for £1 and a PC for £3 at current exchange rates.

However, she admitted Dell was unsure of the level of customer response the scheme will enjoy. "We don’t know how much interest there will be, but the most important part of this scheme is to raise customer awareness," she said.

The scheme is unlikely to win unqualified praise from environmentalists who argue that reforestation schemes are an ineffective means of offsetting carbon as the science surrounding the impact on climate change is still open to debate and there are no guarantees when a tree is planted that it will live long enough to absorb the expected levels carbon dioxide.

Pripp-Kovac accepted there were some valid concerns over reforestation schemes, but said that by partnering with The Conservation Fund and Carbonfund.org Dell had selected respectable and independent environmental bodies to undertake the offset calculations and manage the reforestation scheme.

She added that that the primary aim of the scheme was to raise customer awareness of climate change and insisted that offsetting was just part of a wider environmental strategy including improvements in products' energy efficiency and investment in renewable energy.

Posted by James Murray on January 12, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Motor City received a green makeover this week as plans for more environmentally friendly vehicles dominated announcements at this year's annual North American International Auto Show in Detroit.

For years the world famous trade show has been the place for manufacturers to debut the ever larger and more powerful cars beloved of the American consumer. But with fuel prices continuing to climb a sea change is underway in consumer habits and judging by this year's show car firms are poised to address their changing needs with a raft of cleaner engines and more fuel efficient vehicles.

Spurred into action by the runaway success of the hybrid gas-electric powered Toyota Prius, General Motors (GM) this week unveiled its own hybrid concept car, the Chevrolet Volt.

GM vice chairman Robert Lutz said that the Volt would overcome the range and power limitations that have dogged the EV1 - the company's previous attempt at developing an electric car and the subject of the highly critical documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? - by using a new E-flex system that will combine a battery and fuel powered engine in a regular chassis.

The battery, which can be charged over six hours using a 110 volt outlet, will provide a range of 40 city miles, according to GM. When the battery runs down, a one litre, three-cylinder turbocharged engine kicks in to create electricity and replenish the battery. "If you lived within 30 miles from work (60 miles round trip) and charged your vehicle every night when you came home or during the day at work, you would get 150 miles per gallon," said Lutz. "More than half of all Americans live within 20 miles of where they work (40 miles round trip). In that case, you might never burn a drop of gas during the life of the car."

The hybrid engine can also be adapted so that it runs using bio-fuel, diesel or even a Hydrogen-based fuel cell, instead of petrol, GM said. 

However, anyone keen to place an order could be in for quite a wait. GM admits that improvements in lithium ion batteries are needed to make the E-flex System a reality and while some experts believe such a battery could be production ready by 2010 to 2012 others are more sceptical.

Lutz, however, insisted that GM was committed to the product, telling reporters that "this is not a PR exercise or a pure show car - this is a real program with real money behind it that is heading for production."

Closer to production though is BMW's fuel cell-powered Hydrogen 7, which is also on show in Detroit and is expected to be made available through a few select dealerships this April.

The new flex-fuel powered Seven Series features both a fuel cell, which will only emit water vapour and enable a driving range of 300 miles, and a petrol tank that can be used when the hydrogen fuel cell runs out.  According to BMW it will also boast a 260 horsepower, 12 cylinder engine capable of doing 0-60 in 9.5 seconds - ensuring it compares favourably with other executive cars on the market.

Meanwhile, Toyota committed to extending its leadership position in the burgeoning hybrid market, announcing plans for a hybrid powered pickup truck and debuting the new FT-HS concept car - a gasoline-electric hybrid powered sports car featuring a V6, 3.5 litre engine and lightweight chassis.

The raft of green announcements came as Toyota underlined the scale of the market for green vehicles, predicting sales of its hybrid vehicles will increase by 50 percent in the US this year to around 300,000 units.

With Toyota's Prius and the rival hybrid vehicles poised to enter the market all aimed at the high-end executive market, firms can expect growing pressure from employees to offer hybrid and fuel efficient vehicles through their company car programmes.

However, anyone thinking that attitudes towards climate change in the car industry have changed completely received a nasty surprise later in the week after DaimlerChrysler's chief economist Van Jolissaint poured scorn on European concern over climate change, claiming "the problem is way, way in the future, with a high degree of uncertainty".

Speaking in a roundtable event at the show Jolissaint was quoted as saying that while claimate change was going to be "on the agenda" globally and in the US for a "long, long, long time", the scale of the problem was uncertain and that some in Europe were taking a panic-stricken approach to tackling global warming reminiscent of the children's character Chicken Little and his fears the sky was falling in.

He argued that organisations should "devote reources to problems that are big problems today, rather than uncertain problems in the future", and that governments should "deal with it in a step-by-step, rational way and not play much Chicken Little."

Posted by James Murray on January 11, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (2)

Pressure on energy providers, businesses and households to deploy renewable energy technologies is to increase after the EU yesterday announced its target to have a fifth of the region's power generated from renewable sources by 2020.

Currently, just six percent of energy consumed in the 25 EU states comes from renewables, but the report insists an "industrial revolution" in the use of renewable energy technologies is required if the commission is to reach its target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent on 1990 levels by 2020.

The target formed the centerpiece of a major new report on Europe's energy strategy that argues there is both environmental and political impetus for an overhaul of Europe's energy practices – a fact underlined by this week's row over oil supplies between Russia and Belarus which has impacted several EU states.

The European Commission said in a statement that the transition towards low- and no-carbon energy production would increase European competitiveness and encourage the rest of the world to make the same changes.

"It will mean the EU taking global leadership in catalysing a new industrial revolution, benefiting the developed and developing world alike, while accelerating the change to low-emission economic growth and dramatically increasing the amount of local, low emission energy produced and used," it said.

As part of the new report the European Commission unveiled a new Energy Action Plan, including proposals for a new Europe-wide grid, greater promotion of sustainable fossil fuel technologies, such as carbon capture, an analysis of Europe's use of nuclear power, and wider promotion of renewable technologies, notably biofuels for transport.

The latest proposals join the EU's energy efficiency action plan, which was unveiled last October and promises "stringent" new energy efficiency standards and legislation governing the efficiency of appliances, buildings and transport.

The two action plan raise the prospect of increased environmental red tape for businesses across Europe, but also promise greater public sector support and funding for those organisations deploying local renewable energy technologies and developing more energy efficient facilities.

Business customers are also likely to approve of proposals in the review designed to drive down energy prices by "unbundling" energy suppliers in order to stimulate greater competition in the market.

The commission has long-suspected leading gas and electricity suppliers of acting uncompetitively and is proposing to limit current conflicts of interest through a break up of ownership structures that often see the same owners control the generation and distribution of energy.

The European Commission will put the joint action plan and the rest of the energy review before the European Council for approval this March.

Posted by James Murray on January 11, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

IT hardware giant Dell yesterday announced plans for a major new environmental initiative that will see it offer customers the opportunity to offset the carbon emissions generated powering their Dell systems.

The "Plant a Tree for Me" scheme was unveiled by Michael Dell at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, where he also issued a plea for other IT firms to implement similar environmental initiatives.

"Programmes like 'Plant a Tree for Me' and our global recycling efforts empower our customers to participate with us in making a difference," he told delegates at the event. "It is our hope that other companies in our industry will join us to improve the environment that we all share."

Under the scheme, which will be launched in the US in February before being rolled out globally in April, customers buying new Dell kit will be given the option to donate $2 for a laptop and $6 for a desktop towards tree planting programmes run by The Conservation Fund and the Carbonfund.org.

The company said that the trees would "absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, offsetting the equivalent emissions resulting from the production of electricity used during the average three-year use of a computer". 

The move is the latest in a line of initiatives designed to entrench Dell as one of the leading lights in the IT industry's push for more environmentally friendly business models. The company has won plaudits from environmentalists for its take back scheme and developments in more energy efficient systems, and was recently praised by Greenpeace for its strong record on removing toxic chemicals from its components.

"Dell is taking significant and inspired leadership toward ecologically intelligent design by initiating the responsible return of its products and its Plant a Tree for Me programme," said William McDonough, author of Cradle to Cradle and a renowned environmental expert. "It's a very exciting time; both programmes represent delightful strategies of hope for the clean and green future."

However, the tree planting programme is unlikely to receive unqualified praise from environmentalists, many of whom have raised doubts about the effectiveness of reforestation as a means of combating climate change. Critics claim that calculating the amount of CO2 a tree will absorb is an inexact science and is based on the assumption that the tree will survive for its entire projected life. One recent study even argued that reforestation programmes outside of the Tropics have no effect on climate change and may even increase global warming by darkening the surface of the earth. They argued that renewable energy schemes or energy efficiency programmes are a more effective way of offsetting carbon emissions.

Posted by James Murray on January 10, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Greenpeace International rained on Apple's parade yesterday, staging a protest and projecting images of Asian scrapyards on the iconic computer maker’s retail store in San Francisco just as Steve Jobs was preparing to take the Macworld conference stage, according to reports.

The protest group also released an alternative take on Jobs' address, cutting together previous footage to make the Apple CEO appear to announce new policies that are friendly to the environment.

Among the highlights, Greenpeace has Jobs say: "We're going to give the customers what they want – and if what you want is a green apple, then a green apple is what you’re going to get!"

Apple might be the doyen of designers but it remains a pariah among certain environmental groups. Greenpeace has been a vociferous critic of the Californian giant, awarding it low rankings in its report on green electronics and recently launching a major campaign targeting what it claims is the firm's irresponsible use of toxic chemicals.

The latest protest further highlights the brand damage that can be inflicted on large global firms if they fail to embrace environmentally responsible business models.

Martin Veitch

Posted by James Murray on January 10, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (9)

Like one of those characters from the old Warner Brothers' cartoons stumbling from one painful disaster to the next Tony Blair has once again walked into a controversy of his own making with his counterproductive and misguided thoughts last night on how science will tackle climate change and allow us all to continue to take guilt free long haul flights.

Speaking on Sky News for its week long series on Green Britain, the prime minister defended his penchant for environmentally damaging long haul holidays by trotting out the old chestnut about technology and science being a better way of tackling climate change than getting people to change their behaviour and take fewer flights.

"I personally think these things are a bit impractical actually to expect people to do that," he said, before adding that "I think that what we need to do is to look at how you make air travel more energy efficient, how you develop new fuels that will allow us to burn less energy and emit less. How – for example – in the new frames for the aircraft, they are far more energy efficient."

His comments may have directly addressed the issue of air travel but they are in danger of being interpreted as a broader philosophical position – namely that science will save us from climate change.

This is a high risk philosophy for both businesses and individuals to adopt as it implies that tackling global warming is an either/or equation between changing behaviour and changing technologies, rather than a problem requiring a combination of both approaches. The flip side of Blair's assumption that technology will bail us out is that no action is required by anyone except engineers and scientists – his comments are perfectly designed to encourage complacency.

The problem with predictions of a technological panacea for climate change is that they have the ring of truth. Scientific developments will indeed be central to any fight against climate change. But it is an act of faith rather than reason to predict they will be so successful that nothing else needs to change.

As Jared Diamond points out in his excellent book on environmental sustainability Collapse new technologies have a nasty way of having unintended negative consequences. He points to the motor car as a development that was originally considered clean and efficient when it replaced horse drawn traffic only for us to finally realise years later that it had dangerous environmental consequences.

A similarly unintended negative impact can be seen occurring with the lighter, more fuel efficient aircraft that Blair holds up as a solution to global warming. It is well known that low budget airlines such as Ryanair operate newer, cleaner aircraft than their larger rivals, but their improved fuel efficiency is one of the factors that has allowed them to offer very cheap flights that encourage millions more of us to fly than would otherwise have been the case. The net impact is that emissions have risen and will continue to do so as the low budget market expands.

The other problem with placing sole faith in technology is that even when a new technology is scientifically feasible it can take decades to develop and then reach the mainstream. Renewable energy technologies have been around for decades but are still a long way from widespread adoption; cavity wall insulation has been around for almost as long as walls and still most homes don't have it.

Again, looking at Blair's aircraft example, many scientists believe that Richard Branson's plans to develop bio-fuel powered aircraft are unfeasible and would have little impact on climate change. Even assuming it is possible to develop green aircraft we are decades away from doing so and major advances will be needed if we are to make any transition before the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached catastrophic levels.

Blair defended his position by claiming no politician was ever going to come out and run for office by saying people should not fly.

But this statement, while true, displays a complete disregard for the prime minister's responsibility as an elected official. The government has to deal daily with activities that people are quite rightly free to pursue, despite the fact that the net impact on the long-term national interest is negative.

Smoking and drinking are just two examples of activities that, just like flying, give people pleasure and provide a short term boost to the economy, but in the longer term cause damage to individuals and society. The government would, quite rightly, never ban them, but invests millions letting us know they are not ideal and passes legislation to make them more expensive, before leaving us to make our own decision.

Blair insisted that you couldn't instruct people to fly less as it would be "like telling people you shouldn’t drive anywhere". But members of his government are close to doing exactly that - trying to influence where people drive through the congestion charge and current plan for road pricing.

There is no reason why a similar political strategy should not be employed with air travel, which the scientific community now firmly believes fits into this same model of providing short term economic gains that are more than offset by longer term environmental and economic damage.

We all hope Blair's faith in science is well founded, and indeed many of us share his belief, but such wooly-minded reasoning only encourages everyone to sit on their laurels. Publicly committing himself to this science will save us school of thought, while simultaneously distancing himself from the need for firms and individuals to modify their behaviour, will go down as yet another act of gross irresponsibility from the twilight years of the Blair government.

How many environmentally-minded organisations could now see their attempts to cut down on corporate air travel undermined by the Prime Minister saying it is "impractical" for them to do so?

Imagine if you will the CSR and IT manager at a large firm who this very morning are preparing to pitch to their CEO and CFO an expensive new video conferencing system and travel policy designed to slash the number of corporate trips the board takes.

"It's a nice idea" says the CEO. "But I saw Tony Blair on TV last night and he said new light weight aircraft would solve the problem..."

Posted by James Murray on January 9, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (4)

Concerns are mounting that rival international standards for voluntary carbon reduction projects could confuse customers after US-based renewable energy certification and verification body Green-e last month became the latest to publish a new Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction certification standard.

The standard - which was developed by an advisory group consisting of environmental organisations, government agencies and businesses and has been released for stakeholder comment - sets out a range of criteria GHG reduction projects must meet to gain a Green-e certificate proving they are "real, measurable, verifiable and beyond business-as-usual".

These include disclosing detailed information on the project and submitting to periodic independent reviews of the project as well as disclosing project information for public review. The standard also requires that the bodies undertaking the project review are entirely independent from both those selling the GHG credits and certifying the amount of GHG reduced.

The draft standard is now open to comment from interested stakeholders until the end of January.

Jan Hamrin, president of the Center for Resource Solutions (CRS) which set up Green-e, said in a statement that the aim was to develop a transparent standard that allows individuals and businesses to buy carbon offsets with confidence that greenhouse gases are being reduced.

She also urged carbon offset firms and other interested parties to comment on the current standard. "Just as we did with the Green-e standard for renewable energy products, this new standard will incorporate stakeholder comments from any interested party," she added. "This ensures a well designed, well-rounded standard that considers suggestions from every pertinent angle. Based on our past successes, we believe this is the best way to create standards and invite anyone interested to participate in the comment period."

Demand for an independent standard has increased over the past year amidst fears that unscrupulous offset providers have been investing in projects with limited environmental benefits and even selling the same carbon credits several times over. Reports of such sharp practices have threatened to diminish confidence in the burgeoning market, which has expanded rapidly as high profile firms such as Sky and HSBC have sought to bolster their green credentials by offseting their carbon emissions.

Sue Welland, founder and creative director of The CarbonNeutral Company, one of the largest offset providers in the UK, said that the latest move towards an international standard was welcome and that the company would contribute to eGreen's feedback process. However, she argued that there was cause for concern over the number of different standards being developed.

"We have the Carbon Neutral Protocol, which is independent from the company, and we're working with both the Climate Group and Defra on their standards," she said. "There is a need for standards, but there is a risk we're going to end up with too many."

She added that on initial inspection there was little difference between eGreen's proposal and the current Carbon Neutral Protocol. "There is agreement across the industry that there needs to be standards for measuring how much carbon is emitted from a given activity, how the effectiveness of the offset project is measured, and how it is audited to ensure no double selling," she explained. "We've had an independently assessed standard for five years addressing these areas and there is a risk that with so many rival standards offset providers could spend all their time chasing certifications rather than working on their projects – it could confuse the customer."

Michael Buick of carbon offset firm ClimateCare agreed the current spate of standards could lead to confusion, but predicted that the number of rival certification scheme should soon begin to fall. "It is inevitable that different groups will try to establish different standards, but I'm sure we'll see a period of shake down when only the better ones will be adopted," he said. "We need to get to a stage where there are just a few standards that customers understand and have confidence in."

Posted by James Murray on January 8, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (2)

The battle for the hearts and minds of air passengers intensified today after the government launched a stinging attack on the airline industry over its failure to adequately address climate change.

In an interview with The Guardian, environment minister Ian Pearson accused leading airlines of refusing to take the issue seriously, bra