BusinessGreen offers its fool-proof guide on how to comply with the new eWaste law

After two years of procrastination and delays the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directive finally comes into full effect this weekend, bringing with it a raft of new legal requirements for IT producers and, to a lesser extent, their business customers.

The majority of the new legislation adheres to the polluter pays principle and focuses upon IT manufacturers, importers and resellers. As such they will be obliged to sign up with government-approved waste handling firms that can dispose of or recycle electrical equipment in an environmentally responsible fashion; provide some form of free take back for both business and domestic customers so that they can easily return their equipment at end of life; and pick up the bill for these new services.

Over time it is hoped that the legislation will not just limit the amount of hazardous waste ending up in landfill both here and in the developing world, but with the cost of disposal finally hitting manufacturers' bottom lines it should also incentivise them to develop more environmentally-friendly kit that is easier to dispose.

However, while the bulk of the regulatory burden falls upon producers, they are not the only ones affected by the new law. Retailers, distributors, local authorities, waste disposal providers and all businesses and non-household users of electrical and electronic equipment also face new compliance obligations – that means every business in the country is affected.

Despite the law's long gestation this is likely to come as a surprise to many. A survey last year of around 200 managers from law firm Eversheds found that nearly three quarters had no idea of what their WEEE obligations are or felt they needed more information to comply. The government has since attempted to publicise the new law, but with much of its focus on ensuring producers comply anecdotal evidence suggests general awareness of the legislation remains low. As a result many firms could this week find themselves in breach of the regulations – and under threat of sizable fines.

Faced with this backdrop the question for many firms is how do you comply with the WEEE directive? To help answer the question BusinessGreen delivers its step-by-step guide:

1. Work out which products are classified as WEEE. This is easier said than done. The regulations apply to electrical equipment "which is dependent on electric current or electromagnetic fields in order to work properly" and is "designed for use with a voltage rating not exceeding 1000 volt for alternating current and 1,500 volt for direct current".

This means that all IT equipment, mobile equipment, appliances and tools, white goods, and lighting, though not filament lamps, are included under the directive.

However, it does not mean all electrical equipment is included and there are important exemptions. Notably for commercial properties, equipment that is a "large scale industrial tool" or subject to “fixed installation" is exempt, though unfortunately the definitions for these terms are in legalese.

Fixed installation, for example, is defined as "a combination of several equipment, systems, finished products and/or components assembled and/or erected by an assembler/installer at a given place to operate together in an expected environment to perform a specific task, but not intended to be placed on the market as a single functional or commercial unit".

Jane Southworth of Eversheds translates this as meaning anything that is "part of a building", meaning electrical systems such as industrial equipment, heating, lifts and, significantly for datacentre managers, air conditioning, are all exempt from WEEE. However, there is some contention over exactly what qualifies so if you are in any doubt about whether equipment is exempt you should check with your legal team or DEFRA.

2. Separate your WEEE from other waste. Once you’ve worked out what constitutes WEEE that you must store it separately from all other waste to avoid the risk of it ending up with conventional waste disposal firms.

3. Contact your supplier. Your supplier is legally obliged under the WEEE directive to offer a free take back service, either themselves like many of the larger manufacturers, or through a waste management partner. They should be able to tell you the arrangements for collection, treatment, recycling and disposal of the kit.

4. Keep the paper work.  Finally, you also need to "obtain and keep proof that your WEEE was given to a waste management company, and was treated and disposed of in an environmentally sound way". Failure to keep hold of this paper work could lead to fines as you would be unable to prove that you haven’t breached the WEEE directive.

Simple? Sadly, it's not quite that easy. While most firms will have few problems getting their manufacturers to pick up their end of life IT kit, there are a few exemptions to the law where the responsibility for disposal falls entirely on the business user. As a result there are a few extra steps you have to take to ensure full compliance with the new legislation.

Check when you bought the kit. Free take back is only available if the equipment was sold to you after 13th August 2005 - when the WEEE directive should have been introduced. If you bought it after this date it constitutes "new WEEE" and the original supplier has to offer free take back or negotiate with you for you to dispose of it.

Also, if the kit was bought prior to August 2005, but is being replaced by like-for-like equivalent equipment, in which case it is "historic WEEE" and your new supplier delivering the new kit has an obligation to take away the old equivalent equipment.

However, this of course creates problems for any firm consolidating their EEE - a not uncommon occurrence in an era of server consolidation and office down sizing.  For example, a firm with 100 desktop computers bought in 2004 that has halved the size of its office and now wants to get rid of the old PCs and buy in 50 new desktops will can arrange with its new supplier to take away 50 of the old PCs for free, but will have to separately arrange and pay for the disposal of the remaining 50 PCs.

This means that alongside the free vendor take back schemes most firms are either going to have to negotiate with their suppliers to pay for entry to their disposal schemes or enter into separate relationships with independent authorised waste disposal firms to get rid of this excess kit legally. 

Check your contract. The problem posed by "historic WEEE" will diminish as products bought prior to August 2005 reach end of life. However, there is also a clause in the legislation that means that the supplier can agree with the customer that they will pick up the WEEE responsibilities. It is expected that some smaller suppliers in particular will try and offer customers lower prices for new kit in return for them agreeing in the contract to take on the accompanying WEEE obligations when it comes to product disposal.  As a result legal experts are warning that IT chiefs should check new contracts very closely to ensure they are not unwittingly accepting WEEE liability they don’t want.

Hope your supplier hasn't gone bankrupt. The final circumstance in which the business customer has to pick up the bill for WEEE disposal is if they can not locate the supplier take back scheme for kit bought after August 2005 – which basically means they have gone bust.

So there you have it. The directive may have taken a long time to come into effect and prove more complex than many businesses believed, but now it is here there are no longer any excuses and from now on all businesses will have to embrace green disposal of their IT kit for legal as well as environmental reasons.

Posted by James Murray on June 29, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (3)

The new Climate Counts league table will finally make the climate revolution consumer-friendly, argues Joel Makower

Last week marked the launch of Climate Counts, a new nonprofit initiative to rate major consumer brands on their climate commitments and performance. The project, on whose board I sit, represents the first time big companies have been rated consistently on climate using a comprehensive, consistent, and credible set of metrics.

This is no small matter. As climate change has grown in public consciousness, companies increasingly are stepping up to the plate, making commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, or announcing carbon-neutral products, services, or events. There's a steady stream of business announcements, as we report daily on ClimateBiz.com. (Business for Social Responsibility recently compiled a list of companies and projects that have committed to going carbon neutral, downloadable here [PDF].)

But which of these is real, and which are mere marketing gimmicks? Which companies are making substantive commitments and progress, and which are mere window dressing? Until now, it's been hard to discern.

Climate Counts began about a year ago, an offshoot of Climate: A Crisis Averted, the four-minute "documentary from the future" produced by the yogurt company Stonyfield Farm (I was co-writer and executive producer of the movie). Gary Hirshberg, Stonyfield's "CE-Yo," who spearheaded the project, wanted to do more to engage consumers directly in the climate action movement. Climate Counts was the result.

The data released today rates 56 companies on a 100-point scale based on more than 20 criteria in four categories:

• How well does the company measure its climate footprint? (up to 22 points)
• How much has the company done to reduce its global warming pollution? (up to 56 points)
• Does the company explicitly support (or express intent to block) progressive climate legislation? (up to 10 points)
• How clearly and comprehensively does the company publicly disclose its climate protection efforts? (up to 12 points)

You can view and download the scorecard and its criteria here [PDF].

The scorecard methodology was developed by GreenOrder, the strategy firm (with which I am also affiliated) that has helped a number of big companies address sustainability challenges and opportunities. GreenOrder also served as third-party verifier of the data collection process. All of the rated companies were shown the data Climate Counts collected about them -- compiled from a range of publicly available sources -- and were invited to amend or correct the information. Most did; a few did not.

The 56 rated companies garnered scores ranging from 77 to zero. You can view the individual company ratings alphabetically, by ranking, or by sector. There's also a downloadable pocket-sized guide [PDF] you can use while shopping. You can even get the Climate Counts score of a particular company delivered to your cell phone.

And the whole shebang, including all of the company ratings, is available in a downloadable 65-page report [PDF].

This first batch of rated companies reflect major consumer brands in eight sectors -- Apparel/Accessories, Beverages and Beer, Consumer Electronics, Food Products, Food Services, Household Products, Internet and Software, and Media. There will be a new batch of ratings every six months or so, and all company ratings will be updated annually.

There were a few surprises. For example, the company that scored highest was Canon, the consumer electronics company, which has not been very visible as a climate leader. On the one hand, that's rather refreshing: a company doing good, green work but not necessarily banging the drum. On the other, it's risky: Being humble about one's corporate climate performance will no longer be seen as an asset. Increasingly, as Climate Counts underscores, companies are expected to be public and transparent about their climate commitments and performance.

Other companies in the top ten include Nike, Unilever, IBM, Toshiba, Stonyfield Farm, General Electric, Motorola, and Hewlett-Packard, with News Corp. and Coca-Cola tied for tenth place.

Companies who fared worst include Amazon.com, Wendy's, Darden Restaurants (Red Lobster, Olive Garden, and others), Burger King, Jones Apparel (Anne Klein, Nine West, and many other brands), Clorox, Yum! Brands (KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, others), Levi Strauss, and eBay.

What does it mean to be a low-scoring company? The 16 companies that scored 10 points or less haven't taken even the first meaningful steps to address their climate impacts. Few of these companies have measured or assessed their climate footprint, set clear policies or goals, or demonstrated that they take their climate actions seriously and are ready to engage the public in their plans.

On the eve of the Climate Counts launch, I asked Gary Hirshberg his thoughts on how this project turned out. "What surprised me is how elegantly simple and workable this rating tool actually is," he responded. "The scoring system effectively measures a minimal level of commitment. We focused on which companies are doing the basic stuff needed to make themselves a good climate citizen. It will do exactly what we wanted it to do in terms of letting consumers and investors know which companies are doing that."

Hirshberg also said that he was "wowed" by how useful the tool was for his own company. (Stonyfield rated a respectable 62 points, sixth overall, a score that Hirshberg admits he expected to be higher; its parent company, Group Danone, fared less well, scoring 50 points.) "The scoring gave us a very simple and reliable way of knowing internally if we are doing everything we could be -- which it turns out we're not -- and it gave me an incredible index for goal-setting. This isn't just a one-time tool. This is setting up a continuous improvement process."

As a result of going through the Climate Counts scoring process, Stonyfield is setting up ten "Mission Action Plan" groups -- teams engaged on different aspects of company operations, from transportation to processing to purchasing. "They're focused on what it's going to take to improve our score," says Hirshberg. For example, he says, Ryan Boccelli, Stonyfield's Director of Logistics, is now using the metrics of the Climate Counts scorecard to better manage Stonyfield's relationship with Ryder, the company's national transportation partner. "Ryan now has an index, a language, and a team because everyone else is able to use the same language. It's really revolutionised our abilities."

That's the ultimate goal, of course. Rating companies and educating consumers about leaders and laggards on climate change is just the means to an end. The goal is to move the needle -- to get companies to use their ratings as a tool for improvement. I asked Hirshberg his vision of "wild success" for Climate Counts. His relatively modest response: That rated companies, on average, double their scores over the next twelve months.

We'll see in a year from now, when these companies are re-rated, whether that vision comes to pass -- and whether the public ratings of companies can change the climate on corporate action.

Joel Makower is the founder and executive editor of GreenBiz.com

This article first appeared at GreenBiz.com

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

Amidst all the hand-wringing last week over the news China had overtaken the US as the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide one fact that went largely unreported was that the change at the top of the polluter's league table was the result of not just a surge in emissions from a rampant Chinese economy, but also a 1.4 percent fall in US emissions for 2006 largely attributed to the country's economic slow down.

The trend raises the intriguing prospect that an economic recession may have a silver lining after all, in that it actually helps the world tackle climate change.

The simple truth is that in the short term a downturn in economic activity will always be better for climate change. It stands to reason: there is less economic activity, less demand for products, fewer deals done and as a result a reduction in carbon emissions.

Dan Sutherland, founder of the Green Technology Initiative argues that a recession could also help tackle emissions in the longer term by creating a better environment for green technology spending.

He claims, somewhat counter-intuitively, that the growth currently being experienced by many companies means they are more focused on revenue boosting projects rather than cost saving initiatives, such as green investments in insulation or more energy efficient technologies.

"Energy efficiency projects are the kinds of activity that take place during a recession when people are focused on saving money," he observed. "Green IT would be a much easier sell during a recession as the industry could just focus on how it will save you money and everyone would listen."

So should environmentalists be praying for a recession, with its reduced emissions and greater focus on cost-cutting? The answer is absolutely not.

While a down turn, as experienced in the US, can lead to a short term reduction in carbon emissions and may prompt an increased focus on energy efficiency it would also lead to a reduction in overall investment and in particular research and development.

As a result the economy's reliance on fossil fuels would remain unchanged meaning that as soon as a recovery emerged carbon emissions would soar again, despite any interim investments in greater energy efficiency. 

Speaking earlier this year, Doug Richards of investment research firm Library House, argued that the best chance of developing a low carbon economy came with a pro-longed period of economic growth capable of driving heavy investment in R&D and new green products.

Whether enjoying a period of economic feast or famine, the challenge for the green business movement is driving adoption of these new environmentally-friendly products when organisations face a myriad of other, often more pressing, concerns.

Sadly there remains no viable alternative to achieving this adoption beyond the current technique of making such a compelling business case for green initiatives that they are able to compete with the revenue-generating projects that often appear more compelling to business leaders in the short term.

Posted by James Murray on June 28, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (1)

EDF Energy has revealed plans for a major overhaul at one of its datacentres that it hopes will dramatically improve its energy efficiency and make it "a point of reference" for other businesses trying to limit the carbon footprint of their IT infrastructure.

Speaking exclusively to BusinessGreen, Benoit Laclau managing director of Business Improvement and Technology at the company, said that it had this week given the go ahead for a major refit of one of its existing datacentres that it claims will deliver a 40 to 50 percent reduction in energy consumption.

"We have decided to focus on improving an existing site as building a new site has a major carbon footprint attached to that process," he said. "We want to show our customers what you can do in terms of energy efficiency with a brown field datacentre."

Laclau added that the company was currently looking for a partner to help with the deployment of cutting edge green datacentre technologies and techniques such as virtualisation, localised cooling and green roofing. The company aims to have the refurbishment completed and the datacentre online by mid 2008.

"As an energy company we have always been mindful of environmental issues and already have one datacentre in Plymouth where we use waste heat from the datacentre to heat the rest of the building," said Laclau. "But now we want to take it to the next level and become a real point of reference for other companies."

The new project represents one of the first steps in EDF's wider environmental strategy, unveiled earlier this month, which details how it plans to slash the intensity of CO2 emissions from its power plants by 60 percent by 2020 and cut CO2 emissions from its offices and depots by 30 percent by 2012.

Posted by James Murray on June 28, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (1)

What has the price of cotton got to do with the current fears around climate change? Quite a lot argues Lawrence Gosling

"How much is a reel of cotton?" my wife asked the other day.

"Two pounds?" said my eight-year-old son. "No," she said.

"Three pounds?" said the ten-year-old, "Four pounds?" said the 16-year-old, who should have known better seeing as though the cotton had been bought to sew four buttons for her AND she just completed a GCSE in textiles, or sewing to you and I.

"Six pounds," I said smugly, "the price of cotton has been going up because of global warming."

I wasn't even close. £8.50 was the answer.

Thankfully times are not that tough in our house that the price of the cotton should have put us off buying the reel but it was a tangible, everyday example of what climate change means.

Or was it?

As I mulled this over, it struck me that for many Western economies maybe we wouldn’t be having the debate about climate change unless we were so affluent relative to the developing world.

Climate change is nothing new. The overall temperature of the planet has been steadily going up for decades – that's something that most economists can agree on.

But why did we suddenly start to believe it is a problem?

I'd argue it's for purely selfish reasons.

The price of cotton is going up, the price of gas, electricity, petrol and diesel has all gone up to record highs. We've seen the price of gold close to its record high in the 1980s, having spent most of the last two decades being worthless from its historical perspective.

The price of a barrel of oil is closer to $70 a barrel than the norm of $15-$20. Even commodities many of us had ever heard of – such as palladium – are at record highs?

Why? Because of climate change? No. Because of demand.

Global demand for all these assets is increasing with the strength of the global economy, while at the same time major new discoveries of these commodities are few and far between.

If we didn't have this simple demand/supply imbalance, would be having the debate about climate change?

No, we wouldn't. We'd just carry on consuming. That we are just shows the power of the politics of affluence.

Lawrence Gosling is the founding editor of Investment Week magazine. He has a weekly column called Gosling's Grouse in the magazine.

Posted by James Murray on June 27, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (1)

Dr Aled Jones explains how Cambridge University's new Climate Leadership Programme aims to help business leaders better understand the risks and opportunities associated with climate change.

BusinessGreen: How did Cambridge University's new Climate Leadership Programme come about?
Dr Aled Jones: We run the Prince of Wales' business and sustainable development programme and we've covered climate change within that, but it has become increasingly clear that we need to do something more specific on the issue, how it is impacting businesses and how they can help tackle the problem.

What will the course entail?
The aim is to get 40 or so senior business people together for a four day residential course. We'll provide information on the science, the policy and how businesses are responding to climate change. The aim is to help facilitate the development of climate change strategies that will suit their business – we don’t want it to be too proscriptive and the majority of the course will involve getting people together in working groups to look at possible strategies for tackling the problem.

When will the first course run?
We have a partnership with Duke University in the US and they are going to run the first course in May, then we'll follow with a course here in October. The aim is to get executives from some of the UK's largest companies to attend this year, then next year we'll expand the programme with two events in the UK, two more in the US and maybe one in Asia.

A lot of business schools are either already running courses in this area or planning to do so. How will this course differ?
There are business schools running these courses, but we're not part of the business school community so we are not really looking at pre-set ideas around business models. Our aim is to bring in top level scientific, economic, policy and business experts and help attendees develop their own solutions. It is arguably a bit less focused than the traditional business school approach, but it is also a bit less proscriptive.

What type of attendee are you aiming for and what do you hope they will get out of the course?
The aim is to have really top level speakers, including politicians and business leaders and to ensure the attendees are amongst the top four or five executives within a business. It will cost £3,950 for the four day course and the aim is to give attendees an overarching understanding of where the science, policy and business challenges lie in tackling climate change; where the business opportunities are; and how best to evaluate and manage climate change initiatives. We'll also form an alumni network that will allow the attendees to work together in developing new initiatives and sharing best practices after the course.

How much interest have you had in the course?
We recently sent out the first wave of marketing material and the response has already been very interesting. We select applicants based on a nomination process, rather than first come first serve basis, but we'd still expect the course to be sold out.

Why do you think such green business courses are proving popular?
It is all about understanding the opportunities and the risks. The academic understanding of the science, policy and economics of climate change is absolutely key to any long term corporate strategy development. For example, if the emissions trading scheme is going to affect your business you need to know what the next stage is going to look like. If you are making long term investments you need to know how climate change is likely to affect demographics and population distribution in the next twenty or thirty years.

Is there a lack of understanding of these issues amongst business leaders at the moment?
There are of course leaders in this field, such as the corporate leaders group on climate change which we have been involved with, but even within those companies understanding levels vary. At the same time all companies are increasingly realising the need to develop strategies in this area, so I would expect to see more demand for these types of courses and the development of more courses to meet that demand.

Anyone interested in finding out more about Cambridge University's Climate Leadership Programme or registering to attend can do so here

About Dr Aled Jones

Dr Aled Jones is a Development Director at the Cambridge Programme for Industry where he works on developing programmes in Climate Change and Energy.

He is also Director of the Climate Leadership Programme (Europe) and is part of the Secretariat for the Prince of Wales's Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change.

Prior to this he worked as a senior technology consultant and was a Fellow of Mathematics at King's College, Cambridge. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications.

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

In the last of our series on the countdown to the new eWaste laws Dell's Jean Cox-Kearns argues that reuse is often as good as recycling

It's just a week to go until the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directive comes into full effect and there is one final tip that is critical for all firms if they are to be certain of complying with the new law.

Under the directive, producers are primarily responsible for e-waste disposal. However there may be some instances where end user organisations are responsible for disposal themselves, for example, if the Electrical and Electronic Equipment (EEE) was purchased prior to August 2005 and is not being replaced. In these circumstances business users of electrical equipment must make their own arrangments for safe disposal.

When looking to dispose of EEE, the first thing to do is to consider whether the equipment can be re-used elsewhere in the company. If not, perhaps it can be donated to not-for-profit organisations such as schools and charities, as long as it is still in reasonably good condition and is of adequate specification. There are lots of opportunities for your old equipment to be re-used by organisations within the UK.

Selling the equipment onto other users is another possibility. Whether you choose to donate or sell old EEE, security is still a key concern so, as previously discussed, take the necessary precautions and ensure equipment is wiped clean of any sensitive data and note that reformatting disks does not remove your data. There are a number of organisations that offer data cleaning services on IT equipment .

If the old kit cannot be reused recycling through an approved authorised treatment facility is the final option. There are a number of organisations that can help with recycling and ensure that components and data are disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner.

The business advice website Business Link has a list of such organisations to help you dispose of your equipment.

Disposal of EEE doesn't haven't to be a daunting or difficult process. And if you are in uncertain about how to comply with WEEE simply consult with your IT supplier about whether they offer e-waste disposal, donation or asset recovery programmes. If they do not such a scheme themselves they should be able to put you into contact with an authorised recycling facility.

Jean Cox-Kearns is Dell's take-back and recycling manager for Europe, Middle East and Africa.

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

Can businesses and charities really work together successfully? Anna Clark argues that the answer is a resounding yes.

As the business sector searches for new and better ways to go green, a strange but wonderful phenomenon is emerging. Increasingly, companies are partnering with non-profits and building coalitions with each other to further green initiatives. A good partnership can help participating entities maximize resources, grow their client base and enhance visibility. We used to call this synergy. Yet, the outcomes of such arrangements can be so far-reaching that "synergy" doesn't describe it. I propose a new term: exponential sustainability.

If corporate sustainability is the balance of the financial, social and environmental aspects of an organization, achieving this balance at a society level can lead to exponential change, hence exponential sustainability. This begins to happen when companies reach outside themselves to pursue green initiatives that go beyond their own perceived interests.

Numerous case studies illustrate the ripple effect of positive partnerships and coalitions. A recent example is the Clinton Climate Initiative. The William J. Clinton Foundation has created an arrangement among four energy service companies and five global banking institutions that will result in major environmental upgrades in 16 cities of the world's largest, most polluted cities.

Collectively, the banks, which include Citigroup, Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, JP Morgan Chase & Co., UBS AG, and ABN Amro, will commit $1 billion to finance energy efficient building upgrades in municipal buildings in participating cities. "They're going to save money, make money, create jobs and have a tremendous collective impact on climate change all at once," Mr. Clinton said of the partners in the initiative in a prepared statement. That is exponential sustainability in a nutshell.

Another coalition leading to sweeping change is the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP). The group's mission is to urge the federal government to cut greenhouse gas emissions 60-80 percent and to create business incentives. The 22 USCAP member companies, including GM, Shell and Dow Chemical, represent industries critical to slowing climate change. The corporate partners join six non-profit advocacy groups in this mission.

Fred Krupp of Environmental Defense says of the USCAP, "We chose a cap-and-trade approach because it guarantees the emissions cuts we need, while it unleashes cash and creativity from the private sector. This plan is a jobs winner as well as an environmental winner." By teaming up with non-profits, big businesses are able to proactively shape and promote creative solutions before they must face potentially less-favorable regulations.

Even just one company together with one non-profit can change the course of an industry. One example is the partnership between Allianz Group, one of the world's largest insurance providers, and WWF, a global leader in environmental conservation. The partnership seeks to address the growing impact of climate change-induced damages, such as flooding, forest fires and storm damages, on the insurance industry.

Allianz started the project to protect the interests of its customers, as climate changes could make insurance unaffordable for customers in high-risk areas. In fact, in states vulnerable to hurricanes, insurance rates are already increasing and in some cases, insurers are exiting these markets altogether. In the process of addressing the possible consequences of climate change, this partnership has been engaging governments and regulators to work with the insurance industry to find solutions.

The business sector used to focus purely on financials, leaving the job of curing societal ills to non-profits. However, one recent survey revealed that 81% of MBA students polled said that business should work toward “the betterment of society.” As more large companies embrace sustainability as a strategic goal, they recognize that non-profits may have superior experience in the business of “betterment.”

Partnering with non-profits was once a philanthropic endeavor. Today, companies are discovering that by partnering with non-profits on green initiatives, they can gain expertise, resources and recognition without the costs of going green alone. Such partnerships represent more of a symbiotic, rather than subordinate, relationship between the business and non-profit sectors.

As the threat of global warming becomes reality, sole focus on competitive advantage is giving way to cooperation among industry contenders, many of which are now building coalitions for the greater good. Can this paradigm shift be the silver lining to climate change?

The concept of exponential sustainability may still lie at the far end of the sustainability spectrum. Most companies would do well just to start evaluating their emissions and improve energy efficiency within their own walls. But if you decide that exponential sustainability belongs on your company's strategic horizon, the right partnership can rapidly propel you there.

Where does a company source partnerships opportunities? How does a company begin to build a coalition? Large companies are more likely to be approached by groups than small and mid-sized companies, although exponential sustainability can work for any-size enterprise. Smaller companies can hire a sustainability consultant to help them craft a sustainability strategy that includes finding partnerships within their industry or community.

If you are the owner of a smaller company, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel if you can join an initiative in your town or neighborhood that is already gaining steam. Seek out opportunities to support local programs spearheaded by your community or city council. By adding your resources and contacts to the effort, you gain visibility and standing among the very people you would like for customers and clients.

Small businesses may find that by tying green initiatives to their communities, they can inspire employees and existing clients to participate. Even small-scale partnerships and collations can create momentum around sustainability.

I can't help but think of the recycling container at my daughter's school, filled to capacity every week by moms eager to see the school reap financial rewards from their refuse. Yet, moms all over Dallas, when left to their own devices, often fail to put out their recyclables every week if the relatively low recycling rate in our city is any indicator. My point: people will work harder when coming together to reach a collective goal than they will when acting alone.

Economist Milton Friedman said, “The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.” In the scheme of impeding climate change, partnerships and coalitions based on this principle do more than benefit the partners; they give hope to us all. Now that is what I call exponential sustainability.

Anna Clark is president of EarthPeople, a consulting firm that helps companies of all sizes save money and bolster their brand through the leading-edge principle of sustainability.

This article first appeared at Greenbiz.com

Posted by James Murray on June 22, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

The wave of favourable publicity enjoyed by the world's leading IT companies on the back of their various green policies ground to a halt earlier this week with several leading technology firms accused of lagging behind other sectors in their adoption of low carbon business models.

A new report from environmental lobby group Climate Counts assessed 56 major businesses and ranked them based on 22 criteria covering their contribution to global warming, emission reporting policies, work to limit emissions and stance towards climate change legislation and found that several global technology firms are doing little or nothing to tackle climate change.

Apple, eBay and Google received black marks with scores of less than 20 out of 100, while Amazon.com was shamed with a score of zero.

Dell, Hitachi, Siemens, Samsung, Nokia, Microsoft and Yahoo! also failed to cover themselves in glory with scores of less than 50.

Sony, HP, Motorola, Toshiba and IBM achieved more respectable scores, while printer giant Canon took the plaudits with a top score of 77.

Climate Counts said that the benchmark report would be followed by later editions, offering customers an independent means of assessing businesses green credentials and providing firms with an incentive to try and improve their standing.

"We hope Climate Counts will motivate companies to be more proactive in reducing their impact on climate change," said Adam Markham, executive director of non-profit Clean Air-Cool Planet, which backed the report. "Our hope is that the Scorecard challenges them to take climate change seriously and increase their efforts to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions."

Google, Apple and Dell will all be hoping to climb the rankings in the next edition of the report after they recently unveiled new environmental policies.

Posted by James Murray on June 22, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Scientists have this week predicted that a second generation of biofuels, including more efficient fuels made from fruit, wood and even human sewage, could be available within the next few years, potentially putting an end to fears that demand for biofuel made from crops such as palm oil is leading to tropical deforestation and driving up food prices.

However, environmentalists remain concerned that UK government targets to ensure biofuels make up 5 percent of all car fuel by 2010 could have disastrous environmental effects and that proposals unveiled today to ensure that biofuels come from sustainable sources are not stringent enough.

Writing in Nature, scientists from the University of Wisconsin-Madison reported that they had found a way to turn sugar from fruits such as apples and oranges into a powerful biofuel with many advantages over existing ethanol-based biofuels.

They claim that fructose can be converted into a fuel called dimethylfuran that can store 40 percent more energy than ethanol and is less volatile. The report claimed more work needed to be done to assess the fuel's environmental impact, but raised the prospect of a more environmentally sustainable generation of fructose based fuels.

Meanwhile, a new UK report from the Non-Food Crops Centre today outlined how fuel made from waste products, such as wood, plastic bags, straw and even human sewage could meet a third of the UK's motoring fuel needs.

The study claimed that production facilities where the waste is burned in low oxygen conditions and then chemically converted into diesel could provide a low carbon fuel source that would cost as little as 35p a litre.

The emergence of these so-called second generation biofuels would defuse current environmental fears that demand for ethanol-based fuels is leading to deforestation of tropical rainforest and contributing to food shortages as farmers in the developing world convert land used to grow food crops into biofuel plantations.

However, with such fuels still several years away from commercial scale production concerns remain that increased demand for biofuels could do more harm than good.

The government moved to allay such fears today with the publication of a package of proposals designed to ensure biofuels sold on UK forecourts come from environmentally sustainable sources.

Under the new Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) five percent of all the fuel sold on UK forecourts should come from biofuels by 2010, however now the government has released a consultation document proposing that from 2011 it will only certify biofuels if they meet sustainability standards and deliver quantifiable reductions in carbon emissions.

It also said it would investigate developing a voluntary labelling scheme that would allow retailers to reassure customers that their biofuel was environmentally sustainable.

Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander said the proposals underlined the government's commitment to ensuring biofuels genuinely deliver environmental benefits. "We are one of the first countries to develop a detailed methodology to allow transport fuel suppliers to report in detail on the carbon and sustainability impacts of their biofuels," he said.

However, several of the proposals will only place voluntary obligations on fuel suppliers while the suggested targets require that just half of biofuel feedstocks should meet a qualifying sustainability standard by 2010, rising to 80% by 2011, prompting criticism from leading environmentalists.

Ed Matthew, biofuels campaigner for Friends of the Earth argued that the proposals were further evidence that the government's biofuels policy has not been properly thought through. "It appears to be the Governments view that saving the world from disastrous climate change should be voluntary," he said. "They are not introducing mandatory standards, or setting a minimum threshold for the carbon savings to be made through the use of biofuels. Despite the fact that unsustainable bio-fuel production can lead to the destruction of rainforest and human rights abuses, suppliers won’t even be required to report where their bio fuel comes from."

Posted by James Murray on June 21, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

UK contact centres are lagging behind their US counterparts in their adoption of home working models, and missing out on significant cost and environmental savings in the process.

That is the view of Ian Ashby, chief executive of contact centre software specialist Exony, who argued that with 5 percent of US' 3 million contact centre agents now working from home there was increasing evidence that the technology and business models existed to enable the "home-shoring" of many UK contact centres.

A recent whitepaper from Exony argued that there are multiple benefits to be gained from implementing so-called "virtual contact centres" where agents work from home, including lower staff churn rates, reduced real estate costs, improved employee diversity through greater recruitment of disabled staff or working parents, and reduced carbon emissions associated with employees' commutes to work.

The study argued that the UK's call centre professionals are responsible for 1.3 million tonnes of CO2 emissions each year through their commute, a sizable proportion of which could be avoided through greater adoption of home working.

Ashby argued that employing contact centre agents who work from home can also make the contact centre more reactive to caller demand. "If people don't have to come into work it is far easier for a call centre manager to get agents to agree to shorter shifts at less notice, making it easier to respond to spikes in demand," he explained.

Enabling home working for call centre agents would require significant technology investments in the form of enhanced network, security and monitoring software for managing home-based agents, however Ashby insisted that such systems were now widely available and proven and as such the main barrier to wider adoption of home working models was cultural.

"There is a sense with contact centres that if you can't see the agents they are not working," he said. "But monitoring tools means firms can make sure that is not the case."

He added that these concerns appeared less apparent in the US where many of the agents working from home are effectively self employed and as such motivated to remain productive. "The US model has been to ensure home agents are working for themselves, which plays well with the entrepreneurial culture," he explained.

UK firms keen to pilot the use of home agents are advised to focus on higher end services, such as technical support, where agents are likely to be a bit more experienced, keen on the idea of home working and easier to manage without constant supervision. Ashby also recommended that companies interested in the idea should first "dip their toe" into the model by recruiting some home agents to cover a seasonal peak in demand like Christmas.

Eradicating millions of car journeys each day by replacing the UK's many call centre's with an army of flexible, happy, work-life balanced home agents may seem like something of a pipedream, but Ashby is increasingly convinced that widespread adoption of "home-shoring" is possible.

"If you had asked me six months ago I would have to admit that I was unconvinced," he said. "But in the last two months we have seen massive interest in this model and it would only take two or three successful deployments and this could really fly. The whole model has a lot of support from local government, disability rights groups, working parents and of course the green movement – with that level of backing it is hard to imagine how it cannot work."

Posted by James Murray on June 21, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

The future has arrived, and it's earlier than expected.

It has been predicted for years that CO2 emissions from China would overtake those from the US sometime prior to 2010 and possibly even this year, but according to a new study released yesterday by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency it has already happened.

The report analysed CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production and found that China emitted 6,200m tonnes last year – eight percent more than the US. The result marks a staggering reversal from 2005 when China was still 2 percent behind the US in terms of CO2 emissions.

It is easy to understand why environmentalists get twitchy about China.

The scale of the problem is simply terrifying. While China is now a larger polluter than the US in total it is still way down the global league table in terms of CO2 emissions per capita, with emissions per person about a quarter that of the US. This means that with the Chinese government committed to raising the quality of life for all its population (and why shouldn't it be) the the massive growth in emissions we've seen over the last decade will only accelerate. It is easy to believe the UK Foreign Office's claims today that China is now building two new coal-fired power stations a week.

It is hard not to despair at figures like these. They give succour to all those who argue that action to curb emissions in the West are all but pointless without similar action in China and give businesses and governments some form of economic justification for delaying low carbon investments.

The knee jerk reaction for business leaders is to simply wash their hands of the problem and argue that it is now up to the international community to engineer some form of global regulatory framework that includes China.

Yet despite all this pessimism there is both a ray of hope and a series of actions businesses can take to help resolve the China predicament.

The first is that just as there is massive capacity for an increase in Chinese emissions there is also massive capacity for improvements in the Chinese economy's carbon intensity – the measure of how much GDP is generated for each tonne of carbon.

Back of the envelope calculations based on the Dutch report and figures from the CIA World Factbook show that the US generates over five times as much GDP from each tonne of CO2 emissions compared to China. This suggests that China can deliver economic growth while keeping emissions static if it can only emulate US productivity and enhance the efficiencies of its various processes.

It is this goal that was at the heart of the Chinese government's recently released climate change strategy where it set itself the target of reducing energy consumption per unit of GDP by 20 percent by 2010.

This will be achieved in part through an increased investment in renewable energy, but many western economies boast a much lower carbon intensity than China without a significant contribution from the renewable sector suggesting that China can improve its carbon intensity through the deployment of conventional technologies and processes. Such an economic transformation will provide numerous opportunities to Western firms that have already developed the energy efficient processes and business models China is now keen to emulate.

The second point, and the one that gives green businesses the greatest hope, is that regardless of how hard US and European politicians try to convince us otherwise, China does not exist in a vacuum.

China is one of the most export dependent economies in the world. Its current account surplus stood at $250bn last year with over 20 percent of exports going to the US and a further 10 percent going to Japan. This means that western importers have huge influence over the Chinese economy. In many ways they have more influence over China than our politicians and as such it is they that really have the power to instigate green business models.

Western firms that are serious about climate change need to realise that tackling emissions in their own back yard is not sufficient and that effort also needs to go into addressing the impact of their supply chains, many of which originate in countries with soaring carbon emissions such as China and India. After all the climate has no concern over which side of a national boundary CO2 emissions come from.

A firm committed to reducing emissions right across its operations can even make a business case for undertaking low carbon initiatives in these developing countries first, on the grounds that the low carbon intensity evident in their inefficient processes, the relatively low cost of labour and real estate, and the less stringent planning laws should make it easier and cheaper to implement low carbon investments there than in it is here.

It is concerning to hear that China has finally taken the US's title as the world's worst polluter and equally worrying to think that India could soon knock the US into third place, but it is lazy logic to suggest that we can't do anything about it.

Posted by James Murray on June 20, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Today sees the third installment of BusinessGreen's web seminars on how to run a green IT department.

Entitled IT and the environment in action – how businesses are proving their green credentials, the seminar briungs together a panel of leading IT professionals to discuss how their organisations are practically deploying green IT strategies.

The seminar will be chaired by Computing Editor Bryan Glick and include presentations from Ian Exton of WWF on how the environmental charity is deploying virtualization software to reduce power consumption, Patrick Fogarty of engineering services firm Norman Disney & Young on how firms are enhancing the environmental credentials of their datacentres, and John Hegarty of Betfair on the company's green IT policy and PC turn off campaigns.

Each of the presentations will provide an opportunity to see how some of your peers are limiting their environmental impact, and as always there will be the chance to ask questions to the panel.

You can catch the programme, which kicks off at 3pm GMT, by registering for free here.

Posted by James Murray on June 20, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

According to a new report released yesterday firms should be subject to "stronger frameworks of law and regulation", multinationals should use their political influence to demand more stringent legislation, and businesses should redefine success to include social, environmental and human aspects of their operations alongside purely financial considerations.

The author of the report? Oxfam? The Fabian Society? Maybe even the International Worker?

Nope, it was Tomorrow's Global Company, a big business think tank, backed by some of the world's largest companies.

It has become something of a cliché for those in the green business movement to claim that things keep happening that would have been unthinkable even six months ago, but it truly is hard to recall a precedent for so many influential multinationals calling for more stringent regulations.

Entitled the Tomorrow's Global Company: Challenges and Choices, the report was developed over 18 months by a team drawn from a raft of businesses and NGOs, including Anglo American, Amnesty International, BP, Ford, Infosys, KPMG, McKinsey, Standard Chartered, SUEZ, and SustainAbility.

It concludes that: "While the market has proved the most powerful means of stimulating innovation and meeting immediate consumer needs for goods and services, there are major issues relating to long-term sustainability which it has left unresolved - such as global warming, the depletion of natural resources, persistent poverty and human rights violations. Progress in such areas depends on creating stronger frameworks for the market through international agreements and national regulation."

As such it argues that global companies should "use their power to help create such frameworks, rather than resisting them".

It may be nothing you haven't read hundreds of times before in left wing editorials, but it is worth repeating that this pro-red tape course of action is now being advocated by a cabal of the world's largest companies – many of whom have spent decades lobbying against the very legislation they are now calling for.

Sounding more like a Guardian leader writer than a titan of industry, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, chairman of Anglo American, neatly summarised the report's findings, claiming: "Global businesses, operating in a market system, can be a tremendous force for good in the world - so long as the market is shaped and regulated in the right way. So it's up to us to work with governments, NGOs, academic experts and others to make sure we work within a system that delivers progress and helps to resolve the world's most difficult issues."

So why do these businesses apparently want an increase in their compliance burdens?

Well, as the report clearly explains: "This is not about philanthropy or companies being seen to be 'doing good'. These are actions that serve the long-term interests of any company".

Businesses such as those behind Tommorow's Global Company are increasingly realising that there a number of reasons why a stronger regulatory framework, particularly in the field of environmental legislation, will strengthen rather than hinder their commercial activities.

The first of these is the long term threat posed by climate change. It is understandable why the risks posed by global warming are often framed in humanitarian terms, but there is also the potential for huge economic damage.

Business leaders looking into their crystal ball understand that while the transition towards low carbon economies poses more opportunities than costs there will be far more costs than benefits associated with rising temperatures. No company wants to invest in India and see the economy collapse under pressure from drought or watch a repeat of the US dust bowl cripple the world's biggest market. Business success is only sustainable in the long term if the environment and climate are sustainable.

To mitigate this risk they also know that business led initiatives alone will not be sufficient. Too many companies will not back investments that deliver an environmental rather than a financial return and as such stricter regulations will be required to drive these investments.

However, if these concerns are remain too distant for businesses concerned with the quarterly figures and the cost burden compliance with new regulations would impose there is also a shorter term case for backing stricter legislation.

With environmental concerns being taken increasingly seriously by voters, the world's politicians are reacting and introducing more environmental legislation. However, with each country and even state or local governments opting for their own approach multinationals are faced with a horrendous patchwork of legal requirements. If there is one thing worse than an onerous regulatory burden it is an onerous regulatory burden that changes from country to country. In this light, lobbying for a coherent regulatory framework makes more sense than trying to oppose each and every one of the different regulations that are emerging.

Of course, Tomorrow's Global Company's recommendations do not enjoy universal support. Many businesses continue to oppose environmental legislation at every turn, while many others lobby against new regulations behind the scenes, delay their implementation and when the politicians finally force them through come out in favour of the new laws and proclaim that its goals fit with their CSR agenda.

However, the new report also highlights the extent to which a more accommodating approach to legislation is being incubated at some of the world's largest companies. It will interesting to track how widespread this new mentality is and whether it will could finally lead to a detente between business leaders and green lawmakers.

Posted by James Murray on June 19, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Several weeks ago a comment was posted on a BusinessGreen article that mused on why "climate change" had replaced the term "global warming".

It was, of course, all part of a global conspiracy.

"Did you notice it went from "global warming" to "climate change"?" asked Greg. "That way when they're forced to admit that the earth is now in fact cooling it won't be so hard... all they will have to do is whip up a panic about the coming ice age, deja vu 1975ish."

Now not withstanding the rather dubious reasoning - just because the scientists were wrong about global cooling in the seventies doesn't mean they are wrong now - and the fact that Greg's conspiracy theory does not stand up to even the mildest scrutiny he does raise an interesting point around how "climate change" has displaced "global warming" as the term to describe the current environmental crisis.

Far from being the work of a cabal of scientists concerned that their predictions may on global warming may have to be reversed the recent pre-eminence of "climate change" can be credited to one Frank Luntz, a republican pollster and communications guru who in a 2002 memo advised President Bush to ditch the term "global warming" in favour of "climate change".

In the memo, which was leaked in 2004 and also advised the administration to step up its attempts to cast doubt on the science surrounding global warming, Luntz recommended that "climate change" would appear less threatening to voters than the more apocalyptic "global warming".

The advice was evidently acted on with the phrase "global warming" all but disappearing from President Bush's speeches between 2001 and 2002.

Luntz has since sought to distance himself from both the memo's recommendations and the Bush administration claiming in a recent interview with The Independent that "seven years ago there was a real battle over whether the earth was going through global warming. Now I don't believe there is. I'm willing to accept the science as it is. I would not have written that memo today".

However, the genie was already out the bottle and since 2002 the less threatening "climate change" has gathered unstoppable momentum, almost completely displacing the more apocalyptic "global warming" as the de facto description for the manmade increase in average temperatures.

Politicians, businesses and the media have all followed Luntz's recommendation to favour the softer term. While even some environmental lobby groups, many of which have a direct interest in ensuring people are genuinely concerned and even fearful of scientists' climate predictions, have co-opted the term "climate change" as a more palatable description for the crisis.

All of this has been much to the annoyance of some environmentalists who argue that the use of the term "climate change" creates an impression of mild discomfort or gradual shifts in temperature when the reality is likely to be far more devastating. Most notably Professor James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia Theory, has recently argued that even the term "global warming" is too cosy and urged people to adopt the phrase "global heating" as the best means of highlighting the scale of the threat the earth now faces. Given the worst case predictions of 6 degree temperature rises this century "global heating" may indeed be more appropriate.

Far from being a dry debate on nomenclature the question of how to refer to what Al Gore calls a "planetary emergency" is one that businesses have to grapple with.

The safe option is to stick with the current consensus and rely on the term "climate change" when promoting any emission reduction initiative. But with this now the majority view firms keen to differentiate their green agendas and depict how serious they take the issue could do worse than consider a return to the more powerful "global warming".

A question of nomenclature may be a minor consideration when looking at all the other things a business has to put in place to undertake a successful carbon emissions reduction programme, but as Luntz has ably demonstrated throughout his career picking the right words can be critical success.

Posted by James Murray on June 18, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (3)

Doug Williams of Zipcar explains why car clubs can work for businesses just as well as they work for green consumers

BusinessGreen: So what is Zipcar?
Doug Williams: We are a car club company that has over 100,000 members and over 3,000 cars in 23 cities in the US, Canada and the UK. The concept grew out of environmental concerns and works on the simple premise that it is better for 20 to 40 people living and working in a city to share a car than each own their own car.

How practically does this work?
The technology and approach we use is focused on making the experience as simple as possible. For the business model to work the customer experience has to be as close to owning a car as possible. Customers sign up online and get a Zip Card. Then, whenever they need a car they go online or make a call and reserve a car for the time they want. They then go and swipe the car and drive off. We try to situate the cars as close as possible to the customer so it is often just a short walk away. Unlike when you own a car people also get an option of the type of car they want for that day.

What is the difference compared to traditional hire car companies?
We regard hire as a four letter word. We are available online and you can reserve and access a car anytime day or night; the cars are located close to the customer; they are available at hourly as well as daily rates; pricing includes insurance, tax, and congestion charges are included in the cost and petrol can be included as well; and we feel we are very competitive on cost as the aim is to make it cheaper than people owning their own cars. Basically, unlike a hire company, it is a self service model.

Who are your typical customers?
We locate in cities with high urban density, high residential density and high parking costs. We get people who tend to live in the cities using the cars for errands where they need to get outside the city centre and for weekends away. There are real environmental benefits because not only does it mean that people don’t need a car it also leads to behavioural changes. We've done customer surveys and found that 80 percent of our customers travel less by car once they've joined. They start walking or using public transport more, but they also know they have the safety net of knowing they have access to a car if they need it.

So can this model work for businesses? It strikes that it is more of a consumer solution.
A big part of our model is to address the business market and we are seeing a lot of traction from business customers. We see car clubs as a good alternative to cabs and limo companies as you can similarly reserve and get a car at short notice. As you can imagine a lot of our consumer business is over the weekend and after work which means we can offer really competitive rates to businesses during the working day. We have a Zipcar for Business tariff that offers lower rates between 7am and 6pm where daily rates start from £40 and hourly rates are in the £4 to £5 range.

What types of businesses are using this Zipcar?
We find a lot of businesses are using it as an employee benefit for staff who need to occasionally use a car during the working day to get to meetings and as a result they commute into the city in their car and pay for parking, just so they can get to a meeting. For example, in all the cities we operate in architects tend to be big users, particularly at green design agencies. They are often out of the office visiting sites and often have bulky designs with them that make it difficult to use public transport, but they don't want to drive into work everyday. Similarly, lawyers and ad agencies where people may have to go en masse to meet clients see the advantage in having access to a car.

About Doug Williams

Doug Williams is vice president of engineering at Zipcar and is responsible for the company's online, voice and in-car technology.

Williams joined Zipcar from voice and web testing and monitoring solution provider Empirix where he was vice president of enterprise engineering.

In addition to over 20 years experience managing technology teams, Williams holds a combined Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Degree from Princeton and an MBA from the Harvard Business School.

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

It has to be the first rule of pragmatic management: always spend your budget, because if you don't it'll only get cut.

It is the reason that spending on training courses and adverts and office refurbs and corporate hospitality always seems to get authorised just a few weeks before the end of the financial year as managers rush to prove to their superiors that they need every last penny of their budget.

Even when bonuses are on offer for those who come in under budget, canny managers know it makes more sense to exceed their budget by a small amount rather than risk sparking thoughts at board level that if you managed to spend so little this year you won't mind an even smaller budget next year.

However, while such pragmatism makes sense from each individual manager's perspective it also encourages corporate profligacy and poses a serious challenge to green investments, many of which promise to reduce costs and thus potentially lead to budget cuts.

Every manager knows that budgets equals power, so it is understandable that a facilities director should look at an sensor-based air conditioning system that promises to slash management costs and electricity bills, for example, and ask if it is really a good thing for their long term standing in the business.

Equally an IT chief keen to do their bit for the environment by extending their hardware refresh cycles by a couple of years would be understandably deterred if they knew such a decision would mean they were left with less investment cash to play with.

This problem can of course be resolved if senior execs force middle managers to drive through green investments regardless of the impact on their long term budgets, or if bonus schemes and budget allocations are correctly structured to ensure managers can see value in investments that deliver cost savings and are allowed to reinvest any savings they achieve.

As Gary Meades, environmental affairs manager at British Airways, observed at this week's Kyocera Green Card conference, if a departmental manager does not have to handle waste disposal costs they have no incentive to pay more up front for kit that will last longer.

However, budgets and bonuses that break down departmental fiefdoms and strong board level leadership that drives through green investments are sadly all too rare, meaning managers often have to find their own way to implement cost saving green investments without jeopardising future budgets.

The answer, according to Kyocera Mita's UK head of marketing Tracey Rawling Church is to simply extend managerial pragmatism a step further and package sustainability projects that save money, such as energy efficiency measure, with those green projects that require investment but deliver no clear cost saving, such as green subsidies for staff or carbon offsetting.

"It means that you get a double environmental benefit and it remains cost neutral," she observed.

It may not be an ideal scenario when so many green business projects are capable of delivering substantial cost savings, but with middle managers often protecting their budgets with the intensity of crazed tigers it is a realistic means by which they can authorise green projects and still protect their budgets for the years ahead.

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

Low cost airline easyJet has today unveiled a prototype for a new fuel efficient aircraft, or ecoJet, which it claims could deliver a reduction in CO2 emissions of 50 percent compared to existing short haul aircraft.

The company said that the new ecoJet prototype was based entirely on existing technologies and could slash emissions per passenger km to 47g based on its current aircraft configurations - potentially making it more environmentally friendly than rail and car travel. The new design would also cut noise pollution by a quarter and could be available, at a lower cost than current short haul aircraft, by 2015.

The prototype features rear-mounted "open rotor" engines that easyJet claimed would "offer unrivalled environmental performance for short-haul flying due to their higher propulsive efficiency"; a frame made from new advanced weight-reducing materials similar to those being pioneered in the Boeing 787; and an innovative design that uses wings that are swept forward in order to minimise drag and enhance fuel efficiency.

EasyJet predicted that when combined with improvements in air traffic control technology these design and engineering innovations could reduce carbon emissions by half compared with current short haul aircraft such as the 737 and A320 families of aircraft.

Speaking at a press conference to unveil the ecoJet, Andy Harrison, easyJet chief executive, insisted that the new design was "realistic" and "achievable", and in a clear signal to manufacturers said that easyJet would invest heavily in such planes. "If the 'easyJet ecoJet' were to be made available today we would order hundreds them for fleet replacement and to achieve the 'green growth' that our industry has committed to," he added.

The company insisted the first planes based on the new design could be available by 2015 if manufacturers began R&D efforts now and launched their development and flight testing programs by 2010.

The new design would result in a shorter range and slower speed than existing short haul aircraft, meaning that the same innovations could be less easily applied to the long haul sector. However, easyJet insisted that the slower cruising speed would add just 3 to 10 minutes to the average short haul journey and that the time could be made up by improvements in air traffic control and faster turn around times.

Environmentalists, however, remained sceptical about the new design's environmental impact, arguing that the expansion of the budget airline sector meant any reduction in carbon emissions delivered by more efficient aircraft would quickly be eaten up by the increase in flight numbers.

"It is important that the aviation industry looks at ways to significantly reduce its impact on climate change," said Richard Dyer, aviation campaigner at Friends of the Earth. "But unless this includes massive cuts in the anticipated growth in air travel, it is unlikely to be achieved."

However, easyJet argued that even accounting for projected growth the ecoJet alone could stabilise emissions from short haul aviation at 2005 levels until 2035. It also argued that the new design represented just the first technology "step change" and that others will follow that should reduce emissions still further.

Posted by James Murray on June 14, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Spend and expense management software specialist Concur Technologies has revealed plans for new functionality designed to make it easier for firms to limit or even avoid altogether the environmental impact of corporate journeys booked through its travel booking system.

Raj Singh, president and chief operating officer at the company, said that it would add new functionality to its hosted travel booking system in the "next few months" allowing firms to carbon offset their corporate journeys as they book them.

"When you are involved in the process of selling travel you can have a big environmental impact, so we are currently researching which are the best offset companies to use globally," he said. "The aim is to give customers a choice so when they book they automatically get an option of several different [offset] providers and projects they can contribute to."

He added the company was currently in talks with several customers, including HSBC, about which offset providers boasted the best credentials.

Singh said that new integration with WebEx's online conferencing software would also be available by the autumn, allowing staff booking a journey using Concur's technology to launch an online conference with the person they are planning to travel to meet from within the booking portal.

Singh insisted there was nothing contradictory about a company that had enjoyed growth on the back of increased demand for corporate travel developing functionality designed to reduce the need for business trips. "It is an old truism that if you do the right thing for your customers then the revenue will flow," he said. "We are seeing demand for this type of functionality and if over time business people spend less on travel they will spend more elsewhere and our solution will evolve to manage that."

Posted by James Murray on June 14, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

In many ways the launch today of the WWF's new Climate Savers Computing Initiative provides the perfect blueprint for how to launch a green industry group.

It has the backing of over 30 major players, including Google, Intel, Microsoft, HP IBM, Lenovo and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); it sets out stringent targets, including a reduction in computer power consumption of 50 percent by 2010; it has a clear focus on the problem posed by around half the energy drawn by PCs being wasted and lucid technical targets for tackling that problem; and it has the endorsement of a globally recognised charity that cannot afford to be seen as a corporate stooge and as such should ensure the scheme is vigilantly policed.

In short, it is a welcome and well thought out initiative and puts to shame some of the bandwagon jumping green IT groups that have emerged in the past few months.

And yet, I can't help thinking that this latest initiative raises very real concerns that a plethora of standards and green IT groups could ultimately confuse customers and even undermine the entire green computing movement.

The Climate Savers group has been very keen to point out that it has the endorsement of the US Environmental Protection Agency, which runs the popular Energy Star labelling scheme for energy efficient electrical equipment, and that its technical standards will build on Energy Star's standards.

For example, 2007 Energy Star specifications require that PC power supplies meet at least 80 percent minimum efficiency, while manufacturers wishing to have their kit certified under the Climate Saver's Initiative would have to meet a minimum of 90 percent by 2010.

But while the new requirements may outstrip those included under Energy Star they also beg the question as to why we need yet another energy efficiency label? Why not just crank up the requirements for Energy Star, which already has considerable traction and brand recognition, particularly in the US.

Catriona McAlister, who works on the Energy Star scheme in the UK, defended the decision, claiming that "whilst Energy Star [aims] to qualify the top performing 25 percent of the market, the Climate Savers Initiative may eventually provide a mechanism for purchasers to identify the very best of the energy efficient computers on the market, and as they are working closely with… the Energy Star label it is likely that the two initiatives will complement each other going forwards".

But if there is a need for a gold standard that goes beyond the current Energy Star specs why not introduce an Energy Star Gold or some such that would mean we would still have one unified standard.

The Climate Savers scheme, while admirable, could simply add confusion to the market. Its stringent standards may mean that only the most energy efficient IT kit available gains its certification, but meanwhile manufacturers who miss out would still be able to achieve Energy Star labels and advertise those to customers. Consumers and businesses hard pressed to wade through the different technical specifications would be forgiven for thinking one energy efficiency label is as good as the other, which patently they are not. 

Of course, those behind the Climate Savers group could point to the fact that as a government run scheme Energy Star hasn't exactly broken any world speed records in developing new standards for PCs and is still at least a year off introducing standards for servers. An industry group, they could accurately argue, is likely to be more agile in developing stricter standards and ensuring they are met.

But if this is the case what is wrong with expanding the Green Grid consortium, which launched earlier this year and has many of the same members as the new WWF scheme.

A spokesman for Intel again insisted there was no overlap between the two groups and that they would prove complementary with the Green Grid focused on servers and datacentres and the WWF group focusing more on PCs and client devices.

Fair enough, but the Climate Savers standards do cover 1U/2U single- and dual-socket servers and again where is the harm in expanding an established green IT group rather than introducing yet another scheme with the attendant risks of customer confusion and duplicated work.

If you are being charitable then the emergence of these multiple green groups are simply the result of an industry exuberance that serves to highlight how seriously the whole issue of energy efficiency is being taken, rather than a machiavellian attempt to confuse customers.

However, we also have to accept that there is a very real risk that this glut of green groups, labels and targets will almost inevitably make it harder for customers to compare vendors' various energy efficiency claims.

If the IT industry is really serious about enhancing energy efficiency then perhaps it is time to call a moratorium on further energy efficiency labelling schemes, each with their own agenda and priorities, and instead try and encourage genuine industry wide adoption of the standards promoted by the existing consortia.

Posted by James Murray on June 13, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Offices in Canary Wharf are struggling to get access to enough power to run all their IT equipment and as a result are finding it difficult to scale up their operations, according to a leading provider of energy efficient thin client technology.

Neoware - which develops thin client devices that simply provide users access to the network, allowing firms to run applications traditionally found on individual PCs on a central server – claims it has been recently contacted by several Canary Warf-based firms who are investigating replacing their energy-hungry PCs with thin clients as the best means of ensuring they can employ more people in their offices.

The problem of not being able to get enough power into a building to run a datacentre has become increasingly familiar over the last few years, but according to Andrew Gee, sales manager for Northern Europe at Neoware, the problem is now extending onto the office floor.

"Businesses are finding they can't get more people onto the floor and can't populate the office more densely because they simply can't get the power into the building to run the PC's," said Gee. "The problem is particularly acute in the finance sector where people can have two or three machines on their desks and it is beginning to put a  constraint on growth  and making it impossible for firms to maximise returns from their office space."

With thin clients [pictured model Neoware e90] typically having no moving parts and using up to 90 percent less energy than a typical PC according to a recent benchmarking report from Neoware, the technology is emerging as an attractive alternative for power constrained firms.

Even where firms have no such power constraints interest in thin clients is growing, according to Gee, as concerns mount about energy costs, data loss and the environment.

"Our report showed that based on average electricity prices a company with 35,000 PCs can save £1.6m a year on electricity bills alone by replacing them with our thin client devices," he said. "The enhanced security and manageability you get with everything being run off a central server are also proving big drivers for adoption… and as the products mature and diversify the number of customers thin clients don't suit diminishes."

One such example of this diversification was Neoware's recent launch of a thin client laptop that provides a connection to the network using broadband, wifi or 3G. Gee explained that the new product was designed to appeal to customers concerned about the threat of data breaches associated with lost laptops, as any lost thin client laptop would not contain any data.

The environmental benefits associated with the thin clients limited energy consumption are currently regarded as more of a "side benefit" by customers, Gee admitted. But he added that interest in the issue is growing, particularly amongst public sector customers who are under government directive to reduce their energy consumption.

"At the moment the green interest is focused around government customers, but I see it expanding across the board as businesses realise they have to use their power more efficiently and their employees start to demand that they take practical green action," he said.

Posted by James Murray on June 13, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Do you have a screensaver running on your computer? If so perhaps you should replace the bouncing ball, swimming fish or flashing corporate logo with an image showing a wad of cash going up in flames.

That is certainly the view of Paul Baglin, corporate real estate services manager for the wealth management division of Barclays, which recently canned the company's screen saver after discovering it would save the business over £1m a year globally.

"I couldn't believe the savings were accurate," admitted Baglin. "But we checked the figures and with the 30,000 monitors and desktops that we had running the screen saver the calculations were correct. Getting rid of it is saving us over £1m."

Speaking at today's Kyocera Green Card conference on green IT, Baglin admitted that the screen saver featuring the company's corporate logo was "probably pretty badly designed" and actually used more energy than when staff were running applications.

But he observed that it was likely to be a common problem at many firms and it was completely unnecessary to be running screensavers that ate up so much energy and stopped monitors switching to stand by.

"It was a challenge to get rid of the screensaver across the company as it featured the brand," he said. "But it made sense and now we have stopped all screensavers, by blocking people putting replacements on their desktops."

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

In the third of our series on the countdown to the EU's new eWaste directive Dell's Jean Cox-Kearns warns that firms must ensure all the data is wiped before handing it over for disposal

As full responsibility for treating and recycling household WEEE passes to the producer on the 1 July 2007, and as businesses prepare to embrace various methods of WEEE-compliant equipment disposal it's easy to forget about one of the key factors that makes IT equipment valuable - the business critical, often confidential, data it usually contains.

Although encouraging reuse and recycling are important aspects of the WEEE legislation, it does not include any requirements that data held on unwanted hardware is removed. As such IT chiefs' checklist for WEEE compliance should always include permanently wiping electronic equipment of any potentially sensitive data, before disposal.

There are various software packages available that can do this, but if you are unsure how to effectively deal with data disposal, consider working with a third party service provider. These specialist companies can provide certified assurance that data has been securely removed, as well as safely and affordably taking the hassle out of the transportation, logistics, packaging and processing requirements that come with complying with the WEEE directive.

With corporate data breaches costing companies millions in brand damage and sometimes even leaving them open to prosecution under the Data Protection Act it is essential that firms ensure that in complying with the WEEE directive they don't forget to keep a safe hold on their sensitive data.

Jean Cox-Kearns is Dell's take-back and recycling manager for Europe, Middle East and Africa.

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

It was always going to happen. Like a lover fearful they are about to get dumped for a younger rival, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) appears to have its scissors poised and ready to cut up the rest of the world's suits unless it stops flirting with those wanton biofuels.

According to the Financial Times, the cartel is now considering getting its retaliation in early by cutting investment in new oil production – a move that would drive oil prices "through the roof" – in response to the West's plans to increase consumption of biofuels.

Quoted last week in the FT, Abdalla El-Badri, secretary general of Opec, warned that the cartel may reduce investment in new oil production if the US and Europe continues its strategy of replacing a sizable proportion of the oil it uses with biofuels.

"If we are unable to see a security of demand… we may revisit investment in the long term," he said.

You almost feel a bit sorry for Opec. Its biggest customers are telling it that it should continue to invest heavily in expanding production, while at the same time implying that as soon as workable alternatives present themselves they are off, leaving Opec to pick up the bill for its now worthless investments. It is a scenario that has already hit Opec once in the past when it ramped up investment in the late seventies in response to soaring prices only to find that by the time the new supply came on line in the eighties western countries had responded by diversifying their energy mix with their own investments in nuclear and gas. 

Faced with this demand uncertainty it is perfectly understandable why Opec may scale back on investment, limit supply and thus drive up prices. And it is equally understandable why it should use this fact as an act of brinkmanship to try and stop its main customers eyeing up alternatives.

It could even be argued that anything that encourages governments to back away from the potentially environmentally disastrous biofuels is A Good Thing, however, the bigger concern is that El-Badri's comments give us a taste of what is to come as businesses and governments attempt to move towards low carbon alternative fuels.

Whether its hydrogen or biofuels, some other oil alternative not yet envisaged or simply energy efficiency measures every time countries make substantial green investments with a goal of reducing oil demand Opec will issue the same warnings about reduced supply and soaring oil prices.

This economic conundrum means transition towards a low carbon global economy is bound to be less than smooth. Oil producers need to be confident demand is guaranteed if they are to invest in exploration and production, both of which are becoming ever more expensive as the most accessible sources are tapped. This certainty over demand is being eroded and it would be perfectly understandable for Opec to decide at some point over the next decade that the risk of getting insufficient returns from large scale investments had become too great. Reduced supply would ensure oil prices soared and with alternative fuels unlikely to be in a position to seamlessly meet the extra demand for energy economies would suffer.

From Opec's point of view it makes sense to remind everyone of this reality and increase pressure on customers to be more explicit in guaranteeing future demand. However, as the renewable Energy Association pointed out in a letter to the FT, the threat of more price volatility and the assertion of Opec's influence also serves to remind everyone why there are economic as well as environmental reasons for limiting our reliance on oil.

It will be interesting to see how governments react to Opec's veiled threat. In the short term it seems they want to repair bridges with the International Energy Agency already attempting to reassure Opec that demand will remain solid. But it is to be hoped that over the longer term governments refuse to back down and use higher oil prices to justify a massive investment programme in green energy alternatives. It may be a recipe for considerable short term economic hardship, but it could be sold to the business community on the grounds that not only is such a transition environmentally essential but it is also a shift that would have to have been made sooner or later anyway as oil supplies begin to run out.

The threatened reduction in oil supplies resulting from a fall in projected demand would simply bring forward inflation in oil prices that would prove inevitable once we pass the point of peak oil production.

Opinion is divided on when oil production will peak with some experts claiming we have already passed the peak and can expect oil prices to begin to climb exponentially and others insisting we have several decades before supplies begin to decline.

Those that claim supply is secure argue that there are large oil reserves that currently are too difficult and expensive to discover or tap, but will become economically viable as technology improves, oil prices rise and, irony of ironies, Arctic ice sheets covering oil reserves recede.

Those that argue peak oil is almost upon us accuse the oil industry of an "institutional jubilance" whereby it is in their interests to make optimistic predictions about supply up to and beyond the point where it begins to dwindle. They also point to the work of Marion King Hubbert, an American geophysicist who unveiled a theory in 1956 that correctly predicted that US oil production would peak in the late sixties or early seventies. Applying the same theory to global production suggests that production is peaking pretty much now and as a result we can expect prices to continue to climb.

Speaking at the recent Library House Cleantech conference, Jeremy Leggett of Solar Century said that while predictions that supply is peaking remain a minority view within the oil industry such forecasts are gaining credence. "[Oil industry] whistleblowers suggest that there is not nearly as much oil out there as we have been led to believe," he said.

It is worth noting that if we are fast approaching peak oil the OPEC statement would represent a particularly cunning ruse, blaming customers for reduced investment in exploration when there is not much oil left to find.

It is in the context of this uncertainty around when peak oil will begin to bite that the transition towards a low carbon economy becomes as important for economic as much as environmental reasons. It should give governments all the incentive they need to stand up to Opec's brinkmanship, take the short term pain that will come with increased oil prices on the chin, and increase investment in the development of the alternative fuels that will hopefully allow us to spurn oil once and for all.

Posted by James Murray on June 11, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (8)

If a fund manager said he was investing in a UK stock on a multiple of over 750 times the fund might legitimately be described as high risk, particularly if there were a number of other stocks on similarly high valuations in the portfolio. Valuations were not even at this extreme back in the heady days of the technology boom in 1999 and 2000.

But such a valuation is alive and well in the UK market. The company is Climate Exchange Limited – the ticker is CLE LN.

The company market cap is £750m, and the shares were up 11% on the back of President Bush's announcement on 'clean air.' It had sales last year of £880,000 and the only justification for the rating is that it runs a carbon trading exchange. To put the valuation in context many fund managers estimate that an 'expensive' technology stock would be on 10x-12x revenues.

The story doesn't end there. The Chinese company TDK Solar, is on a p/e of 26 times and its recent IPO was oversubscribed ten times.

As one fund manager commented to Investment Week recently: "We think that this is an accident waiting to happen."

He was referring to the plethora of so-called 'green stocks' which seem to be around in the UK equity especially and he quite legitimately raises the issues of whether or not this sector is a bubble which is likely to burst with painful consequences.

Two of the leading SRI fund managers, F&C and Jupiter, have already had greater inflows into their environmental funds so far in 2007 than they had in the whole of 2006.

The climate change debate has attracted a 'new breed' of investors – some of whom invest with their conscience and some of whom believe they do not have to sacrifice their beliefs for a return.

The technology boom of the late 1990s attracted a new breed of investors and their stampede from the market place took the fund management sector five years to recover from. Many of that 'lost generation' of investors are those who switched instead to buy-to-let investing.

The industry needs to be very careful that SRI and environmental investing does not become the next 'bubble' to suck up and spit out another group of inexperienced investors.

It must differentiate between speculative concept stocks or those green 'growth' companies with low revenues and high valuations, and those boring old companies with real revenues and profits profiting from the green trend such as BSkyB, Tesco or M&S.

The climate change debate is a crucial one for the planet but is also an attractive one for investors – let's just hope they don't end up with manure on their bed of roses.

This article first appeared in Investment Week.

Posted by James Murray on June 11, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (1)

I keep feeling like I should post something on this week's "historic" G8 Summit and its agreement on climate change, but I'm trying hard to work out how a commitment to meet to discuss the issue at a later date with a view to considering, maybe a target for a "substantial" reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that might well be voluntary constitutes news.

Of course, I'm being slightly churlish and the fact that all the G8 governments, including the US, now recognise manmade climate change, its seriousness and the need for an international agreement as early as 2009 is a huge step forward that would have been unimaginable even twelve months ago.

But without a clear, definable target on emissions, an agreement for a baseline on when cuts should be measured from, a mechanism for sharing out the cuts between different countries, and information on how the various carbon trading mechanisms will evolve it is a case of as you were for businesses desperate for clearer guidance as they transition towards low carbon business models.

The global business community can now expect another two years of uncertainty and confusion as international discussions continue and an infuriating patchwork of climate change policies are pursued by different countries, and in the case of the US even different states.

It is a nightmare scenario for any form of medium to long term corporate planning and risk assessment, and one that could lead to many firms delaying the development of green business models.

And while businesses can now be more certain than ever that both major legislative changes and carbon trading are on the way there is still the risk that the whole global framework could yet collapse with President Bush insisting that the US will only sign up if China and India are involved.

Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic may well be hopeful that such a wide reaching agreement can be achieved, but you can almost hear the Chinese and Indian governments pointing out that they did not create this problem, that vast swathes of their population still live on less than $2 a day, and that a huge chunk of their emissions come from manufacturing products consumed in the West.

Environmentalists may be getting something of a reputation for getting what they want and then complaining once again that things haven't gone far enough. But on this occasion they appear entirely justified to complain that the G8 glass remains half empty.

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

Businesses are being urged to reassess their processes for collecting and managing recyclable material after it emerged up to 40 percent of material sent to recycling facilities could be ending up in landfill.

According to a Sunday Times expose last week, recycling companies are routinely forced to dump tens of thousands of tons of material collected from households because it is so contaminated or badly sorted that it cannot be recycled.

Speaking to BusinessGreen, Andy Moore, coordinator for the Campaign for Real Recycling, confirmed that while official figures showed that between 12 and 15 percent of recyclable material was rejected because of contamination anecdotal evidence suggested the rate could reach 40 percent at some facilities that are operating at capacity. "We don't have a waste problem in this country, we have a mixed waste problem," he added.

The problem is not thought to be as pronounced for waste collected from businesses, but some recycling industry experts insisted some business premises were guilty of handing over material that can not be recycled and ends up in landfill.

"For manufacturing and retail there is not a massive problem because they are aware of the financial value of recyclable material and they know it makes sense to sort it properly and guard against co-mingling," explained Dick Searle, chief executive of The Packaging Federation. "But for offices and event-based businesses it can be a very different story, because, as with the household market, you don't have employee awareness of the importance of properly sorting material."

According to Searle many offices still don't have any recycling facilities and where they do the provision of only one collection facility can result in co-mingled waste that is ill suited for recycling.

"[To be sure material is being recycled] firms need to provide separate collection for not just paper, but also aluminium and plastic and so on," Searle advised. "The problem in the UK is that the recycling culture is not there and nor is the system to reinforce that culture."

However, other industry sources insisted that businesses could be confident that very little of the material they send for recycling ends up in landfill.

"Businesses tend to have specialist collectors for different materials so there is less of a problem with mixed waste," argued one source. "There is a challenge for recyclers when materials are mixed together, but the Sunday Times article was overly pessimistic about the scale of the problem. There is an issue with contaminated waste for the paper sector, but it is a very small proportion that is not being recycled. Equally, the glass industry cannot turn mixed glass waste into new bottles and jars, but it can be used as aggregate - it is not being sent to landfill."

Ultimately however firms keen to ensure waste is properly recycled should ensure different types of waste are collected separately and also follow the same principles that apply to any business process by using spot checks to audit the entire recycling lifecycle.

Posted by James Murray on June 8, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Progress is being made to "get the carbon out" of transport fuel, says Daniel M. Kammen, and it is standards and regulation that is driving the improvements

In the 1970s the big thing in vehicles, fuels and the environment was "get the lead out," an effort to remove lead from gasoline. After initial uncertainty and some opposition, the transition to unleaded fuels proved both remarkably easy and effective. I.Q. levels in children in urban America rose in direct response to the reduction in ambient lead levels.

Those really were the good old days in transportation. In addition to the lead phase-out a well-planned and sustained effort to raise average vehicle efficiency standards (the CAFE, or Corporate Average Fuel Economy) increased vehicle mileage standards by a quarter.

Sadly, that effort was not sustained, and vehicle efficiency levels have not changed significantly for over 25 years. These changes illustrate what is possible when achievable yet ambitious targets are codified, enforced, and adjusted as technological, economic, and environmental needs change.

A combination of technological innovation, economic, and environmental necessity is once again altering the vehicle efficiency landscape, and if sustained could significantly alter the energy and environmental footprint of transportation. The new wave of innovation is reminiscent past effort to "get the lead out," only this time the focus is to "get the carbon out" of our transportation fuels and miles traveled.

Perhaps most interesting -- and most hopeful -- about the current wave of innovation: it seems so obvious once formulated. What could be simpler than regulating the carbon intensity of fuels, namely the amount of greenhouse gases per unit of fuel.

Technically, there are all sorts of complications -- the different energy density of different liquid fuels, how electricity should be treated if used to power pure electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles, just for starters -- but conceptually, the low carbon fuel standard is simple and elegant.

There is already a standardized unit of measure for reporting the amount of GHGs released per unit of fuel: the grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per megajoule of fuel delivered to the vehicle (gCO2e/MJ). Despite its bulk, this makes it easy to report the output of greenhouse gases for each different type of fuel input. The numbers will be adjusted, of course, for differences in the in-use energy efficiency of different fuels (e.g., gasoline versus diesel, versus natural gas or hydrogen).

Based on the just-released Low Carbon Fuel Standard prepared by the University of California for the Governor, "regular" gasoline as a value of 85-92 g CO2 eq / MJ, while natural gas has a value of about 80 g CO2 eq / MJ. Electricity in California has an average value of 27 g CO2 eq / MJ (when used to drive an electric vehicle), and cellulosic ethanol derived from municipal solid waste is about 5 g CO2 eq / MJ.

Now we're off to the races: set standards for the average fuel mix for a state, or nation, and then regulate the value down over time, much like the standards in the Clean Air Act. Starting with the gasoline value, 85-92 g CO2 eq / MJ, California is setting -- initially -- a 2020 target of a 10 percent improvement, ideally with a series of future improvements planned. Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S 7-01, establishing the LCFS, in January of 2007.

And already this year, our Congress has jumped on the bandwagon in a big way: Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) have introduced legislation incorporating a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (S.309). In February, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) endorsed a national LCFS. In March, Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced legislation to enact a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (S. 1073).

Then in May, Senators Boxer, Collins and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) introduced legislation incorporating a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (S. 1297). On the House side Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) introduced a Federal Low Carbon Fuels Act (H.R. 2215). And in May Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced legislation to enact a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (S. 1324).

Internationally, the European Commission proposed a European LCFS in January 2007, while British Columbia is set to announce their version at the end of the month.

The value of the LCFS is that is a simple, quantitative metric and milestone that can be used to chart progress and push an ongoing process of innovation, review, monitoring, and reapplication to move fuels to a lower and lower carbon standard.

I am very pleased to be at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California at Berkeley, the source of so many critical scientific innovations, to chair this meeting on the state, national, and international opportunities for climate protection that derive from a Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

What was needed to initiate this process? Certainly a clear methodology was required, and while several efforts have been made, I'm very pleased to have been involved in one effort that built on some exceptionally good prior work, and which delivered a clear message that using life-cycle techniques, comparisons across different fuels -- both fossil- and bio-fuels -- made a great deal of sense.

Our analysis of ethanol showed, for example, that not all biofuels are created equal. While ethanol, for example derived from corn but distilled in a facility powered by coal was, in fact, on average worse, than gasoline, some of the envisioned cellulosic-based biofuels could be dramatically better on a g CO2 eq / MJ basis. The model we developed, the ERG Biofuel Meta-Analysis Model, EBAMM, is openly available online at a website that is hosted by my laboratory, http://rael.berkeley.edu/ebamm.

What the LCSF does is to redirect our policies to what we want: lower carbon embedded in our transportation system. What we do not want to do is to "lock in" on pet programs or technologies. A LCFS is just that, a means to spur innovation and set standards based on carbon, greenhouse gases, and its role in global warming. What we do want is energy, and clean energy. California has been a leader in conducting world-leading, transparent, analysis of climate and energy issues.

A fascinating parallel exists to what is taking place on the stationary power side.

Today at least 23 states have adopted minimum clean energy standards for electricity, termed Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards. In California, for example (SB 1078) sets a minimum clean energy requirement in our power mix. California has one of the most aggressive RPS standards in the nation, but a number of states, both 'red' and 'blue' are pursuing important and innovative RPS policies. Just as with the LCFS, the goal of RPS policies is to ratchet the average carbon content -- unit of fuel or per kilowatt hour -- down over time.

A LCFS does one other remarkable thing -- it allows added competitors into the transportation fuel sector. Liquid fuel providers -- producing and selling diesel fuel, gasoline, or biofuels -- and electricity providers -- "fueling" plug-in hybrid vehicles with electricity generated with renewable energy -- can now compete for the transportation dollar. Competition and market forces are tremendously useful, and can lead to both added innovation and lower costs.

Where is all this headed?

Towards a steady evolution to cleaner and cleaner fuels on a carbon (greenhouse gas) basis, for starters. There is no reason to stop at carbon, of course. There are other issues with fuels that we can both measure and need to improve.

For biofuels, for example, impacts range from water use to erosion to potential trade-offs with food production, particularly if a global biofuel industry and trade emerges. A natural next step is to evolve from a low-carbon fuel standard to a sustainable fuel standard. With the Low Carbon Fuel Standard barely off the ground, work has already begun on what might go into sustainable fuel standards. That is the value of such a clear measure: the next steps are presenting themselves.

Daniel M. Kammen is the Class of 1935 Distinguished Professor of Energy at the University of California, Berkeley. He co-directs the Berkeley Institute of the Environment and is founding director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory. He has appointments in the Energy and Resources Group and the Goldman School of Public Policy.

This article first appeared at greenbiz.com

Posted by James Murray on June 8, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (1)

A few months ago I found myself at a global press event organised by a major software vendor where great efforts had been taken to follow all the best practices you would expect from a modern, environmentally-conscious multinational corporation.

The press releases and speaker biogs were printed on both sides of the paper, with little recycling logos in the corner; the keynote presentation was delivered via a video link from New York; and the media question and answer session was undertaken with UK-based execs in the room and global execs answering questions from four continents using a conference call facility.

Flights had been avoided, paper had been saved, most people had arrived by public transport, the whole event was the embodiment of a successful green meeting – or it would have been had any of it worked.

The keynote was a moderate-sized disaster with the video link capturing a jerky likeness of the company's president as he delivered his speech, but singularly failing to provide a readable impression of the PowerPoint slides he kept referring to.

The Q&A proved even more luckless with UK journalists plunged into a telephonic black hole by the conferencing system for several minutes, before finally entering the press conference in New York only to find either the microphones or speakers were not sophisticated enough to make the speakers' responses audible. Things improved slightly when a new phone was wheeled in, but by then the Q&A was being wrapped up.

It was a timely reminder that while everyone is now aware of how beneficial online and phone conferencing systems can be in reducing corporate travel and thus carbon emissions, they will only prove effective if they deliver truly seamless and effective communication. As a result many investments in online conferencing systems are failing to deliver the expected benefits, resulting in some executives shunning the unreliable systems in favour of traveling to financially and environmentally damaging face-to-face meetings.

It is a problem reluctantly acknowledged by many of the web conferencing providers who over the past decade have often seen their systems deployed by customers only to be ignored by the executives who should have been using them.

"The legacy of the first wave of video conferencing is that many firms invested in expensive end point video equipment and due to various reasons the investment failed to deliver the expected returns," admits Steve Frost, marketing manager at the Unified Communications division of networking giant Cisco.

The absence of ubiquitous broadband coupled with the dominance of low definition cameras and complicated user interfaces often made online conferencing a trying experience. "The systems used to be far too complex," adds Frost. "People used to step into a room and be given a remote control and told "set it up then" – it was never going to work."

However, according to Frost and other advocates of online conferencing, these technological problems have been resolved and the shambolic and ineffective virtual meetings and presentations such as the one I experienced are increasingly a thing of the past. "The problem now [for the vendors of video conferencing systems] is that a lot of firms don't believe video conferencing can deliver what we say it can," comments Paul Gullet (pictured), president for Europe, Middle East and Africa at video conferencing specialist Tandberg. "The challenge is to get the technology in front of people and prove it now works and is easy to use."

In fact, those firms that are deploying the new breed of high definition video and interactive online communication tools are finding that the key to successful deployment lies less in the technology and more in the ability to embrace the right management practices. "The challenge is not the technology," argues Ewan Cameron UK sales manager at web conferencing specialist WebEx. "The broadband connection is less of an issue, the cost and quality of the cameras are also getting better all the time, and you really only need an internet connection to have a successful web conference. The challenge now is about changing employee habits."

Experts agree that the first habit employees using online conferencing need to change is their one-size-fits-all approach to online meetings – and in some cases that can mean limiting use of video conferencing.

"A lot of people focus on video conferencing but video is just part of the solution," says Frost. "Successful [online] meetings are also about other forms of collaboration and ensuring you get the right mix. You are not always going to need high-definition video, it is about having the options offered by a unified communications suite and learning to select the right medium."

Ian Gabbie, European marketing manager at online conferencing specialist Genesys, claims growing numbers of firms are finally realising they need access to a selection of different communication tools to ensure successful online meetings. "The growth in integrated audio, web and video conferencing is outstripping growth in pure video suites," he said. "These integrated suites mean you can now push slides out to people, share documents, and work on them together. You can basically do everything you can do in a face-to-face meeting bar actually touching the other person."

It is easy to envisage how better selection of technology would have improved the unsuccessful keynote I watched. Simply making the video link part of a dashboard that allowed the presentation slides to be seen directly on the screen alongside the speaker would have easily solved the problem posed by the low definition video. Similarly, the level of collaboration required during the press conference would have been better achieved through an audio web conference that allowed journalists to send over questions through instant messages than it was through an antiquated telephone conferencing system.

But how do firms ensure they pick the right tools for the right meeting? A recent report from occupational psychologists Pearn Kandola, commissioned by Cisco, set out to answer this question and offers best practice guidelines on how to select the appropriate technologies for different types of online meetings. In particular, it advises that groups use richer media, such as video, in the initial stages of a project to aid relationship building, before switching to less intrusive communication tools, such as IM or audio web conferences, once the work really gets under way. Furthermore, it recommends that project teams working online should agree clear protocols such as agreed response times and notifying other attendees of unavailability to avoid confusion and foster trust.

Basic principles for a good meeting should also be retained for online conferences, according to Professor Peter James of the UK Centre for Environmental and Economic Development. "As with any meeting it is really important you have a chair person," he advises. "It is not as bad as with pure phone conferences, but with video and online conferences you can still have some people uninvolved and it is important there is someone in a position to manage the meeting."

Once the right communication tools and guidelines are in place the next step required is to get executives actually using the new technology. Even the most ardent supporters of web conferences agree that there are many circumstances where face-to-face meetings will still be required. But there is also a growing consensus that large numbers of meetings can be successfully shifted online once executives are convinced that the new technology works.

Demonstrating the tools to staff and ensuring the user interface is easy to use are both critical to ensuring staff use the technology, according to Dominic Hook, director of ICT at trade union Amicus, which has deployed video conferencing systems at around 40 of its offices. "It is a visual technology so you need to show people how it works and then give them time to get used to it," he advises. "At first we found people wanted to do their hair before getting in front of a camera, but if you give people time it is surprising how quickly they become comfortable with the technology."

Cameron agrees that people are most resistant to using web conferences when they don't understand how they work and as a result training and internal marketing is important for driving adoption. "You need champions within the business - people who say "stop and think", "what are you doing" and "how could you use these tools"," he adds.

Cameron recommends that this internal marketing is most effective when formalised and undertaken with backing from senior executives. "A lot of our customer engagements are bottom up where someone in a department realises how much time and energy they waste traveling to meetings and looks into how WebEx could help," he admits. "That's great, but if you really want to drive the commercial and environmental gains across the business you need a senior exec pushing it. We see the highest use of web conferencing where clients have been really proactive and deployed measures such as changing their corporate intranet travel booking page so that people have to fill in why the meeting can not be done using WebEx."

The well-publicised environmental, cost and productivity gains that web conferencing delivers should also form a key plank of any internal marketing strategy, according to Gabbie. He argues that increasingly environmentally-aware employees are far more likely to eschew journeys in favour of online meetings if they have a sense of how much they are saving in carbon emissions. "It should be best practice for firms' HR departments to share this environmental information so that staff can see the positive contribution they are making," advises Gabbie.

Posted by James Murray on June 7, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (5)

German CD and DVD manufacturer Optical Disk Service (ODS) has this week launched a new light weight and flexible disk that it claims will cut the environmental and waste impact of optical disks and revolutionise the market for CDs and DVDs.

The company said the new flexible EcoDisk [pictured] design boasts the same capacity as a normal DVD but requires only half the amount of polycarbonate needed for the production of conventional disks, uses less rare metals, consumes 40 percent less energy during the manufacturing process, and avoids the use of non-biodegradable bonder resin that is traditionally used to bind the two halves of the conventional disk.

The flexible disk – which has four patents pending – is just 0.6 millimetre wide and weighs just eight grams. It is also compatible with all customary CD, DVD and PC drives, barring computer slot in drives.

Michae Defland, sales and marketing manager for the company, said that the disk was also remarkably sturdy and could be bent until the two opposing sides of the disk touched without damaging the disk.

He added that the disk's light weight, coupled with its sturdiness, environmental benefits and a lower price point than conventional disks will make it particularly attractive to publishers who distribute free DVDs and CDs in their magazines and newspapers.

According to ODS 1.16 billion disks were distributed as free inserts in Europe in 2005, and the EcoDisk will provide a compelling alternative for this rapidly expanding market, reducing weight-based distribution costs and fitting neatly into the magazine and newspaper printing process.

"CDs and DVDs are to some extent difficult integrate into the production process of magazines," explained the company. "[But the EcoDisk] can easily run over production machines of print offices and finishers without being damaged or coming off the paper… [It is also] suitable for machine packaging such as boxes or wallets or sleeves and can be screen printed to the inside rim."

Posted by James Murray on June 6, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (2)

IT giant Dell chose World Environment Day today to announce a major new environmental initiative that the company claimed would make it "the greenest technology company on earth".

Under the new Zero Carbon Initiative the company pledged to enhance the energy efficiency of its products and help customers offset their carbon impact, reduce the "carbon intensity" of its operations, extend its popular "Plant a Tree for Me" customer carbon offset scheme to Europe, increase pressure on suppliers to improve their environmental credentials, and work with customers to develop more environmentally sustainable products.

Speaking to mark the launch of the new initiative Dell chairman and CEO Michael Dell said that the company's goal was clear: "We'll take the lead in setting an environmental standard for our industry that will reflect our partnership with, and direct feedback from, our customers, suppliers and stakeholders, and we intend to maintain that leadership."

However, the strategy is likely to prompt a mixed reaction from environmentalists and green consumers, combining as it does several innovative environmental proposals with some rather vague green commitments.

Dell signaled that a core part of the new strategy would centre on the company's direct engagement with customers and announced that it would ask customers for ideas on how to make "the greenest PC on the planet" that they could put forward on its IdeaStorm customer forum site.

The idea was welcomed by Iza Kruszewska of Greenpeace who said that the Dell announcement coupled with recent environmental commitments from rival manufacturer Apple highlighted how seriously customers and IT companies are now taking environmental concerns. "Dell's goal to build the greenest PC on the planet sets a new challenge to the industry," she said. "The race for the greenest computer is clearly on."

The company also announced it would extend its "Plant a Tree for Me" initiative to Europe, offering customers the opportunity to pay £1 per notebook or £3 per desktop to offset the emissions associated with powering the new equipment over its average three year lifespan. The company said that 100 percent of the funds raised would go towards the planting of trees in professionally managed reforestation projects and added that Michael Dell would personally match all donations to the program received in the next three months. 

Furthermore, Dell can expect to win plaudits for its commitment to begin assessing its primary suppliers' performance based on carbon emissions. Under the new proposals the company has requested that suppliers begin reporting on their greenhouse gas emissions with the data feeding into the quarterly business reviews which the company uses to gauge its suppliers' performance.

"We have multiple sections in our quarterly business reviews, including cost, quality, continuity and the environment," said Tod Arborgast, director of sustainable business at Dell. "Each element [of the quarterly reviews] is aggressively focused on by our suppliers and they know that each point, including performance on greenhouse gas emission, counts towards our purchasing decisions."

However, while the scheme has been broadly welcomed, environmentalists are likely to criticise the company for failing to release an absolute emissions reduction target.

Under the new proposals Dell has committed to reduce its "carbon intensity" - a measure which compares emissions of CO2 equivalent to annual revenue allowing firms to assess how efficient they are at turning carbon emissions from their operations into revenue – by 15 percent by 2012, but neglected to set itself a absolute target for CO2 reduction.

This would in theory allow Dell to hit its target while increasing carbon emissions as long as efficiency improved and sales increased considerably.

In contrast, arch rivals HP recently committed to cutting total carbon emissions by 15 percent by 2010, Sun Microsystems pledged to reduce emissions by 20 percent by 2012 and IBM recently committed to spending $1bn a year to double the computing capacity of its datacentres without increasing its emissions.

John Madden of analyst firm Ovum said that the Dell pronouncements appeared vaguer than some of the green strategies unveiled by its rivals. "HP, Sun and IBM lately have been much more explicit in terms of attacking green issues, particularly around carbon emissions, than what's laid out here from Dell," he said. "Dell I'm sure is serious about the issue - but we'll have to watch and see just what develops from this announcement."

Rakesh Kumar of analyst firm Gartner went further still, branding Dell's plans a case of too little, too late. "It is a very bold claim [to say it is the greenest technology company] that needs a huge amount of substantiation and in many ways it just shows how these wild claims damage the industry more than anything else," he said.

However, Arborgast insisted that carbon intensity was the best way of comparing firms' carbon emission performance across different companies and industry sectors, adding that using this measure Dell's greenhouse gas impact is among the lowest of those companies listed on the Fortune 50 that have publicised their carbon emissions through the .

He argued that the company's streamlined supply chain meant that its total carbon emissions were already significantly lower than many of its rivals and because its operations already boasted strong energy efficiency it would find it difficult to deliver deep cuts in absolute emissions until more renewable energy supply came on line.

"We will continue to focus on reducing our absolute [emissions] output and sourcing renewable energy where possible," he said. "But you need to look at where the baseline is before comparing different vendor's emission cuts and carbon intensity is the best way of comparing performance."

It is a reasonable argument, but one that will not stop some environmentalists and competitors arguing that for all its good work Dell will have to set itself far more stringent emission targets if it is to be genuinely regarded as the "greenest technology company on earth".

Posted by James Murray on June 6, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

As the G8 leaders continue to argue about whether economic development and reduced carbon emissions are compatible the European investment community is apparently convinced that they are after it emerged yesterday that European investment in clean energy technologies is continuing to soar.

According to a new report from The Carbon Trust clean energy investments now accounts for a tenth of all European venture capital investments with €2bn ploughed into the sector between 2003 and 2006, putting the sector on a with the European IT, biotech and semiconductor industries in terms of venture capital investment.

The study, which was carried out by Cleantech Advisers LLC, also predicted that if growth continues at the current rate investment a further €3.5bn will be invested in clean energy firms over the next three years.

The report also found that while the US clean tech investment market remains larger, Europe boasts a more balanced mix of both renewable energy and energy efficiency focused companies.

Adam Workman of The Carbon Trust said that the focus on energy efficiency, driven in part by the upcoming European directive on the energy efficiency of electrical products, was an encouraging sign and suggested Europe was developing a specialisation around power solutions and building innovations.

He added that the diversification of venture capitalists investment portfolios coupled with the emergence of clean tech hubs such as London, Oxford, Munich, Paris and Berlin suggested that the market was maturing. "We're now seeing experienced investors like 3i, Apax and Amadeus, developing clean energy themes," he said. "The market is maturing."

Peter Shortt, managing partner at CT Investment Partners LLP agreed clean tech investments had reached the mainstream. "Five years ago, clean energy was not viewed as a sector that could offer good returns for investors," he admitted. "Today, it is a multi-billion Euro market where new technologies and business models are already exploiting the opportunities presented by the low carbon economy."

The increase in investment should result in a surge of new green products over the next few years, according to Workman. "We estimate that you can get half way to the required 60 percent cuts in emissions through existing technologies, but we need a new wave of technologies to get the other half of savings," he said. "The VC money should accelerate that wave of new products. If we could cut the development timelines by 50 percent that would be great, and of course that's what the VCs want too because that is how they make their money."

However, with investment in clean technology expected to swell by 75 percent over the next three years the report will prompt further concerns that the clean tech market is overheating and could be heading for a dotcom style crash.

Some experts have argued that certain sectors, including wind power specialists and biofuel companies, are already looking over valued and recently UK alternative fuels specialist Biofuels saw its shares plummet after it attempted to hold off bankruptcy through a debt restructuring plan.

But Workman insisted that comparisons with the dotcom crash are largely unfounded. "The market drivers behind clean tech are much more solid [than they were for dotcom companies]," he argued. "There were concerns 18 months ago that things were overheating, but now we're seeing the emergence of the public sector market [for green technologies] and the regulations and policies that are going to take effect. The investors also have pretty reasonable portfolio now and are showing that they understand the market."

Posted by James Murray on June 5, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

According to a new US report launched last week the growing use of the term "sustainability" to promote green business models is struggling to convey the desired message with relatively few consumers claiming to be familiar with the term.

In fact, the survey of 1,600 US consumers from market research firm The Hartman Group found that the terms "sustainability" and "sustainable development" had no consistent meaning amongst consumers. Furthermore, while 93 percent of respondents displayed some form of sustainability or green "consciousness" through their actions only those who already identified themselves as green consumers defined "sustainability" as an environmental term.

This confusion is hardly surprising given the immaturity of green marketing and advertising, and, as Greenbiz.com observed in its reporting of the story, it also suggests the "marketers don't yet understand how to push green ideas".

The problem from a marketing perspective with the term "sustainability" and, to a lesser extent, the term "green" is that the lack of clear definitions invites suspicion that the processes or products you are trying to promote don't have solid environmentally-friendly credentials.

"Sustainability" is particularly problematic because while most people probably do understand that the term refers to a "process that can be maintained" they are also aware that it is not the same as "environmental sustainability". Unless you are looking at millennia-long time lines there is no reason that a "sustainable process" cannot do damage to the environment, and I'd wager consumers are savvy enough to realise this.

Once you start to think about what "sustainability" really means you find that there are numerous examples where a maintainable process can still have detrimental environmental effects. Recycling processes, for example, are easily labelled sustainable, but that does not stop concerns about their energy footprint; sustainable economic development may by definition be self-perpetuating, but it is not hard to find examples where it has been achieved at the expense of the environment.

As such if marketers are keen to use the term "sustainability" in their green messaging they need to clarify it as "environmental sustainability" and provide clear information on how the processes or products are genuinely limiting their environmental impact.

None of these recommendations will be welcomed by "green-washing" firms who are often guilty of exploiting the vagueness of the green business nomenclature to make bold claims about the environmental credentials of a product or service which are not backed up by clear verifiable data.

However, we are already seeing signs that this disingenuousness will not be tolerated with Shell recently seeing its brand dragged through the mud over "misleading" adverts that environmental campaigners insist over state its green achievements.

Meanwhile, those firms willing to clearly articulate the green credentials of their organisation are using their marketing campaigns to highlight their rivals' environmental obfuscation. Supermarket chain Waitrose recently launched a new TV ad campaign in which it notes that retailers are increasingly stocking local produce, before delivering the punchline that Waitrose is the only store to define what "local" actually means - namely food produced within 30 miles of the store.

It is a pretty powerful message and proves that if marketers are going to try and build green brands it can only be done with clearly defined terms and quantifiable results. Green business campaigns are one of those instances where style over substance just won't cut it.

Posted by James Murray on June 4, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's that time of year again. The G8 summit is upon us, prompting environmentalists, green businesses and clean tech investors to come together in the vain hope they will finally get both the global regulatory framework they desire and some clarity on what is going to happen to Kyoto and its already faltering carbon trading mechanisms post-2012.

This flickering hope typically lasts a few days before it is once again snuffed out by a fudged official statement and a series of off the record briefings in which the world's leaders confirm they are still poles apart on how best to tackle global warming.

But this year things are different. This year the period of hopeful anticipation has ended before the summit has even started after US President George Bush gave a speech yesterday detailing a new strategy for addressing climate change that appears to have killed dead any hope of international agreement next week and left the green business movement more confused than ever about what to expect from the world's governments over the next few years.

Bush's left field proposals call for a new series of meetings of the world's most polluting countries to discuss action on climate change. By the end of next year the president claims these meetings will result in a "long term framework" for when the Kyoto Protocol expires, including targets for reducing green house gas emissions, interim national targets for individual countries "that reflect their own mix of energy sources and future energy needs", and agreements to share green technologies and eliminate trade barriers.

The charitable interpretation of this new strategy, and one endorsed by both Tony Blair and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, is that it is great news. It provides evidence that after years of procrastination the US, in Bush's own words, "takes this issue seriously"; accepts the scientific consensus about the cause and perils of global warming; and is committed to international co-operation to tackle the problem.

But while the politicians think this volte face is to be welcomed, environmentalists are less than convinced.

The Bush proposals are low on details, but what can be garnered from previous statements and White House briefings is that the new framework will not include binding targets and carbon caps, which Bush believes will damage the economy, will not include any form of carbon trading mechanism, is very unlikely to incorporate penalties for countries that breach their probably voluntary emission targets, and will lean heavily on R&D and new technologies.

The only problem with the strategy is that it won't work. Voluntary environmental regulations and targets have an appalling record of ineffectiveness. Meanwhile, the talk of investment in new green technologies, while welcome, distracts from the complete absence of a framework to aid adoption of existing green technologies.

Bush can talk up low carbon technologies all he likes, but they are worthless without a global regulatory framework that drives their adoption. For example, carbon capture technologies are making real progress and have the potential to allow countries such as the US and China to continue to exploit their massive coal reserves while limiting carbon emissions.

However, there is little or no financial reason why any coal fired power station would install the technology - it is an investment with no quantifiable financial return and any CEO authorising such an installation could easily be charged with failing to do their fiduciary duty. The only way to make such an investment make sense is if governments make it illegal for power stations not to install the technology or if there is a cost associated with carbon emissions, through either a carbon tax or carbon trading mechanism.

This same dilemma is repeated time and again with green technologies. For example, there are countless renewable energy technologies now available and they are all improving in efficiency. However, they produce energy that is more expensive than that gained from fossil fuels and that scenario is likely to continue for years to come. Once again without either a price on carbon that will drive up the cost of fossil fuel-based energy or a framework that subsidises the building of wind farms and solar panels, such as that found in Germany, these existing green technologies will not become competitive and will not be adopted on the required scale.

Even where there is a clear economic case for green technologies, such as with energy efficiency measures, adoption is staggeringly low because of concerns over up front costs and the relatively low cost of energy. It is also worth noting that the one green technology that Bush has been most vocal in his support for, biofuels, is the source of considerable fears that its widespread adoption could lead to environmental and humanitarian crisis.

Bush and his advisors must know all this. So what is the aim of the new proposals?

Well, it is hard to get away from the cynical view that the timing and nature of the announcement means that their main goal is to undermine the existing UN and G8 plans for a replacement to Kyoto - intended to be discussed at next week's meeting and a UN conference in Bali later this year - that will extend carbon trading, and set a binding target of limiting temperature rises to two degrees celsius.

The US strategy states that it is "essential"  that there is a new framework for tackling climate change, but neglects to mention that there is already a UN framework in place and talks scheduled to improve it. Why Bush feels we need two frameworks is unclear.

The US administration said the two strategies will run in "parallel", but it is hard to see the Bush proposals as anything other than an alternative framework. They allow the US and any other country that does not agree with the UN plans for carbon trading and more stringent binding targets to walk away from the table next week saying "we've got this alternative strategy and we're going to back that instead".

The US plans will become a fig leaf for politicians unwilling to take tough decisions on climate change, allowing those countries that sign up to them to tell their increasingly environmentally-conscious populations that they are doing something to tackle climate change, while adopting a largely ineffective framework that is likely to be built on toothless voluntary targets that fail to deliver the deep cuts the scientists deem essential.

The UN's neutered carbon trading mechanism, meanwhile, will stumble on still lacking the support of the US and as such finding it ever harder to get countries to agree to carbon caps that will necessarily have to become more stringent over the next decade. "Why should we agree to this extra cost," they will ask quite reasonably, "while our US rivals continue to pollute for free?"

For green businesses and investors the whole affair will result in yet more confusion and uncertainty. The globally recognised price on carbon that those businesses already transitioning toward low carbon models are calling for (as it will penalise their less environmentally conscious competitors and reward them) appears as far away as ever and there is now every chance the credibility of the embryonic trading mechanisms will be damaged still further. The climate for green business models and investments may improve slightly, driven in part by US innovation, but the adoption of such technologies and processes will remain sporadic.

So what happens next? Well, Europe will push hard at the G8 summit next week for Bush to reverse his position on more stringent targets and carbon trading, and almost certainly fail. From there they may finally toughen their stance and, having seen Bush try to sideline their proposals, try and sideline the second term President himself and talk directly to individual State Governors, such as California's Arnold Schwarzenegger, who have shown an interest in joining the European carbon trading scheme. They are unlikely to go the whole hog and shun Bush's proposed talks, but nor will they give up on UN plans that they know are likely to be far more effective.

However, they, along with environmentally-conscious US politicians and business leaders, may also have to finally start to think the unthinkable and start to work out a strategy for reducing carbon emissions without a genuine global agreement.

During any discussion on climate change European politicians make the point that we "need" the US, China and India on board and that we can achieve little on our own. They argue, quite accurately, that our reforms are all but meaningless as long as the Chinese continue to open a coal-fired power station a week (they ignore the fact that those power stations often run factories making products for us, but there you go). Well if we "need" international agreement what happens if we can't get it?

The fear is that without a genuine international accord those countries committed to tackling emissions will have to back away from their reforms for fear that jobs and competitiveness will be lost to rivals with lower regulatory burdens and no carbon trading.

However, it has to be asked what good this would do. If they believe the climate science, as they say they do, they know this is a recipe for a couple or more generations of prosperity before the City of London finds itself submerged by the Thames.

Instead a new strategy will be required and it is one where business must take centre stage. The US administration's opposition to binding carbon targets centres on the belief that the shift to low carbon business models will damage the economy, so the onus is now on European and those US firms that wish to sign up to carbon trading to prove that the exact opposite is the case. Low carbon reforms and investments will have to continue and emission reduction targets will have to be hit but with the added pressure that they must be undertaken while outperforming those economies and businesses that have shunned binding targets.

It will have to demonstrated to the US government that its policy of politely asking the population to meet voluntary targets on carbon emissions while relying on untested new technologies that may take decades to emerge will actually make it less competitive, its economy less stable and its energy supplies less secure. Low carbon businesses operating under binding emissions targets will have to become the best performing businesses in the world, generating higher profits and enjoying lower costs, better brand status, and fewer risks than their polluting rivals.

Of course this will all be far, far harder than it would have been with genuinely international agreements and a global emissions trading mechanism that put a clear price on carbon emissions, but, sadly, we have no choice but to try.

Posted by James Murray on June 1, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Late last year I wrote a story predicting that as more and more firms set targets to reduce their carbon emissions they will need new reporting software tools capable of automating their measurement and monitoring processes and integrating environmental metrics into their existing business applications.

Well, while I was busy making blindingly obvious predictions programmers were obviously busy developing these new tools and consequently the last week has seen a wave of new carbon reporting software modules hit the market.

The first announcement came from IBM, which unveiled an extension to its Zodiac service providing customers with a new toolset for measuring the carbon emissions associated with their datacentre. The new functionality, which forms part of IBM's recently announced $1bn a year Big Green initiative, effectively applies an algorithm to the energy consumption data already collated by IBM's datacentre management software that automatically calculates the likely carbon emissions. Firms can then incorporate the data in their environmental reports or use the figures to determine how much carbon they should be offsetting.

Next up came expense management software specialist Systems@Work, which has added a similar carbon reporting module to its expense and billing software capable of automatically calculating employees' carbon emissions based on their travel expenses.

"The new module will give people an easy way of calculating their [carbon] footprint," explained Michael Sheehan, managing director at the company. "You don't have to go through an extra stage of using an online carbon calculator; the carbon data is built into the process and is there in the employee's face."

The system boasts more complex algorithms than the IBM toolkit, applying different emissions calculations for flights, car travel and train journeys and incorporating more granular information such as the fuel efficiency of a company car. However, just like the IBM tool, it aims to apply automated carbon emission calculations to existing data, thus making it easier for firms to generate environmental reports and metrics, and ultimately encourage staff to limit their carbon footprint.

Completing the recent wave of environmental reporting software suites and arguably providing the clearest example of how such tools could drive carbon footprint reductions is a new suite from Australia-based consultancy Supply Chain Consulting.

Launched in Europe last week, the company claims the new CarbonView suite integrates together all the various databases used to manage a firm's extended supply chain and then applies a reporting platform capable of calculating the carbon and broader environmental footprint from each stage of the supply chain. As a result, the suite can surface data on carbon emissions and other environmental metrics from the entire supply chain, including manufacturing and agricultural processes as well as supply chain transport.

Peter Klein, vice president for EMEA at the company, said that the automated calculations were based on the UN-backed Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative's guidelines and also allowed firms to apply anyone of five different carbon emission allocation methods currently vying to become a global standard. "You need to be able to apply all the allocation methods being discussed and have the flexibility to move to the one that ultimately becomes standard," he said. "That is one of the reasons it is so difficult for the ERP vendors to embed this reporting functionality into their apps."

The suite also boasts modeling functionality that allows firms to assess how certain suppliers, supply chain configurations and investments will impact firms' carbon emissions and costs. "The 'what if' modeling functionality is one of the most popular parts of the suite," said Tony Carr, chief executive at the company. "If you've got five sites you could source a product from, you can use the suite to work out the optimum supplier based on your cost and carbon targets. It also means you can work out what would happen to your carbon footprint if you invested in new carbon scrubbing technology for a factory, for example."

Intriguingly, Carr also claimed that while the reporting functionality draws on data spread across the extended supply chain it still provides only a "macro" view of a supply chain's carbon footprint and as a result the company is currently working with Oxford University and MIT to develop more granular, transactional level reporting and modeling capabilities capable of ultimately calculating the embedded carbon of each individual product and each part of the supply chain.

It is functionality that is likely to enjoy considerable customer interest if firms adopt the UK government's recently promised standard for calculating embedded carbon and Carr is convinced that the embryonic carbon reporting software market is already on the verge of breaking into the mainstream.

"Big companies know they are going to be forced into reporting on emissions at some stage and realise that early adopters [of reporting software] will enjoy the best returns," he said. "This has to be a software [suite] play, firms can't do these calculations for an extended supply chain with a spreadsheet."

Posted by James Murray on June 1, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (2)