UK workers have a contradictory view of green taxes, supporting the concept in principle but objecting to any increase in some of the most prominent green taxes, according to a new research released this week.

The survey of over 350 people, carried out by accountants MacIntyre Hudson, found widespread support for green taxes with 78 percent stating they were concerned about climate change and carbon emissions and 70 percent saying that green taxes on environmentally harmful activities would encourage greener behaviour.

However, support for the green taxation model plunged when respondents were questioned on their reactions to potential increases in specific green taxes such as Air Passenger Duty and Vehicle Excise Duty.

Six out of ten polled said there should be no further increase in Air Passenger Duty following increases earlier this year, while nearly seven out of ten said they opposed any increase in fuel duty. An increase in VAT on domestic fuel was also staunchly opposed with 86 percent stating they would not support the idea.

Furthermore, the research suggested that incremental increases in green taxes would prove largely ineffective. When questioned about a possible £10 increase in Air Passenger Duty, 95 percent of those polled said the additional charge would have no impact on the amount they flew, while a similar proportion would make no change to their driving habits in the event of a five pence per litre increase in fuel duty.

"Even if you increase green taxes by quite large amounts an awful lot of people will just carry on regardless," observed Patrick King, principal at MacIntyre Hudson.

The research found that significant increases in taxation would prompt a change in behaviour, with over 60 percent saying an £80 increase in the cost of flights would lead them to cut the number of flights they take and 43 percent deciding they would drive less in the event of a 40 pence per litre increase in fuel duty.

But King warned that such hefty hikes in taxation would prove extremely unpopular with the electorate. "You can get to a price where green taxes will work, but it would be so unpopular no government could realistically do it," he commented.

Nigel May of MacIntyre Hudson said that the results suggest that proposed increases in green taxation put forward by the Tories and Liberal Democrats could be misguided. "Unless levied at a penal level, people are unwilling to let taxation change their lifestyles," he said. "Whilst they will undoubtedly act as an adequate revenue raiser to replace Inheritance Tax, as in the latest Tory plans, the belief that green taxes are a way to reduce the country’s carbon emissions is sadly misplaced."

King added that these proposals increasingly look like a means of increasing tax revenue. "Our research suggests they will not get the reduction in demand they anticipate which means these green taxes could simply become a quick and cheap way of raising more revenue," he said.

However, the research did uncover some green tax policies that would secure widespread support. Almost two thirds of those questioned supported taxes on non-recycled refuse, while 67 percent said they would welcome increased VAT on domestic appliances and white goods that use energy inefficiently. Just over half said they would also support road pricing or wider use of congestion charging in urban areas.

"Varying VAT on white goods would twist manufacturers' arms by making producing greener goods a more profitable exercise," said Patrick King. "This is one green tax that could actually create a positive result using market forces, in contrast with the more commonly discussed green taxes which the research proves to be ineffective and hugely unpopular."

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

While some pretty risky clean technologies are being wildly overhyped other safer sectors remain strangely under the radar. One such technology, according to Roger Franklin, is solid state or LED lighting and Europe looks like it is missing the boat.

One factor often complicating investments in cleantech is the tortuous route to market that lies ahead for many of the sector's promising technologies. For example, however cool your wave power device, it is likely to require substantial capital expenditure to ever have it capture a significant portion of the energy generation market.

In addition, clean energy generation technologies are likely to need some sort of public sector support to make them competitive- witness the widespread feed-in tariff regime for solar PV and wind in Europe. These issues mean that investing in many clean energy plays can be a very risky business. Having a large addressable market is only relevant if you have some way of getting to it rapidly and without the need for billions of dollars.

So where in cleantech can we find a large addressable market without these complications? At Library House we've believed for a while that solid state lighting is just such an opportunity.

The market for lighting solutions is vast, estimated at $12bn by Stephen Naor, CEO of Group IV Semiconductor, and growing. Furthermore, because this is an energy efficiency play, there is perfect alignment between financial and political/scientific imperatives. More efficient lighting benefits the customer through lower electricity bills and the environment through reduced carbon emmissions. No need for tax breaks, or feed-in tariffs or any other state-sponsored route to market with inherent political risk built in. A huge, clear and addressable market. No wonder this month has seen a couple more big deals in the area.

Group IV Semiconductor, based in Ottawa, Canada has received another 'substantial' round of funding from Khosla Ventures, Applied Materials, Garage Technology Ventures Canada and BDC Venture Capital to go with the €7m ($9.1m, £4.8m) raised by the company towards the end of last year. California-based BridgeLux has also raised a substantial amount of cash, €16.8m ($23m, £11.3m), in a third round of funding.

So what are these companies up to exactly?

Solid state lighting is essentially the idea that light can be produced more efficiently by directly converting electricity into photons ('packets' of light) using a semiconductor rather than by heating up a filament or relying on fluorescence. There is no doubt that the basic principle is sound - the most advanced 'energy saving' bulbs are only 25 percent efficient whereas solid state lighting solutions can reach up to 80 percent - but the problem is cost. Making solid state (aka LED) lighting cheap enough to achieve significant market penetration is the key challenge.

BridgeLux and Group IV have different strategies in this regard - whereas Group IV are aggressively pursuing a strategy based on all-silicon chips for the general lighting market, BridgeLux is using Indium Gallium Nitride approaches (i.e. an alternative semiconductor) to target large but specialised markets such as industrial lighting or mobile phone flashes.

However, these two companies are far from the only ones targeting this fertile area. For example, Quanlight of San Diego is developing LEDs based on an alternative semiconductor known as dilute nitride which is reputed to have superior qualities at high current loads. The company has been backed by Blackbird Ventures and (SHW)2 Enterprises. Other key players include DFJ, backed by Intematix, which is also involved in the utilisation of new materials in fuel cell technology.

Overall, this is a key space to watch for any cleantech investor. Depressingly, however, Europe appears to have been left out of this exciting arena. Not a single venture backed-company in Europe is targeting the solid state lighting market despite its clear attractions.

Sadly solid state lighting looks set to go down as yet another example of North America leading Europe when it comes to actually bringing clean technologies to market.

Roger Franklin is a Senior Analyst in Venture Capital and Cleantech at investment research firm Library House. The company provides information and research on the fastest growing privately-held companies across Europe

Posted by James Murray on August 28, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

The news that BAE has demonstrated the first hybrid-engine tank is likely to spark a predictable response from the green movement as commentators rush to point out the irony of trying to help save the planet when your industry's raison d'etre is the ability to destroy large chunks of it.

The tank announcement put me in mind of the last time BAE tried to bolster its green credentials with the announcement it was working on "environmentally-friendly" weapons, including "reduced lead" bullets, "reduced smoke" grenades and rockets with fewer toxins.

In a pretty ill-judged quote Debbie Allen, BAE Systems director of CSR, said, "We try to make [our weapons] as safe for the user as possible, to limit the collateral damage and to impact as little as possible on the environment".

Green campaigners quickly pointed out that there were some rather critical components of the environment that BAE's technology did try to have a rather large impact on.

"BAE is determined to try to make itself look ethical, but they make weapons to kill people and it's utterly ridiculous to suggest they are environmentally friendly," ranted Symon Hill of Campaign Against Arms Trade.

Meanwhile, Greenpeace joined forces with the anti-war campaigners to argue on its blog that "it's not enough to make those munitions Green – they've got to be peaceful as well. So when they perfect the lower-carbon armoured vehicle that fires only organic flower seeds, the reduced-smoke grenade that only explodes into blossom, and the no-lead, no-metal nerf-bullet that reduce not just collatoral damage but direct damage as well, we'll be first in line to cheer".

With its latest tanks, however, BAE appears to have learnt its lesson and the company's press release makes no mention of the hybrid engine's eco-credentials, instead focusing on how their enhanced fuel efficiency limits the military's "logistics footprint", making its supply lines less vulnerable.

But the question has to be asked, what exactly is wrong with the defence industry wanting to become more sustainable?

You can object to war, the global arms trade and the nefarious activities of many defence firms, but none of this is going to make an industry that is estimated to be worth over a trillion dollars a year disappear. It is here to stay, so it might as well be as sustainable as possible.

All but the most foaming sociopath would accept that the arms industry is not something we'd like to see in an ideal world, but it is not an ideal world and the arms trade remains a key component of the global economy - effectively excluding it from the green business movement on the grounds that you don't like what it does is just daft.

Arms manufacturers deserve our complete condemnation every time they engage in dodgy deals or develop and sell weapons in breach of international regulations, but they also deserve a degree of support and guidance when they do try to limit their environmental impact.

Time and again the knee-jerk reaction from green campaigners to any initiative to improve a business' sustainability is to vilify the corporation involved and measure all judgements against some Utopian ideal that is completely untenable within current economic models.

It is about time there was an acceptance that this constant hectoring only serves to alienate the majority of the population and reinforces the stereotype that all environmentalists are lentil-scoffing hippies.

I have a huge admiration for the green lobby and believe it plays an extremely important role in keeping many businesses honest. But if it wishes to achieve the mass support needed to drive genuine change then there needs to be a wider acceptance that the low carbon changes it wants to see have to be achieved in large part within the current economic model. And if that means occasionally working with businesses that environmentalists have a long-running antipathy towards, then so be it.

Posted by James Murray on August 24, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (1)

The news that two thirds of people are in favour of "pay as you throw" schemes for disposing of household waste designed to encourage greater levels of recycling hints that local government might finally be making progress in its attempts to tackle the UK's appallingly low recycling rate.

Despite media hysteria about stealth taxes and spying microchips in your bins it seems most people are happy to support "pay as you throw" schemes in return for the promise of lower council taxes and more recycling facilities.

At first glance the idea that households would pay based on the size of the bin or bin bags they use or the weight of the rubbish they send to landfill appears an elegant solution to the problem of the UK only recycling 27 percent of its household waste. The person who creates the most mess pays the most, creating a major incentive for them to recycle more and reduce the amount sent to landfill and also giving them an extra reason to increase pressure on retailers to reduce packaging.

There is also evidence such a scheme would prove effective with a weight-based charging mechanism used in Holland having led to a 41 percent reduction in general waste.

But what remains largely unaddressed is the amount local councils will have to charge in order to make a significant difference on recycling rates.

There is a precedent here in the world of business where paying based on the weight of rubbish you produce has been well-established for years. This model has had some impact and many businesses have put in place waste reduction strategies to limit their costs and their environmental impact.

However, despite this polluter pays mechanism waste disposal remains a relatively small cost for most firms and as a result very few have put in place wide-reaching waste reduction and recycling programmes that have become genuine priorities for the business. When your turnover runs to millions of pounds how much management priority do you give to reducing waste bills of several thousand pounds? Waste remains a niche concern for most businesses and is treated as such.

The same problem can be seen in reverse in the, shall we say mixed, track record of schemes where you get paid for recycling. I was at a music festival last weekend where in an attempt to give the whole thing a green veneer the bars offered to give you 10 pence back for every cardboard beer cup you returned to a recycling point. With a whopping 10 pence on offer and plenty of better things to do with your time than trek through the crowds to a recycling point the whole site was soon predictably littered with cardboard cups as people took a more traditional approach to festival waste disposal. Offer people a pound or more and the scheme might well have worked, although it would have also been a commercial disaster.

It is these realities that are bound to afflict any "pay as you throw" scheme for household waste.

Like many people I regard council tax as a rather regressive mechanism and a huge monthly irritation, but despite having to shell out for the London Olympics and having seen my council tax climb well above inflation for the last few years I am still loath to grumble too much on the grounds that I would happily pay pretty much the entire amount just for the convenience of a rubbish collection service.

Can you imagine how annoying and smelly it would be to have to take your own rubbish to the tip every week? Or indeed how unpleasant your street would be when your neighbours simply started fly-tipping instead of transporting their own trash to the landfill site?

It is my guess that any "pay as you throw" scheme would have to boast pretty hefty charges if it wanted to lead to a major reduction in waste quantities. Set the charges too low and you'll have some impact, but many people will simply decide to pay for the larger bins or heavier waste to avoid the hassle of sorting out their recycling and reducing their waste. But set the charges high – at a level that would actually make people think twice about their waste – and you risk both alienating public support and, as the Tories have warned, encouraging illegal fly-tipping.

Waste charges undoubtedly would help focus minds on recycling and would have a positive impact, but if the UK is ever to achieve European levels of recycling far more widespread changes are required. It is my guess that the success of the Dutch "pay as you throw" schemes are as much down to more widespread and effective recycling collection and facilities, less packaging in the first place and a long-standing culture of recycling as they are down to the waste charges.

Any UK "pay as you throw" scheme would have to address these wider issues as well if it is to prove successful and popular. For example, I already strive to recycle as much as possible, but am often hampered by the fact that the recycling bins at the end of my street are frequently full and there is no information either on the bins or distributed by the council on what types of waste can be recycled and what I have to put out for the rubbish collectors.

Meanwhile, I have little choice but to shop in a supermarket where most items are encased by several layers of packaging. And don't get me started on the fact that the WEEE directive has been in place for two months and I am yet to see a single WEEE recycling collection point anywhere.

There are also wider lessons here for any business looking to incentivise green behaviour, be it waste disposal, energy saving, or some other form of sustainable action.

Firstly, incentive schemes can play a key role in publicising an issue, but if they are to lead to widespread behavioural change then the rewards and/or penalties have to be big enough to compensate for the hassle of making the change.

And secondly, and most importantly, the incentive scheme has to accompanied by sufficient structural changes to ensure the desired behavioural change is easily achievable.

Local councils will have to demonstrate that they understand these lessons, and fast, or they might as well consign their dream of achieving European levels of recycling to the waste bin now.

Posted by James Murray on August 23, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (2)

Most businesses take water for granted, but climate change could soon lead to serious water scarcity and experts are warning that astute businesses should be assessing water risk now. Luckily, explains Joel Makower, there is a new tool designed to help.

World Water Week ended last week, an annual fete of all things H2O. The event, held in Stockholm, is the leading global meeting place for experts from businesses, governments, science, NGOs, academe, and United Nations agencies. This year's event featured the launch on Tuesday of a remarkable Global Water Tool, a free online resource to help companies calculate water consumption and efficiency across a portfolio of facilities around the world.

The tool is the product of the World Business Council on Sustainable Development, a Geneva-based organization of some 200 international companies representing 30 countries and 20 industrial sectors. Nearly all of its members have core businesses that depend heavily on water: Alcan and Alcoa (aluminum production), ConocoPhillips and Shell (oil production and refining), Dow and Dupont (chemicals and ag products), Rio Tinto (mining), Lafarge and Holcim (cement), Pepsico and Suez (water and beverages).

Indeed, pretty much all large companies depend heavily on water.

One of the challenges such companies face is assessing the potential risks posed by water's uneven quality and quantity from place to place, and even from time to time in the same place. For companies, the questions are many: How many sites are in extremely water-scarce areas? Which sites are at greatest risk? How that will change in the future? How many employees live in countries that lack access to improved water and sanitation? How many suppliers are in water-scarce areas now, or will be in ten or twenty years?

Few companies can comprehensively answer such questions, leaving them at risk for disruptive water shortages and droughts. A recent study by the Pacific Institute found that while most corporate sustainability reports address freshwater use, "few offer insight into many water-related risks facing businesses. Most reports lack context, quantitative data, supply chain information, and consistent methods and definitions," the institute reported. That's a risk unto itself, akin to being a timber company that isn't measuring and tracking the future of forests.

As I've noted in the past, water issues are of growing concern to business, especially with the rising tide of concern about climate change:

Unlike climate issues, where problems and their solutions have global impacts, water will be seen as a mostly local issue requiring local actions. But, if as experts predict, warmer climates and lowered water tables lead to widespread disruptions, activists and regulators will begin to connect the dots, foisting regulations or global treaties upon the business community.

It's not just the poorest economies where water is a concern. Wealthy nations, too are increasingly facing water stress for their plants, animals, and humans. In Australia, for example, what's been called the worst drought in a thousand years is pitting farmers selling food for export -- a major source of national income -- against households, communities, and industries needing water on the domestic front.

The World Water Tool aims to help companies evaluate and address water risks and impacts in their operations and supply chains in order to minimize risks. The tool is the brainchild of Jan Dell, vice president of CH2M Hill, the global engineering and construction firm, which has been doing water risk analyses for big companies for years. Dell was frustrated at the dearth of readily accessible up-to-date data about water at the local level around the world. Each time her firm did an analysis, they had to go online, pull data from a series of databases maintained by United Nations and other organizations, and put it together in some comprehensible way. It wasn't easy or efficient, even for experienced pros.

With good reason. Gathering data about water for a far-flung operation can be more complex than analyzing something like greenhouse gas emissions, which itself can be overwhemling for many companies. With climate, you simply add up the data from each location to measure your company's footprint; a ton of carbon is the same wherever you go. With water, your company's footprint depends in part on local water conditions. If water is scarce, even the most efficient operation may be too much. When it's plentiful, conservation measures may not make sense. So, you need to understand the local situation to make sound business decisions. For example, in areas with lots of water, it may not be cost effective to put in energy-intensive water recycling facilities.

"It occurred to me a that a tool could be created, and that it shouldn't be a commercial one," Dell recounted to me last week. With the strong backing of CH2M Hill chairman and CEO Ralph R. Peterson, Dell donated countless hours in partnership with WBCSD and its member companies to create a tool that would simplify the data gathering and analysis process -- and to make it free to all users.

The resulting tool has two parts: an input sheet and an online map. The input sheet contains the company's site location and water use information. After entering your company's water use figures, the sheet automatically provides outputs, including water indicators compatible with the Global Reporting Initiative requirements and downloadable metrics charts that demonstrate the company's data combined with both the country and watershed figures.

The online mapping feature enables companies to plot their sites with external water datasets (from the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization, World Health Organization, and Unicef, among others) and download those locations in a map. These datasets provide several key metrics, including renewable water resource per capita, mean annual relative water stress index, and access to improved sanitation. The tool is linked to Google Earth, which provides spatial viewing of a company's site locations in relation to detailed geographic information, including surface water.

The product of all this is a comparison of your company's water uses with key external water-related data; key water GRI Indicators, inventories, risk and performance metrics and geographic mapping; an assessment of relative water risks in your company's portfolio; and the calculation of water consumption and efficiency data.

It sounds complex, but it's not. The tool is fairly intuitive to use. Says Dell: "It could have been a spaceship, but we really tried to build a bicycle that everyone could ride."

Poring over such calculations and assessments may seem, well, dry, to most of us, but they are nothing short of revolutionary for those inside companies seeking to understand how climate change and other environmental challenges create both risks and opportunities.

Of course, the goal in all of this is for companies to take action, "not just to collect data and make charts," as Dell put it. But one tends to follow the other, and that makes the World Water Tool an essential part of any big company's efforts to quench its thirst for water in a way that is sustainable -- economically, environmentally, and socially.

Joel Makower is the founder and executive editor of GreenBiz. This article first appeared on his blog, Two Steps Forward and at Greenbiz.com.

Posted by James Murray on August 23, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Almost nine out of ten workers think their employer is not doing as much as they could to limit its environmental impact, according to a survey of 500 Londoners.

The report from car club company Zipcar uncovered a gulf between employer and employee attitudes to the environment with two thirds of businesses claiming recycling paper, cardboard and plastic represents a sufficient environmental while 84 percent of workers insisted their business was not doing as much as it could to help the environment.

Moreover, two thirds of those surveyed said their employers should be spending more money on environmental initiatives. Only one third of London companies were found to have invested in large-scale environmental initiatives, such as procuring energy efficient office equipment or implementing car clubs for staff.

The findings highlight the extent to which businesses can enhance their attractiveness to potential employees by embracing greener business models. "Most businesses are simply not doing enough, they should be setting an example to employees by implementing green initiatives," said Julia Hailes, author of the New Green Consumer Guide. "In fact, green issues could become critical to business success in the future… becoming a factor for recruiting top class workers."

The survey comes a week after Zipcar announced plans to slash starting prices for business customers looking to make use of the company's cars from £7 per hour to £4.50 per hour. The company said that the price is all inclusive, covering the cost of the congestion charge, insurance and MOT, and also helps cut congestion and pollution. Zipcar estimates that each of its cars can take up to 20 privately-owned cars off the road.

"We regularly talk to people in London that are frustrated with the rising cost of taxis and fleet cars, as well as the unreliable nature of public transport and wanted to provide a cost effective solution, which not only enabled people to get around the City, but without the added hassle of paying for fares and filling up on petrol," said Paul Mcloughlin, general manager of Zipcar. "While it is important that steps are put in place to ease congestion, such as the congestion charge, the same focus needs to be given to positive solutions, such as car clubs."

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

Greenpeace has claimed another victory in its Greener Electronics campaign after Sony announced plans for a free take back initiative.

The company had been awarded last place in the latest version of the lobby group's Guide to Greener Electronics, which ranks global electronics and IT companies based on their environmental policy, on the basis of "bad recycling policies and double standards on product take back in the US".

But last week Sony moved to address the problem with the launch of new recycling programme that will allows consumers to recycle all Sony-branded products free of charge at 75 recycling facilities throughout the US.

The programme, which begins on September 15th, will be operated by recycling specialist WM Recycle America and will also allow consumers to recycle other manufacturers' electronic equipment for a fee.

Sony said that it aimed to expand the scheme to at least 150 sites within a year with an eventual goal of having enough drop off locations that there is a recycling centre within 20 miles of 95 percent of the US population. 

"Providing the highest level of service and support doesn't stop once a purchase is made," said Stan Glasgow, president and chief operating officer of Sony Electronics. "We believe it is Sony's responsibility to provide customers with end-of-life solutions for all the products we manufacture."

The announcement came just days after the company claimed it had reduced power consumption in 90 percent of its product categories during 2006.

The moves represent a major coup for Greenpeace which has enjoyed considerable success since it launched its Greener Electronics ranking scheme last year and seems to have set a precedent for forcing action out of those companies awarded low rankings.

Lenovo, one of the worst offenders in the first ranking published last year, has since climbed into the top spots after overhauling its environmental policies, while earlier this year Apple, which had previously occupied the worst offender slot in Greenpeace's ranking, unveiled a raft of green commitments seemingly designed to answer many of the lobby group's criticisms.

As Greenpeace observed on in its blog post responding to Sony's new initiative "who says shining a bright light on bad corporate practices doesn't bring results?"

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

Another day, another report on the dangers associated with the rush towards biofuels.

However, this latest study from the World Land Trust might just represent a significant blow to the burgeoning biofuel market.

Up to now many of the reports attacking the viability of biofuels have focused on the fuel versus food debate and whether the need to allocate land for biofuel production will take land from food crops, leading to increased food prices and even shortages.

This is obviously not an insignificant problem with groups ranging from Mexican farmers to German gummy bear manufacturers testifying to the serious commercial consequences of already rising food prices.

However, the latest research from Renton Righelato of the World Land Trust and Dominick Spracklen of the University of Leeds has taken a different tack and argues that not only could increased biofuel production lead to food shortages it could also contribute to massively increased carbon emissions.

Biofuel, in short, could be exacerbating the one problem it set out to resolve.

The study - which has been published in the journal Science - claims to represent the first assessment of the carbon emissions across the whole biofuel lifecycle of planting, extraction, conversion into fuel and use and concludes that biofuel could result in the release of between two and nine times more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels.

The analysis is based on the prediction that demand for biofuel will lead to increased deforestation of tropical rainforests to make way for biofuel crops such as sugar cane and palm oil. Such deforestation, which is already well underway in several tropical countries, results in an immediate release of carbon emissions. The report argues that these emissions when added to further emissions associated with harvesting, biofuel conversion and transport ensures that biofuels are significantly more polluting than the fossil fuels they are designed to replace.

The report also warns that developing enough biofuel to meet US and European governments' targets without widespread deforestation is untenable, noting that 40 percent of Europe's arable land would be required to hit the target of just 10 percent of transport fuel coming from biofuels by 2020. As a result the burden for biofuel production will fall on the developing world, the report predicts, where acceleration in deforestation would become inevitable.

The study recommends that policy-makers would be better advised to invest the money ear marked for biofuels into preserving tropical forests and "increasing the efficiency of fossil fuel use and developing carbon-free transport fuels to replace fossil hydrocarbons".

The report is just the latest in a series of blows to the still burgeoning biofuel sector. Earlier this month the head of the International Food Policy Research Institute warned that food prices could climb by up to 80 percent as a result of the predicted biofuel boom, while a recent UN report warned about potential damage to wildlife and livelihoods as a result of biofuel.

Businesses, meanwhile, would be well advised to tread very carefully with any biofuel-based initiatives for their fleets until some kind of scientific consensus on the climatic impacts of the fuel emerges.

Posted by James Murray on August 20, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (2)

The consumer-focused thin client-like device has attracted plenty of column inches. Now Zonbu CEO Gregoire Gentil is keen to appease customer concerns over online storage and reach out to business users

BusinessGreen: Where did the idea for a consumer-focused thin client come from?
Gregoire Gentil: Zonbu is not technically a thin client as it runs its OS and applications from a local memory card – it is designed to be an environmentally responsible and hassle-free computer. Like many people I had been providing technical support to friends and family whose PCs crashed or had problems with spyware and viruses. Most of these people needed a familiar but self-supporting computer, so Zonbu was developed to meet this need. Our service ensures each customer transparent back-up; a fully updated OS and applications without them having to lift a finger; unlimited internet support; and free overnight hardware replacement limited warranty. Also by using online storage and a low power consumption chip set, our hardware can be much more energy efficient and compact than a standard PC, whilst providing customers with far more reliability and secure storage of their important personal data. We provide a solution that allows people to just enjoy their computer without technical or environmental worries.

Which customers are you targeting the device at and why?
We're targeting the 'second PC' market. More than 60 percent of households in the US own more than two computers at home. Households or families want to extend computer usage to more family members but without the frustrations of maintaining an extra PC. Customers tell us our hardware replacement policy and automatic updates are very appealing when it comes to buying an additional computer. The ongoing service with Zonbu means giving your kids or parents a PC is not the beginning of your problems. Also our strong green credentials are definitely resonating with consumers looking to lower their energy usage and be more conscious the resources they use.

How much customer interest have you seen?
Since we started in early 2006 we've seen a great deal of interest. We are currently fine tuning the complete product so we are not marketing heavily yet. However, a number of aspects of Zonbu have caught people's attention – our green approach and use of open source software have both brought us many 'early adopter' customers. Also with our ongoing updates approach they understand there's no real risk to buying now.

What would your response be to critics who maintain consumers will always want their own PC with their own computing power and own storage?
Do you have a Yahoo or Gmail account? Clearly customers are becoming much more comfortable with online services and storage. Once someone has had a drive or whole system crash, they become far more open to the value of properly managed and backed up storage. This also has the benefit of making their files available to them from any web browser. However, with Zonbu the actual computing power is local so our customers can even work offline if they need to. Last, unlike Gmail or Yahoo, users' data is encrypted on our Internet servers and our privacy policy strongly states that we don't crawl their data for advertising purposes.

Do you see this product appealing to corporate customers as well as consumers?
Our initial focus is on home users looking for a secondary PC, but yes we can see it expanding into the corporate market. There are certainly some commercial situations that would have similar needs to the consumers - for example internet access in lobbies or hotels, or reception desks or other areas of the business where no specialist applications are needed. The low power consumption, compact size and lack of support needed makes Zonbu a very appealing option for some business uses. We are constantly developing the system to offer customers an ever better service and we will also offer other hardware options to appeal to a wider range of customers.

Is the product available in Europe?
Yes.

Do you operate your own datacentres to host the software? How energy efficient are the datacentres you use to handle customers apps etc? How do you ensure these remain efficient?
We currently use Amazon S3 servers. The scale of their operation ensures an outstanding energy efficiency.

Posted by James Murray on August 20, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (1)

There is something a bit strange going on at IBM of late.

Perhaps unsurprisingly for a company that has been going in one form or another for over 120 years IBM has enjoyed many incarnations, and now clues emanating from this most sphinx-like of multinationals suggest it could be about to enter another phase in its history.

It may be famous for its computers, but in the first half of the last century IBM and its forerunners churned out everything from bacon slicers to rifles and engine parts. However, ever since it landed upon the mainframe in the 1950's the company's focus has remained steadfastly on the world of IT and it has deviated little from this core business as it has grown into one of the world's most powerful corporations.

But while its IT focus remains steadfastly intact there are indications the company could be returning to its eclectic roots and it is the burgeoning demands of the low carbon economy that appear to be driving this diversification.

Sadly, confirmation of this new approach has not come from IBM itself, a company which with Sam Palmisano at the helm - a man so garrulous he makes JD Salinger look like Jay Leno - is not exactly big on public strategising. But there is intriguing evidence to suggest changes are afoot.

Exhibit A comes in the form of IBM's recent partnership with US electricity provider CenterPoint and it's investment in research into smart grid technologies capable of smoothing the path towards adoption renewable energy and dramatically cutting energy consumption by providing people with real time visibility over their energy use.

The company's newly revealed interest in in-car technologies, provides Exhibit B. The focus on the development of a car operating system capable of ultimately automating driving may not seem like a particularly green initiative, but when you consider one of the prime goals of such technologies would be to optimise fuel efficiency and ease traffic congestion it is clear a pattern is beginning to emerge.

Of course, these initiatives along with the overarching Project Big Green commitment to limit IBM's carbon footprint and enhance the energy efficiency of its servers and other datacentre technologies still fit into IBM's core IT portfolio.

But perhaps the most compelling clue that Big Blue could diversify comes in the form of reports that it is investing heavily in developing photovoltaic technology. According to a recent story over at the Cleantech Blog IBM is using its expertise in semi-conductors to make rapid progress in developing photovoltaic solar technology and while it is more likely to work at the component level than become a branded supplier of solar panels the company expects to become a serious player within the market within 18 months. Furthermore, the site points out that IBM has recently filed for over a dozen US patents for solar and photovoltaic technologies.

Whether or not these various research projects herald a genuine change in direction for IBM remains somewhat opaque, but there is no denying such a move would make sense.

Demand for green products and services is set to soar, but at the moment the supply side of this market remains extremely immature. Consultancies such as SustainAbility and the myriad of cleantech start ups may have experience in the sector, but they all lack the scale large corporate customers will look for when procuring green products and services. Meanwhile, those large multinationals that have been most vocal about their green product lines are either entirely consumer-focused operations, such as supermarkets, or energy and car firms guilty of running their green divisions as niche concerns alongside their traditional polluting businesses.

In contrast, IBM, and several other large IT companies for that matter, are perhaps the best positioned to meet the demand for green services: they provide the software and hardware that underpins all modern businesses; they boast relatively low impact business models compared to heavy industries; they have the engineering expertise in house that would allow them to diversify into other cleantech sectors; and they often run large consultancy arms already well versed in managing business transformations.

IBM is as well positioned as any company to become the first green business multinational the only question is whether or not it has the nerve and agility to diversify an IT-focused portfolio that has served it well for much of the last century.

It's too early to tell if IBM has the courage of its convictions, but let's just say the signs are hopeful.

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

CSR reports are increasingly popular, argues Chad Upham, and those firms that fail to release them are missing out nine key benefits

A sustainability report might be compared to seeing a doctor for a complete physical examination. A good doctor will ask lots of questions; listen to heartbeat; feel bones and tissue for irregularities; and run a wide range of blood tests. Of course, a clean bill of health is the desired outcome, but a thorough exam will sometimes uncover the need for corrective action.

The reality is that many corporations are "unhealthy" in their social and environmental performance. A financially unhealthy company knows it -- and their shareholders know it, too -- as a result of annual and quarterly reporting. Only recently have corporations begun to take a good look at their social and environmental health, disclosing the findings publicly, and developing strategies to get better.

Anatomy of a Sustainability Report

Introduced in November 2006, The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) "G3" -- third generation -- Sustainability Reporting Guidelines has become the global standard for reporting on social and environmental performance. Organizations electing to use this framework self-declare an application level of C, C+, B, B+, A, or A+ corresponding to the degree of thoroughness and third-party assurance achieved. Reports include three types of standard disclosures: organizational profile, performance indicators, and management approach.

The organizational profile presents an overview of the company's operations, a strategy and analysis narrative by senior decision makers, a description of governance and engagements, and specific disclosures on the scope and boundaries of the report. The performance indicators are comprised of 49 core and 30 additional (or elective) indicators in six major categories: Environmental, Product Responsibility, Society, Labor Practices and Decent Work, Human Rights, and Economic. The management approach discloses the organization's specific strategies for improving performance in each category. The guidelines include principles for defining report content and principles for ensuring report quality.

The reporting cycle is typically a 12-month engagement with senior management and representatives from all disciplines within the organization responsible for implementing sustainable practices. Consultants may be employed to assist in the following capacities: a) envision the report content and structure; b) address stakeholder interests through workshops or surveys; c) facilitate internal/external team collaboration and workflow; d) establish and monitor mechanisms to collect performance data from global operations; e) compose the organizational profile and management approach narratives; f) plan and execute internal and external communication campaigns; and g) design and publish the print and/or online report. While the scope and scale of a report depends on the industry, size of the organization, and desired application level grade (C through A+), a world-class report for a global corporation is a minimal investment of $500K to $2 million.

Nine Healthy Benefits of Sustainability Reporting

As of July 2007, nearly 20 percent of U.S. Fortune 500 companies have published a corporate sustainability report or citizenship report utilizing the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines. For the other 80 percent -- and for entities of any size -- the following nine healthy benefits of sustainability reporting offer just a few reasons why there is no better time than the present to get started.

1) Be Proactive vs. Reactive: Ignoring social and environmental impacts won't make them go away. Don't wait for angry stakeholders to point them out. Sustainability reporting gives you the advantage to mitigate concerns.

2) Know Where You're Going by Knowing Where You Are: Scouting teaches disoriented hikers to use the acronym STOP: Stop Think Observe Plan. Likewise, time spent on sustainability reporting will bring clarity for more effective action.

3) Open and Maintain Dialogue with Stakeholders: Customers, suppliers, employees, community members, shareholders, and NGOs all have different stakes in your business. Listening and addressing those interests will bring goodwill and creative solutions to shared problems.

4) Prioritize with Performance Indicator Targets and Goals: Some take a shotgun approach to sustainability, launching "green" initiatives without measurable, corporate-wide performance goals. The numbers will show you the priorities and help you define success.

5) Communicate Internally and Externally: Sharing a common vision for sustainability within the company is just as critical as communicating to customers and shareholders. The report is the best medium for sharing this vision in a unified voice, whether in print or online.

6) Innovate and Collaborate to Meet the Toughest Challenges: What obstacles prevent your company from completely eliminating harmful social and environmental impacts? Put it to your best and brightest to find solutions that improve the bottom line.

7) Improve your Industry through Healthy Competition: Be a leader. Change the game from being a race to the bottom, to being a race to the top. Sustainability reporting is designed to encourage comparison between companies in an industry. Outperform your competitors with more than just profits.

8) Look Down the Road at the Future of your Business: By looking squarely at the social and environmental challenges your company faces, you can develop long-term strategy to address them. What are the top five long-term challenges? Make a plan today to adapt your business to the coming reality.

9) Recognize CSR as the New Annual Report: Would you look at your balance sheet just once every five years? By acknowledging that social and environmental performance is just as crucial for the success of your business as financial results, you will soon be eager to share the measurable return of sustainability initiatives, too. Caring for customers, their communities and the environment is not a fad. Sustainability reporting will be around for a long time. Start now -- and get good at it.

Chad Upham is the founder of Covive, a San Francisco based consulting firm providing research, writing, and design of corporate sustainability reports utilizing the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Guidelines. Covive is registered as a 2007 GRI Organizational Stakeholder.

Chad holds an MBA in Sustainable Management from Presidio School of Management and a BFA in Graphic Design from the Art Center College of Design.

This article first appeared at Greenbiz.com

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

The term 'Carbon Neutral' may be all the rage, observes Amy Sims, but firms should avoid taking it at face value

Not long ago the word 'neutral' conjured up thoughts of beige walls and Switzerland, but in the era of the green consumer neutrality has become a powerful status symbol for business.

The rush is on to become the first 'carbon neutral' business in each sector. It's not just corporations that are seeking this stamp – a cabaret, surf shop and even an airline have all proclaimed themselves the first in their field to go carbon neutral.

Being 'first' in anything is obviously desirable because it courts the press, no matter how niche you are. This summer several media outlets devoted column inches to the 'first carbon neutral burlesque cabaret in London'.

But how on earth could a business, whether its employees wear tassels, ties or trunks, be carbon neutral? Surely even if they are making efforts within to reduce their carbon footprint there will inevitably be emissions remaining. The simple answer is they pay someone to take care of it elsewhere through a concept fraught with dubious services and questionable results: carbon offsetting. When you offset you pay a service provider to reduce carbon emissions elsewhere, equivalent to the emissions you are emitting.

Silverjet reaped plenty of publicity when the company announced that it was 'the first carbon neutral airline worldwide'. The airline's ticket price includes a mandatory carbon offset contribution which is invested by their 'climate consultancy partner' in projects such as subsidising the cost of energy efficient light bulbs in Jamaica and landfill gas capture in Ecuador.

Loose Fit Surf Shop in North Devon considers itself the world's first 'Carbon Zero' surf shop. The shop plants a tree for every surfboard that they sell. The trees that have so far been planted will result in over 200 tones of carbon dioxide being absorbed, gaining Loose-Fit the 'Carbon Zero' status.

Being publicised as a caring, green and conscientious business is valuable in a market where consumers increasingly respect these traits.

The carbon neutral status is so desirable now because climate change has become a mainstream consumer issue. In a recent consumer survey 66 percent of respondents in the US and UK agreed that everyone needs to take responsibility for their personal contribution to global warming. 

Consumers want more information from businesses about how they are addressing the climate impacts. Fifty percent of respondents in the UK would rather do business with companies that are working to reduce their contribution to global warming.

All of which makes the 'neutral' tag a valuable marketing tool. But ultimately, it's the small every day changes that add up to make the most difference. Employee behaviour change, whether it's a burlesque show illuminating dancers with energy efficient bulbs or a surf shop recycling its waste, are crucial in the fight against climate change.

If you are investing in a company because of its carbon neutral credentials take time to first scratch beneath the surface of the label. Find out what it has actually done in order to receive such a title, and who deemed them to be 'neutral' in the first place.

Unfortunately, most are simply paying another business to offset their emissions, instead of cleaning up their own act first. And some are even bestowing themselves with the 'neutral' title, much like a café rather dubiously proclaiming that it serves the 'World's Best Coffee'. Businesses should take responsibility for their day to day emissions and not rely on a project abroad to cover their carbon.

Posted by James Murray on August 16, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

It was only a matter of time. Morgan Stanley has launched a new service this week, which it claims will make it the first one-stop-shop for firms looking to offset their carbon emissions.

The Morgan Stanley Carbon Bank has been set up in partnership with emissions certification firm Det Norske Veritas (DNV) and aims to package together all the services required to offset a firm's carbon emissions.

Under the service, DNV will verify firms own emission calculations in line with ISO 14064 standards while Morgan Stanley's Commodities Group will procure and cancel carbon credits equivalent to the client's footprint. Firms will be able to select where the credits come from but Morgan Stanley insists all will be in line with the standards of the Kyoto Protocol.

Clients signing up to the service will then receive a "carbon zero" certificate from Morgan Stanley and DNV.

The move is likely to attract criticism from some environmentalists who have expressed doubts about the effectiveness of offset schemes and object to the use of the term "zero carbon" on the grounds it can remove the incentive for firms to act to reduce their direct carbon emissions.

However, Morgan Stanley maintained that the new service would help bring much needed credibility to the voluntary offset market and make it far easier for firms to acquire properly audited and certified carbon credits.

"We are pleased to offer clients a transparent and credible way to verify and offset greenhouse gas emissions," said Simon Greenshields, global head of power, power fuels and carbon trading at Morgan Stanley. "This is the first service we have seen giving clients a single source for everything from certifying emissions to buying and cancelling carbon credits, all in accordance with the highest international standards."

The new service was welcomed by David Yarnold, executive vice president at lobby group Environmental Defense, who argued it would bring greater certainty to the voluntary carbon market. "Although the regulated carbon market is based on environmentally effective and standardised procedures, it has been difficult for companies to find a high-quality, standards-based service to offset their emissions in the voluntary market," he said.

Businesses are also likely to welcome the new service following a series of scandals that have uncovered emission reduction projects that have failed to deliver advertised cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

These revelations have undermined the credibility of the offsetting model and forced firms engaged in offsetting to invest more in auditing their offset programmes, driving up costs and management overheads. A one-stop-shop that promises to take the whole process off of their hands, while ensuring all projects are in line with international standards is likely to appeal to the growing numbers of firms interested in offsetting but keen to limit the hassle of auditing projects themselves.

Posted by James Murray on August 16, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Concerns over the wider impact of the booming demand for biofuels continued to grow last week after a leading agricultural think tank warned prices could soar by as much as 80 percent as land is diverted towards biofuel production.

According to an AFP report, Joachim von Braun, director general of the International Food Policy Research Institute, warned that food prices could climb by between 40 and 80 percent unless investments in improving agricultural productivity are made.

Speaking earlier this month at a conference in Manila, von Braun said that correlations between demand for biofuel and an increase in food prices were already evident and that the situation could worsen.

"If it's well managed and we have more investment in research and technology to bring up yield levels in the crops and improve the efficiency of biofuels, these price effects may only be between five and 15 percent," he observed. "So it depends on government policy."

His comments are the latest in a line of warnings from industry experts who fear that the rush to develop biofuels could have a detrimental effect on food supplies and even carbon emissions.

A major report from the UN earlier this year predicted that increased demand for biofuels could lead to deforestation and food shortages. Meanwhile other studies have argued that while biofuels claim to be carbon neutral the increased demand for fuel sources such as palm oil has led to a net increase in carbon emissions as the growth of plantations has led to deforestation of tropical rainforests.

Consequently, environmental campaigners have called for a moratorium on all biofuel targets and incentive schemes until there is greater certainty that the current trend is environmentally sustainable.

However, advocates of biofuel maintain that the emergence of so-called second generation biofuels that are significantly more efficient and based on non food crops such as wood chips or straw will ensure US and EU targets to increase biofuel use will not have a significant impact on global food prices or land use.

A recent European Commission report into the impact of its target of sourcing 10 percent of transport fuel from the biofuel sector endorsed this view, claiming that while prices of oil seed products were expected to climb by around 15 percent agricultural markets would remain stable, based on the assumption that around a third of the demand would be met by second generation fuels.

But despite such reassurances the controversy has still prompted several firms to reassess their biofuel plans. Most notably coach company National Express this month announced it was pulling out of a trial that would have seen some of its fleet running on up to 30 percent bioethanol citing fears the fuel was having a detrimental effect on the environment and world food prices.

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

A leading scientist with the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research has warned that "doing nothing is better than offsetting" on the grounds that there is a serious risk that the practice is leading to increased emissions.

Dr Kevin Anderson, an academic at the University of Manchester and energy programme leader for the Tyndall Centre, said that the failure by many offset firms to look at the wider implications of investing in carbon reduction projects in developing economies meant that they were guilty of inadvertently increasing carbon emissions.

"Many of these schemes are not accounting for the economic multiplier effect of the offset investments," he said. "For example, if you take one popular offset project in the form of donating low energy bulbs to a Jamaican hotel you have to ask, what is the full impact of that investment? Electricity in Jamaica is expensive, so what does the hotelier do with the money he saves? He may use it to pay for a flight for himself or he may invest in extending the hotel, both of which could cancel out the initial emission reductions."

Anderson argued that there is no way that offset providers can guarantee that their investments will not spark significant multiplier effects that would ultimately lead to increased emissions.

"Such multipliers are the whole point of economic development, so if you want to invest in development that's fine, but if you are investing in offsetting emissions you need to be certain that your investment does not lead to an increase in emissions," he said. "And you just can't give that guarantee, particularly when you consider that a lot of the offset projects are based on assumptions about emission reductions taking place over 100 year time periods."

Anderson said that the Environmental Audit Committee's recent report recommending that the carbon offsetting industry could play a major role in tackling climate change failed to sufficiently account for multiplier effects and as a result businesses would be wise to ignore the report's advice and avoid offsetting schemes altogether.

However, David Wellington, director at leading offset provider Climate Care, rejected Anderson's analysis claiming that offsetting best practices did indeed account for multiplier effects. "We refer to it as leakage - the effect the project will have on other aspects of the economy – and it is well accounted for in the Kyoto Protocol and the Clean Development Mechanism's (CDM) checks and balances for assessing a project's additionality," he said.

He added that all Climate Care's projects were either qualified under the CDM or mirrored the CDM requirements.

Wellington also argued that it was "ludicrous" that Anderson was attacking offsetting when the multiplier effect applies equally to many other emission reduction investment. "It is a nonsense to imply this issue is unique to offsetting," he claimed. "There are many emission reduction schemes that have the same problem because if they help people save money they will spend that money elsewhere on things like food and education. To suggest it means that you should not offset is frankly ludicrous."

However, Anderson rejected Wellington's criticism arguing that the idea that the CDM legislation tackled the problem was "at the best highly misleading". He added that the central problem remains that CO2 emissions from a car journey or flight will typically remain in the atmosphere for 100 years meaning there is no way offsetting providers can be sure their investment does not lead to an increase in emissions at some point far into the future.

"Wellington's crystal ball must therefore be up there with Harry Potter's if it is to estimate with any level of certainty the economic multiplier over many decades," he said. "Wellington's ball would have been able to predict Concorde, the Space Shuttle, Satellites and Mars probes etc at the time of the Wright brothers - as well as their carbon implications."

Anderson added that while the problem also applied to other emission reduction investments that provided no reason not to address the issue. He argued that the only way to counter the multiplier effect and make carbon offset schemes more secure would be to place emission caps on any country receiving offset investments.

Furthermore, even if offsetting schemes were 100 percent reliable Anderson maintains that they would not be desirable on the grounds that they would remove the incentive to innovate new low carbon technologies. "For example, a tenner on a flight from London to Rome is not going to put us off flying - and hence there is no market signal for improving the train service or changing our attitudes," he explained.  "In the meantime, we build more capitally expensive airports and runways and buy more A380s and Dreamliners - all which lock us in to high emissions travel for many years to come and absorb capital that could otherwise be spent on alternative low-carbon options."

This analysis is again contested by many advocates of offsetting who argue that by adding cost to carbon intensive activities offsetting actually creates a greater incentive for innovation in low carbon technologies.

Anderson also rejected Wellington's suggestion that his opposition to offsetting could be perceived as an opposition to carbon emission reduction and economic development projects, arguing that he was critical of the offsetting funding mechanism and not the many "carefully conceived and monitored" emission reduction projects they involve.

"These developments should be funded as reparations, not as aid," he insisted. "It is us who have brought about the position whereby these countries cannot develop along the carbon profligate route we - unknowingly at first - proceeded… I would argue we have moral imperative to assist these countries - but not as a mean of buying indulgencies."

Posted by James Murray on August 14, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (4)

One of Gordon Brown's first acts on coming into office – after having to write that disturbing memo about what to do in the event of nuclear attack – was to halt government use of the term "War on Terror". Well, while he's banning counterproductive soundbites how's about getting rid of "leading the fight against climate change" as well.

It may be leading the world in climate change PR and spin, but can the UK seriously continue to cling to the pretence that it is in some way established as the world's premier sustainable economy.

The government's climate change strategy has received a series of body blows in recent weeks with its flagship climate change bill facing repeated attack from influential parliamentary committees for being far too lenient; the inconsistency of its emission reduction targets and support for airport expansion highlighted by a bunch of hippies (sorry protestors) at Heathrow; and its reaction to summer floods leaving plenty to be desired.

Now the most damaging revelation yet has emerged today with reports in The Guardian that civil servants have been briefing ministers that they will not hit EU targets to generate 20 percent of energy from renewable sources and should investigate ways to water down or wriggle out of the targets.

According to a briefing document obtained by the paper, the UK "has achieved little so far on renewables" and has little hope of hitting the EU targets. It also urges ministers to examine "what options there are for statistical interpretations of the target that would make it easier to achieve", and advises that they should try and get nuclear power and investments in renewable energy in the developing world included in the targets.

Needless to say the government sought to distance itself from the leaked memo with a spokesman for the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform claiming the government "is committed to renewables and reducing emissions in line with EU targets".

Well, that may be the case but some of its most influential civil servants blatantly are not.

What this latest revelation confirms is that it is time for the government to can the rhetoric about it being a leader on climate change and accept that the UK's global warming policy is so far from exemplary that each time Environment Secretary Hilary Benn talks about "our leading position internationally" he is more likely to be greeted by laughter than admiration.

Ever since it unveiled the Stern Report last year the government has been keen to paint itself as being at the vanguard of international attempts to tackle climate change, but claims such as those made recently by Benn that the "UK should be proud of its record on tackling climate change" increasingly fail to stack up against the available evidence.

What's more this pioneering rhetoric is dangerous on the grounds that it can only lead to complacency. How urgent will individuals and businesses perceive the need to modify behaviours and limit carbon emissions when our government keeps on telling us we are already amongst the world's greenest economies? No one is suggesting the government spokespeople should take on the tone of apocalyptic doom mongers, but any serious reduction in the carbon intensity of our economy will only be possible if we fully accept how far the UK has to go in adopting low carbon practices.

The fact is that we are making good progress in some areas and regressing in others. To assess this mixed bag and insist we are taking a leadership position would be like the US claiming it has the best health service on the grounds it has some of the best medical universities, or Cuba insisting it has the world's best education system on the evidence of some high literacy rates.   

Of course, it is not all bad. The government's support for emissions trading and willingness to tighten up the EU scheme has been admirable, while London has emerged as the world's carbon trading capital - which has to be A Good Thing despite current reservations at the effectiveness of such markets. Many UK firms are also taking up genuine leadership positions and investing heavily in greener business models and clean technologies.

However, these isolated trends aside the government's overall environmental record remains less than impressive. Even the areas it points to as evidence of the UK's supposed leadership position are deeply flawed.

For example, Benn's insistence on defending the UK's record by claiming "we are on track to meet and go beyond our Kyoto target" may be accurate but is also highly disingenuous as it has primarily been achieved as a result of the "dash to gas" rather than the success of any government policy.

Equally, the Climate Change Bill may be the first of its kind anywhere in the world, but, as repeated independent experts have now pointed out, it is pretty close to worthless in its current form. Without proper teeth and the inclusion of every sector of the economy the legislation looks more like window dressing than a serious attempt to underpin a low carbon economy.

Meanwhile, if you look at the two most important sectors of the economy for tackling climate change, energy and transport, the government's policy is in disarray.

Renewable energy accounts for around two percent of the UK's energy mix, compared to seven percent across the EU and 13 percent in Germany, while the government's Renewables Obligation and Low Carbon Buildings Programme have both been criticised as being underfunded and ineffective. New windfarms, meanwhile, continue to be repeatedly blocked by local planning legislation.

The transport policy is possibly worse still, with the cost of public transport having risen massively in real terms as the cost of motoring has fallen and the government apparently focused more on road and airport expansion than on enhancing the public transport network.

Faced with this record embarrassment alone should be enough to get ministers to shut up about the UK leading the fight against climate change, but sadly embarrassment is an emotion that appears to have been removed from anyone seeking a career in parliament. The government may try to defend its record as a low carbon pioneer by pointing to the awful environmental record of governments such as the US and China, but that's like feeling proud because you are the fastest tortoise.

The current perpetuation of the Blair government's climate change mythology is so damaging because it makes real action on climate change less rather than more likely.

Why should the government ditch its renewable energy strategy in favour of the far more effective German model if its ministers believe, in contradiction of all available evidence, that their strategy is better? Why should it increase investment in greener transport if the UK is going to hit its Kyoto obligations anyway? Why should it encourage micro generation of energy when it would be cheaper to lobby for a watering down of EU targets? Why should it deliver more incentives for green businesses if we are already putting our international rivals to shame?

If business leaders want the incentives and legal framework they believe is necessary to accelerate the transition to a low carbon economy then they should be challenging the government's claim that it has the world's pre-eminent environmental policy at every turn. The myth that the UK is a low carbon pioneer needs puncturing and scrapping the government's hubristic insistence that its strategy is without rival would be the quickest and most effective way of doing so.

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

Sumir Karayi, CEO at desktop management software specialist 1E, insists that automation holds key to PC turn off campaigns

BusinessGreen: How big a problem is the issue of PCs being left on over night?
Sumir Karayi: There was a recent US study that showed that 60 percent of PCs are left on any given night. Corporate America has just under 100m PCs, so that is 60m PCs being left on each night. Even if you halve that figure on the assumption that around half of desktops are typically set to hibernate when they are not in use that still means 30 million are fully on. Estimates show that equates to $2bn worth of energy being wasted a year.

How does 1E propose to tackle the problem?
We started ten years ago with a focus on reducing the cost and time of managing Windows for large organisations. We quickly realised there was this issue with being able to remotely turn the PCs on and off, and that is when we developed out first bit of software, SMSWakeUp, which allowed administrators to easily turn machines on over the network. We were working with a customer, Swiss Bank, which found that as soon as they could turn the machines on at night to patch them they realised $4m in energy cost savings. That was a real eye opener and then we started to investigate why machines weren't being turned off and what we could do to address the problem. From there we developed our NightWatchman suite which allows firms to automatically and remotely turn off PCs that have been left on.

Technically how do you turn on a PC that has been switched off?
There is a switch in the settings of the PC called Wake-on-LAN. This switch stays on when you turn off the PC, drawing just one to five watts, and listens out for a network packet called a magic packet, which turns the computer on. The technology is very simple and is industry standard, but when you scale it out to large deployments it becomes very difficult to manage without a high degree of automation.

There are plenty of solutions in this area and as you admit the core technology is pretty simple. Where is the differentiator in your products?
The issue of desktop management has three stakeholders - the CIO, who needs the machines patched, updated and rebooted occasionally; the facilities or CSR manager who wants the energy bill reduced; and the user who don't want their PC turned off when they are using it or downloading files and who don't want data lost when their machine is rebooted. In our opinion most solutions in this area only address one or two of the stakeholders. We wrote NightWatchman to address all these stakeholders, so CIOs have the ability to turn on a machine, patch, and turn it off remotely; facilities gets reporting capabilities to see how much energy is saved; and the user gets a solution that automatically assesses whether the machine is in use before turning it off and saves any files from both the previous save and the state they are in at the time of shut down.

We've all heard about concerns about the environment and energy use, but how much money can really be saved from just turning off a PC?
UK estimates claim it can save an average of £40 per year in energy costs, while Energy Star in the US estimates anything between $25 to $75 a year. Obviously there is a lot of variation depending on energy costs and turn off rates before deployment, but if you consider we are deployed on 7 million seats globally, that is a lot of money.

How much does the software cost?
We have sliding prices based on the size of the deal, but we aim for an ROI within three months. That means you can get the cost back in the form of power savings within three months, and that calculation does not include the soft savings in the form of lower support costs and enhanced security.

Isn't this a classic case of over-engineering. You are providing an automated solution for a problem that wouldn't exist if people just turned off their PCs. Isn't it cheaper and easier for firms to run a campaign to get people to turn off their PCs?
I would entirely recommend that firms have a green communications agenda. But turn off campaigns can't easily report on the savings they achieve and as a result the savings are difficult to validate. What NightWatchman gives you is a clear benchmark from which to base your energy savings. As a result we have been able to do deals where we charge based on the amount of energy saved. Also the fact is that communication campaigns only get you so far and you need an automated solution so that you can reboot remotely and ensure everything is patched correctly.

Some people maintain that turning PCs on and off daily reduces their reliability. Is there any truth in this?
It is an absolute fallacy that turning PCs off and on means they don’t last as long. It is a myth, and in fact the opposite is true as you place less pressure on the moving parts if you turn the machine off.

How do you plan to develop the product portfolio going forward?
We have just released SMSWakeUp version 5, which supports Vista and has improved scalability and enhanced reporting capabilites. We are also about to launch version 5 of NightWatchman, which also features improved reporting capabilities, including predictive reporting that allows a firm to predict the energy savings it could achieve, and also boasts Vista integration designed to exploit the new power saving technology in Vista.

And beyond that?
We are investing heavily in a solution for the datacentre and we aim to have something ready by the end of the year. There is a tendency in the datacentre to save energy by throwing out working servers in favour of new, more energy efficient models, but a lot of savings can be achieved with existing infrastructure through better power management. We want to provide a suite that reports on datacentre energy use and identifies areas of efficiency and inefficiency so you can optimise without decommissioning existing kit. We want to apply the NightWatchman logic to the datacentre environment.

So you'd have a solution that automatically turns off unused servers?
Initially we'd just focus on reporting, but from there adding the automation would be relatively easy.

Are people really going to accept a solution that turns off their servers?
The biggest issue with the datacentre is the mindset change that is required. Most datacentres are 24x7 operations with all the servers running 24x7 and people believe there is a large degree of risk in turning machines off or even just changing processor states to reduce power draw. But this is a hugely inefficient scenario and it is perfectly plausible to turn more machines off when they are not in use. We want to give IT managers the information they need to do this. It won’t come quickly and there is a long road ahead. Many businesses see it as easier to just keep buying more servers, but it is entirely possible technically to turn them off and just turn them on when they are needed. Too many people design a datacentre from the start for maximum capacity. They think "right, I need 10,000 users and I'll design for 10,000 users". They end up with 50 servers online when they could have spent the first year just running two.

About Sumir Karayi

Sumir Karayi is CEO and CTO at windows management software specialist 1E, which he co-founded in 1998.

Previously he had worked managing and supporting PC based networks at Microsoft, Lombard, Reuters and the BBC.

He holds BEng and MSc degrees from Warwick University, specialising in Electronic Engineering and IT for Manufacturing. 

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

The solar industry is being powered as much by hype as sunlight, according to Roger Franklin, and the media feeding frenzy is concealing some concerning realities

The last couple of weeks have seen another burst of activity in the world of solar photovoltaics (PV) – Solaria's US$50m funding round led by Q Cells, IBM's interest in becoming a major player in photovoltaics and many smaller venture capital (VC) deals – but the big question is why should we care? There may or may not be lots of money to be made in PV technology, but how important is it when it comes to combating climate change and resource depletion?

The New York Times pointed out a couple of weeks ago that the gap between how important people think solar is and how important it actually is, is yawning. When asked what would be the most important energy source in fifteen years, the top answer was solar even though the US Department of Energy expects it to account for only 3% of total electricity generation in 25 years time!

Even those in the industry admit that solar PV is a long way from making a substantial contribution to the fight against climate change. When I interviewed Daniel Cintolesi, director of corporate sales at Q Cells, for Library House's cleantech report earlier this year he commented: "Will solar PV substitute a substantial part of energy demand in the next ten years? No way. No way."

The hype over solar PV seems even more absurd when two further facts are considered:

1. PV won't be able to deliver electricity at the bulk market price for another twenty years, even in hot climates (see fig 1 below).

2. Compared to other renewables, it is the least cost competitive (see fig 2 below)

At Library House, our European data shows that companies in the wind, hydropower and solar sub-sectors all attracted between £30m to £40m of institutional funding during 2006. Given that both wind power and small scale hydropower are already able to deliver energy at the retail price and small scale hydro can even supply at bulk prices, this seems a strange distribution of capital.

Don't venture capitalists like proven technologies and proven markets? Perhaps the answer lies in the public policy attitude to solar PV. Generous feed-in tariffs, funded ultimately by the consumer rather than by government, have bankrolled the sector in Europe whilst tax breaks have done the same in the US. Given this environment, many investors have obviously seen solar as a one way bet.

It seems that irrational obsessions with particular clean technologies are becoming a feature of the global response to climate change. Europe seems focused on what Vinod Khosla of Khosla Ventures has termed 'elitist' technologies which will never pass the 'Chindia test' (that is, be cheap enough to be adopted in the world's fastest growing economies), whilst the US obsesses over bio-ethanol, which will not replace fossil fuels even if the whole of the US landmass is planted with corn.

Instead of hype, what is needed is a broad based energy strategy recognising the importance of all low carbon technologies (wind, geothermal, small scale hydro, solar concentrating, biomass, nuclear, carbon capture). Such a strategy will require tough choices. However, the current media environment seems in danger of convincing people that solar PV (or biofuels depending on your taste) is the magic bullet that will solve all our problems.

Roger Franklin is a Senior Analyst in Venture Capital and Cleantech at investment research firm Library House. The company provides information and research on the fastest growing privately-held companies across Europe

Posted by James Murray on August 10, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (1)

With their history of as a crucible for social change universities were always going to have key role to play in the green revolution. Fiaona Smith explores how some US campuses are leading the way when it comes to energy efficiency

The lights in Michael Siminovitch's office at the U.C. Davis California Lighting Technology Center dim in response to daylight entering through the windows. These special lights are just one way that Siminovitch, the center's director, believes the university can slash much of its energy demand.

Staff, faculty and students from California universities and colleges recently gathered to learn about hot lighting technology and other new ideas at the UC-CSU-CCC Sustainability in Higher Education Conference. Held at U.C. Santa Barbara this summer, it was the nation's largest conference of its kind.

As climate change looms ever larger and with California still reeling from its 2001 energy crisis, the conference is just one sign that the state's behemoth higher education systems are overcoming bureaucratic inertia and clamouring for greener changes.

In fact, cutting energy use is a key element in the University of California and California State University systems' plans to lessen their environmental toll. With 33 campuses and a combined faculty, students and staff of more than 870,000 people, U.C. and CSU systems have huge energy demands. That demand is only growing as enrolment increases and campuses expand. But despite these upward pressures, U.C. and CSU have managed to slash their energy usage system-wide in recent years and are working to make even deeper cuts.

Fretting over energy efficiency has long been left to campus energy managers who have had little money to invest in conservation. But things changed in 2004 when the state Public Utilities Commission funded the creation of the UC-CSU-IOU Energy Efficiency Partnership. The schools partnered with the four major IOU's, or state investor-owned utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Gas Co. to aggressively cut energy demand through efficiency, efficiency and more efficiency.

In the first two years of the program, U.C. and CSU exceeded savings targets by 30 percent, saving 32 million kilowatt hours and 1.5 million therms of gas in 2004 and 2005. The electricity savings alone are enough to power more than 2,800 homes in the U.S. Now, the PUC has upped the ante -- doubling their funding to $34 million for 2006 to 2008 and asking them to quadruple energy savings.

"The conventional wisdom is that we can do a lot of efficiency and do improvements but our energy costs will always increase," said Karl Brown, deputy director of the U.C.-run California Institute for Energy and Environment. That, Brown added, is simply not true.

From the Present to the Future

While the campuses have taken the obvious steps of retrofitting their facilities with compact fluorescent bulbs, newer machinery and appliances, the university's research arm is helping develop the efficiency tools of tomorrow and holding down energy costs.

In the race to save more energy, there is a constant need for innovation, said Aaron Klemm, CSU's energy program manager. "It's a case of emerging technologies that need to mature," he said.

The partnership relies on U.C. researchers, among others, to do the innovating. One place they are looking to is the California Lighting Technology Center at U.C. Davis. The center's researchers are at work on several projects, including a bi-level stairway fixture. It dims the lights in unused stairwells using integrated occupancy sensors; the lights, installed at seven U.C. and CSU sites, save 50 to 80 percent in energy. The Institute has also helped create what they call an integrated classroom lighting system which reduces the amount of lighting needed by installing ceiling tiles with high reflective paint alongside more efficient lights. The system exceeds current California energy building code standards by 30 to 50 percent.

Siminovitch, the Center for Lighting Technology director, as well as an environmental design professor at U.C. Davis, said lighting sucks up about 20 percent of the state's electricity use. Smarter lighting can make a huge difference in a building's energy demand, he said. But developing technology is not the biggest challenge as Siminovitch sees it: "Our problem is knowledge barriers -- people don't know to do this."

Another thing people don't know, it turns out, is how much energy individual parts are sucking up in a building. That's where monitoring based commissioning comes in. The idea is to put meters not just at the building level, but on specific energy-using devices within buildings. Facility managers can monitor systems in real time, pinpoint if their air conditioner, for instance, is sucking up unusual amounts of energy and fix it.

"It's typical for a building to get built and used without testing the AC system or the lighting controls," said Brown. "People realized that you had to tune up a building from time to time and we started to realize that the ability to do this was tied to the monitoring you had for the building's energy systems."

Monitoring based commissioning, developed back in the 1990s at U.C.'s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Texas A&M University, is now installed at 40 sites around U.C. and CSU campuses. Those buildings have cut energy use an average of 10 percent -- some as much as 24 percent. The average payback on investment is two years, but the best part is that the savings are indefinite, Brown added.

While it may not have the catchiest name, Brown believes monitoring based commissioning is turning conventional wisdom on energy efficiency on its head. "The traditional way of looking at energy use is that the energy use of a building is predetermined and immutable and that it's operating close to its optimum capacity... we're showing you can have really dramatic changes in energy use."

U.C. Santa Barbara has found myriad ways to decrease its energy use -- including commissioning its campus central plant chilled water system, installing variable speed drives on machinery and room occupancy lighting controls. Over the past eight years, the campus has cut its energy use by 30 percent per square foot. In 2006, UCSB managed to cut energy, saving about 17 million kilowatt hours, despite the construction of energy-sucking science and engineering buildings, according to Jim Dewey, the university's energy manager.

UCSB received an Excellency in Energy Efficiency Award in May from UC-CSU-IOU Energy Efficiency Partnership member Southern California Edison. The California Public Utilities Commission and the National Wildlife Federation have also recognized UCSB's efficiency efforts.

"What's unique about the partnership is there's decision making going on at the state level. We work in a team setting where we can identify problems and share best practices," said Jeanne Boyce, a manager at Southern California Edison's customer service business unit.

In fact, facility operators from campuses gather for joint training sessions to learn more about conservation practices such as LEED building standards and managing data centers.

Creating the Sustainable Curriculum

But it's not just facility and energy managers looking to save the university money that are playing important roles. Students and faculty have lent support to these efforts and have boosted energy conservation. Students themselves have pressured U.C. and CSU leaders to adopt environmentally friendly policies. One of the biggest moves was the entire U.C. system and four CSU campuses signing onto the American College and University President's Climate Commitment this year. It has strong energy efficiency goals as part of its pledge to become climate neutral as soon as possible.

While they have pressured for top-down action, students are doing plenty from the bottom-up. The nonprofit Washington D.C.-based Alliance to Save Energy has boosted student efforts at 12 U.C. and CSU campuses by helping them create projects to save energy at their schools. The so-called Green Campus Initiative hires interns at each campus who work to get students involved in energy conservation projects.

Students from U.C. Santa Barbara and Cal State San Bernardino involved in the program won a Best Practice award at the Sustainability in Higher Education Conference for, among other things, holding a year-long energy-saving competition on campus, helping and implement LEED building standards and working with staff to cut back vending machine power use.

Students are also learning more about issues such as these as faculty work to integrate concepts like energy conservation, climate change and green building into course curricula. Universities as a whole are embracing the notion that sustainability is something that has to be taught and not just to people in environmental science or sustainability…we need it as much in English and History," said Tom Kimmerer, executive director of the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education.

Geography students at CSU Chico learned to conduct energy audits and the university has a Professor of Environmental Literacy charged with educating students of all majors on environmental issues. U.C. Berkeley's interdisciplinary Energy and Resources Group offers a course on energy sources and consumption while students run an "Energy 101" class. U.C. Davis studen