IT giant Dell yesterday pledged that it would achieve "carbon neutral" status by next year as the company seeks to live up to its recent claim that it would become the world's greenest technology company.

The company said the move would make it the first IT manufacturer to offset all of its carbon emissions and also insisted that the carbon neutral initiative would sit alongside moves to improve the energy efficiency of its facilities, products and processes and source power from renewable sources where possible.

Speaking to the Associated Press, chief executive and founder Michael Dell said that the company had already saved $1.8 million in electricity bills in the past year by turning off equipment over night, had begun replacing light bulbs with more efficient designs, and is increasing pressure on its suppliers to disclose information on their environmental policies.

"What impressed me about this is that by spending a little time on it, you can actually make a pretty tremendous impact," he said.

The company also announced plans expand its "Plant a Tree For Me" customer offset scheme to incorporate its business partners. Dubbed "Plant a Forest for Me" will see Dell share best practices with other businesses as it seeks to undertake the planting of a million trees in sustainably managed forests. ABN AMRO, AMD, Ask.com, Salesforce.com and WellPoint have all signed up to the new scheme with a commitment to buy trees to offset at least part of their operations.

The announcement came a day after electronics giant Philips announced that it aims to double the proportion of revenue that comes from its green products from 15 percent last year to 30 percent by 2012. The commitment forms part of the company's updated EcoVision programme that will also see it enhance the energy efficiency of its operations by 25 percent and double its investment in green technologies to €1bn over the next five years.

In a letter to employees, Philips president and CEO Gerard Kleisterlee urged staff to embrace the strategy, claiming it would deliver long term benefits to the company. "We believe that big changes start small and that every one of us should contribute to saving our planet," he wrote. "What's more, we are convinced that those companies that combine the principles of economic growth and environmental stewardship will be the winners of the future and offer long term rewards to you, our employees, and to our customers, partners and shareholders."

Posted by James Murray on September 27, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Museums and tourist attractions have a key role to play in educating the public about climate change, but according to Christine Ervin many are failing to take up the challenge

On September 9, the Oregonian headlined its Sunday edition with a story about the Greenland ice sheet melting much faster than scientists had predicted. The well-crafted story found the news "...particularly unsettling because elaborate climate models that scientists use to estimate the effects of global warming did not foresee it."

While many scientists had been warning that such acceleration could be underway and that we were entering unchartered waters, it's true that recent observations on different kinds of ice loss have not yet worked their way into global peer-reviewed models. Such is the nature of peer-reviewed science and the hazards in communicating such complexities.

The good news about stories like this -- if there's good to be had in such dismal news -- is that many media are not only giving more ink to climate change but they've also dropped the obligatory quotes that, for too long, fed the illusion of a raging debate in the scientific community. The bad news is that such stories risk creating a sense of futility -- either with the science itself or in agreeing on solutions that match the scale of the challenge.

That's deadly serious because, despite encouraging polls and myriad climate initiatives, there remains a yawning chasm between general awareness and sustained actions. Moreover, too many still perceive climate change as smacking of advocacy or political ideology, or at the least, distant from their own sphere of influence.

That reality became crystal clear in recent trips to Maui and Alaska this year.

More than 2 million people visit Maui each year. Most are drawn to activities enabled by the island's gorgeous marine ecosystem, with whale watching, snorkeling and various beach activities dominating "must do" lists of attractions. That ecosystem is hardly immune from the effects of a changing climate-from bleaching coral reefs to unstable krill populations in Alaskan waters needed to fatten the humpback whales before they seek shelter in Maui waters to mate and calve.

But two popular and respected attractions, often featured on eco-tourism tours, typify all-too-common obstacles in venues that would be particularly effective in translating abstract notions of climate change to the very attractions drawing visitors.

The Pacific Whale Foundation is a highly-respected nonprofit founded in 1980 to educate the public about whales, dolphins, coral reefs and the marine environment. Most tourists know the Foundation for its popular Eco-Adventures cruises out of Lahaina, featuring trained naturalists on board their catamarans. It's a fantastic way to enjoy the humpbacks while supporting an organisation dedicated to their protection. In its own operations, they were an early adopter of biodiesel for their vessels and vans and now offer cash incentives to staff for low-carbon transportation. The challenge is connecting climate change to their tourism curriculum. On my second tour with them in April, for example, I asked the naturalist about the effect of climate change on the marine environment. While concerned about possible linkages, she regretted not being knowledgeable enough to offer insights; and that of her 70 or so tours, this was the first time anyone had asked.

Thirty minutes from the Lahaina harbor, 400,000 visitors tour the Maui Ocean Center each year. This state-of-the-art facility, encompassing a slew of interactive displays, outdoor pools and an impressive 750,000-gallon open ocean exhibit holding more than 2,000 fish, takes seriously its role of being the only facility in the world dedicated to fostering "understanding, wonder and respect for Hawaii's marine life." It also helps sponsor some of the Whale Foundation's research programs.

Like the Foundation, it hasn't yet made the connection between climate change and its educational mission with the public. In fact, when I asked a volunteer, not a staff member, about the climate connection, he picked up the microphone and cracked a joke to 100 or more visitors milling about the 360 degree acrylic tunnel about not seeing any icebergs in Hawaiian waters these days. Back on the mainland, I spoke with the Center's general manager who was disappointed with the volunteer's response but went on to explain the Center's dilemma in not having experts on a topic that still seemed saddled with mixed reports. Their response, for the time being, was to view the Center as an inappropriate place to discuss climate change.

Jump 2,800 miles north to Alaska. Here, too, stunning ecosystems are the prime calling card for tourists each year with glaciers heading most "to do" lists. One popular destination is just 30 miles out of Anchorage, the Begich, Boggs Visitor Center run by the US Forest Service at Portage Glacier. We often had family picnics there in my childhood, and I well recall the small icebergs dotting the waters with ice cream-cone shaped mountains beyond.

Today, the Visitor Center sits on a moraine, while the glacier itself has receded out of sight from the observation decks. Tour boats charge $25 to ferry tourists out to its shrinking foot.

Inside, well-designed interactive displays and theatres lead visitors through a changing landscape and talk of "catastrophic" glacial retreats. Surely here, of all places, there would be explicit information on global warming. But, no.

These are far from isolated examples. In May, the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History was criticised for toning down their exhibit "Arctic: A Friend Acting Strangely" for political reasons. Spokesmen for the museum demurred, explaining that their role was "to present the facts but not advocate a particular point of view," and that atmospheric science was outside their expertise so they chose to avoid the issue of what is causing Arctic changes. Hence, amidst the powerful chronicles of Arctic residents explaining how their lives are changing, visitors are left with deafening silences on the obvious questions of causes and potential solutions being considered.

Still, there are encouraging signs. The Pacific Whale Foundation plans new climate curricula for its naturalists; the Maui Ocean Center is exploring how to best address climate issues in its outreach programs and lecture series. The Portage Glacier forest ranger I talked to was, at that very moment we talked, reading a book on the effect of climate change on Alaska's glaciers provided by the National Park Service. The Australian Museum Audience Research Centre in Sydney found in two on-line polls climate change to be the public's top priority for new exhibits and is now fostering dialogue about museums serving as trusted sources of knowledge for the public on such complex and timely issues. Indeed, the famed Science Museum in London, drawing millions of visitors each year, has tackled the whole gamut of issues in its "Climate Change: the Burning Issue" exhibit-ranging from scientific models to major "culprits" and Do-It-Yourself guides for individuals.

These are exactly the kind of steps needed to bring dialogue beyond the critical but "usual suspects" of political and advocacy forums to a wide array of venues that touch Americans in their working and leisurely pursuits. Just as we ask restaurants where they're getting their salmon to build demand for certified sustainable fish, we can start asking questions about climate change in any venue that has a natural stake in the issue to help bring climate change "home." Quickly.

This article first appeared at Greenbiz.com

Posted by James Murray on September 27, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

The influential European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) is this week expected to call on the European Commission to reassess its target for ensuring 10 percent of road fuels come from biofuels by 2020.

The recommendation forms part of a package of proposed changes to current EU environmental policies put forward by the advisory group of employers, employers and other social and business interest groups, which often plays a key role in the European Commissions' decision making process.

Through a series of recommendations, or opinions as they are known, scheduled to be ratified at a plenary session of the Committee this week the consultative body is to advise the commission that "the implications of the 10% target for biofuels in the transport sector should be carefully assessed".

It will also call for more details on how the Commission plans to meet the targets and a commitment that it will "be prepared to modify the approach if it appears to be less effective in carbon reduction than has been hoped, or is having other undesirable effects on the structure of world agriculture or on biodiversity".

The EESC has also signalled it will side with environmental groups in taking a "very critical stance" of the Commission's recent biofuel progress report. The report largely praised moves to promote wider use of biofuels, but the EESC argues it has failed to adequately account for the "manifold problems" associated with wider use of biofuels such as "high production costs and storage problems for bio-diesel and high consumption of water and fertilisers, potentially causing soil destruction, for ethanol… [and] the impact of biofuels on the world market for food".

Environmentalists have repeatedly called for a moratorium on biofuels arguing that the use of land previously used for food crops for biofuel crops such as sugar and palm oil is already leading to increased food prices and shortages. Others have argued that increased demand for palm oil will also lead to an increase in deforestation in countries such as Indonesia, undermining any reduction in carbon emissions associated with using biofuels.

The controversy has already prompted some firms to scrap plans for biofuel-powered fleets with coach company National Express recently cancelling a biofuel trial due to environmental concerns.

To help ensure that increased use of biofuels does not lead to detrimental effects on the environment the EESC is also urging the European Commission increase R&D investment in so-called second generation biofuels produced from non-food crops; introduce a mandatory certification scheme for accrediting sustainable biofuel production; and commit to revising its targets if it is proved that biofuels are leading to environmental damage.

Separately the committee is also calling for a new public awareness campaign across EU members to promote energy efficiency measures and the adoption of "favourable tax regimes" and financing mechanisms to stimulate adoption of energy efficient technologies.

The calls will be welcomed by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown who earlier this year signalled plans for an EU-wide reduction in VAT on energy efficient technologies.

However, European leaders including Brown can expect to face criticism from the Committee for adopting pro-coal energy policies based on the assumption that carbon capture and sequestration technologies are poised to enter the mainstream. While the EESC will recognise that such technologies will have a major role to play in climate protection it argues that proven cost-effective carbon capture technologies do not yet exist and the EC's plans for such technologies are based on "optimistic" assumptions.

The broadly critical nature of the Committee's recommendations further highlight the extent to which business and employee groups are now frequently in closer alignment with environmentalists than with politicians when it comes to matters of environmental policy.

It will be interesting to see if the EESC's advice is adopted by the European Commission, but either way it provides further evidence that there is a growing understanding amongst business leaders that there is more to be gained from recommending workable, sustainable and in many cases stringent environmental legislation than there is from repeatedly lobbying against new green laws.

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

Gordon Brown yesterday signalled that the government could toughen up its proposed climate change bill, announcing in his first Labour conference speech as Prime Minister that he was ordering an investigation into whether or not draft proposals for a legally binding 60 percent cut in carbon emissions are strong enough.

The draft bill, which is the first of its kind in the world and is set to include a legally binding target for the UK to slash carbon emissions by 60 percent on 1990 levels by 2005, has been widely praised by environmental groups but has also been criticised for failing to demand the scale of cuts demanded by the latest scientific reports.

This summer a series of parliamentary committees also argued the draft bill was not stringent enough and that stricter targets were required. Most notably the cross party Environmental Audit Committee branded the proposals "incoherent" and reserved particular criticism for the government's inadequate emission reduction targets.

Writing in its report on the bill EAC chairman Tim Yeo said, "the 2020 and 2050 targets need to be significantly strengthened, in accordance with the latest science of where we need to be to limit global warming to 2 degrees centigrade".

The government's target of cutting emissions by 60 percent had been in line with recent declarations from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that such cuts offered a good chance of curbing "dangerous" climate change.

However, many scientists have branded the IPCC's conclusions as optimistic and recent research into so-called positive feedback loops have raised fears that emission reductions in excess of 80 percent are required to stop runaway global warming whereby increased temperatures cause natural carbon sinks such as permafrost and the rainforests to begin releasing greenhouse gasses, thus further accelerating climate change.

Now Brown has recognised these concerns declaring that he is "not satisfied" with the draft bill and revealing that he is "asking the new independent climate change committee to report on whether the 60 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050, which is already bigger than most other countries, should be even stronger still".

The likelihood is that the committee will now have to recommend stricter targets in line with the latest worst case scenarios predicted by scientists or face criticism that it has placed political expediency ahead of stabilising the climate.

The Prime Minister also hinted in his speech at some of the measures likely to be deployed in order to meet the targets included in the climate change bill, announcing that he is to double the number of planned eco-towns from five to ten and committing to continued investment in clean technologies.

"By investing in energy efficiency, renewables, carbon capture, clean fuels and new environmental technologies, I want Britain to lead in carbon-free vehicles, carbon-free homes and carbon-free industry," he said. "And I want the new green technologies of the future to be the source of British jobs in British businesses."

Brown's speech comes a crucial week for global climate change negotiations as world leaders meet today at the UN in New York to discuss climate change strategy ahead of the crucial meeting in Bali this December where negotiations for a post-Kyoto Treaty will formally begin.

Those talks are to be followed later this week by a controversial meeting of the world's major emitters hosted by President George Bush. The US administration claims the meeting, which was proposed earlier this year, is intended to also support the Bali negotiations, however critics have argued that the setting up of parallel talks are intended to undermine the UN process.

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

The global business community is fast embracing the concept of reporting on its greenhouse gas emissions, according to a major new report from lobby group the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP).

The fifth annual report found that over three quarters of the FTSE 500 companies that responded to its survey had emission reduction strategies in place, compared to less than half last year.

Furthermore, 80 percent of respondents recognised climate change as presenting both risks and opportunities to their business.

The findings were not universally upbeat with the report also revealing that a fifth of companies had rejected shareholders requests for information on their response to climate change. However, the report concluded that overall "there is a continued growth of awareness about the financial and competitive implications of climate change, among both corporations and investors".

It added that firms were also displaying a more "nuanced appreciation for climate change's specific and differential impacts on particular industry sectors" and had realised there was a need to address both the risks and commercial opportunities offered by climate change.

The findings are likely to be welcomed by IT giant Sun Microsystems, which used the launch event to unveil a new online community designed to help organisations develop and share best practices for calculating, reporting and reducing carbon emissions.

Described by the IT giant as "a Facebook for the Eco-Warrior", the new OpenEco.org site aims to emulate the success Sun has enjoyed through its various community-based, or open source, software development projects by providing a free and open forum for environmentally-conscious business execs to share data and ideas.

Richard Barrington, head of public policy for Sun UK, said the provision of an entirely free and open online community would make it easier for firms to navigate the maze of different approaches to measuring and reducing carbon emissions, many of which have become proprietary and require expensive consultants to implement.

"There is a lot of rubbish out there in the marketplace and a real lack of clarity on how to measure and cut carbon emissions," he said. "We want to publish this best practice data openly and allow firms to more easily benchmark and set realistic targets for emission reductions."

He added that the site, which has been endorsed by the Ceres coalition of investors and green groups, would aim to cover all elements of green business strategies, ultimately providing information on how to measure everything from building energy efficiency to car fleet performance.

Sun said it was confident that firms were willing to work together on their climate change strategies. "There is a competitive advantage to be had in how you position your brand [with regards to the environment]," said Barrington. "But there is not the same proprietary sensitivity around issues of energy use. The only companies that are going to object to initiatives like OpenEco.org are those that aren't doing very well and cutting emissions, the rest are showing a willingness to share best practices."

In related news, the CDP inked an agreement with retail giant Wal-Mart to support the company's attempts to force its supply chain to report on its greenhouse gas emissions and cut emission levels.

"This partnership between CDP and Wal-Mart is a very significant milestone in corporate action to mitigate climate change," said CDP chief executive Paul Dickinson. "By engaging its supply chain in the CDP process, Wal-Mart will encourage its suppliers to measure and manage their greenhouse gas emissions, and ultimately reduce the total carbon footprint of Wal-Mart's indirect emissions. We look forward to other global corporations following Wal-Mart's lead and partnering with CDP."

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

Telecommuting working models are curbing US carbon emissions by almost 14 million tonnes a year, according to a major new report from the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) that argues reductions in travel associated with home working more than offset increased residential emissions.

Some experts have questioned the environmental credentials of increased levels of home working arguing that any carbon savings associated with eradicating the daily commute may be countered by increased emissions from heating and lighting people's homes all day.

However, a new report last week from the CEA entitled The Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact of Telecommuting and e-Commerce estimates that even with increased residential emissions accounted for the reduced "energy consumption associated with transportation to and from the office and, in some cases, a portion of the energy associated with commercial office space" led to an overall decrease in emissions as a result of home working.

The research, which was carried out by consultancy TIAX LLC, estimated that the 3.9 million US workers who work from home at least one day a week had reduced gasoline consumption by about 840 million gallons, equal to removing 2 million vehicles from the road every year. It also calculated that that one day of telecommuting saves the equivalent of up to 12 hours of an average household's electricity use.

Gary Shapiro, president and CEO of the CEA, said that while electronics firms were working to enhance the energy efficiency of its products the research provided evidence that communication tools and high speed broadband will also play a critical role in the transitioning to a low carbon economy.

"With power companies looking to reduce electric demand, and our nation seeking to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, I believe there is terrific potential for the consumer electronics industry to drive emissions reductions and energy savings, if more workers telecommuted," he said. "We urge all businesses to fully consider the potential of consumer electronics to achieve these important environmental goals."

The report argued there was massive potential for an expaniosn of home working in the US, citing previous research that estimated 53 million workers could feasibly embrace telecommuting.

The research also argued that new eCommerce models enabled by consumer electronic devices such as PCs and wireless networks could also help limit carbon emissions. It calculated that if half of the 2.5 billion DVDs and VHS tapes rented in the US each year were hired using new video-on-demand technology it would save enough energy to power 200,000 households.

Posted by James Murray on September 24, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Growing up in a village not too far from the middle of nowhere I always used to think of noise pollution as pretty much the most pathetic form of pollution going.

In fact, I wasn't even sure if it was deserving of the pollution tag. After all, noise is temporary, it's immaterial. Sure it can be annoying, but no ice cap ever melted because of too much noise, no trees wilted from acid noise, there are no greenhouse gas noises, in short, no body died from too much noise.

Or did they?

According to a recent World Health Organisation (WHO) report high noise levels (and they regard as dangerous many of the noises you'd hear in an average day) can lead to increased stress and risk of heart attacks. It even suggests that over 3,000 deaths in the UK each year are the result of exposure to chronic noise.

I no longer need convincing as to the accuracy of this report (if anything I'm astounded it took them so long) because for the past three years I have lived in a flat overlooking one of London's main arterial roads - four lanes and two bus lanes of twenty four hour, seven days a week noise.

It's not too bad in the winter when the double glazing keeps everything down to a dull hum, but in the summer we are left with the choice of roasting alive or opening up a window and letting in the noise (and traffic fumes). Suffice to say, lying awake a few nights ago listening to the faulty burglar alarm that the manager of the Clinton Cards across the road refuses to fix I was left wondering if the longer commute that would come with living in the suburbs would so bad after all.

Like millions of people living in similar circumstances I am painfully aware of how much of a problem noise pollution poses and yet despite the stress and the quite literal heart ache it causes I'd hazard that many people still refuse to see what all the fuss is about.

How many businesses I wonder include a strategy for tackling noise pollution in their environmental plans? If they do, where does it rate? My guess is pretty near the bottom. If noise pollution is ever considered at a corporate level it is likely to be seen as an issue for HR, a box to tick to keep the dreaded 'elf and safety officer happy.

But there are compelling business reasons for addressing the problem; for legislators, for firms with offices on busy roads or under flight paths, and for the car manufacturers and airlines who are responsible for so much of the noise we have to endure.

The primary reason for at least investigating reducing noise levels at work is that excessive noise is a sizeable drain on productivity and contributor to workplace stress. Whether it is a noisy air conditioner or traffic noise from outside it is bound to be annoying your staff, even if they don't fully realise it.

In an age when good workplace conditions are so highly valued steps to cut noise levels are bound to be welcomed by employees, will certainly lead to increased productivity, and could lead to improved staff retention rates. I doubt you'll ever be ranked near the top of one of those best places to work league tables if your company has an issue with noise.

The second reason for declaring a full blown war on noise is that the bulk of noise pollution is inextricably linked to more conventional forms of pollution. Most notably cars and aircraft are huge sources of both carbon and noise emissions so policies to limit transport-related carbon emissions, such as increased investment in public transport, limits on airport expansion, and incentives for electric cars, would have the additional benefit of cutting noise pollution.

For businesses the problem of carbon emissions and noise pollution are also tightly linked on the grounds that if the noise can get into your building the heat (or in the summer the cold air) can also get out. Passivhaus buildings constructed to the highest environmental standards typically make use of large but tripled-glazed windows that allow the sun to heat the building and then keep the heat in, but as a convenient by-product triple-glazing also keeps the noise out. Such windows are naturally more expensive than conventional alternatives, but they should bring down heating and air-con costs, cut noise levels and more than pay for themselves over their lifetime.

If keeping staff happy and limiting carbon emissions are not big enough drivers for incorporating attempts to limit noise pollution into your business' environmental strategy there is also one other reason that could well emerge in the coming years for those businesses that have the most serious noise problems.

It is a safe bet that that right now somewhere in the world there is a lawyer poring over the new WHO report on the health risks of excessive noise and seeing nothing but dollar signs. If there is medical evidence that noise can contribute directly to death or ill-health then it is highly plausible that you could bring a case against a company that failed to adequately protect an employee or citizen from such noise.

There are of course already laws and employment contracts that deal with exposure to excessive noise but they are extremely poorly-policed making civil litigation the more likely means by which a business could be punished for a failure to have a clear and adequate policy on noise pollution.

For example, it is hard to imagine that a group of stressed-out local Heathrow residents armed with the UN report's findings couldn't construct a pretty strong case against the airport's planned expansion because of its detrimental effect on their health. They might not win, in fact they almost certainly wouldn't, but they could cause untold brand damage.

In truth litigation against firms that generate or fail to protect employees from excessive noise is likely to remain extremely rare, but as more evidence of its damaging medical effects emerge the risk of legal action against businesses that don't at least have a demonstrable strategy for tackling noise pollution only increases - just something that might be worth thinking about next time you find yourself lying awake at night.

Posted by James Murray on September 21, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (1)

In the ten months (has it been that long) since the launch of the BusinessGreen blog we've purposefully avoided stories about the furious pace of climate change and the various milestones on the road to apocalypse that we seem to pass on an almost weekly basis.

There are several good reasons for this. Firstly, our core remit of providing news and best practice analysis for environmentally-conscious execs means that news of the rapid demise of the polar ice caps has less weight from an editorial perspective than a story on a new clean technology or an analysis of attitudes towards green taxation. Individual businesses and executives can do a lot to limit their carbon emissions, but they can not on their own stop the ice caps melting.

Secondly, and perhaps less justifiably, you could argue that commenting on every single piece of bad environmental news creates a sense of defeatism that could easily undermine green investments ands initiatives.

However, that being said sometimes there climate change scare stories become so terrifying they prove impossible to ignore.

According to reports last week, scientists have been left "stunned" after the Arctic ice cap collapsed at an unprecedented rate this summer leaving sea ice levels in the region at record lows.

The Northwest passage to the north of Canada has been left fully navigable and the Northeast passage along Russia's coastline is expected to open up soon.

At the current rate the Arctic could be totally free of summer ice in less than 25 years.

Speaking to The Guardian, Dr Mark Serreze, an Arctic specialist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre at Colorado University in Denver, said: "If you asked me a couple of years ago when the Arctic could lose all of its ice then I would have said 2100, or 2070 maybe. But now I think that 2030 is a reasonable estimate. It seems that the Arctic is going to be a very different place within our lifetimes, and certainly within our childrens' lifetimes."

The ice should begin to recover somewhat as the winter begins, but Serreze is less than confident we will see significant changes in the coming months. "This summer we've got all this open water and added heat going into the ocean. That is going to make it much harder for the ice to grow back… The rules are starting to change and what's changing the rules is the input of greenhouse gases."

Meanwhile, scientific reports continue to raise very real concerns that the break up of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets and subsequent catastrophic increases in sea levels is now inevitable. And if the ensuing human catastrophe does not get you worrying, perhaps a study from the US Geological Survey predicting two thirds of Polar Bears will be extinct within 50 years will.

These scare stories are easy to ignore, as perhaps we have been guilty of here. After all, the Arctic is a long way away and not many of us are ever likely to visit.

But they still serve as an important reminder as to why low carbon business models are so important and also how overly optimistic many firms risk assessments remain. It is time to start basing our climate change strategies on the startling realities of what is happening at the poles and not on the best case scenarios of various scientific reports that even their authors accept are now looking increasingly out of date.

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

Sustainability should be a top priority for the HR department, argues Judah Schiller, and promoted properly it can deliver great benefits for the business, the environment and the individual

"Congruence" is the Holy Grail for human resources professionals. With increasingly busy personal lives and demanding professional roles that impact an individual's health and on-the-job performance, HR is seeking new ways to create congruence between the individual who rushes to put breakfast on the family table in the morning and the employee solving business challenges until the early evening. At the very moment when employees are challenging management for more integrated work/life solutions, the popular understanding of global warming, which also requires an integrated solution, has created a unique opportunity for congruence.

So what does a 14-letter, six syllable word -- "sustainability" -- actually mean? The Brundtland Commission created the widely accepted definition for sustainability in 1987 as "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." In an HR context, however, I use the concept of "Personal Sustainability," which simply means finding a way to meet your needs today without sacrificing your dreams, or anyone else's, for the future. It's really about common sense. What actions can a person take that will serve her highest interest and also that of the community and planet?

Just as sustainability is being used more frequently from an operational perspective to improve internal processes, reduce costs and create efficiencies, Personal Sustainability can also be used as a powerful tool to improve upon a range of HR issues: commitment, attrition, education, health & wellness, motivation, and engagement. In order to effectively deliver the concept of Personal Sustainability to a workforce and maximise its results, the delivery itself must be sustainable.

Companies are discovering that a grassroots framework, instead of the traditional HR program, is a more powerful and flexible tool for educating, inspiring and empowering employees around sustainability. It allows for individuals, departments, facilities and entire markets to engage in a way that best suits their localised needs, culture, and preferences. With grassroots communication tools and strategies, it's the employees and their ideas, aspirations, challenges, and innovative solutions that are featured as the driving force, not corporate execs or consultants.

It's amazing to see what happens when employees enlist their peers in an endeavour rather than being told they must participate in a program. Equally so when they are giving a real opportunity to be creative and do something truly positive and meaningful that is both beyond, yet completely aligned, with their day-to-day business functions.

To get a better understanding of what a framework like this is capable of achieving, all we need to do is listen to a charismatic, middle aged woman from Columbia, South Carolina who I'll call "Sylvia."

I first met Sylvia in 2006 when I was delivering a training session on Personal Sustainability to a group of employees in Georgia. I remembered her southern drawl as she told me stories of coming from a long line of obese women, and of the staple fare in her family's diet being fried food, biscuits and butter. Nothing was farther from her mind than her own personal sustainability -- her health and well being -- let alone connecting that to something bigger. By the end of the day, she had committed to losing weight by eating healthier and walking regularly.

At the core of Personal Sustainability is the belief that by helping a person to choose a small, but meaningful Personal Sustainability practice that not only serves their highest interest -- be it physical, financial, or emotional -- but also that of the community and planet, she will become happier and, in turn, will stick with the practice until it becomes one of many in a sustainable lifestyle.

When I caught up with Sylvia a few weeks later, she explained to me with tears streaming down her cheek that she felt as if she had received a new lease on life. She now felt very passionate about being around to watch her son and his wife have a first child and to helping her kids, grandchildren, extended family, and co-workers learn about how to embrace Personal Sustainability in order to live better, feel happier, and make a difference for the planet on which we all live.

Judah Schiller is the executive vice president and head of outreach for Act Now, a sustainability services company serving the needs of companies and organisations worldwide. Judah and the Act Now team have recently trained 1.3 million Wal-Mart Associates across the U.S. on sustainability.

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

The environmental credentials of technology products are having a major impact on consumers' purchasing decisions, according to a new survey from Ipsos.

The online survey of over 1,000 US consumers found that over half regard a technology product's environmental credentials as influential when making purchasing decisions.

Specifically, 57 percent rated the presence of the Energy Star label as influential, while 48 percent said that manufacturer's recycling policies would affect purchasing decisions.

Over a third of respondents identified six separate environmental issues as influential factors in purchasing decisions, highlighting the extent to which green factors are emerging as "a critical-mass consumer consideration", particularly amongst higher earners.

However, while pressure is mounting on technology companies to enhance their environmental credentials consumers do not yet appear to be using green factors to differentiate between brands.

When asked which technology brands they associated as being green respondents tended to opt for high-profile brands that they encounter regularly, such as Dell, HP, Microsoft, Apple, Sony and IBM, despite considerable differences in these vendors' environmental policies. Microsoft, Apple and Sony in particular managed to attain top spots in the ranking despite being heavily criticised by environmentalists in recent months for the environmental impact of some of their products and practices.

"It's something of a 'halo index,' in that there's precious little information available to consumers for them to really assess how green one tech firm is versus another," explained Todd Board, senior vice president of Ipsos Insight's media, entertainment and technology practice. "So when we see a Kodak, Sony or IBM emerge here, to some extent we're seeing more generalised brand affinity being transferred to this green dimension."

He added that this halo effect meant that while green factors were increasingly important to customers it would prove difficult for manufacturers to build a commercial advantage from the green technology trend.

"The interesting paradox for the market leaders, or those who would be, is that this may rapidly become a table-stakes expectation for many consumers – 'of course, I expect prominent brand X to care about the environment and act accordingly'," he  explained. "However, while this is emerging as a cost-of-entry issue, it isn't clear that any one tech firm can carve out sustainable differentiation around green behaviours and positioning."

Posted by James Murray on September 18, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Blogging has apparently just celebrated its tenth birthday. Were it a person you'd say it was fast approaching those teenage years when it starts to get confrontational, aggressive, surly, pedantic, volatile and anti-social, but then again it's always been like that.

Unsurprisingly this anniversary has prompted one of those now perennial debates about what exactly blogging is for, whether it is proving beneficial, whether it is really, as it's advocates claim, poised to destroy the mainstream media, and most amusingly whether it is even ten years old.

The white-suited, best-work-behind-him novelist and supposed modern-day sage Tom Wolfe took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to defend dead tree publishing and slam the blogosphere as "a universe of rumours" filled with "narcissistic shrieks and baseless 'information'," which would be fair enough if it wasn't also a recognisable description all forms of media besides blogs.

With an inevitability that convention dictates we describe as wearying the blogosphere leapt to defend itself.

The most interesting response came from Scott Rosenberg, the co-founder of Salon.com, who (somewhat ironically) took to the pages of The Guardian to argue that Wolfe was guilty of the exact same dismissive attitude that originally greeted his pioneering of the personal voice of New Journalism in the sixties. As with the New Journalism movement, asserts Rosenberg, blogging does little or no harm and in providing a more democratic platform for people to voice their opinions and emotions it can do much good.

He cites as an example the penmachine.com blog of 38-year-old Canadian blogger Derek Miller who earlier this year began posting about his experience with colon cancer:

"On one level, this was the sort of thing so many of blogging's critics detest - of what The Wall Street Journal described as "thoughts that, ideally, should have remained locked inside fevered heads".

Of course Miller's posts are not traditional journalism, or blows against the "MSM" [mainstream media], or anything like that. They're just one human being injecting a direct vision of his experience into the global information stream... His work simply matters - to him, and his friends and family, and to anyone else who drops in a gets caught up in the drama of his story."

As Rosenberg adds, if anyone objects to such blogs no one is forcing them to read. "What price is the world paying for the existence of blogging's universal soapbox?" he asks. "Unless someone has figured out how to make you read a blog when you don't want to, I don't see one."

Now it will surprise no one to learn that I broadly agree with Rosenberg's analysis - you after all reading this on a blog.

There are appallingly bad and even harmful blogs out there, just as there are apallingly bad and even harmful newspapers, TV programmes and people. The immediate mass publication that blogging enables may well increase the risk that ill thought out and occassionally libelous opinions are voiced, but weighed against that risk is the ability to provide a hugely open and egalitarian form of publication and communication. Some politicians and old school journlists may disagree, but blogging's accessibility and it's ability to stimulate debate and communities has to be good for democracy.

That said, Rosenberg makes one throw away comment that is almost undoubtedly supported by millions of bloggers and serves to highlight the most intransigent problem the IT industry faces as it attempts to tackle its burgeoning environmental footprint.

"So what, exactly, are Wolfe and other blogging detesters worried about?" he asks. "We're not going to run out of web space."

Well we might not run out of web space, but our real world space is taking quite a kicking as a result of our exponentially increasing need for web space and the computing power that provides it.

As has been noted here several times, IT is responsible for over two percent of global greenhouse gas emissions - the same as the airline industry.

A huge number of innovations in IT hardware, software and datacentre design promise to slash the IT sector's energy use in the short to medium term. But it is highly unlikely that any of the technological developments delivered over the next five years will deliver energy savings big enough to keep pace with the increased demand for computing power from corporations under pressure to keep and analyse more and more data, from consumers who want a server in the corner of the living room, from burgeoning developing economies wanting to come online, and yes, from the ever-expanding blogosphere.

The problem, as Rosenberg's comment encapsulates, is that no one sees IT and, more specifically, the internet as a finite resource that might have to be managed. It is ephemeral, it is free, or virtually free, it is ubiquitous - it really is like air. And as it becomes more and more central to democratic, social and economic life, as embodied by the benefits of the blogosphere that Rosenberg rightly espouses, access to the web becomes increasingly regarded as a right. 

And yet the web space Rosenberg is so confident will not run out is entirely dependent on real world resources that can and do run out - the PC on your desk, the millions of miles of cabling that literally tie the web together, and most concerningly the football pitch-sized energy-guzzling datacentres that IT experts agree are increasingly constrained by a shortage of space and power.

The IT industry can do a huge amount to tackle these problems through better, more energy-efficient technologies, but perhaps it also has to begin to ask itself some unthinkable questions about how best to manage the "web space" we already have instead of trying to keep pace with exponential demand for more.

We're not going to run out of web space? Sadly I'm not so sure.

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

To offset or not to offset, that is the question. In the space of twelve short months carbon offsetting has rapidly emerged as one of the most complex and contentious trends in the current drive for greener business practices. Advocates argue offsetting should play a vital part in any green business strategy while critics insist the practice is both scientifically flawed and dogged by unscrupulous racketeers.

Supporters of the fast-growing offset industry argue that the practice of investing in green initiatives - such as tree planting programmes or renewable energy projects - that either remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or stop it being emitted provides firms and individuals with a simple and accessible means of neutralising or offsetting their climate change impact.

But environmental campaigners have been highly critical of the industry arguing that the idea that you can simply pay to neutralise your emissions is based on unverifiable calculations - such as the assumption that the tree planted on your behalf lasts for its full projected life - and distracts people from the more urgent task of reducing their own emissions.

"Many offsetting schemes have dubious benefits," warns Friends of the Earth climate campaigner, Mary Taylor. "More worryingly they tend to give the impression that it's possible to 'do our bit' without taking any real measures to cut emissions."

Earlier this summer saw both sides of this argument crystallised as a Dispatches TV investigation highlighted the difficulty of ensuring offset projects deliver on their promises, while a report from the Environmental Audit Committee group of MPs insisted that offsetting could play a "useful role" in tackling climate change and argued that "encouragement and assistance must be given to individuals, organisations and companies to offset".

The Dispatches documentary looked at a series of carbon offset projects, including some supported by major UK businesses such as Sky and HSBC, and uncovered a lack of scientific consensus over how best to calculate emissions from air travel and staggeringly lax project auditing processes. As a result several projects backed by offset provider the CarbonNeutral Company were found to be selling offset credits despite the project managers openly admitting that the offset investment was not essential – the projects would have delivered their emission reductions regardless of the offset provider's involvement making the offset credits themselves effectively invalid.

In contrast, the report from the Environmental Audit Committee gave the industry a ringing endorsement, arguing that while some projects were "less than robust" the concept of offsetting still had a significant role to play in helping businesses transition to low carbon business models. It also pointed to an imminent new government standard for offsetting projects, which should provide a gold standard for offset schemes that will flush out unscrupulous offset providers and establish greater confidence in the market.

It is a complex debate, and one that IT managers can no longer ignore. A raft of IT vendors, including Dell, Salesforce.com, Ricoh and VIA, have either offset their own emissions or launched offsetting services for their customers in the last year, while offset providers have targeted IT departments as potential customers.

So should vendors do their bit to tackle climate change by investing in such schemes or would doing so only distract from more important green initiatives and invite condemnation from environmentalists?

Lena Pripp Kovac, head of corporate responsibility for Europe at Dell, which recently launched its Plant a Tree For Me programme offering customers the chance to offset emissions associated with running their PC over three years, insists offsetting schemes are beneficial as long as IT managers also make efforts to reduce their overall energy consumption.

"As an IT manager the first green priority has to be direct reduction of energy use through procuring energy efficient technology, improving power management, and changing user behaviour," she says. "Once that is done then offsetting can be a useful means of reducing your impact and can play a role in educating staff about climate change."

Chas Moloney, director of marketing at Ricoh, which runs an initiative that sees it plant a tree for every 100,000 pages a customer prints, argues that far from encouraging complacency offsetting provides an extra incentive for firms to limit their carbon emissions. "We offset the emissions from our offices and the aim is to ensure we reduce energy use and have to buy fewer offsets year-on-year," he explains.

Supporters of carbon offsetting agree that firms that do buy carbon credits have to be willing to audit the offset projects they are investing in. "We had a relationship with one offset provider that we ended after they became evasive when we said we wanted to visit the projects," says Moloney. "Now we've moved to an African tree planting programme, called Seeds to Africa, which has been far more transparent and we are currently arranging to go and look at the tree planting programmes… If you are investing in these projects you need to check they are going ahead as planned."

Pripp-Kovac adds that firms that could not afford to audit offset providers themselves should select those that use third party auditors tasked with checking that projects are well managed and pass the "additionality" tests, which prove a project is reliant on offset investment. She also recommends that firms demand information on how much of their investment goes into the offset project and what proportion is used up by administration.

Such stringent auditing may be prove a chore that drives up the cost of offsetting but Trewin Restorick, director of environmental charity Global Action Plan, insists it is essential if firms are to avoid being ripped off or even causing more harm than good. "The offsets market is an unregulated jungle and companies should ensure that the offsets they are buying are scientifically valid, are not harmful to local economies or people, are clearly additional and are independently evaluated with a transparent audit trail," he warns.

However, many environmentalists claim that despite these safeguards firms should still remain wary of investing in carbon offset schemes, and in particular tree planting programmes where even the best managed projects are unable to fully guarantee that trees will survive for the full projected life span required to offset original carbon emissions. Friends of the Earth's Taylor is typical of many environmentalists in her view that the Environmental Audit Committee is guilty of seriously overstating the benefits of offsetting.

Dr Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, goes further still and argues that offsets could actually be leading to an increase in carbon emissions and as a result it is better to do nothing than to offset. He claims that not only does the belief that you can genuinely offset your emissions remove any incentive to reduce your emissions, but that offset schemes can also inadvertently lead to an increase in emissions.

"You have to consider the economic multiplier effect of your offset investment," he explains. "If for example your investment goes on low energy bulbs for a Jamaican hotel how do you know the hotelier doesn't use the money they've saved to invest in extending the hotel or going on a flight themselves. Economic multipliers are the whole point of development, but if you are serious about offsetting your emissions over a hundred year period, as the offset schemes claim, then you need to be sure emissions won't go up as a result of your investment."

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.

Posted by James Murray on September 17, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (1)

In a move that will send shivers down the spine of advertising execs the world over the Norwegian advertising watchdog has announced it is to ban the use of the words "green", "clean" and "environmentally-friendly" to describe cars on the grounds that "cars cannot do anything good for the environment except less damage than others".

The new rules will come into effect from October 15th with the threat of fines for those firms that continue to make excessive environmental claims for their cars.

The guidelines will also make it harder for manufacturers to compare the environmental performance of their cars, according to Reuters' reports.

Speaking to the news agency, Bente Oeverli of the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman, said, "If someone says their car is more 'green' or 'environmentally friendly' than others then they would have to be able to document it in every aspect from production, to emissions, to energy use, to recycling".

Technically it is hard to argue with Norway's analysis - no car is truly green and even new electric cars have a carbon footprint. Moreover, the automotive industry has undoubtedly been guilty of considerable greenwash in the past and stringent advertising guidelines and tough policing are needed to stop manufacturers making excessive claims over the environmental credentials of their vehicles.

However, there is a danger that in developing such strict rules the authorities could inadvertently hamper development of more sustainable cars.

The primary driver behind the automotive industry's belated attempts to develop greener vehicles is not a concern over the welfare of the planet, but the fact that there is a growing demand for these vehicles.

Take away the opportunity to advertise this new generation of more fuel efficient vehicles as kinder to the environment and you potentially undermine that demand. Take away the demand and the biggest incentive for manufacturers to develop these types of vehicles also disappears. Why should manufacturers invest in developing a greener car than its rivals when it can't advertise that fact to its customers?

Norway's authorities may argue that proposed EU laws on improved fuel efficiency will force manufacturers to improve their environmental impact, but with their ability to advertise their green credentials curtailed where is the incentive for them to develop designs that go over and above the required EU standards?

That is not to say that you don't need rules to keep the greenwashers in check and it remains essential that all environmental claims made in adverts are independently verified. But effectively banning some of the most powerful words in the advertiser's lexicon seems a step to far. 

The one silver lining is that the decision by the Norwegian authorities could represent a timely warning shot to advertisers and marketing execs. The strict new rules have only been drawn up as a response to what the Consumer Ombudsman clearly regarded as excessive environmental claims from car manufacturers that it felt would mislead customers.

Firms advertising green products need to be fully aware that advertising watchdogs in all regions are keeping a very close eye on their claims. It may be tempting to overstate a product's environmental credentials but when doing so is only going to encourage yet more stringent regulations it is simply not worth the risk.

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

Every business now needs an environmental policy, but how do you go about drawing one up? Amy Sims offers some pointers

Environmental policies are popping off the press faster than Amy Winehouse horror stories these days, both with questionable levels of validity. Businesses big and small are clamouring to put their green credentials into black and white and trumpet their environmental status to potential clients.

These policies are oft-flaunted as proof that the business is serious about reducing their environmental footprint. Surely you've seen the one-upmanship happening in the retail sector lately, with big guns such as Marks & Spencer, Tesco and even Wal-Mart publicising ambitious policies. Getting your green intentions known has become de rigueur these days as companies battle it out to be respected for their achievements, with carbon neutral status considered the big daddy of them all.

But how do you ensure these environmental policies have the desired results? How do you write them, why should you have one, and what key elements they should contain?

Many businesses are required to have an environmental policy now, for example some councils won’t work with a supplier unless they have one even if how thoroughly they are scrutinized remains debatable.

An environmental policy is a written statement outlining an organisation's mission in relation to managing the environmental effects and aspects of its operations. The policy should clearly state the aims and principles of an organisation with respect to its impact on the environment. The policy should also allow its management to communicate its aims and objectives to employees and other interested parties, including shareholders, customers and suppliers.

These are working documents that reflect the aims of the organisation and a plan of how the organisation is going to achieve the aims is needed to back up the policy. All policies should be regularly reviewed and updated, at least every six months.

But first things first – keep it brief. One side of A4 is preferred. Sure there can be information backing up what is stated in this policy elsewhere, but this is meant to be something that your internal and external audience can read and come away feeling they understand where the company is on the green gauge, and where it hopes to be in the future.

Ideally the statement would be realistic and achievable (but some businesses do like to embellish a bit on what they will achieve, similar to someone padding a CV with hopes that no one will ever check on the details) and demonstrate a commitment to making the policy work - to help achieve this get it signed, dated and endorsed by senior management.

A good environmental policy can have fantastic benefits for a business, including reducing costs, assuring customers of commitment to environmental management, enhancing image, and of course, reducing its impact on the environment. In today’s market it can also net you some hot talent as job seekers are looking to work for companies with an appreciation for the planet.

Unfortunately however many policies are often not well tailored to the company, have been thrown together from pre-existing examples and templates, and are unrealistic as to what the company could actually achieve.

To develop an environmental policy that is engaging and incorporate current good practice as well as realistic goals businesses need to be educated on environmental issues, either through meeting with consultants, participating in workshops or researching policies of other companies in their sector. Furthermore, if you have a green team established, have a brainstorming session to find out what areas the company is doing well in, and where they think changes need to be made.

Most importantly once you have a green policy document in place use it to engage with staff – the policy shouldn't simply be laminated and stuck up on a wall, the individuals that make up a business can each take simple actions that will greatly reduce the company's overall impact, and they should be spurred on by the policy to create positive change.

Amy Sims is communications manager at practical environmental charity Global Action Plan.

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

Despite increased talk about climate change and energy security, federal R&D spending on energy has declined over the last decade. Daniel Kammen reckons it is time for the new presidential candidates to explain how they are going to rectify this worrying situation

Over the next five decades progress to meaningfully address the risk of significant climate change will require an estimated 80 percent, or more, reduction in the global emissions of greenhouse gases. From the baseline in 2007 of over seven billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions, three-quarters of which comes from fossil fuel combustion (with the remainder largely from land conversion and forest burning), the reductions required are from a global emissions portfolio that is currently increasing.

As the largest current emitter, at roughly 25 percent of the global total -- but more importantly as the nation with the largest energy resource and research base to affect change -- the United States and its inaction on climate protection for the last several years is poised to play a critical role, if not the critical role in our collective climate future.

It is now very clear that through action or inaction, our collective climate future is strongly tied to what course the United States steers in the beginning of the 21st Century.

A range of technologies exist that can protect the environment and improve our economic and political security -- in many cases not at a cost, but instead with political and economic benefits to the nation in the form of reasserted leadership both technologically and financially, through increased geopolitical stability and flexibility, and through job growth in the clean energy sector.

To accomplish these goals, not only will a comprehensive strategy be needed, but we must develop a balanced approach that recognises that replacing the vast infrastructure and economic machinery developed to exploit fossil fuels will be a central challenge of the 21st Century, and one where the fundamental mindset of large, centralised energy monopolies will need to evolve to one of a decentralised clean energy marketplace. This is the issue where -- more than any set of technologies or economic incentives -- climate change causes the most uncertainty, and in some cases fear and pushback.

Developing a balanced portfolio of energy research, development, and deployment projects is central to meeting the challenge of climate change, but it is equally clear that "technology push" projects must be accompanied by "demand pull measures." Among the most important demand-pull -- or market creating or enabling -- options available to us today are:

• A national commitment to saving money and energy through energy efficiency measures at every step of the economic value chain (some states, including California, are fully 40 percent more efficient than the national average);
• The pursuit and steady increase of renewable energy portfolio standards as a baseline, and in the cities, states and regions with mandate to pursue more aggressive policies, the addition of feed-in laws to diversify and expand the number and type of clean energy producers;
• Low-carbon fuel standards that evolve in time into sustainable fuel standards;
• The use of carbon taxes or cap and trade systems under which carbon emission rights are limited;
• Developing and using for business, industrial, municipal and -- critically -- personal purchases carbon footprint analyses; and
• International collaborations and public-private partnerships designed to commercialise, or at least open market space for clean energy and energy efficient technologies.

This is a remarkably simple list, but one that has enough teeth, and economic opportunities, to truly harness the innovative power of the Superpower economy. It also happens to be a simple enough plan that a suitably committed presidential candidate, or president, could put it into action.

Despite a great deal of sound and fury, it is critical to recognise that we currently do not have an energy plan. In the United States arguably there has not been anything even remotely resembling an "energy plan" since the efforts by Presidents Ford and Carter three decades ago.

Recently, however, integrated planning on climate and energy has begun to emerge, although largely at the state and regional level. The precedent for this changing the course of national energy policy is, however, a strong one. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in 1932 that:

… a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel economic and social experiments….

Conservative and liberal justices have quoted this line over 30 times in subsequent Supreme Court opinions. Courageous experiments are now taking place in a number of US states, and can form the basis of needed federal legislation and leadership.

The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) in California, as well as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States are such examples. By contrast, the US Federal government's current target will require only a slight change from the business as usual case (Figure 1, left). More relevant to the climate problem, reaching this target would actually allow emissions to grow by 12 to 16 percent. This target would thus represent a larger increase than the 10 percent increase that occurred in the previous decade.

If we are to be serious about meeting the climate challenge we need to set a goal consistent with the US Department of Energy's Climate Change Technology Plan (CCTP) objective of moving in the long term (e.g. ~ 2050) toward 80 percent reductions in net emissions. In fact, the CCTP actually mentions a zeroing of net emissions at some time after mid-century.

The California climate change protection plan is one to carefully consider in developing a comprehensive climate plan. The Governor of California's five decade GHG emissions targets of 80 percent below 1990 levels (EE 3-05) and the 25 percent GHG reductions adopted via AB32 (signed on September 27, 2006) include both near-term and longer-term goals -- including market-based cap and trade mechanisms -- that delineate a path of emissions reductions toward climate stabilisation. Congress should act to set a series of targets that show a clear path to meaningful emissions reductions.

What is needed is a sustained commitment to emissions reductions and a time scale that conveys to the country the urgency of the need for future options. The California plan, for example, does not start or end with AB32, but includes a set of mutually reinforcing laws and executive orders. The most recent of which, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (EE 1-07) makes a significant advance in our regulatory power to discriminate between the full range of liquid (petroleum or fossil-fuel based) fuels or electricity to power plug-in hybrid vehicles. The California plan represents only one such path to a low-carbon integrated, consistent approach that both initiates early action and clarifies the long-term roadmap to a decarbonised future.

The US has under-invested in energy research, development, and deployment for decades, and sadly the FY2008 budget request is no exception. This history is shown in Figure 2 left: federal energy research and development investment is today back at pre-OPEC levels -- despite a panoply of reasons why energy dependence and insecurity, and climatic impact from our energy economy are dominating local economics, geopolitics, and environmental degradation.

As an example of the "commitment" to clean energy, consider the US federal energy budget. At $2.7 billion for energy research, the overall federal energy research and development budget request for 2008 request is $685 million higher than the 2006 appropriated budget. Half of that increased request is accounted for by increases in fission, and the rest is in moderate increases in funding for biofuels, solar, FutureGen, and $147 million increase for fusion research. However, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL) budget is to be cut precisely at a time when concerns over energy security and climate change are at their highest level.

The larger issue, however, is that as a nation we invest less in energy research, development, and deployment than do a few large biotechnology firms in their own, private R&D budgets. This is unacceptable on many fronts. The least of which is that we know that investments in energy research pay off at both the national and private sector levels.

In a series of papers (Margolis and Kammen, 1999; Kammen and Nemet, 2005; Nemet and Kammen, 2007 -- all available from the RAEL website), my students and I have documented a disturbing trend away from investment in energy technology -- both by the federal government and the private sector, which largely follows the federal lead.

The US invests about $1 billion less in energy R&D today than it did a decade ago. This trend is remarkable, first because the levels in the mid-1990s had already been identified as dangerously low, and second because, as our analysis indicates, the decline is pervasive across almost every energy technology category, in both the public and private sectors, and at multiple stages in the innovation process. In each of these areas investment has been either been stagnant or declining. Moreover, the decline in investment in energy has occurred while overall US R&D has grown by 6 percent per year, and federal R&D investments in health and defence have grown by 10 and 15 percent per year, respectively.

Figure 2 shows all US federal R&D programs since 1955. Notice the thin strip showing the small energy R&D program relative to other sectors. The current budgets for energy R&D would continue this situation, or even reduce R&D investment (Kammen and Nemet, 2005). This is not in the best interests of the nation.

We are now in a moment -- perhaps a first -- where a growing view exists that energy and climate could be front-burner issues for candidates and voters. The time is right to focus on the energy system we want, not on the one we had, and sadly, still have.

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

This article first appeared at Greenbiz.com

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

We might have been forced to listen to nearly two years of the manure of political rhetoric to reach this point, but if the last few weeks are anything to go by the UK could soon see the green shoots of serious political action on climate change.

The first hint that the tenor of the political debate was changing came last month with the Lib Dem's publication of their strategy for a zero carbon Britain. It might have got somewhat lost in the midst of the media silly season, but for those that read it the report left quite an impression.

It is not hyperbole to describe it as the clearest and most serious-minded strategy for mitigating the risk of climate change yet published by one of the UK's major political parties.

This was not some vague commitment to the environment a la Cameron, an overly complex policy document no one outside Whitehall will ever understand a la the bulk of the civil service, or a bill that sets carbon emission reduction targets but provides no details on how they will be attained a la Brown's government.

Instead the Lib Dems outlined a series of clear policy recommendations purposefully designed to deliver a zero carbon economy with 100 percent of the UK's electricity generation coming from non-nuclear renewable sources by 2050.

What headlines there were may have gone to plans to ban petrol cars by 2040, but the document went much further, covering all sectors of the economy and detailing how low carbon technologies can be incentivised and polluting behaviour discouraged.

Moreover, the strategy has embraced that all too rare political skill of looking at what works – namely in the zero carbon strategies of Sweden, Norway and New Zealand - and copying it.

So, out would go the current government's aversion to green taxes and in would come a major overhaul of the tax system that would see basic income tax slashed to 16 pence in the pound with major taxes on polluting behaviour making up for the lost revenue and creating a clear price signal for people and businesses to limit carbon intensive activities.

To avoid accusations they are fixated on green taxes the Lib Dems also talked in detail about a series of incentives designed to spark green behaviour. So, out would go the over complicated renewable obligation subsidy mechanism, to be replaced by the kind of simple feed-in tariff that has proved to work so successfully in Germany. Meanwhile, a green mortgage scheme would incentivise people to improve the energy efficiency of their homes, while a major investment programme would seek to overhaul the creaking railways.

Even that proposed ban on petrol cars isn't as daft as it first sounds when you consider that the aim of such legislation would be to incentivise car manufacturers to accelerate development of fuel cell technologies. As shadow environment secretary Chris Huhne observed in The Guardian there are major strides being made in new forms of carbon free propulsion "but the [car] industry needs certainty that one of the biggest world markets - in the EU - will insist on green vehicles".

For the first time it looked if a UK political party had really grasped the scale of the changes that are required to tackle climate change and developed a balanced strategy for achieving those changes that should ensure the UK economy remains competitive.

However, it looks as if the Lib Dems time in the sun could prove short-lived with the publication this Thursday of the Conservative's long anticipated Quality of Life report.

Heavily leaked in advance it looks as if the doorstep-sized, 800 page report will also offer a wide-reaching and comprehensive set of recommendations for creating a low carbon Britain.

Despite the risk of a schism with the right wing of the party and its tax-cutting anti-regulation agenda the report's authors Zac Goldsmith and John Gummer have apparently reached similar conclusions to the Lib Dems, backing carbon taxes and stricter environmental legislation as the best means of stimulating low carbon behaviours.

Policies that would previously been shunned by the Tories, such as taxes on short haul flights, a doubling of landfill tax for businesses, a tax on aircraft fuel, a cut in the proposed EU requirements for carbon emissions from cars to 100g/km, and new regulations limiting supermarket packaging, are all recommended by the report.

But as with the Lib Dem plans, the green taxes are balanced by a series of eye-catching incentives, which have been cleverly pitched as tax cuts. The Gummer-Goldsmith report also calls for the adoption of a feed-in tariff for green energy generation and perhaps most intriguingly proposes a scheme that would see home buyers recover much of the stamp duty on their new home if they commit to improving its energy efficiency.

What is so encouraging to green business leaders about both these reports is not just the fact that for the first time they have taken as their defining concern the need to genuinely transition towards a low carbon economy – Goldsmith (pictured) is amongst the first high profile political figure I have heard talk openly about the threat posed by peak oil - but also the fact that their recommendations are both feasible and in many cases desirable. As Goldsmith told The Sunday Times, "We have not imagined policy ideas that are going to be repugnant to people".

It is, of course, easy to argue that I am overstating the implications of these reports. They are, after all, both the work of opposition parties and Tory leader David Cameron has reserved the right to ditch any recommendations he doesn't like.

The government will also be quick to point out that it is much easier to draw up revolutionary low carbon strategies when you don't have to face up to the challenge of implementing them and the inevitable short term job losses and protests that would result.

However, with an election expected in the not too distant future the government is likely to find it increasingly difficult to ignore many of the recommendations included in these reports.

The Lib Dems have already gone on the attack, blasting Brown's record for cutting green taxes, reducing spending on flood defences and climate research, and halting proposed environmental legislation. The government may continue to respond with its strategy of criticising such opposition strategies as a move to increase taxes, but such counter attacks are likely to find it harder to win voter sympathy given they are also attacking proposals that include ample green incentives.

In fact, the criticism of the government's all stick and no carrot approach to environmental legislation, refusal to introduce a feed in tariff and support for  the completely ineffective air passenger duty are beginning to reach a crescendo. Pointing to a climate change bill that includes little beyond emission reduction targets, admirable though these are, is no longer good enough particularly when so many of the recommendations put forward by the opposition parties - such as the feed in tariff and increased investment in public transport - smack of little other than common sense and would benefit the economy.

It is hard to imagine that Brown can ignore this criticism indefinitely, particularly with environmental issues playing so well with the politically indispensable voters of Middle England and many of the attacks focusing on his personal lack of green credentials.

More important still is the way these reports fit with a global political realisation that climate change rhetoric without action just isn't good enough anymore (anyone still doubting this should look to Canada, where opposition leaders have threatened to trigger an election over the weakness of the minority government's climate change plan, and Australia, where a major drought means climate change will for the first time be a major policy issue at the imminent election).

What we are now seeing is that governments have had long enough to experiment with climate change policy and are slowly settling on a consensus over what works – ie. an emphasis on green incentives, a clear price on carbon emissions through the tax system, ample subsidies for clean technologies, a feed-in tariff for green energy, a healthy cynicism over the role of current biofuel technologies and massive investment in public transport. Against this backdrop it is easy to see why the Tory and Lib Dem policy documents share so many similarities; these are the approaches that have been shown to successfully support the transition towards a low carbon economy.

For business leaders these reports provide further evidence that strategies for mitigating the risk of increased climate change legislation are now essential. Regardless of who wins the next election many of these policies will have to be adopted if the next government is to meet the targets set out under the proposed climate change bill and the businesses that prepare for them now will suffer the least disruption when they do hit the statute book.

All commercial investment decisions must now be informed by the probability that there will soon be a much higher price on carbon emissions, as well as tax breaks on greener investments and bans on the most polluting technologies and behaviours.

Account for these risks now by ramping up investments in low carbon technologies and business models and not only will your business be largely future-proofed against the new legislative framework that is surely coming, but it will also be in a better position to exploit the opportunities provided by a low carbon economy.

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

Wave power firm Embley Energy has just secured £150,000 in funding from the Carbon Trust as it continues development work on the innovative floating concrete that underpins its Sperboy wave energy converter.

The investment will be used on a new project designed to prove the economic and technical viability of the new technology when compared to fossil fuels and other renewable energy sources.

Experts have long argued that wave energy could provide more reliable power than other forms of renewable energy such as wind, while the UK's long coastline means it could meet a huge proportion of the country's energy needs. A recent Carbon Trust study estimated as much as a fifth of the country's electricity could be generated by wave power.

However, the technology has struggled to prove its viability with concerns over cost and the difficulty of maintenance hampering its adoption.

However, now Bristol-based Embley thinks it may have found a solution to many of wave powers problems in the form of a new "oscillating water column" buoy that it claims can generate reliable energy at low cost.

The buoy works by moving with the waves and forcing displaced air within the buoy to drive turbine generators.

But while this approach is not new where the design is interesting is in the use of advanced laminated floating concrete and a configuration that ensures that the moving parts are above the waterline. As a result the buoys are estimated to have a life of 40 years and require minimal maintenance, drastically reducing the running costs.

"The use of concrete for the main vessel will considerably increase the working life of the wave-energy converter and our design should deliver energy at a cost to compete with traditional forms of energy production," said Embley's Michael Burrett.

The company will now invest the Carbon Trust funding in a two year development programme that will see it run a series of water tank trials that will help it prove the viability of the floating concrete structure.

Embley said the research would move it closer to its goal of attaining commercial production by 2015, at which point the Sperboy technology could be deployed in large wave farms with 750 buoys spread over 15 square kilometres.

Wave and tidal energy is currently seeing a surge of investor interest ahead of expected changes to the government's renewable obligations legislation that will see generators of wave and tidal power receive more money for the energy they generate through the government's renewable obligations certifictes (ROCs) subsidy mechanism than wind and other forms of renewable energy providers.

Speaking to BusinessGreen earlier this year, Martin Gibson of venture capitalists Atlas Ventures predicted the marine renewable energy was on the verge of a major breakthrough as technologies mature and the government signals it is willing to support the sector.

"What is interesting is that the regions where this technology is necessarily developed, like the South West, Western Scotland and Northern Spain, are areas with a great engineering heritage through ship building or mining that have been under-exploited in recent years," he added. "There is a lot of untapped engineering talent out there."

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

Regular readers will know that over the past few months BusinessGreen has run a series of live web seminars on the emergence of the green IT department in conjunction with its sister titles IT Week and Computing.

Covering the reasons for more environmentally-friendly IT kit, the best practices for deploying such technologies, the companies that are already embracing green IT and the most responsible means of disposing of old kit this series of online discussion shows featured a broad range of expert panellists and attracted a wide audience of IT professionals.

Now to mark the end of the web seminars IT Week this week features a special report exploring the key issues raised by our panellists and detailing some of the environmental best practices IT managers should now be embracing.

You can read about why IT as an industry is leading the way in the transition towards low carbon technologies on our dedicated microsite here, read our experts' answers to viewers' green IT questions here, read the case against renewable energy-powered datacentres here, take a look at the case for virtualisation here, and get an insight into why re-using old IT kit is a greener option than recycling it here.

Also keep an eye out for an additonal special report on September 20th in BusinessGreen's sister title Computing looking at some of the IT departments that are pioneering greener business models and technologies.

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

Attempts by European carmakers to deliver lower carbon emissions slowed to a crawl last year, according to figures from green transport lobby group Transport and Environment (T&E).

In 1998 the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) signed up to a voluntary agreement with the European Commission to reduce car's average carbon emissions to 140g/km by 2008. However, new figures from T&E claim that last year new cars sold in Europe by ACEA's members emitted an average of 160g/km, a reduction of just 0.2 percent on the previous year and the smallest improvement since the agreement was signed.

T&E said the results mean ACEA "will now almost certainly miss the target" and also increase pressure on the European Parliament to go through with plans to impose legally-binding targets on car manufacturers.

The performance of Japanese and Korean manufacturers were no better with average emissions for new cars standing at 161g/km and 164g/km respectively. The overall figure for all carmakers selling into Europe in 2006 stands at 160g/km, a reduction of 0.7 opercent on 2005.

"In the first eight years of their voluntary commitment carmakers concentrated on bigger, heavier and more gas guzzling cars, and the results speak for themselves," said Aat Peterse, programme manager at T&E. "Clearly, the voluntary commitment wasn't worth the paper it was written on and regulation is needed now more than ever."

He urged the EU to stick to plans for a legally-binding target of 120g/km for 2012 and begin work on a series of long-term targets leading to vehicle emissions of 80g/km by 2020.

However, there have been fierce debates within the European Commission about the proposed binding targets with some arguing they will lead to increased car prices and job losses, some supporting the targets but claiming they should not be implemented until 2015, and others insisting they should be made stricter still.

Meanwhile, car manufacturers have pointed to the emergence of a raft of new green cars in recent months as evidence it can improve fuel efficiency without legal targets. The ACEA has also called for a change to the planned targets that would see heavier cars such as SUVs face weaker targets and argued that CO2-related taxes on cars would prove a more effective way of cutting emissions.

The European Parliament is due to environment committee vote on a so-called 'opinion' on the proposed car CO2 regulations this week in advance of a formal legal proposal from the European Commission in December.

Posted by James Murray on September 10, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (2)

The Rugby World Cup kicks off tonight amidst promises that it will be not just one of the biggest but also one of the greenest sporting events in history.

France's minister for the environment, Jean-Louis Borloo, has insisted the tournament will be as "ecolo" or as environmentally-sound as possible and has promised that "after the Sydney [Olympic] games, it will be the biggest ecologically responsible event of the planet".

To achieve this goal the organisers commissioned a carbon audit of the event from environmental energy agency ADEME, have launched a publicity campaign related to the event designed to encourage environmental awareness and have invested in a number of innovative green technologies and strategies that they hope will become the standard for large sporting events the world over.

Drainage systems designed to capture and recycle water used on the pitches have been installed, a major recycling programme has been put in place to cope with all the trash, and fair trade half-time snacks will be available for the more environmentally-conscious rugby fan.

Meanwhile, those tuning in to Scotland's showdown with Italy in Saint Etienne will surely be informed by one of those commentators with an penchant for bizarre statistics that there are 2,600 square metres of solar panels on the roof of the stadium.

The French government will also be keen to showcase its world-class high-speed railway network as the primary means of ferrying spectators around the country. Although it has to be said that EuroStar rather missed a trick when in the same week that it opened the new St Pancras terminal that w