The one good thing about a log jam of any persuasion is that when it breaks it tends to be pretty spectacular.

That will certainly be the hope for growing numbers of clean tech firms, who after 18 months staring at an IPO window that has been frozen firmly shut are beginning to wonder if floatation may once again represent a good way of financing expansion plans.

According to figures from the Cleantech Group, globally there were just four clean tech IPOs during the first quarter of this year, but since then there have been definite signs that the IPO market could be warming up once more.

As reported today, Canada-based geothermal specialist Magma Energy has raised double the C$50m it originally anticipated through its Toronto IPO, while energy efficient lighting outfit CRS Electronics also completed an IPO on the increasingly popular Toronto Exchange back in May.

SolarWinds, the US-based networking software specialist with sizable smart grid interests, also raised over $150m with an IPO on the New York Stock Exchange in May, and The Clean Tech Group has reported that a further 11 clean tech firms are currently undertaking IPO application processes on Canadian exchanges.

Meanwhile, across all industry sectors Morgan Stanley has predicted up to 40 firms could float in Europe over the next two years, Thomson Reuters reckons there are nearly 150 IPOs now being planned globally, and everyone is anticipating a surge in IPO activity in emerging markets such as China and Brazil.

It is as safe bet as Andy Murray choking in the Wimbledon final, that there are plenty of clean tech firms amongst those companies preparing to be in the first wave of IPOs that will mark the true onset of economic recovery.

The recession may have dealt a major blow to clean tech firms looking to scale up their operations, but for those planning an IPO the recovery could yet come at the perfect time.

It is easy to envisage a (perhaps optimistic) scenario where the IPO markets start to really hot up early next year, just as clean tech firms are in the perfect position to release compelling prospectuses detailing increased demand for low carbon technologies and the roll out of tough new environmental legislation in the wake of an international climate change agreement.

Given how long it can take to plan a well executed stock market floatation, any firm interested in following the IPO route would be wise to get their skates.

Posted by James Murray on June 30, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0)

For those who missed our April Fool's joke yesterday, the EU is not planning a ban on all light bulbs - it spent the day doing something far more craven and stupid.

The move to change the A-G energy labelling system for TVs and household appliances is little short of a disgrace - the kind of spineless decision that explains precisely why so many people are disillusioned with politicians and believe the whole sorry lot of them are in the pocket of old school industry lobbyists.

From next year the A-G labels that appear on household appliances such as fridges, freezers, washing machines and TVs and are recognised and understood by 90 per cent of Europeans will be augmented by new "dynamic" labels such as A-20% and A-60% intended to designate how much better than A rated a product is.

So anyone entering a shop and purchasing in good faith an appliance with a nice green label and A rating will not have one of the most energy efficient products on the market, they will have a product that could be up to 60 per cent worse than the best in class.

Confused? You certainly will be.

In a statement that admirably demonstrates politicians' ability to enter a parallel universe governed by entirely different rules of logic and human behaviour as and when it suits, EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs insisted that the new energy label is "very clear for consumers", adding that the new "beyond A" classes would help accelerate the "race for top efficient products".

It isn't and it won't.

Here's what will really happen.

On the most part customers will continue to see a green label and an A-rating and buy those products, blissfully unaware of the fact that if the labelling scheme had been updated as it should have been the A-rated product they have purchased would have carried a C or D label.

Where environmentally-conscious customers do try to seek out a "Beyond A" product they will have to navigate an array of labels that make it difficult to know which appliances really are the best in class. Is 20 per cent better than A good, or should you be looking for 60 per cent better than A? Who knows? Who cares?

Meanwhile, manufacturers will know that A products will look "good enough" to most customers and will therefore have less of an incentive to invest in developing more energy efficient products. And where they do deliver "Beyond A" products they will charge a hefty premium for them, safe in the knowledge that the commodity end of the market will be happy to hover around the standard A label that has now not been updated in ten years.

It is not hard to see how this has been allowed to happen.

Legislators realised that improvements in the energy efficiency of products over the past decade, driven in large part by the A-G labelling scheme, meant that 70 per cent of appliances sold were carrying the A rating. As such there was a need to update the scheme to ensure that customers really could pick out the best in class, and various proposals were drawn up.

At which point industry lobbyists arrived and pointed out that if you took the blindingly obvious route of updating the standards by which labels were awarded they would have to relabel many of their A products as C or D products - and they couldn't very well do that "in the current economic climate".

So rather than updating a scheme that had been proved to work over the past decade and protecting the interests of consumers and the environment (not to mention those manufacturers who had genuinely invested in developing the most energy efficient products available) Brussels instead passed messy new rules that will only serve to confuse the very people the EU claims to represent.

Lord Hunt, minister for sustainability at Defra, said he was "disappointed" by the decision. I can only hope he was being diplomatic. Given the contemptible way the EU has just undermined all its rhetoric on energy efficiency and the environment, I'd argue he should be more apoplectic than disappointed.

Posted by James Murray on April 2, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (3)

In case you haven't noticed the weather has been somewhat inclement this past week or so.

With more blizzards forecast overnight fears are mounting that we could see a repeat of last Monday when the southern half of the UK effectively ground to a halt, costing the economy anywhere between £1bn and £3.5bn depending on which guestimate you choose to believe.

Cue much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the UK's battered transport infrastructure, the absence of government leadership, the shirking culture of staff hoping for a day off, and, thanks to the ever-lovable Richard Littlejohn, the suggestion that climate change can't really exist on the scientific grounds it's a bit nippy out.

Leaving for another time the impossibility of engaging with wilfully moronic rabble rousers such as Littlejohn who are incapable of telling the difference between climate trends and weather events and are happy to dismiss the increased incidence of deadly heat waves and summer floods as one offs, while citing the fact the "sea is freezing over in Wales" as evidence the "eco-loonies" are all wrong, there is a counter-intuitive case for arguing that the recent snow should be sparking a serious debate over how the UK plans to cope with a warmed world.

The most obvious fact highlighted by last week's snow is the UK's continued inability to respond effectively to weather-related disasters.

Government ministers were quick to trot out the entirely rational argument that there is no point investing in snow ploughs that would gather dust before being rolled out for one week every two decades.

But the fact remains that both culturally - witness the huge numbers of people in London who did not make it into work last Monday when even with the public transport system struggling all that stood between them many of them and the office was a bracing walk in the snow - and structurally the economy is too vulnerable to freak weather events.

There is now a compelling case for investment in more resilient infrastructure capable of coping with the increased incidence of freak weather events that climate scientists now predict. Even if we can't justify spending on snow ploughs, we surely can justify investment on improved response planning and resilient resources that can keep rail and road networks clear come flood, fire or snow. The government did last year pledge to invest around £800m in improved flood defences, but it is hard to disagree with the Association of British Insurers view that the sums involved still look pretty paltry compared to the scale of the problem.

But perhaps the bigger lesson to be gained from the last week is that our businesses are simply too reliant on the transport network. It is inevitable that the economy will take a hit when snow or floods close roads and rail lines, but should it really be to the tune of several billion pounds when we increasingly live in a knowledge economy where the majority of the population now have internet access.

Effective home working technologies have been at a reasonable state of maturity for at least five years now, but still too many businesses are set up in a manner whereby they can't operate unless staff are reporting, present and correct, to work each morning.

While their rivals were complaining about lost revenue as a result of last week's snow, truly flexible businesses where staff can access the systems they need over the internet were suffering minimal disruption.

What is more, a flexible home working business model is not only resilient to freak weather events, it is also low carbon.

With the government committed to cutting emissions from a transport sector that accounts for about a quarter of the UK's carbon footprint and analysts predicting long term fuel costs will only rise the enabling of home working helps address both legislative and cost risks as well as the risk of climate-related disruption.

And it is not just office-based businesses that can benefit from home working. As a recent report from the NHS on its low carbon future showed, huge numbers of support staff could cut their carbon emissions and improve their work-life balance if only they had access to the right online systems at home.

In many respects, investment in laptops, home offices, fast broadband connection and secure intranet connections are likely to prove more effective in the long term than spending on grit wagons and snow ploughs.

Posted by James Murray on February 9, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (3)

What the hell is going on over at Apple?

If you are a globally recognised computer company whose reputation in many ways depends as much on its ability to appeal to hip, young, media savvy consumers as it does on its cutting edge technology you'd think you'd want to be seen as down with the green zeitgeist and supportive of the whole environmental movement.

Add in the fact that treehugger-in-chief Al Gore sits on its board and you'd assume Apple, perhaps more than any other technology firm, would be doing its utmost to reach out to environmentally conscious consumers.

And yet despite its recent commitment to enhance its environmental policies and become a "Green Apple" - itself an embarrassing u-turn following repeated refusals to respond to a barrage of constant criticism from Greenpeace over the company's environmental policies and use of toxic components - the company has once again managed to embroil itself in an unedifying spat with another green campaign.

The latest row is with the City of New York over its new GreeNYC campaign to encourage consumers to curb their environmental impact.

It's pretty hard to take issues with such a campaign, but according to reports at Wired.com Apple has managed it, objecting to the Big Apple's use of a stylised green apple with a stalk and a leaf as the logo for its campaign.

The logo has begun to appear around the city on bus shelters, hybrid gasoline-electric taxicabs and Whole Foods' shopping bags, and the city has applied for a trademark prompting Apple to file its formal opposition to the move.

The company says that the logo bears a resemblance to its own famous Apple logo and as such infringes on its trademark. It calls for New York's trade mark application to be rejected on the grounds that it will confuse people and "seriously injure the reputation which [Apple] has established for its goods and services".

Now this line of argument appears pretty rich on three fronts.

Firstly, as you can see you have to suffer from particularly bad myopia to be unable to distinguish between the two logos.

Secondly, unless Whole Foods has decided to ditch the concept of selling organic food in favour of selling laptops there appears no danger of this logo confusing anyone bar the most congenitally stupid. As Gerald Singleton, the intellectual-property lawyer representing New York, told Wired.com: "No consumer is likely to be confused… this well-known city is using its new design in a variety of contexts that have absolutely nothing to do with Apple Inc."

Thirdly, if (and it's a big if) there is some vague subconscious association that consumers draw between the two logos then given that Apple's recent environmental track record includes a long-running stand off with Greenpeace, a refusal to join any of the IT industry groups seeking to address the sector's gargantuan environmental footprint and repeated accusations that it has not done enough to remove harmful components from its products, it can only stand to benefit from being linked with a green campaign.

Of course, every firm has the right to protect its trademarks and Apple has a powerful brand that is well worth defending, but you still have to pick your battles. Apple has won justified plaudits in recent months for finally attempting to improve its green policies and releasing several products that boast impressive green credentials. And yet, now it appears it wants to rile green consumers and activists afresh for little or no purpose. 

The complex vagaries of the patent system mean Apple may yet prove successful at blocking New York's use of the logo. But given that it has now cast itself as the bad guy in a fight with a campaign that aims to promote "environmentally friendly policies and practices" you have to ask whether it is really worth it. Particularly when the only people likely to be confused by the two logos are in all likelihood too stupid to turn on a MacBook in the first place. 

Posted by James Murray on April 7, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (7)

A war of words has broken out between British Airways chief executive Willie Walsh and Virgin Atlantic boss Richard Branson over the later's headline grabbing biofuel powered test flight.

Amusing as it is to watch two of the UK's business heavyweights engaging in the oratorical equivalent of scratching and pulling others' hair, there is a salient lesson to be gained from the spat in how to promote green initiatives – and as with so many PR tutorials it is Branson and Virgin doing the teaching.

It was Walsh that landed the ill-advised first blow. Speaking at the opening of Heathrow Terminal 5 last week, the BA boss branded the Virgin biofuel flight "a bit of a publicity stunt", before adding that "I won't say [biofuels are the answer] because I don't believe it's true".

He went on to tell The Guardian that, "I recognise that we are a polluter. I recognise equally that we don't have an alternative to kerosene and carbon-based fuels at this point".

These are all pretty valid points. For the aviation industry there is no alternative to kerosene and fossil fuels at this point and biofuels are unlikely to provide the answer to the sector's climate change problems any time soon.

But if there is one thing any company operating in an industry that is struggling to come to terms with pressure to cut emissions should not do it is allow a competitor to occupy the moral high ground and present itself to increasingly environmentally conscious customers as the trail blazing operator that is taking climate change seriously.

Cue Branson and his response in today's Guardian in which he argues that far from being a PR stunt the considerable sums Virgin Atlantic is investing in its biofuels research are part of a serious attempt to develop cleaner fuels.

"At Virgin we are attempting to address a global catastrophe and preparing for a world of scarcer oil, carbon pricing and population growth," he writes, clearly implying that BA is doing none of these things.

As if the image of Virgin as the caring and ethical alternative to BA's head-in-the-sand approach is not explicit enough Branson goes on to make his central point clearer still. "It seems to me that the head of BA doesn't have an environmental strategy," he writes. "For Walsh to say "I recognise ... that we don't have an alternative to kerosene and carbon-based fuels at this point" is very short-sighted. There are alternatives emerging which need to be tested." Something, Virgin, of course, is doing.

Wrapping up his response, Branson follows the golden rule of all green marketing and is careful not to overstate Virgin's environmental achievements, accepting that it is early days in the company's research and pledging to "go on looking for a renewable fuel source, such as algae, that could unlock our reliance on traditional kerosene".

There is only one winner in this particular bout, and it's sure as hell not Walsh.

It is a masterful piece of communication to be able to present an airline as somehow green, but by 'fessing up to its limitations and creating the impression that it is deadly serious about improving its environmental performance Virgin Atlantic has managed it.

Meanwhile, those, like Walsh, who snipe at its efforts, even while raising legitimate points about whether or not aviation biofuels can ever be generated in sufficient quantity to make much of a difference, simply end up looking uncaring, unimaginative and insufficiently committed to tackling climate change.

Posted by James Murray on March 19, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0)

For too long water technologies have been the poor relation of the clean tech sector. But, argues Laura Shenkar, climate change fears are finally making investors take water scarcity seriously

A few weeks ago, a different kind of venture investment conference took place in Davis, California. Rather than focusing upon the full range of renewable energy technologies, GoingGreen addressed the whole system: just about every facet of the new world brought about by climate change and resource limitations.

GoingGreen addressed everything from green automobiles to green buildings, mega-projects to nanotech, renewable energy and water. Surprisingly, including water in the growing green conversation has been an enduring challenge. About a year ago, I finally found a conference editor, Ed Ring, who enthusiastically shared my belief that water absolutely should be included as one of the topics.

Could water technologies stand on their own as true venture investment opportunities? Innovative technology had not dramatically influenced the water industry in decades. Was water scarcity simply part of the energy challenge? Putting together the water investor panel and the water company panels became as much of a contrarian exercise as putting together a new technology company.

But after 20 years of working in early-stage companies, the more people I encountered who doubted that there were enough experienced water investors and innovative water companies to fill a panel -- not to mention prescient investors who see water as an emerging opportunity -- the more confident I felt.

And this past summer, several US states announced formal drought restrictions, including not only the usual suspects of Florida, California and Texas, but also municipalities in Vermont and North Carolina. Water scarcity in China and Australia reached the levels of national crises.

With water in the headlines repeatedly, and with it the possibilities for research and venture investment in water security, when GoingGreen's water investor panel took the stage on the first day of the conference, opportunities in water technology were ripe for discussion.

Among the water investors, most of the discussion focused upon whether innovative solutions to water scarcity and water purification would sell: historically, a small number of enormous corporate giants have dominated the sales to slow-moving bureaucracies. And they were cautious in discussing the opportunities that growing water scarcity, the impact of water pollution and the crumbling water infrastructure offer. There was little mention of the promise that advanced membrane materials and innovative designs such as advanced oxidation offer for water recycling and groundwater remediation.

But the company panel took the opposite tack. Several companies, including NanoH2O and GeoPure, highlighted their innovative technologies to create new sources of water. The Abtech SmartSponge addresses the threat of pollution from stormwater by absorbing pathogens as they flow off parking lots and roofs. And Derceto discussed how optimising water infrastructure can save an impressive 15 per cent in electricity usage.

I imagine that the agenda of GoingGreen 2007 will look a bit odd in years to come: Only one company panel on water? Where is the on-site wastewater solutions panel? Where is the "smart water grid" panel? Where is the innovative desalination and water purification panel?

In a year, investors may not yet have reaped huge gains from investments in innovative water technologies, but the potential for new giants to grow rapidly and lead new market segments will be clear. Water, as simple as it is to drink, will be an obvious opportunity for investment.

More importantly, you will see new paradigms for water management. Among the most promising technologies are home purification tools to identify and eliminate chemical pollutants like perchlorates and MTBE, as well as bacteria and viruses, from the tap, and can provide a "personalised" taste for each user in a household.

Other ideas include small-scale, comprehensive water management solutions for remote hospitals, schools and resorts that also include waste water recycling; and real-time sensors to provide a comprehensive and highly accurate measure of the specific chemicals and pathogens in water supplies and monitor water management.

Complete on-site water management "appliances" will be one of the strongest investments for the savvy early-stage investor. For a home, office or commercial establishment, recycling water to toilets and irrigation will save 50 to 90 per cent of their water use, while significantly reducing energy and emissions. In places that use significant amounts of energy to distribute water, like Los Angeles and San Diego, on-site waste water recycling saves up to 80 percent of the energy.

These systems might look like very different boxes, but they will share a range of features:

• Self-operating, self-healing: comparable to a PC as compared with a mainframe computer. These appliances will automatically transmit key data about water quality directly to the utility.
• Multi-Process: combining some set of biological, ozone-based, ultrafiltration, electrocoagulation, electrolysis or chemical solutions to provide for "gold standard" efficiency and variable levels of purity for different applications.
• Modular: to accommodate the latest innovations in membranes and other water-purification solutions.
• Highly subsidised: Within the next few years, water scarcity coupled with the cost of maintaining the water distribution network will bring many localities to remove customers from the edges of their delivery grid.

Experts estimate that 70 percent of the costs of running a water utility are in the water transport network. According to the EPA, the US will need up to $1 trillion to upgrade its water and waste water infrastructure over the next 20 years to maintain regulatory standards.

Water might be free, but it will cost more and more to ensure a pure, ready supply. Right now, you pay your municipality for water infrastructure. In the future, some ground-breaking innovation will be necessary to get that water to your kitchen sink. Can you imagine getting "house calls" from your water company?

Laura Shenkar is an entrepreneur who has been working with leading-edge technologies for over 20 years in the US, Europe and Israel. She holds a B.A. from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. She coordinated the water panels at AlwaysOn's GoingGreen panel in Davis.

This article first appeared at Greenbiz.com

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

Energy giant E.ON has today launched a new nationwide competition for engineers, technologists and entrepreneurs working on new ideas to improve products' energy efficiency.

Run in conjunction with technology start up consultancy LIFE-IC the new award aims to recognise engineers developing new energy efficient technologies. The winner will receive a cash prize of £5,000 plus consultancy and support from LIFE-IC to help them commercialise their idea.

A spokeswoman for E.ON said the competition was aimed at engineering students, professionals and start up entrepreneurs keen to gain backing and support for their energy efficient innovations.

The competition will be run alongside E.ON's EnergyLab award, which was launched last year and is open to anyone with an idea on how to improve energy efficiency.

Last year, the £10,000 prize was won by a housewife and teaching assistant from Leicester who thought up a technology for reducing water and energy use in the bath.

Ideas for both competitions need to be submitted before November 30th and will be considered by a panel of experts, including TV presenter Philippa Forrester and Dave Clarke, head of low carbon strategy at E.ON UK's Technology Centre.

"Those that make the short list get one-on-one sessions with the judges where they get feedback and advice on how to make their ideas more technically viable and business friendly," said a spokeswoman for E.ON.

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

The Climate Savers Computing Initiative received a fair amount of attention when the scheme was launched back in June and appears intent on proving that its promises will be worthwhile rather than written once in the press release and then forgotten about.

This is a collective effort on behalf of IT vendors including Microsoft, Dell, Lenovo, Sun, Intel, AMD, Fujitsu and NEC, but also including web sites such as eBay and organisations including the World Wildlife Fund, utility giant Pacific Gas & Electric and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Climate Savers' mission is to reduce the amount of wastage in computers caused by power not reaching critical components such as CPU, memory or disk, and by making those components more energy efficient when power does reach them.

At the recent Intel Developer Forum that took place in San Francisco, I met a key figure in Climate Savers, Bill Weihl. Bill's day job is at Google where he rejoices in the title of green energy czar.

The latest news from Climate Savers is that Climate Savers is going global, having added geographic teams in Europe, China, Japan and Taiwan. For Weihl this is a proof point that the issue of wasteful power consumption in computers is "a global issue, not just a US issue" and reflects the fact that with China fast emerging as a technology superpower and other areas of the globe remaining innovators, IT vendor responsibility is not just about America.

The outstanding data point cited by Climate Savers is that over half the power that comes out of the wall socket never reaches the PC. However, in an ultra-competitive market, where margins are already pared to the bone in mature sectors such as PCs, what can be done about that?

For Weihl, the answer is in part by creating a pull-side demand from business and consumer purchasers.

"I've seen some real change already," he reports. "It's hard for [business buyers] to make a single central procurement decision. But before [data was available on the level of power loss], they weren't really thinking about it. Now they have something very specific to argue over."

But surely price will be the overwhelming criterion for many buyers, and lowest price will mandate a quick-and-dirty approach to building systems?

Weihl insists that the price differential in building an energy-efficient PC and an energy-inefficicent PC is marginal and that all Climate Savers is asking is the equivalent of asking makers to "forego one of their five lattes a day".

He adds: "It makes sense to even the price-sensitive folks when you really talk to them. If they’re able to think of total cost of ownership, it just makes sense."

As a marker, Climate Savers is asking systems makers to follow the EPA's Energy Star 4.0 guidelines but Weihl acknowledges that efficiency can go further.

"[Energy Star 4.0] is a big important step but the technology is there to do much better than that," he says.

But while the industry can go further he concedes there are grey areas when it comes to measuring energy efficiency.

"With power supplies, it's pretty clear how to measure, but with motherboards, for example, it's more difficult," he says. "Some have fans built in, some rely on fans on the enclosure, so where do you count the fan power?"

When Climate Savers launched, some suggested that there could be confusion with the Green Grid, a group of IT companies and professionals aimed at reducing datacentre power consumption. So, will the two team up at some point?

Weihl believes that is possible and agrees that there is some overlap but notes areas of separate focus.

"The two organisations are attacking the problem at two different levels," he says. "Green Grid is focused on the datacentre and Climate Savers is focused on the individual [client or] server system. At some point it may make sense to merge but what we're doing today is a very different activity."

Climate Savers' objective is to be "very actionable with a clear roadmap for several years to get wastage down from over 50 to 15 per cent".

Plans to make it clearer for buyers to find energy-efficient systems include the likelihood of a logo programme and a catalogue of approved products this autumn.

Weihl is confident change is going to come and that vendors are on board. "Energy prices are unlikely to go down," he observes. "Windows Vista is a step forward from a power management point of view. [In many older PCs] there are a number of ways the system can prevent it going to sleep and that makes it much harder to save power."

Martin Veitch

Posted by James Murray on October 3, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

The LGA has welcomed calls from Whitehall for greater investment in green IT, arguing that the government's focus will challenge "stuck in the mud" councils that refuse to embrace more sustainable and energy efficient technologies.

Speaking at the recent fourth European Ministerial Conference in Lisbon, Cabinet Office minister Gillian Merron said government computer systems need to be greener and more energy efficient.   

She argued that since the government is the biggest user of IT in the UK, spending around £12bn per year, it must take the lead and set a good example on the environment.

"This doesn't just mean reducing the amount of electricity [IT systems] use, but also looking at how they can be designed and built in ways that consume fewer materials and which make recycling easier," she said.

Paul Bettison, chairman of the Local Government Association's (LGA's) environment board, supported the minister's calls for a greater focus on green technologies and criticised councils that have a "stuck-in-the-mud" attitude to technology procurement.

However, Bettison insisted that many leading councils were already committed to implementing renewable energy technologies and more energy efficient IT systems.

He cited how Suffolk County Council's headquarters' building is generating power from photovoltaic cells incorporated in the external building fabric and also pointed to one Surrey district council that has installed a meter in the reception area designed to show how much electricity is being used. He added that many councils are also moving away from CRT monitor technology to flat-screens, a move which will significant reduce energy demand.

Bettison said that generally councils are working hard to exercise common leadership when it comes to sustainability.  "The public sector is always striving for efficiency and is keen to perform its functions in the most sustainable way as possible," he said.

He also pointed to the fact that 240 councils had signed the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change and were working with the LGA's environment board to investigate techniques to limit carbon emissions as further evidence that councils are showing leadership on the environment.

Rosalie Marshall

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

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)