Corporate treasury operations are awash in paper, and a new report by J.P. Morgan (NYSE: JPM) outlines how they can achieve a more sustainable, paperless future.

Migrating to electronic Treasury processes can have a measurable impact on a corporation’s carbon footprint as large Treasury operations can easily generate 5.5 tons of paper each year--the equivalent of 143 trees and 106 tons of greenhouse gasses. Since J.P. Morgan Treasury Services’ began its “Go Green” campaign in 2007 the company says it has helped Treasury clients eliminate more than 101 million paper documents and save three million pounds of paper annually.

The report, “Sustainable Treasury Management: It’s Easier Than You Think,” highlights a number of best practices to help Treasury departments move toward a “zero-return” environment, including the following:

* Reengineering Receivables. Many Treasury departments still spend time and money manually entering receivable and invoice information into their accounts receivable system to track payment status. Image capture and data capture in conjunction with web based data repositories provide faster and easier access to documentation and eliminate the cost of transporting paper from lockbox locations. Treasury staff can then use their bank’s online channel to improve internal workflow, receive automated exception notices and make same-day exception decisions.

* Streamlining Disbursements. An online disbursement platform can significantly reduce the resources and hours required to initiate payments, research payment status and reconcile accounts. These platforms also reduce risk by providing safeguards against check fraud.

* Online Reports and Statements. Treasury departments are deluged with reports of all kinds. Bringing these reports online eliminates boxes of paper statements and the storage fees associated with them. With an electronic archive, Treasury staff can use the Search feature to locate specific transactions and other data.

* Document Security. Paper documents pose significant security and business continuity risks. A paperless environment turns them into electronic images that are stored in a central online repository that can restrict access to sensitive information. New workflow processes can be developed for creating, saving, filing and accessing documents that factor in security and disaster recovery requirements, as well as regulatory considerations.

A free copy of the report is available at the link below.

Website: www.jpmorgan.com/visit/gogreenwhitepaper

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Business

by Nick Chambers

This summer the popular Fiat 500 subcompact will have a new, tiny engine option… and it will be the smallest displacement gasoline engine available in any car in Europe—a 900cc, turbocharged 2-cylinder with 85 horsepower. By taking the current trend of engine downsizing, and then spitting on its tired carcass as it passes it on the first lap, Fiat is hoping to take fuel economy and CO2 emissions to new levels.

But—as is often muttered by Americans in the know after these sort of announcements—the engine will likely only be available in Europe, even with rumors of the 500 eventually making it to U.S. shores. I like to think of the vehicle fuel efficiency Europe-US divide like that “in bed” game we’ve all played with fortune cookies; but instead of adding “in bed” to the end of the sentence add “only in Europe.”

Regardless, the announcement follows a long tradition of Fiat making small 2-cylinder engines—a tradition that goes back to the 1930’s and 1950’s. Although fuel economy numbers for the tiny beast have yet to be released, they are likely to be very high, perhaps even above 50 mpg. Fiat has also been quoted as saying the engine will emit less than 100 g/km of carbon dioxide.

The concept of combing a small displacement engine with a turbocharger to mimic the horsepower of a much larger engine is not a new one, for sure. Fiat’s advantage, however, is that with their new MultiAir technology they can tune the engine to maximize low-end torque—providing zippy low-end acceleration even with the relatively low horsepower.

Fiat’s TwinAir engine technology is flexible enough that Fiat is planning on releasing 3 versions of the same 2 cylinder engine— a non-turbocharged 65 HP variant, the 85 HP, and a more powerful turbocharged 105 HP. Additionally, the engine is built to be able to run on both compressed natural gas (CNG) or gasoline.

Reprinted with permission from Gas 2.0

A new landmark agreement to counteract the alarming decline of sharks was concluded on Friday under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Government representatives meeting in Manila, Philippines, agreed on the text of a Memorandum of Understanding on the conservation of migratory sharks.

At the meeting, delegates agreed to include all seven shark species in the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS): the Great White, Basking, Whale, Porbeagle, Spiny Dogfish, Shortfin and Longfin Mako Sharks. They are to benefit from better international protection by fishing nations through reduction of threats, in particular illegal fishing and trade, by enforcing existing laws.

CMS Executive Secretary Elizabeth Maruma Mrema said: "This first global CMS instrument on commercially exploited species is a decisive step forward in international shark conservation. Wildlife Conventions, UN Agencies and international fisheries need to work together to prevent these creatures that roam the world's oceans from becoming extinct."

The goal of the CMS agreement is the restoration and long term viability of populations of migratory sharks covered by the instrument. A conservation and management plan was thoroughly discussed as a first step towards international cooperation on the protection of sharks. By signing this agreement, countries have expressed their willingness to conserve the endangered shark species covered under this agreement.

According to the IUCN Red List 2010, 17% of 1,044 shark species are threatened. At present, our knowledge of about 47% of shark species is too limited to even assess if they are threatened.

Over-fishing, fisheries by-catch, illegal trade, habitat destruction, depletion of prey species, pollution with a high risk of mercury intoxication, boat strikes and the impact of climate change on the marine environment seriously threaten sharks. Sharks have slow growth with a gestation period of up to 22 months. They might reach maturity only after 20 years and produce relatively few young. Being top predators, their natural mortality is low. Sharks have high life-expectancy: Whale Sharks can live up to 100 years. Some shark species are highly migratory, which makes it difficult to protect the species and its habitat across a global range. These biological characteristics make sharks particularly vulnerable with little chance to recover if overfished.

Some species such as Mako Sharks are targeted for sports fishing, trophy hunting, and as cure in traditional medicine. According to the IUCN Red List of the World Conservation Union, 14 shark species are "critically endangered" and face an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild.

Sharks suffer from overexploitation as both target and non-target catch. According to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), up to 900,000 metric tons of sharks have been caught each year for the last two decades. However, taking into account illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and missing data, the catch figure is expected to be at least twice as high.

Since the late 1980s Whale Shark meat has been increasingly considered as a high-grade product and gained acceptance by consumers as an exotic food, and prices began to skyrocket. TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network, reported 2000 kg of Whale Shark meat sold in Taiwan for US$7,000 (EUR 4,500).

Total catches in global shark fisheries are still increasing, while some populations have already crashed. Studies reveal that shark populations collapsed in the Northwest Atlantic by 75% within 15 years, and both in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Mediterranean Sea by 90%. Valuable fish and crustacean fisheries such as high sea long-line and driftnet fleets that target tuna, sword fish, sail fish and marlin claim an unsustainably high death toll on sharks.

Although a shark finning ban was adopted as of mid-2007 by 19 countries, the European Union and 9 Regional Fisheries Management Organizations for fishing vessels in their waters, sharks continue to be hunted. High demand and price of shark fins have triggered increased hunting activities. While the finless bodies are dumped into the sea, fins can be easily stored on board of fishing vessels without competing for storage space with more valuable fish species. This gives a considerable incentive for finning and exacerbates the problem of overexploitation.

The first global instrument on sharks is expected to complement existing international wildlife conservation agreements, fisheries agreements and regional fisheries management organizations. CMS Appendix I lists migratory sharks that are threatened with extinction. Member states to the Convention shall prohibit their hunting, fishing and deliberate killing and implement comprehensive conservation activities. In the view of overall declining marine biodiversity and overfishing of top predators in particular, the CMS Sharks agreement renews efforts during the International Year of Biodiversity to counteract the global loss of biodiversity.

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Business

by Zachary Shahan

Australian solar physicist John Cook of Skeptical Science has created a nifty little iPhone app that includes numerous climate skeptic arguments as well as the science-based counterarguments to those (since we are all tired of the misinformed myths about climate science but normally can’t cite scientific articles and data off the top of our heads).

When you turn on the Skeptical Science iPhone app, you can see 10 of the most common misinformed climate skeptic arguments as well as scientific responses to those. You can also search through 3 main categories: “It’s not happening“, “It’s not us“, and “It’s not bad” to find more claims and the scientific counterarguments.

So far, there are 90 climate skeptic arguments included and, of course, the scientific responses to those. You can see graphs and links to scientific papers or other sources in there as well.

In his own blog post about the app, Cook wrote, “This is a good idea for two reasons. Firstly, because now more than ever it’s imperative that the climate debate focuses on science so the more readily available the science, the better. Secondly, well, an iPhone app is pretty cool.”

If you hear a new argument not in the system, you can report it so that it can be added.

Of course, the anti-science climate skeptics don’t like this already. The Guardian reports:

"Climate Realists, a site manned by sceptics such as weatherman Piers Corbyn, is already jumping up and down in horror at the news of the app’s release:

'WARNING! There is an iphone app trying to put down what we have to say under the heading of ‘Skeptical Science’. We need as many of you as possible to promote that this iphone app is yet another attempt to discredit ‘Climate Realists’. We can only hope the general public can see through this as a cheap trick to prop up the FAILED SCIENCE OF MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE. Climate Realists need another iphone app that shows our side of the argument as it is, rather then what a supporter AGW thinks it is! Please send this message to all known friendly sites that support our side.'"

This call to arms appears to have worked as the first reviews on the iTunes app store are deeply negative. This is what the reviewer “GabesiPod” said:

“This is app from an AGW [anthropogenic global warming] supporter and just supports his views and NOT the views of SKEPTICS! I find that iPhone apps have mislead people, in that, the name of the product is NOT what it is claimed to be. This is a cheap trick to support the FAILED SCIENCE OF AGW, AND HAS NO SCIENTIFIC VALUE. This app should be withdrawn!”

Crazy, since the app links to real science, not assertions made without any real scientific backing.

Of course, we can’t hope for too much from the other side. As Jaymi Heimbuch of Treehugger pointed out, “When was the last time you heard someone from either side say, ‘Thank you for this information. Actually, I’d never thought of it like that before. I’m now prepared to change my mind on climate change.’”

Nonetheless, with such useful information, perhaps this could really help those who are a little confused over this matter. Additionally, the next time you are talking with someone who throws up a haphazard, uninformed statement on the science of climate change or global weirding, you can pull up a quick, well-informed answer to that claim.

Reprinted with permission from Cleantechnica

" The Weekly: News from Around the Matter Network

by David Ferris

BrightSource Energy has trimmed its proposal for a solar-concentration plant in the Mojave Desert by 12 percent, in hopes the concession will mollify the project's critics. The Brightsource installation has pit advocates of clean energy against those who fret about the future of the Mojave's residents, like the desert tortoise and the Mojave milkweed. The new plan would drop the amount of electricity headed to Southern California from 440 megawatts to 392 MW.

Silicon Valley gained two solar companies and lost one in a busy week of consolidation for a young industry. SunPower, the San Jose firm that is one of the U.S.'s biggest solar panel makers, bought SunRay Renewable Energy of Italy for $277 million, acquiring projects now in the pipeline in six countries in Europe and the Middle East.

Calisolar of Sunnyvale absorbed Ontario's 6N Silicon Inc., combining two solar-cell makers for expected heavy growth in North America. Also, Areva, a French nuclear-power concern, diversified into renewables as it purchased Ausra, a Mountain View-based maker of concentrated solar thermal equipment.

The hypermiling community moved into high (though very quiet) gear as Nissan announced that it will accept pre-orders for the Leaf, the first all-electric car by a major carmaker. Customers can register in April, and deliveries are expected in December.

At the Chicago Auto Show, Ford offered test drives of its Transit Connect Electric fleet vehicle and got a favorable review for its hybrid Focus. Meanwhile, at a press conference in Munich, Volkswagen made the latest of a series of contradictory announcements, this time saying its first entry in the hybrid category will be Touareg SUV.

Last week, as the media seemed ready to slice off Toyota's head for selling cars with faulty brakes, Prius owners tapped their brake pedals and reacted with a shrug.

But the most exciting and weird news in cars came from where you'd least expect it: the half-jet, half-car Delta Wing, the crowdsourced Rally Fighter, and at last a price tag for the skateboard-car, the Trexa.

In biofuels, British Airways leapfrogged other airlines by announcing plans for a plant that would convert 500,000 tons of waste per year into 16 million gallons of jet fuel. Texas took yet another step toward a renewable future as Joule Biotechnologies signed a lease for a property to test its efficient, solar-powered technique for processing biofuel.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce continued its stalwart denial of global warming as it petitioned a federal court to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

In other news, IBM synthesized a super-efficient solar cell from common materials, the U.K. expects an eco-paint without that new-paint smell, and British Columbia banned mining near Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park.

Reprinted with permission from The Ferris Files

Carbon management requires four distinct steps, and until CEOs take ownership of carbon management as a business transformation challenge, not a corporate responsibility issue, their firms will fail to achieve absolute reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, according to a new report from research firm Verdantix.

The four steps include the appointment of a Chief Sustainability Officer, a cross-functional strategy for reductions with a 2020 target, co-ordinated business process changes and an integrated carbon management technology platform.

“Dumping carbon management responsibility on CSR Directors without providing them with the authority or budget to execute dooms many carbon reduction plans” commented Peter Charville-Mort, the Verdantix Analyst who led the study. “Evidence of failure includes CSR and energy managers who don’t get the opportunity to explain carbon issues to senior execs, decision-makers who struggle with terrible energy data, unachievable CO2 reduction goals and initiatives that progress at a snail’s pace due to insufficient staff and funds.”

The report, "Best Practices Carbon Management," provides advice on the development and implementation of a carbon business transformation plan. It says to achieve absolute CO2 reductions year-on-year firms need to:

* Strengthen governance to deliver transformational change. Dumping a broad, carbon-related change programme on the CSR Director is doomed to fail. Best-in-class carbon management requires a Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) with a small Programme Management Office that quantifies value and risk, co-ordinates initiatives and engages stakeholders. The CSO should be picked from a general management role internally.

* Create a 2020 strategy for carbon management. CEOs first need to get the right people on the bus – with the CSO in the driving seat – and then buy into the carbon journey to 2020. Post-2020 firms need a transformation vision due to much tighter regulation and intense customer pressure for sustainability credentials. Climate change and sustainability advisors at firms like Deloitte and Ernst & Young are well-positioned to provide strategic input.

* Design cross-functional process changes across energy, operations and finance. Ongoing cuts in carbon emissions require a portfolio of projects such as building management systems and electric vehicle fleet trials. To succeed with multiple, simultaneous changes firms need a programme based on granular energy and fuel data, financial analysis of projects and assessment of unintended consequences. Consultants like CH2M Hill, Scott Wilson and WSP Energy have expertise in project-related carbon and energy services.

* Implement integrated carbon management systems technology. To reduce carbon emissions firms need accurate, timely and complete data on energy and fuel consumption. World class carbon management requires not just energy and carbon software from vendors like CA, Hara and Verisae but also metering systems from providers like Landis + Gyr that track energy consumption or refrigerant leakage at the asset level.

“Time is running out for CEOs to act before the jaws of GHG compliance regimes and competitive pressures on sustainability close around them. 76% of the global industry expert panel believe weak carbon management will pose a material risk by 2012,” Verdantix Director David Metcalfe said.

Website: www.verdantix.com

The southern limit of permafrost around the James Bay region in Quebec has moved 80 miles to the north since 1957, according to a new study. Scientists at the Université Laval tracked the northerly retreat of the tundra by examining distinctive, oval-shaped land elevations known as palsas, which form over permafrost. By comparing aerial photos taken in the James Bay region between the 51st and 53rd parallels in 1957 with findings from helicopter surveys in 2004 and 2005, the scientists documented the swift poleward movement of the permafrost line. The study, published in the journal Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, also found that permafrost was in an advanced state of deterioration as far north as the 55th parallel. “If this trend keeps up, what is left of the palsas in the James Bay bogs will disappear altogether in the near future, and it is likely that the permafrost will suffer the same fate,” said one researcher. James Bay, bordered by Quebec and Ontario, forms the southernmost portion of Hudson Bay. As the Arctic has warmed in many areas by 3 to 4 degrees F in recent decades, permafrost has been melting throughout the region, and the tundra is beginning to disappear, as well.

Reprinted with permission from Yale Environment 360

The U.S. wind and solar manufacturing sectors got some good news this week when Ingeteam, a Spanish company that specializes in highly engineered electrical and electronic equipment and services announced that it will construct a US $15 million facility in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to manufacture equipment for renewable energy projects.

Ingeteam said it will begin construction of the 100,000-square-foot combined production facility and office complex in April, with completion set for December. The company expects to begin manufacturing operations in January 2011 and will employ about 275 workers by 2015. This will be Ingeteam's first manufacturing facility in the United States.

When completed, the plant will focus primarily on the renewable energy industry, producing Indar wind power generators and Ingeteam converters and solar power inverters for the North American market.

"Milwaukee also has a labor pool experienced in electrical manufacturing. In addition, the area boasts prestigious universities with some of the highest-ranked engineering departments in the country that offer specific courses in renewable energy, which will be very useful when it comes to finding specialized staff," said Aitor Sotes, chief executive officer of Ingeteam Inc., Ingeteam's subsidiary in the United States.

Ingeteam currently has a 12 -15 percent worldwide market share of wind power components. However, Ingeteam has identified the United States as a growth market for wind energy and expects its global market share to rise by having a U.S.-based manufacturing operation to supply the North American market. At full capacity, the Milwaukee plant will supply equipment capable of producing 7,500 megawatts (MW) of electricity each year.

The Milwaukee plant will produce generators and converters for 1.5 MW to 5 MW wind turbines, and solar power inverters that range from 2.5 kilowatt (kW) units for residential use up to 500 kW units for utility-scale installations. Later, Ingeteam plans to add a facility for system testing.

Reprinted with permission from Renewable Energy World

by Jerry James Stone

Snail mail is getting a big push from Congress to go electric and I’m not talking about e-mail. The United States Postal Service (USPS) wants to electrify its fleet and Zap motors might just to do the trick. This week, the California-based company announced they are engineering an all-electric truck prototype for the mail delivery service.

Full details are still unclear but U.S. Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey will tour the Zap EV facility next week “to learn more about how this federal program is creating local jobs.” The truck will not be the Xebra pictured above but a “conversion of a gasoline postal truck to run on electricity.”

In fact, USPS has awarded contracts to many California-based firms. They’re part of an effort to electrify all 142,000 USPS trucks. AC Propulsion Inc. of San Dimas is another hopeful for the postal service’s initiative to be more environmentally friendly.

“We will get the vehicles back in June or July and put them into service in the Washington, D.C., area, where we can monitor their cost and reliability,” said Joseph McGrath, a program manager at the postal service’s vehicle engineering division in Merrifield, Va.

Reprinted with permission from Gas 2.0

by Christopher DeMorro

Love him or hate him, you’ve got to admire Bob Lutz’s ability to speak his mind, consequences be damned. And, as GM’s Vice Chairman and Volt front man, he’s somebody the world tends to pay attention to.

The same guy who once called global warming a crock of crap has now remarked that the hybrid car market is unlikely to ever comprise more than 10% of the U.S. market. Furthermore, Lutz seems to think that General Motors will always lose money on hybrids, driving up the costs of its other cars. If you ask me, that seems like a bit of a paradox.

Admittedly, Lutz has done a lot of good for GM. He was a big proponent for the Volt, GM’s plug-in electric extended range car due out this fall. He also pushed hard for the return of the Camaro, which sold so strongly that GM recently had to add a second shift to the Oshawa assembly plant where it is built. Lutz is an old school car guy, and to a certain extent, that is a good thing.

But sometimes he doesn’t seem to think before he talks (I can relate to that). Right now, hybrids comprise just 3% of the market in the U.S., with the Toyota Prius selling more than all other models combined, according to Edmunds Green Car Advisor. Considering the Prius has been on sale for about a decade, and year-over-year sales of hybrid cars are continually increasing, 3% of the market is actually a pretty impressive share. Every major automaker either has a hybrid car, or plans on releasing one in the near future. So it really won’t take much to reach that magic 10% that Lutz thinks is the ceiling on hybrid car sales.

But let’s just say that Lutz is right, or that he may think that electric cars will surpass hybrids in popularity rather quickly. He then went on to say that the money GM loses on hybrids will drive up the cost of other cars. Sounds like Lutz lacks faith in GM to be able to sell a hybrid people are willing to pay for, even though they sell a $110,000 Corvette ZR-1. Well now, if so few cars sold are money-losing hybrids is it really going to drive up the cost of other cars? Lutz seems to think people want fuel efficient cars, but are unwilling to pay the extra cost for the technology. It is unclear how much, if any, money the Prius earns Toyota, but that doesn’t mean it won’t one day contribute to the bottom line. GM has already acknowledged that the Volt is going to lose them money, at least for the first few generations. But even the Camaro probably still hasn’t turned a profit, despite selling almost 100,000 units in under a year.

Lutz shouldn’t be so quick to give up on hybrids, especially since they are going to need them to meet the 2020 fleet fuel economy average of 35 mpg.

Reprinted with permission from Gas 2.0

Oil and gas companies BP (NYSE: BP) and ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) announced Monday they will not renew their memberships in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP).

Formed in 2007, USCAP is a group of businesses and leading environmental organizations that created a blueprint for the comprehensive climate and energy legislation they wanted the US Congress to pass.

Jim Mulva, ConocoPhillips chairman and CEO, said the climate change bill passed by the House last summer "disadvantaged the transportation sector and its consumers, left domestic refineries unfairly penalized versus international competition, and ignored the critical role that natural gas can play in reducing GHG emissions."

The bill reportedly was based in part on USCAP's blueprint.

BP said it still supports the USCAP blueprint. which called for a cap-and-trade market, but it also said current legislation would penalize the petroleum industry.

Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT) also withdrew from USCAP.

It's not exactly clear why these companies are pulling out now. If they signed on in the first place simply to improve their green reputations, it would make sense that they would remain members now that climate legislation appears to be dead in the water. But maybe it isn't.

Or maybe the companies did not fully support USCAP's blueprint to begin with, and now that the climate legislation house of cards is beginning to fall, they've decided to yank their card out as well.

Companies remaining in the organization include Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK) and Shell Oil (NYSE: RDS-B). Environmental groups include Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council.

Read additional coverage at the link below.

Website: planetark.org/enviro-news/item/56767

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Business

by Susan Kraemer

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is close to approving the Tres Amigas high-voltage interconnection hub project in Clovis, New Mexico, designed to be the first step in a renewable energy transmission superhighway.

But five groups are filing against the project. The largest, Occidental Petroleum, is asking FERC to dump the project.

Occidental Petroleum’s main argument is that it would put local power companies selling higher-priced power to consumers at a disadvantage. They couldn’t compete with marketers buying at lower prices and routing their power through Tres Amigas.

Negotiable rates would make it possible for Tres Amigas to sell access to its transmission so cheap renewable electricity from rural areas like the windy Dakotas or Wyoming could be sent to other areas of the country where prices are higher.

Tres Amigas CEO Phil Harris said it wasn’t surprising that “the fourth largest oil and gas company in the U.S. does not want renewable energy developed. The positive filings far outweigh the negative."

The fossil energy giant claims Tres Amigas is anti-competitive because it is unique. Indeed, it is the first of its kind.

Bringing renewable energy to market requires the Tres Amigas transmission super hub, like bringing oil from Alaska required the building of a pipeline. Back in the late 19th century, the first oil pipeline was also, no doubt, unique.

There have been 56 filings in favor of Tres Amigas and only five against it. In some parts of the US, oil is used for heating homes, so renewable electricity would be competing with oil in those markets. In the long run, electricity to run electric cars would compete with oil, too.

Reprinted with permission from Cleantechnica

by Christopher DeMorro

Part Bat-Mobile, part jet fighter, all race car. That is the best way to describe the DeltaWing IndyCar Concept, which is on display at the Chicago Auto Show right now. The DeltaWing’s creators hope that the revolutionary design could be “the future of open wheel racing”. It certainly looks like something straight from the future.

The DeltaWing combines slick aerodynamics and fuel efficiency. The DeltaWing should be able to achieve speeds in excess of 200 mph using less horsepower and as much as half the fuel of current Indy cars. It is slated to begin testing this summer.

The big enemy to all high-speed cars is air resistance, or drag. Lots of drag is present underneath cars, which is why stock cars and Indy cars are so low to the ground. But the DeltaWing goes a step further, adopting the design of fixed-wing fighter jets with its dart-like front end and wide, wing-like rear. Two air inlets on either side of the cockpit channel air through the body rather than around it, while the “open wheels” are partially covered. The large vertical wing helps stabilize the DeltaWing, which weighs in at just over 1,000 pounds.

Another interesting feature of the DeltaWing is the engine. Current Indy cars generally feature a 3.5 liter, naturally aspirated V8 engine putting out around 650 horsepower. The DeltaWing uses a four-cylinder turbocharged engine, which would have to make at least 300 horsepower to reach speeds over 200 mph. Another big difference is that the engine is being designed to go 4,000 miles before needing a rebuild. While that may not seem like much, consider that many race car series from Indy to stock car to drag racing, rebuild the engine after every race.

A working model of the DeltaWing is due out in August. I for one am looking forward to any car designed to go fast as efficiently as possible.

Reprinted with permission from Gas 2.0

HP (NYSE: HPQ) updated its policy on electronic waste last week, banning its export from developed countries, like the U.S., to any developing country.

The company said it is committed to responsibly disposing of all e-waste generated by HP’s global operations and take-back programs.

Specifically HP will not export non-working electronic equipment or parts from developed to developing nations, unless they are deemed non-hazardous, according to definitions under the Basel Convention – an international treaty on toxic waste trade.

The Electronics TakeBack Coalition, which promotes responsible recycling and green design in the electronics industry, applauded the announcement.

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Business

“This announcement shows that HP is an environmental leader in this industry,” said Barbara Kyle, Electronics TakeBack Coalition National Coordinator. “Companies managing e-waste need strict programs in place to prevent pushing our problems on developing nations and to stem the stream of toxic waste. With this policy, HP is making a commitment to do their part to stop the global dumping of e-waste.”

HP said e-waste processed by the company and its authorized vendors is tracked and documented throughout the entire chain of custody until final disposition. HP audits its recycling, refurbishment and processing vendors annually to ensure they conform to its vendor requirements for hardware reuse and recycling and supply chain social and environmental responsibility (SER) policies.

“The U.S. doesn’t have laws that make it illegal to dump our e-waste on developing nations,” said Jim Puckett, Executive Director of the Basel Action Network (BAN), a global watchdog group on toxic trade, that has produced films and reports exposing the global e-waste dumping problem. “HP should be commended for this new policy, which goes beyond U.S. laws.”

An August 2008 report by the Government Accountability Office found that “a substantial amount ends up in countries such as China and India, where they are often handled and disposed of unsafely. These countries often lack the capacity to safely handle and dispose of used electronics if the units are not in reusable condition when received, and the countries’ extremely low labor costs and the reported lack of effective environmental controls make unsafe recycling commonplace.”

Much of these exports are made labeled for reuse, supposedly to “bridge the digital divide.” But a 2005 film and report by the Basel Action Network, Digital Dump: Exporting Reuse and Abuse to Africa, found that of the estimated 500 40-foot containers shipped to Lagos, Nigeria each month, as much as 75% of the imports are “junk” and are not economically repairable or marketable.

“It’s important that HP is taking voluntary steps to make sure the e-waste they control isn’t getting dumped on poor countries, but there will still be millions of pounds of e-waste exported by others each year, unless Congress takes action to stop it,” said Barbara Kyle. “We urge Congress to pass legislation modeled on HP’s policy, that ensures that we aren’t exporting our e-waste problem to other countries.”

Last year, Dell (Nasdaq: DELL) announced a similar standard, stating that it was the first major computer manufacturer to do so.

Website: www.electronicstakeback.com

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Business

Tires are usually seen as a functional part of a vehicle that allows it to smoothly move down the road. As the environmental equation of automobiles becomes a bigger deal, tires are increasingly viewed as a key component that can play a critical role in increasing efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, "eco" tires have required a number of trade-offs: higher cost, less grip, and quicker wear.

To address these negatives, Bridgestone Corporation unveiled its latest entry in the category of environmentally friendly tires at the 2010 Chicago Auto Show. The company’s Ecopia EP422 family of tires—the Dueler H/L 422 is designed for trucks, SUVs and crossovers—are all-season low rolling resistance tires made from recycled materials. They each come in five sizes and claim a 36-42 percent improvement in rolling resistance compared to Bridgestone's typical tires of the same size. From that lower rolling resistance Bridgestone says owners can expect about a 4 percent fuel economy improvement.

According to Bridgestone, the increased fuel efficiency should not only pay back the increased cost of the Ecopia tires, but their entire cost before the end of their 65,000-mile life.

The 422 numbers on the tire have symbolic meaning. That's Earth Day.

Reprinted with permission from Hybrid Cars

BrightSource Energy, Inc. has submitted an alternative design for the massive solar thermal power plant that has been at the center of controversy between clean energy advocates and environmentalists who say the plant will disrupt the desert habitat of endangered tortoises.

The alternate plan would reduce the footprint of the Ivanpah Solar Energy Generating System (ISEGS or Ivanpah) project by about 12% and reduce the power capacity from 440 megawatts (MW) to 392 MW.

BrightSource filed the mitigation proposal last week with the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM), saying the smaller footprint would minimize its potential environmental impacts.

BrightSource said the proposal is a direct response to comments and suggestions made during the Ivanpah permitting process’ public comment period.

If accepted by the CEC and BLM, BrightSource said the alternative design also would reduce expected desert tortoise relocations by approximately 15% and avoid the area identified as having the highest rare plant density.

It's not yet clear whether the alternate proposal will appease those opposed to the projects location. A Sierra Club representative told the Associated Press that the impact on desert tortoise habitat is still significant.

In all, BrightSource has contracted with PG&E and SCE to deliver more than 2,600 megawatts of electric power. The Ivanpah project has been identified as a “fast-track” priority by the U.S. Department of Interior for obtaining federal stimulus benefits for California under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The project has also been selected as one of sixteen short-listed applicants to receive a loan guarantee under the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 1703 program. The Ivanpah project is scheduled to begin construction in the second half of 2010 following issuance of permits by the California Energy Commission and the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management.

Read additional coverage at the link below.

Website: www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14390884

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Business

by Nick Chambers

It’s been a whirlwind of a three month tour for the upcoming Nissan LEAF electric car. After kicking things off last November in Los Angeles, the LEAF and its accompanying drivable test mule made 63 stops in 24 cities, finally ending up at an appearance in New York City last week.

Nissan says the tour covered 10,000 miles and gave more than 100,000 people the ability to see and learn about the car–and electric vehicles in general.

“There was a groundswell of grassroots support from coast to coast,” said Carlos Tavares, Chairman of Nissan Americas, in a statement. “Everywhere we went, people recognized a new form of mobility–a turning point–and they wanted to be a part of it. The response was spontaneous and diverse. We were joined by mayors and government officials, CEOs, utility partners, car enthusiasts, students, dealers, media, environmentalists, Twitter users and lots of families.”

Reservation Process

Due in part to the large interest generated on the tour, more than 50,000 people have now signed up on Nissan’s website to be the first to hear about developments with the LEAF. Turns out that was a wise decision by those people, because according to the company, only folks who are signed up on that list will be given the first chance to reserve a LEAF.

Actual reservations will begin in April, shortly after Nissan announces pricing of the LEAF. Nissan has always said the LEAF will be priced competitively with other cars in the same family–somewhere around $25,000. As Carlos Ghosn, CEO of the Nissan-Renault Alliance has said in the past, “The only way you’re going to mass market electric cars is by offering zero emissions as a free premium.”

To reserve a LEAF in April, potential customers will need to pay a refundable $100 reservation fee, after which they will be placed in line to be one of the first to actually order the LEAF in August. The car will start being delivered to initial markets in December 2010–barely making it under the company’s stated delivery goal of 2010. Certainly the initial rollout will be slow and demand will far outpace supply and there’s no word on which markets will get the LEAF first or if it will be a staggered rollout, but Nissan does say that vehicles will be available in “all major launch markets quickly thereafter.”

To Buy or To Lease, That is the Question

To this point the question of whether or not the LEAF will be leased or purchased and whether or not the battery will be a separate purchase or lease has been largely left unanswered—sometimes confusingly so. But in their latest release, Nissan says quite clearly “The Nissan LEAF will be available to consumers via lease or sale, in a single transaction that includes the battery.”

So, it seems that Nissan will be giving customers the option of either leasing or purchasing and the car and battery are coming as a single package regardless of how it’s bought. No word on any pricing differences yet, but we’ll soon find out seeing as Nissan is planning on announcing pricing sometime in the next 2 months.

Reprinted with permission from Gas 2.0

Last week Peru’s government approved wind, solar, micro hydro, and biomass energy projects that will add 500 megawatts of clean, renewable energy, meeting 12% of the current electricity needs of the country.

This is a crucial boost for a country that currently produces 80% of its electricity via hydroelectric power– an uncertain resource of energy going forward. Peru’s Andean glaciers provide most of the water for hydroelectric dams and they are expected to melt by 2022 as a result of global warming and climate change. However, Peru’s El Comercio suggests that in addition to the more well-known alternative-energy projects the government has approved, up to 500 megawatts of energy will also be produced by up to 17 small micro hydro projects that might not be dependent on the glaciers. Some of these facilities are already operational but did not have government contracts prior to this time.

Twenty companies competed for the rights to develop renewable energy sources in Peru, but only five had their projects approved. Cupisnique and Talara, coastal locations near the northern cities of Cajamarca and Piura will be the first places where wind farms will be constructed in Peru by the company Energia Eólica. The farms will be completed by June of 2012. Several other companies will also build wind farms and solar energy facilities, including Corsorcio Cobra Peru, Tacna Solar, Panamericana Solar, and Grupo T-Solar. Operations to produce energy from biomass sources like methane and sugarcane have also been approved in Lima.

Energy costs are expected to increase by 1% to help pay for these new facilities, but the long-term benefits the clean energy will provide far outweigh the short-term costs. They might also help avert a catastrophic humanitarian disaster if Peru loses its Andean glaciers as is predicted.

Wind energy has particularly strong potential in Peru and could adequately provide for all of the country’s energy needs. According to a Spanish alternative energy website, the World Meteorology Organization says Peru has 28 of the 32 climates appropriate for wind power generation, and that in the country’s coastline alone, there is a potential capacity of 65,152 megawatts.

Reprinted with permission from Ecopolitology

The Obama Administration on Friday announced a multi-agency initiative to spur regional economic growth while making buildings more energy efficient.

Seven federal agencies issued a combined Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) of up to $129.7 million over five years to create a regional research center that will develop new building efficiency technologies and work with local partners to implement the technologies in area buildings.

The agencies are working together to leverage funding and resources to promote regional growth through an Energy Regional Innovation Cluster (E-RIC) that is centered around an Energy Innovation Hub focused on developing new technologies to improve the design of energy-efficient building systems. This Energy Innovation Hub, one of three proposed by the Administration and funded by Congress in the FY10 budget, will bring together a multidisciplinary team of researchers, ideally working under one roof, to conduct research and work to solve priority technology challenges that span work from basic research to engineering development to commercialization readiness.

The E-RIC will work to disseminate new technologies into the local marketplace and share best practices with the public and private sectors. It will be supported through agency investments in technology and business development, and will include support for workforce education and training. By linking researchers at the Hub with local businesses and supporting specialized workforce education and training in the area, the initiative will create an economically dynamic region focused on building efficiency technologies.

“This unique partnership will not only advance the development of new, energy efficient technologies, it will help local governments, businesses, and homeowners save money on their utility bills by putting the technology to work," said U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu. "Energy efficient buildings represent one of our best and most immediate opportunities to create jobs, save money and cut carbon pollution."

The E-RIC chosen under the funding opportunity will be based at a university, DOE national laboratory, nonprofit organization, or private firm, partnering closely with local or state government officials, and leveraging existing expertise of local architects, builders, and manufacturers. With this specialization, the regional economy could support other businesses that address the full production lifecycle for building technologies and thus create more jobs. Training and education can help narrow the gap between the supply and demand for workers in these specialized fields.

The Department of Energy is providing up to $22 million for this project in the first year, with up to $100 million over the next four years. To encourage regional cooperation, the Department of Commerce’s (DOC) Economic Development Administration will make available up to $3 million in Public Works and Economic Development funds and up to $2 million in Economic Adjustment Assistance funds for the winning Proposal. The DOC Manufacturing Extension Partnership will make available up to $500,000 for a one-year award, with the possibility of renewal for up to two additional years, to support the services of an existing DOC-funded MEP Center. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) will make up to $300,000 in the first year, with three one-year options for renewal grants up to $300,000 per year, available to provide the services of an existing SBA-funded Small Business Development Center to the Regional Innovation Cluster.

Current National Science Foundation (NSF) award recipients who are also co-applicants or ERIC partners of the winning consortium will be able to apply for supplemental funding from NSF through existing programs, particularly those designed for the training of students who will be the future leaders in sustainable energy. The Department of Labor (DOL) will support linkages between E-RIC funding and existing Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and grant-funded programs to help develop the skilled workforce needed for the cluster to grow and prosper. The Department of Education will provide technical assistance as appropriate to help E-RIC partners determine how to facilitate the Consortium's objectives through the allowable use of funds under the E-RIC partners' existing formula grants or subgrants.

The Funding Opportunity Announcement and more information can be found at the link below.

Website: www.energy.gov/hubs/eric.htm

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Business

by Jonathan Williams

In a recent study conducted by researchers at the University of Virginia and published in Environmental Science & Technology, the authors claim that algae causes more harm to the environment than traditional biofuel crops like corn.

However, in this study, the researches used algae production data from at least a decade ago.

In response, Andres Clarens the lead author of the study said he used the most recent data that he could, which was about 10 years old. Algae biofuel companies keep their research a closely guarded secret, he said.

The absence of up to date data is comparable to trying to conduct a study on modern internet usage by using information from the mid 1990s. This research method would obviously be faulty considering that internet usage of the 1990s barely resembles the way the internet is used today.

Similarly, the field of algae research has experienced many breakthroughs and advances in the past decade just as the internet has seen a drastic evolution in its use.

In a recent press release, the Algal Biomass Organization pointed this fact out this, as well as several other assumptions and flaws within the UVA study itself. Some of the flaws include:

1. Assumptions about algae growth systems. The report uses a first generation, raceway-style pond system as its benchmark. Many leading algae companies abandoned that approach years ago and have a variety of more advanced cultivation systems, some of which are unrelated to the methods the authors sought to assess.

2. Assumptions about co-location. By assuming the production facility is not co-located with a large CO2 emitter, calculations for sourcing CO2 are flawed, resulting in a higher attribution of CO2 for algae plants. Most commercial-scale algae projects are being developed alongside major emitters in order to beneficially reuse CO2 that will take the place of equivalent carbon emissions from petroleum fuels.

3. Assumptions about water use. The study assumes fresh water and non-potable salt water are equal. A sustainable industrial algae production model uses non-potable, non-agricultural water in the process of making liquid fuels.

4. Assumptions about nutrient use. Because the report does not look at the full algae fuel cycle, ignored is the opportunity to consider the ability of algae producers to recycle nutrients and avoid such a substantial burden.

5. Assumptions about energy use. Because the authors admittedly did not consider the full algae fuel cycle, which allows energy reuse through biodigester biogas combustion coupled with the carbon recycling from all of the aspects of biodigestion, the report errantly gives a higher emissions burden.

One example that highlights the problems with the first assumption is algae fermentation systems like those developed by Solazyme. According to a study published in March 2009, fermentation technology seems to be the most likely growth technology to become commercially viable in the short-term . However, the fermentation method and the one studied by UVA researchers are so drastically different that the study’s conclusions cannot be applied to the other.

seambiotic pndsAdditionally, the study does not consider companies like Seambiotic, an Israel-based company that has been successfully operating a pilot algae growth program that harnesses CO2 emissions from a co-located coal power plant. By teaming up with CO2 emitters, algae companies can cut down on the costs associated with obtaining necessary carbon for algae growth.

Also, while the study does reference wastewater as a potential source of water, it doesn't mention that there are entities like Algae Wheel and NASA currently looking into, and even using this method.

Overall, it is surprising that the study would ignore all these facts, among many others, when they went about conducting their study.

By using outdated data, the study cannot be considered an accurate snapshot of the algae biofuel field. It is better to look at it as showing where the field once was and remember that things have only advanced from that point.

Jonathan Williams is a conservative blogger at www.BlatantReality.com and www.SCStatehouseBlog.com . He is also the founder and current president of the nonprofit organization Need by Need, Inc. He can be reached at Jon@BlatantReality.com.

After more than 10 years of lobbying, small organic-milk farmers are celebrating the release of strict new USDA regulations that establish distinct benchmarks requiring the grazing and pasturing of dairy cows and other livestock. Many hope that the new rule will put an end to the abuses that have flooded the organic market with suspect milk from a handful of mega-dairies generally confining thousands of animals in feed lots and barns.

The issue has been a lightning rod for controversy in the organic community. At least five times during the last decade, the National Organic Standards Board--a key USDA advisory panel made-up of industry stakeholders--passed guidance or recommended regulatory changes clarifying the requirement that dairy cows and other ruminants must be allowed to exhibit their native behavior and consume a meaningful amount of their feed from grazing on pastures.

“We are delighted by the new rules,” said Mark Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst at the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute. “The organic community has been calling for strong regulations and its enforcement for much of the past decade. Cheap organic milk flowing from the illegitimate factory farms has created a surplus that is crushing ethical family farm producers.”

New rulemaking had been delayed by the Bush administration, using a myriad of tactics, some of which are being scrutinized in an ongoing investigation by the USDA's office of Inspector General.

The Cornucopia Institute, on behalf of its family farmer members, also filed numerous formal legal complaints with the USDA’s National Organic Program calling for investigations into alleged violations of organic livestock management practices occurring on many of the 20 largest factory farm facilities.

The biggest scandal in the history of the organic industry centered around one such USDA investigation with the regulators finding “willful” violations of 14 organic regulations on factory farms operated by Aurora Dairy, a $100+ million company based in Colorado (Aurora produces private-label, store brand milk for Wal-Mart, Costco and large grocery chains).

"The public controversies concerning Aurora, and alleged improprieties by the largest milk processor in the country, Dean Foods (Horizon Organic), put increasing pressure on the USDA to rein-in the scofflaws in this industry," Kastel added.

“I am confident that the new rule, along with a commitment to rigorous enforcement by certifiers, will put an end to these abuses and restore fairness to the organic dairy sector,” said Kevin Engelbert, a dairy farmer from Nichols, NY who milks 100 cows. “Consumers will be able to purchase organic dairy products with confidence, knowing that regardless of the label, the animals who produced the milk were on pasture, as nature intended,” Engelbert added.

The USDA has announced that they will begin this month hosting a series of workshops around the country with the nation’s 50+ organic certification agencies and other industry stakeholders. The sessions are intended to clearly define the meaning and intent of the new rule so that certifiers, who conduct annual farm inspections and review organic system management plans, will understand what the regulations require from farmers and only approve management practices that strictly conform to it.

Specifically, the new rules require that dairy cows and other ruminants be out on pasture for the entire growing season, but for not less than 120 days. It also requires that the animals receive at least 30% of their feed, or dry matter intake (DMI), from pasturing. In addition, organic livestock will be required to have access to the outdoors year-round with the exception of temporary confinement due to mitigating and documentable environmental or health considerations.

“These minimum benchmarks will assure consumers that industrial-scale dairies don't just create the ‘illusion’ of grazing and continue producing illegitimate organic milk," said Kastel. He continued by emphasizing to consumers that, "Based on Cornucopia's research 90% of all namebrand dairy products are produced with high-integrity--the handful of factory farms are bad aberrations and will now be dealt with."

The 120-day/30% DMI benchmarks were negotiated reference points agreed-upon by organic community stakeholders and arrived at after a series of meetings and discussions, nationwide, over much of the last half dozen years. The rules were also a carefully crafted consensus aimed at ensuring that legitimate organic dairy operations could truly provide meaningful pasture for their herds across the wide range of climatic zones in the U.S. It is estimated that the rule will impact upwards of 2000 organic dairy farmers.

In addition to dairy cattle, the standards will assure humane animal husbandry practices in eggs, poultry, beef and pork production. The USDA will also be accepting public comments for 60 days on one exclusion from the pasture minimum, that for "finish feeding" on grain for ruminants, including beef cattle--an issue that proved controversial and elicited a wealth of public comments when the original draft rule was published.

“I, along with many other family farmers, watch with intense frustration as the seemingly unprincipled mega dairies continually bend the rules and engage in unfair competition with me,” said Rebecca Goodman, a certified organic dairy producer who milks 40 cows in Wonewoc, WI. “I am thankful that the USDA is now standing with us to preserve the integrity of the organic food label.”

"When Secretary Vilsack met with organic dairy farmers in Wisconsin this past summer he told us that he would ‘level the playing field’ for small and medium producers," Goodman added. "These new regulations appear to be the first of what I hope will be many steps by the Secretary following through on this important commitment."

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Business

by William Sarni

In an effort to slash CO2 output, Whole Foods, Bed Bath & Beyond announce they will no longer buy products sourced using Canadian oil sands.

Sure there is little to no progress from the COP15 summit in Copenhagen; the US Congress is gridlocked in beltway madness with regards to climate legislation; and the media can’t seem to understand that climate science is not a sound bite.

However, I remain hopeful because of voluntary actions by companies that recognize that we need to move to a low carbon economy — and they have the power to make it happen. Why the hope? Many companies are voluntarily moving ahead with carbon cutting programs on their own.

Tucked away in the Financial Times last week, Sheila McNulty reported that Whole Foods Market and Bed Bath & Beyond have decided not to source fuel from Canada’s oil sands (formerly tar sands).

Oil sands have a much higher carbon content than crude oil and many of the development processes have oil sands’ negative impact on human health, water and wildlife.

Michael Besancon, Whole Foods’ senior global vice-president of purchasing, distribution and marketing, said: “We’re looking at our carbon footprint, and tar sands fuels are higher carbon,” Mr Besancon said. “We’re trying to be a leader – out in front on this issue."

These latest actions are being encouraged by ForestEthics an NGO that is pushing to move US businesses away from the high carbon footprint oil sands. ForestEthics is negotiating with 30 companies to follow the lead by Whole Foods and Bed Bath & Beyond.

Whole Foods looked at their supply chain carbon footprint and replaced Marathon Oil with CountryMark which sources from US oil sources. A simple and relatively small action but with significant implications for energy companies that source from oil sands. If industries decide to move to a low carbon source for energy to better manage risk (high carbon sources will at some point be regulated) and demonstrate leadership in sustainability, then it will have an impact on the energy sector.

Building a low carbon economy: the power of voluntary actions

Although the impact may be smaller, the move is like the Walmart sustainability initiative in that the greatest impact a company can have on their environmental footprint is typically within their supply chain.

Walmart is now positively influencing tens of thousands of their suppliers to pay attention to their resource use (energy, carbon, water and materials). Walmart, Whole Foods and Bed Bath & Beyond are not alone in quantifying their entire environmental footprint and looking a ways to reduce the supply chain portion of their footprint.

Based upon my experience with our clients influencing your supply chain is is where the real power resides in embedding sustainability thinking into a cross section of industry sectors. The approach: tell your suppliers that you are committed to a sustainability strategy and they are part of the solution. If they are not interested companies now have the option of sourcing from those companies that can provide “low footprint” products.

Reprinted with permission from Earth & Industry

Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) is launching a pilot sustainability initiative for Ford and Lincoln Mercury dealers to reduce their carbon footprint and improve the energy-efficiency of their dealerships.

Ford has partnered with Rocky Mountain Institute, a leading energy-efficiency organization to consult on new technologies and architectural design principles, at three dealerships in diverse climates.

The 'Go Green' dealer sustainability initiative will be integrated into the Ford's existing architecture to help dealers improve energy efficiency and lower operating costs.

The program was rolled out today at the 2010 National Automobile Dealers Association Convention.

Dealers interested in participating in the 'Go Green' Dealership Sustainability Program will first receive a comprehensive energy assessment from sustainability experts at Ford. After the thorough assessment is completed, Ford and the dealer will collaborate on energy-saving options available and will tailor a program to meet the needs of the dealer. This will be for dealers with existing facilities as well as those constructing new facilities.

Dealers who participate in the program will be able to take advantage of several benefits, including guidance on available State and Federal tax credits and incentives, as well as access to technical expertise and resources to assist with selection of energy-efficient products and equipment.

Ford is finalizing details to initiate a pilot program with three dealers located in Florida, New York and Nevada.

"We applaud Ford for their ongoing energy-efficiency efforts around the world," said Amory B. Lovins, Co-Founder, Chairman and Chief Scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute. "This initiative will have a positive impact participating dealers decrease their consumption of energy. Implementing these cost-effective solutions will also improve dealer's bottom line over the long-term."

by Tina Casey

There they go again: just one day before Nike, Starbucks, and a slew of clean energy companies are uniting with labor leaders to launch the Race for American Jobs in support of green jobs related to climate and clean energy policies, environmentalleader.com reports that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed a petition challenging the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Nike has already resigned its position on the Chamber’s board over the organization’s backward-looking environmental policies. Other major companies have withdrawn outright because of the Chamber’s over-the-top lobbying. Last fall Apple and Exelon (the nation’s largest utility company) quit in protest, along with utilities Pacific Gas & Electric and PNM Resources. Leading paper company Mohawk also withdrew, telling the Associated Press that the Chamber’s naysayer position on climate change was hurting the company’s cred on environmental issues. With friends like these, right?

About that Greenhouse Gas Lobbying Activity

The Wall Street Journal has reported that the Chamber spent a record $34.7 million on lobbying just in the third quarter of last year, and a good chunk of that went to promoting action against climate change legislation. As chronicled in detail by Lee Fang of thinkprogress.com, the Chamber of Commerce has become a virtual chamber of know-nothings on climate policy, even to the point of threatening to put climate science on trial. That might not work out so well for them — after all, the last time anti-science hysteria went on trial it was the Scopes case over Darwin’s theory of evolution.

About those Green Jobs

As the defections by Exelon, Apple and others indicate, the Chamber has become a sort of many-headed Hydra, with some of the heads rushing blindly out the door to defend the status quo (namely fossil fuels), heedless of the fact that the others are getting smashed against the door frame. It’s a big headache for the many companies that have pitched their resources toward environmental responsibility, and the irony is that sustainability related jobs are one of the rare bright spots in the economy. Solar, wind, and other forms of sustainable energy are creating new green jobs even in the heart of the Rust Belt. Some of the new biofuel processes also use captured waste carbon, which dovetails perfectly with the cap-and-trade concept of turning carbon liabilities into an asset.

Race for American (Green) Jobs

The goal behind Race for American Jobs is to gather business leader support for federal climate and energy legislation, and it will continue on from Tuesday February 16 to March 10, when organizers will meet with legislators and the Obama administration. A webcast of Tuesday’s kickoff event will be available on www.wecanlead.org/race. It’s sponsored by We Can Lead of Ceres, a coalition of business luminaries including Nike, Starbucks, Sun Microsystems, Levi Strauss & Co., eBay, Gap Inc., and – well, let’s just say in your face, Chamber of Commerce.

Reprinted with permission from Cleantechnica

by Nick Chambers

While I was grumbling about the dearth of green automobiles and related green happenings at last week’s Chicago Auto Show, Ford—who stole the show with the most exciting green car announcements including a natural gas Transit Connect Taxi and a 30 MPG Ford Edge — provided me with an opportunity to be one of the first of the media to drive the upcoming Transit Connect Electric.

It was only a short 5 minute lap around the convention center on salted, icy downtown Chicago streets, but it felt like a very solid truck. In fact, aside from the lack of engine noise, it was an abjectly normal experience. But this is exactly what Ford is going for—making the experience of driving an electric vehicle as similar to that of a conventional vehicle as possible. Given that the Transit Connect Electric is squarely aimed at commercial fleets and businesses, that only makes sense.

And based on what I could tell from 5 minutes, if you or your drivers travel less than 80 miles per day on predetermined routes or in and around the city, the Transit Connect Electric could be exactly what the doctor ordered to either show off your business’ commitment to going green and/or saving oodles of money at the pump and maintenance department. It could truly fit into your business without anyone so much as batting an eye.

Regenerative Braking

At this point I’ve driven lots of upcoming electric cars on short test drives and one of the things I like to pay attention to is the amount of regenerative braking the engineers chose to include in the vehicle. It can range from overly harsh (the Mini E) to barely noticeable (the Nissan LEAF test mule) to user-selectable (the Mitsubishi i-MiEV). Of all of those options I prefer the user-selectable one; it affords the driver the ability to determine what style of EV driving they prefer. If you want to go whole hog and recapture as much of the “lost” braking energy as possible, you can crank it up high and never even have to use the brake pedal, but, if that feeling gives you a queasy, unsafe, out-of-control vibe, you can turn it down and it will feel almost exactly like a conventional car.

The Ford Transit Connect Electric has chosen to go with the barely noticeable regen braking scheme, but as I always do on these test drives, I point out the option of the user-selectable regen to whatever chief engineer inevitably accompanies me. On this particular trip I was accompanied by Scott Staley, one of Ford’s Chief Engineers in their research and advanced engineering department. Scott thought the user-selectable option was a great idea, and seeing that it’s essentially a minor software change, he seemed to think it might even make it in the final vehicle. So, if you see that option in there, maybe you can partially thank me.

Sale and Profit Arrangement with Azure Dynamics

After the test drive I had the opportunity to talk with Jay Sandler, Vice President of sales for Azure Dynamics. The partnership between Azure and Ford is, as far as I can tell, unique in the industry and is blazing a whole new trail. The Transit Connect body will be assembled in Turkey—as I believe all of them are. But after that, all the Transit Connect bodies that are destined to become Electrics will be shipped as an empty shell to Azure Dynamics’ as-yet-to-be-chosen “near Detroit” assembly facility where Azure will install all of the pieces that make it function.

All of the Transit Connect Electrics assembled in Michigan by Azure will be sold through Ford Dealerships, but Azure will be the seller. The vehicles will be serviced by trained EV techs at the Ford facilities, but Azure will be the warrantier–although this will likely not be a problem as EVs should have very little service required. According to Scott Staley and Jay Sandler, even though Ford’s badge is on the Transit Connect Electric, Ford will not be making money off the sale of the finished product. Azure will be buying the empty shells from Ford and making all the profit off the final product sales.

It seems like a complicated arrangement, but in order to bring the vehicle to market quickly, both Ford and Azure seemed to think that this was the best option. If they’re successful, Azure reaps the profit while Ford assumes virtually no risk yet gets the spotlight. As Ford ramps up its own vehicle electrification program over the next few years, we’ll see if Azure continues to be part of that picture.

I wonder if Ford is using the Transit Connect Electric as a test bed to see if Azure is a company worth buying. Why not? Technology companies do it all the time to speed up their research or get a lock on technology they feel is the next big thing.

Reprinted with permission from Gas 2.0

Despite growing water-scarcity risks in many parts of the world, the vast majority of leading companies in water-intensive industries have weak management and disclosure of water-related risks and opportunities, according to a first-ever report issued today by the Ceres investor coalition, the financial services firm UBS and financial data provider Bloomberg.

The report evaluates and ranks water disclosure practices of 100 publicly traded companies in eight key sectors exposed to water-related risks. The report shows that many companies are not including material water risks and performance data in their financial filings, nor are they providing local-level water data, particularly in the context of facilities in water-stressed regions. Moreover, none of the 100 companies are providing comprehensive water data on their supply chains, an especially glaring omission given that the vast majority of many corporations' water footprint is in the supply chain.

The shortcomings are evident in the report's final scores. Using a scoring scale of 0 to 100, the three highest scoring companies were UK beverage company Diageo (NYSE: DEO), Swiss mining company Xstrata (XSTAN. SW) and U.S. electric power company Pinnacle West (NYSE: PNW) (owner of Arizona Public Services) with 43 points, 42 points and 38 points, respectively. Eighty of the 100 companies scored fewer than 30 points.

"Most companies provide basic disclosure on overall water use and water scarcity concerns, but their focus and attention so far is not nearly at the level needed given the enormity of this growing global challenge," said Mindy S. Lubber, president of Ceres, which published the report, Murky Waters: Corporate Reporting on Water Risk. "Our global economy runs on water and in many parts of the world this finite resource is under threat. Companies must do more to disclose their potential exposure from this issue and their strategies for responding."

With analytical support from UBS, the report evaluates the quality, depth and clarity of water risk disclosure in both voluntary and mandatory corporate reporting through June 30, 2009. The data for the report was provided by Bloomberg’s Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) data and analytics service.

The report assesses companies in eight key sectors: beverage, chemicals, electric power, food, homebuilding, mining, oil and gas and semiconductors.

"We chose sectors where water security concerns are likely to have a material impact on business, whether through regulatory, legal or reputational constraints that in some cases can go so far as to threaten a firm's very 'license to operate'," said Julie Hudson, global head of SRI and Sustainability Research at UBS Investment Bank. "It is clear that any threat to water security could have a significant impact on the bottom-line of such companies."

The report scored the companies based on five key categories of disclosure: water accounting, risk assessment, direct operations, supply chain and stakeholder engagement.

Within each category, sub-elements were divided to produce a final scored assessment based on the depth and clarity of corporate disclosures. An extra "opportunities" category was created for two of the eight industry groups--chemical firms and homebuilders--which resulted in those sectors being scored on a 0- to 112-point scale. Among the key overall findings:

* The mining sector scored highest overall, followed by the beverage industry. Companies in the homebuilding sector had the lowest overall scores.

* Only 21 companies disclose targets to reduce water use, and even fewer--just 15 companies--had goals to reduce wastewater discharge.

* Only 17 companies report local-level water data and only a handful provide the information in the context of operations in water stressed regions.

The report comes as rising populations, rapid economic growth in developing countries, climate change and growing regulation are triggering growing water availability concerns in the U.S and abroad. The report cites numerous examples where impacts are already being felt by vulnerable industry sectors, including:

* In 2009, water shortages in California devastated the state's agricultural industry, leading to an estimated loss of 21,000 jobs and more than $1 billion in revenues.

* During the 2007-08 drought in Georgia, a severe reduction in hydropower generation due to low water levels forced electric power firm Southern Co. to buy $33 million in fossil fuel-based energy.

* Mining company Newmont faced protests by thousands of local residents near its gold mine in Peru due to water concerns that led the company to relinquish access to 3.9 million ounces of gold reserves in 2004.

The report comes at a time of increasing pressure from investors for improved corporate disclosure of environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks that they face. On Jan. 27, in response to investor requests, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued formal "interpretive guidance" clarifying the type of information that companies should be disclosing regarding material climate change risks and opportunities, including those relating to water-availability risk.

The report builds on the SEC’s guidance with specific recommendations for companies to improve their water-related disclosure. It recommends that companies:

* include material water risk factors and performance data in their financial filings

* provide water performance data broken down to the facility level for operations in water-stressed regions

* outline actions and policies for assessing and managing water risks, including quantified targets for reducing wastewater and water use

* disclose how they are collaborating with stakeholders and suppliers on water risks, including setting performance goals for key supply chains

* outline specific strategies for developing water-related products with strong market potential in a water-constrained world.

The report also recommends that investors:

* engage the companies they own in water-intensive sectors about how they are assessing and disclosing water risks and related performance information

* ask their asset managers to assess and engage companies on water and other ESG risks and opportunities--and make this a stipulation in Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and annual performance reviews;

* support investor initiatives, such as the Carbon Disclosure Project, the United Nations’ Principles for Responsible Investment’s work with the CEO Water Mandate, to achieve increased water disclosure.

The report is available at the link below.

Website: www.ceres.org/Page.aspx?pid=1200

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Business

The VW Touareg Hybrid will be the first to combine two of the hottest fuel-saving technologies: a direct injection and hybrid.

Volkswagen is finally making its first foray into the hybrid market—and it’s starting with the Touareg SUV. Volkswagen unveiled a lighter leaner Touareg design, including a hybrid variant, at a press conference in Munich, ahead of the vehicle’s official showing at the 2010 Geneva Motor Show. Aiming at efficiency, as well as performance, Volkswagen claims combined fuel economy in the mid-20-mpg range, while allowing zero-to-60 times of 6.5 seconds, and a top speed of 150 miles per hour. Towing capacity will be more than 7,700 pounds.

The Touareg Hybrid powerplant marries an Audi-built, supercharged 3-liter V6 and an eight-speed automatic with a disc-shaped electric motor mounted internally. Electric energy is stored in 155 pounds worth of nickel metal hydride battery pack stored under the rear cargo floor.

The 2011 VW Touareg Hybrid is a full hybrid, capable of traveling up to one mile—and at speeds of up to 30 miles per hour—in all-electric drive mode. Total output will be a 380 horsepower and a maximum 428 pound-feet of torque. The Touareg’s Hybrid setup also features a coasting capability that disengages the engine from the transmission when the driver releases the gas pedal when traveling at high speeds.

VW’s engineers and marketers are proud of the vehicle’s technical achievements and expect those features to attract new buyers. "For Volkswagen’s Touareg Hybrid, we combine the electric drive with a direct gasoline injection engine in our new 3.0 V6 TSI,” said Dr. Ulrich Hackenberg, research and development board member. “Therefore the Touareg Hybrid profits from two top technologies. This combination is unique and can't be found among competitors."

Hybrid purists might not be impressed with real-world mileage, probably in the low-20s, but keep in mind that Touareg has definitely gone on a diet. The hybrid drive replaces the previous V8 gasoline engines in Europe and America. And the V10 TDI and W12 engine versions of the previous model were discontinued.

Place in the Market

The Touareg Hybrid will not be the first hybrid SUV on the US market—not by a long shot. (The Ford Escape Hybrid was introduced in 2004.) However, the Touareg will be the first and only off-roader in Europe by a German carmaker offered with a hybrid version. The Touareg’s combination of style, size and solid off-road capability is something the other smaller hybrid SUVs can’t claim.

The new Volkswagen Touareg line, to be offered in a range of conventional gasoline and diesel options (including the hybrid), will be lighter and more efficient Touareg for 2011. Most, if not all, of the models will be offered with a stop-start system, to shut down the engine when the vehicle comes to a stop.

The Touareg Hybrid will be positioned as a slightly more expensive—yet more capable and powerful—alternative to the Lexus RX450h luxury hybrid SUV. Maybe that’s not a bad move for VW, because the RX Hybrid was been the best-selling SUV hybrid for most of 2009. Pricing for the Touareg Hybrid has not yet been announced, but it should fall in line just above the Lexus RX450h, but well below the Cadillac Escalade Hybrid and BMW X6 ActiveHybrid.

The primary target for the vehicle appears to be Europe. VW can boast that the Touareg Hybrid and the V6 TDI Touareg are the most fuel-efficient gas and diesel SUVs ever built in Europe in this large vehicle class.

Other signs of high-tech vehicle electrification include a parking brake that is now activated by push-button, and a tailgate that, as an option, can be opened and closed by remote control unit integrated in the car key. The innovative "Area View" utilizes four cameras to detect the Touareg’s surroundings and this enhances safety. Protection is delivered by up to nine airbags. Lane Assist ensures that the vehicle does not stray from the right path; meanwhile, Side Assist warns of vehicles approaching from the rear when changing lanes. You’ll also find adaptive cruise control, Bi-Xenon headlights with Dynamic Light Assist perceive oncoming traffic and adjust the light beam to eliminate unwanted glare, and adaptive roll compensation ensures that the Touareg sits solidly on the street.

The Touareg Hybrid will go on sale by early fall 2010.

Reprinted with permission from Hybrid Cars

by Tina Casey

“Sunglasses” for windows could be the key to cutting energy consumption in homes, offices, and any other type of building. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has been working on energy efficient windows that work like self-adjusting sunglasses, and they could shave about 1/8 off the total energy used by buildings. With buildings accounting for about 40% of U.S. energy consumption, that’s a huge chunk of savings.

NREL has been working on the project under the Electrochromic Initiative and Windows Technology program since the 1980’s, using lessons learned from photovoltaics, particularly thin film solar cell technology. There are still some kinks to work out, but the research is progressing and NREL’s research partner Sage Electrochromics is predicting that the cost of the windows will drop with improved performance.

Energy Efficient “Dynamic Windows”

Electrochromatic windows can help maintain an even temperature indoors by changing color to block out more sun on warm days, and to retain more heat on cold days. According to NREL, the “dynamic windows” contain two layers of electrodes separated by an ion conductor layer. The three layers are only one micron thick, about the same as thin film solar cells, and they are manufactured by a similar process. The window changes color when an electric field is applied, which can be done automatically through sensors integrated into a building’s electrical field. The electricity it takes to power about 1500 square feet of dynamic window is only about the same as a light bulb, and computer simulations show that the difference would mean a big drop in electricity consumption — up to 49% for air conditioning and 51% for lighting.

NREL Aiming for High Performance, Low Cost Dynamic Windows

One of NREL’s goals is to develop a dynamic window performs at more than double the conventional manufacturer’s warranty, to twenty years or more. To that end the agency is working with electrode layers made of nickel and tungsten oxides, which do not degrade under light. NREL is also developing a way to manufacture the dynamic layers through low-cost methods, similar to the method NREL is already developing for “printable” thin film solar cells. Another cost savings could be achieved by printing the electrochromatic film on plastic instead of glass, which in turn could make dynamic windows easier to apply as a retrofit on existing windows.

Windows that Make Energy Instead of Taking It

Because of the dynamic window’s close connection to photovoltaic technology, NREL researchers foresee the development of windows that actually produce excess energy. It’s another key step in transforming buildings from power consumers into mini-generators by integrating solar components into building elements including solar roof tiles and solar walls.

Reprinted with permission from Cleantechnica

by Peter Garvin

In recent years there has been a ‘boom’ in the availability of online carbon emission calculation tools. It seems as though every company with the slightest interest in the area is offering assistance on both commercial and personal levels. This do-it-yourself approach offers pros and cons, opportunities and problems. Are these tools reliable? Do they do what they say they do or are they simply a way to appear green whilst actually doing very little? This article seeks to explain the issues surrounding this type of emissions calculation and answer these important questions.

Arguments for Carbon Accounting

Recently, it seems that economic contraction has had important (though to some extent contradictory) implications for the greening of production and consumption. Last year, some commentary in the media anticipated that current economic recession conditions bode a new ‘age of austerity’ where consumers (and businesses) will be compelled to save more and reduce ‘wasteful’ consumption. This trend would also seem to link to debates in the academic literature relating to the need for a shift in societal values to curb conspicuous consumption in the developed world and the need for reductions in material and energy consumption and a greater focus on quality of life improvements and ‘sufficiency as policy’. It was also said, on the other hand, that the credit crunch and economic downturn may pose a set-back insofar as green and more ethical products and services which continue to be more expensive, lose market share to the cheaper products and services they seek to displace.

Government regulations on corporate CO2 emissions are not the only reason firms may wish to support green initiatives during an economic downturn; environmental programs also help to demonstrate company commitment to sustainability, improve staff morale and retention and attract new customers.

Bearing that in mind, it is easy to see why many companies are keen to establish their level of emissions but are not willing to fork out capital to a consultant to do it. This is where “do-it-yourself” carbon accounting comes into play.

This process (usually in the form of free online carbon calculators) offers both positive and negative facets to businesses and the greater good.

Approach and Boundaries

As carbon footprinting is a relatively new procedure, it is understandable that there is confusion about the appropriate means and boundaries to adopt for these impact analyses. The boundary of a carbon footprint can vary depending on how it was calculated and how much responsibility the entity being footprinted is willing to take on. It can also, particularly in the case of Small and Medium Enterprises (SME), depend hugely on time and cost associated with the calculation.

For instance, to use a modern, if unrelated example, should a consumer be responsible for the electricity purchases of an aluminium producer far down the supply chain of producing an iPod? Should Apple be held responsible for these purchases and thus account for them in its own footprint? What about the aluminium producer itself? It is clear that in the case of any complicated product, any number of different players in the supply chain could claim responsibility for the emissions associated with producing materials, basic chemicals, and other low-value-added goods that end up embedded in final consumer goods. If it is desirable to achieve total GHG accounting without double-counting, multiple counting of responsibility is problematic. The point is that if everyone footprinted their own operations, the system would run perfectly. Each stage of production would be accounted for by those directly involved and embedded carbon data could be passed on up the supply chain. The problem is that until the system becomes that advanced, there are issues with who feels responsible for what. In my opinion, why should one company be punished for taking a proactive approach and trying to calculate its emissions by being required to spend time calculating the emissions of others who do not have the same proactive approach?

Just as there are problems with counting only direct emissions and energy inputs, there are problems with responsibility sharing as well. Firms often produce many different products, all of which have different supply chains, and sharing responsibility with both their suppliers and their consumers for all these products would likely produce a harrowing accounting task. Even if this issue could be overcome, it is unlikely many firms would spend the necessary time and money to calculate and, more importantly, understand this type of footprint. If calculating footprints remains voluntary for firms, simplicity must be valued highly in the design of protocols. It is probably for such reasons that the original protocols for carbon footprinting were written from a company, instead of a product, perspective. The LCA technique for carbon footprinting is a perfect example of an approach from a product perspective; however it is notable that the majority of methodologies (GHG Protocol; ISO 14064; PAS 2050; online calculators) do not follow its approach.

Online Calculators

Despite the broad use of the term ‘carbon footprint’ in both the academic and the public domain, neither a clear definition nor standard measurement is applied universally. The term is being defined by common usage. Until recently there were no attempts at standardizing the methods for measuring CO2 emissions and consequently, no standards for becoming carbon neutral.

With this in mind, and the consideration that a single, proliferating ‘standard’ does not exist, carbon calculators, as long as allowing for the emissions necessary to satisfy the base level of a carbon footprint, can be valid tools.

The carbon footprint process is, thus far, still a voluntary measure for the majority of SMEs. The voluntary nature explains the widespread variation in methodology and use of the carbon footprint as a reporting and behavioral change tool. Governmental policies with regard to standards for measurement and reporting on the carbon footprint are yet to be developed.

The base level of emissions calculation suggested by all three emerging “standards” (GHG Protocol, ISO 14064, and PAS 2050) is that of direct emissions. Many online calculators fully consider the use of direct emissions needed for a base level carbon footprint. The problem with this is that the online calculators have different sources of conversion factors (data on the amount of CO2 produced by an activity), and thus may give different results, allowing a firm to report a lower amount of emissions simply by choosing their calculation tool carefully. This may be something to address in future as emissions reporting becomes more commonplace in the market.

A key consideration in the utilization of the online calculators is their ease of use. Concepts such as the carbon footprint have gained momentum among organizations precisely because of this characteristic: it is easy to grasp and indicates the direct effect of an organization on the environment. SMEs depend more heavily on easily accessible tools such as internet-based carbon calculators because of the barriers they face to implement environmental management systems. Therefore SMEs require different tools than the ones so far developed for larger corporations and online carbon calculators could provide a valuable tool to analyze their environmental impact. This overcomes many of the barriers to SME uptake of environmental initiatives including a lack of knowledge, expertise and funding, as well as cost.

This has a two-fold effect in terms of SMEs. Firstly, it means the company is more likely to be able to perform the calculation in the consistently year on year. Secondly, the ease of use means that the company are more likely to be able to complete the annual study without complications, and without the need to source costly outside help. Both of these factors increase the likelihood that the company will carry on performing the calculation and presumably addressing its result, thus increasing the positive effects on the environment and company credentials. Reliability

Two of the primary concerns within the literature when speaking in reference to online carbon calculators are those of reliability and accuracy. Carbon calculators are a useful alternative only when they are both accurate and effective.

A 2008 study saw that the recent rise in carbon calculators has been accompanied by inconsistencies in output values given similar inputs for individual behavior, stating that, in some cases, values can vary by as much as several tonnes per activity. These variations in input could influence both the types of steps companies take and the level of overall effort put in (e.g. the total amount of emissions reductions completed or offsets purchased).

However, this difference in calculation does not necessarily have to be negative. If some over-estimate and some under-estimate it may be a fair assumption that things would ‘level-out’ on a global scale. It also neglects the fact that over-estimation, if only by the magnitude of a few tonnes, may have little effect on people’s desire to offset, and add a few tonnes extra to the fight against climate change.

One of the main factors criticized in the wealth of online calculators is the lack of inclusion of various business activities, such as air freight, which would prevent a business calculating the effects of all its activities. This may be possible to combat by using other tools to work out the missing emissions.

High level support has been shown for the general theory behind carbon calculators as the UK’s Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) produced its own, funded by Environment Secretary David Miliband under the New Labor government in 2007. This shows a certain belief in them from a wider organization. Admittedly it is a personal emissions calculator but the thought processes behind its publication are one and the same – an easy, low cost technique to encourage the establishing of carbon footprints.

Lots of published work in the area criticized the fact that different calculators used different inputs. This may well be the case but as long as a calculator is used that has inputs to cover all activities and operations of the company, need this be a problem? It seems that much of the criticism applies to the lack of a worldwide or even national methodology that can be used by all, thus standardizing the process. This means that essentially there is not a level playing field. As stated earlier, standardization of the process is a long term goal that is far from implemented. Consequently, in the mean time, does it not make sense that the use of any tool that can account for a firm’s activities in terms of emissions will have a positive effect?

Beyond the Footprint

It has been said that all calculators fail to enable the user to effectively understand and act upon the results of the carbon footprint calculations, and that calculators available to SMEs therefore do not go beyond providing a snapshot of the organization’s environmental impact. While an understanding of the implications of the footprint is critical in effectively trying to improve business’ sustainable practices, I believe it hugely unfair to assume that delivery of this understanding should be a major function of the calculator. A calculator, by definition, works out the figures. It is a tool to generate a number. The implication that it should be a one-stop-shop for calculation and sustainability advice is too much to expect, certainly given the relatively infantile development stage of carbon accounting worldwide.

It can be said, then, that internet carbon calculators do not provide an accurate and effective option to act upon an organization’s carbon footprint. They can, however, provide an accurate way to measure it providing due diligence is exercised in calculator selection.

Conclusion

To summarize, online carbon calculators, selected correctly and used with care, can provide a valid and usable result, particularly in the case of SMEs. The accessibility and low cost of these tools are allowing the spread of carbon footprinting to extend much further that it would if more complex and costly. If the only effect of this is to act as a precursor to lower tier emission trading schemes, or more effective accounting protocols, it is still a very good thing. After all, if only 1% of the companies assessing their emissions in this way were to offset, that is still far more of a reduction worldwide than if the tools weren’t available, regardless of accuracy. Is it not true that every little helps?

Reprinted with permission from Green Economy Post