post

GreenMonk news roundup 07/02/2009

by

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

post

Rich Lechner on Smart Transport June 09

by

I talked to Rich Lechner, IBM’s VP of Energy and Environment, the other day about the global problem of getting transportation right. According to Rich, in the US alone, congested roadways cost about $78bn per year so this is very much an economic as well as a sustainability-related issue!

We had a wide-ranging conversation about all kinds of solutions, including using demand response to manage traffic flows!

post

June 29th GreenMonk Energy and Sustainability show

by

Here is the chatstream from yesterday’s Energy & Sustainability show (above) – there were a couple of technical hitches which I have now sorted out and which shouldn’t present problems next week:

03:31 Tom Raftery: Do we have audio & video
03:32 cgarvey: yup, both working
03:34 SukiFuller: I’m gonna be listening but not able to type
03:35 Tom Raftery: http://www.upi.com/Energy_Resources/2009/06/15/Global-warming-causing-mass-migration/UPI-51151245080561
03:37 Tom Raftery: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-peril-below-the-ice
03:39 Tom Raftery: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE55M0XT20090623
03:40 Tom Raftery: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=car-exhaust-premature-birth
03:43 MikeTheBee: In more ways than one!
03:44 Tom Raftery: http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/policy/i/2193/
03:45 Doc_Manhattan: Hello Tom great show so far
03:46 Tom Raftery: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/business/energy-environment/29biofuel.html?_r=2
03:47 Tom Raftery: http://www.algasolrenewables.com/en/home
03:49 Doc_Manhattan: too cool on the algae
03:49 Tom Raftery: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/23753/
03:49 cgarvey: More good news .. http://url.ie/1xmu .. all the big mobile phone companies have signed up for a common charger standard to start to appear from 2010.
03:51 Tom Raftery: http://www.ecofriend.org/entry/eco-cars-us-based-oil-company-debuts-100-electric-car-ev-sharing-program
03:52 Tom Raftery: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/06/27/mulally-fords-path-to-profitability-based-on-electrification
03:53 cgarvey: There is an issue with Firefox and comments (I’ll email you separately)
03:54 Tom Raftery: http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUST9767820090623
03:54 MikeTheBee: Comments okay on Mac but not for me *again” on FF win
03:55 Tom Raftery: http://www.pcworld.com/article/167503/cisco_promotes_telecommuting.html
03:56 Doc_Manhattan: our group works together as a worldwide team on www.reactiongrid.com using a VW to meet so we’re participating!
03:56 MikeTheBee: @cgarvey Me too pls, I thought I had it sussed with cookies previously
03:57 Tom Raftery: http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE55S1XZ20090629
03:58 MikeTheBee: Ah good, mini USB is at least a standard of sorts
03:58 Tom Raftery: http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE55N3ZV20090624
03:59 MikeTheBee: Scotland have no money of their own
04:01 cgarvey: mailing you now on both
04:01 MikeTheBee: @cgarvey Thx
04:01 SukiFuller: I have no technical issues. 🙂 Some great links today, awesome show Tom!
04:02 cgarvey: Thanks again Tom
04:02 MikeTheBee: Ell done again . cheers all.
04:02 Tom Raftery: Thanks everyone for a great show – apols for tech issues
04:14 cgarvey: Just a small correction: the new mobile charger standard is Micro USB, not Mini USB. Pic comparing them: http://url.ie/1xn9 .. WikiPedia article: http://url.ie/1xna Info

post

Hara Software’s Amit Chatterjee

by

Hara Software, a software company with the tagline Know your impact. Change the World, launched their Environmental and Energy Management (EEM) solution at the start of this month. The Hara EEM is a software as a service solution which enables organizations to monitor and manage their natural resource consumption and environmental impact.

According to the release Hara counts amongst its customers the Coca Cola company and the City of Palo Alto – not a bad start! For a more in-depth look at Hara, see Martin La Monica’s review.

Having heard a lot about I was anxious to have a conversation with Hara’s CEO, Amit Chatterjee to learn more about them and he didn’t disappoint.

Related articles by Zemanta
post

GreenMonk news roundup 06/30/2009

by

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

post

GreenMonk news roundup 06/27/2009

by

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

post

Guest Post: The Low Down on Carbon Offsets

by

The idea behind “offsetting” carbon emissions is that, while you are emitting some carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as a result of your activities, you can counterbalance these emissions by contributing to a project somewhere else that will reduce emissions. While this idea is most prevalent in relation to air travel, people are “offsetting” their car travel, home fuel use, and other things as well.
There are all kinds of projects that have been used for “carbon offsetting”, such as developing renewable energy and planting trees. Not all projects are created equal – here’s some of the key issues:
  • Additionality – Sometimes people sell “offset credits” for things that would have happened anyway (for example, a project that already has funding, or a modification to industrial practice that is or will be required by law). For offsetting to be “real”, a project should be something additional to what is already underway.
  • Multiple benefit – Ideally, an offset project should have benefits that go beyond just carbon neutrality, particularly with respect to projects taking place in the so-called “less developed countries”. For example, projects that create significant employment, reduce local air pollution, protect biodiversity, or allow increased quality of life in low-income communities are better than those that don’t.
  • Effectiveness – Some things have more hope of producing actual and lasting emissions reductions than others. For example, the part of a new solar panel that you have paid for will result in “carbon savings” equivalent to your “carbon expenditure” over its lifetime (if the offset was calculated correctly and as long as it doesn’t break or have a tree grow to shade it). All projects include an element of uncertainty, but with some projects it’s more of a crapshoot in terms of whether the carbon saved will be equivalent to the carbon spent. For example, tree planting is generally considered a pretty poor offset mechanism, because the carbon that is taken up by the tree will eventually be released when the tree dies or is cut down (and in some places this may happen sooner rather than later, especially where there is a lot of pressure on forest resources). This isn’t to say that reforestation isn’t a hugely important thing – it is – but it’s not really addressing the emissions issue, or the underlying issues driving deforestation in the first place. In some cases, there might be a sweet project that involves planting trees while meeting other objectives as well – such as a reforestation or forest project that works with local communities to develop sustainable livelihoods based on forest resources like “wild” foods and medicinal plants – so it really depends on the project. In general, though, buying into things like renewable energy has a greater potential for actually reducing carbon emissions in line with what you have generated.
Unfortunately, it’s sometimes hard to be sure what is actually being done with the money you provide. Some of the carbon-offset operators are pretty shady – it’s buyer beware. If you want a bit more certainty, pick offsets that are certified under the Gold Standard or the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) standards. The David Suzuki Foundation lists Gold Standard certified offset providers and other useful resources on its website: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/What_You_Can_Do/carbon_neutral.asp. Some of the offsetters provide descriptions of specific projects and let you pick and choose.

Overall, there is a lot of debate over whether offsetting is a good thing at all. Some people feel that it allows you to assuage your pollution guilt without really doing anything, comparing it to buying “indulgences” for your sins from the church in the middle ages. They also say that it overemphasizes individual responsibility for climate change at the expense of lobbying governments to take action. On the other hand, offsets could provide money for good projects to happen. Here’s my suggestions (drawn from lots of other sources) on what to do if you are concerned about your (or your organization’s) carbon footprint, specifically in relation to travel:
  1. Think about what you can do to eliminate your emmissions. Can you teleconference instead of meeting in person? (the technology for this has improved significantly in the last few years, with the rise of podcasting, “webinars” and the like). Can get just as much enjoyment out of a holiday at a resort in your region or a “staycation”?
  2. Choose the least polluting mode of transport available. Right now, this may be limited to choosing the the bus or train over driving and flying where possible, but eventually dirigibles (airships; non-exploding ones of course!) and efficient ocean-going vessels may make their return (NB – a contemporary cruise ship is a surprisingly polluting form of transport). Also, be sure that other elements of your travels are as sustainable as possible. For example, choose environmentally responsible hotels/campgrounds and tour operators.
  3. DIY. Most people and organizations use energy in a variety of ways, and so money that would be spent on purchasing offsets could be used to directly reduce energy use by the individual or organization. For example, “offset money” could be saved up (or used to pay off a loan) to buy a more efficient vehicle, a solar panel, a high-efficiency furnace, geothermal heating system, energy efficient lightbulbs, or whatever. This would require some calculation on the part of the individual/organization to determine what emissions are being generated by the travel and what would be required to compensate for those emissions (there are emissions calculators on the web that might make this easier). It also might be more costly to take this approach (depends a bit on what project is proposed). On the other hand, any benefits (for example, reduced fuel costs) would go directly to the individual/organization.
  4. Lobby instead. Rather than paying for offsets, you could commit to writing a letter (or a bunch of letters) to your political representatives to encourage them to act on climate change every time you travel. Of course, you won’t be able to see the same direct impact from this, but in the long run government intervention is essential to any meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and the more governments are told that this is what their constituents want, the better! If this isn’t feasible, money could be donated directly to an organization doing this lobbying work. I personally don’t think this is quite as effective as the hands-on approach, but it could be used as a last resort or in addition to a letter-writing activity.
  5. Directly support local projects. If there are projects you know about in your local community (or that you know of in the wider world through your contacts) that are working effectively to reduce emissions, why not support them directly instead of buying an offset through a middleman?
  6. Offset responsibly. When all else fails, use a reputable offsetting company (e.g., one that is Gold Standard).

Sarah Wakefield
Department of Geography
University of Toronto

post

GreenMonk news roundup 06/18/2009

by

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

post

GreenMonk news roundup 06/17/2009

by

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

post

June 15th GreenMonk Energy & Sustainability show – Face Off!

by

Last week I wrote a post in response to Dennis Howlett’s ZDNet article questioning the causes of climate change and therefore our reactions to it.

I also mentioned Dennis’ post in last week’s Energy and Sustainability show so Dennis contacted me and asked for an opportunity to come on the show to put forward his point of view. Dennis is an old friend, so of course I said yes.

So yesterday’s Energy and Sustainability show was a Tom vs Dennis face-off on climate change (actually it was a good natured chat with Dennis basically saying he was asking questions because not enough people were being skeptical!).

What do you think?