It should come as no surprise that the large majority of environmental impact takes place outside a company’s physical boundaries. Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) reporting probably gives us the best estimate of this; the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) estimates that over 50% of an entity’s greenhouse gas emissions are indirect ‘Scope 3’ emissions, while AT Kearny says the number is closer to 80% (source: CDP 2011 Supply Chain Report). In this article, we look at why so many companies are now addressing sustainability in the supply chain, and what approaches are used to reduce environmental impact in the supply chain. We use AMD, a Chamber BCLC Environmental Innovation Network member, as a case study, which reports that 63% of total GHGs are Scope 3, over 90% of which comes from the supply chain. (The rest comes from business travel and employee commutes; see this page for more information or the AMD 2010 Corporate Responsibility Report.)

Even the most far-reaching climate legislation, either passed or proposed, recognizes that supply chain emissions are not the legal responsibility of a firm. So why are so many companies beginning to measure and manage supply chains for sustainability? The reasons are simple. First, many companies are feeling pressure from a wide array of stakeholders, including consumers, shareholders, retailers and nonprofits. Second, a sustainable supply chain is an efficient supply chain, so improving supply chain performance can provide multiple benefits to a firm by saving money while reducing impact.

Despite the high impact of supply chains and the potential benefits from addressing them, most companies have still not looked closely at the issue. CDP reports that, of the 57 companies participating in their supply chain initiative, 87% have GHG reduction targets but only 45% of these include supply chains.

Which companies are diving in? From our experience, companies that have a high level of accountability to stakeholders and have more public visibility are feeling more pressure to act. In addition, companies that can more easily influence their suppliers find it easier to act and reap the benefits. So when companies are insulated from stakeholders or when supply chains are unruly, large, or often in flux, implementing a deep sustainability program isn’t easy.

Learning from others’ experiences can help smooth the path. Companies are finding a host of ways to reduce supply chain impacts, and these include: (1) using ecodesign principles to make more sustainable products; (2) implementing green procurement policies that select more environmentally friendly providers; (3) helping suppliers improve onsite operational efficiency; (4) improving logistics to save time and money while reducing impact; (5) reducing or switching to eco-friendly packaging; (6) using footprinting or life cycle analysis as a tool to understand impact; and (7) improving and managing communication with suppliers.

But which approach is right to take for your company? The key is to understand how your supply chain is structured and use that to find opportunities.

When a firm has a large number of suppliers, when competition between potential suppliers exists, or when the final product is a commodity with infrequent innovations, developing reporting systems to grade suppliers is a promising approach. CDP call this ‘Buyer Advantage’, since buyers can pick and choose suppliers. This can also be thought of as a technical approach to manage an efficient supply chain structure (Parmigiani, A., Klassen, R.D., Russo, M.V., 2011. Journal of Operations Management, 29: 212–223.) A reporting or scorecard approach gives yet another set of criteria, in addition to cost and quality considerations, by which firms can judge suppliers and determine where to purchase. Wal-Mart’s sustainability scorecard is a well-known example of this approach, and balancing a comprehensive and accountable set of criteria with minimizing the burden to suppliers is critical to success.

On the other hand, when a firm has fewer suppliers, when each supplier fills a critical role that would be difficult to replace, when relationships with suppliers are longer and deeper, or when supplier innovation is critical to maintaining market advantage, the ‘threat’ of a scorecard system is less of an option, and enhancing communication with suppliers may be the best way forward. This is often called ‘Supplier Advantage’ (CDP) or a relational approach in a responsive supply chain (Parmigiani et al.).

This is precisely AMD’s situation. A relatively small number of foundries produce AMD wafers, and these suppliers make up the lion’s share of supply chain risk. Over the past two years, the AMD Corporate Responsibility team has established quarterly reviews with these foundries. During these reviews, the foundries report several key metrics to track progress, such as GHG emissions, energy use, water consumption, waste volume, and environmental regulatory compliance. For other suppliers, sustainability is integrated into existing supply chain processes by leveraging the strong existing relationships and close communication between lead source managers and suppliers. Through AMD’s business review process, sustainability and corporate responsibility are incorporated as part of suppliers’ performance evaluation, and the frequency of reviews – either quarterly or semiannually – is determine by supplier risk. According to AMD’s Corporate Responsibility Manager, Heather O’Cleirigh, “through this process, and due to strong existing relationships, AMD and our suppliers work together to reduce environmental and social impact.”

Given the complexity of the issue, it isn’t surprising that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. For us, there are three key steps in any comprehensive supply chain initiative: (1) Determining and building support for an approach, (2) Developing a system to collect and track information, and (3) Influencing supplier decision-making. Underlying all of this is a set of robust performance metrics, which are critical for executive buy-in, determining cost-effective actions, and creating competition among suppliers. In a survey of 582 European companies, over half are already using sustainability performance criteria with suppliers, and among Scandinavian countries 77% do so (BearingPoint 4th Supply Chain Monitor, 2010-2011).

It may seem paradoxical that supply chains constitute the bulk of environmental impact and are still a relatively new frontier in corporate sustainability. Clearly, there are good reasons to attack supply chains only after low-hanging fruit has been picked. But as we get better at understanding and managing supply chains, and as the tools and metrics get standardized within industries, supply chains will rise to the forefront of corporate sustainability.

Article by James Barsimantov, Principal and Cofounder of EcoShift; Article appearing courtesy 3BL Media.

Related posts:

• Zoo Wants to Turn Elephant Poop into Power
• Federal Agencies Plan for Sustainability
• Where Sustainability Executives Fall in Today’s Organizational Structure
• Are Employees Investing in Business Sustainability?
• Easy Steps for Businesses to Go Green and Promote Employee Engagement

Transportation has always presented significant design challenges. And no mode of transportation is more fraught with potential hurdles than the automobile.

How can we improve fuel efficiency without affecting performance? Are there ways to reduce weight while maintaining strength and safety? How can we increase recyclability of components at end of life?

Given that the number of cars and trucks on the road is expected to more than double in the next 20 years; and that the Obama Administration raised CAFE Standards to 54.5 MPG for light cars and trucks by 2025, how we approach vehicle design will greatly affect the environmental impact of how we get around.

And in this year, having just passed the 125th anniversary of the internal combustion engine, new pioneers are already starting to make a difference in the way we approach transportation.

• For example, Green Lite Motors has built a hybrid-electric two-person vehicle that gets 100 MPG. This innovative vehicle delivers the safety and comfort of a car with a small footprint and energy efficiency similar to a motorcycle.

• KOR Ecologic’s “Urbee” is a three-wheel, two-seat, next-generation hybrid vehicle that is capable of achieving up to 200 MPG. And many of the car’s components are designed to be 3D printed, making production as local and low-waste as it can get.

• Not to be outshone on the roads, PiMobility is developing an electric bicycle called the PiCycle. The PiCycle’s single, arch-like tube of recycled aluminum is the key to its strength, and unlike plastic parts prone to breakage, provides a durability that ensures the bike will last over the long haul, a key sustainable design strategy.

The essence of design is people thinking through problems to create solutions. With the right tools, clean tech companies can design cleaner, cooler transportation for all and then bring those ideas to market faster and more cost effectively. Thanks to these companies and many others, the wheels are already in motion.

Article by Susan Gladwin who leads the Autodesk Clean Tech Partner Program, which provides emerging clean tech companies powerful software and opportunities to help them develop solutions that address our most pressing environmental issues. In North America, Europe, Japan and Singapore, the Autodesk Clean Tech Partner Program offers $150,000 of Autodesk software for $50.

Related posts:

• Adoption Curve for Clean Energy is a Function of Consumer Behavior
• What is the Downside to Environmentalism?
• Study of CO2 ‘Supply Line’ Urges Carbon Price at Point of Extraction
• New Web App To Save Electricity
• Sustainable Forests Grow But Large Areas Remain Unmanaged

There isn’t a product that hits shelves whose packaging hasn’t been designed – and redesigned – by the sales and marketing folks who believe they know exactly what consumers look for and will choose among the sea of options on store shelves or web pages. And then, of course, the safety and loss prevention people get their say – before the packaging gets finalized.

Enter the latest voice from the packaging peanut gallery: sustainability. It’s not really a surprise that business has been wary about modifying packaging to reduce environmental impacts. Any changes – even the smallest ones to already recognized packaging – could make the difference between a sale and no sale.

That being said, there has been significant progress, even in the luxury segment of the market, where packaging is the brand and in itself the packaging is an $11.9 billion business annually.

“Sustainability,” when applied to packaging, covers a large number of functions. Just some of those are the design of the container, raw materials used, energy and water consumed in production, resources needed for transportation, waste produced, impacts on workers, and what is written on the label. Changes in any one or more of these usually entail strategic decisions about procurement, supply chain management, production, shipping, disposal, human resources, and labeling. Costs have to be factored in and regulatory approval can take up to two years. But, pressure from consumers, media, investors, global, national, and state government bodies, and activists has created a revolution in how products are packaged. And, that’s only in its early stages. Overall, packaging has been a laggard in the environmentalism.

Now, Wal-Mart, Unilever, McDonald’s, and MillerCoors are among the growing number of companies that publish their own detailed information and communicate with the media about their efforts in packaging sustainability. For example, Wal-Mart announced its goal of reducing global packaging by five percent by 2013.

Much of the focus of global companies has been on gaining commitment from their supply chain for these initiatives. That extends from sourcing of materials, especially scarce, hazardous, and fossil-fuel ones, to what the label, which more consumers analyze, can legally and ethically state.

In the high-margin luxury niche, making packaging more eco-friendly had been a topic at the 2011 global Luxe Pack conference. The challenge was framed as maintaining the brand differentiation from private label products through unique packaging but doing that in ways that minimize environmental impacts. There are also new labeling requirements for luxury products to combat the practice of stating that the container is “green,” without providing documentation of that. Months before the conference, cosmetic leader L’Oreal issued its own assessment system to track packaging sustainability and committed to using the Sustainable Packaging Alliance’s Packaging Impact Quick Evaluation Tool (PIQET).

The biggest gains are expected in developing economies. There, a middle class is growing which is brand conscious including about luxury products. The Asia Pacific region, for example, has a 35 percent market share for worldwide luxury sales. Also the businesses in emerging nations want to be perceived as a “good corporate citizens” in order to become vendors for a developed-economy. As a result, they are investing in packaging sustainability, even though the current costs may have no immediate return on investment.

Article by Bari Faye Siegel, a technology writer and marketing consultant at Noveda Technologies, an innovative leader in real-time, web-based energy management, solar PV monitoring and water management. Noveda also offers real-time collaboration tools that leverage social media to educate and empower stakeholder communities and make the smart grid a reality today. For more information, visit www.noveda.com.

Related posts:

• Mattel Vows to Stop Using Paper from Accused Asian Clear-Cutter
• Puma Ditches Shoe Boxes in Eco-Initiative
• Three Cleantech Finds at SXSWEco
• Exploring Positive Engagement as a Primary Sustainability Driver
• Green Ideas: Eco Plastic From Mushrooms

Supply chain management used to be a narrow, back-office, low-profile function.
Decisions, which were made somewhere else in the company, were simply implemented, based on efficiency and cost. Those decisions usually covered product/service offerings, design, selecting and sourcing raw materials, facilities and manpower, production processes, shipment, marketing, distribution, and end-of-life disposal.

No more.

Move over procurement, there’s a new game in town. And, it’s likely to be taking over the wheel for a long time to come. Sustainability is being driven by the growing concern about how everything we do will impact Planet Earth. We are, as a collective business sector, more aware than ever before about the reality of shrinking resources such as fossil fuels.

In its 2011 survey of 185 companies spanning 32 industries, A.T. Kearney found that 90 percent now frame that old-line procurement activity as “supply chain management” and have integrated it as part of the overall business strategy. It’s also gone high-profile. The decisions made and how they are executed are being monitored and measured by consumers, investors, national and international regulators, and environmental and human-rights activists.

No surprise, more and more companies have gone public in a big way about how they manage their supply chains. Those include GE, Wal-Mart, Johnson & Johnson, Procter and Gamble, Ford, Pepsi, and Unilever. In their public statements the term “sustainability” resonates.

Yet, sustainability has taken on so many meanings that the whole subject can be confusing. The simplest understanding is provided by Patrick Penfield at Syracuse University’s Whitman School of Management. In essence, “sustainability” in supply chain management, notes Penfield, is “the process of using environmentally friendly inputs and transforming them … (so that the) byproducts can improved or be recycled.” The goal is to cut costs while limiting environmental impact. The global economic downturn accelerated that focus on cost. Sustainability savings come in a number of ways. The top three are, according to an article written by Penfield, are to:

• Lessen risk in sourcing through searching for alternates to what is iffy in supply and volatile in price, ranging from skilled labor to fossil fuel.

• Design products and services using fewer resources such as water and material and increasing energy efficiency for production and shipping.

• Prevent loss of sales, negative publicity, fines, and reduced investor confidence through violations of carbon-emissions agreements, safety standards especially with food, human rights codes in treatment of vendors, and waste disposal.

One major challenge with this strategic imperative is that there is no accepted standard for what categories of information must be disclosed, what criteria to use in measuring that, and how to report it. Moreover, at this time, most of those reports aren’t audited. One way some companies are dealing with this is by agreeing to comply with the sustainability guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). About 80 percent of the 250 largest corporations now use the GRI guidelines, according to Bloomberg.com.

In addition, companies such as Wal-Mart have also developed supply chain sustainability indexes unique to their needs. The group Wal-Mart formed of retailers, vendors, and research experts – the Sustainability Consortium – continually creates green standards for over 50 product categories, ranging from laundry detergent to towels.

What factors must be tracked, how they will be measured and reported, and what third party will do the auditing have to be agreed up by the diverse constituencies concerned about sustainability in supply chains. Until that becomes an operational reality, business will have a difficult time telling its story in a way that is persuasive with those who influence its financial performance and stock price.

The only way to prove that sustainability is a cause worth taking on is to start saving energy – and money – in your own place of business. Consider monitoring energy usage in your companies’ facilities. If you are tracking exactly what’s being used and comparing it to monthly utility bills, your company can make choices that will add up.

In the end, whether companies are willing to pay for sustainability at-large is still up for debate. However, the topic is alive and well on corporate agendas. And, in the back of everyone’s mind is the nagging knowledge that if we don’t start to pay financially for sustainability today, we, as a population, will be paying for it in other ways for a long time to come.

Article by Bari Faye Siegel, a technology writer and marketing consultant at Noveda Technologies, an innovative leader in real-time, web-based energy management, solar PV monitoring and water management. Noveda also offers real-time collaboration tools that leverage social media to educate and empower stakeholder communities and make the smart grid a reality today. For more information, visit www.noveda.com.

Related posts:

• Carbon Performance a Key Determinant for Suppliers
• What Outsourcing Trends Might Mean to Sustainable Supply Chain Management
• Is Business Sustainability Localizing Supply?
• The Shifting Dynamics of Sustainable SCM
• Greening the Supply Chain

IBM saved $26.8 million in energy expenses in 2009 as a result of companywide conservation efforts that surpassed corporate targets. How did they do it? Last year, 1,900 energy conservation projects at 270 IBM facilities around the world helped deliver savings in energy consumption that were equivalent to 5.4 percent of the company’s total energy use.

Granted, your business may not be an IBM with worldwide facilities, but, at a minimum, your business occupies office space. There are numerous opportunities for your small business to capitalize on company conservation efforts delivering benefits to both the bottom line and the environment. In fact, more and more leading companies are becoming increasing aware of the cost savings and long-term benefits associated with implementing sustainable changes in their organization. Managing and planning a company’s operations to reduce environmental impacts can result in reductions in resource consumption, emissions, and waste streams.

Small businesses looking for quick wins with a minimum of resource outlay can see generate results:

• Install switch plate occupancy sensors in proper locations to automatically turn off lighting when no one is present, and back on when people return.
• Turn off your monitor and other office equipment when not in use.
• Turn computer off at the end of the day.
• Turn lights off in conference room after meetings and remember to turn off the projector as well.
• Use more natural light when available and adjust lighting to your actual needs.
• Unplug infrequently used office equipment. Many appliances continue to draw a small amount of power when they are switched off. These “phantom” loads occur in most appliances that use electricity, such as computers and kitchen appliances.

As part of a business sustainability plan, small efforts such as these executed consistently over time, can contribute to improved energy efficiency in your workplace.

More advanced eco actions include evaluating the following:

• Which appliances and/or equipment are consuming the most energy?
• How are these high energy consumption items being run -simultaneously, non-efficiently?
• When are these high energy consumption items running -when not needed, during peak load times?
• What kind of light bulbs are used in the business?
• Has an energy audit been performed within the last 3 years?
• Are lighting fixtures equipped with control features (sensors, dimmers, timers)?
• Is regular maintenance performed for HVAC (heating, ventilation, air conditioning)?
• What percentage of your electrical equipment is Energy Star?
• Which energy and lighting policies do you follow in the business?

Conservation and active energy management are first steps in reducing energy costs. Take it a step further:

• Use high -efficiency HVAC equipment.
• Purchase renewable energy.
• Run non-essential high demand items during off-peak hours to minimize usage charges.
• Stagger your high demand equipment to minimize your demand charges.
• Evaluate the efficiency of your high demand equipment to improve your power factor.
• Don’t waste electricity in an unoccupied space.
• Start a daytime cleaning program to reduce lighting needs at night.
• Implement energy efficient “contests” to train and educate workers for improved eco awareness and energy efficient behavior.

Get employees involved! Employee engagement is an effective, but possibly underutilized strategy for improving energy efficiency. In fact, energy efficiency can be a gateway to wider business innovation and engage stakeholders in broader process evaluations. Suggestions made in our eco friendly training include:

• First establishing a baseline of consumption for benchmarking efforts.
• Create an energy policy for the business. Using your consumption information, you may want to identify areas of improvement.
• Implement behavior and usage modifications.
• Measure and monitor your progress.
• Communicate your success and appreciation to employees for taking eco action.

Companies that conserve energy reduce operating costs and improve their bottom line. What is your small business power style?

Article by Julie Urlaub, Founder and Managing Partner at Taiga Company; appearing courtesy 3BL Media.

Related posts:

• Declining CSI Solar Rebates Offset Price Reductions
• About that ethanol study …
• Dirty water needs CleanTech solutions
• DOE’s Arpa-e Pumps $151 Million Into Innovative Energy Research Projects
• Swiss Zinc-Air Batteries Store Three Times the Energy of Lithium Ions

We can’t do it alone. And we don’t really want to.

We partner with the pros all of the time. We ask energy experts to help us with our energy assessments. We ask heating and cooling experts to help us with our Home Energy Audits. And this week, we’re partnering with a pro football team to get the word out about conservation and environmental impact.

What do football players know about efficiency? Plenty.

The Vikings have purchased renewable energy through Xcel Energy’s Windsource Program to offset 100 percent of the carbon emissions used to power Mall of America Field for all of its home dates this season.

The Vikings also created “Planet Purple” in conjunction with the NFL’s Green Team with the mission of developing sustainable business practices and utilizing renewable energy in an effort to lessen the team’s impact on the environment. For three years in a row, the Minnesota Vikings have partnered with Xcel Energy for Planet Purple week. It includes a series of community events and activities like tree plantings, a free Home Energy Squad visit to a contest winner and a coat drive to benefit United Way, which also highlights rebate programs and ways to save energy and money on heating bills.

And they’re not the only NFL team getting into the energy game.

* Lincoln Financial Field, home to the Philadelphia Eagles, is the leading clean energy stadium. They recently installed 2,500 solar panels and 80 twenty-foot high wind turbines to reduce their carbon footprint, making them the first NFL team to run completely on sustainable energy.
* The Denver Broncos purchased renewable energy (also through our Windsource Program) to offset 100% of the electricity used to power all home games for the 2010-11 season.
* The Green Bay Packers use Wisconsin Public Service’s NatureWise renewable energy program to power game days.
* The New England Patriots recently purchased and installed 2,800 Evergreen Solar PV panels for Gillette Stadium. Over the course of a year, the panels will generate approximately 600,000 kilowatt-hours of renewable energy.
* The Arizona Cardinals used SRP’s EarthWise Energy program to provide a total of 1,135,000 kilowatt-hours of renewable energy for the Cardinals’ eight regular season home games and two pre-season home games in 2010.
* During the construction of their new stadium, the Detroit Lions reused 300,000 pounds of recycled rubber tires, 20 million pounds of recycled steel in the ceiling and, 10 million pounds in the concrete frame.
* There are more examples – but you get the point.

They’re leading by example to make people think twice about our resources, how we use them and ways to conserve. It’s a big job. And we’ll take all the help we can get.

Article by Erin Mathe, appearing courtesy Xcel Energy Blog.

Related posts:

• Purple Wind Turbines Could Protect Winged Wildlife
• New Tool Could Prevent Wind Farm Bat Deaths
• Solar Panels Get a Touch of Color
• City of San José Promotes Solar Home Tour
• Let’s Get Really Radical: Envisioning a Sustainable Energy Future for Canada

In previous posts here and here I wrote about a lawsuit in which plastic bag manufacturers Hilex Poly Company (Hilex), Superbag, and API Enterprises took issue with certain statements made by ChicoBag, the popular reusable bag maker.

The accusations could be called reverse greenwashing, as they involved allegedly false or misleading statements not about environmental benefits, but about the negative environmental impact of certain products.

Specifically, the plastic bag makers alleged that ChicoBag made false or deceptive claims about the consumption, recycling, and negative environmental impact of plastic bags and has falsely indicated that the claims are substantiated.

ChicoBag countered that the statements at issue were made by third party sources such as the Environmental Protection Agency, National Geographic, and the Los Angeles Times, and simply repeated by ChicoBag, with attribution, on its web site.

In what ChicoBag and some in the eco-blogosphere are calling victory, Superbag and API agreed to dismiss the case (Superbag-API-Dismissal), and the remaining plaintiff, Hilex, settled with ChicoBag (HilexPoly-Dismissal).

According to ChicoBag’s press release, Hilex has agreed to properly cite recycling statistics and undertake certain measures to reduce windblown litter, and both parties will be more careful and even-handed in their marketing statements.

Some of the settlement terms are:

Both parties will provide citations and dates for all facts and statistics on any web page or advertising;

Hilex will include a statement on its products “Tie Bag in Knot Before Disposal” and statements on its web site about ways to prevent windblown litter;

ChicoBag will keep updates about some of the statements at issue in the suit up on its web site;

ChicoBag will not cite any archived EPA web sites; and

ChicoBag will inform visitors to its Learn the Facts web page that plastic retail carryout bags are only a subset of plastic bags in ocean debris reports.

Keller said the settlement marks two wins for the environment:  “First, Hilex Poly can no longer inflate plastic bag recycling numbers by including non-bag wrap and plastic film.  And they have also agreed to acknowledge that plastic bags can become windblown litter despite proper disposal and to better educate the public.”

Related posts:

• ChicoBag Responds to Plastic Bag Makers in Reverse Greenwash Suit
• Chinese Ban on Free Plastic Bags Has Cut Consumer Use in Half
• Plastic Trumps Silicon in Solar Panel-Making?
• Bio Plastics Are The Best Solution- Plastic Diet Day 26
• Plastic Bag Makers Accuse ChicoBag of Reverse Greenwashing

Canada gets most of its energy from hydropower, coal and nuclear. But scientists say that geothermal power could meet the country’s energy needs one million times over.

The statement is taken from a federal report on geothermal energy. The document was compiled by a team of 12 scientists led by Stephen Grasby at the federal Geological Survey of Canada and made public on the eve of a conference in Toronto earlier this month.

One of the main advantages of geothermal is that it is available 24 hours, unlike wind and solar, which face intermittency issues.

British Columbia, Alberta, the Yukon and Northwest Territories are the areas where the heat exists closer to the surface, but there are geothermal energy opportunities all over Canada. The researchers estimate that 100 projects would meet the country’s energy needs.

The biggest drawback for geothermal implementation is that upfront costs are very high. The logistics involved are quite daunting: wells must be drilled miles into the earth to bring heat to the surface. And then plants need to be built to turn the heat into electricity. All of this comes with its share of environmental impact, but much less aggressive than the impact caused by fossil fuels.

The report highlights a technique called ‘enhanced geothermal’ as one with great potential. Water or CO2 is injected into the wells so that it can migrate through the cracked rocks to capture heat. The heated water or CO2 is brought back to the surface to produce electricity. Europe and Australia are currently testing this type of hydropower technology.

What do you think? Is geothermal a truly sustainable alternative, and economically viable one as well?

Article by Antonio Pasolini, a Brazilian writer and video art curator based in London, UK. He holds a BA in journalism and an MA in film and television.

Related posts:

• New geothermal heat extraction process to deliver clean power generation
• U.S. Geothermal Potential Mapped in New Interactive Database
• Emissions from Tar Sands Will Dwarf Carbon Cuts in Canada
• Geothermal Energy Incentives To Attract $2.5 Billion In The Philippines
• New Poll Pits Canadian Against American Perceptions of Climate Change

When it comes to understanding the environmental impact of our personal choices, the EPA’s model of rating car fuel efficiency is a good lead to follow. Greenhouse gas emissions are tied to how much fuel is burned, and we all know how much gas our car burns thanks to the omnipresent MPG ratings. Many models of cars have embraced the digital age and now interactively let you know how your driving affects fuel economy by keeping track of your true MPG. This level of information has enabled the current generation of drivers to understand their impact and, should they care to, adjust their driving accordingly.

But when it comes to tracking the emissions of the power plants that are a magnitude larger than our little 4-cylinder, we are still largely in the Mesozoic Era.

The United States is only surpassed by China in CO2 emissions, as highlighted in the recent Pike Research report Carbon Management Software and Services, which forecasts that managing CO2 will become a $2.4 billion industry in 2017.

It is easy for those of us who come from the IT industry to scoff at the power industry, which is replete with proprietary handcrafted networks and databases that even within a single location don’t talk to each other, let alone to the outside world. The coming smart grid is largely focused on bringing the power industry up to the level of technology that the financial, information, and telecommunications networks achieved at least a decade ago.

It’s not that grid operators don’t have some elements of live data-sharing down. The same “five 9s” focus on reliability has been used for generations to regionally balance power generation and demand with a precision that would give a network operations center manager goose bumps. Every hair dryer or cell phone that gets plugged in has to be matched to generation, and remarkably, the grid works smoothly nearly all the time. The perpetual need to locate and pay for additional power prompted grid operators to engineer a Wall Street-like trading market that includes a day-ahead market, as well as up to the second pricing and reconciliation technology that pulls in power from hundreds of miles away through the marginal power market.

But when it comes to tracking the emissions that are produced during the generation of power, the industry has a blind spot. Most requirements for tracking CO2, NOx, particulates, and other emissions at generation facilities apply on an annual basis, without regard to the amount of power produced. There’s very little data anywhere on emissions on an hourly or daily basis. Regulatory folks I’ve spoken with were lacking information and surprised that I asked the question about correlating emissions to the power produced.

Counting the CO2 per megawatt hour would be a great place to start to understand grid efficiency. If ongoing data about each generation facility were collected, we would have a baseline for understanding the true carbon footprint of our generation mix. The next step would be to integrate the emissions data with the purchases of electricity on the marginal power market to create an hour-by-hour profile of how green the power grid really is.

To my knowledge, agencies such as FERC, the EPA, and the ISO operators don’t routinely ask for this level of fuel efficiency, so there is no financial or other reason for the data to be collected by power producers. One motivation to start doing so would be to better understand the carbon impact of newly arriving electric vehicles. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory this week released a report that looked at how EVs could be used to balance expanding wind generation mix. But how clean or dirty is the rest of the grid at night when vehicles are likely to be charged? It’s about time we found out.

Article by John Gartner, appearing courtesy the Matter Network.

Related posts:

• What Color Is the Cloud?
• Protecting the Nation’s Electric Grid from Cyber Threats
• Vehicle to Grid Storage and the Future of Electric Vehicles
• Green Building, Water, Energy, Clean Tech: Where Are We Going?
• Greening the Supply Chain

How many eco actions does it take for them to count? According to the post, Does Size Matter for Ideas?, “the basic logic we use is the bigger the idea, the bigger the value, but often that’s not true. There’s a myth at work here: the assumption that big results only come from radical changes.”

As it appears in our sustainability consulting, that same misconception of ideas applies to eco action and sustainable business practices. Some falsely believe that to significantly reduce environmental impacts, it requires massive effort. As the post suggests, “rather than worrying about the size of an idea, which most people do, it’s more productive to think about the possible leverage an idea has. To do this requires thinking not only about the idea itself, but how it will be used. An idea can have a different amount of leverage depending on where, when and how carefully it is applied.”

Consider how leveraging a single idea regarding energy efficiency adds up. IBM saved $26.8 million in energy expenses in 2009 as a result of companywide conservation efforts that surpassed corporate targets. Cisco Leveraged TelePresence to cut emissions by 45 Percent. And, SAP realized approximately €185 million in cost avoidance as a result of focused sustainability initiatives.

Granted, your business may not be an IBM, Cisco, or SAP with worldwide facilities, but, at a minimum, your business occupies office space. There are numerous opportunities for your small business to capitalize on company conservation efforts delivering benefits to both the bottom line and the environment. In fact, more and more leading companies are becoming increasing aware of the cost savings and long-term benefits associated with implementing sustainable changes in their organization. Managing and planning a company’s operations to reduce environmental impacts can result in reductions in resource consumption, emissions, and waste streams.

Article by Julie Urlaub, Founder and Managing Partner at Taiga Company; appearing courtesy 3BL Media.

Related posts:

• Energy Results Teams Up With Best Buy
• How Much Money Can New Lighting Save Your Business?
• Let’s Talk About Energy Efficiency
• The ABC’s of Conservation
• Solar Economy Growing, NY and CT Slowing