Apple Inc. is an American multinational corporation that is in the design and marketing business of consumer electronics, personal computers and computer software. Apple is extremely well known for a number of their hardware products, including the Mac computer line, iPod, iPhone and the recently introduced iPad, as well as the Mac OS X operating system, iTunes, iLife, and iWork. Apple has grown and garnered a unique reputation in the industry of consumer electronics. As one of the leading electronics producers, Apple has worked hard to increase sustainability and be environmentally friendly through a number of highlights and initiatives.

1) Power Management is built Right in. Apple, because they produce both hardware and software, is able to use efficient power supplies, components that require less power, and power management software. For example, the A4 chip in the iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad and Apple TV provides great power while also maximizing the battery life of the product. Apple also develops their own efficient power supplies to decrease the total amount of power waster when providing electricity to the computer from the wall plug. Mac OS X spins down the hard drive and activates the sleep mode when idle.

2) Apple Rated High with ENERGY STAR. Due to all their innovations, all of Apple’s computers go above and beyond the regulated guidelines for energy efficiency as stipulated in the ENERGY STAR Version 5.0 specifications. Apple is currently the only company within the consumer electronics industry that is able to make this claim, due to items such as rechargeable batteries that have a longer life, computer displays requiring less power, and processors that provide great speed with less energy.

3) Reaching EPEAT Gold Standard. All Apple computers sold throughout the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany and France have earned to EPEAT Gold standard. EPEAT stands for “Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool” and it is a widely used and comprehensive environmental standard tool throughout the globe. It evaluates the overall environmental impact of a specific product based on a variety of criteria, such as its recyclability, the total amount of energy the product uses, and its design and manufacturing specifications.

4) Renewable Energy. For over the last ten years, the Apple facility in Austin, Texas has been a major participant in the Austin Energy’s Green Choice Renewable Energy Program. This program has assisted in creating a new market demand for renewable sources of power, including biogas and wind. Currently, the program was introduced to a manufacturing plant in Cork, Ireland as well as a distribution facility located in Elk Grove, California. All the three sites are now 100 percent powered by renewable energy. this has decreased Apple’s total carbon dioxide emissions by 42.2 million pounds.

5) Transportation. Apple has created a new commuter transit program for all facilities in an effort to minimize the total environmental impact of continual travel to and from the facility. Known as the Apple U.S. Commute Alternative Program, the program provides employees with incentives for traveling to work via public transportation and carpooling options. For instance, Apple provides all United States employees with a monthly transit subsidy of up to $100 and encourages carpooling. At a Cupertino, California Plant, Apple reduced single car occupancy usage by providing a variety of shuttle options, such as free bus services from train stations and major metropolitan locations.

6) Waste and Recycling. Apple has created a number of composting and recycling programs to minimize the overall environmental impact of produced waste. For example, the Cupertino, California plant created a composting program in the company cafeteria that diverts all food waste from going to the landfills. As well, most disposable tableware is compostable or biodegradable. Apple is also involved in a number of take-back recycling programs.

7) Toxic substance removal. When it comes to creating green products for Apple, the environmental impact of all the materials used in the manufacturing process need to be taken into consideration, including brominated flame retardants, phthalates, mercury, and polyvinyl chloride. Apple has worked with all their manufacturing partners around the world to get rid of these harmful things from all their products. Numerous components are free of chlorine and elemental bromine. As well, all displays manufactured, no matter if it is a stand-alone or built into a system, features LED backlighting that is mercury-free as well as arsenic-free glass.

8 ) Less Materials Equal Fewer Emissions. Over the last ten years, the designers and engineers at Apple have lead the development of thinner, smaller, and much lighter products. Even though the products are more powerful, they are actually using fewer materials to produce, thereby generating a reduced amount of carbon dioxide emissions. For instance, the current 21.5 inch iMac is extremely powerful and has a larger screen than any of its predecessors, including the 15 inch iMac, but it was designed with 50 percent fewer materials, decreasing carbon dioxide emissions by 35 percent.

9) The Mac Mini and Environmental Friendliness. The Mac Mini is being touted as the most energy efficient desktop computer found anywhere in the world. The power supply only requires 85 watts and is 89 percent efficient. The lower power consumption reduces monthly energy bills and decreases the environmental impact associated with created carbon dioxide emissions. Although it provides users with twice the total processor performance of all previous generation models, it uses less than 13 watts when idle. The OS X spins down hard drives and activates the sleep mode when inactive, decreasing energy use and increasing power-saving capabilities. It has ENERGY STAR qualifications and is made with fewer toxins.

10) Managing Energy Use. For all Apple facilities managing electricity consumption is very important when it comes to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. It also takes pressure off the local power grids and protects the company from increased utility costs. Some of the programs used to decrease energy use include retrofitting all the lighting with energy efficient lamps as well as motion sensors for automatic shut-off, higher-efficient cooling and heating management, and utilizing energy efficient computer products.

Article by Shawn Lesser, Co-founder & Managing Partner of Atlanta-based Watershed Capital Group – an investment bank assisting sustainable fund and companies raise capital, perform acquisitions, and in other strategic financial decisions. He is also a Co-founder of the GCCA Global Cleantech Cluster Association ”The Global Voice of Cleantech”. He writes for various cleantech publications and is known as the David Letterman of Cleantech for his “Top 10″ series. He can be reached at shawn@watershedcapital.com

Related posts:

• Coming Attractions: CleanTechies Events Highlights
• The Bull is Bullish on CleanTech… So?
• iPhone’s Green Track Record Will Make You See Red
• Fuel Cell Startup EnStorage Raises $15M Series B Financing
• iPhone App Simulates Electric Car Experience

While some refer to lottos as a “tax on the stupid” the Dutch Postcode Lottery are making “grants for the smart” to support cleantech stars through their Green Challenge.

“The world must embrace a new, greener lifestyle. One bright idea can make a big difference. To encourage and aid the invention of great new green products and services, the Dutch Postcode Lottery presents the Postcode Lottery Green Challenge 2011.”

The grand prize of 500K Euros (~$720 USD) is a good chunk of would be capital for aspiring startups. The criteria is that the start up be working towards technologies and services that have the potential to radically reduce carbon emissions.

Past jurors have included Sir Richard Branson and President Bill Clinton, and grant recipients have come from all over the world. US Startups, including last year’s winner One Earth Designs, have been successful in the past.

Just because you haven’t heard of it yet, doesn’t mean you should ignore it. Now you do know, and unlike spending money on the lottery, filling out the application for the grant will help crystalize your pitch for other investors you should be reaching out to already.

Go ahead… what are you waiting for? Apply… and encourage other US entrepreneurs to explore it.

Related posts:

• GE Wants Your Smart Grid Ideas – Will Pay $200M
• CleanTech Open Patent Strategies: Reexamination
• Confidence Picks Up in Clean Tech Funding: Report
• The 10 Best Universities for Studying Cleantech
• MBAs for hire! Calling all Bay Area CleanTech Startups!

It seems just about every company is making environmental claims about their products these days. “Going green” offers an increasingly powerful advertising angle and a million ways to capitalize (and make a positive difference). But with more eco-labels than you can shake a stick at, how can you be sure product claims are spurring a sea change that runs deeper than sophisticated, eco-design biodegradable packaging?

Greenwashing is a nagging concern for consumers, and the environmental policy landscape isn’t all that friendly for emerging green product manufacturers, either. That’s why Green Products Roundtable (GPR), a “consensus-seeking entity” with members including The Dow Chemical Company, Five Winds International, Staples, Rainforest Alliance, the DOE and EPA (the latter two are non-voting participants) has published “Accelerating Green Commerce”, a 43-page report asking the FTC to tighten-up their current Guide for Environmental Marketing Claims.

Under the GPR’s proposed guidelines, it would no longer be acceptable for a table to be labeled as a ’sustainable wood table’. The advert and label would have to clarify that they have sourced the wood from a forest that was certified to a sustainable forest management standard, and further identify that standard.

The barrage of misleading and deceptive environmental marketing claims and product (brand) names bombarding consumers today is desensitizing consumers to valid and credible messaging -Consensus Guidance sent to the FTC [PDF]

Asking companies to elaborate upon problematic marketing terms such as biodegradable, sustainable and recyclable will give deeper meaning to the terms, while quantifying broad claims like ‘made with natural ingredients’ and ‘this product saves trees’ are other ways the Green Products Roundtable hopes to encourage better business practices.

The document is intended to help inform anyone who is attempting to evaluate “what is a credible eco-label”. The document should be helpful for entities involved in making, interpreting, using, or substantiating environmental claims on products. These entities include, for example, product manufacturers, retailers, consumers, institutional and commercial buyers, developers of environmental product standards, eco-label issuers, certifiers, dispute resolution entity, federal government, accreditation bodies, other interested stakeholders, and an authoritative or coordinating entitity. We expect that the information below would also be used in conjunction with the FTC’s Guidelines for Environmental Marketing Claims -Accelerating Green Commerce

For a modest annual fee of $175 companies are welcome to sign their Green Marketing Pledge which acts as a promise of compliance to GPR standards. If a company breaks the pledge (or the FTC guidelines) there is no liability, but their document could make it easier to enforce rulings in false-claims cases.

Over the next year, the GPR will work with stakeholders and eco-labeling programs to pilot test the information and continue advocating for transparency and honesty in environmental marketing materials. The proposed standards are US-centric for now, but there’s plenty of room at the roundtable and an explicit desire to globalize the conversation. A final version of the report will be available by December and by 2012.

Article by Allison Leahy, appearing courtesy Earth & Industry.

Related posts:

• Strengthening an Emerging Industry While Helping Families Save Money
• Looking for a Clean Tech job? Get a resume that works.
• EV Manufacturers Got Government Money, Now They Need to Show Results
• Focus on Fuel Economy Would Boost Profits for U.S. Car Makers
• Reader Feedback: The Biggest Clean Tech Story?

Earlier this month, Britain’s Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne urged business leaders to change the way they market green products in an effort to move promotional focus away from ethics and responsibilities and market them as the “fun” and “smart” choice.

At the launch of a new report from the Confederation of British Industry, Huhne insisted that companies had a duty of care when it came to advancing consumer choice of green living, and, according to The Guardian, also encouraged them to promote what he called “green hedonism”.

The publication of a new report from the CBI has come with stark warnings to Britain’s business community to knuckle down and work much harder on their so far ineffective attempts to convert a nation of could care-less consumers to a nation of conscientious caretakers.

During the Launch of CBI’s ‘Buying into It – Making the Consumer Case for Low-Carbon’, the organisation’s Director-General John Cridland said:

“Consumers are often baffled when faced with a variety of low-carbon products on sale, each making different green claims.

“All too often we find that consumers are something of a Cinderella of the low-carbon economy. Unless we can get the public truly on board, then all the investment in new technology and all our low-carbon innovation will be for nothing.”

Commissioned especially for the report, a survey of nearly 2,000 people reveals that 83 per cent of consumers believe that businesses are responsible for advising them about energy efficiency. Similarly, the survey shows that only 16 per cent trust manufacturers and only nine per cent trust retailers to be honest about exactly it is what they’re selling.

As a result of the findings, Cridland advised:

“Businesses need to provide clear, consistent labeling that becomes a trusted universal standard with the public. The success of A-G labeling for white goods like fridges and washing machines shows that this kind of approach works.”

Cridland highlighted that up until now, consumer habits have changed very little, and added:

“It is only when we get significant public buy-in of low-carbon goods that we will make real progress towards our carbon reduction targets.”

Echoing the report’s sentiments, Huhne urged:

“We need to change the story so that rather than [green products being] a sacrifice we take to feel better about ourselves, it is clear the green choice is the smart choice… the fun choice,” he said.

Cridland suggested a standardized green labeling system, and was critical of the use of green labels by brands until now. He called companies out on their deliberate ploys to baffle consumers, and companies’ incitement of customers into buying products which they falsely believed would reduce their emissions.

Choosing an expensive appliance just because it is marked ‘green’ appliance will also only serve to bump up the price of home contents insurance – a cost which consumers could do without, and one which bolsters the common misconception that green living is simply unachievable unless you have a high income.

Huhne said the government was keen to work with businesses to help them help customers wholly embrace the idea of green living, calling for the introduction of a “simple, consistent, voluntary labeling scheme”.

Both Cridland and Huhne have praised the successful model of the A-G labeling system for refrigerators, whereby they display the energy costs associated with different products to consumers before they buy.

Article by moneysupermarket.com, the UK’s leading price comparison site. The moneysupemarket.com home insurance service features a wide range of companies to help UK home owners find the right cover for their home quickly and easily.

Related posts:

• World’s Largest Wind Farm Opens Off British Coast in the North Sea
• China Named Leader in Green Energy Investing
• Investors Love Tesla, Belkin Kills the Vampire
• How Green is the “Greenest Government Ever”as UK PM Promised?
• Wind Power Falls Short of Expectations

While I was in New Orleans for the Green Matters Conference, I met the most extraordinary woman. Simone Bruni, better known in the Crescent City as the “Demo Diva,”  took her personal tragedy from Hurricane Katrina and turned it into a woman-owned and run demolition business, complete with hot pink front loader and giant dumpster.

I have written and spoken extensively on the lack of women in green. There are many reasons for it, I suppose. Green, particularly Green Building, is really a version of construction, and women represent only 3-6% of the building trades as a whole. But the lesson from the Demo Diva is that there is nothing really stopping women from becoming involved, even in the male dominated fields like demolition and construction! On the softer side, there is certainly no reason that women cannot be green building lawyers, sustainable investment advisors or involved in the marketing and selling of green products. Given that the economy is in a fragile recovery, green and sustainable businesses are leading the areas of growth. There are many programs specifically designed to help women acquire these skills. (A listing is available here.) Green Business Women is a nice site with resources for women looking to turn their business green.

But the hard truth is that this is a time with little demand and few jobs. What should women who have a passion or interest in sustainability do?

The first thing is to upgrade their skills—while the pressure is off, pursue training and education. If you were always tinkering or have a head for math, now is a great time to become an engineer. Villanova even has an online Master’s in Sustainable Engineering and Control Engineering.

The second is to have chutzpah. No job? Start a new company, like the Demo Diva did. There are programs which are designed to help women entrepreneurs, though I would argue that there are far too few of them. The Small Business Association has a Women-Owned Business section.

As a country, we should look at what we can do to support women in green. One Horatio Alger story, even one as inspiring at the Demo Diva, is not enough. Small business loans for women starting green businesses would be a good start. These loans could come either from the government, of course. Or they could come from more established green businesses and businesses interested in becoming more green with a clear idea of the types of goods and services they need.

WalMart has done this to some extent through the WalMart Foundation. WalMart awarded a grant of $400,000 to the Business and Professional Women’s (BPW) Foundation to launch the “Moving from Red to Green: Working Women in the Green Economy” initiative. The initiative, aimed at connecting women to the green economy by providing green job training established a pilot program by awarding $60,000 grants to four organizations to expand their capacity to train women for green jobs. But $400,000 is a small sum, and training women for green jobs is not the only way to invest in women’s green future. WalMart, or a company like it, could create a revolving loan fund, in which entrepreneurial grants are given to women-owned green businesses, and the interest from the loans goes back into the fund to loan to new women-owned green businesses.

Women comprise 51% of the population and make most of the family purchasing decisions. According to a study by Aaron M. McCright from Michigan State University, women are more concerned than men with global warming.  Women in green business thus presents a potentially a fertile opportunity (forgive the pun) for employment, economic sucess and saving the planet. I hope that writing about these issues starts a conversation among women who are already involved in green and sustainability. We should be supporting each other to succeed in green and in business.

Related posts:

• Where Are The Green Jobs For Women?
• Green Solutions for Construction, Renovation and Demolitions Waste
• Are Women Greener Than Men?
• It’s The Economy, Stupid
• The Role of Women in Combatting Climate Change

Greenwash (verb, \ˈgrēn-wȯsh\) - to market a product or service by promoting a deceptive or misleading perception of environmental responsibility.

Companies are launching major ad campaigns to tout their green credentials, but many of their claims are misleading. So how can we know who’s telling the truth about supposedly green products? “Greenwashing” is eroding the credibility of environmental marketing and turning would-be green consumers into skeptics. But there’s a way to end the practice and increase transparency, and new software is a key component of the solution.

Scrutiny of green business campaigns is reminiscent of the demand to hold corporations accountable for their financial reporting. The U.S. is still a leader in financial accounting (thanks in part to accounting software systems), but we need to develop the same infrastructure for environmental accounting to prevent further greenwashing. Enterprise Carbon Accounting (ECA) software is becoming the foundation of this infrastructure, and the market is growing; roughly 60 vendors are currently providing solutions. ECA software enables companies to consistently track the many components of their carbon footprint while identifying opportunities for cost savings and waste reduction, making a whole new era of corporate environmental transparency well within reach.

For ECA software and environmental accounting adoption to drive truly green business practices and make greenwashing obsolete, we need action in five main categories:

Clear Government Action on Regulations

lncreased coverage of existing new policies and decisive action on new legislation could quickly increase the adoption of carbon accounting and the use of ECA software. The EPA’s Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, which requires companies that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of greenhouse gases annually to disclose emissions to the EPA, could be expanded to include smaller businesses (who collectively have a large carbon footprint). Decisive action on new legislation is also a potential boost to ECA software adoption and a threat to greenwashing.

Adoption of Carbon Accounting Principles

Stricter requirements for disclosure of standardized corporate emissions information, now possible with the adoption of ECA software, would provide a far-reaching and objective method with which to examine a company’s environmental record. When such a measure exists and becomes widely used, one will only need to refer to these numbers to get an impression of a company’s overall environmental performance. It will be a lot more difficult to conceal adverse impacts on the environment in implementing greenwashing campaigns.

Expansion of Scope 3 Emissions Accounting

Mandatory inclusion of suppliers’ emissions and other indirect emissions sources in company environmental reports (Scope 3) would prevent under-reporting of emissions; absolutely all emissions would be measured and reported without room for loopholes. Requiring Scope 3 measurement would also spread more adoption of general carbon accounting throughout the supply chain; when a business must account for Scope 3, it must ask its suppliers to track their carbon footprints. Then those suppliers must ask their own suppliers and so on to create a tidal wave of carbon accounting and emissions transparency – the greenwasher’s worst nightmare.

Better Green Business Incentives

Using ECA software to identify eco-friendly savings opportunities can make it cheaper to truly go green, making it unneccessary for businesses to greenwash in the first place as they find that shrinking their carbon footprints and minimizing costs can go hand-in-hand. Government incentives can also encourage eco-friendly business practices. A global survey this year by workspace solutions provider Regus concluded that 63% of U.S. companies need more tax breaks to accelerate green investments. ECA software can develop to alert users to new opportunities to take advantage of government incentives as more of these opportunities emerge, ensuring that green sincerity is in the best interests of businesses.

Demanding, Informed Consumers

Demanding the hard numbers from standardized carbon accounting reports, while boycotting the proven greenwashers, forces businesses with green marketing campaigns to prove their sincerity or else re-think their public relations strategies. After all, fully informed consumers make deception by greenwashing impossible. When standardized carbon accounting is required and ECA software is available, companies won’t have any more excuses to conceal their carbon footprint. At that point, the responsibility will rest with the consumer to leverage informed demand and phase out greenwashing entirely.

Hunter Richards is Accounting Market Analyst at Software Advice.

Related posts:

• iPhone App Simulates Electric Car Experience
• Bryan Hassin
• Solar PV Company Uses 3D Design To Save Time and Money
• SAP Calculates the Carbon Footprint of a Yogurt Cup
• Gridpoint to Play Traffic Cop for Electric Vehicle Charging

Don’t expect climate change to get fixed by the governments of the world.  Don’t expect that, however noble in intention, the efforts of Gore, McKibben, Stern, and their many cohorts will succeed either.  Not on any large scale.  It won’t be clean tech or green products saving the day either.

Climate change, like energy scarcity, water pollution, and other serious global issues is merely one symptom of a larger global problem.  Tackle the symptoms individually, and at best you might get lackluster results.  Tackle the source of the problem, and everything attached to it will be positively affected.

That problem is consumerism.  Too many people want too many things on a finite planet with limited resources.  The process of obtaining and manufacturing those things is what has gotten us into trouble: carbon emissions, resource depletion, deforestation, species extinction, etc.

The consumer economy is the cornerstone of “democratic” governments worldwide.  As a result, governments have no genuine interest in changing the status quo.  It would be too problematic, too chaotic, and mean transcending too many vested interests.  Don’t count on Copenhagen to come to much.

And while Al Gore and company have some good ideas and rational arguments, the problem is that the arguments are rational, while the roots of consumerism are not.

For decades, the worldwide public both in the U.S. and any country that has emulated the American formula for “success” has had their minds absorbed by consumerism, and their emotions compromised by its advertised promises.  At this point, the average consumer is largely driven by irrational motives, advertisers tugging at the heart strings, making promises that products will solve “problems”.

In this emotional landscape and this mindset, at best you might get a few people to change to energy efficient light bulbs.  You might get their attention just long enough for a few token actions.  As for significant lifestyle shifts, they will be few and far between.  Any significant shift will come from reaching people on an emotional, and likely irrational level—just as advertisers have been doing for decades.

What we need is a shift to a new model—for our lifestyle, for our economies, for our livelihoods, for our planet.

A rational argument is not going to bring those about.  What will?

Not clean tech, not green products, nor any other model that looks similar to the one we already have.  Merely re-positioning “stuff that is less bad” for consumers to consume is just shifting the nature of the problem.  As Buckminster Fuller advised, to make an existing model obsolete, one must create a new model worth aspiring to.

Or as Einstein so elegantly put it,

“We cannot solve problems using the same logic we used to create them in the first place.”

There needs to be a shift in people’s values and behaviors on a wide scale.

The terrain is there for exploration.  Here is a well documented series from the BBC tracing the origins of consumer behavior and how they got us to where we are today.  It’s a long series to watch, but incredibly detailed and insightful.  If you are serious about wanting to change the way things are, study and reflect on these videos.

As the old adage goes, “Turn the problem into the solution.”  In this case, the answer is getting consumerism to quickly consume and snuff itself out.  Will it be another banking crisis that does it?  Some other social movement rooted in the masses?  Some other driver yet undetermined?  Who knows, perhaps you will be the one coming up with the next golden idea on that one.

The Century of the Self Part 1

The Century of the Self Part 2

The Century of the Self Part 3

The Century of the Self Part 4

Article appearing courtesy of Celsias

Related posts:

• Clean Technology Photos & Videos
• Geoengineering — A Magic Bullet Against Global Warming?
• Smart Meters: Truly a Cure for Energy Blindness?
• What Will New York City Look Like As Seas Rise?
• Videos: Clean Tech to Address Triple Threats, Says Al Gore

In his CleanTechies Blog post, Tom made a strong case that working on the supply side of sustainable agriculture is important at this stage because demand is strong.  He cited data showing strong consumer interest in locally grown food and their willingness to pay a premium for local produce.  I have seen similar data showing strong consumer interest in green/clean cars, energy, and other consumer products.  Tom’s argument can be made in each of these other industries.  The supply of sustainable transportation options is lacking.  Green energy is not available in sufficient supply.  Opportunities to make products & services more sustainable abound.  Tom and the many others who are working on solutions to the many constraints to sustainability should be commended and encouraged.

While I agree with the bulk of Tom’s post, there are three issues that may make focusing solely on the supply side of “green” a sub-optimal approach.

Say vs. Do
Johan commented on Tom’s original post:

“Though I agree that we need supply side innovations, I doubt whether your polls reflect people’s buying behaviour.”

Actual purchase behavior almost always falls far short of the results of surveys of “intent to purchase.”  What people say and what they do are not always the same, and when it comes to research surveys this is especially true.  For example, in one category with which I am familiar a 1/3 relationship between stated intent to purchase and actual purchase is typical.

Mass vs. Niche
Some green/clean solutions are geared towards niche markets or a subset of consumers.  Many niche products, such as premium priced electric vehicles, are supply constrained.  For other products, especially those that hope to attract mainstream buyers, increasing the green demand or relevance of the green credentials will become more important.  Successful mainstream green products (e.g. Prius, CFL bulbs) have addressed this by coupling the green aspects of their product with other attributes (most often economic).

If you build it, will they come?
Companies spend billions of dollars to advertise their products.  At the same time, there are numerous examples of green behavior being dependent on the way consumers are presented with options and information.  The importance of consumer awareness of, and accessability to your green products and services should not be underestimated.

Related posts:

• What the Election of 2010 Means for Green: Not Much.
• The CleanTech Revolution – updated and still ready for use: book review & interview with Clint Wilder
• Clean Tech Revolution In Need of a Green Gandhi. He May be Emerging.
• The Bull is Bullish on CleanTech… So?
• Obama’s win: Bright future for CleanTech?