World is Green

Some 300 construction companies have been awarded the Chartered Environmentalist (CENv) qualification from Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB).

Michael Brown CIOB deputy chief executive said,

“Construction is an environmental industry and its importance to such issues like sustainability, energy efficiency and climate change cannot be underestimated. We know that the buildings we live and work in are the largest source of carbon emissions and our members and other professionals can be part of the solution to that problem.
“When we talk about the environment and those topics that challenge us like climate change we should also remember that these are international issues and not just local ones. So it is with some pride that we have CIOB members in the UK and abroad who are qualified Chartered Environmentalists.

“We see the role of the Chartered Environmentalist as an important part in the promotion of those values and beliefs that the construction industry needs to positively embrace.”

 Andrew Leonard on the first carbon taxes in the world in a discussion on carbon sequestration.

 So imagine our surprise upon learning that Norway’s state-owned oil company, StatoilHydro, has already sequestered some ten million tons of carbon dioxide offshore, in a sandstone formation 1000 meters under the seabed, near the Sleipner offshore gas platform. StatoilHydro started burying CO2 beneath the ocean all the way back in 1996.

How prescient! But perhaps not so surprising. Norway first imposed a stiff carbon tax of $50 a ton on its oil and gas industry in 1991, providing a significant impetus for the industry to minimize its emissions.

1991! In the United States, a “carbon tax” is seen as a death knell for any politician so foolhardy as to endorse such an economy-killing idea. The people would never stand for it, and the energy industry would fight to the death to stop any such madness.

Funny thing, though. Finland instituted a carbon tax on fossil fuels in 1990 — the first country to do so. Norway and Sweden followed in 1991, and Denmark and the Netherlands in 1992.

And somehow, all those nations have managed to survive.

Computer Weekly talks about some of the simple steps that you can take to save energy, costs and improve efficiencies.

The government’s CIO Council is planning a “green” strategy for the public sector which includes cutting tens of thousands of printers, taking power consumption into consideration when buying PCs, and keeping equipment for up to two years longer.

One of those leading the green initiative is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Defra’s CIO Chris Chant said there has been a dramatic reduction in printers in large offices, from one per eight employees to one for every 15 staff. This cuts buying costs, electricity bills and the amount of equipment that needs to be disposed of, he said.

Defra recently decided to fund centrally only one computing device per employee - usually a thin-client desktop or a laptop. It also discourages docking stations for laptops and thousands of power-hungry CRT monitors have been replaced with flat screens.

We have been doing similar stuff at DFC. The printers have been the biggest surprises with almost 1 printer for every 2 employees in some offices. Some big savings can come out there for DFC.

Sustainability is turning up new niche areas of business opportunity. One major area is finance. I came across this bank today called - Ekobanken from Sweden. They have squarely targeted the growing understanding among consumers for sustainability and the increasing innovation from businesses in this field.

This is created in the form a member bank or what in Australia can be called a credit union with the participation of consumers as members or shareholders in the bank. In essence, the goals of users and owners are the same.

They work in the areas which increases social, environmental and cultural initiatives for a sustainable society. It says, “The public good and the benefit of our members is our main driving force and the reason why Ekobanken finances initiatives within the social economy. We are also interested in sustainable business that takes the environment and human being into account.”

In order to target the areas of finance which their members want; Ekobanken has created a unique set of accounts which use the deposits in these accounts to fund projects in that area. For example: savings in the Ecology Account “are used for loans to alternative energy, ecological and biodynamical agriculture, conservation, research and other ecological projects” whereas savings in the Culture account “finances loans to culture houses, artistic projects, community colleges, publishing, production of periodicals and adult education.”

At the time of joining the bank, members can choose to inform the bank to use their bank in all of their initiatives or as the example above suggests to a particular target area. These areas are broadly classified into Ecology, Culture, Healthcare, Child and Youth, The Way Out, Fair Trade and Sustainable development in the local area.

In the area of reporting they are very, very transparent. They produce a loans report every year, (latest is 2006, PDF Download) which takes a few areas of their work like Food, Pre-school and Micro-credits in the 2006 edition and explain their thinking in that field, examples of projects that they have funded and some links. At the end of the report they provide a list of all the projects that they have funded in each of the target areas. An amazing degree of transparency for a bank.

In terms of financial performance, the bank has been growing its deposits steadily, in fact almost doubling in the five years ending 2006; operating revenue growing a decent pace and profits more than doubling in the same period.

The banks vision, theme, products and marketing are all centered around the growing sustainability sector. A fine example of innovation and working in a market niche in this area.

London has celebrated its “switch off” campaign yesterday. Like the Sydney Earth Hour, the idea was to create awareness of the climate change issue.

The Houses of Parliament after the big switch-off (Courtesy: BBC)

Lights across the city were switched off for an hour on Thursday night to encourage London’s three million households to conserve energy.

The Lights Out London campaign aimed to have all non-essential lighting turned off between 2100 and 2200 BST. It followed similar campaigns in cities including Sydney, Paris and Rome.

At the time of Sydney’s Earth Hour I wrote that “It is important that the debate is concentrated on doing more important things than turning lights off. We should work towards cleaner base load energy, creating “cradle to cradle” industrial processes, building waste management systems and changing the culture in Australia. These are tougher and more important things to do.”

What kind of awareness does this lights off symbolism create? Energy is the problem, switching off is the solution, sacrificing is the way to go?

Josie Appleton on Spiked writes about the role of energy in the world and why this act amounts to nothing in the wider scheme of things.

The practical effect of the event will be negligible – perhaps a 10 per cent reduction, for an hour, for one city, for one night.

…Lights Out London is a symbolic gesture from a high-speed culture that is deeply uncomfortable with itself. We have so much at the flick of a switch, yet we are uneasy about the idea of using energy, and a light bulb is becoming a symbol of angst rather than a bright idea. We in some respects seem to find darkness more meaningful than light, inaction more meaningful than action.

What kind of awareness do we need to create? We need to change our industrial system, change our buying pattern, create better technology for energy generation, and increase energy efficiency. And yes, change our habits.

By switching off the city lights for a hour it can actually create the wrong impression.

Jennifer Kho writes about the growing regulation in electronic waste and the opportunities present for companies all over the world in the supply chain.

Imagine a mountain of trash weighing as much an oil tanker. That’s how much electronic waste the world discards every hour, according to Greenpeace.

New environmental regulations that go into effect in China on March 1 aim to shrink that mountain of waste into a molehill. The Chinese effort is the latest attempt by governments aroudn the world to tackle the problem of growing electronic waste. But while makers of computers, cell phones, and other electronic gadgets might applaud that aim, many worry that they won’t be able to comply with the new laws in time.

The new laws are hitting the electronics industry hard. Companies like Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and NEC have all redesigned their products to comply with E.U. regulations, basically making Brussels the de facto arbiter on world standards.

But whatever their source, the new rules have forced changes in materials, designs, and processes, opening a mountain-sized opportunity for new players throughout their supply chains.

But no matter how much it costs companies to comply with the new regulations, it almost certainly will cost them more in fines, or worse outcomes, for ignoring them. Apple last year pulled its iSight web camera from Europe after it decided that it would be too expensive to meet RoHS specs; by December, Apple stopped selling the product in the U.S.

To be fair, the electronics industry is being asked to implement extremely complex changes in a short amount of time, says Elizabeth Grossman, author of the book High-Tech Trash. “I couldn’t think of another industry that operates on such a large scale internationally that is being asked to make these kinds of changes,” she says.

As in other areas related to sustainability the EU is leading the world in the management of waste.

Environmental Management news reports that the European Parliament has voted on two waste directives. The EU Waste Directive aims to set binding targets for waste prevention for the first time, while the ‘Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste’ focuses on the long-term EU waste strategy.

The report by British Conservative MP Caroline Jackson on the proposed waste directive calls for binding targets to stabilise waste production at anticipated 2008 levels by 2012. It also calls for greater reuse and recycling to reduce pressure on landfill sites.One of the measures strongly supported by the Jackson report is the ‘five step’ hierarchy of waste treatment, with prevention most desirable, followed by reuse, recycling, energy recovery (including incineration) and landfill as a last resort. It rejects the European Commission’s earlier proposal to reclassify incineration from “disposal” to “recovery” based on energy production.

The second report, from Johannes Blokland of the Independence and Democracy Group, seeks a ‘thematic strategy’ to deal with the problem.

His report calls for a total ban on all landfill waste by 2020 and asks the European Commission to propose ways of reducing waste and to develop measures to judge progress.

The European Union has been a pioneer in the fight against Climate Change. After ratifying the Kyoto protocol, EU has embarged on the European Trading Scheme where individual countries provide carbon allowances which can be traded by the major pollutors including power generation companies.

The BBC reports that the Phase-II of the program for 2008-12 is tougher on the countries.

To make the scheme effective in tackling climate change, the EU has cut member states’ carbon permits by 7% on average from 2008-2012. Germany, a major polluter, said the stricter limits were unacceptable and would push electricity prices up.The European Trading Scheme (ETS) aims to cut emissions by 8% from 1990 levels.

Critics argue that, even with the new lower limits, the plans are unlikely to help reduce pollution and the emissions of greenhouse gases. According to Tony Ward, Energy Director at Ernst & Young,…”The move is small and is unlikely to encourage the necessary substantive behavioural change,” he said.

Some major criticism of the scheme is that in the first phase, member countries provided a high level of allowances which increased the supply of carbon credits and decreased the price of carbon.