On 13 May the European Commission adopted a Communication on the promotion of the use of ICT (Information and Communication Technology) to improve energy efficiency of the economy.
This text is part of the EU overall efforts to combat climate change : as you might know, our target is a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990 levels and 20% renewable energy use by 2020.
Bottom line on the Communication (soft law in Europe) is that the Commission believes that the ICT sector will not only contribute to improving energy efficiency and combating climate change by reducing its own carbon emissions (estimated as a 2% of the global CO2 emissions) but it will also stimulate the development of energy-efficiency technologies that will foster the competitiveness of European industry and create new business opportunities. ICTs is therefore seen as an enabler to improve energy efficiency across the economy. As a matter of fact, all sectors of the economy are increasingly ICT-dependent. The initial focus will be on the power grid, on energy-smart homes and buildings and on smart lighting.
Having said that, I think that there are 3 main reasons why this communication can be of interest to companies:
- the Commission is encouraging the ICT industry overall to demonstrate leadership in reducing its own CO2 emissions. This open call for “help” could be very important especially from a reputational perspective. ICT companies are encouraged to demonstrate commitment, leadership and far-reaching thinking to promote energy efficiency. To this end, the Communication mentions British Telecom as example of good practice because of its achievements in setting and reaching ambitious emissions targets.
- the Communication has been delivered by the Directorate General Information Society (not DG Environment). DG Infosoc has been very quiet until now on the debate of energy efficiency and Commissioner Reding has picked up the value of the contribution of the ICT sector later than his counterparts in the Commission.
- a platform will be established in the coming months and a variety of representations will be welcomed to join.
According to a recent Brandweek story, only one in three consumers in the U.S. and U.K. is “familiar” or “very familiar” with the term sustainability and its meaning.
Are you surprised?
I’m not, actually. While we all talk about it, I’m not convinced that the "average" consumer is as engaged in the terminology as professional communicators, marketers and businesspeople are.
I don’t think that means sustainability communications is a fading concern. Just the opposite, actually. If these results are to be believed (and they seem to echo those from other surveys), then consumers need more education not less. There’s a great deal of interest in the general topic, but not a lot of understanding. The confluence of those two streams presents a river of opportunity for communicators.
To me, the questions now are: how do you reach consumers with a compelling, credible message? Who will lead the way in conducting this kind of legitimate communications effort? When will we see a change in consumer awareness?
The story also addresses the survey’s focus on consumer perceptions about environmental issues and the motivations behind such perceptions. It’s an interesting read.
Check out the story for yourself and let us know what you think.
Ah, the joy of living the green life. You compost, sort your recyclables and have switched to compact fluorescent bulbs. Perhaps you’ve moved to a hybrid car, or maybe you’ve gone one step further and are looking for a biodiesel ride. If so, get ready for a possibly bumpy road as state agencies begin to sit up and take notice of the tens of thousands of vehicles that may (or may not) be paying their fair share.
According to a recent Los Angeles Times article, California drivers are surprised to learn that they can’t just get in their biodiesel beauty, roll into the nearest fast food joint and drive off into the sunset. Even green Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger was caught by surprise when his oil-propelled Hummer (powered by cooking oil from Costco), was notified that road tax was due. Hold onto your hats — there might be an extra governmental item or two you might need:
- A diesel fuel supplier’s license
- Quarterly reporting of grease usage, for a gallon-based road tax levy
- A license from the Meat and Poultry Board to haul away used grease
- A million dollar liability insurance in case you spill the above grease, and,
- Clearance from the Air Quality Resources Board that your biodiesel machine meets pollution guidelines
Several states, including Illinois, North Carolina, Texas, Rhode Island and Indiana have put exemptions in place to allow biodiesel drivers to avoid paying road tax, so the landscape at the state level is starting to change.
So what do you think? Should states move to provide alternative fuel vehicles and their early adopters with a clearer path to getting their cars on the road? Does the value of a green vehicle outweigh the income realized from road taxes? With a gallon of unleaded regular gas at $4.05 and rising, and home-brewed biofuel clocking in at 21 cents a gallon and up, the price difference could make some drivers take a second look.
Big problems take big (and innovative) solutions. One such problem: feeding a hungry world. This hungry world includes a burgeoning middle class in China, India and elsewhere; and food shortages (which are about production and distribution, to be sure) in Africa and South Asia. And yes, hunger is a sustainability issue. With arable land at a premium, farmers are putting non-farming and non-grazing land to work, which has environmental and long-term social implications too numerous to capture here. So what’s the solution?
If you’re the good folks at Columbia University professor Dickson Despommier’s office, it’s called vertical farming. Vertical farming, or what I am now singlehandedly coining Verticulture, is taking greenhouses to the twenty-first century. The concept is actually simple: Imagine a 30-story building with different crops growing on each floor. Centralized water control, minimized land use, year-round growing, fully organic fruits and vegetables (no need for pesticides indoors). And one more — local food production. According to the designers involved, one 15-story vertical farm could feed a town of 50,000. Even if this number is inaccurate, the promise is the same: every town and neighborhood growing what it needs. No transoceanic shipping of what can be grown locally. Talk about carbon footprint reduction. So the question is, is vertical farming just great daydreaming? Or is it a real answer to a very tough question? What do you think?
Photo credit: design by Blake Kurasek, graduate student at the School of Architecture at the University of Illinois — see more at www.verticalfarm.com/designs.aspx
Our friends and colleagues at the Energy Communicators Blog are regularly addressing a wide range of energy issues, including ongoing efforts to pass climate change legislation. Today blogger Silvio Marcacci provided a detailed analysis of the latest on the ongoing Congressional consideration of the Lieberman-Warner bill. We’re always happy to provide opportunities for guest posts, and are pleased to share Silvio’s thoughts with you. Here’s Silvio’s post:
In a pragmatic series of changes to the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill, which passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and is scheduled for a full floor debate next month, the legislation’s sponsors have swiftly moved to undercut criticism by those whom the bill would most directly impact. The changes, in the form of a "manager’s amendment" by Senator Barbara Boxer, significantly blunt the most serious charges made by the manufacturing and generation sectors.
To start, the revised bill would allow a much greater percentage of international carbon offsets by U.S. emitters to comply with emission caps the legislation would impose. Originally, international offsets would have been allowed to meet up to 15 percent of an emitter’s obligations, but the offsets would have been created and managed through a cap-and-trade system similar to the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme. U.S. utilities opposed this provision, in large part because they feared the available credits would have already been purchased by European entities to comply with their system. With the changes, the legislation would now allow emitters to reduce compliance costs by meeting up to 5 percent of their obligations through "project-based" credits and up to 10 percent by protecting overseas forests. The "project-based" designation is considered a reference to the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, which provides credit for funding efficiency or renewable projects in developing countries.
[Read more →]
If you had to rebuild your city from the ground up, which direction would you choose? Create duplicates of existing structures? Use traditional building approaches? Or roll out a green-focused community?
That’s the choice faced by residents of Greensburg, Kansas, who saw their town leveled by a F5 tornado just over a year ago. In minutes the tornado cut a 1.7 mile wide swath of destruction, leaving 95 percent of the town destroyed and 1500 residents displaced.
Over the past year – and working with the latest technology – Greensburg has been on a path to rebuild their homes, businesses and schools with eco-friendly materials that will allow them to withstand another extreme weather event and save energy over the long term. Discovery Networks’ new Planet Green channel is focusing on their story, with a 13-part series that chronicles their journey. From solar energy and geothermal heating to vegetative roofs and insulated pre-fab construction materials, it’s an inspiring story driven by community members that want to make a difference, one person at a time.
That begs the question — if you were in their shoes, what technologies would you choose to deploy?
If you are currently using green technology to make a difference, I’d like to hear about what you’re using and why you’d recommend it. Or, if you’re creating a new green technology that can impact our world, I’d be interested in finding out more. Send an email to jim dot hughes at fleishman dot com, and who knows.you might see your technology here.
JIM HUGHES
VICE PRESIDENT
FLEISHMAN-HILLARD LOS ANGELES, CA
Jim Hughes is a vice president in Fleishman-Hillard’s corporate practice in the Los Angeles office, providing strategic counsel, positioning and outreach for his clients. Experienced in agency, in-house and consulting roles for technology and corporate accounts, he currently oversees The LTO Program and their work with green data backup issues. He recently worked with Marvell Electronics to introduce “smart” semiconductors that will allow the creation of highly energy efficient computer, lighting and consumer entertainment devices.
Deeply involved in green initiatives in his daily work and at home, Jim has embraced solar energy with the installation of a 5.3 KwH photovoltaic system that allows the generation of energy needed by his family as well as feeding an equal amount of energy back into the grid for neighborhood use.
You might have heard that Tesco supermarket is launching a pilot scheme putting ‘carbon labels’ on its own-brand products in a move designed to enable consumers to choose products which are less damaging to the environment.
The retailer will put ‘carbon-count’ labels on varieties of orange juice, potatoes, energy-efficient light bulbs and washing detergents, stating how many grams of CO2 (or equivalent greenhouse gases) were emitted as a result of growing, manufacturing, transporting and storing the product.
For some products, the label will also tell how its carbon footprint compares with other similar products while some labels will give tips about how to reduce a product’s footprint when you cook it, use it or dispose o f it.
I wonder if consumers are ready to fully digest this kind of information. Would I be able to understand what 50 grames of CO2 means and to put this figure into the wider schemes of things? Maybe but I am not sure….
On the same topic, the European Commission is currently finalising and Action Plan on "sustainable consumption and production" and it seems that it will cover energy using products and non energy using products such as footwear, furniture, cleaning products, windows, doors, etc… While not all products will be required to physically bear a label, they will nonetheless by scrutinised on the basis of a life-cycle assessment of their ‘eco performance’, including energy and resource use. Products that do not meet the minimum criteria set out in the EU text would be kept off the EU market. ‘Best performing’ products, on the other hand, would be encouraged, including through preferential public procurement rules that are established based on a common benchmark for a given product group.
The ecolabels will keep our attention and interest for the coming months I am sure!
