You might remember a previous blog I wrote about the Commission Communication on the promotion of the use of ICT (Information and Communication Technology) to improve energy efficiency of the economy which announced a range of measures to increase the use of ICT to fight climate change and reduce energy waste.
A study commissioned by the Global e-sustainability initiative (Gesi) and British NGO the Climate Group (delivered on 19 June) will probably provide some ammunitions to the European Commission. The study is called "The Smart 2020" and describes the ICTs’ potential for reducing global emissions.
What I have found interesting out of the report is that unless measures are taken, the industry’s impact on the climate is forecast to grow rather than diminish. "To help, rather than hinder, the fight against climate change, the ICT sector must manage its own growing impact and continue to reduce emissions from data centres, telecommunications networks and the manufacture and use of its products"
It also says little is to be expected from virtual technologies such as teleworking, video-conferencing and e-commerce, which it was believed could help reduce the need for freight or to travel. The report notes that the "dematerialisation" of the economy "is only one part (6%) of the estimated low carbon benefits the ICT sector can deliver".  So, the areas where ICT can contribute more (similarly to the one listed by the Commission) are :

- Industry motors and industrial automation (0.97 GtCO2e in 2020, worth €68 billion);
- Logistics (1.52 GtCO2e, with energy savings worth €208 billion);
- Buildings (1.68 GtCO2e, worth €216 billion), and;
- Grid technologies (2.03 GtCO2e, worth €79 billion).

Yay!  The blight of so many school lunch rooms will soon be eliminated!  Several Canadian district school boards are moving to ban the sale of bottled water from school vending machines and cafeterias.

 
Bottled water is one of those things that really gets my goat.  The popularity of bottled water here is undeniable – Statistics Canada says nearly one-third of all Canadian households are choosing bottled water over tap water and the data indicates those numbers are on the rise.

It’s not surprising with water quality tragedies that have occurred in our recent past (2000) in Walkerton, Ontario where seven people died and more than 2,300 were made ill due to water contaminated by e.coli and campylobacter bacteria, some people are not ready to trust the government to ensure a safe water supply.

Why then do we still buy it and drink the stuff?  Convenience is my guess – and my excuse when I end up doing so.

I hope more school boards and institutions take the lead that Waterloo District School Board has (and Toronto and Ottawa-Carleton School Districts are considering) and eliminate this scourge on the sustainability landscape.

What do you think?  Are you a dedicated bottled water drinker or a tap-water snob?

But here in Toronto, we boast some of the cleanest water on the planet.  I trust that this municipal water – treated through a rigorous system in one of four treatment plants is as good as it gets, and likely much better than anything that comes out of a bottle that has come from (in some cases) another foreign municipality’s water supply.

Bottled water sale and production is totally unsustainable – besides that, it’s not necessary in most places in North America where hygiene and sanitation standards are consistently high and checked with continuous rigour. This, coupled with the fact that most bottles end up in landfill, results in a complete and utter exercise in futility.

Photo credit: Flickr Chhata, 16th Oct 2007

Environmental Leader featured a story this week about how, overall, global greenhouse gas emissions increased more than three percent last year. China contributed two-thirds of that increase, boasting an eight-percent increase nationally in 2007 over 2006. What’s more, according to the report’s authors at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, China has surpassed the United States in GHG emissions, churning out 25 percent of all emissions worldwide, compared with the U.S.’ 21 percent.

Clearly, this little blog post can’t tackle the mammoth topic of China’s economic development nor its role and position in the international political-economic order. But it can ask a simple question: Does China’s trajectory negate all the efforts underway? And more important in the long run, will China’s path of increased emissions dissuade nations, NGO’s and companies from reaching for newer and cleaner technologies and fuels, if all their efforts are balanced out by China’s growing hunger for cheap energy?

All this China handwringing doesn’t exempt the United States from its own responsibilities–the report referenced here also identifies the United States as the world leader in emissions per capita, ahead of the E.U, Russia, China and India. And there are some steps we in the U.S. can take: 1) Walk the talk — we can only demand performance once we’ve established ourselves as real leaders in climate change solutions; and, 2) Win back friends — we can’t stage an intervention alone, we need old friends by our side and new friends to join the club.

But maybe the bigger issue is, is this study fair? Should total emissions matter more than per capita emissions? Do China’s 1.2 billion residents need to be held to a higher standard than the 300 million Americans who have enjoyed as much energy and product consumption as they could afford for decades? Maybe the issue isn’t about zero-sum, but about equitable standards. What do you think?

It’s the steady drip, drip, drip of power consumption.  I think we’ve all seen the unblinking red, orange, green and blue LEDs that stare back from the supposedly switched off devices throughout our homes.  Sometimes they serve a great purpose to guide us from collision in the dark, but with every consumer electronic device glow, there’s a steady stream of power being used with little or no purpose. 

Add that to the power consumed by devices while in use, and it’s no wonder that demand for electricity continues to grow.  Did you know that a 42” plasma can consume more power than a full sized refrigerator?  Data shows that 46.1 million LCD TVs shipped worldwide in Q1.  How about the energy consumed by the 1.1 billion chargers worldwide that accompanied the new cell phones shipped last year?

There may be a bit of hope on the horizon. Among the myriad of approaches being engineered and coming on the market, the development of next-gen power factor correction (PFC) devices may help reduce the overall demand for new power plant construction as well as the greenhouse gases associated with putting another generation facility in operation.  PFC circuits can reside in power supplies of almost any electronic device – computer, HDTV, DVD player or even the lowly wall charger for cell phones and laptops – and can reduce overall energy drawn by each device.  Think of it as the difference between drinking from a fire hose and a water glass – using this new approach, devices ask for much less power from the wall socket and don’t waste excess energy.

[Full disclosure – I worked with a semiconductor firm last year with PFC news outreach to OEMs.]

In the meantime, there are basic strategies to adopt to get a handle on your overall energy consumption:

• Do an energy audit of your house, provided by your local utility at little or no cost
• Use an energy consumption meter to determine which devices in your home really are drawing the most energy
• When replacing appliances and electronics, take a look at Energy Star-compliant devices as well as exploring those that employ Power Factor Correction in their power supplies
• Unplug those wall chargers and switch off power strips when devices aren’t needed

Sure, it might mean a few less night lights for guidance in the dark, but learning to save starts with a series of incremental steps.

Our colleague Linda Smith, a senior leader for FH Canada, recently sent us a guest post on “the future of food.”  FH last week co-hosted a breakfast briefing entitled “What’s In Store” featuring noted food and nutrition experts including FH’s own Eye on FDA blogger Mark Senak and many others.

With so much interest in the intersection of sustainability and agriculture, we wanted to share Linda’s thoughts with you. Here is Linda’s guest post:

Organic has been on the rise for the last decade in North American agriculture with grocery stores now devoting large produce sections to pricier organic produce. But as food inflation hits us rapidly and we struggle to feed the world now and in the future, we will see some dramatic emphasis shifts in food. We will look for food labeled “sustainable” to denote food that is highly productive and better for the environment.

Today, with demand outstripping supply, food prices soaring and food protests and riots happening in countries from Thailand to Italy, another wave in agricultural productivity is urgently needed. We will start thinking not only about feeding ourselves and our families, but truly become concerned about feeding the world.

And with the emphasis on increased crop productivity we will see the rise of GMO’s, genetically-modified foods which will be engineered for harsher climates, to be more insect resilient and to create even larger yields. While we once ran from GMO’s we will embrace them those that have direct benefits to increased productivity and yield. GMO’s to resist salinity will be possible so we can use sea water for irrigation as will plants that can further resist drought. We will need a new armamentarium of agricultural weapons.

Advanced sustainable agriculture will draw heavily on agro ecology and adopt some of the methods of organic farming to solve problems like soil erosion and the rising costs of fertilizers. New tools for superefficient “precision agriculture” will allow water and other inputs like drip irrigation systems with soil moisture sensors, so we don’t waste a drop.

Not only will every household have a backyard vegetable garden, high rises will be devoted to growing food to reduce the foot print on the land. And to reduce energy costs, every farm will have a wind turbine.

The world is changing but the world of agriculture will change the most rapidly.