COP15 has come and gone… leaving behind a bad taste for some and a grain of hope for the others.  But no matter which of those two groups you belong to, outside of your window the movement toward more sustainable world continues.

The Information Technology is only one area of industry that is in full focus right now in the US. Just recently, the government and private sectors announced a $115 million dollars investment into 14 IT projects that would work on improvement of energy efficiency in the following areas:

• IT equipment
• Software
• Power supply chain and cooling

IT equipment and software projects will focus on servers and networking devices and how they can be optimized in order to be more energy efficient. Power supply chain projects will look at how to “minimize power loss and heat generation that occurs in server-based IT systems.” The cooling projects will focus on improvement of cooling equipment in order to use less energy.

From $115 million claimed, $47 million is coming from the U.S. Department of Energy. The following is a breakdown of how the funds will be distributed among IT companies based on their areas of specialty:

Funding for IT equipment and software projects will go to:

• SeaMicro Inc. – $9.3 million
• IBM T.J. Watson Research Center - $1.6 million
• Alcatel-Lucent, Bell Labs – $300,000
• California Institute of Technology – $300,000

Funding for power supply chain projects will go to:

• Hewlett-Packard Company – $7.4 million
• Power Assure, Inc – $5 million
• Columbia University – $2.8 million
• Lineage Power Corporation – $2.4 million
• BAE Systems – $222,000

Funding for cooling projects will go to:

• Yahoo! Inc. – $9.9 million
• Edison Materials Technology Center – $2.8 million
• IBM T.J. Watson Research Center – $2.3 million
• Alcatel-Lucent – $1.8 million
• Federspiel Controls, Inc. – $584,000

So if you, like so many, feel that the Copenhagen summit took away our last hope for change – think again. The only reason we didn’t reach the new treaty is because the countries couldn’t agree on the financial and legislative commitment toward each other at this time. But, that doesn’t mean that the commitments don’t exist on the national level, as we can see with the US – they just need to be re-thought and re-engineered in order to fit into the international level, as well. Once countries are clear on what they can do inside their own borders, they will become clearer on what they can offer between international borders, as well.

So, let’s just keep going.

If you have any interest in the world of technology and gadgets, you probably followed the exciting news last week from the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

One announcement that caught my eye was OnStar’s mobile application for the new Chevrolet Volt. Motorists will be able to track and control nearly everything in their automobile, from its mileage to when it gets charged, all by using the app on an Apple iPhone, Motorola Droid or BlackBerry Storm.

The Volt, as you may know, promises to go 40 miles on a single electric charge with zero carbon emissions, after that the gas engine kicks in to provide long-distance driving. Why only 40 miles of emissions-free driving? The company says its engineers determined 75 percent of drivers go less than 40 miles each day. The car is scheduled to hit the roads sometime near the end of 2010, estimated to cost around $40,000.

Photo from Shark Truth, a campaign to find alternatives to shark fin soup

A couple of weeks ago, I saw an interesting post from The Atlantic magazine come across Facebook. It was titled provocatively, “Is it okay to eat an inhumane meal if it’s traditional?”

The substance of the article was about the enjoyment of shark’s fin, which is a popular and controversial delicacy across Asia. The fins are procured in a process called “finning,” where fishermen cut them off and toss the sharks helplessly back in the ocean to die.

While not of the same magnitude at all, this reminded of an e-mail my mom sent me recently about LED Christmas lights. A proponent of the traditional, she, like many people, doesn’t think the new, energy efficient lights have the same fun holiday spirit as the antique lights of the past. And she doesn’t appreciate being made to feel bad about her preference.

Through our world’s history, changes in tradition have often been driven by societal pressure. Today, much of that pressure comes from the sustainability/social responsibility movement. When we talk about sustainability, our messages often hinge on morality—or guilt. By making “good” choices, you help save the world. And by making “bad” choices, you hurt the world. So, does guilt work?

In a word: Yes.

But maybe it’s not that simple.

Scientists, psychologists and marketers have been studying the effects of emotions on consumers for a long time. Not surprisingly, they play a huge role in the decisions we make.

In a research described in The New York Times earlier this year, scientists found that consumers who were once reacting with desire for expensive handbags now look upon the same products with something like repulsion—because the recession has conditioned them to feel guilty for considering something so expensive but non essential to their lives.

Many retailers see shame as an impediment to economic recovery. People don’t feel bad just about buying handbags. They feel bad about buying anything.

Researchers have even found that fear and guilt are more motivating than any other message, including hope.

“Making people feel good is less important than making people feel accountable when it comes to making wise decisions about self-protection,” wrote Kirsten A. Passyn of Salisbury University and Mita Sujan of Tulane University in the March 2006 issue of the Journal of Consumer Research.

But there is evidence that guilt gets its power from being different. The more people hear guilt-driven messages, the more savvy and skeptical they become. In essence, perhaps the more we play the “guilt card,” the less it works.

So, my question is: What role should guilt play in our advocacy of sustainability? Do we stand the best chance of success by making people feel accountable for their actions. Or, in the end, will guilt only turn people off?

What do you think?