Profile: Jon Dee

Businesses which have yet to take their first environmental steps, may soon have no choice, warns Jon Dee. Research shows the public expects business to become more sustainable and they want companies to ‘green up’ the goods that they sell. Lessons for business and how market leaders have responded are all part of what Jon will be sharing when he delivers his keynote presentation at the upcoming Destino Australia Sustainable Tourism conference in Melbourne (19 & 20 July).
Money really does grow on trees, according to environmental entrepreneur Jon Dee.

In these post-GFC days, most business execs are looking for ways to fatten the bottom line. Although most are aware that there’s a need to reduce their organisation’s environmental footprint, they’re too caught up in daily management to think about ways to help the environment as part of their day-to day operations.

What they fail to realise is that by making changes to their operational practices today, they’d be doing more with less. As a result, they’d be improving their environmental efficiency while having a positive impact on the triple bottom line.
 
In researching his book ‘Sustainable Growth’, author, environmentalist and entrepreneur Jon Dee found that most business execs have a genuine willingness to act. What they lacked was the confidence to move forward. Unless they were directly impacted by environmental regulations or were operating within a fragile ecosystem, most lacked even the most basic understanding of how to implement environmental management practices in their business.
 
Most were also totally unaware of how much money could be saved by making these changes to daily operations. The obvious fact that saving energy, using fewer resources and finding new ways to do more with less would be a good business strategy had been overlooked in the face of just keeping afloat when times got tough.

“For those businesses who’ve yet to take their first environmental steps, we’re moving to a stage where they may have no choice”, warns Jon. “Research shows that the public expect business to become more sustainable and they want companies to ‘green up’ the goods that they sell.”

One positive effect of a constrained economy is that solutions to improve operational efficiencies are now increasingly in demand. As business sustainability gathers momentum across the world, Australian SMEs are discovering that companies with a strong environmental stance are giving preference to doing business with like-minded companies that can demonstrate they’re applying internationally recognised sustainability standards.

A quick look at how retail giants such as WalMart responded to pressure to become more environmentally friendly shows how change can have a ripple effect all the way down the supply chain and make or break your business.

Back in October 2005, CEO Lee Scott presented an environmental plan to boost energy efficiency, increase organic food sales, and reduce waste and greenhouse gases emissions. He told reporters that the world’s largest retailer had to be a “good steward for the environment” and believed that adopting greener practices would also be good for business by cutting costs.

Marks & Spencer has also enacted very proactive sustainable procurement policies. Under their Plan A initiative, they proactively engaged suppliers by asking them direct questions about how they’re reducing the environmental impact of the goods and services that they supply. Many other companies are now taking a similar approach. Failure by suppliers to respond proactively to such sustainability enquiries could likely undermine their ability to remain as suppliers to such businesses.
 
Lessons such as these and how market leaders have responded are small examples of the knowledge Jon will be sharing when he delivers his keynote presentation at the upcoming Destino Australia Sustainable Tourism conference in Melbourne (19 & 20 July).

As the Founder of Do Something!, Planet Ark and ‘World Environment News’, some of Jon’s initiatives have become role models for international change. In Australia, Jon initiated the successful lobbying campaign for the 3 year phase-out of incandescent light globes; a move that has since been copied by other countries. He has also spearheaded the highly successful media campaign to phase-out Australia’s usage of plastic bags. In recognition of these efforts, Jon has been named NSW Australian of the Year.

The schedule of speakers for the Destino event includes many who are at the forefront of sustainable tourism. They are not scientists, sales people or venture capitalists, but rather, engineers, general managers, operations managers and auditors.

It’s people such as these who are responsible for implementing change and strategising the best ways to position their organisations for growth in a carbon-constrained economy. They offer first-hand accounts of how to take a hands-on approach to managing your company’s environmental footprint and increasing efficiencies without breaking the bank in the process 

You can hear Jon Dee and other speakers at the Destino Australia Sustainable Tourism conference in Melbourne (19 & 20 July).

Tickets for Destino Australia start at just $70 (plus GST).

Source: www.earthcheck.org or www.dosomething.net.au

Fair Deal if Emissions Target Between 7% & 15%

If Australia increased its emissions target from 5% to between 7% and 15%, we could rightly say we were contributing our fair share to the global target. Tim Flannery fears the new Australian Prime Minister will find herself held hostage to manipulation and lies from both Liberals and Greens. It would be far better for the Julia Gillard and the country if she gathered the courage to press on with the emissions trading scheme and face the inevitable political cost.

Tim Flannery in Sydney Morning Herald (3 July 2010):

Julia Gillard has put the emissions trading scheme back on the political agenda, saying that after the election she will work to build a consensus to pass it. Yet the government’s proposed scheme continues to be misrepresented by Greens and Liberals seeking their own political advantage, making consensus-building impossible. The Greens claim it’s an unambitious, do-nothing scheme, while the Liberals portray it as a monstrous, economy-destroying tax. Both are just plain wrong.

If implemented it would see Australia emitting 5 per cent less greenhouse gas in 2020 than it did in 2000. Without it, high population growth and industrialisation would see Australia’s emissions soar, by 2020, 26 per cent above the target. Imagine cutting your own emissions by about a quarter, and the high ambition of the scheme becomes apparent.

But would it see Australia doing its fair share to avoid dangerous climate change? In The New York Review of Books Nicholas Stern tallied all the emission reductions pledged under the Copenhagen Accord. With more than 100 countries already signed up, humanity is set to be emitting 48 billion tonnes of CO2 by 2020 – up a mere billion tonnes from today’s 47 billion tonnes.

To avoid dangerous climate change (a warming of less than 2 degrees) we need to reduce emissions to about 44 billion tonnes by 2020. This could be achieved if Europe agrees on its planned 30 per cent target rather than the current 20 per cent, and the US and other developed nations increase their own targets by a few percentage points.

If Australia increased its target from 5 per cent to between 7 per cent and 15 per cent, we could rightly say we were contributing our fair share to the global target. This is a far cry from the Greens’ unrealistic demands for 25 per cent to 40 per cent cuts.

The cash handouts and other compensation paid to polluters under the scheme have attracted particular ire. Many believe they compromise the scheme’s effectiveness, but this is just not true. The 5 per cent reduction is unaffected by such give-aways.

Ross Garnaut argued against industry handouts but the Rudd government was unable to resist the avalanche of compensation claims – though thankfully these will phase out. It is regrettable to use taxpayers’ dollars to buy off aggressive industry lobbies but we should not let this legacy of a weak and cowed government blind us to the scheme’s effectiveness in reducing emissions.

Nor should we forget it is one of the most comprehensive emissions trading schemes ever devised, and also one with the fewest give-aways of free permits – with 70 per cent to be auctioned.

The Greens argue that allowing industry to offset emissions into forestry and agriculture is a kind of get-out-of-jail card for polluters. Again, this is not true. Offsets into agriculture will have to be real, and will come at a cost. Moreover, in a recent analysis of projected global emissions reductions the consultancy McKinsey has argued that about half of global emissions avoided by 2020 will have to come from agricultural and forest offsets, simply because the required scale of reductions is so great, and time so short.

Tony Abbott’s catchcry about the scheme being a ”great big new tax” would be laughable were it not so dangerously misleading. It directly affects only the nation’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases, and it is not a tax but a trading scheme that minimises the cost of emissions reductions.

Several emissions trading schemes now operate worldwide (with New Zealand’s beginning this month), and we can learn of their impacts from the older schemes. The US German Marshall Fund recently assessed the economic impact of the European scheme. Between 2005 and 2008 it had reduced European emissions by between 2.5 per cent and 5 per cent, yet no company surveyed by the Marshall Fund was able to identify any negative impact whatsoever on profitability. Not one.

It is increasingly clear only one thing changes when emissions trading schemes are introduced – the level of emissions. Without the scheme, Australia cannot cost-effectively attain its emissions target pledged under the Copenhagen Accord. The renewable energy target will get us about halfway there. But as recently explained in his Deakin lecture by the chief executive of Origin Energy, Grant King, neither energy efficiency targets nor any other mechanism under consideration by the government can compensate for the loss of the emissions trading scheme.

He also noted that deferring it until 2013 renders it useless, because by then all major decisions on infrastructure spending required to reduce emissions by 2020 are likely to have been made.

All too often economists and politicians underestimate the ingenuity of businesses when faced with an additional cost. Buying a pollution permit is just one of hundreds of costs faced by any company, and experience in Europe and elsewhere shows that engineers often find surprising ways to reduce emissions. But this simply doesn’t happen without a cost on carbon.

The scheme is far from perfect but it is essential in our battle to reduce emissions. In seeking a consensus on its introduction, I fear Julia Gillard will find herself in the same position as Kevin Rudd – held hostage to manipulation and lies from both Liberals and Greens. It would be far better for the Prime Minister and the country if she gathered the courage to press on with the scheme and face the inevitable political cost.

Professor Tim Flannery is the chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council.

Source: www.smh.com.au

Pay Attention to What’s Happening to the Pacific Islands

The 2010 Climate Adaptation Futures Conference on Australia’s Gold Coast last week ended with one regional scientist saying most of the program turned out to be irrelevant for its Pacific attendees. The pace of climate change is very rapid in some places and there may simply not be time to win the public over to take action to avoid or adapt, according to ABC’s Pacific Beat. Is anything happening? A year ago the same program ended with these words: “Leaders of the Pacific together with Australia and New Zealand need to stand together as leaders of this region to avoid the loss of countries in the Pacific”.

ABC Radio’s Pacific Beat Program (5 July 2010):

The 2010 Climate Adaptation Futures Conference on Australia’s Gold Coast wrapped up on Thursday with one regional scientist saying most of the program turned out to be irrelevant for its Pacific attendees.

Another says the small amount of research being done in these islands has led to the majority of what we understand being based on supposition and best guesses.

Two proposed authors of the International Panel on Climate Change 5th assessment report update Pacific Beat about their feelings about the conference and where climate science seems to be heading now.

Presenter: Danielle Grindlay
Speaker: Patrick Nunn, professor of oceanic geoscience at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji and proposed AR5 author; Arthur Webb, Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission and proposed AR5 author

GRINDLAY: At the close of the three day conference, Professor Patrick Nunn of Oceanic Geoscience at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji says areas like the Pacific region were largely overlooked in discussions.

NUNN: I think that’s fair to say that the conference was a bit irrelevant. I suppose if I had a comment on the conference as a whole it was very focussed on processes of getting adaptation to climate change right in richer countries. Very little was devoted to issues around adaptation in poorer countries.

GRINDLAY: The conference comes as the International Panel on Climate Change recently released the list of authors to contribute to the 5th assessment report [AR5], which will guide decision makers on climate change over the next few years. Professor Nunn and Arthur Webb of the Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission, are two of just a handful of authors from the island Pacifics to contribute to the report.

Professor Nunn says more resources and attention are needed in the region.

NUNN: Regions of the world, like the Pacific islands, do tend to be marginalised in a lot of these kinds of assessments. I think there needs to be more concentrated efforts to engage people from those regions of the world. The way to correct that is to have more professionals with expertise in the Pacific islands on these kinds of bodies like the IPCC. That said, if those people don’t exist in the Pacific islands (and they don’t in the main) then there’s no way you can correct that imbalance at this stage in time.

GRINDLAY: Amid times of speculation and criticism of climate science, Professor Nunn says AR5 will aim to provide decision makers with the information and motivation they need to take action.

NUNN: I find that many decision makers both at national level and at community level in the Pacific islands really don’t want to believe in climate change. They don’t want to hear about the kind of disruption that it’s going to bring and therefore they’re really not interested in learning about adaptation options.

GRINDLAY: Both scientists say urgency is necessary for some islands of the region. Arthur Webb says more research is vital to prepare communities in the near future.

WEBB: There is so little research being done in these islands and most of what we understand is based on supposition and best guesses. We must undertake the research so we understand exactly what’s happening so that we can inform these communities who are in immediate danger and risk, how they can best respond.

GRINDLAY: However Professor Nunn says it’s time now to stop talking and take action – whether the public is on board or not.

NUNN: We don’t need a whole lot more research in the region. I don’t think there’s any real advantage for the region for an increased amount of precision in our estimates of what’s likely to happen. One thing I think that we have to understand is that the pace of climate change is very rapid in some places and there may simply not be time to win the public over in the ways that we’d like to do so ideally.

Here’s what was said on Pacific Beat programme a year ago (24 July 2009):

Oxfam and Greenpeace have launched the final phase of their push to get the Pacific Islands Forum to endorse strong action on climate change. Voices from the Frontline is a speaking tour which aims to give Pacific community leaders an opportunity to tell the Australian public how climate change is affecting their people, and to get Australians to lobby the Government. The tour visits Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane before arriving in Cairns to coincide with the Pacific Island Forum early next month.

Presenter: Jemima Garrett
Speaker: Pelenisi Alofa, Kiribati; Julie Anne Richards, Oxfam Australia’s Climate Change Co-ordinator; Reverend Tafue Lusama, Chairman of the Tuvalu Climate Action Network

GARRETT: It was no holds barred from the Pacific speakers at Voices from the Frontline. Pelenisi Alofa from Kiribati spoke first.

ALOFA: We are in a crisis moment right now, Pacific low-lying atoll islands, especially Kiribati, FSM Islands, Tuvalu. That’s why I’m here this evening. I am here to tell you that my parents, my children, my grandchildren and the rest of my family, my country is being threatened by climate change.

GARRETT: Speakers told of stronger cyclones wiping out roads and vegetation, of salt inundation of drinking water and crops, of relatively new infrastructure that’s now covered with water at high tide, of damaged reefs and sea walls and of longer droughts. They also had their own more personal stories. Pelenisi Alofa again:

ALOFA: I rent a house in Tarawa, Kiribati, it’s a three-bedroom house, but when it’s high tide the water seeps under the sand and washed and it’s collected in the front of my yard. Water when at high tide, that’s what’s happening Kiribati right now, and it’s happening to everybody.

GARRETT: Speakers from the Pacific and from Australia called on leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum to agree to make cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions of 40 per cent by 2020. That’s in line with what scientists have recommended if small atoll nations are to survive, and what’s been demanded by some Pacific leaders and the alliance of small island states. As the clamour for action on climate change gets louder, international non-government organisations are also coming in behind a 40 per cent target. Julie Anne Richards, Oxfam Australia’s Climate Change Co-ordinator told the meeting Australia should double its funding to help the Pacific cope with climate change and lift its total contribution to climate change adaptation in the developing world to 4.3 billion dollars a year.

RICHARDS: It is a large figure but it’s what we need if we’re going to prevent catastrophic climate change. Four-point-three-billion dollars to put it in perspective is roughly the same amount of permits that the government is planning giving to big polluters in the carbon pollution reduction scheme, rather than selling to them. So if the government were to choose to sell permits in the Emissions Trading Scheme that it’s currently proposing rather than giving them away to big polluters, it could raise that scale of funding.

GARRETT: Oxfam and Greenpeace see next months’ Pacific Islands Forum as an important stepping stone in their battle to get a strong climate agreement at the crucial Copenhagen Climate Meeting at the end of the year. Reverend Tafue Lusama told the Sydney audience that a 40 per cent cut in carbon emissions is the minimum needed if his country, Tuvalu, is to avoid becoming the first nation of environmental refugees.

LUSAMA: I would like the Australian Prime Minister to stop being hypocritical and to act sincerely to ensure that we survive.

GARRETT: If you get to meet Kevin Rudd in Cairns when you’re there and he’s there for the Pacific Islands Forum, what would you say to him?

LUSAMA: I would plead with him to increase the commitments of Australia to carbon emission reduction because what has been proposed is far from what is needed.

GARRETT: What action would you like to see from the Pacific Island Forum meeting?

LUSAMA: I would like the leaders of the Pacific together with Australia and New Zealand to stand together as leaders of this region to avoid the loss of countries in the Pacific. And the thing that is holding us back is the political will to commit. So as I always say I have faith in human beings because human beings always have that sense of responsibility to do something when we are faced with a challenge. Now the question is will the political leaders agree on that?

Source: www.radioaustralia.net.au

Europe Surges Ahead in Renewables & IBM Goes from Big Blue to Green

Renewables account for 62% of the new electricity generation capacity installed in the European Union countries in 2009, and the continent  is on target generate approximately 35-40% of overall electricity consumption from renewables by 2020. Depending on the success of community energy efficiency policies, this would meet the 20% target of all energy generated. Meanwhile, if there’s any tech company that has been able to constantly transform itself over the past century to actually be sustainable, it’s got to be IBM. So says Reuters Green Gauge of companies.
From the European Commission Joint Research Centre (5 July 2010):

Renewables account for 62 percent of the new electricity generation capacity installed in the EU in 2009

In 2009, and in absolute terms, about 19.9% (608 TWh) of Europe’s total electricity consumption (3042 TWh) came from renewable energy sources. Hydro power contributed with the largest share (11.6%), followed by wind (4.2%), biomass (3.5%), and solar (0.4%).

With regards to the new capacity constructed that same year (27.5 GW), among the renewable sources, 37.1% was wind power, 21% photovoltaics (PV), 2.1% biomass, 1.4% hydro and 0.4% concentrated solar power, whereas the rest were gas fired power stations (24%), coal fired power stations (8.7%), oil (2.1%), waste incineration (1.6%) and nuclear (1.6%).

As not all installed technologies operate continuously 24 hours a day, figure 2 shows the expected yearly energy output (TWh) from the new capacity. The new gas-fired electricity plants will deliver yearly 28 TWh, followed by wind and PV with 20 TWh and 5.6 TWh, respectively.

If current growth rates are maintained, in 2020 up to 1400 TWh of electricity could be generated from renewable sources, the report concludes. This would account for approximately 35-40% of overall electricity consumption in the EU, depending on the success of community policies on electricity efficiency, and would contribute significantly to the fulfilment of the 20% target for energy generation from renewables.

However, it also advises that some issues need to be resolved if the targets are to be met. Particular areas of focus include ensuring fair access to grids, substantial public R&D support, and the adaptation of current electricity systems to accommodate renewable electricity. The study highlights that cost reduction and accelerated implementation will depend on the production volume and not on time.

Summary of 2010 snapshot findings

Wind energy: with more than 74 GW of total installed capacity in 2009, it has already exceeded the 2010 white paper target of 40 GW by more than 80%. The European Wind Association’s new target aims for 230 GW of installed capacity (40 GW offshore) by 2020, capable of providing about 20% of Europe’s electricity demand.

Biomass: if current growth continues, electricity output from biomass could double from 2008 to 2010 (from 108 TWh to 200 TWh). However, other energy uses such as heat and transport fuels compete for this particular source, which could potentially hinder the development of bioelectricity. Being storable for use on demand increases its importance as a source of electricity.

Concentrated Solar Power (CSP): installed capacity is still relatively small in Europe: 0.430 GW in May 2010, about 0.5% of the total, but is steadily increasing. An estimated 30 GW could be installed by 2020 if the European Solar Industry Initiative ESII is realised. Most CSP projects currently under construction are located in Spain.

Solar Photovoltaic: since 2003, the total installed capacity has doubled each year. In 2009 it reached 16 GW, which represents 2% of the overall capacity. The growth will continue, as for 2010, installations of up to 10 GW are expected. Solar photovoltaic has also exceeded the capacity predictions formulated by in the EU white paper on renewable sources of energy.

Other sources of power: technologies such as geothermal, tidal and wave power are still at the R&D stage, so they have not yet been included in the Renewable Energy Snapshots. Yet, they are likely to be introduced to the market within the next decade. As far as hydro generation is concerned, no major increase is expected, as most of the resources are already in use. However, pumped hydro will play an increasingly important role as in a storage capacity for the other renewable energy resources.

Background

The JRC has produced the annual Renewable Energy Snapshots since 2007 to give an up-to-date picture of the EU’s progress towards the binding target of 20% for energy generation from renewable sources by 2020.

These Renewable Energy Snapshots are based on two types of data: official figures from EU countries or EUROSTAT and those provided by industry associations, research industries, etc.

This second type is known as “grey” data. It consists of more recent, unconsolidated data, which are needed for such an early analysis. They are cross-checked, consulted and validated by the JRC.

However, due to the methodology of collection, values might deviate and there is therefore a margin of uncertainty which should be taken into account.

Source: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/refsys/

Reuters: The Green Gauge (5 July 2010):

If there’s any tech company that has been able to constantly transform itself over the past century to actually be sustainable, it’s got to be IBM.

Last week the global IT giant announced its efficiency figures for 2009 and it meant good news for the environment, a bi-weekly analysis of companies in the news by ASSET4 data providers shows.

Selections of companies were made by Christopher Greenwald, director of data content at ASSET4, a Thomson Reuters business that provides investment research on the environmental, social and governance performance of major global corporations. These ratings are not recommendations to buy or sell.

Here is a breakdown of the companies that made headlines June 19 to July 2 for winning or losing credibility based on environment-related activity.

 IBM

In its latest environmental report which was published last week, IBM announced not only that it had exceeded its internal environmental targets by reducing CO2 emissions by 142,000 tons and electricity consumption by 246,000 MwH, but also that the company’s 1900 energy conservation projects had led to a savings of $26.8 million during 2009.  The results are consistent with IBM’s own emphasis upon the positive material impacts of environmental investments in the company’s green IT marketing campaign.

 General Electric

General Electric announced it will double its investment for its “ecomagination” products to $10 billion over the next 5 years.  Its environmental line of products, which includes wind turbines, battery technologies, and more energy efficient appliances, has generated $70 billion in sales since its launch in 2005.  Although the unit failed to meet its 2010 target of $25 billion in annual sales by 2010, it nonetheless generated sales growth of 6 percent in 2009, ahead of the overall company’s flat sales growth for the year.  GE has indicated that it sees the greatest opportunities in China and South Korea, where government stimulus packages include significant investments in energy efficiency initiatives.

 Ingram Micro, Inc.

Ingram Micro announced that it had become the first technology distribution company to be included as a partner company in the EPA’s Climate Leaders program.  The Climate Leaders program works with companies to develop comprehensive strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reporting on progress and sharing best practices.   A full list of the Climate Leaders is available here.

 Royal DSM, N.V.

The Dutch chemical company DSM announced last week a breakthrough in enzyme technology which could lead to the doubling of the effectiveness of using yeast to convert biological waste into bioethanol.  The company claims that its new enzyme technology is an important step in developing cost efficient second generation biofuels which do not compete with traditional food supplies, and which UBS has estimated could represent an $80 billion market by 2022.

 Costco Wholesale

Greenpeace has taken a more aggressive stance against Costco, recently hanging a banner from one of the company’s outlets in Vancouver, Canada with replicas of at-risk fish species that the retailer sells.  The action follows Costco’s last-place ranking in a report published by Greenpeace Canada earlier in the month of June which examines the policies of Canadian food retailers for sustainable sourcing of sea food.  Greenpeace claims that Costco is unique among food retailers in Canada for failing to adopt any policy on purchasing seafood from sustainable sources.  A copy of the report is available for download  here.

 IOI Berhard

The Malaysian palm oil giant IOI has recently come under additional criticism from the large Swiss grocery chain, Migros, which has launched a formal complaint against the company following investigative reports by the BBC and a recent critical report by Friends of the Earth on the company’s palm oil practices in Western Kalimantan, Indonesia.  Although IOI is a leading member of the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil, the report accuses the company’s practices to be in violation of the Roundtable’s principles as well as Indonesian national law.   A copy of the report is available  here.

 EDF

NGOs Greenpeace and Ecotricity have strongly criticized EDF’s recent “Green Britain Day” event, and claim that the company is misleading the UK public over its environmental performance.  Both NGOs argue that the company is one of Britain’s most significant polluters, importing 300 million tons of coal annually and producing over 1,400 tons of nuclear waste, while EDF defends its nuclear energy program as an effective means of reducing overall CO2 emissions.  The disagreement underscores the currently conflicting views regarding the status of nuclear power as a means of addressing climate change.

Source: www.blogs.reuters.com

Focus on Plug-in 2010 and “Green, American Style”

The great electric vehicle race of 2010 was on even before the Gulf oil spill became the worst environmental disaster in US history. The world’s top players will address the future of plug-in hybrid and electric transportation at Plug-in 2010 later this month (26-29 July in San Jose, California.) This preview in GreenBiz.com by Anna Clark, who is the author of “Green, American Style” and president of EarthPeople, a global consulting firm helping clients save money and bolster their brands through profitable green strategies.

By Anna Clark in greenbiz.com (2 July 2010):

San Jose, California — Is the BP crisis escalating the comeback of the electric car? While the promise of petro-free driving is piquing consumer interest, forward-thinking manufacturers have been gearing up for electrification for over a decade.

The world’s top players will address the future of plug-in hybrid and electric transportation at Plug-in 2010 later this month (26-29 July in San Jose, California.).

The great electric vehicle race of 2010 was on even before the Gulf oil spill became the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. As pundits ruminate over a correct response to this catastrophe, automakers, component suppliers, government agencies, utilities and many others are eschewing skepticism for action.

We still don’t know how long it will take for the internal combustion engine to fall out of favor, but after sputtering along in fits and starts for two decades, all-electric vehicles are finally hitting the highway.

This bodes well for businesses. Electric vehicles have loads of advantages to offer: no fuel, no oil changes, zero emissions, and tremendously low maintenance. With federal tax incentives, buyers save up to $7,500 per vehicle. While individuals may receive up to $2,000 for installation of charging equipment, businesses may qualify for as much as $50,000.

Vehicle purchasers can immediately recoup some of their initial investment on fuel savings; at an average retail electricity cost of $.11 per kWh, it costs approximately $396 per year to drive an all-electric vehicle. Utilities are presently working on pricing models to provide overnight charging for as low as 4 cents per kWh.

Businesses and government agencies are already having some success with the low-speed, battery-powered neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs). Until this year, NEVs represented the vast majority of electric-vehicle models available for purchase.

Since NEVs work well in communities where the speed limit does not exceed 30 mph, such applications make these cars ideal for fleets. The U.S. Army, for example, has announced that it will lease 4,000 NEVs within three years for transport of personnel, security patrols, and maintenance and delivery services around its bases.

According to Rich Piellisch, editor of San-Francisco based Fleets and Fuels, a bi-weekly newsletter for clean transportation professionals, “Fleets will use electric vehicles as soon as they can get them. At present, fleets are using NEVs around campuses, industrial parks, retirement communities, housing developments, airports, and so on. Dozens of other applications will open up once road-capable electric vehicles become available. For the appropriate application, fleet owners have been extremely content with the performance of these cars.”

Piellisch recalled one pioneering fleet manager in Fresno who even had his eye on the Aptera, pictured above at right. “He thought the car would be great for reading meters. He would love to go electric.” Piellisch added, “Now that we have road capable EVs becoming available from major manufacturers, we’re going to see a lot of fleet managers making the switch to electric.”

Fleet managers will soon have a broader range of choices. For example, Freightliner Trucks is the first trucking manufacturer in the country to offer drop frame hybrid electric beverage trucks and vans equipped with Tesla battery packs.

If the great electric vehicle race has a winner, it appears to be Nissan, the first major automaker to achieve widespread sales of a mass-produced electric car: The LEAF, pictured at left. LEAF “hand-raisers” — the company’s term describing those who’ve indicated they would seriously consider owning or leasing a LEAF – number over 130,000. Sales of the first 50,000 vehicles will begin in December in select markets where public charging infrastructure is most widely available. Nissan will ramp the LEAF up to 400,000 by 2012.

Batteries still remain the largest obstacle to electrification. Research is underway to reduce battery weight, improve the density to weight ratio, and lower the costs. In the case of pure electric vehicles, range anxiety continues to be a concern for drivers even though 77% of commuters travel 40 miles or less per day.

In its own survey, Nissan found that a range of 100 miles would suit the needs of 95 percent of respondents. Automakers must factor in range with a host of other variables in order to find the formula that works for them. “For us,” said Keiichi Kitahara, a senior manager with Nissan North America, “100 miles is the sweet spot.”

Manufacturers across the electrification spectrum will join representatives from utilities, component suppliers, government agencies, the environmental community, and academia to address these and many other issues at the Plug-in 2010 Conference & Exposition in San Jose from July 26 through 29. The conference will cover all critical areas of plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles including batteries, vehicles, and infrastructure. Discussions will be structured around technology aspects, market research, policy initiatives, and commercialization.

“Whether you work for a city that’s preparing electric vehicle infrastructure, for a company developing charging stations, for a firm looking to integrate plug-in hybrids or EVs into its fleet, for an environmental organization — or in any other related area — we encourage you to attend Plug-In 2010,” said Mindy Berman, Plug-In 2010′s media manager. “You’ll have a terrific opportunity to share best practices, advance policies, hear from industry leaders and see the latest plug-in hybrid and electric transportation innovations on the exposition floor.”

For more details about the event, as well as an agenda and companies displaying their EVs at the show, visit the website.

Source: www.plugin2010.com and www.greenbiz.com

Anna Clark is the author of Green, American Style, released by Baker Books a couple of months ago.  She is also president of EarthPeople, a global consulting firm helping clients save money and bolster their brands through profitable green strategies.

Anna began by asking herself the question, “Can one person really make a difference?” In 2005, after launching a consulting firm on the singular idea that sustainability can be customized into a profitable strategy for any-size organization, she now has an international base of clients implementing her ideas to improve the environment while making money in the “eco” economy.  EarthPeople clients include clean technology startups such as Evatran, municipalities such as the City of Austin, and companies such as JCPenney and Time Inc.’s Fortune/Money Group.

Anna began her career as a management consultant with PricewaterhouseCoopers and later with IBM.  Her fifteen years of professional experience are girded by her outstanding record of achievement in public relations, consulting, corporate training, market research, and sales.  Anna holds a B.A. with honors from the University of Texas at Austin. She completed a post-graduate internship with the Department of Commerce at the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires and has traveled extensively throughout Europe and South America. 

Anna continues to write and speak on topics ranging from green living to leadership.  She is a featured columnist for Greenbiz.com and has been interviewed by USA Today, Fox Business News, and Entrepreneur Radio.  Anna and her family live in a custom-built green home, one of the first residences in Dallas to earn a Platinum LEED-certified rating from the U.S. Green Building Council.

Praise for “Green, American Style”:

Dispelling the eco-hype and celebrating a sustainable model of ‘business better than usual,’ Anna Clark makes going green seem as American as (organic!) apple pie. Read Green, American Style, then pass it along to a friend. It will change your life—satisfaction guaranteed.”
– Matthew Sleeth, author of Serve God, Save the Planet, and Nancy Sleeth, author of Go Green, Save Green

Anna Clark provides a practical guide for those wanting to learn more about minimizing the impact their lives have on our planet, especially as consumers. Clark’s insights, drawn from her personal journey to living sustainably, make this book a joy to read.”
– Jim Thomas, vice president of corporate social responsibility, JCPenney

Regardless of our belief system or worldview, we’ve all asked ourselves, ‘What really matters?’ and ‘How can I make a difference?’ Anna Clark asked herself these questions and took action, embarking on a mission to make the world a better place one step at a time. She invites us into the conversations she’s having with green leaders and friends across America who are seeking a greener way of living that saves money, our health, and our planet. At a time when many of us are experiencing ‘green fatigue,’ Green, American Style inspires us to think smarter, cultivate natural-grown leadership skills in others and ourselves, and use our pioneering spirit to cause a ripple effect that will transform our communities, our country, and our world.”
– Lee Enry Erickson, community manger for SustainLane Creation Care

In Green, American Style, Anna Clark takes the outsized and overwhelming world of sustainable living—from the living room to the corporate boardroom—and turns it into an engaging and detailed look at the green economy that’s rapidly taking root across the country. Through extensive interviews with green leaders ranging from oil tycoons to suburban chicken farmers, Green, American Style makes the case that every individual and every business can play a part in and benefit from the greening of America.”
– Matthew Wheeland, managing editor of GreenBiz.com

Well done, Anna! The more those of us who are helping our planet recover from the ravages to which we have subjected it are made to seem normal and correct, the more ‘Joe and Josephine Citizen’ will be inclined to do their bit without thinking that they’re behaving on the fringes. This is a book everyone should read!”
– Tony Frost, former head of the World Wildlife Foundation in South Africa; author of After the Rain 

I have just received a copy of Anna’s book and I’m in the middle of it. It is a very good read and while its focus is obviously on America, it could easily apply to Australia or anywhere in the Western world. Some great business case studies in it, as well as useful tips for the home and office. Great work Anna!”                                                                                                                                                       – Ken Hickson, editor of abc carbon express and author of “The ABC of Carbon”

Source: www.annamclark.com and www.earthpeopleco.com

Global Warming and Sustainability Guide for Children

“The world we are living in is changing. Never before has it been so important to educate the next generation about global warming and climate change. Our children have the right to know the impact these major challenges facing humanity might have on them.” This from Flemming Bermann about his book “Global Warming for Young Minds”. We also look at the work of ClimateChangeEducation.org.

Here’s what the founder of carbon-info.org Flemming Bermann says about his new book, “Global Warming for Young Minds”:

The world we are living in is changing. Never before has it been so important to educate the next generation about global warming and climate change. Our children have the right to know the impact these major challenges facing humanity might have on them. But perhaps more importantly, they also need to be taught how they and everyone else can become part of the solution by living sustainable lives.

When my daughter reached the tender age of seven, I wanted to introduce her to the basics of global warming and climate change, and sustainability. Within a few weeks I gave up searching for a suitable book or material on the Internet.

In truth, I was so dismayed by the lack of quality and choice that I ended up writing my own book on the subject. From the beginning I planned it to be fun because all learning should be fun—even when it is a serious subject. Secondly, I wanted to avoid scaring my daughter or blinding her with science and technical facts. The result is “Global Warming for Young Minds”, which has served us both well.

My daughter loved it and it became obligatory bedtime reading for many weeks. She now confidently talks about how to minimize the impact of global warming and has turned into an expert recycler, while I feel happy knowing that she is much better prepared for adult life.

My hope is that “Global Warming for Young Minds” will serve you well too, and provide your children with some of the knowledge and understanding necessary for them to live successful, sustainable lives in a world that is changing fast.
- Flemming Bermann

Available from Amazon.co.uk

Founded in December 2004 by Flemming Bermann and a group of enthusiastic volunteers, Carbon-info.org remain an independent, non-government, non-profit environment organisation.
 
Located in rural Hampshire, England, Carbon-info.org’s values and social objectives remain the same as in December 2004:
 
“To educate and raise public awareness about global warming, climate change and sustainable living.”
 
The management committee provide all their time and services to the organisation at no cost.
Income is generated through Carbon-info.org’s website as well as providing ‘green’ consultancy to small and medium sized business.

All profit is reinvested into the organisation to help it achieve its social objectives.
 
Source: www.globalwarmingforyoungminds.com and www.carbon-info.org

Hearing about Flemming Bermann’s book promoted us to see what’s happening with climate Change education around the world.  We came across a very informative education portal -  www.ClimateChangeEducation.org  - an organization of volunteers dedicated to education on climate change and global warming solutions — since 1999.

Here’s what they say about themselves:

“We are science museum docents, teachers, students, scientists, university staff, parents and artists.

“Most of us are in California (U.S.), but we have volunteers all over the world.

ClimateChangeEducation.org works in these areas:

• Portal Websites

• Partnership Building

• Hands-on science demonstration development and performance

• Science Center and Museum Programs

• K-12 Schools, Colleges & Universities

• Conferences and Public Events

“The common thread in our work is to bring people and education programs together. We encourage educational institutions to utilize the best materials and resources available.”

Source: www.climatechangeeducation.org

Government Dropping Greenhouse Scheme Not A Friendly Act 

The ending of the government’s Greenhouse Friendly scheme that has been approving carbon credits since 2001, has angered environmental companies that have invested in local projects to tackle climate change. Carbon Planet founder Dave Sag says now, with a carbon price delayed, there is genuine confusion for many on how their Greenhouse Friendly qualifying carbon project would become an NCOS (National Carbon Offset Standard) project. 

Nicola Berkovic in  The Australian (1 July 2010):

FROM today, Australians wishing to offset their greenhouse gas emissions will be do so in foreign countries.

They will be paying for tree-planting and clean energy projects in foreign countries because the government scheme that accredits most local carbon abatement projects is coming to an abrupt end.

Major companies such as Qantas, which until now has purchased carbon credits to offset passenger flights in Australia, will now buy them offshore.

The ending of the government’s Greenhouse Friendly scheme that has been approving carbon credits since 2001, has angered environmental companies that have invested in local projects to tackle climate change.

It has also prompted an opposition attack on the government’s green credentials, already damaged by the shelving of its carbon pollution reduction scheme. Opposition environment Greg Hunt said there could be no excuses for inaction.

The government decided to end the Greenhouse Friendly scheme because it was due to be s superseded by the CPRS.

A new national offset scheme comes into force today, but only covers abatement projects that cannot be counted towards the government’s Kyoto targets — such as soil carbon projects or vegetation that will not grow taller than two metres — which are not internationally recognised.

Sara Gipton, chief executive of not-for-profit Greenfleet, which plants native forests to soak up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, said she was frustrated and disappointed the government had failed to respond to concerns. “It ultimately means we are reducing investment in biodiversity in Australia because the investments are going offshore,” she said.

Ms Gipton said the government should extend the scheme so local projects could be certified. And she said it must pledge not to count those projects towards its Kyoto targets, so the credits were not double-counted.

News Limited’s Amy Foxe said the organisation, which publishes The Australian, bought all verified carbon offsets for its One Degree climate change program overseas.

She said the company could not consider buying local credits until the government had a system to ensure they were internationally recognised and not counted towards government targets.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said companies had been told early last year the scheme would be replaced by the CPRS from today. She said companies could apply to join the National Carbon Offset Standard to market carbon-neutral products.

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Dave Sag founder of Carbon Planet, one of the first offset providers in Australia, has this to say on the demise of Greenhouse Friendly and the introduction of the National Carbon Offset Standard:

There is an obsession by some on this issue of imported credits that has its roots in a kind of xenophobia.  The reality is however that the Earth has one atmosphere, and emissions reduced here count the same as emissions reduced in Kenya or London or Brazil.  

Over the next 12 years some 80% of emissions growth is predicted to be in the so-called developing world.  By financing a wind-farm project in say Bangladesh, you can support local manufacturing of wind-farm materials, lift a region out of energy poverty with clean power, and generate some revenue for a small community over and above just preventing a tonne of CO2e from hitting the air.  

I believe one could make a case, on humanitarian grounds, to only buy imported credits.  The government is right to be cautious about what counts and what doesn’t when it comes to voluntary emissions reduction.  

The Carbon Trust is up and active, just under the hood; they need to have a coming out party or something to meet and greet the nascent Australian carbon industry.  

The NCOS went live quietly the other day (1 July 2010) and behind the scenes they have worked out a pretty good transition plan for how those businesses such as Carbon Planet whose products and services were certified as Greenhouse Friendly will now be certified as ‘carbon neutral’ under the NCOS scheme.  

I thought the department were highly consultative on this, and yet clearly working to a timetable. We got our badges in time for the NCOS to start, but have not yet had the time to update our website and materials.

What is an open question is how the NCOS, which was always designed to spoon up next to the CPRS, will actually function in terms of generation of domestic offsets.  And this is where the tree-planting groups have a genuine right to be upset.  

They would have been able to create compliance credits for afforestation projects under the CPRS as forestry was not a covered sector.  Now, with a carbon price delayed, although under Gillard we may soon see a change there, there is genuine confusion for many on how their Greenhouse Friendly qualifying carbon project would become an NCOS project.  

The truth is the Greenhouse Friendly standard was no longer in line with the world’s accepted best practice and was long overdue for an overhaul anyway.  To support domestic credits we’ll need all sorts of infrastructure, registries, approval boards, oversight etc that the CPRS was meant to provide.  

Without the CPRS as a platform, the NCOS has no choice but to look offshore for abatement opportunities that are genuine, and both financially, and carbon additional, which don’t count towards our national Kyoto obligations.

Source: www.carbonplanet.com

Recognise Climate Change Threat, as South East Asia’s Glacier Disappears

The study of glacier ice reveals evidence of past climate fluctuations, so if the only glacier in the Western Pacific/South East Asia disappears as expected in less than five years, it takes with it vital clues about the earth’s changing climate.  Singapore author and environmental law expert Simon Tay believes climate change has the potential to unite the international community, as long as states recognise it as a threat and cooperate to achieve a policy that is both coordinated and inclusive. He is one of the notable speakers at the National Sustainability Conference in Singapore on 29/30 July.

AFP report (3 July 2010):

Jakarta: The only glacier in the western Pacific could disappear in less than five years, taking with it vital clues about the earth’s changing climate, a US scientist advises.

Ohio State University Professor Lonnie Thompson has just completed what he calls a “salvage mission” to extract ice cores from the glacier on Punjak Jaya, which soars above the tropical, reef-fringed waters of eastern Indonesia.

The ice core samples he collected after his 13-day trip to the Papuan central highlands are set to be shipped back to Chicago for further analysis.

But Thompson said one thing is clear: the glacier is dying.

“This is the only ice in the western end of the Pacific warm pool, which is the warmest water on earth. When it melts that history (from ice cores) is lost forever and there’s no way we can recapture it,” he told.

“My biggest concern is that we may be too late to capture that history. Some is already missing from the top and from the bottom. How much of that history do we still have?” Thompson estimated the glacier is disappearing at a rate of seven metres a year. As it is only about 32 metres deep, it could be gone in four or five years.

“Looking at the loss of ice that’s been occurring since the 1830s we thought that we were looking at decades (before the Punjak Jaya ice disappeared),” he said. “But I’ve never been to a glacier anywhere else in the world where it rains every day… If it rains on a glacier then that’s the death of the glacier.”

One of the world’s leading experts, Thompson has visited glaciers from Kenya to Peru. But he said he had never seen anything like what he experienced in Papua, where the ice was visibly melting under his tent.

“It’s the first glacier that I’ve visited where you can hear the water flowing underneath the ice,” he said. The 88 metres of ice samples from his expedition will be added to the Ohio State University’s valuable archive of tropical ice cores, where it will remain available for researchers years after the glacier itself may have gone.

The study of glacier ice reveals evidence of past climate fluctuations, which can then be referenced with samples from other parts of the planet to get a better understanding of current climate change.

“We hope to be able to reconstruct past temperatures, look at the history of the ice here and compare that with ice from around the world, particularly with ice from the other side of the Pacific Ocean,” Thompson said.

He said he hoped to publish his findings early next year.

Source: www.zeenews.com

National Sustainability Conference, Singapore 29/30 July:

Business Leaders and Policy Makers from both Asia and Australia will be presenting the latest sustainability research on topics such as Leadership, Achieving Sustainable Business Practices, the Economics of Climate Change, Green jobs and the future of the Environmental Economy in the Asia Pacific Region.

The Workplace Research Centre (University of Sydney) is a joint organiser of the upcoming National Sustainability Conference: Environmental Up-Skilling and the Green Collar Economy, scheduled for 29 – 30 July 2010 in Singapore.

Sustainable Development: Singapore’s Role in the Global Arena is the subject of the key note address at the National Sustainability Conference by Associate Professor Simon Tay, Chairman, Singapore Institute of International Affairs.

Simon Tay, a professor of law at the National University of Singapore, is former Chairman of Singapore’s National Environment Agency (NEA) and a well-known author in Singapore.

In his new book, “Asia Alone: The Dangerous Post-Crisis Divide from America”, he elucidates such trends which have emerged pointing to Asia increasingly forging its own path, without America. He argues that, for the benefit of both sides, US and Asia should continue to engage each other and move towards a new relationship in the post-crisis world. Tay argues that the rise of Asia and the development of closer regional bonds can occur simultaneously with continued US engagement.

He is also the co-author (with Phir Paungmalit) of the paper released in March this year: “Climate change and Security in the Asia Pacific”

This paper explores the security implications of climate change with a special focus on the Asia-Pacific region. The core message is that climate change’s adverse impacts could act a “threat multiplier” and exacerbate existing political, economic and social tensions. In fragile regions, this could result in destabilization and conflict and pose a threat to national and international security. If countries fail to address this threat, climate change may trigger conflict within nations and between them.

This conflict could come about as a result of a natural disaster, resource scarcity, mass migration and others. However, climate change also has the potential to unite the international community, as long as states recognize climate change as a threat and cooperate to achieve a policy that is both coordinated and inclusive.

Besides Simon Tay, Business Leaders and Policy Makers from both Asia and Australia will be presenting the latest sustainability research on topics such as Leadership, Achieving Sustainable Business Practices, the Economics of Climate Change, Green jobs and the future of the Environmental Economy in the Asia Pacific Region.

The conference has been jointly organised with the Singapore Office of Environmental Sustainability, National University of Singapore. The guiding theme for the organisers was the future of sustainable development in the Asia Pacific Region with a focus on the sustainable workplace. Director of the Workplace Research Centre, Dr John Buchanan is a key speaker and will be giving a talk entitled ‘Skills for Greener Jobs.’

Other key speakers include:

*           John Pearson, Head of the UK Regional Climate Change Network in Southeast Asia

*           Ken Hickson, author of ‘The ABC of Carbon’ and Director of ABC Carbon

*           Mann Young, Head of Sustainability, Lend Lease Asia

*           Rob Moult, Vice President for Johnson Controls (Asia)

*           Teo Lay Lim, Managing Director for Accenture Sustainability Services (Asia Pacific) and Country Managing Director, Singapore Accenture

Source: www.nationalsustainabilityconference.com

President Obama’s Two Billion Dollars Shines Light on Solar Industry

The US government is handing out nearly $US2 billion ($A2.5 billion) for new solar plants that President Barack Obama says will create thousands of jobs and increase the use of renewable energy sources. He announced the initiative in his weekly radio and online address on the eve of Independence Day, saying the money is part of his plan to bring new industries to the US.

Sky News report (4 July 2010):

The US government is handing out nearly $US2 billion ($A2.5 billion) for new solar plants that President Barack Obama says will create thousands of jobs and increase the use of renewable energy sources.

Obama announced the initiative in his weekly radio and online address on Saturday, on the eve of Independence Day, saying the money is part of his plan to bring new industries to the US.

‘We’re going to keep competing aggressively to make sure the jobs and industries of the future are taking root right here in America,’ Obama said.

The two companies that will receive the money from the president’s $US862 billion ($A1.02 trillion) economic stimulus are Abengoa Solar, which will build one of the world’s largest solar plants in Arizona, creating 1600 construction jobs; and Abound Solar Manufacturing, which is building plants in Colorado and Indiana. The Obama administration says those projects will create more than 2000 construction jobs and 1500 permanent jobs.

Obama’s announcement came a day after the Labor Department reported that employers slashed payrolls last month for the first time in six months, driven by the expected end of 225,000 temporary census jobs. Meanwhile, private sector hiring rose by 83,000 workers.

The unemployment rate dropped to 9.5 per cent.

Obama said that while it may take years to bring back all the jobs lost during the recession, the economy is moving in a positive direction. He placed some of the blame for the slow pace of recovery on Republicans, saying opposition politicians ‘are playing the same old Washington games and using their power to hold this relief hostage’.

Obama has said that to bring the nation’s economy back from the brink of a depression, it was necessary to add to the country’s debt in the short term.

Republicans have tried to capitalise on that growing sum. Senator Saxby Chambliss said in the Republican’s weekly address that the country’s $US13 trillion ($A15 trillion) debt is a national security issue that will leave the US vulnerable and force future generations to ‘pay higher taxes to foot the bill for Democrats’ out-of-control spending’.

Source: www.skynews.com.au

Investment in Energy Efficient Buildings Secures Jobs & Growth

As Julia Gillard works to build a consensus on an emissions trading scheme for a low-carbon future, a policy solution is already available. And it promises a 7.7% reduction in national emissions by 2020, and at the same time creates jobs and drives economic growth. Lend Lease’s Maria Atkinson shows the way.

 Maria Atkinson in The Australian (2 July 2010):

AS Julia Gillard works to build a consensus on an emissions trading scheme for a low-carbon future, a policy solution is already available.

The policy promises a 7.7 per cent reduction in national emissions by 2020, and at the same time create jobs and drive economic growth.,

The focus is the building sector, one of the biggest employers of labour in Australia and the world.
Studies point to investment in energy-efficient buildings securing existing jobs in the building sector and driving growth in skills, jobs and innovation.

It also happens to be a sector responsible for 40 per cent of global energy use and more than a third of global greenhouse gas emissions.

At the same time, it has enormous potential for emissions reduction and presents the lowest cost abatement opportunity.

Since buildings are the places in which we live, work and play, and spend about 90 per cent of our lives, it is a sector that can affect our health and wellbeing. The good news is that the solution doesn’t demand substantial government funding. The role of government is rather to create a framework that will enable delivery of those benefits, and more.

From a global perspective, it is a solution that addresses current realities and is in step with international directions, as evidenced by discussions in Paris last month involving all the peak bodies for sustainable buildings, along with the lead author for the building chapter of the International Panel on Climate Change’s 4th Report, the International Standards Organisation, the Global Reporting Initiative Construction & Real Estate Sector Supplement, and the UN Environment Program Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative.

Diana Urge-Vorsatz, lead author for the building chapter of the IPCC 4th Report, presented research showing the emissions reduction potential in buildings was much higher than estimated in the report.
With her sights firmly on energy performance contractors and energy service companies, Dr Urge-Vorsatz said: “Sub-optimal retrofits should not be supported.”

This reinforces the argument that government should not direct funding towards incremental improvements in energy efficiency such as upgrading or replacing lighting or fans.

Such equipment upgrades are limited to energy savings of about 20 per cent when we know savings of greater than 50 per cent are achievable by allowing more natural light to reduce artificial lighting loads, and removing the need for fans and pumps by installing passive heating and cooling systems.

The Paris discussions also highlighted the number of players trying to standardise, or create, methods for measuring environmental impacts in the property sector, and reinforced that we should be aiming to help people make good decisions, not compounding the confusion with an ever-increasing volume of measures and tools.

Enter the Common Carbon Metric project, a joint effort of the World Green Building Council, the Sustainable Building Alliance and the UN Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative — chaired by Australia’s Che Wall.

Last month’s discussions affirmed that this work provided a roadmap to unify the efforts of the property industry and governments.

The Common Carbon Metric project has shifted the dialogue to simplification and distillation.
How do we measure things consistently and concisely internationally while enabling local baselines, inputs and targets?

How do we provide the simplified metric in a way that can meet key decision-making needs without superfluous information, excess cost or lack of attention to key issues?

The Common Carbon Metric targets three key needs:

• Baselining and inventory reporting to allow consistent reporting of operational carbon footprints from buildings for both portfolio reporting and national emissions inventories.
  It will also facilitate comparisons of buildings across cities and countries with the same climatic conditions.
• Market benchmarking to provide a consistent framework for mandatory disclosure and harmonisation of decision-making rating tool metrics.
• Monetisation of greenhouse abatement from energy efficiency, subject to Kyoto-compliant methods for targeting, monitoring and verification, to facilitate capital allocation.

Ultimately, this work will help property companies decide whether their assets are better or worse performers against the city average for that class or type of building. Lend Lease is one of the companies participating in a trial of the Common Carbon Metric for Baselines.

This work will also be important for organisations that use sustainability performance frameworks. And of course it will be an important component of national greenhouse gas emissions reduction action plans.

Looking to the future, while the focus is on the sector reporting framework for energy and carbon, the same framework could be used for other environmental and social indicators, such as water.

For the moment, it is time for governments to recalibrate their efforts and look at a policy suite for carbon in buildings that complements the simplicity and breadth of the work started by the Common Carbon Metric project.

Maria Atkinson is group head of sustainability for Lend Lease

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au