Recently in carbon footprint Category

The best information sources are often your readers.

I received an e-mail last week from Jim McGilligan, who has a degree in engineering from the University of Delware, who just came across this article on water and energy titled: "What is your water footprint?" published in the (Lafourche Parish, La.) Daily Comet. Written by Tom Rooney, president and CEO of SPG Solar in Novato, Calif the article is "the best I've ever seen" on this topic, Jim tells me.

The article raises the key points that we should consider water consumption and concern ourselves with the amounts of energy required to heat and cool water when looking at shrinking our carbon footprints i.e. 'water footprints'.

For most types of commercial electric power the story says you need water: to turn into steam i.e. coal, gas, nuclear, oil or to push turbines i.e. hydro. In the former grouping this water which must be cooled and reused rather than dumped into lakes, ponds, and streams, harming aquatic life. 

While the articles doesn't mention this in the latter example i.e. hydro, water must be dammed, interfering with fish runs and turning farms and forests into eerie liquid landscapes, whose remains can be seen during low levels. There has been and continues to be costly efforts to provide for or restore salmon on rivers blocked by hydro projects.

The story says that it takes at least a gallon of water to create one kilowatt hour of power: enough to run your air conditioner for one hour.

It cites estimates from Rachelle Hill and Dr. Tamim Younos of Virginia Tech University that "fossil fuel thermoelectric plants use between ... 8 to 16 gallons of water to burn one 60-watt light bulb for 12 hours per day. Over the duration of one year this one incandescent light bulb would consume about 3,000 to 6,300 gallons of water."

"So we use water to create energy, and we use energy to create water -- to create more energy to create more water," says Rooney. "And on and on and on it goes in a downward spiral that completely distorts the way we think and act about water and power."

Rooney, perhaps not surprisingly given his company recommends using photovoltaic cells. While these solutions will not replace water-based power sources (not in my part of the world i.e. the Pacific Northwest where in winter the sun is that weird object we know is out there) he does call attention to the need to cut down on water use and on the energy consumption in turning water into energy. Not when we have other uses for that water i.e. drinking, to sustain life forms that we eat. 

With growing populations and global warming that has led to droughts--and the Moon a little far away for a pipeline--we can't afford to waste that ultimately life-given commodity.

Thanks Jim!
 

Kudos to companies such as Grandstream, MegaPath, and Netsuite for offering and to Rich Tehrani in his blog for raising and promoting what will turn out to be a much more effective 'cash for clunkers' campaign: turning in old legacy PSTN/TDM equipment and obsolete premises-based solutions for IP and where appropriate hosted tools and recycling them to avoid e-waste. 

The cash for clunkers in the comm industry will arguably be more effective in that this one doesn't involve governments, subsidies, and kowtowing to special interests. The Sierra Club has criticized what had started out to be a well-intentioned program into 'support for gas guzzlers'. Money allocated for this program has arguably come at the expense of more efficient mass transit. While there has been stimulus money to build new systems, agencies are being starved to buy vehicles and operating funds to provide services. 

In contrast going to software-based IP and hosted means less goods that have to be manufactured from raw resources that must be extracted and processed, and lowered transportation costs and the consequent environmental consequences at all stages. Smaller computing footprints means less space to heat and cool and land wasted.

NetSuite cites a recent impact study by Greenspace that demonstrated that the average NetSuite customer reduces its electricity bill by $10,000 per year after switching from an on premise system. In aggregate, the NetSuite platform saved NetSuite customers more than $61 million in energy bills in 2008, eliminating the output of nearly 423,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide.

Rich in his blog has announced there is an official cash for phone system clunkers web page which will have links to important references such as ITEXPO West (Sept.1-3 in Los Angeles) "which is the global gathering place for all things IP communications"  and "is the equivalent of an automotive supermarket (yes, communications in this case) where you can meet with all the vendors who save you money by replacing your old equipment. In many cases they can replace the "clunker" with something which is hosted meaning zero CAPEX costs.

Rich mentioned Grandstream's Cash for PSTN clunker program that they implemented with MegaPath. MegaPath is running a promo in which they will offer a $250 dollar credit for VARS or End users who purchase Grandstream's PBX. 

Hosted and IP solutions also make telework more feasible both functionally and costwise, which means fewer air-killing/land-eating/energy-draining commute trips. Fewer and shorter trips results in a longer vehicle lifespan and less need for vehicles. Isn't that assurredly a better way than the current automotive program to reduce environmental damage from cars, trucks, and vans?

Rich pointed out another key benefit from this program: increased ability to save money on conference calls with this new technology. That means you do not have to make as many business trips, thereby avoiding car, plane, bus, and train emissions, and cutting down on the demand for greenspace destroying and must-be-maintained infrastructure that also results in more air, land, and water waste.

"In the auto industry you get a "cash for clunkers" offer once in a lifetime," says Rich. "In the telecom space we do it every day."

See you at ITEXPO West!

The Earth is our home, folks, and there isn't exactly another piece of real estate like it in the galactic neighborhood, so let's not try to make in uninhabitable by our own hands.

Here are some meaningful steps we can take:

* Go hosted. Buying and accessing centrally managed solutions uses less hardware hence less e-waste and are more energy-efficient than purchasing and installing separate units on premises. If for some reason you need on-premises computing then make sure you virtualize them to maximize utilization and minimize waste

* Repair, remodel, not replace. That goes for almost any product: from computers to cars, and to buildings

* Make and buy products for adaptability, earth-friendliness, and longevity. Go for timeless design, durability, and modularity rather than the latest and greatest with long-term lowest TCO (total cost of ownership) and total environmental impacts (TEI)

Here is one example of this: Subaru's array of cars and mini-SUVs (Yes, I own one, a 2001 Forester). Subaru's vehicles are more expensive than similar models from other manufacturers, and they don't grab headlines or blab PR for their environmental friendliness (though the firm's U.S. plant has gained attention). 

Yet the longevity and reliability of the Subaru line is unsurpassed. Mine has 150K on the clock: a senior in most makes but middle aged for a Subaru and treated right it can well last another 150K.

What does that mean for the environment? A Subaru that goes 300K before being 'cremated' in electric furnaces, melted to scrap will have a lower TCO and TEI than more fuel-efficient than hybrids that less 2/3rds as long or less.

* Don't drive if you can walk or ride. That goes for the ludicrous practice of driving children to nearby schools. The safety risks from vehicle accidents--and the harm both from added pollution and obesity--outweighs any perceived security issues.

Sorry but I grew up in the suburbs of a midsized Midwestern city that was not exactly Mayberry, and I walked to school. So did my wife who lived in rough-and-tumble working class neighborhoods and housing projects in New York City. As much as you love your kids you can't moddlycoddle them. They've got to learn how to cope in the real world. Unfortunately many of them don't and have become real headaches for employers who hire and soon fire them. That's one reason why contact center turnover is so high...

* Be sparing in your travel. Conference rather than take business trips, take the train, bus, or in coastal areas, the ferry rather than fly for short-distances. If you must fly use mass transit, shuttle buses, and shared-ride vans rather than rental cars and taxis.

Speaking of which two new airport-to-downtown rail lines open this year, both in the Pacific Northwest, in Seattle, Wash. and Vancouver, B.C., Canada.  Both services will be a welcome alternative to the notoriously crowded highways in the region. Taking them means less chance of missing one's flight...

* Work from home for you and your staff. No more commuting. 

AT&T found that a full-time teleworker who would have normally driven 15 miles round trip per day in a car getting 20 mpg would prevent the release of 3,680 lbs of carbon dioxide (CO2), a key source of greenhouse gases, per year. The Canadian Telework Association reports that if 1 million Canadians work from home 1 day each week, in a year, Canada would save some 550 million pounds of CO2, 26 million gallons of fuel, and 480 million miles--and wear and tear on publicly-funded highways and streets. 

Nortel is one of a growing number of firms that does just that, utilizing the firm's fine and proven technologies. As reported by TMC's Michaen Dinan, Nortel has about 11 percent of its own workforce teleworking, which the company estimates will save about $9,000 in real estate and associated energy costs per teleworking employee, and save an estimated 3.4 million gallons of fuel and 1.9 million hours in commute time per year.

* When you do go home reuse existing space to minimize the TEI. Don't add on to your house or buy a new-build unless it is on an existing pre-developed peace of land.

* If you need an office, locate in existing buildings, ones built on brownfield sites, and all with excellent mass transit access including sidewalks. And when selecting a home, do likewise. 

Don't locate your business or home in 'greenfield' i.e. sprawl developments no matter how 'green' the structures are...for the added damage in more people driving to work and more driving, period, plus the loss of open space far outweigh the 'green' or greenwash gains of being in such buildings.

Low-density urban sprawl is an environmental cancer. It destroys the health like pincers in two ways: by ruining life-renewing greenspace, including food supply and by propagating car dependency.

For example the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Natural Resources Canada estimated that households living in low-density sprawl emit about 26,000 lbs of CO2 each year compared with just 7,700 lbs for those living in neo-traditional inner area compact development housing

There's a whole host of other ills--literally--connected with sprawl.

--A study in The American Journal of Health Promotion and the American Journal of Public Health reported that Americans living in sprawling developments are 6 lbs heavier and are at greater risk for diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure.

--A research review by the Ontario College of Family Physicians demonstrated that suburban areas have a higher incidence of cardiovascular and lung diseases including asthma in children, cancer, obesity, diabetes, traffic injuries and deaths. The report concluded that air pollution, gridlock, added traffic accidents, lack of physical activity, and negative social impacts such as road rage, lead to a variety of these health problems.

Don't believe the nonsense from the development community that sprawl is a matter of free market choice. It isn't. Not with taxpayer subsidies such as for highways and mortgages, and for environmental costs that distort the marketplace. Here is some evidence of the above:

-- "The Fiscal Cost of Sprawl: How Sprawl Contributes to Local Governments' Budget Woes" by the Environment Colorado Research and Policy Center, Colorado State University, published 2003 reports that $1 in revenues from sprawl is outweighed by $1.65 in additional service expenditures

--The C.D. Howe Institute in Canada calculated that sprawl would cost the Toronto area $55 billion, plus $14 billion in operating expenditures over the next 25 years, compared $42.8 billion (or 22%) less. The savings amount to $1 billion/year from capital, maintenance, and including $200 million related to air pollution, health care, and the policing associated with automobile accidents

--The David Suzuki Foundation has quantified the annual losses: in erosion control, wildlife habitat, water quality from sprawl. These range from $12,000 per hectare ($5,000 per acre) for farmland to as high as $30,000 per hectare ($12,300 per acre) for wetlands

Don't believe the whines from the construction/highway lobby about the need to repair infrastructure and relieve congestion with more roads. Those claims are a crock. There are an overwhelming number of studies demonstrating that more roads lead to more sprawl.

--The Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) 1999 reported that between 1982 and 1997, metro areas that were aggressive in expanding the amount of road space per person fared no better in terms of rush-hour congestion than those that did the least to add new road space; in fact, they did slightly worse. This, it said, is due in part to induced travel. 

STPP found that every 10% increase in the highway network results in a 5.3% increase in the amount of driving, over and above any increases caused by population growth or other factors. In addition, road-building has not been an effective congestion-fighting measure: the metro areas that added the most highway space per person have seen congestion levels rise at a slightly higher rate than areas that added few roads per resident.

--"Analysis of Metropolitan Highway Capacity and the Growth in Vehicle Miles of Travel", published in 2000 and authored by Robert Noland, University of London Center for Transport Studies and William A. Cowart, ICF Consulting in Fairfax, VA., concluded:

"In addition the impact of lane mile additions on VMT [vehicle-miles traveled] growth appears to be greater in urbanized areas with larger percent increases in total capacity. This may be evidence for a strong sprawl inducing impact of large increases in lane mile capacity relative to the existing infrastructure."

Jack Shafer in Slate wrote a great article on this titled 'Infrastructure Madness'. In it he said "The scary-sounding phrases structurally deficient and functionally obsolete combined with those big numbers are enough to make you bite your nails bloody every time you drive over a river or beneath an underpass. Yet if any of the cited pieces paused to define either inspection term, you'd come away from the alarmist stories with a yawn. 

As a 2006 report by U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration puts it, structural deficiencies are characterized by deteriorated conditions of significant bridge elements and reduced load carrying capacity. Functional obsolescence is a function of the geometrics of the bridge not meeting current design standards. Neither type of deficiency indicates that the bridge is unsafe. [Emphasis added.]"

And yes don't believe the greenwash about 'green' vehicles. There's no such animal no matter how they are fueled. 'Green' cars and trucks demand and chew up asphalt that require construction and repair from, and which destroy open space: a 2-track rail line can carry 8 times as much goods and people as 2 lanes of highway on the same footprint.

Don't believe the claims that sprawls and roads are essential to create jobs in a tough economy. That's another load of hooey too. You can argue that you can create more and lasting economic impacts--with much fewer downsides--by investing in rural broadband, mass transit, high-speed rail, education, and healthcare. And by encouraging people and businesses to remodel, not replace, and build only on brownfields and by transit stations.

One wishes that the construction companies and developer get with the program because there is work available in a green environment. There is money to be made in rebuilding/remodeling and in building on brownfields and at transit stations, in cleanup, and in fixing up roads that truly need it, and in transportation alternatives. Money that is renewable too as these investments will decay, become obsolete, and need upgrading.

Finally: fight for your home, your planet. If a developer wants to turn your local swamp into a mall or a planner wants to rip out some trees for a widened road demand that they pay the total price for the destruction and for the added costs you and your offspring have to pay. If they 'greenwash' by promising 'green buildings' call them on it. No more free rides to our demise.

Also query candidates on environmental issues and hold them accountable. Look into and question where they get their campaign contributions from. Who are they working for: you or those who line their pockets?

Lastly consider joining or at least financially contributing to your local community association as well as established reputable organizations such as the Sierra Club and likeminded specialized groups such as the National Association of Railroad Passengers.

Think globally...act, well...

Kudos to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) for its work in developing methodologies to examine the environmental impacts and the benefits of IT communications (ICT).
 
The ITU is developing tools to calculate energy usage and carbon impact arising from ICT lifecycles and to examine the decrease in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that can be achieved with ICTs. Examples of the latter include substituting ICT services and devices for intensive fossil-fueled activities for travel and transport and by replacing atoms with bits (buying an MP3 file instead of a CD), also known as 'dematerialization'. 

The organization also noted a trend towards 'always-on' devices that are a drain on power supplies. On the other hand a contribution to its focus group meeting showed that direct e-mail has the effect of a 98.5 per cent carbon dioxide emission reduction compared with paper. 

"A common methodology will help establish the business case to go green and can ultimately be beneficial to informed consumer choices and climate-friendly business procurement," say Malcolm Johnson, Director of ITU's Telecommunication Standardization Bureau.

Now what's needed is for the ITU or another similar august body to tackle a real interesting and probably the next green issue: wired versus wireless, both in the actual energy to push X amount of data (including voice) from A to B, and in construction and lifecycle construction and maintenance impacts.

Answers to this matter can help decisionmakers, and green-and-energy-conscious businesses and individuals to make the right choices.

As Tesla discovered, air is a lousy conductor of electricity, not to mention the safety concerns. Energy is required to push ultra low-voltage signals through the medium.  Copper and fiber via landlines are much more efficient. Yet wireless networks require less infrastructure which demands energy to build and maintain.

To their credit, suppliers have taking steps to cut the energy required for wireless transmission. For example Nortel has released its Smart Power Management Software that helps reduce radio network power consumption in GSM networks and delivers significant energy and cost-savings for mobile operators. It enables network operators to switch off radio network equipment dynamically when there is no caller traffic being processed by the system. This can provide up to a 33 percent energy reduction by cutting base transceiver station power consumption. 

This feature, combined with other enhancements made to Nortel's GSM technology, makes Nortel's GSM portfolio up to 50 percent more energy efficient than it was five years ago says the firm.

Let's hear the arguments, and let me know of these and other solutions.

There have been plenty to the point of overload of competing green claims--that some times amount to greenwash--regarding the apparent and supposed environmental benefits of buildings, products, features, technologies, services, and practices: from LEED buildings to telework.

At the same time there have been points raised about the costs both direct and indirect i.e. lost productivity of going green: at what price to organizations especially in this tough economy with limited resources.

To help organizations, decisionmakers, and yes journalists and the public, could some reputable association develop with consensus from all parties: industry, academia, government, environmental groups devise an objective 'GreenDex' to evaluate products, services, applications and practices to help us reduce our environmental footprints?

This 'GreenDex' could be based on a basket of total environmental harm i.e.

--Emissions (CO (2) plus other and more noxious air pollutants: gases, particulate matter)
--Effluent
--Nonrecyclable solid waste
--Physical footprint, including impacts such as erosion, destruction of habitant, removal of carbon-converting plants, creation of heat islands, both for property and for workplace- supporting transportation systems
--Heat production
--Energy consumption, with two models: standard i.e. current mix of fossil-fueled, large-scale hydro, nuclear, and alternative (biomass, small-scale hydro, solar, and wind) and Green made up of alternative, such as that supplied by Bullfrog Power in Canada

--Indirect damage, such as emissions and physical footprint from transportation to/from workplaces (The Victoria Transport Policy Institute is one of the best sources of information on transportation and land use direct and indirect environmental impacts) and healthcare costs arising from pollution-borne illnesses such as asthma

The GreenDex could be then be quantified, based on best available information, with rough assigning of direct and indirect (i.e. personally responsible for but incurred on others i.e. transportation demand, health) costs. It can then be compared with straight line direct/indirect capital and operating costs and productivity gains or losses.

Once we have some idea of the harm that our actions can and are causing, versus what we stand to gain, then we can decide to make responsible and effective decisions on what we buy, what practices we use, and how we choose to accomplish our tasks.
 

Telus, which is one of Canada's largest communications companies, has taken an unusual--and correct--path in green marketing. It has gone green first through instituting a telework program for its internal contact center agents, which it calls at-home agents or AHAs and then decided to form and promote its AHA consulting/hosting program to other companies.

Telus has 750 AHAs who presently live within 150 km/95 miles from the firm's eight contact centers: in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec and come in for training. That number will expand to 1,050 by the end of 2009.  They will represent nearly 21 percent of its contact center workforce from 16 percent currently. The carrier is looking at broadening the network to include communities not in business travel distance and removing the trip-in requirements so it could tap more highly qualified potential agents in other labor markets.

Telus analyzed the impacts of its AHA program, which began in 2006. It has resulted--to date-- $144,500 in savings by team members in fuel and vehicle repairs 1.94 million kilometers/1.2 million miles not driven, 1,250 days of time saved, and 135,000 kg of CO2 not released into the atmosphere.

Telus, prompted by clients who were impressed by its internal AHA program, has parlayed that experience into Telus AgentAnywhere that can also help firms cut down on commuting, and emissions. It offers two different business models: contracted home agents and support for employee agents.
 
Telus's CallCenterAnywhere platform can host, route, and launch inbound and dialler-initiated outbound calls. It partners with LiveXchange to provide contracted home agents either on the Telus's CallCenterAnywhere or LiveXchange's similar platform from Oracle. This contract agent model helps organization supplement their core operations while keeping the operating expenses associated with full time employees down.
 
For companies looking to put their own agents into home office very much like Telus did, its employee agent support program features PSTN voice and DSL broadband connections integrated with CallCenterAnywhere or the customers existing platform, desktops and security virtual private networks along with consulting services to help the customer successfully deploy agents in home settings. The carrier places them together in a simple monthly bill.
 
The Telus home working solution is very flexible and becoming more so. For example it supports private LANs and managed solutions as opposed to conventional ISPs. The carrier will also offer to hire and manage the agents internally at home as its employees and then offer them on temporary outsourced basis to clients.

Yes, there are billions of dollars being pumped into new transit projects and services in Canada and the U.S. A new rapid transit line will open later this year from downtown Vancouver, B.C., where Telus has offices, to the fast-growing suburb of Richmond and to Vancouver International Airport, in time for the 2010 Winter Olympics. More expansions are to come.

Yet even TransLink, the Metro Vancouver region's transportation authority indirectly acknowledges, transit upgrades, along with removing highway bottlenecks, are not the be-all and end-all to traffic congestion and related issues. It has several pages on its site devoted to telework.

Telus has long-running ad campaign featuring various creatures with the tagline 'The Future is Friendly'.

Telus and the firms who signed up its CallCenterAnywhere service, will help make it that way.