Recently in corporate initiatives Category

Companies are finally getting it that corporate green projects--once seen by many environmentalist skeptics as PR 'greenwash' to be rinsed off at the earliest so-called 'bottom line' excuse--are worth while even during tough economic times. 

The reason is simple: taking steps like reducing energy consumption cuts costs.

Forrester's largest-ever survey of corporate green IT activities and interest has found that even in the face of the recession twice as many companies are accelerating their green IT initiatives compared to firms that are scaling back green projects. Of the companies surveyed in the report 'Market Overview: A Slowing Economy Won't Slow Down Corporate Green IT Initiatives' nearly half say they will accelerate or maintain their green IT projects. The main reason: saving money. 67-percent of respondents said reducing energy-related operating expenses was a motivation for pursuing a green IT agenda, up from 55-percent one year ago.

Forrester is also seeing a steady increase in buyers' awareness of tech vendors' efforts to promote their products as environmentally friendly. It is reporting that more companies are documenting their steps to improve sustainability of IT infrastructure: 52 percent of companies told it that they are either implementing or creating a "green IT action plan, up from 40 percent last year. The paper also reveals steady uptake of foundational green IT practices, including greener procurement criteria and engagement with green IT service providers.

To make green plans happen requires strong top-down commitment and bottom-up buy-in. Employees have to know why going green is important to their organizations, to themselves, and to the customers and the public that they directly or indirectly serve, and that their actions are making a difference. Ideally such programs need to have measurable goals, like carbon saving calculators, that individuals by nature strive for.

"Green IT is not a fad or a bubble," writes Forrester analyst Christopher Mines. "In tracking the attitudes and adoption of enterprise IT organizations for almost two years now, we are encouraged to see sustainable growth in the respondents' green IT practices. The slow-but-steady increase in awareness and activity bodes well in our view for continued growth in demand for greener IT products and services."

 

It is rare that I mention green and cars in a positive light given the huge amount of emissions private vehicles produce--and the planet-damaging sprawl the overplanning for them engenders--but in the case I will make the rare exception and praise.

That goes to Japanese-owned carmaker Subaru. Not because it is a leader in bleeding-edge technology like hybrids, or that it makes tiny gas-miserly vehicles like its larger competitors, though its vehicles are very fuel efficient through using advanced proven technology.

Instead Subaru gets the accolade because they have built a low-environmental-footprint plant in Indiana that it is proudly advertising on TV that is a far cry from the creaking and wheezing factories belonging to the dying Big 3. And because their cars and compact SUVs, such as the popular Outbacks and Foresters are so well made they last near-forever (300K-400K is not uncommon)--which means less resources needed to build new and to repair existing ones.

Long-lasting vehicles are an environmental virtue. Anyone who has worked at or toured a car factory or for that matter a steel mill or aluminum plant knows and can appreciate just how much energy: electricity, coal/coke that goes into making vehicles and sees and senses the resulting pollutants from the entire auto-building process. That also goes for the trains and trucks that haul the materials, finished products to the dealers, and the vehicles back for scrapping.

The Subaru dealerships are truly dedicated to keeping the vehicles going as are their owners. Their higher-than-average pricetags encourages you to do just that. Then again, a used Subaru beats most other similar new vehicles hands down in reliability, longevity, and ROI.

There's also another benefit: fanatical customer loyalty. Subarus have 'built-in CRM'. Once you own one you never want to drive another make.

I can testify to the above. I own a secondhand 2001 Subaru Forester that I've driven everywhere from Vancouver Island logging roads to equally cratered Staten Island residential streets, swerving around both bears and bearish pedestrians with ease. It has just over 150,000 miles, which means it has easily 150,000 or more to go. The all-wheel-drive makes even New York City parking a no-brainer and takes the edge off coping with icy hilly roads like through the Poconos in Pennsylvania. It isn't coincidence that Vermont and New Hampshire have long been Subaru country.

The key to keeping Subarus or any other vehicle truly green is minimizing the mileage-killing start-and-stop commuting trips as well as regular maintenance including tune-ups. I work from home and when I have to travel to a large city or airport I take the bus, train, or park-and-ride at a commuter rail station. This also keeps my rolling investment free of damage, thereby extending its lifespan and value.

--BR

Data centers: data warehouse appliances and servers are the 'boilers' of the information revolution. They enable almost every business process from administration to customer service, decisioning, design/engineering, distribution, manufacturing, marketing/sales, and support. They also require a lot of electricity for operations and cooling to keep these units functional and to limit failures.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter are the key harmful compounds and materials released when burning fossil fuels such as for electric power generation. Gartner reports that data centers account for almost a quarter of global CO2 emissions from information and communications technology, placing it on a par with the aviation industry.

Teradata, which makes data warehousing appliances and solutions, has devised, deployed, and is putting together technologies that reduce energy demand and emissions and which cut the size of building footprint. Among them:

* New cabinet designs that permit more efficient cooling

* Intel multi-core processors that permit more computing power with the same amount of energy

* On tap for late 2010/late 2011are new solid-state drives that are much more efficient than traditional electromechanical magnetic tape-drive units

Emerson Network Power has put together ten ways to get more out of data centers with fewer resources. Here are just a few examples:

* A relatively small investment in precision air conditioning and backup power 

* Increasing data densities thanks to new cooling architectures can enable densities notably higher than average data center densities at a fraction of the cost of building a new facility

* Deploying economizers can be used to allow outside cool air to complement data center cooling systems and provide 'free cooling' during colder months

Take a look at these solutions and advice. What do you have to lose: other than high electric bills, wasted resources, and bad air?

--BR
 

I live in a part of North America that is dependent on the auto industry and I am seeing it break down around me. 

Every day it seems the local media has a story on another layoff, if not of the Big 3 but of the many hundreds of firms that supply them. Every day it appears that one more factory has a For Sale or For Lease sign up. Every day one more track in the local railroad yard is taken up by a string of empty auto-rack railcars.

So I am not without sympathy to the families, indeed neighbors who are being hurt by what is happening in that industry.

Yet at the same time I have no pity for the companies themselves, Chrysler and especially GM. And should they end up in the scrap heap so be it. They the espousers of 'planned obsolescence': that philosophy of producing crap, gas-guzzling, air-killing products (I used to own a Dodge Intrepid, 'nough said) are now obsolete.

GM deserves such a fate and more. The tech 'evil empires' are benign when compared with this outfit. In 1949 GM, along with Firestone (now Bridgestone) and what is now Chevron were convicted of conspiring to rip up clean, efficient, electric streetcar lines and replace them with polluting, traffic-prone, and less attractive buses. GM handicapped the market for its now-sold Electro-Motive division that produced (and still does, under its present owners) fine, rugged diesel railroad locomotives that was largely responsible for displacing the romantic if comparatively inefficient and very labor-intensive steam engines. GM's locomotives continue to growl away on freight and passenger trains long after similar-vintage bus, car, and truck counterparts had become scrap metal; its designs are being used in ultramodern commuter rail and freight engines.

The growth in the auto industry, aided by taxpayer-financed roads, led to the near destruction of the rail and transit industries, and the demise of those jobs. But back then it was called 'progress'...

There is now a coming of minds to a solution to the dilemma of putting highly-skilled people back to work and at the same time cleaning up our air and relieving congested highways: investing in the green alternatives of high-speed rail and getting moving on telework. While green vehicles are nice they eat up much more land than rail or fiber optics: land that is used to replenish oxygen and water supplies, and to grow food on.

California is getting into the act by passing its high-speed rail measure. My sources tell me that has sparked renewed interest in the Pacific Northwest, which has, under the branding Amtrak Cascades, a nascent intercity rail network supported by Oregon, Washington, and the province of British Columbia. The premiers of Ontario--which has been especially hard hit because Canada's auto industry is centered there--and Quebec have been pressuring the Canadian government for high-speed rail. Bombardier, which built the now de-bugged Acela trains, has plants, conveniently enough, in both provinces. California, the Pacific Northwest, and Ontario and Quebec plan to power their trains eventually with mostly non-carbon-emiting energy: hydro, nuclear, solar, and wind. Ontario has a couple of nuclear power stations near the proposed right of way, where today's VIA Rail intercity passenger trains 'speed' by at no more than 95 mph on regular railroad tracks that are shared by freight trains.

And one can be sure that should the California plan progress to the stage where bids will be going out that the savvy manufacturers will promise to locate assembly plants there. Just as Siemens had done when orders began pouring in for its light rail cars from across the Western US and Canada; it was ironically, Edmonton, Alberta, the province's capital and the so-called center of the Canadian oil industry, that kicked off the light rail boom when its first line opened in April 1978.

The other part of the equation is telework (including conferencing or 'telepresence). For no matter how good high-speed rail systems and mass transit networks are and can be they cannot substitute for the many commuting trips and intercity business travel that are now taken by car and air.

The Telework Coalition has been invited by the Province of Ontario to make a submission to its pre-budget consultation. The organization plans to make some policy recommendations aimed at encouraging virtual work which too would put people to work, such as those at embattled tech firm Nortel that is headquartered there.

The pieces supporting telework is already there. What is needed is putting them together. On Thursday Nov.20, IEX is sponsoring a TMC Webinar on this topic. I'll be moderating the session, and I encourage anyone who is interested in telework to register, take part, and ask questions.

--BR

I applaud the airports for taking steps to use less energy, generate fewer emissions, and recycle more, as reported in a USA Today story last week that I had perused while at ITEXPO West.

Yet if these facilities, and their airline masters truly want to go green they should:

* Invest in European-styled electric high-speed rail links to replace short-haul flights. 

A Hydro-Quebec report published in 2006 revealed that such air travel can release as much as 340 grams of CO2 per passenger-kilometre as compared with zero for a passenger in a high-speed electric train, powered from hydroelectric dams. In contrast, long-haul flights, for which there is no competition (other than the ultraclean choice of conferencing) release as little as 102 grams.

Short haul flights also eat up runway space, whose expansion chews up life-giving greenspace. More runway wear-and-tear also means more pollution-adding construction and maintenance.

*Shift access to mass transit and shared-ride away from private vehicles. Invest in rapid transit and subsidize off-site airport buses to transit centers, like existing commuter rail/bus stations near where users live. Pay for this by hiking parking fees to discourage single occupancy vehicle access.

"Just go out for a breath of air/And you'll be ready for Medicare"--Tom Lehrer

The Canadian Medical Association released a literally devastating report earlier this month titled: "No Breathing Room: National Illness Costs of Air Pollution" that bears out the brilliance, prescience, and unfortunate timelessness of Mr. Lehrer's musical satire.

The contents should make you gasp, think about saving energy, think again about locating in car-oriented 'greenfields' no matter 'green' the buildings are, ...and consider instead strategies like teleworking and situating offices and homes in higher-density, walkable, transit-accessible, and healthier truly green communities.

Among the key and very disturbing data:

* In 2008, 21,000 Canadians will die from the effects of air pollution. While most of these deaths will be due to chronic exposure over a number of years, 2,682 will be the result of acute short term exposure

* By 2031, almost 90,000 people will have died from the acute effects of air pollution. The number of deaths due to long-term exposure to air pollution will be 710,000

* The number of premature deaths associated with chronic exposure to air pollution is expected to rise 83 percent between 2008 and 2031

* In 2008, almost 11,000 hospital admissions will result from exposure to air pollution

By 2031, close to 18,000 people will be admitted because of air pollution: a 62 percent increase during that period

* Over 92,000 emergency department visits associated with air pollution exposure are expected in 2008 increasing to nearly 152,000 by 2031

* It is estimated that there will be over 620,000 doctor's office visits in 2008 because of air pollution. This total is expected to rise to over 940,000 visits in 2031 if air quality does not improve.

With these impacts there are huge pricetags: The economic costs: healthcare expenses, loss of productivity and destruction of quality of life resulting from air pollution will top $8 billion in 2008. By 2031, they will have accumulated to over $250 billion.

The numbers get uglier when translated to the US by multiplying by 10 to reflect Canada's smaller population. US employers can apply on top of that about 70 percent of the healthcare losses to their bottom lines given Canada's taxpayer-supported medical systems. 

So who is the key culprit of air pollution, and the resulting medical visits and deaths? Look no further than your parking lot.

Private vehicles account for over 60 percent of air pollution from transportation sources, and a significant share of total emissions.

To illustrate, a report published by Hydro-Quebec, the province's electric utility, compared greenhouse gases from different transportation modes. A single-occupant--and most commuting trips are just that despite futile efforts to get people to carpool--SUV pumps out 405 grams per passenger-kilometre while a compact car releases 214 grams per passenger-km.

In contrast, even a half-full diesel bus spews out 56 grams. An electric light rail or subway car is responsible for much less, even zero if the electricity is derived solely from renewable sources such as hydroelectric dams, solar, and wind.

These reports understate the emissions because they do not take into account the pollution created from road construction and maintenance, and from delays caused by the work, no matter how fuel efficient some vehicles may be.

The heavier cars and truck are the more road capacity and wear-and-tear on pavement and surfaces they incur, requiring more trucks and equipment to repair this infrastructure. Rail vehicles, because they have a lower friction coefficient that cuts energy demand, causes less wear-and-tear, and delays are more easily managed because trains operate in a controlled environment.

There is another set of health kickers: one that makes locating in 'greenfield' commercial and housing developments deadly, no matter how 'LEEDing edge' they are in energy consumption...and these are accident rates and lifestyle illnesses and deaths resulting from car-oriented sprawl.

* 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, traffic accidents, lack of physical activity, and negative social impacts such as road rage lead to a variety of these health problems

* 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

* The nonprofit group Smartrisk reported in 2006 that motor vehicle collisions were the second most costly source of injuries in Ontario, at more than $1.1 billion

* Todd Litman, of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute reported that the number of traffic fatalities were 26.3 per 100,000 people in the most sprawled cities as compared with just 5.6 per 100,000 in the least sprawled metropolitan areas

Such data makes the decision to locate even green office buildings in sprawl, surrounded by acres of free parking even more unsustainable healthwise as well as for other environmental plus energy and traffic congestion reasons. 

A brilliant recent article in The Montreal Gazette pointed out this contradiction between green PR and environmental reality, which the less charitable brand as 'greenwash'. 

The story cited as one example Bell Canada's new campus-- the first new project in Montreal to follow green building LEED principles...

...which is located in a traffic hotspot, in a remote communitywise part of the city and a long way from the famed Metro underground and expanding commuter rail network...and has plenty of parking: 2,050 spaces or 1 for every 2 employees. Even though private vehicles generate 1/3 of the province's greenhouse gases.

"That's not so green," wrote Henry Aubin about the Bell project. "To get serious about global warming means building real estate projects that are not so dependent on car travel." 

The same goes for getting serious about improving our health and controlling healthcare costs...

 

There have been a lot of articles lately about green buildings and homes. So when I find out about the ones located in 'office parks' and low-density subdivisions on what had just been open space i.e. 'greenfield development' I just shake my head.

A 'green' building surrounded by a huge car-packed parking lot and a 'green house' on a cul-de-sac with a couple of SUVs in the driveway are the environmental equivalent of the fitness fanatic who jogs to the store to buy a pack of cigarettes.

For no matter how energy efficient these structures are the gains don't fully compensate for the environmental losses caused by (a) perpetuating transportation patterns that favor the private automobile, which consumes more resources and emits more pollutants both directly and indirectly than any other mode and (b) the loss of oxygen-generation, water supply, erosion control, food production capacity and other life-giving benefits when land is paved over.

That's why I placed single quotes around 'office parks' because their environmental consequences contradict what real parks should be about and that is rejuvenating one's own health rather than painting a pretty picture, like the billboards that hide the destruction in the film Brazil. 

Both 'office parks' and their residential counterparts by their location and low-density design make transportation access by means other than the private automobile impractical and expensive to provide. While main line transit routes serving downtowns and high-density residential and commercial hubs do well financially, those that serve sprawling office and residential developments incur high operating costs and low demand, and are often the first to be cut during budget crunches.

The Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI) based in Victoria, BC, Canada, is a leading authority on the direct and indirect costs of transportation, including land use. I've worked with VTPI's executive director Todd Litman and he knows his stuff.

For example the VTPI compared the land consumed by sprawl and compact development. For an office with 1,000 square feet and needing four parking spots, if it is sited in an 'office park' it would have an environmental footprint of 2,640 square feet while if it is placed in a three-story urban location with 1 on-street parking space it would leave a mark of just 580 square feet. 

Similarly for a home with 1,250 square feet, one located in a sprawl development would have an environmental footprint of 2,580 square feet while one located in a compact urban area would consume just 1,040 square feet. http://www.vtpi.org/landuse.pdf

This last point illustrates one of the potential environmental downside of teleworking. Its benefit of reducing commuting, and emissions could be degraded if the teleworker decides to buy a larger home, like on a subdivision that once had been a field, and which removes public transit, cycling, or walking for non-commute trips.

To illustrate the total environmental impacts of sprawl especially transportation, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (Canada's better-heeled equivalent of Fannie Mae) and the Natural Resources Canada, a federal government department, published a report that shows that a family living in a low-density suburban type home in the outer suburbs emits 11,800 kilograms of CO2 annually. Instead if they lived in a medium-density inner suburban compact development they would emit just 6,100 kg, largely because public transit is more readily available. ftp://ftp.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/chic-ccdh/Research_Reports-Rapports_de_recherche/eng_bilingual/Green%20Gas%20EmissionsEN_FINAL.pdf

Therefore, if you truly want to go green in your office and home/home offices you need to:

* Select locations and buildings for offices and homes on long-existing already-serviced land including brownfields (i.e. recycle, reuse, renew), in mid-to higher-density areas, well served by transit, and with cycling and walking access. The one exception are new walkable transit-oriented developments at rail and bus stations and at ferry terminals;

* Develop and implement strategies to encourage driving alternatives i.e. no free parking, subsidized transit passes, bike rakes, and devising and expanding telework programs;

* When choosing homes for home offices maximize your existing space like basements, garages, and spare bedrooms or if not possible build a loft or an extension.

--BBR

The greenest, fastest, and safest commute, one that requires the lowest investment from your pocket and from your tax dollars (compared with mass transit and HOV lanes) is from wherever you are in your home to your home office. The same goes for your employees.

Facet/Teletrips reports that each person teleworked or telecommuted just 1 to 2 days per week then each year they would save 100 - 200 gallons of fuel and 1.5 to 5 metric tonnes of CO2 / employee / year (equates to 7.5 percent -25 percent of an individual's annual carbon footprint). 

Teleworking is like giving your staff a pay raise and a cut in hours for free. Facet/Teletrips reports that it saves them each $2,000 - $10,000 in after tax dollars and frees up 160 hours of their time from commuting every year.

Your organization also benefits from teleworking as it can gain $2,000 - $10,000 real estate and other cost savings / employee / year, and greater staff retention and recruiting. 

https://www.teletrips.com/public/learn.php

The rising gas prices are already reportedly making organizations think about teleworking. Employees, especially lower-paid ones like contact center agents are less willing to travel the same distances to work because they have to pay more out of their pockets.

Telework is also a proven disaster response strategy by distributing the workforce that makes operations less vulnerable to threats and 'events'. Telework ties into the Internet, which was conceived of and created by the US government to withstand and respond to an enemy attack by distributing computers over a network. 

And on 9-11-01 both telework and the Internet delivered. I wrote and answered the 'Are You OK' e-mails from a friend's house in New Jersey that I ended up after evacuating my old Manhattan office with my laptop--after witnessing the attacks that had knocked out conventional communications systems. My son, a paramedic, was at Ground Zero but neither my wife nor I knew if he was dead or alive for nearly 2 days because we could not reach him.

If you have a contact center and want to learn more about teleworking then I invite you to register and take part in a great Webinar on this topic that is taking place Wedneday July 16 at 2pm ET, sponsored by VoltDelta and Transera. Your questions are very welcome and will help us increase our understanding about this timely topic.

http://www.tmcnet.com/webinar/volt-delta2/volt-delta-webinar-agent-at-home-solutions-revolutionary-change-for-the-contact-center.htm



 

The Gigapit is available direct from Data Centigrade for $4,995 each.