Recently in Environment Category

A new, and telling, report by CDW on energy efficient IT is at first glance is positive, that more firms are successfully doing more to boost energy efficiency, and those that do achieve savings that ultimately translate into fewer dangerous emissions from their operations. 

Yet the report also reveals that efficiency too often takes a back seat to other considerations like purchase price. A point that serves as a stark reminder that unless the costs and subsequent financial pain of pollution--and this blog has outlined them in spades--is felt by the users i.e. those who pollute directly and indirectly no real progress will be made to stabilize let alone clean up the environment.

Here are highlights:

"The survey found that organizations are doing more to improve energy efficiency in IT compared to 2008, and as a result, are realizing significant savings in their energy bills.  However, CDW also found that energy efficiency became less of a consideration in the IT purchase decision year-over-year, highlighting recessionary pressures to reduce equipment costs, even at the expense of greater, longer-term energy savings.   
 
"According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, energy use in the nation's data centers doubled between 2000 and 2006 and is projected to double again by 2011.  The Energy Efficient IT Report examines where energy efficiency ranks in IT decision-making priorities, along with improvements in IT energy efficiency and remaining challenges.  Additionally, the report identifies top strategies for IT energy reduction employed by organizations that successfully reduced their IT energy bills.  CDW surveyed IT executives in business, Federal, state and local government, and K-12 and higher education.
 
 "'IT executives appear to be caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place," said CDW Vice President Mark Gambill.  "Under extreme budget pressure in a recessionary economy, their No. 1 IT purchasing concern is the current cost of equipment and services, which can put a damper on efforts toward lowering total cost of operations.  While IT executives are trying to do the right thing - buy the best technology with the right capabilities at the best price - some may sacrifice greater long-term savings from reduced energy use by downgrading the importance of energy efficiency in the purchase equation."
 
"That said, CDW found that IT executives who are responsible for the IT energy bill take the longer-term view.  They are twice as likely to place high importance on energy efficiency in the purchasing process as executives who do not own the IT energy bill. 
 
"The 2009 CDW Energy Efficient IT Report revealed that 52 percent of IT professionals whose organizations have energy management initiatives successfully reduced their total IT energy costs, up from 39 percent in 2008.  Respondents reduced energy costs by focusing on energy efficiency in the purchase and management of IT equipment, employing measures including:

* Buying equipment with low-power/low-wattage processors
* Using network-based power management tools
* Using software tools within uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) to monitor power demand and energy use
* Monitoring data centers remotely to keep lights off when employees are not on site
* Managing cable placement to reduce demand on cooling systems
* Implementing server and storage virtualization to reduce the number of servers and storage devices drawing power
 
"CDW's Energy Efficient IT Report found that industry and government are providing clearer information about what constitutes energy efficient IT equipment, enabling IT managers to make more-informed purchase decisions.  Eighty-three percent of respondents said energy efficient products are becoming easier to identify, and almost all said the ENERGY STAR® label is very important for identifying energy-efficient products. 
 
"In fact, although the Federal government's new ENERGY STAR® standard for servers is just three months old, two-thirds of IT executives with server procurement responsibility said they were familiar with the standard, and more than 90 percent of all survey respondents said their next server purchase would likely be an ENERGY STAR®-qualified product.  Further, 92 percent of respondents with access to utility rebates said they have become a significant incentive for investment in energy efficient IT.
 
"Despite reliable product information and real energy savings, just 26 percent of IT executives with procurement responsibility say energy efficiency is a very important consideration when purchasing new equipment - down from 34 percent in 2008.  Yet the potential savings from energy efficient IT is enormous.  In fact, respondents indicated that if they implemented all available energy-saving measures, they could reduce their annual IT energy bill by an estimated 17 percent.

The firms that get the message, and have, says CDW successfully increased IT energy efficiency employ three tactics:

* Ask IT to Manage:  Organizations that asked their IT department to reduce energy costs have seen significant results - 57 percent reduced costs by 1 percent or more vs. just 39 percent of organizations that did not ask IT to make a change

* Assign IT Responsibility:  Sixty percent of organizations in which the IT department is responsible for the amount and cost of energy used in IT operations have taken specific action to reduce energy consumption, compared to 24 percent of organizations without IT accountability

* Incent IT Success:  Organizations in which the IT department is incented to improve IT energy efficiency are more likely to make energy reduction a priority - 58 percent vs. just 30 percent of those who are not incented
 
"'Unfortunately, organizational leadership sometimes overlooks relatively straightforward ways to increase energy efficiency," Gambill said.  "Simply asking the IT department to reduce its energy costs yields hard dollar savings.  And incenting the IT department to reduce energy use - whether with financial, performance or other rewards - helps prioritize energy efficiency efforts.'"  
 
 

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!

Commuting is bad for the environment. Emissions from vehicles both directly and indirectly through fossil-fueled and river-befouling power plants, and from construction and maintenance combined with open space land grabs combine to form a toxic stew that is slowly killing us. Something to keep in mind as a reality check during the insane U.S. healthcare debate and the endless go-rounds what to do about the costs and doctor shortages in Canada.

Transportation typically accounts for 1/3 of emissions, and motor vehicles at 2/3rds of that. Commuting trips are about 20 percent of all travel.

The Canadians have done great work in assessing the health impacts from air pollution and accidents. A landmark study by the Canadian Medical Association, No Breathing Room: National Illness Costs of Air Pollution pegs the pricetag at $8 billion in 2008, killing some 21,000 Canadians per year. 

A fair estimate is $35 million in costs and 915 fatalities from commuting in Canada per year . Or $350 million and 9,150 deaths annually in the U.S. which has roughly 10 times the population.

 Now a new study by Smartrisk, The Economic Burden of Injury in Canada  shows much those so-called 'accidents' add to the pricetag of commuting. It estimates that transportation-related injuries cost $3.7 billion resulting in 3,067 deaths and 30,932 hospitalizations; transportation is the leading cause of unintentional injury deaths.

"Motor vehicle incidents were the most common cause of transport related injuries, accounting for 1,331 or 43% of transport related deaths and over half of all other transport related injuries," said the report. 

Calculating the literal impacts for car commuting comes up with 266 deaths and 3,300 hospitalized injuries and at a cost of $270 million in Canada. And over 2,600 in fatalities, and 33,000 injuries costing $2.7 billion in the U.S.

And who pays the pricetags? The persons in the mirror either through pain and suffering, more bills, higher premiums, and tax hikes. What can that individual in front  can do about it? Go telecommute, locate on busy transit routes, and end free staff parking.

I live in the Pacific Northwest where the weather for the past several days resembles what has become the norm on the East Coast: hazy, hot, and humid.
 
The smaller businesses and most homes in this part of the world aren't equipped for this with little or no air conditioning, big glass windows, and limited drapery. The husband of one of my wife's colleagues has to sleep on the basement floor, and few homes here have basements. Fortunately we live/I work out of a new apartment with central air.

And in contrast the East Coast has been hit with rainy weather that is the norm here, except that the rains are harder. I joked in an e-mail to someone there about shipping umbrellas from my part of the world.

Then again I and others shouldn't be surprised that this is happening. When you or let greedmongerers mine the forests, pave open land and wetlands to plant sprawling homes and 'office parks' that you then buy or lease, and you pour tons of emissions into the atmosphere from vehicle, power plant, and factory exhausts, you wouldn't think there would be consequences?

To quote Walt Kelly, creator of the brilliant, incisive comic or more accurately commentary strip Pogo: "we have met the enemy and he is us."

The solution lies in the words of late pop star Michael Jackson in certainly my favorite song of his in, "the man in the mirror".

One can't do much better than what Mr. Jackson recommended, to change your ways to "make the World A Better Place".

Here's how:

--Don't buy homes or lease property on new subdivisions or office park unless they are re-uses of brownfield sites. Buying only encourages more sprawl. 

Instead purchase/rent and renovate i.e. reuse existing space. And when doing so use the latest green methods for energy conservation

--Locate on well-used transit routes, where there are sidewalks and paths, and where there is excellent broadband connectivity

--Demand and vote for elected officials who not only promise but do act green. For insurance find out who contributes to their campaign sto discover who really has their ears.

--Take transit, cycle, walk, telework and enable and encourage your staff to do likewise. Charge them for parking to get the message

--Take buses, trains, and video/web conference instead of driving and flying, fly only for medium to long distances, and when flying access airports on mass transit. If you are in coastal areas walk-on--not drive--when using ferries

--When driving drive used, lifecycle-economical in vehicles made to last, and get the most out of every trip

Enjoy the weekend

There has been a lot of jawboning by government officials when it comes to telework as a green transportation alternative.

While federally-funded programs insist that applicants examine no-build options like transportation demand management solutions like telework, the nasty truth is that these are ignored. Why let imaginative, doable lower-cost methods get in the way of shoveling tax dollars to campaign-contributing contractors and engineering firms?

There may now, however, be at last interest and movement in getting governments to do the right thing thanks to large part to broadband becoming a necessity in homes and businesses. Hence its inclusion in the stimulus legislation.

Expanding broadband networks means money for their supplying carriers and equipment vendors. And they are at last emerging as political counterweights to the powerful transportation lobby. Just as highways and transit people talk about freeing congestion, the broadband talk is about connecting America, and increasingly about enabling greener interactions at the speed of light.

As reported by TMC last week, there are new House and Senate bills that for the first time link transportation and broadband policies. H.2428, The Broadband Conduit Deployment Act of 2009 and a companion Senate bill, S. 1266 of the same name, would require states to install broadband conduit in new or expanded federally-funded highways. H. 2428 is sponsored by Representatives Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), and Edward Markey (D-Mass.). Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), and Mark Warner (R-Va.) put the Senate bill forward.

New York attorney Nicole Belson Goluboff thinks it's about time. She writes extensively on the legal consequences of telework. She is also an advisory board member of The Telework Coalition (TelCoA), a telework educational and advocacy organization. 

In a recent article published in New Geography Goluboff called upon lawmakers to introduce and pass legislation tying telework incentives to federal highway and transit infrastructure money. She also asked Congress to provide telework tax incentives for employees and employers; eliminate tax, zoning and other laws that are hostile to telework; and offer public and private sector employers technical help in developing and implementing robust telework programs. 

Goluboff reports there is lawmaker interest in encouraging telework. She reported that 12 House members wrote to both the House Transportation Committee and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, requesting that they consider including some pro-commuter reforms as they design the nation's new transportation and energy laws. Among their requests were initiatives to incentivize telecommuting. 

There is also another benefit of telework versus old-fashioned transportation: results. A new light rail line in Seattle, Washington that opened last weekend was 40+ years in the planning, including political ups and downs much like the city's notorious steeper-than-San Francisco's terrain (Seattle had cable cars until 1941). A company can institute a telework program that can pull their employees' cars off the roads, buses, and trains in three to six months.

This isn't to say there is no longer any need for new highways or rail transit lines says other telework advocates. There will always be the need for in-person work and interactions that create travel demand. Executed right with an emphasis on full-time at home, telework results in fewer trips, requiring less taxpayer-subsidized investments e.g. arterials not freeways, diesel or electric regional rail on existing railroad tracks instead of separate light or heavy rail lines, and ferries in coastal areas than land-based modes.

"'When Congress finalizes its new transportation policy, it must exploit the tremendous mileage it can get from encouraging web-based travel,'" wrote Goluboff. "'Conditioning funding to state and local governments on investment by those governments in pro-telework measures - and offering meaningful federal funding to promote telecommuting - is a dual strategy that would yield a greener and leaner transportation system. '"

When housing and commercial building starts data are released and they show a jump there is generally a positive reaction. They seemingly show that the economy is back on track or that is it is growing and that people are being put back to work.

But is it good news? Not necessarily from the green or economic points of view.
And here's why. If the new buildings are being built on open space and not as replacements for older homes, offices, stores, and factories on existing land that is sprawl, which eats up more resources--environmental, infrastructure, services, and taxes--than it generates in income.

Commercial building, especially offices, is not a good sign because it shows that many companies still don't get it--that you don't need as many offices as you have--because half if not more of the work can be done at home. Which helps the public good by eliminating pollution-creating commutes and helps corporate survival by doing away with needless expenses.

Sprawl also leads to vast areas of already-services dying areas, locales that have become infested with crime that infects its way to the suburbs i.e. where the money is--as any drive through any mid to large city will attest. Crime does pay and in more ways than one. Ask any supplier to the law enforcement and prison biz. Money that in reality is a drain on the economy as it comes directly from the public purse than in turn subtracts from the public income.

Such starts also worsen the plight of existing owners and their communities by depressing prices. Many are already underwater and are walking away. More new homes and buildings at a time when the economy is weak will accelerate this exodus. It makes no sense to build new homes when existing ones are being foreclosed and abandoned.

Unfortunately there is an incestuous relationship between contractors, developers, and local politicians that encourages sprawl. Campaigns even in the smallest cities require serious money--I know, I ran for local office once--and developers have the cash.

There is also a collective leeching of resources from older and more efficient cities by outlying less-efficient car-oriented exurbs, such as blocking money to support mass transit. Many businesses and residents in these communities would like nothing more than to erect barbed-wire moats to keep the inner city out. One contact center company manager told me that when they picked a site in the exurbs they deliberately chose it not to be on a transit route to thwart central city residents i.e. "those people" (their quotes, not mine) from applying.

Fortunately there is an enlightened Administration in Washington D.C, which is the first one that recognizes the dark side of growth i.e. sprawl, with a President who understands all too well the issues and the consequences. 

The White House can do a lot by its control of federal highway and infrastructure dollars by rewarding those cities that encourage brownfield not greenfield developments, renewing not destroying housing and commercial building stock and neighborhoods, that create jobs that support not to ruin communities and the environment. And in turn limiting or cutting off cash to those that insist on sprawl which studies show clogs up added highway capacity in 4 to 5 years...a needless and destructive waste of tax dollars that consumers and businesses can ill afford to see happen.

In short, doing more and better with less instead of wasting land, resources, people, and the environment. That's the kind of positive news we need.

 

I recently moved cross country from the East to the Pacific Northwest. As polluting and contributing to congestion as driving is there is still nothing like it to give a full and complete picture of the landscape.

And for the most part it is a beautiful one that, still worth waxing poetic about, but which I will leave to more accomplished scribes except to say everyone should travel by land from coast to coast at least once in their lives.

The sights that one is familiar with only on screen come alive when you are surrounded it by them...the spectacular architecture of Chicago: its downtown and its neighborhoods, the rugged scenery amidst the charming-in-their-own-right tourist traps around the Wisconsin Dells...the Rhine-like setting of the Mississippi Valley...the wide open spaces in central South Dakota...the amazing transition from grasslands to lush forests west of Rapid City in the Black Hills...and how the Rockies loom above the barren mounds west of Gillette, Wyoming...

There are amidst this green shoots: downtown revitalization in Port Huron, an amazingly high quality South Shore Railroad electric commuter/former interurban line, and the endless fields of wind turbines fenced in by HV lines parallel to I-90 in southern Minnesota, though in the case of the latter on can understand the visual pollution concerns (though my wife calls them beautiful).

Yet there is also endless (and mindless) low-density car-friendly but walking/cycling/transit hostile sprawl stretching out west of Toronto, southern Michigan, and Chicago amidst huge swaths of already-serviced vacant industrial land and rundown cities and neighborhoods. There is sadly more greenwash than green.

Why would anyone in their right mind allow building on greenfields amidst a housing and commercial market glut, when homeowners are desperate to sell and businesses want to get out from under leases other than small-minded greed amongst local politicians and their developer campaign contributors, is beyond common sense.

There is nothing wrong per se in living in large homes on treeless lots and locating businesses in 'office parks' and 'power centers'. It is that this development has been getting free ride on the environment, land use, and transportation, which distorts the residential and commercial real estate marketplace and fosters waste and destruction whose pricetag that has to be paid by all of us.

Intercity and commuter/regional rail offers, when done right, a greener alternative to driving and flying not only in reduced energy consumption but also in enabling compact high-density and walkable development on existing brownfield lands as opposed to car-oriented low-density greenspace-munching sprawl.

The Pacific Northwest is an epicenter of rail transportation and land use initiatives, with hits and misses given the beauty and quality of life and the unchanneled growth that threatens to destroy it. Hits that all three of the major cities: Vancouver, B.C., Seattle, Wash., and Portland, Ore. have or will have commuter and urban rail transit systems, are linked by an albeit sluggishly-growing-and-improving intercity rail network, and especially in Portland's case (with some of those most advanced policies anywhere), are encouraging transit-oriented development. Misses in that the British Columbia and to a lesser extent Washington state government continues 1950s-styled sprawl-encouraging roadbuilding and widening policies (in B.C. case's despite its commitment to carbon taxes) and service cuts including in Portland to local transit.

The Discovery Institute's Cascadia Center is sponsoring a conference that is happening soon:  May 27, 2009 - May 29, 2009 and would be worth while to attend to learn about transportation alternatives and developments in the region that can be applied elsewhere: intercity, commuter/regional rail and rail/cycling integration.

The event, the Cascadia Rail Partnership Conference is subtitled Moving Beyond Oil - Connecting Communities - Rails & Trails. Among its agenda items are

* Federal High Speed Rail Legislation-Moving Passenger and Freight Rail Beyond Oil

* Cascades Rail and Interconnecting Bus Service, and the Connect Oregon Initiative

* New Rail Technology from High Speed Rail to Diesel Multiple Units

* Update on Stimulus Package and Rail Opportunities
* Moving Freight and Passengers on the Same Track

There will also be a special-invite launch in Snohomish (north of Seattle) with Sonoma/Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) John Nemeth, Rail Planning Manager for SMART, the builder of a 70-mile rail and trail line, and Andy Peri from Marin County Bicycle Coalition will meet with Snohomish County rail and trail advocates, and the Snohomish Chamber of Commerce to discuss lessons learned.

This last one is quite timely because there have been and continue to be conflicts between both green form of transportation: cycling/walking and rail transit on little-used or abandoned-but-being-brought-back-to-use rail lines. There has been a big battle on the Seattle area's growing, sprawling, and congested Eastside over such a rail corridor that some senior and powerful officials want for bicycles/pedestrians only while others want for a mixed-use commuter/regional rail and cycle corridor. This route is also the only feasible north-south rail transportation alternative should the principal rail line that hugs the earthquake/landslide/tsunami-vulnerable shoreline from Everett to Seattle gets knocked out: a strong possibility in 'shake-rattle-and-roll country'. Or there is a fire or explosion in the aging tunnel that brings the trains under the city center.

The event takes place in Seattle and Portland with an on-board presentation aboard the 'kickoff' train between both cities on May 27. There will also be a tour of Portland's WES suburb-to-suburb commuter rail; the group will take the MAX light rail to Beaverton, change to WES, ride to Wilsonville, and return. Following that attendees can ride back on MAX and get off near the Amtrak station or ride further directly to PDX for their flight back via Horizon (alas Sound Transit's LINK light rail from SeaTac to downtown Seattle isn't open yet but there are the King County Metro buses). There will be sessions on the 28th and the aforementioned luncheon on the 29th.

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...

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.