It has been on my list for quite some time to research carbon offsets as to which are greenwashing, which have an effect immediately, which won't work for another 30 years, etc. What I had not considered was that some of the offsets themselves would actually be detrimental. Here is a great op ed in the NY Times that has opened my eyes and shows how planting trees is really not such a good idea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/opinion/20heinrich.html
Op-Ed Contributor
Clear-Cutting the Truth About Trees
By BERND HEINRICH
Published: December 19, 2009
Burlington, Vt.
THE Copenhagen climate-change summit meeting is behind us, and did not achieve what was hoped for. There was no lack of good intentions, but they generated conflicts rather than solutions, and the product was a weak agreement to disagree in the future. Forests were part of the discussion, and several things were understood: carbon dioxide is a potentially world-altering lethal pollutant, fossil fuels are the problem, biofuels are part of the solution. But exactly how to pare down the use of fossil fuels and switch to energy sources derived from plant material? That is the problem.
Biofuels are the indirect use of solar energy packaged into plants by the best solar-panel technology that has ever been invented, and it is far easier to grow green power than to build nuclear plants, dam our waterways and put windmills on our scenic mountaintops. Yet our current plans to shift to green energy — centered on so-called carbon offsets and cap-and-trade systems — are in some applications sorely misguided.
Contrary to what you might hear from energy companies and environmentally conscious celebrities, offsets don’t magically make carbon emissions disappear. Worse, relying on them to stem global warming may devastate our vital forest ecosystems.
On the industrial scale, carbon trading works like this: Limits (caps) are set on carbon emissions so that the true costs of our energy use are not just passed on to our descendants or people in some distant country. As an incentive to help the planet, savings of carbon emissions that one achieves below the designated cap can then be traded, as offsets, to another polluter who can then go over his cap by an equal amount. While carbon credits can be generated by switching to cleaner technology or nonpolluting sources in energy production, they can also be gained by unrelated steps, like planting trees, that are said to deter global warming.
Thus, if I burn coal in my business, I can plant pines in Chile and earn an offset, which will then allow me to burn even more coal. On a smaller scale, Al Gore purchases carbon offsets that he says make up for the emissions from the jets he uses in spreading his message of conservation. All this may seem logical, and energy companies would have you believe it works in the real world. But it is actually terrible for the planet, which is governed by the dictates of physics and biology.
Part of the problem is the public misunderstanding of how forests and carbon relate. Trees are often called a “carbon sink” — implying that they will sop up carbon from the atmosphere for all eternity. This is not true: the carbon they take up when they are alive is released after they die, whether from natural causes or by the hand of man. The only true solution to achieving global “carbon balance” is to leave the fossil carbon where it is — underground.
Beyond that, planting more trees is decidedly not the same thing as saving our forests. Instead, planting trees invariably means using them as a sustainable crop, which leads not only to a continuous cycle of carbon releases, but also to the increased destruction of our natural environment.
A few environmental groups in Copenhagen were considered unwelcome guests for loudly pointing out that the carbon-trading proposals bandied about at the meetings subsidize forest destruction and will lead to large-scale destruction of ecosystems and unprecedented “land grabs.” (Disclosure: my wife is a researcher for one of those groups.) But such claims are correct. More than anything, carbon offsets will allow rich countries to burn ever more fossil fuels under the “clean development mechanism” of the Kyoto Protocol, the system that sets the values, in terms of tons of carbon equivalent, of emission-reduction efforts.
In fact, most of the problems with the system can be traced back to the Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted in 1997. After much political wrangling, the Kyoto delegates decided that there would be no carbon-reduction credits for saving existing forests. Since planting new trees does get one credits, Kyoto actually created a rationale for clear-cutting old growth.
This is horrifying. The world’s forests are a key to our survival, and that of millions of other species. Not only are they critical to providing us with building material, paper, food, recreation and oxygen, they also ground us spiritually and connect us to our primal past. Never before in earth’s history have our forests been under such attack. And the global-warming folks at Copenhagen seem oblivious, buying into the corporate view of forests as an exploitable resource.
A forest is an ecosystem. It is not something planted. A forest grows on its own. There are many kinds of forests that will grow practically anywhere, each under its own special local conditions. When a tree falls, the race is on immediately to replace it. In the forests I study, there so many seeds and seedlings that if a square foot of ground space opens up, more than a hundred trees of many different species compete to grow there.
So if you want to plant a specific species of tree for lumber or for offsets, you’ll have to apply an (petroleum-based) herbicide repeatedly over its lifespan. If you hope to make a profit, you will plant a tree genetically engineered to grow quickly and resist disease. This is the path to domestication of a plant that needs to be ever coddled with fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides and fungicides. And not coincidentally, there will then be a market for its seeds, and all the chemicals needed to coddle the crop.
In the end, what was originally intended as a mechanism for slowing global warming has created huge economic pressure for ecocide. And there will be no objections from easily duped bleeding- heart “environmentalists,” who absolutely love tree planting because it sounds so “green.”
To preserve something it first has to be valued, and the most effective means of valuing it is to have a practical use for it. If the discussions in Copenhagen were any indication, mankind sees little value in forests, but much in tree plantations. (On the other hand, I admit that those of us who really do care about forests have not exactly been helpful. We have not encouraged selective harvesting from naturally occurring stands, which may be necessary.)
It is easy to scream bloody murder against tree planting as a means for biomass energy and industrial fiber production, but there then has to be an alternative (aside from the obvious one of energy conservation). We need either vastly fewer people or vastly more forests, along with a new definition of earth-friendly reforestation.
These new stands of growth — if managed as true forest rather than as a single-species, single-aged crops — would contain a mixture of mature and transitional-growth trees. Any tree cut down would immediately generate a race of others to replace it at that spot, and the winner will emerge from a natural selection of seeds and seedlings most suited to grow there. No, this isn’t the fastest way to build up carbon credits. But it is the only real way to preserve the planet, and ourselves.
Bernd Heinrich, emeritus professor at the University of Vermont, is the author of the forthcoming “Nesting Season.”
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Understanding GHG Emission Numbers
http://www.darkoptimism.org/2008/09/03/the-climate-science-translation-guide/
I am taking a class in Sustainability Metrics and using the process of writing a paper to try to get a real understanding of the climate change terms being bantered around.
The link I posted is to an excellent post I found explaining the difference between CO2, CO2 equivalents and CO2 total. I think this is good information to know, esp. when talking to climate change disbelievers. I hate to admit it, but I do not fully understand some of the graphs in this document.
The climate science translation guide
by Shaun Chamberlin on September 3rd, 2008
Age Of Stupid Climate-o-meter
We are all familiar with the concept of climate change, and the need for reduced carbon emissions, but really getting a handle on the scale of the problem can be difficult, thanks to all the confusing terminology.
I looked all over the web for a straightforward comprehensive explanation of terms like Global Warming Potential (GWP) and the different meanings of CO2equivalent but I couldn’t find it, so eventually I decided to spend some of my time (and the time of many helpful friends and colleagues) on creating one.
I didn’t count on quite how intricate the underlying science is (it became ever clearer to me why there is so much confusion in this area), so the process took some considerable time, but I believe that this post is now something that many will find useful. It has been checked for accuracy by qualified experts.
In order to fully understand the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and global temperature increase then, we first need to consider the concept of radiative forcing.
Radiative forcing illustrated
The Earth is continually receiving energy from the Sun, and continually losing energy into space (as space is much cooler than the Earth). Radiative forcing is simply the difference (measured in watts per square metre) between the amount of energy received and the amount of energy re-radiated back into space. In other words it is the rate at which the planet’s surface is either warming or cooling. [1]
If the planet were losing energy at the same rate it was gaining it then the radiative forcing would be zero and the temperature would remain stable at its current level – this state is called thermal equilibrium. Since a hotter planet loses more energy into space, the natural system tends to move towards thermal equilibrium.
However, rising greenhouse gas concentrations (measured in parts per million – ppm [2]) in the atmosphere act like an insulating blanket, reducing the rate at which energy can escape into space, and so affecting radiative forcing, which in turn affects the temperature. The rough illustrative graphs below give an idea of these relationships and show the time delay between changes in emissions rates (up or down) and temperature changes. [3]
Climate - Business As Usual
The graph below shows that if we can bring anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions back down we can stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations and bring radiative forcing back towards equilibrium, but at a higher temperature. [4]
Climate with emissions reductions
So, emissions contribute to greenhouse gas concentrations which in turn contribute to radiative forcing, but it is radiative forcing that determines the rate of change in temperature. Armed with this understanding, the terms below become clearer:
Global warming potential (GWP) is an estimate of how much a given greenhouse gas contributes to Earth’s radiative forcing. Carbon dioxide (CO2) has a GWP of 1, by definition, so a gas with a GWP of 50 would increase radiative forcing by 50 times as much as the same amount (mass) of CO2. A GWP value is defined over a specific time interval, so the length of this time interval must be stated to make the value meaningful (most researchers and regulators use 100 years).
For example, methane has a GWP of 72 over 20 years, but a lower GWP of 25 over 100 years. This is because it is very potent in the short-term but then breaks down to CO2 and water in the atmosphere, meaning that the longer the period you consider it over, the more similar its effect is to that of CO2 alone. [5]
Equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2e) is an estimate of the concentration of CO2 (in ppm) that would cause a given level of radiative forcing. [6]
For example, the IPCC’s[7] latest report in 2007 considered the effects of the main greenhouse gases currently present in our atmosphere and calculated a CO2e for these of around 455ppm (and rising). This means that (over a defined period) the radiative forcing effect of these gases at current concentrations is roughly equal to the effect a 455ppm concentration of CO2 alone would cause. This particular CO2e calculation takes into account the six major greenhouse gases considered under the Kyoto Protocol, and so may be labelled CO2e(Kyoto). [8]
However, the orange line in the graphs above represents the total radiative forcing of the planet. This is the important figure – the one that determines the rate of change in Earth’s temperature – and as well as the Kyoto gases it is also affected by other factors such as the effects of sulphate aerosols, ozone and cloud formations. The chart below quantifies the effect of each of these factors, and we can see that a number of them (those coloured blue) are actually negative forcings, which act to reduce the total radiative forcing. Because of these, the equivalent CO2 for all forcings combined - CO2e(Total) - is, thankfully, lower than CO2e(Kyoto). The IPCC’s latest figures give CO2e(Total) as roughly 375ppm. [9]
When we hear scientific debates between stabilisation scenarios of, say, 350ppm, 450ppm or 550ppm it is CO2e(Total) which is under discussion. So this 375ppm is the key number, but it has a far wider margin of error than the others. This is because it is relatively easy to measure the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, and the GWP of those gases, but considerably more difficult to account for all the effects that contribute to the ultimate CO2e(Total) radiative forcing over a given period. The column in the below chart labelled LOSU stands for the “Level Of Scientific Understanding” of the various forcings, and as we can see it is not universally high. [10]
IPCC Radiative forcings
Radiative forcing is the fundamental issue, but it is easy to see why most discussions revolve only around emissions – not only are CO2 emissions much the largest way in which humanity is changing the planet’s radiative forcing, but they are also easier to understand conceptually and easier to quantify than radiative forcing.
According to the IPCC atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 379ppm in 2005, which coincidentally happens to be close to our best estimate of 375ppm CO2e(Total). Unfortunately this coincidence also creates a good deal of confusion, as it is not always clear which measure an author is referring to – scientists often assume that this is obvious to their audience, and many others do not themselves fully understand the distinctions between CO2, CO2e(Kyoto) and CO2e(Total). [11]
The other source of confusion is that all of the numbers we have discussed are based on evolving science, and many can only be given approximately. For example, these are the IPCC’s given figures for the GWP of methane over 100 years, taken from their last three reports:
1995 - 2nd Assessment Report (SAR): Methane 100 year GWP = 21
2001 - 3rd Assessment Report (TAR): Methane 100 year GWP = 23
2007 - 4th Assessment Report (AR4): Methane 100 year GWP = 25
These changes are entirely appropriate – the values should become more accurate over time as new measurement methods or changes in scientific understanding develop – but it makes it important to check where any figures are sourced from. [12]
Where we are today
So let’s take stock. Below are the latest IPCC figures, which define the situation as it was in 2005:
CO2 = 379ppm (error range: minimal)
CO2e(Kyoto) = 455ppm (error range: 433-477ppm)
CO2e(Total) = 375ppm (error range: 311-435 ppm) [13]
Emissions are still increasing year-on-year (faster than projected in any of the IPCC’s scenarios) and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are currently rising by between 1.5 and 3 ppm each year. They are at roughly 385ppm in mid-2008. It is worth noting that the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere was 278ppm and did not vary by more than 7ppm between the years 1000 and 1800 C.E. [14]
Global average (mean) temperature has already risen by around 0.8°C since pre-industrial times, and a minimum additional 0.6°C of warming is still due from emissions to date - the delay in warming being a consequence of the time-lags in the system discussed above. [15]
Ok, that’s it! If you followed everything here you should be well-equipped to consider the scientific discussion of climate change. Indeed, you may find you understand it better than some of those who write and speak about it!
Hopefully this post will provide a resource to aid wider understanding of the changes we are causing to our global climate system and the climate emergency we are facing. Should any inaccuracies come to light I will of course amend them.
This work forms part of my forthcoming book The Transition Timeline, produced in partnership with the Transition Network, and set for publication in March 2009 available now from Green Books. It uses the understanding outlined here to examine the wider context of climate change and peak oil, discuss the options facing our communities and consider the cultural stories which underlie our choices.
Climate change with scientific realism
Footnotes
1. There is also a warming effect from the geothermal energy at the Earth’s core, but this is sufficiently small and stable that for our purposes we can ignore it.
2. Parts per million is the ratio of the number of greenhouse gas molecules to the total number of molecules of dry air. For example, 300ppm means 300 molecules of a greenhouse gas per million molecules of dry air. Strictly speaking concentrations are measured in parts per million by volume (ppmv), but this is widely abbreviated to ppm. Don’t be confused if some papers refer to ppmv.
3. Emissions are not the sole determinant of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations due to the Earth’s natural ‘carbon sinks’ which soak up some of our emissions. Concentrations are not the sole determinants of radiative forcing due to other forcings which will be discussed shortly. The time delay between radiative forcing and temperature increase is caused by the thermal inertia of the planet – it has great mass (with much of the heat initially being used to warm the deep oceans) and therefore takes some time to warm or cool. Of the (equilibrium) temperature increase ultimately produced by a given increase in radiative forcing, only about half manifests within 25 years, the next quarter takes 150 years to manifest, and the last quarter many centuries.
4. These illustrative graphs do not include the effects of climate feedbacks such as carbon sink degradation. Also see the MIT Climate Online ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions Simulator’
5. Figures from: IPCC AR4 Working Group I Report, Chapter 2 , Table 2.14, p. 212.
More detail on GWP available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential - note that the GWP for a mixture of gases cannot be determined from the GWP of the constituent gases by any form of simple linear addition.
6. There is also a separate but related concept called Carbon Dioxide equivalent. This gives the amount of CO2 that would have the same GWP as a given amount of a given gas (or mixture of gases). It is simply calculated by multiplying the GWP of the gas by the given amount (mass) of gas. For example, over a 100 year period methane has a GWP of 25, so 1 gram of methane has a Carbon Dioxide equivalent value of 25 grams.
In practice, since Carbon Dioxide equivalent is expressed as a mass (grams, tonnes etc.), and Equivalent Carbon Dioxide (CO2e) is expressed as a concentration (usually in parts per million), they are not easily confused, despite the similar names.
You may also encounter references to the “carbon equivalent”, especially when discussing carbon that is not in gaseous form (e.g. carbon in coal deposits). A carbon equivalent figure can be converted to carbon dioxide equivalent by multiplying by 3.644 to account for the different molecular weights (3.644 tonnes of CO2 contains 1 tonne of carbon).
7. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the body established jointly by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organisation in 1988 to assess the available scientific evidence.
8. The IPCC considered the so-called ‘Kyoto basket’ of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Under the Kyoto Protocol, signatories committed to control emissions of a ‘basket’ of six GHGs - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, HFCs, PFCs and SF6.
455ppm figure from e.g.: IPCC AR4 Working Group III Report, Chapter 1 , p.102
The IPCC estimate of CO2e(Kyoto) is detailed by Gavin Schmidt of NASA in a post at Real Climate
9. These negative forcings include the so-called ‘global dimming’ effect. For more on this crucial consideration see: “On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: Formidable challenges ahead”, V. Ramanathan and Y. Feng, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 105, 23 September 2008, pp. 14245-14250
IPCC CO2e(Total) figure: IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report, notes to Table 5.1, p.67
10. Table source: IPCC AR4 Working Group I Report, Summary for Policymakers, Figure SPM.2, p.4
11. IPCC 2005 CO2 levels: IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5
12. IPCC 2001 figures: IPCC TAR Working Group I Report, Chapter 6, Table 6.7
1995/2007: IPCC AR4 Working Group I Report, Chapter 2 , Table 2.14, p. 212
13. Error ranges: IPCC AR4 Working Group III Report, Chapter 1 , p.102
14. Up-to-date measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations are always subject to revisions, pending recalibrations of reference gases and other quality control checks. Trends and 2008 figure taken from: NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory - Global Monitoring Division (site accessed August 2008)
Pre-industrial CO2 levels from: NOAA (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
15. See footnote [3] above for details on climate time-lags. Figure for warming from emissions to date taken from the Climate Code Red report by Carbon Equity, p.22.
Also see IPCC AR4 Working Group III Report, Summary for Policymakers, Table SPM.5, p.15 for ultimate (equilibrium) warming from current atmospheric concentrations.
Finally, note that a 2008 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined the impacts of air pollution (which blocks sunlight and thus reduces temperatures – the effect known as ‘global dimming’) and found that this is masking the full extent of the warming effect from greenhouse gas concentrations. Building on the IPCC’s work, the paper finds that if air pollution reduces – as it is expected to do – then 2005 atmospheric concentrations could commit us to around 2.4 degrees of warming above pre-industrial temperatures, with about 90% of this warming taking place this century.
Images
1. Climate-o-meter used (in edited form) with permission from http://www.ageofstupid.net/
2. Radiative forcing illustration used with permission from David Wasdell
3. Indicative climate graph created by author in partnership with David Wasdell, and with assistance gratefully acknowledged from Ben Brangwyn.
4. Indicative climate graph created by author in partnership with David Wasdell, and with assistance gratefully acknowledged from Ben Brangwyn.
5. Radiative forcings table from: IPCC AR4 Working Group I Report, Summary for Policymakers, Figure SPM.2, p.4
6. Indicative climate graph created by author in partnership with David Wasdell, and with assistance gratefully acknowledged from Ben Brangwyn.
I am taking a class in Sustainability Metrics and using the process of writing a paper to try to get a real understanding of the climate change terms being bantered around.
The link I posted is to an excellent post I found explaining the difference between CO2, CO2 equivalents and CO2 total. I think this is good information to know, esp. when talking to climate change disbelievers. I hate to admit it, but I do not fully understand some of the graphs in this document.
The climate science translation guide
by Shaun Chamberlin on September 3rd, 2008
Age Of Stupid Climate-o-meter
We are all familiar with the concept of climate change, and the need for reduced carbon emissions, but really getting a handle on the scale of the problem can be difficult, thanks to all the confusing terminology.
I looked all over the web for a straightforward comprehensive explanation of terms like Global Warming Potential (GWP) and the different meanings of CO2equivalent but I couldn’t find it, so eventually I decided to spend some of my time (and the time of many helpful friends and colleagues) on creating one.
I didn’t count on quite how intricate the underlying science is (it became ever clearer to me why there is so much confusion in this area), so the process took some considerable time, but I believe that this post is now something that many will find useful. It has been checked for accuracy by qualified experts.
In order to fully understand the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and global temperature increase then, we first need to consider the concept of radiative forcing.
Radiative forcing illustrated
The Earth is continually receiving energy from the Sun, and continually losing energy into space (as space is much cooler than the Earth). Radiative forcing is simply the difference (measured in watts per square metre) between the amount of energy received and the amount of energy re-radiated back into space. In other words it is the rate at which the planet’s surface is either warming or cooling. [1]
If the planet were losing energy at the same rate it was gaining it then the radiative forcing would be zero and the temperature would remain stable at its current level – this state is called thermal equilibrium. Since a hotter planet loses more energy into space, the natural system tends to move towards thermal equilibrium.
However, rising greenhouse gas concentrations (measured in parts per million – ppm [2]) in the atmosphere act like an insulating blanket, reducing the rate at which energy can escape into space, and so affecting radiative forcing, which in turn affects the temperature. The rough illustrative graphs below give an idea of these relationships and show the time delay between changes in emissions rates (up or down) and temperature changes. [3]
Climate - Business As Usual
The graph below shows that if we can bring anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions back down we can stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations and bring radiative forcing back towards equilibrium, but at a higher temperature. [4]
Climate with emissions reductions
So, emissions contribute to greenhouse gas concentrations which in turn contribute to radiative forcing, but it is radiative forcing that determines the rate of change in temperature. Armed with this understanding, the terms below become clearer:
Global warming potential (GWP) is an estimate of how much a given greenhouse gas contributes to Earth’s radiative forcing. Carbon dioxide (CO2) has a GWP of 1, by definition, so a gas with a GWP of 50 would increase radiative forcing by 50 times as much as the same amount (mass) of CO2. A GWP value is defined over a specific time interval, so the length of this time interval must be stated to make the value meaningful (most researchers and regulators use 100 years).
For example, methane has a GWP of 72 over 20 years, but a lower GWP of 25 over 100 years. This is because it is very potent in the short-term but then breaks down to CO2 and water in the atmosphere, meaning that the longer the period you consider it over, the more similar its effect is to that of CO2 alone. [5]
Equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2e) is an estimate of the concentration of CO2 (in ppm) that would cause a given level of radiative forcing. [6]
For example, the IPCC’s[7] latest report in 2007 considered the effects of the main greenhouse gases currently present in our atmosphere and calculated a CO2e for these of around 455ppm (and rising). This means that (over a defined period) the radiative forcing effect of these gases at current concentrations is roughly equal to the effect a 455ppm concentration of CO2 alone would cause. This particular CO2e calculation takes into account the six major greenhouse gases considered under the Kyoto Protocol, and so may be labelled CO2e(Kyoto). [8]
However, the orange line in the graphs above represents the total radiative forcing of the planet. This is the important figure – the one that determines the rate of change in Earth’s temperature – and as well as the Kyoto gases it is also affected by other factors such as the effects of sulphate aerosols, ozone and cloud formations. The chart below quantifies the effect of each of these factors, and we can see that a number of them (those coloured blue) are actually negative forcings, which act to reduce the total radiative forcing. Because of these, the equivalent CO2 for all forcings combined - CO2e(Total) - is, thankfully, lower than CO2e(Kyoto). The IPCC’s latest figures give CO2e(Total) as roughly 375ppm. [9]
When we hear scientific debates between stabilisation scenarios of, say, 350ppm, 450ppm or 550ppm it is CO2e(Total) which is under discussion. So this 375ppm is the key number, but it has a far wider margin of error than the others. This is because it is relatively easy to measure the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, and the GWP of those gases, but considerably more difficult to account for all the effects that contribute to the ultimate CO2e(Total) radiative forcing over a given period. The column in the below chart labelled LOSU stands for the “Level Of Scientific Understanding” of the various forcings, and as we can see it is not universally high. [10]
IPCC Radiative forcings
Radiative forcing is the fundamental issue, but it is easy to see why most discussions revolve only around emissions – not only are CO2 emissions much the largest way in which humanity is changing the planet’s radiative forcing, but they are also easier to understand conceptually and easier to quantify than radiative forcing.
According to the IPCC atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 379ppm in 2005, which coincidentally happens to be close to our best estimate of 375ppm CO2e(Total). Unfortunately this coincidence also creates a good deal of confusion, as it is not always clear which measure an author is referring to – scientists often assume that this is obvious to their audience, and many others do not themselves fully understand the distinctions between CO2, CO2e(Kyoto) and CO2e(Total). [11]
The other source of confusion is that all of the numbers we have discussed are based on evolving science, and many can only be given approximately. For example, these are the IPCC’s given figures for the GWP of methane over 100 years, taken from their last three reports:
1995 - 2nd Assessment Report (SAR): Methane 100 year GWP = 21
2001 - 3rd Assessment Report (TAR): Methane 100 year GWP = 23
2007 - 4th Assessment Report (AR4): Methane 100 year GWP = 25
These changes are entirely appropriate – the values should become more accurate over time as new measurement methods or changes in scientific understanding develop – but it makes it important to check where any figures are sourced from. [12]
Where we are today
So let’s take stock. Below are the latest IPCC figures, which define the situation as it was in 2005:
CO2 = 379ppm (error range: minimal)
CO2e(Kyoto) = 455ppm (error range: 433-477ppm)
CO2e(Total) = 375ppm (error range: 311-435 ppm) [13]
Emissions are still increasing year-on-year (faster than projected in any of the IPCC’s scenarios) and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are currently rising by between 1.5 and 3 ppm each year. They are at roughly 385ppm in mid-2008. It is worth noting that the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere was 278ppm and did not vary by more than 7ppm between the years 1000 and 1800 C.E. [14]
Global average (mean) temperature has already risen by around 0.8°C since pre-industrial times, and a minimum additional 0.6°C of warming is still due from emissions to date - the delay in warming being a consequence of the time-lags in the system discussed above. [15]
Ok, that’s it! If you followed everything here you should be well-equipped to consider the scientific discussion of climate change. Indeed, you may find you understand it better than some of those who write and speak about it!
Hopefully this post will provide a resource to aid wider understanding of the changes we are causing to our global climate system and the climate emergency we are facing. Should any inaccuracies come to light I will of course amend them.
This work forms part of my forthcoming book The Transition Timeline, produced in partnership with the Transition Network, and set for publication in March 2009 available now from Green Books. It uses the understanding outlined here to examine the wider context of climate change and peak oil, discuss the options facing our communities and consider the cultural stories which underlie our choices.
Climate change with scientific realism
Footnotes
1. There is also a warming effect from the geothermal energy at the Earth’s core, but this is sufficiently small and stable that for our purposes we can ignore it.
2. Parts per million is the ratio of the number of greenhouse gas molecules to the total number of molecules of dry air. For example, 300ppm means 300 molecules of a greenhouse gas per million molecules of dry air. Strictly speaking concentrations are measured in parts per million by volume (ppmv), but this is widely abbreviated to ppm. Don’t be confused if some papers refer to ppmv.
3. Emissions are not the sole determinant of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations due to the Earth’s natural ‘carbon sinks’ which soak up some of our emissions. Concentrations are not the sole determinants of radiative forcing due to other forcings which will be discussed shortly. The time delay between radiative forcing and temperature increase is caused by the thermal inertia of the planet – it has great mass (with much of the heat initially being used to warm the deep oceans) and therefore takes some time to warm or cool. Of the (equilibrium) temperature increase ultimately produced by a given increase in radiative forcing, only about half manifests within 25 years, the next quarter takes 150 years to manifest, and the last quarter many centuries.
4. These illustrative graphs do not include the effects of climate feedbacks such as carbon sink degradation. Also see the MIT Climate Online ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions Simulator’
5. Figures from: IPCC AR4 Working Group I Report, Chapter 2 , Table 2.14, p. 212.
More detail on GWP available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential - note that the GWP for a mixture of gases cannot be determined from the GWP of the constituent gases by any form of simple linear addition.
6. There is also a separate but related concept called Carbon Dioxide equivalent. This gives the amount of CO2 that would have the same GWP as a given amount of a given gas (or mixture of gases). It is simply calculated by multiplying the GWP of the gas by the given amount (mass) of gas. For example, over a 100 year period methane has a GWP of 25, so 1 gram of methane has a Carbon Dioxide equivalent value of 25 grams.
In practice, since Carbon Dioxide equivalent is expressed as a mass (grams, tonnes etc.), and Equivalent Carbon Dioxide (CO2e) is expressed as a concentration (usually in parts per million), they are not easily confused, despite the similar names.
You may also encounter references to the “carbon equivalent”, especially when discussing carbon that is not in gaseous form (e.g. carbon in coal deposits). A carbon equivalent figure can be converted to carbon dioxide equivalent by multiplying by 3.644 to account for the different molecular weights (3.644 tonnes of CO2 contains 1 tonne of carbon).
7. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the body established jointly by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organisation in 1988 to assess the available scientific evidence.
8. The IPCC considered the so-called ‘Kyoto basket’ of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Under the Kyoto Protocol, signatories committed to control emissions of a ‘basket’ of six GHGs - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, HFCs, PFCs and SF6.
455ppm figure from e.g.: IPCC AR4 Working Group III Report, Chapter 1 , p.102
The IPCC estimate of CO2e(Kyoto) is detailed by Gavin Schmidt of NASA in a post at Real Climate
9. These negative forcings include the so-called ‘global dimming’ effect. For more on this crucial consideration see: “On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: Formidable challenges ahead”, V. Ramanathan and Y. Feng, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 105, 23 September 2008, pp. 14245-14250
IPCC CO2e(Total) figure: IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report, notes to Table 5.1, p.67
10. Table source: IPCC AR4 Working Group I Report, Summary for Policymakers, Figure SPM.2, p.4
11. IPCC 2005 CO2 levels: IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5
12. IPCC 2001 figures: IPCC TAR Working Group I Report, Chapter 6, Table 6.7
1995/2007: IPCC AR4 Working Group I Report, Chapter 2 , Table 2.14, p. 212
13. Error ranges: IPCC AR4 Working Group III Report, Chapter 1 , p.102
14. Up-to-date measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations are always subject to revisions, pending recalibrations of reference gases and other quality control checks. Trends and 2008 figure taken from: NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory - Global Monitoring Division (site accessed August 2008)
Pre-industrial CO2 levels from: NOAA (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
15. See footnote [3] above for details on climate time-lags. Figure for warming from emissions to date taken from the Climate Code Red report by Carbon Equity, p.22.
Also see IPCC AR4 Working Group III Report, Summary for Policymakers, Table SPM.5, p.15 for ultimate (equilibrium) warming from current atmospheric concentrations.
Finally, note that a 2008 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined the impacts of air pollution (which blocks sunlight and thus reduces temperatures – the effect known as ‘global dimming’) and found that this is masking the full extent of the warming effect from greenhouse gas concentrations. Building on the IPCC’s work, the paper finds that if air pollution reduces – as it is expected to do – then 2005 atmospheric concentrations could commit us to around 2.4 degrees of warming above pre-industrial temperatures, with about 90% of this warming taking place this century.
Images
1. Climate-o-meter used (in edited form) with permission from http://www.ageofstupid.net/
2. Radiative forcing illustration used with permission from David Wasdell
3. Indicative climate graph created by author in partnership with David Wasdell, and with assistance gratefully acknowledged from Ben Brangwyn.
4. Indicative climate graph created by author in partnership with David Wasdell, and with assistance gratefully acknowledged from Ben Brangwyn.
5. Radiative forcings table from: IPCC AR4 Working Group I Report, Summary for Policymakers, Figure SPM.2, p.4
6. Indicative climate graph created by author in partnership with David Wasdell, and with assistance gratefully acknowledged from Ben Brangwyn.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Is Bamboo flooring Greenwashing?
I am following a question on the Green Building Products Linked in group that someone else posed. I asked about FSC bamboo. Here is a very interesting reply. It looks like a life cycle analysis of bamboo flooring is on order....
Degree of Green to my website http://www.degreeofgreen.com
- Group: Green Building Products
- Subject: New comment (8) on "Why is Bamboo flooring considered a green floor? Sure bamboo is a sustainable in it's raw form, but shouldn't we take into account the toxins in the glues and solvents used to make the final product?"
I created a green building product rating system a couple years ago that is being used by manufacturers and retailers all across the US. This has got to be the #1 question I get. There are a few points to consider when determining the Degree of Green(R) of bamboo flooring:
1. Human Health - most bamboo flooring materials contain added urea formaldehyde in the adhesives that bind the product together...some are free of added urea formaldehyde. ALSO, containers shipped from China are routinely sprayed with pesticides, which can cause severe reactions to those with chemical sensitivities.
2. Environmental Heath - All bamboo comes from SE Asia, which means massive carbon emissions to transport to the US. No good study has been done on the environmental impact of the bamboo harvesting industry.
3. Sustainability - Yes, bamboo grows fast. However, farmers in China are clear cutting thousands of acres of trees to plant bamboo, since the US is so bamboo crazy. Not to mention, traditional bamboo flooring is not nearly as durable as we all thought it was when it came out 10 years ago. Exception given to the new strand woven product. Although, one can argue that the strand products are basically a mixture of bamboo and plastics. Not very green.
4. WIld Cards - Do the Chinese companies pay a fair wage? are they using child labor? What pesticides DO they use? etc, etc.
Regarding VOC's - Please understand that VOC's are only regulated by the EPA because some of them can react with nitrogen and UV to create low-level smog. VOC's are not all hazardous to humans. If you peel the skin off of an orange, you'll be subject to many more VOC's that you'd find in any bamboo floor. Not all VOC's are toxins...not all toxins are VOC's. Inside a home, we should be much more concerned about the toxicity of the products we use, not the VOC content.
IMHO, bamboo flooring is greenwashing in its purest form. But if you like the look of it, then buy it. But don't fool yourself into thinking its a green floor.
Posted by Andrew Pace
Degree of Green to my website http://www.degreeofgreen.com
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Exterior House Paints - green for the money?
As our remodel saga continues, when faced with a decision on materials I am researching the option with the least envirnomental impact and cost effective. I've found that nothing is simple, everything has multiple issues, it is so hard to find any good info.
So my latest is exterior house paint. By now everyone has heard of no and low VOC paints. Time to set some things straight:
1. The VOCs that are being taken out are to reduce smog and low level ozone depletion. This has nothing to do with toxicity.
2. Most people are concerned with the VOCs because of the outgassing and awful smells - indoor pollution - but really there could be lots of things outgassing making that smell that have nothing to do with VOCs.
3. There is very little data, reviews, etc. on EXTERIOR house paint because you won't smell it, like inside your home. But actually, that is where VOCs matter the most.
4. The paint base may be VOC low or no, but the pigments themselves give off VOCs. If you really want a no VOC product, you have to find one where they also claim that the pigments were designed also to be no VOC.
5. Due to Federal Laws, upcoming Federal laws, and CA state laws all paint manufacturers have generally gotten rid of their VOCs. They are at or below the legal limits. So further claims will become greenwashing because they will simply be complying with the law.
6. Other chemicals you want to avoid : acetone, ammonia, formaldehyde, formaldehyde formation during the curing process. I called the big 3 paint companies, all of them have none of these except trace amounts of ammonia.
7. I could find no testing where someone took the exterior house paints, green and non green, and actually measured some performance or compared them. Consumer Reports has a long term study - 3, 6, 9. 12 years - of paints. Most of the green paints came out in the past 3-5 years, so they are not in the consumer reports study.
Note: I have personally bought items highly rated by CR and been very disappointed. I think a second opinion is needed.
Bottom Line:
For exterior house paints, for greenness, all of the various brands of paints are the same. Also, I think that green and non green exterior paints are basically the same. You buy based on Quality, not on greenness. If you buy high quality, you will paint less often, which will use up less resources. High quality paints are 2x more expensive and there is little or no info on whether they really are higher quality. For this you have to rely on word of mouth from painting contractors.
Note: Paint company warranties are WORTHLESS. The cost of painting is in the prep and labor, not the materials. So if you pay $10K for a paint job and you pay $800 for the paint, and the paint fails - you still get to pay $9.2K. Even then, you have to provide all kinds of proof that the paint was used according to manufacturers specs, etc. etc.
So my latest is exterior house paint. By now everyone has heard of no and low VOC paints. Time to set some things straight:
1. The VOCs that are being taken out are to reduce smog and low level ozone depletion. This has nothing to do with toxicity.
2. Most people are concerned with the VOCs because of the outgassing and awful smells - indoor pollution - but really there could be lots of things outgassing making that smell that have nothing to do with VOCs.
3. There is very little data, reviews, etc. on EXTERIOR house paint because you won't smell it, like inside your home. But actually, that is where VOCs matter the most.
4. The paint base may be VOC low or no, but the pigments themselves give off VOCs. If you really want a no VOC product, you have to find one where they also claim that the pigments were designed also to be no VOC.
5. Due to Federal Laws, upcoming Federal laws, and CA state laws all paint manufacturers have generally gotten rid of their VOCs. They are at or below the legal limits. So further claims will become greenwashing because they will simply be complying with the law.
6. Other chemicals you want to avoid : acetone, ammonia, formaldehyde, formaldehyde formation during the curing process. I called the big 3 paint companies, all of them have none of these except trace amounts of ammonia.
7. I could find no testing where someone took the exterior house paints, green and non green, and actually measured some performance or compared them. Consumer Reports has a long term study - 3, 6, 9. 12 years - of paints. Most of the green paints came out in the past 3-5 years, so they are not in the consumer reports study.
Note: I have personally bought items highly rated by CR and been very disappointed. I think a second opinion is needed.
Bottom Line:
For exterior house paints, for greenness, all of the various brands of paints are the same. Also, I think that green and non green exterior paints are basically the same. You buy based on Quality, not on greenness. If you buy high quality, you will paint less often, which will use up less resources. High quality paints are 2x more expensive and there is little or no info on whether they really are higher quality. For this you have to rely on word of mouth from painting contractors.
Note: Paint company warranties are WORTHLESS. The cost of painting is in the prep and labor, not the materials. So if you pay $10K for a paint job and you pay $800 for the paint, and the paint fails - you still get to pay $9.2K. Even then, you have to provide all kinds of proof that the paint was used according to manufacturers specs, etc. etc.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Environmental Marketing Guidelines - FTC
http://www.use-less-stuff.com/Environmental-Marketing-Guidelines.pdf
http://www.use-less-stuff.com/Environmental-Marketing-Guidelines.pdf
Environmental Marketing Guidelines
Prepared By Robert M. Lilienfeld, Editor
The Use Less Stuff Report
I. INTRODUCTION
The marketplace increasingly demands products that deliver high levels of functionality with reduced levels of environmental impact. Businesses are looking for ways to meet these demands, and in so doing must effectively communicate both the functional and environmental benefits of their offerings.
On the functional side, strong companies usually have a history of providing customers with data that support their product claims. Over time, this has become increasingly easier to do, as customers today are quite knowledgeable about the information needed to make decisions.
The environmental side is quite different, as benefits such as “more sustainable,” “greener,” and “eco-friendly” cannot be assigned numerical values, since they are qualitative in nature. Also, as of yet there are no agreed-upon mechanisms or third party organizations that can evaluate these types of claims or enforce protocols, methodologies, and use of terms. Significantly, environmental claims are different in a third way. Unlike functional benefits, which become a tangible part of your customers’ products, environmental benefits have the potential to be communicated by your customers as part of the marketing message to their customers. This means that companies must work hard to meet regulations and legislation designed to protect “consumers” at all levels.
II. THE BASICS
The key body of U.S. law and regulations governing marketing communications is The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, which established its namesake, the FTC. Section 5 of the Act prohibits “unfair methods of competition” and was amended in 1938 to also prohibit “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” A representation, omission, or practice is deceptive if: (1) it is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and (2) it is likely to affect
consumers’ conduct or decisions with respect to the product at issue.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 2
1/07/09
Further, the FTC works jointly with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that an organization’s environmental claims meet legal requirements. The EPA is as concerned about business-to-business activities as it is about business-to-consumer communications, as its literature regarding “deception” specifically calls out advertising, labeling, catalogs and sales presentationsi.
III. THE BIG PICTURE
Listed below are the four areas that are of most concern to the FTC regarding advertising claims of all types, but specifically those relating to the environment. Please keep in mind that the FTC makes it clear that you must comply with all of these concerns, not just those you feel are most advantageous or especially relevant to your product or message:
1. The single most important point to remember when making claims is to be as specific as possible. Doing so will require that claims be substantiated by communicating all of the following:
• What is being claimed -- Reduced energy consumption during production
• By how much -- By 12%
• Compared to what -- Versus the previous product formulation
Claims that are general or vague are not only considered to be meaningless, the FTC considers them to be deceptive. Technically, this means that claims which appear to be simple and harmless, such as “eco-friendly” and “green,” are actually open to scrutiny and legal action at the federal level. Such action can occur when the FTC is made aware of claims, either by their reviewing your materials or, more likely, via complaints from competitors, special interest
groups, state attorneys general, etc.
2. To further prevent deception, any qualifications or disclosures relating to your claims should be clear, prominent and easily understood. According to the FTC, “Clarity of language, relative type size and proximity to the claim being qualified, and an absence of contrary claims that could undercut effectiveness, will maximize the likelihood that the qualifications and disclosures are
appropriately clear and prominent.” ii
3. Environmental claims, attributes and benefits should not be explicitly or implicitly overstated. This requires that both the absolute and relative merits of a claim be considered.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 3
1/07/09
• Example: Claiming that a package has been reduced in weight by 50% would be considered deceptive by the FTC if the package in question now weighed 1 gram, versus 2 grams in the past. However, a 50% move from 16 oz. to 8 oz. would probably be considered acceptable, based upon the absolute change in question.
• Example: A resin is described simply as being “recyclable.” However, the current recycling infrastructure cannot handle this resin. Even if the resin is technically capable of being recycled, the claim is deceptive since it asserts an environmental benefit where no significant or meaningful benefit exists.
4. Comparative claims must be stated in a way that makes the basis for comparison as clear as possible. The comparison should also be substantiated.
• Example: You want to promote the fact that your production process produces 25% fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than competitive processes. You must be able to state the specific GHG levels for your process and all of your competitors, and ensure that the competitive data is both accurate and current. Based upon FTC general regulations and its guidelines relating to advertising claims and substantiation, and the environmental guidelines developed by the FTC either singly or jointly with the EPA, all marketing and sales materials should
meet the following criteria:
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL-SPECIFIC CLAIMS
A. General
Unless substantiation can be provided, broad environmental claims must either be avoided or qualified. Further, claims must not create broader positive impressions than what is communicated by the specific claim.
• Example: Naming or describing a product as “Eco-Friend” would be deceptive if it leads to the belief that the product has environmental benefits which you cannot substantiate. However, the claim would not be deceptive if "Eco-Friend" were followed by clear and prominent qualifying language limiting the positive representation to a particular product attribute that could be substantiated, providing that no other deceptive implications were created by the context.
Note that the same standards hold true for any graphic seal, design or icon designed to communicate positive environmental attributes or benefits. Each must be accompanied by prominent qualifying language limiting the positive representation to a particular product attribute that could be substantiated, providing that no other deceptive implications were created by the context.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 4
1/07/09
• Example: A product is labeled “environmentally preferable.” This claim is qualified
by stating that it “contains no harmful VOCs.” However, if the production or use of
the product creates any other harmful emissions, the claim is deceptive, as it can be
interpreted in a broader context than what is specifically described.
B. Recyclability
A product or package should not be marketed as recyclable unless it can be
collected, separated or otherwise recovered from the solid waste stream for reuse,
or in the manufacture or assembly of another package or product, through an
established recycling program. However, unqualified claims of recyclability for a
product or package may be made if the entire product or package, excluding minor
incidental components, is recyclable.
To further avoid the potential for deception:
1. If a product or package is made of both recyclable and non-recyclable
components, the recyclable claim should be adequately qualified to clearly
state which portions or components are recyclable.
2. Claims of recyclability should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid
consumer deception about any limited availability of recycling programs
and collection sites.
• Example: A nationally marketed 8 oz. plastic cottage-cheese container displays
the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) code (which consists of a design of
arrows in a triangular shape containing a number and abbreviation identifying the
component plastic resin) on the front label of the container, in close proximity to
the product name and logo. The manufacturer's conspicuous use of the SPI code
in this manner constitutes a recyclability claim.
Unless recycling facilities for this container are available to a substantial majority
of consumers or communities, the claim should be qualified to disclose the
limited availability of recycling programs for the container. If the SPI code,
without more, had been placed in an inconspicuous location on the container
(e.g., embedded in the bottom of the container) it would not constitute a claim of
recyclability.
Note from this example, taken directly from FTC documents, how
important it is for marketers of plastics used in packaging to understand the
guidelines: The FTC considers the “chasing arrows” symbols to be
potentially deceptive to consumers if not handled in the manner described.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 5
1/07/09
If recycling is not widely or generally available, claims should be qualified
to indicate the limited availability of programs. Two examples are “This
container may not be recyclable in your area,” or “Recycling programs for
this container may not exist in your area.” Other examples of adequate
qualification of the claim include providing the number of communities
with programs, or the percentage of communities or the population to
which programs are available.
3. No incidental components should be present that significantly limit the
ability to recycle a product or package. For example, if labeling
significantly reduces recyclability of a package, it would be deceptive to
refer to the package as recyclable.
4. A product or package that is made from recyclable material, but is not
accepted in recycling programs for such material, should not be marketed
as recyclable. In such a situation, it would be appropriate to communicate
that “This package contains 20% recycled material” but it would be
deceptive to state that the package can (once again) be recycled.
C. Recycled Content
A recycled content claim may be made only for materials that have
been recovered or otherwise diverted from the solid waste stream, either during
the manufacturing process (pre-consumer), or after consumer use (postconsumer).
Specific conditions include:
1. To the extent the source of recycled content includes pre-consumer
material, the manufacturer or advertiser must be able to substantiate that
the pre-consumer material would otherwise have entered the solid waste
stream. This is particularly important for plastics molders, fabricators and
processors:
• Example: A molder routinely collects spilled resin and scraps left over from the
original manufacturing process. After a minimal amount of reprocessing, the molder
combines the spills and scraps with virgin material for use in further production of
the same product. A claim that the product contains recycled material is deceptive
because the spills and scraps to which the claim refers are normally reused by
industry within the original manufacturing process, and would not normally have
entered the waste stream.
2. In asserting a recycled content claim, distinctions may be made between
pre-consumer and post-consumer materials. Where such distinctions are
asserted, any express or implied claim about the specific pre-consumer or
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 6
1/07/09
post-consumer content of a product or package must be substantiated.
3. For products or packages that are only partially made of recycled material,
a recycled claim should be adequately qualified to avoid deception about
the amount, by weight, of recycled content in the finished product or
package.
• Example: A “juice box” (aseptic package) is made from layers of foil, plastic,
and paper laminated together. The label claims that “one of the three layers of
this package is made of recycled plastic.” The plastic layer is made entirely of
recycled plastic. The claim is not deceptive provided the recycled plastic layer
constitutes a significant component of the entire package.
D. Biodegradation
Claims of degradability should be qualified “by competent and reliable scientific
evidence” to avoid consumer deception about (1) the product or package’s ability
to completely break down into elements found in nature, (2) in the environment
where it is customarily disposed, and (3) the rate and extent of degradation.
Unless otherwise specified, a product must biodegrade or photodegrade in the
environment in which it is usually disposed (e.g., a sanitary landfill), and must do
so at a reasonably fast rate. Unless clearly stated, degradation must also be
complete, with no leftover synthetic or complex byproducts or residue.
• Example: According to the law, paper cannot be described as simply “biodegradable”, as
it will not break down in its typical disposal environment, a landfill, at a reasonably fast
rate. Technically, a paper product which claims to be biodegradable should qualify this
statement by including a statement such as: “When composted in a facility designed to
handle this type of paper, usually an industrial composting facility.”
However, clearly stating an exception to an unqualified claim can legitimize the
claim and remove the potential for deception:
• Example: Loop carriers are described as “Photodegradable” and qualified with the
phrase "Will break down into small pieces if left uncovered in sunlight." The claim is
supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product will break down
in a reasonably short period of time after being exposed to sunlight and into sufficiently
small pieces to become part of the soil. Because the claim is qualified to indicate the
limited extent of breakdown, the manufacturer does not have to meet the elements for an
unqualified photodegradable claim, i.e., that the product will not only break down, but
also will decompose into elements found in nature.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 7
1/07/09
E. Composting
A compostability claim must be substantiated by “competent and reliable scientific
evidence” that all the materials in the product or package will (1) break down
into, or otherwise become part of, usable compost (e.g., soil-conditioners, mulch,
(2) in a safe and timely manner, (3) in an appropriate composting program or
facility, or in a home compost pile or device. Claims must be substantiated, and
will be considered deceptive if:
1. Composting cannot occur in a home compost pile or device, and/or it is not
revealed that composting must occur in municipal or institutional facilities
and that the availability of these facilities is limited.
2. Consumers are misled into believing that landfilling will produce results
similar or equal to backyard composting,
3. The results of composting are not 100% usable as conditioners or mulch.
• Example: The description of a corn-based plastic as compostable (and/or
biodegradable) is deceptive if it is not clearly stated that products made from this
plastic must be composted in an institutional facility, and that the availability of
such facilities is limited.
However, limiting the sale of products to areas in which they can be composted, or
stating specifically where they can be composted, is acceptable and not considered
deceptive. In the example just mentioned, a description such as “Compostable
only in the area where this product or package was purchased” or “Compostable in
Northern Oregon” would typically not be considered deceptive.
F. Source Reduction
Source reduction claims should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid
consumer deception about both the amount of reduction and the basis for any
comparison that is asserted. It is perfectly fine to say “This package creates 10% less
waste than our previous package.” However, simply stating “This package creates 10%
less waste” is ambiguous, and open to being considered deceptive.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 8
1/07/09
V. IT’S BETTER TO BE SAFE…
As you can see, the laws are clear regarding the need for environmental claims to
be specific and substantiated. However, please keep these points in mind:
1. Whether a claim is specific enough, or provides proper substantiation, is
open to interpretation.
2. The FTC staff routinely issues new interpretations of the law. These may
complement or conflict with previous interpretations, including those
included here.
3. As an active participant in the development of communications materials,
it may be hard for you to be completely objective when it comes to
evaluating the legality of proposed environmental marketing claims.
4. This document was written from a U.S. perspective, but it is fairly safe to
assume that the FTC philosophy of specificity and substantiation is valid
globally. However, if marketing products outside of the United States,
please check the appropriate statutes and regulations for that region. This
is especially important in Europe, where product comparison claims are
either outlawed outright or considered to be a form of unfair competition.
5. Finally, please remember that the potential financial and perceptual costs
of making a mistake regarding environmental claims are high. Consult with
your Legal and Environmental Affairs Departments before making public
any environmental claim.
Robert Lilienfeld, Editor
FOOTNOTES
i Environmental Marketing Claims: Message to Vendors from the EPA and the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), EPA-744-F-97-005, June 1997.
ii FTC, Part 260, Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims.
http://www.use-less-stuff.com/Environmental-Marketing-Guidelines.pdf
Environmental Marketing Guidelines
Prepared By Robert M. Lilienfeld, Editor
The Use Less Stuff Report
I. INTRODUCTION
The marketplace increasingly demands products that deliver high levels of functionality with reduced levels of environmental impact. Businesses are looking for ways to meet these demands, and in so doing must effectively communicate both the functional and environmental benefits of their offerings.
On the functional side, strong companies usually have a history of providing customers with data that support their product claims. Over time, this has become increasingly easier to do, as customers today are quite knowledgeable about the information needed to make decisions.
The environmental side is quite different, as benefits such as “more sustainable,” “greener,” and “eco-friendly” cannot be assigned numerical values, since they are qualitative in nature. Also, as of yet there are no agreed-upon mechanisms or third party organizations that can evaluate these types of claims or enforce protocols, methodologies, and use of terms. Significantly, environmental claims are different in a third way. Unlike functional benefits, which become a tangible part of your customers’ products, environmental benefits have the potential to be communicated by your customers as part of the marketing message to their customers. This means that companies must work hard to meet regulations and legislation designed to protect “consumers” at all levels.
II. THE BASICS
The key body of U.S. law and regulations governing marketing communications is The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, which established its namesake, the FTC. Section 5 of the Act prohibits “unfair methods of competition” and was amended in 1938 to also prohibit “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” A representation, omission, or practice is deceptive if: (1) it is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and (2) it is likely to affect
consumers’ conduct or decisions with respect to the product at issue.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 2
1/07/09
Further, the FTC works jointly with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that an organization’s environmental claims meet legal requirements. The EPA is as concerned about business-to-business activities as it is about business-to-consumer communications, as its literature regarding “deception” specifically calls out advertising, labeling, catalogs and sales presentationsi.
III. THE BIG PICTURE
Listed below are the four areas that are of most concern to the FTC regarding advertising claims of all types, but specifically those relating to the environment. Please keep in mind that the FTC makes it clear that you must comply with all of these concerns, not just those you feel are most advantageous or especially relevant to your product or message:
1. The single most important point to remember when making claims is to be as specific as possible. Doing so will require that claims be substantiated by communicating all of the following:
• What is being claimed -- Reduced energy consumption during production
• By how much -- By 12%
• Compared to what -- Versus the previous product formulation
Claims that are general or vague are not only considered to be meaningless, the FTC considers them to be deceptive. Technically, this means that claims which appear to be simple and harmless, such as “eco-friendly” and “green,” are actually open to scrutiny and legal action at the federal level. Such action can occur when the FTC is made aware of claims, either by their reviewing your materials or, more likely, via complaints from competitors, special interest
groups, state attorneys general, etc.
2. To further prevent deception, any qualifications or disclosures relating to your claims should be clear, prominent and easily understood. According to the FTC, “Clarity of language, relative type size and proximity to the claim being qualified, and an absence of contrary claims that could undercut effectiveness, will maximize the likelihood that the qualifications and disclosures are
appropriately clear and prominent.” ii
3. Environmental claims, attributes and benefits should not be explicitly or implicitly overstated. This requires that both the absolute and relative merits of a claim be considered.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 3
1/07/09
• Example: Claiming that a package has been reduced in weight by 50% would be considered deceptive by the FTC if the package in question now weighed 1 gram, versus 2 grams in the past. However, a 50% move from 16 oz. to 8 oz. would probably be considered acceptable, based upon the absolute change in question.
• Example: A resin is described simply as being “recyclable.” However, the current recycling infrastructure cannot handle this resin. Even if the resin is technically capable of being recycled, the claim is deceptive since it asserts an environmental benefit where no significant or meaningful benefit exists.
4. Comparative claims must be stated in a way that makes the basis for comparison as clear as possible. The comparison should also be substantiated.
• Example: You want to promote the fact that your production process produces 25% fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than competitive processes. You must be able to state the specific GHG levels for your process and all of your competitors, and ensure that the competitive data is both accurate and current. Based upon FTC general regulations and its guidelines relating to advertising claims and substantiation, and the environmental guidelines developed by the FTC either singly or jointly with the EPA, all marketing and sales materials should
meet the following criteria:
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL-SPECIFIC CLAIMS
A. General
Unless substantiation can be provided, broad environmental claims must either be avoided or qualified. Further, claims must not create broader positive impressions than what is communicated by the specific claim.
• Example: Naming or describing a product as “Eco-Friend” would be deceptive if it leads to the belief that the product has environmental benefits which you cannot substantiate. However, the claim would not be deceptive if "Eco-Friend" were followed by clear and prominent qualifying language limiting the positive representation to a particular product attribute that could be substantiated, providing that no other deceptive implications were created by the context.
Note that the same standards hold true for any graphic seal, design or icon designed to communicate positive environmental attributes or benefits. Each must be accompanied by prominent qualifying language limiting the positive representation to a particular product attribute that could be substantiated, providing that no other deceptive implications were created by the context.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 4
1/07/09
• Example: A product is labeled “environmentally preferable.” This claim is qualified
by stating that it “contains no harmful VOCs.” However, if the production or use of
the product creates any other harmful emissions, the claim is deceptive, as it can be
interpreted in a broader context than what is specifically described.
B. Recyclability
A product or package should not be marketed as recyclable unless it can be
collected, separated or otherwise recovered from the solid waste stream for reuse,
or in the manufacture or assembly of another package or product, through an
established recycling program. However, unqualified claims of recyclability for a
product or package may be made if the entire product or package, excluding minor
incidental components, is recyclable.
To further avoid the potential for deception:
1. If a product or package is made of both recyclable and non-recyclable
components, the recyclable claim should be adequately qualified to clearly
state which portions or components are recyclable.
2. Claims of recyclability should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid
consumer deception about any limited availability of recycling programs
and collection sites.
• Example: A nationally marketed 8 oz. plastic cottage-cheese container displays
the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) code (which consists of a design of
arrows in a triangular shape containing a number and abbreviation identifying the
component plastic resin) on the front label of the container, in close proximity to
the product name and logo. The manufacturer's conspicuous use of the SPI code
in this manner constitutes a recyclability claim.
Unless recycling facilities for this container are available to a substantial majority
of consumers or communities, the claim should be qualified to disclose the
limited availability of recycling programs for the container. If the SPI code,
without more, had been placed in an inconspicuous location on the container
(e.g., embedded in the bottom of the container) it would not constitute a claim of
recyclability.
Note from this example, taken directly from FTC documents, how
important it is for marketers of plastics used in packaging to understand the
guidelines: The FTC considers the “chasing arrows” symbols to be
potentially deceptive to consumers if not handled in the manner described.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 5
1/07/09
If recycling is not widely or generally available, claims should be qualified
to indicate the limited availability of programs. Two examples are “This
container may not be recyclable in your area,” or “Recycling programs for
this container may not exist in your area.” Other examples of adequate
qualification of the claim include providing the number of communities
with programs, or the percentage of communities or the population to
which programs are available.
3. No incidental components should be present that significantly limit the
ability to recycle a product or package. For example, if labeling
significantly reduces recyclability of a package, it would be deceptive to
refer to the package as recyclable.
4. A product or package that is made from recyclable material, but is not
accepted in recycling programs for such material, should not be marketed
as recyclable. In such a situation, it would be appropriate to communicate
that “This package contains 20% recycled material” but it would be
deceptive to state that the package can (once again) be recycled.
C. Recycled Content
A recycled content claim may be made only for materials that have
been recovered or otherwise diverted from the solid waste stream, either during
the manufacturing process (pre-consumer), or after consumer use (postconsumer).
Specific conditions include:
1. To the extent the source of recycled content includes pre-consumer
material, the manufacturer or advertiser must be able to substantiate that
the pre-consumer material would otherwise have entered the solid waste
stream. This is particularly important for plastics molders, fabricators and
processors:
• Example: A molder routinely collects spilled resin and scraps left over from the
original manufacturing process. After a minimal amount of reprocessing, the molder
combines the spills and scraps with virgin material for use in further production of
the same product. A claim that the product contains recycled material is deceptive
because the spills and scraps to which the claim refers are normally reused by
industry within the original manufacturing process, and would not normally have
entered the waste stream.
2. In asserting a recycled content claim, distinctions may be made between
pre-consumer and post-consumer materials. Where such distinctions are
asserted, any express or implied claim about the specific pre-consumer or
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 6
1/07/09
post-consumer content of a product or package must be substantiated.
3. For products or packages that are only partially made of recycled material,
a recycled claim should be adequately qualified to avoid deception about
the amount, by weight, of recycled content in the finished product or
package.
• Example: A “juice box” (aseptic package) is made from layers of foil, plastic,
and paper laminated together. The label claims that “one of the three layers of
this package is made of recycled plastic.” The plastic layer is made entirely of
recycled plastic. The claim is not deceptive provided the recycled plastic layer
constitutes a significant component of the entire package.
D. Biodegradation
Claims of degradability should be qualified “by competent and reliable scientific
evidence” to avoid consumer deception about (1) the product or package’s ability
to completely break down into elements found in nature, (2) in the environment
where it is customarily disposed, and (3) the rate and extent of degradation.
Unless otherwise specified, a product must biodegrade or photodegrade in the
environment in which it is usually disposed (e.g., a sanitary landfill), and must do
so at a reasonably fast rate. Unless clearly stated, degradation must also be
complete, with no leftover synthetic or complex byproducts or residue.
• Example: According to the law, paper cannot be described as simply “biodegradable”, as
it will not break down in its typical disposal environment, a landfill, at a reasonably fast
rate. Technically, a paper product which claims to be biodegradable should qualify this
statement by including a statement such as: “When composted in a facility designed to
handle this type of paper, usually an industrial composting facility.”
However, clearly stating an exception to an unqualified claim can legitimize the
claim and remove the potential for deception:
• Example: Loop carriers are described as “Photodegradable” and qualified with the
phrase "Will break down into small pieces if left uncovered in sunlight." The claim is
supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product will break down
in a reasonably short period of time after being exposed to sunlight and into sufficiently
small pieces to become part of the soil. Because the claim is qualified to indicate the
limited extent of breakdown, the manufacturer does not have to meet the elements for an
unqualified photodegradable claim, i.e., that the product will not only break down, but
also will decompose into elements found in nature.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 7
1/07/09
E. Composting
A compostability claim must be substantiated by “competent and reliable scientific
evidence” that all the materials in the product or package will (1) break down
into, or otherwise become part of, usable compost (e.g., soil-conditioners, mulch,
(2) in a safe and timely manner, (3) in an appropriate composting program or
facility, or in a home compost pile or device. Claims must be substantiated, and
will be considered deceptive if:
1. Composting cannot occur in a home compost pile or device, and/or it is not
revealed that composting must occur in municipal or institutional facilities
and that the availability of these facilities is limited.
2. Consumers are misled into believing that landfilling will produce results
similar or equal to backyard composting,
3. The results of composting are not 100% usable as conditioners or mulch.
• Example: The description of a corn-based plastic as compostable (and/or
biodegradable) is deceptive if it is not clearly stated that products made from this
plastic must be composted in an institutional facility, and that the availability of
such facilities is limited.
However, limiting the sale of products to areas in which they can be composted, or
stating specifically where they can be composted, is acceptable and not considered
deceptive. In the example just mentioned, a description such as “Compostable
only in the area where this product or package was purchased” or “Compostable in
Northern Oregon” would typically not be considered deceptive.
F. Source Reduction
Source reduction claims should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid
consumer deception about both the amount of reduction and the basis for any
comparison that is asserted. It is perfectly fine to say “This package creates 10% less
waste than our previous package.” However, simply stating “This package creates 10%
less waste” is ambiguous, and open to being considered deceptive.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 8
1/07/09
V. IT’S BETTER TO BE SAFE…
As you can see, the laws are clear regarding the need for environmental claims to
be specific and substantiated. However, please keep these points in mind:
1. Whether a claim is specific enough, or provides proper substantiation, is
open to interpretation.
2. The FTC staff routinely issues new interpretations of the law. These may
complement or conflict with previous interpretations, including those
included here.
3. As an active participant in the development of communications materials,
it may be hard for you to be completely objective when it comes to
evaluating the legality of proposed environmental marketing claims.
4. This document was written from a U.S. perspective, but it is fairly safe to
assume that the FTC philosophy of specificity and substantiation is valid
globally. However, if marketing products outside of the United States,
please check the appropriate statutes and regulations for that region. This
is especially important in Europe, where product comparison claims are
either outlawed outright or considered to be a form of unfair competition.
5. Finally, please remember that the potential financial and perceptual costs
of making a mistake regarding environmental claims are high. Consult with
your Legal and Environmental Affairs Departments before making public
any environmental claim.
Robert Lilienfeld, Editor
FOOTNOTES
i Environmental Marketing Claims: Message to Vendors from the EPA and the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), EPA-744-F-97-005, June 1997.
ii FTC, Part 260, Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Green Certifications - Nobody knows them....
Most Green Labels Fail to Catch Shoppers' Eyes, Survey Finds
Published September 23, 2009
NEW YORK, NY — [Editor’s note: This is an updated version that corrects the name of the federal agency issuing the organic label.]
According to a recent survey of 2,000 people in the U.S., the bulk of the more than 400 green labels on products have failed to make any mark in the minds of shoppers, and that among those that people are familiar with, there is very little trust in those labels.
The most familiar labels are the Recycling symbol, the U.S. government's Energy Star label, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Organic label. Recycling and Energy Star are the most visible labels, with 89 percent and 87 percent recognition, respectively. The Organic label has 62 percent recognition, and the remaining labels fall off quickly from there. (See chart below for full results.)
 |
Beyond the familiarity (or lack thereof), the survey found that only two of these labels are high on shoppers' radars: 31 percent say they "always" buy Energy Star-labeled products, and 20 percent say they "always" buy Recyclable.
The number of respondents claiming to "always" purchase the next two most-familiar labels, USDA Organic and the Smart Choice label, falls dramatically to 8 percent and 7 percent, respectively. (See the chart below for the full rankings.)
Related News & Blogs
GreenerDesign.com |
“While the majority of U.S. consumers are unfamiliar with most trustmarks today, we believe that certifications can work for forward-looking brands in several ways,” Mitch Baranowski, founding partner of BBMG, said in a statement. “Trustmarks help ensure companies follow best practices by setting clear and transparent standards. They serve as important proof points for overall brand messages and stories. And they can provide an objective, third-party stamp of approval that demonstrates how companies are following through on their social and environmental claims.”
To that end, Baranowski posted a list on the BBMG blog of seven recommendations for how to promote a label that will stick in shoppers' minds, and keep from succumbing to some of the most common pitfalls of green product branding. Among his list of recommendations:
• Claim ownership. If you’re going to go through the time and trouble of establishing and promoting certification standards, you deserve credit. Acronyms need help. The LEED trustmark is clearly brought to you by the U.S. Green Building Council.
• Design for the long haul. Reducing a complex idea to its visual essence takes time and expertise. But it’s done every day. Give designers clear direction (and space) to create symbols that are durable, functional and beautiful. Most people will only know the certifications through the symbol; it’s important.
• Go for one clear idea. It’s amazing how many trustmarks say…nothing at all…or way too much. It’s laughable to consider Fruit Loops a smart choice for breakfast, but at least the Smart Choices mark sends a clear message.
Baranowski's full list of recommendations is online at BBMG's blog, and more details about the trustmark survey are online at BBMG.com.
http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2009/09/23/most-green-labels-missing-mark-survey-finds
LEED Certified - not all it's cracked up to be
Metrics - you manage what you measure - old news. But apparently not to LEED. Nothing measured, nothing managed. So has LEED turned into Greenwashing? The climate doesn't care about what you do, as long is works right?
There is one factoid in this article that I find to be so sad and maddening...
So our tax credit money went for worse than nothing... ....
But in its own study last year of 121 new buildings certified through 2006, the Green Building Council found that more than half — 53 percent — did not qualify for the Energy Star label and 15 percent scored below 30 in that program, meaning they used more energy per square foot than at least 70 percent of comparable buildings in the existing national stock.
If I was a tenant paying a premium for a green building, I'd ask for my money back.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/science/earth/31leed.html?_r=2&hp
There is one factoid in this article that I find to be so sad and maddening...
So our tax credit money went for worse than nothing... ....
But in its own study last year of 121 new buildings certified through 2006, the Green Building Council found that more than half — 53 percent — did not qualify for the Energy Star label and 15 percent scored below 30 in that program, meaning they used more energy per square foot than at least 70 percent of comparable buildings in the existing national stock.
If I was a tenant paying a premium for a green building, I'd ask for my money back.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/science/earth/31leed.html?_r=2&hp
The Federal Building in downtown Youngstown, Ohio, features an extensive use of natural light to illuminate offices and a white roof to reflect heat.
It has LEED certification, the country’s most recognized seal of approval for green buildings.
But the building is hardly a model of energy efficiency. According to an environmental assessment last year, it did not score high enough to qualify for the Energy Star label granted by the Environmental Protection Agency, which ranks buildings after looking at a year’s worth of utility bills.
The building’s cooling system, a major gas guzzler, was one culprit. Another was its design: to get its LEED label, it racked up points for things like native landscaping rather than structural energy-saving features, according to a study by the General Services Administration, which owns the building.
Builders covet LEED certification — it stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design — as a way to gain tax credits, attract tenants, charge premium rents and project an image of environmental responsibility. But the gap between design and construction, which LEED certifies, and how some buildings actually perform led the program last week to announce that it would begin collecting information about energy use from all the buildings it certifies.
Buildings would provide the information voluntarily, said officials with the United States Green Building Council, the nonprofit organization that administers the LEED program, and the data would be kept confidential. But starting this year, the program also is requiring all newly constructed buildings to provide energy and water bills for the first five years of operation as a condition for certification. The label could be rescinded if the data is not produced, the officials said.
The council’s own research suggests that a quarter of the new buildings that have been certified do not save as much energy as their designs predicted and that most do not track energy consumption once in use. And the program has been under attack from architects, engineers and energy experts who argue that because building performance is not tracked, the certification may be falling short in reducing emissions tied to global warming.
Some experts have contended that the seal should be withheld until a building proves itself energy efficient, which is the cornerstone of what makes a building green, and that energy-use data from every rated building should be made public.
“The plaque should be installed with removable screws,” said Henry Gifford, an energy consultant in New York City. “Once the plaque is glued on, there’s no incentive to do better.”
Scot Horst, the council’s senior vice president for its certification program, said that any changes in the process would have to be made by consensus to ensure that the building industry would comply. Already, some construction lawyers have said that owners might face additional risk of lawsuits if buildings are found to underperform.
The council is planning several meetings with builders, owners, developers and others around the country in September and October to promote its building performance initiative, which could lead to further revisions in the rating program to ensure buildings reduce energy consumption as much as they can.
Mr. Horst called the issue of performance one of his “absolute priorities.”
“If you’re not reducing carbon, you’re not doing your job,” he said.
The LEED label, developed by the council in 1998 to have a third-party verification of a building’s environmental soundness, certifies new homes, schools and other buildings, as well as existing ones. (The certification for existing buildings is the only one currently tied to energy performance.) Its oldest and largest program, in terms of square footage, is the certification of new commercial and institutional buildings, with 1,946 projects already certified and 15,000 more that have applied for certification. Many other buildings include environmentally friendly features and advertise themselves as “green” but do not seek the LEED label.
The program uses a point system based on a broad checklist of features and buildings can be certified by accumulating points on not just efficient energy use but also water conservation, proximity to public transportation, indoor air quality and use of environment-friendly materials.
Council officials say that these other categories also help reduce energy use and emissions. And many architects and engineers praise the comprehensiveness of the label. But the wide scope of the program, many in the industry point out, also means that buildings have been able to get certified by accumulating most of their points through features like bamboo flooring, while paying little attention to optimizing energy use.
Another problem is that the certification relies on energy models to predict how much energy a planned building will use, but council officials and many experts agree that such models are inexact. Once a building opens, it may use more energy than was predicted by the design. And how a building is used — how many occupants it has, for example — affects its energy consumption.
“If the occupants don’t turn off the lights, the building doesn’t do as well as expected,” said Mark Frankel, technical director for the New Buildings Institute, which promotes improved energy performance in new commercial construction and conducted the research commissioned by the Green Building Council on LEED buildings.
“In the real world, the mechanical systems may have problems, so that increases energy use,” Mr. Frankel said, adding that keeping track of energy use is rarely a priority for owners.
LEED energy standards have grown more stringent over the years, and construction like the Youngstown federal building, built in 2002, would not be certified under the current version of the program, the G.S.A. study noted. The LEED standard goes through periodic revisions, and this year, the minimum energy requirements needed for the basic LEED certification for new buildings were raised.
The LEED program was created in 1998 and has gone through periodic revisions
But in its own study last year of 121 new buildings certified through 2006, the Green Building Council found that more than half — 53 percent — did not qualify for the Energy Star label and 15 percent scored below 30 in that program, meaning they used more energy per square foot than at least 70 percent of comparable buildings in the existing national stock.
Anecdotal information from follow-up research to that study indicated that the best-performing buildings had limited window areas and tended to be smaller.
Sometimes, a building’s inhabitants are the first to notice energy-wasting features.
At the Octagon, a LEED-certified residential rental building on Roosevelt Island in New York City, residents like Alan Siegal say that obvious energy savers, like motion sensors in the hallway, are hard to miss.
But Mr. Siegal, 59, a customs service broker, said his three-bedroom apartment has floor-to-ceiling glass windows that offer great views but also strong drafts.
“If there’s a lot of glass, is that going to be efficient?” he asked.
Bruce Becker, whose company Becker and Becker Associates developed and owns the Octagon, said that the windows offer day lighting but conceded that there were plenty of opportunities to become more energy efficient. He said the Octagon would soon switch to a fuel cell system for heat and electricity, partly to cut energy costs at a time of a depressed rental market.
Mr. Horst, the LEED executive, said that LEED may eventually move toward the E.P.A.’s Energy Star model, which attests to energy efficiency only for the year the label was given, similar to restaurant ratings.
“Ultimately, where we want to be is, once you’re performing at a certain level, you continue to be recertified,” Mr. Horst said.
Monday, September 7, 2009
SD Forum on Solar Energy
Attended a breakfast meeting in San Francisco with panelists from various solar companies - established and start ups - working on a variety of aspects and markets in solar.
Here are the key concepts that I learned:
LCOE - Levelized Cost of Energy - levelized over peak and non peak. Just one metric and should not be all that is used to make decisions.
Feed In Tariff - utility pays you (homeowner) for production
Grid Parity
There are different kinds of solar technology and which one is the best to use depends on your location.
Wind energy has achieved grid parity. 4-8 cents for nuclear and coal.
Wind has large maintenance costs that solar does not.
Solar projected to reach grid parity in 2013.
Solar industry is running on very thin margins.
Different solar technologies:
Thin film PV - cost not there yet, up and coming
Crystalline Si
Concentrated PV - cheapest with clear sun
Tracking technology increasing energy production without having to add additional panels.
The efficiency of the WHOLE system, not just the solar cells, makes the different between being profitable and not profitable. Example- invertors and other items that decrease the energy that does make it out of the solar cells.
Utilities are becoming distributors, not generators, and they are fighting this change.
Germany has driven a lot of innovation esp, with the Feed In Tarriff. You are paid a bonus for generating electricity - you have to run and maintain it.
Big companies are buying smaller VC backed companies that are doing software products related to controlling the grid.
Future of Distributed Energy promising but the challenge is marrying it to the Smart Grid which does not exist.
Here are the key concepts that I learned:
LCOE - Levelized Cost of Energy - levelized over peak and non peak. Just one metric and should not be all that is used to make decisions.
Feed In Tariff - utility pays you (homeowner) for production
Grid Parity
There are different kinds of solar technology and which one is the best to use depends on your location.
Wind energy has achieved grid parity. 4-8 cents for nuclear and coal.
Wind has large maintenance costs that solar does not.
Solar projected to reach grid parity in 2013.
Solar industry is running on very thin margins.
Different solar technologies:
Thin film PV - cost not there yet, up and coming
Crystalline Si
Concentrated PV - cheapest with clear sun
Tracking technology increasing energy production without having to add additional panels.
The efficiency of the WHOLE system, not just the solar cells, makes the different between being profitable and not profitable. Example- invertors and other items that decrease the energy that does make it out of the solar cells.
Utilities are becoming distributors, not generators, and they are fighting this change.
Germany has driven a lot of innovation esp, with the Feed In Tarriff. You are paid a bonus for generating electricity - you have to run and maintain it.
Big companies are buying smaller VC backed companies that are doing software products related to controlling the grid.
Future of Distributed Energy promising but the challenge is marrying it to the Smart Grid which does not exist.
The challenges of Sustainable supply chain
I attended at CTO event where the Supply Chain director of Method products spoke.
He put sustainable supply chain in an interesting way: Past, Present, and Future.
Past is the SOURCE.
Present is the USE.
Future is DISPOSAL
He put sustainable supply chain in an interesting way: Past, Present, and Future.
Past is the SOURCE.
Present is the USE.
Future is DISPOSAL
Friday, August 14, 2009
Understanding and Preventing Greenwash: A Business Guide
http://www.bsr.org/reports/Understanding_Preventing_Greenwash.pdf
Understanding and
Preventing Greenwash:
A Business Guide
Rina Horiuchi and Ryan Schuchard, BSR
Lucy Shea and Solitaire Townsend, Futerra
July 2009
41 pages
I haven't read it yet, but plan to and write up comments.
Here is an article about the report.
Understanding and
Preventing Greenwash:
A Business Guide
Rina Horiuchi and Ryan Schuchard, BSR
Lucy Shea and Solitaire Townsend, Futerra
July 2009
41 pages
I haven't read it yet, but plan to and write up comments.
Here is an article about the report.
SAN FRANCISCO, August 11 /CSRwire/ - Despite countless indicators that today's "battered consumer" is seeking deep discounts and shopping for necessities only, consumer demand for environmentally friendly products is on the rise, according to National Geographic and Globescan's 2009 Greendex survey of consumers in 17 countries.
At the same time, consumers are becoming more frustrated with the green messages that frequently accompany these products-many of which are perceived as misguided, unsubstantiated, or, worst of all, just "noise." In other words, the messages are construed as "greenwash."
BSR's new report, "Understanding and Preventing Greenwash: A Business Guide," cowritten with Futerra Sustainability Communications, helps companies understand where they fall in this "greenwash matrix," and how they can move toward effective communications that align with the true impacts of their environmental initiatives.
"Today's savvy consumers are not just spending their dollars more wisely to save money," said Diane Osgood, BSR's Vice President, CSR Strategy. "They want to trust the company from which they are buying goods and services, and honest communications are key. The recent Edelman Trust barometer survey shows that the quality and transparency of information going to the consumer is as important as the quality of the good or service for building customer trust. Our guide helps companies curtail greenwash and build the trust of consumers."
According to the report, a framework that incorporates impact, alignment, and communication can help companies stop greenwash and begin using effective environmental communications.
"Greenwash is more than a distraction for the consumer; it threatens the entire market for green products and services," added Lucy Shea, Chief Executive of Futerra. "Even while consumer trust goes down the drain, with only 10 percent believing green claims, demand for credible, environmentally friendly products and services is rising. Greenwash exacerbates this tension. The danger is that consumers lose all faith in green advertising, in effect dragging demand down."
Impact: Making Sure It's Real
A company's sustainability practices or products must be based on real, significant environmental impact. If the underlying objective behind an environmental initiative is to improve corporate reputation or goodwill and not to address environmental impact, the company is likely to be accused of greenwash. If the company has invested more resources into communicating about the activity rather than investing in the activity itself, it may not have any significant environmental impact that is worth communicating.
Key questions to evaluate impact: 1. Is the issue material to the business? 2. Has the company already achieved the results in its claim?
Alignment: Building Internal and External Support
An initiative with significant impact must be aligned with multiple functions throughout the company-including strategy, procurement, design, government affairs, and marketing. The best way to check the integrity of the initiative is with a credible third party.
Key questions to evaluate alignment: 1. Did the company's initiative include multiple departments within the organization? 2. Are other activities in the company consistent with the message? 3. Did the company engage with stakeholders and incorporate their feedback?
Communication: Making Accurate Claims
Companies should focus on clarity and transparency without using a self-aggrandizing tone. Even if the claim represents the environmental impact accurately, if consumers do not understand the claim, the message is ineffective. Along the same lines, the use of data can help the company measure performance against objectives and set a baseline for future improvement.
Key questions to evaluate communication: 1. Does the company have the data to back up its claim? 2. Is it easy for people to understand the company's claim and its significance? 3. Is the company focusing on one attribute while ignoring knock-on effects of others?
"As the one-year anniversary of the global financial crisis draws near, this is a critical period for redefining the role of business in society," Osgood said. "Trust in corporations has plummeted, and that trust will either be rebuilt or continue its downward trend."
Companies today are eager to demonstrate that they are part of the solution-to global warming, to declining ecosystem function, or to keeping toxic chemicals out of our children's products. But as long as consumers struggle sorting out legitimate environmental claims from among the misguided and unsubstantiated noise of competing messages, companies risk accusations of greenwash.
Download a copy of this report at www.bsr.org/reports/Understanding_Preventing_Greenwash.pdf. About BSR A leader in corporate responsibility since 1992, BSR works with its global network of more than 250 member companies to develop sustainable business strategies and solutions through consulting, research, and cross-sector collaboration. With six offices in Asia, Europe, and North America, BSR uses its expertise in the environment, human rights, economic development, and governance and accountability to guide global companies toward creating a just and sustainable world. Visit www.bsr.org for more information. About Futerra Futerra is the award winning global communications agency. We have bright ideas, we captivate audiences, build energetic websites one day and grab opinion formers' attention the next. But the real difference is that Futerra has only ever worked on corporate responsibility. From Microsoft to Newscorp, Royal Dutch Shell to Greenpeace, the United Nations to Ben and Jerry's, Futerra has built a unique expertise in corporate responsibility and communicating sustainability.
Source: CSRwire News Feed
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Vet the Verifiers
In my quest to understand greenwashing, I came upon this article. This is talking about how to evaluate if a certification is for real or biassx/compromises/greenwashing.
http://tinyurl.com/r24vgd
http://tinyurl.com/r24vgd
Third-Party Rules
If you or your pro customers are confused about the authenticity of independent, third-party green product certification programs, you're not alone. There are more of them popping up all the time, begging you and others to cite or list them as legitimate standards for what's green. Short of opening an accredited testing lab of your own to verify their results, consider the following tactics to vet their validity:
- Ask building science and environmental building groups or trained individuals for their opinions of the verifier/certification program.
- Similarly, ask building product suppliers, especially those not certified by the program you're investigating, for their opinions on and experiences with the program.
- Research editorial articles and other resources about the program.
- See if the program is cited in green building certification programs, such as LEED or the NGBS, among other local and regional standards.
- Find out how the organization generates revenue; be suspicious of those requiring on-going licensing fees to carry their certification label, which may cause a conflict of interest or compromise their objectivity.
- Look for independent accreditation of the organization's testing facility, capacity, and processes, such as the ISO-65 standard and groups such as Accreditation Services International.
–Rich Binsacca
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Green premium or no green premium
After all the talks and reading I've been doing, I've realized there is a contradiction going on in the clean/green world. Corporations definitely are not going to pay any green premium to "green" their operations. I heard Ann Feldhusen from HP talk about converting a site in San Diego to solar and the criteria to sell to upper mgmt was showing no green premium.
Yet I keep hearing about how consumers are willing to pay a green premium for food, laundry detergent, etc etc which is supposed to encourage new companies to enter the market. My feel is that it depends on if the premium is a few cents here and there or a significant investment.
I know I am one consumer who has very little tolerance for green premiums. In my ongoing home remodel, I looked closely at solar and decided that although it was the green thing to do, the costs were still too high. A payback after 20 years for what is basically a small expenditure and to plunk down a lot of cash - No way. My gas and electric is only $100/month. My personal feeling is that I need a 3 year payback - it's just a gut feel - for any change I'm going to make.
Is it only people with very large bills that are getting into solar? Have they really conserved the energy they can before doing the math and seeing if it's worth it? I guess so. I hope so.
In the remodel we had to decide on flooring. The old floor was Douglas Fir covered in ancient vinyl tile was some kind of tar paper underneath and there were areas that needed wood to be filled in. The other option was to rip out the floor entirely and replace it. I quickly determined that FSC certified wood was not going to work - couldn't find it in Doug Fir - other woods would be very expensive - over $1K green premium. Instead, we had to use lots of horrible chemicals and get the vinyl hand scraped. Saved at least $2K and had to cut down minimal amount of trees. But did we harm the environment more with the chemicals? I don't know.
If someone knows how to calculate this, I'd love to hear it. To weigh which was less worse for the environment and price it.
In my reading I see that the idea that there is no green, there just is sustainability is starting to be talked about for some sectors.
Yet I keep hearing about how consumers are willing to pay a green premium for food, laundry detergent, etc etc which is supposed to encourage new companies to enter the market. My feel is that it depends on if the premium is a few cents here and there or a significant investment.
I know I am one consumer who has very little tolerance for green premiums. In my ongoing home remodel, I looked closely at solar and decided that although it was the green thing to do, the costs were still too high. A payback after 20 years for what is basically a small expenditure and to plunk down a lot of cash - No way. My gas and electric is only $100/month. My personal feeling is that I need a 3 year payback - it's just a gut feel - for any change I'm going to make.
Is it only people with very large bills that are getting into solar? Have they really conserved the energy they can before doing the math and seeing if it's worth it? I guess so. I hope so.
In the remodel we had to decide on flooring. The old floor was Douglas Fir covered in ancient vinyl tile was some kind of tar paper underneath and there were areas that needed wood to be filled in. The other option was to rip out the floor entirely and replace it. I quickly determined that FSC certified wood was not going to work - couldn't find it in Doug Fir - other woods would be very expensive - over $1K green premium. Instead, we had to use lots of horrible chemicals and get the vinyl hand scraped. Saved at least $2K and had to cut down minimal amount of trees. But did we harm the environment more with the chemicals? I don't know.
If someone knows how to calculate this, I'd love to hear it. To weigh which was less worse for the environment and price it.
In my reading I see that the idea that there is no green, there just is sustainability is starting to be talked about for some sectors.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Comparison of Wood Certification Systems
http://www.ecotimber.com/pledgeOverview.php
Examples of questionable certification systems include:
SFI (Sustainable Forestry Initiative - Sustainable Flooring)
- Funded and dominated by the timber industry
- Weak environmental protections
- Allows conversion of natural forests (including old-growth) into tree farms
- No credible Chain of Custody to keep out illegal wood
CSA (Canadian Standards Association)
- Allows large-scale clearing of old-growth
- Fails to protect First Nations
PEFC - Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification
- Weak environmental standards
- No credible Chain of Custody
- Mutually recognizes virtually all forest certification systems, including SFI and CSA
- PEFC wood could come from almost any source
ISO (International Standards Organization)
- Standards address manufacturing practices, not forest management
IBAMA
- Program of the Brazilian government
- Low environmental standards, poorly enforced
- No Chain of Custody
None of the above forest certification systems enjoy the support of the environmental community. The FSC, on the other hand, is supported by major international conservation groups such as Greenpeace, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Rainforest Action Network, and many others.
www.doteco.info - Identifying Greenwashing
About .eco
The .eco system will display current, detailed eco-information to anyone with a browser, anytime they need it, anywhere on the planet.
It will do this by collecting information from people when they register .eco domain names for their companies, organisations, products, or even themselves and then displaying that information on a standardised, open platform.
As well, the .eco foundation will send a significant amount of revenue from the sale of every domain to eco-causes around the world.
This could include things like biodiversity, preservation, rehabilitation, poverty alleviation, sustainable consumption and clean energy, as well as support for eco-research and innovators.
Together, the .eco system and foundation make Big Room's .eco much more than a domain.
In fact, domain names are probably the least interesting thing about .eco. They simply provide the building blocks for the .eco system. Domains are ideal for this purpose because they are:
- part of the domain name system; the world's largest distributed database,
- accessible from any web browser, any time, anywhere,
- secure and stable,
- already used by millions of organisations, companies and individuals around the world.
Once this system is built, it's going to make it much easier for small and large businesses, organisations and individuals around the world to calculate, share and compare their eco-footprints.
That's why we're excited about .eco, why we've been working on it full time since 2007, and why it's so important the eco-community works together to ensure that this global resource delivers the best outcomes for the planet.
http://doteco.info/news/archive/2009/08/leading-anti-greenwash-voice-joins-big-rooms-dot-eco-bid
Leading anti-greenwash voice joins Big Room's Dot Eco bid
0 Comments
Leading anti-greenwash voice joins Big Room's Dot Eco bid
Vancouver, BC, Canada (5 August 2009): TerraChoice, North America’s leading environmental marketing company, and a leading voice against greenwashing, will join the global team supporting Big Room’s application to create a new .eco (Dot Eco) Internet extension.
“Big Room’s Dot Eco is about trust and transparency – two critical components of enabling green markets,” said Scott McDougall, President and CEO of TerraChoice. “Dot Eco will be a useful tool in the fight against greenwash by helping to disclose details about a company’s environmental performance and impact. We’re pleased to lend our support.”
In 2009, TerraChoice Environmental Marketing released its Seven Sins of Greenwashing report on environmental claims in consumer markets, revealing that 98 per cent of products surveyed were found to be greenwashing.
The Big Room Inc. application for the Dot Eco extension has been developed along with an international team of advisors and investors with deep roots in sustainability and business communities.
TerraChoice will join other leading organizations including WWF International, Green Cross International, David Suzuki Foundation, Verité, and ISEAL Alliance on the Dot Eco Stakeholder Council. The Stakeholder Council is a key body guiding Big Room’s global policy development process for how Dot Eco should work.
“We’re excited that Terrachoice has lined up behind our vision for Dot Eco – we both understand that Dot Eco must be credible and trustworthy – part of the solution to greenwashing,” said Anastasia O’Rourke, Big Room co-founder. “Terrachoice’s extensive experience with the EcoLogo environmental certification program, and its ‘Sins of Greenwashing’ series will be invaluable as Big Room continues to build its application for Dot Eco.”
Big Room’s ‘.eco system’ will place key environmental and sustainability information along side the technical information collected and stored when a web address is registered. The .eco system will display current, detailed eco-information to anyone with a browser, anytime they need it, anywhere on the planet.
Big Room will submit its application for Dot Eco when the application round for new gTLDs overseen by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers opens in the first quarter of 2010.
For more information on Big Room’s application for Dot Eco, visit http://doteco.info, or follow us at http://www.twitter.com/doteco.
About Terrachoice Environmental Marketing
As a global environmental marketing firm, TerraChoice Environmental Marketing helps grow the world’s most sustainable companies. TerraChoice’s consulting practice converts knowledge of environmental science, markets, and marketing into winning, client-centered solutions to help sustainability leaders deliver results.
About Big Room
Big Room Inc. is a Canadian company based in Vancouver, British Columbia with an office in New Haven, Connecticut. It was founded in 2007 with the goal of empowering the global community to make informed environmental and sustainability choices. Big Room’s three co-founders are committed environmentalists with a long history of working with organisations, governments and companies to bring about positive environmental and social change.
TerraChoice media contact
Kate Rusnak (Ottawa)
krusnak@terrachoice.com
(office) +1 613 247 1900 ext. 250
Big Room media contact
Tom Jennings (London)
tom.jennings@edelman.com
(mobile) +44 774 003 8925
(office) +44 203 047 2308
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Great breakdown of types of Greenwashing
http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/findings/the-seven-sins/
Sin of the Hidden Trade-off
A claim suggesting that a product is ‘green’ based on a narrow set of attributes without attention to other important environmental issues. Paper, for example, is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from a sustainably-harvested forest. Other important environmental issues in the paper-making process, such as greenhouse gas emissions, or chlorine use in bleaching may be equally important.
Sin of No Proof
An environmental claim that cannot be substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable third-party certification. Common examples are facial tissues or toilet tissue products that claim various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing evidence.
Sin of Vagueness
A claim that is so poorly defined or broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer. ‘All-natural’ is an example. Arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are all naturally occurring, and poisonous. ‘All natural’ isn’t necessarily ‘green’.
Sin of Worshiping False Labels
A product that, through either words or images, gives the impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement exists; fake labels, in other words.
Sin of Irrelevance
An environmental claim that may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking environmentally preferable products. ‘CFC-free’ is a common example, since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CFCs are banned by law.
Sin of Lesser of Two Evils
A claim that may be true within the product category, but that risks distracting the consumer from the greater environmental impacts of the category as a whole. Organic cigarettes could be an example of this Sin, as might the fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicle.
Sin of Fibbing
Environmental claims that are simply false. The most common examples were products falsely claiming to be Energy Star certified or registered.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Wal-Mart Sustainable Product Index
*2. WAL-MART TO DEVELOP SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT INDEX*
In a move likely to further drive sustainability initiatives up consumer-product supply chains, retail giant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.(Bentonville, AR) has announced plans to develop a new product index that’sdesigned to assess the sustainability of consumer products. “Customers wantproducts that are more efficient, last longer, and perform better,” saidWal-Mart President and CEO Mike Duke during a meeting with 1,500 suppliers,associates, and sustainability leaders at the company’s headquarters on July16. “And increasingly, they want information about the entire lifecycle of a
product so that they can feel good about buying it.”
Wal-Mart will introduce the sustainability product index in three phases,beginning with a survey of the energy and climate, materials efficiency,natural resources management, and people and community policies andpractices of its more than 100,000 global suppliers. In the second phase,Wal-Mart will create a consortium of universities that will collaborate with suppliers, retailers, and others in the development of a global database ofproduct lifecycle information. The third phase will involve the developmentof an index translating this information into product ratings, the companysaid.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Excellent Definiton of Clean Technology
Clean Technology is a term that covers broad categories of clean, environmentally sustainable technologies. The Clean Tech Open lists these areas :
Clean Tech Open Defines Clean Technology
Air, Water and Waste
Entries in the Air, Water & Waste category focuses on improving resource availability, conservation and pollution control. With respect to waste, the category focuses on cradle-to-cradle approaches to reduction, reuse and recycling technologies, as well as innovative business models and approaches to materials usage.
Air examples include services, instruments and equipment related to emission control, treatment or reduction technologies. Also included are creative approaches to greenhouse gas reduction, including carbon conversion and sequestration.
Water examples include treatment, storage and monitoring, recycling and conservation technologies.
Waste examples include: waste management equipment; sorting; resource recovery processes; pollution prevention, control, and treatment technology; as well as waste reduction through innovative recycling processes and new recyclable materials, such as bio-based plastics.
Example technologies include:
- Water monitoring-on-site in-situ real-time water monitoring for pathogens
- Cooling solution
- On-site wastewater recycling-industrial and commercial applications
- Advanced water metering
- Storm-water and flood control, rainwater harvesting
- Smart irrigation
- On-site water disinfection
- Membranes for water treatment
- Advanced filtration without membranes
- Produced water (from oil exploration and drilling)
- Energy efficient water pumping
- Reverse osmosis
- Advanced filters and filtration (air or water)
- Emissions controls
- Scrubber technology
- Carbon and GHG monitoring and control
- Carbon sequestration
- Carbon Capture and storage
- Technology enablers for Carbon markets
- Reduction and remediation of VOCs
- Waste cleanup and remediation
- DI water supply
- Agricultural waste treatment
- Recycling
- Microbial water treatment
- Bio based packaging solutions
- Methane capture and storage
- Soil technology
- Natural pesticides
Energy Efficiency
The Energy Efficiency category comprises technology that can significantly reduce wasted energy (including natural gas), driving toward the common goal of saving the equivalent of "a power plant a year" (a/k/a "Negawatts").
Examples include advanced light sources and controls, smart / user-friendly energy management systems, energy-efficient water heaters and other appliances, high-efficiency industrial process systems, motors, pumps, and advanced space heating and cooling systems.
Example technologies include:
- Pumps for water / material
- Industrial process improvements
- Natural gas monitoring and control (industrial or residential)
- LED lighting
- Advanced lighting controls
- Water heating
- HVAC solutions
- Heat pumps
- Waste heat management
- Efficient heat transfer
- Utility scale natural gas controls
- Display systems for energy management
- Materials use in microelectronics manufacturing
- Deposition and sputtering processes
- Alternatives to heat intensive processes
- Cooling solutions
- Glass materials production
- Pure manufacture techniques for fuel cells
Green Building
The Green Building category focuses on reducing the environmental impact of building construction or operation through improved design or construction practices, new or innovative use of building materials, or new hardware or software applications. Technologies are applied directly to the built environment. Technologies are applied directly to the built environment. (Building energy efficiency submissions will be considered in the Energy Efficiency category).
Examples include improved site planning, water management systems, reduction of hazardous materials in building construction or operation, use of new environmentally friendly or recycled materials, systems to improve indoor environmental quality and systems for improved waste reduction or disposal.
Example technologies include:
- Insulation materials
- Cement alternatives
- Cement production techniques
- Building integrated PV (BIPV)
- Indoor air filtration systems
- Modular housing
- Disaster relief housing
- Architectural Designs for thermal management
- Office environment
- Low VOC carpeting and flooring
- Water saving toilets, showers, plumbing
- Residential heat pumps
- Recycled materials for use in building material
- Design improvements to commercial environment
Renewable Energy
The Renewable Energy category includes innovations that use, enable and accelerate the migration to renewable energy. Renewables encompass technologies that use waste streams to directly produce energy.
Examples include low-emission power sources, such as solar, biofuels, wind, wave and tidal energy and hydropower.
Example technologies include:
- Solar for energy production
- CIGS
- Thin film solar manufacture
- Concentrating solar PV
- Coatings for solar panels
- Polysilicon supply and manufacture
- Residential scale solar deployment
- Ethanol
- Biobased fuels
- Tidal energy
- Wave energy capture
- Landfill gas to energy systems
- Agricultural waste to energy systems
- Hydropower
- Turbine blade design
- Advanced fluid flow designs
- Wind power aerodynamics
- Wind power conversion efficiency
Smart Power, Green Grid and Energy Storage
The Smart Power, Green Grid and Energy Storage category encourages links between information technologies and electricity delivery that give industrial, commercial and residential consumers greater control over when and how their energy is delivered and used. It includes improvements in all forms of energy storage, from battery technology for consumer-scale products to large chemical, metal, biological or other approaches to storage of utility-scale energy, as well as methods for controlling or increasing the efficiency of energy storage or energy transmission.
Examples include wireless metering and use of real-time pricing information, intelligent sensors, batteries, fuel cells, fly-wheels, and advanced materials or systems for energy transmission, such as hardware and software controls.
Example technologies include:
- Advanced metering
- Network architecture for power management
- Cloud computing, applied to grid
- Batteries
- Novel battery chemistry
- Nickel-metal hydride improvements
- Hydrogen storage
- Li-ion cells
- Form factor improvements
- Improved cycle life for batteries
- Depth of discharge for batteries
- Solid oxide fuel cells
- Novel catalysts in batteries, fuel cells
- Advanced fuel cell membranes
- Methanol fuel cells
- PEM fuel cells
- Flywheels
- Grid scale hardware and infrastructure
- Power storage for intermittent, renewable resources
- Monitoring and deploying power generated from renewables
- Transmission efficiency
- Electrical engineering and controls for power distribution
- Novel metals and alloys for power transmission
- Superconducting power transmission
- Real-time power monitoring
Transportation
The Transportation category encompasses transportation and mobile technology applications that improve fuel efficiency, reduce air pollution, reduce oil consumption or reduce vehicle travel (not limited to automobiles). Technologies are applied directly to transportation systems or vehicles.
Examples include new vehicles and new types of transport services and infrastructure, efficient batteries, fuel cells, bio-based transportation fuels and use of information technologies.
Example technologies include:
- Fleet management hardware and software systems
- Routing and data solutions for public transportation operators
- Logistics management
- Carpooling solutions
- Hybrid motor systems
- Storage of energy specifically applied to vehicles
- Plug in hybrid vehicles
- All electric vehicles
- Fuel cell vehicles
- Biodiesel applications
- Intermodal tracking and monitoring
- NOX/SOX reductions for ocean going vessels
- Cold-ironing systems
- Diesel particulate matter filters for Locomotives
- Combustion designs
- Fuel blends
- Flex fuel engines and applications
- Drivetrain conversion kits
- Route management via GPS networks
- Exploiting GPS and location information
- Monitoring and control of driver behavior
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
