Home comparison
Showing posts with label comparison. Show all posts
Showing posts with label comparison. Show all posts

Dirty Digital Footprints: An Exposé of “Green” Websites

Add Comment Edit
Although interest in sustainability is expanding to include a wide range of areas, an analysis of 40 leading “green” websites indicates that digital footprints are often overlooked. 

At the end of April, the World Wide Web celebrated its 20th anniversary, and while the Internet is often considered to be more environmentally friendly than traditional communications channels, this supposition is subject to a number of caveats.
Most people think the web is a green medium, but the average website has a carbon footprint that is similar to a book or a newspaper. Some web pages have a carbon footprint which exceeds that of a printed page, especially if the web page is left open for long periods of time.
According to a recent report in the New York Times, data centers use 30 billion watts of electricity per year globally, and the U.S. is responsible for one-third of that amount (10 billion watts). Most of that energy comes from sources that are neither renewable nor clean.
A 2011 analysis titled Carbon Footprinting the Internet, suggests that global IT is responsible for two to four percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Nowhere is the pursuit of sustainability more acute than in the businesses community. Most corporations now acknowledge that sustainability not only offers a competitive advantage, it is a business imperative. This trend is being driven by many factors, not the least of which is consumer demand.
As revealed in a 2011 Cone/Echo Global CR Opportunity Report, consumers now expect companies to be more socially and environmentally responsible. As revealed in this report, only 6 percent of consumers believe that the role of business is simply to make money and 94 percent want companies to change business practices so they have a positive impact on the world. More than 90 percent want companies to go beyond the minimum standards required by law.
According to a report titled the Generation Roadmap, two-thirds of consumers say that, “as a society, we need to consume a lot less to improve the environment for future generations.” Changing consumer demand constitutes a powerful incentive for companies to adopt organization wide sustainability initiatives.
The business case for sustainability has been repeatedly proven. A summary review of 20 studies from Natural Capitalism demonstrates that sustainability offers tangible business benefits. Companies  are now employing sustainability officers and deploying green teams who look for ways of increasing efficiency and minimizing their environmental footprints.
For most companies, improving sustainability begins in the physical space with initiatives like recycling programs and eco-friendly sourcing of materials. However, it is far less common for companies to examine and improve their online environmental impacts. This represents an important opportunity, as many corporate sustainability leaders have web sites which are both inefficient and unsustainable.
On Earth Day 2013, a certified B Corporation and a three-star Eco-Andersonville green business called Mightybytes, launched a web-based app called EcoGrader that assesses a website’s carbon footprint. The Chicago-based company’s new app analyzes and grades a site on a score from 0-100 based on a site’s sustainability performance in the following four areas:
  1.  Green hosting is assessed based on a provider that is powered by renewable energy or associated renewable energy credits (RECs).
  2. Findability is based on the amount of time the user spends looking for the information that he or she needs on a website. (The less time a user has to search for the information that they are looking for, the less energy is required to deliver that content).
  3. Design and user experience ranking is grounded in mobile optimizations and the use of HTML 5 and CSS 3 instead of Flash. (When data-heavy assets weigh down a site, more energy is required to bring up the site).
  4. Performance depends on page load times and the number of files and server requests required for each page to load.
Scores in each area are aggregated to generate a composite grade between 0 and 100 (Mightybytes own website generated a score of 89).
A review of leading green websites using EcoGrader reveals that most receive a failing grade. Included in this assessment are the websites of corporate sustainability leaders, green business & sustainable development magazines, green news & environmental advocates and green lifestyle sites.
The website selection for sustainability leaders was derived from the top 10 in Corporate Knights top 100 for 2013. This is a list of the leading companies in what they call “clean capitalism.”

Corporate Sustainability Leaders

  • Storebrand:  38
  • Biogen Idec Inc. :  40
  • Statoil:  44
  • Neste:  45
  • Koninklijke Philips Electronics:  48
  • Novo Nordisk:  49
  • Natura Cosmeticos:  54
  • Umicore:  56
  • Dassault Systemes  64
  • Westpac Banking Corp.:   65
 Average score: 50

Green Business and Sustainable Development Magazines

  • Our Planet:  35
  • One World:  35
  • Environmental Leader:  36
  • Earth Trends (WRI):  38
  • Triple Pundit:  40
  • Greenbiz: 40
  • Sustainable Industries Magazine: 43
  • EcoWorld: 44
  • BusinessGreen:  54
  • Fair Companies:  57
Average score: 46

Green News and Environmental Advocacy

Average Score: 45

Green Lifestyle Magazines

  • The Daily Green:  23
  • The Chalk Board:  38
  • Inhabitat:  40
  • GreenLiving:  41
  • Going Green Lifestyle:  47
  • Freshome:  52
  • EcoFabulous:  54
  • The Cool Hunter:  55
  • Jetson Green:  55
  • Apartment Therapy:  56
Average Score:  46
The combined average score across all four areas is 46.75. The failing average grade and the failing individual grades given to most of these sites demonstrates that even those who purport to be “green” are often oblivious to their digital footprints.  On the flip-side, these abysmal scores suggest that there are widespread opportunities to minimize environmental impacts in the digital realm.
Interest in website footprint assessment is destined to grow as we increasingly look for ways to minimize our environmental impacts. This may very well be the next frontier of environmental sustainability.
Read More»

The Sustainability Yearbook 2013 Leading Countries

Add Comment Edit
Nine US-based companies, more than any other country, have been awarded gold medals for sustainability practices in RobecoSAM and KPMG’s Sustainability Yearbook 2013. The US gold medal winners include Molson Coors, Alcoa, Sonoco Products, Herman Miller, UnitedHealth Group, Baxter International, Waste Management, MeadWestvaco and PepsiCo.

Germany and South Korea were tied for second place with six medals each. German gold medalists are Siemens, SAP, BMW, Henkel, Adidas and travel firm TUI.

In South Korea, GS Engineering & Construction Co., personal products firm Amorepacific Corp., SK Telecom, communications company KT Corp and retailer Lotte Shopping set the standard as industry leaders. In addition, Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. were also awarded a gold medal.

Australia, Taiwan and Canada were  represented in the top 10 list of gold medal-winning countries. While the US won the competition, the Asia Pacific was the best-represented region, followed by North America, Europe, Latin America and Africa.

For this annual competition RobecoSAM reviews the sustainability performance of more than 2,000 companies across 58 sectors. Each company is assessed on up to 120 financially material economic, environmental, social and governance criteria specific to its own industry, with a focus on long-term value creation.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Global CO2 Emissions Data for 2011 from the CDIAC
10 Countries for Green Investments
10 Leading Wind Energy Countries
Carbon Rankings from the Environmental Investment Organization 
North America 300 Carbon Ranking 2011
Global 800 Carbon Ranking 2011
Top Ten Companies in the 2012 Carbon Disclosure Project Report
Video: Top 10 Greenest Countries
Read More»

North America is Last in Sustainability Integration

Add Comment Edit
North American companies continue to be laggards when it comes to the integration of sustainability. Whem compared to their counterparts in other regions of the world, North American companies have the lowest level of sustainability-focused business model innovation compared. They also had the fewest business model innovators who said that “sustainability activities added to their profit.”

These are the early findings of a survey from MIT Sloan Management Review and the Boston Consulting Group (BCG).

According to the study, Africa has the highest rate of business model innovation while Australia and New Zealand have the highest rate of business model innovators who said that sustainability activities added to their profit. Overall developing countries are more committed to sustainability than developed countries.

Energy scarcity, price volatility, waste and access to raw materials were deemed to be critical sustainability issues by everyone in the survey.

The full MIT/BCG survey results will come out in February.

Related Articles
The Growth of Sustainability as Revealed by 3 MIT Reports
MIT Survey Shows More Businesses are Embracing Sustainability and Turning a Profit
The Future of Integrated Sustainability Reporting
Corporate Sustainability Reporting: To Disclose or Not to Disclose
The Growth of Corporate Sustainability in 2013
Communications Disconnect Revealed by the Sustainability Leadership Report
Project Management of Corporate Sustainability; Implementation Perspectives (White paper)
The Business Community is Moving Forward with Sustainability
CFOs are Embracing Sustainability and Seeing Benefits
The 8 C's of Sustainability Branding by Marc Stoiber
The Green Economy is the Right Solution for our Troubled Times
Corporate Sustainability is Driving Green the Green Economy
Launching of the New Global Green Economy
The False Choice Between the Economy and the Environment
Data Shows that Sustainability Pays
Sustainability Offers a Competitive Advantage & Better ROI
CDP Report Shows a Growing Number of Companies See the Risks Posed by Climate Change
Call to Service: Teaching Sustainability at Business Schools
The Business Case for Sustainability from a Skeptic (Video)
Sustainability Nears a Tipping Point
Investors and Global Sustainability
Global Survey on Sustainability
The GRI Sustainability Reporting Framework
The New Sustainability Advantage
The New Sustainability Advantage (Book)
Sustainable Business Methods, Strategy, Management and Reporting
Sustainable Successes and Failures
Cost Benefit Analysis of Sustainable Business
Sustainable Practices are a Strategic Priority for Business
The Overwhelming Logic of Sustainable Business
Sustainability is an Unstoppable Megatrend
Read More»

The Electric Tesla S is Motor Trend's Car of the Year

Add Comment Edit
Motor Trend has announced that the made in California, Tesla Model S luxury cruiser is their pick for the 2013 car of the year. This is the first time an electric vehicle has won the distinction. This selection is momentous not just for Tesla but for the future of electric cars. For the first time ever, two electric cars were in the running, in addition to the Tesla S, the Chinese built, California assembled CODA was also amongst the finalists.

In describing the finalists for the 2013 Car of the Year, Motor Trend stated that this is the most competitive field of vehicles they have ever assessed. One of the criteria used to assess the winner is efficiency which, according to Motor Trend is up across the board for 2013.

As the unanimous winner for all of the judges, Motor Trend editors lauded the Tesla S saying:

"The 2013 Motor Trend Car of the Year is one of the quickest American four-doors ever built. It drives like a sports car, eager and agile and instantly responsive. But it's also as smoothly effortless as a Rolls-Royce, can carry almost as much stuff as a Chevy Equinox, and is more efficient than a Toyota Prius. Oh, and it'll sashay up to the valet at a luxury hotel like a supermodel working a Paris catwalk. By any measure, the Tesla Model S is a truly remarkable automobile, perhaps the most accomplished all-new luxury car since the original Lexus LS 400. That's why it's our 2013 Car of the Year."

The importance of this decision cannot be overstated. Finally a fully electric car has bested combustion vehicles in a wide range of criteria that go well beyond efficiency. These criteria include:

ADVANCEMENT IN DESIGN Quality execution of exterior and interior styling; innovation in vehicle packaging; good selection and use of materials.

ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE Integrity of total vehicle concept and execution, clever solutions to packaging, manufacturing and dynamics issues; use of cost-effective technologies that benefit the consumer.

EFFICIENCY Low energy consumption and carbon footprint, relative to the vehicle's competitive set.

SAFETY Primary safety -- the vehicle's ability to help the driver avoid a crash -- as well as secondary safety measures that protect its occupants from harm during a crash.

VALUE Price and equipment levels measured against those of vehicles in the same market segment.

PERFORMANCE OF INTENDED FUNCTION How well the vehicle does the job its designers and product planners intended.

The time has come for those who have been waiting for an electric vehicle that does it all better than cars powered by a combustion engine. Motor Trend's selection of the Tesla S signals that the electric vehicle has arrived and is here to stay.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
WWF Canada's Goal of 600,000 EVs by 2020
US Fuel Efficiency Standards Surpass European Standards
The Obama Administration's New Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Standards of 54.5 MPG
America's Fuel Efficiency Standards of 35 MPG
Car Sharing Programs a New More Efficient Way to Drive
American Electric Vehicle Strategy
Competition in Green Vehicles
The Top 10 Green Cars of 2011
Global Demand for Hybrid Vehicles
EV Sales Predictions in the US
Factors Determining Adoption Rate of EVs
Electric Vehicles Increasingly Competitive
The US is Positioned to Lead the Global Demand for EVs
ISO Standards and Greener Vehicles
Greening Vehicle Fleets
The Value of Electric Vehicle Subsidies
Assessing the Environmental Impact of Electric and Hybrid Vehicle
Hybrids Could Substantially Reduce US Fossil Fuel Consumption
Electric Vehicles Will Drive Demand for LithiumJaguar F Type a True Hybrid Sports Car
Jaguar C-X75 Electric Hybrid Supercar
Jaguar XJ: A Greener Luxury Car
BMW Investing in EVs
Porsche's Electric e-Boxter Sports Car
Porsche and Audi`s Greener Vehicles
Mercedes-Benz Hybrid and Electric Cars
The Nissan Esflow Debuts
Honda's CR-Z and Second Generation Hybrid Sports Car
8 Greener Cars at the 2011 Detroit Auto Show
BMW Investing in EVs
Porsche's Electric e-Boxter Sports Car
Read More»

US Firms are Improving but they are Being Outperformed on Sustainability

Add Comment Edit
According to The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), European firms are outperforming US firms in terms of sustainability. Although the United States has the most companies on the CDLI, Germany has four firms ranked in the top ten while the US has none. European firms like Bayer, Nestlé and BMW are among the companies that are doing more than US firms to address climate change.
The absence of government leadership in GHG emissions reductions means that the business community must work on their own to make meaningful progress. The leading US firms are Microsoft and UPS, both of which earned 99 points apiece, and a "B" grades for their actual results.

While the US may not be in the top ten, the latest survey suggests these companies are narrowing the climate strategy performance gap compared with the Global 500.

"The scores also show a market increase in the number of companies addressing these issues at the board and executive level," says CDP in its S&P analysis. "The data suggests that, in the absence of global or national regulation, business is stepping into the leadership vacuum and embracing climate change as a business imperative."

The average disclosure scores among the S&P 500 companies improved by 13 percent and far more of them were eligible to receive a performance score rating their credentials as a sustainable business investment. The top five S&P companies for carbon disclosure in 2012 are Microsoft, UPS, Hess, Pepco Holdings and Sempra Energy.

A total of 15 companies from the S&P 500 are recognized for their carbon performance. They include Ace, Allergan, Allstate, Autodesk, Bank of America, Best Buy, Eaton, Exelon, Intel, Lockheed Martin, North Grumman, NYSE Euronext, Pepco Holdings, Pfizer and Wells Fargo.

The Carbon Disclosure Project’s report concludes: “Those companies that have an awareness of long-term climate-change risks and opportunities reflected in their business strategy will gain strategic advantage over their competitors.”

For more information click here.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Top Ten Companies in the 2012 Carbon Disclosure Project Report
CDP Report Shows a Growing Number of Companies See the Risks Posed by Climate Change
CDP Identifies Germany as the Global Sustainability Leader
CDP Report Shows a Growing Number of Companies are Embracing Sustainability
CDP Report Shows Sustainability Offers a Competitive Advantage & Better ROI
The Low Carbon Business Opportunity
Corporate America is Benefiting from Taking Action
Complimentary Webcast on How Companies are Leveraging CDP Disclosure
Read More»

20 Cool Roof Resources from the CRRC and Other Sources

Add Comment Edit
Here is a compilation of resources for anyone interested in installing a cool roof. As reviewed in previous posts, cool roofs provide many benefits and cost savings can be measured with a couple of excellent tools. Below you will find a list of resources from the Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC) and several other sources. The CRRC is an independent, non-profit organization that maintains a third-party rating system for radiative properties of roof surfacing materials. The resources listed below offer everything you need to know about cool roofs including guidelines and information related to materials. For more detailed information on other aspects of green building and construction see the "Related Posts' section at the bottom of this post. It contains a wealth of information spanning the gamut from natural lighting to ventilation.

  1. Benefits of Cool Roofs
  2. Cool Roof Savings Calculators
  3. CRRC Products Directory:
  4. Cool Roofing Materials Database
  5. Guidelines for Selecting Cool Roofs
  6. To see the DOE's announcements on Cool Roofs click here.
  7. Video glossary entry: Cool Roof
  8. How Cool Roofs Decrease Emissions
  9. Title 24 Blueprint Newsletter Issue # 83 on Cool Roofs
  10. Energy Videos on the subject of Cool Roof
  11. Learn about the ES-CRRC® Program.
  12. Learn how to use ES-CRRC® to certify your ENERY STAR products.   
  13. AIA Cool Roof Course: The CRRC has revised its AIA Continuing Education Course. Check it out here: Cool Roofs for Hot Projects
  14. Additional cool Roof Resources
  15. Read the 2010 paper by Surabi Menon, Hashem Akbari, Sarith Mahanama, Igor Sednev and Ronnen Levinson, “Radiative forcing and temperature response to changes in urban albedos and associated CO2 offsets”
  16. Read the 2008 paper by Hashem Akbari, Surabi Menon and Art Rosenfeld, “Global cooling: increasing world-wide urban albedos to offset CO2” here. 
  17. CRRC Website,  
  18. CRRC Twitter @Cool_Roofs,  
  19. CRRC on Facebook,
  20. CRRC LinkedIn
    © 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

    Related Posts
    The Effectiveness of Cool Roofs in Hot and Cold Climates
    The Benefits of Cool Roofs
    Cool Roof Savings Calculators
    Three Types of Cool Roofs
    Green Buildings Offer Many Benefits
    The Extraordinary Growth of Green Building
    The Implications of the Growth of Green Buildings
    Green Building Environmental Benefits
    Green Building Economic Benefits
    Green Building Social Benefits
    Green Buildings Resouces
    Green Buildings Combat Climate Change
    Green Buildings Health and Performance Benefits Part 1
    Green Buildings Health and Performance Benefits Part 2
    Green Buildings: The Many Benefits of Natural Lighting
    Green Buildings: The Many Benefits of Ventilation
    The Future of Green School Buildings
    Top 10 Green Building Trends for 2010
    25 Blogs Leading the Sustainable Building Revolution
    Read More»

    Cool Roofs Savings Calculators

    2 Comments Edit
    A cool roof is a way of reducing the costs associated with air conditioning and this reduces energy usage which in turn reduces emissions. Estimates for cost savings associated with cool roofs run between 10 and 25 percent. There are a number of tools to help people evaluate the cost savings resulting from the installation of cools roofs. Below you will find two such tools, one from the US Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory deals and the other developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

    1. DOE Cool Roof Calculator

    This tool developed by U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory estimates cooling and heating savings for low slope roof applications with non-black surfaces.



    This tool was developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in order to provide industry-consensus roof savings for both residential and commercial buildings. It reports the net annual energy savings (cooling energy savings minus heating penalties) and thus is only applicable to the buildings with a heating and/or cooling system.

    © 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

    Related Posts
    The Effectiveness of Cool Roofs in Hot and Cold Climates
    The Benefits of Cool Roofs
    20 Cool Roof Resources from the CRRC and Other Sources
    Three Types of Cool Roofs
    Green Buildings Offer Many Benefits
    The Extraordinary Growth of Green Building
    The Implications of the Growth of Green Buildings
    Green Building Environmental Benefits
    Green Building Economic Benefits
    Green Building Social Benefits
    Green Buildings Resouces
    Green Buildings Combat Climate Change
    Green Buildings Health and Performance Benefits Part 1
    Green Buildings Health and Performance Benefits Part 2
    Green Buildings: The Many Benefits of Natural Lighting
    Green Buildings: The Many Benefits of Ventilation
    The Future of Green School Buildings
    Top 10 Green Building Trends for 2010
    25 Blogs Leading the Sustainable Building Revolution
    Read More»

    Energy Emissions Comparisons: Renewables vs Coal

    Add Comment Edit
    No energy has zero emissions but clearly some sources of energy are better than others.  To help identify power sources that have the lowest energy requirements the US Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has released an analysis that lets users compare, contrast and better understand what a lifespan of emissions means for project permitting, environmental impacts and future policy. Here are the lifetime carbon emissions of a clean source of energy compared with fossil fuels.
    According to the NREL research greenhouse gas emissions over the life of a solar and wind projects are about 5 percent of those of a coal plant. One of the findings that might surprise some who are against nuclear energy is the fact that nuclear power rates about as well as renewable energy;

    To get to these numbers, the researchers at NREL applied their modeling to more than 2,000 studies across energy technologies like bio, solar, geothermal, hydropower, ocean energy, wind, nuclear, natural gas and coal. Then they set up a database that allows viewers to compare the differences between, say, concentrated solar power trough installations and emerging ocean wave technology.

    According to this research coal has 1,001 grams of carbon dioxide emitted per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated. PV generates about 45 grams of carbon dioxide emitted per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated and wind energy has a range of 3 to 45 grams with a median 11 grams. Nuclear had a very large harmonized range of 4 to 110 grams, with a median of 12.

    “As a society, we need to better understand what the effects of our energy choices are. Greenhouse gases and climate change are a part of the discussion. As we try to envision what our future energy system will look like, we need an accurate picture of what that transition will mean,” said Garvin Heath, a scientist with NREL and a leader of the project. “This methodology allows you to arrive at a better precision, so you can say with more certainty that this is the benefit you get from using this technology rather than that technology.”

    To go to the LCA Harmonization app click here. 

    © 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

    Related Posts
    Avoiding the Clean Tech Crash: Can Renewable Energy Achieve ...
    Global Clean Energy Investment Sets Record
    US Regains Lead from China as Clean Energy Leader
    China is Leading in terms of Renewable Energy Attractiveness
    UK Renewable Energy 2011 Overview
    India is the World Leader in Cleantech Investment Growth
    Global Growth of Cleantech 2007-2020
    How the West can Capitalize on the Growth of Chinese Cleantech in 2012
    Private Sector Green Investment
    Cleantech the Next Great Investment Opportunity
    Will 2012 be the Best Year Ever For Clean-Tech Investment?
    Growing US Corporate Investments are Driving Cleantech
    Greener Vehicles Growing Cleantech and Providing Green Jobs
    Cleantech Partnerships and Collaborations
    California and Other US Leaders in Cleantech Investments
    Leading US Cleantech Investment Sectors in 2011 Q3 and Q4
    VC Investment in US Cleantech in 2011
    Investing in CleanTech: Efficiency Upgrades and Renewable Energy
    Read More»

    Top 10 Global Sustainability Leaders (Report)

    Add Comment Edit
    Environmental, social and governance (ESG) research firm EIRIS ranked the global leaders in sustainability in their annual ratings.  The report, titled 'On track for Rio+20? How are global companies responding to sustainability?', analyzes the sustainability performance of 50 of the world's largest companies (by market cap). Several very well known consumer brands did not fare well. Some will be surprised to see Japanese automaker Toyota as being one of the worst companies of the 50 rated in the report. Toyota produces greener cars, but there are concerns about its human-rights and supply chain labor standards. Companies like Apple and Google, both received "D" grades. Not surprisingly oil giants ExxonMobil Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Occidental Petroleum, were all given the lowest ranking. Only 2 percent of US companies got an "A". In the UK 20 percent of companies scored an "A" and 12 percent of mainland European companies received an "A". Only 1 percent of Asian ones made the top grade. Here are the world's sustainability leaders as determined by ESG research firm EIRIS:

    Top 10 Global Sustainability Leaders

    1: Puma
    2: FirstGroup
    3: National Australia Bank
    4: GlaxoSmithKline
    5: Roche
    6: Novartis
    7: Philips Electronics
    8: Deutsche Börse
    9: Novo Nordisk
    10: Go-Ahead Group

    © 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

    Related Posts
    State of Green Business Report 2012
    Energy & Environmental Report
    Scientists Defend the Lacey Act with New Report
    Air and Water in the OECD Report
    State of Green Business Report 2012
    Retail Sustainability Leadership Report
    A Slowdown for Green Business in 2012
    IPCC Report
    Report from The Green Economy
    Global Carbon Rankings 2011 from the EIO
    Clean Tech Job Trends 2010 Report Part 1
    Clean Tech Job Trends 2010 Report: Part 2
    WWF's Canadian Living Planet Report
    Report on the UN's World Water Day Panel
    Corporate Sustainability is Driving Green
    Read More»

    The Ignorant Anti-Environmental Views of the Remaining GOP Presidential Candidates

    Add Comment Edit
    A Republican President would be a devastating blow to the environment and the green economy. Mitt Romney's primary victories in Michigan and Arizona at the end of February solidifies his status as the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination. However, although Romney's stated environmental views make him the best of the four evils, like the rest of the field of GOP presidential candidates, he can best be described as anti-environment.

    The GOP presidential race has been a roller coaster ride, we have seen contenders come and go. Cain, Perry and Bachman all arrived to great fanfare only to see their campaigns come to an ignominious end.

    When it comes to the environment, all GOP presidential candidates oppose progressive energy legislation and they all want to see a diminished role for the EPA. The resistance of Republicans to the EPA is summarized in a letter written by Eric Cantor. In this letter the House Majority Leader called on Republican party members to fight 10 “job-destroying regulations.” According to Cantor, seven out of those 10 are EPA rules.

    Opposition to efforts that seriously combat climate change unifies the remaining gang of four Republican presidential candidates. Even though this view has proven to be false, GOP candidates contend that environmental protection and regulation inhibits job creation.

    According to a July, 2011 report from the Brookings Institution, The chief conclusion of the Brookings study is that green technology is the driving force behind jobs. According to the Brookings study, there are now 2.7 million Americans who work at green jobs, this is more than work in the fossil fuel industry. The US Conference of Mayors estimates that number of green jobs will almost triple by 2040.

    Contrary to assertions by GOP presidential hopefuls, a UNEP study reveals that investing in the green economy will spur growth. This reinforces the conservative fallacy that the greening of economies is a drag on growth. Taken together these studies show that the green economy will create growth and good jobs.

    Although Romney may be amongst the least egregious of the gang of four, he shares the view that regulation is holding the economy back. This perspective is ironic when you consider that it was a lack of regulations that caused the recession of 2008 and the nightmare of climate change.

    As reported in Climatico, here are the environmental views of the remaining slate of Republican Presidential candidates.

    Mitt Romney

    Romney supports drilling for more oil and gas including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He does not believe that greenhouse gases should be regulated by the EPA, as was decided in the landmark 2007 Supreme Court case, Massachusetts vs. EPA. In 2004, he supported an emissions reduction plan for Massachusetts, but in 2006, decided not to support a similar plan because of high costs.

    Rick Santorum

    Santorum dismisses climate change as “junk science.” He has consistently voted against an increase in renewable energy and regulations for cleaner air, and he has supported a limit increase on mercury emissions from power plants.

    Newt Gingrich

    Gingrich spoke out against the Waxman-Markey climate bill and currently opposes EPA regulation of carbon. Although he previously has supported programs that reduce carbon emissions, including providing incentives for carbon sequestration technology development. His latest statements include his desire to shut down the EPA and rename it the Environmental Solutions Agency.

    Ron Paul

    Paul supports supports offshore drilling but to his credit he also supports renewable energy. He believes in measures to reduce pollution, such as energy efficient vehicles, but he is against federal government regulation of the oil industry. Paul voted against cap and trade, both because he is against regulation and also because he believes it would cause jobs to move away from America. Paul wants to dismantle the EPA, preferring that environmental protection and solutions occur through private property rights, the courts, and private enterprise.

    No matter which of the remaining gang of four is the GOP presidential nominee, the planet and the economy will suffer if Republicans win the White House in 2012.

    © 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.
    Read More»

    Canadians Support Efforts to Combat Climate Change

    Add Comment Edit
    Unlike their Conservative federal leadership, Canadians support efforts on climate change. According to a joint study released in April 2011, Canadians are more likely to believe in the veracity of climate change then Americans.

    The study also found Canadians are more willing than their friends to the south to pay for energy from renewable sources. A majority of Canadians said they would support a carbon tax or cap-and-trade scheme, even if it came with a cost of $50 per month in energy expenses.

    A report from the Conference Board of Canada indicated that the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government spend a lot money trying to understand the implications of climate change. However, they are inefficient and there is a striking lack of coordination.

    The report suggests that Canadians need a carbon pricing scheme like those in place in BC and Quebec.

    © 2011, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

    Related Posts
    Canadian Government at Odds with the Public on Climate Change
    Canadian Conservative Government Rejects Kyoto
    Canada's Government Opposes Kyoto and Hampers Progress at COP16
    World Urges Canada to Do More to Manage Climate Change
    Canadian Conservatives Repudiation of the Environment in 2008
    No Reprieve for the Environment as Slacktivists Hand Majority to Canadian Conservatives
    Read More»

    Assessing the Environmental Impact of Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Production

    1 Comment Edit
    Although electric and hybrid cars create more carbon emissions during their production than standard vehicles, they are still greener overall. This is one of the findings in a report prepared by Ricardo1for, in collaboration with the membership of the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership that includes major vehicle manufacturers and oil companies.

    The increased emissions created during the production of electric and hybrid vehicles is further compounded by disposal issues. However, overall electric and hybrid vehicles still have lower carbon footprints than fossil fuel powered vehicles.


    “This work dispels the myth that low carbon vehicles simply displace emissions from the exhaust to other sources. However, it does highlight the need to look at reducing carbon emissions from vehicles throughout their lifecycle,” said Greg Archer, LowCVP Managing Director.

    A 2008 study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found that life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, which include emissions from both manufacturing and operating a vehicle, are 32 percent less from plug-in hybrids than from gasoline-powered cars.

    Approximately three quarters of the carbon created in production is attributable to the steel used in vehicles. In an electric vehicle almost half (43%) of the carbon created in production arises from the battery. To reduce carbon in vehicle production we need low weight, low carbon alternatives for steel and batteries.

    Andy Carroll, Managing director for Eurotax Glass’s, said that the industry will see an evolution towards learning how to estimate the residual value impact of improved technologies and batteries as well as end of life disposal.

    Although calculating whole life carbon emissions is complex, it is essential for comprehensive vehicle comparisons.

    © 2011, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

    Related Post
    Assessing the Environmental Impact of Operating Electric and Hybrid Vehicles
    Read More»

    Assessing the Environmental Impact of Operating Electric and Hybrid Vehicles

    Add Comment Edit
    The dramatically smaller footprint of electric cars varies depending on the source of electricity used to power them. "The types of power plants installed in the next two decades will not only affect how much we can reduce emissions from electricity, but also from vehicles," said Carnegie Mellon engineer Kyle Meisterling.

    Newer fossil fuel powered vehicles are much more efficient than previous generations of automobiles, but they are not as efficient as hybrids or fully electric vehicles.

    In places like California where tailpipe standards are some of the toughest in the nation, a 2010 gas powered car puts out only 2 percent of the emissions of a 1980s model. However, electric vehicles have a much smaller carbon footprint than even the most efficient fossil fuel powered vehicles.

    We should not underestimate the contributions of electric vehicles to our environment. According to Tom Cahill, a professor emeritus of physics at UC Davis, EVs offer "a whole lot of gain in climate change."

    All-electric vehicles burn no fossil fuels, and hybrids burn relatively small amounts of gas. The tailpipe emissions from electric cars are zero and hybrids have a significantly reduced emissions profile compared to conventional vehicles. In places like Los Angeles, on some days, the tailpipe emissions of hybrids contain less pollution than the air.

    A 2008 study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found that America's electricity mix derives 45 percent of electricity from coal, 23 percent from natural gas, 20 percent from nuclear, and 12 percent from dams, solar, wind and other sources. The emissions associated with electric and hybrid vehicles will improve significantly once we reduce the use of fossil fuel powered energy, particularly coal.

    One of the most interesting findings of the Carnegie research finds that even when electricity derived from coal is used to power hybrids they emit fewer greenhouse gases than gasoline-powered cars.

    In states with cleaner power mixes, plug-in hybrids have less than half the greenhouse gas footprint of conventional gasoline vehicles.

    In a recent study, Mark Jacobsen, a professor of civil and environmental engineering found that electric vehicles powered by wind energy were best, with a 99 percent reduction in carbon and air pollution emissions from the current vehicle fleet. Not suprisingly, ethanol ranked last in his study, with the largest carbon footprint.

    "There's no technical reason we can't ramp up to a lot more electric vehicles," Jacobsen said. "It's a question of whether society as a whole is motivated to do it."

    Andy Carroll, Managing director for Eurotax Glass’s, said the key to making electric vehicles more popular will be for manufacturers to completely remove the risk of residual value in batteries from falling into the hands of the customer.

    © 2011, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

    Related Post
    Assessing the Environmental Impact of Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Production
    Read More»
    Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )