Archive for June, 2009
In stark contrast to the bad politics and bad science in the Australian parliament, the US has moved forward and it’s equivalent to our CPRS legislation passed the lower house yesterday.
If you want to read more, there are lots of news reports. It’s also the subject of Barrack Obama’s weekly address to the US nation:
“[We] have seen other countries realize a critical truth: the nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century global economy. […] Now my call to every Senator, as well as to every American, is this: We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past. Don’t believe the misinformation out there […]”.
The Labour party has been pushing for a vote on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, not because they think it will pass, but because they know it will be defeated.
As Tim Colbert said in The Age: “The Government supports its emissions trading scheme, but would like to see it defeated when it comes before the Senate this week. The Opposition opposes the scheme, but will be doing its utmost to ensure that it is not defeated. The Greens support emissions trading, but want to vote to defeat this version of it. As for the Senate independents, no newspaper article could adequately summarise their positions.”
The one chance the government had to provide some certainty before the Copenhagen Climate Summit was try and trigger an early election, which it can do if its legislation is defeated twice by the Senate. This now seems unlikely.
Earlier this week Senator Stephen Parry was successful in getting debate on the legislation delayed. Liberal Senator Nick Minchin justified their position by saying that “the government should defer consideration of this bill on the triple grounds that it does not have a start date for two years, that for Australia to legislate in advance of Copenhagen is utterly irresponsible and reckless, and that to advance this legislation prior to the United States legislating, the world’s biggest emitter of anthropogenic CO2, is ridiculous and reckless.”
Greens Senator Bob Brown tried to call out the Coalition for their filibustering, saying: “One way or another, the government is on a mission to get to Copenhagen with a determination from Australia, which it should expect out of the Senate. There should be a result. […] What we are getting to here is boring procedural cat-and-mouse play for a political interest which is all to do with the next election and not with the future of this nation, and that is not good enough.”
National Party Senator Barnaby Joyce was much clearer about the Coalition’s strategy saying “I want this debate to go for as long as possible. Call that a filibuster, call it what you want, call it your aunt Mary, I will debate this thing until there is not a breath left in me.”
The vote hinged on the support of the two independent senators. Senator Steve Fielding supported the delay, which is unsurprising given he is Australia’s latest and most famous climate change skeptic.
Senator Nick Xenephon, who is a climate change believer, also supported the delay asking for more time to model alternatives and the impacts on Australia’s economy of deeper cuts.
This is also being commented on in the International media. Meanwhile the US Climate Bill is set to be voted on. Barrack Obama expressed his support for their Climate Bill saying it “will finally spark a clean energy transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet.”
It doesn’t look like our own clean energy transformation is coming any time soon.
While the Coalition is trying to filibuster away the CPRS, one parliamentarian is trying to call into question very basic climate science. This is a pretty depressing turn in the mainstream public debate on climate change.
Independent Senator Steve Fielding claims to be open minded on climate change and “not a sceptic”. It’s hard to see how he can sustain this claim after attending a climate change denialists conference in the US earlier this year and bringing four well known climate change denalists to his recent discussions with the government.
Steve Fielding and his advisors put three questions to the government:
1. Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase; how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
2. Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) was not unusual in either rate or magnitude as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history?
3. Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990–2008, whereas in fact there were only 8 years of warming were(sic) followed by 10 years of stasis and cooling. If so, why is it assumed that long-term climate projections by the same models are suitable as a basis for public policy making?
Tim Lambert’s pithy answer — ‘No’ — and his more detailed response and critique of the coverage of climate change by The Australian is well worth reading. The Government has also published its own detailed response to Fielding’s questions.
The meeting with the government didn’t change Fielding’s view, the crux of which is that there has been a “lack of warming since 1998″.
The arguments of climate skeptics tend to follow some well worn paths and Fielding’s are no different. If you aren’t a climate scientist, then Grist’s series on How to talk to a Climate Skeptic is a great resource.
In response to the argument that ‘global warming stopped in 1998′, Grist says:
At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analyses. In fact, it blew away the previous record by .2 degrees C. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!)
According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking at CRU’s graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in black.
What’s disturbing is that Fielding isn’t just an ordinary climate change skeptic, he is a parliamentarian whose vote is likely be crucial to the passing of emissions trading scheme legislation.
The Department of Climate Change has announced it will be running a series of NGER reporting workshops with the first to be held this Thursday 25 June in Perth. The workshops are aimed at NGER registrants and will provide a brief overview of NGER but, more particularly, walk participants through the use of OSCAR, the online system used to submit GHG reporting data to the Department.
If you’re interested in attending then you can find out more info and register on the DCC website. The Department is warning that places are limited, although they will most likely run more workshops if there’s the demand.
The goal of Performance Management is always the same: to explicitly determine priorities, establish regular measurements, set targets, and review progress in a repeatable fashion.
Historically, performance in IT has generally been measured in terms of cost and service levels.
Some describe Green IT as the environmentally responsible and sustainable use of IT assets, incorporating triple-bottom-line philosophies (Note: for a wider perspective of Green IT, see Fabian’s previous post). Even taking into account a very narrow viewpoint that simply focuses on energy efficiency, it is obvious that performance in IT needs to be expanded to take into account some new standard metrics.
Issues and considerations
Firstly though, let’s take a look at some issues that we can address so that we can determine some valid metrics:
- IT assets consume significant amounts of electricity and devices are often left on when not in use.
- Over time it has become culturally acceptable in many organisations to leave work PCs turned on overnight to save the hassle of turning them on in the morning. This alone is responsible for a large amount of wasted energy.
- Data Centres are responsible for a very large amount of energy usage, not only because of all the servers, storage and comms equipment, but in the environmental conditioning required to keep them at the correct operating conditions.
- e-Waste is a fast-growing issue which is compounded by planned obsolescence. e-Waste can be reduced by planning to keep equipment longer before replacing it. e-Waste can also be reduced by evaluating the environmental impact of the manufacture and disposal of assets using the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT).
Metrics to consider
You might like to consider these kinds of metrics, depending on your priorities:
- Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) — This is an industry standard metric for determining the energy efficiency of the data centre infrastructure. Total Data Centre Power Consumption divided by IT Equipment Power Consumption. It is also expressed as its reciprocal, Data Centre Effectiveness (DCiE).
- Average User IT Energy Footprint — Total electricity used attributable to IT equipment for a period, divided by the number of users in the organisation for the period.
- Average Daily Desktop Run Hours Per User — The total number of hours desktops are turned on divided by the number of users. These numbers should be targeted between 8 to 12 hours.
- Average Energy Per Gigabytes Storage Capacity — Total electricity consumed by server storage devices divided by the total gigabytes of storage capacity provided by those devices.
- Number of Pages Printed Per User — The number of physical pages printed (i.e. pieces of paper) and/or the number of page impressions, dividing each by the number of users. Measuring both can give an indication of total printing volume as well as behaviour choices such duplex printing. In circumstances where total volumes cannot be reduced, duplex printing should be encouraged.
- Energy Star Compliance — The percentage of IT assets that comply with various Energy Star ratings.
- EPEAT Compliance — The percentage of IT assets that comply with various EPEAT ratings.
- Desktops Purchased Per User Per Year — This is for long term trending to determine if length-of-life targets are being met.
Decisions can be made regarding the granularity of calculation, for example, by division, by department or by building floor to allow cross referencing and benchmarking.
Once these metrics are collated, it is important to publish the metrics so they are visible across the company. Graphically appealing dashboards with rich user interfaces are an engaging way to present this data.
Collating these metrics often requires new data to be collected. There are tools available to streamline the collection of the underlying data to minimise the human effort involved.
How we can help
Greensense has helped companies implement customised Green IT Performance Management Frameworks including the supporting data collection and we also have many years experience in visualisation technologies. Please contact us here at Greensense if you would like more information about these services.
An interesting chain of events during the week: The Clean Energy Council released a report after engaging Access Economics to quantify the net impact on employment as a result of the current Government’s State and Federal climate change policies.
The report concluded that 28,230 full time equivalent (FTE) positions will be created over the period 2010 to 2020. Of that, 4,000 relate to jobs associated with the construction of new generating capacity based on the Renewable Energy Target.
Follow that up today with an announcement that RET has been delayed as Family First senator Steve Fielding launched a committee enquiry into the RET bill. The committee is due to report back on August 12.
Clean Energy Council Chief Executive, Matthew Warren, released a statement predicting the decision will only further delay clean energy projects which are poised to create thousands of new jobs and stimulate multi-billion dollar investments in regional Australia.
Mr Warren said Australia’s emerging solar PV industry will bear the immediate brunt of today’s latest political posturing, with dynamic new companies halted in their tracks and now making forced job cuts as demand dries up. “Clean energy companies around Australia will now put hiring plans on hold and in some cases be forced to start shedding staff,” he said.
At Greensense we believe the target needs to be set and legislation passed to bring the certainty that business needs to release investment into this important piece of the emission reduction puzzle.
This is one of the key findings from a new and very comprehensive US Government climate change report.
There were ten key findings in all:
- Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced.
- Climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.
- Widespread climate-related impacts are occurring now and are expected to increase.
- Climate change will stress water resources.
- Crop and livestock production will be increasingly challenged.
- Coastal areas are at increasing risk from sea-level rise and storm surge.
- Threats to human health will increase.
- Climate change will interact with many social and environmental stresses.
- Thresholds will be crossed, leading to large changes in climate and ecosystems.
- Future climate change and its impacts depend on choices made today.
Sunday evening’s TV news featured a story that 500 homes in Perth would participate in a trial to receive real-time energy meters in their homes. These energy meters allow residents to see how much electricity is being used across the whole house at any instant in time.
This is a great initiative, and I advocate this type of technology for a number of reasons.
One of the main problems with trying to reduce electricity use is that it is difficult to see exactly when and where electricity is being used. Most people know that devices can use significant amounts of electricity, even when in stand-by mode, but the question is, how are you supposed to know how much each of your devices use?
This kind of meter gives you the ability to turn on and off devices around the home and determine the effect on total electricity consumption in real-time. This then gives you the ability to make an informed decision about how and when you use your devices.
However, there is a much more important benefit. The simple act of providing direct feedback to users of their energy use can achieve a reduction in that energy use by a significant amount. The news story claims up to 25% reduction. A report titled The Effectiveness Of Feedback On Energy Consumption published by University of Oxford, Environmental Change Institute (2006) states up to 15%. Regardless of the exact figure, behaviour change can be triggered just by providing better information.
How can this cross over into the business world?
Many companies are planning to implement energy efficiency programmes as part of EEO, in preparation for the CPRS, or simply to save money in these difficult economic times. Changing people’s behaviour is one of the most powerful ways to implement energy efficiency.
If your business is interested in innovative use of real-time electricity monitoring, or other strategies for energy efficiency in the corporate world, please contact us here at Greensense.
Sustainable event management (SEM) is about applying sustainable development principles to the management of a particular event. Specifically, it looks at minimising an event’s ecological footprint and ensuring that it does not impact negatively on the communities and stakeholders involved.
As the world becomes more aware of climate change and other sustainability issues, sustainable events are becoming more common. So why should you consider including sustainability into your event planning and how should you go about doing it?
Why implement SEM?
Sustainability is an end itself but there are a number of other reasons to consider implementing SEM, including the following:
- SEM can deliver cost savings through better use of resources such as energy and water.
- SEM can provide the means to differentiate your event from other similar events.
- SEM can be used to balance any negativity associated with events requiring long distance travel (this can be particularly relevant for remote locations such as Perth)
- SEM provides the opportunity to establish effective relationships with stakeholders and improve your reputation
How to implement SEM
There is no single agreed methodology for implementing SEM. However, in 2007, the UK developed the British Standard for Sustainable Event Management (BS 8901). This standard is the first of its kind and may prove to be the basis of an international standard.
The BS8901 framework addresses sustainability as a process of continuous improvement. One will never achieve ‘sustainability’, but rather continuously progress towards it. Building on this concept, SEM becomes less daunting as it is not about doing all the right things, but about doing some of those things the right way. Then, at your next event, you can try changing a few more things and so on.
BS8901 is not a prescriptive standard. It provides a simple framework and some guiding steps to include in the event management planning process. These fall into three main phases:
- Pre-event planning – Here, you should define a sustainability policy for the event, establish commitment upfront and set high level goals, objectives and KPIs.
- Implementation and event monitoring – Once the objectives have been agreed, effective management of the supply chain is required to ensure all parties are working towards common goals. You should track your KPIs throughout the planning process and during the event to address and issues as they arise.
- Post-event review – KPIs are measured after the event and a review completed to identify which objectives were achieved, what needed more attention, and what can be done next year to improve again?
Following the above approach during your event planning process and ensuring you have some critical success factors (such as early engagement with your stakeholders and sufficient buy-in from your event planning team) will result in an event with a successful sustainability focus and its associated benefits.
The role of carbon offsets in SEM
A carbon neutral event is not necessarily a sustainable event. Even if one of your event objectives is to be carbon neutral, it is not enough to simply buy offsets.
Most events will have relatively modest greenhouse gas emissions and the vast majority of those emissions will be ‘Scope 3′ and associated with suppliers to the event. It is much more effective to work with your suppliers to reduce their sustainability impacts and to only use carbon offsets to balance the residual greenhouse gas emissions.
Managing an event is complex and time consuming and it pays to be pragmatic. Because many offset providers offer simple web-based calculators to self-assess your event’s carbon footprint, it may be tempting to simply buy offsets online and then proudly advertise your event as carbon neutral. However, you risk being seen to be green washing if this is all you do.
You will not necessarily achieve the reputation benefits you’re seeking if you have blatantly ignored obvious sustainability issues such as waste management or water use. Also, you may be in breach of the Trade Practices Act if you claim to be carbon neutral and cannot substantiate your claim, or if you have purchased inappropriate or poor quality offsets.
How Greensense can help
We offer a complete sustainable event management service, which is in line with the BS 8901 standard, and would be more than happy to work with you to make your event more sustainable.
This is the subject of an interesting conference that finished in London last week. There have been some very thought provoking discussions going on and it strikes me again that the public debate in the UK is much more progressive then here in Australia. For example, here is Terry Leahy, the CEO of Tesco, talking about the importance of consumers in the transition to a low-carbon economy:
The subject of the proposed first compliance year, 2011–2012, came up in a recent conversation with a client. The latest plan treats the first year in a special way: an unlimited number of Australian Emissions Units (AEUs) will be made available at a fixed price of $10. For those campaigning for a carbon tax, they got one, but only for one year.
The client asked whether they would be able to purchase AEUs in 2011–2012 and bank them to acquit against their liability in future years. Our off the cuff answer was that that wouldn’t be possible, but it didn’t seem to be clearly spelt out in the legislation.
Now that the legislation has passed the lower-house, this is the subject of one of the amendments, and we now have confirmation:
Excess surrender of Australian emissions units with a vintage year beginning on 1 July 2011 [amendments 19 and 20]2.15 Generally, surrender of excess Australian emissions units will generate an excess surrender number which is used by the liable entity in the following year (see clause 143).2.16 Special provisions are needed to address surrender in relation to the financial year 2011–2012. Currently clause 143(3) of the CPRS Bill prevents an excess surrender number occurring where excess free Australian emissions units that have a vintage year beginning on 1 July 2011 have been surrendered.Summary of amendments2.17 The amendment to this clause has the result that no Australian emissions units with a vintage year beginning on 1 July 2011 can create an excess surrender number if more of these units are surrendered in relation to compliance for the first year of the scheme than the person’s emission number.2.18 This covers Australian emissions units issued under the emissions-intensive trade-exposed assistance program, in accordance with Part 9 (which deals with coal-fired generation) and for a fixed charge of $10.2.19 This will ensure that units issued for a fixed charge of $10 are not, in effect, carried over for use against a future liability, and is consistent with not allowing banking for this period. This changed is achieved by the omission of the word ‘free’.
Banking and borrowing rules are something we cover in detail in our Auction master-class.
In a report recently released by the World Health Organisation (WHO), the resource-intensive health sector has been recognized for its significant contribution to climate change.
The WHO see this as a contradiction to the sector’s primary purpose of providing quality health care (for example, increased air pollution contributes to respiratory disease and other illnesses). As a result, they are urging hospitals and other health care providers to show leadership in the fight against climate change by reducing their own carbon footprint and advocating for change in the wider community.
The report sites a number of opportunities such as implementing sustainable procurement policies, improving energy efficiency, using renewable energy sources and educating stakeholders. The benefits of reducing their carbon footprint will not only lead to further health benefits, but will also deliver cost savings (ie reduced energy bills) and is anticipated to lead to greater change within the community due to the health sector’s wide reach.
For more information on what the health sector can do and examples from around the world, read the report here:
http://www.who.int/globalchange/publications/healthcare_settings/en/index.html
