Monday, March 21, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Earthquakes Change the Earth
The March 11, magnitude 9.0 earthquake in Japan may have shortened the length of each Earth day and shifted its axis. Using a United States Geological Survey estimate for how the fault responsible for the earthquake slipped, research scientist Richard Gross of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., applied a complex model to perform a preliminary theoretical calculation of how the Japan earthquake-the fifth largest since 1900-affected Earth's rotation. His calculations indicate that by changing the distribution of Earth's mass, the Japanese earthquake should have caused Earth to rotate a bit faster, shortening the length of the day by about 1.8 microseconds (a microsecond is one millionth of a second). There are about 86,400 seconds (86 billion microseconds) in a day, so the impact of the earthquake is quite small. The calculations also show the Japan quake should have shifted the position of Earth's figure axis (the axis about which Earth's mass is balanced) by about 6.5 inches, towards 133 degrees east longitude. The Earth's figure axis is not the same as its north-south axis in space, which it spins around once every day at a speed of about 1,000 mph. The figure axis is the axis around which the Earth's mass is balanced.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
For Business, It's Not Necessary to Delay the Clean Air Act
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) efforts to enforce the Clean Air Act are vital for our health, our children’s health, and the avoidance of the most dangerous and expensive consequences of climate change.
In spite of that urgency, some businesses are arguing for delay. They claim that new regulations will hurt jobs and the economic recovery. Extensive data refutes these claims, but perhaps the most credible counter-arguments are those made by businesses that disagree.
In a March 1 article in Politico Pro, reporter Darren Samuelsohn interviewed business leaders who "didn’t sound so thrilled" about legislation to pre-empt EPA authority:
“The leaders — from American Electric Power, NextEra Energy, Southern Co. and Dominion Resources — said to varying degrees that they support allowing the EPA to proceed on a ‘reasonable’ time frame on greenhouse gas rules for power plants, petroleum refiners and other major stationary sources.”
The business community is not monolithic, of course. And it’s no surprise that companies that are innovative are often rewarded with long-term growth.
Recently, the ArcelorMittal steel mill in East Chicago, Indiana, built on-site energy plants to capture heat and gases. The mill reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by about 916,000 metric tons. That’s about the same amount as 166,000 cars and all of the grid-connected solar panels in the world. At the same time, the mill cut as much as $100 million a year in energy costs — and that allowed ArcelorMittal to allocate more money to jobs and investment.
West Virginia Alloys, a silicon manufacturer, used a similar project to capture waste heat and generate enough electricity on-site to power one-third of its furnaces. The project reduced carbon dioxide emissions by almost 300,000 tons – and at the same time, enabled the plant to increase its workforce by 20 percent.
Companies that fear change typically spend their time and energy fighting change – not on finding the most strategic responses to changing business conditions.
McKinsey and Company and the Department of Energy (DOE) are among those who have collected data showing the plethora of untapped efficiency opportunities being ignored by American industry today. (See some of that data, and helpful case studies, at LessCarbonMoreInnovation.org)
Here are some highlights:
* McKinsey found that the U.S. industrial sector can reduce annual energy consumption 18 percent by 2020 and save more than $442 billion in energy costs billion in major sectors such as refineries, chemicals, cement, iron and steel, pulp and paper, for an upfront investment of barely more than a quarter of that amount.
* If the pulp and paper sector, alone, seized the economically attractive opportunities identified by McKinsey and Company, they could reduce energy use by 26 percent and save an estimated $2.6 billion per year.
* Until recently, U.S. industrial plants didn't know how energy efficient they were (or weren’t) compared to their competitors So the Energy Star for Industry program created a benchmarking tool to allow companies get that information. The results show that many plants have significant room for improvement. For example, the gap between the average plant's performance and the best in class plant's performance is 198 kilowatts per hour more electricity used per assembled vehicle. (That figure takes into account the differences in product, as well as plant capacity, utilization, and location). That’s about as much as what the average U.S. household uses in electricity each week.
* The University of Massachusetts’ Political Economy Research Institute looked at the impact on new EPA pollution control rules on the utility sector. They found that the new rules will drive an estimated 1.46 million jobs, or about 290,000 on average in each of the next five years. Other University of Massachusetts studies found that clean energy and energy efficiency are more labor intensive than spending on conventional fossil fuels.
Given over-capacity and capital on the sidelines, now is actually the perfect time to invest in making the current infrastructure cleaner, more efficient, more globally competitive, and ready for the recovery. Investing will be good for the workforce and for customers, and while shareholders may see a little less profit this year, they will see more in the long-run.
Businesses that insist they have to pollute do not represent all businesses. Lots of American businesses are already taking advantage of the opportunities in clean energy and energy efficiency. If we support them, instead of the businesses that can only handle the status quo, we can create an economic recovery for the long-haul.
In spite of that urgency, some businesses are arguing for delay. They claim that new regulations will hurt jobs and the economic recovery. Extensive data refutes these claims, but perhaps the most credible counter-arguments are those made by businesses that disagree.
In a March 1 article in Politico Pro, reporter Darren Samuelsohn interviewed business leaders who "didn’t sound so thrilled" about legislation to pre-empt EPA authority:
“The leaders — from American Electric Power, NextEra Energy, Southern Co. and Dominion Resources — said to varying degrees that they support allowing the EPA to proceed on a ‘reasonable’ time frame on greenhouse gas rules for power plants, petroleum refiners and other major stationary sources.”
The business community is not monolithic, of course. And it’s no surprise that companies that are innovative are often rewarded with long-term growth.
Recently, the ArcelorMittal steel mill in East Chicago, Indiana, built on-site energy plants to capture heat and gases. The mill reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by about 916,000 metric tons. That’s about the same amount as 166,000 cars and all of the grid-connected solar panels in the world. At the same time, the mill cut as much as $100 million a year in energy costs — and that allowed ArcelorMittal to allocate more money to jobs and investment.
West Virginia Alloys, a silicon manufacturer, used a similar project to capture waste heat and generate enough electricity on-site to power one-third of its furnaces. The project reduced carbon dioxide emissions by almost 300,000 tons – and at the same time, enabled the plant to increase its workforce by 20 percent.
Companies that fear change typically spend their time and energy fighting change – not on finding the most strategic responses to changing business conditions.
McKinsey and Company and the Department of Energy (DOE) are among those who have collected data showing the plethora of untapped efficiency opportunities being ignored by American industry today. (See some of that data, and helpful case studies, at LessCarbonMoreInnovation.org)
Here are some highlights:
* McKinsey found that the U.S. industrial sector can reduce annual energy consumption 18 percent by 2020 and save more than $442 billion in energy costs billion in major sectors such as refineries, chemicals, cement, iron and steel, pulp and paper, for an upfront investment of barely more than a quarter of that amount.
* If the pulp and paper sector, alone, seized the economically attractive opportunities identified by McKinsey and Company, they could reduce energy use by 26 percent and save an estimated $2.6 billion per year.
* Until recently, U.S. industrial plants didn't know how energy efficient they were (or weren’t) compared to their competitors So the Energy Star for Industry program created a benchmarking tool to allow companies get that information. The results show that many plants have significant room for improvement. For example, the gap between the average plant's performance and the best in class plant's performance is 198 kilowatts per hour more electricity used per assembled vehicle. (That figure takes into account the differences in product, as well as plant capacity, utilization, and location). That’s about as much as what the average U.S. household uses in electricity each week.
* The University of Massachusetts’ Political Economy Research Institute looked at the impact on new EPA pollution control rules on the utility sector. They found that the new rules will drive an estimated 1.46 million jobs, or about 290,000 on average in each of the next five years. Other University of Massachusetts studies found that clean energy and energy efficiency are more labor intensive than spending on conventional fossil fuels.
Given over-capacity and capital on the sidelines, now is actually the perfect time to invest in making the current infrastructure cleaner, more efficient, more globally competitive, and ready for the recovery. Investing will be good for the workforce and for customers, and while shareholders may see a little less profit this year, they will see more in the long-run.
Businesses that insist they have to pollute do not represent all businesses. Lots of American businesses are already taking advantage of the opportunities in clean energy and energy efficiency. If we support them, instead of the businesses that can only handle the status quo, we can create an economic recovery for the long-haul.
Reef Check Launches First Comprehensive Survey of Haiti’s Coral Reefs Initial survey reveals worst overfishing in the world
Haiti’s coral reefs are the most overfished in the world according to initial survey results by Reef Check, a non-profit organization focused on improving reef health worldwide. The first round of surveys completed on February 7th revealed that almost no food fish of reproductive age remain on Haiti’s reefs. In a classic “fishing down the food chain” scenario, overfishing has also destabilized the entire coral reef ecosystem by removing plant-eating fish – allowing fast-growing algae to overgrow and kill corals. As a result, while the reef structure is intact, living coral typically occupies less than 10% of most reefs surveyed while algae and sponge occupy over 50%. The initial surveys covered the coast around La Gonave – a large offshore island and near St. Marc on the mainland.
The high biodiversity reefs feature a full complement of Caribbean fish and invertebrate species, and the reef structure still provides excellent fish habitat. According to Reef Check Director and coral reef ecologist, Dr. Gregor Hodgson, “Haiti’s reefs are hanging on -- with some large stands of the Elkhorn coral, now on the US Endangered Species List, but we saw almost no food fish of reproductive age. The largest Reef Check indicator fish we observed during the surveys of 120 km of coast was about 6 inches (15 cm) long.” Every 100 m along the reefs, the survey team observed a large fish trap, fishing net, spear or line fisherman. And this is despite the fact that almost all fishing is done from paddle or sailboats.
According to Reef Check, what is needed is the establishment of a network of marine protected areas, educating Haitians about the value of reefs and the benefits of reef conservation, and regular monitoring of reef status. The MacArthur Foundation supported project is the first to attempt a complete survey of Haiti’s 1000 km of coastal reefs. Once the full survey is completed by the end of the year, a report will be provided to the Minister of Environment that will present a plan for creating a network of MPAs that will allow fish and invertebrates to grow to maturity and reproduce.
Healthy coral reefs can provide up to 35 metric tons of fish per square kilometer, whereas overfished reefs such as those in Haiti provide a tiny fraction of this amount. By setting aside areas of coral reef where reef fish can grow and breed without disturbance, more fish and larger fish will produce millions of new young fish every year which would increase the available fish supply for Haitians.
Even before the earthquake, Haitians were short of food with 58% of the population under-nourished and some children reportedly being fed mud cakes seasoned with salt. The 10 million people of Haiti make up 25% of the total population of the Caribbean and are growing rapidly at 2.5% annually. Sadly, one in five Haitians dies before the age of 40. Haiti was already trapped in a cycle of environmental degradation and ranks 148th of 179 countries on the United Nations Development Programme Human Development Index prior to the earthquake; 76 percent of Haitians live on less than $2 USD per day. Haiti imports 48 percent of its food. One third of newborn babies are born underweight.
According to Reef Check, most international environmental work has focused on terrestrial issues, neglecting the potential that improved management of coral reefs and associated fisheries could play in improving food supply and nutrition. Haiti is an island country surrounded by coral reefs. Most experts have assumed that Haiti’s reefs were destroyed by sedimentation long ago. “Our rapid assessment indicates that any long-term plan for food security in Haiti should include reef fisheries,” says Hodgson.
Founded in 1996 by marine ecologist Dr. Gregor Hodgson, the Reef Check Foundation is an international non-profit organization dedicated to conservation of two ecosystems: tropical coral reefs and California rocky reefs. With headquarters in Los Angeles and volunteer teams in more than 90 countries and territories, Reef Check works to create partnerships among community volunteers, government agencies, businesses, universities and other non-profits to achieve reef conservation. www.reefcheck.org
The high biodiversity reefs feature a full complement of Caribbean fish and invertebrate species, and the reef structure still provides excellent fish habitat. According to Reef Check Director and coral reef ecologist, Dr. Gregor Hodgson, “Haiti’s reefs are hanging on -- with some large stands of the Elkhorn coral, now on the US Endangered Species List, but we saw almost no food fish of reproductive age. The largest Reef Check indicator fish we observed during the surveys of 120 km of coast was about 6 inches (15 cm) long.” Every 100 m along the reefs, the survey team observed a large fish trap, fishing net, spear or line fisherman. And this is despite the fact that almost all fishing is done from paddle or sailboats.
According to Reef Check, what is needed is the establishment of a network of marine protected areas, educating Haitians about the value of reefs and the benefits of reef conservation, and regular monitoring of reef status. The MacArthur Foundation supported project is the first to attempt a complete survey of Haiti’s 1000 km of coastal reefs. Once the full survey is completed by the end of the year, a report will be provided to the Minister of Environment that will present a plan for creating a network of MPAs that will allow fish and invertebrates to grow to maturity and reproduce.
Healthy coral reefs can provide up to 35 metric tons of fish per square kilometer, whereas overfished reefs such as those in Haiti provide a tiny fraction of this amount. By setting aside areas of coral reef where reef fish can grow and breed without disturbance, more fish and larger fish will produce millions of new young fish every year which would increase the available fish supply for Haitians.
Even before the earthquake, Haitians were short of food with 58% of the population under-nourished and some children reportedly being fed mud cakes seasoned with salt. The 10 million people of Haiti make up 25% of the total population of the Caribbean and are growing rapidly at 2.5% annually. Sadly, one in five Haitians dies before the age of 40. Haiti was already trapped in a cycle of environmental degradation and ranks 148th of 179 countries on the United Nations Development Programme Human Development Index prior to the earthquake; 76 percent of Haitians live on less than $2 USD per day. Haiti imports 48 percent of its food. One third of newborn babies are born underweight.
According to Reef Check, most international environmental work has focused on terrestrial issues, neglecting the potential that improved management of coral reefs and associated fisheries could play in improving food supply and nutrition. Haiti is an island country surrounded by coral reefs. Most experts have assumed that Haiti’s reefs were destroyed by sedimentation long ago. “Our rapid assessment indicates that any long-term plan for food security in Haiti should include reef fisheries,” says Hodgson.
Founded in 1996 by marine ecologist Dr. Gregor Hodgson, the Reef Check Foundation is an international non-profit organization dedicated to conservation of two ecosystems: tropical coral reefs and California rocky reefs. With headquarters in Los Angeles and volunteer teams in more than 90 countries and territories, Reef Check works to create partnerships among community volunteers, government agencies, businesses, universities and other non-profits to achieve reef conservation. www.reefcheck.org
Thursday, February 17, 2011
nvironmental Enforcement: Biomass Plants Fined $835,000 For Clean Air Violations
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District have settled claims brought against two biomass power plants in California’s Central Valley, the agencies announced yesterday.
The companies have agreed to pay a combined civil penalty of $835,000 to resolve allegations they violated federal Clean Air Act and District rules by emitting nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide exceeding their permit limits.
The settlements require both facilities to install equipment to improve monitoring and reporting of air pollutants by enhancing automation of control systems for nitrogen oxides emissions. Under the settlements, both companies also agreed to prepare more stringent control plans to minimize emissions of air pollutants.
According to the EPA, the companies have already installed controls it estimates will reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides by up to 180 tons per year and carbon monoxide by up to 365 tons per year.
Ampersand Chowchilla Biomass, LLC and Merced Power, LLC will pay penalties of $343,000 and $492,000, respectively.
Biomass power plants use green waste from farms and other operations that would otherwise be subject to open burning, and construction debris that might have gone to a landfill, to generate power.
The San Joaquin Valley, home to both facilities, boasts five of 10 cites with the worst air quality in the nation according to a recent survey by the American Lung Association, the Sacramento Business Journal reports. According to the EPA, the region exceeds the national health standards for ozone and particulate matter.
The proposed consent decrees were lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, and are subject to a 30-day public comment period prior to approval by the court.
The companies have agreed to pay a combined civil penalty of $835,000 to resolve allegations they violated federal Clean Air Act and District rules by emitting nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide exceeding their permit limits.
The settlements require both facilities to install equipment to improve monitoring and reporting of air pollutants by enhancing automation of control systems for nitrogen oxides emissions. Under the settlements, both companies also agreed to prepare more stringent control plans to minimize emissions of air pollutants.
According to the EPA, the companies have already installed controls it estimates will reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides by up to 180 tons per year and carbon monoxide by up to 365 tons per year.
Ampersand Chowchilla Biomass, LLC and Merced Power, LLC will pay penalties of $343,000 and $492,000, respectively.
Biomass power plants use green waste from farms and other operations that would otherwise be subject to open burning, and construction debris that might have gone to a landfill, to generate power.
The San Joaquin Valley, home to both facilities, boasts five of 10 cites with the worst air quality in the nation according to a recent survey by the American Lung Association, the Sacramento Business Journal reports. According to the EPA, the region exceeds the national health standards for ozone and particulate matter.
The proposed consent decrees were lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, and are subject to a 30-day public comment period prior to approval by the court.
Study links rise in rain and snow to human actions
An increase in heavy precipitation that has afflicted many countries is at least partly a consequence of human influence on the atmosphere, climate scientists reported in a new study.
In the first major paper of its kind, the researchers used elaborate computer programs that simulate the climate to analyze whether the rise in severe rainstorms, heavy snowfalls and similar events could be explained by natural variability in the atmosphere. They found that it could not, and that the increase made sense only when the computers factored in the effects of greenhouse gases released by human activities like the burning of fossil fuels.
As reflected in previous studies, the likelihood of extreme precipitation on any given day rose by about 7 percent over the last half of the 20th century, at least for the land areas of the Northern Hemisphere for which sufficient figures are available to do an analysis.
The principal finding of the new study is "that this 7 percent is well outside the bounds of natural variability," said Francis W. Zwiers, a Canadian climate scientist who took part in the research. The paper is being published in Thursday's edition of the journal Nature.
The paper covers climate trends from 1951 to 1999 and therefore does not include any analysis of last year's extreme precipitation, including catastrophic floods in Pakistan, China and Australia as well as parts of the United States, including Tennessee, Arkansas and California. However, the paper is likely to bolster a growing sense among climate scientists that events like the 2010 floods will become more common.
Indeed, an increase of weather extremes has been a fundamental prediction of climate science for decades. Basic physics suggests that as the earth warms, precipitation extremes will become more intense, winter and summer, simply because warmer air can carry more water vapor. Weather statistics confirm that this has begun to happen.
Scientists have long been reluctant to attribute any specific weather event to global warming, but a handful of papers that do so are beginning to appear in the scientific literature. One such installment is being published on Thursday in Nature as a companion piece to the broader paper. It finds that severe rains that flooded England and Wales in 2000, the wettest autumn since record-keeping began there in 1766, were made substantially more likely by the greenhouse gases released by human activity.
In that analysis, scientists at the University of Oxford used computer time donated by the public to analyze the climate of Britain in 2000 as it actually existed and to compare that with a hypothetical climate in which the Industrial Revolution never happened and few greenhouse gases were released.
The computers found that the chances of those memorable floods, which sent geese swimming through city streets, were roughly doubled in a climate with the greenhouse gases.
That it took a decade to come to that conclusion illustrates one of the major problems of climate science at the moment. Researchers are barraged with questions about weather extremes like the recent winters in Europe and the United States and the heat waves and droughts of last summer.
Yet, even when adequate weather statistics are available for an affected region, the scientists need years to run computer analyses of any specific event and calculate whether it was made more or less likely by global warming.
In a briefing for reporters, a leading climate scientist for the British government, Peter A. Stott, acknowledged a need for more rapid analysis of weather extremes and said that researchers were working to develop this capability.
The problem is becoming more than theoretical. Billions of dollars have been pledged by rich countries to help poor countries adapt to climate change.
"Because that money is on the table, it's suddenly going to be in everybody's interest to be a victim of climate change," said Myles R. Allen, a University of Oxford researcher whose group ran the British flood study. "We need urgently to develop the science base to be able to distinguish genuine impacts of climate change from unfortunate consequences of bad weather."
The analyses being published on Thursday can be expected to draw fire from climate-change contrarians, who have long scoffed at computer simulations of the climate. They point out that such programs cannot fully capture the complexity of the real world.
Mainstream scientists acknowledge that point to a degree but contend that the programs are becoming more accurate. They also note that the programs are the only tools available to answer questions about how much humans are influencing the climate.
"In the future, it won't be enough for your weather service to predict the weather," Dr. Allen said. "They'll have to explain it as well."
courtsey.ndtv india
In the first major paper of its kind, the researchers used elaborate computer programs that simulate the climate to analyze whether the rise in severe rainstorms, heavy snowfalls and similar events could be explained by natural variability in the atmosphere. They found that it could not, and that the increase made sense only when the computers factored in the effects of greenhouse gases released by human activities like the burning of fossil fuels.
As reflected in previous studies, the likelihood of extreme precipitation on any given day rose by about 7 percent over the last half of the 20th century, at least for the land areas of the Northern Hemisphere for which sufficient figures are available to do an analysis.
The principal finding of the new study is "that this 7 percent is well outside the bounds of natural variability," said Francis W. Zwiers, a Canadian climate scientist who took part in the research. The paper is being published in Thursday's edition of the journal Nature.
The paper covers climate trends from 1951 to 1999 and therefore does not include any analysis of last year's extreme precipitation, including catastrophic floods in Pakistan, China and Australia as well as parts of the United States, including Tennessee, Arkansas and California. However, the paper is likely to bolster a growing sense among climate scientists that events like the 2010 floods will become more common.
Indeed, an increase of weather extremes has been a fundamental prediction of climate science for decades. Basic physics suggests that as the earth warms, precipitation extremes will become more intense, winter and summer, simply because warmer air can carry more water vapor. Weather statistics confirm that this has begun to happen.
Scientists have long been reluctant to attribute any specific weather event to global warming, but a handful of papers that do so are beginning to appear in the scientific literature. One such installment is being published on Thursday in Nature as a companion piece to the broader paper. It finds that severe rains that flooded England and Wales in 2000, the wettest autumn since record-keeping began there in 1766, were made substantially more likely by the greenhouse gases released by human activity.
In that analysis, scientists at the University of Oxford used computer time donated by the public to analyze the climate of Britain in 2000 as it actually existed and to compare that with a hypothetical climate in which the Industrial Revolution never happened and few greenhouse gases were released.
The computers found that the chances of those memorable floods, which sent geese swimming through city streets, were roughly doubled in a climate with the greenhouse gases.
That it took a decade to come to that conclusion illustrates one of the major problems of climate science at the moment. Researchers are barraged with questions about weather extremes like the recent winters in Europe and the United States and the heat waves and droughts of last summer.
Yet, even when adequate weather statistics are available for an affected region, the scientists need years to run computer analyses of any specific event and calculate whether it was made more or less likely by global warming.
In a briefing for reporters, a leading climate scientist for the British government, Peter A. Stott, acknowledged a need for more rapid analysis of weather extremes and said that researchers were working to develop this capability.
The problem is becoming more than theoretical. Billions of dollars have been pledged by rich countries to help poor countries adapt to climate change.
"Because that money is on the table, it's suddenly going to be in everybody's interest to be a victim of climate change," said Myles R. Allen, a University of Oxford researcher whose group ran the British flood study. "We need urgently to develop the science base to be able to distinguish genuine impacts of climate change from unfortunate consequences of bad weather."
The analyses being published on Thursday can be expected to draw fire from climate-change contrarians, who have long scoffed at computer simulations of the climate. They point out that such programs cannot fully capture the complexity of the real world.
Mainstream scientists acknowledge that point to a degree but contend that the programs are becoming more accurate. They also note that the programs are the only tools available to answer questions about how much humans are influencing the climate.
"In the future, it won't be enough for your weather service to predict the weather," Dr. Allen said. "They'll have to explain it as well."
courtsey.ndtv india
Monday, November 15, 2010
Selling Green in a Down Economy: A Prescription for Success
With all of the statistics and research reports heralding sustainability’s growing importance in business management practices, one could reasonably assume that technology providers are successfully exploiting the connection that exists between being greener and improving a company’s operational and financial performance. However, the more I speak with industry analysts, clients, prospects and other technology executives it’s apparent that selling green in a business-to-business environment hasn’t necessarily evolved into a slam dunk.
Now some attribute the hesitancy expressed on the part of executives as a by-product of a struggling economy. But the inability to generate significant traction highlighting the environmental gains associated with different software applications and services has more to do with message and approach than the willingness of prospective clients to advance their commitments to sustainability.
A few weeks ago, our company president had the opportunity to address a gathering of technology executives on this very subject, talking at length about how to build a more compelling business case for sustainability. By and large, most corporations have the desire to conduct business in a more environmentally friendly manner – that I firmly believe – but as a technology vendor, touting green doesn’t preclude you from demonstrating that a solution or service is capable of generating financial and/or operational gains.
Most technology solutions fall into well-defined categories such as CRM, ERP and BPM. Whether these types of applications help improve internal workflows or manage customer data better, they’ve been designed to address a very traditional business problem. The notion that a software solution can be used to deliver measurable results against an organization’s green initiatives has only recently come to light. Yet because green is perceived to be ‘hot’ we see a lot of companies integrating it into their branding and product messaging, often to the detriment of a solution’s core value proposition. When it comes to building a compelling business case for sustainability, this is perhaps the biggest mistake a company can make.
Given the pervasiveness of this approach in the B2B arena – and what some would fairly label as saturation in the consumer market – there’s a heightened sensitivity to greenwashing. As a result, many executives are learning to view sales pitches through a skeptic’s lens. At the same time, it’s critical to remember that while awareness for the issues surrounding sustainability are becoming more common at the C-level, many of the individuals who bear the responsibility for evaluating and purchasing technology solutions simply haven’t been charged with incorporating environmental metrics into the decision making process.
So long as purchasing decisions continue to place the most emphasis on financial and operational gains, companies need to build the business case from the ground up and address the desire for greater efficiency, lower costs, improved service and market leadership. In reality, green shouldn’t even enter into the conversation until core ROI has been presented and understood. As companies begin to interject green into the conversation, consider – from a business perspective – how sustainability can contribute to (1) revenue growth, (2) shareholder value, (3) cost reduction and (4) innovation. Placing sustainability within the context of these areas places the green conversation in a language that every executive speaks.
Companies build financial models all of the time to prove out cost and process efficiency. In order to move sustainability up the proverbial food chain (faster), we need to begin applying that level of due diligence to creating models that not only illustrate financial savings but measurable environmental benefits as well. Using vague, generalized statements serves only to obscure genuine business and financial gains that can come in the form of reduced carbon emissions or electronic waste.
Granted there are a lot of factors that get thrown into the pot when deciding on one solution over another but I think it’s infinitely more difficult for companies to reject a solution with a demonstrable ability to create a six-, seven- or even eight-figure savings.
Whether we’re in a recession or not, the appetite for green exists. It’s just that executives aren’t likely to buy in just because a product or service can help them go green. We’ve moved into a new era where sustainability is now seen as a more strategic endeavor, and therefore given greater scrutiny, particularly in relation to its contribution to the bottom line. If technology providers want to forge genuine links between their products and sustainability, the value proposition has to be rooted in helping companies advance their financial and operational performance.
Trade Wings’ Chief Executive Officer and Founder Todd Adelman is passionate about driving business model innovation within the Telecom industry. With more than 20 years of supply chain and asset management experience, Todd leads a number of strategic initiatives designed to establish Trade Wings as a trusted authority on the development and implementation of reuse optimization strategies for network assets.
Now some attribute the hesitancy expressed on the part of executives as a by-product of a struggling economy. But the inability to generate significant traction highlighting the environmental gains associated with different software applications and services has more to do with message and approach than the willingness of prospective clients to advance their commitments to sustainability.
A few weeks ago, our company president had the opportunity to address a gathering of technology executives on this very subject, talking at length about how to build a more compelling business case for sustainability. By and large, most corporations have the desire to conduct business in a more environmentally friendly manner – that I firmly believe – but as a technology vendor, touting green doesn’t preclude you from demonstrating that a solution or service is capable of generating financial and/or operational gains.
Most technology solutions fall into well-defined categories such as CRM, ERP and BPM. Whether these types of applications help improve internal workflows or manage customer data better, they’ve been designed to address a very traditional business problem. The notion that a software solution can be used to deliver measurable results against an organization’s green initiatives has only recently come to light. Yet because green is perceived to be ‘hot’ we see a lot of companies integrating it into their branding and product messaging, often to the detriment of a solution’s core value proposition. When it comes to building a compelling business case for sustainability, this is perhaps the biggest mistake a company can make.
Given the pervasiveness of this approach in the B2B arena – and what some would fairly label as saturation in the consumer market – there’s a heightened sensitivity to greenwashing. As a result, many executives are learning to view sales pitches through a skeptic’s lens. At the same time, it’s critical to remember that while awareness for the issues surrounding sustainability are becoming more common at the C-level, many of the individuals who bear the responsibility for evaluating and purchasing technology solutions simply haven’t been charged with incorporating environmental metrics into the decision making process.
So long as purchasing decisions continue to place the most emphasis on financial and operational gains, companies need to build the business case from the ground up and address the desire for greater efficiency, lower costs, improved service and market leadership. In reality, green shouldn’t even enter into the conversation until core ROI has been presented and understood. As companies begin to interject green into the conversation, consider – from a business perspective – how sustainability can contribute to (1) revenue growth, (2) shareholder value, (3) cost reduction and (4) innovation. Placing sustainability within the context of these areas places the green conversation in a language that every executive speaks.
Companies build financial models all of the time to prove out cost and process efficiency. In order to move sustainability up the proverbial food chain (faster), we need to begin applying that level of due diligence to creating models that not only illustrate financial savings but measurable environmental benefits as well. Using vague, generalized statements serves only to obscure genuine business and financial gains that can come in the form of reduced carbon emissions or electronic waste.
Granted there are a lot of factors that get thrown into the pot when deciding on one solution over another but I think it’s infinitely more difficult for companies to reject a solution with a demonstrable ability to create a six-, seven- or even eight-figure savings.
Whether we’re in a recession or not, the appetite for green exists. It’s just that executives aren’t likely to buy in just because a product or service can help them go green. We’ve moved into a new era where sustainability is now seen as a more strategic endeavor, and therefore given greater scrutiny, particularly in relation to its contribution to the bottom line. If technology providers want to forge genuine links between their products and sustainability, the value proposition has to be rooted in helping companies advance their financial and operational performance.
Trade Wings’ Chief Executive Officer and Founder Todd Adelman is passionate about driving business model innovation within the Telecom industry. With more than 20 years of supply chain and asset management experience, Todd leads a number of strategic initiatives designed to establish Trade Wings as a trusted authority on the development and implementation of reuse optimization strategies for network assets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)