Going green is the mantra I often hear among Indian IT companies today. Patni Computer Systems constructed a 175 crores worth IT/BPO campus that got certified as green. Cisco has adopted the "Let's Talk Cisco Green" program that aims to spread awareness among employees to keep the green aspect foremost on their minds. CSC spearheaded a car pool initiative that avoids the AC for six months a year and its ‘Save Trees, Go Green’ campaign which recognizes employees who save paper by minimal use of printers. Several Indian IT companies are adopting "Going green" as a integral part of their corporate wide policies. Why and what in the world is prompting the IT industry to go green?
Going green is all about "Sustainable Design of Products and Processes". The official definition of green engineering is
Green Engineering is the design, commercialization and use of processes and products that are feasible and economical while minimizing:
• Generation of pollution at the source.
• Risk to human health and the environment.
Launched as a program by Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), USA in 1998, t goals of the Green Engineering Program are to incorporate “green” or environmentally conscious thinking and approaches in the academic and industrial communities regarding the design, commercialization, and use of processes and products.
The recent news clips on global warming, climate changes, recurrences of high intensity hurricanes, breaking of ice shelves at the poles and the ultra rapid growth happening over a wide swathe of the planet have all induced an element of urgency in inculcating the green aspect into the DNA of every major corporation and institution. Just hoping we are not too late !!
Source:
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Copenhagen outcome good but not adequate: Pachauri
NEW DELHI: The Copenhagen Accord was a good outcome but not adequate to fight climate change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chief RK
Pachauri said on Wednesday.
"We expected much more from the Copenhagen summit. We need to work very hard and come out with a legally binding commitment. There is a urgency to reach an agreement by the end on 2010 as we are losing valuable time. If delayed further, it will get very difficult and expensive to limit global temperature rise to two degree Celsius," said Pachauri.
Under the accord, by Jan 31, 2010 both developed and developing countries will have to inform of their commitment to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases that are causing global warming.
"The developed countries will give percentage of emission reduction while developing countries will give nationally appropriate mitigation action. By February next year, we will have fair idea what countries are willing to commit," he said.
Pachauri said action will be taken soon after to use these submissions as a basis for creating a legally binding agreement within a reasonable period of time.
"The Copenhagen Accord does provide a foundation and framework that allows for a binding agreement to be developed incorporating the specific commitments by all countries, particularly industrialised countries," he said.
Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/environment/developmental-issues/Copenhagen-outcome-good-but-not-adequate-Pachauri-/articleshow/5370546.cms
Pachauri said on Wednesday.
"We expected much more from the Copenhagen summit. We need to work very hard and come out with a legally binding commitment. There is a urgency to reach an agreement by the end on 2010 as we are losing valuable time. If delayed further, it will get very difficult and expensive to limit global temperature rise to two degree Celsius," said Pachauri.
Under the accord, by Jan 31, 2010 both developed and developing countries will have to inform of their commitment to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases that are causing global warming.
"The developed countries will give percentage of emission reduction while developing countries will give nationally appropriate mitigation action. By February next year, we will have fair idea what countries are willing to commit," he said.
Pachauri said action will be taken soon after to use these submissions as a basis for creating a legally binding agreement within a reasonable period of time.
"The Copenhagen Accord does provide a foundation and framework that allows for a binding agreement to be developed incorporating the specific commitments by all countries, particularly industrialised countries," he said.
Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/environment/developmental-issues/Copenhagen-outcome-good-but-not-adequate-Pachauri-/articleshow/5370546.cms
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The cost of saving Earth
If negotiators reach an accord at the climate talks in Copenhagen it will entail profound shifts in energy production , dislocations in how and
where people live, sweeping changes in agriculture and forestry and the creation of complex new markets in global warming pollution credits.
So what is all this going to cost?
The short answer is trillions of dollars over the next few decades. It is a significant sum but a relatively small fraction of the world's total economic output.
In energy infrastructure alone, the transformational ambitions that delegates to the UN climate change conference are expected to set in the coming days will cost more than $10 trillion in additional investment from 2010 to 2030, according to a new estimate from the International Energy Agency.
As scary as that number sounds, the agency said that the costs would ramp up relatively slowly and be largely offset by economic benefits in new jobs, improved lives, more secure energy supplies and a reduced danger of climate catastrophe.
Most of the investment will come from private rather than public funds, the agency contends. "People often ask about the costs," said Kevin Parker, the global head of Deutsche Bank Asset Management, who tracks climate policy for the bank. "But the figures people tend to cite don't take into account conservation and efficiency measures that are easily available. And they don't look at the cost of inaction, which is the extinction of the human race. Period."
Whatever global warming's effects - and most scientific projections are less dire - there are also varying estimates of the economic costs of failing to act to address the problem soon, some of them very high.
In Copenhagen, some of the most intense and difficult discussions for negotiators centre on any potential agreement's near-term financial arrangements.
Some of the poorest and most vulnerable nations are calling for a gigantic transfer of wealth from the industrialised world to island nations and countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America that are most likely to feel the ravages of a changing climate.
The money would be used to help developing nations reduce emissions by switching to renewable energy sources like wind and solar and by compensating landowners for not cutting down or burning forests, a major source of carbon dioxide emissions.
Other funds might be used be used to adjust to effects of a changing climate like rising sea levels, by building flood walls or relocating settlements to higher ground.
Perhaps the most detailed analysis of the financing needs of any climate change agreement comes from Project Catalyst, an initiative of the European Union and ClimateWorks , a foundation-supported policy group based in San Francisco.
The group's work has helped shape the negotiations in Copenhagen. The group estimates that roughly $100 billion will be needed by 2020 to finance climate change programs in the developing world.
About half could come from the growing global market in carbon emissions credits under a cap-and-trade system, which will be worth an estimated $2 trillion a year by 2020. A cap-and-trade system is already operating in Europe and is under consideration by Congress.
An additional $10 billion to $20 billion would come from taxes on fuels used in aviation and shipping. The rest, perhaps $25 billion to $35 billion, would be loans and grants from industrialised nations to poorer countries, split roughly three ways among the US, the European Union and Canada, Japan and Australia.
The good news is that everybody now is supporting our proposal for financing," said Umaña , the Costa Rican delegate at Copenhagen . "The bad news is that it's happening 15 years too late. Without real money on the table, this will be a disaster."
BUDGET DEFICIT
Roughly $100 billion will be needed by 2020 to finance climate-change schemes in the developing world. About half could come from the growing global market in carbon emissions credits under a cap-and-trade system. An additional $10 billion to $20 billion would come from taxes on fuels used in aviation and shipping. The rest, perhaps $25 billion to $35 billion, would be loans and grants from industrialised nations to poorer countries
YOUR POCKET
ENERGY
The overall costs of Copenhagen are impossible to quantify. Most of the money will be spent by rich countries switching to a "low carbon economy" in order to meet targets on cutting greenhouse gases. This will mean investing in renewables and nuclear energy and will most likely end up on your fuel bills. Electricity costs will rise, though in the distant future power could even be free as energy is generated from natural sources
TAXES
Carbon taxes that are imposed on polluting industries are likely to be passed onto the consumer. There could also be direct carbon taxes on individuals if "carbon allowances" are introduced to limit the amount of energy, travel and other electricity each person is allowed to use
AIR TRAVEL
Airlines do not currently have a lowcarbon alternative to jet fuel. Unless one is found, they will bear the full burden of higher fuel costs and carbon taxes, and average fares will rise by at least 140 per cent. Video conferencing and mobile technology should get cheaper as it becomes more popular as an alternative to travel
TRANSPORT
Developed countries will be investing in high speed trains to bring down emissions. But the prices will not fall in the short term because of the investment needed. Electric vehicles should become cheaper as nations encourage manufacture and a switch from petrol cars fuels demand
FOOD
Cost of food flown from abroad could go up with the cost of transport. Prices of locally-grown food could also increase because of a rise in the cost of fertilisers
OTHER GOODS
Cost of clothing is likely to rise by one per cent and of other household goods like washing machines by two per cent, according to a New Scientist study conducted this year
Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/environment/global-warming/The-cost-of-saving-Earth-/articleshow/5330087.cms
where people live, sweeping changes in agriculture and forestry and the creation of complex new markets in global warming pollution credits.
So what is all this going to cost?
The short answer is trillions of dollars over the next few decades. It is a significant sum but a relatively small fraction of the world's total economic output.
In energy infrastructure alone, the transformational ambitions that delegates to the UN climate change conference are expected to set in the coming days will cost more than $10 trillion in additional investment from 2010 to 2030, according to a new estimate from the International Energy Agency.
As scary as that number sounds, the agency said that the costs would ramp up relatively slowly and be largely offset by economic benefits in new jobs, improved lives, more secure energy supplies and a reduced danger of climate catastrophe.
Most of the investment will come from private rather than public funds, the agency contends. "People often ask about the costs," said Kevin Parker, the global head of Deutsche Bank Asset Management, who tracks climate policy for the bank. "But the figures people tend to cite don't take into account conservation and efficiency measures that are easily available. And they don't look at the cost of inaction, which is the extinction of the human race. Period."
Whatever global warming's effects - and most scientific projections are less dire - there are also varying estimates of the economic costs of failing to act to address the problem soon, some of them very high.
In Copenhagen, some of the most intense and difficult discussions for negotiators centre on any potential agreement's near-term financial arrangements.
Some of the poorest and most vulnerable nations are calling for a gigantic transfer of wealth from the industrialised world to island nations and countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America that are most likely to feel the ravages of a changing climate.
The money would be used to help developing nations reduce emissions by switching to renewable energy sources like wind and solar and by compensating landowners for not cutting down or burning forests, a major source of carbon dioxide emissions.
Other funds might be used be used to adjust to effects of a changing climate like rising sea levels, by building flood walls or relocating settlements to higher ground.
Perhaps the most detailed analysis of the financing needs of any climate change agreement comes from Project Catalyst, an initiative of the European Union and ClimateWorks , a foundation-supported policy group based in San Francisco.
The group's work has helped shape the negotiations in Copenhagen. The group estimates that roughly $100 billion will be needed by 2020 to finance climate change programs in the developing world.
About half could come from the growing global market in carbon emissions credits under a cap-and-trade system, which will be worth an estimated $2 trillion a year by 2020. A cap-and-trade system is already operating in Europe and is under consideration by Congress.
An additional $10 billion to $20 billion would come from taxes on fuels used in aviation and shipping. The rest, perhaps $25 billion to $35 billion, would be loans and grants from industrialised nations to poorer countries, split roughly three ways among the US, the European Union and Canada, Japan and Australia.
The good news is that everybody now is supporting our proposal for financing," said Umaña , the Costa Rican delegate at Copenhagen . "The bad news is that it's happening 15 years too late. Without real money on the table, this will be a disaster."
BUDGET DEFICIT
Roughly $100 billion will be needed by 2020 to finance climate-change schemes in the developing world. About half could come from the growing global market in carbon emissions credits under a cap-and-trade system. An additional $10 billion to $20 billion would come from taxes on fuels used in aviation and shipping. The rest, perhaps $25 billion to $35 billion, would be loans and grants from industrialised nations to poorer countries
YOUR POCKET
ENERGY
The overall costs of Copenhagen are impossible to quantify. Most of the money will be spent by rich countries switching to a "low carbon economy" in order to meet targets on cutting greenhouse gases. This will mean investing in renewables and nuclear energy and will most likely end up on your fuel bills. Electricity costs will rise, though in the distant future power could even be free as energy is generated from natural sources
TAXES
Carbon taxes that are imposed on polluting industries are likely to be passed onto the consumer. There could also be direct carbon taxes on individuals if "carbon allowances" are introduced to limit the amount of energy, travel and other electricity each person is allowed to use
AIR TRAVEL
Airlines do not currently have a lowcarbon alternative to jet fuel. Unless one is found, they will bear the full burden of higher fuel costs and carbon taxes, and average fares will rise by at least 140 per cent. Video conferencing and mobile technology should get cheaper as it becomes more popular as an alternative to travel
TRANSPORT
Developed countries will be investing in high speed trains to bring down emissions. But the prices will not fall in the short term because of the investment needed. Electric vehicles should become cheaper as nations encourage manufacture and a switch from petrol cars fuels demand
FOOD
Cost of food flown from abroad could go up with the cost of transport. Prices of locally-grown food could also increase because of a rise in the cost of fertilisers
OTHER GOODS
Cost of clothing is likely to rise by one per cent and of other household goods like washing machines by two per cent, according to a New Scientist study conducted this year
Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/environment/global-warming/The-cost-of-saving-Earth-/articleshow/5330087.cms
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Oceans becoming nosier thanks to pollution: Report
PARIS: The world's oceans are becoming noisier thanks to pollution, with potentially harmful effects for whales, dolphins and other marine life,
US scientists said in a study published Sunday.
Low-frequency sound in the ocean is produced by natural phenomena such as rain, waves and marine life, and by human activities such as sonar systems, shipping and construction.
The sound is absorbed mainly through the viscosity of the water and the presence of certain dissolved chemicals, said the report published in the science journal Nature.
But the concentration of chemicals that absorb sound in the oceans has declined as a result of ocean acidification, in turn caused by rising concentrations of carbon dioxide.
Rising levels of carbon dioxide come from human activity such as shipping, with the number of ships roughly doubling over the past 40 years, the scientists said.
This was in turn increasing the acidity of the ocean, shown by a lowering of its pH levels, they said.
Using model simulations, the scientists found that increases in acidity could reduce seawater sound absorption by as much as 60 percent by 2100 in high latitude oceans.
Concern about the negative effect of the sea's increased acidity had previously been concentrated on the reduced rate of calcification, such as in coral reefs.
"However, a less anticipated consequence of ocean acidification is its effect on underwater sound absorption," the authors said.
"A decrease in seawater pH lowers sound absorption in the low-frequency range and, as a result, leads to increasing sound transmission."
Future global warming due to an accumulation of greenhouse gases may further decrease the ocean's sound absorption capacity at certain frequencies, the study said.
"High levels of low-frequency sound have a number of behavioural and biological effects on marine life," it added.
This included tissue damage, mass stranding of mammals such as whales and temporary loss of hearing in dolphins associated with military tests using intense mid-frequency sonar, the report said.
Marine species had adapted to varying levels of noise but the consequences of the sea's decreased ability to absorb sound were uncertain and required further research, the scientists said.
Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/environment/pollution/Oceans-becoming-nosier-thanks-to-pollution-Report-/articleshow/5360546.cms
US scientists said in a study published Sunday.
Low-frequency sound in the ocean is produced by natural phenomena such as rain, waves and marine life, and by human activities such as sonar systems, shipping and construction.
The sound is absorbed mainly through the viscosity of the water and the presence of certain dissolved chemicals, said the report published in the science journal Nature.
But the concentration of chemicals that absorb sound in the oceans has declined as a result of ocean acidification, in turn caused by rising concentrations of carbon dioxide.
Rising levels of carbon dioxide come from human activity such as shipping, with the number of ships roughly doubling over the past 40 years, the scientists said.
This was in turn increasing the acidity of the ocean, shown by a lowering of its pH levels, they said.
Using model simulations, the scientists found that increases in acidity could reduce seawater sound absorption by as much as 60 percent by 2100 in high latitude oceans.
Concern about the negative effect of the sea's increased acidity had previously been concentrated on the reduced rate of calcification, such as in coral reefs.
"However, a less anticipated consequence of ocean acidification is its effect on underwater sound absorption," the authors said.
"A decrease in seawater pH lowers sound absorption in the low-frequency range and, as a result, leads to increasing sound transmission."
Future global warming due to an accumulation of greenhouse gases may further decrease the ocean's sound absorption capacity at certain frequencies, the study said.
"High levels of low-frequency sound have a number of behavioural and biological effects on marine life," it added.
This included tissue damage, mass stranding of mammals such as whales and temporary loss of hearing in dolphins associated with military tests using intense mid-frequency sonar, the report said.
Marine species had adapted to varying levels of noise but the consequences of the sea's decreased ability to absorb sound were uncertain and required further research, the scientists said.
Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/environment/pollution/Oceans-becoming-nosier-thanks-to-pollution-Report-/articleshow/5360546.cms
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Danish island becomes one of first places on Earth to be energy self-sufficient
The Danish island of Samsø has become one of the first industrialized places on Earth to qualify as completely energy self-sufficient.
The tiny island — just 30 miles long and 15 miles wide — first began its push toward sustainability in 1997. In just over a decade, Samsø erected 21 electricity-producing wind turbines and a heating system fueled by wood chip- and straw-burning furnaces accompanied by several small solar panels.
Eleven of Samsø’s turbines are onshore and ten are offshore; all generate one megawatt each. The onshore turbines produce more electricity than the island consumes — enough to offset 690,000 gallons of oil — while the offshore turbines produce enough power to handle the island’s transportation energy budget.
The island invests excess power in new energy projects.
If that’s not enough, the Samsø experiment has also inadvertently transformed the island’s workforce into green collar workers. Plumbers and carpenters regularly perform energy-efficient home conversions, and their expertise has allowed them to work on green projects elsewhere, including mainland Europe.
Source: http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/smart-takes/danish-island-becomes-one-of-first-places-on-earth-to-be-energy-self-sufficient/2443/
The tiny island — just 30 miles long and 15 miles wide — first began its push toward sustainability in 1997. In just over a decade, Samsø erected 21 electricity-producing wind turbines and a heating system fueled by wood chip- and straw-burning furnaces accompanied by several small solar panels.
Eleven of Samsø’s turbines are onshore and ten are offshore; all generate one megawatt each. The onshore turbines produce more electricity than the island consumes — enough to offset 690,000 gallons of oil — while the offshore turbines produce enough power to handle the island’s transportation energy budget.
The island invests excess power in new energy projects.
If that’s not enough, the Samsø experiment has also inadvertently transformed the island’s workforce into green collar workers. Plumbers and carpenters regularly perform energy-efficient home conversions, and their expertise has allowed them to work on green projects elsewhere, including mainland Europe.
Source: http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/smart-takes/danish-island-becomes-one-of-first-places-on-earth-to-be-energy-self-sufficient/2443/
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
'Crystalline sponge' can help capture CO2
Source: The Economic Times
To sequester carbon dioxide as part of any climate-change mitigation strategy, the gas first has to be captured from the flue at a power plant or
other source. The next step is just as important: the CO² has to be released from whatever captured it so that it can be pumped underground or otherwise stored for the long term.
That second step can be costly from an energy standpoint. Materials currently used to capture CO² have to be heated to release the gas.
But chemists at University of California
, Los Angeles, say that a new class of materials they developed called metal-organic frameworks, or MOFs, hold promise for carbon capture. In the study, Omar Yaghi describes the performance of one MOF, which he says can free most of the CO² it captures at room temperature.
Yaghi described a metal-organic framework as a "crystalline sponge", a hybrid lattice of organic compounds and metal atoms that has a huge internal surface area where gas molecules can be absorbed. The MOF used in the study contains magnesium atoms, "which make just the right environment for binding carbon dioxide", he said.
In experiments, the material separated out CO² while allowing methane to pass. What was really surprising, though, was that at room temperature 87% of the CO² could be released.
To sequester carbon dioxide as part of any climate-change mitigation strategy, the gas first has to be captured from the flue at a power plant or
other source. The next step is just as important: the CO² has to be released from whatever captured it so that it can be pumped underground or otherwise stored for the long term.
That second step can be costly from an energy standpoint. Materials currently used to capture CO² have to be heated to release the gas.
But chemists at University of California
, Los Angeles, say that a new class of materials they developed called metal-organic frameworks, or MOFs, hold promise for carbon capture. In the study, Omar Yaghi describes the performance of one MOF, which he says can free most of the CO² it captures at room temperature.
Yaghi described a metal-organic framework as a "crystalline sponge", a hybrid lattice of organic compounds and metal atoms that has a huge internal surface area where gas molecules can be absorbed. The MOF used in the study contains magnesium atoms, "which make just the right environment for binding carbon dioxide", he said.
In experiments, the material separated out CO² while allowing methane to pass. What was really surprising, though, was that at room temperature 87% of the CO² could be released.
'2010 to be the world's warmest year'
LONDON: 2010 is likely to be the world's warmest year on record, the British Met Office has
predicted.
According to the Met Office, man-made climate change will be a factor and natural weather patterns would contribute less to 2010's temperature than they did in 1998, the current warmest year in the 160-year record.
El Niño effect, the cyclical heating of the Pacific Ocean, is much weaker than it was in 1998, but the Met Office expects the warming effect of greenhouse gas emissions to more than make up the difference, 'The Times' reported.
It predicts that the global average temperature next year to be almost 0.6 C warmer than the 1961 to 1990 average, and forecasts an annual average of 14.58 C.
The Met Office has also said that it expects half the years between 2010 and 2019 to be warmer than 1998. It sounded a note of caution, saying that a record year in 2010 was not a certainty, especially if the current El Niño began to decline earlier than normal or there was a large volcanic eruption.
However, experts are divided on the prediction. Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "If 2010 turns out to be the hottest year on record, it might go some way towards exploding the myth, spread by the climate conspiracy theorists that we're experiencing global cooling. In reality the world is getting possibly a lot hotter, and humans are causing it."
But, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, has accused the Met Office of making a "political intervention" in the international negotiations taking place in Copenhagen.
"Suggestions by the Met Office that a warming trend will resume in the next year or two should be treated with reserve in light of the recognised difficulties in making such confident predictions," it said.
predicted.
According to the Met Office, man-made climate change will be a factor and natural weather patterns would contribute less to 2010's temperature than they did in 1998, the current warmest year in the 160-year record.
El Niño effect, the cyclical heating of the Pacific Ocean, is much weaker than it was in 1998, but the Met Office expects the warming effect of greenhouse gas emissions to more than make up the difference, 'The Times' reported.
It predicts that the global average temperature next year to be almost 0.6 C warmer than the 1961 to 1990 average, and forecasts an annual average of 14.58 C.
The Met Office has also said that it expects half the years between 2010 and 2019 to be warmer than 1998. It sounded a note of caution, saying that a record year in 2010 was not a certainty, especially if the current El Niño began to decline earlier than normal or there was a large volcanic eruption.
However, experts are divided on the prediction. Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "If 2010 turns out to be the hottest year on record, it might go some way towards exploding the myth, spread by the climate conspiracy theorists that we're experiencing global cooling. In reality the world is getting possibly a lot hotter, and humans are causing it."
But, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, has accused the Met Office of making a "political intervention" in the international negotiations taking place in Copenhagen.
"Suggestions by the Met Office that a warming trend will resume in the next year or two should be treated with reserve in light of the recognised difficulties in making such confident predictions," it said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)