May 10, 2007
EU beats the U.S. in environmental policies
By Gina Roos

When it comes to environmental policies, there is no doubt that the European Union is light years ahead of the United States. But of course, EU member states don't have to deal with an administration that only now grudgingly acknowledges the possibility of global warming or the need to embrace recycling or other environmental laws at the federal level. My personal opinion aside, the EU's recently released annual environment policy review speaks for itself.

The purpose of the EU's annual Environment Policy Review (EPR) is to not only highlight the key developments in environment policy at EU and Member States level over the last year, but also to serve as a way to monitor its progress in key environmental goals. It includes recent findings, environmental trends and key issues for 2007.

In 2006, the EU made strides in dealing with climate change via the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. It also renewed its EU Sustainable Development Strategy, and in December 2006 adopted the new REACH chemicals regulation, which will require the registration of about 30,000 chemical substances. The EU expects that the most dangerous chemicals will be progressively phased out and replaced by safer substances.

In addition, under the EU's European Energy Strategy there is a proposal to reduce energy by 20% by 2020, and in early 2007 the commission proposed an integrated energy and climate change package for a new Energy Policy in Europe whereby member states agree to a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

The review also notes that at the end of 2006, there were 420 infringement cases on environment legislation, and the Commission is working to improve the handling of these cases.

Looking ahead, the Commission will continue to look at ways to promote energy efficiency, eco-design, eco-innovation and clean technologies as well as to improve its implementation of environmental legislation. For more details about the EU's Environment Policy Review visit http://ec.europa.eu/environment/policyreview.htm.

May 09, 2007
Greenhouse gas emission tracking gains traction
By Gina Roos

The Environmental News Service reported today that thirty-one states have announced that they are charter members of The Climate Registry to take responsibility for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. This was primarily driven by the lack of leadership at the federal level to deal with global warming. ENS says this marks the largest national effort to take action on climate change.

ENS explains that the climate registry is a tool to measure, track, verify and publicly report greenhouse gas emissions across borders and industry sectors. Currently, it's not mandatory to report greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.

Founding member states and tribes includes the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming and the Campo Kumeyaay Nation. In addition, two Canadian provinces, British Columbia and Manitoba, have committed to participate in the Climate Registry. Click the link for the complete ENS story.

ENS also reports that a group of large corporations calling on the federal government to enact mandatory national legislation to cap and trade greenhouse gas emissions doubled its membership to 22 corporate partners. Major greenhouse gas emitters such as automotive, oil and chemical companies are among the new members of the U.S. Climate Change Partnership, said ENS.

These companies are pledging to support national legislation to reduce America's emission of greenhouse gases by 60 to 80 percent by 2050. Click the link for the complete ENS story.

April 30, 2007
Promise, peril in going green
By Bill Schweber

Don't worry, this is not another commentary about climate change, although I do know that simulations can be very sensitive to assumptions in their underlying models and to errors in the input data. (As physics Nobel laureate Niels Bohr said, "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future.") My concern is about the R&D structure that will arise as society attempts to reduce the possibility of global warning through new and improved energy sources, greater efficiency and "greener" technologies.

Have no doubt, lots of money will flow into this effort, and that's generally a good thing for engineers. Some of this money will go toward smaller-scale R&D, but a lot will go to larger, even immense, projects. Some of the funding will be private, some will be from foundations and some will come from government programs.

When this much money flows into a program or mission, it reinforces the miscon- ception that engineering progress can, in effect, be bought on demand. Sometimes that's true. Examples include the Manhattan Project, the 1960s moon-landing effort and even the electronics industry's pouring billions into making Moore's Law happen. Put money in, make those engineers work hard and poof: You'll get the advances you wanted.

Sometimes, if you're really lucky, you even get a true nonlinearity with an unanticipated breakthrough that changes everything.

Yet the history of science and engineering R&D also shows us that it's often the least-funded efforts that make the most dramatic breakthroughs, while the best-funded ones may stall or go down dead-ends. That's OK; engineers and scientists often remind everyone that this is part of the learning process.

But the investors may not see it that way. They will expect progress, and in the direction they were anticipating. If the big grants and massive public funds don't yield results in the expected time frame, there will be hearings and press reports of money misspent. The engineering maxim that "you can have it quick, cheap or right; pick two " will be ignored amid the finger-pointing.

On the other hand, if things do go well, it will reinforce society's belief that engineering progress is merely a matter of putting in money and turning the crank. Engineers themselves have sometimes bought into this mind-set. The result has been detrimental to fields laced with uncertainties, unknowns and even outright failure, despite so much progress.

So, while the next round of investment may produce good outcomes, it might also contribute to the diminishment of engineering's status in the broader society. Remember, one of the laws that govern engineering is the law of unintended consequences.

April 27, 2007
The critical mass of green
By Paul O'Shea

Current tech news is filled with a variety of stories about saving energy. For example, The Green Grid consortium, Power.org, and individual companies like Hewlett-Packard and others are committing to reduce energy usage in all parts of the energy/power chain. You could say we have hit a critical mass, an inflection point of energy awareness. It's happening for various reasons but let's face it, profit is the motivator and I'm all for the "greed is good" factor because it tells me that saving power/energy is going to remain in our consciousness because it's worthwhile for companies to focus on saving green-backs while helping to serve the customer needs and ultimately, the environment.

Let me focus on a recent conversation I had with John Tuccillo, the worldwide director of data center systems at American Power Conversion (now APC-MGE). He told me that the Green Grid consortium was initiated by eleven companies to advance energy efficiency in data centers. The consortium maintains that energy efficiency in the data center is the most significant issue facing technology providers and their customers. It has everything to with the exponential rise in power and cooling costs as well as customer demand for concentrated computing that is outpacing the availability of clean reliable power in many places around the world. The Green Grid members take a holistic view of computing with a focus on data center issues. The Green Grid recently had its first meeting of the 11 founding members and any newcomers to help iron out the consortium's charter. This is a worthwhile endeavor for other technology companies to consider joining because all end users and technology suppliers are encouraged to help drive platform-neutral specifications and metrics. This is a ground floor opportunity to help shape the direction of energy use in the data center. The group has two working committees: the technology committee and the communications committee. If you want to keep up with what's going on within the group you can contact Richard Weber at rweber@blancandotus.com or telephone him at: 1-512-372-6652.

Right now the members of the consortium are going about fulfilling the charter for establishing a common vocabulary, measurement metric and standard of measurements for all elements of a data center. That's basic but important because all companies have their own way of interpreting energy efficiency. So, the first thing to be done is to agree on these standards. Once the parties agree on this baseline they will focus on ways to improve against it. Finally, they aim to determine how to communicate with the industry the results of the first two efforts- and you can be a part of this effort - pushing beyond critical mass.