welcome

You hear it all the time, one of the most frequently voiced excuses for Western countries failing to radically cut carbon dioxide emissions: Taking any such action would hand a massive competitive advantage to fast-industrializing China.
Yet evidence is piling up that the very opposite is the case. The main challenge from the world’s new industrial superpower is not that it will continue to use the dirty, old technologies of the past, but that it will come to dominate the new, clean, green ones of the future.

As developed nations fail to put an adequate price on carbon, and thus to stimulate clean-technology development themselves, they risk handing market supremacy to the rival they most fear. Indeed, it could even be hypothesized that China’s blocking of agreement on rich-country emission targets in Copenhagen was intended to hold back the development of cleantech by its Western rivals.

Visitor after distinguished visitor to the world’s most populous country returns home shaken, if not stirred, by the speed and determination with which it is adopting these technologies, especially in renewable energy. David Sandalow, the U.S. assistant secretary of energy for policy and international affairs—a longtime expert in the field, both in and out of government, who has trekked across the Pacific five times since last summer—says, “China’s investment in clean energy is extraordinary. Unless the U.S. makes investments, we are not competitive in the cleantech sector in the years and decades to come.”

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote from China earlier this month that he was increasingly convinced that the most important development of recent years would prove to be “not the Great Recession, but China’s Green Leap Forward.” He, too, warned that unless the United States rapidly caught up, “we are going to gradually cede this industry to Beijing and the good jobs and energy security that would go with it.”

Certainly China’s commitment and growth in this area are breathtaking. It already boasts a thousand solar water heater manufacturers providing some 600,000 jobs. One in every 10 homes in the giant country has them installed, making up two-thirds of the entire world’s solar hot water capacity; by 2030, some estimates suggest, half of all the country’s households could have them.

Solar electricity is not far behind. In 2005, China produced a relatively tiny 100 megawatts of solar cells. Two years later, it was leading the world with 1,088 MW. This year, it is predicted to exceed 5,000 MW, a third of the world’s total—and it’s expected to go on expanding to reach 10,000 MW in just five years time. Solar thermal power is also on the rise: 2,000 MW of solar thermal power stations are expected to come online over the next decade, with a dramatic increase in the years after that.

At the same time, installed wind-power capacity has been doubling annually: China is expected to meet its original 30,000 MW target for 2020 in two years time, and last year it vastly increased the target to an ambitious 100,000 MW.

Indeed, the wind-power expansion reveals something of China’s ruthless determination to lead the world in these new low-carbon industries.  In 2003, just before the headlong growth of the industry began, the country heavily restricted imports, requiring its wind farms to source 70 percent of its parts from the domestic market. The restriction was only lifted last year, by which time home production dominated the business.

And an even more ominous development seems to be gathering pace. China is responsible for 97 percent of the world’s production of rare earth elements or metals, vital for many cleantech products from wind turbines to hybrid-car batteries, fiber optics to low-energy light bulbs. But over the last seven years, it has reduced the quantity of them available for export by 40 percent, and before long may be using all of its production to feed domestic demand.

Other countries—including the United States, South Africa, and Greenland—have significant deposits of rare earth metals, but are years away from properly exploiting them. By increasingly restricting supplies, China could strangle overseas clean industries while boosting its own.

The U.S. administration, at least, is alive to the danger of China dominating the cleantech market. Last April, President Obama warned, “The nation that leads the world in 21st-century clean energy will be the nation that leads in the 21st-century global economy.” The tens of billions of dollars in his stimulus package devoted to renewables is an attempt to gain that lead for the United States.

In fact, there may be an even more productive course: partnership with China. Whereas China can make things much more cheaply than the United States—and open factories much faster—it is, as yet, still far behind the U.S. in innovation and venture capital. There is an opportunity to come together to benefit both countries—and the world.

But seizing that opportunity would require the U.S., as well as other Western countries, to take serious action to raise the price of carbon and spark a wave of new technological innovation, rather than ceding the field to China while falsely professing to be protecting their economies from it.

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has called for the world to boycott American goods and the US dollar, blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming, according to a new audiotape released Friday.

In the tape, broadcast in part on Al-Jazeera television, bin Laden warned of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop it is to bring "the wheels of the American economy" to a halt.

He blamed Western industrialised nations for hunger, desertification and floods across the globe, and called for "drastic solutions" to global warming, and "not solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate change."

Bin Laden has mentioned climate change and global warning in past messages, but the latest tape was his first dedicated to the topic. The speech, which included almost no religious rhetoric, could be an attempt by the terror leader to give his message an appeal beyond Islamic militants.

The al-Qaeda leader also targeted the US economy in the recording, calling for a boycott of American products and an end to the dollar's domination as a world currency.

"We should stop dealings with the dollar and get rid of it as soon as possible," he said. "I know that this has great consequences and grave ramifications, but it is the only means to liberate humanity from slavery and dependence on America."

He argued that such steps would also hamper Washington's war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The new message, whose authenticity could not immediately be confirmed, comes after a bin Laden tape released last week in which he endorsed a failed attempt to blow up an American airliner on Christmas Day.

In a landmark ruling that could have a major impact on many firms' climate change strategies, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) yesterday stepped up the pressure to disclose climate-related risks and opportunities as part of their annual reports.

SEC commissioners split along party lines, voting 3-2 in favour of new interpretative guidance that effectively requires firms to disclose business or legal developments relating to climate change.

Under existing SEC rules, listed companies are required to disclose to investors issues that can have a "material" effect on their business operations. Growing numbers of investors have argued that climate-related risks and opportunities constitute a "material" impact, but an absence of clear SEC guidance on climate-related issues has allowed many firms to exclude climate-related effects from annual reports.

Now the SEC has approved new guidance that outlines how climate change could trigger disclosure requirements for firms.

In particular, it advises that firms should assess whether the physical impacts of climate change will have a material effect on their operations and analyse how climate-related legislation and international treaties could impact their business. It also notes that technical and market developments related to climate change could have a material impact on a firm, citing the example of how some firms may face decreased demand for goods that produce significant greenhouse gas emissions compared to competing products.

SEC chairman Mary Schapiro stressed that the guidance does "not create new legal requirements or modify existing ones – it is merely intended to provide clarity and enhance consistency".

However, it does significantly increase pressure on firms to report on climate-related issues in annual reports and should make it easier for investors to challenge firms that fail to provide information on the risks and opportunities they face as a result of global warming.

The decision was hailed as a victory by the Ceres group of investors, which together represents over $1tr in managed assets and has been lobbying hard for the guidance to be approved.

"Today's vote is a clarion call about the vast risks and opportunities climate change poses for US companies and the urgency for integrating them into investment decision making," said Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres and director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk, a network of 80 institutional investors with $8tr in collective assets. "With this guidance investors can make more sound decisions based on better information – and businesses will have a level-playing field with clear standards and expectations for disclosure."

Maryland state treasurer Nancy Kopp said that the ruling would help investors, including those investing taxpayer and pension funds, better assess future risks. "As investors safeguarding the economic welfare of so many state citizens, we have to be informed about the risks of companies we invest in," she said. "Easy and understandable access to accurate, comparable information regarding these very real risks - and climate change is certainly one of them - is essential to protect the investments our states depend on."

However, the two Republicans SEC commissioners expressed fierce opposition to the new guidance, arguing that the Democrat majority on the Commission was pursuing a political agenda.

Republican commissioner Kathleen L Casey slammed the decision, complaining that "I can only conclude that the purpose of this release is to place the imprimatur of the commission on the agenda of the social and environmental policy lobby, an agenda that falls outside of our expertise and beyond our fundamental mission of investor protection."

Schapiro rejected the criticism, insisting that the SEC was "not opining on whether the world's climate is changing, at what pace it might be changing, or due to what causes". She added that the sole aim of the new guidance was to " help ensure that our disclosure rules are consistently applied".

The SEC guidance will increase pressure on regulators in other countries to follow suit and represents the latest in a series of measures increasing pressure on listed firms to disclose information on their climate change strategies.

In October, the SEC also modified rules making it easier for shareholder resolutions to seek information on firms' environmental and social performances, while further reforms could be in the pipeline with the watchdog currently evaluating a formal request for companies to disclose material relating to environmental, social and governance risks.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) also recently approved mandatory rules requiring large insurers to publicly disclose climate risks, while shareholder resolutions and legal action relating to businesses response to climate change are running at record levels.

Photo via globalnerdy

Carbon reporting is on the rise, and along with it is the rise of software to help with accounting. Grooms Energy Research predicts that over the next two years, we can expect to see a seven-fold increase in market size, and a five-fold increase in the number of companies in the market over the next year, making carbon reporting software one of the next big booms in clean tech.

Washington, DC — More than 50 corporations, including Kraft Foods, IKEA, Ford, GE and SC Johnson, are measuring the greenhouse gas emissions of their products and entire supply chains with two new standards from the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative.

The standards provide methods for companies to follow the emissions from individual product life cycles and companies' value chains. The standards, developed by the World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development, are the Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard and the Scope 3 (Corporate Value Chain) Accounting and Reporting Standard.

More than 120 companies applied to test out the new standards and provide feedback on them, with the final standards scheduled to be published in December this year.

The Product Standard looks at the entire life cycle impacts of items, and will be tested by companies that make magazines, food, jeans, computers, wind turbines, steel and other goods.

“If this method becomes widely accepted, it will enable us to better calculate and share the climate change impact of our products," Michael Kobori, Levi Strauss & Co.'s vice president of social and environmental sustainability, said in a statement. "Being able to credibly measure and communicate that product impact to consumers can unleash the power of the market to address climate change on a global scale."

The Scope 3 Standard lets companies look at the impacts from outsourcing, supplier manufacturing and the use of their products.

The companies testing out the new standards are:

• 3M Company
• Acer Inc.
• Airbus S.A.S.
• AkzoNobel
• Alcan Packaging
• Alcoa
• Autodesk, Inc.
• Baoshan Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.
• BASF SE
• Belkin International
• Bloomberg LP
• BT Plc
• CA, Inc.
• Coca-Cola Entfrischungsgetränke AG
• Colors Fruit SA (Pty) Ltd.
• Deutsche Post AG
• DuPont
• Eclipse Networks (Pty) Ltd.
• Ecolab
• The Estee Lauder Company
• Ford Motor Company
• General Electric
• U.S. General Services Administration
• Highways Agency (UK)
• Hydro Tasmania
• IBM
• IKEA
• Italcementi Group
• JohnsonDiversey, Inc.
• Kraft Foods
• Lenovo Corporation
• Levi Strauss & Co.
• Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation
• National Grid
• Natura Cosméticos
• New Belgium Brewing Co.
• Otarian
• Pinchin Environmental Ltd.
• PricewaterhouseCoopers (Hong Kong)
• Procter & Gamble Eurocor
• Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc.
• Rogers Communications, Inc.
• SC Johnson
• Shanghai Zidan Food Packaging & Printing Co., Ltd.
• Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd
• Swire Beverages (Coca-Cola Bottling Partner)
• TAL Apparel Limited
• Tech-Front (Shanghai) Computer Co., Ltd./Quanta Shanghai Manufacturing City
• Tennant Company
• Veolia Water
• VT Group Plc
• Webcor Builders
• WorldAutoSteel

BEAVERTON, OR — Nike has brought its footprint for greenhouse gas emissions back to 2007 levels and reports progress in other climate and energy areas, but has revisited its carbon neutrality goals and no longer purchases carbon offsets, the firm says in its latest corporate responsibility report.

The world's leading maker of athletic footwear and apparel released the CSR report, which covers fiscal years 2007 through 2009, today.

Nike said its total greenhouse gas footprint (including supply chain but excluding materials) stood at 1.53 million tonnes CO2 equivalent in 2009, which is down from 1.6 million tCO2e in 2008 and far less than the high of 7.5 million tCO2e in 1997-98.

The company's GHG footprint for Nike owned-and-operated sites and from business travel was tallied at 0.12 million tCO2e for last year. That's an increase from 0.10 million tCO2e in 2008.

The rise can be attributed in large part to the company's decision in fiscal year 2009 to stop buying carbon offsets and concentrate instead on curbing business travel through increased use of tele- and videoconferencing, boosting energy efficiency initiatives and taking a hard look at the embedded energy in materials and energy consumed in the manufacturing process.

Yahoo! also abandoned carbon offsets in favor of efficiency strategies in 2009.

"Moving forward," Nike said in the facilities and travel section of its CSR report, "our preference is to achieve climate neutrality through a combination of energy efficiency and the purchase of more direct forms of renewable energy, through on-site applications and other means."

Nike, a founding member of the Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP) coalition founded in 2008, offered the following rationale for its decision to no longer purchase offsets:

• "Materiality: Embedded energy in materials and manufacturing are the largest part of our footprint so we are focusing resources on them.
• "Investment Strategy: Rather than purchase renewable energy certificates to achieve climate neutrality, which have become increasingly controversial, we believe it is more meaningful to invest in energy efficiency and in distributed energy projects that reduce our reliance on grid energy and help stabilize energy costs for the long term.
• "Clarity: Climate neutrality is not a scientifically agreed upon term or standard.
• "Access to renewable energy: The lack of a market price for carbon has limited NIKE, Inc.'s ability to access and deploy clean energy across our operations. Our approach to addressing this is through advocacy with coalitions including BICEP. Specifically, we support a cap-and-trade system with 100-percent auction of allowance and a suite of other elements such as science-based targets, renewable portfolio standards and investment in clean energy jobs. Together, we believe that these changes will enable a transition to a low-carbon economy."

Other energy and climate accomplishments highlighted in the report include:

• A 15 percent drop in CO2 emissions from Nike-owned and operated facilities in 2009 compared to 2007, despite a 41 percent growth in square footage in the facilities.
• A 9 percent decline in CO2 emissions from inbound logistics in 2009 compared to 2007.
• A 6 percent decrease in the absolute CO2 footprint of the 19 factories operated by Nike's five largest contract manufacturers; the drop occurred despite a 9 percent increase in production. The factory operations account for 60 percent of Nike's footwear output. The decrease came after Nike launched its footwear efficiency program in 2008.
In deciding to hone in on the areas where it can make the sharpest reductions in energy consumption and GHG emissions, the firm took a deeper look at the footprint of its operations.

In the process, Nike determined that its average running shoe has a CO2 footprint of about 40 pounds, which includes the embedded energy in all materials used, the making of the shoe and transportation to a company distribution center in the U.S.

Nike also determined that 62 percent of its overall carbon footprint (except for the energy embedded in materials) comes from footwear manufacturing, which in turn accounts for 90 percent of the company's entire manufacturing footprint.

Those figures underlie the firm's new vision for product design and the development of its "Considered Design Standards." Nike says it envisions a closed-loop process in which products are designed for recycling, customers can bring their products back to be recycled into new ones, waste that cannot be eliminated is recycled, and products are less reliant on oil and water.

The strategies described in the report reflect a shift from what Nike describes as a "risk management, philanthropic and compliance model" to one that's aimed at integrating sustainable business and innovation (SB&I) principles.

"This report is published at a tipping point," Nike President and CEO Mike Parker writes in the letter that serves as the forward to the report. "It's time for the world to shift. All companies face a direct impact from decreasing natural resources, rising populations and disruption from climate change.

"And what may be a subtle effect now will only become more intense over the next five to 10 years ... We see sustainability, both social and environmental, as a powerful path to innovation, and crucial to our growth strategies ... I believe our work in sustainable business and innovation has equal potential to shape our legacy."

Nike's corporate responsibility report can be viewed at www.nikebiz.com/crreport or downloaded as a pdf at http://www.nikebiz.com/crreport/pdf/.

Call them the two greatest challenges now facing American businesses: Companies must not only survive the "Great Recession" of today, but must strategically position themselves for the green economy of tomorrow.

The bad news is that the pressure to perform flawlessly on both scores is greater than ever.

The good news is that there are ways to do both for the short-, medium-, and long-term, saving money while also reducing a company's overall carbon footprint.

More than ever before, sustainability objectives converge with profitability expectations. In fact, one of the best means of doing so comes from an expense many companies take for granted -- lighting.

Often, lighting is simply a forgotten topic.

Best case, it may only be a fixed cost with limited wiggle room -- yet it still has a significant impact on the operational bottom line, especially given fluctuating energy costs.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, lighting consumes as much as 30 percent of all electric expenses in commercial buildings nationwide, costing some $37 billion -- an amount almost equal to Fed Ex's entire revenue last year.

In the typical commercial building, lighting costs about $1 per square foot, but with recent advancements in lighting technology, it's now possible to bring that number down by 50 percent. Not a small savings for any business: A typical 200,000 square foot building may offer $100,000 annual savings through re-lighting.


No, this is not some visionary technology that may never leave the confines of the R&D lab. Nor is it so complex that it can't be deployed under real-world conditions.


It's using the smart use of the cutting-edge technologies that are commercially available today to solve twin challenges that face virtually every business in America today. The implication for business can be profound -- exactly the "twofer" they have been looking for: Cutting costs while also minimizing a company's carbon footprint.

In one example, a national department store we worked with had more than 160 stores, offices and distribution centers across the United States totaling more than 13 million square feet of space. But they were using outdated lighting that cost them $15.6 million annually.

An $11 million investment was made to replace their lighting systems using high performance lamps and electric ballasts to standardize the lamp types throughout all facilities. Existing four lamp fixtures were delamped to save energy while maintaining light output and distribution using new reflectors and louvers. Existing fixtures were cleaned to restore reflectivity and light control sensors were installed.

Because time is money, the upgrades were done during nighttime hours to ensure minimal impact on the business, its customers and employees. The investment paid itself back within 14 months based on the savings accrued. This retailer shaved $4.3 million in annual costs plus another $1.7 million in projected maintenance savings. In cases where financing is done over 36 months, the net cash flow is $144,000 annually, with no waiting more than a year for a payback.

The return on investment extends from the balance sheet to the environment -- the energy efficient lighting upgrade prevented hundreds of thousands of pounds of power plant carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere -- the equivalent of removing 2,500 cars from the road.
In another example, we worked with a well-known producer of soy sauce products to retrofit two distribution centers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky. Both relamping efforts involved conversion from HID to fluorescent systems that use motion sensors.

At the Pennsylvania facility, six-lamp and 10-lamp T5 fixtures were deployed to replace the existing HID fixtures in a project that took four weeks to complete.

We did the same in Kentucky, replacing all HID fixtures with T5s with motion sensors. Motion sensors were a particularly important cost saver since not every aisle of both 500,000-square foot facility was occupied by employees around the clock. We then installed large ceiling fans of up to 20 feet in diameter to rotate interior air, reducing the need for natural gas use at both facilities.

By installing energy efficient upgrades at both facilities, the company was able to save almost 3 million kWh hours of power -- the equivalent of nearly 5 million pounds of CO2 and taking more than 250 cars permanently off the road.

The bottom line impact in these specific cases is about $150,000 a year in savings from operational costs. Similar upgrade projects have been completed at other of the same company's facilities elsewhere in Pennsylvania as well and are expected to pay for themselves -- in energy savings and federal energy conservation tax credits -- in about 18 months. More retrofits are being planned for other facilities.

With relatively quick savings like these you would expect U.S. companies to be taking the lead on green initiatives in the midst of the current downturn. Not so.

At least when polled, U.S. CFOs showed relatively little enthusiasm for going green to make green. In a summer 2009 poll by CFO Research Services, while nearly a majority of CFOs in Europe and Asia/Australia said it was important to sustain green initiatives in the midst of a downturn, only a quarter of U.S. CFOs agreed -- the largest discrepancy between U.S. CFOs and their counterparts in the rest of the world of all the topics polled.

While most companies' financial officers worldwide generally agreed on the importance of spending money on IT, M&A, as well as employee benefits during a downturn, why this large perception gap when it comes to green?

Perhaps European and Asian/Australian counterparts have been more eco-friendly longer than U.S. colleagues?

Perhaps U.S. CFOs are just more instinctively hardnosed about these matters?

Whatever the answer, bringing the operations back into the black can start with helping the companies become more green.

It's a twofer that really should be a no-brainer.

The pleasant surprise is that doing so is not always as financially painful as many think. That should be welcome news for businesses which have had more than their share of bottom-line pain these days.

I have noticed that my lighting industry peers are increasingly focusing on carbon footprint cost and the sustainability of lighting systems.

Commendable use of their time as, from the U.S. Department of Energy to the New York Mayor's Office, the push is for 30 percent energy savings in buildings and the gradual cut of some 40 percent of total carbon emission.

So lighting efficiency is definitely on the radar screen, with lighting retrofits being channeled into compact fluorescent lamps and new lighting systems considering the use of expensive but efficient LED fixtures.

However, increasing imbalance is looming between our eagerness for energy efficiency and our nonchalance for inclusion of human factors and the impact that our energy efficiency measures will have on human health. And this is happening around the world.

A recent report released by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in England provides lifecycle assessment of ultra-efficient lamps (pdf) by comparing several indicators such as air impact, water impact, soil impact, and resources impact, but there is no mention of direct human impact.

Similarly, guidelines for LEED certification and green buildings in United States, although well-intentioned, omit data on the impact that energy measures will have on human health. Never mind that scientists and clinicians working around the clock have compiled data on the direct connection between light and human health.

And while research continues, one finding is definitive -- that daylight represents a 100 percent healthy package for people, as it comes with views of nature and modulation of its parameters. We can describe daylight as a symphony of modulating spectrum, light intensities, and distributions with the passage of time. And while this modulation appears to be random, there is an underlying order of constancy in the liveliness and modulation of light.

The daylight cycling is reflected in the way human body functions, with peaks and valleys of hormonal production, with sleep and wake cycles, and with modulation of brain activity. We are basically synchronized with nature.

David Bohm, the quantum physicist, developed the concept of an enfolding and unfolding universe, where the whole is a craftsmanship of interconnected parts, and where the smallest part reflects the whole.

In a similar way the human body reflects the wholeness of nature. It is a simple inference that to emulate the daylight characteristics with electrical lighting systems will be healthy for people, while to use static lighting for people will be unhealthy.
Let's zoom back to the New York Mayor's Long-Term Planning and Sustainability Office leading the implementation of PLANYC 2030, a visionary plan to cut carbon emission and green New York City. A massive re-lamping with compact fluorescent static light is planned, but critical aspects of light and human health still need to be addressed.

For instance, matters that should be considered are the spectral contents of various lamps, the benefits of higher light levels in the morning to boost alertness and human performance, the need for different light levels in the afternoon on short winter days to help offset Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), and modulation of light to provide people with sensory stimulation and connectedness with nature.

As in nature, we need lighting systems that have efficient redundancy and provide the spectral and light intensity modulation necessary for every living organism.

The new LED technology is a promising vehicle to achieve lighting that is energy efficient and healthier. Energy efficiency should not only take into account the emission of photons (lumens/watt) but also consider the benefits to human potential and human health.

Why do we have an imbalanced approach to energy efficiency?

Take for example, the recently released Advanced Energy Design Guide for Small Hospitals and Healthcare Facilities. The guide was developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, the American Institute of Architects, Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, U.S. Green Building Council, and the U.S. Department of Energy.

With the best of intentions, these agencies brought together the brightest in the industry to shape this document. Fragmentary specialties were brought together to work as an integrated design team and -- by complementing at best or by compromising at least -- to achieve the benchmark of 30 percent in energy savings.

This was an enormous undertaking that resulted in enormous complexity. Bringing together fragmentary specialties and then trying to coalesce them on the design table is a really difficult process. But most importantly, the central focus was on energy efficiency rather than on the realization that all specialties reflect the same whole -- our human nature. When we center on human factors, integration is natural. When we are centered on human factors, we think at new levels and have a creative approach for energy saving.

For instance, changing white light to cooler Kelvin lighting shifts the perception or skin sensation to a cooler air temperature, which allows for decreasing the cooling load.

Adjusting light levels in the morning and after lunch allows for the dimming of lights during peak load hours and takes into account the needs of the circadian system.

Use of a few vibrant colors in a space also allows for the dimming of lights while relying on the eye chromaticity channel to preserve the perception of brightness.

Considerations should also include an analysis of glazing tints from a human perspective -- how the tints induce a shift in the daylight spectrum and how that shift affects people.

Optimization of the building envelope and orientation also needs to weigh the impacts on the building's occupants. When we think of a building's skin, we should see an opportunity to connect and work with nature -- rather than a shield against nature. Our whole perspective shifts when we are centered on human factors and healthiness.

Can we have a truly balanced approach to energy efficiency?

Yes, and like Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's "Little Prince," we can observe nature and apply, we can use common sense and apply, and we can use new technology for our humanity.

It's time to include the right brain in our work to solve the energy crisis.

In his book "The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World," Iain McGilchrist details how the left and right brain provide different perceptions of the world, and how in the West, the dominant perception is leaning increasingly toward the brain's left hemisphere, rather than swinging like a pendulum between the two halves to create a balance.

McGilchrist describes the left brain as analytical, detail-oriented and holding our survival skills, while the right brain sees context, is relations-oriented and holds the abilities to see "the whole" as well as the interconnectedness of things. The author also warns that the left brain is a specialist in denial and like a sleepwalker will amble oblivious to danger toward the abyss.

With energy efficiency, the hope is that we will wake up before the free fall and as the pendulum swings to the right, we have a moment of opportunity to balance and center our measures on human factors and healthiness.

Dear Cecil:

Are electric trains and other forms of mass transit an energy loser compared to driving a car? What with energy transmission costs and poor ridership (especially in California), we supposedly waste energy on subways and buses. I know it's not going to be a popular concept, and it may be best to ignore it, and hopefully encourage more utilization of mass transit rather than discourage it.

— Dano

Cecil replies:

Not following you, Dano. You're saying we should encourage transit use even if it wastes energy because transit is inherently cool? This is a questionable policymaking aim. However, confusing claims on this subject are widespread. Consider the following:

• "Current public transportation usage reduces U.S. gasoline consumption by 1.4 billion gallons each year. . . . Total national fuel savings from public transportation would double to 2.8 billion gallons per year or more if improved coordination between land use plans and public transportation could replace even more car travel.” — "Public Transportation and Petroleum Savings in the U.S.," report prepared for the American Public Transportation Association, 2007
• "Even if we could get more people to ride transit, transit uses as much energy, and emits nearly as much greenhouse gases, as cars; and the trends suggest that cars will be more environmentally friendly than any transit system in the country by 2025." — Randal O'Toole, senior fellow, Cato Institute

Appears we've got a diversity of opinion. Time for the Straight Dope to step in.

Let's compare the average energy efficiency of different methods of transportation, expressed in British thermal units (BTUs) per passenger mile. These numbers were compiled or computed from government sources by my assistant Una, a professional engineer:

• Motorcycle — 2,200 with single rider.
• Heavy rail (includes subway and commuter rail but excludes light rail/streetcar) — 2,600.
• Commercial aircraft — 3,100.
• Bus — 4,300.
• Auto — 5,500 with single occupant, 3,500 with average passenger load.

A few observations:

1. Energy-efficiency-wise, motorcycles rule. However, I'm not seeing them as a practical commuting option for the average cube-farm denizen.

2. Trains are efficient, but not that efficient. If you've ever been packed into a subway car at rush hour, you might think it'd beat auto efficiency by 10 to 1. Uh-uh — rail travel is a modest 30 percent more efficient than autos on average.

3. If the proposed 35 MPG fuel efficiency standard becomes reality, auto energy consumption with an average load will drop to an impressively low 2,300 BTUs per passenger mile. On the other hand, increasing ridership due to rising gas prices will make transit more efficient too — New York MTA rail is already down to 2,000 BTUs. No disrespect to the Randal O'Tooles of the world, but let's not speculate about what might happen down the road. Better to stick with what we know now.

4. Buses are more efficient than a passengerless car, but that's about it. Lest you think the number is skewed by lightly traveled suburban transit systems, Chicago CTA buses (one million riders per workday) consume 4,300 BTUs per passenger mile, same as the national average.

On the face of it, then, transit currently offers no energy advantage over cars except in the handful of cities with heavy rail — and not all of those. (Chicago's an outlier.) Estimates of auto efficiency vary depending on how many passengers you assume they're carrying, so I won't say transit is an energy loser. Instead I'll agree with O'Toole: from an energy perspective, transit vs. cars is pretty much a wash.

So what's the basis for the claim in the 2007 APTA study that transit use saves gasoline? The key word is gasoline — or more broadly, petroleum. Rail transit commonly runs on electricity; relatively little electricity is generated using oil. If all passengers in electric transit vehicles had to ride in cars, we'd use a lot more gasoline. No claim is made about energy use overall.

Is this a silly distinction? No, and it's here we get to the heart of the matter. The real issue isn't energy efficiency or foreign oil dependence. The fundamental problem is that petroleum is sure to be scarcer in coming decades and alternative energy sources will have to be developed. Many of the obvious ones (wind, solar, nuclear) are best suited to producing electricity. Transit electrification is well understood. Electric cars, not so much. Will we all be scooting around town in high-tech golf carts in 20 years? Maybe. But don't count on cruising at 80 miles per hour in your battery-powered SUV.

My point is, big changes are in the offing, and we have to make bets now about what kind of lifestyles the energy mix of the future is going to support. The pro-transit argument boils down to this: transit promotes densely built-up cities, which we know will work from a transportation standpoint. (If all else fails, you can just walk or ride your bike.) Car buffs say, come on, most people prefer spread-out suburban living — we'll figure something out that’ll let us keep doing it.

I wouldn't be so sure, but I'm not that worried about it. My inner Ayn Rand figures the market will decide.

— Cecil Adams

The Boeing Dreamliner 787, which is due to make its first commercial flight later this year with All Nippon Airways, is expected to change air travel in more ways than one. Not only should it offer passengers greater comfort, but it will also be among the least polluting aircraft ever to enter commercial operation.

The new plane will be quieter and use 20 per cent less fuel than aircraft of equivalent size, thanks to greater engine efficiency, the use of lighter composite materials and improved aerodynamics.

To a certain extent, the Dreamliner - the first test flight was in December - is the aviation industry's response to its portrayal by many green campaigners as one of the bad boys of the global warming story. It also represents a continuing trend towards lower carbon emissions. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), aircraft today are about 65 per cent more fuel-efficient than they were in 1970, while the clean technology of modern engines has almost eliminated emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.

The Dreamliner follows in the lower-carbon contrails of the Airbus A380 'super jumbo', which was launched in 2007. When full - typically with about 470 seats - the A380 burns 17 per cent less fuel per seat than other large aircraft and produces only 75g of CO2 per passenger per km (most cars produce at least 130g and the Boeing 747 around 101g of CO2 per passenger per km). It also produces 75 per cent less noise than its current Boeing rivals.

The urge for more efficient aircraft is driven partly by the desire to control fluctuating high fuel costs and also by the fact that a commercially viable biofuel that can entirely replace kerosene remains a distant prospect. But while IATA has set 2050 as the year by which it wants to see a carbon-free aircraft flying commercially, it does expect to certify an as yet unspecified biofuel for use in kerosene blends in commercial flights this year.

A consortium including Boeing, Virgin Atlantic and Air New Zealand is testing a blend of jatropha (a scrub plant), camelina (a plant from the same family as oilseed rape) and algae. Scaling up production is the issue: the area that would be set aside to cultivate the algae required to meet global annual fuel consumption has been placed at around 27,000sq miles, more or less the size of Ireland.

Ethanol has been discounted because it is low-energy. Liquid hydrogen has been ruled out in the medium term partly because the industry considers that the cost of retro-fitting aircraft and infrastructure would be prohibitive. However, Airbus has suggested that hydrogen may have a role in the longer term and Boeing has flown a hydrogen-powered two-seat motor-glider up to 3,300 ft (1,000 metres) for 20 minutes - though the co-pilot seat had to be removed to create storage space.

Scandinavian Airlines Systems (SAS) has developed a Green Landings programme that significantly reduces fuel burn. Peter Larsson, an SAS captain involved in the project, admits to being irked by those who pillory the aviation industry's environmental record. 'We contribute two to three per cent to global carbon emissions, but the public perception is that our contribution is nearer to 20 per cent,' he said.

'That is frustrating. It means many people think that flying will give them a bad conscience.'Aviation is unfairly perceived, but that's not an excuse to do nothing. We have to deal with the equipment we have today. We have to make things more efficient, and this will evolve as it has with cars. We will blend in biofuels and gradually progress to only biofuel. If we want to continue to live the way we do, I don't see a world without flying.'

by Lance Whitney

The clever folks at MIT have developed a smart wheel that could give bicycle riders a 21st century boost.

Unveiled Tuesday at the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change, MIT's new Copenhagen wheel is trying to do its part to help the environment by making bike riding easier and more enjoyable.

The wheel's battery can store energy as you step on the brakes and then return that power back to help you climb a hill or boost your speed. A sensor inside the hub measures your effort when you ride. As you pedal forward, the sensor tells the wheel's electric motor to give you a boost. When you hit the brakes, the motor regenerates, slowing you down and recharging the batteries. The goal behind this design is to encourage people to bike farther distances, relying less on gas-guzzling transportation.

"Over the past few years we have seen a kind of biking renaissance, which started in Copenhagen and has spread from Paris to Barcelona to Montreal," said Carlo Ratti, director of the MIT Senseable City Laboratory and the Copenhagen Wheel project, in a statement. "It's sort of like 'Biking 2.0'--whereby cheap electronics allow us to augment bikes and convert them into a more flexible, on-demand system."

Beyond giving you an energy boost, the wheel has other secrets in its bright red hub. Using sensors and a Bluetooth connection, the wheel can talk to an iPhone mounted on the handlebars. Through an iPhone app, you can check your speed, direction, and distance traveled. The wheel can also monitor traffic conditions and smog and even keep track of your bicycling buddies.

The Copenhagen wheel embeds all the required electronics inside the hub, so no other gadgets need to be added to the bike frame. A special spoking method devised by the team also lets you install the hub on any rim.

Any existing bike can be retrofitted with the wheel. In fact, the MIT team sees it as a plug-and play-device, one that any bike owner should be able to easily install as a back wheel.

The Copenhagen wheel is targeted to hit the market within a year and will be sold by online retailers, consumer electronics vendors, and possibly bike stores. The wheel will cost as much as a standard electronic bike--somewhere between $500 and $1000.

MIT's SENSEable City Lab developed the initial prototype of the wheel for the city of Copenhagen, in cooperation with Italian company Ducati Energia and supported by the Italian Ministry for the Environment. The first orders will likely come from Copenhagen itself, which hopes to retrofit bicycles as replacements for city employee cars.

"The Copenhagen Wheel is part of a more general trend: that of inserting intelligence in our everyday objects and of creating a smart support infrastructure around ourselves for everyday life," said Assaf Biderman, associate director of the project, in a statement.