The Green Skeptic wonders when the "Cash for Stash" anti-drug program is going to start, but thinks perhaps this program may just put contractors and construction crews back to work.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vfxq84KvzzB3ibom1Cv-9Gu9PLepPxj7xzCp23Hxq4b822YzDnpKVWa0WGWJg2j4pb8oBTjHhRuhNcp86_c_kt7OMfR-kccq5f75hHYXEMnWua5onW00t2r6WnK3WrFgkLL5Kl1PNd2bVjVFqJsaaY=s0-d)
15 December 2009
The Green Skeptic on Fox Business: "Cash for Caulkers"
President Obama launches yet another "Cash for..." program, this time "Cash for Caulkers" for weatherization and retrofitting.
The Green Skeptic wonders when the "Cash for Stash" anti-drug program is going to start, but thinks perhaps this program may just put contractors and construction crews back to work.
The Green Skeptic wonders when the "Cash for Stash" anti-drug program is going to start, but thinks perhaps this program may just put contractors and construction crews back to work.
14 December 2009
Not Ready for Cap-and-Trade: US Manufacturers
The carbon cap train may be leaving the station, whether aboard the EPA, White House & Congress Railroad or on the high-speed rail from the Copenhagen Circus.
But left behind and potentially dead on the tracks may be US manufacturers, especially those in the industrial equipment sector.
There are nearly 46,000 industrial manufacturing companies in the US and Canada ranging in focus from machinery, aerospace, and petroleum refining to printing, chemicals, food, and medical devices, to computer systems and peripherals, pharmaceuticals, and paper. (These are the Dunder Mifflins of the world.)
Imagine you are the CEO of a small to mid-size company with under a billion dollars in revenue that supplies a part or product for a larger original equipment manufacturer (OEM).
The OEM is charged with reducing its carbon footprint, but there is only so much it can do at the home office, facilities, and transportation. So the OEM turns to its suppliers and says, "What are you doing to reduce my carbon footprint?"
Suddenly, you are charged with meeting those targets or potentially losing their business. But your company is ill-equipped to track reductions or even to establish a benchmark against which to measure reductions.
"Well," one government official familiar with the situation said to me. "You can use your enterprise software to track various components, just like you do with other management issues."
Maybe, or maybe not.
A new survey conducted by Reed Business Information for IFS North America, a global enterprise applications company, shows that US manufacturers, even large ones, are not ready to measure their environmental impact. (The survey will be available December 28th.)
Many of these companies are currently not tracking environmental metrics, and most lack the technological or management infrastructure to do so in a cost-effective manner.
One survey respondent, who works for an aerospace and defense manufacturing company with more than $2.5 billion in revenue, said his company would "like to have this embedded, versus buying and integrating a third party package or writing my own solution."
Currently, neither Oracle nor SAP, the most widely used enterprise business software applications have built-in environmental footprint management tools.
Oracle recently entered into a partnership with OMRON to "create a solution that will help companies track and reduce energy consumption in manufacturing and non-manufacturing environments," according to a spokesperson with the company.
SAP has several solution modules, including SAP Carbon Impact, but as of this writing it is unclear whether they offer a fully integrated product.
IFS, which commissioned this survey, released a product with an embedded "eco-footprint" tool last February, but they only serve a fraction of this market in a specific niche.
"We are not an ERP solution for every manufacturer," says Chuck Rathmann, a spokesman for IFS North America. "We are kind of a niche player for complex, engineer-to-order manufacturing, asset intensive industry, aerospace and defense and a couple of other verticals."
So, even if the major enterprise solution providers are working on tools to help with the transition, many companies will need time to adjust to new regulations and expectations.
Middle-market companies, especially those doing under $1 billion in revenue, are in a particularly tough position. They simply can't afford the costs of consulting and integration necessary to track environmental metrics.
With only 20 percent of the over 260 mid-size companies in the IFS survey indicating they are tracking their eco-footprint, it could be a long process. And what about companies over $1 billion? Only 36 percent say they are currently tracking it.
Few would argue that tracking this stuff isn't important. In fact, 83 percent of those surveyed said it was important. However, the number one reason for that importance was compliance.
The timeline, however, is a different story. Regulators and government officials need to take into account that people can't just flip a switch and make this happen.
But is anyone in Washington or Copenhagen considering the unintended consequences of their decisions on this sector? I doubt it.
In fact, I'd be surprised if any one of these companies has a seat at the table in the global climate summit in Denmark -- they typically aren't heavy on marketing or lobbying budgets. But once again they may be left out in the cold.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vRs6lRjSgXj95Z5VzHhMFhh6m0pDDYXDOWDWIo-NaxWfyJN3_1kesqMC8mB_0J0Y1cX48gP4WWsgJrbuO2mpl-9CFCFCtahGp9FrBf9yvfqu0K5cKC7CCBtkV-RZcVQniTxdKnpQ1vdKJnmrkoI0os=s0-d)
But left behind and potentially dead on the tracks may be US manufacturers, especially those in the industrial equipment sector.
There are nearly 46,000 industrial manufacturing companies in the US and Canada ranging in focus from machinery, aerospace, and petroleum refining to printing, chemicals, food, and medical devices, to computer systems and peripherals, pharmaceuticals, and paper. (These are the Dunder Mifflins of the world.)
Imagine you are the CEO of a small to mid-size company with under a billion dollars in revenue that supplies a part or product for a larger original equipment manufacturer (OEM).
The OEM is charged with reducing its carbon footprint, but there is only so much it can do at the home office, facilities, and transportation. So the OEM turns to its suppliers and says, "What are you doing to reduce my carbon footprint?"
Suddenly, you are charged with meeting those targets or potentially losing their business. But your company is ill-equipped to track reductions or even to establish a benchmark against which to measure reductions.
"Well," one government official familiar with the situation said to me. "You can use your enterprise software to track various components, just like you do with other management issues."
Maybe, or maybe not.
A new survey conducted by Reed Business Information for IFS North America, a global enterprise applications company, shows that US manufacturers, even large ones, are not ready to measure their environmental impact. (The survey will be available December 28th.)
Many of these companies are currently not tracking environmental metrics, and most lack the technological or management infrastructure to do so in a cost-effective manner.
One survey respondent, who works for an aerospace and defense manufacturing company with more than $2.5 billion in revenue, said his company would "like to have this embedded, versus buying and integrating a third party package or writing my own solution."
Currently, neither Oracle nor SAP, the most widely used enterprise business software applications have built-in environmental footprint management tools.
Oracle recently entered into a partnership with OMRON to "create a solution that will help companies track and reduce energy consumption in manufacturing and non-manufacturing environments," according to a spokesperson with the company.
SAP has several solution modules, including SAP Carbon Impact, but as of this writing it is unclear whether they offer a fully integrated product.
IFS, which commissioned this survey, released a product with an embedded "eco-footprint" tool last February, but they only serve a fraction of this market in a specific niche.
"We are not an ERP solution for every manufacturer," says Chuck Rathmann, a spokesman for IFS North America. "We are kind of a niche player for complex, engineer-to-order manufacturing, asset intensive industry, aerospace and defense and a couple of other verticals."
So, even if the major enterprise solution providers are working on tools to help with the transition, many companies will need time to adjust to new regulations and expectations.
Middle-market companies, especially those doing under $1 billion in revenue, are in a particularly tough position. They simply can't afford the costs of consulting and integration necessary to track environmental metrics.
With only 20 percent of the over 260 mid-size companies in the IFS survey indicating they are tracking their eco-footprint, it could be a long process. And what about companies over $1 billion? Only 36 percent say they are currently tracking it.
Few would argue that tracking this stuff isn't important. In fact, 83 percent of those surveyed said it was important. However, the number one reason for that importance was compliance.
The timeline, however, is a different story. Regulators and government officials need to take into account that people can't just flip a switch and make this happen.
But is anyone in Washington or Copenhagen considering the unintended consequences of their decisions on this sector? I doubt it.
In fact, I'd be surprised if any one of these companies has a seat at the table in the global climate summit in Denmark -- they typically aren't heavy on marketing or lobbying budgets. But once again they may be left out in the cold.
09 December 2009
07 December 2009
"Hide the Decline" Sends Up ClimateGate
As the Copenhagen Climate talks begin, this video send-up of the ClimateGate issue came across my in box.
Regardless of your position on global warming, you ought to get a chuckle out of this:
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vfIa7gBBYW2QygzFecVg-lls3qQtHdNXO5CvQ1oH1plH5eEolKOQR_1JN93cso_LYCg3uft1CtoPhl6TNvAcXhAt7sleRELaa2X5rVTaTK2ALgbIgsTvv0sianz45hPLy8xR6R8Q9r21xX69VPCsGF=s0-d)
Regardless of your position on global warming, you ought to get a chuckle out of this:
05 December 2009
Why I'm Not Going to Copenhagen
Why am I not going to Copenhagen? Because it's a waste of time, money, and CO2.
Seriously. Over the years, these large gatherings of nations, NGOs, scientists, policy brokers, lobbyists, celebrities, and demagogues has continued to spiral into irrelevance in my mind.
The result is always the same: a bunch of hot air, posturing, and agreements to agree to meet again, while everyone scrambles around vying for attention and trying to make their position the leading argument.
Copenhagen promises to be more of the same, and now there will be even more drama with President Obama, fresh from his Nobel Prize acceptance, showing up like Santa Claus bestowing presents to the delegates. Or not.
But the real reason I have no interest in being in Copenhagen next week is that I think the delegates there will be focused on the wrong things.
More than ever, I'm convinced that the climate crisis campaign has given way to climate chaos and that it has led to two very bad trends revealed in the news media of late: the "Climategate" scandal, which reveals some climate scientists behaving badly and the steep decline in public sentiment about whether global warming is really happening.
As I've said elsewhere, I do believe the climate is changing and there is a genuine risk posed by potentially escalating changes. Some of the dangers could be catastrophic, especially for some coastal and island communities or for any community that relies on glacier-fed streams.
The poor and vulnerable may be at the greatest risk, because there is very little safety net for them, but they are often forgotten in the debate.
What I'm not convinced about is whether anyone really knows what extent the changes will be, despite the dire predictions we all hear about and that are often represented as the "consensus" view.
I think it's time for a change in the way we think about global warming and climate change. We need to get beyond the doom-and-gloom hysteria and focus on adapting to a range of changes that will likely happen, investing in innovations that will help adapt and even mitigate some of those changes, and looking for creative ways to help people change their behavior that will facilitate both adaptation and innovation.
That last point is illustrated by The Fun Theory, a web site that was brought to my attention by Kim Larson, who is a leader in bringing healthier food to school children around the country.
The Fun Theory is a program developed by Volkswagen (yes, a car company) "dedicated to the thought that something as simple as fun is the easiest way to change people’s behavior for the better. Be it for yourself, for the environment, or for something entirely different, the only thing that matters is that its change for the better."
How much better Copenhagen would be better if it was about creating fun, innovative ways of reducing CO2 rather than prescriptions.
But it won't happen; so I'll stay home next week.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vPCnyup2-KACSSPRrK2p5YX9Km85v2sYJvmCdE42Ove4OEXAJ6QVJwIKQ2ZmGUlI9MHbeCSYiLQ1w0kaj8EagFv-lbzhqCmILJMt-XvtCfZ3IwHz2GxZaZWXJyaCa6hMzAN9JRtqSU_5IIuUhAhs1_=s0-d)
Seriously. Over the years, these large gatherings of nations, NGOs, scientists, policy brokers, lobbyists, celebrities, and demagogues has continued to spiral into irrelevance in my mind.
The result is always the same: a bunch of hot air, posturing, and agreements to agree to meet again, while everyone scrambles around vying for attention and trying to make their position the leading argument.
Copenhagen promises to be more of the same, and now there will be even more drama with President Obama, fresh from his Nobel Prize acceptance, showing up like Santa Claus bestowing presents to the delegates. Or not.
But the real reason I have no interest in being in Copenhagen next week is that I think the delegates there will be focused on the wrong things.
More than ever, I'm convinced that the climate crisis campaign has given way to climate chaos and that it has led to two very bad trends revealed in the news media of late: the "Climategate" scandal, which reveals some climate scientists behaving badly and the steep decline in public sentiment about whether global warming is really happening.
As I've said elsewhere, I do believe the climate is changing and there is a genuine risk posed by potentially escalating changes. Some of the dangers could be catastrophic, especially for some coastal and island communities or for any community that relies on glacier-fed streams.
The poor and vulnerable may be at the greatest risk, because there is very little safety net for them, but they are often forgotten in the debate.
What I'm not convinced about is whether anyone really knows what extent the changes will be, despite the dire predictions we all hear about and that are often represented as the "consensus" view.
I think it's time for a change in the way we think about global warming and climate change. We need to get beyond the doom-and-gloom hysteria and focus on adapting to a range of changes that will likely happen, investing in innovations that will help adapt and even mitigate some of those changes, and looking for creative ways to help people change their behavior that will facilitate both adaptation and innovation.
That last point is illustrated by The Fun Theory, a web site that was brought to my attention by Kim Larson, who is a leader in bringing healthier food to school children around the country.
The Fun Theory is a program developed by Volkswagen (yes, a car company) "dedicated to the thought that something as simple as fun is the easiest way to change people’s behavior for the better. Be it for yourself, for the environment, or for something entirely different, the only thing that matters is that its change for the better."
How much better Copenhagen would be better if it was about creating fun, innovative ways of reducing CO2 rather than prescriptions.
But it won't happen; so I'll stay home next week.
01 December 2009
Mulling Over ClimateGate
"It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity. ..."
That quote comes from the log of a computer modeler known as HARRY_READ_ME, which documents a struggle to make sense of a database of historical temperatures. The log, along with emails from prominent climate researchers, is at the center of the "ClimateGate" controversy.
Depending upon your point of view, hacked computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit reveal either a pattern of deceit, cover-up, and double-dealing or a bunch of grumpy, insular scientists frustrated by distractions to their multimillion dollar research, such as answering climate skeptics or exposing their data to public scrutiny.
Whichever side you're on, you've got to admit this stuff is brilliant.
And while climate skeptics have seized on these emails as the work of "a priesthood protecting the temple from barbarians," as John Tierney put it in the New York Times, others have tried to dismiss it as irrelevant to the UN's advice on global warming.
Bret Stephens, writing in the Wall Street Journal, suggests we "follow the money," positing that an entire industry has grown up around proving the validity of the global warming data and its attendant economic ecosystem.
"Why did the money pour in so quickly?" Stephens asks. "Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?"
The "Mr. Jones" to whom Mr. Stephens refers is Phil Jones, a climate researcher whose emails initiated the controversy. In one email he refers to a "trick" he applied to raw data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures. He and others may even have lobbied for the firing of a journal editor who published papers questioning scientific consensus on global warming.
These are the kinds of mean-spirited, dirty tricks that were once associated with the Bush Administration. Remember the hew and cry over former Chief of Staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality Phillip Cooney's tampering with scientific reports to minimize the anthropogenic connection to climate change?
It just shows that no one is averse to cajoling, tricking or brow-beating to get their point across and win the mindshare game. Does it damage their credibility? It sure does. I thought scientists were supposed to be above politics and positioning, and held themselves to a higher standard.
Don't get me wrong. I do believe climate change is happening. I've seen the results in my back yard and places as far away as India and Indonesia. I'm just not sure that the predictions of doom-and-gloom and disaster deserve to be considered without challenging the assumptions that go into making them.
After all, aren't computer models only as good as the data that goes into them?
These emails call into question the validity of assertions that the global warming hypothesis has been proved. Is it not, despite the concordance of a wide array of climate scientists, still only a hypothesis?
The question remains why did the scientists feel compelled to manipulate raw data in order to prove what they wanted to prove rather than defend their assertion that short-term fluctuations have little relevance in the face of long-term trends?
One solution to all of this has been suggested by Judith Curry, a specialist in climate-hurricane interactions at Georgia Tech, writing on Stephen McIntyre's Climate Audit site.
Dr. Curry identifies "two broader issues raised by these emails that are impeding the public credibility of climate research: lack of transparency in climate data, and 'tribalism' in some segments of the climate research community that is impeding peer review and the assessment process."
Hers is a cogent and sober set of recommendations and I applaud her openness and willingness to engage both sides in that forum. She ends her post by calling for the "climate research enterprise" to adapt to the "need for public credibility and transparency" in the wake of the increasing "policy relevance of climate research."
Let's hope this is the beginning of a new chapter where reasonable dialogue and common sense -- and scientific method -- prevail.
That quote comes from the log of a computer modeler known as HARRY_READ_ME, which documents a struggle to make sense of a database of historical temperatures. The log, along with emails from prominent climate researchers, is at the center of the "ClimateGate" controversy.
Depending upon your point of view, hacked computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit reveal either a pattern of deceit, cover-up, and double-dealing or a bunch of grumpy, insular scientists frustrated by distractions to their multimillion dollar research, such as answering climate skeptics or exposing their data to public scrutiny.
Whichever side you're on, you've got to admit this stuff is brilliant.
And while climate skeptics have seized on these emails as the work of "a priesthood protecting the temple from barbarians," as John Tierney put it in the New York Times, others have tried to dismiss it as irrelevant to the UN's advice on global warming.
Bret Stephens, writing in the Wall Street Journal, suggests we "follow the money," positing that an entire industry has grown up around proving the validity of the global warming data and its attendant economic ecosystem.
"Why did the money pour in so quickly?" Stephens asks. "Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?"
The "Mr. Jones" to whom Mr. Stephens refers is Phil Jones, a climate researcher whose emails initiated the controversy. In one email he refers to a "trick" he applied to raw data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures. He and others may even have lobbied for the firing of a journal editor who published papers questioning scientific consensus on global warming.
These are the kinds of mean-spirited, dirty tricks that were once associated with the Bush Administration. Remember the hew and cry over former Chief of Staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality Phillip Cooney's tampering with scientific reports to minimize the anthropogenic connection to climate change?
It just shows that no one is averse to cajoling, tricking or brow-beating to get their point across and win the mindshare game. Does it damage their credibility? It sure does. I thought scientists were supposed to be above politics and positioning, and held themselves to a higher standard.
Don't get me wrong. I do believe climate change is happening. I've seen the results in my back yard and places as far away as India and Indonesia. I'm just not sure that the predictions of doom-and-gloom and disaster deserve to be considered without challenging the assumptions that go into making them.
After all, aren't computer models only as good as the data that goes into them?
These emails call into question the validity of assertions that the global warming hypothesis has been proved. Is it not, despite the concordance of a wide array of climate scientists, still only a hypothesis?
The question remains why did the scientists feel compelled to manipulate raw data in order to prove what they wanted to prove rather than defend their assertion that short-term fluctuations have little relevance in the face of long-term trends?
One solution to all of this has been suggested by Judith Curry, a specialist in climate-hurricane interactions at Georgia Tech, writing on Stephen McIntyre's Climate Audit site.
Dr. Curry identifies "two broader issues raised by these emails that are impeding the public credibility of climate research: lack of transparency in climate data, and 'tribalism' in some segments of the climate research community that is impeding peer review and the assessment process."
Hers is a cogent and sober set of recommendations and I applaud her openness and willingness to engage both sides in that forum. She ends her post by calling for the "climate research enterprise" to adapt to the "need for public credibility and transparency" in the wake of the increasing "policy relevance of climate research."
Let's hope this is the beginning of a new chapter where reasonable dialogue and common sense -- and scientific method -- prevail.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)