July 4, 2009
Environment Loses Big Time at the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court wrapped up its term last week, and will now recess for the summer. There were lots of headline cases, ranging from whether cities can re-test job applicants if not enough minorities qualify the first time around (they can't) to whether schools can strip-search teenage students in search for prescription drugs (they also can't). Justice Souter's resignation and Judge Sotomayor's likely confirmation are also grabbing a lot of attention.
What has been under-reported, however, are the Court's environmental law cases this term. Most of the decisions came earlier in the term and were buried in the headlines. Yesterday the NYT's Adam Liptak ran a piece focusing on the five environmental law cases, and it's well worth a read. In each of the five cases before the Court this term, the environmentalists lost. From the article:
The court allowed Navy exercises using sonar that threatened whales off California. It limited the liability of companies partly responsible for toxic spills. It made it harder to challenge Forest Service regulations and easier to dump mining waste into an Alaskan lake. And it allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to use cost-benefit analysis to decide how much marine life may be killed by cooling structures at power plants.
Liptak spends the bulk of the article looking at the Justices. Sam Alito replacing Sandra Day O'Connor marked a shift in the Court's environmental balance, with John Roberts' pro-government and pro-business bent tilting the windmill further. Justice Kennedy was likely the swing vote in many of the cases. And Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation will likely not affect the balance much as she's expect to vote similarly to David Souter. I agree with most of this analysis, but I think the really interesting part is the look to the future. If ACES becomes law, what challenges will be brought before the Supreme Court, and how will the Court rule?
Posted by tlau at 9:50 AM | Add Comment
July 2, 2009
State E-Waste Laws Continue to Vex Manufacturers
Like dandelions in spring time, state and city laws that regulate recycling of electronic waste such as printers and monitors continue to profligate throughout the country, placing a real and tremendous burden on manufacturers, especially smaller ones. This morning's Wall Street Journal has an article about the latest of these efforts, particularly in Washington state and New York City. According to the article, the Washington state recycling fee applies even to manufacturers who go out of business or stop selling their products in the state, while New York City's ordinance, which goes into effect July 31, is estimated to cost the industry $200 million a year. It's the first ordinance that goes beyond manufacturers paying a recycling fee. Companies will also be required to provide free, door-to-door pickup of electronic waste.
Depending on your perspective, these laws might range from annoying to onerous. From a legal perspective, though, it may be hard to challenge them. While it may seem unfair to continue charging companies a recycling fee even if they've stopped doing business in that state, the state's argument is that the company did business in the past, (presumably) profited from that business, and therefore the state can require the company to pay for recycling costs. The New York city ordinance seems even more solid -- local jurisdictions have broad latitude to impose taxes on a wide variety of businesses (have you checked out your motel or hotel bill recently?) without judicial intervention, and they do it all the time. If you don't like it, you can pull out of that jurisdiction (as Amazon has done recently, by canceling its affiliate program in certain states to avoid collecting sales tax). The only thing states have to be careful about is running afoul of the interstate commerce clause -- their recycling laws can't impose an "undue burden" on interstate commerce. It's a tough standard to meet, and I don't see anything in these laws that would meet it.
The solution? A federal law that covers e-waste recycling, as cumbersome as it might seem, would probably go a long way towards killing local and state efforts. Having one standard to deal with is nearly always preferable. In the absence of federal legislation, these local ordinances will continue to pass. Just like those pesky dandelions.
Posted by tlau at 8:31 AM | Add Comment
July 1, 2009
Dutch Host Association Proposes Common Green Regs
In this week's News Roundup I covered the news of Wikimedia Foundation selecting EvoSwitch, a Dutch data center operator, for its European hub operations. The contract is worth nearly half a million dollars a year. EvoSwitch is a carbon-neutral data center operator, and was recognized recently by the German government as one of 11 environmentally friendly data centers. The green factor was apparently one of the reasons EvoSwitch was selected.
Green data centers are very much the focus of the Dutch Hosting Providers Association industry group. Last week, the 19 members of DHPA drafted a set of regulations to regulate green data centers and power usage. The regulations address cooling, virtualization, tax policy and flex time for workers.
I think the Dutch may be on to something. Industry-led regulation and standards is nearly almost always a better option that government mandate. We see this time and time again in the United States, from voluntary ratings for video games and music to auto safety standards. The DHPA appears to have an ambitious agenda (based on a rough Google translation) ranging from collecting information about its members, developing a common customer rating standard, and developing a standard Service Level Agreement. Some of these activities would raise an antitrust eyebrow in the United States, but there's certainly no legal impediment to an industry group developing a common standard for regulating and branding green data centers. We'll see if the Dutch standard takes off, and whether its impact will spread beyond Dutch borders.
Posted by tlau at 9:18 AM | Add Comment
June 28, 2009
Monday News Roundup
Monday News Roundup
• Office Depot announces the re-launch of its environmental initiatives website, featuring content on the company’s vision to buy green and sell green.
• The Tech Garden business incubator in Syracuse has won a $1.5 million grant to assist startup companies in the field of renewable energy and clean technology.
• IBM has created the Green Sigma Coalition, an industry alliance that includes metering, monitoring, automation, data communications and software to integrate their products.
• It was a busy week for IBM in general, which also announced plans to build a water-cooled supercomputer, new research into rechargeable batteries, building scaleable data centers, and more.
• Core Services Corporation, an Oracle Certified Partner, has implemented steps to reduce the environmental impact of its data centers.
• Eaton Corporation announces the release of Eaton Power Xpert Reporting Software that helps IT managers benchmark energy usage in their data centers, allowing energy and cost savings opportunities to be quickly identified and implemented.
• A new study commissioned by Microsoft suggests that only 44 percent of IT decision makers feel that green technology is a factor in final decisions regarding data centers.
• The Wikimedia Foundation (yes, of Wikipedia fame) has selected EvoSwitch, a CO2-neutral data center in Amsterdam, to operate its hub in Europe.
• Fairmont Hotels and Resorts announces its Green IT strategy.
Posted by tlau at 8:36 PM | Add Comment
June 27, 2009
ACES Passes House
Late yesterday afternoon the Waxman-Markey energy bill, ACES, passed the House of Representatives. It was a narrow 7 vote margin, but there's no difference in the outcome -- the bill passed. In its final version, the 1200-page bill mandates that 15% of the country's energy will come from renewable sources by 2020, cap greenhouse gas emissions (85% of which are carbon dioxide) by 17% of their 2005 levels by 2020, and by 83% by 2050. It's an incredibly important bill, and even though many compromises were reached with utility providers, the auto industry, and farmers, the core components of the bill (especially cap and trade) are intact.
Much ink has been spilled over the costs and benefits of this bill. Opponents (mainly Republicans, but some Democrats as well) worry that the bill will add costs to businesses (it will) that the economy can't take in a recession, and increase costs for consumers (it may). The Congressional Budget Office predicts the costs to be minimal, and earlier this week the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) predicted that the bill would actually save a typical household $1050 in energy costs by 2020 and $4400 by 2030. Much of the predicted savings come from reduced energy use.
The bill is huge and there's a lot to digest, but one area that has received very little attention is trade retaliation against countries that don't cap greenhouse emissions (such as China). Global warming is a global problem, and many opponents of the bill argued that capping emissions for U.S. industries, while foreign competitors face no such restrictions, would be unfair. Secretary Energy Chu has mentioned the possibility of tariffs against countries that don't cap emissions (a statement I blogged about a few months ago), and now that possibility is part of the ACES bill. Only the Wall Street Journal picked up the story -- a last minute addition to the bill that would impose tariffs and fees on certain imports from countries that don't limit emissions by 2020.
The bill must now pass the Senate, which won't consider it until the fall. There's no way to predict whether it will pass, but if I was placing bets I'd say it will pass. By the fall, Al Franken will be seated in the Senate after his election battle with Norm Coleman, so the Democrats will have the filibuster-proof 60 seats they need. There will undoubtedly be more changes to the bill, and I'll continue to track them, especially as they relate to IT, right here.
Posted by tlau at 9:43 AM | Add Comment
June 25, 2009
Multiple Companies Seek Control of Dot Eco
in case you didn't know, ICANN is meeting this week in Sydney (did they get the memo that it's winter there?). Tantalizing topics on the schedule include "Prohibiting Redirection and Synthesized DNS Responses" and "ccNSO Structure and Background Information." The really big news from ICANN, of course, is the launch of new generic top level domains (gTLD) next year. Depending on your perspective, the proliferation of any number of imaginable TLD's could be a golden marketing opportunity or a real nightmare.
One of the proposed gTLDs is ".eco". Presumably, sites that end with .eco have something to do with being green and environmentally conscious. In order to maintain some level of control and trust that .eco means environmentally friendly, however, a registry will have to control the TLD (much like .edu domains are currently controlled). This week two companies announced plans to bid for .eco.
The first is Dot Eco LLC. Dot Eco LLC aims to provide .eco registrations for free to non-profits, and to provide a common standard for companies, organizations, and individuals with information on the environment to present. Over 50% of Dot Eco LLC's profits are to be donated to environmental causes. The company released a short film today featuring Al Gore supporting its efforts, which you can see on its website.
The second contender is Big Room, a Canadian company. Big Room believes it should be picked as the registry because:
In addition to being lifelong tree-huggers, we are experienced at building consensus for global sustainability issues. Big Room's Co-founders, advisors and partners have a long history of working globally with technology and communities to build sustainable development solutions.For example, in 2005 we worked as part of an international team to create the Principles for Responsible Investment, a global alliance of investors committed to integrating environmental, social and governance issues into their investment decisions.
Big Room has launched a pretty tech-savvy website and a series of videos to explain their goal. At this stage it's pretty hard to tell the differences between the two efforts, but it does appear that ICANN has a task to select the best registry for .eco, and hopefully the winner will be serious about maintaining the integrity of the TLD so that it's trustworthy.
Posted by tlau at 8:38 PM | Add Comment
June 24, 2009
Climate Bill's Bill
Headlines on health-care reform have dominated the news cycle this week, but climate legislation is also making some pretty important progress. Two items are especially noteworthy.
First, the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan and independent group, has released a report on the estimated cost of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (also known as the climate cap and trade bill). Taking into account the higher energy prices that would result, as well as the impact on corporate profits, behavioral changes, and the costs of offsets and permits, the CBO estimates that the total cost of the bill in 2020 (note, this is the total cost, not the annual cost) is $175 per household.
This estimate is far below what opponents of the bill have been claiming. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) had claimed the bill would cost $3128 per household in 2018, while conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation pegged the bill at $4300 per year. Needless to say, the CBO's numbers are being attacked and defended vigorously.
Still, this is incredibly good news for supporters of the bill. Most Americans are concerned about climate change, but are worried about the costs associated with tackling the problem. Given the choice of spending $175 or facing global apocalypse, most would choose to spend the money. And it looks like they will be given the choice soon. Agricultural issues had threatened the bill earlier this week, but it now looks like those issues have been resolved while preserving the core of cap-and-trade. House leaders are confident enough of getting to 218 votes that they have scheduled a floor vote of the bill this Friday. Even I am a little bit surprised that the Democrats have been able to deliver the bill on schedule (the original goal was to have a floor vote by July 4 recess). If the bill does come to the floor, and if it passes, it will be momentous.
For I.T. techs and planners, the day of counting carbon emissions and (potentially) buying carbon permits to run data centers (or selling them for a profit) has taken several important inches closer.
Posted by tlau at 8:49 AM | Add Comment
June 22, 2009
Monday News Roundup
News Roundup
• Hosted Solutions, a provider of IT Infrastructure as a Service (Iaas), announces a $12 million green expansion of its Raleigh data center.
• Digital Realty Trust, a wholesale data center provider, has earned a LEED Gold rating for its Santa Clara data warehousing facility, a first in the city.
• Wyse Technology, a provider of thin clients and cloud computing, announces cloud-friendly versions of its Unix and Windows software.
• Plug and Play Tech Center, a community of 200 early-stage technology start-ups, will host its first annual CleanPlay conference to showcase clean-tech start-ups to venture capitalists and green-tech enthusiasts on June 25.
• In a ratherr dubious move to save the environment by going without for a day, HP announces it has signed up Microsoft and Intel for Power IT Down day on August 27, 2009. 123 people have signed up.
• Entuity announces a Green IT Calculator.
Posted by tlau at 5:58 AM | Add Comment
June 20, 2009
Real Time Carbon Counter Launches in NYC
Those of you living in New York City or visiting the Big Apple may be interested in the Deutsche Bank/MIT real-time carbon counter clock, a 70-feet tall digital display outside Madison Square Garden and Penn Station. At the unveiling yesterday the clock showed 3.64 trillion tonnes of "long lived" greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and rising by 800 million metric tonnes a second. If you like this display, you can put it on your (or client) computer desktop through a free widget.
It seems like a pretty cool idea, and obviously calls to mind the National Debt Clock, a less-impressive but nonetheless landmark feature also in New York City. However, I wonder if most viewers will be able to understand, let alone relate to, the 3.64 trillion number. I can understand "national debt" and "your family's share," but long-lived greenhouse gasses that increase by 800 million metric tonnes a second? I hear crickets, and they're not outside my office window.
Posted by tlau at 10:27 PM | Add Comment
June 19, 2009
Is Greener Always Better?
A recent article on ServerWatch looks at some green legislation that seems good on the surface but may not be so great underneath:
... the new European Union's Restriction of Hazardous Substances (ROHS) standard, which contains provisions outlawing lead in motherboards and a host of commercial and consumer electronic equipment. All very high sounding — lead is poisonous, protecting the individual, and so on. Yet the replacement of lead with pure tin directly is not without its own problems: It leads to much higher incidences of unreliability.
What do you think? Is the environmental gain significant enough to warrant the business risk?
In addition, here are some articles that recently ran on internetnews that may be of interest:
It's Not Easy Being Green (Tech): Even in the best economic times, green technologies face challenges. Can the chip industry help?
Samsung Pitches Green Memory for Datacenters: Solid state drives, denser memory sticks, and other technologies will help enterprises solve the datacenter crisis.
Posted by anewman at 10:44 AM | Add Comment
