September 2009 Archives

If you've been following the news this morning, the you know that the Senate version of the climate cap and trade bill is about to drop this morning, courtesy of Senators Boxer and Kerry. The bill, which had been delayed for weeks, isn't public yet but already leaked versions are making their way around the web. Details are still scarce, but here's what I've gleaned from press reports:

* Like the House bill, the use will use 2005 as a baseline for greenhouse gas emissions. Unlike the House version (which calls for a 17% reduction), the Senate bill calls for a 20% reduction. Supposedly, the bar has been raised to take into account the reduced carbon emissions caused by the recession, which I blogged about last week. Let's get real, though, the 20% target is an easy giveaway during negotiations and will almost certainly drop.

* The EPA is not pre-empted in the Senate bill. Essentially, this means that EPA would have full authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions even if the bill passes. This is an interesting addition to the bill. It makes good sense to give the EPA legal authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon (and indeed, that's what the Supreme Court's 2007 ruling was all about), but the House bill pre-empted EPA from regulating. My guess is that the Senate is worried about political compromises watering down the effect of the bill, and leaving a backdoor for the EPA to enforce a carbon cap would ensure effectiveness. Look for Senate Democrats to try to keep this provision.

* More involvement from Department of Justice, to keep the carbon markets honest and ensure carbon offsets are not procured by fraud. These provisions make sense, and it's politically untenable to attack law enforcement so look for these provisions to stay.

* Specific targeting of the airline industry for carbon reductions. As I previously blogged, the airline industry has thus far been exempt from the EU's carbon trading scheme, but will likely be the first to have to comply with broad EU rules. The US rules will simply add more pressure to US airlines to modernize their fleets. Look for the devil in details -- the US carriers, several of whom are near bankruptcy, aren't going to take well to having to comply with two different regulations so harmonization with the EU will be important here.

You can expect more coverage from this blog as the bill progresses through the Senate. For the time being, it's fair to say the bill is a good start. The prospects of action on a climate bill in 2009 are near zero at the moment, though, and with midterm elections next year it would take a major win on health care for the climate bill to have a decent chance of passage in early 2010. Unlike the health care debate, though, the interest groups in this fight are more diverse and less organized. Already, the US Chamber of Commerce, the largest pro-business lobbying organization, is losing some key members for its position opposing climate change legislation. So if the bill progresses, expect it to proceed at a much less heated tone than the health care debate. And that is something we can all agree is a good thing.

It's not every day that someone from the tech industry gets recognized for greentech contributions publicly, let alone a grand-sounding prize such as "Hero of the Environment." Google's green energy czar, Bill Weihl, is not your every day greentech guy though. He's combined his academic background with a passion for environmental causes to revolutionize Google's energy consumption. How else could you characterize Google's 50% cut in energy use, or its achievement of carbon-neutral status, in spite of its massive data centers?

Not content with these achievements, Google has set its sights even higher:

But Google is an enterprise incapable of thinking small. The real goal of its green program is to help clean energy to break out of its tiny niche, just as Google went from start-up to Silicon Valley superstar in a few short years. While many environmentalists want to focus on raising the price of fossil fuels through a carbon cap, Weihl thinks the real work needs to be done in the lab, searching for the breakthroughs that will enable solar and other renewables to beat coal in the marketplace. To that end, Google is spreading its spare millions to startups like eSolar and BrightSource Energy, as well as sponsoring its own research. Right now Weihl's engineers are focusing on solar thermal power -- which uses the heat of the sun to generate electricity by boiling water to turn a turbine -- and developing new mirrors that could cut the cost of such plants by a quarter or more.

So hats off to Weihl and his team at Google for their accomplishments, and for bringing important cleantech issues such as data center energy use and renewables into the public debate. Nice job!

News Roundup

• IT Host The Planet appoints CAPSTAR Real Estate Commercial Services to manage its fifth date center in Dallas, featuring modular cooling technology with high-efficiency water-cooled chillers.

• Network World discusses what makes a wireless telephone company green.

• EBay promises to reduce its corporate greenhouse gas emissions by 15% over a 2008 baseline.

• HP wants to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2011.

• NTT America announces that is Ashburn Data Center in Northern Virginia has earned LEED Gold certification.

• Pricewaterhousecoopers announces that it reduced its carbon footprint by 10% in 2008, through a combination of measures including Green IT.

• KT, Korea's largest telecom company, plans to spend $120 million on Green IT.

• A Gartner poll shows two-thirds of IT managers rank Green IT a top priority, but only 7% consider green procurement equally important.

• Netherlands-based Imtech N.V. has received orders worth over 25 million Euros for green data centers for financial institutions in the Netherlands.

There's a report out this week that hasn't been widely reported, but I thought it was pretty significant nonetheless. In the fight to reduce carbon emissions, Planet Earth received some unexpected good news -- this year, the world will experience a carbon drop of 2.6%, the best result in 40 years.

That's the good news. The bad news is that the drop isn't the result of any concerted efforts by mankind. The drop comes about mainly from the global recession and decreased economic activity. Only 25% of the drop is the result of regulation.

The implications for this drop are twofold. On the one hand, some believe that it gives countries some breathing room to implement carbon caps, which should make the task easier. On the other hand, others believe that countries will use the drop to escape the task completely. For now, it looks like this latter camp is winning as hopes for a comprehensive carbon treaty by December fade rapidly.

If carbon caps don't materialize, greenhouse gas emissions will have to be tackled some other way. One major reduction can come from finding the replacement for the 60 watt light bulb, the most popular in the world. The federal government has been running a competition to find the replacement. The replacement must meet the following criteria:
1) It should be as bright as a 60 watt bulb, but use less than 10 watts of energy;
2) It should produce the same color as a 60 watt bulb;
3) It should last 25,000 hours (25 times greater than 60 watt bulb);
4) The winner can produce 250,000 units in the first year of production; and
5) The winner can make or assemble 75% of the bulb in the U.S.

Philips looks like it's ready to claim the prize. The company, which has already won major contracts from the government to implement energy-efficient lighting, became the first company to submit an entry for the $10 million prize. The government believes that if all 60 watt bulbs are replaced with bulbs meeting the prize criteria, enough power would be saved to light 17.4 million American households and cut carbon emissions by 5.6 million tons annually. Philips believes its LED entry will eventually win the prize. Although the bulbs cost around $100 each, the company hopes the price will drop to $25 eventually.

The European Union implemented a carbon cap and trade system, called the Emission Trading System (ETS), in 2005. The law creates a market for the trading of carbon allowances, and the market establishes the price for these allowances. Like all laws passed by the E.U., implementation of the cap system is left up to the member countries to figure out, with submissions due to the European Commission for a plan to reduce emissions in the 2008-2012 window due back in 2007.

The E.C. was unhappy with plans submitted by Poland and Estonia, and reduced the carbon caps by 26.7 and 47.8% respectively. The two countries appealed to E.U. courts, and yesterday the European Court of First Instance sided with Poland and Estonia in an a broader-than-expected win. Carbon markets reacted negatively, dropping almost 5% on the news. The E.C. was swift to criticize the ruling, saying that it was "extremely disappointing" and would probably appeal. Meanwhile, appeals by Hungary, Lithuania and Slovakia appear to have gained new momentum in light of the decision.

It's important to not overstate the importance of the ruling. European judges haven't shifted course dramatically, they were simply interpreting legislation which they felt didn't grant the European Commission the authority to unilaterally revise each member country's carbon reduction plan. In a way the issue will solve itself as time goes on, since the E.C. will have that authority under new (and clearer) legislation after 2016. For now, though, the relatively emerging economies of central and eastern Europe are breathing a huge sigh of relief from their victory.

The lesson for the U.S. is pretty clear -- draft carbon cap and trade legislation clearly and without ambiguity. And then, sit back and expect litigation. Plan for multi-year delays as issues get worked out in the courts. It's not necessarily a bad thing, and it can be managed, but only a fool would expect any carbon cap and trade system in the U.S. to be implemented right away or without challenge.

GreenPages Inc. has been granted a service mark by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for "Green IT". The application was filed on Oct. 27, 2008, and granted on September 8, 2009. The registration number is 3681732 and the mark has been granted for "information technology consultation services; computer network consultation, design and installation services; computer software development, design and installation services."

I don't know much about this company. It appears to be an IT consulting firm based in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The website indicates the company was founded in 1992 and is privately held. They do a lot of work in solutions delivery, especially virtualization. And they're hiring.

So what does it mean that Green IT is now trademarked? Well, for the time being not very much. You can still use those words to describe the movement generally to make computer equipment more environmentally friendly. There's potential for mischief here though. The trademark registration means that GreenPages wants that phrase to become exclusively associated with it when it comes to selling a product or service. That means using "green IT solution" will become a no-no for any other company. I'm not sure GreenPages will ultimately succeed in this endeavor as it seems to me that "Green IT" is already pretty much used by everyone (just like "happy meal" or "fast food"), and I'm not exactly thrilled that yet another company is trying to dominate a common phrase (I wasn't happy about Donald Trump registering "You're Fired" either). It will be very interesting to see how this develops.

News Roundup

• Computerworld believes that a highly connected city, with widely available wireless access, smart grids, and sustainable data centers are around the corner.

• HP announces an expansion of its relationship with Canon to expand and integrate paper-intensive workflow with digital offerings.

• An international exhibition in Mauritius later this month will feature a sea-water cooling system for data centers.

• IBM announces several new or updated offerings for mid-size companies to help them streamline their IT processes, making them more energy efficient in the process.

• Adaptec announces its first solution incorporating high-performance hybrid HDD and SDD arrays to lower energy consumption in data centers.

• GreenBytes Inc., a startup developer of optimized data storage appliances, receives $8 million in financing from Battery Ventures.

• Citi announces it's inclusion in the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index for the ninth consecutive year, driven in large part by its green data centers.

• KACE, the management appliance company, has released a survey indicating that while 93 percent of IT professionals believe that desktop power management will reduce costs, 56 percent do not manage desktop power in any way.

• SunGard is implemanting an environmental management solution from GreenBoard technology to help track its carbon footprint.

• Verdiem has been named part of the Global Cleantech 100 Company.

• CEATAC Japan, taking place next month, will feature Green IT as a central topic.

• The British government saved over 7 million GBP last year by making its IT systems greener.

• Greenstone Carbon Management announces the launch of Green IT, an addition to its Acco2unt carbon accounting suite.

• AT&T is the greenest mobile phone operator in North America, with Sprint and Verizon rounding out the top 3.

• T-Systems and Intel are opening DataCenter 2020, a project focused exclusively on the green efficiency of future data centers.

• Dell ProConsult Services is using Novell's PlateSpin virtualization and workload management to utilize virtualization technology in customer data centers.

• Fujitsu's European lab arm announces its Total CO2 and Value Analysis solution.

With all the discussion about carbon cap and trade dominating the regulatory environment, it's easy to lose sight of a vexing question -- how do you count carbon? After all, carbon itself is simply a molecule, an invisible and pervasive element that is a part of virtually all human activity. Counting dollars and sense, or gallons, or yards, or meters, or kilograms, are all understandable, but what about carbon? And even if you can settle on how to measure carbon, there's the related question of how you measure carbon output for any given commercial activity.

Take, for example, the problem with milk:

Several studies in various countries have already sought to tally the impact of milk from its production on a farm to the disposal of its carton. In between, the studies try to measure such intricacies as the energy used to make the fertilizer to grow feed for the cows, to fuel trucks delivering the milk, and to power refrigerators cooling it in kitchens.

It isn't surprising that each of these studies sizes milk's footprint differently, in large part because each varies in the way it counts one or more of those factors.

Supermarkets around the world are attempting to quantify what sort of carbon impact each gallon of milk produces. Factors that affect that number include the type of machinery used in farms, what sort of feed the cow eats (which in turn affects bovine belching), the weight of the cow, and the relative economic value of the milk versus other parts of the cow such as meat and leather.

The biggest problem, in my mind, is the lack of standard way of counting. The article linked to above mentions at least four different methods of counting carbon in producing milk: a private supermarket, a British NGO, the U.S. dairy industry, and the International Organization for Standardization.

Without standards, comparison is impossible. A gallon of milk with "abc" carbon emission listed on its label simply can't be compared with another gallon of milk from a different producer with "xyz" carbon emission. And without some sort of standardization, government regulation to clear up the confusion seems all but inevitable.

The exact same problems appear to affect Green IT as well. Not much carbon counting is happening today, but when it comes, how will carbon be counted? What variables, from producing server equipment to network traffic miles traveled to trucks and machinery used to lay down equipment to electrical operating requirements, will be counted? The problems with milk point to much confusion for Green IT carbon counting in the months and years ahead.

On Tuesday, the EPA released draft regulations to increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) numbers for vehicles sold in the United States. CAFE has been with us since the 1970's and is aimed at the average MPG figure for an automaker's fleet. The idea is for sales of inefficient heavy trucks and SUVs to be offset by sales of more efficient, lighter, vehicles. CAFE has long been a sore point for many automakers, because of the byzantine rules and regulations that define how the numbers are calculated and various perceived loopholes. To make things worse, several states (notably California, where a large percentage of this country's vehicles are sold) adopted their own, stricter, CAFE standards. The automakers lobbied for years against any rise in CAFE standards, arguing that the market should decide what vehicles are produced and sold, not the government.

Well it's a new day for the industry, and with the U.S. government owning 60% of General Motors, it's not likely that GM is going to be lobbying against major government regulations any time soon. The new standard calls for a dramatic increase in CAFE, starting with the 2012 model year and climbing approximately 5% annually. By the 2016 model year, the CAFE standard will be 35.5 mpg for cars. One silver lining for automakers is that the new standard harmonizes with California's standards, allowing the manufacturers to plan with certainty towards one national standard.

There's a cost to achieving this new standard. The EPA estimates it will cost the auto industry nearly $60 billion to comply, while raising the costs for consumers by as much as $1300 per new vehicle. The EPA also says, however, that it would only take 3 years to pay off that cost in lower fuel bills, and that over the life of a vehicle the regulation will save over $3000 through better gas mileage.

Much more significantly, however, the EPA regulation also regulates carbon emissions. You may recall that the ACES bill currently before the Senate is Congress' attempt to cap carbon and implement a carbon trading scheme like the one operating in the E.U. The N.Y. Times says the bill is drifting into a "Potomac fog" and will either be watered down to exclude carbon cap and trade or not pass at all.

If that happens, however, the EPA can still regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act. The new CAFE regulation does that for cars and trucks, and EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said that it was certainly a "possibility" could propose carbon regulations from other industries in the next year. If that happens, a de-facto carbon cap will take shape in the United States, without the flexibility (and potential profits) of a trading scheme. It won't happen that easily though. A weakened auto industry may roll over on a carbon cap, but other industries not so dependent on a government bailout will spend millions and tie up proposed regulations in court for years to come.

When you're as big as Google, I guess you can make big bets without really putting the company itself at risk. Google's investment in YouTube, for example, leaves many business analysts scratching their heads in wonderment because of the difficulties YouTube is experiencing in making a dime. That wealth, however, allows Google to act almost like an angel investor, selectively picking a series of companies or technologies to invest in and hoping that some will pay off while acknowledging that many won't.

One example is Google's recent announcement that it's developing its own solar thermal technology to power its massive data centers. It's not a formal announcement, but the news came in a Reuters interview with the company's green energy czar, Bill Weihl. A solar thermal facility uses mirrors to reflect sunlight to a substance that is then heated to generate steam and power turbines (just like a regular power plant, which uses coal to create the steam). It's widely considered cheaper than using solar photocells, which directly convert light to electricity (bypassing the steam and turbine stage). Like photocells, though, thermal plants presumably have the same electricity storage and distribution problems. According to Weihl, Google is experimenting with different substances for the mirror and substrates, hoping to drive the cost of the electricity produced to the same level as coal-fired plants.

What's unusual about this news is that Google is directly involved, hiring solar engineers to work exclusively on this as part of its Renewable Energy Less Than Coal Project. Google is also an investor in several solar startups that potentially might compete with this project. What's more likely, though, is that Google is simply hedging its bets, trying to use its wealth and influence to spur development far and wide. If this project proves successful, for example, Google could potentially revolutionize data center power sources (and move most of you to the desert).

News Roundup

• Confused about Energy Star rated servers? This may help.

• Infineon Technologies introduces the world's energy efficient VDSL and ADSL solutions for gigabit home gateways.

• More details are emerging on IBM's collaboration with Metropolitan Community College in Omaha for an Associate's Degree in green data centers.

• Nearly half of Scottish businesses surveyed don't think green IT is important.

• Citrix Systems is offering free training and certification to students learning about the company's virtualization software.

• Nexsan SATABoy and SATABeast disks are efficient enough to be eligible for energy company incentives.

• AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah has selected IBM to build a green data center.

• Stream Data Centers has completed a LEED-certified Ready-to-fit data center in San Antonio.

As the Senate continues to focus on health care, it's important to realize that ACES is still very much alive. The President promised action on health care, education, and energy this year and while health care is dominating the headlines, work on the energy bill is continuing in committee. Senators Kerry and Boxer, sponsors of the Senate version of the bill, have promised a full press conference when the revised version of the bill is unveiled in October. There's increasing doubt that the Senate and House versions can be reconciled in time for the U.N. conference in December, but progress has not halted in spite of the health care debate.

As if to remind everyone of that fact, a new coalition called Clean Energy Works launched an ad campaign yesterday, running this ad during Obama's primetime address to Congress. The group is a coalition of environmental, labor, veteran, and hunting and fishing advocacy groups, and has enough funding to run the ad for a week. It also plans to bring 100 veterans to Washington this week to rally Congress, and has held town halls and rallies in several states.

Their efforts come on top of mounting pressure from companies, including 12 large corporations that sent a letter to the Senate this week urging action on climate change legislation. This group includes Nike, Google, J&J, and Dell. The letter points to efforts made by the respective companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and declares that their efforts have been good for business as well as being good for the environment.

Finally, even as the Senate moves to adopt its version of ACES, the EPA continues to finalize its rulemaking for carbon emissions. As you might remember, the Supreme Court held a couple years ago in Massachusetts v. EPA that the EPA can regulate carbon as a pollutant. In response, the EPA issued a finding earlier this year that carbon is dangerous, laying the groundwork for regulation. Those regulations are being formulated now, so even if ACES doesn't pass, you can expect some form of carbon regulation. EPA prefers new legislation, however, as it expects strong litigation in response to any regulation it passes.

Data centers are a $110 billion industry, so it's no surprise that countries would try to seek new data center investment. Unlike car or airplane factories, which are typically built closest to their biggest markets, data centers can be built anywhere as long as there's good bandwidth coming in and out. So now, some cold countries are trying to attract data center investment by capitalizing on the fact that they are... cold.

Companies in Scotland have developed plans to utilize energy from the sea, cold climate, and wind power to run and cool data centers. Iceland is even more ambitious, with one company launching a data center than can power 15,000-20,000 servers using only five megawatts of power, a fraction of other comparable projects.

Japan has no such plans, given that it's a Pacific nation with warm summers. Japan is, however, pledging to be on the forefront of countries with commitments to reduce carbon emissions if (and it's a big if) other countries play along as well. Yukio Hatoyama, the new prime minister of Japan, delivered a speech over the weekend promising to reduce Japan's greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent from 1990 levels. Compare this to the US current pledge of 6% if the ACES bill passes, and you'll get an idea of what a big deal this is. It's a campaign promise that Hatoyama made, but the ability to actually deliver on this promise has many wondering if it's all politics or if there's some real action here. My guess is that Japan is very much looking to see how the climate bill fares in the U.S. If ACES passes Japan will be happy to play along or even exceed U.S. reductions. If ACES fails, then Hatoyama's pledges will quietly disappear along with it.

The August 10 issue of the Federal Times (no link available) reports that federal government agencies are targeting data centers for improved efficiency. Energy use in data centers doubled between 2000 and 2006 and will double again by 2011. Federal data centers account for 10 percent of this energy use, so several initiatives are under way to reduce this burden. A cross-agency working group has been meeting all this year to develop means of increasing energy efficiency. In the meantime, the Energy Department is collecting data on over 100 data centers to establish baselines for its Energy Star program. Finally, the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab has released a draft standard to allow data centers to be rated under the LEED system.

One of the methods used by the federal government to reduce energy use is the requirement that 95% of U.S. federal agency I.T. needs must be EPEAT-compliant. The non-profit EPEAT standard has been pretty successful since its launch, and its website allows I.T. purchasers to search for specific components that meet the standard. Now, EPEAT is going global. The registry has now expanded to include I.T. equipment available in forty countries including Europe, Japan, Taiwan, China, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, and Mexico. The program touts itself as transparent and rigorous, with three levels of certification available for I.T. products. With this step, green I.T. purchasing in foreign countries will hopefully get a whole lot easier.

Monday News Roundup

Happy Labor Day everyone! It may be a holiday in the U.S., but the greentech world continues to turn. Here's the latest highlights:

• VMWare Vice President Raghu Raghuram discusses the future of virtualization and Green IT.

• Reducing bank duplication of data can dramatically improve costs and energy efficiency.

• Qualcomm recently selected Verari's 2009 Green IT Award-winning FOREST containerized data center for an expansion.

• BusinessWeek sees a recovery in tech hiring in 2010, including modest impacts on Green IT.

• Chilean IT service provider Solint expects to have 450-500 corporate customers when it launches a new green data center featuring virtualization.

• The Green Grid and NYSE Euronext will host an industry forum and discussion on the economic impact of data center efficiency on October 2 in New York.

• IBM and Aberdreen Group have launched a new online tool designed for organizations seeking to improve their Green IT capabilities, performance, and ROI.

• VYCON Energy's green-tech UPS has won an award from Consulting-Specifying Engineer Magazine.

• IBM and Metropolitan Community College of Omaha announced a collaboration to offer a first-of-its-kind green data center management degree.

• PSA Peugeot Citroen has selected 3Com's H3C enterprise networking solution to provide green IT capability to the auto maker.

• Fujitsu has added 0-Watt PCs to its proGREEN selection that do not use any electricity while in hibernation, and yet remain administrable.

• The state of Michigan plans to use some stimulus funds to create a massive green data center designed to provide cloud computing to virtually all Michigan state services and agencies.

Friday is finally here! I hope you all enjoyed a good week, especially those of you who participated in Power IT down day yesterday! Let's hope in the near future we can move beyond simply one day when it comes do powering down unused IT equipment.

For those of you wondering what the status of climate change legislation in the U.S. is, there's not much to report except that the bill is delayed in the Senate. Originally there was hope that the bill would be introduced in late July. The bill's primary sponsor in the Senate, though, had hip surgery recently (that would be John Kerry), and the untimely death of Ted Kennedy has officially led to a delay until at least "late September." My guess is that this summer's health care fuss is the real cause of the delay, with the administration preferring to fight one battle at a time. Meanwhile, NPR had a great story this week about carbon sequestration and how it affects farmers as outlined in the bill. No-till fields may be an easy way for the U.S. to reduce its carbon footprint, but apparently only when the conditions are just right.

Finally, the good folks at CDW released an interesting report this week. The company surveyed 752 I.T. executives in the private and government sectors and found that by and large, I.T. executives are stuck between competing short term (cost) and long term (environmental) concerns. The report also does a nice job examining the relationship between management's commitment to green tech and the resulting energy efficiencies within the organization. The full report can be found here.

That's all for now! Happy Labor Day for our U.S. readers, and see you next week.

A couple of news items from across the Atlantic caught my eye this week. They're interesting because both relate to policy changes that are coming to the U.S. The challenges posed by these policies serve as cautionary tales to U.S. policymakers as they write new laws to adapt to climate change.

The first seems relatively minor, but I suspect it's going to be very controversial. Most people don't realize that the Bush administration's energy bill that gave us longer daylight savings time also contained a ban on incandescent light bulbs. Starting in 2012, 100 watt light bulbs will become illegal, with a phase down in coming years to affect lower wattage bulbs. I predict a major public outcry when this happens, as I don't see the country ready to make the switch. This week the European Union phased in a similar ban, and the reaction has not been kind. Consumers are unhappy with being deprived of choice and many argue that the replacement CFL bulbs are too harsh. There are also concerns about mercury contained in the CFL bulbs. The ban is in place, though, so the next time you travel to the EU, leave your light bulbs at home!

The second story is about Spain's solar power industry. Spain gets a lot of sunlight, so Spain decided a few years ago to encourage solar power investment by passing laws to subsidize that investment. The program created a system of feed-in tariffs, which guarantee the price of electricity generated by solar plants and sold to the grid. Similar feed-in tariffs exist in the U.S., and in other European countries as well. Spain's program, however, set the tariff at a high rate, making it extremely attractive for solar producers to generate electricity and sell it to the grid. The program also did not provide for a phase-down for the rate, as many similar programs do. The result was a bubble. Extremely high investment in the solar industry, with container loads of solar cells sent to Spain, resulted in massive solar production capacity. The government, however, quickly realized the program was too generous and abruptly cut the subsidy. The result is a global collapse in the solar industry, with ripple effects extending beyond Spain.

The caution here is that government regulations on climate change need to be drafted with thought and care, with an eye towards science and economics rather than politics. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the lesson won't be lost in the U.S.

If troubleshooting IP conflicts on a subnet or configuring a Linux-based RADIUS server just doesn't get you excited anymore, how does "pollution counter" sound? It's a rapidly growing field and salaries start in the $60K range. It's featured in this morning's WSJ "Hot Jobs" and it's a must-read if you're interested in the science (or art) of counting pollution.

The profiled company, PE International, grew its revenue by 150% in 2008 and added 13 people to a staff of 3, bringing the total to 16. The company specializes in assessing the impact a product has on Earth, using ISO standards where possible. Climate change legislation such as carbon cap-and-trade, as well as corporate initiatives such as the one recently announced by Wal-Mart to develop a single sustainability index for all products in its stores, means that the field will continue to grow substantially.

As with most things, there is controversy over the methodologies employed to count pollution:

"The American Christmas Tree Association, which represents companies that produce artificial holiday trees, says it did its best to make accurate a life-cycle assessment that compared its products to natural Christmas trees. The assessment, which is still being reviewed, found that an artificial tree was slightly more environmentally friendly, mainly because the biggest source of pollution for either type of tree was consumers driving to get it, and consumers tend to reuse artificial trees.

But the National Christmas Tree Association, which represents tree growers, disputes the findings. "It is patently absurd to think that using a nonbiodegradable, nonrenewable product from a factory is somehow more environmentally friendly than buying a real tree," said spokesman Rick Dungey.

He pointed to a 2009 Christmas tree life-cycle assessment by a different pollution counter that found that natural trees are better for the environment unless an artificial tree is reused for at least 20 years."

So the next time you find yourself tearing out your hair because the data center just went down and all backups are offline, perhaps a switch to counting carbon and calculating life-cycle may be just what your career needs?