October 2009 Archives

Montana is a funny place. I've never been there, but I've heard about the wide open plains and the big sky. It's the kind of place where traffic is so light that the daytime speed limit on Montana highways, until just a couple years ago, was "reasonable and prudent."

Montana has a tiny population -- 967,000. That's in the entire state. That makes the 4th largest state in the country the 44th in terms of population. It's so small that it only has 1 member in the House of Representatives. The House, you might recall, has 435 members, apportioned equally to the states based on census population numbers. Delaware and Alaska also only have 1 member in the House of Representatives.

When our Constitution was crafted, the small states were worried about being dominated by the big states. So they created this thing called the Senate, and called for each state to have 2 representatives in the Senate. That was fine back when there were 13 states, but now we have this funny situation where Montana has 1 representative, but 2 senators, to present 967,000 people.

The net effect of this is that 967,000 people in Montana have an outsized voice in the Senate compared to say, New Yorkers or Californians or Texans, each of which also make do with only 2 Senators. That's why I think Senator Max Baucus, from Montana, may be one of the most powerful and nearly unelected members of Congress.

Baucus is Chair of the Senate Finance Committee. Virtually every major piece of legislation has to be approved by this committee, and that puts Baucus in an incredibly powerful position. He's been all over the news recently on health care, and this week he's back on the Kerry/Boxer climate change bill.

The bill has not fared well in three days of Senate hearings. The hearings were in the Energy and Public Works committee. Over Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, the committee heard from cabinet speakers (Department of Energy, EPA, Interior, Agriculture) as well as industry groups. Valero's CEO warned that the bill would result in staggering costs and drive jobs out of the U.S. Google's Dan Reicher countered, saying that the job creation potential in energy efficiency is "extraordinary." Baucus looks set to block the bill in its current form, calling the 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions too strong and listing a myriad of other serious reservations.

Senator Barbara Boxer, who chairs the committee, is promising to move the bill to the markup phase next Tuesday, which is a precursor to voting it out of committee. Republicans on the committee, while a minority, must be present (at least two of them) during the markup in order to form a quorum. They are now threatening to boycott the markup until more analysis and debate on the bill can take place.

So there you have it -- the latest on the Senate's progress on the climate change bill. While this bill won't have as hard of a time as health care, and I believe it has a decent chance of passage, time is not on its side. The longer this drags into early 2010, the more likely it will be shelved until after next year's midterm election. At this point, I'm not willing to say that carbon cap and trade will be here anytime in the next year.

On Tuesday, Greenpeace published its annual rankings of tech companies and their leadership ability on climate change, the "Cool IT Challenge." The top 5, in order, are IBM, HP, Fujitsu, Google, and Cisco. Rounding out the bottom 5 are Toshiba, Nokia, Sharp, Sony, and Panasonic.

Google's fourth place ranking is a little puzzling to me. Google has been all over the news recently, advocating for climate change legislation and touting its advances in green data centers. As part of its campaign, Greenpeace ran a comparison of Google vs. Microsoft (MS ranks 7 on the list). It turns out that Google, while visible, is also somewhat opaque on its true carbon footprint, and a little thin on solutions:

"Despite significant activity in the first six months of 2009, Google has been less visible on the issue as the Senate prepares to take up climate legislation, and as the world prepares to go to Copenhagen to adopts a new global deal, on how to address climate change. We hope to see more leadership from Google soon. In comparison to other companies in the ICT sector, Google has a much less to offer in the way of solutions to help its customers reduce their energy consumption, as approximately 95 percent of Google's revenue comes from on-line add sales, requiring both Google and the end user to use electricity. Google has focused on driving policy and technology changes that will allow their business model to grow."

Rounding out the Cool IT Challenge is a call for consumers and activists to sign a petition directed towards Google, IBM and Microsoft. The petition asks the three companies to use their strong positions in Washington to get a climate deal for the UN Conference in Copenhagen and to publicly rebuke the Chamber of Commerce for its position on climate change legislation, or to leave in protest as Apple did.

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released the results of a new poll last week, headlined "Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming." The poll seems to indicate that compared to a year ago, the number of Americans who think global warming is real, or that it's caused by mankind, has dropped.

Pundits from left and right jumped on the research result immediately, with the usual hand wringing and pointed accusations ensuing. The NYT has a good summary of the reactions, and the possible explanations, from so-called experts. Many are suggesting that it has to do with Obama's sagging popularity, although they don't exactly draw the lines between the dots on that one.

For me, here are the highlights of the survey:

* 35% say that global warming is a very serious problem, down from 44%.
* 57% think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer, compared with 71%.
* 50% favor setting carbon caps and charging companies to emit carbon.
* 55% have never heard of carbon cap and trade policy.
* The differences in opinion track divisions along party lines, geography, and age.
* Young people are far more likely to see global warming as a very serious problem.
* 56% believe the U.S. should join other nations in setting standards to address climate change.

I think the changes are fairly explainable. The most obvious reason is that we've seen fewer climate abnormalities in the past year -- the summer has been temperate without much record heat (except in Texas), and the hurricane season was just about nonexistent this year. Although one particular year of normal temperatures and inactive hurricanes has absolutely nothing to do with whether global warming exists, I think people still use their own observations as a basis for their own judgments. And the second most obvious reason is that our own government hasn't made this a very big deal. Compare our response, for example, to that of the U.K. Are we going to see ads on TV like this sponsored by Washington anytime soon?

Monday News Roundup

• Pillar Data Systems announces support for Oracle's VM Storage Connect framework, further enabling virtualization as part of customers' Green IT infrastructure.

• Autonomic Software announces that PG&E has selected it for inclusion on the list of Network Desktop Computer Power Management Software Vendors.

• Raritan announces that information collected in its data center asset management solution can now be tied in with Innovative Research's TileFlow to create a three dimensional simulation of airflow and temperature distribution in data centers.

• Citizens Bank has saved over half a million dollars a year by implementing Green IT.

• A CompTIA study reveals Green IT is a mid to high priority for 67% of organizations, but demonstrating ROI for green initiatives is a difficult task for 80% of organizations surveyed.

• Gartner Inc. analysts have identified the Top 10 strategic technologies for 2010, including virtualization, cloud computing, and Green IT.

• Vette Corp has been selected by Syracuse University and IBM to delivery cooling infrastructure in one of the world's most energy efficient data centers.

• Community colleges save green by going green IT.

Definitions matter. I have friends who think a router and switch do the same thing, even though they are fundamentally different appliances. Similarly, when it comes to counting carbon, the definitions used in defining what counts and what doesn't is incredibly important. An accounting flaw in current emissions legislation may mean that massive amounts of GHG may be emitted without properly counting them.

A new study from Princeton University researchers last week highlights a huge loophole that potentially allows entire forests to be mowed down without any accounting for carbon emissions. Under current emissions reducing schemes, including the Kyoto Protocol, the ETS, and the proposed carbon cap and trade in the US, all biofuels are exempt from carbon counting. The rationale is that being plant based, the biofuels absorbed carbon dioxide when they were alive, so the carbon dioxide released when burning them is offset.

That theory works well for a crop of corn grown on barren land, but doesn't work for burning centuries-old forests. Burning such forests means that the net gas emissions in the atmosphere goes up, but current rules don't account for this. According to the researchers, this means someone could cut up the Amazon forest, turn it into a parking lot, burn the wood in a power plant, and that would be treated as a carbon-reducing strategy.

The problem is fixable. According to their press release, the solution is to count all emissions from tailpipes and smokestacks, and to credit bioenergy only to the extent it actually reduces emissions. More details are in this video interview. The good news? Already, the Senate committee crafting climate legislation is promising to look into the problem in hopes of fixing it before the bill advances much further.

How many chargers and power bricks do you have at home? Perhaps one for the cell phone, one for the laptop, one for the external DVD burner? And how many more older chargers and power bricks do you have stashed away in some tech closet somewhere, where old gadgets go to die quietly? All that e-waste adds up to tons of extra material in landfills every year. Even worse, many of today's chargers are "dirty" chargers, which continue to draw power from the grid even when the chargers aren't connected to any device.

The solution may be a Universal Charging Solution (UCS). The International Telecommunication Union, an agency of the United Nations, recently approved a UCS for mobile phones. If adopted by mobile phone makers, the UCS will allow the same charger to be used by all mobile phones anywhere in the world.

Industry group GSMA estimates that the standard will save 51,000 tonnes of redundant chargers from landfills every year. The standard uses a micro-USB plug on one end and also saves on energy consumption by only drawing electricity when it's plugged into a device to be charged.

This is a great first start. Imagine being able to plug in your phone or PDA or smartphone into any charger, whereever you are. Even more exciting is the potential for expanding this beyond cell phones. I'd like one charger for all my devices, including my laptop and printer and wireless input devices. Is anyone listening?

Last week I blogged about the recent round of high-profile defections from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, such as Nike's departure from the Board, and Apple's resignation as a member. The departures came at the heels of earlier departures from energy companies, who are battling each other for the best outcome in any climate change legislation.

Yesterday an anti-corporation satire group called the Yes Men held a press conference in Washington D.C., claiming to be the U.S. Chamber and announcing that the Chamber had reversed its position and was now supporting a carbon tax. The video of the press conference is here. The press conference didn't get very far, however, as a journalist showed up at the U.S. Chamber's offices looking for a press conference, which tipped off Chamber staff that something was awry. The real Chamber showed up at the press conference, and hilarity ensued.

Shame on the media for reporting this as the US Chamber getting punked. The media got punked for being lazy and failing to do their job, which is to verify facts. Several were caught red-handed and had to retract their breaking headlines, and can be seen on the videos here and the reports here. The Wall Street Journal was not amused, adopting a scolding tone, while the Chamber itself can barely contain its anger in its response.

I think the Chamber missed an opportunity here. They should not have interrupted the press conference, and let it play out. It was a vaguely funny stunt, cost lots of money, and obviously doomed to be discovered. The Chamber could have taken the high road and drafted a thoughtful response highlighting its position on climate change and addressing the recent corporate departures while all media eyes were on it. Instead, it played into the media meme that it was the victim of a hoax, and lost the opportunity to reach out.

News Roundup

• NTT Communications announces it is offering "Green Hosting Basic" and "Green Storage" virtual hosting and cloud storage systems to its customers next year.

• IBM and the NFL are continuing their partnership to reduce costs and energy consumption in the NFL's data centers while increasing power and cooling capacity.

• The University of Melbourne, Monash University, and RMIT University announced a collaboration with Fujitsu to develop a shared green data center.

• The U.S. House of Representatives decommissions its last data center as it moves towards virtualization, saving over $730,000 a year.

• Disney and Verizon discuss their efforts to make their data centers greener at a New York symposium.

• NetApp and VMWare have each built highly efficient data centers designed to provide millions of dollars in cost savings each year.

• INX Inc. announces that the city of Walnut Creek, California, has qualified for a tax energy rebate due to its virtualization project with INX.

• IBM is collaborating with Toyota Motor Sales and Southern California Edison to create a green data center.

• Wells Fargo plans to reduce its greenhouse has emissions by 20% by 2018, partly through managing its data centers.

Happy Blog Action Day everyone! Today this blog joins with over 9,000 other blogs reaching nearly 13 million readers in discussing climate change. Want to see what others are saying about it? Head over to the link above and check it out.

The health care debate playing out in the Senate has dominated legislative headlines this week, and it's been very interesting watching it play out because I think it has a lot to say about how the climate bill will play out as well. As a recap, the Democrats are desperately seeking at least 1 Republican to vote along with them on the health care reform bill. They found that vote in Senator Olympia Snowe, who agreed to vote for the Finance Committee's version of the bill.

The climate bill is in a similar position. Like the health care bill, a version has already passed the House of Representatives. Like the health care bill, the Senate is far more closely divided on the issue and although the Republicans only have 40 seats, they've threatened to filibuster any bill they don't like.

Well, over the weekend, something pretty remarkable happened and it hasn't picked up a lot of press yet. Senator Kerry (D) and Senator Graham (R) penned an op-ed in the New York Times that essentially laid out bipartisan agreement on the bill. Specifically, they agree on the following principles:

1. Climate change is real and the U.S. should move to aggressively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
2. The U.S. must take advantage of nuclear power, "our single largest contributor of emissions-free power."
3. The U.S. should become the "Saudi Arabia of clean coal."
4. The U.S. should consider a border tax on goods from countries that don't adopt carbon caps.
5. The U.S. will establish a floor and a ceiling for the costs of carbon allowances.

There's a lot here for both Democrats and Republicans. For D's, the recognition that climate change is real and caused by greenhouse gas emissions is a big win, as well as the agreement to implement carbon cap and trade and import tariffs for goods from China if China doesn't go along with carbon reductions. For R's, the win here is on nuclear power, the continued development of "clean coal" carbon sequestration, and more permits for offshore drilling.

Already this proposal looks like it's picking up some more R votes, including Lisa Murkowski from Alaska. Others believe that this agreement means the chances of a climate bill just went from near zero to "through the roof." I'm not ready to go that far yet, but I do think it's taken a huge leap forward in terms of progress through the Senate. The nuclear and coal provisions aren't going to make environmentalists happy, and there's still the issue of how to pay for all this, but in terms of the long-term goal of capping carbon, it appears we're a little closer today to making that happen.

While Congress debates comprehensive energy legislation including carbon cap and trade, the Obama administration has taken a large step towards curbing carbon and increasing energy efficiency in one area it can act without Congressional approval -- the government itself. The federal government is the nation's largest energy consumer, with more than 500,000 buildings, 600,000 vehicles, and more than 1.8 million employees. Last week, President Obama issued an Executive Order declaring that it is now U.S. policy that federal agencies must increase energy efficiency, measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (both direct and indirect), conserve water, eliminate waste, recycle, make sustainable purchases, and build sustainable buildings.

The executive order, which is patterned on a similar but smaller effort by the city of Los Angeles, calls for a 30% cut in vehicle fuel use by 2020, a 50% increase in recycling by 2015, and to establish 2020 greenhouse gas reduction targets within 90 days.

Green I.T. is a big part of the push. You can check it out for yourself on page 5 of the Executive Order. The EO requires "electronics stewardship" by:

* ensuring procurement preference for EPEAT products;
* enable power management, duplex printing, and other energy management features on all agency products;
* recycling excess or surplus electronic equipment;
* purchasing Energy Star equipment;
* implementing best management practices for data centers and servers

Unlike the private sector, the federal government is not often constrained by spending limits and P&L statements. Green IT equipment can sometimes carry a price premium over their "dirty" siblings, but with this EO in place, expect to see a huge push from the federal government to implement Green IT in every corner of the federal government. The ripple effect on private industry will probably be significant, including (hopefully) lower prices on green technology equipment.

News Roundup

• A CDW survey finds that while more organizations than ever are implementing server virtualization and desktop power management, budget pressures are forcing IT purchasers to focus on short term costs rather than long term power savings.

• Cyber Switching, a provider of power distribution and power management products, announces the availability of evaluation units of its ePower line of power distribution units.

• Vycon, manufacturer of environmentally friendly flywheel storage systems, has been awarded the Most Sustainable Award by Health Care Facilities Symposium and Expo.

• Raritan introduces a dual-voltage power distribution unit with multiple outlet types for use in data centers.

• Digital Realty Trust, the world's largest wholesale data center provider, has been awarded LEED Platinum certification for its new Silicon Valley data center facility.

• KnowledgeTree, provider of document management software, is launching a Green IT program - spend $4500 and the company will plant a tree in Africa on your behalf.

• Verdiem's Surveyor power management software is now McAfee ePO compatible.

• By installing Verdiem's Surveyor software, Cadbury has reduced its total PC energy costs by 30 percent.

• VMware announces the opening of a green data center in Washington, which it believes will achieve savings of over $5 million a year.

• NetApp and the Silicon Valley Leadership Council will host a 2009 Data Center Energy Efficiency Summit on October 15.

• Raritan has formed a strategic alliance with Capgemini to provide solutions to help data centers reduce total cost of ownership by optimizing operations and energy consumption.

• Pentadyne Power Corporation introduces a next generation flywheel system for use in UPS, with 25% greater efficiency than prior systems.

• HP has signed a seven-year technology and services contract with a Brazilian mining company to provide a green technology infrastructure.

• IP Infusion joins the Green Grid.

If you've ever been to Europe, you know that Europeans pay through the nose for gasoline, especially compared to pump prices in the U.S. High taxes are largely to blame for this, and a concerted government effort to reduce fuel consumption. The government distorts the market further by taxing diesel fuel less, meaning that diesel is much cheaper than regular gasoline in most European market. Diesel cars outsell regular-fuel cars in Europe.

Now, it looks like those prices are going to go up even further. A plan to introduce a pan-European carbon tax on fuel has been leaked to the media. The plan is under consideration by the European Commission, which hasn't made a formal announcement yet. The plan is seen as necessary to achieve EU-wide reductions in carbon emissions, covering sectors (transportation and farming) not currently covered by Europe's carbon cap and trade program, the ETS.

The tax would have to receive unanimous approval from member countries in order to become law. Sweden and France have already introduced similar measures and thus support the law. Great Britain, however, is openly hostile to the legislation and is generally quite suspicious of EU efforts to interfere with domestic tax policy. There's a lot more behind the scenes lobbying and persuading that needs to take place before this goes anywhere.

Would increasing the price of fuel reduce carbon emissions? Only if less fuel is consumed. At some point, an economy won't be able to reduce its fuel consumption any further without an alternative. To that end, the proposed tax wouldn't apply to biofuels or other renewables. The idea, therefore, is to shift market use from fossil fuels to renewable fuel. That's a fine idea, and using tax mechanisms to make that shift arguably has already worked in other areas in the EU, but the big question in my mind is, what's the alternative? If this tax is timed properly, it could give hybrid and electric vehicle technologies an extra push as consumers and business look for a cheaper alternative to gasoline. If it's too early, though, it will only serve to increase the costs for businesses in moving their goods around.

There has been a lot of buzz in the last week about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its position on climate change. Several high-profile defections, and a public spat between Apple and the Chamber's President, Tom Donohue, have captured a lot of attention.

The Chamber is one of the largest business lobbying organizations in Washington, representing over 3 million business members. It's a huge organization, and more likely than not, your company is a member. It's generally pretty effective at representing business interests at a macro level in Washington, but as you might imagine, an organization this large and diverse is bound to eventually run into disagreement among its members. That appears to have happened, in a very public and embarrassing way, with the climate change legislation pending before Congress.

The Chamber says it is dedicated to climate change legislation, but in a "sensible" way. That means opposing the carbon cap and trade portion of the bill, which many environmentalists believe is the linchpin to any bill. Last week, three energy companies publicly left the Chamber. These utility companies are heavily invested in nuclear power plants, which would stand to benefit under carbon and trade. Then, Nike, a Board member of the Chamber, resigned its position, citing the Chamber's position on climate change. Finally, earlier this week Apple joined the exodus with a public departure. The National Resource Defense Council, which has long been campaigning for climate change legislation, quickly applauded the recent departures.

The Chamber seems nonplussed by all the attention. In a recent interview Donohue defended the Chamber's position, and made the point that overall the vast majority of member companies support the Chamber's positions. Donohue went so far as to release its response to Apple's departure, accusing Apple of not understanding the Chamber's position in a pretty snarky (for the business world anyway) letter. In the meantime, senior Democrats have already started to distance themselves from the Chamber, preferring instead to speak to alternative groups such as the Business Roundtable.

Apple is not the only tech company in the Chamber, of course, but it is a very high profile one. I predict it won't be the last tech company to leave the Chamber and join a competing organization. Carbon cap and trade may be just the excuse tech companies have been looking for to drop out, or it may be the real reason for leaving. The result is the same -- decreased influence for as long as Democrats continue to hold reins of power in Washington.

The Green Grid, a consortium of over 200 companies and government organizations, last week held a forum hosted by the New York Stock Exchange in New York City. Representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy were also on hand.

The forum broadly called for data centers around the world to begin implementing environmentally friendly practices. The organization pointed out that one of EPA's own data center has achieved a 20% reduction in energy use, resulting in a $15,000 per year energy saving. If the 75,000 similar-sized data centers in the U.S. could do the same, the energy savings would top $1.1 billion.

To help data centers achieve these cost savings, the Green Grid is publicizing a host of free online tools to help measure, assess, and plan energy efficiencies. Some of these tools help companies measure carbon output, while others provide recommendations for taking advantage of cool air for chilling purposes. Yet another tool provides a reporting mechanism to begin the process of tracking data center efficiencies. Hit the links for more on how these efforts can help you achieve more with less.

News Roundup

• 67 percent of CIOs in the Asia-Pacific region see Green IT as a key strategic focus.

• A new Gartner report says data centers should turn their server temperatures up to 75 degrees, but monitor potential hotspots.

• Gartner also says that the measurement and monitoring of data center energy use will remain immature through 2011.

• Storage Networking World has announced the finalists in the "Green Computing, Energy Efficiency and the Data Center" category for its annual "Best Practices in Data Storage" program, to be announced next month.

• Belkin releases its "Conserve Surge with Timer" to reduce energy use at workstations by incorporating "always on" and "auto off" power outlets.

• CA and VMware announce the results (free download) of their server virtualization maturity study.

• Verdiem announces its Surveyor PC Power Management Solution is compatible with Windows 7.

• An IDC survey finds energy is still the dominant reason U.S. companies adopt Green IT policies, but it's less of a factor than it was a year ago.

• The U.K. Treasury is buying energy efficient Fujitsu servers as part of a program to make the British government more energy efficient.

• A new survey by CDW reveals that almost a third of small businesses are more likely to invest in Green IT in the coming months, more than any other government or corporate sector.

I don't normally focus on a single company's PR efforts on this blog, as the focus is on law and regulatory affairs that affect green technology. Occasionally, though, something pretty impressive comes along and it's worth blogging about. Microsoft's new Chicago data center is in that category.

Online this past summer, the company recently threw its doors open for media and tech executives, which is a pretty unusual move in and of itself. My guess is that in addition to the positive press about the green features of the data center, Microsoft is trying to get the word about its future cloud based computing strategy, an evolution of the Live service Microsoft calls "Software plus Services." The Chicago facility is one of two recently opened by Microsoft (the other is in Dublin).

The 700,000 square foot Chicago facility houses a traditional data center, with raised floors for cooling and fiber optic and electrical conduit running overhead. Over two third of the facility, however, is made of concrete parking spaces, each large enough to hold a 40-foot standard container. Yeah, you know, the containers that bring over goods from Asia and sit on semi trucks. Microsoft is deploying, on a large scale, container data centers, with each container delivered from the manufacturer with approximately 2,000 servers inside. The company uses a standard interface it calls "CBlox" to plug in each container into the power and network grid. Each container weighs 60 tons, but by using "air skates" only four employees are needed to move containers into their parking spaces. Within one 8-hour workday, a container can be fully installed, including network, power and chilled water connections.

The data center is designed to be environmentally friendly from the beginning:

The raised-floor area is fed by a cooling loop filled with 47-degree chilled water, while the container area is supported by a separate chilled water loop running at 65 degrees. Of the facility's total 30-megawatt power capacity, about 20 megawatts is dedicated to the container area, with about 10 megawatts for the raised floor pods. The power infrastructure also includes 11 power rooms and 11 diesel generators, each providing 2.8 megawatts of potential backup power that can be called upon in the event of a utility outage.

So is Microsoft on to something here? The data center's total investment is expected to pass $500 million, so clearly the company thinks containerized data centers are a critical trend. Data centers have always been fairly independent and isolated entities, but containerization takes that to a whole new level. Imagine moving data centers on semi trucks to best take advantage of weather or lower tax or real estate rental rates. The future of data centers, it seems, will ride on air skates and semi trucks.