In 2008, a survey of corporate executives published in McKinsey Quarterly [1] indicated that though climate change is considered important and awareness is high, relatively little is being done in terms of building climate change mitigation, energy usage and emissions reduction into corporate decision-making or operational processes.  Now, in 2009, there are indications that climate change, specifically the contribution from energy use, is being addressed by businesses in an overall attempt to reduce cost.

Carbon management, as a whole, is the process by which any company can develop and implement a corporate climate strategy. A typical carbon management structure includes the following principles: measurement of emissions, set emission objectives, emission avoidance and reduction, assessment of residual emission and offsetting. The ultimate object is to achieve financial sustainability whilst meeting carbon targets set by the organization. The key element of Carbon Management principles is to consistently identify the emission source and measure emission from your operation.

Value of Carbon Management

The goal of the principles is to assist organizations in making sound decisions around the reductions in GHGs. These principles can be applied to the decision making process  with regards to economic, technological and societal considerations. Ultimately, the principles can be used to assist in developing the appropriate carbon management strategies where the environmental, financial and social benefits are maximized – often, the benefits for each of these will coincide.

1. Reducing Input Costs – this is around the various energy, materials, water etc. that a business may use in the production of it’s goods or in the operation of it’s facilities. The goal is to identify where emissions are occurring and reduce them.  Today, the success for many climate change programs is built mostly on this ability of the process to identify areas of inefficiencies or waste that can be reduced that lead to cost savings.
   
2. Building Environmental Leadership – creating value for the corporation/facility/project as an environmental leader. Builds reputation for environmental stewardship
3. Creating Market Opportunity – through external GHG policies and the reduction in emissions, businesses may create opportunity for direct revenue as a carbon credit provider in those countries where carbon trading/regulation is or will be occurring. Also creates customer loyalty for efforts at being more “green” through the GHG reductions and the ensuing environmental benefits of the products/services being provided.
4. Reducing Business Risk – There are increasing costs to all businesses associated with fuels, energy and material procurement that the awareness of the GHG emissions and options for alternatives (Coal vs. Solar, plastic vs. cardboard, one level of recycled content vs. a higher or lower level). In addition, forthcoming carbon regulations will impact business so awareness of current emissions and reductions will allow for mitigation of compliance risks and costs.
   

[1] A McKinsey Global Survey: How companies think about climate change, McKinsey Quarterly, Feb 2008

Custom vacuum enlargement and body shaping equipment. Specializing in Penis Enlargement. Nipple and Breast systems are also available. All are USA enlarge penis Medical Type 1 Device – Quick Delivery. The ONLY 16 Way Comfort System Available. Endorsed By Penis Enlargement Surgeons

Carbon Carbon

When EPEAT was originally begun in 2003 and implemented in 2006, one of the key drivers for the standard was to provide a consistent method for institutional purchasers to specify environmental characteristics for IT products by calling out EPEAT as the requirement in bids and proposals.  This worked well and motivated manufacturers as it provided a purchasing incentive to meet EPEAT criteria and strive for more and more points until they achieved Gold level products.

Though criteria were written with institutional purchasers in mind, there was nothing that would prevent a consumer or retailer from accessing the EPEAT database and browsing through all the listed products to examine the various environmental criteria being claimed.  There are only a few criteria that may not directly apply in the consumer space, just based on the way they are worded in the standard (Product and packaging takeback, for example).

Now, though, several years later, the EPEAT IT product standard is undergoing an update and revision as well as an expansion into other products – Imaging devices like printers and scanners and Televisions.  The discussion has been reopened as to whether or not EPEAT (or specific product categories within EPEAT) should jump directly into consumer and retail space.   There are (as always) both advantages and disadvantages to staying focused in the institutional space or also overtly designing the standard for both institutional and consumer purchasers.   These concerns include cost of design changes to products, education and marketing to consumers, additional verification by the EPEAT administrative organization, The Green Electronics Council (GEC) and many others.

There is an obvious desire by consumers to be informed as to the environmental benefits or attributes of the electronic products they want to buy.  Today, however, without any set “holistic” environmental standard in the consumer space, it is very difficult to compare these benefits from one product to another or one manufacture to another.  Energy Star has done a good job of educating purchasers about the energy use of products but what about other aspects – recycling, hazardous materials, use of recycled materials, ease of upgradability etc.  The lack of a standard and the desire for more informed purchasing was a driver for the initial development of EPEAT so it would seem to make sense for EPEAT to move into this area.

However, the purchasing power of a single individual or even thousands of individuals is far less than the purchasing clout of a single institutional purchaser like a government agency or a university that could purchases tens of thousands of IT products at once.   There is a cost to the manufacturers to design and manage products for EPEAT compliance that manufacturers were willing to undertake for the institutional purchaser knowing that there would be a likely return on investment (the manufacturers, after all, are in the business to make money first and foremost).

Products for institutional purchasers were, for many manufacturers, designed with different characteristics to meet the demand of those users – they didn’t need the most intensive graphic cards or the largest hard drives or fastest processors but did demand more attention to security features and services for end of life and data destruction.   It was, technically, simpler and more familiar ground to create a more environmental product in the institutional space knowing there would also be a payback.  The consumer, though, generally was looking for the fastest processors and graphics capability and didn’t consider the energy use or materials the system was made from as important so it was both technically more difficult to achieve portions of EPEAT (or Energy Star) and riskier as the ROI on the design changes wasn’t as assured on the retail level.

The question is:  Are those assumptions still true today?

The current EPEAT working groups and the IEEE standards balloting is occurring now and will continue for the next 18 months.  I would encourage anyone interested in helping forge the future of EPEAT and answer that question to participate in these groups in giving their time, experience, insight and/or funding the development of the standards.  The previous post talks a bit about each group and where to go to find more information.

Assignments. Song List: Discipline Terren 1,2,3. Dancing on Vega Rostau Maps Barnyard Pig What the? Impulsive Highway Joyride assignment writing service 2012 DEPARTMENT HOTEL ASSIGNMENTS. PEPPERMILL. Massachusetts. Florida. Indiana. Missouri. Arizona. Nevada. Connecticut. Delaware. District of

EPEAT

Currently, there are three working groups for EPEAT that have been formed to update the IEEE 1680 standard.  Details for each group can be found here.

1. Computer/IT Workgroup:  This group formed in 2008 to expand the scope of products covered by IEEE standard.  As such, the creation of an umbrella IEEE 1680 standard was undertaken, completed and is in process of being balloted by the IEEE standards association.   The umbrella standard includes the rules of how EPEAT operates (bronze, silver, gold levels) and removes the criteria for IT products by placing them into a newly created, separate standard IEEE 1680.1.

The IEEE 1680.1 standard contains the original IEEE 1680 criteria for desktops, notebooks and monitors with minor modification and interpretations as approved by the working group.  The IEEE 1680.1 standard has just been approved to be balloted by the IEEE standards association.

2. Imaging Workgroup:  This group met at an initial meeting in early 2008 and agreed to form a workgroup.  This group formally formed at the end of 2008 to create the IEEE 1680.2 standard for Imaging devices.  This workgroup is in the final stages of developing the project authorization request (PAR) that initiates the formal request to IEEE to begin development of the standard itself.

3. Television Studygroup:  This group met at an initial meeting in early 2008 and agreed to form a studygroup.  This studygroup has the charter of determining whether or not an EPEAT standard for Televisions should be developed.  This group has also met several times and appears to be on track to becoming a formal workgroup and develop the PAR to form the IEEE 1680.3 standard for televisions.

EPEAT