Tag Archives: Add new tag

Oil Spills and Market Crashes

The current news cycle links continuing coverage of the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, whose cause remains uncertain and whose solution so far elusive, with puzzlement about the cause of a recent 1,000-point plunge  in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

It may appear that these two traumas have nothing in common. Indeed, the havoc in the stock market will prove ephemeral, while the devastation of the Gulf oil spill could be with us for a generation or more. But they are linked by the role technology played in each of them.

As the New York Times noted, the oil drilling platform that exploded and sank in the gulf “was described before the accident as one of the most technologically advanced drilling platforms in the world.” Drilling for oil miles below the earth’s crust and a mile below the sea was once inconceivable. But now it’s a proud triumph of technological advancement. In the case of the stock market plunge, suspicions center on the role of computer-driven flash trading, the esoteric and technologically sophisticated mechanism for making profits by deploying more computing power than one’s competitors in the market.

The common thread joining these two stories is the ability of technology to elude the understanding of its creators, and its power to wreak havoc beyond our control.

It was over two years ago that the $7.2 billion dollar loss inflicted on Societe Generale by a rogue trader evoked for me the Exxon Valdez and the principal that technological sophistication brings power that tends to outpace our ability to understand it and leaves us unprepared for the consequences of its misuse.

It would be a good thing if our technophilic society learned humility from these episodes.

1 Comment

Filed under oil, water

Two Approaches to Cleaning up Dirty Ports

Can targeted economic incentives clean up an industry? Or does real change require a fundamental, government-backed restructuring? That’s the question raised by two different clean-up approaches being pursued by U.S. ports.

Ports are a vital link in international trade. But they are dirty. Diesel ships, locomotives and trucks, many of them old, poorly maintained and inefficient, spew vast amounts of pollutants into the air. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, large ports generate pollution emissions many times greater than average power plants.

A Focus on Cleaning up Ports

Shipping containers at a terminal in Port Eliz...
Image via Wikipedia

That’s why the question of how to clean them up has received a lot of attention in recent years. In 2007, for example, the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma convened a two-day workshop together with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and the Rocky Mountain Institute to identify opportunities to dramatically clean up port operators. The workshop resulted in an 87-page report full of recommendations ranging from using lighter weight cranes to switching to electric tugboats.

A key source of pollution in port operations is drayage–the transportation of containerized cargo by specialized trucking companies the ports shipping docks. Many drayage trucks in use are old, ill maintained and highly polluting. Upgrading the truck fleet to cleaner vehicles is complicated by the fact that some 85% of the drivers are small, independent operators who own their own trucks. These independent owner operators (IOOs) tend to earn very little money–just $12 per hour after all costs are figured, according to one analysis. So they generally struggle to maintain their vehicles or to finance cleaner replacements.

Ports on both coasts of the United States have devised plans to clean up their air by focusing on the polluting drayage trucks. The West Coast plan looks very different from the East Coast one.

An East Coast Plan Uses a Light Touch

On the East Coast, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has developed a plan that offers subsidies and low-interest loans to encourage the owners of older, dirty trucks to replace them with newer, cleaner models. Details of this plan will be were released by the Port Authority this week on March 10, 2010.

The plan is a textbook case of using economic incentives to bring about a desired outcome, in this case, a reduction of approximately 120 tons of NOx, 14 tons of fine particulate matter, and 1,700 tons of greenhouse gases per year, according to the Port Authority.

A West Coast Plan Seeks to Reshape the Industry

The Port of Los Angeles, by contrast, has launched a program that seeks fundamentally to reorganize the drayage industry. To help devise its plan to reduce drayage pollution, the port hired the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) to do an analysis and make recommendations. The BCG analysis found that a penalty/subsidy/financing plan would likely meet its pollution-reduction goals a few years’ time. BCG reasoned, however, that such a plan would not leave the industry on a sustainable footing and concluded that the very structure of the drayage industry should be changed.

The Port of Los Angeles Clean Truck Program follows the broad outlines recommended by BCG, including setting rules that would remake drayage into an asset-based and employee-based industry. By 2012, drayage trucking firms operating in the Port of Los Angeles need to own their own trucks and use drivers who are employees, not independent contractors. Such a structure, the BCG study concluded, would not only meet environmental goals but also broader industrial and social goals, including ensuring the stability of the drayage market and the availability of drayage capacity, while raising incomes for drivers.

Accounting for the Costs

The Port of Los Angeles/BCG plan is expected to raise drayage costs to shippers by more than 100% and cost some $500 million more annually than a non-asset and employee-based drayage model. The impact on total shipping costs should be modest, though. According to BCG, drayage costs generally account for only 10% of total shipping costs.

The Port of Los Angeles maintains that these costs are more than offset by avoiding externalized costs–borne by the public–of the current model, which include under-utilized trucks, traffic congestion, environmental damage and the degradation of public health. The Port puts these costs at $500 million to $1.7 billion annually.

Effectiveness of the Plans

In December 2009 the Port of Los Angeles announced that its program had already reduced truck emissions by 70% compared to 2007 levels and has eliminated some 30 tons of diesel particulate matter so far. Even tighter truck emissions restristrictions were phased in on January 1, 2010 and will be followed by ban in 2012 on any trucks with pre-2007 engines.

It’s too early to assess the effectiveness of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey plan, which will be launched officially on March 10. But its clear that its scope is far more modest. It aims to reduce diesel particulate emissions by 14 tons per year, less than half the reduction that Los Angeles is already trumpeting.

Vibrant Political Dynamics

As the New York Times recently reported, the case of Los Angeles illustrates a vibrant political dynamic at work, with Teamsters joining forces with environmentalists against the trucking industry to support sweeping change. As the Times reported last year, though, unions’ use of environmental regulations and support of environmental causes can seem opportunistic.

Questions Raised

The sweep of the West Coast plan, which will completely restructure the drayage business in the region, assuming legal challenes to it by the trucking industry are unsuccessful, is impressive. The Port of Los Angeles was presented with a simple plan option that would have achieved environmental goals at modest cost in a few years’ time but opted instead to introduce a costlier and more ambitious program in pursuit of broader social goals as well (such as raising the standard of living of drivers.) This raises several questions:

  1. Environmental goals are invariably interwined with economic and social ones. How can we make policy that weighs each strand appropriately?
  2. How much prominence should be given to the analysis of long-term versus short-term consequences in the development of policy?
  3. In light of the uncertainty inherent in long-term models, how ambititous should plans be? It’s worth noting that shipping is an industry of strategic importance. A glitch that impairs the functioning of the Port of Los Angeles can be felt across the United States.

If you have some thoughts on these questions, or other reactions to this piece, please consider leaving a comment  below.

Leave a Comment

Filed under emissions, incentives, transportation

I Love Waste

“I love waste,” said Emily Bockian Landsburg, CEO of cleantech startup BlackGold Biofuels , when I ran into her at an an event in New York last night.  BlackGold Biofuels has developed a process for turning trap grease–the gunk collected in grease traps in restaurant sink drainpipes–into high-quality biodiesel.

BlackGold Biofuels has licensed its technology to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission for use in its Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant, where it is expected to produce 100,000 gallons of biodiesel yearly. Here’s a story about the project.

Landsburg sees a vast market for her technology, which she says has a two- to three-year payback period for her target customers, mostly waste water treatment plants, who already receive payments to accept the crud for disposal.

Waste was a hot topic yesterday. That day I also made the acquaintance of Sameer Rashid, business development manager for Harvest Power, a Massachusetts-based cleantech firm whose technology converts organic wastes into a syngas and compost.

Harvest Power intends to design, build, own, and operate facilities on behalf of municipalities and may add renewable energy generation facilities as well. Here a story about the firm form the Boston Globe.

I can’t yet vouch for their business models or economics–please comment with pointers to good studies you know about–but I love waste too.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

1 Comment

Filed under biofuels

Future Cleantech Execs Gather in NYC

This week marked the kickoff of the CleantechExecs program at the Polytechnic Institute of NYU (NYU-Poly). The program will last 10 days spread over several months and will include appearances by an array of speakers from industry, finance and government.

The program is intended to prepare mid-career executives for a transition to the cleantech industry. I am among the first cohort of 30 participants, who come from varied backgrounds including banking, media, IT, law and the non-profit sector.

Our tuition is paid by NYSERDA, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, which is seeking to foster the development of the cleantech industry in New York and sees this program a means of building the ranks of experienced executives in the industry.

Yesterday we reviewed a case study of Verdant Power, a developer of marine power generation projects and technology. The company achieved an important milestone when it fielded a pilot project in the East River of New York City involving 6 underwater turbines that are providing power to the grid using the renewable power of the tides, generating no emissions and without harming acquatic life. Ron Smith, CEO of Verdant Power, listened in on a freewheeling analysis of his business and then took the floor to tells us about his company and to field our questions.

For many of us, the inspiring story about the company and its mission were overshadowed by the realization of just how difficult the regulatory environment is for startups such as Verdant Power. The company has spent a significant share of its limited resources seeking regulatory approvals and has had modest results to show so far. The company also illustrated just how nascent its industry is. Although the company has a staff of only twenty, it must perform technology design and development, resource assessment (identifying appropriate sites), and project development because suitable partners are few and far between.

There is a lot of enthusiasm on day two of the program. Some 2/3 of my class are interested in starting their own businesses, and I am hearing some pretty interesting ideas in the halls. I’ll post more on the program and what I learn in the coming weeks.

If you are familiar with similar programs in other locations, please leave a comment–I’d love to hear about them.

1 Comment

Filed under emissions, grid, water

Carbon on Company Balance Sheets?

Despite the fizzle after the great fanfare of the Copenhagen Summit, many companies remain intensely focused on the strategic implications of climate change. Some believe that a requirement to monitor, report and reduce their carbon emissions is coming and is just a question of time. Indeed, some observers believe that carbon accounting is destined to be embedded in the core of enterprise systems, with carbon emissions tracked continuously and treated like any other balance-sheet item.

I recently had the opportunity to speak with David Abood, Managing Director, Sustainability Services North America and Climate Change Solutions Global Lead at Accenture, the consulting and strategy firm. In his experience, the attention companies are putting on carbon accounting, tracking and reporting varies according to the risk and opportunity they attach to it. Companies that see themselves “in the cross hairs” of future cap and trade programs are, as you might expect, paying close attention. For instance, Accenture is being asked right now by major companies that would be “capped entities” (bound, under proposed cap-and-trade legislation, to limit carbon emissions) to do company-wide system implementations to handle the requirement of detailed tracking of carbon emissions, or to do carbon analytics as a managed service.

But even companies that are not destined to become capped entities are getting increasingly engaged, he says, whether due to pressure from their customers or from organizations like the Carbon Disclosure Project. He expects the CDP to push for increasingly granular emissions tracking over time. This will inevitably drive more detailed reporting by the growing number of reporting companies and eventually their supply chain partners too (as I’ve noted here).

Accenture has made a substantial investment in building a capability to help clients cope with climate change. The firm has some 200-300 people in its Sustainability Services practice and around 2000 people company-wide with a focus in this area alongside their principle functional or industry expertise. The company has done an analysis of the “whole software market” around carbon accounting, Abood says, and are working with SAP, Carbon Networks and IHS, among other potential partners.

So, is the day at hand when most companies will track carbon emissions continously, and integrate emissions reporting into core financial and operational reporting? Not quite. Abood says that vision is “in everyone’s sights” but ackowledges that no one has yet “cracked the code.”

If you have a point of view on where carbon accounting is headed, please consider leaving a comment.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

1 Comment

Filed under carbon, emissions, Supply chain, sustainability

Where is Clean Tech Heading in 2010?

Sorry, I can’t say I know yet where clean tech is heading in 2010. I’m still getting reoriented after the holiday. But early signs are that, as usual, both the hype and the backlash against the hype, are a bit overblown.

The Economist had a nice assessment of the post-Copenhagen landscape: mixed, essentially.

On the downside, the article said, a lack of firm mandate to cut emissions should have a chilling effect (pun accidental) on investment in clean tech. The article quoted VC Vinod Khosla as saying, “Almost all areas of clean technology will get a little less investor interest because there is no mandate.” And it said that German power company E.ON would back away from plans to accelerate plans to cut its emissions, which it had announced when it expect a firmer result out of Copenhagen.

On the upside, India and China have made important commitments to improve energy efficiency and rich countries have promised billions in green-investment support to poor countries. The article also rightly points out that a lot of the clean tech action to date has been driven by national, regional and local mandates and regulations, not international deals, and those were unaffected (so far) by Copenhagen. Finally, it’s worth noting that climate change mitigation is not the only driver of clean tech. Efforts to develop alternative energy supplies that are more secure than fossil fuels are an important driver as well. The recent period of volatile oil prices and geostrategic natural gas games in Eastern Europe (despite burgeoning global gas reserves) is a persistant motivator of investment in some cleantech subsectors. Chris Nelder is worth a close read for his take on the impact of resource scarecity on investment trends. He foresees a bull market in renewable energy investments. See his take on energy-related investment themes for the next decade here and here.

Some observers have taken note of a slow-down in venture investment in clean tech. Greentech Media tallied 2009 clean tech venture investments at around $5 billion in 2009, down from $7.6 billion in 2008.  But in the broader context of overall VC, that decline doesn’t look so bad. According to the National Venture Capital Association, U.S. total VC investments in the first three quarters of 2009 were $12.2 billion, down from $22.1 billion during the same period of 2008. That’s a sharper decline than clean tech alone experienced.

What are the key questions facing clean tech and energy in 2010? I’d love to hear your thoughts and take some suggestions of what to dig into next on this blog.

Happy New Year.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

1 Comment

Filed under emissions, natural gas, oil

Bloomberg Makes Green Investing Easier

Bloomberg LP, the financial information and news company, attained phenomenal success by becoming an indispensible tool for financial professionals such as traders, financial analysts and investment bankers. There are Bloomberg terminals on over 250,000 desktops worldwide. And these are not ordinary desks: the people who sit at them influence possibly trillions of dollars of financial transactions each year.

Image representing Bloomberg as depicted in Cr...
Image via CrunchBase

Many financial professionals could not imagine doing their jobs without a Bloomberg terminal. (See this Fortune article for background on the company and an illustration of the passion its terminals inspire among users.) It’s fair to say, therefore, that the Bloomberg terminal has shaped how investment decisions are made around the world.  

What does this have to do with things green?  

Last week I had the opportunity to visit the sparking Bloomberg headquarters in midtown Manhattan and see a demonstration of the new environmental, social and governance (ESG) data and analytics that have been added to the Blooomberg product.  

The company says it has researched 20,000 companies around the world and has compiled ESG data on all those companies that have publicly disclosed any: 3080 companies in 43 countries. The terminal now carries some 85 environmental variables, ranging from total company CO2 emissions (direct and indirect), to paper consumed and recycled to energy intensity per EBITDA. Including the social and governance data, there are 120 ESG variables in total.  Here are some more (e-mail me if you want the full list):

Travel Emissions (Th Tonnes)
Nitrogen Oxide Emissions (Th Tonnes)
Sulphur Dioxide Emissions (Th Tonnes)
VOC Emissions (Th Tonnes)
Carbon Monoxide Emissions (Th Tonnes)
Methane Emissions (Th Tonnes)
ODS Emissions (Th Tonnes)
Particulate Emissions (Th Tonnes)
Total Energy Consumption (MWh)
Renewable Energy Use (MWh)
Water Consumption (Th Cubic Meters)
% Water Recycled
Discharges to Water (Th Cubic Meters)
Hazardous Waste (Th Tonnes)
Total Waste (Th Tonnes)
Waste Recycled (Th Tonnes)
Paper Consumption (Th Tonnes)
Paper Recycled (Th Tonnes)
Fuel Used (Th Litres)
Raw Materials Used (Th Tonnes)

The data is fully integrated into the Bloomberg terminal; users access and manipulate it the same way they use traditional financial metrics. It makes it easy for analysts to build models of company performance and value that include both financial and environmental factors.  

Bloomberg has added these capabilities because it recognizes that investment decisions, even by mainstream investors, will increasingly consider environmental, social and governance variables alongside traditional financial measures.  

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg opening ...
Image via Wikipedia

But I suspect this initiative is more than just a response to a vision of what the market needs. It is a subtle attempt to influence how trading and investment decisions are made. The company’s founder,  Michael Bloomberg, and its current president, Dan Doctoroff, have both racked up impressive green credentials. Before becoming president of Bloomberg LP, Doctoroff worked for Mr. Bloomberg at City Hall and, among other accomplishments, oversaw the creation of PlaNYC, the city’s impressive long-term vision of sustainable development.  

By putting this ESG data in the hands of financial professionals, Bloomberg has eliminated a barrier to incorporating environmental, social and governance factors in investment and trading decisions.  

It’s a hopeful sign that finance, an engine of economic growth, will increasingly consider both kinds of green.

Leave a Comment

Filed under sustainability