Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

You can only count on two things, Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote goes; Death and Taxes. Well, there is a third answer that is just as unpleasant, and that is garbage. One thing we can all count on is to have a steady pile of trash accumulating under our sinks, our trash cans and our streets. Collection trucks in the typical landfill at Cerro Colorado deliver about 1400 TONS of garbage every weekday! That is a lot of trash. In fact, we are running out of space for all our trash.

It is scary enough that the neighborhood sledding hill might be nothing else than an older landfill but the news gets worse. The decomposition rate of our trash is definitely slower than predicted: During an excavation of a landfill, newspapers dating back to 1948 where intact and still completely readable! Being made of thin paper, and surrounded by waste and dirt, this old news was expected to degrade years ago.

Thankfully, with companies like Covanta Energy turning trash into useful electric power, our garbage is not just thrown out and wasted (no pun intended). On their website, Covanta Energy boasts technology that “processes 15 million tons of solid waste per year conserving 25,000,000 cubic yards of landfill space and generating 8,250,000 megawatt hours of electricity – the equivalent of burning 3.5 million tons of coal.” http://www.covantaholding.com/

This technology is relatively straightforward. The trash is picked up and burned creating steam resulting in energy. Covanta operates 24 hours a day thus making it a very reliable source. Unfortunately garbage is still a part of our society and until the abundance of trash is reduced, burning it is a welcome alternative to simply burying it underground. In fact, the ash that results from burning trash is only 10% of the original mass.

Ironically, trash is not completely useless anymore. With today’s attitude of conserving the environment that is left and being as efficient as possible with our resources the only surprise is that this option was not developed sooner. Taking out the trash is just the first step to getting the energy needed to watch your tv.

It’s been a long time since land development in California was governed solely by market forces. For decades, and especially in the last 10-15 years, myriad regulations and agencies have had a hand in land use decisions. To some extent, of course, this is appropriate. There are legitimate reasons why we empower our government to limit land development that could constitute a genuine threat to endangered species or watershed health, for example. And the goals of farmland preservation and protection of open space are well-intentioned and worthy values. As we discuss in “California’s Land Use Choices,” however, we think these regulations have gotten out of hand. Every development in California seems to be a threat to farmland, open space, watersheds, wildlife; in our opinion, balance is gone. And as a result, homes cost $500,000 and sit in yards so small you have to decide between the trampoline and the wading pool. And the anti “sprawl” forces were just getting warmed up.

In late 2006 California passed the much vaunted “Global Warming Act,” and shortly thereafter it became clear that land developers would have to include an assessment of the “global warming impact” in their environmental impact statements. This decision sits well with the “smart growth” crowd – that is, the people who believe we need to “grow up, not out.” The conventional wisdom goes as follows: If people live “close to the jobs” via infill, instead of in outlying suburbs, then they won’t need to commute as far each day. This in turn will reduce the amount of CO2 emissions from their vehicles.

So how much CO2 are we talking about, anyway? In the online interactive spreadsheet “CO2 Emissions from Suburban Sprawl,” we analyse this quantitatively. In the default example, we consider a development of 10,000 homes, and assume, on average, that there are 1.75 commuters per household, traveling on average an extra 25 miles each way to their jobs, in cars that average 25 miles to the gallon.

Based on these assumptions, this outlying suburb with 10,000 homes – based on the EPA’s estimate of 8.8 kilograms of CO2 per gallon of gasoline – will cause an extra 77,000 tons of CO2 to be emitted each year because of longer commutes. And at $35 per ton to purchase CO2 offsets, which is today’s price based on quotes on the European Climate Exchange, in our example, households will pay an extra $270 per year for the privilege of living in an outlying suburb. Put another way, they would pay an additional 31 cents for a gallon of gas.

There is much to wonder about here. Is $35 per ton of CO2 emissions a good number to use? On the voluntary Chicago Climate Exchange, CO2 offsets are currently trading for only $2.15 per ton. And if mandatory CO2 caps were tightened up, which is not yet the case even in Europe, market prices for CO2 offsets could soar, to $200 per ton or more.

The difficulty in estimating what CO2 offsets might cost is not only a function of how much we may determine we need to move away from fossil fuel, but also very much linked to whether or not there are abundant and economically feasible CO2 offset projects. Here is where the Europeans have gotten many things mixed up – only now are they revisiting their criteria for biofuel certification, for example, to make sure it doesn’t conflict with preservation of rainforest. The more you dig into “carbon accounting,” the more you realize it’s riven with subjectivity. One way to further the policy decision to become more independent of fossil fuel would be to simply increase the gas tax.

None of this should matter with respect to land use decisions, however. If we have determined we need to add 31 cents to the price of gas, based on 8.8 kilograms of CO2 per gallon of gasoline, and $35 per ton of CO2 emissions, then make everyone pay the higher price. Forcing developers to assess – and mitigate – yet another environmental regulation will only drive home ownership further out of the hands of ordinary people. Anti-development activists can parse this any way they like, but for those of us who still respect the wishes of ordinary families who want to have a house with a yard and a dog (and a trampoline and a wading pool), this is all the wrong approach. There’s plenty of land, and there always will be.

It has never been easy to get figures for actual rainforest area – and our estimates based on what we could find had settled as follows: There were about 8.0 million square miles of tropical rainforest in the world 150 years ago, and we’re now down to around 3.0 million square miles.

Absolutely devastated former forest, hopefully on track to regenerate. (Photo: WildMadagascar.org)

Climate change consists of three very distinct, only somewhat interrelated phenomena: global warming, extreme weather, and droughts. To reiterate: Our position is that all three of these phenomena are worsened when tropical rainforests are lost – and that the climate consequences of tropical deforestation may be more significant than those that might result from burning fossil fuel.

An encouraging bit of information has surfaced from a study entitled “No Convincing Evidence for Decline in Tropical Forests” authored by rainforest expert Dr. Alan Grainger from the University of Leeds in the U.K. From compiling totals per nation as reported in the most comprehensive assessments of rainforest canopy available – studies released every ten years by the U.N. Food & Agriculture Organization, it appears that in the 63 nations with tropical rainforest, there is no measureable decline in the last 25 years!

In 1990 the FAO’s data determined total tropical rainforest declined from 7.4 million square miles in 1980 to 6.8 million square miles in 1990. In 2000, the FAO data showed a decline from 7.4 million square miles in 1990 to 6.9 million square miles in 2000. Apparently the FAO revised upwards their own 1990 baseline.

Grainger also performed his own analysis of the all-important moist tropical rainforest subset of tropical rainforests. Back in 1983, his first assessment estimated moist tropical rainforest worldwide at 4.2 million square miles. But when he did the analysis again in 2000, his estimate revised upwards, at 4.6 million square miles.

There is a lot to glean from all this. First of all, it is heartening to know we probably don’t have 3.0 million, but 4.0+ million square miles of tropical rainforest left. Secondly, this is encouraging testimony to the power of the earth in general, and rainforests in particular, to regenerate.

Probably most significant from all this is the fact that even now, with so many earth imaging satellites orbiting the planet we’re starting to worry about “space junk,” we still aren’t doing comprehensive assessments of the land use status of our planet. Grainger has called for establishment of a “World Forest Observatory” to bring together researchers from around the world to compile – backwards through compositing archival earth imagery – far more accurate estimates of world rainforest canopy, updated at least every five years.

It is surprising this hasn’t happened already, and given the attention – and the dollars – being showered into climate change research, Dr. Grainger’s recommendation should be implemented immediately. The money’s there. Maybe if they would shuffle a few million of the yearly $4.0+ billion currently going to fund climate change research to fund a few teams of forest cartographers, everyone would benefit, including the climate change researchers.

And while it is good to know these rainforests can often reestablish themselves, the industrialization of China (and the rest of Asia), combined with ongoing biofuel mania, means that there are profound new forces now working to accelerate the deforestation of the tropics. Resetting the benchmark from 3.0 million to 4.0 million square miles of tropical rainforest feels good. But alarm bells are still ringing off the hook.

It is fascinating to see how top blogs get top traffic. They are prolific – 3x+ per day per author; short pieces; on point. Naturally it is harder to maintain such output if one is simultaneously constructing backup spreadsheets – time is required to create the numerical model that validates the verbage. But are all types of quantitative reasoning so subject to slow-downs in output?

OUR RAINFOREST FOR YOUR SUV? (Ref. Reforesting vs. Biofuel, or Orangutans vs. CO2 Offsets)

The answer is no, unfortunately. Anecdotal and rote recitations of selective, randomly representative bits of quantitative data are appended to emotional appeals and lend unwarranted credibility to these appeals.

When numbers are nothing but disembodied trinkets to adorn emotional arguments, everything is subjective, and nothing sounding sacred or noble is ever rationally dissected. Verification is futile.

As people with faith that the truth includes the numbers, and that the truth will and should prevail – we try to traffic in strategic, intellectually honest quantitative reasoning, and the job isn’t easy.

So enough already – other than an emotionally-driven CO2 offset bandwagon, or juggernaut – unwittingly and with the best of intentions delivering oil palm planations to Borneo – and in so doing exterminating Orangutans and decimating moist rainforest so we can drive around in biofueled SUVs – what salient bits of numerical AND qualitative data might charactarize the year just past, 2007?

One observation that merits mention for 2007 is the performance and potential of publicly traded pure-play greentech stocks, what we at EcoWorld call our “Green Chips.” And photovoltaic stocks are the clear champions. During 2007, crystaline’s standard-bearer SunPower went up 3x, and thin film’s vanguard player First Solar was up 7x! Both crystaline and thin-film technologies are competitive and have bright futures.

There may be photovoltaic companies that are arguably overvalued, but the photovoltaic sector is not overvalued. Worldwide photovoltaic production can easily double each year, and with $100/BBL oil growth may run faster than that – and given $100/BBL oil, worldwide demand for photovoltaics will continue to exceed photovoltaic production potentially for decades. PV still constitutes a miniscule percentage of global energy production (way below one percent), and there is no theoretical limit to the potential of photovoltaic, or more generally, solar energy.

Another greentech sector, which enjoyed a run-up then a correction in 2007, is biofuel. At this point stocks in this sector are worth reconsidering for investment. The huge wild card is the economic viability of cellulosic ethanol extraction. If this is feasible, the biofuel sector should enjoy another wave of strong growth. Unless demonstrated yields make the predicted move from 5,000 BBLs per square mile per year to 50,000 BBLs per square mile per year, however, the biofuel sector will not easily approach the fossil fuels sector in magnitude.

Other than that, series hybrids are here, in-wheel motors are almost here, and CO2 offset certification protocols everywhere have to start restoring Orangutan habitat instead of destroying it, and this needs to happen sooner rather than later.

Most people are horrified when they see a Hummer roll down the highway. Throwing garbage out of your car window will lead to an incredibly heavy fine. Even toys are designed with the lesson of recycling in mind such as with this octosquid. Almost everyone organizes their trash. Attitudes are definitely changing when it comes to the environment.

Climate change caused by environmental pollutants is no longer a theory, but a reality. Companies are going to extremes to reduce the amount of pollutants released during production. Not only because of changes in perspective, but also due to the more stringent laws that only allow for a minimal amount of pollutants. Keeping track of all the waste is a complicated task, but software does exist to manage all the numbers. Companies that specialize in environmental monitoring software such as ESS are taking off.

Alvin Hayes, communications manager at ESS, could not be happier with the tremendous growth at the company: “For years, environmental health, safety and crisis management has been regarded as a niche industry,” Hayes begins, “customers that were really dedicated to environmental concerns were investing in our software but its popularity was fairly modest. Over the last 2.5 years the interest has grown tremendously.”

ESS was founded 15 years ago in Tempe, Arizona where it began as a small company focusing solely on the measurement of refrigerant emissions. Hayes explains the evolution of ESS: “Five years ago, our company decided to expand and change the business model to include additional measuring and monitoring capabilities. The company acquired three other organizations and created a suite that allows companies to measure and monitor across an enterprise and do it in an efficient manner.” Now, ESS can barely keep up with demand for their software.

Air, water, waste, fugitive emissions, and chemical inventory are just a few of the categories that companies can organize with the system. Companies use the data they already have while the ESS software analyses and organizes this information. “A lot of the hardware that companies have create the original data,” explains Hayes, “that data moves from operational systems into our system where its measured and managed. Then you can track exactly for, say, emissions compliance. You can also track exactly where you are at any given time since the data is provided and reported in real time. You can take a snapshot and see where you are at any level in the company such as the plant level or across the entire enterprise.”

Many companies are going green. This is obvious with the sudden popularity of the software. With ESS software being used in Australia, China and Europe, ESS was right to think that this technology would become a success: “With so much concern about the effects of green house gases on global climate change, companies are taking the initiative to try and reduce their environmental footprint,” says Hayes, “Some companies are doing it as a matter of corporate responsibility, but others are doing it because they understand they are going to be changes whether it’s a cap and trade or other regulatory change.”

When asked how simple the software was Hayes was enthusiastic. “It is very easy to use,” he says, “Customers always remark at how quickly they get up and going. It is really intuitive and gives the user a really easy opportunity to get to the data they are looking for. You don’t need a whole lot of clicks to get to where you are going. [The software also takes into account that many industries are based abroad where different environmental compliance issues exist.] There are so many companies that operate in several jurisdictions and our software has capabilities of loading data in one language while being uploaded in another.” Environmental concerns are definitely shared world wide. Thankfully, becoming green is becoming easier every day with all the options provided by new technologies and software like that at ESS.

For 2008, California’s state government needs something like $14 billion more than they think they’re going to collect. It is absurd to cut services. It is absurd to lay off workers. And it is especially absurd to raise taxes. All we have to do is end the injustice of “two Californias,” where public employees have retirement benefits far in excess of what private sector taxpayers – whose taxes fund those pensions – can ever hope to receive.

As we believe we demonstrate in the online interactive spreadsheet “Pension Calculations,” if all public employees were given social security and medicare in their 60s, instead of pension benefits far more generous that begin in their 50s, California would have NO budget deficit. This reform would also encourage more crossover between the public and private sector, since public sector employees would no longer be slaves to their pensions. And by putting all workers in the same boat, much needed reforms to social security and medicare would be more likely, since public sector employees would be far less likely to be indifferent to the challenges the rest of us face in our retirements.

The analysis we’ve presented on the interactive spreadsheet will allow any viewer to input their own assumptions. We think the default input assumptions, which are highlighted in yellow, are extremely conservative. There are two columns, which presumably represent two organizations, one in the private sector (left), and one in the public sector (right). Here are the assumptions – and you can enter any you like:

Age entering workforce: 20 for both
Average salary per year: Private – $30K, Public – $35K
Age at retirement: Private – 65, Public – 60
Life expectancy: 80 for both
Retirement payment per month: Private – $1K, Public – $2K
Size of workforce (incl. city & county): 3.0 million for both

Using the calculator, staying in constant dollars throughout, the cost per year to fund retirement benefits for the public entity is $36 billion per year, compared to $12 billion per year for the private entity. We would submit that every assumption in this calculation, were it to be a more accurate reflection of reality, would inflate the differential referenced here. Moreover nothing in this model calculates the staggering differential between the public and private worker when considering the costs of the generous vacationm, personal, “9-80,” overtime, “comp.,” sick, and sabbatical time granted public employees, nor the cost of hiring and promoting according to quotas, regulations, incentives, and other criteria that has nothing to do with merit and competance. Bottom line: If public employees got the same deal that private employees get, on average, the state of California would save $24 billion per year – and we think that number is grossly understated.

The astute critic may counter that using constant dollars is a radically reductive assumption, rendering these calculations meaningless. We disagree. Of course the time value of money, inflation, and the earnings potential of funds is relevant, but it should normalize since both pools of workers exist in the same society, the same place and time. If they don’t normalize, they should. And if they are all applied, the result will probably not change much. Perhaps we’ll test our new online spreadsheet converter program, and post some of our more sophisticated models. And consider this – California’s state retirement systems are making assumptions regarding the real return on their funds that are based on an unprecedented boom in the value of global markets – and this may or may not be a sustained long boom. And if it is, all workers should all share in it.

This is the ideal that unions should hold most dear. All worker’s rights matter. Every Californian’s health and retirement security should matter – and the first step is to give every Californian the same set of challenges. California can solve their budget deficit overnight – even modest pension benefit reductions would free up $10+ billion per year in much needed funds. As Californians grapple with their huge 2008 budget deficit, why isn’t there even one word being spoken in the press about reforming the financially unsustainable public employee pensions? When will someone stand up for private workers? It might make us all more likely to trust our government, more likely to embrace new projects and programs. As long as taxpayers fund retirement benefits for public employees worth many times what private sector workers will receive, no agenda or cause that increases taxes or fees should have credibility.

Today the BBC ran a story entitled “Grass Biofuels cut CO2 by 94%.” This 94% is meant to be in comparison to fossil fuel, based on the fact that a recently grown biofuel, when burned, can only release as much CO2 as it absorbed when it was growing. Thus biofuels are considered “carbon neutral.” The BBC story referenced a study just released by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences entitled “Net Energy of Cellulosic Ethanol from Switchgrass.”

Switchgrass – an environmentally attractive potential source for cellulosic ethanol. (Photo: USDA)

One of the reasons many people are enthusiastic about switchgrass and other cellulosic crops is because they are believed to cause less collateral environmental damage. Switchgrass is presumably grown on cropland or open prairie, which means that switchgrass, unlike oil palms, sugar cane, cassava, and a host of lesser known biofuel crops, will not be grown on former rainforest.

The CO2 released during rainforest destruction is never recovered through subsequently using the land to grow biofuel. Possibly even worse tampering with the global climate, however, is the thermal impact of permanently losing the reflective clouds that form year-round over equatorial rainforests.

So here we go – let’s grow switchgrass and other cellulosic crops on prairies and savanna instead of oil palms and sugar cane on former tropical rainforests. But the ethanol in switchgrass needs to be extracted cellulosically – a process that is getting closer to being technologically and economically viable, but isn’t here yet. And what is the yield from switchgrass?

In our post “Biofuel’s Potential,” we make the case that today’s best biofuel yields – between 5,000 to 10,000 barrels per square mile per year – would make biofuel an interesting supplemental fuel, but there isn’t enough land for biofuel at that yield to begin to replace fossil fuels. If the best case predictions of biofuel experts come true however, and biofuel yields eventually top 50,000 barrels per square mile per year, then biofuel truly does have the potential to replace fossil fuel. How much potential ethanol was in the switchgrass referenced in the study?

According to the BBC report, “One acre (0.4 hectares) of the grassland could, on average, deliver 320 barrels of bioethanol.” That suggests (320 x 640) that 204,800 barrels per year per square mile would come from this switchgrass – an improbable amount. So we called one of the study’s authors, Dr. Ken Vogel at the University of Nebraska, to ask him to clarify this number. It turned out the BBC reporter had mixed up barrels and gallons. The researchers had actually estimated switchgrass can yield 4,896 barrels per square mile per year.

This yield is consistent with yields from crops currently being harvested for ethanol. It is somewhat more than corn yields, and it is somewhat less than sugar cane yields, but it is an order of magnitude removed from the best case numbers we have heard discussed.

There are two conclusions to draw from the BBC report. (1) The mainstream press is beginning to see – rather late in the game – that the subsidized market for biofuel has unleashed catastrophic rainforest destruction, and (2) Yet again it is apparent that the journalistic value of “fact checking” does not extend to quantitative data – and that value is needed now more than ever.

As far too many of our politicians and media pundits rather blithely (and opportunistically) advocate a radical socialist redesign of the political economy of the world in the name of protecting the environment, it is the duty of any activist, journalist, scientist, policymaker, or conscientious and opinionated person in any role – to personally question and attempt to verify everything they hear, and to embrace nuance and restraint. And this is imperative for environmental as well as economic reasons. We believe tropical deforestation has done more to hurt the earth’s climate than fossil fuel ever has or ever will – particularly if you consider not just the CO2 impact, but the thermal impact of turning millions of square miles of rainforests into biofuel plantations.

The last thing you would associate with coal is cleanliness: After all, this black sedimentary rock has been covered by dirt for hundreds of millions of years. Made up of a whole mess of carbons, nitrates, sulphur and other impurities, coal is all that is left of the plants that grew in a time before any human civilizations existed. It has an interesting history, but coal has never been described as ‘clean’ until now.

Energy Future Coalition agrees that there is a bright future for the coal industry with technologies in development that eliminate the environmental hazards associated with the fossil fuel: “Coal is a low-cost, domestically abundant fuel that is used for 56% of the electricity generated by U.S. power plants. Its high carbon content, however, is a contributor to the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. With the right technology, it’s possible to capture those emissions and literally bury them – pump them into the same airtight formations that once held oil and gas underground for millions of years. Widespread use of this process would make the abundant coal resources in the U.S. (as well as China, India and Australia, among others) a low-carbon option.”

The history of using coal as a fuel dates back to as far as 1oo AD. Of course the 1700s is when it really took off to start the industrial revolution. For a brief history of coal and a more detailed description of its molecular components visit http://www.fossil.energy.gov/education/energylessons/coal/coal_history.html

Problems associated with burning coal include acid rain, sulfur dioxide and CO2 emissions. Even though the science of burning coal isn’t perfect, it is unrealistic to eliminate coal energy all-together since demand for energy is higher than it has ever been and coal is the largest source of electricity in the world. Not only that, but coal is affordable and a reliable source of energy right now. In fact, we’re told that the known supply of coal will last 200-300 more years.

One of the trend setters in turning the world’s most abundant energy source into a “clean coal” is Coaltek, headquartered in Tucker, Georgia. The process of making coal more eco-friendly by electrically separating its components was developed by Coaltek co-founder, Dr. Jerry Weinberg, and chief geologist Neil Ginther. Their technology, briefly described in their website, www.coaltek.com, involves “electromagnetic energy to reduce the moisture, ash, sulfur and mercury in coal and to make it burn more efficiently and cleanly. Coal processed with [this] technology is a stable, high-quality end product that allows power generators to optimize efficiency and increase yields.”

The benefits of transforming coal’s structure are not limited to reducing the negative effect it has on the environment; coal can be ‘designed’ to work with very specific boilers thereby improving a specific company’s efficiency.

It seems that in the future we won’t have to feel so dirty about using coal.

Everyone has heard of solar and wind technology by now. But it does not ordinarily occur to people that they are standing on top of an immense core full of another form of power. It is a privilege to see hot lava slowly oozing its way to the ocean in areas where one can do so safely – such as in Hawaii. Steam rises from the hot crust and the red glow of the molten rock reminds onlookers what may be rolling around only a few meters underneath the cooled crust they are standing on. Lava is the molten rock that has made its way through a weaker area of the earth’s crust, but just 7 miles under our feet – no matter where you are – is where the outer mantle of the earth begins and where temperatures rise to 2500 degrees Fahrenheit. Geothermal technologies use heat found in some shallower areas where the temperature is much lower and safer to work with – ranging between 100-300 degrees Fahrenheit.

Vulcan Power Company (“Vulcan”) is focused on developing geothermal power plants. According to their website, it is estimated that Vulcan properties will supply sufficient electricity for up to 2 million Americans. Thinking at a larger scale; Geothermal power can provide electricity for 15% of the world’s population!

Geothermal energy comes primarily in the form of heat or steam and is mostly available in the Western part of the U.S, Alaska and Hawaii. There are many benefits to using geothermal power. Vulcan explains this in their website: “When properly developed and monitored, geothermal steam resources are renewable. Cooler fluids exiting power plants are reinjected and reheated in subsurface reservoirs on a sustainable basis. Modern geothermal power projects have minimal impacts on air, land and water ecosystems. Some consider geothermal to be the lowest impact power source. It has much lower environmental impacts than hydro, nuclear, coal, oil or gas fired or windpower plants. Geothermal plants are relatively small in size and have been permitted in national forests and fragile high desert valley environments where other power plants are not allowed.”

The main benefit is that thermal power is clean; No fossil fuels are burned and the carbon dioxide emissions are 1/6th of the cleanest alternative power-plant. Secondly, this resource will not be running out any time soon and is renewable. Finally, it is a local resource and dependence on foreign oil – which also goes hand in hand with frustrating energy price fluctuations – will be a thing of the past. (U.S Department of Energy http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/faqs.html )

For further information on geothermal technology visit the Department of Energy’s website at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/overview.html

The next step would be to figure out how to take advantage of the immense heat emitted directly from the lava. As for right now, we are literally walking on top of an endless amount of “fuel.” The potential for geothermal technology is immense and as stated by Vulcan “Full Steam Ahead!”

The Best Companies Won’t Wait for the World to Change

by Laura Shenkar, Artemis Group, January 4th, 2008

Setting off in 2008, we must admit that getting out the message of climate change and the value of innovative technology to address it simply isn’t enough to bring about the sweeping new behaviors. We aren’t commuting to work by bus and coal continues to be a key source of energy throughout the US. Even as lush states like North Carolina and Georgia struggle at the limits of their water supply, little innovative water technology or simply conservation has been applied. If the world needs rapid change, then innovative go-to-market strategy must accompany the best innovative technologies.

Shai Agassi’s electric vehicle initiative, Project Better Place, provides one interesting example of the value of innovative strategy in bringing sustainable technologies to market. Project Better Place does not develop its own electric vehicle technology. It focuses upon the consumer rather than the car industry to gain rapid acceptance of a new electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure by addressing the “consumer contract for the vehicle.”

“The consumer’s contract for the EV must be the same – or better – than the consumer’s current contract for gas-powered cars,” Agassi explains. “We need to change the way consumers buy an EV so that it fits the current social contract we have with our cars, providing a normal car ownership experience even if the car has an electric drive train,”

At a small gathering last week, Agassi reviewed some of the details of that “consumer contract.” Most people have their own car and seldom share it. Most cars transport cargo as well as four other individuals, cost about $20K and require a stop for refueling every 400 miles. If an electric car provider can provide the same kind of “consumer contract,” then it could compete directly with the major car manufacturers and gain significant market share in a matter of months.

Winning widespread acceptance for new solutions requires that the technology solutions fit in with existing patterns of use. The success of comprehensive commercial service packages for alternative energy like those offered by SunEdison are showing how established sustainable technologies such as solar power can gain wide acceptance rapidly when their offered in a format similar to that of their existing utilities. SunEdison installs solar panels onsite at a commercial customer’s property and enters into long-term power contracts, typically for 20 years. Pricing is competitive with that of comparable energy costs.

Compelling green technologies for water abound as they do for energy and transport in the marketplace. If they are to become part of our lives, innovative water technology needs to address today’s world and today’s practices. Product by product, existing consumer and business markets have developed an inherent “service contract” with consumers. For a certain price, each product provides a service with performance characteristics. Cola costs about a dollar and comes in cans or bottles which last about a month or longer and can be served cooled. Drinking water is free, but one pays taxes to utilities to support infrastructure and deliver drinkable water to your house.

In agriculture, for residential users as well as commercial and industrial sites, water is a service as well as a product. It is a means to a different end—may it be production of food or microprocessors, drinking or hygiene.

Having worked with innovative technology for two decades, and having worked with innovative “green” technologies for several years, I am convinced that fitting new technology into the existing consumer contracts for the products we seek to replace is a requirement for success.

The world is made every day with our smallest actions and decision, and it can be remade with our actions. As anyone who has ever been on a diet or any corporation implementing cost savings can tell you, it is the end-user who drives profound changes.

Laura Shenkar is Principal of The Artemis Project, a consultancy that specializes in supporting innovative technology companies achieve their potential in the global market. As a member of the leadership team of three successful startups, she has learned how to employ the unique capabilities of a company’s technology and its team to target the best opportunities in an emerging market. Laura is an active member of several national and international water industry associations and participates in governmental water management initiatives as well as venture investment conferences. This combination of activities enables her to share with The Artemis Project clients a wide view of emerging opportunities and new product trends. Ms. Shenkar can be reached at laura@theartemisfund.com.