Degrees of Perfection

Part I of a series

Enough with the personal life analysis and reflections on sustainability - let's get back to techy stuff!

I know I said in the last posting that this time we'll look at how some industries are doing and guidelines/strategies they are using to move up on the "sustain-o-meter." Well, let's start this process by another type of  self examination - dealing with the "degree of perfection" for manufacturing.

This discussion is going to take a few postings so we'll do this as a series starting, today, with one way to look at performance and some examples.

This term "degree of perfection" comes, originally, from a 1988 book by Jan Szargut and colleagues (Exergy Analysis of Thermal Chemical and Metallurgical Processes, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988 - Amazon has it!). We'll get to exergy later. But, first, perfection!

The term "degree of perfection" is a ratio of useful products to inputs. The most recent discussion I read that referred to this was a paper by a clever person I've referred to before, Tim Gutowski at MIT, and others, in Env. Sci. Technology on "Thermodynamic Analysis of Resources used in Manufacturing Processes."

This term is used in a variety of ways and sort of represents a manufacturing "bang for the buck" measure. But before we delve into the thermodynamic aspects of this, let's look at conventional measures.

One of the more novel uses is in the aerospace industry where it is called "buy to fly ratio." Boeing, for example,  has a long history of tracking this value. Due to the peculiar requirements of aircraft components (demanding precision, unique shapes, incredible strength and fatigue requirements, etc.) many structural components (from wing spars to ribs) and many other parts, like landing gear, are machined out of large blocks of material. This results in most of the material going to waste. Buy to fly ratios in the 30's are common. This means, only a bit over 3% of the material purchased actually ends up on the plane. This waste for machined components is usually in the form of chips - which are recycled of course but discarded never-the-less.

In fact, some postings ago I referred to the role of precision in sustainable manufacturing under the topic of "Little things matter". I stated that if the machining process used in aircraft production is under control and precision manufacturing principles applied, a reduction in machining tolerances from +/- 0.006 inches to +/- 0.004 inches on the features of the airframe can account for a weight reduction of 10,000 pounds/aircraft and substantial fuel savings (8%). This allows an increase of 10% in passengers (engines don't need to carry as much plane), and substantial reduction in manufacturing cost of the aircraft (less material and improved assembly). That reduces the need for the original material (one can spec the rough material tighter if the machining tolerances are better controlled) but that will only reduce the waste slightly.

Recent trends in material costs, production time (even if you throw the chips  away you have to machine them in the first place) and performance have allowed aerospace companies to focus on this more. Switching to other materials, like high strength titanium, allows reduced part size with similar strength or other performance.

Switching to other production methods (beside machining away most of the material) such as laser welding of complex rib components can make huge savings. Using laser welding to produce a rib component that had previously been machined resulted in a reduction in the buy-to-fly ratio from 30:1 to 3:1 (see article).

Ditto for use of carbon fibers. But in this case, the concern is how to better reuse the fibers or replace processes that generate so much scrap. A recent article in Plastics Today discusses Boeing's recent efforts to find secondary outlets for carbon fibers reclaimed from aircraft production. The article states "For its purposes, Boeing is buying the highest grades of carbon fibers available: AS4, IM7, T8005, which can cost anywhere from $5-$50/lb as virgin materials. Of the amount it buys however, much of it ends up as scrap ... the buy-to-fly ratio for materials is less than 33%, meaning that 2/3 end up as production waste."

And to make matters worse, the fibers are usually encased in an epoxy matrix which requires processing to remove them.

So, what would you do if you were paying $50/pound for raw materials and then threw away 2/3's in your manufacturing process? Just so we don't forget that this is an not easy task, recall that a typical Boeing 737 has about 367,000 parts and even an average car as about 15,000 parts. So, we are not talking about toothpick production here.

And, we need to consider all the peripheral "stuff" associated with a product. Planes are delivered "au natural" if you will. But electronics, appliances, clothing, food, etc. is usually packaged (and sometimes several times for transport to distribution centers before it gets to the shelf) and that is part of the "buy to fly" ratio for conventional products.

Point made on the need to measure and track degree of perfection and manufacturing performance!

But, the original concept of degree of perfection does not speak specifically to material use ratios but useful output in terms of energy compared to input energy. The term used is exergy - a term you should have heard if you went to engineering school and took a thermodynamics course and may remember or - if you had a good physics course in high school.

Next time we will dive deeper into exergy and the concept of available energy and useful work. This forms an interesting basis for measuring the performance of manufacturing processes and material conversion/transformation and could allow us to look at the potential for greening and process improvement in a new way. This could be a better way to evaluate alternate technology.

Individually green

The "sustain-o-meter" discussion last posting got a number of good comments and got me thinking about how this might apply to individuals and their living habits.

Actually, to be fair, I was sort of thinking about this but then saw an article on GreenBiz.com by Joel Makover posted on June 17th titled "Who's the Biggest Greenwasher of Them All?" The article discusses the statements of major corporations indicating their commitment and accomplishments in creating green business and the degree of skepticism that we often associate with these statements. The article asks, basically, if this level of scrutiny was applied to consumers (yep, you and me) would we be able to show that we've stepped up to the plate and made significant changes in commitment or documented accomplishments towards "greening" our lives.

After all, the products these companies manufacture and sell are bought by someone. Are consumers stepping up in choosing to embrace sustainability and green behavior?

Gulp. Apparently not.

Mr. Makover refers to "anonymous polls and surveys in which high percentages of consumers make boastful claims -- saying they regularly seek out green products, recycle and compost at home, are more energy conscious in their purchasing decisions, switch brands in favor of greener ones, take public transportation whenever possible, invest their money with so-called responsible funds and companies, and otherwise take action on behalf of the planet."

But, truth be known, the reality is different. Mr. Makover states that "Shoppers overwhelmingly buy what they want, most likely the same things they've always bought, perhaps with an exception or two. Except during brief periods of high fuel prices, they drive what they've always driven with little regard for alternatives. Despite 20 years of green consumer surveys suggesting otherwise, people haven't changed their shopping habits much."

And I've heard anecdotal evidence to support this regarding the tremendous differences noted when surveying consumers on their purchase preferences on entering a major "big box" retailer and then reviewing what they actually bought on exit.

Mr. Makover does also balance these comments with companies who have shown clear evidence of greenwashing in the past - so he levels the complaint equally. But, he says "If consumers were a corporation, we'd be boycotting them."

(Note: If you are interested in more on the topic of greenwashing, the posting of last July 30th covered some definitions and links to sites for reviewing examples from advertising.)

But back to the "sustain-o-meter." Although this was designed with a "corporate" context in mind, it can apply to individuals. For example, you can do a global search and replace for:

- "customers" to be replaced with "vendors" as in "engaging supply chain and vendors"
- "implement" to be replaced with "purchase or install" as in "define and purchase or install" tech wedges for more challenging problems"
- "manufacturing" to be replaced with "purchasing" as in "proactive sustainable purchasing," and
- "design" to be replaced with "living" as in "proactive living for sustainability"

and add this to the meter and this gives some better rating bases for individuals.

I have to honestly say that I'd place myself at the mid-point of the scale - somewhere between "defining solution wedges for low hanging fruit" and "define and install." Meaning, I've done things like:  changed all the incandescent bulbs to compact flourescent, installed a digital thermostat for changing the heating periods in my house (and shutting of the furnace at night), and installed a very efficient gas furnace (no chimney ... just blows out water vapor through a PVC tube!).

Oh, yes, and my brother got me a "kill-a-watt" meter for my birthday last year so I can see what my appliances are doing. That's "measuring and tracking performance."

But, you can also check on what your appliances are up to at a neat-o GE website for "Visualizing your gadgets' energy thirst."  Did you know 1 kWh of electricity will make 36 pieces of toast in a toaster but 100 pieces in a toaster oven? Or print 1,333 pages on a printer? You could spend hours checking things out on this site. But, be careful - you only get 7 hours of computer monitor use for a kilowatt!

Where would you rate yourself on the "sustain-o-meter"?

Next time we'll look at how some industries are doing and guidelines/strategies they are using to move up on the "sustain-o-meter."

How are we doing?

One thing I was reminded of while traveling recently is the wide range of "awareness" to the many aspects of green and sustainable living. Even in small motels in remotest parts of Nevada (and believe me ... there are some remote parts!) you can see signs about the management's concern for the environment and to please reuse the towels.

This example, plus smaller plastic caps on disposable water bottles (to make you feel less guilty about drinking water from a plastic bottle that you will, hopefully, place in a recyclable bin and hope will actually be recycled), as well as use of recycled non-potable water for gardening and bathroom fixtures in the Grand Canyon,  show that something is catching on.

You may remember my "Everett and Jones philosophy" cited some blogs ago. Recall that? Basically there are three types of people in the world-

 - those that make things happen,
 - those that watch things happen, and
 - those that say 'what happened?'"!

So ... we are making the third slice of the pie, hopefully, smaller.

This motivates me to propose a "sustain-o-meter" to allow the tracking of efforts toward green and sustainable living. This can be applied as well to the topic of this blog and we'll look into some current programs seriously addressing green and sustainable manufacturing in a bit.

But first the "sustain-o-meter." If you do a google search of this term you get a number of hits, including a reference to forest sustainability, Unity College sustainability monitor, and another one from "Professor Planet" on the sustainability of ideas and  complete with an explanation of the "three finger sustainability" salute (don't worry - you can use it in public!). So, I am not first...but I am trying to be a bit more "quantitative" in the meter readings to allow more detail. Well, you be the judge.

My version of the sustain-o-meter tries to gauge the seriousness of an organization's commitment and actions. It is based on my reading and review of lots of information on real, or imagined, activity and ranges from "eco-chic" styling of designer pants (organic cotton!) to totally zero waste, sustainable design and renewable resource companies.

The proposed "meter" is shown below with measures ranging from denial and indifference on one end to serious and effective on the other. I've tried to put stages of development of programs and systems

leading towards a sustainable enterprise. And, you will likely need to click on the image to read the details.

I am sure I will have missed something and the meter coverage does venture outside of my comfort zone of green and sustainable manufacturing. But, it accommodates a lot of what we've been discussing here.

The "steps to enlightenment" on the meter are:

- denial
- indifference
- "poking around" for someone else to pay for improvement
- outsourcing the problem
- asking smart questions and benchmarking (could be two categories here)
- measuring and tracking performance (with green metrics)
- engaging supply chain and customers (in identifying the challenges and potential solutions)
- defining solution "wedges" for low hanging fruit (see wedges below)
- define and implement technology wedges for more challenging problems (and recall the definition of technology wedges)
- proactive sustainable manufacturing (design/construction of manufacturing processes, machines and systems for sustainable production)
- proactive design for sustainability (for products)
- serious and effective

Sort of "Dornfeld's 12 steps to sustainable manufacturing."

The lower ratings on the left side would represent the "what happened?" zone of our Everett and Jones philosophy. The mid ratings, from "measuring and tracking" to "define solution wedges for low hanging fruit" would be typical of steps for greening manufacturing. These are sort of in the "watch things happen" although, frankly, that is a bit of an understatement. Finally, the right end, from "define and implement technology wedges for more challenging problems" to "proactive design for sustainability" is definitely in the "make things happen" category.

Next time we'll put some "meat" on the scale levels as an examples of what organizations are doing.

I also encourage you to think about this scale and a few examples of companies, organizations, or other enterprises and where they might fit into the scale. Send me a note if you think you've got some good measures!

Partnership for Sustainable Manufacturing

Or ... "You are either part of the solution or part of the problem."

Today I am using the posting to introduce the Sustainable Manufacturing Partnership (SMP) in the Laboratory for Manufacturing and Sustainability (LMAS) at UC Berkeley. Please forgive me if this sounds like an advertisement - it is, sort of, but for noble purposes!

First, a few notes and comments. The second line in the heading of today's posting is actually a quote from Eldridge Cleaver. Mr. Cleaver was not known as an environmentalist but was considered, by many,  to be an effective activist for sure! As a student at Madison in the late 60's I certainly saw many photos/posters of him for causes that seemed urgent at the time.

While searching for the source of that quote I came across two others related to the environment and sustainability I'd like to share:

“Nature provides a free lunch, but only if we control our appetites." (William Ruckelshaus, Business Week, 18 June 1990; he was the first EPA Adminstrator, (1970-1973 and 1983-1985).)

Or, another one more apropos to the situation in the Gulf of Mexico attributed to Calvin:
"That's the problem with nature. Something's always stinging you or oozing mucus on you. Let's go watch TV." Bill Watterson, Something under the bed is drooling, 1988. (Calvin is a character in the "Calvin and Hobbes" comic strip by Mr. Watterson.)

Now ... onto the SMP.

I have given several presentations on the challenges and opportunities associated with green manufacturing (and you can download one from LMAS website). I generally start with the "opportunities" and include the following:

• All future energy, transport, medical/health, life style, dwelling, defense and food/water supply systems based on increasingly precise elements and components - hence manufacturing, to be specific, precision or high quality manufacturing, is critical to the future.

• Manufacturing for an energy and environmentally aware consumer (autos, consumer products, buildings, etc.) will become increasingly important. And this will require major shifts in the way we manufacture in terms of materials used, processes and systems.

• Manufacturing alternate energy supply systems. This will also require major shifts in the way we manufacture in terms of materials used, processes and systems - specially if we'd like the US to be a player in this arena.

• Machine tools using less energy, materials, and space will require substantial innovation in design, manufacture, and operation of these "mother machines" (meaning the producing machinery for all other machines and systems).

• Efficient factory operation will insure the green machines will operate in environments as green.

• The "opportunity" to comply with government regulations. This sounds like an academics view of big government but to insure level playing fields and to be responsive to global trends this can be a competitive driver if used constructively.  Remember the tragedy of the commons?!

In the presentation the last conclusions slide, by way of summarizing all the neato stuff presented,  includes the following statements:

• Energy, green manufacturing and related issues are a big opportunity for industry/manufacturing
- new products/services/market leadership
- better overall performance/lower CoO
- more competitive, reduce risk
- take advantage of growing regulatory environment

• This requires careful analysis and development of metrics and analytical tools

• Including energy and green manufacturing aspects can be part of a successful sustainable business strategy

• The problem is too large for individual companies to solve - must be a cooperative effort among industry, associations, researchers, government

It is that last statement that drives the creation of the Sustainable Manufacturing Partnership (or SMP). We have a url- smp.berkeley.edu (although at this time it simply links to the LMAS website). This will be updated as more information becomes available. It takes a team of organizations to make real progress.

The SMP will operate as a consortium of partners. The idea is that, referring to the second summary statement above on the need for "careful analysis and development of metrics and analytical tools", working with partners on specific industry focused problems, these analyses and tools can be created to allow engineers to incorporate green metrics and analyses in all their work on materlal selection, machine design and operation, systems, layout of facilities, operation of these systems and facilities and, ideally, all the way up to the supply chain.  And, of course, smart undergrad and graduate students play a critical role in this - each will tackle a problem area. This insures they are familiarized with the problems and solutions as part of their education but, as well, is a terrific attractor of students.

We are just kicking this off and have several partners already on board or in discussion. These partners cover a range of technologies and industries from basic manufacturing (i.e. "heavy iron") to more specialized manufacturing for aerospace and semiconductor. All fit the definition of "precision manufacturing." We hope to include, as well, folks who can embed these analytical tools into more conventional design software - then the real impact can be driven throughout industry practice.

There is a fee for the partnership of course - got to feed the grad students. But there will also be a mechanism for participation by interested parties who may have something to contribute in other ways.

There will be more to come on this in future postings. If you have interest - please send me an e-mail at dornfeld@berkeley.edu.

Oh, and we had a great vacation touring the US Southwest (National Parks - Grand Canyon, Petrified Forest,  Mesa Verde, plus Santa Fe, etc.) And, if you are ever in Durango Colorado be sure to ride the steam train from Durango to Silverton; smoke, steam, whistles, deep canyons, the works - an amazing combination of engineering and nature.)

Don't ask, don't tell

Or when we throw stuff away...where is away?

One of the known unknowns (from our discussion of Rumsfeld's definition of knowledge in the last posting) is where waste goes. We all put our recycling out on the curb every week with our trash and, magically, it disappears. We feel a great sense of accomplishment when all the plastic (except for some types), cardboard, glass and cans head off to rejoin the material stream somewhere else. Or so we hope.

And we pay for this good feeling as part of our refuse fee.

But, if we have a goal of "zero waste", can we actually achieve this?

Waste has been a target of manufacturing improvement for some time. Henry Ford had as a major organizational philosophy the reduction of waste, scrap, over production, etc. since this all cost him money (materials) and wasted effort. This was discussed in one of the first postings for this blog back on July 27th 2009.

I noted that Henry Ford said over 80 years ago in his book "Today and Tomorrow" (1926) that "we will not so lightly waste material simply because we can reclaim it— for salvage involves labour. The ideal is to have nothing to salvage." Very green thinking for the time - but motivated less by the environmental concerns than a realization that waste is the result of inefficiencies in the conversion of materials to product and to be avoided.

The October 7th 2009 posting talked about the Toyota Production System (TPS) and the "original seven wastes." These were:

   1. Overproducing.
   2. Wasting time waiting.
   3. Transporting.
   4. Over-processing.
   5. Excess Inventory (WIP).
   6. Excess motion of workers, including lack of ergonomics.
   7. Scrap and rework.

These all add unnecessary time, material, resources and, ultimately, energy to manufacturing. Henry Ford would have agreed.

More recently, in 2008, Toyota announced a zero emissions goal for their production of vehicles.

In the last posting I mentioned Sony's Green Management 2015 initiative and their "Road to Zero". This includes a target of "Increase of waste recycle ratio to 99% or more" by April 2011.

GM has also announced a plan for zero waste at half of its plants (meaning 62 manufacturing facilities representing 43% of its global production). The aim is to no longer send any production waste to landfills.

If you "google" zero waste your screen lights up with other examples.

To achieve this requires efforts way beyond TPS 7 wastes or, at least, extending the definition of production to a wider set of process elements - like packaging used in transporting parts, sludge from recovery of waste materials, symbiosis with other parts of the production facility or enterprise for reuse of materials. It also includes incineration of a lot of stuff. If it is zero waste to the landfill then a lot of solutions will technically fit the need but, environmentally, not necessarily be a positive step.

It comes back to the question of where stuff goes when we dispose of it and, if we don't dispose of it, what we actually do with it - assuming we have not completely eliminated it from our process or supply chain.

Let me relate to you an interesting example of "zero waste" and "where does it go." I attended a technical conference in the midwest last week. The major focus was on retaining manufacturing capacity in the US, and extending US manufacturing into new areas/markets. One part of the program was on sustainable manufacturing and the opportunities offered in "green manufacturing".  Most of my comments would have seemed familiar to you if you've been following this blog.

During one of the coffee breaks I was talking with an old friend who works at a major multinational corporation. He is one of those clever manufacturing engineers who helps to develop new manufacturing technology for production - all the way from buying machine tools to setting up production lines to tuning lines for top performance in the face of material or product variation. The kind of person who makes manufacturing hum.

His company has embarked on a zero waste initiative. So there is an attempt to reduce the amount of "non-product" moving into and out of their production facilities. He told me that, with respect to a precision assembly that they use in some of their products, he was trying to track down contamination that seemed to be responsible for some malfunctions on the finished product or, at least, requiring additional cleaning before installation to insure no malfunction. More and more "common" products are now dependent on incredibly tight tolerances for performance so any contamination can, like in the semiconductor industry, cause part failure or malfunction.

As they were doing a value stream mapping (VSM) exercise (see the Nov. 18, 2009 post for details on VSM) to see where this part goes as it moves from the outside supply chain into the production facility, they noticed a step in the process chain consisting of an additional outside facility, not part of the company. On further investigation, they discovered that this precision assembly was shipped from the supplier to an intermediary where the part was taken out of the protective packaging (disposable packaging) and put into reusable tubs (unprotected) for transport into the production facility and to the assembly line.

This "clever move" insured that no disposable packaging material entered the factory (and subsequently had to be disposed of) and only the reusable tubs circulated into and out of the factory. No waste - at least for that part and the assembly line. The "transfer" done at the outside facility had to deal with the packaging waste of course. But that was another company.

It didn't seem as if anyone was considering the increased handling, contamination, inventory (many of the TPS wastes listed above) in the drive for zero waste here.

And, of course, all the multinational had done was "outsourced" the waste to some other entity for this particular part of the manufacturing process.

Two steps forward - one step back.

(Green-manufacturing blog is going to take a 2 week hiatus for vacation - back again in early June!)

Rumsfeldian Insight

Or, what we don't know about our supply chain can hurt us.

In our discussion in the last posting we were trolling in the tumultuous waters of carbon offsets trying to find a way to balance a need, for some, to do something about their carbon footprint while at the same time not getting completely ripped off by some eco-scam.

There is never enough information. There are things that we know. There are things we don't know.

Wait ... rather than trying to explain the vagaries of information myself, let me refer to a master - former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. You may recall his statement about what we know and don't know. He was roundly lampooned for the comment but, if you look at it, he defined very nicely the world we live in (and, have to deal with).

Here is what he said (from a Department of Defense news briefing on February 12, 2002):

“As we know, there are known knowns.
These are things we know we know.

We also know there are known unknowns.
That is to say - we know there are some things we do not know.

But there are also unknown unknowns … the ones we
don't know we don't know.”

I refer to this in my class as "the poetry of Donald Rumsfeld"! But, in fairness, he hit the nail on the head.

It's the third category that is the most troublesome when it comes to working towards greening manufacturing.

A recent comment from a reader referred to our discussion on "sustainability angst" as related to the tremendous variety of supply chains. The comment was substantially "[T]he question then becomes one of not are people willing to achieve this program of "Green" Manufacturing principles but, how [to] employ these strategies? [I]n order to have ... true Green principles we must understand a couple of things ... about the products that are being manufactured and each Supply Chain is always supremely different. So, how do we mitigate the variances from Supply Chain to Supply Chain?"

Let me start to address this concern. I am sure the question will not be completely  answered as much of it falls into Rummy's third category. And we will continue this discussion in future postings I am sure.

Many of these variance are understood but not quantified (meaning we can't put a real number on their significance or potential impact.) Other variances (and worse, missing links or information or sources) fits squarely in Rumsfeld's third category.

Let me give an example (and some of you may be familiar with this one) of how the third category can spring to the fore in unfortunate ways. This was first brought to my attention by Dani Tsuda, a consultant with WSP Environmental, who lectures to my class from time to time on regulatory issues and product design.

Just before Christmas, 2001, (in October to be exact) Sony was stunned to learn that nearly 1.3 million of its PlayStation 1 game machines had been stopped at the point of import in the Netherlands by Dutch customs agents due to higher than allowed levels of cadmium in the cables. This was widely reported in the press. The cadmium level was on the order of 20x the maximum allowed for consumer products. The cadmium had been used as a stabilizer or coloring agent in plastic coating on the cables by someone in Sony's supply chain.

The seizure of the PlayStations, the recall, replacement of parts, and other costs, ultimately cost Sony in excess of 160 million Euros (Impact on Sales: EUR 110M and on operating profit: EUR 52M). And, if you track the Euro, that's way more than 160 million dollars.

The incident also lead impetus to the development of reduction of hazardous substances (ROHS) regulations in the EU.

Remember, this hazardous material was not in a core component of the play station electronics that was key to the performance - like a video processor or memory. This was the plastic on the cable to connect the console to your TV or other display. It could have been the electrical cord on your Forman Grill for all that matters - it had too much cadmium in it. Who knew they used cadmium to stabilize colors in plastics?!

And who knew the Dutch would be checking? Apparently the regulation was specific to  the Netherlands but was going to be incorporated in the EU regulations to come out a bit later. What if they had imported these games through another country? Might have been a different story. But, chance should not play a role in green supply chain management.

Not surprisingly, Sony "went ballistic." Today, Sony has one of the most restricted vendor/supplier material programs in the world. They have established a very structured "Green Partner Program" which employs a "Green Partner Environmental Quality Approval Program" which includes standard practices and requirements, audit procedures, new parts approval with comprehensive listing of materials (specially those with any restricted concentrations), and a change control methodology. An illustration of the program is shown below (from the Green Partner link above).

The idea is to insure "'clean' raw material - 'clean' process - 'clean' product." In other words - no surprises.

Now, I will be first to admit that Sony is a huge corporation with extensive leverage in the market with its suppliers and tremendous resources to put towards managing its supply chain. But, it still got caught in this one. So, size may help with the solution but it won't necessarily help when "you don't know what you don't know."

Let me follow Sony developments after this disaster a bit more.

Recently Sony came out with its "Green Management 2015" announcement and program. From the report, Sony states:

"Sony has continuously provided people with a vast array of products, services and
entertainment. Such corporate activities are only possible if the global environment, which sustains all life on earth, is healthy. We must address such environmental issues as climate change, resource exhaustion and the need for effective management of chemical substances both as risks to business continuity and as business opportunities.

"Taking these sentiments into account, we have set forth the Sony Group Environmental Vision, the goal of which is a 'zero environmental footprint,' that is, reduction of the environmental footprint of our corporate activities and of every Sony product throughout its life cycle to zero, and we continue to pursue a wide range of related initiatives. We will strive to achieve this by 2050."

Their first steps in this goal are set out in the Green Management 2015 document and refer to early term goals.

Let me reiterate the key point here - reduction of every Sony product's environmental impact throughout its life cycle to zero.

Wow! Can they do that? It will be interesting to watch. They are serious, smart and confronting the challenge head on.

Another statement in the report is a bold admission by any company let alone one the size of Sony. "At present, every Sony product negatively affects the environment to some degree throughout its life cycle or at different stages thereof."

To be successful they will need to reduce the variability of their manufacturing, distribution, and supply chain operations to minimize Rumsfeld's third category. And come up with ways to measure their product's impacts across the lifecycle

I wish them success. Who's next?

(More to come on smaller company efforts in the future.)

Carbon Footprint Hangover

In the last posting we went over our recent methodology and calculation for assessing my lab's carbon footprint and purchasing the carbon credits to "offset" our impact. I mentioned that there are some sites that offer helpful comparisons to a number of sources of carbon credits and that there are some attempts to certify the validity of the offering organizations.

Most of the sources of carbon credits indicate what the funds are used for - for example renewable energy, efficiency, reforestation. The site I referred to for comparison mentioned that there are a number of other categories of carbon credit sources that are not certified.

There is more! In fact, the "carbon credit market" is a  bit like the wild west or the derivatives market ... you pay your money and you take your chances.

First, some background based on my observations and research.

Carbon credits should be purchased by individuals or companies wanting to offset their impact, measured by carbon equivalent to greenhouse gas emissions or other sources. Last week I showed how we calculated our lab's footprint and what we included, what we did not, how we converted and what the final number was. I also said that we were purchasing our carbon credits from Carbonfund.org. I felt then, and still do, that this is a responsible source and that I am getting what I paid for.

When you buy carbon credits, you should look for at least the following information from the source:

1) specifics on where and what the funds will be used for in terms of carbon offsets; you'd like to about the assets being purchased; like, know where the forest is, or wind mills are, or other asset that contributes the carbon offset you are getting for your money.
2) how is the carbon offset calculated? How much GHG/unit of whatever they are promising to buy or conserve on your behalf.
3) how much of your funds actually go to the offset promised in 1 and 2 above?
4) how long will the asset last? (CO2 will stay in the atmosphere around 100 years I understand. If you buy some trees to offset your carbon, and the trees grow for 20 years and then get cut down, that's a problem.)
5) is this a "future tense" promise or "past tense" assertion? Apparently, many of the carbon offset schemes are rather speculative in terms of timing, delivery and impact. (More on this when we discuss a recent news article targeting this.)
6) is there any track record of success with this organization?
7) is "everybody happy" about this or are the folks whose land got confiscated to put up the windmills (and are now unable to support their basic lifestyle) standing when the music stops?!
8) is this "new" carbon reduction and not just something that is going to occur anyways or has it been going on for some time and now relabeled as "carbon reduction?" For example, if you offer 'not to cut down trees' as your carbon offset asset but the trees are on protected lands that were never to be cut anyways, is that a net gain for the environment?

There are likely a few more but this is a good start.

Some time ago I was going to do something different for my brother on his birthday. Rather than get him a conventional present I thought I'd adopt a whale in his name. I had seen an ad in a magazine for an organization that was working to stabilize the whale population and it seemed like a good idea. Then the vision of a postcard picture of the wide blue sea came to mind with an arrow pointing to the water and a label "your whale here" popped into my head. I realized that, as great as this sounded, I really did not have any idea whether my few bucks were going to help anything remotely close to the ocean, let along a whale. I thought better of it and settled for something more practical.

Apparently carbon offset credits can be a bit like this.

I recently read an excellent article (global report) in the Christian Science Monitor, April 26, 2010, titled "Blowing smoke?" The article, the result of a 4 month multimedia investigation by reporters on five continents, was a joint project of the Monitor and the New England Center for Investigative Reporting at BU (http://necir-bu.org/wp/). There are links to the story on the Center's website (http://necir-bu.org/wp/?page_id=1882Z) or you can read the text and watch video material at the Monitor site (http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0420/Buying-carbon-offsets-may-ease-eco-guilt-but-not-global-warming; video at http://www.csmonitor.com/multimedia/video/Buyer-Beware-Empty-Air). The article gives an excellent overview of the concept and motivation for carbon credit purchases and then dives deep into some of the issues surrounding their offer and purchase. They use the term "buyer beware" in the article!

I don't want to parrot the whole article here but it is comprehensive, detailed and offers a very interesting view into this "business." It cites examples of green entrepreneurs (in some cases essentially scam artists with a new version of "property in Florida") offering, on one end, the Vatican a forest in Hungary to offset the Holy See's carbon footprint, to some proposing to dump tons of iron filings in the ocean to spur plankton growth (and hence consume CO2; there were some regulatory concerns about this and, also, this had not been scientifically evaluated), to an organization that's been planting trees for decades suddenly offering the process as carbon credits. There are details on native inhabitants being inconvenienced/impacted negatively by some of the proposed plans. Most individuals/organizations featured in the article were not able to meet the requirements I listed earlier.

The article also offers some helpful discussion on the certification process and mentions the Voluntary Carbon Standard (http://www.v-c-s.org/), Plan Vivo (http://www.planvivo.org/; and this one has a photo of smiling indigenous people on its website so must be good!) and Gold Standard (http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/) as independent organizations for certification. They seem to be legit (but I can make no assurances one way or the other on this from my own work!).

The last one, Gold Standard, has a link to a report on "The Carbon Management and Offsetting Trends Survey Results 2009" on its site (see http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/fileadmin/editors/files/2_news/market_trends_and_forecasts/EcoSecurities_Carbon_Management_and_Offsetting_Survey_2009.pdf). The report summarizes the attitudes of a large number of industries across many sectors towards carbon offsets, what factors motivate companies to purchase carbon offsets and what the "carbon industry" needs to do to further stimulate the market.

Carbonfund.org, the organization we bought our carbon credits from, is listed as the 4th of 15 most recognized sources of carbon credits in this report.

So, I still feel good. But you should read this article in the Monitor - it is good and enlightening.

But, now I'm thinking, if someone donated funds to my laboratory at UC for research on manufacturing process improvement or replacement (one of my "technology wedges" ideas maybe?) and we calculated how much greenhouse gas this would offset over the life of the technology, could the funds provider claim this as carbon offset?

It'd be new, verifiable (trust me!), we've a great track record, no one will be unhappy about this (trust me again - I'll even let you talk to the grad students), and we promise, minus a small overhead that goes back to the Governator, to convert your funds into technology - sounds like a good deal.

Maybe I'm onto something here!