The researchers found that more than two-thirds of a running shoe’s carbon impact can come from the manufacturing processes, with a smaller percentage arising from acquiring or extracting raw materials. This breakdown is expected for more complex products such as electronics, where the energy that goes into manufacturing fine, integrated circuits can outweigh the energy expended in processing raw materials. But for less technically advanced products — particularly those that don’t require electronic components — the opposite is often the case.

So why does a pair of sneakers, which may seem like a relatively simple product, emit so much more carbon dioxide in its manufacturing phase?

A team led by Randolph Kirchain, principal research scientist in MIT’s Materials Systems Laboratory broke down the various steps involved in both materials extraction and manufacturing. The group found that much of the carbon impact came from powering manufacturing plants.

A significant portion of the world’s shoe manufacturers are located in China, where coal is the dominant source of electricity. Coal is also typically used to generate steam or run other processes in the plant itself.

A typical pair of running shoes comprises 65 discrete parts requiring more than 360 processing steps to assemble, from sewing and cutting to injection molding, foaming and heating. These processes are energy-intensive — and therefore, carbon-intensive — compared with the energy that goes into making shoe materials, such as polyester and polyurethane.

“Understanding environmental footprint is resource intensive. The key is, you need to put your analytical effort into the areas that matter,” Kirchain says. “In general, we found that if you have a product that has a relatively high number of parts and process steps, and that is relatively light [weight], then you want to make sure you don’t overlook manufacturing.”

Kirchain and his colleagues have published their results in the Journal of Cleaner Production.

In 2010, nearly 25 billion shoes were purchased around the world, the majority of them manufactured in China and other developing countries. As Kirchain and his co-authors write in their paper,

In response to environmental concern, companies have started to take account of their products’ greenhouse-gas contributions, in part by measuring the amount of carbon dioxide associated with every process throughout a product’s life cycle.

Life-cycle assessment is a technique to assess environmental impacts associated with all the stages of a product’s life from-cradle-to-grave (i.e., from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, repair and maintenance, and disposal or recycling). These can help avoid a narrow outlook on environmental concerns by compiling an inventory of relevant energy and material inputs and environmental releases, evaluating the potential impacts, and Interpreting the results to help make a more informed decision. Cradle-to-grave approach means breaking down every possible greenhouse gas-emitting step: from the point at which the shoes’ raw materials are extracted to the shoes’ demise, whether burned, landfilled or recycled.

The researchers divided the shoes’ lifecycle into five major stages: materials, manufacturing, usage, transportation and end-of-life. These last three stages, they found, contributed very little to the product’s carbon footprint.

The bulk of emissions, they found, came from manufacturing. While part of the manufacturing footprint is attributable to a facility’s energy source, other emissions came from processes such as foaming and injection molding of parts of a sneaker’s sole, which expend large amounts of energy in the manufacture of small, lightweight parts.

In tallying the carbon emissions from every part of a running shoe’s life cycle, the researchers were also able to spot places where reductions might be made. For example, they observed that manufacturing facilities tend to throw out unused material. Instead, Kirchain and his colleagues suggest recycling these scraps, as well as combining certain parts of the shoe to eliminate cutting and welding steps. Printing certain features onto a shoe, instead of affixing them as separate fabrics, would also streamline the assembly process.

“We are often restricted to quantifying the environmental impacts of material production only, since the manufacturing data is either not readily available or proprietary,” says Khanna, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Pittsburgh who did not participate in the research.

He adds that knowing the manufacturing contribution may help companies find more effective ways to reduce a product’s carbon footprint.

For further information see Sneaker Life Cycle.

Article by Andy Soos, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• Sustainable Concrete
• Switchgrass Shows Potential as Biofuel Material
• Pi Mobility – An E-bike Design with Nothing Wrong
• Metal Industry Group Defeats Plastic Packager in Greenwashing Case
• Renewables – They Are Who We Thought They Were

At one stage, wind power in Denmark was a genuinely popular movement. Around 3,000 community organizations with 150,000 shareholders operated wind turbines there. Then the government changed the law. They got rid of feed-in tariffs and replaced them with renewable portfolio standards (mandates requiring utilities to purchase renewable energy) and top-ups when renewable electricity was sold on the market.

The result: the market stalled, people started decommissioning their wind turbines in large numbers. People like feed-in tariffs and they will invest in renewables if they are there. Here’s an infographic that illustrates the story.

Related posts:

• Japan Feed-in Tariffs Approved as Government Restarts 2 Nuclear Plants
• French Solar PV Capacity Hits 3,000 MW
• France Cuts Solar PV Feed In Tariffs by 12 Percent
• Denmark Wants to Become Alternative Energy Powerhouse
• France Issues New Regulations for Large Solar PV Installations

Here are the five convertible cars that deliver the most miles (and smiles) per gallon.

Volkswagen Beetle Diesel
Starts at $23,495
The clean diesel version of the Volkswagen Beetle, the one with the soft top, is the most fuel-efficient convertible available in the United States. The manual-shifting Beetle TDI offers a whopping 41 miles per gallon on the highway, and 28 m.p.g. in the city. The turbocharged diesel Beetle sips fuel, but it’s also known for impressive acceleration off the line—as well as high rankings for safety and comfort. The Beetle took on a more aggressive leaner shape in 2013, while maintaining its unmistakable iconic appearance.

Fiat 500
Starts at $16,000
The Fiat 500 dispels any myths that driving a small fuel-efficient car means having no fun. The little Italian city car is loaded with pizzazz. The cloth top operates on rails—so the driver, even when in full sprint, can pull the fabric back to the rear of the roof, or completely collapse the roof and rear glass behind the rear seats. The diminutive size of the Fiat 500 makes it a great choice for city driving, because it’s so easy to park. The combination of hip retro styling and affordability is hard to come by in a car that delivers 31 m.p.g. in the city and 40 miles per gallon on the highway.

Smart fortwo
Starts at $12,490
The Smart fortwo is the ultimate in-town commuter car. The cabriolet soft-top version only enhances the cute factor of the two-seater, without taking away any of its efficiency. The E.P.A. rates the fortwo cabriolet at 38 miles per gallon on the highway, and 34 m.p.g. in the city. Yet, there are compromises in a car that’s this petite and maneuverable—it’s far from ideal as a highway commuter. The underpowered, 70-horsepower, three-cylinder engine is not so fun when juxtaposed to heavy rigs and full-size S.U.V.s on the interstate. Still, for zipping through the city with the top down, it’s a perfect fit.

Mini Cooper
Starts at $20,076
Well-built and offering go-kart handling, the Mini Cooper brings the brand’s racing heritage to a fuel-efficient ride—37 m.p.g. on the highway and 29 in the city. Above all, the Mini Cooper is absolutely loaded with sophisticated urban styling—a rolling fashion statement that is beautifully accessorized by a convertible top. Like all Minis, the nearly endless array of color and trim option means you can customize the look to match your taste. And if acceleration is your style, the convertible version of the 208-horsepower Mini John Cooper Works only drops the highway fuel efficiency to 35 m.p.g.— not bad for a rip-roaring convertible.

BMW Z4
Starts at $48,650
The most expensive, and least efficient, of our batch of green-ish convertibles, the 2013 BMW Z4 sDrive28i—with retractable hard top—makes the list due to its respectable 34 m.p.g. on the highway. The city mileage is, ahem, only 22 miles per gallon. Okay, it’s not a Prius. Nonetheless, it beats out competing models on fuel efficiency, like the comparably priced Porsche Boxter—by about 10 percent. The BMW 3-series, arguably a tie for this fifth slot, is also available as a convertible. It falls behind the Z4 only by a small fraction in terms of its fuel parsimony—but its base price is $12,000 less.

Article by Brad Berman, appearing courtesy eBay Green Driving.

Related posts:

• Which is the Greenest Car of Them All?
• Car Sharing Goes EV
• Tesla’s new competitor – and they are bankrupt!
• The U.S.’s Greenest Colleges
• Why Alaska Might Be the Best Place for Electric Cars

“By 2020, there will be so many old, unused or broken electronics, they could fill enough dump trucks to circle the globe twice,” said Tom Tullie, Chairman and CEO of ecoATM. “Hitting the one million mark is encouraging. People are recognizing that eWaste is a real problem and that there are convenient solutions for responsibly disposing of unwanted electronics.”

To celebrate this major milestone, ecoATM created an infographic titled, “One Million Phones” and brings attention to the impact cell phones have on the environment:

Related posts:

• Recycling Phones and Tablets Could Help Save the Environment
• Advances in Solar Design to Provide Power for Cell Phones
• Nokia Tests Solar Power For Cell Phones
• Solar Power for Cell Phones
• Micromax Launches Solar-Powered Cell Phone

In a national survey conducted in April, 87 percent of respondents said that the president and Congress should make developing clean sources of energy a priority, 68 percent favored regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and 71 percent supported providing tax rebates for people who buy solar panels and energy-efficient vehicles.

Seventy percent said global warming should be at least a “medium” priority, while 28 percent said it should be a low priority. The poll showed that 7 in 10 Americans support funding more research into green energy sources. One surprising finding was that half of those polled had never heard of the Keystone XL pipeline, a controversial 1,711-mile proposal that would carry tar sands oil from Alberta to refineries in Texas.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Concern About Global Warming Continues to Drop, Poll Shows
• Public Support Strong for CO2 Regulation and Clean Energy
• Majority of Americans Believe Climate is Warming, Weather Less Stable
• Concerns About Warming Near Record Low in the U.S., Poll Shows
• Younger Americans Disengaged About Climate Change, Survey Says

Though the excitement has died down and the USPTO green tech fast track was closed last year, green patent PR remains alive and well.

In the past few weeks Biofuels Digest picked up two such stories. The first was about a Notice of Allowance received by a Canadian company called CO2 Solutions for a patent application entitled “Methods and formulations using carbonic anhydrase and reaction compound combinations.”

The second piece reported the issuance of U.S. Patent No. 8,420,782, entitled “Molecular DNA-binding domains and methods of use” and related to gene editing based on the use of TAL effectors. The patentee is Illinois-based Two Blades Foundation.

The patent PR in the cleantech industry sparked my interest in the broader phenomenon of PR materials concerning patent matters. I was curious to find out to what extent this was occurring in other industries, and exactly what types of subject matter are involved when patentees generate media content about their patents.

So a few months ago, I started researching the subject matter technology firms are communicating when they generate PR content concerning patents (see the Abstract here). I compiled and analyzed a random set of 414 patent-focused press releases generated by patentees, or their licensees, from 2008 to March 2013 and catalogued the subject matter contained therein.

The data set enabled me to create a taxonomy of patent-focused PR content. As it turns out, the subject matter of patent PR can be broken down into the following top-level categories: (1) prosecution; (2) litigation; (3) transactional matters; (4) post-grant procedures; (5) patent-related honors/accolades; (6) patented or patent pending products; and (7) ANDA patent challenges.

Most of the top-level categories can be further divided into second-level subject matter categories. In the patent prosecution category, for example, the study calculates the proportion of press releases involving (a) patents granted; (b) Notices of Allowance issued; (c); applications filed; (d) applications pending; and (e) responses to office actions filed.

So the CO2 Solutions story would be categorized as Prosecution; Notice of Allowance issued. The Two Blades Foundation article would be Prosecution; Patent granted.

Within the patent litigation category I found that the largest proportion of press releases relates to settlement of litigation, perhaps reflecting the reality that most patent cases settle but also suggesting that firms may believe it more beneficial to report early resolution of patent litigation than enforcement activity or court victories.

As to industry statistics, my preliminary results indicate that pharmaceutical firms generate the largest proportion of press releases, a finding consistent with the importance of patents to the pharmaceutical industry. The cleantech industry is in fifth place with 9.2% of press releases in the data set.

I’m hoping that the data I present in this study will help to elucidate which patent-related events technology firms believe are important to highlight and provide a foundation for subsequent inquiries into how patent PR may affect public opinion of patents and patentees.

Eric Lane is a patent attorney at McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP in San Diego and the author of Green Patent Blog. Mr. Lane can be reached at elane@mckennalong.com

Related posts:

• Solannex Strikes Again, Accuses Nanosolar of Patent Infringement
• Canada Launches Green Patent Fast Track Program
• Clean Energy Patent Growth Index Shows Record High for 2011
• Two-Month Warning for the USPTO Green Patent Fast Track
• Green Sunset?: A USPTO Green Patent Fast Track Update

“Should I invest in companies that I know are wrecking the planet?”

In simpler times, “serious investors” didn’t worry about the social aspects of investing in tobacco or alcohol or defense contractors. Our pragmatism stated that legal products were acceptable investments in a free society.

That was prior to our knowledge of climate science… before the flooding of Pacific islands and Alaskan coastal towns… and well in advance of breaching 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere — a level not seen in the totality of human history… That was before we learned that the publicly traded energy companies own enough of the stuff in the ground to literally cook the planet in its own juices.

This issue is harder for investors to ignore.

So, true to form, college students are leading the charge, as they did in the mid-1980’s. Back then, they pressed the big college endowments to divest from companies doing business with the apartheid-perpetuating regime in South Africa. Their activism turned into shareholder resolutions and ultimately changed history.

The kids are getting some traction again. Ten US cities have pledged to divest their modest sums invested in fossil fuel companies. Brown University’s investment committee just recommended divestment from all coal companies. Other smaller schools have taken more aggressive steps toward full divestment. Individual investors are taking notice. And it’s not just kids getting involved.

To us, it’s clear that the current energy/climate path is unsustainable. But if we are wrong, how might energy divestment impact investment performance? And would divestment have any real effect on these companies, or the planet? After all, these companies won’t really feel the pain of our selling these shares. The real pressure would come from using less of their products.

In the end, two arguments did sway our thinking in favor of divestment: Risk and Reputation.

The risk element is real. Should new energy regulations be designed to ensure that most of these reserves remain in the ground, then upwards of 60 – 70% of these companies’ market value would be impaired! This is serious “fiduciary duty” stuff, and boards would be wise to consider the issue. If nothing else, market investors may demand a discount to account for increasing regulatory risk (putting downward pressure on share prices.)

Reputation is another issue. Oil and gas companies have carefully cultivated their corporate identities. Despite spills, disasters and explosions, they remain decent corporate citizens in the eyes of the public. Should divestiture programs take on an “apartheid” flavor, the valuations accorded to these firms could be decreased. “Rogue industry” status seldom carries a P/E premium.

So, Boardwalk Capital undertook a research project to determine the performance impact of a zero fossil fuels portfolio. In this exercise, we proportionately increased other economically sensitive sectors to account for the missing “beta” from having zero energy exposure. The results were surprising. No significant performance penalty was evident and volatility was only modestly higher.

Today’s investors are confronted with serious questions. But in the end, it’s about your values, and how strongly you believe that energy fundamentals will make a seismic shift. Think there is a 20% chance of carbon-restricting legislation over the next five years? Then maybe start with a 20% reduction in your fossil fuels weight. Scale according to your conviction… or your passion.

What do you think? How should investors attack this monumental challenge?

And what if there were a performance penalty? How much is “too much” to pay for a livable planet?

Article by B. Scott Sadler, CFA, President, Boardwalk Capital Management

Related posts:

• Students fighting for Fossil Fuel Divestment Converge for National Gathering
• Five Questions for Bill McKibben: The ‘Do the Math’ Tour
• What’s the Return on Investment on Solar Thermal?
• Quick Quiz on Clean Energy Investors’ Mentality
• Taking Friedman to Task on China’s Green Edge

The project, led by Australia-based Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment (CRC CARE), uses a two-step anaerobic biodigester that is able to treat 73,000 tons of waste annually, producing 380 cubic meters of biogas daily and about 5,600 tons of fertilizer per year.

According to its developers, it will also provide a solution to a growing waste disposal challenge in China, where pigs generate more than 1.4 million tons of excrement annually. “Only 10 percent of this waste is currently treated, posing a considerable disposal headache, as well as health and water quality risks,” said Ravi Naidu, managing director of CRC CARE.

While the system is being introduced at pig farms across China, Naidu says the technology could eventually help solve critical waste management challenges worldwide and make the pork industry more sustainable.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Loowatt Toilet Turns Human Poop Into Affordable Power
• Turning Wastewater Into a Revenue Stream
• Food Waste Can Fuel its Own Collection
• Food Recycling Program A Major Success in San Francisco
• Biogas & Electric Cuts Emissions from Anaerobic Digesters

To facilitate local decision making, cities and local areas will partner with businesses and nonprofits to set up their own PACE programs. These programs will allow businesses to borrow money from private lenders and repay it yearly via an assessment on their property taxes.

The bill has a solid foundation of support from a wide range of stakeholders including industry leaders and senior legislators. Charlene Heydinger, executive director of the nonprofit Keeping PACE in Texas, has built an effective coalition which includes large businesses and banks.

“PACE is the only solution out there that is totally market-driven, totally voluntary and local, and there are no mandates,” Heydinger said. “Our business community loves PACE because it is a real option for a solution without the drawbacks that have given people pause.”

Momentum of PACE Programs

PACE has been gaining traction nationwide since the first pilot PACE program in 2008, said David Gabrielson, executive director of PACENow. “It’s an idea that caught on very quickly and resonated all over the country.” However, some of the first generation of PACE bills were not designed for easy implementation. States are currently developing updated approaches to PACE.

In 2009, Texas passed a PACE bill which focused on residential energy-related programs. But because the bill was difficult to implement and the Federal Housing Finance Agency opposes residential PACE, PACE stalled in Texas. This year, Republican Senator John Carona introduced a new bill to improve Texas’s prospects for creating successful PACE programs. “I think Texas, in taking up this effort to get their legislation amended, is really on the cutting edge of states around the country,” Gabrielson said.

“We’ll put industrial PACE on the national map,” Heydinger said. Texas is a massive hub of industrial activity. Heydinger said Texas uses 19 percent of the energy used by industry in the United States. According to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, Texas was responsible for 8.73 percent of the national gross domestic product in 2011.

Collaboration with Banks

Heydinger collaborated with financial stakeholders to make sure banks’ concerns were addressed. Their collaboration led to a new version of the bill which focuses on commercial and industrial sectors rather than the residential sector.

“Two words, when spoken together, strike fear… and trepidation into the hearts of bankers, and that’s ‘priority lien,’” said Steve Scurlock, executive vice president of Independent Bankers Association of Texas (IBAT). “That is always a red flag. It was very important to us to make sure that the consent piece was very strong – that this would not happen without the consent and opportunity to do what the first lien holder would want to do.”

After the bill was revised, IBAT testified in favor of the House version of the bill. “We felt like it provided appropriate protections not just for our lenders, but for… consumers and building owners as well,” Scurlock said. “One of the things I like about the PACE bill this time is that there’s public/private cooperation. The primary funding for the projects is provided through the lending institutions and I think that’s a good thing.”

Control by Local Communities

“We have a very lean state government structure,” Heydinger said. Therefore, the legislation provides solutions which are inexpensive and simple for local and municipal governments to implement. The bill provides a flexible framework to allow local governments to partner with nonprofit organizations and businesses to set up PACE programs.

The bill does not specify extensive details as to how the individual programs will work, but it does outline guidelines for setting them up. The projects will be paid for through property assessments. They will be funded upfront by either governments or third parties. The financing may cover a variety of expenses including the cost of verifying savings. Project savings verification is required for every PACE activity in Texas.

Local governments will be able to designate regions for the purpose of creating PACE programs. Heydinger said that in agricultural areas, counties may combine their resources to create joint PACE programs.

There are powerful incentives for local districts and cities to set up PACE and water efficiency programs. In addition to being job creation engines, these programs can reduce water shortages and brownouts, both of which are of concern to industry. Texas is currently experiencing a multi-year drought. Brownouts can lead to increased costs for chemical production factories, Heydinger said.

Messaging for Business Leaders and Legislators

“I speak business when I talk about PACE,” Heydinger said. “Our effort now in the next month is about the jobs, the economic impact, the ability to upgrade our existing infrastructure. The benefits of our work that are environmental are wonderful, but they don’t get traction here. We have approached PACE as an economic development bill.”

Since the state legislature only meets for six months every other year, it was also crucial for Heydinger to use communication strategies that would appeal to legislators as persuasively as possible. When the Texas legislature puts a bill on the back burner, action can be postponed for years.

Heydinger said she has been impressed with the legislature’s commitment to addressing long-term infrastructure issues this year. “Good government invests in the future,” she said. This year, Texas’s legislature has focused on developing long-range plans for roads, construction, water conservation and energy efficiency. This bill is part of a larger emphasis on planning for Texas’s growth. Many people are moving to Texas from other states and nations.

“One of the things I… like about Texas is that they are very focused on results,” said Brad Copithorne, an energy and financial policy specialist at Environmental Defense Fund. “If something will create jobs and will stimulate the economy, that’s something they can agree on and make happen. We’re very pleased that this will lead to cleaner air and a healthier environment for everybody. If we can do this by allowing business to create jobs, that seems to me to be a win for everyone.”

To view the history of the bill, click here.

Article by Kat Friedrich, Clean Energy Finance Center, appearing courtesy RealEnergyWriters.

Related posts:

• Where Does PACE Financing Stand Today?
• Picking up the PACE
• Arizona: Legislature’s Lawyers Call Lesko’s Bill Unconstitutional
• Ohio Tax Reform Clears Path For Solar
• California Shared Solar Bill Holds Promise for Schools, Businesses

No one likes to waste money, especially not tens of billions of Euros. But this is tricky business for several reasons, like the opportunity cost of waiting while various forces argue the merits of different alternatives. This, btw, is exactly what the Nature Conservancy wants to do here in the U.S., i.e., take as long as required to find the perfect spot for solar panels – one that has exactly zero impact on natural systems.

In case it’s not obvious, I believe that there is a real cost to this behavior, and that making a few compromises in the name of expediting the build-up of renewables is acceptable.

Related posts:

• U.S. Awards $28 Million to Offshore Wind Farm Projects
• Predicting Our Energy Future
• What Will Your House Look Like In 2020?
• Air Pollution Exceeds International Health Standards for European Urbanites
• Will power lines sink offshore wind? Money talks