Do consumers want more data?

I don’t think so.

At a smart meter event hosted by Google and The Climate Group in DC a few weeks back, much of the discussion was on how much information consumers are going to have on their energy usage in the future and how they are going to act on that information to have their washing machine run at midnight, unplug their appliances when not in use and use their PDA to switch off lights remotely when the kids leave them on. I don’t see it that way.

There are iPhone apps to scan barcodes. So apparently, we will soon (if not already) be walking around the supermarket scanning products and checking their carbon footprint, ethical employee values, supplier code of practice. I am not persuaded.

At the LCA Supply Chain summit in Chicago last week, Dr Stan Rhodes of SCS did a superb presentation for assessing product performance against a new ANSI sustainability standard. The slides included a compelling visual representation of the results that certainly had me excited about the possibilities. Even then I don’t believe that most consumers would have the motivation or knowledge to interpret the results.

I hope consumers take ever more interest in the various ethical and sustainability implications of what they are buying. It will help me do my job. However, I don’t think comprehensive and detailed data will cut it for the consumer. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be provided for the sake of transparency. But it won’t have impact without trusted intermediaries to interpret it and simplify it down to actionable judgments. Those intermediaries might be NGOs, government, media, or perhaps some other organization. But walking round the supermarket comparing 15 dimensions of sustainability across two brands of cookies, switching the dishwasher on from the road? Not for me.

SMART 2020: USA Report Released

On June 27th, I wrote a post about a new global report called SMART 2020. The Climate Group and GeSI produced the report. It is the best-quantified comparison yet of the contrast between the global negative and positive impact potential of the ICT sector on carbon emissions. In the interests of full disclosure, Chris Tuppen of BT was on the steering group for this report.

Yesterday, I attended the North American launch of the SMART 2020 report. At the same time, a report called SMART 2020: USA was released. As the name suggests, SMART 2020: USA identifies the USA specific contribution of the ICT sector. I chatted after the meeting to Chris Lloyd, Executive Director of Corporate Responsibility at Verizon. Chris was an active participant in the production of SMART 2020: USA and helped me identify some of the USA specific characteristics of the report. I think it is informative to look at these contrasts.

• As well as the carbon emissions focus of the global report, the USA report puts equal emphasis on cost savings ($140-240B) and on reduction in oil imports (a 20-36% reduction).
• Where the global report offers a potential reduction in emissions from application of ICT services of about 15% of global emissions, the USA report identifies a range of between 13% and 22% of business as usual emissions.
• The global report identifies dematerialization, smart motor systems, smart logistics, smart buildings and smart grids as the five main areas for potential reductions. The USA investigation discovered that 45% of all vehicle miles driven in the world are driven in the USA and so not surprisingly, the emphasis of the conclusions is slightly different and focuses on four areas, smart grid, more efficient road transportation, smart buildings and travel substitution.

In my next post, I will share my perspectives on climate change initiatives in other countries as compared to the USA that were topics of discussion.