Editor's note: This week, A Siegel at the Ecotality blog takes a look at a new initiative from some major players in the home computing industry. This post was originally published on June 12, 2007.

Most people are unaware just how many kilowatt hours their computers burn and how many pounds of CO2 they help pump into the atmosphere. Interested in learning about this, there is no better place to start than Michael BlueJay’s Saving Electricity site.

Reducing energy use when you turn on your computer looks like it is going to get much, much easier. Earlier today, Climate Savers smart computing was announced at the Google campus. This initiative targets a 50% reduction in computer electricity usage by 2010.

From the press release:

Intel Corporation and Google Inc. joined with Dell, EDS, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), HP, IBM, Lenovo, Microsoft, PG&E, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and more than 25 additional organizations today announced the Climate Savers Computing Initiative (www.climatesaverscomputing.org). The goal of the new broad-based environmental effort is to save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by setting aggressive new targets for energy-efficient computers and components, and promoting the adoption of energy-efficient computers and power management tools worldwide.

“Today, the average desktop PC wastes nearly half of its power, and the average server wastes one-third of its power,” said Urs Hölzle, senior vice president, Operations & Google Fellow. “The Climate Savers Computing Initiative is setting a new 90 percent efficiency target for power supplies, which if achieved, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 54 million tons per year — and save more than $5.5 billion in energy costs.

The initiative is promising tools to help users reduce electricity use. And, they make the case for investing to cut that electricity use by 50 percent …

Even at modestly higher prices (about $30 per system), more efficient computers will pay for themselves in reduced energy costs. It’s a win-win situation for you and for the environment.

For example, a savings of just 20–30 watts in power consumption translates to a savings of $7.20 per year in direct energy costs at a price of $0.12/kWh for electricity. In an air-conditioned home, the total savings increases to approximately $10/year, which means the high-efficiency system will pay for itself in 2–3 years. Systems that remain turned on all the time typically pay for themselves within the first year of use. …

Reducing the power consumption of PCs and servers has secondary benefits throughout the larger community. It reduces electrical and air-conditioning loads in office buildings, data centers and homes, thus reducing the strain on regional generation facilities and the electrical grid. Last but not least, it reduces emissions of greenhouse gases.

The Climate Savers smart computing initiative looks like a serious effort to provide a path toward more energy efficient, greener computing … A path toward greener blogging …

By Ecotality writer Bill Hobbs. Originally published May 22, 2007.

It’s not going to be the most scintillating beachside reading this summer, but a new guide coming out in June from Duke University Press could help prevent rising seas from obliterating your favorite beach.

It’s called Harnessing Farms and Forests in the Low-Carbon Economy: How to Create and Verify Greenhouse Gas Offsets, and is described as “the first how-to manual for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the United States through changes in land use and farming practices, and turning those reductions into verifiable credits for trading in carbon markets, is about to hit bookshelves.”

John Grisham it ain’t, but the book may help bring some rationality and credibility to the whole “carbon offsets” business. The book is a technical guide for farmers, foresters, traders and investors. You can see a preview of the guide here. According to the Duke University press release, the book explains how farmers and foresters can convert their land’s carbon dioxide storage capacity, and reduce emissions of potent greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide, into revenue-generating “offsets” that can be bought and sold in future carbon markets.

Duke’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions developed the guide in collaboration with the nonprofit advocacy group Environmental Defense, with input from scientists at Texas A&M, Colorado State, Rice, Princeton, Kansas State and Brown universities.

More from the press release:

Lawmakers at the federal and state levels are paying increased attention to the role of such offsets as legislation to reduce U.S.greenhouse gas emissions is being developed.

“We know land-use practices can give us more options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions over the next 20 to 30 years and flexibility for companies adjusting to a U.S. carbon cap once it is enacted,” said Nicholas Institute Director Tim Profeta. “But farmers and foresters have needed specific guidance, and lawmakers need to know that the reductions can be verified. This book gives us that information and assurance.”

A number of agricultural groups are realizing the potential for new revenue streams through greenhouse gas-sequestering alterations to farming practices, such as “no till” farming where soils are not turned up after every season and manure-management practices that capture methane and use it as an energy source. “This is a comprehensive road map that paves the way for agriculture as a verifiable, measurable carbon sink,” said Dick Wittman, a member of the Agricultural Carbon Market Working Group and former president of the Pacific Northwest Direct Seed Association.

“Recent studies by Kansas State University and others have indicated that carbon could be an $8 billion market for agriculture,” Wittman said. “This document proves that specific agricultural conservation tillage practices are a legitimate method to store carbon. Should policy-makers embark on a cap-and-trade policy to curtail carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, agriculture has the potential to be a cost-effective solution.”