By Russell V. Thornton and Robert Ferrone

To believe the cognoscenti is to accept the idea that fiber-optic cable networks represent a technological breakthrough as significant as the internal combustion engine or the telephone. These experts believe that we are on the verge of being able to increase the capacity of the Internet by perhaps a factor of a thousand or more, turning the current system into the "Evernet."

This Evernet would theoretically be available to all of us, all the time, anywhere in the world. Via wireless connections, we would have the capability to instantly transmit information from one point in the world to another.

This future network will possess infinite capacity, with the only limitation being the speed of light as photons race unimpeded through a completely optical network. Already Nortel, in its company report, touts its ability to produce enough fiber-optic cable to reach around the world everyday -- and it is only one of many companies producing such cable.

However, in order to continue to produce fiber-optic cable, and to move photons along it, we need erbium, a rare metallic element that amplifies light. By directing a laser of light into erbium, you can excite the element, which in turn releases energy used to strengthen the signal. Erbium was discovered in Sweden in the mid-1800s. Today, the purest erbium deposits are mined in China and Russia. Tremendous energy is required for its recovery, purification, and insertion into glass fiber. What happens if we can no longer sustain this effort?

This is only one of the many environmentally related questions arising from the "new economy." It is time to begin considering these questions – and to see what ISO 14001 and other methodologies can offer toward resolving the underlying issues.

As we move toward this cyber-world of non-stop connectivity, simultaneous transmission capabilities will force everyone to move faster. Michael O’Dell of UUNET offered the following prognosis in a recent edition of The New Yorker:

As technology continues to evolve, literally at "the speed of light," it would seem prudent to ask what sort of environmental impacts will result from this exponential growth of cyberspace. The answer might be the whole new frontier visualized in Steven Miller’s 1996 book, Civilizing Cyberspace.

The term "cyberspace" was coined by novelist William F. Gibson to describe an electronic environment in which both data and programs can be seen and manipulated as if they had physical attributes -- namely, shape, color, and motion. In cyberspace, people no longer simply connect one location to another, but instead plug into a location all its own. This represents a dramatic transformation in communications, and it is the way we shall all do business in the future. The relevant query now becomes: What effects will the electronic environment have on our real, living environment?

To even begin to understand the myriad implications growing out of this "e-world," businesses, lawmakers, environmentalists, and individuals will have to re-visit and freshly evaluate such things as energy and product consumption patterns, the use of depleting resources, distribution patterns, logistics, inventories, and recycling -- to name but a few.

In spite of the astronomical growth in e-commerce (including such markets as online shopping, cell phone use, and so forth), watchdog organizations like Greenpeace and governmental policy makers have given little attention to the environmental impacts emanating from these new arenas. Our historical perspective has been formed by the industrial revolution, which gave rise to huge manufacturing operations. These operations produced pollution that almost always could be observed, documented, and analyzed. By contrast, cyberspace produces pollution that is often hard to observe and monitor, especially since there is a paucity of research available to assist us in understanding it.

Only now are concerned parties beginning to wonder: If cyberactivity and e-commerce are growing this fast, will the resulting pollution and negative environmental consequences grow even faster? Let’s take a look at some scenarios.

An estimated 35 million shoppers spent almost $12 billion online during November and December 2000. To handle this load, companies like Amazon.com poured money into warehouse upgrades and automated distribution centers. Their goal was to ship more products, while reducing the cost of doing so.

To achieve this objective, the company tracked the buying habits of its customers, and then funneled "hot" products through the distribution centers located close to cities where the purchase levels of these products was highest. In addition, concerted efforts were made to reduce split shipments, which raise costs, consume more energy, and increase pollution. Warehouse improvements should produce higher shipping numbers with fewer workers (whose every move is mapped out by sophisticated software).

All of this might produce a bigger bottom line for Amazon, but will it also produce more pollution and environmental problems for the rest of us? And what if it’s not a book or a toy getting shipped, but rather something a lot more ominous?

Few people realize how many dangerous goods are shipped everyday via truck, train, and air – and still fewer understand their potential for environmental problems and pollution. Many of these dangerous shipments are generated by e-commerce.

Federal Express defines a dangerous goods shipment as "any shipment which is capable of posing risk to health, safety, property or the environment when transported by air and which meets the definition of a dangerous good according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA)." The company clearly defines its responsibilities and the actions it will take when handling dangerous goods (DG) shipments. Federal Express states that it:

• Takes responsibility for recognizing a DG shipment, but maintains that it is the shipper’s responsibility to offer DG shipments for air transport with all the required markings, labels, packaging, and paperwork. Federal Express recognizes DG shipments from a shipper’s declaration, from red and white "candy-striped" edges on paperwork, or from the presence of one or more hazard or handling labels (there are 21 different labels currently in use).

• Will not allow a DG shipment to move through the system without an inspection sticker. A DG specialist at the accepting location is responsible for inspecting each DG shipment to ensure the shipper has properly marked, labeled, packaged, and documented the shipment. The DG specialist affixes an inspection sticker or stamp to shipments that pass the inspection.

• Will not allow unacceptably dangerous goods to move through the system. These are goods which pose such a great risk when transported by air that Federal Express refuses to carry them. Examples include explosives, labeled toxic gases, radioactive plutonium, and hazardous waste.

• Follows all orientation arrows. Shippers are required to affix these arrows to most liquid DG shipments. Packages must be loaded, unloaded, and staged with the arrows pointing up to keep the package from leaking; already-leaking packages are never loaded.

• Attempts to detect undeclared and hidden dangerous goods. Unscrupulous or unknowing shippers may offer DG without the proper markings, labels, and so forth. Federal Express looks for clues that indicate the package may contain DG, such as place of origin (from a chemical company, for instance), unusual odors, noises, hot or cold temperatures, and stains. In some cases, a shipper may not realize it is attempting to ship a DG. Examples of items that a shipper may not recognize as dangerous include ammunition, aerosols, wet batteries, camping stoves, drain cleaners, fireworks, lighters, matches, parts containing Jet A fuel or kerosene, perfume, propane, and radioactive materials.

• Loads the DG properly in its vehicles, including blocking and bracing packages to prevent shifting and damage.

• Meets driver manifest requirements when transporting DG in vehicles.

• Placards vehicles containing DG.

• Maintains required separation distances between radioactive materials and persons, animals, and undeveloped film.

• Maintains required separation distance between incompatible dangerous goods.

In spite of efforts such as these, the sheer volume of increased shipping activity opens the door for pollution and negative environmental consequences, and increases the possibility that disaster will arise from mishaps and accidents.

Energy consumption, and the resulting energy costs, are areas of intense concern for all of us. This concern has become greatly amplified recently because of spiraling energy demand -- with California, and the problems it is facing, being the most newsworthy in this regard. Most recently, the state’s two major consumer electricity suppliers have reported huge operating losses because they have been forced, due to deregulation, to sell power for less than they are paying for it. To further add to the state’s woes, providers of extra electricity are threatening to stop selling because they are afraid they will not be paid.

When we hear of businesses being forced to cease operations because of energy costs, and possibilities of rotating brownouts, the obvious conclusion is "prognosis negative" -- unless there are changes.

One bright light in this morass is Enron. Enron has been in the natural gas business for 75 years. The company is using the energy expertise garnered over that time to help others cut consumption of natural gas, oil, and electricity. Enron also has moved into a specialty niche business: brokering blocks of energy by shifting the risks of fluctuating prices to speculators, while guaranteeing a fixed price to industry and commercial consumers. Some of the suggestions Enron offers are:

• Companies should calculate the amount they can save on reductions in energy consumption and then spend the money on the equipment necessary to reap those savings.

• Hedge against future energy costs to soften the impact of rising costs.

• Outsource energy services and solutions.

Energy costs have already reached the critical stage for many organizations. But these organizations often remain reluctant to deploy the resources and spend the capital it will take to turn the situation around, even though some winning tactics are transparently evident.

There are simple steps that all companies can take to cut their energy costs, including installing automatic controls for heating, cooling, and lighting. In addition, new software products are being developed to monitor, control, and reduce energy consumption of all types.

Energy outsourcing -- although a relatively new business with market penetration of less than one percent -- is beginning to take off. According to Kenneth Lay, chief executive officer of Enron:

Present estimates put the annual market for outsourced energy at $360 billion in the United States and a similar amount in Europe. By any standard, $720 billion is a lot of money.

In testimony before the U.S. Congress, BP Amoco Corporation outlined a corporate emissions trading system for greenhouse gases (GHGs) that is integrated into ISO 14001 programs at all of its sites. This is the only voluntary trading program that we are aware of that uses voluntary participation across a company’s entire operation. The program involves 150 business units in more than 100 countries of operation.

Initial data filtering in from independent analysts has indicated that reductions in greenhouse gases can be positively correlated with overall energy consumption reduction and cost savings. Simply put, less GHG production means less to clean up -- which, in turn, means fewer costs incurred.

The Kyoto Protocol introduced three mechanisms for supplementing national actions to achieve real, long-term, measurable, and cost-effective GHG reductions. One of them is Joint Implementation (JI). DNV is among the registrars offering a Verification of Emission Reduction Program Joint Implementation.

The JI Project includes design, validation, implementation and operation, monitoring/reporting, and verification. The DNV verification process involves document review, at which time project documentation is reviewed against the Kyoto Protocol and other relevant documents. Whenever necessary, this is followed by an initial visit to become acquainted with the project. Next, there is a formal audit, consisting of informal interviews, further documentation reviews, and observations performed according to a pre-agreed audit program.

Using evidence gathered from document review, calculations, and/or confirming measurements, DNV then verifies Emission Reduction Units (ERUs), or identifies any unresolved issues.

A JI must reduce greenhouse gases consistently over time, as compared to what would have happened without the project. This is called the "additionality" principle. To ensure that all Kyoto Protocol (and other relevant) requirements are considered and met prior to the startup of any project, an independent body should validate the design. After implementation, an independent third party must verify the additional emission reductions attributable to the project. In order to do so, there must be an agreed, established baseline for comparison regarding what would have occurred absent the project.

The DNV validation process begins after a GHG project design is created. A Validation Statement is issued based on a successful validation.

One of the better ideas for addressing renewable energy issues originated within the European community. In May 2000, the European Commission issued a proposed "directive on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market." The basic underlying objective of this draft directive is to create a framework that will facilitate the medium-term increase in renewable generated electricity (RES-E) within the European Union (EU). It is also an important part of measures aimed at meeting the EU’s obligation, accepted at Kyoto, to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and must be seen in the context of the objective of doubling the share of renewable energy consumption.

In order to ensure that the resulting trade in RES-E becomes both reliable and practically possible, the draft directive requires member states to introduce a system for the certification of origin of RES-E. A guarantee-of-origin system is necessary so that purchasers of this electricity will know for certain that the energy they acquire has been produced from renewable sources.

The underlying aim of the Renewable Energy Certificate System (RECS) is to promote the use of renewable energy by making its environmental benefits tradable (separate from the physical energy flow) under internationally harmonized rules. An Issuing Body (IB), such as DNV, would be given multiple tasks, including:

• Issuance of RES Certificates

• Appointment of a Central Monitoring Office

• Responsibility for seeing that the issuing, registration, trade, and redemption of RES Certificates are audited and validated

• "Accreditation" of generators producing renewable energy

The end product of the certification process would be a certificate that could be redeemed and traded. The basic requirements of the certification process are robustness, future orientation, transparentness, and trustworthiness. Since the system would be auditable, it would ensure mutual recognition of certificates and certificate attributes across national borders. As part of the pre-qualification process, it has been proposed that generators of renewable energy become ISO 14001 certified.

Already in the United States, companies are integrating sustainability concerns, renewable energy use, and internal GHG emissions trading and reductions into their business models as precursors of this world-trading scheme.

Independent research has identified a growing market segment of "cultural creatives," numbering around 50 million in the United States alone, that are willing to pay more for their energy if it comes from renewable sources – this is the so-called "green" electricity market. This market segment certainly will help shape the business values of future generations.

Lest we leave you thinking that the picture appears rather bleak on many fronts, the following new technology is offered for your consideration.

CityNet Telecommunications is hoping to revolutionize the broadband services available in cities by dispatching small robots that will lay fiber-optic cables in sewer pipes. Agreements are in place to run these high-speed fiber-optic cables to commercial and apartment buildings in Albuquerque, Indianapolis, and Omaha, and talks are proceeding with some 33 other cities.

An overwhelming obstacle to the rollout of high speed Internet and data services is that, until now, installers had to tear up streets to install the fiber-optic cables — a costly process. By using already-in-place sewer pipes, CityNet gains ready access to every building basement with a sewer connection.

According to CityNet Chief Robert Berger, "Sewer lines can double dip by providing a conduit for cable, potentially solving the ‘last mile’ connectivity problem." A Swiss company, Ka-Te Holding, is already building robots to support this concept in pilot projects in Hamburg, Germany, and Vienna, Austria.

The robots cost about $750,000 each, and can function in pipes with diameters of eight inches or more. Here’s how they operate: Workers lower the six-inch wide, 36-inch long, cylindrical robot down into the sewer pipe through existing manholes. The worker manipulates the robot via remote control. Scurrying like a sewer rat on wheels, the robot installs steel holding-rings around the inside of the pipe at intervals of every few feet. Next, it drags through steel conduits that will contain the fiber and shield it from raw sewage, and attaches the conduits to the rings. Finally, the cable is propelled through the conduits with air pressure.

Stockholders, stakeholders, employees, and businesses agree: Corporations exist to make a profit.

In the "old days," you just made or bought something and sold it for more, reaping a tidy return in the process. Those days are over. Now companies in every sector and location are considering e-commerce and its business and environmental implications.

At a recent meeting at the New York Academy of Sciences, Ford Motor Co. revealed that it is re-thinking the process of moving parts from manufacturing location to assembly point. Ford wanted to know if it was possible to develop partnerships with other companies (maybe even competitors) that have parts flowing out of the same manufacturing point. The partnering companies could send their parts to an "almost" common drop-off spot, saving transportation costs.

Similarly, Terry Cullum, GM’s Director of Global Design for the Environment, spoke at Harvard University in early December 2000 on the "greening" of GM’s designs for their new big pick-up trucks — the Silverado and companion GMC Sierra. As reported in the Boston Globe on December 2, 2000, a key point Cullum addressed is that GM looks at the overall energy burden for every truck component. That burden includes the materials used to make them work, their weight, the process by which they were manufactured, their operating efficiency, and the ability to recover them when the truck reaches the scrap heap.

Emerging tools of choice here include using business-to-business approaches to successfully integrate designers and to manage the supply chain, the manufacturing process, consumers, and product end-of-life issues.

Is it just a coincidence that Daimler-Chrysler, Toyota, and GM are asking their vendors for compliance and certification to ISO 14001 -- or is it something else?

Why are organizations like the U.S. Postal Service, Federal Express, and United Parcel Service quietly becoming more open minded in their thinking, and wondering, "Should we, or could we, share each others’ trucks and planes to deliver goods so that fewer partially filled vehicles will be on the road or in the air?"

What reason could there be for GHG and energy reduction schemes to embrace ISO 14001 as their accepted accountability vehicle?

Everyone realizes that ISO 14001 compliance and certification alone cannot guarantee excellent environmental results. Clearly, ISO 14001 is not foolproof. But then neither is emergency surgery -- and we still turn to it when we need to save a life.