It is hard to stay objective and talk about cradle-to-cradle thinking and considering long term effects, “the end of the end”, and other assertions from our book, when there is a major effect on one of our national treasures, The Yellowstone River, the longest undammed river in the US.  We have a personal affinity toward the river since one of our EarthPM principles spent 11 days in the area doing what is affectionately called “combat fly fishing.”  In other words, 11 days were spent fly fishing as many rivers and streams in Montana, Idaho , and Wyoming that is humanly possible fishing from dawn to dark, while passing peanut butter and jelly sandwiches from the back seat to the front during the breaks between fishing and fishing called “racing to a new spot.”  A few hours sleep and  right back at it.  But of all the waters fished, the Yellowstone was one of the most incredible fisheries, to say nothing of the beauty.

Of course, the river was nothing like it is right now (see picture above of how it was when we fished it), with gigantic flows spilling over the banks, running between 25,000 and 35,000 cubic feet per second.  The normal rate is around 8,000 cfs.  That’s good news and bad news.  The good news is that there is lots of water to dilute the oil.  And, while this oil spill is relatively small compared to some of the oil spills of the past, 42,000 gallons, or approximately 1000 barrels, is enough.  What is disconcerting is not the short-term effects, but rather the long term-effects on both wildlife and property.  Sound familiar.  We assert that we can no longer take the short term view.  We were not involved in Exxon Mobil’s decision making process when someone thought it was a good idea to bury a pipeline under one of the premier trout waters in America, we can only hope that they did consider what would happen not only if there should be a breach in the pipe, but also the life cycle assessment of that oil should it be unleashed on the ecosystem.

The bad news is that the long term effects of a spill of this nature are virtually unknown.  Add to that, the high water has pushed the oil up onto surrounding properties where it is pooling.  It is likely that the pooled oil will seep into the ground possible contaminating area water wells.  While Yellowstone National Park and the areas where we fished are not threatened, because the spill is approximately 110 miles downstream, it still affects a “fly fishing and bird watching” area.   “Montana Audubon — a nonprofit that specializes in wildlife conservation, especially birds — fears for the health of the American white pelican, a top-of-the-food chain species that dines on critters in the river. “We may get lucky with the short-term effects” because birds weren’t using their normal river habitat due to the high water, said Darcie Vallant, director of the Audubon Conservation Education Center in Billings, which is just 10 miles from the spill. “But the concern is long-term effects,” especially with the pelicans, she added. Montana had some 7,000 breeding pairs in 2010, and that was a decline from the previous year, she said.”

The high water has also made it impossible to assess what’s happening to that ecosystem.  How the bug population that the trout rely upon for food is affected is another unknown.  There is also a concern about the back channels that hold fish eggs and recently hatched fish being contaminated.

Montana State University researchers will be among those monitoring the river, but it could take months before they have a sense of the recovery’s pace. “In the weeks and months ahead, we will be looking for any unusual changes in the river’s natural environment and any impacts on the species of fish we would expect to find at this time of year,” said MSU ecology professor Al Zale. “Some species or ages of fish may be more susceptible to this type of pollution than others.”

Cathy Williams, who raises livestock, wheat, alfalfa and hay with her husband near Laurel, said high water washed oil across much of their 800 acres. “It was the night the river peaked, so the river water was flooded all over the place, and that brought oil all over both ranches,” she said. “All of our grasslands have just thick, black crude stuck to all the grass, trees, low lands.”  Williams said their spring wheat crop and alfalfa are both in need of irrigation, but farmers in the area were advised not to take water from the river for the time being. Drinking supplies also are in limbo, she said. “We get all our drinking water from our wells and for our animals,” Williams said. “All the groundwater, I assume, is probably contaminated. We just don’t know.”

With 20/20 hindsight, and a request for consideration for future planning, there are several places in the project life cycle that greenality issues can be considered:

• Project Charter – connecting enterprise sustainability with project
• Requirements Gathering – again, connecting the enterprise’s environmental management plan(EMP) with the project’s EMP
• Stakeholder Consideration – is there a communications plan in place to notify the stakeholders if this type of issue should occur
• Risk Management – considering environmental risks
• Cost of Greenality – failure costs versus auditing costs for instance

I am sure you can think of more areas where sustainability should be considered.  All in all, we are hoping for a good outcome, here.  The river has an incredible beauty about it.  Let’s not forget that the trout fishing in Montana is a major contributor to the $300 million in revenues from the recreation industry in the state. And, the Yellowstone is also historically very significant.  In late June/early July of 1876, the Far West, a specially designed river vessel, transported the wounded from the campaign against the Indians which included Custer’s Last Stand, down the Yellowstone to the Missouri River and to Bismarck in the Dakota Territories.  Let’s hope for the best here and for long-term, sustainability thinking to prevail for future projects, including those that involve our rare and fragile natural resources.

(Thanks to Msnbc.com’s Miguel Llanos, Reuters and The Associated Press for information included in this blog.)

We’ve experienced some extremes when promoting our agenda of getting project managers to take the lead in what we call greenality – the quality of green aspects that are built into your projects.
We see the full spread of reactions:

• those who align immediately and ask what they can do
• those in the middle who sort of yawn or sigh
• those who get a little put-off, even nasty at the mention of ecology (“eww!”) green (“yich!”) or sustainability (“gag!”) and the association of those crunchy-granola items with projects.

We try to keep the issue of climate change off the table, other than to provide proven and illustrative facts wherever we can.  We know that preaching about saving the planet can just politicize the issue and add what we call “unnecessary noise” into the argument.

In any case, we just saw a great article in the NY Times which seems to support that philosophy.

It’s about an organization working in a very conservative part of Kansas where the the word Gore (as in Al Gore) is really a four letter word.  We know that it has four letters already, but we’re referring to a whole different kind of four letter word.

In the article, which you can read by clicking here, an organization which seems to think a lot like EarthPM, called the Climate and Energy Project (note that name Project!) has sought to”extricate energy issues from the charged arena of climate politics”.

From the article:

The project ran an experiment to see if by focusing on thrift, patriotism, spiritual conviction and economic prosperity, it could rally residents of six Kansas towns to take meaningful steps to conserve energy and consider renewable fuels.

Here is the context in which they are working.  Only 48 percent of people in the Midwest agree with the statement that there is “solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer,” – a number much, much lower than the rest the country.

Working with that context – and carefully leaving out the climate change argument, the project was able to get buy in and generate several key conservation efforts, even resulting in the following indicative quote from a conservative farmer: “Whether or not the earth is getting warmer,” he said, “it feels good to be part of something that works for Kansas and for the nation.”

That’s quite a turnaround.

And that attitude is also reflected in results.  Energy use in the towns in which this project was active declined as much as 5 percent relative to other areas a notable savings.  1 to 2 percent savings are more typical for this type of conservation program.

This is what we hope to be achieving with our efforts.  Believe what you will about climate change, the efforts to conserve energy, reduce toxins, prevent unnecessary extraction of resources from the earth, and reducing waste, are all plain old logical, good things to be doing, whether a farmer or a project manager.

We suggest that you read the story and also visit the Climate and Energy Project’s  homepage.

And if you’re one of the folks who agree with us – try to keep climate change and project greenality as separated as, say, oil and water.

We’ve blogged about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill which seems to have found its way OUT of the news recently.

There is some interesting coverage of the Commission which is investigating what happened to cause the spill and which could be particularly interesting to Project Managers from a risk identification, management, response, and monitoring perspective.  I know,  I know…we used the words C-SPAN and interesting in the same sentence... but you may find the use of various speakers, animated slides and video does indeed make this a bit more interesting.  One speaker even uses a very insightful analogy involving margaritas in a blender.

There is a blow-by-blow description of what happened when, as well as some good background on the science of the drilling business.

Enjoy…  click here to watch.

Note: you should go to this site to get all of the coverage.  The link above is for this morning’s testimony.

This is a follow up to an earlier post.

The California vote “signifies the largest public referendum on clean energy legislation. Tom Steyer, co-chairman of the NO on 23 campaign, stated “In the midst of a major economic downturn, and with a barrage of fear mongering and scare tactics, voters still said they want a clean energy future.”” from  Solar Novus Today (www.solarnovus.com)

Californians rejected the attempt to suspend the state’s global warming law signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  The defeat was by a significant margin, 39 percent to 61 percent, with 93 percent of the precincts counted, according to the Associated Press.

The San Francisco Chronicle states that; “The vote clears the way for a state law restricting greenhouse-gas emissions to go into effect in 2012. The law requires the state cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. It will require utilities to get almost a third of their electricity from renewable sources such as solar panels, and create a market for carbon-dioxide pollution permits.  Proposition 23 was “the largest public referendum in history on climate and energy policy,” said Fred Krupp, president of the New York-based Environmental Defense Fund.”

Although backers of Proposition 23, conceded defeat, they called the outcome “a victory for Wall Street over Main Street” vowing to continue their efforts to “save jobs” and curb energy costs.   I’m a little confused.  When I look at the contributors to the fight for and against Proposition 23, I might say it was a victory for Wall Street over Wall Street, because on one side are the likes of Microsoft and Apple, on the other is Big Oil.  It reminds me of the Harlequin, turn one way it is dark, turn the other it is light, but overall, it is the same, but that’s the subject of another post.

Continuing with the Chronicle, “”Millions of voters have said they see clean-energy jobs as the path forward through a tough economic climate,” Krupp said.”  For us, as project managers, that is key.  We need to continue to “surf the green wave.”  Green jobs mean green projects, mean project managers to manage those projects.

Don’t you think that those sponsors of green projects would rather have someone familiar with the reasons, the driving forces, behind the green wave, to manage their projects?  For further information on how you get SMARTER* on this “green revolution” see our book and follow us on this site.  The revolution is here, evidenced by the defeat of California’s Prop 23 and a continued emphasis on tax incentives for alternate energy development.

*From Green Project Management, CRC Press (Specific, Measurable, Agreed Upon, Realistic, Timely, and Environmentally Responsible)

We were hard pressed to think that we would ever write about the alignment of President Obama, Governor Schwarzenegger, James Cameron and the companies of Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Intel, but we are.  These and others, including the California Teachers Association, the American Lung Association, and the CA League of Women Voters,  are banding together to work for the defeat of Proposition 23 in California.  Proposition 23 would effectively suspend AB32, AKA the Global Warming Act of 2006.  Prop 23 ties California’s unemployment rate to AB32.  AB32 would be suspended until California’s unemployment rate sinks to 5.5% or less and stays there for a year.  AB32 is one of the initiatives we document in our book.

On the other side, in support of Prop 23, some strange bedfellows, too, like the CA Firefighter’s Association,  The Coalition of Labor, Agriculture & Business, and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry, traditionally democrat, and the CA Republican Party (sans the governor).  According to http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/03/ab-32-ballot-initiative-global-warming-california-climate-change.html Ted Costa, head of the Peoples Advocate, withdrew initial support  in March 2010, saying, “”Big money interests have come in and shut out the people.”

There’s pretty big money on both sides of the issue.  Louise Bedsworth, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, predicted in April that total campaign spending on Proposition 23 could top the $154 million record set in 2006 by Proposition 87. (http://tinyurl.com/prop23-cost). The largest contributors on the support side are some CA based oil companies, oil refiner companies, or companies and associations supporting the oil and gas industry.   The largest contributors on the “Vote No” side are the companies listed in the beginning of this post.

To quote from our book, “There may be quite a debate around the true causes (of global climate change) are, but one only has to look at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (2007) to answer the question on whether or not there is a significant change in the world’s climate….” the recent trend may or may not be part of a “much larger cycle”, but it is clear that something is going on and that green house gas emissions are contributing to the change.

As project managers, at the least, we need to know how the vote goes.  No one is really sure how many jobs (projects) are being created and maintained while companies work to comply with AB32, but we can speculate that if Proposition 23 passes, those jobs will vaporize, except for those companies who agree with our assertion that “a project run with green intent is the right thing to do…”

Here’s a short, uplifting, interesting (well, to some of us, anyway) talk regarding how innovation may just be able to help us out of our energy problems.

It’s delivered by geophysicist Dr. Richard Sears.

It smacks of innovation, of science, and of the need for change, led by – you guessed it - project managers.

Enjoy.

This sounds like a joke, but it isn’t:

What’s 10 stories high, a football field wide, almost 4 football fields long, cruises the oceans, and can suck in 21 million gallons of seawater a day?

The answer: A Whale.

No, not the mammal, but a Taiwanese-flagged vessel called “A Whale” which is the latest in the series of project “workarounds” for the Gulf /Deepwater Horizon/BP oil disaster.

“In many ways, the ship collects water like an actual whale and pumps internally like a human heart,” Bob Grantham, a spokesman for TMT Shipping, told the Associated Press news agency.

This story from BBC has a nice video with some of the details.

From a project management perspective, this continues to illustrate the magnitude of the workarounds – actually we could say families of workarounds that BP has used to deal with the triggered risk of the Deepwater Horizon.

We know about the planned risk responses (for example, the blowout preventer) and the series of other risk responses (top hat, junk shot), and the long -term workaround (the relief well), and the Ocean Therapy boats, but this one is a BIG one.  Testing is taking place as this blog post is being written.

It will be interesting – and important – to see whether this will work, although this, like most of the responses are going after the impact of the threat (the spilled oil), not the probability of the spill in the first place (as a relief well would).

Given the magnitude of this disaster – it’s not surprising to see gigantic workarounds like this!

UPDATE: for those who would like an excellent animated ‘history’ of the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster, click HERE to see a 22-slide slideshow which is a very well-produced summary of how it happened and what actions have been taken to date.

I wonder if you can guess how much London cabbies spend each day on diesel fuel?

Probably not.

Well – since you asked… that number is more than a half-million dollars.  Collectively, the owners of the iconic black cabs of London spend over $600,000 on fuel, mostly diesel – each day.  And with that expense is a commensurate use of fossil-based fuels.  But now, they – and others – are switching to something else in what is turning out to be a series of large projects meant to save costs, to meet EU laws, and green up the city.

Which leads us to our second trivia question: what percentage of potatoes in Britain are consumed as ‘chips’ (what we in the US call French Fries)?

And the answer is: 1 in 4 of all British potatoes consumed in Britain are eaten as chips and the UK’s 8,500 fish and chip shops sell over 277 million portions of chips per year, all cooked in some form of vegetable oil.

A London company called Uptown Oil refines the waste oil and sells it at about $1.50 per liter, whereas diesel fuel costs about $1.75.  So people do not have to make a choice to spend more to get off of fossil fuels – they spend less and also make a more sustainable choice.  The oil is collected from rapeseed, sunflower, and soya oils, is filtered and distilled, and added to methanol.  The resultant fuel produces much less in the way of smoke fumes.  You can actually read direct comments by the London cab drivers (listed by actual license plate numbers) here.

And it’s not just the cabs. The EU’s new laws on new buildings require the near elimination of fossil fuels by 2020.  So companies like PricewaterhouseCoopers, along with the cabbies, are (through companies like Uptown) searching for waste oil from about 750 restaurants, pubs and other sources in the London area.  In the case of PwC, which advises clients on a consulting basis to reduce their carbon footprint, it’s a matter of believability – PwC is practicing what they preach.  As you saw in our last posting, this is something important to us.

Much of the information from this posting came from this Boston Globe article.

So here’s our summertime tip.  To learn more about green project management, perhaps settle down with a good book, a nice stout or porter, and a healthy side of ‘chips’.

This is disgusting.

Here you will find a report posted today by the US Government to the web and which we bring you in the spirit of helping to understand the ‘monitor and control‘ part of project management, or really, business in general.  In fact, the people in this report behave as if they were Charlie Sheen’s character (or perhaps his brother or nephew) on the US television program Two and a Half Men.  And thus the post’s title.

The MMS, (Minerals Management Service) is the US Federal oversight agency responsible for controlling the oil industry.  They are the ones who ‘bless’ the drilling platforms in the Gulf, for example.

It’s clear from this report (you only need to read the cover letter to get this) that governance was not properly in place.

Rather than laboring over all of the things that we need to learn from this, I would just suggest that you have a look and realize that in your projects (and in life) you must know that measurements are polluted (excuse the pun) if the people in charge of measuring are under the influence of those that they measure.  This is expressed in PMI’s Code of Conduct and Professional Responsibility.

Is it any wonder that we have the mess in the Gulf of Mexico, and even (although small in comparison) today’s other spill in Alaska?

We all can do better than this.

We’ve blogged a lot about the Climate Bill, and why it was delayed, and how it could possibly be revived.  And today, US Senators Kerry and Lieberman did revive the bill…

From Newsweek magazine, 12-May:

There’s a lot in there, packed in tight. Nuclear proponents get the green light for new plants and research with $54 billion in federal loan guarantees. Renewable energy folks also get a boost with extended subsidies. There’s a directive to increase research on carbon capture and sequestration (a.k.a. clean coal), an intricate system to reduce greenhouse gases, and a full plan to integrate job creation at every step. Plus, about 15 pages in the 987-page bill address the hot-potato topic du jour: oil drilling, which will increase. But the difference is that states will be allowed to veto drilling projects within 75 miles of their coastline. And if that’s not enough, a revenue-sharing process will compensate coastal states for stomaching the risks.

But instead of repeating what’s in the bill, we’d like to answer some critics’ valid question about the bill:

Why should project managers care about this?  Let’s forget the element of project managers being residents of Earth and that whole altruistic aspect.  Throw that away*.  Now.  With that disposed of, say the critics, why would project managers care at all about this bill?

We have a very simple mathematical formula for you.

The bill has 987 pages.  The word “project” shows up 573 times.

Yes.  Go back and read that again.

There are 573 occurrences of the word project, in a document that is 987 pages long.  Averaged out, that means that almost 60% of the pages have a reference to projects.  That’s why you should care, if for no other reason.  This is a bill that will increase the demand for your very discipline.  Oh, wait.  You’re a program manager?  Well, the word program occurs 563 times.

Think we’re kidding?

We provide you below with links to the full Newsweek article and also the summary and full text of the American Power Act.

Short summary

Full American Power Act text (PDF)

Newsweek article

So we humbly suggest that you may want to care about the bill…

* “we design products to be thrown ‘away’ when, in fact, there is no ‘away’”

-William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle