At Ecopreneur we are going to help find one individual who is looking for his own business, but is short of a great idea. We have a client who has a brilliant idea in the South African (and could be world wide) security business and is looking for someone to partner him to build a great business. Our client has done the necessary research and is well skilled in business start-ups and particularly in marketing. He seeks a partner to help develop this business – he wants the person to develop the technical, and operational side of the business and to ultimately train others to grow the business. To begin the process please make contact via the Security Industry opportunity

The right candidate will be an enthusiastic and passionate person who has been looking for the right idea for his own business. He may be currently in a corporate environment or already on his own. He is ready to commit to a vision and begin to build a business of which he will be proud. He will be useful with his hands and have a sharp engineering type mind that seeks to technically innovate on existing technologies. He may have had some experience in the electrical/mechanical disciplines, but generally loves a challenge. He will be able to impart his knowledge to others to help grow the business. He will be comfortable with marketing, although this will not be a long term part of his role.

If this is for you, please send an email motivating why this opportunity is for you together with your CV. Details here: Security Industry opportunity

And it’s a lie — scaremongering from dirty energy companies so they can keep polluting at current levels, protect their unsustainable energy monopoly and maximize their short-term profits. They claim that responsibly cleaning up their own poisonous mess — instead of “socializing” the cost of dealing with it by spewing it into the air or dumping it in our oceans and streams — will force them to raise energy rates. This is a way to blackmail small businesses into defending the status quo and joining their efforts to kill any legislation that promotes efforts to reduce pollution or invest in sustainable energy. But the dirty energy companies are simply fighting to be the last of the dinosaurs, forestalling the inevitable day when they join the fossils that created their fortunes.

The green economy isn’t some untested theory or pie-in-the-sky fantasy — it’s already here, and its kicking butt. So here are some links that show why reducing pollution and embracing sustainable energy and green technology will create jobs and give our economy the boost it needs.

If you think the green economy won’t create jobs, you might want to tell those dirty hippies at the multinational bank HSBC, who found this in a 2009 report:

Global revenues from climate-related businesses such as energy efficiency rose by 75 percent in 2008 to $530 billion and could exceed $2 trillion by 2020, HSBC Global Research estimated on Friday.

In the 2006 Stern Review on the economics of climate change, climate-related revenues were forecast to climb to $500 billion by 2050.

“We can see that this seemingly huge figure has already been surpassed well ahead of time as more and more businesses adapt their business model,” said Joaquim de Lima, global head of quant research for equities at HSBC.

You also might want to tell the Chinese. A January New York Times article found that China’s decision to become the leader in producing solar panels, wind turbines and other renewable energy technologies is paying off:

Renewable energy industries [in China] are adding jobs rapidly, reaching 1.12 million in 2008 and climbing by 100,000 a year, according to the government-backed Chinese Renewable Energy Industries Association.

The Pew Charitable Trusts released a report finding that, despite “a lack of sustained government support”, America’s clean energy economy grew two and a half times faster than overall jobs from 1998 to 2007.

Pew found that jobs in the clean energy economy grew at a national rate of 9.1 percent, while traditional jobs grew by only 3.7 percent between 1998 and 2007. There was a similar pattern at the state level, where job growth in the clean energy economy outperformed overall job growth in 38 states and the District of Columbia during the same period.

A group of economists at Economics for Equity & Environment released a study this week that found that reducing emissions, becoming energy independent through clean energy and embracing the green economy would generate net job growth. The study goes on to debunk many of the myths that say reducing emissions and investing in the green economy would hurt the larger economy. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists came to the same conclusions about the green economy generating job growth, as did a recent study conducted by UC Berkeley that examined the effects that implementing the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) would have on California’s economy.

But the clean, green gravy train is leaving the station, and if America isn’t careful, we could miss it. Michael Northrop tells us that “the clean energy gold rush” has already begun. However, due to a lack of policies to provide a stable marketplace for green tech investment, we’re letting that $2 trillion slip through our fingers:

Even with growing unemployment, America seems incapable of recognizing a golden opportunity. With no goal or effective policy framework, not only are we shipping oil dollars to the Middle East, we are watching our solar, wind, and other renewable energy dollars begin flowing to Asia. -snip-

Without the economic security of guaranteed purchase contracts, companies will keep relocating overseas. Evergreen Solar, an up-and-coming solar manufacturer in Massachusetts, recently disclosed all of its manufacturing will be based in China.

So don’t let yourself or anyone else be fooled by the dirty energy industry’s lies. They want our heads in the tar sands because relying on fossil fuels makes them money, regardless of what it does to the environment, your health or anything else. And they’re not the only ones. As Thomas Friedman wrote in a NYTimes op-ed this week:

Indeed, I suspect China is quietly laughing at us right now. And Iran, Russia, Venezuela and the whole OPEC gang are high-fiving each other. Nothing better serves their interests than to see Americans becoming confused about climate change, and, therefore, less inclined to move toward clean-tech and, therefore, more certain to remain addicted to oil.

The guidelines include that all tree houses must be low-impact, stilt-built or arboreal dwellings that run on hydroelectric and solar power. All of the water is provided by a rainwater catch system and residents have virtually no electricity bills. However, residents do have access to the community center which has “a high-speed WIFI zone, parking area, a community center with a bath house, kitchen and dining area, and game room, a stone-lined, river-fed swimming pool (under construction), the start of the SkyTrail network, and numerous gardens.”

How much will this cost you, you ask? Everything is all for the low low price of $50,000US. If that’s not simple living, I don’t know what is.
Sustainability Ninja – Laura Gosselin

Johannesburg – The Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) said the majority of the R71bn earmarked for funding investment over the next five years will go to new businesses.

That’s according to IDC CEO Geoffrey Qhena, who addressed media at the presentation of the development funding company’s results for the year to end-March 2009.

This goal is in line with the IDC’s strategy to promote entrepreneurship in South Africa and, if implemented, will reverse a recent declining trend of funding of start-ups.

The funding of start-ups and expansions made up the largest portion – 52% – of funding granted in the 2008/09 financial year. The total amount of funding approvals in this period was R10.8bn.

However, the proportion of funding to this segment declined from 75% in the previous financial year. Qhena said this was partly due to the redirection of funds to companies in distress and a 38% increase in funding approvals for investments in the rest of Africa.

The IDC has already identified new candidates for early stage project development. Most of these are in line with the organisation’s aim to promote green and renewable energy sources.

Examples of these include solar power generation, electric vehicle batteries, bio-ethanol and wind power generation.

There’s a simple reason for Apple to get into the smart grid market and that’s money. Cisco anticipates the smart grid market that includes smart appliances and smart meters to be bigger than the internet and valued at $100 billion.

Apple’s foray into smart meters is a lot like their launch of the iPod. MP3 players were already out in 2001, but Apple put their Steve Jobs spin on existing technology and ended up dominating the market.

The system leans heavily on HomePlug Powerline Networking, a method that turns a basic power plug into a delivery system for audio and data. Plug in a cell phone or fridge in a HomePlug socket and it will be connected with every other plugged in device in the home via broadband internet.

The information from each item would be sent to a central location or what Apple calls a “Smart Home Energy Management Dashboard System.” Could this “dashboard” be code for the long rumored tablet? Apple’s not saying but it would certainly be gadget catnip to Apple fanboys, electronics nerds, and green minded consumers.

Users would be able to track their energy usage or plan to do specific tasks at off peak times, like running a dishwasher. Forget to shut off the porch lights? Turn them off remotely through the dashboard. The proposed device could not only work in homes but small businesses as well. Idle desktop computers and laser printers could be powered down to help save cash.

Google’s PowerMeter has seen a lot of success but there’s one little problem. Many utilities haven’t signed up for the project or are developing similar in-house programs like Michigan’s Consumers Energy. Apple’s dashboard and use of the HomePlug system could function outside those used by the utility or for those that aren’t Google PowerMeter partners. Add in Apple’s design team and the dashboard may be a major force in the home energy market.

The finals in South Africa next year are expected to have a carbon footprint eight times that of the 2006 World Cup in Germany, even before long-haul international travel is taken into account.

The main reasons for the discrepancy are the vast distances between South Africa’s host cities and the lack of a green transport infrastructure.

The estimated output from South Africa is 896,661 tonnes of carbon dioxide, according to the optimistically entitled Feasibility Study for a Carbon Neutral 2010 Fifa World Cup, commissioned jointly by the South African and Norwegian governments. Another 1,856,589 tonnes will result from fans travelling from around the world, making the World Cup’s footprint the biggest of any major event aiming to be “climate neutral”, the report said.

It cites the geography of South Africa as the main culprit, forcing players, officials and supporters to travel great distances between the 64 matches spread across nine host cities. South Africa is five times the size of the UK. The distance from Cape Town to Johannesburg is 880 miles, the same as London to Warsaw, and it would take about 17 hours to drive.

South Africa’s transport systems are also less eco-friendly than in many countries. “For inter-city transport … distances between matches in South Africa are much greater than in Germany, and the lack of high-speed rail links means that most visitors will fly multiple times between matches, leading to much higher transport emissions,” the report said. Within cities, they will use hired cars or buses, because there is no underground or light railway alternative.

But getting there will be the biggest contributor to the total of 2,753,250 tonnes of carbon. International transport represents 67.4% of emissions, intercity transport 17.6%, intracity transport 1.4%, stadium construction and materials 0.6%, stadium and precinct energy use 0.5%, and energy use in accommodation 12.4%.

The report said carbon offset programmes to counter the World Cup’s impact would cost between $5.4m and $9m (£3.3m to £5.4m).

It called for the early implementation of carbon offset programmes from football’s governing body, Fifa, the local organising committee and the South African government. These should be visible during the event to “maximise the contribution to public awareness”.

The local organising committee responded this week with a “green goal” initiative. It said the construction of Soccer City stadium, the venue for the opening ceremony and the first and final matches, used thousands of tonnes of builders’ rubble from the demolition of parts of the old FNB stadium.

Waterless urinals will be used in the stadium and the pitch will be irrigated exclusively with non-drinkable water, the organising committee said. Waste reduction will be pursued, with reusable cups and limited use of food containers.

Buyelwa Sonjica, South Africa’s environmental affairs minister, told parliament this week: “Some progress has been conducted toward processes for offsetting the footprint. However, even the footprint on its own is huge in comparison to the 2006 Fifa World Cup footprint. At least three of the nine host cities have considered the implementation of bicycle lanes.”

• David Smith in Johannesburg
• guardian.co.uk,

Simon Nicks
Environmenal Planner and Urban Designer
Fynbos Conservation Award winner 2009
Johnny Walker Celebrating Strides nominee 2010

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

China’s strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world’s poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was “the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility”, said Christian Aid. “Rich countries have bullied developing nations,” fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday’s Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying “no”, over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as “a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries”.

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

Here’s what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country’s foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world’s most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his “superiors”.

Shifting the blame

To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China’s representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. “Why can’t we even mention our own targets?” demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia’s prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil’s representative too pointed out the illogicality of China’s position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord’s lack of ambition.

China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak “as soon as possible”. The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

Strong position

So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn’t need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: “The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans.” On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China’s negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity (“equal rights to the atmosphere”) in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. “How can you ask my country to go extinct?” demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

China’s game

All this raises the question: what is China’s game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, “not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?” The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now “in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years’ time”.

This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China’s growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China’s century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower’s freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

Some people might look at that and say, ‘I don’t see any relationship between that and Google’s business.’ And then maybe five years later they’ll say, ‘Whoa, it’s a good thing you guys thought about that.’

Google is interested in making renewable energy less expensive than coal in part because Google, with its massive servers, uses so much energy itself, and because the founders and many of the employees simply care about environmental issues, Mr. Weihl said.

Google has invested $45 million in alternative energy since 2007, including in solar companies eSolar and BrightSource Energy, though the primary goal is not to make money, Mr. Weihl said:

We’d be delighted if some of this stuff actually made money, obviously; it is not our goal to not make money. All else being equal, we’d like to make as much money as we can, but the principal goal is to have a big impact for good.

In the interview, Mr. Weihl also discusses Google’s problem with coal, the technologies it thinks will solve that problem — concentrated solar thermal, enhanced geothermal and high-altitude wind — and what he thinks Google can do to address climate change that other companies can’t. He says:

I believe that the problems we’re facing are solvable, but they’re not going to solve themselves. And solving them is either going to require spending a lot more money on energy than we’re spending today, which I think is probably a non-starter, or it’s going to require major technological innovation. That’s where I think Google can help.

1. Small-scale food production using membership models

The past year or two saw a huge increase in innovative, upscale mobile food purveyors working from trucks and selling everything from premium ice-cream to Korean BBQ tacos. Requiring an even lower investment, the next wave could be small-scale culinary subscription services, which allow fledgling entrepreneurs to get a foothold in the food business, and create a steady income and a loyal client base for future business activities.
Milk Made » — Dulcinea »

2. Low impact advertising

Realising that green concerns are here to stay, British media agency Curb offers nothing but low-impact advertising. Its first service used rainwater to clean logos into grubby pavements, and was quickly followed by other techniques that use sand, sea water, grass, glow-in-the-dark funghi and more to broadcast their clients’ messages in an earth-friendly manner.
Curb »

3. Health tracking devices

From wireless headbands that track sleep patterns to wearable gadgets that track every move, an increasing number of options is available for people who want to track their own health-related behaviour. Recording and relaying detailed information that was previously only available through medical monitoring, most of these devices aren’t yet available worldwide, which creates a host of opportunities for distributors and localized versions.
Zeo » — Fitbit » — DirectLife » — TheCarrot.com » — Bedpost »

4. Sample stores, cafes & vending machines

Sophisticated sampling—dubbed tryvertising by trendwatching.com—isn’t new. On the rise, however, are dedicated spaces that facilitate sampling by a variety of brands, attracting consumers through the irresistible offer of free goods. Following sampling stores in Spain, sampling cafes in Tokyo and sample vending machines in Belgium, we suspect this concept will spread even further in 2010.
Esloúltimo » — L CAFE » — Boobox »

5. Discreet rooftop solar panels and wind turbines

While most homeowners would in theory like to generate their own wind or solar power, many are put off not just by cost, but by the aesthetic impact of wind turbines and solar panels. Aiming to resolve that problem are smart engineers who are creating new options that blend in with their environment. Two promising examples: rooftop wind turbines that almost disappear along the apex of a sloping roof, and solar panels shaped like traditional clay roof tiles. Plenty of opportunities here over the next decade, both in distribution and in the development of similar products.
Solé Power Tile » — Ridgeblade »

6. Rotating retail at airports and in malls

Pop-up, temporary retail is still going strong, but a new alternative has entered the game: rotating retail. Two spottings: opening soon in Glasgow Airport is Planeshop, a permanent store that brands will take over for a limited time, including changing the shop’s exterior graphics to match their identity. And in the Netherlands, BrandNew Stores aims to turn those fleeting pop-up shops into a chain concept, creating fixed spaces where brands can temporarily present themselves in a regular retail environment.
Planeshop » — BrandNew Stores »

7. Remote farming for consumers

According to Wikipedia, farm simulation game FarmVille has become the most popular game application on Facebook with 73.8 million active users in January 2010. Offering consumers a way to remotely control a patch of land that will actually provide them with an edible harvest is a new Italian start-up: Le Verdure Del Mio Orto, which lets anyone build an organic garden right from their web browser. As the produce grows, it’s picked and delivered to the customer’s door within 24 hours. Weekly deliveries are part of the package.
Le Verdure Del Mio Orto »

8. Connecting creative consumers with local fabricators

A partnership between New Zealand-based Ponoko and North Carolina-based ShopBot Tools, 100kGarages is a community of workshops distributed around the world that are equipped with the digital fabrication tools needed to precisely cut, machine, drill or sculpt the components of virtually any creative project. The network allows designers or consumers turn their ideas into physical products, and creates new business for small workshops.
100kGarages »

9. Paying consumers to promote products they use and love

As our sister-site trendwatching.com pointed out in its sellsumers briefing, selling is the new saving: a recession-induced need for cash plus an ever-growing infrastructure are fueling concepts that help ordinary consumers make money instead of spending it. One of the easiest ways to do so is by taking on the role of marketeer for products they already use and love: from promoting concerts by their favourite bands, to helping small companies launch new products.
Hollrr » — People’s Music Store » — Posse » — Looklet »

10. Single-use toilet bag turns human waste into fertilizer

While this is a numbered list, we love all of these ideas equally. So, last but not least, a potential solution to a problem that 2.6 billion people have to deal with: no access to a toilet. Designed for use sitting, squatting or standing, the single-use, biodegradable plastic Peepoo bag is lined with a urea-coated gauze layer that disinfects all waste. Used bags are odour-free for at least 24 hours and are safe for burial underground. Within two to four weeks after use, their contents are converted to high-quality fertiliser—something that’s also rare in many areas and could become a source of income and further enrichment for individuals or villages.
Peepoo bag »

The good news for consumers is that we can start using Google’s free energy monitoring software that much sooner. People that own, or plan to buy, Energy Inc’s latest gadget, the TED 5000, can opt-in to use PowerMeter as its online interface and connect with their Google account and the iGoogle gadget. Google says no data will be sent to the customer’s Google account unless they decide to opt-in. The TED 5000 costs around $200 (up to $300 with additional features), can be bought online here and requires an electrician to install.

Google has been working on the strategy of partnering with device makers for PowerMeter for a while. Back in April Google’s Tom Sly told me that the company was actively talking to gadget makers to work with PowerMeter, and Sly told us today that they’ve been talking with Energy Inc for about a year.

The advantages of bypassing the smart meter aren’t just the quick deployment times of these energy management devices. The set-up could also offer the customer more detailed and quicker energy data than data coming off of smart meters. Devices like TED are connected to the user’s home broadband connection and, working with PowerMeter, can be quickly displayed to the customer in almost real-time. TED 5000 will show energy data via PowerMeter every 10 minutes.

In contrast, many utilities are building smart meter networks that can significantly delay the time it takes the energy information to reach the customer. As we pointed out in this article, utilities today are largely designing smart grid networks to collect data from smart meters in a time frame that ranges from between every 15 minutes to an hour, then bringing that data back to a collection point on the network. From that collection point, many utilities are only bringing data back to the utility back office where the numbers are processed and packaged for consumers once a day. So the info coming off of smart meters will often be from the previous day’s energy use.

Utilities say the delay comes from the fact that they have to bring the data back to the control center, process the information and connect it to the user’s billing account. Remember most utilities’ networks aren’t exactly robust given cost constraints and the fact that information technology hasn’t traditionally been their strong point (though hopefully that will change in the coming months and years). From the perspective of the utility, the data that goes directly from TED to PowerMeter and to the consumer (bypassing utilities’ networks) probably won’t be considered “revenue-grade,” predicted Google’s Sly, meaning the utility won’t likely run a billing program around it.

But Energy Inc and Google have both been working directly with utilities, and TED and PowerMeter can be incorporated into utility networks in a variety of ways. President and CEO of Energy Inc, Dolph Rodenberg tells us that about 40 percent of its sales come from utilities, but declined to name its utility customers. Energy Inc was actually founded back in 2001, before energy management was a hot topic anywhere.

Why is close to real-time energy data important? Carrie Armel, research associate at Stanford’s Precourt Energy Efficiency Center, told me back in June that the more frequently energy data is given to the consumer, the more engaged the consumer is likely to be. Changing energy consumption will come from a behavior change, and our brains are hardwired to respond to quick feedback, said Armel. In addition I think an ecosystem of innovation and new applications that can help change consumer behavior can more easily be built up around a robust network that delivers close to real-time information (for my comparison to GPS and real time information, read here).

The TED-PowerMeter combo only works for North American customers and the deal isn’t exclusive for either PowerMeter or TED. Google hopes TED will just be the first of many devices it will work with — and that this announcement will bring in more energy gadget makers (so reach out to them folks). But given TED is Google’s first gadget partner for PowerMeter, the device will give the company a sizable early platform for this early version of PowerMeter (there are already thousands of TED 5000’s on the market). In line with Google’s “no business model” strategy for PowerMeter, Google isn’t making money off of the TED devices that will use its web tool.

Google will be able to bring a lot of new users to Energy Inc, and Energy Inc’s Rodenberg called what Google can do for TED in terms of “public awareness” outstanding. PowerMeter will be able extend TED 5000’s functionality by linking its energy management service to computers or even mobile devices, and enable users to compare their energy management to the PowerMeter community (not large today, but could someday be sizable). The PowerMeter deal will also likely help with any financing deals — Rodenberg tells us the company is in the process of raising funds, but not via the traditional venture capital route.

At the end of the day I’m glad Google has finally bypassed the smart meter — it seems like a more fitting place for the disruptive web firm than being forced to develop its tool around slow-moving utility partners that sometimes don’t get the benefits of information networks. And we’re even more excited that PowerMeter is now available for anyone that wants to buy a TED 5000. You can bet I’ll be testing this out right away.

By Katie Fehrenbacher Earth2tech

2010 presents itself as a great opportunity for business, especially with the FIFA World Cup being hosted in South Africa. However, the opportunities lie not in the way people expect them as the following book review spells out. To us ecopreneurs, the opportunities lie with South Africa being accorded 1st world status by being chosen as host for the games. With the eyes of the world on South Africa, Ecopreneurs will get a better shot at promoting their services and products for future export. The opportunities lie in the future, not as the so many people expect – during the 2010 World Cup

There will be no economic bonanza, according to a new book, and if experience matches the last World Cup in Germany, spending by visitors will be less than the South African government shelled out preparing for the tournament.

“The next World Cup will not be an aircraft dropping dollars on South Africa,” authors Stefan Szymanski and Simon Kuper write in the book Soccernomics.

The caveat comes ahead of tomorrow’s World Cup draw in Cape Town, 188 days before football’s showpiece tournament.

Using data analysis, history and psychology, the book punctures dozens of assumptions about what it takes to win, and who makes money in football – and in sports in general.

“The problem for South Africa was that they had to spend quite a lot to build stadiums,” Szymanski said in a telephone interview from London.

“Germany could afford this, and it had stadiums anyway. But South Africa is a nation that can ill afford to fritter away a few billion on white elephants.”

Following the 2002 World Cup, for instance, South Korea’s K-League had difficulties filling the 10 new stadiums built for the tournament at a cost of more than $2-billion.

The book’s argument is that hosting a World Cup or Olympics is an inefficient way to revitalise a city, or enrich a nation – especially one like South Africa, where a third of the population lives on less than $2 a day. It can boost a nation’s morale or image, but not much else.

“If you want to regenerate a poor neighbourhood, regenerate it,” Szymanski and Kuper write.

“If you want an Olympic pool and a warm-up track, build them. You could build pools and tracks all across London, and it would still be cheaper than hosting the Olympics.”

Szymanski, an economics professor at Cass Business School in London, and Kuper, a sports writer living in Paris, challenge plenty of accepted wisdoms. They even talk of opening a consulting firm for leagues and clubs, promising to improve performance and save money.

“We are not trying to take the magic out of soccer,” Szymanski said in the interview. “But we want to understand the patterns, because they are not completely random.”