We were a bit worried late last year when the USPTO announced plans to speed up the review process for so-called "green tech patents." Speeding up the review process of a system notorious for granting bad, innovation-hindering patents doesn't seem wise for an emerging market. The USPTO said it would cap the trial period to just 3,000 patents to keep it from getting overwhelmed. However, it turns out that the USPTO needn't have worried. They haven't even gotten halfway to the cap yet. To date, only 1,477 requests have been made for the accelerated review program. Apparently this has lots of lawyers scratching their heads, wondering if the program is too expensive or what. Of course, there is another possibility as well: the really innovative folks working on greentech breakthroughs are focused on actually innovating, rather than worrying about the patent office. But, perhaps that's just wishful thinking...

A few weeks ago, we discussed why the idea of a P2P venture capital firm didn't make much sense. Having lots of people invest is the same thing as going public -- and doing that requires complying with all sorts of SEC regulations. Simply opening up shop and asking lots of people to invest is bound to cause problems. Apparently, that's not stopping some folks. Wired has an article about how the founder of Powerset (the massively hyped up search engine startup that hasn't even launched yet) has moved on to try to start a new venture capital firm that would take small investments from many people and use those funds to invest in "greentech" investments. This is a little different than the P2P VC firm that we talked about, and actually seems to resemble something from the dot com bubble: a company called meVC, that allowed the public to invest money, which was then invested in startups. Of course, the folks at meVC at least realized that soliciting funds from the public meant going public itself first, so as not to run afoul of SEC regulations. Even then, things didn't work out so well. From the sound of things, it's not clear that the guy behind this new effort even realizes that, as described, the fund itself is probably very much in violation of SEC rules, but I'm sure the SEC will be kind enough to inform him pretty quickly if he moves forward with those plans.

Earlier this month, we pointed out that Ireland had joined Australia in setting a date for banning incandescent lightbulbs. There had been talk about the US following suit, and now it (almost) has, approving legislation that would phase out inefficient bulbs by 2012, such as the incandescents that most people still use. Once again, though, we have to point out how counterproductive a move like this seems. Already, more and more people were moving to more efficient bulbs naturally, as they realized how much money they actually saved with them. For those who complained about the type of light given off by the fluorescents, that just gave more incentives for the makers of CFLs to make the light better match incandescent bulbs. The competition also gave more incentives to make CFLs cheaper and even more efficient, as well as coming up with ways to make the (already seriously overhyped) worries about mercury, less of an issue. However, if politicians take away the competition from incandescents, it suddenly gives the makers of CFLs a lot less incentive to come up with these kinds of innovations and breakthroughs.

American politicians have been toying with such legislation for a while, and Australian politicians have already approved similar legislation, but it appears that Irish politicians are in something of a rush to ban incandescent lightbulbs. New legislation would ban the sale of the traditional lightbulbs as of January 2009 -- basically just one year. The Australian plan, that was approved earlier this year, would phase out the bulbs by 2010. While we can understand the basic reasoning, it's still unclear why a full ban is really necessary. Fluorescent bulbs keep getting cheaper and cheaper (and better and better in quality) than incandescent bulbs. They last so much longer and use so much less energy that it won't be long until most people voluntarily move to fluorescents, without any unnecessary ban on incandescents.

ComputerWeekly recently ran an article discussing some of the complexities companies face when considering a slew of new "green IT" products. While the middle of the article reads more like a press release, it does conclude with a few sharp points about companies that have made the connection between green tech and ongoing waste reduction efforts. When companies consider "going green" strictly from an environmentalist's point of view -- that being green is socially responsible and is inherently a good thing to do -- most will find insufficient justification for making any significant investment. However, as more companies demonstrate that green tech investments, properly made, translate to long term cost savings, others will follow suit. It makes sense for green tech vendors to feature the efficiency improvements of their products and services because, environmental benefits aside, reducing waste and inefficiency is a practice with which most companies are already well versed. If the industry is successful in their efforts to reframe green tech from a moral to a fiscal consideration, decision makers will be able to evaluate it in terms with which they are much more familiar: the bottom line. Once the discussion centers around dollars and cents rather than birds and trees, every sensible company will have to determine not if, but which green tech investments will improve their efficiency and overall business.

The environment continues to be a hot-button political issue, as it presents a chance for politicians to score some easy points with the public by mandating all sorts of new laws and restrictions to prove their green credentials. But this political grandstanding overshadows the fact that many green or clean technologies offer economic benefits to those who use them -- for instance, making facilities more energy-efficient isn't about companies just wanting to be nicer to the planet, it's about cost savings too. One example of this in the consumer realm is fluorescent lightbulbs. Despite their higher upfront cost, their longer life and lower power consumption offers substantial savings over traditional incandescent bulbs. Given these cost savings (as well as the ongoing improvement in the bulbs' quality and decrease in price), it would seem to be a matter of time before fluorescent bulbs will become more popular and they push incandescents out of the market. But that hasn't stopped politicians from all over to push for laws banning or phasing out incandescent bulbs, and it now appears that the US Congress will add such legislation to a wide-ranging energy bill that's expected to be voted on in October. The legislation would begin phasing out incandescents in 2012, and then by 2020, would call for lighting standards that could be met only by compact fluorescent bulbs or ones with equivalent efficiency. Lighting manufacturers aren't happy with the timetable, saying it's too quick, and add that they're exploring several different technologies to improve the efficiency of lighting, including more efficient incandescent bulbs, new types of halogen lamps and LEDs. It would certainly seem that the market will sort this issue out on its own, as technology improves and more consumers become aware of the cost savings that fluorescents and other types of bulbs can offer. But it would also seem that the brownie points on offer are too hard to refuse for politicians who want to make it look like they're making a difference to the environment.

As big energy companies jump into the green tech gold rush, some of them have faced criticism that their efforts amount to little more than a cosmetic makeover. Chevron's recent release of an online game in which players are asked to tackle the energy demands of a virtual city does little to soothe such critics. Chevron was beaten to the punch by Starbucks, of all companies, who launched a similarly themed online game back in April. Both companies state their aim to increase awareness of energy issues and encourage participation in the search for solutions. Judging by their investment of creativity into these games, however -- Starbucks' "Planet Green Game" is both more fun and more informative than "Energyville" -- the energy company has been soundly beaten on their own turf by the coffee company (even then, Starbucks' game won't be mistaken as much fun or brilliantly informative any time soon). Chevron appears to have realized that video games can be a useful tool to reach the upcoming generation of their customers and investors; it so happens that it is also this game-playing generation that will face the environmental, security, and economic problems related to energy demand. Unfortunately, Chevron's half-baked game is unlikely to generate any real dialogue, and, for critics, it certainly fails to demonstrate a serious commitment by the company to solving these problems.