Comments on: No sign of break in the link between emissions and higher GDP http://www.carboncommentary.com/2009/07/07/676 A critical appraisal of issues in the move to a low-carbon economy Mon, 06 Feb 2012 06:02:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Russell Lerman http://www.carboncommentary.com/2009/07/07/676/comment-page-1#comment-2520 Russell Lerman Mon, 07 Sep 2009 22:23:34 +0000 http://www.carboncommentary.com/?p=676#comment-2520 Companies should be rewarded for saving energy. Economic growth and greater environmental responsibility can exist together. The drive to reduce carbon is an opportunity to cut energy costs for businesses that must not be allowed to pass by. Climate change in now on the global agenda and governments are at last starting to legislate against the problem. Improvements in energy efficiency would achieve the bulk of carbon emissions reductions necessary to meet EU targets and UK targets. But the government will need to get businesses on board. Businesses should look at this as a great opportunity to improve their bottom line performance, and at the same time boost their green credentials. It is not often that a company gets the chance to keep their head of investor relations and financial director happy at the same time. With a modest investment in energy efficiency measures, companies can make immediate reductions in carbon emissions and long-term savings in energy costs. As energy prices continue to soar, the savings will only get bigger and bigger. Wholesale electricity prices have more than doubled in the last 12 months which has put a huge strain on British business in already financially difficult times. However, it only takes between 12 to 18 months for a mid-sized organisation to make its money back on a holistic energy savings package. And the quicker the energy prices rise, the quicker the payback time. As David O’Reilly, the chief executive of oil and gas giant Chevron said….energy efficiency is the cheapest form of energy we have. While the economic rewards of energy efficiency measures are attractive, businesses should also be encouraged by government policy- upcoming CRC legislation and Smart-meter roll out are sure signs that the government is taking steps to address energy issues and businesses need to be sure that they keep up and not lose out when such legislation is implemented. Companies should be rewarded for saving energy. Economic growth and greater environmental responsibility can exist together. The drive to reduce carbon is an opportunity to cut energy costs for businesses that must not be allowed to pass by.

Climate change in now on the global agenda and governments are at last starting to legislate against the problem. Improvements in energy efficiency would achieve the bulk of carbon emissions reductions necessary to meet EU targets and UK targets. But the government will need to get businesses on board.

Businesses should look at this as a great opportunity to improve their bottom line performance, and at the same time boost their green credentials. It is not often that a company gets the chance to keep their head of investor relations and financial director happy at the same time.
With a modest investment in energy efficiency measures, companies can make immediate reductions in carbon emissions and long-term savings in energy costs. As energy prices continue to soar, the savings will only get bigger and bigger. Wholesale electricity prices have more than doubled in the last 12 months which has put a huge strain on British business in already financially difficult times. However, it only takes between 12 to 18 months for a mid-sized organisation to make its money back on a holistic energy savings package. And the quicker the energy prices rise, the quicker the payback time. As David O’Reilly, the chief executive of oil and gas giant Chevron said….energy efficiency is the cheapest form of energy we have.

While the economic rewards of energy efficiency measures are attractive, businesses should also be encouraged by government policy- upcoming CRC legislation and Smart-meter roll out are sure signs that the government is taking steps to address energy issues and businesses need to be sure that they keep up and not lose out when such legislation is implemented.

]]> By: Dr. James A. Singmaster http://www.carboncommentary.com/2009/07/07/676/comment-page-1#comment-2243 Dr. James A. Singmaster Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:23:51 +0000 http://www.carboncommentary.com/?p=676#comment-2243 Talking about carbon footprints with lots of figures does nothing to get the climate crisis and more slowed. Since we already have an energy overload as well as GHG overload rolling along to cause an 80 ft-25 mt ocean rise by 4,000 AD according to report in New Scientist online Environment section, June21, we need to be developing a program that can remove energy and GHGs principally carbon dioxide from the overloads. In numerous blog comments, I have outlined a pyrolysis program to use the massive messes of human organic wastes and sewage solids as a resource in the climate crisis and more because the messes have about 50% of the carbon converted to inert charcoal. A distillate expelled in the process contains the other 50% in a collectable oil that can be refined to use as a renewable fuel for the process or as a raw material for chemical manufacturing for drugs, soaps etc.. By doing this with those messes, we stop them from getting dumped to then undergo natural biodegrading to be reemitting GHGs, mainly carbon dioxide, but also methane. The pyrolysis of those messes has perhaps an even bigger benefit in the destroying of germs, toxics and drugs in the messes to greatly reduce costs for new dumps not having those hazards present and greatly reducing escapes of those hazards to cause water pollution. I have detailed this in many comments on the GreenInc NYTimes blog including comment #1 on the June 29 posting concerning views of Sweden's Environment Minister. If you search my name on that blog, you will find more details about using pyrolysis as well as the reasons why CCS for coal will never work. It is time to stop flashing all kinds of data on how and where we are emitting GHGs and making up scenarios about what will happen if we do something, but what just cut emissions, or don't. Unfortunately, all that gets talked about is getting control of emissions(It seems no one recognizes the emissions from those messes as being controllable) with no means being proposed to some removal of the carbon dioxide and energy in the overloads We need action to remove some part of those overloads, and these kinds of footprint reports do not bring about any meaningful action as the squabbling recently making news now at the G8 meeting shows that no one can make much sense of the various almost useless emission control proposals. I hope that readers here will join with me in trying to get attention to the use of the pyrolysis process on the messes for the benefits indicated. Dr. J. Singmaster, Environmental Toxicologist, Ret., Fremont CA, USA Talking about carbon footprints with lots of figures does nothing to get the climate crisis and more slowed. Since we already have an energy overload as well as GHG overload rolling along to cause an 80 ft-25 mt ocean rise by 4,000 AD according to report in New Scientist online Environment section, June21, we need to be developing a program that can remove energy and GHGs principally carbon dioxide from the overloads.
In numerous blog comments, I have outlined a pyrolysis program to use the massive messes of human organic wastes and sewage solids as a resource in the climate crisis and more because the messes have about 50% of the carbon converted to inert charcoal. A distillate expelled in the process contains the other 50% in a collectable oil that can be refined to use as a renewable fuel for the process or as a raw material for chemical manufacturing for drugs, soaps etc.. By doing this with those messes, we stop them from getting dumped to then undergo natural biodegrading to be reemitting GHGs, mainly carbon dioxide, but also methane. The pyrolysis of those messes has perhaps an even bigger benefit in the destroying of germs, toxics and drugs in the messes to greatly reduce costs for new dumps not having those hazards present and greatly reducing escapes of those hazards to cause water pollution. I have detailed this in many comments on the GreenInc NYTimes blog including comment #1 on the June 29 posting concerning views of Sweden’s Environment Minister. If you search my name on that blog, you will find more details about using pyrolysis as well as the reasons why CCS for coal will never work.
It is time to stop flashing all kinds of data on how and where we are emitting GHGs and making up scenarios about what will happen if we do something, but what just cut emissions, or don’t. Unfortunately, all that gets talked about is getting control of emissions(It seems no one recognizes the emissions from those messes as being controllable) with no means being proposed to some removal of the carbon dioxide and energy in the overloads We need action to remove some part of those overloads, and these kinds of footprint reports do not bring about any meaningful action as the squabbling recently making news now at the G8 meeting shows that no one can make much sense of the various almost useless emission control proposals.
I hope that readers here will join with me in trying to get attention to the use of the pyrolysis process on the messes for the benefits indicated.
Dr. J. Singmaster, Environmental Toxicologist, Ret., Fremont CA, USA

]]>