How Much CO2 Does My Company Emit?

Get started reducing greenhouse gases

Last year the U.S. emitted seven billion metric tonnes of greenhouse gases (CO₂ equivalent). You could allocate most of that to each of us as consumers (as is done by the carbon footprint calculator in this post). After all, most of it was generated while making and delivering things for consumers. Consumer choices clearly affect global warming pollution.

On the other hand, most of those emissions were produced by industrial and commercial activities. About 1.2 billion tonnes were generated by energy use in residences, and probably another half-billion tonnes by non-commercial transportation (travel by consumers that wasn't commuting to work).

Of the 7 billion tonnes CO₂e the U.S. poured out last year, about 5.4 billion was emitted by businesses, offices, factories, farms, commercial transportation, and related business activities. (This does not include the indirect emissions associated with imported products or raw materials.) U.S. businesses had about 136.7 million employees in 2006, so that's roughly 40 tonnes per employee. You can do a first approximation of your firm's emissions.

40 tonnes CO₂e per employee

These emissions came mainly from the following sources associated with your business:

• Generation and delivery, or on-site generation of electricity, steam and process heat you used in your operations, including offices and production.
• Transportation used by your employees to get to and from their jobs.
• Energy embodied in water, paper and other supplies used at your facilities.
• Combustion of liquid fuels at your sites.
• Delivery of raw materials to your facilities.
• Distribution of finished products to your customers.
• Emissions from waste from your offices and production sites.
• Business travel by your employees, including sales calls.

The exact mix of where CO₂e is emitted in your business requires some analysis. You also want to identify "low hanging fruit"--energy uses where reducing CO₂e emissions is easy. There are consultants who can help you do this, and we are compiling a list. But in the meantime you might try this walkthrough approach outlined by The Carbon Trust (pdf from The Carbon Trust site; copy on our site).

Often the wasted energy spotted in such a walkthrough can amount to 10-20% of total energy use in a building. That goes to the bottom line. And it reduces greenhouse gas emissions immediately. These early savings may pay for professional assistance with more complicated analysis. You're on your way.

---

Start Your Business Reducing Greenhouse Gases

Emissions Won't Decline If Business Doesn't Help

Last year the U.S. emitted seven billion metric tonnes of greenhouse gases (CO₂ equivalent). You could allocate most of that to each of us as consumers. After all, most of it was generated while making and delivering things for consumers. Consumer choices clearly affect global warming pollution. On the other hand, most of those emissions were produced by industrial and commercial activities. About 1.2 billion tonnes were generated by energy use in residences, and probably another half-billion tonnes by non-commercial transportation (travel by consumers that wasn't commuting to work).

Of the 7 billion tonnes CO₂e the U.S. poured out last year, about 5.4 billion was emitted by businesses, offices, factories, farms, commercial transportation, and related business activities. (This does not include the indirect emissions associated with imported products or raw materials.) U.S. businesses had about 136.7 million employees in 2006, so that's roughly 40 tonnes per employee. You can do a first approximation of your firm's emissions.

40 tonnes CO₂e per employee

These emissions came mainly from the following sources associated with your business:

• Generation and delivery, or on-site generation, of electricity, steam and process heat you used in your operations, including offices and production.
• Transportation used by your employees to get to and from their jobs.
• Energy embodied in water, paper and other supplies used at your facilities.
• Combustion of liquid fuels at your sites.
• Delivery of raw materials to yourfacilities.
• Distribution of finished products to your customers.
• Emissions from waste from your offices and production sites.
• Business travel by your employees, including sales calls.

The exact mix of where CO₂e is emitted in your business requires some analysis. You also want to identify "low hanging fruit"—energy uses where reducing CO₂e emissions is easy. There are consultants who can help you do this, and we are compiling a list. But in the meantime you might try this walkthrough approach outlined by The Carbon Trust (pdf copy on our site). Often the wasted energy spotted in such a walkthrough can amount to 10-20% of total energy use in a building. That goes to the bottom line. And it reduces greenhouse gas emissions immediately. These early savings may pay for professional assistance with more complicated analysis. You're on your way.

JUCCCE Brings Energy Technology to China

The Joint U.S.-China Cooperation on Clean Energy (JUCCCE)

JUCCCE is a non-profit organization focused on helping China accelerate 30 years of world experience and development in energy into 10 years. JUCCCE advisors makeup a network of multi-disciplinary leaders in energy efficiency and clean energy supply within China and the US.

"The heart of an NGO, the mind of a venture capitalist."

"The JUCCCE approach is strategic yet tactical. Our advisors have identified a roadmap of programs that will deliver near-term results with greatest impact, including green buildings, an efficient industrial sector, smart transportation, cleaner coal and renewable energy. Our programs focus on accelerating information flow within a rapidly changing market, creating models for more energy efficient physical systems, and expanding opportunities for commercialization, technology transfer, sales and implementation of products locally."

"The name JUCCCE, pronounced "juice", stands for:

• 聚思 (Jù Sī) "A Coalition of Thinkers"
• Cooperation
• Cleaner fuel
• Inspiring people to make a change
• Juicing up the energy markets
• Accelerating us into a better future"

JUCCCE's three approaches are:

• Accelerating information
• Integrated urban design
• On-line one-stop marketplace of energy solutions for China

In this video Peggy Liu, JUCCCE Chairperson, explains its goals and approach.



JUCCCE wants you to contact them at volunteer@juccce.com if you are interested in volunteering to help. In particular they are looking for

• English to Chinese website/document translation
• HTML coding & editing
• Videography editing

---

Should You Carbon-Label Your Products?

Does Carbon Labelling Reduce Carbon Emissions?

Labeling products with information about how much greenhouse gas was emitted in the product's production, processing and distribution is at a very early stage of development. It is a huge commitment of resources to develop an accurate analysis for even one product.

Consumers do not seem to understand the carbon labels that have been piloted. They may be more misleading than helpful, even assuming they can be made accurate.

For example, Boots the Chemists developed a carbon footprint analysis for one of its brands of shampoo indicating that 160 grams of greenhouse gases were released in its manufacture (including the manufacture of its ingredients and packaging) and distribution. However, the consumer is going to take it home and cause the emission of kilograms of CO₂ every time he or she uses the product. The carbon cost of heating water for the shower dwarfs the carbon cost of the blob of shampoo used (actually, of its packaging--that's the carbon-intensive part). Even if you rinse and repeat.

Carbon labeling may make the consumer feel better, just like labeling your product as made from hemp and/or bamboo, which the consumer somehow feels are environmentally friendly materials. It is more a part of image management than of carbon management.

Better to look at your operations and improve energy and materials efficiency.

Keep in mind this possibility: After you go to all the trouble and expense of measuring carbon costs and labelling your products, will your carbon labels compare favorably with those of your competitors? There are some strategic questions here about how green you can get compared to competitors, and whether it makes sense to compete on that basis when consumers can see actual numbers.

If consumers do learn to look for carbon labels, will they become a marketing advantage? This will favor large companies, since it may cost tens of millions to develop, calculate, and apply such labels to a range of products. In the long run such labels may become as common as nutrition labels are today--indeed much more common since they could be applied to all products. They might even come to be required, as nutrition labels are. However, that is decades in the future.

That said, the type of life-cycle analysis of products undertaken to develop carbon labels could be very useful to a company as it identifies high-leverage points for carbon reduction. In the case of Boots' shampoo mentioned above, the analysis suggested incorporating recycled PET into the bottles, and adopting reusable plastic bins rather than cardboard cartons for bulk distribution to stores, and other distribution improvements. These changes reduced the life-cycle (not counting consumer use) carbon emissions of the shampoo by 20%.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% is a substantial win, if it can be replicated at reasonable cost. But the label itself is not necessary to achieve this.

For more information about the carbon labelling issue check these links:

Carbon Trust launches Carbon Reduction Label
Tesco to 'carbon label' its products
Tesco briefing paper (pdf) by UK Energy Research Centre
CarbonCounted's alternative system

---

tags: greenhouse gas emissions, green, carbon choices, carbon footprint, business, carbon label

JUCCCE Brings Energy Technology to China

The Joint U.S.-China Cooperation on Clean Energy (JUCCCE)

JUCCCE is a non-profit organization focused on helping China accelerate 30 years of world experience and development in energy into 10 years. JUCCCE advisors makeup a network of multi-disciplinary leaders in energy efficiency and clean energy supply within China and the US. "The heart of an NGO, the mind of a venture capitalist."

"The JUCCCE approach is strategic yet tactical. Our advisors have identified a roadmap of programs that will deliver near-term results with greatest impact, including green buildings, an efficient industrial sector, smart transportation, cleaner coal and renewable energy. Our programs focus on accelerating information flow within a rapidly changing market, creating models for more energy efficient physical systems, and expanding opportunities for commercialization, technology transfer, sales and implementation of products locally." "The name JUCCCE, pronounced "juice", stands for:

• 聚思 (Jù Sī) "A Coalition of Thinkers"
• Cooperation
• Cleaner fuel
• Inspiring people to make a change
• Juicing up the energy markets
• Accelerating us into a better future"

JUCCCE's three approaches are:

• Accelerating information
• Integrated urban design
• On-line one-stop marketplace of energy solutions for China

In this video Peggy Liu, JUCCCE Chairperson, explains its goals and approach.



JUCCCE wants you to contact them at volunteer@juccce.com if you are interested in volunteering to help. In particular they are looking for

• English to Chinese website/document translation
• HTML coding & editing
• Videography editing

---

This is reposted from the defunct blog Development Entrepreneur News.

You And Your Family Can Cut Carbon Emissions at Home

How you can cut your greenhouse gas output

There are many sites with lists of wonderful things you can do to reduce your personal carbon footprint. (Save and reuse shopping bags, for example.) Unfortunately many of those suggestions will make next to no difference at all in the quantity of greenhouse gases you and your family produce in and around your home. Recycling, for example, is fine--but it will make hardly any difference in your carbon footprint. You have got to do things that really matter.

The three steps toward a reduced-CO₂ home

1. Contact your representatives in national, regional and local government and make clear to them that you feel global climate disruption is a serious problem. Keep contacting them. Vote to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's the only way. Do not neglect this vital step.
2. Do an energy audit of your home. Your utility can recommend an auditor or you can do it yourself with online tools like The Home Energy Saver. This will provide a baseline and suggest actions you can take.
   
3. Start making improvements. This is especially important when planning renovations or buying new appliances. The average home generates about four tonnes of CO₂ per person living there, but a lot depends on where it is and what kind of home it is (size, age, construction, multifamily or singlefamily etc.) You will probably be able to reduce your greenhouse gas emissions from your home by 10-30%.
   

Other things to consider

• Buy "green tags" to help fund the development of renewable power sources. This will not reduce your greenhouse gas emissions. It is more like a donation, a voluntary tax.
• Purchase "carbon offsets" to fund new power sources and mitigation projects. But these won't cut your CO₂ output.
  
• Check with your utility and see if you can pay a higher rate to encourage the development of additional renewable sources. Again, your carbon footprint remains the same. Here is a state-by-state list of such programs.
  
• Don't complain when utilities raise rates when "cap and trade" systems or carbon taxes are implemented. You will finally be paying closer to what the power you use costs the planet. You probably pay for garbage collection and sewer systems--why should you continue to use the atmosphere as a sewer for the CO₂ your power consumption entails? Making these costs explicit is what is going to help us avoid climate catastrophe.
• Think about eating less meat, especially beef and pork. I haven't done the math on this but the energy costs of raising and processing meat animals and transporting the meat to you is substantial. (One study suggested that the meat portion of the average American diet adds 1.5 tonnes of CO₂e compared to a vegetarian diet. I am looking into this more.) [Update 13 April 2012: This study suggests people in developed countries would have to cut meat consumption 50% to avoid excessive climate change.]
• Realize that where you live and how big your home is has profound effects on your carbon footprint. A typical home in Cambridge, Mass., Des Moines, Iowa, or Phoenix, Arizona generates almost three times as much CO₂ as an average home in San Francisco.
  

Visualize a world in 2050 producing less than half the greenhouse gases we do today. Visualize developed countries producing 15% of what they emit today.

How Much Greenhouse Gas Emission Is Too Much?

How much will you have to cut your emissions?

Do you believe some people have a greater right to pollute than others? If so, you can stop reading right here.

But maybe a student in America, a sarariman in Japan, a bureaucrat in Brussels and a farmer in India each have an equal right to generate greenhouse gases. Each has a right to aspire to a good life, and will need to live within the greenhouse gas emission limits needed to keep the Earth from tipping into climate-change catastrophe.

So use a carbon footprint calculator to estimate your current emissions. (There is one here, and another here; remember to come back.) Add up all your emissions sources (car, home, flights).

Then compare your results (in metric tonnes of 2205 lb.) with the emissions of others, and with the targets humankind is going to have to achieve on a percapita basis.



We each have a lot of adjusting to do.

"We are what is wrong, and we must make it right."--Al Gore

Nobel Committee salutes global warming campaigners

"By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control." (From Nobel press release.)

In his award speech today Professor Ole Danbolt Mjøs, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, connected global warming with peace by noting the grave potential threats not only to individual security, but the potential for international and civil strife as the impacts of climate change multiply. "The Norwegian Nobel Committee rarely raises its voice. Our style is largely sober. But it is a long time since the committee was concerned with such fundamental questions as this year," he said.

In his speech to the assembled dignitaries Mr. Gore said, among other things, "Vi som tilhører menneskeslekten står overfor en verdensomspennende krisesituasjon - en trussel mot vår sivilisasjons overlevelse som fortsetter å bygge opp et illevarslende og ødeleggende potensiale mens vi er samlet her. Men det finnes jo også fortrøstningsfulle nyheter: Vi har muligheten til å løse denne krisen og unngå de verste – om enn ikke alle – dens følger hvis vi handler med dristighet, besluttsomt og raskt."

Mr. Gore also said:

We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war. These prior struggles for survival were won when leaders found words at the 11^th hour that released a mighty surge of courage, hope and readiness to sacrifice for a protracted and mortal challenge.
These were not comforting and misleading assurances that the threat was not real or imminent; that it would affect others but not ourselves; that ordinary life might be lived even in the presence of extraordinary threat; that Providence could be trusted to do for us what we would not do for ourselves.
No, these were calls to come to the defense of the common future. They were calls upon the courage, generosity and strength of entire peoples, citizens of every class and condition who were ready to stand against the threat once asked to do so. Our enemies in those times calculated that free people would not rise to the challenge; they were, of course, catastrophically wrong.
Now comes the threat of climate crisis – a threat that is real, rising, imminent, and universal. Once again, it is the 11th hour. The penalties for ignoring this challenge are immense and growing, and at some near point would be unsustainable and unrecoverable. For now we still have the power to choose our fate, and the remaining question is only this: Have we the will to act vigorously and in time, or will we remain imprisoned by a dangerous illusion?

You can read Mr. Gore's speech (in English or Norwegian) here, or even watch a video of it. The speech of Dr. Rajendra K Pachauri, who accepted the prize on behalf of co-winner The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, of which he is Chairman, is here.

---

tags: global warming, climate change, carbon choices, green, Al Gore, Nobel prize, IPCC

If They Can Make It There--Be As Green As NYC

Is New York City really the greenest in the land?

A few years ago David Owen wrote a piece for The New Yorker asserting, "By the most significant measures, New York is the greenest community in the United States, and one of the greenest cities in the world." (PDF version here--worth a read.) [Update: Owen has expanded his article into a book, Green Metropolis.]

Earlier this year NYC completed its first greenhouse gas emissions inventory (PDF report here). It showed that in 2005 the city emitted 58.3 million metric tonnes of greenhouse gases on a CO₂ equivalent basis. That's 7.1 tonnes CO₂e for every man, woman and child in the city. The average for the whole country is 24.5 tonnes per person.

If the rest of the residents of the U.S. could cut their greenhouse gas output to the level achieved by New Yorkers, that would be a two-thirds reduction in national emissions. Admittedly that isn't 80% below 1990 levels, but it shows what is possible. And New Yorkers don't use any special technology. They just don't drive as much (good public transit) and they live in more densely packed housing, close to where they work.

Per capita CO2e emissions of select cities and the United States. From NYC inventory report (pdf).

How is your city doing? Read about the Cities for Climate Protection™ (CCP) Campaign.

---

tags: global warming, climate change, carbon choices, greenhouse gas emissions, CO₂, green

Why We Care About Global Warming

We Can Challenge Climate Change

We who participate in this site probably believe things like this:

• There are lots of critical issues and concerns we could be active about, but addressing climate change is the most pressing.
• Yes, I too am concerned about people who don't pick up after their dogs, war, poverty, the problems of our educational system, political venality, corruption, the Doha round, the high costs of health care, the upcoming or recently past election, and a lot of other things. But the potential impact of global climate change dominates all of these.
• If we all stay on the greenhouse-gas-emissions path we are on today, then by 2050 global warming will certainly have passed 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. As we pass 2° and head toward 3°, 4° or even 5° of warming major disruption of global and regional climate and economic systems becomes inevitable. We don't want to go there.
• It is not too late. If we can reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to 50% of 1990 levels by 2050 then the climate should reach equilibrium at about 2°C above preindustrial levels.
• Since the emissions of the developing world will continue to increase inexorably for the next decade or two before they can start to fall, the developed world will have to cut emissions very deeply. Rich countries will have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels. Eventually developing countries will have to cut their emissions to 20% below 1990 levels.
• This makes sense, since developed countries emit much more today than developing countries do, when measured on a per capita basis. But even if the developed countries cut their emissions to zero, continuing increases in developing country emissions would push us past the 2° mark by mid-century. And the people of developing countries generally have the most to lose from uncontrolled global warming.
• We can't wait for politicians to act for us on this. We must lead by taking action ourselves to reduce emissions associated with our lifestyles, our companies and their products, and our cities and towns.
• Action must be timely and effective. There is no more time to waste on boondoggles.
  
• One purpose of this site is to bring together meaningful analysis, information, and recommendations to enable people and businesses to take concrete steps to challenge climate change.
  

---

tags: global warming, climate change, carbon choices, greenhouse gas emissions, CO₂, green, community

The Many Shades of "Green"

What does "Green" mean?

There are lots of things people have tried or recommended to be more "green". Here is a short list with my comments. Some "green" actions don't have the impact you might hope:

Action	Climate Impact
Walk instead of drive	Significant
Use shared transport instead of driving alone	Significant
Buy a hybrid vehicle	Depends on what mileage it gets and how much you drive (and maybe on what you do with your old vehicle)
Recycle	Negligible? Has anyone done the math on this?
Use recycled products	Depends. Some recycled products could be as energy-intensive as virgin-raw-material products.
Install some CFLs	Helpful but not huge.
Live in California or somewhere where electricity rates have been decoupled	Significant--Californians use significantly less electricity per capita.
Buy carbon offsets	Dubious. Much debate. Impact probably minor. (Anybody have a way to evaluate this?)
Buy locally produced agricultural products	Depends. Distance is a poor measure of emissions per pound in transport. Also need to evaluate energy intensity of production. Roses grown in New York are much more energy intensive than those grown in Colombia, even counting transport (I think).
Use more ethanol (by buying a flex-fuel vehicle and fueling it with E85)	1. Depends on the mileage and use of the vehicle. E85 is still 15% gasoline. 2. Depends on where you are. Ethanol produced from maize in North America probably doesn't reduce greenhouse gas emissions much compared to gasoline. In Brazil using cane ethanol the benefit is clear.
Become a vegetarian	I don't know. Anyone done the math on this one?
Move to Manhattan	Significant. New York City is the most energy efficient city in North America, by some measures.

Compact Fluorescent Lamps -- The Shape of Things to Come

Compact Fluorescent Lights Make a Difference

One of the easiest ways to save energy, save money, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to use compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) instead of old-fashioned incandescent bulbs.

Compact fluorescent bulbs use between a fifth and a quarter as much electricity to produce the same amount of light. They also last six times as long or more. (For hard-to-reach bulbs this is a real advantage. Take it from someone who has to climb a ladder and stand on the top step to reach some of the fixtures in my home.)

True, CFLs look a little different from traditional bulbs. But I am sure that when they were first introduced light bulbs looked weird to people who were used to gas jets. And you can get CFLs that have a globe around them and look more like a bulb.

Here are some of the pros and cons of CFLs:

• They cost more than incandescent bulbs. (But sometimes utilities or others give them away or sell them at a discount.)
• Most of them don't work on a dimmer. Some of the new ones have overcome this problem, but check the packaging carefully if you want to use it on a dimmer switch.
• Some of them give light of a slightly different color than incandescent bulbs do, usually a little less yellow. Newer models are overcoming this problem. They come in both "cool" and "warm" types.
• Most CFLs don't produce their full light output immediately when you turn them on. They may seem dimmer than they should be for the first minute or two. This is why it makes sense to use CFLs mainly where you usually leave the light on for at least 15 minutes at a time.
• Since they contain tiny amounts of mercury (like all fluorescent lights) it is better not to just throw them in the trash. Most places have suggestions for safely disposing of CFLs. Check your local options through this EPA site. Some stores (like IKEA) have a place to drop them off.
• CFLs produce a lot less heat than equivalent incandescent bulbs. You can put your hand on a lighted CFL and not burn yourself. That's good if you are using air conditioning, but not as good if you are heating the house in winter. In most residential situations this shouldn't make much difference. You will notice that lamps are much cooler to the touch. (My desk lamp here is hardly even warm.) This is great for lights you need close to your work.
• They come in most of the same sizes and types as incandescent bulbs. You can even get them for "3-way" lamps.
• Since they take a lot less electricity, if you have a fixture that says "60 Watt Max." and you want more light out of it, you can get it. A 14-Watt CFL gives as much light as a 60-Watt incandescent bulb. A 20-Watt CFL is as bright as a 75-Watt regular bulb.
• They save money on electricity. (According to the calculator on the One Billion Bulbs site I am saving more than $100 per year.)
• They last much, much longer.
• Since they need less electricity, they reduce the greenhouse gas emissions you cause. (I am cutting my emissions by half a ton per year.)
• They show you care, yet they are much cheaper than a Prius.

So next time you have to replace a light bulb, consider using a compact fluorescent. You'll be saving money and helping the environment. That's green living.

(For more information about CFLs try the Energy Star site. If you want to join others in making the switch, check out the One Billion Bulbs project.)