Recently, after hearing claims of Carbon Neutral, Netzero, products, services, facilities, I untertook some research, and to quote one verifier,working for a veriying body, as far as most carbon offsets go, "Its the Wild West Out there. Not the work of V/VBs, which audit green house gass emisson reports. The Verifying part of the process seems to be very effctive.
But when it comes to buying carbon offserts by voluntary reporters, no clear standard has emerged.
This 2008 Artricle still seems to hold true....
-Editor
Who Regulates Retail Offsets?
By re. Aere"lice Kenny
Publiary reporting and the purchase of Carbon Offsets, shed March 05, 2008
The company you work for has just gone carbon neutral, but how do you -- as an individual -- know which retail offsets really reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The Federal Trade Commission and a handful of private initiatives are working on answers, and the Ecosystem Marketplace takes stock of their progress.
Matthew Kotchen was preparing to speak on a subject he knows all too well when he received an e-mail he's seen all too often.
"Go without guilt," the e-mail offered. "Go Zero!"
It came just after Kotchen, a University of California environmental economics professor, had booked a 5,020-mile round-trip flight to Washington, D.C., where he was to speak at a workshop on regulating the integrity of the voluntary carbon offset market.
The sponsor of that workshop was the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Kotchen knew as he read the message that this was just the sort of ad the FTC was preparing to address. The ad may have been valid, but the FTC arranged its workshop because buyers of retail offsets -- even informed buyers such as Kotchen -- have little way of knowing whether or not the products they purchase actually reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses, despite all the rigorous methodologies and protocols for developing offset projects, and despite the existence of several registries designed to prevent the same offsets from being sold two or three times.
The workshop Kotchen took part in was the first in a series the FTC is hosting to address the legitimacy of retail carbon offsets under its consumer protection mandate. But this mandate only gives the FTC authority to ensure that advertised claims are true -- a difficult enough task under most circumstances, but one that becomes downright impossible when no one can agree on a definition of the product.
"How can you regulate such an amorphous market when people within it don't know what it is?" asked Hampton Newsome, the attorney who moderated the workshop.
The Retail Challenge
Individuals who decide to go carbon neutral have several tools at their disposal -- from purchasing "compliance" offsets and "retiring" them to purchasing "voluntary" offsets.
Compliance offsets have the advantage of being created using government-approved methodologies and protocols -- the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) being the prime example.
The bulk of retail offsets, however, are voluntary offsets that operate in a regulatory gray zone where no governments or regulatory agencies dictate the standards voluntary projects have to follow. The private sector already developed a whopping 21 different standards for voluntary offsets, but retail providers aren't forced by law to follow any of them -- and retail buyers rarely understand the complexities of standards and protocols well enough to know which ones have the respect of the industry and which do not.
As for the FTC, Newsome says that all it can do under its consumer protection mandate is ensure the advertising of offsets is correct.
The result is a largely unregulated $91 million voluntary carbon market, as documented in State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2007: Picking Up Steam (PDF), a 2007 Ecosystem Marketplace study.
Compliance as Catalyst
Where, then, will the white knight come from to put muscle in this market and ensure its validity?
Most market watchers say that only a regulated U.S. market similar to EU ETS can completely legitimize the voluntary market. This is in part because a cap on the entire power sector forces companies to actually replace dirty generation with clean generation and reduce overall emissions if they are to claim offsets, while the lack of such a cap makes it possible to expand the energy grid in a clean way and still claim offsets, even though such an expansion might increase emissions overall.
Until that happens, however, improved FTC monitoring of deceptive advertisements could be valuable during the transition towards a regulated U.S. market, said fellow workshop speaker Wiley Barbour, director of Environmental Resources Trust in Washington, D.C., a company that evaluates the worth of potential carbon offsets.
"But we have to keep our eye on the prize," he says. "How do we design this market right now so that the transition is smooth (while) on the brink of a completely different approach to emissions?"
The San Francisco-based non-profit Center for Resource Solutions (CRS) has launched a retail certification process called Green-e Climate that puts its seal of approval on projects developed in accordance with a limited number of standards.
Like Counting Calories
Green-e Climate launched on February 26. It is the second time CRS launched a Green-e certification program. The first, which applies to renewable energy projects, has been up and running for a decade.
Jasmine Hyman is marketing director of one of the standards Green-e Climate recognizes: the Gold Standard. This recognizes both voluntary standards and those developed under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), another of the three standards Green-e Climate recognizes. The third is the newly-hatched Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS).
Green-e Climate also recognizes offsets from renewable energy projects that meet Green-e's own standards and have not already been covered with Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs).
The standards that Green-e endorses were agreed on over two years of consultation with stakeholders, a company spokesperson said.
Hyman makes it clear that Green-e doesn't compete with existing standards. Instead, it acts as an "umbrella" for those it encompasses. "There are lots of standards that feed Green-e," she says, "and it gives them clarity."
The cornerstone of the new effort is a label that will tell consumers what type of project methodologies and protocols the offset was developed under, as well which standard it follows and where the offsets are registered.
"We're not interested in developing project protocols for all the different projects out there," adds CRS's Lars Kvale. "We are looking to endorse existing project-level protocols and standards that are legitimate, transparent, and that have stakeholder involvement."
Retailers looking to get the certification -- and the label that comes with it -- have to pay a $6,000 administration fee and agree to be audited by a Certified Public Accountant (CPA). They also agree to place all documents relating to all projects they offer on the Green-e web site and to give CRS the right to file a lawsuit if the information proves to be misleading.
Then there's Austin-based EnviroMedia, a self-proclaimed "green" advertising company that introduced Greenwashingindex.com at the end of January to coincide with the FTC hearings. This site lets consumers rate and receive report cards on green marketing campaigns.
"If I were a betting person," said the company's founder, Valerie Davis, "I'd say that most consumers do not know what offsets mean." The site's goal, she continued, is to empower consumers to differentiate between quality and false claims of carbon neutrality and other green ads.
In addition to these private initiatives, several government efforts have been undertaken to shed light on the issue. The FTC, for example, held the workshop Kotchen attended to examine whether its "Green Guides", launched in 1998 to evaluate the legitimacy of environmental claims, should be updated in light of the new market for voluntary carbon trading.
Kvale welcomes that initiative -- and says he would like to incorporate the FTC's guidelines into Green-e's. "That's what we did with the power market," he says. "The FTC had finalized its guidance on green claims in 2002, and the national association of attorneys general issued guidance on renewable energy claims around then, too. The guidance they came out with became our code of conduct for renewable energy, and we see the same role for the FTC in carbon."
The Future of U.S. Regulation
Ultimately, however, the consensus for improving the retail market is to implement a mandatory cap-and-trade carbon market for the U.S. which could then serve as a prototype for its voluntary-market competitor. Such a market would likely be modeled after its European counterpart with clearly-defined offsets as well as stringent rules for verification and validation.
This appears imminent. Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) sponsored a joint bill that seeks a 50 percent reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 through a cap-and-trade system. The bill is steadily winning Congressional support, and all major U.S. presidential contenders have endorsed the concept.
"We're at an historic point in time," says Barbour. "(The U.S.) is on the brink of addressing this in a mandatory way ... This has to be a key consideration for everyone in this room ... because it will change the way you think (about the voluntary market.)"
The Cost of Compliance
Kotchen reports that voluntary offsets with third-party certification cost, on average, 50 percent more to implement than do non-certified offsets; but one man's cost is another man's premium.
Tom Boucher, CEO of Vermont-based renewable offset marketer Native Energy, says that as buyers come to understand the markets, they are willing to pay more for validated voluntary offsets. He predicts that a mandatory market will contribute to a "more premium voluntary market for those who want to achieve reductions faster." His customers, he says, already count on his company to verify its claims.
And his customers aren't the kind likely to be subject to mandatory regulations. Instead of energy companies and entities in other sectors most likely to face mandatory caps, he takes on companies already of a green bent looking to promote an eco-friendly approach and image, such as the ice cream company Ben and Jerry's. Moreover, most of his customers seek to offset their carbon footprints completely, he says, and would not be satisfied with the three to 5 percent reductions imposed under current mandatory cap-and-trade programs.
As for Kotchen, he flew back to his teaching job at UCLA. But he has still not decided whether to answer the ad that promised to offset his cross country flight. "It's not easy to figure out whether an offset is valid," he said. Clear standards, information and certification are the keys, he said, to determine whether his money would be well spent. They are also the keys to a smooth transition towards coexisting with a mandatory compliance market.
Alice Kenny is a prize-winning science writer and a regular contributor to the Ecosystem Marketplace, where this article was originally published.
The Rest @ Climatebiz.com
Sunday 30 August 2009
Saturday 29 August 2009
Time and Life Cycle Metrics Carbon Measurement
May 10, 2009
Deep Carbon Footprinting (tm)
I believe that it is time to take product life-cycle carbon footprinting to the next level. Deep Carbon FootprintingTM would look beyond static carbon footprinting, and explicitly consider the dimension of time in every part of a product's life cycle -- production, transportation, use, and disposal.
It would also look at a broader range of biophysical phenomena (including some second-order effects) that could potentially impact a product's real carbon footprint. Deep carbon footprinting is needed to really understand the relative contributions of different stages in a product's life cycle, which is the first step in any attempt to reduce the product's footprint.
Here are a few examples of the types of analyses that would be included in deep carbon footprinting (I'll be offering numerical examples from selected industries/products in future posts):
Consider the wood in a building or in a piece of furniture. The biogenic carbon in that wood is stored in the product as long as the product is in service. When the product (or a part of it) is disposed and landfilled, the wood might decompose aerobically or anaerobically (releasing its biogenic carbon atoms back into the atmosphere as either CO2 or methane) over a short or a long period of time, during which there is continuing but diminishing carbon storage in addition to the GHG emissions.
A similar analysis can apply to a piece of cotton clothing, or any other product that sequesters and then releases biogenic carbon.
Concrete in buildings and infrastructure continually absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere through a process called carbonation. At end of its service life, the concrete might be demolished and then either re-used as concrete aggregate or landfilled. Demolition/crushing increases the available surface area and potentially speeds up the carbonation. If we are looking at a 100-year assessment period, then the concrete would have to be credited with a certain amount of carbon sequestration, starting at 0 and ramping up over time. The carbon credit is not all the CO2 that is ultimately absorbed by the concrete in the 100 years, but a smaller amount that actually reflects the timing of all the absorption.
On a related note, trees planted in a landscape project should not take credit for the total CO2 absorbed over the average growing period of 20 years or so. Any CO2 absorbed in the first year is a lot more valuable than any CO2 absorbed in the 20th year, so the time series of annual CO2 absorption amounts would have to be weighted appropriately based on the year of absorption and then summed together.
(Since the current carbon offset market doesn't consider the time dimension in this manner -- as far as I know -- offset purchasers may well be getting considerably less climate-change-mitigation than what they are paying for!)
Food waste is among the most easily decomposable materials in the waste stream. There is almost always some food waste before cooking and after cooking. Unless it is composted properly, most of the food waste will turn into methane under anaerobic decomposition over time (biogenic carbon released as CO2 very soon after production is climate neutral, but any biogenic carbon that is released as methane is decidedly not neutral unless it is recovered and used as fuel). Once again, the timing is important.
We've seen that this effect can sometimes exceed the transportation impact as far as carbon footprint is concerned.
We are currently incorporating a Deep Carbon FootprintingTM methodology into several new industry-specific carbon footprint tools that are in development. More on this in future posts.
The Rest From Green Metrics, Clean Metrics
Deep Carbon Footprinting (tm)
I believe that it is time to take product life-cycle carbon footprinting to the next level. Deep Carbon FootprintingTM would look beyond static carbon footprinting, and explicitly consider the dimension of time in every part of a product's life cycle -- production, transportation, use, and disposal.
It would also look at a broader range of biophysical phenomena (including some second-order effects) that could potentially impact a product's real carbon footprint. Deep carbon footprinting is needed to really understand the relative contributions of different stages in a product's life cycle, which is the first step in any attempt to reduce the product's footprint.
Here are a few examples of the types of analyses that would be included in deep carbon footprinting (I'll be offering numerical examples from selected industries/products in future posts):
Consider the wood in a building or in a piece of furniture. The biogenic carbon in that wood is stored in the product as long as the product is in service. When the product (or a part of it) is disposed and landfilled, the wood might decompose aerobically or anaerobically (releasing its biogenic carbon atoms back into the atmosphere as either CO2 or methane) over a short or a long period of time, during which there is continuing but diminishing carbon storage in addition to the GHG emissions.
A similar analysis can apply to a piece of cotton clothing, or any other product that sequesters and then releases biogenic carbon.
Concrete in buildings and infrastructure continually absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere through a process called carbonation. At end of its service life, the concrete might be demolished and then either re-used as concrete aggregate or landfilled. Demolition/crushing increases the available surface area and potentially speeds up the carbonation. If we are looking at a 100-year assessment period, then the concrete would have to be credited with a certain amount of carbon sequestration, starting at 0 and ramping up over time. The carbon credit is not all the CO2 that is ultimately absorbed by the concrete in the 100 years, but a smaller amount that actually reflects the timing of all the absorption.
On a related note, trees planted in a landscape project should not take credit for the total CO2 absorbed over the average growing period of 20 years or so. Any CO2 absorbed in the first year is a lot more valuable than any CO2 absorbed in the 20th year, so the time series of annual CO2 absorption amounts would have to be weighted appropriately based on the year of absorption and then summed together.
(Since the current carbon offset market doesn't consider the time dimension in this manner -- as far as I know -- offset purchasers may well be getting considerably less climate-change-mitigation than what they are paying for!)
Food waste is among the most easily decomposable materials in the waste stream. There is almost always some food waste before cooking and after cooking. Unless it is composted properly, most of the food waste will turn into methane under anaerobic decomposition over time (biogenic carbon released as CO2 very soon after production is climate neutral, but any biogenic carbon that is released as methane is decidedly not neutral unless it is recovered and used as fuel). Once again, the timing is important.
We've seen that this effect can sometimes exceed the transportation impact as far as carbon footprint is concerned.
We are currently incorporating a Deep Carbon FootprintingTM methodology into several new industry-specific carbon footprint tools that are in development. More on this in future posts.
The Rest From Green Metrics, Clean Metrics
Friday 28 August 2009
Thursday 27 August 2009
What is a Fugitive Emmision?
I was thinking it's the methane escaping from guys invlolved in a jail break, but I was wrong.
According to Wikipeida, fugitive emissions are emissions of gases or vapors from pressurized equipment due to leaks and various other unintended or irregular releases of gases, mostly from industrial activities. As well as the economic cost of lost commodities, fugitive emissions contribute to air pollution and climate change. A detailed inventory of greenhouse gas emissions from upstream oil and gas activities in Canada for the year 2000 estimated that fugitive equipment leaks had a global warming potential equivalent to the release of 17 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide, or 12 per cent of all greenhouse gases emitted by the sector.[1] Venting of natural gas, flaring, accidental releases and storage losses accounted for an additional 38 per cent.
Fugitive emissions present other risks and hazards. Emissions of volatile organic compounds such as benzene from oil refineries and chemical plants pose a long term health risk to workers and local communities. In situations where large amounts of flammable liquids and gases are contained under pressure, leaks also increase the risk of fire and explosion.
Leaks from pressurized process equipment generally occur through valves, pipe connections, mechanical seals, or related equipment. Fugitive emissions also occur at evaporative sources such as waste water treatment ponds and storage tanks. Because of the large number of potential leak sources at large facilities and the difficulties in detecting and repairing some leaks, fugitive emissions can be a significant proportion of total emissions. Even though the quantities of leaked gases may be small, leaks of gases that have serious health or environmental impacts can cause a significant problem.
To minimize and control leaks at process facilities operators carry out regular leak detection and repair activities. Routine inspections of process equipment with gas detectors can be used to identify leaks and estimate the leak rate in order to decide on appropriate corrective action. Proper routine maintenance of equipment reduces the likelihood of leaks.
Because of the technical difficulties and costs of detecting and quantifying actual fugitive emissions at a site or facility, and the variability and intermittent nature of emission flow rates, bottom-up estimates based on standard emission factors are generally used for annual reporting purposes.
New technologies are under development that could revolutionize the detection and monitoring of fugitive emissions. One technology, known as differential absorption light detection and ranging (DIAL), can be used to remotely measure concentration profiles of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere up to several hundred meters from a facility. DIAL has been used for refinery surveys in Europe for over 15 years. A pilot study carried out in 2005 using DIAL found that actual emissions at a refinery were fifteen times higher than those previously reported using the emission factor approach. The fugitive emissions were equivalent to 0.17% of the refinery throughput.[2]
Portable gas leak imaging cameras are also a new technology that can be used to improve leak detection and repair, leading to reduced fugitive emissions. The cameras use infrared imaging technology to produce video images in which invisible gases escaping from leak sources can be clearly identified.
The introduction to them is covered in Chapter 5.2 of TCR's General Reporting Protocol. There it is called
"The unintentional releases from production, processing, transmission, strage, and usef of fules and other substances" [...that are not vented on purpose and accounted for elsewhere] . ( I added that last part)
-Editor
According to Wikipeida, fugitive emissions are emissions of gases or vapors from pressurized equipment due to leaks and various other unintended or irregular releases of gases, mostly from industrial activities. As well as the economic cost of lost commodities, fugitive emissions contribute to air pollution and climate change. A detailed inventory of greenhouse gas emissions from upstream oil and gas activities in Canada for the year 2000 estimated that fugitive equipment leaks had a global warming potential equivalent to the release of 17 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide, or 12 per cent of all greenhouse gases emitted by the sector.[1] Venting of natural gas, flaring, accidental releases and storage losses accounted for an additional 38 per cent.
Fugitive emissions present other risks and hazards. Emissions of volatile organic compounds such as benzene from oil refineries and chemical plants pose a long term health risk to workers and local communities. In situations where large amounts of flammable liquids and gases are contained under pressure, leaks also increase the risk of fire and explosion.
Leaks from pressurized process equipment generally occur through valves, pipe connections, mechanical seals, or related equipment. Fugitive emissions also occur at evaporative sources such as waste water treatment ponds and storage tanks. Because of the large number of potential leak sources at large facilities and the difficulties in detecting and repairing some leaks, fugitive emissions can be a significant proportion of total emissions. Even though the quantities of leaked gases may be small, leaks of gases that have serious health or environmental impacts can cause a significant problem.
To minimize and control leaks at process facilities operators carry out regular leak detection and repair activities. Routine inspections of process equipment with gas detectors can be used to identify leaks and estimate the leak rate in order to decide on appropriate corrective action. Proper routine maintenance of equipment reduces the likelihood of leaks.
Because of the technical difficulties and costs of detecting and quantifying actual fugitive emissions at a site or facility, and the variability and intermittent nature of emission flow rates, bottom-up estimates based on standard emission factors are generally used for annual reporting purposes.
New technologies are under development that could revolutionize the detection and monitoring of fugitive emissions. One technology, known as differential absorption light detection and ranging (DIAL), can be used to remotely measure concentration profiles of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere up to several hundred meters from a facility. DIAL has been used for refinery surveys in Europe for over 15 years. A pilot study carried out in 2005 using DIAL found that actual emissions at a refinery were fifteen times higher than those previously reported using the emission factor approach. The fugitive emissions were equivalent to 0.17% of the refinery throughput.[2]
Portable gas leak imaging cameras are also a new technology that can be used to improve leak detection and repair, leading to reduced fugitive emissions. The cameras use infrared imaging technology to produce video images in which invisible gases escaping from leak sources can be clearly identified.
The introduction to them is covered in Chapter 5.2 of TCR's General Reporting Protocol. There it is called
"The unintentional releases from production, processing, transmission, strage, and usef of fules and other substances" [...that are not vented on purpose and accounted for elsewhere] . ( I added that last part)
-Editor
Tuesday 25 August 2009
What is Carbon Dioxide Equivalency?
Carbon dioxide equivalency is a quantity that describes, for a given mixture and amount of greenhouse gas, the amount of CO2 that would have the same global warming potential (GWP), when measured over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years).
Carbon dioxide equivalency thus reflects the time-integrated radiative forcing, rather than the instantaneous value described by CO2e.
The carbon dioxide equivalency for a gas is obtained by multiplying the mass and the GWP of the gas. The following units are commonly used:
By the UN climate change panel IPCC: billion metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2eq).
In industry: million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCDE).
For vehicles: g of carbon dioxide equivalents / km (gCDE/km).
For example, the GWP for methane over 100 years is 25 and for nitrous oxide 298.
This means that emissions of 1 million metric tonnes of methane and nitrous oxide respectively is equivalent to emissions of 25 and 298 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide.[1]
The Rest @ Wilkipedia
WOW, I DON'T GET IT PROFESSOR...
Ok, so you take methane, for example mammal emissions (The Real Natural Gas - yes me and you and the cows too) say, one pound of gas after your favorite spicy food, let it float up and around in the atmosphere for 100 years. While its up there, It will reflect the same amount of heat back onto the ground as a lawn mower that emmits 25 pounds of CO2, and IT floats around for 100 years.
Yes the ratio or factor is what is important
1 Methane = 25 CO2
1 Nitrus Oxide = 298 CO2
etc.
So..... All Green House Gases have a CO2 Equivalent, and therefore a Carbon footprint....Did I get this right professor?
-Editor
Carbon dioxide equivalency thus reflects the time-integrated radiative forcing, rather than the instantaneous value described by CO2e.
The carbon dioxide equivalency for a gas is obtained by multiplying the mass and the GWP of the gas. The following units are commonly used:
By the UN climate change panel IPCC: billion metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2eq).
In industry: million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCDE).
For vehicles: g of carbon dioxide equivalents / km (gCDE/km).
For example, the GWP for methane over 100 years is 25 and for nitrous oxide 298.
This means that emissions of 1 million metric tonnes of methane and nitrous oxide respectively is equivalent to emissions of 25 and 298 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide.[1]
The Rest @ Wilkipedia
WOW, I DON'T GET IT PROFESSOR...
Ok, so you take methane, for example mammal emissions (The Real Natural Gas - yes me and you and the cows too) say, one pound of gas after your favorite spicy food, let it float up and around in the atmosphere for 100 years. While its up there, It will reflect the same amount of heat back onto the ground as a lawn mower that emmits 25 pounds of CO2, and IT floats around for 100 years.
Yes the ratio or factor is what is important
1 Methane = 25 CO2
1 Nitrus Oxide = 298 CO2
etc.
So..... All Green House Gases have a CO2 Equivalent, and therefore a Carbon footprint....Did I get this right professor?
-Editor
Verdiem- Network Admins to Manage PC Power Settings, Reduce GHG Emissions
According to a study conducted by Gartner, PCs and monitors account for 40% of all global information technology CO2 emissions. Data centers account for only 23%.
A company named Verdiem, which is based in Seattle, WA is working to cut down energy costs and usage for corporations which save $20-$60 per PC per year and achieve payback in 6-12 months.
So how does their software solution work?
They have a solution call SURVEYOR and its the industry’s most advanced solution for helping enterprises manage, measure and reduce their PC-network energy consumption.
SURVEYOR allows the central administration of power management settings for networked PCs. Intelligent policies maximize energy savings by placing machines into a lower power states without interfering with end-user productivity, desktop maintenance or upgrades.
Green Energy TV gives Verdiem Two Green Thumbs Up! for their software solution that saves energy, money, and the environment. Below are some testimonials:
“WaMu has cut its PC-related greenhouse gas emissions by 65 percent and is on track to save $3 million on electricity costs this year” by implementing Verdiem's SURVEYOR software. (Debora Horvath, CIO, Washington Mutual).
The Rest @ Green TV
A company named Verdiem, which is based in Seattle, WA is working to cut down energy costs and usage for corporations which save $20-$60 per PC per year and achieve payback in 6-12 months.
So how does their software solution work?
They have a solution call SURVEYOR and its the industry’s most advanced solution for helping enterprises manage, measure and reduce their PC-network energy consumption.
SURVEYOR allows the central administration of power management settings for networked PCs. Intelligent policies maximize energy savings by placing machines into a lower power states without interfering with end-user productivity, desktop maintenance or upgrades.
Green Energy TV gives Verdiem Two Green Thumbs Up! for their software solution that saves energy, money, and the environment. Below are some testimonials:
“WaMu has cut its PC-related greenhouse gas emissions by 65 percent and is on track to save $3 million on electricity costs this year” by implementing Verdiem's SURVEYOR software. (Debora Horvath, CIO, Washington Mutual).
The Rest @ Green TV
Sunday 23 August 2009
Thursday 20 August 2009
What is a A renewables portfolio standard (RPS) ?
A renewables portfolio standard (RPS) is a regulation that requires the increased production of energy from renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal. Another common name for the same concept is renewable electricity standard (RES).
The RPS mechanism generally places an obligation on electricity supply companies to produce a specified fraction of their electricity from renewable energy sources.
Those supporting the adoption of RPS mechanisms claim that market implementation will result in competition, efficiency and innovation that will deliver renewable energy at the lowest possible cost, allowing renewable energy to compete with cheaper fossil fuel energy sources.[1].
RPS-type mechanisms have been adopted in Britain, Italy and Belgium, as well as in 27 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
Regulations vary from state to state, and there is no federal policy. Four of the 29 states have voluntary rather than mandatory goals. Together these 27 states account for more than 42 percent of the electricity sales in the United States.[2]
It is worth noting that RPS mechanisms have tended to be most successful in stimulating new renewable energy capacity in the United States where they have been used in combination with federal Production Tax Credits (PTC).
In periods, where PTC have been withdrawn the RPS alone has often proven to be insufficient stimulus to incentivise large volumes of capacity.[citation needed]
The Edison Electric Institute, a trade association for America’s investor-owned utilities, has taken a stand against a nationwide RPS, saying it would “raise consumers’ electricity prices and create inequities among states.”[3]
In 2009, the US Congress has been considering Federal level RPS requirements. The "American Clean Energy Leadership Act" reported out of committee in July by the Senate Committee on Energy ; Natural Resources includes a Renewable Electricity Standard that calls for 3% of U.S. electrical generation to come from non-hydro renewables by 2011-2013.[4]
The Rest @ Wikipedia
The RPS mechanism generally places an obligation on electricity supply companies to produce a specified fraction of their electricity from renewable energy sources.
- Certified renewable energy generators earn certificates for every unit of electricity they produce
- They can sell these along with their electricity to supply companies.
- Supply companies then pass the certificates to some form of regulatory body to demonstrate their compliance with their regulatory obligations.
Those supporting the adoption of RPS mechanisms claim that market implementation will result in competition, efficiency and innovation that will deliver renewable energy at the lowest possible cost, allowing renewable energy to compete with cheaper fossil fuel energy sources.[1].
RPS-type mechanisms have been adopted in Britain, Italy and Belgium, as well as in 27 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
Regulations vary from state to state, and there is no federal policy. Four of the 29 states have voluntary rather than mandatory goals. Together these 27 states account for more than 42 percent of the electricity sales in the United States.[2]
It is worth noting that RPS mechanisms have tended to be most successful in stimulating new renewable energy capacity in the United States where they have been used in combination with federal Production Tax Credits (PTC).
In periods, where PTC have been withdrawn the RPS alone has often proven to be insufficient stimulus to incentivise large volumes of capacity.[citation needed]
The Edison Electric Institute, a trade association for America’s investor-owned utilities, has taken a stand against a nationwide RPS, saying it would “raise consumers’ electricity prices and create inequities among states.”[3]
In 2009, the US Congress has been considering Federal level RPS requirements. The "American Clean Energy Leadership Act" reported out of committee in July by the Senate Committee on Energy ; Natural Resources includes a Renewable Electricity Standard that calls for 3% of U.S. electrical generation to come from non-hydro renewables by 2011-2013.[4]
The Rest @ Wikipedia
Wednesday 19 August 2009
CEPA Air Resources Board GHG Inventories
The California greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory compiles statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions and sinks. It includes estimates for carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). The current inventory covers years 2000 to 2006.
Data sources include California and federal agencies, international organizations, and industry associations. The calculation methodologies are consistent with IPCC guidance. The current inventory uses global warming potential (GWP) from the IPCC Second Assessment Report to be compatible with the national inventory. Full documentation of data sources and methods is available to the public on this web site.
2000-2006 inventory by Scoping Plan category - Summary [PDF-29 KB]
2000-2006 inventory by IPCC category - Full Detail [PDF-147 KB]
2000-2006 inventory by IPCC category - Full Detail [Excel-393 KB]
2000-2006 inventory by IPCC category - Summary [PDF-43 KB]
2000-2006 inventory by economic sector - Full Detail [PDF-158 KB]
2000-2006 inventory by economic sector - Full Detail [Excel-293 KB]
Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry - Net CO2 Flux [PDF-83 KB
The Rest @ The Air Resources Board
Data sources include California and federal agencies, international organizations, and industry associations. The calculation methodologies are consistent with IPCC guidance. The current inventory uses global warming potential (GWP) from the IPCC Second Assessment Report to be compatible with the national inventory. Full documentation of data sources and methods is available to the public on this web site.
2000-2006 inventory by Scoping Plan category - Summary [PDF-29 KB]
2000-2006 inventory by IPCC category - Full Detail [PDF-147 KB]
2000-2006 inventory by IPCC category - Full Detail [Excel-393 KB]
2000-2006 inventory by IPCC category - Summary [PDF-43 KB]
2000-2006 inventory by economic sector - Full Detail [PDF-158 KB]
2000-2006 inventory by economic sector - Full Detail [Excel-293 KB]
Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry - Net CO2 Flux [PDF-83 KB
The Rest @ The Air Resources Board
Monday 17 August 2009
Chicago Climate Exchange
Welcome to CCX: We are a financial institution whose objectives are to apply financial innovation and incentives to advance social, environmental and economic goals through the following platforms.
- Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is North America's only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.(learn more)
- Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFE) is a landmark derivatives exchange that currently offers standardized and cleared futures and options contracts on emission allowances and other environmental products. CCFE is a wholly owned subsidiary of CCX. (Visit CCFE's website)
The Climate Action Reserve is a National Offsets Program
The Climate Action Reserve is a national offsets program focused on ensuring environmental integrity of GHG emissions reduction projects to create and support financial and environmental value in the U.S. carbon market.
It does this by
It does this by
- Establishing high-quality standards for quantifying and verifying GHG emissions reduction projects,
- Overseeing independent third party verification bodies,
- Issuing carbon credits generated from such projects
- Tracking the credits over time on a transparent, publicly-accessible system.
Learn more about our program
The Climate Action Reserve’s GHG emissions reduction Project Protocols provide regulatory-quality guidelines for project development and the quantification of carbon offset credits, known as Climate Reserve Tonnes (CRT).
They are developed through a rigorous, transparent process that involves participation from stakeholders representing a variety of sectors, including industry, government, science, academic, public and environment. The protocols are widely regarded as among the highest quality standards for carbon reduction projects.
Learn more about Our Protocols
Adherence to the Climate Action Reserve’s standards ensures emissions reductions associated with projects are
It also assigns unique serial numbers to all generated carbon credits.
This prevents the possibility of double counting and assures buyers that when a CRT has been retired, it cannot be sold or transferred again and has created a real and permanent offset.
All project information is made publicly available through the Climate Action Reserve system.
Learn more about Our Projects
Industry reports indicate the market price for CRTs ranks in the top tier among carbon credits. CRTs can be traded in the voluntary carbon market or transferred into the Voluntary Carbon Standard’s unit of measurement, the Voluntary Carbon Unit (VCU).
Learn more about issued CRTs
The Rest @ The Climate Researve
The Climate Action Reserve’s GHG emissions reduction Project Protocols provide regulatory-quality guidelines for project development and the quantification of carbon offset credits, known as Climate Reserve Tonnes (CRT).
They are developed through a rigorous, transparent process that involves participation from stakeholders representing a variety of sectors, including industry, government, science, academic, public and environment. The protocols are widely regarded as among the highest quality standards for carbon reduction projects.
Learn more about Our Protocols
Adherence to the Climate Action Reserve’s standards ensures emissions reductions associated with projects are
- real
- permanent
- additional
It also assigns unique serial numbers to all generated carbon credits.
This prevents the possibility of double counting and assures buyers that when a CRT has been retired, it cannot be sold or transferred again and has created a real and permanent offset.
All project information is made publicly available through the Climate Action Reserve system.
Learn more about Our Projects
Industry reports indicate the market price for CRTs ranks in the top tier among carbon credits. CRTs can be traded in the voluntary carbon market or transferred into the Voluntary Carbon Standard’s unit of measurement, the Voluntary Carbon Unit (VCU).
Learn more about issued CRTs
The Rest @ The Climate Researve
Sunday 16 August 2009
What Are Carbon Offsets?
A carbon offset is a financial instrument aimed at a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Carbon offsets are measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) and may represent six primary categories of greenhouse gases.
One carbon offset represents the reduction of one metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases.
There are two markets for carbon offsets.
Offsets are typically achieved through financial support of projects that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases in the short- or long-term.
Carbon offsetting has gained some appeal and momentum mainly among consumers in western countries who have become aware and concerned about the potentially negative environmental effects of energy-intensive lifestyles and economies.
The Kyoto Protocol has sanctioned offsets as a way for governments and private companies to earn carbon credits which can be traded on a marketplace.
The protocol established the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which validates and measures projects to ensure they produce authentic benefits and are genuinely "additional" activities that would not otherwise have been undertaken. Organizations that are unable to meet their emissions quota can offset their emissions by buying CDM-approved Certified Emissions Reductions.
Offsets may be cheaper or more convenient alternatives to reducing one's own fossil-fuel consumption. However, some critics object to carbon offsets, and question the benefits of certain types of offsets.[6]
The Rest @ Carbon Offsets
Carbon offsets are measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) and may represent six primary categories of greenhouse gases.
One carbon offset represents the reduction of one metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases.
There are two markets for carbon offsets.
- In the larger compliance market, companies, governments, or other entities buy carbon offsets in order to comply with caps on the total amount of carbon dioxide they are allowed to emit. In 2006, about $5.5 billion of carbon offsets were purchased in the compliance market, representing about 1.6 billion metric tons of CO2e reductions.
- In the much smaller voluntary market, individuals, companies, or governments purchase carbon offsets to mitigate their own greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, electricity use, and other sources. For example, an individual might purchase carbon offsets to compensate for the greenhouse gas emissions caused by personal air travel. In 2008, about $705 million of carbon offsets were purchased in the voluntary market, representing about 123.4 million metric tons of CO2e reductions.
Offsets are typically achieved through financial support of projects that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases in the short- or long-term.
- The most common project type is renewable energy, such as wind farms, biomass energy, or hydroelectric dams.
- Others include energy efficiency projects, the destruction of industrial pollutants or agricultural byproducts, destruction of landfill methane, and forestry projects.
Carbon offsetting has gained some appeal and momentum mainly among consumers in western countries who have become aware and concerned about the potentially negative environmental effects of energy-intensive lifestyles and economies.
The Kyoto Protocol has sanctioned offsets as a way for governments and private companies to earn carbon credits which can be traded on a marketplace.
The protocol established the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which validates and measures projects to ensure they produce authentic benefits and are genuinely "additional" activities that would not otherwise have been undertaken. Organizations that are unable to meet their emissions quota can offset their emissions by buying CDM-approved Certified Emissions Reductions.
Offsets may be cheaper or more convenient alternatives to reducing one's own fossil-fuel consumption. However, some critics object to carbon offsets, and question the benefits of certain types of offsets.[6]
The Rest @ Carbon Offsets
What is a Carbon Sink? What is Sequestration
A carbon sink is a natural or manmade reservoir that accumulates and stores some carbon-containing chemical compound for an indefinite period.
The main natural sinks are:
The Rest @ Wikipedia
The main natural sinks are:
- Absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans
- Photosynthesis by plants and algae
- Landfills
- Carbon capture and storage proposals
- CO2 sequestration or carbon sequestration.
The Rest @ Wikipedia
What Attorneys Say About GHG Magnagement
The following is a quote from a statemtn from The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel suggesting what should be done in anticipation of coming changes in Green House Gas Emisions.
-Editor
"The foregoing questions highlight uncertainties in potential GHG regulation. In light
of contingent liabilities that may arise out of new legal requirements, and in order for firms
to transition proactively while these and other issues are sorted out, corporate managers
Should implement a GHG compliance program that targets the following objectives:
-Editor
"The foregoing questions highlight uncertainties in potential GHG regulation. In light
of contingent liabilities that may arise out of new legal requirements, and in order for firms
to transition proactively while these and other issues are sorted out, corporate managers
Should implement a GHG compliance program that targets the following objectives:
- Identify and report GHG emissions and associated material risks in compliance with applicable securities laws and best practices;
- Mitigate GHG levels by, for example, improving energy efficiency, using alternative
fuels and renewable energy, investing in carbon capture and sequestration technology,
and considering climate risks in project finance and corporate transactions."
Saturday 15 August 2009
Wal-Mart's Supplier Sustainability Assessment Program - Workshop
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. suppliers grappling with ways to meet the retail giant's new sustainability mandate can attend a workshop that will help the companies set environmental goals and benchmarks.
The event will be led by Paul Baier, vice president of consulting for Groom Energy and Tim Greiner, managing director of Pure Strategies. Baier and Greiner are also co-authors of a recently released report titled "Enterprise Carbon Accounting: An Analysis of Organizational-Level Greenhouse Gas Reporting and a Review of Emerging GHG Software Products."
Wal-Mart's Supplier Sustainability Assessment Program will measure the environmental cost associated with products that Wal-Mart sells and report on each product's rating.
Green Tech Media
The Rest @ Industry Week
- Groom Energy Solutions and Greentech Media will offer a supplier sustainability assessment program Sept. 16 1p.m. to 6 p.m. in Boston at the Mystic Ballroom of the Embassy Suites Hotel at Logan Airport.
- Admission is $495 for the workshop and $999 through Sept. 1 for attendees of the Greening the Supply Chain Conference on Sept. 17th.
- A free dial-in number for the Q & A session with Wal-Mart will be offered to attendees of the conference unable to attend the workshop.
The event will be led by Paul Baier, vice president of consulting for Groom Energy and Tim Greiner, managing director of Pure Strategies. Baier and Greiner are also co-authors of a recently released report titled "Enterprise Carbon Accounting: An Analysis of Organizational-Level Greenhouse Gas Reporting and a Review of Emerging GHG Software Products."
- The merits of programs such as the Carbon Disclosure Project and green product certifications will be covered.
- The workshop with conclude with a free Q & A call-in session led by Wal-Mart senior director of sustainability and packaging Sean Stephan, who is also on the agenda to present in the afternoon.
Wal-Mart's Supplier Sustainability Assessment Program will measure the environmental cost associated with products that Wal-Mart sells and report on each product's rating.
- In its first phase, Wal-Mart has initially required some of its 60,000 suppliers to answer a series of questions intended to assess their relative environmental maturity by Oct. 1 with expanded mandatory supplier participation in the future.
- Using the results of the query, Wal-Mart will then calculate sustainability ratings for each supplier.
Green Tech Media
The Rest @ Industry Week
Thursday 13 August 2009
US Airlines First Industry to Be Regulated by Europe's Cap & Trade
Allan Bedwell of Cantor CO2e Says that the U.S. Airlines Will Be First U.S. Industry Regulated to Reduce GHG Emissions
The US Airline industry will be the first to have its GHG emissions capped by government under EU regulation. Over 700 airlines will be subject to the cap and trade requirements under the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). Those airlines will be formally identified this month by the EU for regulation under Phase III of the EU ETS. All large U.S. carriers flying into Europe are expected to be on the EU’s list later this month. Many US carriers are concerned about a potential for “double jeopardy” if the U.S. Congress passes a federal cap and trade program or the U.S. EPA establishes a low-carbon fuel standard.
While some legal experts raise international law, treaty and sovereignty issues, the EU ETS is expected to move forward. Here in the US, the EPA has been petitioned to domestically regulate airline emissions. EU ETS studies on airplanes indicate they generates almost 3% of the EU’s carbon emissions, with emissions expected to increase to 5-6% by 2018. Airlines failing to meet the caps can purchase carbon offsets. Litigation over the rule is expected.
The Rest @ CO2e
The US Airline industry will be the first to have its GHG emissions capped by government under EU regulation. Over 700 airlines will be subject to the cap and trade requirements under the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). Those airlines will be formally identified this month by the EU for regulation under Phase III of the EU ETS. All large U.S. carriers flying into Europe are expected to be on the EU’s list later this month. Many US carriers are concerned about a potential for “double jeopardy” if the U.S. Congress passes a federal cap and trade program or the U.S. EPA establishes a low-carbon fuel standard.
While some legal experts raise international law, treaty and sovereignty issues, the EU ETS is expected to move forward. Here in the US, the EPA has been petitioned to domestically regulate airline emissions. EU ETS studies on airplanes indicate they generates almost 3% of the EU’s carbon emissions, with emissions expected to increase to 5-6% by 2018. Airlines failing to meet the caps can purchase carbon offsets. Litigation over the rule is expected.
The Rest @ CO2e
CICS Awarded the Bat3ch Verification Process for The ClimAte Registry
May 19, 2009 -- HOUSTON, TX, USA 18 May 2009 Complete Integrated Certification Services (CICS), a global leader in CO2 verification, has been appointed as the first official Batch Verifier to Members of The Climate Registry. This non-profit organization establishes consistent, transparent standards throughout North America for businesses and governments to calculate, verify, and publically report their carbon footprints in a single, unified registry ― ultimately helping them to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Successfully completing the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) GHG accreditation program (based on the internationally-recognized ISO 14065 standard), CICS will work within The Climate Registry’s rigorous and comprehensive standards.
Members under the batch verification process will be provided with accurate, complete, consistent, transparent, and verified GHG emissions data supported by a robust reporting and verification infrastructure as part of a three step process:
1. Calculate: each year all Members must calculate all GHG emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O, PFC, HFC, and SF6) from operations in North America (Canada, United States, and Mexico) using the General Reporting Protocol.
2. Report: Members must enter their GHG emissions into the Climate Registry Information System (CRIS), an online GHG calculation, reporting and verification tool that enables public access to verified emission reports.
3. Verify: all Members must then obtain annual third-party verification to ensure the accuracy of the data.
YouYube
CICS can also offer verification under the California Climate Action Registry and is positioned to participate in the forthcoming mandatory schemes across North America.
Shaun Bainbridge, Director at CICS, comments: “GHGs are having a major impact on the global climate and it is through important initiatives such as The Climate Registry that organizations can calculate and report their GHG emissions. CICS will work in conjunction with The Registry to ensure the accuracy of Members’ data – a critical part of ensuring robust and transparent reporting.”
Tony Kinsella, Managing Director of CICS, adds: “This is a very prestigious and important appointment for CICS, particularly in light of the strong competition we faced. Covering industries from healthcare and manufacturing to transportation, government and defense, the CICS team is ideally placed to work alongside Members to ensure completely independent verification of their GHG emissions and play a role in tackling the effects of climate change.”
About CICS
With Regional North American offices in Houston, Texas, CICS provides industry leading experience and knowledge of CO2/GHG verification under both mandatory and voluntary (carbon foot printing) schemes throughout North America. A range of related ISO certification services is also available. http://www.cicsglobal.com/
The Rest @ Free Press Release
Successfully completing the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) GHG accreditation program (based on the internationally-recognized ISO 14065 standard), CICS will work within The Climate Registry’s rigorous and comprehensive standards.
Members under the batch verification process will be provided with accurate, complete, consistent, transparent, and verified GHG emissions data supported by a robust reporting and verification infrastructure as part of a three step process:
1. Calculate: each year all Members must calculate all GHG emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O, PFC, HFC, and SF6) from operations in North America (Canada, United States, and Mexico) using the General Reporting Protocol.
2. Report: Members must enter their GHG emissions into the Climate Registry Information System (CRIS), an online GHG calculation, reporting and verification tool that enables public access to verified emission reports.
3. Verify: all Members must then obtain annual third-party verification to ensure the accuracy of the data.
YouYube
CICS can also offer verification under the California Climate Action Registry and is positioned to participate in the forthcoming mandatory schemes across North America.
Shaun Bainbridge, Director at CICS, comments: “GHGs are having a major impact on the global climate and it is through important initiatives such as The Climate Registry that organizations can calculate and report their GHG emissions. CICS will work in conjunction with The Registry to ensure the accuracy of Members’ data – a critical part of ensuring robust and transparent reporting.”
Tony Kinsella, Managing Director of CICS, adds: “This is a very prestigious and important appointment for CICS, particularly in light of the strong competition we faced. Covering industries from healthcare and manufacturing to transportation, government and defense, the CICS team is ideally placed to work alongside Members to ensure completely independent verification of their GHG emissions and play a role in tackling the effects of climate change.”
About CICS
With Regional North American offices in Houston, Texas, CICS provides industry leading experience and knowledge of CO2/GHG verification under both mandatory and voluntary (carbon foot printing) schemes throughout North America. A range of related ISO certification services is also available. http://www.cicsglobal.com/
The Rest @ Free Press Release
Wednesday 12 August 2009
What are the Five Principles for GHG Accounting and Reporting?
- Relevance
- Completeness
- Consistency
- Transparency
- Accuracy
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) produces one of the world's most prevalent standards for sustainability reporting - also known as ecological footprint - guidelines.
Sustainability reporting is a form of value reporting where an organization publicly communicates their economic, environmental, and social performance.
GRI seeks to make sustainability reporting by all organizations as routine as and comparable to financial reporting.
GRI Guidelines are extremely widely used. As of January 2009, more than 1,500 organizations [1] from 60 countries use the Guidelines to produce their sustainability reports. (View the world’s reporters at the GRI Reports database).
GRI Guidelines apply to corporate businesses, public agencies, smaller enterprises, NGOs, industry groups and others. For municipal governments, they have generally been subsumed by similar guidelines from the UN ICLEI.
The Rest @ Wikipedia
Sustainability reporting is a form of value reporting where an organization publicly communicates their economic, environmental, and social performance.
GRI seeks to make sustainability reporting by all organizations as routine as and comparable to financial reporting.
GRI Guidelines are extremely widely used. As of January 2009, more than 1,500 organizations [1] from 60 countries use the Guidelines to produce their sustainability reports. (View the world’s reporters at the GRI Reports database).
GRI Guidelines apply to corporate businesses, public agencies, smaller enterprises, NGOs, industry groups and others. For municipal governments, they have generally been subsumed by similar guidelines from the UN ICLEI.
The Rest @ Wikipedia
Center for Sustainability Performance (CSP) Launched
NEW YORK, August 10 /CSRwire/ - Deloitte today announced the launch of the Center for Sustainability Performance (CSP) in Waltham, Mass. The CSP will be led by Mark McElroy, Ph.D., and will provide
Prior to joining Deloitte, McElroy served as executive director of the Center for Sustainable Innovation where he worked with clients on sustainability management, measurement and reporting engagements. He is also the creator of the Social Footprint Method, a procedure for measuring and reporting the social sustainability performance of organizations. McElroy will lead the CSP's research and development efforts and work with clients to formulate tailored metrics and tools designed to help manage, measure and report on non-financial performance. He will continue to serve on the board of the Center for Sustainable Innovation and also the Sustainability Institute, both located in Vermont.
"An evolving regulatory environment combined with increasing stakeholder interest in sustainability performance across the entire supply chain continues to drive demand for transparency, disclosure and compliance around nonfinancial performance," said Chris Park, co-leader of Deloitte's Enterprise Sustainability Group.
"Deloitte's Center for Sustainability Performance will provide customized training modules in the areas of sustainability measurement and reporting, enabling our clients to comply with regulatory demands while also reporting on social and environmental sustainability performance throughout their supply chain."
Further underscoring the need for supply chain transparency, Walmart, the world's largest retailer, recently announced plans to develop a worldwide sustainable product index, which will establish a single source of data for evaluating the sustainability of products.
"Nonfinancial reporting is evolving from voluntary communications to mandatory compliance, and the environmental regulatory and financial reporting worlds are converging," said Kathryn Pavlovsky, co-leader of Deloitte's Enterprise Sustainability Group. "
This convergence will require increased collaboration across many facets of an organization to ensure that the internal control frameworks are in place for measurable, consistent and repeatable corporate responsibility and sustainability reporting that is strategically, operationally and financially achievable."
In addition, Deloitte has teamed with LEAD Canada, the only Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) certified training organization offering GRI-certified sustainability reporting courses in both the U.S. and Canada. Deloitte will host GRI-certified training courses at Deloitte offices throughout the U.S. and Canada. Course participants will receive their course completion certificates directly from GRI.
"The prevalence of sustainability reporting is growing and the GRI has emerged as the world's most widely used reporting framework," said Eric Hespenheide, global reporting and compliance leader of Deloitte's Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Group. "As sustainability reporting matures and becomes more standardized, assurance of company reports will become increasingly important, just as it has for financial reporting. We look forward to hosting this training."
For a schedule of GRI training courses hosted by Deloitte, please click here.
The Rest @ CSRWire
- on-site client training,
- research and development,
- with a focus on corporate sustainability measurement and reporting
Prior to joining Deloitte, McElroy served as executive director of the Center for Sustainable Innovation where he worked with clients on sustainability management, measurement and reporting engagements. He is also the creator of the Social Footprint Method, a procedure for measuring and reporting the social sustainability performance of organizations. McElroy will lead the CSP's research and development efforts and work with clients to formulate tailored metrics and tools designed to help manage, measure and report on non-financial performance. He will continue to serve on the board of the Center for Sustainable Innovation and also the Sustainability Institute, both located in Vermont.
"An evolving regulatory environment combined with increasing stakeholder interest in sustainability performance across the entire supply chain continues to drive demand for transparency, disclosure and compliance around nonfinancial performance," said Chris Park, co-leader of Deloitte's Enterprise Sustainability Group.
"Deloitte's Center for Sustainability Performance will provide customized training modules in the areas of sustainability measurement and reporting, enabling our clients to comply with regulatory demands while also reporting on social and environmental sustainability performance throughout their supply chain."
Further underscoring the need for supply chain transparency, Walmart, the world's largest retailer, recently announced plans to develop a worldwide sustainable product index, which will establish a single source of data for evaluating the sustainability of products.
"Nonfinancial reporting is evolving from voluntary communications to mandatory compliance, and the environmental regulatory and financial reporting worlds are converging," said Kathryn Pavlovsky, co-leader of Deloitte's Enterprise Sustainability Group. "
This convergence will require increased collaboration across many facets of an organization to ensure that the internal control frameworks are in place for measurable, consistent and repeatable corporate responsibility and sustainability reporting that is strategically, operationally and financially achievable."
In addition, Deloitte has teamed with LEAD Canada, the only Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) certified training organization offering GRI-certified sustainability reporting courses in both the U.S. and Canada. Deloitte will host GRI-certified training courses at Deloitte offices throughout the U.S. and Canada. Course participants will receive their course completion certificates directly from GRI.
"The prevalence of sustainability reporting is growing and the GRI has emerged as the world's most widely used reporting framework," said Eric Hespenheide, global reporting and compliance leader of Deloitte's Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Group. "As sustainability reporting matures and becomes more standardized, assurance of company reports will become increasingly important, just as it has for financial reporting. We look forward to hosting this training."
For a schedule of GRI training courses hosted by Deloitte, please click here.
The Rest @ CSRWire
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol)
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) is the most widely used international accounting tool for government and business leaders to understand, quantify, and manage greenhouse gas emissions. The GHG Protocol, a decade-long partnership between the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, is working with businesses, governments, and environmental groups around the world to build a new generation of credible and effective programs for tackling climate change.
It provides the accounting framework for nearly every GHG standard and program in the world - from the International Standards Organization to The Climate Registry - as well as hundreds of GHG inventories prepared by individual companies.
The GHG Protocol also offers developing countries an internationally accepted management tool to help their businesses to compete in the global marketplace and their governments to make informed decisions about climate change.
The Rest @ Green House Gas Protocol Initiative
It provides the accounting framework for nearly every GHG standard and program in the world - from the International Standards Organization to The Climate Registry - as well as hundreds of GHG inventories prepared by individual companies.
The GHG Protocol also offers developing countries an internationally accepted management tool to help their businesses to compete in the global marketplace and their governments to make informed decisions about climate change.
The Rest @ Green House Gas Protocol Initiative
Tuesday 11 August 2009
Carbon Credits and the Idea of Addionalty
The concept of additionality addresses the question of whether the project would have happened anyway, even in the absence of revenue from carbon credits.
Only carbon credits from projects that are "additional to" the business-as-usual scenario represent a net environmental benefit.
Carbon projects that yield strong financial returns:
even in the absence of revenue from carbon credits;
or that are compelled by regulations;
or that represent common practice in an industry
are usually not considered additional, although a full determination of additionality requires specialist review.
It is generally agreed that voluntary carbon offset projects must also prove additionality in order to ensure the legitimacy of the environmental stewardship claims resulting from the retirement of the carbon credit (offset).
According the World Resources Institute/World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WRI/WBCSD) : "GHG emission trading programs operate by capping the emissions of a fixed number of individual facilities or sources.
Under these programs, tradable 'offset credits' are issued for project-based GHG reductions that occur at sources not covered by the program.
Each offset credit allows facilities whose emissions are capped to emit more, in direct proportion to the GHG reductions represented by the credit.
The idea is to achieve a zero net increase in GHG emissions, because each ton of increased emissions is 'offset' by project-based GHG reductions.
The difficulty is that many projects that reduce GHG emissions (relative to historical levels) would happen regardless of the existence of a GHG program and without any concern for climate change mitigation.
If a project 'would have happened anyway,' then issuing offset credits for its GHG reductions will actually allow a positive net increase in GHG emissions, undermining the emissions target of the GHG program.
Additionality is thus critical to the success and integrity of GHG programs that recognize project-based GHG reductions."
The Rest @ Cleantech Update
Only carbon credits from projects that are "additional to" the business-as-usual scenario represent a net environmental benefit.
Carbon projects that yield strong financial returns:
even in the absence of revenue from carbon credits;
or that are compelled by regulations;
or that represent common practice in an industry
are usually not considered additional, although a full determination of additionality requires specialist review.
It is generally agreed that voluntary carbon offset projects must also prove additionality in order to ensure the legitimacy of the environmental stewardship claims resulting from the retirement of the carbon credit (offset).
According the World Resources Institute/World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WRI/WBCSD) : "GHG emission trading programs operate by capping the emissions of a fixed number of individual facilities or sources.
Under these programs, tradable 'offset credits' are issued for project-based GHG reductions that occur at sources not covered by the program.
Each offset credit allows facilities whose emissions are capped to emit more, in direct proportion to the GHG reductions represented by the credit.
The idea is to achieve a zero net increase in GHG emissions, because each ton of increased emissions is 'offset' by project-based GHG reductions.
The difficulty is that many projects that reduce GHG emissions (relative to historical levels) would happen regardless of the existence of a GHG program and without any concern for climate change mitigation.
If a project 'would have happened anyway,' then issuing offset credits for its GHG reductions will actually allow a positive net increase in GHG emissions, undermining the emissions target of the GHG program.
Additionality is thus critical to the success and integrity of GHG programs that recognize project-based GHG reductions."
The Rest @ Cleantech Update
Monday 10 August 2009
Candadian, Mexican and US PResidents Create North American GHG Coordination
GUADALAJARA, Mexico, August 10, 2009 (ENS) - "We share a vision for a low-carbon North America," the leaders of Mexico, the United States and Canada today declared, reaffirming "the urgency and necessity of taking aggressive action on climate change."
Attending his first trilateral North American Leaders meeting, President Barack Obama pledged cooperation with President Felipe Calderon of Mexico and Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada on
"Because our future prosperity also depends on clean energy economies, we built on our bilateral efforts to invest in renewable energy and green jobs, and we recommitted ourselves to the historic goals announced last month in Italy," said President Obama at a news conference after the trilateral meeting.
"Nations like the United States and Canada will take the lead by reducing emissions by 80 percent by 2050 and we will work with other nations to cut global emissions in half," Obama said.
These benchmarks were agreed in Italy in July at the meeting of G8 industrial democracies, of which both Canada and the United States are members.
"We recognize the broad scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed two degrees Celsius," the North American leaders declared.
Not a G8 nation, Mexico did participate in the Major Economies Forum in Italy, which approved the same two degrees Celsius goal, but has not yet announced a numeric target for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
The North American leaders said they believe their shared vision for a low-carbon North America, "will strengthen the political momentum behind a successful outcome at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting this December, and support our national and global efforts to combat climate change," the three leaders declared.
World leaders will meet at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in December to finalize a deal to reduce emissions that will take over when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.
"We made progress toward the concrete goals that will be negotiated at the Copenhagen climate change summit in December," Obama told reporters. "And I again want to commend Mexico for its leadership in curbing greenhouse gas emissions and President Calderon for his innovative proposals to help developing countries build clean, sustainable economies."
President Calderon said, "The United States, Mexico and Canada have coincided in the importance to face the repercussions of climactic change. The cost is very high, but the price we shall pay for lack of action is not to be calculated - cannot possibly be calculated."
While Prime Minister Harper nearly forgot to mention climate change at the news conference, he recollected himself in time to say, "Given the integrated nature of our economies, we did talk at some length about the importance of working together on a North American approach to climate change and also on doing our best to ensure that in Copenhagen and going forward we reach an effective and genuinely international new world protocol on greenhouse gas emissions."
The three leaders agreed to work together under the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer to phase down the use of hydrofluorocarbons, HFCs, and "bring about significant reductions of this potent greenhouse gas."
HFCs, which do not contain ozone-destroying chlorine or bromine atoms, are used as substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds in refrigeration, air conditioning, and the production of insulating foams. Though the HFCs do not deplete the ozone layer, they are potent greenhouse gases.
The North American leaders agreed to cooperate in sustainably managing their lands to minimize the emission of greenhouse gases, including "protecting and enhancing our forests, wetlands, croplands and other carbon sinks, as well as developing appropriate methodologies to quantify, manage and implement programs for emission reductions in this sector."
They agreed to reduce transportation emissions, including by "striving to achieve carbon-neutral growth in the North American aviation sector in the context of global action."
The three countries will pursue a framework to align their energy efficiency standards in support of improved national energy efficiency and environmental objectives.
Finally, the leaders vowed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector, and promote best practices in reducing fugitive emissions and the venting and flaring of natural gas.
The three leaders also discussed economic recovery and trade, border security and immigration, combating drug trafficking, and preparing for a return of the H1N1 flu pandemic.
The Rest @ Environmental News Service
Attending his first trilateral North American Leaders meeting, President Barack Obama pledged cooperation with President Felipe Calderon of Mexico and Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada on
- future emissions trading systems
- building a smart grid across the region for more efficient and reliable electricity inter-connections.
- develop comparable approaches to measuring, reporting, and verifying greenhouse gas emissions reductions and
- cooperate in implementing facility-level greenhouse gas reporting throughout the region.
- They agreed to share climate friendly and low-carbon technologies and take a regional approach to carbon capture and storage.
"Because our future prosperity also depends on clean energy economies, we built on our bilateral efforts to invest in renewable energy and green jobs, and we recommitted ourselves to the historic goals announced last month in Italy," said President Obama at a news conference after the trilateral meeting.
"Nations like the United States and Canada will take the lead by reducing emissions by 80 percent by 2050 and we will work with other nations to cut global emissions in half," Obama said.
These benchmarks were agreed in Italy in July at the meeting of G8 industrial democracies, of which both Canada and the United States are members.
"We recognize the broad scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed two degrees Celsius," the North American leaders declared.
Not a G8 nation, Mexico did participate in the Major Economies Forum in Italy, which approved the same two degrees Celsius goal, but has not yet announced a numeric target for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
The North American leaders said they believe their shared vision for a low-carbon North America, "will strengthen the political momentum behind a successful outcome at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting this December, and support our national and global efforts to combat climate change," the three leaders declared.
World leaders will meet at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in December to finalize a deal to reduce emissions that will take over when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.
"We made progress toward the concrete goals that will be negotiated at the Copenhagen climate change summit in December," Obama told reporters. "And I again want to commend Mexico for its leadership in curbing greenhouse gas emissions and President Calderon for his innovative proposals to help developing countries build clean, sustainable economies."
President Calderon said, "The United States, Mexico and Canada have coincided in the importance to face the repercussions of climactic change. The cost is very high, but the price we shall pay for lack of action is not to be calculated - cannot possibly be calculated."
While Prime Minister Harper nearly forgot to mention climate change at the news conference, he recollected himself in time to say, "Given the integrated nature of our economies, we did talk at some length about the importance of working together on a North American approach to climate change and also on doing our best to ensure that in Copenhagen and going forward we reach an effective and genuinely international new world protocol on greenhouse gas emissions."
The three leaders agreed to work together under the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer to phase down the use of hydrofluorocarbons, HFCs, and "bring about significant reductions of this potent greenhouse gas."
HFCs, which do not contain ozone-destroying chlorine or bromine atoms, are used as substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds in refrigeration, air conditioning, and the production of insulating foams. Though the HFCs do not deplete the ozone layer, they are potent greenhouse gases.
The North American leaders agreed to cooperate in sustainably managing their lands to minimize the emission of greenhouse gases, including "protecting and enhancing our forests, wetlands, croplands and other carbon sinks, as well as developing appropriate methodologies to quantify, manage and implement programs for emission reductions in this sector."
They agreed to reduce transportation emissions, including by "striving to achieve carbon-neutral growth in the North American aviation sector in the context of global action."
The three countries will pursue a framework to align their energy efficiency standards in support of improved national energy efficiency and environmental objectives.
Finally, the leaders vowed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector, and promote best practices in reducing fugitive emissions and the venting and flaring of natural gas.
The three leaders also discussed economic recovery and trade, border security and immigration, combating drug trafficking, and preparing for a return of the H1N1 flu pandemic.
The Rest @ Environmental News Service
Sunday 9 August 2009
Becoming a Lead Verifier and Verifying Body
The Climate Action Reserve and several other greenhouse gas (GHG) programs and registries are partnering with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to accredit independent third party Validation and Verification Bodies under to ISO14065:2007 and the International Accreditation Forum, Inc. (IAF) guidance and under their accompanying protocols.
This coordinated effort will help streamline the accreditation process for GHG Verification Bodies in North America and create consistency with international practice in relation to GHG emissions verification. Only Verification Bodies currently approved by the Reserve or those involved in the ANSI accreditation program may provide verification services to Reserve project developers. The Reserve is no longer accrediting new Verification Bodies but in the future could partner with other organizations to provide accreditation services.
ANSI is currently accepting applications for the GHG accreditation program. For more information or to request an application, please visit ANSI’s website for details on how to apply. Accreditation reduces the risk to GHG programs by assuring them that verification bodies are competent to carry out the work they undertake. It also provides criteria for assessing and recognizing the competence of verification bodies, allowing for a consistent comparable scheme across GHG programs.
To successfully gain approval to conduct verification activities for the Climate Action Reserve, verification bodies must meet the following criteria for both verification body Requirements and Individual Verifier Requirements.
For any individual to be qualified as a Lead Verifier and eligible to conduct verification activities under the Climate Action Reserve, he/she must meet the following criteria:
The Rest @ The Climate Reserve
This coordinated effort will help streamline the accreditation process for GHG Verification Bodies in North America and create consistency with international practice in relation to GHG emissions verification. Only Verification Bodies currently approved by the Reserve or those involved in the ANSI accreditation program may provide verification services to Reserve project developers. The Reserve is no longer accrediting new Verification Bodies but in the future could partner with other organizations to provide accreditation services.
ANSI is currently accepting applications for the GHG accreditation program. For more information or to request an application, please visit ANSI’s website for details on how to apply. Accreditation reduces the risk to GHG programs by assuring them that verification bodies are competent to carry out the work they undertake. It also provides criteria for assessing and recognizing the competence of verification bodies, allowing for a consistent comparable scheme across GHG programs.
To successfully gain approval to conduct verification activities for the Climate Action Reserve, verification bodies must meet the following criteria for both verification body Requirements and Individual Verifier Requirements.
For any individual to be qualified as a Lead Verifier and eligible to conduct verification activities under the Climate Action Reserve, he/she must meet the following criteria:
- Be employed or subcontracted to a verification body accredited under ISO 14065 OR an already approved Verification Body under the Reserve
- Meet internal training requirements, following proper processes and procedures under his/her ISO 14065 accredited Verification Body or already approved Verification Body under the Reserve
- Attend and successfully complete a required Project Verification Body training under the Climate Action Reserve protocols (receive a Certificate of Completion for the training course)
- Be identified as “Lead Verifier” in the Designated Staff, Roles and Responsibilities form submitted by his/her Verification Body to reserve@climateregistry.org
- Demonstrate a thorough understanding of the Climate Action Reserve Project and Verification Protocols.
- Have a minimum of two staff members designated as Lead Verifiers
- Lead Verifiers are REQUIRED to have completed Reserve training on its project protocols, specific to the sector that the Verification Body is applying to be accredited under.
- Meet the Reserve’s accreditation additional sector specific requirements.
The Rest @ The Climate Reserve
NSF International Strategic Registrations
-NSF International Strategic Registrations (NSF-ISR), a North American leader in management systems registrations, today announced it has obtained Greenhouse Gas (GHG) accreditation from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
NSF-ISR is one of seven verification bodies to receive approval in ANSI’s pilot program to accredit GHG verification bodies.(1) The accreditation confirms that the GHG verifications performed by NSF-ISR are conducted to U.S. and international standards. GHG verification provides assurance that GHG emissions and removals are properly accounted for in organizational inventories.
“This accreditation from ANSI demonstrates NSF’s commitment to providing clients with the services they need to stay current with new regulations, while helping to protect the environment,” said Kevan P. Lawlor, President and CEO of NSF International, NSF-ISR’s parent company.
Scientific evidence suggests that the buildup of GHG in the atmosphere is raising the earth’s temperature and changing the earth’s climate. In 2002, President Bush set a goal to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas intensity by 18%. The U.S. is seen to be on track for reaching that goal.(2)
Future policy for reducing GHG emissions in the U.S. may include a national “cap-and-trade” program. According to NSF, under cap-and-trade, companies that voluntarily achieve emission reductions are more competitive in the marketplace because they have a reduced need to acquire GHG emission allowances.
“With a federal cap-and-trade system for GHG potentially in the USA’s future, we project economic incentives to reduce GHG emissions, and emissions trading will become very common,” said John Shideler, NSF-ISR Greenhouse Gas Program Manager. “However, the credits that are being bought and sold in the market need to be verified by an accredited, third-party verifier, such as NSF-ISR, in order for the market to have credibility.”
Successful verification demonstrates that organizations are managing their GHG emissions diligently with energy efficiency in mind and an eye towards future regulatory requirements. A list of organizations whose emissions have been verified by NSF-ISR is maintained on its Web site.
—–
(1) American National Standards Institute, December 1, 2008,
NSF-ISR is one of seven verification bodies to receive approval in ANSI’s pilot program to accredit GHG verification bodies.(1) The accreditation confirms that the GHG verifications performed by NSF-ISR are conducted to U.S. and international standards. GHG verification provides assurance that GHG emissions and removals are properly accounted for in organizational inventories.
“This accreditation from ANSI demonstrates NSF’s commitment to providing clients with the services they need to stay current with new regulations, while helping to protect the environment,” said Kevan P. Lawlor, President and CEO of NSF International, NSF-ISR’s parent company.
Scientific evidence suggests that the buildup of GHG in the atmosphere is raising the earth’s temperature and changing the earth’s climate. In 2002, President Bush set a goal to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas intensity by 18%. The U.S. is seen to be on track for reaching that goal.(2)
Future policy for reducing GHG emissions in the U.S. may include a national “cap-and-trade” program. According to NSF, under cap-and-trade, companies that voluntarily achieve emission reductions are more competitive in the marketplace because they have a reduced need to acquire GHG emission allowances.
“With a federal cap-and-trade system for GHG potentially in the USA’s future, we project economic incentives to reduce GHG emissions, and emissions trading will become very common,” said John Shideler, NSF-ISR Greenhouse Gas Program Manager. “However, the credits that are being bought and sold in the market need to be verified by an accredited, third-party verifier, such as NSF-ISR, in order for the market to have credibility.”
Successful verification demonstrates that organizations are managing their GHG emissions diligently with energy efficiency in mind and an eye towards future regulatory requirements. A list of organizations whose emissions have been verified by NSF-ISR is maintained on its Web site.
—–
(1) American National Standards Institute, December 1, 2008,
Thursday 6 August 2009
First Environment Accredited by ANSI as Third Party Verifier
BRINGING ORDER TO U.S. CARBON MARKETS
Boonton, NJ - January 8, 2009 With so much confusion regarding the validity of carbon credits here in the United States, First Environment recently completed a program to standardize the process for documenting and verifying greenhouse gas emissions.
ANSI launched this pilot accreditation program in early 2008. Lane Hallenback, ANSI Vice President of Accreditation Services said, “This program marks a significant step forward in assuring integrity and consistency in emission reporting and reduction projects across industry sectors and geographical borders. The institute is pleased to join in strengthening consumer confidence and promoting best practices for the validation and verification of GHG emissions.”
As a result of ANSI’s accreditation, The Climate Registry and The California Climate Action Registry recognize First Environment as an accredited 3rd party verifier. In addition, First Environment is accredited for emission reduction projects under the Voluntary Carbon Standard and is the only verification body in the United States accredited for Chicago Climate Exchange.
The benefit of this program is that buyers and sellers of carbon credits can be sure that firms verifying emission reductions possess the technical qualifications to perform such an audit. This will bring order to the marketplace of companies who are claiming to offer the technical expertise to document and reduce the six greenhouse gases that are the primary cause of climate change.
Tod Delaney, President of First Environment says, “We have been working in the industry for 30 years and are pleased to be recognized for our commitment to assuring the integrity and consistency in emission reporting. Standardizing this process and making sure it is transparent is critical to the success of any government regulatory scheme or marketplace driven solution that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
First Environment offers engineering design and implementation services to meet your company’s environmental and sustainability goals. Established in 1977 we are an international leader in emerging environmental standards and have built award-winning Environmental Management Systems for the Westchester County Airport as well. Email Bob Previdi at rwp@firstenvironment.com and for more information about ANSI go to http://www.ansi.org/.
The Rest @ First Environment
Boonton, NJ - January 8, 2009 With so much confusion regarding the validity of carbon credits here in the United States, First Environment recently completed a program to standardize the process for documenting and verifying greenhouse gas emissions.
- Working with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), First Environment has been accredited as a Validation and/or Verification Body (VVB). This program will facilitate the true reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the environment.
ANSI launched this pilot accreditation program in early 2008. Lane Hallenback, ANSI Vice President of Accreditation Services said, “This program marks a significant step forward in assuring integrity and consistency in emission reporting and reduction projects across industry sectors and geographical borders. The institute is pleased to join in strengthening consumer confidence and promoting best practices for the validation and verification of GHG emissions.”
As a result of ANSI’s accreditation, The Climate Registry and The California Climate Action Registry recognize First Environment as an accredited 3rd party verifier. In addition, First Environment is accredited for emission reduction projects under the Voluntary Carbon Standard and is the only verification body in the United States accredited for Chicago Climate Exchange.
The benefit of this program is that buyers and sellers of carbon credits can be sure that firms verifying emission reductions possess the technical qualifications to perform such an audit. This will bring order to the marketplace of companies who are claiming to offer the technical expertise to document and reduce the six greenhouse gases that are the primary cause of climate change.
Tod Delaney, President of First Environment says, “We have been working in the industry for 30 years and are pleased to be recognized for our commitment to assuring the integrity and consistency in emission reporting. Standardizing this process and making sure it is transparent is critical to the success of any government regulatory scheme or marketplace driven solution that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
First Environment offers engineering design and implementation services to meet your company’s environmental and sustainability goals. Established in 1977 we are an international leader in emerging environmental standards and have built award-winning Environmental Management Systems for the Westchester County Airport as well. Email Bob Previdi at rwp@firstenvironment.com and for more information about ANSI go to http://www.ansi.org/.
The Rest @ First Environment
Coca Cola Sets Goal to Reduce Carbon FootPrint
ATLANTA, GA - July 23, 2009 - Coca-Cola Enterprises (NYSE: CCE) announced today that it has set goals for its five strategic Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability (CRS) focus areas and has committed to achieving these goals by the year 2020 - what the company is calling "Commitment 2020."
"Even during difficult economic times, our commitment to CRS has never been stronger, and our quantifiable Commitment 2020 goals demonstrate the progress we are making on our journey," said John F. Brock, chairman and chief executive officer. "We have been recognized as a CRS leader in the global Coca-Cola system, and by embedding CRS into every aspect of our business, we are working to meet or exceed the expectations of our retail customers and consumers."
CCE also reiterated its participation in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Climate Leaders program, an industry-government partnership that works to develop comprehensive climate change strategies. As a partner in the EPA Climate Leaders, CCE has pledged to reduce its company-wide greenhouse gas emissions and will annually report its progress to the EPA.
Commitment 2020 Goals
CCE's Commitment 2020 goals for its five strategic CRS focus areas are:
Energy Conservation/Climate Change: Reduce the overall carbon footprint of our business operations by 15 percent by 2020, as compared to our 2007 baseline.
Water Stewardship: Establish a water-sustainable operation in which we minimize our water use and have a water-neutral impact on the local communities in which we operate, by safely returning the amount of water equivalent to what we use in our beverages and their production to these local communities.
Sustainable Packaging/Recycling: Reduce the impact of our packaging; maximize our use of renewable, reusable, and recyclable resources; and recover the equivalent of 100 percent of our packaging.
Product Portfolio/Well-Being: Provide refreshing beverages for every lifestyle and occasion, while helping consumers make informed beverage choices.
Diverse and Inclusive Culture: Create a culture where diversity is valued, every employee is a respected member of the team, and our workforce is a reflection of the communities in which we operate.
CRS Report
CCE's fourth company-wide CRS Report provides a comprehensive look at the company's commitment to being a sustainable business partner in the communities in which it operates. To access CCE's Report online, please visit the company's website at http://www.cokecce.com/assets/uploaded_files/FINAL_CCE_2008_CRSReport_lowres.pdf. Comments and feedback related to the Report are welcome at crs@cokecce.com.
CCE's CRS reports have garnered several awards in the past few years, including two Golden Peacock Awards (corporate social responsibility reporting) and two CorporateRegister.com awards (creativity in communications, best overall report runner-up). This Report achieves B-level compliance with the G3 guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).
CRS Report Highlights:
Reduced beverage calories in U.S. schools by 58 percent since 2007. The American Beverage Association's School Guidelines support the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, a partnership between the William J. Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association.
Measured the global and individual country carbon footprints of the company's operations in the United States, Canada and Western Europe. CCE's efforts to measure and reduce its carbon footprint have resulted in a seven percent reduction in energy use from 2006 to 2008.
Created the first certified product carbon footprint of Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, Coke Zero and Oasis in Great Britain and Dasani in the United States.
Saved 301 million liters of water through water efficiency initiatives, further reducing the company's water use ratio from 1.82 to 1.73 liters of water to produce one liter of product in the last three years. CCE has one of the lowest water use ratios in the global Coca-Cola system.
Recovered and reused approximately 125,000 metric tons of packaging materials through internal programs and Coca-Cola Recycling's work to increase opportunities for consumer recycling in the marketplace and at large-scale events.
Continued support of the United Nations Global Compact by endorsing the CEO Water Mandate, which recognizes the impact companies have on the world's water supply.
Coca-Cola Enterprises is the world’s largest marketer, producer, and distributor of bottle and can liquid nonalcoholic refreshment. CCE sells approximately 80 percent of The Coca-Cola Company's bottle and can volume in North America and is the sole licensed bottle for products of The Coca-Cola Company in Belgium, continental France, Great Britain, Luxembourg, Monaco, and the Netherlands. For more information, please visit http://www.cokecce.com/.
The Rest @ CSRwire
"Even during difficult economic times, our commitment to CRS has never been stronger, and our quantifiable Commitment 2020 goals demonstrate the progress we are making on our journey," said John F. Brock, chairman and chief executive officer. "We have been recognized as a CRS leader in the global Coca-Cola system, and by embedding CRS into every aspect of our business, we are working to meet or exceed the expectations of our retail customers and consumers."
CCE also reiterated its participation in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Climate Leaders program, an industry-government partnership that works to develop comprehensive climate change strategies. As a partner in the EPA Climate Leaders, CCE has pledged to reduce its company-wide greenhouse gas emissions and will annually report its progress to the EPA.
Commitment 2020 Goals
CCE's Commitment 2020 goals for its five strategic CRS focus areas are:
Energy Conservation/Climate Change: Reduce the overall carbon footprint of our business operations by 15 percent by 2020, as compared to our 2007 baseline.
Water Stewardship: Establish a water-sustainable operation in which we minimize our water use and have a water-neutral impact on the local communities in which we operate, by safely returning the amount of water equivalent to what we use in our beverages and their production to these local communities.
Sustainable Packaging/Recycling: Reduce the impact of our packaging; maximize our use of renewable, reusable, and recyclable resources; and recover the equivalent of 100 percent of our packaging.
Product Portfolio/Well-Being: Provide refreshing beverages for every lifestyle and occasion, while helping consumers make informed beverage choices.
Diverse and Inclusive Culture: Create a culture where diversity is valued, every employee is a respected member of the team, and our workforce is a reflection of the communities in which we operate.
CRS Report
CCE's fourth company-wide CRS Report provides a comprehensive look at the company's commitment to being a sustainable business partner in the communities in which it operates. To access CCE's Report online, please visit the company's website at http://www.cokecce.com/assets/uploaded_files/FINAL_CCE_2008_CRSReport_lowres.pdf. Comments and feedback related to the Report are welcome at crs@cokecce.com.
CCE's CRS reports have garnered several awards in the past few years, including two Golden Peacock Awards (corporate social responsibility reporting) and two CorporateRegister.com awards (creativity in communications, best overall report runner-up). This Report achieves B-level compliance with the G3 guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).
CRS Report Highlights:
Reduced beverage calories in U.S. schools by 58 percent since 2007. The American Beverage Association's School Guidelines support the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, a partnership between the William J. Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association.
Measured the global and individual country carbon footprints of the company's operations in the United States, Canada and Western Europe. CCE's efforts to measure and reduce its carbon footprint have resulted in a seven percent reduction in energy use from 2006 to 2008.
Created the first certified product carbon footprint of Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, Coke Zero and Oasis in Great Britain and Dasani in the United States.
Saved 301 million liters of water through water efficiency initiatives, further reducing the company's water use ratio from 1.82 to 1.73 liters of water to produce one liter of product in the last three years. CCE has one of the lowest water use ratios in the global Coca-Cola system.
Recovered and reused approximately 125,000 metric tons of packaging materials through internal programs and Coca-Cola Recycling's work to increase opportunities for consumer recycling in the marketplace and at large-scale events.
Continued support of the United Nations Global Compact by endorsing the CEO Water Mandate, which recognizes the impact companies have on the world's water supply.
Coca-Cola Enterprises is the world’s largest marketer, producer, and distributor of bottle and can liquid nonalcoholic refreshment. CCE sells approximately 80 percent of The Coca-Cola Company's bottle and can volume in North America and is the sole licensed bottle for products of The Coca-Cola Company in Belgium, continental France, Great Britain, Luxembourg, Monaco, and the Netherlands. For more information, please visit http://www.cokecce.com/.
The Rest @ CSRwire
Saturday 1 August 2009
First Solutions Certified as a Validation and Verifying Body
Boonton, NJ - January 8, 2009 With so much confusion regarding the validity of carbon credits here in the United States, First Environment recently completed a program to standardize the process for documenting and verifying greenhouse gas emissions.
Working with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), First Environment has been accredited as a Validation and/or Verification Body (VVB). This program will facilitate the true reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the environment.
ANSI coordinates development and use of voluntary consensus standards in the United States, and represents the needs and views of U.S. stakeholders around the globe.
ANSI launched this pilot accreditation program in early 2008. Lane Hallenback, ANSI Vice President of Accreditation Services said, “This program marks a significant step forward in assuring integrity and consistency in emission reporting and reduction projects across industry sectors and geographical borders. The institute is pleased to join in strengthening consumer confidence and promoting best practices for the validation and verification of GHG emissions.”
As a result of ANSI’s accreditation, The Climate Registry and The California Climate Action Registry recognize First Environment as an accredited 3rd party verifier. In addition, First Environment is accredited for emission reduction projects under the Voluntary Carbon Standard and is the only verification body in the United States accredited for Chicago Climate Exchange.
The benefit of this program is that buyers and sellers of carbon credits can be sure that firms verifying emission reductions possess the technical qualifications to perform such an audit. This will bring order to the marketplace of companies who are claiming to offer the technical expertise to document and reduce the six greenhouse gases that are the primary cause of climate change.
Tod Delaney, President of First Environment says, “We have been working in the industry for 30 years and are pleased to be recognized for our commitment to assuring the integrity and consistency in emission reporting. Standardizing this process and making sure it is transparent is critical to the success of any government regulatory scheme or marketplace driven solution that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
First Environment offers engineering design and implementation services to meet your company’s environmental and sustainability goals. Established in 1977 we are an international leader in emerging environmental standards and have built award-winning Environmental Management Systems for the Westchester County Airport as well. Email Bob Previdi at rwp@firstenvironment.com and for more information about ANSI go to http://www.ansi.org/.
The Rest @ First Environment
Working with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), First Environment has been accredited as a Validation and/or Verification Body (VVB). This program will facilitate the true reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the environment.
ANSI coordinates development and use of voluntary consensus standards in the United States, and represents the needs and views of U.S. stakeholders around the globe.
ANSI launched this pilot accreditation program in early 2008. Lane Hallenback, ANSI Vice President of Accreditation Services said, “This program marks a significant step forward in assuring integrity and consistency in emission reporting and reduction projects across industry sectors and geographical borders. The institute is pleased to join in strengthening consumer confidence and promoting best practices for the validation and verification of GHG emissions.”
As a result of ANSI’s accreditation, The Climate Registry and The California Climate Action Registry recognize First Environment as an accredited 3rd party verifier. In addition, First Environment is accredited for emission reduction projects under the Voluntary Carbon Standard and is the only verification body in the United States accredited for Chicago Climate Exchange.
The benefit of this program is that buyers and sellers of carbon credits can be sure that firms verifying emission reductions possess the technical qualifications to perform such an audit. This will bring order to the marketplace of companies who are claiming to offer the technical expertise to document and reduce the six greenhouse gases that are the primary cause of climate change.
Tod Delaney, President of First Environment says, “We have been working in the industry for 30 years and are pleased to be recognized for our commitment to assuring the integrity and consistency in emission reporting. Standardizing this process and making sure it is transparent is critical to the success of any government regulatory scheme or marketplace driven solution that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
First Environment offers engineering design and implementation services to meet your company’s environmental and sustainability goals. Established in 1977 we are an international leader in emerging environmental standards and have built award-winning Environmental Management Systems for the Westchester County Airport as well. Email Bob Previdi at rwp@firstenvironment.com and for more information about ANSI go to http://www.ansi.org/.
The Rest @ First Environment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe
Posts
All Comments