Big business taking climate change more seriously

This post is brought to you by  Curt Rosengren ~ Passion Catalyst TM   "Love your work. Change your world."

A recent report shows that the largest companies are paying increasingly more attention to their energy use and carbon emissions.

The world's biggest companies are making climate change a higher priority, in part through more widespread disclosure of carbon emissions, according to an annual report released Monday by a nonprofit group.

The report from Carbon Disclosure Project tracked how companies plan to deal with the risks and opportunities associated with greenhouse gas emissions and energy use.

"The big thing this year is the huge increase in the level of seriousness with which climate change is being incorporated into the corporate strategy of companies," said Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) Chief Executive Paul Dickinson.

Not so surprisingly, the more they're addressing the issue, the more they seem to be willing to talk about it...

Among the 500 companies ranked by the Financial Times newspaper as the world's largest by market capitalization, 75 percent responded to this year's survey, up from 47 percent when the survey started four years ago.

The response rate by companies in North America rose in all industry sectors, and nine of 10 sectors had a response rate of more than 50 percent. The increased willingness by companies to disclose their carbon emissions and find ways to reduce them reflects the changing political and regulatory landscape over energy efficiency.

Of the companies that responded, 76 percent implemented programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, compared with 48 percent last year.

--

Comments

[Recycling Supermarket]

Nice article! Some of the leading UK companies have recently signed up to a similar scheme where they will be working alongside the Carbon Trust to measure and reduce the carbon footprint of a number of popular products. Hopefully more will follow suit as it is clearly an important issue for both consumers and the environment.

[Think Solar Energy]

Thanks for you article. Here in Italy the situation is very bad. Environmental issues and renewable energy opportunities continue to be irrelevant to the general public and companies as well as.

[Ames Tiedeman]

Look what is on the Moon? Can this be our energy future?

Look at this quote.

When helium-3 combines with deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) the fusion reaction proceeds at a very high temperature and it can produce awesome amounts of energy.

"Just 25 tonnes of helium, which can be transported on a space shuttle, is enough to provide electricity for the US for one full year."

This is why China wants to go to the moon by 2017. We are going back in 2020. We need to get there faster. We should have a national goal of 2013, 5 years

[Lorenzo Rambaldi]

Really amazing blog..!

Come and visit ours about the same iusses www.energyislife.org

[Solar Power]

Yeah Good to see that companies pays more attention!

http://solarsystem.helplife.net/

Regards

[Jamie]

We have reached a time in our history where there is now little doubt that we are having a damaging effect on our environment. The most pressing of our problems being climate change.

Every day we release millions and millions of tonnes of carbon into our atmosphere, the main culprits of course are fossil fuels. Our addiction to oil and coal are largely the reason for our rocket like progress in the last 100 plus years, cheap energy consumed in ever increasing servings by each of us has given us better lifestyles like that of royalty in preceding centuries.

Our success as a species I believe will be measured by how much coal and oil we can leave in the ground.

The time has come to move ahead again, not in a quantum leap, just baby steps are all we need. Technology is the double edged sword that we will either use to help fix the problem, or just continue to add to our swelling appetite for energy.

As much as I would like to see wind and tidal power, geo thermal energy, solar collection and bio fuels relieve our dependence on oil and coal, these technologies are still in their infancy and cannot compete with fossil fuels in the real world (well not yet!).

With India and China now wanting a slice of the pie you and I have enjoyed all our lives, coal burning power plants mushroom at the speed of one every 7-10 days. These facilities have an expected life of 40-50 years.

So what is the answer, the N word. Nuclear. The technology is mature, the impact on our environment compared with fossil fuel is negligible, and it is the only form of energy production that can compete with Coal & Oil.

Sure we know of the dangers but aren’t we in trouble now? We are the drowning man and Nuclear energy (in the short term) is the only hand we have reaching out to us.

Look on Nuclear energy as a stepping stone, not a stumbling block. Let’s be realistic and make the hard decisions while we still have time to do so.

What do you think?

[email protected]

[Bob Leet]

Tens of millions of dollars are being spent by battery companies in order to discredit hydrogen because hydrogen works better than batteries. A large number of “pundits” who act as “writers”, “bloggers”, “authors” and “non-profit evangelist group founders” are actually supported by financial gain from battery companies who are terrified of hydrogen displacing their revenue streams. You will see a list of these people and their backers online soon. The following facts are cut and pasted from tens of thousands of validating scientific sources available online and in libraries, federal studies and university research papers.

Hydrogen can be made at home. Anybody who says it can’t is either a shill, an idiot or completely out of touch with reality and technology. You can make it for free, at home, all day long and all night long. Anybody who says it costs too much or that it has some evil chain reaction of “negative karma” or “sour grid source” or causes cancer because of something back in the energy chain is almost always a shill because the energy chain is constantly improving. Anybody who says the numbers say it is all wrong or bad or evil or inefficient are also usually a shill who are quoting numbers from six months or six years back (which is ancient history in hydrogen timeframes). It now costs less to make hydrogen from water than any known way to make gasoline and it continues to get cheaper every month. The “battery shill” spin has worn thin and has been supplanted by facts. Hydrogen is made from WATER via solar energy, wind energy, microbes, radio waves, sunlight and salt, and other FREE sources of energy. Hydrogen can also be made from any organic garbage, waste, plants or ANYTHING organic via lasers, plasma beams or dozens of other powered exotics which can be run off of EITHER the grid or the free hydrogen made from solar energy, wind energy, microbes, radio waves, sunlight and salt, and other FREE sources of energy OR the grid. There is no oil that needs to be involved anywhere in the production of hydrogen. These systems trickle charge hydrogen into storage containers, either tanks or solid state cassettes, 24/7.

Hydrogen processors now make hydrogen with 91% efficiency.

NO INFRASTRUCTURE IS NEEDED!!! This is the biggest lie of all. A large number of start-ups have solid state hydrogen solutions that entirely use existing infrastructure.

Battery Shills, backed by companies who are invested in batteries, are the usual suspects in anti-hydrogen reporting.

A “fuel cell car” and an “electric car” ARE THE SAME THING. The shills want you to think otherwise. The only difference is where the electricity is stored. You can pull the batteries out of every Zenn, Tesla, Zap, EV1, Venture Vehicle, etc. and pop a fuel cell/hydrogen pack in the same hole and go further, more efficiently in EVERY SINGLE CASE.

A modern fuel cell and hydrogen system beats batteries on every front including

FIRE- Batteries catch on fire constantly and have been the result of massively more fires and explosions than hydrogen.

Life Span- Hydrogen power systems run massively longer and provide massively greater range per charge than batteries.

Run Time – The run time of batteries constantly shortens while hydrogen does not.

Memory Effect- This effect is not present in hydrogen systems

Recharge Time- modern hydrogen systems are instant recharge.

Charge life- Modern hydrogen systems can recharge massively longer than batteries before end of life.

Nano powder batteries have cancer causing powder that falls into the pores of the Chinese factory workers skin and gives them potentially fatal diseases

Cost- The cost per 300 mile range for a hydrogen car system is massively lower than a battery system

Energy from “sour-grid”- A modern hydrogen system can be charged from a completely clean home energy system.

Can’t make energy at home- Hydrogen can be made at home. Batteries cannot.

Storage Density – Modern hydrogen technology has a massively higher storage density than batteries.

Bulky Size- Hydrogen systems are dramatically less bulky than batteries.

High Weight- The weight of batteries is so great ir reduces the reange of travel of a vehicle which causes the use of wasteful energy just to haul the batteries along with the car. Hydrogen energy systems weigh far less.

Environmental soundness- The disposal of batteries after use presents a deadly environmental issue.

Self Discharge issues- Hydrogen does not self discharge like batteries.

The charge-keeping capability of a typical lithium-ion battery degrades steadily over time and with use. After only one or two years of use, the runtime of a laptop or cell phone battery is reduced to the point where the user experience is significantly impacted. For example, the runtime of a typical 4-hour laptop battery drops to only about 2.5 hours after 3,000 hours of use. By contrast, the latest fuel cells continue to deliver nearly their original levels of runtime well past the 2,000 and 3,000 hour marks and are still going strong at 5,000+ hours
The electrical capacity of batteries has not kept up with the increasing power consumption of electronic devices. Features such as W-LAN, higher CPU speed, "always-on", large and bright displays and many others are important for the user but severely limited by today`s battery life. Lithium ion batteries, and lithium-polymer batteries have almost reached fundamental limits. A laptop playing a DVD today has a runtime of just above one hour on one battery pack, which is clearly not acceptable.
Such limitations have led to an enormous interest in alternative power sources, of which the fuel cell is the most promising candidate. Storage density, i.e. the electrical capacity available per unit mass of energy storage means, is one of the most important parameters.

So you have battery evangelists who are anti-hydrogen sheep:
Ulf Bossel of the European Fuel Cell Forum, Alec Brooks, EV World Sam Thurber, Cal Cars and others.

Yet for every manipulated argument they come up with, they are shot down by hundreds of sites with facts.

The interventions of these 'doubters' fall into a number of clear categories which I'll summarise as:

1 "You can't succeed because no-one has ever succeeded at this (sports car making / battery-power / taking on the majors, etc etc) before". - May I commend to everyone Dava Sobel's wonderful (and short!) book, "Longitude", which offers a perfect map of the tendency of government and the scientific establishment collude to reject true innovation. This effect can only be overcome when a tipping-point of perceived popular utility is reached, at which point the establishment suddenly has a bout of collective amnesia about their earlier denials. (Same story many times over, historically, of course - from Gallileo onwards.)

2 "It's inefficient to carry around". Rather as it's inefficient to carry around a full tank of gas, perhaps? Or to carry around a SUV chassis which itself weighs a ton or more? (Come on, Detroit, you can find a better argument than that, surely?)

3 "This technology is not a solution and never will be." This very much reminds me of the IBM's famously short-sighted take on the prospect of home computing, back in the 70s. The language of these contributions, let alone their content, points to a thought-process rooted in volume-producers'
vested interests. Consider the successes of some other new-tech challengers of vested interests: Dyson taking on Hoover with a bagless vacuum-cleaner; Bayliss bringing clockwork (i.e. battery-less) radios and laptops to the third world; thin-film solar panels (sorry, can't remember who, but you know who I mean). On this point, it was deeply depressing, at a high-level environmental science conference of the UK Government last year, for me to witness a "leading and respected" Professor of Transport rejecting electric traction out-of-hand with the words "it will never be more than just power storage on a trolley". Given that this "expert" was advising ministers of state setting future national policy on alternative transport, my immediate thought was "Who pays this man's research grant?"

So let's be vigilant for any who claim, in a smooth way, that invention can't possibly have the answers. From a position of some expertise in this field, may I remind readers that the "you-don't-understand-how-our-industry-works" argument has been the policy instrument of choice for numerous corporate fraudsters and protectionists down the ages (Enron, anyone?). New York's energetic DA, Mr Spitzer, has made a fine career out of challenging such thinking in the finance sector (with the simple rejoinder: "WHY does your industry work like that? Against customer choice?"). And then of course there's the entire consumer movement (remember Flaming Fords? remember "Unsafe at Any Speed"?). We can and should ask the same questions of the conventional auto industry.

The good news is that genuine innovation will out - as long as ordinary consumers are able to find it and buy it. One of the early lessons of the twentyfirst century, thank goodness, is that the old-school, browbeating style of corporate communication - terrorising one's customers into rejecting alternatives - increasingly fails as people wise up to making decisions based on their own independently-gathered information about benefits and risks. (Interestingly, a popular reaction against "selling by fear" is also now happening in the political field. Now why might that be?) As a consumer, one doesn't have to agree with the in-ya-face techniques of anticorporate critics like Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock to still subscribe to the view that we can buy what we want to buy. We no longer want to be told by old-tech that new-tech is inherently suspect. Isn't it old-tech that brought us dependency on oil, climate change, wars over energy sources?

So c'mon people, how about a reward system for "spot the spoiler"? I'm all for free debate on the issues, but some of these blogs smell rather like the work of paid old-tech corporatists trying to sabotage your success.
Challenge such interventions with the greatest possible vigour, and let consumers decide for themselves!

1.) Battery companies are spending millions of dollars to knock H2
because it works longer, better, faster and cheaper than batteries! Most of the people writing these screaming anti-H2 articles are battery company shills or have investments there. H2 does beat batteries on every front so the should be SCARED!

2.) The steel unions hate H2 because H2 cars don't use steel. Steel is
too hard to afford any more so nobody will use it in any case.

3.) Activists hate H2 because they think it can only be made by the oil
companies and they hate the oil companies. This is a falsehood created by the battery and steel guys.

4.) Oil companies hate H2 because it is so much better than oil but they
only get to hate it unto 2030 when the affordable oil runs out. Then they know they must love it because H2 energy will be all that is left. The Oil industry is dismayed that H2 is coming on so fast and they are trying to slow it down even more.

5.) Other alternative energy interests hate it because it is getting all
of the funding because the polita-nomics are better with H2 than ANYTHING ELSE ON EARTH.

If the gasoline in your car blows up it will do a VAST AMOUNT more death and damage than H2 ever will.
You are driving a MOLOTOV COCKTAIL. In 2030 oil is GONE and there is NO OTHER OPTION that can be delivered world-wide in time but H2!

If I am a shill who could I possible be working for? I say it is all free and you don’t need an oil company or energy company anywhere in the loop.

[Texas Electricity]

The world's biggest companies are making climate change a higher priority... that's why it's important to look for green energy whenever possible.

Green, renewable energy is our best shot at helping save the planet. Using a "green company" to supply your electricity is an easy step each of us can take.

[Hedge Fund Consultant - Richard Wilson]

I remember 7 years ago thinking my profesor was crazy for specializing in sustainability...now he is a consultant for dozens of firms. The field is really exploding right now.

- Richard
http://richard-wilson.blogspot.com

[Robert]

I think that any step in the right direction is positive.

I think it would be very wise for businesses to implement some sort of environmentally friendly rules to their employees. Small things such as turning lights off in buildings and switching off computers and powerpoints when not in use. Big Businesses would also have the financial capability to invest in things such as solar panels, thus they would lead by example to their employees and eventually these employees will be more inclined to research and seek out products such as solar panels to use in their own home.

Check out www.mrsolarenergy.com for more information on renewable energy, in particular solar power.

[Jacskon (Waterforgas) Neshah]

Have you heard of Dr Brown's gas? A dead cheap fuel alternative which basically is HHO or 2 hydrogen + 1oxygen, which you can convert your car to produce for its own fuel of more water than gas...saves more than 60% of cost of gas.

Most people think that the over 90 years old water for gas technology is a scam, though I know otherwise, because I use water for gas successfully to run my cars at increased engine power, over 100% MPG and without harmful emissions; because its end product is water. Are you for or against water for gas technology?

[Rich]

Here's something that is so easy and makes so much sense. Everyone will pretty much need to purchase cartridges so...I came across information through a business customer and looked further into it. Here is what I found, "
Over 700 million cartridges were thrown away world-wide in 2003 - and since more and more people use inkjet cartridges this amount will continue to grow year after year.
Empty cartridges contain residual toner powder, ink, a plastic casing, aluminum and other parts. These parts are all non-biodegradable and they will take more than 1000 years to decompose in landfill sites.
The remanufacturing of cartridges as an alternative to producing new ones currently reduces world demand of oil by 300,000 barrels and saves 17,000 tons of aluminum as well as 10,000,000 tons of timber. Besides helping to reduce carbon emissions, a major cause of global warming, it conserves resources and reduces waste.
1.5 pints of crude oil are needed to produce one cartridge. In the last 6 months alone inkjet cartridge recycling has saved more than 50 million liters of oil, more than the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound in 1989."
Wow, so my whole point is this client twotonellc.com remanufacturers ink and toner cartridges and considering the above information it only makes common sense to buy remanufactured ink and toner cartridges. You save money, get a higher yield (more prints) and save money.Check out twotonellc.com, and use common sense.

[Antonio Pietrangeli]

In Europe the "sustainability" business started some years ago but, particularly in Italy, it is slowered by our terrific bureaucracy.
If this business starts seriously in the US I think finally we will follow.
We design hydropower plants all over the world but we have no work in Italy !

Antonio Pietrangeli
www.pietrangeli.it

[vernacular_ninja]

And the key to a developing renewable market lies in the hands of corporations willing to pony up and create the technology necessary to build a clean energy infrastructure. Google is one example of a giant company looking beyond just going green, but also committing to funding clean energy projects.

Google Green

[PM]

Everybody should learn about electric cars as a solution. It’s amazing how far the technology has come. One of the main electric car companies, Zap, has delivered over 100,000 EV’s. (source: zapworld.com). EV’s cost 1 to 3 cents per mile to run, compare that to regular cars!

[PM]

Everybody should learn about electric cars as a solution. It’s amazing how far the technology has come. One of the main electric car companies, Zap, has delivered over 100,000 EV’s. (source: zapworld.com). EV’s cost 1 to 3 cents per mile to run, compare that to regular cars!

[andym]

Hi folks - here in the UK there has been a definite upsurge in 'green consciousness' amongst the big energy companies-which should help us in catching up with the Scandanavian countrires renewable power generation. Once companies realise that they can capitalise on the rise of green consciousness we should hopefully begin to see a snowball effect filtering through to all levels of society.

As an example Scottish Hydro Electric have recently implemented their 'better plan' which provides households with 100% hydro electricity at no extra cost-hopefully schemes like this will see the momentum build and renewable energy sources will become the norm for powering our households.

http://www.hydro.co.uk/ForYourHome/EnergyProducts/betterplan.aspx"

[Logan]

Build your own renewable energy options at http://www.earth4energy.org

[Faros]

Create renewable energy at home with http://earth4energyfast.com/

[booster]

As for theory - you have to explore it yourself. As for practice - maybe I could give some help. I found an interesting program on one of the thematic forum recently. It searches for combination automatically. Nice one, though poor in interface.
Program is based on Martingale system with the corrected algorithm. It`s based on searching and waiting a series of results («red or black» usually). But this one I got is for «head or tail».
There were discussions «pro and against» this program, but I downloaded it and explored for about half an hour and left it in automatic mode till next evening. What I found in the morning was 250WM.
But use it wisely, admins in casinos do not welcome these things.
Soft:
http://fff.to/19G
Mirror 1:
http://fff.to/19H
Mirror 2:
http://fff.to/19I
pass for the arch: 123
customized for http://headortail.com

[baron]

tnx a lot, i`ve downloaded the program, installed it. Didn`t get into all features but there are some results already. My account is slowly filling with money.
Great thanx:-)

[take surveys]

companies needed to do this 10 years ago. Unsure why they wanted until now. Thanks for the article.

legit survey companies

[Richard]

This post reminds me of two things:
1. That companies are seeking new ways to get money.
2. That people are considering green energy more seriously.
3. That eventually, people and corporations would realize the importance of considering the environment and start working together to help keep it fit.