Carbon neutral - it's really happening
Discussion
A friend of mine has just started a small consultancy business from home, and is selling to the local government sector. That means he has to put all sorts of nonsense on his website, part of which was a statement of carbon neutrality.
He says (to me) 'As a marketing statement, I have made (company name) carbon neutral by buying offset certificates under the EU ETS...from Tescos!!!'
I replied that since I only do 65% of the average annual mileage, and as a single person my utility bills are probably lower than average, perhaps I can sell some of my unused CO2 quota to somebody?
He replied 'As far as I can make out individuals can't sell under-usage as we don't get issued with personal allowances.'
This carbon trading thing might be a money-spinner... where do I start?
He says (to me) 'As a marketing statement, I have made (company name) carbon neutral by buying offset certificates under the EU ETS...from Tescos!!!'
I replied that since I only do 65% of the average annual mileage, and as a single person my utility bills are probably lower than average, perhaps I can sell some of my unused CO2 quota to somebody?
He replied 'As far as I can make out individuals can't sell under-usage as we don't get issued with personal allowances.'
This carbon trading thing might be a money-spinner... where do I start?
I was with a company today who's bidding for work on the 2012 Olympics. A staggering amount of weight, as to who gets the work, will come back to the "carbon footprint" of the product. Previously it's been "bluff & bluster" but it's actually becoming "real". It's like the ISO boys have got a whole new direction to go.
simpo two said:
Bandwagon profit aside, have they not stopped to realise that Company A (high polluting) simply handing money to Company B (low polluting) makes Jack Schitt difference to anything, other than simply increasing the prices for customers of Company A?
Don't confuse quangos and legislation with common sense - the two are in no way related!
srebbe64 said:
simpo two said:
Bandwagon profit aside, have they not stopped to realise that Company A (high polluting) simply handing money to Company B (low polluting) makes Jack Schitt difference to anything, other than simply increasing the prices for customers of Company A?
Don't confuse quangos and legislation with common sense - the two are in no way related!
Of course!
Has everyone not realised yet that all of these 'facilities' and 'awareness' is nothing more than sowing the seed of acceptance in the eye of the public. The next step is a hike in 'carbon based' taxation set to recoup more than the original more sensible system. This is of course notwithstanding that all of this lifestyle change in the UK has to global emmissions adds up to such a tiny fraction of one percent to a theory which is dubious at best...
Come off it you can sell virtually anything as carbon neutral.
I've heard of people knocking down a 600year old english oak forest, and claiming that it's a green source for building a new house, because;
It's sustainable material.
- You just have to grow more trees.
--> But it takes 600 years before you can build another.
It lasts longer than conventioal building materials.
- There are loads of ancient medieval properties made of oak. How many medieval high rise tower blocks are there?
--> I see the height of cold war construction producing underground concrete communication and civic reconstruction bunkers that will last well into the next Ice age.
It locks up the carbon in the building.
- The building is made of trees, and the trees got their carbon from the environment.
--> Yes, but the tree is only actually helping the environment whilst it's alive and growing. Once dead it can only ever decompose and release it's carbon into the environment. God forbid that your Toyota Prius should catch fire whilst parked in your bloody oaken garage complex, and proceed to burn the rest of your property down.
It seems to me that the only thing you have to do, to ensure that you can successfully achieve anything these days, is to think about the carbon, and write you justification for it's use.
In fact, just get a few such things written down, and use them as a justification for whatever you want to do next.
As long as you make sure that you change your thinking once or twice a year, no-one is likely to notice that the justification is not really relevant to that which you are trying to do.
The other important thing is to make sure that your rationale is slightly open ended. It mustnt be so open ended that it looks negligent. Equally if you can jude it right it will ensure that the inquisitive mind is lead to a labarynth of onward counter argument, which no mortal would be prepared to persue.
Snip, snip.... Bob's your auntie.
I've heard of people knocking down a 600year old english oak forest, and claiming that it's a green source for building a new house, because;
It's sustainable material.
- You just have to grow more trees.
--> But it takes 600 years before you can build another.
It lasts longer than conventioal building materials.
- There are loads of ancient medieval properties made of oak. How many medieval high rise tower blocks are there?
--> I see the height of cold war construction producing underground concrete communication and civic reconstruction bunkers that will last well into the next Ice age.
It locks up the carbon in the building.
- The building is made of trees, and the trees got their carbon from the environment.
--> Yes, but the tree is only actually helping the environment whilst it's alive and growing. Once dead it can only ever decompose and release it's carbon into the environment. God forbid that your Toyota Prius should catch fire whilst parked in your bloody oaken garage complex, and proceed to burn the rest of your property down.
It seems to me that the only thing you have to do, to ensure that you can successfully achieve anything these days, is to think about the carbon, and write you justification for it's use.
In fact, just get a few such things written down, and use them as a justification for whatever you want to do next.
As long as you make sure that you change your thinking once or twice a year, no-one is likely to notice that the justification is not really relevant to that which you are trying to do.
The other important thing is to make sure that your rationale is slightly open ended. It mustnt be so open ended that it looks negligent. Equally if you can jude it right it will ensure that the inquisitive mind is lead to a labarynth of onward counter argument, which no mortal would be prepared to persue.
Snip, snip.... Bob's your auntie.
simpo two said:
Bandwagon profit aside, have they not stopped to realise that Company A (high polluting) simply handing money to Company B (low polluting) makes Jack Schitt difference to anything, other than simply increasing the prices for customers of Company A?
I guess it's pretty similar to the way PRN's (Packaged Waste Recovery Notes) work:
www.prnbrokers.co.uk/index/index/printable
"For many business obligated under these regulations the most realistic option is to purchase PRN'S, or more simply put, to transfer their responsibilty to achieve recycling targets to another company."
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff