Green Blog

Corporations need to reduce water consumption, but they also need to be concerned about making money, protecting their position in the marketplace, being aware of operational risks as they embrace sustainability. A baseline position needs to be assessed, creating a water footprint. Water represents risk to a company in many different ways, which must be understood and these factors must be compiled into a workable plan.

Greenhouse gas protocol tells us that there are three different categories of carbon emissions and each category must be understood by any corporation. We can apply these categories to water. Remember that emissions are generated during energy production, indirectly during energy consumption and also in relation to its provision, upstream or downstream of the company. Remember that water is used as part of your supply chain and during product disposal.

When composing the water footprint, understand how the resource may be used to make available raw materials or goods which are introduced to the production line by suppliers. This could be in the “work in progress” production phase or during transportation and the company needs to take responsibility for the fact that this happens. While it may well be beyond the borders of the organization, the fact is that the company’s demand for the supplier’s product is the cause of this water usage.

If at all possible, water should be generated from a renewable source during production. It is inevitable that stakeholders and the public in general are going to pay more attention to the source of water in the future and the subject will become politically volatile.

Remember that water can become an issue when it is used for an industrial or commercial purpose. Questions will govern its efficient use, but it can also be a potentially inflammatory issue after the fact as well. Water discharge or runoff can become a pollution concerns and every effort should be made to recycle.

When a company assesses its water related risks, it will likely see an additional urgency to reduce water consumption wherever possible. So many factors can combine to place a premium on water. Local ground conditions, for example, or weather conditions that cause temporary drought. Consider how market conditions could cause energy fluctuations and a corresponding demand for water generated power and so on.

Water related risks can arise in one particular locality and not in another, to an organization that is widely distributed, leading to the need to assess such risks as they may occur regionally. Is the organization aware of local attitudes and the likelihood of political posturing, regionally?

The corporate approach must be modified to reduce water consumption from a global perspective. Essentially, we have not increased our water efficiency over the last couple of decades, choosing to place most emphasis on energy efficiency and carbon emissions. Sustainability is multifaceted and cannot be polarized.

Daniel Stouffer has a lot of information about how to reduce water consumption and why a visit to www.verisae.com can aid you.

Did you know that auto manufacturer Toyota has identified seven distinct areas of wasteful inefficiency, all of which can be attributed to any manufacturing operation today? Fundamentally, these wasteful areas that will really kill profitability and open up your organization to charges of excess and a lack of sustainability are: overproduction, waiting time, transport, process, inventory, movement (or motion) and poor quality control.

Make no mistake about it, because you cannot obviously see an area of waste it does not mean that it is not there. Overproduction waste is a glaring example and it’s true today that most companies pay only token lipservice to the concept of waste production. In fact, many organizations believe that overproduction is a necessary part of doing business.

Overproduction waste means that you are producing goods in quantities that are greater than demand. Whenever an economic slowdown comes along, this position will be highlighted and will then become almost impossible to reverse. Whenever an item is overproduced it also incurs additional elements of waste throughout the lifecycle, in unnecessary administration and financing costs.

In corporate culture, there is a feeling that if a production line is not utilized 100% of the time, or if particular employees are allowed to be idle at all, that this is more wasteful than letting them operate 24/7. This is a popular misconception and will at the least require a more educated assessment of equipment ROI.

Wherever overproduction waste and excess exists in an organization, resources will be wasted needlessly. Every item produced with the intention of sale includes a cost in terms of support, finance, admin, backup and other overheads. Whenever this item sits on the shelf, profit potential is gone.

A management system needs to reveal excesses as it tries to tackle overproduction waste, fundamentally by ensuring that no item can physically be produced unless the corresponding work order is actually in possession. Physically this means that the production equipment cannot engage unless it senses that a sale is in the system.

In the modern era, economic pressures lineup alongside environmental awareness to force every company to consider its own sustainability. While carbon emissions may be the poster child of sustainability, the concept includes waste reduction, water use consolidation and elimination of excess, wherever it may be found.

There are a suite of sustainability management tools available for any company, to educate and inform management in areas of inefficiency, including overproduction waste. These systems can pay for themselves in a very short space of time.

Daniel Stouffer has a great deal of information about your overproduction waste and how a visit to www.verisae.com can aid you.

categories: carbon emissions,environmental damage,climate change,climate,environment

Waste efficiency can be a very touchy subject. Ask yourself the question — how wasteful are you? Many of us, at the individual or corporate level, tend to think that we do not overtly waste anything and that we are naturally efficient. The stark reality is that almost every action involves waste, whenever there is any activity that involves anything other than an absolute minimum of resources.

In a corporate environment, there are at least six distinct areas were we can identify that waste is an issue. One of the most glaring is in the overproduction of products, a serious waste efficiency issue. It seems that whenever a delay occurs in a process or, conversely, whenever an element of motion is involved, waste inefficiency is apparent. We see a byproduct of overproduction in excess inventory stock.

Products should be supplied to the customer on a “just-in-time” basis, as anything that is produced over and above this is a clear indication of waste efficiency problems. If a poor tracking system or archaic bureaucratic procedures are in place, the company will undoubtedly exacerbate its waste problems.

Getting to the roots of the process is one of the first tasks that a waste efficiency committee should tackle. If current processes cannot handle the workload, waste will be incurred and this is especially troublesome if the goods being produced are perishable.

The process of waste can begin at the sales level, when inadequate forecasting is performed. Any errors made at the customer level will be aggravated throughout the product lifecycle, so the waste efficiency committee needs to look at sales team efficiency in the way that paperwork is generated and handled.

Look to the supply-chain for waste efficiency issues. These companies may be supplying materials or work in progress to you, complete with “packing” materials which will incur high disposal costs for your organization. See how you can fix this, turning waste efficiency over to your suppliers as well.

Any poor measurement activities within your production process will leave you with all kinds of material, clippings or castoffs that will be just destined for the landfill. Take a leaf out of those organizations who have vowed to stop using landfills altogether in the foreseeable future, as they subscribe to waste efficiency.

The corporate culture itself can often destroy waste efficiency. Ultimate sustainability cannot be achieved unless waste mitigation is front and center. Remember to impose less upon all of the resources and environment around you.

Daniel Stouffer has much more data about your waste efficiency and how a visit to www.verisae.com will aid you.

Respected organization, the Pew Center for Global Climate Change has stated what every company should realize by itself, that energy efficiency should be engaged immediately, before any potential legislation or EPA regulation forces action. The Center studied a number of firms who were all in agreement that major financial benefits can accrue, reputations can be enhanced and intracompany attitudes improved.

Organizations should consider examples of energy efficiency as they seek to improve their market position. According to Pew, those companies that strive to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as a core part of the business strategy benefited in many different ways. So long as clear goals were established and the system was set up to collect data and manage the outcome, clear results could be demonstrated.

Every boardroom across the country is interested in saving costs and is well aware that energy is one of the largest cost that any company can endure. Managers looking for examples of energy efficiency understand that they can pick this “low hanging fruit,” and not have to fight for cost savings elsewhere.

Companies are opting to insulate ceilings, replace inefficient doors and windows, install motion detectors, upgrade lighting units and realize that such examples of energy efficiency can help to directly reduce power bills and consequent carbon emissions.

Proactive organizations find that their examples of energy efficiency help them to reduce their maintenance costs, as well. Staff can get motivated by the company’s position leading to increased morale and benefits can be traced all the way down the line, including a boost in the organization’s reputation.

Building stock typically lasts for an average of fifty years and many companies find themselves occupying buildings that are far from efficient. In this case, retrofitting of existing appliances and assets is the first priority and the federal government is making grants available to help finance these moves.

There is no doubt that carbon regulation is on the horizon. We are all reliant on fossil fuels and know that carbon is damaging our environment. Commit to energy efficiency now as the first step in ensuring that your company’s carbon taxation bill in the future is mitigated.

There are many examples of energy efficiency in action and plenty of reasons for the typical organization to conform. Management must make sure that they are in possession of accurate and up-to-date information, generated in real-time, so that they can ensure that all assets are operating to peak efficiency, cutting back their raw energy costs to a minimum.

Daniel Stouffer has a lot of data about examples of energy efficiency and how a visit to www.verisae.com will benefit you.

After months of political wrangling, Senators Kerry and Lieberman issued their version of a Senate energy bill, just as the country was trying to get to grips with the massive oil spill caused by the offshore oil rig fire. Energy and energy efficiency are certainly front and center in the news these days and this is causing organizations large and small to look at their consumption and find out how they may become more sustainable.

The Senate energy bill is causing people to take action all around the nation, as the American Power Act is put forward as a counterpart to the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which was the House of Representatives version of 2009. The Senate proposes that thousands of power plants and power-hungry industries, including refineries, will have to take part in a “cap and trade” scheme. Over the long term, this will reduce greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions.

Carbon emissions are damaging to the world all around us and cause global warming, as we know. The President stated that he wanted to reduce the emissions that we are responsible for by as much as 80% by the time we get to 2050. Such stringent protections will inevitably require comprehensive legislation and it remains to be seen whether the American Power Act will now be developed into legislation this year or next.

Whether or not your organization is directly affected by the Senate’s activity and will have to take part in a cap and trade scheme, one way or the other a higher cost of utilities can be expected. Individual consumers are likely to receive protection under the Senate proposal, so the worst effect of these increases won’t find its way through to them. However, commercial organizations realize that they will have to look at additional costs and it now makes sense to become as efficient and sustainable, as possible.

Each organization should have an energy plan and know exactly how much energy it needs to use in order to function correctly. Each asset within the organization’s control should be analyzed to see whether it is efficient or not and systems should be implemented to track and monitor energy use and consequent carbon emissions. Few people doubt that legislation of some kind will be implemented, as after all, international consensus is calling for emissions control.

The Senate energy bill plans to commence emission reduction efforts in 2013 and accelerate the results through 2050. The Senate may differ from the House of Representatives, who in turn may differ from the administration’s position. However, there are calls from most sectors of society for change and a renewed push for more energy investment, especially as a consequence of the disastrous oil spill.

Sustainability is the chosen mantra for many organizations, as they construct their entire operations around energy efficiency. While some worry about carbon emission reduction primarily, others realize the fuel cost savings can be realized through energy efficiency. While the effects of the recession may dampen the thirst for any additional cost to be applied to electricity through carbon tax, everybody agrees that the bottom line can be helped by a realistic and comprehensive approach to efficiency throughout.

As the second half of 2010 unfolds, the Senate energy bill will be a major part of legislative action. Business leaders must understand that it is likely to impact their future.

Daniel Stouffer has a great deal of information about the Senate energy bill and how a visit to www.verisae.com will benefit you.

2010 has turned into one of the most politically turbulent seasons in recent memory and it is within this backdrop that a controversial climate bill put forward by Senators Joseph Lieberman and John Kerry was revealed to a critical public. This version of legislation has been titled the American Power Act and was originally a three person work of art, subject to a much publicized withdrawal by the Republican Lindsey Graham during the last days and weeks of its preparation.

In 2009, the House of Representatives passed legislation termed the American Clean Energy and Security Act and the American Power Act has many similarities. However, the initial legislation called for a comprehensive cap and trade mechanism, aimed to combat carbon emissions going forward, while the Senate version focuses mainly on power utility companies and the very largest emitters.

The American Power Act proposes that revenues raised from the fees paid by the utility companies and other industrial organizations in the future would be largely rebated to consumers. This is intended to cushion the expected rise in the cost of utilities caused by the effective premium on a ton of carbon. Indeed, two thirds of all revenues raised will go back to consumers, rising to 75% in the future.

Pres. Obama originally proposed a fully comprehensive cap and trade system impacting all areas of business. This is a far cry from what is proposed under the American Power Act, where only those responsible for more than 25,000 tons of carbon per year are expected to comply. This means that 7500 organizations will be impacted, but others may participate on a voluntary basis by taking part in a highly regulated, cash only, secondary market.

Existing regional or state efforts to curtail carbon emissions and global warming will not be affected by the Kerry/Lieberman legislation, as first thought. This is good news for proponents of California’s AB 32 cap and trade legislation, which is now beginning to unroll.

Nuclear power plants come out as winners under the American Power Act, with government risk insurance, tax accreditation, licensing assistance and individual loan guarantees all made available. Renewable energy advocates are far from satisfied, though, and want to see more action taken to restrict offshore oil drilling, especially in the wake of the BP oil disaster.

2010 is an election year and many incumbent senators and representatives are concerned about their futures. Energy reform is a very hot topic as the BP oil rig disaster is expected to remain in the news for many months of the year. The American Power Act includes provisions to allow states to opt out and abandon offshore oil, at least within 75 miles of their shoreline.

While many details remain to be sorted out, including how emissions allowances will be distributed, there is no doubt that an effective carbon tax of some kind is likely. Individual organizations should make sure that they are aware of their own situations, able to cut back on their energy use and carbon liabilities and implement plans to safeguard their interests.

Daniel Stouffer has a lot of information about the American Power Act and why a visit to www.verisae.com can be of use to you.

The beginning of May, 2010 proved very important for advocates of climate change, as two very important announcements were made. Firstly, Senators Lieberman and Kerry unveiled their climate legislation, the same time as the EPA announced that they had determined the final rule in the process of greenhouse gas regulation. Using powers under the Clean Air Act, the EPA would regulate emissions from the largest industrial facilities, nationwide.

The Clean Air Act includes permitting requirements and greenhouse gas regulation that would kick in in January 2011, when the largest facilities are required to include greenhouse gases in their permitting allocations. As 2011 rolls out, these permitting requirements will be expanded and all facilities with greenhouse gas emissions of at least 100,000 tons per annum will be required to get permission before they can operate.

The EPA will soon have considerable extra power, as greenhouse gas regulation rules require that permits will only be issued to a facility, if it can show that it has the best available control technologies and mitigation processes to contain carbon emissions. In 2009, the EPA determined that greenhouse gases were a danger to public health. This meant that thresholds could be mandated and powerful permit laws enacted as a follow-up.

Not surprisingly, advocates and politicians are up in arms about the greenhouse gas regulation rule announced by the EPA. The announcement of the rule was largely overshadowed by the publicity given to the American Power Act proposal, the Senate version of a cap and trade program. Indeed, Sen. Kerry was at pains to point out that unless senators accept legislation, regulators at the EPA would move in instead.

Detractors aim to squash the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulation if at all possible. Politicians from the Republican Party have already said that they will challenge the proposals of the Clean Air Act in court, as they fully expect that this type of legislation will extend to cover businesses large and small in the future.

The EPA has said that it is legally forced to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, due to the wording contained within the Clean Air Act. The Act says, that stationary sources must be addressed at the same time as non-stationary sources are. As cars and light trucks must meet very strict emission standards as part of the movement to restrict nonstationary sources, the current ruling was necessary from 2011, as well.

It is estimated that up to 1500 sources will be regulated by the EPA during 2011 and that they must either add to existing permitting processes or apply for permits for the first time, to regulate their greenhouse gas emissions.

The American Power Act may come up for a vote in late 2010, but there is little doubt that politicians will also be considering the implications contained within the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulation statement. In one way or the other, 2011 is likely to see much more regulation of carbon emissions in the USA, whichever way you look at it.

Daniel Stouffer has a lot of data about greenhouse gas regulation and how a visit to www.verisae.com will aid you.

Politicians and environmentalists have always been strange bedfellows, never more so than during current times. Our legislative leaders struggle to come up with a way to regulate the carbon trade, to ensure that business is, one way or the other, penalized for excess energy consumption. As the political landscape changes, we can see wild swings from one extreme to the other, as various schemes are considered to cut back on carbon emissions.

In 2009, the political landscape was such that the House of Representatives in the United States was able to pass a comprehensive raft of legislation, albeit narrowly. The American Clean Energy and Security Act included a controversial “cap and trade” scheme, somewhat similar to the Emissions trading Scheme in Europe. Despite the efforts required to pass this through the House, little has been achieved since that time in the Senate.

As 2010 unfolds, carbon trade is front and center as three Senators, representing a bipartisan approach craft a bill to bring carbon trade legislation in front of the Senate. Environmentalists continue to bicker, however, noting that meaningful legislation appears to be coming weaker and weaker with each committee reading.

Senators Graham, Lieberman and Kerry are proposing that the cap and trade scheme is much more restricted when compared to the options put forward by the House of Representatives. Initially, the scheme would only apply to the power sector, but there would be provisions within the legislation to potentially expand it soon thereafter.

When the late Sen. Kennedy’s Senate seat fell to a Democrat under a huge upset, the U.S. Senate Democratic majority lost its overall majority and thus the ability to steamroller legislation through. Republicans were adamant in their opposition to much of the climate legislation and they now have a considerable say in whatever goes forward. carbon trade scheme seems unlikely according to them, but it remains to be seen what can be reconciled.

Is it possible that the Environmental Protection Agency could move to implement restrictions of its own, should widespread Legislation not come out of Congress? They already found that carbon emissions are “a danger to public health,” and some Republicans see this as a way to push restrictions through, by a back door.

Every business and our economy in general will be impacted by climate carbon trade restrictions, when and wherever they arise. Alternative energy formats simply must be embraced and carbon emissions restricted one way or the other. Around the country, certain state or regional initiatives are active, but could it be that federal legislation would seek to stop such schemes, before the nationwide initiative could be put in place?

2010 may bring federal carbon trade legislation and every business must consider how it can become sustainable, curtail energy use and ensure that it is operating efficiently, under all costs.

Daniel Stouffer has much more information about the carbon trade and how a visit to www.verisae.com can be of use to you.

It may be true that we are only now scratching the surface of any carbon management initiatives, but we are nevertheless coming to a growing realization that such management and subsequent control will be more difficult than we might have thought. As we look at studies, such as produced by the Carnegie Institution for Science, we see that emissions are difficult to quantify and measure. According to Carnegie, one third of carbon dioxide emissions related to goods consumed in developed countries are actually emitted in other countries during manufacture.

Carbon management will be basically incomplete unless we are able to accurately determine, gauge and control carbon emissions throughout the entire chain of production, supply and use. It will be necessary to look at carbon at the earliest stages of a product development and to take ownership for the total implications of using a particular product. It cannot be right that the country that actually uses a product is not fully responsible for the emissions associated, even if they are beyond its own borders.

Cap and trade policies, already controversial in certain countries around the world, will need to be reviewed according to the Carnegie Institution for Science. These cap and trade schemes may not accurately take into account destructive emissions evident during the active trading of goods and services. Sophisticated carbon management software tracking products will undoubtedly be required, so that truly accurate findings can be produced.

It is now estimated that almost one quarter of all carbon dioxide related to fossil fuel production is evidenced during the production of goods that will ultimately be consumed in different countries. This underlines how the ultimate consumer is not held responsible for this liability and we know that most carbon management and tracking schemes seem to focus principally on direct emissions, also known as scopes one and two.

Most developed countries, including the United States, are “net” importers of carbon emissions. It is estimated that 6 gigatons of carbon are emitted during production of products that are consumed in countries other than that of manufacture.

Carbon management and control of emissions are subjects that are not without their share of controversy. When it comes to control of energy and associated emissions, cap and trade schemes continue to be the main focus of attention, with taxes related to these trading schemes primary. It could be that we will have to consider taxes on importation of carbon intensive products instead. Such taxes would help to protect domestic industries from imports that may be produced through access to less friendly carbon procedures overseas.

The retailing giant Wal-Mart has made many shockwaves following its significant focus on supply chain emissions. Governments and organizations alike are coming to the realization that carbon management systems must not only focus on in-house emissions, but also external liabilities.

We’re beginning to see an agreement emerging from countries that attended the Copenhagen Summit and we continue to move towards the control of climate change, slowly but surely. Carbon management software solutions will be much in evidence for organizations around the world as they strive towards their own sustainability.

Daniel Stouffer has a lot of information about carbon management and how a visit to www.verisae.com can aid you.

The political scene in 2010 is as active as ever as the United States Senate continues to debate far-reaching climate change legislation. During 2009, the House of Representatives was able to pass what is known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which many thought would help to bring far-reaching carbon legislation to the desk of the President. However, the Senate took far more convincing.

Under new initiatives posed by a Republican Senator (Graham), a Democrat (Kerry) and Washington’s only independent (Lieberman), power companies would be forced to buy and sell their “rights” to pollute within a new carbon market, with oil companies expected to pay fixed fees for their emissions. This is essentially a hybrid utility carbon market, which is another angle for consideration by legislators.

It’s difficult to know how far the Senate will be able to advance a serious alternative to climate change legislation during 2010, knowing how contentious these issues have been thus far. As November of 2010 is looming and the associated political elections are in many thoughts, seriously controversial legislation may well have to wait for the 2011 sessions.

Many argue that widespread support for controversial “cap and trade” legislation has waned somewhat, especially as political attention was focused on health care issues during almost all of 2009. Many were disappointed by the lack of results emanating from the Copenhagen Summit and environmentalists continue to warn us that we can ill afford to stall and must pay clear attention to the introduction of carbon market forces.

As seems to be always the case, complications within a legislative bill could threaten the outcome of the overall legislation itself. Here we see that initiatives encouraging offshore oil and gas drilling within overall climate legislation are problematic and Senators representing states that are directly affected by such issues are up in arms.

Issues related to offshore oil notwithstanding, the proposals being put forward by the cross party group of senators include measures that establish a carbon market affecting power companies and oil companies. In this proposal, oil companies would pay a fixed fee for emissions which would be linked to the price that power companies put aside for carbon dioxide allowances. All calculations would be linked to what is felt to be workable within the carbon market.

There is little doubt that some form of carbon market will emerge as we stumble through the political minefields ahead and companies across the nation are coming to the slow realization that they will be impacted one way or another. The energy that they use within daily operations will be under scrutiny and they should look and act now to try and reduce it and temper their carbon emissions. By doing so, they will also be seen as being much more sustainable from a broader point of view.

Activity from the cross party group of senators is now accelerating, as they seek to help introduce a workable trading scheme for the carbon market ahead. As this exploration continues, industry groups including Chambers of Commerce and bodies representing electricity and utility production companies are becoming more actively involved.

Daniel Stouffer has a lot of information about carbon market and how a visit to www.verisae.com can be of use to you.