Each month we are funding trees to be planted in the Mallee and Strzelecki Ranges and investing in carbon offsets to the value of 130 % of our CO2 emissions.

Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Today we ordered compact fluorescent kits for all of our team members to take home. 

(available through easy being green and ecovantage )

These lights are more expensive to buy than regular incandescent light globes but they use a fraction of the energy. With time, each light  saves an enormous amount of energy, CO2 and money.

Able will offset the carbon dioxide saved by our team members ( by using the lights that we buy for them) against the carbon dioxide that we generate in our normal business activities.

Our team members will receive 6 free lights  which will reduce their power bills by up to $150 per annum.

Note - if you want to buy these fabulous little lights make sure that you remember to find out whether you need bayonet tip or screw tip.

Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Today we made our first contribution to Trees for Life.     

Our offset was for approximately 79 tonnes of carbon dioxide. We will be making offsets like this on a monthly basis.

We have invested in the current planting season, the trees are to be protected by covenant for a period of 70 years.

At least 4 species of trees are to be planted, we will furnish more details of  the site and the particular habitat being created over the coming weeks.

Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

We're interested to hear what you think of the new addition to the logo, please comment using the comments button below.

To reflect the initiative of becoming carbon neutral, we have added a new carbon nuetral motif to the able logo.

You may have guessed that the motif is a leaf, representing new growth, reflecting new awareness in moving towards sustainability  and literally illustrating the action of planting trees to offset the carbon dioxide generated as a business.

Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Today I met with Bruce and Damien from Ecovantage. They are environmental scientists and have launched Ecovantage with a vision of helping households, schools, businesses and organisations reduce their carbon emissions and save water.

After an initial meeting a few weeks ago, we asked Ecovantage to independently  audit our business to calculate our carbon footprint. ( a carbon footprint is simply how much CO2 a companies' activities are generating)

Here's what they came up with;

electricity, cars, staff, travel, flights:    54.5 tonnes over the  last 12 months

manufacturing and transporting products: 1083 tonnes over the last 12 months

It certainly seems like a big number for a relatively small company. It was interesting that  the paper products that we sell, actually emit more CO2 in their manufacturing and transport than the plastic products.  Be that as it may, the task at hand is to offset this CO2.

Bruce and Damien explained that there are a variety of methods to offset CO2 including;

1. Requesting renewable energy from your power company

Renewable energy is primarily generated from solar and wind sources. Hydro (ie, the  snowy  river scheme) is also a renewable source, however, to qualify for an offset, the hydro plant needs to have been built after the mid 1990's.   

It also seems that green energy packages vary greatly in their environmental integrity.

On the face of it, the greenelectricitywatch  site provides a brilliant comparison of green energy from a myriad of suppliers.

This site does not shrink away from calling out  products making environmental claims which are having little or no positive impact on the environment. Electricity packages from different companies are graded on a 1 to 5 star rating system and are listed in order of merit.

The chart below is from the site on 3/4/2007

Ecovantage will be making contact with Origin Energy on our behalf. Origin Energy rated very highly in the rankings. It probably makes good business sense for them, it appears that in the past year, green energy has increased from 3 % to 12 % of total electricity supplied in Australia.

2. Purchasing RECs (renewable energy certificates)

Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), also known as Green tags, Renewable Energy Credits, or Tradable Renewable Certificates (TRCs), are the property rights to the environmental benefits from generating electricity from renewable energy sources. These certificates can be sold and traded and the owner of the REC can legally claim to have purchased renewable energy. While traditional carbon  emissions trading programs promote low-carbon technologies by increasing the cost of emitting carbon, RECs incentivize carbon-neutral renewable energy by providing a subsidy to electricity generated from renewable sources.

In states which have a REC program, a green energy provider (such as a wind farm) is credited with one REC for every 1,000 kWh of electricity it produces (for reference, an average residential customer consumes about 300 kWh in a month). A certifying agency gives each REC a unique identification number to make sure it doesn't get double-counted. The green energy is then fed into the electrical grid (by mandate), and the accompanying REC can then be sold on the open market.)

3. Buying carbon offset credits from a company that supplies products that displace reliance on electricity

Products such as energy efficient light globes and  water saving showerheads reduce electricity consumption and thus reduce the generation of carbon dioxide.

Easy being green are a company that distribute these items.

Since 2004, their products distributed by them have had the following impact;

* Reduced 620,000 tonnes of CO₂ pollution per year, the equivalent to taking 150,000 cars off the road.

* Saved 5.8 gigalitres of water – the equivalent to 2500 Olympic sized swimming pools.

* Saved households $32.3 million off their energy bills.

That in my mind is a great effort. Easy being green, like the energy companies, are businesses rather than non profit organisations. The beauty of easy being greens' business model is that they give away energy saving packs (including the globes and showerheads) free of charge.

4. Planting trees

My lovely girlfriend and I travelled to the  WOMAD World Music festival in Adelaide a few weeks ago and visited displays run by trees for life and ACBI.

below: the Womad festival

These two companies plant trees on land that they legally protect via covenant for 70 to 100 years.

The criteria for selecting native trees and grasses to plant on a  site, are that the species were previously growing in the area. Many of these sites are regarded as being "stressed" by either wind or water erosion and or salinity. Planting trees is seen to benefit these issues in addition to the trees' role in storing carbon dioxide.

It struck me as an important piece in the climate change jig saw that in South Australia's Murray Darling Basin alone, 15 billion trees have been cleared during the last 150 years. There is mounting evidence that forests of trees create their own weather.

As an indication that there is growing big business interest in offsetting carbon dioxide by planting trees, on the ACBI site there is discussion of Mitsubishi manufacturing a model of car for which the carbon generated by all inputs and processes is to be offset by planting trees.

And while British satellite operator BSkyB has become carbon neutral and there is now serious discussions underway to make Rupert Murdoch's entire News Corporation empire carbon neutral.

Source: The Financial Times

Rupert Murdoch, the 75-year-old chairman and chief executive of  News Corporation, is planning to push all parts of his media empire to become environmentally friendly, using the strategies put in place by his son and heir James. Mr Murdoch said at a conference organised by Bill Clinton, former US president, that climate change was important and he was planning to put in place strategies across his News Corp media business to tackle it. News Corp owns newspapers in the UK, Australia and the US, the Fox News Channel , 20th Century Fox studios and numerous television stations in the US, operations in India and China and also internet assets, such as popular social networking site MySpace . "We're going to be absolutely carbon neutral" across News Corp's businesses, Mr Murdoch said, adding he was "examining" how to eliminate emissions "in every country where we are".

Becoming carbon neutral involves reducing greenhouse gas emissions and "offsetting" the rest by investing in projects such as windfarms or forests that reduce carbon dioxide emissions. James, widely regarded as the likely heir to Mr Murdoch, has taken on climate change as a key issue. Mr Murdoch's adoption of his son's strategy is seen as a further sign that James is starting to influence his father.

Thats very interesting, as a country which is becoming an elephant in the clmate change  room, I also wonder what China's view on offseting CO2 is.

Conclusion

When we reviewed the options for offsetting carbon with ecovantage, we decided to break our offsets into two parts;

for electricity, cars, staff, travel and flights amounting to 54.5 tonnes of CO2 ; we will most likely sign up for a combination of green energy and trees

for  manufacturing and transporting products amounting to 1083 tonnes of CO2; we will sign up for trees and also offset via energy efficient product programs

We plan to finalise our first month's carbon offsets this week.

Greg

Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

The Stern Report,  prepared by HM treasury, is an excellent and comprehensive source of information on the impact of climate change.  Follow this link and then select the chapters that are relevant to your query.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm

Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Howard discusses climate change response
ABC radio AM - Thursday, 29 March , 2007  08:00:00 Reporter: Chris Uhlmann TONY EASTLEY: Climate change has become one of those political issues that the Prime Minister likes to describe as a barbecue stopper. It was already slotted in as a major issue in this year's federal election but the Australian tour by economist and climate change expert, Sir Nicholas Stern has re-energised the debate this week. Sir Nicholas says developed countries like Australia should slash greenhouse gas emissions 60 per cent by 2050. That's something John Howard believes will do great damage to Australia's economy. The Government is working on its own response to climate change and plans to spend $200 million to help developing nations preserve their forests. The Prime Minister is speaking here with chief political correspondent Chris Uhlmann. CHRIS UHLMANN: Prime Minister good morning. JOHN HOWARD: Good morning. CHRIS UHLMANN: How is this $200 million over five years going to address climate change? JOHN HOWARD: Well it's going to slow the rate in cooperation with other countries of trees being cut down. As everybody knows if you can do that, you will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact 20 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions come from clearing the world's forests and that second only to emissions from burning fossil fuels to produce electricity and its more than all of the world's emissions from transport, more than all of the world's emissions from transport. And what this initiative will do in a shorter period of time is make a greater contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions than in fact the Kyoto protocol. CHRIS UHLMANN: If we could look at what happens here though Prime Minister, should Australia have a target for reducing carbon emissions? JOHN HOWARD: Well we have to be very careful in setting targets that we don't do greater damage to our economy and our lifestyle than will be done by other things. Now we've heard suggestions that we should have a target of 30 per cent reductions by the year 2020. That's what Sir Nicholas Stern was advocating and that's what apparently the Labor party supports because they've been walking beside Sir Nicholas Stern on all of these things. Now I agree with a lot of what he says. He's a very respected economist, he should be listened to, but his views aren't holy rit and common sense tell us that 2020 is what, 13 years from now to achieve a 30 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020 and it's no good setting these targets in some kind of rhetorical flourish. If you set a target, you ought to try and meet that target and if we were to set that target and meet it, that would throw thousands of people out of work in the coal industry and it would do enormous damage to the Australian economy in… CHRIS UHLMANN: All right, if we could… JOHN HOWARD: …constitution for that, we should embrace practical, immediate measures, such as our initiative on reforestation, which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions but won't do such dramatic damage to the Australian economy. CHRIS UHLMANN: All right, though could we discuss it as a principle though? In principle, do you believe that industry now needs some kind of signal from government? Do we need to signal for industry that there will be a target for reducing emissions and perhaps you'll set that target, exactly what's that target going to be and the timeframe over time? JOHN HOWARD: Well Chris I think the first signal industry needs is a price on carbon. That is why the government is sensibly sitting down with all the major resource companies and power generation companies and… CHRIS UHLMANN: So the price on carbon is inevitable now? JOHN HOWARD: Well I think a price on carbon is an important element of getting a grip on this thing. Unless you have some kind of carbon pricing signal, you can't begin to see the sensible introduction of clean coal technology. Now it's a very simple situation. We have this great abundance of fossil fuel. Coal is a very cheap source of electricity generation, but it contributes a lot of CO2 emissions, so the way in which you reduce them is to clean up the technology associated with coal. The way you do that in part is to have a price placed on carbon. Of course, once you do that and you make clean coal technology more prevalent, and therefore the use of coal more expensive, that is when nuclear power begins to come into the equation. Now I'm very happy and my government is very happy to contemplate that, but of course our political opponents have set their minds totally against that, but I think the practical, sensible thing to do is to create a market environment and you do that by having some kind of emissions trading system and we are looking at the form that might take but it's got to be a form that doesn't do damage to Australia's international competitiveness. But we're doing this, but in the meantime, there are other practical immediate things we can do and the reforestation proposal is a glaring example of that. CHRIS UHLMANN: One of the things your government also says a lot is that you are looking at clean coal technology, something with which you agree with Sir Nicholas Stern. He was talking about that being if you like, Australia's gift to the world. If you can clean up coal, then why isn't a target of 30 per cent by 2020, or 60 per cent by 2050 possible if you manage to clean up that most polluting of industries? Perhaps that target if achievable without damaging Australian industry? JOHN HOWARD: I am a great believer in putting in place market mechanisms which over time are going to bring about desired results, rather than committing to targets, which in the short term, you know, can I just say again, to say to the Australian community that in 13 years we must cut by 30 per cent our greenhouse gas emissions - and that is what Labor is advocating, apparently - that is what Sir Nicholas Stern has certainly advocated, that would do very great damage to the Australian economy. It would do particularly great damage to the coal industry. We need a balanced approach and I accept that climate change is a big issue, I'm not walking away from it, but I'm not going to compromise the economic strength of our country and put at risk thousands of jobs by commitment to a target that is unreasonably short, unreasonably harsh and not properly thought through. And Sir Nicholas Stern himself last night admitted on Lateline that circumstances will vary from country to country and Australia is very different from Great Britain. Australia relies very heavily on fossil fuels. CHRIS UHLMANN: But are you in danger of looking out of step with the community on this? JOHN HOWARD: I think the community wants a balanced approach. I think the community wants a response to climate change, but the community doesn't want the competitive advantage of this country undermined and it doesn't want governments enthralled to what I might call a narrow point of view in relation to climate change. I think they want a government that says yes, it's a problem, but a government tackles that problem by playing to the economic strengths of this country. We are unusual, we are a developed country with a small population and a very large amount of fossil fuels; we've been very fortunate. Providence has given us all these resources and we have a small population and we have to use our resources wisely and we have to contribute leadership in areas where we have the expertise and clean coal technology is one. We have to be open minded about nuclear power, we have 38 per cent of the world's uranium reserves, we're crazy to ignore that. I mean, we say to the world, you can buy our uranium and use it but we're not going to generate nuclear power in this country; we're going to close our minds against it. I think that's very short sighted. CHRIS UHLMANN: Speaking of leadership though Prime Minister, the Kyoto protocol, many people keep proposing that of course, as something that the Australian government didn't do. And Sir Nicholas Stern says that when he travels around the world that is offered up to him as reasons why other countries shouldn't do that. At the same time you say we're going to meet our targets. If we're going to meet our targets, why don't we sign the Kyoto protocol? JOHN HOWARD: Well many of the countries that signed the protocol and criticise under their breath Australia for not signing, are not going to meet their targets. It's one of the great ironies of Kyoto. We're one of a small number of countries that will meet the target. The reason we didn't sign was that we would have assumed obligations that other countries didn't have to assume, which would have put our industries including for example, the aluminium industry at a competitive disadvantage. I will enter into an international agreement that fairly shares the burden of these things, but I'm not going to sign up to something that puts Australian jobs at risk. CHRIS UHLMANN: Prime Minister thank you. JOHN HOWARD: Thank you. TONY EASTLEY: And the Prime Minister there speaking with our Chief Political Correspondent Chris Uhlmann.

Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

At 6.30am a couple of weeks ago, Red the 774 radio announcer said, "It could well be the greatest campaign trailer ever made."

Well, in my view, Red could be right and Al Gore may run for office again ( time will tell.)  Nevertheless, the partnership of Al Gore and climate change may be a case of enlightened self interest for both causes.

Red was referring to Al Gore's film, "An inconvenient truth"

I watched the movie recently and it got me thinking about Able in a new light.

The film addresses the topic of climate change, presenting the findings of many scientists, from a worldwide environmental perspective.

Al Gore discusses the link that has been established between climate change and the increase of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels to generate electricity, cars, trucks and deforestation are the main forces behind this  increase. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are trapping an increasing amount of the suns energy within our atmosphere, causing rising temperatures.

The film explores some of the more alarming consequences of climate change ;

* More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050 - Time Magazine, Feeling the heat, David Bjerklie, March 26, 2006.

* Deaths from from global warming will double in just 25 years, to 300,000 per year - World Health Organization

* The Arctic Ocean could be ice free by 2050 - Time Magazine, Feeling the heat, David Bjerklie, March 26, 2006.

* Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal communities worldwide - Washington Post, "debate on climate change shifts to issue of irreparable change" Juliet Eilperin, January 29, 2006.

* The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled in the past decade - Krabill et al, Greenland Ices Sheet: Increased coastal thinning, Geophysical research letters 31, 2004.

* The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years - Emmanuel K. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years, Nature 436: 686-688. 2005 

In Victoria, the potential effects of climate  change are less than in other areas of the world.

Having said that, we find ourselves in the midst of one of the most severe droughts on record. Our State is experiencing water shortages and in the past few months we have arguably had the worst bush fires on record. An increased incidence of droughts and bush fires are both potentially consequences of climate change. These fires were incredibly intense due to the tinder dry conditions created through months of minimal rainfall. 1.2 million hectares, of the 1.6 million hectare Alpine National Park, were burned.

Double click on the picture below for a NASA satellite image of the Victorian bush fires

So what to do ? 

In Australia to date, there is no requirement for Industry to monitor and offset carbon dioxide emissions.

In the  press, there is a fair level of constructive discussion on climate change. To balance that, there is also an element of belligerent apathy amongst a minority of commentators. These commentators acknowledge that the climate is changing but dispute the causes, often citing cyclical weather patterns and saying that, even if carbon dioxide is a problem, Australia is a small country with limited influence on our larger neighbors.

Looking at the proven link between ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and climate change, and considering that glaciers worldwide are retreating beyond levels experienced for tens of thousands of years, how can climate change be regarded as cyclical ?

And are we a small country unable to make an impact ? maybe, maybe not. We think that the most important thing is to take responsibility for ourselves.

As a company, Able have decided to offset the carbon dioxide generated in manufacturing and transporting all of our products to our clients. Some of these products are made in Australia, others are made overseas in countries like Thailand and China. There will be no additional cost to our clients. Over the coming weeks we will be investigating how much carbon dioxide we are emitting and the best methods to offset this carbon dioxide.

Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink