According to experts, only 1% of the earth’s atmosphere is made up of greenhouse gases and these gases regulate the climate through heat trapping. This is known as the ‘greenhouse gas effect’. According to climate change experts, without the greenhouse gas effect, the average earth temperature will be colder by 30 degrees Celsius. This temperature will be too cold for the sustenance of our ecosystem. Therefore, the greenhouse effect is very much required for the earth; however it must be in a controlled manner.

How are we contributing to the greenhouse effect?

There is no doubt that the greenhouse effects is required for the ecosystem but it becomes a problem when the natural process gets distorted and accelerated by human activities and more greenhouse gases are created in the atmosphere which increase the temperature of the earth more than required. When we burn oil, coal, natural gas and gasoline the level of CO2 increases in the atmosphere. The level of harmful gases like nitrous oxide and methane also increases due to farming methods and changes in the use of land. Dangerous and long lasting industrial gases are produced from factories. These gases don’t occur naturally yet they contribute to global warming and speed up the greenhouse gas effect.

The more greenhouse gases will be emitted in the environment, the more infrared radiation will be trapped and held. This in turn will increase the temperature of earth in a gradual manner, posing threat to the existence of mankind. Some scientists accept global warming as a serious issue while some don’t. But one certainly can’t deny the fact that climate change is here and it will cause more damage in the coming years.

In basic terms it is a measure of all the greenhouse gases we produce as individuals, businesses and societies. 

What are greenhouse gases?

Greenhouse gases are present in the atmosphere and help to retain the earth’s heat. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most well known and significant greenhouse gas.  Others include methane, nitrous oxide, HFCs, PFCs.  Some are naturally occuring, while others are man made.

What is the significance?

Without greenhouse gases the heat from the sun would be re-radiated back into space and the earth would be too cold to live on.  However, too high a concentration of greenhouse gas results in a trapping of the heat and an increase in the Earth’s surface temperature.  This increase in turn creates climate change – sea level increases, rain patterns and increased storm severity, etc. 
What is required is a stabilisation in the level of greenhouse gases so that energy re-radiated back into space equals the energy coming from the sun, at present rates greenhouse gases output are increasing at alarming rates.

What can we do about this?

We as individuals, businesses, regions and countries can all take action to manage and reduce our carbon footprint.  In order to do this it is important to understand how to measure this output. There are some useful resources for calculating your carbon footprint available on the internet.
However these calculators are by nature simplistic and cannot respond to individual nuances or circumstances.  What this calculator (and others) does not reflect is the emissions as a result of our choices as consumers – the ‘hidden’ consumption element.  What is our energy producer doing to reduce their emissions? How environmentally responsible are the companies you buy products from? How many food miles are required to supply your meals on a weekly basis? Are the products we purchase contained in unnecessary moulded plastic packaging?

This theory is not believed by everyone. Indeed there are many eminent scientists who have said that the theory has no credibility as the evidence presented by its supporters is inconclusive. So there are two schools of thought on this matter, each adamant that they’re right:

1) Those who believe implicitly that global warming is taking place and that man is entirely responsible by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide ( a ‘greenhouse’ gas) in the atmosphere. I call these people the Scaremongers.

2) Those who believe that much more evidence is needed before any categorical claims can be made. I call these people Idealists.

So lets have a closer look at the issues raised by these two factions:

The Scaremongers predict doom and gloom.
The ‘Yes’ case says emphatically that the earth is getting warmer at an increasing rate, posing a dangerous threat to the future of mankind. They say that the increase in global temperatures over the past 50 years has been caused by a world-wide increase in industrial activity during that same period and earlier. They also suggest that the problem is getting progressively worse and that higher temperatures will lead to melting ice in the polar regions; higher sea levels causing world-wide flooding; more violent storms, hurricanes, typhoons etc; problems in the production of food; and a wide number of other circumstances that could pose  problems for life on earth.

The ‘Yes’ case’s solution is to take severe measures today to stop disasters from happening in the future.

They suggest halting and then reversing the situation by eliminating our dependence on oil and coal and embracing ‘clean energy’ such as wind, solar, tidal power; finding an alternative to using oil derivatives for transportation; and most controversially, heavily taxing users of ‘dirty energy’ to force them to switch over to  ‘cleaner’ alternatives.
As the biggest users of ‘dirty energy’ the western nations would be exposed to the full impact of these severe impositions.

The Idealists, on the other hand, want more concrete evidence of this forecast change.

The ‘No’ case believes that more credible evidence is needed and collected over a longer period of time, before any definitive conclusion can be determined. They consider that statistically the 50 years period that the Scaremongers quote is nowhere near enough time to establish a long-term trend in the world’s temperatures, taking into account that the age of the earth being 4.5 billion years. They point to the changes, both ups and downs, of the earth’s temperature during its recent history. They also suggest that if a period of climate change is starting then it’s part of a cycle that’s been seen to occur periodically in the past.

The ‘No’ case says that the relationship between possible rising temperatures and man’s industrial activity is at best nothing more than an unproven theory. They suggest that much more concrete evidence than what’ has been presented so far is needed, and as the Scaremongers have been pushing this theory for at least 10 years without producing further evidence, then it’s still a theory.

Some people even suggest that the Scaremongers are inciting public opinion to advance their political ambitions.

However, many of the Idealists agree that a switch to cleaner and renewable energy resources would be beneficial for mankind in the long term, but that the measures put forward by the ‘Yes’ people go too far. Generally, the Idealists agree with the need to find alternate means of energy for when the present sources of fossil fuels – coal, natural gas, oil, uranium -  expire, and to get away from suppliers in politically sensitive areas.

The ‘No’ people suggest that as there is a very slim chance of the Scaremongers being proved correct, other world-wide problems should be tackled first and given a greater degree of emphasis than is the present case. Here the Idealists are referring to major issues of world-wide poverty; the ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor countries; the decline in health services to poorer countries; the deterioration in the quality of political governance in Africa; threats of religious confrontation; as well as the many regionalized issues that have been a source of continuous friction between nations for decades.

This is an attempt to put some balance into the ongoing international controversy that is the theory of man-made climate change.

Some of the social needs that such companies address are healthcare for the less fortunate people in society, financial services for those who cannot afford, nutrition for the not-so-well fed individuals and also providing safe drinking water for people living in unhygienic and unsafe places. The sustainability of social business enterprises clearly indicates that the company is in business and doing well.

The key requirements for these companies have been captured in three main points. The first one being social responsibility. For a company to qualify as a social business enterprise, it must be prepared to meet a specific social goal, by identifying a need to be addresses and putting up a plan on how to meet the need. The second requirement states that the company must be based on a non-profit distribution. This means that investors must not take any dividends or share in any profits.

Thirdly, the company must have the poor people in mind. Infact, it could be owned by the poor. This ensures that the objectives of the company are tailored accordingly and they are specific to where the need bites most, as the owners express the need.

Since the 14001 Environmental management system includes everyone in the business and all aspects of the organization that affect the environment, it can improve an organization’s environmental performance in many ways. This improved performance comes at a cost to the organization, a cost which can be recovered by aggressively seeking benefits.

Some of those benefits are as follows:

All environmental policies and procedures are now in the same format

All documents are now more accessible to employees so compliance has improved

Regularly scheduled EMS reviews are ensuring both legal and ethical obligations are met in a timely fashion.

Increased Profits

The quantity of materials and energy required for manufacturing a product may be reduced, thereby reducing the cost of the product, material handling costs, and waste disposal costs.

An EMS can help reduce incidents of pollution and the associated expense of recovery.

Recycling manufacturing waste and unused inputs could increase revenues. Recycling need not be within the same facility, but with another one that can use the waste as input to their production.

Employee health and safety can be improved, thereby improving productivity, decreasing sick days, and reducing insurable risk.

Insurance claims may be reduced, thus reducing the costs of coverage and settlements.

This is just a sample of the benefits available to business; the list of benefits and potential benefits is considerably larger.

The authors point out that in the 1980s, notwithstanding sound evidence including their own, companies in the tobacco industry were still fighting the link between smoking and cancer. In contrast, over the last decade, the packaged food and restaurant industries have undertaken programs to remove trans fats – entirely at their own initiative. The authors speak of Kraft, Nabisco and Nestle “internalising externalities” – those “impacts that a business has on its broader milieu.” For example, adverse effects on consumers’ health or the local environment.

The authors offer us a politically fair-minded way of thinking about this – encompassing the need for action without going overboard. They give their argument urgency by highlighting the ever increasing level of public monitoring of social impacts through government programs and the huge increase in social networking, search techniques and other activities, which find and spread information (and anger) amongst concerned citizens (and potential litigants).

The authors make distinctions as to how a company should act. Taking ownership where there’s direct causality – as the food companies did. Taking action where there’s some link and you have problem-solving capability as Wal-Mart has done with its buying power to improve product disclosures. Or, taking interest if you see distant ripple effects and can identify others with capability – as Shell has done in supporting research on heat and fuel efficiency for cookers used in poor countries.

Here are some questions to consider. What are the externalities of my business: both close-in and further out. What changes to our thinking and/or business model are needed – and what’s the cost? Who should lead this and develop the plan? What should be our new benchmarks and how will we monitor them? How are we to communicate the program – both internally and externally?

It’s tough and confusing stuff. But the authors offer a sensible view and a helpful framework. My action suggestions may help you find an approach that’s commercial and practical. All better, as the authors put it, than engaging in “an incoherent mishmash of charitable giving, CSR programs, and “going green” initiatives.” Better to act proactively and strategically today than wait to be pushed into a war of tactical skirmishes (and court cases) that will damage your people, your brand and your business.

Everyone in business, or in receipt of benefits, will see changes to their income as this budget is implemented over the coming months.

But, there was green news as Britain’s chancellor, George Osborne, reaffirmed his support to for a Green Investment Bank, but this was not much of a surprise as this policy had wide-spread political support before the election.

Mr Osborne, did however, use the occasion to again highlight the fact the bank will generate more money for investment into renewable and green technologies.

He said: “We will also take forward our plans to create a Green Investment Bank, bringing forward private investment in clean energy and green technologies.”

Towards the end of his speech, and just before he announced he was dropping plans to increase tax on cider, the chancellor did give us a glimpse of future green policies.

Mr Osborne has promised to look into the aviation tax system and keep a closer eye on oil prices.

He said: “We will explore changes to the aviation tax system, including switching from a per-passenger to a per-plane duty, and consult on major changes, that will help reduce our carbon emissions.

“We are examining the impact of sharp fluctuations in the price of oil on the public finances, to see if pump prices can be stabilised.”

Initial business backing has been positive for the green benefits with Climate Change Capital’s vice-chairman James Cameron, saying: “We warmly welcome today’s budget.

“It sets out an ambitious set of proposals for stimulating investment in the low carbon economy, with key policies including energy market reform, the creation of a Green Investment Bank and the introduction of a reformed upstream Climate Change Levy.

“Many of these proposals are subject to consultation, so we hope that this process helps to ensure that policies are able to deliver low carbon investment at the speed and scale required to tackle climate change, while also creating the industries and jobs of the future.”

Charities were less optimistic with the RSPB’s head of sustainable development, Martin Harper, warning against cuts.

He said: “We urge him Mr Osborne not to reduce the funding that underpins conservation in our countryside.

“We understand Defra has been asked to contribute to the reduction in the deficit with cuts of at least 25% to its budget over the next four years, but cutting conservation spend would be a false economy.

“Agri-environment funding helps farmers protect water supplies, carbon stores, wildlife and habitats while bringing European money into the British economy.

“The Higher Level Scheme in particular underpins efforts to halt the steep declines in our farmland birds and to improve some of our most important wildlife sites.

“All these things pay us back much more than we put in and their loss would be felt long, long after the budget deficit is an unpleasant memory.”

Source edienet: Luke Walsh

Cutting business travel costs while boosting green image through web conferencing

Climate change and the emissions of business travel

Prevailing scientific wisdom is in little doubt that climate change is the result of human activities, and as an issue that will certainly have global impact on all societal levels, urgent action is required. Without a concerted effort by both businesses and individuals alike, we’re facing increases in extreme weather, coastal flooding, extensive species extinctions, and widespread upticks in human diseases and premature deaths, to name a few potential consequences.

Our collective challenge is not to determine the cause of climate change, but how to prevent the emission of additional atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG) such as CO2. Can any immediate actions with instant impact be taken that won’t harm economic growth? It is a question that has many enterprises concerned that they must choose between financial viability and social responsibility.

Yet achieving increased energy efficiency presents many considerable business opportunities. Take business travel, for instance. The transportation sector in the US was responsible for 28% of overall GHG emissions in 2007 with corporate trips playing no small role.

Consider that it costs between 0.40 and 0.64 pounds of CO2 per passenger mile for air travel, which is four times more GHG emissions than ground travel, or 2- 50% of a company’s overall GHG emissions. Yet air travel isn’t the most common way to get to meetings. In fact, 81% of all corporate travel takes place in cars with a lower per-mile CO2 load, yet still a noteworthy effect on climate change.

But corporate travel isn’t just an environmental issue, it’s big business. On average, 46% of business travel budgets go to air travel—significant opportunity for financial savings.

A 2007 survey of 345 executives indicated that 57% of companies are working on carbon-reduction strategies. When asked about approaches for reducing their carbon footprint, reduction of air travel through carbon neutral meetings was at the top of the list.

Attaining carbon and financial savings with web conferencing

Web conferencing can dramatically reduce travel costs and slash a company’s overall GHG emissions—AT&T reduced their air travel by 15% through web and video meetings. But the advantages don’t stop there:

Time is saved by keeping employees near home rather than on the road.
Participants can simultaneously collaborate and gain hands-on training through online interaction with the presentation.
Entire meetings can be recorded for future reference.

Unfortunately, executives often lack knowledge, have security concerns, and fear losing the prestige of globe-hopping travel. Regardless, economic concerns and interest in corporate social responsibility are driving more businesses to seek out carbon neutral operations.

One of the hottest  topics today is about being environmentally friendly. There are many ways to become environmentally friendly about the home including water preservation and energy reduction. This not only helps with a positive action by reducing your impact on the environment, but will also save you money!

Lets take a look at what makes a home green.

Reduced Energy Use

Energy comes in many forms such as electricity, natural gas, oil, etc. The creation or use of this energy results in greenhouse gas emissions that affect our planet in a negative way.

Methods of Reducing Energy Usage

Insulation,  One of the best things that you can do to make a green home is to ensure that the walls, windows, attic, and floors are all well insulated and draft free. The majority of the energy used in a home goes towards heating  the house. Insulation will prevent the air temperature from escaping the home and save you money on your utilities.

Energy Star Appliances When one of your appliances has reached it’s end of life, or when you areconstructing a new home, consider installing an appliance that meets energy star requirements. This will ensure that it will use over 30 percent less electricity or fuel than a typical appliance of that type.

Other options include advanced mechanical Systems On demand tankless water heaters, geothermal HVAC equipment, and even solar power is a great way to reduce the amount of energy that is wasted to run the plumbing, heat and air, and electrical systems in the home. While they can have a higher upfront cost than a typical unit of its kind, tax incentives from the government can offset a good deal of the extra cost and allow you to make the money back within a few years time.

Reduced Water Use

Water is another essential resource that can be preserved in our day to day use around the house.

Low Flow Fixtures Many low flow shower heads and toilets developed a bad reputation in the past because they could not live up to their less efficient counterparts. Fortunately, todays better engineered models and aerators allow you to experience the luxury and ease of use that you prefer, while additionally using a significantly lower amount of water.

Efficient Clothes Washers Many of the newer front loading clothes washers use as little as half of the water of a typical top loading washer. For families who are constantly putting in a new load of dirty clothes, this can lead to a significant savings in cost and water usage over time.

Use Rain Water For Irrigation For those who want to really cut down on water usage, storage tanks that collect rain water during a storm for latter use to water the garden and lawn can save thousands of gallons over the span of a summer.

These are just a few of the many ideas out there that will help ensure that your home is green. Environmentally friendly decisions in the home can lead to wallet friendly results over time and allow for the satisfaction of knowing you are reducing your negative impact on the planet.

At Be Seen Go Green, we offer solutions for a variety of Environmental issues. Please click on the following link to contact us.

Contact Us

Building methods can result in high energy usage, large quantities of waste, poor occupancy comfort and low user satisfaction. However, Breeam building assessments can address the environmental impact of these issues and provide a range of benefits to all involved with buildings. Breeam – the Building Research Establishment’s environmental assessment method – is the world’s most widely used means of reviewing and improving the environmental performance of office buildings. It is increasingly required by regulatory and government organisations, including English Partnerships and the Office of Governmental Commerce (OGC).

Breeam buildings bring an improved internal environment, increased productivity, staff retention and attraction, increased profitability for business, reduced utility bills and improved corporate image. Such desirable buildings also give a high rate of return and a low void rate.

With heightened awareness of green issues in today’s marketplace, this rating will soon become the norm for all commercial and domestic buildings. Assessments can be carried out on both new and existing office buildings, whether empty or occupied. Within Breeam there are four ratings: ‘pass’, ‘good’, ‘very good’, and ‘excellent’.

1.     The Guidelines

The assessment process isn’t just about the building. It covers a range of elements that encompass the office environment. It looks at how energy efficient a business is, what impact an office has on the health and wellbeing of its people, water, material and waste. It even looks at management policies to see how environmentally sound they are.

2.     Where to Start
You can get a rating without a complete redesign and refurbishment, but it is best to build your design around the Breeam guidelines when you plan a refurbishment or fit out. This is more cost effective – especially when long-term energy savings are factored in. At the concept design stage (or as early as possible) an assessor should be involved to ensure the performance of the building is maximised for least capital cost. An assessor will also be able to help you understand what needs to be implemented into your design to achieve a rating.

3.     The Main Criteria

Good building management is crucial to the building’s performance as it has an impact throughout the building’s life. Breeam looks at how the building is managed, so it is important to ensure someone is responsible for maintaining optimum performance. The award credits where the environment is designed to maximise occupant control; for example in heating, lighting, air quality and noise.

The CO2 emitted from the operation of buildings in the UK accounts for more than 50 per cent of the total UK CO2 emissions. Breeam looks at how companies can reduce CO2 emissions from building operations and looks at aspects such as low energy lights, metering, ‘A’-rated white goods and energy management. Businesses can also minimise CO2 emissions from transport to and from a building – by looking at the location of the development, parking and cyclist facilities and access to public transport and local amenities. Breeam credits are also awarded when companies introduce measures such as low-flush toilets, water metering, leak-detection systems and use of water butts. In addition, it rewards the use of materials with a low embodied energy, such responsibly resourced materials and the use of recycled materials.

4.     Assessment 

The assessments are carried out by BRE’s licensed assessor network. This can be at the design stage for new build or refurbishment projects, post-construction or an assessment for existing buildings can be carried out while they are operational. Credits are awarded in each area according to performance. A set of environmental weightings enables the credits to be added together to produce a single overall score. As a guide, the rating bands are; a score of 70 for ‘excellent’, 55 for ‘very good’, 40 for ‘good’ and 25 for ‘pass’. But each element of the assessment must also be backed up with physical evidence. This may be in the form of a letter from a contractor, a train timetable, or specific information about a material from suppliers. This can often be the most difficult and lengthy part of the process.

5.     Costs

It’s not that just the initial financial cost, there is a time cost involved too. To achieve a successful Breeam rating, the client must be aware that they need to be fully committed to achieving Breeam by attributing time and effort to locating the required information and evidence. In essence, the more input given by the client leads to a more effective result. However, a sustainable office interior uses less energy – so you could save at least 25 per cent on your energy bills, year after year.

The Main Factors for a High Rating

The extent to which these factors are considered as part of the building’s design has an impact on the eventual Breeam rating:

good building management

how the building contributes to the health and well-being of staff

a reduction in CO2 emissions from building operations and transport to and from a building

location and access for staff

water use and efficiency

use of responsibly resourced materials, those with a low embodied energy and recycled materials

best use of the building’s location and footprint

minimising pollution

This article first appeared in FM World, 2 June 2006