Recently in Carbon Offsets Category

UK Based ISP Easynet goes Carbon Neutral


Posted by: Rich Tehrani | July 28, 2007 11:35 AM | 1 Comment
It seems to me the trend towards companies going carbon neutral is accelerating as companies like the UK’s Easynet are even pushing their partners to do their part to reduce their carbon footprint. Certainly, Easynet will make a great case study if they are able to truly achieve their carbon neutral goals.
 
Here is more from VNUnet in the UK.

Plant a Tree for Six Dollars


Posted by: Rich Tehrani | July 25, 2007 9:48 PM | 0 Comments
For a paltry six dollars you can have a tree planted for you in order to soak up a ton of carbon dioxide. A federal agency the U.S. Forest Service and a non-profit group the National Forest Foundation came together to launch a website enabling e-commerce to help the financing of trees which should in theory reduce global warming by absorbing CO2.
 
Whether this is a good or bad move for the environment is debated in the following article but it is logical that deforestation can be combated by tree planting. There is no doubt we are wiping out forests at an alarming rate and this can’t be good for anyone.

Green Credit Card


Posted by: Rich Tehrani | July 25, 2007 7:31 AM | 0 Comments
Here is a credit card that gives back. To the environment that is. The new GE Money Earth Rewards Platinum MasterCard, allows you to forgo your 1% cash back and have this money go towards green causes.
 
G.E. will keep a running tally of the amounts, and each Earth Day it will use the total to buy offsets of greenhouse gas emissions. The offsets will be purchased by GE AES Greenhouse Gas Services, a joint venture between GE Energy Financial Services and the AES Corporation, a power company.
 
Here are the details from the NY Times (registration required).

Vietnam Green Fund


Posted by: Rich Tehrani | July 19, 2007 10:29 AM | 2 Comments
I am intrigued with government initiatives such as this which allow for a trust fund to be set up whose purpose is to help companies go greener. In theory, companies in Vietnam of a certain size who qualify will be able to receive credits for reducing their carbon emissions. I wonder if something like this could take hold in the US.

Did Live Earth Mean Anything?


Posted by: Rich Tehrani | July 9, 2007 12:07 PM | 0 Comments
Absolutely according to this article from Time Magazine. The article on the topic does talk about the concept of just staying home as a better way to cut carbon emissions. But in the end, as the author points out… If these events make the concert-goers [and the rest of the world] change their carbon emitting ways and also push politicians to promote such policies, then the concert was worthwhile.

Live Earth More Good Than Harm


Posted by: Rich Tehrani | July 7, 2007 12:40 PM | 6 Comments
Greg has a post titled Live Earth More Harm Than Good? Which points out the negatives associated with producing massive amounts of carbon gas in an effort to reduce the amount of carbon gas we generate. Quite a dilemma, right?
 
Really, the naysayers are wrong on this one. The awareness generated by this event far outweigh the carbon emissions of the corporate jets, etc. The world needs to come together – especially the third world and the US and decide we are going to start focusing more on the environment.
 
Europe, Australia and other countries are ahead of others in this respect and a single galvanizing event like this concert is a positive step towards assuring a healthy tomorrow for our descendants.

Are You a Greenocrite?


Posted by: Rich Tehrani | July 5, 2007 9:13 AM | 0 Comments
I have to agree partially with Tom Young of VNUNET when he says companies have to do more to be really green. It is easy to make announcements but backing them up is always a challenge. Still, the trend towards thinking green has improved corporate recognition that organizations can make the world a better place and save money at the same time.
 
I always have to wonder though, when I hear stories about people driving more than 100 MPH in a Toyota Prius… To be green must we change every aspect of our lives? In other words, are you better off driving 100 MPH in a Hummer than a hybrid?
 
The point is, are we too focused on calling each other out if we are not as green as possible? Should we as a society be more laid back and be happy that triple-digit speeds were achieved in a fuel efficient vehicle instead of a Porsche?
 
In the end, there is always a quality of life issue that should be balanced with our love of the environment. For example, I am sure many environmentally conscious consumers are in the same demographic that want an iPod or iPhone. Do we not purchase these devices to prove our greenness?
 
Each of us must do what we feel is best to balance our personal enjoyment with the needs of the environment. If society as a whole can reduce our carbon emissions by 10% or more because of awareness and at the same time take a minor hit to our quality of life while saving money, we are all winners. So are our children.
 
Still, let’s be wary of people who spend too much time trying to point out “greenocrites.” After all, no one wants to go back to the Stone Age.

Corporate Carbon Footprints


Posted by: Rich Tehrani | July 4, 2007 7:28 AM | 0 Comments
Yesterday I discussed carbon calculators and it is no surprise that there are so many ways to calculate your carbon footprint. Forbes decided to tackle the corporate carbon footprint concept in an article today and surprise – the article also details how complicated it is to calculate carbon emissions for companies.
 
But it seems that Starbucks can attribute about two ounces of carbon to the environment for every cup of coffee it serves. This doesn’t include the carbon needed to transport the coffee from store to store. Interestingly, one wonders if it makes sense to not take into consideration whether buying coffee at a retail outlet results in more carbon emissions than brewing the coffee yourself. In other words, do we look at big corporations as huge polluters because of the sheer volume of carbon they produce or is there perhaps a better way to measure how green a company is?
 
For example, could a coffee company start to market that their carbon footprint per cup of coffee is lower than the competition? It seems there is an opportunity for companies to start looking at how they are doing in relation to others in their segments. I would expect this sort of information to be used in marketing campaigns this year and in the future.
 
If you are interested in various companies and how they are dealing with measuring and reducing their carbon footprint’s, check this article out.

Carbon Footprint Calculators


Posted by: Rich Tehrani | July 3, 2007 11:36 AM | 2 Comments
Here is a list of carbon footprint calculators. If you are interested, Nigel’s Eco Blog will be testing some of these over the next few weeks. I tried the BP calculator (Flash version) out and was pretty surprised at how large a footprint a single household can have. This is especially true as my business requires me to be on an airplane constantly.
 
Awareness is certainly something that will help reduce carbon emissions. Trying some of these calculators for yourself may be a step in that direction.
 
·        Carbonfootprint.com
·        Carbon Calculator
·        Best Foot Forward
·        Resurgence
·        My Carbon Footprint
·        C Level
·        Style Will Save Us
·        FoodCarbon
·        BP’s calculator

Green Hiring May Be Illegal


Posted by: Rich Tehrani | June 19, 2007 6:04 AM | 0 Comments
In the perfect green world we would all commute no more than a few miles to work and do so in vehicles which require the least amount of fuel. In this scenario employees could even bike or walk to work on many days. Imagine how much energy would be saved in fact in an efficient distribution of workforce talent to companies located near where the talent lives.
 
The only problem here is it may be illegal for employers to ask questions about the vehicle employees drive or where they live. You certainly aren’t allowed to make a hiring decision about someone because they live at a certain address.
 
These rules of course are there to ensure companies do not discriminate but it may in fact also ensure companies are not able to minimize their carbon footprint effectively.
 
While I am no HR expert, it seems there may be a need to loosen up a hiring regulation or two so companies with a  green conscious can act more responsibly.
Previous 1 2
« carbon footprint | Main Index | Archives | coal-to-liquid »

Search


Recent Comments

  • keyboards: The technology to use the renewable energy sources to generate read more
  • Aaron: I've been doing a lot of research into the global read more
  • Sandra Velazquez: I think clean energy is a point which should be read more
  • E.A.: These are obvious points, but still too weak. Why not read more
  • Gregory Simpson: Understanding the underlying agendas of players in housing/commercial building starts read more
  • Tom Harnish: (Sorry for the previous incomplete comment. I pasted it here read more
  • Canada Immigration: Employers and employees should understand and consider a great number read more
  • Deborah Berry: I think the IT developers responsible for creating telecommuting programs read more
  • Ritu: Upcomiing big Buildings are oming with various methods for energy read more
  • Anton: You make a good point. Given the current market I read more

Subscribe to Blog

Categories

Tag Cloud

Blogroll

Recent Entry Images

About this Archive

This page is a archive of recent entries in the Carbon Offsets category.

carbon footprint is the previous category.

coal-to-liquid is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.