Airline Offers Carbon Offsets to Mitigate Travel Footprint

How far can we carry carbon offsets, and will they really work?

Qantas and some of the other airlines are allowing passengers to purchase carbon offsets to neutralize the emissions from their air travel.

The pollution emitted by Qantas aircraft will be offset partly by a carbon credit program to be launched by the Flying Kangaroo in September.

Qantas executive general manager John Borghetti announced that consumers and businesses would be able to purchase carbon credits to offset their carbon dioxide emissions.

Mr. Borghetti did not elaborate on how much the offsets would increase the price of a ticket but Qantas would cover the charge for its first day of the scheme’s operation.

“For the first 24 hours we will totally fund the emissions on our domestic and international operations,” Mr. Borghetti said.

On the other hand, Volkswagen of America plans to offset the carbon emissions of projected consumer use for a year. From September 1, 2007, until January 2, 2008, vehicles sold by Volkswagen will have carbon emissions offset for the first year of ownership.

In addition, the Volkswagen site will show the carbon footprint calculation of vehicles alongside statistics on fuel efficiency, speed, and price, when they use the “Build a VW” feature, according to VW.

The offsets, from Carbonfund.org, will support the land acquisition and reforestation of 1,100 acres of habitat in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, Louisiana. The offsets will be based on the average annual emissions for each different type of model sold in the four-month period.

So does this change behavior, or just put off the inevitable? Stakeholders in industry and non-governmental organizations will be watching and the results are sure to fuel more debate soon.

2 comments August 31st, 2007

Industry Should Lead, Not Follow Regulations

There were three mine disasters in 2006 before the latest disaster at the Crandall mine in Utah. At the Crandall mine, a seismic event equivalent to a 3.9 magnitude earthquake trapped six miners. Days later, during the rescue effort, another collapse killed three rescuers, including a member of the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Weeks later, the company is still boring holes into the mine, trying to recover the bodies.

This has led the governor of Utah to investigate whether state mine safety regulations need to be tightened because federal regulations aren’t stringent enough. More significantly, OMB Watch has said “The Aug. 13 issue of Mine Safety and Health News reported that Dr. R. Larry Grayson, who heads the Pennsylvania State University mining and engineering program, agreed
…the mining company may have been following the MSHA-approved mining plan, but that does not mean that it was safe.”

This is a worrisome trend. Professors are second-guessing regulators, who are second-guessing the people in the industry itself.

What is really needed here is some thought about good incident management systems and real-time emergency response systems in the mining industry overall. There is actually a global need for stronger health and safety protection for the mining industry, including these incidents as well as the ones in China. Would a better emergency response or incident management
system have helped the rescue workers respond more efficiently? I think so. Good systems can be proactive, rather than reactive, even in situations that can’t be predicted, like seismic shifts.

OMB Watch goes on to point out that perhaps it is wrong to allow industry to comply voluntarily with regulations. A promotional email I got from them this morning said “Two recent stories exhibit the problems associated with
voluntary industry compliance with federal rules. In New York, Governor Elliot Spitzer is using state law to enforce a mandatory recall of children’s toys contaminated by lead paint. Spitzer cites the federal government’s weak voluntary recall system as reason for pursuing action at the state level.”

The writer goes on to discuss the use of “compliance assistance” in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Mine Safety and Health Administration in the Crandall disaster.

What is the takeaway from this? Industry should lead, not follow, the regulations. I don’t know one client of ours (or non-client for that matter), who would like to experience a disaster like Crandall if it could be anticipated. That’s what GRC initiatives are designed to address.

Add comment August 30th, 2007

Leading Analyst Firm Confirms ESS’ Industry Leadership

I’m so proud today. I just got back from Bogotá, Columbia to find out that AMR, one of the most respected analysts covering IT issues, published an Alert that says some pretty good things about us:

“… a few of the panelists at our conference shared more than a commitment to sustainable supply chains; they also shared a common software provider. And it’s not their ERP platform - all three use ESS to help them track the EH&S elements of their sustainability activities. AMR Research recently spoke with a series of ESS customers and their consensus is clear; leveraging ESS as a single environmental instance helps centralize EH&S structures that originally were comprised of a potpourri of homegrown and manual systems.”

I feel like a father whose child is graduating from college. Here’s some more from the report:

“A multinational chemicals manufacturer has ESS deployed at over 200 sites and supporting 600 users on a single instance. The instance interfaces to MES, LIMS and waste characterization tools for the standardization of work processes, procedures and training. This new single version of the truth builds on a platform of standardized calculations.

When we surveyed the available landscape of technology options for support of environmental health and safety (EH&S) efforts at the end of 2006, we discovered that despite the presence of a few mature players in the vendor ecosystem, the EH&S compliance market was crying out for a leader (see the AMR Research report, “Technology Options To Support EH&S Compliance”). ESS is emerging as a strong candidate for companies seeking to centralize their EH&S processes to a single platform outside of their ERP instance. And an attractive partner (or even acquisition target) for vendors seeking to expand their environmental footprint.”

I promise not to do this again, but allow me my moments of pride.

“While ESS and… [our competitors] have all been capitalizing on the current market demand for enterprise-class applications to support environmental compliance practices across multiple sites on a single instance, ESS has distanced itself from the pack …”

If you are our customer, I thank you. And if you work for us, I thank you even more.

Add comment August 17th, 2007

The Many Sides of the Kyoto Protocol Debate

There is quite a debate going on about how to meet the targets of the Kyoto Protocol for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. And there are at least three very vocal sides that are debating the issue:

One side is taken by the carbon offset traders who believe we can balance each other’s emissions by creating a market in which the larger emitters pay for credits bought from people whose industries are clean; another voice represents people who believe that generating power through alternative means such as clean coal and biofuels is the best way to go; and a third, shrill voice is that of hard core environmentalists who believe that only real consumer behavior changes will make a difference. In other words, walk to work; don’t use paper OR plastic; buy only locally grown food; and turn your heater or air conditioner off when you aren’t at home.

Clearly there are limits to each of these positions. But there’s a fourth “voice” in this debate. And these are people who say that we need to produce data that shows what emissions are actually produced —by whom, and through what processes—before we choose any of the other three alternatives. That process is just beginning for the enterprise. Before we can ask either businesses or consumers to make big changes in behavior patterns or throw the world economy into a tailspin, we need to answer questions such as:

1) What’s the actual energy cost of producing a Prius overseas and shipping it half way across the world so someone in America can feel good about getting 50 mpg?

2) When Asian nations cut down forests to produce Palm oil plantations, how does that affect the ozone layer?

3) Is solar energy really the best alternative for a home in, say, San Francisco?

I’m pleased that ESS provides tools that enable organizations to collect and track data relevant to solve these sorts of problems. And many organizations are leveraging their IT investments to deploy our integrated software platforms that transform data into useful information.

Because of the computing power involved in getting accurate answers to these questions, I believe it will be the enterprise that leads the charge to the true solutions. In the interim, carbon offsets, cleaner energy and more thoughtful consumer choices will have to do.

Add comment August 7th, 2007

“Green” Values Aren’t About Branding: It’s About Survival

There’s a new blog called 21st Century Citizen that explores what the true values should be for those who are living in this century. This is very different from the Environmental Leader blog that’s discussing where your company’s brand will be when the “green” fad ends. One is deeply felt and strategic, while the other marks a trend. Enterprises must make the strategic choices, rather than branding through “quick fixes.” That never works.

Having been around in the ’70s when there was an earlier “green” movement, I know that all issues have a life cycle shaped like a bell curve. Al Gore has now made environmental issues hot (no pun intended) by talking about global warming. Indeed, we will come to a compromise system of carbon trading and emissions efficiencies, regulations and compromises, and then environmental issues will be off the table as emergencies once more.

But 21st Century Citizen asks the question “should you ride or bike?” and comes to grips with some of the complexities involved in that decision. To bike, many people would have to move closer to their jobs. Or change jobs. Or work from home. Or move closer to the grocery store. The long and short of it is that we have to re-examine not one choice, but all of our life choices as individuals in order to create sustainability. I think the purpose of this new blog is to start the discussion about the future.

And corporations are pondering some of the same decisions, as well. It’s not just your greenhouse gases that you have to track. It’s your chemical waste. It’s the components of your supply chain, and the byproducts of your manufacturing process. Environmental issues may disappear and re-appear from the radar screen per se, but the safety issues posed by environmental contaminants around people will always be an issue for employers. The world is round, not flat, which means we have finite resources available to meet our ever increasing population’s demand. The thoughtful management of these resources as well as our waste and pollution byproducts will continue to become ever more critical for sustainability.

This round of environmental initiatives isn’t about branding. It is about survival.

1 comment August 1st, 2007