Happy 2050

Whichever way we look at this conundrum – whether you consider the unavoidable depletion of fossil fuels’ resources or analyze the dire consequences of carbon emissions on the climate – the logical & inescapable conclusion is that the current global trends of energy consumption are simply unsustainable for another century. Change will happen before 2100 and it is better to manage the transition rather than let it happen to us.

So where do we go from there?

The solutions we typically hear of belong to either one of these categories:

-   Use less energy

-   Use other forms of energy

-   “Twist” existing solutions and make them cleaner

All of the above can and should be taken into account in an overall action plan to reduce greenhouse gases’ emissions and the dependence to fossil fuels. But there are pitfalls to avoid before jumping right into action.

The best of intentions can still very much contribute to the problem

Teleworking is promoted as green because it reduces air pollution and GHG emissions from car commute. In 1999, the US Department of Transportation estimated that commuting behaviors accounted for nearly a 1/3 of all vehicular miles traveled so the environmental impact from a systematic adoption of telecommuting practices could potentially be substantial.

Let’s imagine you now work from home and squeeze in a few laundry loads between business calls – using the daytime electrical mix rather than the evening one. Let’s say you now heat up your house all day long, instead of turning the thermostat down before leaving for work, like you used to. What if the flex-offices, which have been set up for the occasional face-to-face meetings, have air-conditioning running and appliances plugged-in all the time, regardless of whether actual people are using the space? When you factor in all sorts of rebound effects that come courtesy of the new behavior, does telecommuting still deliver a positive “green” return on investment?

Teleworking is a handy example to showcase how things are not as clear-cut as we’d want them to be but it’s hardly the only one. Biofuels or reforestation, to name a few, are other examples of solutions that can backfire pretty badly when not managed properly.

Do the math first

Knowing that a solution has the potential to provide environmental benefits is not always enough: hard figures need to prove which usage scenario provides the sought after “green RoI”.

That is why a thorough GHG footprint assessment must be the first step for a company – or an individual for that matter – looking at reducing its environmental impact. The figures yielded from the assessment will be the cornerstone of a sound environmental strategy: it identifies the low-hanging reduction opportunities and gives the necessary perspective to select which solutions make most sense for a specific situation.

This entry was posted Tuesday, April 7th, 2009 at 10:42 am and is filed under GHG footprint assessment, Uncategorized. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.