Certain forms of labelling have definitely helped. For example the energy efficient appliance labelling in India. Consumers are willing to pay more upfront capex to reduce the opex of any equipment.

What is probably required is more research on consumer behaviour towards green claims and commitments. Do we go back to basics as taught by Philip Kotler?

I just recently read about the Guardian’s decision to factor in the carbon footprint of the paper they source. Looking back on six months of climate neutral printing in Belgium, this matches our practice. We’ve had lively discussions with p…

Good point and definitely one of the “obvious” arguments that needs to be challenged. We are seeing similar moves here, companies moving their sustainability report online only and claiming that to be better for the environment. We have taken the opposite route : only printing our sustainability report (100% recycled paper, 100% green power used, IS0 14001 certified, carbon measurement, etc). Given the fact that it is almost 100 pages, we believe it is better to take our responsibility as the publisher to limit its impact as much as possible rather than putting it online and have people print it locally (we feel very few people will actually read it from a screen)

First, I’m not condoning either project, just using them as examples to make the point that nobody is “easily fooled” and companies need to work very hard to secure stakeholder approval, which involves unpacking and dealing with all relevant stakeholder concerns on a timetable that isn’t dictated by construction deadlines.

Second, the article isn’t about carbon offsets, which is a separate discussion.

Third, I’m not implying that the scope of El Paso’s efforts to make Ruby carbon neutral includes the natural gas that will ship in the pipeline. The company’s efforts may seem ironic to some observers, given the emissions likely to result from burning the product at its destination. However in this case, that’s not El Paso’s responsibility; it’s only responsible for its pipeline operations.

As I said in the article, pipeline companies risk getting overwhelmed by a dialogue primarily aimed at their customers. As it requires significant energy to push anything through a pipeline – water, natural gas or oil — I do think El Paso’s efforts are a step in the right direction. Could they do more to reduce their impacts? Possibly. If feasible, El Paso could use renewable energy to power Ruby or build solar panels along the route. Further, we don’t know where the steel was manufactured or the energy required to ship it all to the remote locations where the pipeline is being assembled. That should be part of El Paso’s scope.

Their website says they will achieve this by 1. Coating the pipeline to reduce internal pipe friction compared to a bare steel design. 2. Designing compressor stations along the pipeline to achieve certification through the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program. 3. offset of emissions will likely include the purchase of renewable energy credits, greenhouse gas allowances, and greenhouse gas offsets.

In other words, they’ll coat their pipes, achieve some energy certifications and buy some carbon credits. The credits are selling for about .10 cents a ton right now in Chicago and Montreal, they should be able to buy a enough credits in a single purchase to last 100 years. If these 3 things are all that’s needed to make greenie people like you happy, this is a no brainer. Lol! And besides, buying a few carbon offsets does not reduce their carbon emissions; it merely pays off some carbon salesman somewhere. I can’t believe you greenies are so easily fooled. What a joke.