To limit the use of carbon-based products can seem like
an exercise in
discipline, not dissimilar to a diet or aerobics regimen.
It’s hard work, doesn’t feel good at first,
requires a demanding level
of sticktoitiveness, and can seemingly always be put off
until later.
Like a 40-year-old with a waist size that’s suddenly
catching up to his
age, businesses - and the industrial world - are learning
the longer
the procrastination, the more difficult the ability to change.
The benefits of conservation, however, are many and the
fiscally
prudent would be wise to consider what a reduction of use
in
electricity, petroleum and other carbon-loaded products can
mean to the
bottom line.
ENERGY CONSERVATION
For small businesses and large corporations, energy conservation
can
save thousands, even millions of dollars. Conservation tactics
can
range from simple (stockpiling energy-saving light bulbs)
to creative
(engineering stores to exploit daylight to its fullest) to
dogged
(setting energy standards and working hard to meet them).
Indeed, CEOs
who insist on reducing carbon-dioxide emissions - and keeping
them low
- can see a drop in energy bills that will please shareholders
en
masse.
In 1993, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental
Protection
Agency created the Energy Star label, which highlights the
most
energy-efficient products on the market. The DOE says these
products
can cut energy costs by up to 50 percent compared to their
competition,
increasing profits for business owners while easing the strain
carbon
pollution puts on the environment. If all households and
businesses in
the United States were equipped with Energy Star products,
the DOE
estimates that the reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions
would be so
significant that within 15 years the program’s benefits
would be
equivalent to the elimination of 255 million automobiles
from the
streets. In monetary terms, the energy bills of the nation
would have
been slashed by $100 billion during those 15 years.
ALTERNATIVE SOURCES
In the debate about the employment of carbon over alternative
sources
of energy, many companies are grappling with the known and
the unknown.
Until hydrogen and other energy sources become both cheap
and
dependable, the use of fossil fuels will not significantly
diminish.
However, the alternative future may be close.
Recently, BP Petroleum, the largest integrated oil company
in the
world, started BP Alternative Energy, a business channel
that will
focus on developing power from solar, wind, hydrogen and
other sources.
The estimated cost of the BP Alternative Energy program is
$8 billion
during the 10-year span of its initiative. A huge investment,
but one
that could pay off in volumes if the alternative-energy market
booms,
as it should, with the depletion and high cost of oil and
other fossil
fuels.
The key point when considering alternatives is to remember
that there
will not be a sole replacement for carbon-based fuels, so
businesses
should invest in a variety of sources to increase the opportunity
for
profit.
“If we want to move toward a carbonless future, no
single technology
will do – everything counts,” says John Ziagos,
an environmental
scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
What also counts, is the fortitude to change. Like the obese
diner who
reflexively orders a soft drink with his meals, businesses
incur costs
to their health that could be avoided by being more mindful
of their
energy consumption. A prosperous future means getting fit
now. In the
world of business and energy use, that requires tackling
the glut of
carbon-based manufacturing today before the costs extend
far beyond
just the fiscal realm.
Do you have a comment or feedback on
this article? Email
us and let us know what you think.
|
