The Canadian government, like many other signatories, apparently "hoped" that their commitment to the principles of the Kyoto Accord would be enough to trigger some form of internal movement to reduce releases. Obviously, assuming that the 30% increase statement is factual, the consumers- Commercial, Industrial and Individual- didn't change their approach in response to the government's "commitment."

Now, like the "leaders" in the United States, they have chosen to follow another course. Somehow, by buying Carbon Credits, they will stop the increases in the production of greenhouse gasses (or at least mitigate the gasses produced). They will also go a step further. They will reduce the "carbon density" of their releases relative to their production -- If I make 100 million widgets this year and produce 1,000,000,000 tons of greenhouse gasses, next year I intend to produce 110 million widgets but only produce 1,099,999,999 tons of greenhouse gasses, thereby doing my part in saving the environment while still making significant profit.

Fortunately for all of us, some international companies have a much higher ambition. One that I know of has had, and still is very active with, a program to cut its CO2 emissions substantially. They have a defined program that invests 10's of millions each year JUST to reduce CO2 emissions and they will fund projects with paybacks of 10 YEARS. This company does not advertise this program, so I will not provide their name.

My own firm is a consulting organization that identifies ways for companies to reduce their utility expenses -- typically by 40% to 60% or more. We do this by analyzing their operations and finding ways to operate their systems more effectively. These solutions are not based on finding cheaper commodities OR cutting operations. They typically involve changing the design concepts of the existing systems and reprogramming the operation of existing systems. Occasionally we do recommend added systems or alternate equipment but usually, we find ways to recycle the energy that the client is already buying.

Our solutions typically result in greenhouse has emission reductions nearly as large as our economic value. A recent project has identified a project that will cut costs by 27% and greenhouse gasses by 24%. We have identified ways to cut operating costs at a brand new, state-of-the-art paper plant by 38% and cut their greenhouse emissions by 88,000 tons a year (about 30% less) with a 17-month payback. We have identified nearly 60% savings potential and 45% greenhouse gas reductions at a facility that was EPA Energy Star™ rated.

The main problem with most countries, and most companies, is that they spend too much time looking for the "easy way out" that usually costs a lot with little inherent added value -- like catalytic converters- or looking for "games" that they can play with numbers and public opinion, rather than investing in the "engineering" of their core operations.

The auto industry is a classic example -- American auto manufacturers take the approach of putting BIG, heavy-duty engines in their vehicles with multi-speed transmissions and "high" final gears to get reasonable highway mileage ratings but generally poor ACTUAL overall fuel efficiency. Honda / Acura chose to invest in engine technology. Which is why, when Acura brought out its most recent TL series, the new vehicle (which had the same size engine) put out even more HP than the high-HP version previously available, but was rated for 2 MPG better in-town and 1.5 MPG better highway mileage AND shifted from a "Low Emissions Vehicle" rating to an "Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle".

When countries and companies decide to FOCUS on true solutions, rather than short-term quick fixes, we will all benefit. Solutions must be "developed", not "invented".

Randall E Witte
President
Emc² ConServ, Inc.

I live in Canada and run a small business that deals with mechanical design. In order for any business to secure government funding to help bring innovations to market up here, one has to jump through countless hoops. The government on all levels makes it almost impossible for the little people to market solutions to climate change. I am in possession of New Engine Technology that would help reduce transportation emissions by 50-80%. I have worked on this project for more than 20 years. They will give out money for more studies but not for real change or real employment. I have to agree with Al Gore on this one as well. Smoke and Mirrors.

M. Anderson

Copyright © 1996-2006 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.