May’s issue of IWR will examine a number of green issues, one particular item that cropped up involved researching good sources of information for organisations looking to minimise their environmental impact.
Perhaps I should have expected it, but I was genuinely surprised on how much dedicated green-centric information is out there, Googling a generic environmental term like “green business” will get you close to a million dedicated results. Naturally, it’s the quality of that information that counts, if as a business you are looking to offset your carbon impact or have done so already.
With this in mind it’s a little dismaying to see a report from the FT last week detailing wide discrepancies in carbon offsetting prices and so-called environmental practices that skirt around the edge of ethical behaviour. Supposedly the booming industry that has emerged allows businesses the chance to offset their carbon usage by buying carbon credits, thus nullifying their environmental impact. Unfortunately it also seems the “snake-oil salesmen” have set-up shop, as the Guardian reported, when low-cost airline Easyjet attacked the carbon-offsetting market, questioning the prices those companies charged for their services.
The FT investigation also reported that “some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place. Others meanwhile are making big profits from carbon trading for a very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that would have been made anyway.”
It went on to explain that the already large market in carbon credits “is expected to double in size to about $68bn (£34bn) by 2010”
The main findings of the investigation are shown here;
• Instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions
• Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of energy efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially
• Brokers providing services of questionable or no value
• A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the credits true value
• Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.
Obviously this is worrying because the environmental impact from an organisation continues unabated, despite the best intentions of a carbon-neutral company or various government affiliated agencies, the second is the potential loss of faith from both business and consumer; what happens if everyone decides the risk of being hoodwinked and ripped-off just isn’t worth it? After all, becoming a bonafide carbon neutral or environmentally friendly company will take time, money and effort from a number of key players in any company.
At some point in the loop an organisation which employs information professionals is probably going to ask for their research input on some of these contentious issues. That could be on whether to begin implementing a significant green initiative or the review of an existing one. Getting reliable and accurate information is vital to avoid making the whole exercise a pointless waste of time. If at the end, all those involved who are committed to making such an effort find that this achieves little other than some spurious PR announcement, then it will genuinely be an opportunity lost, for both the environment and if nothing else efficiency’s sake.
No comments:
Post a Comment