Carbon Accounting and ISO 14064

Getting ready for cap and trade

(NSAI: Nashua, New Hampshire) — Even though no firm action was taken during the 2009 Climate Conference in Copenhagen, the U.S. administration has still pledged that the country will tighten carbon emission regulations. The most plausible possibility is what is referred to as a “cap and trade” system where the government sets a cap on how much pollution a company can produce and companies that need to exceed the cap can buy credits from those who pollute less.

While the concept of regulating carbon emissions may be new for U.S. businesses, many foreign governments and companies—as well as U.S. businesses that have a global presence—have been struggling with how to identify and regulate their greenhouse gases since the Kyoto Protocol was passed in 2005. If there is a silver lining in all of the discussion, it’s that it is much easier to implement a proven system to monitor your carbon emissions that it was just four years ago—and often reducing carbon output results in a company saving money on utilities and other products.

…

Want to continue?

By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.

Create a FREE account

Forgot My Password

Comments

Greenhouse gas

I think the ISO 50001 may be the key document to bring some sanity to the energy discussion. It is clear that from a quality management perspective that the wasted energy (in the form of carbon emissions) is the most likely subject for capture. However, carbon dioxide is not the most abundant greenhouse gas - water vapor is!
Skipper Crews

Carbon dioxide is NOT pollution

So NSAI has drank the Kool-Aid as well. Putting carbon tracking systems in place only encourages the belief that CO2 is causing the earth to warm. Despite numerous scientific studies to the contrary, governments are pushing forward with CO2 legislation as though the cause-effect relationship between man-made CO2 and the temperature of the planet is known precisely and predictably. While this is obviously not true, going along with the program for positive PR only serves to promote the disregard of scientific principles. Developing an ISO standard around this further endorses the use of poor science for political and financial gain.

Besides, carbon dioxide is not pollution – it’s plant food.

Cap and Trade

Where do I sign up to get credit for providing trees that will absorb the carbon? We have been re-foresting 160 acres in Northern California.