http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/02/u-s-carbon-intensity-down-overall-co2-growth-slows-state-of-green-business-2008-pt-2/ Business, Better. Since 2005 Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:33:24 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/02/u-s-carbon-intensity-down-overall-co2-growth-slows-state-of-green-business-2008-pt-2/comment-page-1/#comment-12540 pdq1966 Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:47:42 +0000 http://www.triplepundit.com/wordpress/2008/02/u-s-carbon-intensity-down-overall-co2-growth-slows-state-of-green-business-2008-pt-2/#comment-12540 I agree 100% with your analysis. Measuring energy usage, emissions, water usage, etc. by GDP is unacceptable for a number of reasons: 1) As long as I make a wastefull widget with a short lifespan designed to be landfilled,I am contributing to the GDP. The efficiency (both energy and CO2 emissions)of my creation of the widget may be better than last year, but the widget is still a wastefull unnecessary product. 2) Growth has limits defined by resources. Continual growth only dimenishes these resources, even if humans become more efficient with them. A LEED certified mansion could use only small amount of energy per square foot and yet the owners only use 4-5 rooms 90% of the time and the other 30 rooms are used 10% of time. The efficiency of energy usage is masked by the size of the building. It is the initial wastful building itself that is forgotten or lost by through the use of square feet. 3)GDP is related to Capital, not Natural Capital. Capital depends on Natural Capital to exist and yet the replacement or sustainable procurement of the Natural Capital is not tracked or even of concern. How can growth continue with the decline of Natural Capital? Replace GDP with Planet because that is an inarguable boundary, then let us talk about the state of the world, not of business. Without the world, business doesn't exist. I agree 100% with your analysis. Measuring energy usage, emissions, water usage, etc. by GDP is unacceptable for a number of reasons:
1) As long as I make a wastefull widget with a short lifespan designed to be landfilled,I am contributing to the GDP. The efficiency (both energy and CO2 emissions)of my creation of the widget may be better than last year, but the widget is still a wastefull unnecessary product.
2) Growth has limits defined by resources. Continual growth only dimenishes these resources, even if humans become more efficient with them. A LEED certified mansion could use only small amount of energy per square foot and yet the owners only use 4-5 rooms 90% of the time and the other 30 rooms are used 10% of time. The efficiency of energy usage is masked by the size of the building. It is the initial wastful building itself that is forgotten or lost by through the use of square feet.
3)GDP is related to Capital, not Natural Capital. Capital depends on Natural Capital to exist and yet the replacement or sustainable procurement of the Natural Capital is not tracked or even of concern. How can growth continue with the decline of Natural Capital?
Replace GDP with Planet because that is an inarguable boundary, then let us talk about the state of the world, not of business. Without the world, business doesn’t exist.

]]> http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/02/u-s-carbon-intensity-down-overall-co2-growth-slows-state-of-green-business-2008-pt-2/comment-page-1/#comment-12539 Thomas Schueneman Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:51:16 +0000 http://www.triplepundit.com/wordpress/2008/02/u-s-carbon-intensity-down-overall-co2-growth-slows-state-of-green-business-2008-pt-2/#comment-12539 Good post Shannon. I've always felt that measuring "carbon intensity" as misleading. It is the actual carbon emission that is important. Not carbon as a ratio to some other criteria. Good post Shannon. I’ve always felt that measuring “carbon intensity” as misleading. It is the actual carbon emission that is important. Not carbon as a ratio to some other criteria.

]]> http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/02/u-s-carbon-intensity-down-overall-co2-growth-slows-state-of-green-business-2008-pt-2/comment-page-1/#comment-12538 Thomas Schueneman Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:50:43 +0000 http://www.triplepundit.com/wordpress/2008/02/u-s-carbon-intensity-down-overall-co2-growth-slows-state-of-green-business-2008-pt-2/#comment-12538 Good post Shannon. I've always felt that measuring "carbon intensity" as misleading. It is the actual carbon emission that is important. Not carbon as a ratio to some other criteria. Good post Shannon. I’ve always felt that measuring “carbon intensity” as misleading. It is the actual carbon emission that is important. Not carbon as a ratio to some other criteria.

]]>