Nov192009
Conserving resources means conserving money
Filed under Environment by david brooks at 9:14 am
I’ve always been puzzled why fans of conservation (of energy, water, natural resources, etc.) don’t emphasize money saving more. It’s probably because conservation often requires an initial monetary outlay, and we humans don’t do well calculating long-term savings vs. short-term expense.
But here’s a great example, from this story in the Burlington Free-Press: IBM’s semiconductor plant near Burlington, Vt., has single-handedly caused water used in the regional water district to fall 20 percent in a decade. It didn’t do it to be “green” but to save $3 million a year in the cost of pumping and disposing of that water. Even for a big company and big factory, that’s real money.
Speaking of conservation and money, however, the federal fumbling over a national cap-and-trade carbon emissions bill, plus the nation’s lowered energy needs in the recession, are driving the futures price for RGGI allotments down and down. From CarbonPositive.net: “The benchmark December futures RGGI contract closed at $2.21 on Thursday on the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange after eight days of falls. There may now be little to stop prices falling to a minimum level set by regulators of $1.86, one market analyst said.”


November 20th, 2009 at 7:03 am
Perhaps the lack of… attention… is because perhaps most businesses have a bit of a red face for wasting so much easy money for so many years.
Why would IBM, for example, wish to boast they have been wasting $3million/yr on something “simple” like water when they spend enormous energy reducing… expenditures on post-it notes.
Rggi… too bad, but reduce the allotments… create scarcity… drive up the price… drive down pollution… slow the growth of greenhouse gasses… keep the end in focus. It isn't about the Rggi market, it is about global warming.
And, your tag is misspelled and this is a good entry and should not get mis-filed.
November 20th, 2009 at 7:23 am
Whoops - how right you are. “consevation” - > “conservation”