Of Carbon Footprint, Clean Diesel and NZ Lamb

March 27, 2009 -- Filed under My impact by Andrew Macdonald

In the first post on carbon I suggested that the Jetta TDI Clean Diesel offers drivers a carbon advantage. Following this I did a bit of digging around and found this Business Week article on Carbon Advantage and the corresponding competitive business advantage. The writer states that “companies can get a better return by offering products and services that improve sustainability for others.”

When consumers search out the most effective options for personal mobility (in other words, the most energy efficient) they are seeking to reduce their personal carbon footprint.
Vehicles like the Jetta TDI capable of better than 5L/100km or 50 MPG are cutting carbon emissions by nearly half. Reductions of 50%! And these are already available to consumers.
A few weeks back I had dinner with James Tansey, Director of the UBC Sustainability and Social Innovation Centre at the Sauder School of Business. I should also add that James is the co-founder and President of Offsetters one of Canada’s premier carbon offset organizations. James is intensely interested in alternative paths to a more sustainable low carbon future. The last thing I thought he would be interested in was further discussion on fossil fuel powered vehicles and in particular diesel power plants.
Well, guess what? In the current global environment James sees things like this: if an alternative is substantially more efficient (and cost-effective) than the tried and true, he is a proponent.

As he told me that night, “One of the things I get asked all the time is whether someone should buy a diesel or a hybrid car. I always answer, YES. And here comes the reason: we currently have a few outstanding options for greatly improved energy efficiency when it comes to personal mobility and buildings. If the option you are interested in as a consumer is the new TDI, then go out and switch it for the vehicle you drive today. Why? Because the diesel will be substantially more efficient than the model you currently drive. Therefore you immediately cut your personal footprint.”

“Currently the installed base of vehicles on the road today in Canada returns relatively poor carbon efficiency performance. In terms of transportation, increased fuel economy results in immediate carbon mitigation. If it is better, get on with it while we research further the opportunities for tomorrow, the potential of biomass energy supplies, hydrogen and the full electrification of the automobile in concert with a smart grid.”

I suppose he’s right, it is that simple. The incandescent bulb I just replaced at home with a new CFL is providing me with 70% more efficiency over the old option. Applying this same logic to the car I drive makes far more sense than arguing over which “greener” option is better?

When we are able to make purchasing decisions which result in 40, 50 or 60% improvements over our current impact, the decision should be easy. Becoming mired in the minutiae of whether one of these options is particularly better than the other seems to me to be counterproductive.

As a general statement, products and services that can help customers improve their own sustainability will be in increasing demand, creating the opportunity for major shifts in market share and net reduction in business impact in the environment. We cannot operate a “zero sum game” in the carbon reduction game and expect that we will make substantial gains in our efforts to reduce the impact on the biosphere and our ability to maintain a quality of life on the planet over the long term.

As James reminded me, there are many options, there will always be options. What is important is that corporations, brands, and consumers identify with the sustainability offerings available today and make the shift sooner rather than later.

As a “what if,” imagine the carbon emission reduction in Canada if we could shift from an installed base of about 2% light-duty clean diesel transportation to something approaching 20 or 30% (not a big jump when you consider Europe is over 50% and Belgium 80%). The carbon, aka green house gas, reductions would be enormous.

And as for those of you who eat New Zealand lamb, think about this (and I’m not picking on kiwi farm animals here): for every kilogram of NZ lamb shipped to your local grocery store (and then your plate), carbon emissions are 14 times the weight of the meat. That’s right! For every kg of NZ lamb 14 kg of carbon dioxide are emitted (most of this the result of transport).

So you see, there are many paths to reducing our impacts. NZ lamb and the cars are just two! What is important is that we all do something.

3 Comments