Without a doubt you have heard the avid discussions about global warming and the consequences it has when it comes to the climate. It is true that our planet is slowly melting and that every day more greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere, which combined with the increased level of infrared energies lead to the rise of the global temperatures. Polar ice caps are melting and temperate climates are changing to 2-season climate patterns. The fauna and flora are suffering from all those changes and we have to ask ourselves: how can we stop our planet from a certain death? Well, there are many solutions presented by global warming activists and one of the most relevant is that of carbon credits.

Given the fact that we live in age where more and more industries are created, increasing the level of pollution worldwide, the concept of carbon credits was well received. It was meant as an initiative to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases and even though at the beginning, attained a certain level of success. Today, the Internet is practically filled with companies that provide the possibility to buy carbon credits and most importantly each provider is involved in different projects. Those who are interested in carbon credits must know what are the carbon projects provided by these companies and thus be able to make a serious-minded comparison. After all, most of the companies that are interested in such services know that they contribute to the problem of global warming due to the emission of greenhouse gases (especially methane and carbon dioxide) and they need to take action, even if that means only buying carbon credits.

Companies like Carbonfund and Terapass have understood the importance of carbon credits and they have developed various carbon projects that will reduce some of the greenhouse gases suffocating the atmosphere. A carbon credit equals with the reduction of one ton of carbon dioxide and it is indeed one of the most practical measures that can be taken against global warming by individuals and companies. It also increases awareness when it comes to such problems, many companies feeling stimulated when they are given an incentive in order to decrease the level of carbon dioxide produced. The question is: where is the best carbon credit project to be found and why would I want to go to this specific provider and not to someone else? What are the rules when it comes to selecting the right provider for a carbon credit? Actually, if you want to reduce your own carbon footprint then you should know that there are no better providers than others. Still, their projects are different especially when it comes to their quality. This is why you need a service that allows not only the comparison of various carbon credit providers but also has the possibility of rating that specific provider.

We are talking about climate change and thus reducing even just a tone of carbon dioxide is extremely important. All companies and businesses out there should take part in fighting the climate change and reduce the level of greenhouse gases that affect the atmosphere. Apart from informing ourselves on the subject of global warming, we should also try and find a reliable provider for carbon credit projects using the comparison services provided by the Internet. As we cannot stop the greenhouse gases that have already been released in the atmosphere, we can take action by preventing the quantity of gases that will be released in the future. There are many carbon reducing projects out there, all meant to stimulate and help people contribute. Some examples include: wind power farms, renewable energy and also reforestation. Just make sure that you bring your own contribution – if each person does the same, we will certainly have a greener and healthier planet!

Mandatory carbon (CO2) emissions reporting is more important than ever as the United States works with facilities to reduce substances known to adversely affect air quality, the climate, and lead to global warming. Most of the known matter that is destroying the earth’s ozone layer and contributing to global warming is derived from manmade compounds and chemicals with high global warming potential (GWP) and commonly known as greenhouse gases (GHGs).

Around the country a comprehensive initiative, which includes mandatory carbon emissions reporting has been introduced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the intention of controlling carbon dioxide (CO2) and greenhouse gases (GHGs) that have an effect on global climate change. Unfortunately, some substances like refrigerant gases not only have high global warming potential but they also destroy the ozone layer when emitted into the atmosphere.

The U.S. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), working in cooperation with many international governments, reiterate a common message related to the dangers of carbon emissions. CO2 and its unrestricted use will only lead to more environmental damage therefor more regulations will continue to limit carbon emissions in the future. A measuring, managing, and mitigating greenhouse gas emission places the foundation for future carbon emissions trading schemes within the United States. The European Union has worked on carbon emissions reductions as part of The Kyoto Protocol for a number of years. At a meeting planned in late 2009, global leaders in the fight against climate change will rework and redefine the next set of rules to follow The Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. under leadership form President Obama plan to be active participants.

As part of the draft greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations, any organization that uses refrigerant gases or other regulated substances would be required to comply with mandatory carbon emissions reporting. In addition to refrigerant gases, the following 6 chemical compounds all factor into a comprehensive carbon accounting. The Kyoto Protocol establishes legally binding commitments for the reduction of four greenhouse gases; carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), and two groups of refrigerant gases; CFCs and PFCs.)

Refrigerant gases are known to affect the atmosphere and contribute to global warming. Numerous gases are listed in the EPA regulations including nitrous oxide, methane, carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, nitrogen trifluoride, and ethers. Refrigerant gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (CFCs), must be managed, tracked, and reported under the existing Montreal Protocol. There is some cross-over between the different regulations that restrict harmful emissions. The good news is any CO2 related tracking will further enhance emissions management practices already in place across an organization.

The EPA’s mandatory carbon emissions reporting plan comes into effect in 2010. Companies must file a first report in 2011 covering the previous year. These requirements cover those facilities with HVAC systems, refrigeration and AC systems, companies that make industrial chemicals, as well as fossil fuels, engines and automobiles. Many industrial chemicals harm the environment by destroying the ozone layer or enhance global warming. The following chemicals, such as refrigerant gases, lead to harmful effects on the environment: chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, halons, methyl chloroform, chlorine, fluorine, bromine and carbon tetrachloride amongst others.

The U.S. Clean Air Act, in addition to the mandatory emissions reporting by amounts, calls for the facilities and municipalities alike to monitor and track and subsequently report harmful substances, such as refrigerant gases that are in common use. Organizations that either cannot comply or choose to not follow the environmental regulations will be fined by the EPA. On top of regulatory fines, companies may experience a financial loss when they are required to buy carbon credits to meet the cap requirements.

Organizations can comply with CO2 emissions management regulations and reporting in a couple of ways. Monitoring and tracking can be handled manually and the reports completed by hand. However this approach can be very time-consuming and error-prone, and many will opt to use a software program or a web-based application to automatically handle the monitoring and tracking requirements of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Automation helps to ensure that reports are accurate and timely. Service automation or CMMS systems can lead the way to effective company operations. It is more efficient to maintain assets at optimal working conditions and collect relevant carbon related emissions data across distributed enterprises or systems.

Mandatory carbon emissions reporting will definitely lower this country’s greenhouse gas emissions. The government has said that 13,000 facilities are responsible for between 85 and 90% of the harmful substances in the air.

The United States, through the implementation of a mandatory carbon emissions reporting program, ensure that businesses will reduce their carbon footprint and will help to mitigate adverse climate changes in the years ahead. This initiative is being repeated at various locations worldwide with the aim of addressing climate change head on – in as straightforward of a manner with immediate financial incentives to drive rapid and economy wide adoption of carbon reduction and market-based trading.

Reducing carbon footprint while maximizing shareholder value is a strategic imperative for modern businesses. Laurent Pacalin, FICO™ chief marketing officer and co-founder of the clean tech open, is interviewed by Darcy Sullivan. FICO™ has established a standard credit scoring service that has enabled equal opportunity banking. The Clean Tech Open is the most successful clean tech business plan in the nation supporting entrepreneurs push toward the development of a lower carbon economy. At FICO™ we are interested in achieving economic, environmental and social success. The sustainability thought leader Andy Savitz calls this the triple bottom line. Now, as an industry leader, we take it upon ourselves to solve really big problems. In the context of FICO™ the big problems that we can tackle are what I call the Climate Crunch and the Credit Crunch. The office and IT are becoming major drivers of climate change. Let me try to illustrate this point. By 2020, mckinsey predicted that IT would be the cause of 1.5 gigatons of greenhouse gases. Weve recently announced a Sustainable Enterprise Initiative to focus on reducing FICO™ carbon footprint. Led by our CIO, Christopher Rence, and supported by our employees. It is focused on three key areas, greening our data centers by improving the energy efficiency of our IT infrastructure, reducing employee commute miles by encouraging telecommuting and decreasing overall printing and using post-consumer paper wherever possible. These …

Carbon offsets are instruments that may be acquired and sold to balance the GHG emissions generated by a person or a company. Preferably, we offset emissions when we cannot prevent them while executing our daily necessary activities. If one generates emissions in the presence of an alternate sustainable way, it is generally frowned upon by eco-conscious people. For simplicity, one carbon offset is measured as the reduction of one metric ton of CO2.

Numerous European countries have made nationwide legislations that allow firms to release up to a particular amount of emissions. If a firm releases over that set limit, it has to purchase carbon offsets to balance the equation. Apart from this compliance market, there’s also a growing market for voluntary purchase of offsets. Those who are eco-conscious buy offsets to reduce their personal carbon footprint even though they are not forced by law to do this. This voluntary acquisition, however, is not restricted to individuals, and several large firms too buy offsets to retain a low carbon footprint or to develop an environmental friendly image.

So that’s how the need for carbon offsets arises, either via legal regulations that in some way penalize businesses or because of growing consciousness in voluntary purchasers. Now how are carbon offsets ‘manufactured’? Offset providers take part in large scale projects that are designed to cut GHG emissions in even millions of metric tons, and as mentioned earlier, every metric ton of carbon dioxide lessened creates one carbon offset. These projects make certain that the overall emissions released on earth get reduced so the precise site of these projects is not a big concern.

This is easy to understand because GHG emissions generated in one nation influence the entire planet when they dissolve into thin air. Hence, a project cutting emissions in India can be used to offset emissions produced in the UK. This approach has become famous as cutting greenhouse gases in third world countries is mostly far cheaper than reducing the same volume of emissions in European countries.

There are many viewpoints for and against the system of carbon offsetting but those are beyond the scope of this introductory article. All in all, carbon offsets do play a role in decrease of greenhouse gases if generated by genuine projects and traded with full transparency.

Firms are set quotas on how much carbon dioxide they can produce per year, if they produce more than this allowance, then they buy an allowance from another firm that has not reached it’s quota on how much it can produce in one year! Get it?

Emissions Trading is particularly suited to the emissions of greenhouse gases, the gases responsible for global warming, which have the same effect wherever they are emitted.

Emissions of carbon dioxide – a greenhouse gas – are widely thought to be a key factor in global warming, increasing atmospheric temperatures around the world.

The idea of the carbon-trading scheme was to raise the cost to firms of continuing to pollute while creating a market to give an incentive to become more environmentally efficient.

They are traded in a similar way to buying and selling shares, there are a number of companies that offer the buying and selling of carbon units and many offer different commissions and even free trading if you shop around. I even saw one firm that offered a one stop shopping for Renewable Energy, Biodiversity, and Greenhouse Gas. Its like an online retailer but for things you can’t touch. Ill have 2 pounds of apples, a bag of potatoes and a Biodiversity credit please!!!

On an international level countries are able to deal in carbon trading The potential benefits of such a system for developing countries would be that poorer, developing countries can sell there surplus carbon dioxide to richer countries. This income could stimulate much needed economic growth. They could also achieve their Kyoto commitments at the lowest possible cost as the money needed to invest in cleaner technology can be funded by the trading on carbon units. Countries like the USA and UK could pay the countries in Africa to REFOREST there lands, this reduction in carbon dioxide in the planet would then allow USA/UK firms to emit extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It would probably be cheaper to REFOREST parts of Africa then to buy state of the art cleaner technology for firms in the West. How many trees could you plant for a million dollars/pounds in Africa? The cost of cleaner technology in the West obviously varies from industry to industry, size of the company, technological advances available etc but surely a company would not trade CO2 unless we were talking big money. Carbon trading sounds a bit strange to me, as you are trading air, but if this leads to more trees being planted and a reduction in climate change – Im all for it!

Green energy refers to the use of power that is not only more efficient than fossil fuel but that is friendly to the environment as well. Green energy is generally defined as energy sources that dont pollute and are renewable.

There are several categories of green energy. They are anaerobic digestion, wind power, geothermal power, hydropower on a small scale, biomass power, solar power and wave power. Waste incineration can even be a source of green energy.

Nuclear power plants claim that they produce green energy as well, though this source is fraught with controversy, as we all know. While nuclear energy may be sustainable, may be considered renewable and does not pollute the atmosphere while it is producing energy, its waste does pollute the biosphere as it is released.

The transport, mining and phases before and after production of nuclear energy does produce and release carbon dioxide and similar destructive greenhouse gases. When we read of green energy, therefore, we rarely see nuclear power included.

Those who support nuclear energy say that nuclear waste is not, in fact, released into our earths biosphere during its normal production cycle. They stress as well that the carbon dioxide that nuclear energy production releases is comparable, in terms of each kilowatt hour of electricity, to such sources of green energy as wind power.

As an example of the green energy production the average wind turbine, such as the one in Reading England, can produce enough energy daily to be the only energy source for 1000 households.

Many countries now offer household and commercial consumers to opt for total use of green energy. They do this one of two ways. Consumers can buy their electricity from a company that only uses renewable green energy technology, or they can buy from their general supplies such as the local utility company who then buys from green energy resources only as much of a supply as consumers pay for.

The latter is generally a more cost – efficient way of supplying a home or office with green energy, as the supplier can reap the economic benefits of a mass purchase. Green energy generally costs more per kilowatt hour than standard fossil fuel energy.

Consumers can also purchase green energy certificates, which are alternately referred to as green tags or green certificates. These are available in both Europe and the United States, and are the most convenient method for the average consumer to support green energy. More than 35 million European households and one million American households now buy these green energy certificates.

While green energy is a great step in the direction of keeping our environment healthy and our air as pollutant free as possible, it must be noted that no matter what the energy, it will negatively impact the environment to some extent.

Every energy source, green or otherwise, requires energy. The production of this energy will create pollution during its manufacture. Green energys impact is minimal, however.