Johnson Controls Pledges to Cut US GHG Emissions Intensity by 30% from 2002 to 2012
06 December 2007
Johnson Controls has pledged to reduce its total US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity per dollar of revenue by 30% from 2002 to 2012. The company has committed to the reduction goal as part of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Climate Leaders program, which Johnson Controls joined in 2003.
Climate Leaders is an EPA industry-government partnership that works with companies to develop climate change strategies. Partner companies commit to reducing their impact on the global environment by completing a corporate-wide inventory of their greenhouse gas emissions based on a quality management system, setting reduction goals and annually reporting their progress to the EPA.
Johnson Controls plans to achieve this reduction goal through a comprehensive action plan that institutes energy efficiency solutions in the company’s US plants and facilities, processes and fleet. Through the EPA audit process, Johnson Controls has verified that it has already made good progress towards achieving this GHG reduction goal by 2012.
Sounds good until you read 'emissions intensity per dollar'. Inflation at 2.5% per year is almost 30% when compounded over 10 years. Not impressed. We need real, absolute reductions in CO2, not relative to units of GDP or dollars of sales.
Posted by: JN2 | 06 December 2007 at 02:17 AM
That's exactly what i was going to say. It is even funnier if you think that inflation is actually 2.5%.
The M3 growth is miles higher, check out shadowstats dot com and thedailyreckoning
Posted by: Craig Bartle | 06 December 2007 at 03:12 AM
Iwould have thought on first reading that they were saying that they were looking at a 30% energy reduction of their operations as a target.
I seem to recall that ohnson conrolls are in the electric powertrain management buisness "google above"
So out with he dictionary (Its important to get evrything corect in ones mind to understand whatn is being said) Revenue = Income stream.
So a 30% reduction in energy intensity per dollar of (income) revenue is just that.
For every dollar earned A reduction of energy used in the order of 30%. Plainly doing buisness more energy efficiently.
Using another incorret view:
I cant see what this has to do with inflation but if inflation means that the actual dollars increase as it does in every other example, then the 30% reduction Will be in reality even greater because the dollar value of the good(s) rise
then the 30% saving (in dollar terms) increasing.
Posted by: Arnold | 06 December 2007 at 03:59 AM
An even more balanced view of Johnson should add.
Johnsons External carbon footprint in relation to It's product range enabling greenhouse savings for it's customers will far exceed its inhouse savings.
As the bali conference approaches ,Australia's newly elected landslide majority govt is looking at the feasibility of 25 -40% CO2 emissions by 2020.
As a rich westernised nation with one of the highest per capita emissions, and "recognising the Urgent need for action to reduce the worst effects of enhanced greenhouse dangerous climate change"
It would seem to me that the very credible aims and charter of co's like Johnson controls are going to be the (only)way forward.
Posted by: Arnold | 06 December 2007 at 01:54 PM