Depends on the company, as well as the size of the company. It can be quite costly to do such a process, especially to a start-up. But large enough companies that are known to produce harmful chemicals in factories (large gas companies, mills, etc), should be required to track and publish their footprint reports.
Yes, companies should absolutely be required to track their carbon footprints. But "tracking" does not necessarily predicate action or neutralization. To really neutralize or seriously reduce a carbon footprint, many companies in the U.S. would have to dramatically re-conceive their day to day operations, from the ground up. So they can instead start by tracking and trying to offset emissions. Start small, with the minimum and work up. There are tons of simple things you can do. Enacting a recycling program or encouraging employees to roller-shoe their way to work, for example. Or the age old environmental band-aid maneuver: plant a tree.
The U.S. hasn't even ratified the Kyoto Protocol, so we may be wasting our breath, but why shouldn't we require every company in the U.S. to be more conscious of its carbon footprint?
I think all companies should be required to participate in a unified effort to reduce their consumption and waste of products. In offices accross the US we see the rise in use of recycling bins, but rarely is their a conscience effort to reduce the use of paper products before the copies are even made. There are many computer programs available that would reduce the paper waste, increase the searchablity, and reduce the need for storage space.
As a person working in the field of import/export freight forwarding, there is an across the board effort to reduce the consumption of paper products. In the past, we would have to type or hand write certifictes and forms then have them driven to Customs to approve and send back to us. In a joint effort a program was created to link into the CBP website and file the declarations electronically. We are now able to transmit documents electronically to people all across the globe, to improve trade relations and increase the ease of the process that is import and export.
So much of what we have learned can be translated to many other fields. Instead of taking all this paper and dumping it into landfills we need to work together to reduce product consumption.
No,it is a great thing that companies are doing it now but in reality, how much of that is "Good PR?" I am willing to bet their accountants are watching every penny they spend on "Green" efforts. A private company should not have to track their carbon footprint. A public company.....well, that is up to the shareholders to bring up and debate
I dont think they should be required, but I think there should be an added benefit for their participation. Like a carbon credit or something along those lines. I know Europe is making some good progress on these incentives.
No. Someone else will do it, you can be sure. Those that do are likely the most concerned with the environment and living / working in harmony with it. This will show up in their ads. Which some person or group will check out, & report to the rest of the world. It's just plain smart and good business to take care of the only Mother we've got. It's a whole lot cheaper to do things right the first time than it is to do it over, too.
No! they should reduce the carbon footprint instead of auctioning it out for more reason to continue pollute. What are we talking about here? People buying the right to pollute? To circumvent the EPA regulations? We are "F"ing up the planet where else are we going to go if we screw this up? Do you think that the powers that be are going to let you on the space shuttle? Have included you in the whos who in the lead-lined mountain fortress built to protect them not you from their "F"up. Do you have a place at Wright Patterson Airbase in Ohio where the president and his cronies are going to be safely tucked away in case of a nuclear strike, or a seroius melt-down in the atmosphere(Global Warming?) No, they are going to let you all will die "collateral damage." I know I have a top secret security clearance from the USAF, I know where everybody who is somebody is going to go. They have already in place a contingency plan for them not you, you and yours are expendable.
Do you honestly believe that companies are going to do the right thing without enforcements in place? Hell they don't do the right thing now this just gives them a legal out a license to continue to "F"up the planet why should they care what mess they leave behind they'll be dead anyway, soon, and they certainly don't give a damn about theirs or your kids, All they care about is NOW,NOW MONEY, later for everbody,and everything else."Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die." Com'on what planet are you guys on?certainly not this one,and since its the only one fit for human habitation,I'd think long and hard about "F"ing it up.
You can't require this information to all companies. This actictude should be done by those who really are engaged to improve results in a tripple botton line vision. Carbon footprints are important but can not be compared with social resposability who used to be a trend 10 years ago. The tripple bottom line (economic, social and environmental) should be required for all companies. This matter. This is a sustainable future.
My hope is that companies voluntarily begin to examine all of their business practices and determine how they can modify them and reduce their impact on the environment so that no regulation would be needed.
Marie Brown
12 Total
June 5, 2008 at 3:37pm by Rachel King
Depends on the company, as well as the size of the company. It can be quite costly to do such a process, especially to a start-up. But large enough companies that are known to produce harmful chemicals in factories (large gas companies, mills, etc), should be required to track and publish their footprint reports.
June 5, 2008 at 5:34pm by Rip Empson
Yes, companies should absolutely be required to track their carbon footprints. But "tracking" does not necessarily predicate action or neutralization. To really neutralize or seriously reduce a carbon footprint, many companies in the U.S. would have to dramatically re-conceive their day to day operations, from the ground up. So they can instead start by tracking and trying to offset emissions. Start small, with the minimum and work up. There are tons of simple things you can do. Enacting a recycling program or encouraging employees to roller-shoe their way to work, for example. Or the age old environmental band-aid maneuver: plant a tree.
The U.S. hasn't even ratified the Kyoto Protocol, so we may be wasting our breath, but why shouldn't we require every company in the U.S. to be more conscious of its carbon footprint?
June 6, 2008 at 12:30pm by Megan DaGata
I think all companies should be required to participate in a unified effort to reduce their consumption and waste of products. In offices accross the US we see the rise in use of recycling bins, but rarely is their a conscience effort to reduce the use of paper products before the copies are even made. There are many computer programs available that would reduce the paper waste, increase the searchablity, and reduce the need for storage space.
As a person working in the field of import/export freight forwarding, there is an across the board effort to reduce the consumption of paper products. In the past, we would have to type or hand write certifictes and forms then have them driven to Customs to approve and send back to us. In a joint effort a program was created to link into the CBP website and file the declarations electronically. We are now able to transmit documents electronically to people all across the globe, to improve trade relations and increase the ease of the process that is import and export.
So much of what we have learned can be translated to many other fields. Instead of taking all this paper and dumping it into landfills we need to work together to reduce product consumption.
June 6, 2008 at 1:54pm by Dan Schneider
No,it is a great thing that companies are doing it now but in reality, how much of that is "Good PR?" I am willing to bet their accountants are watching every penny they spend on "Green" efforts. A private company should not have to track their carbon footprint. A public company.....well, that is up to the shareholders to bring up and debate
June 6, 2008 at 3:03pm by Steven Heath
Yes. Gone are the days where companies could ignore how they affect the environment.
June 6, 2008 at 5:28pm by Raphael Bennett
I dont think they should be required, but I think there should be an added benefit for their participation. Like a carbon credit or something along those lines. I know Europe is making some good progress on these incentives.
June 6, 2008 at 6:23pm by Carel Two-Eagle
No. Someone else will do it, you can be sure. Those that do are likely the most concerned with the environment and living / working in harmony with it. This will show up in their ads. Which some person or group will check out, & report to the rest of the world. It's just plain smart and good business to take care of the only Mother we've got. It's a whole lot cheaper to do things right the first time than it is to do it over, too.
June 7, 2008 at 12:09am by Kenneth Robinson
No! they should reduce the carbon footprint instead of auctioning it out for more reason to continue pollute. What are we talking about here? People buying the right to pollute? To circumvent the EPA regulations? We are "F"ing up the planet where else are we going to go if we screw this up? Do you think that the powers that be are going to let you on the space shuttle? Have included you in the whos who in the lead-lined mountain fortress built to protect them not you from their "F"up. Do you have a place at Wright Patterson Airbase in Ohio where the president and his cronies are going to be safely tucked away in case of a nuclear strike, or a seroius melt-down in the atmosphere(Global Warming?) No, they are going to let you all will die "collateral damage." I know I have a top secret security clearance from the USAF, I know where everybody who is somebody is going to go. They have already in place a contingency plan for them not you, you and yours are expendable.
June 7, 2008 at 12:19am by Kenneth Robinson
Do you honestly believe that companies are going to do the right thing without enforcements in place? Hell they don't do the right thing now this just gives them a legal out a license to continue to "F"up the planet why should they care what mess they leave behind they'll be dead anyway, soon, and they certainly don't give a damn about theirs or your kids, All they care about is NOW,NOW MONEY, later for everbody,and everything else."Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die." Com'on what planet are you guys on?certainly not this one,and since its the only one fit for human habitation,I'd think long and hard about "F"ing it up.
June 7, 2008 at 12:42am by fernando del mar
You can't require this information to all companies. This actictude should be done by those who really are engaged to improve results in a tripple botton line vision. Carbon footprints are important but can not be compared with social resposability who used to be a trend 10 years ago. The tripple bottom line (economic, social and environmental) should be required for all companies. This matter. This is a sustainable future.
June 7, 2008 at 5:01am by think feeldo
YES! Absolutely. 100%.
TFD
June 8, 2008 at 1:28pm by Marie Brown
My hope is that companies voluntarily begin to examine all of their business practices and determine how they can modify them and reduce their impact on the environment so that no regulation would be needed.
Marie Brown