ABOUT US

For nearly four decades, we have linked science, economics and innovative private-sector partnerships. Together, we create breakthrough solutions to environmental problems.

More about us »

The world's wealthier countries and fast-growing economies are hungry for goods. And it's mostly fossil fuels that feed the consumer machine.

When we squeeze toothpaste onto a plastic toothbrush, hop in our cars or on our bikes, or walk through an office building, we don't think much about all the plastics, steel, aluminum, fiberglass, concrete and other materials necessary for our everyday activities. Chances are we also don't think much about how manufacturing these materials consumes enormous amounts of fossil fuels, like coal and oil.

But it's worth considering an important imbalance in our modern world. Though it took millions and millions of years for fossil fuels to form from the breakdown of plant and planktonic matter far below the Earth, today we gobble them up in an instant—at great cost to the planet.

America's top six manufacturing industries are primary metals, food, chemicals, paper, nonmetallic minerals and petroleum refining. Together, they churn out about two-thirds of the country's total industrial emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂), the main global warming pollutant. By switching to renewable energy sources and boosting energy efficiencies, industry holds one of the keys to fixing the global warming problem. Fortunately, far-sighted companies are beginning to lead the way.

Harnessing new technologies

Industry leaders are warming to the idea of cutting CO₂ emissions, whether to save money now or gain a strategic foothold in an economy that will reward those who reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Though a sea change in business as usual is needed to stave off global warming, here's a closer look at some good first steps.

Case Study 1: BP. In 1998, BP's CEO Lord John Browne acknowledged that climate change is a matter for public concern and launched an emissions reduction program. "As the largest producer of oil and gas in the United States and the United Kingdom, we recognize our responsibility to help lead the way for other energy companies and to demonstrate that it is possible to break the old tradeoff between improved living standards and a cleaner environment," said Browne.

BP reduced its emissions of methane, an important greenhouse gas, using a simple and innovative solution: replacing well valves. With the old valves, the methane gas was released into the air. With the new valves, BP captured most of the methane gas and sold it. The amount of methane gas released into the atmosphere by a typical valve dropped from 800 to 12 standard cubic feet per day. The investment reduced heat-trapping emissions and brought in new revenue.

Not only did BP achieve its target of reducing its emissions to 10% below 1990 levels, but it accomplished the goal by 2002, eight years ahead of schedule. The reductions came at no net cost to the business, and while achieving robust growth.

Case Study 2: DuPont. DuPont started its emissions reductions by recognizing the human impact of global warming and by seeing both business risks, such as the cost of measuring and monitoring CO₂ emissions, and business opportunities, such as selling reductions in a new carbon market.

DuPont took its first step in the early 1990s by identifying and measuring greenhouse gas emissions from its operations. The chemical giant identified three major sources of heat-trapping emissions: nitrous oxide emissions from nylon manufacturing, HFC-23 emissions from refrigerant production, and CO₂ emissions from energy consumption at its plant sites around the world. The company set a target to reduce its CO₂ emissions 40% compared to 1990 levels. By 2000, DuPont also had exceeded its goal, cutting its emissions by 63 percent.

Another part of DuPont's success came from using fossil fuels alternatives, specifically from recycling gas from landfill sites. At its soy protein plant in Memphis, Tennessee, the company replaced more than 90 percent of the natural gas used to fuel the boilers with gas from landfills. The resulting greenhouse gas emissions reduction is equivalent to removing 70,000 cars from the road, and it saved them $4 million a year.

Solutions: The technology is here today

These are good first steps, but they are making just a dent in the problem. They show how today's technologies can power American business, safeguarding our environment, and often save money, too. Their widespread implementation is critical to fighting global warming. Here's a snapshot of what's available.

Energy efficiency. Creating efficiencies cuts both heat-trapping emissions and costs. The potential for this win-win situation is so great that the United States could use at least four to 10 percent less energy by 2010 simply by using it more efficiently, according to a consortium of National Laboratories. Simple, cost-effective steps have rapid payback times. These include:

• Replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs,
• replacing old windows with new, low-emissivity ones, and
• choosing energy-efficient major appliances like refrigerators and air conditioners. 

Even larger opportunities to save energy exist for new buildings with little additional up-front cost. And companies that can make substantial investments in efficiencies can see huge savings. For example, DuPont's $50 million investment to improve its manufacturing processes payed off in the consumption of 16 million fewer barrels of oil in 2000—a savings of $325 million in just one year. 

Wind power. Wind turbines, or windmills, use strong wind to create pollution-free, renewable electricity. Wind power is already as cheap as fossil fuel-generated electricity in some places. The windier the location, the lower the cost is, and the more energy that can be produced. Wind energy is most economical in places where average wind speed is at least 17 miles per hour. Wind electricity generation is currently growing worldwide by almost 30 percent per year, and as a result of large cost reductions, they often produce electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels. New York-based Brooklyn Brewery is one company powered completely by wind. Its annual savings of heat-trapping emissions are about 335,000 lbs of CO2.

Solar energy. The sun's energy can help produce electricity in two ways: photovoltaic (PV) systems and solar thermal systems. PV systems change sunlight directly into electricity. They are common where it is relatively expensive to run electrical wires or use batteries, such as in rural homes, remote research stations and freeway call boxes. Solar thermal systems use the sun's energy to heat a fluid that produces steam, which then turns a turbine and generator. California's Luz SEGS plants are the principal solar thermal generators in America. Although solar technologies are more expensive than other options now, they are cost-effective where net metering is permitted (selling electricity back to the grid) and several states offer subsidies to stimulate investment.

Coal gasification. Coal is usually burned to boil water for making electricity in a steam boiler. The approach is simple and inexpensive, but the CO₂ released from burning is dilute and therefore expensive to capture for sequestration. An alternative technology called gasification partially burns the coal in oxygen, producing hydrogen and carbon monoxide (CO). The CO can then be converted to CO₂ at high concentration and separated. The remaining "syngas" of mostly hydrogen is then burned to generate electricity in a high-efficiency gas turbine, or chemically converted to gasoline or diesel-replacement fuels. The separated CO₂ must be permanently stored in order to prevent its escape to the atmosphere (see carbon sequestration below). The smog and soot pollution from these plants is also lower than in conventional coal plants. Tampa Electric has been running a cleaner coal-burning power plant for about ten years now. The technology is here and proven — gasification in the chemical industry has been around for decades—but it's currently about 20 percent more expensive to build this kind of innovative plant.

Carbon sequestration. Burying CO₂ deep below the ground to prevent its escape into the atmosphere is one way to slow global warming. Oil companies routinely inject CO₂ into oil fields to stimulate production. About 14 oil companies in Texas are practicing CO₂ injection but not for permanently storing carbon. Norway is a leader in the technology, burying CO₂ deep in the ground at the Sleipner West natural gas field. The Weyburn project in Canada and the In Salah project in Algeria are also injecting CO₂ to store carbon. BP has recently announced plans to build two fossil fuel electricity plants that will capture and store CO2.

There is huge potential for CO₂ injection to spread, and it is needed. It is estimated that more than 200 billion tons of CO₂ are storable in oil fields. By comparison, world CO₂ emissions from all sources is currently 25 billion tons. Significantly larger capacities exist in deep saltwater aquifers. CO₂ can also be stored by plants and soils; read more on carbon sequestration.

Bio materials. Oil and natural gas are both raw materials and fuels needed to manufacture plastics. Plastic makers can reduce CO₂ emissions by switching the raw materials to bio-based materials such as plant sugars, and they can use renewable fuels for the manufacturing process.

Biomass. Biomass may sound like a chemistry experiment gone wrong, but it's an extremely versatile fuel source that includes crop residues and crops grown to make energy. Organic matter, called biomass, can be burned in an incinerator to produce energy. In newer facilities, the biomass is "digested" to make ethanol (or gasified in a similar way as for coal gasification to make electricity or fuels) with greater efficiency and cleaner performance. Biomass resources include agricultural, forestry, and food processing byproducts, as well as gas emitted from landfills. Biomass can provide electricity, heat buildings and factories, and power cars and trucks. Though not as clean as wind and solar energy and a bit more expensive (because of transportation costs from source to incinerator), its environmental benefits are a significant plus because biomass generates few or no heat-trapping gases (if it comes from salvaged residues or from sustainably grown crops). Biomass currently supplies two percent of the electricity used in California.

Sources

Beecy and Kuuskraa, 2005, Basin strategies for linking CO₂ enhanced oil recovery and storage of CO₂ emissions, Proceedings of the Seventh Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference, Vancouver, Canada.

Brower, Michael; Cox, Patrick; Marston, Jim. "The Next Texas Energy Boom." 1995.

"Cool It! Companies Take the Lead on Global Warming," Solutions, Environmental Defense newsletter, January-February 2003, www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/2575_Solutions0103.pdf.

Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2003, Energy Information Administration.

Interlaboratory Working Group. Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future, (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory), ORNL/CON-476 and LBNL-44029, November 2000.

Stier, Kenneth. "Dirty Secret: Coal Plants Could Be Much Cleaner," New York Times, 22 May 2005.

The Heat Is On, Environmental Defense, 2004, 22.

Corporate targets compiled from corporate web sites and annual reports. (See Corporate Targets for CO₂ Reductions and Sources [PDF])