CO2 emissions - Active environmental protection or modern indulgence trade?
Intensive reporting has created a deeper awareness of climate protection with many people. Participation in emissions trading is, among other, a significant topic of discussion.
In CO2 discussions, we should always keep the source of the information in mind, and the topic to which it has relevance. At Prinovis, several CO2 values are in contention, for instance. We have participation in emission trading on the one hand, which the locations Ahrensburg, Itzehoe and Nuremberg are observing. The obligation to participate in emissions trading arises from the waste heat power generated by the individual central heating plants. All companies with a waste heat power exceeding 20 MWh must participate in this emissions trading. Only the exhaust gases produced by the fuel streams – for the generation of heat/steam – are of significance in this CO2 evaluation. Balance sheets are compiled of this, with the total emissions as the result. These emission volumes are then verified externally and submitted to the German Emissions Trading Authority (Deutsche Emissionshandelsstelle - DEHSt). The CO2 volume specified (in tons) is then remitted – analogous to a current account.
At the start of the first trading period (2005 to 2007), free CO2 certificates were issued, based on historical data. If the number of allocated certificates was insufficient, additional certificates had to be purchased. Conversely, these could be sold to make a little extra money.
This is the mechanism driving emission trading. Through savings on the one hand or reducing consumption by technical innovation on the other, resources are ultimately conserved. Because goals were met, the Federal Government was very satisfied after the first trading period. We are currently in the early stages of the second trading period (2008 to 2012), for which the Federal Government has set even more ambitious goals to reduce CO2 emissions even further. Another point in the CO2 discussion is the so-called carbon footprint. This is defined as the CO2 emission arising from production of certain items, such as the production of a magazine for instance. This entails examination of the CO2 emission of the individual processes – from the production raw material down to disposal – and »billing« this to the total production/the product. The result is a number showing how many kilogrammes of CO2 were emitted in the production of a magazine. Based on this figure, the customer or end user can personally decide which product to buy and whether he considers a higher price worth the reduced CO2 emission. Reduced CO2 emissions are not necessarily always more expensive, since correspondingly less energy was used in manufacture.
An emission value towards »climateneutral production« can also be deduced from these carbon footprints. This term is highly misleading. Because climateneutral production does not imply nonemission of CO2 but simply means that the manufacturer or client voluntarily returns the volume of CO2 emissions that he bought earlier.
Whilst emission data are very transparent in emission trading, there are clear deviations in the computation of carbon footprints. The reason being that emission trading is based on a uniform model for the calculation of emission data. The carbon footprint is not based on such a universal and accepted model. The reason for this is quite clear. Taking power as an example, it is soon obvious that it is difficult to find a common factor for the conversion of kilowatt hours (KWh) to CO2 equivalents. A so-called power mix (power originating from different sources such as nuclear, hydro, wind power etc.) must be assumed, fluctuating from region to region and from energy supplier to energy supplier in varying degrees. A company receiving power from sources of renewable energy and paying more for this power than a company powered by brown coal power stations only, obviously wants to highlight this advantage. This is hardly possible with a uniform and nationwide power equivalent. Each company would have to determine its own conversion factor which would then make the entire system non-transparent to the user/customer.
To summarise, it is evident that CO2 is not equal to CO2 in the greenhouse gas discussion, resulting in the risk that apples are compared to pears. It definitely makes sense to scrutinise the figures a bit.
What initiatives does Prinovis take in the »climate protection« field? Prinovis intends to play a leading role in its sector in the field of environmental protection! Through constant improvement we ensure credibility with the relevant target groups such as the customers and authorities, but in particular also with our colleagues! In terms of a continuous improvement process (CIP) we annually define environmental targets and suitable actions. As such we improve our environmental performance and raise our standard. This results in increased competitiveness.
We have set ourselves goals to increase energy efficiency, thereby reducing CO2 emissions. These goals include improvement of energy use efficiency (building services engineering, building utilisation, production technology), improvement of energy production efficiency (CHP optimisation and expansion) as well as examining CO2-neutral and low carbon energy provision (biomass).
In the technical field therefore, extensive efforts to reduce energy wastage are already underway. However, this is not the only way to achieve that goal. Another point not to be underestimated is the answer to the question »What can each colleague personally do at his workplace?«
By Christine Uhde-Leischner and Mike Bolsch
(11.07.2008)
