Given public policy is driving energy efficiencies and carbon reduction the availability of information one can trust is essential. Knowing what is available, how cost effective it is and how efficacious the solution is in practice will lead to more people being willing to make the change. There are more ‘snake oil’ salespeople out there giving advice than one can estimate.

Perhaps government could use some of their facilities to model what to do and how to do it; provided the true cost of what is done is made public. Model the change so people can see.

Paul
What makes you think governments aren't principal among the snake oil salesmen? The entire hoo-haa and moral panic is an artefact of the governmental funding of science, and all those dutiful technicians diligently adjusting their data sets unidirectionally *up*.

Australian businesses undoubtedly have the capacity to operate more efficiently and reduce their energy costs in the process. A few have already taken such action and improved their profit margin and competitive position in the process. However the majority will be slow to act until there is a significant hike in the cost of electricity and vehicle fuel – and a better example from the public sector.

It is all very well for governments to urge the private sector to reduce their carbon footprint but hardly encouraging when it does little to set its own house in order. It is time we demanded action from Commonwealth and State governments and the many businesses and agencies they own or operate.

In this regard, independent monitoring agencies, such as Auditors General, need to be given the power and responsibility for monitoring and reporting annually on the performance of the public sector.

Would it be better for our future as well as for nature, if us humans all lived underground also expelling harmfull gasses even further underground similar to natural forests and such?

What a pile of garbage. It is simply an advertising promotion, for a company in the global warming scam business.

He bought a Toyota Prius. Another scam. These things cost so much energy to produce, that there is no chance they will ever "save" any emissions.

Then, instead of repairing the gear that had already paid it's manufacturing emission costs & was operating reasonably efficiently, they buy new ones. Once again the emissions expended in manufacturing replacements, & probably crushing the old gear, has produced much more emissions than the new gear will save against using the existing stuff to the end of it's life.

It highlights just how stupid the green movement is, that they can be conned so easily. I wonder if the individuals are as stupid as the movement they form? I may be able to sell a few bridges.

Just as well those CO2 emissions are good for the planet.

This is Tom Bowman, the author of the article. Hasbeen raises some of the concerns we had when we started. We learned how important it is to consider our circumstances in making choices, rather than rely on generalizations and assumptions.

For example, research indicates that carbon emissions from driving a car—even a Prius—over its lifetime outweigh emissions from manufacturing the car. By more than doubling our fuel efficiency, we gain a very large benefit. However, a colleague of ours decided to keep his moderately efficient car because he drives it so much less than anyone else would. Depending on one's circumstances, either option might make sense. Our old car is probably still on the road too, so it is not being wasted as Hasbeen suggests. New cars are built and sold every day, and in a very small way we contributed to consumer demand for more fuel efficient models.

It is incorrect to assume that keeping our old copier and air conditioner were viable options. They were very old and worn out, parts were becoming hard to find, and costly repairs were becoming frequent. If we had repaired our old air conditioner we would have had to replace most of its components with new parts anyway. Therefore, emissions for new manufacturing could not be avoided, and we would have also paid an inefficiency penalty year after year. If our equipment had been relatively new, then repairing it might have been better, as Hasbeen suggests. But circumstances vary. At least the old unit was recycled.

It is also easy to accuse businesses of sharing information for self-interested reasons. Every business does. I would simply note that our client base is very diverse and generally not concerned with sustainability, energy efficiency, or global warming. The information in this article is offered freely in hopes that it might help interested business owners make their own organizations more energy efficient.

Best to all.

I am sure that Mr Bowman's company does a great deal of good, in the area of creating exhibitions for corporations, museums, and event organizers and suchlike.

But it did occur to me while reading the article that there must be hundreds, if not thousands, of businesses out there who load up the atmosphere with carbon or whatever, but whose actual product is irrelevant.

Like providing outerwear for dogs.

http://www.urbanpup.com.au/

Or gift-boxed Swarovsky Crystal Handcuffs

http://www.luxurygiftsforwomen.com.au/productlist.aspx?brandid=9&categoryid=4

Bear with me here.

I'm not taking a stand against luxury items per se. Heaven forfend. I'm simply pointing out that saving the planet is not just about buying energy efficient air-conditioners when the old one carks it.

I'm just saying that self-important articles like this are just playing around the edges of the problem. If indeed it turns out there is one.

For all I know, creating exhibitions for corporations, museums, and event organizers is one of life's essentials.

Along with keeping Fido warm.

But while we happily create new opportunities to consume energy with truly-ruly important stuff like Yves Saint-Laurent's $450 power adapter...

http://thegloss.com/odds-and-ends/why-yes-this-is-a-450-ysl-power-adapter/

...I think we may be missing the bigger picture.

Just a little.

OK Tom, thanks for coming back.

I strongly object to articles like yours, glorifying things like Hybrids, In the article you hint that you now know that a modern turbo common rail diesel run rings around these hybrids in the economy stakes, & in every other performance requirement, including economy, carbon foot print, cost to manufacture. & complication.

Those still praising them are responsible for encouraging our government to give millions of our money to a car manufacturer to subsidise a Hybrid Camry built in Oz. This of course shores up a few fool green votes, at a stupendous cost per vote. I note you are still talking them up, despite this knowledge, & comparing it to an SUV, hardly cricket, is it mate?

Our politicians are stupid enough without others helping them. Fortunately most Ozzies are not too stupid, & the things are only being bought by environment departments of governments, but it is still a major waste of our money.

The odd private citizen is conned. One of my neighbours called me a di#k head when I tried to explain why he shouldn't buy one. He has since apologized, now he has found his new hybrid Camry burns 20% more fuel, in our country district, [no traffic jams out here], than his old standard Camry.

There was no other result possible in a town & district with just one set of traffic lights, & all open road cruising.

Continued.

Now you qualify your purchase of all the new office equipment, with the fact that the old stuff was shot, worn out, finished.

Well, in that case you don't have to be a dark of shade green, or any other colour, to buy the most efficient equipment you can afford. You don't even have to be a thrifty Scotsman, just sensible.

It is not surprising that quite often the company who makes their gear more efficient, actually makes a better product, at the same time, so what else would you buy?

Just avoid anything that has recently been made to comply with some new government mandated efficiency requirement. Go buy a second hand one in this case, government involvement in any product always leads to a stuffed up product. It usually takes years to sort out the mess these mandates leave behind.

So Tom, thanks for the heads up on your business, I'm glad you are doing well. May I suggest you don't open an Oz branch any time soon, we have enough people feeding us this type of information, thanks.

Hasbeen: we did a lot of research before buying our Prius and we looked for a diesel. Diesels are inherently more energy efficient than gasoline engines, as you say. One of my employees just bought one and gets fantastic mileage. But time was not our friend when we bought our Prius: all of the manufacturers were working cleaner models to comply with California's particulate pollution laws, so there were no diesels for sale.

I am not making an argument for one vehicle technology over another. Comparing the Prius to an SUV is entirely legitimate in this article because that is the trade we actually made. If we traded a Civic for a Prius, I would have made that comparison instead.

I agree that replacing worn out gear with new models that work better is just plain sensible. In fact, that's the whole point, isn't it? In the U.S., many business owners think energy efficiency requires sacrifice. I'm trying to show them that it doesn't. I am not looking for praise; I am offering evidence to correct a misperception. Businesses can slash energy demand and carbon pollution by making sensible decisions.

I have a small timber milling business, as I've said before. This is an energy-intensive business, no matter which way it is run. It also produces a large waste stream, consisting of timber offcuts, bark and sawdust, which is highly energetic and can be used to power generation plant as well as direct heating. One of the best ways to do this is via gasification of the wood, with the gas then used to power an engine - either Otto or Diesel cycle, although Otto cycle works better with a pure woodgas stream. A turbine works even better.

Some of the energy firms are using gasification of municipal waste and coal seam gasification already, so I thought "this'll be easy". Not so. Brisbane City Council has regulations relating to boilers, open fires, combustion stoves, incinerators, furnaces, barbecues, but nothing related to forced-draugth gasifiers. They could offer me no guidance at all as to how to make my (very small) project compliant with their regs, cost-effectively or otherwise and were not interested in doing so.

So I don't gasify my wood waste, I dump it or I burn it on the bbq, and I pay over $1000 each month to a company that makes its power by burning coal (although, of course, it's not in MY backyard...).

Great job, Brisbane City Council.