In light of the disappointing outcome of the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen and the ongoing Climate Gate investigation, one has to wonder to what extent political interests present an obstacle to the resolution of environmental issues. Having the majority of the (non-scientific) community equate socio-environmental challenges to political division is extremely counterproductive and it speaks poorly of human reason to squeeze such universal problems into restrained political loyalties.
Archive for the ‘Environmental Policy’ Category
Beyond Global Warming: Lessons from Copenhagen
Posted in Corporate Ethics and CSR, Environmental Policy, tagged businesses as drivers of change, Climate Gate, Copenhagen, corporate culture, CSR, environmental issues, environmental policies, global warming, Kyoto Protocol, senterra consulting, socio-environmental issues, triple bottom line, UN Climate Conference on December 28, 2009 | 1 Comment »
The (very) basics of carbon trading
Posted in Energy, Environmental Policy, tagged BlueNext, carbon cap-and-trade, carbon exchange, carbon offsets, carbon trading, CCX, Clean Energy and security Act, CO2, corporate budget, environmental issues, environmental policies, global warming, green business, Green Exchange, senterra, senterra consulting, socio-environmental issues, sustainability consulting on July 5, 2009 | 1 Comment »
Since the conception of the Clean Energy and Security Act, the intricacies of carbon trading are becoming of interest to those who have not previously participated in the voluntary market. Following is a very basic overview of what carbon credits are and where they come from.
President Obama speaks on passage of 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act
Posted in Energy, Environmental Policy, tagged carbon cap-and-trade, Clean Energy and security Act, CSR, environmental issues, environmental policies, global warming, green business, senterra consulting on June 28, 2009 | Leave a Comment »
In this week’s White House releases, President Obama addresses the passage of the Clean Energy and Security Act.
The problem with carbon offsets
Posted in Corporate Ethics and CSR, Energy, Environmental Policy, tagged carbon cap-and-trade, carbon-free, carbon-neutral, CO2, corporate ethics, deceptive marketing, environmental issues, environmental policies, FTC carbon offset workshop, global warming, green business, greenwashing, senterra, senterra consulting, socio-environmental issues on June 17, 2009 | Leave a Comment »
At least until 2012, when the proposed carbon cap-and-trade system is scheduled to take effect, the abuse of carbon offsets will most likely persist. Carbon-neutral organizations will continue to refer to themselves as carbon-free, which makes one wonder if this is a deliberate act of greenwashing or an excusable mistake, generated by a maze of carbon buzzwords. Companies that have made no strides towards corporate stewardship otherwise, will continue to market their carbon-neutrality after purchasing offsets.
The E-Waste Problem: Part 1
Posted in Corporate Ethics and CSR, Environmental Policy, Waste Management, tagged 60 Minutes, China, CNN e-waste, corporate ethics, e-waste, electronic waste issues, environmental issues, environmental policies, senterra on June 5, 2009 | Leave a Comment »
Late last year, CNN reported on the illegal shipping of electronic waste to China. Watch the complete segment here and read what your company can do to help control this problem in our upcoming e-waste post.
Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill passes
Posted in Environmental Policy, tagged carbon cap-and-trade, carbon capture and storage, carbon sequestration, Clean Energy and security Act, climate change policy, environmental curriculum, environmental issues, environmental policies, EPA, global warming, Green Building, green jobs, House Energy and Commerce Committee, senterra consulting, Waxman-Markey climate change bill on May 22, 2009 | Leave a Comment »
The much anticipated, 932-page long Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday by a vote of 33-25. The bill has been praised as a historic development in U.S. environmental accountability, but criticized for being diluted in order to accommodate special interest groups.
