Mixed Messages on Oil and Gas Drilling

  • Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that there would be more auctions for drilling leases this year. (Photo courtesy of NOAA)

The federal government leases public
land to oil and natural gas companies
for drilling. For at least the last
decade, energy companies have called
the shots. The Obama Administration
has indicated things are different now.
Conrad Wilson reports, there are some
inconsistencies in the Obama Administration’s
plan to reign in the industry:

Transcript

The federal government leases public
land to oil and natural gas companies
for drilling. For at least the last
decade, energy companies have called
the shots. The Obama Administration
has indicated things are different now.
Conrad Wilson reports, there are some
inconsistencies in the Obama Administration’s
plan to reign in the industry:

Because of the recession, we’re not using as much energy. For the last
several months, there’s been a glut of oil and natural gas. Big oil and
natural gas companies saw record profits a couple of years ago – but those
profits are down now.

If you ask the energy companies, it would seem the biggest culprit is not
the economy, but the federal government.

For instance, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is blamed for energy
companies’ falling profits. That’s because he’s criticized oil and gas
companies for acting like they have a right to drill on as much public land
as they want.

“Trade groups for the oil and gas industry repeatedly launch attacks that
have all the poison and deception of election year politics. Trade groups
for the oil and gas industry need to understand that they do not own the
nation’s public lands, tax payers do.”

That sounds like tough talk, right? And in many ways it is. There have
been some major reforms that change the way business is done between the
government and and oil and gas drillers.

But behind all this stick waving, the industry’s also getting a carrot. In
a conciliatory gesture, Salazar announced that there would be more auctions
for drilling leases this year.

The industry says it needs access to even more land. Kathleen Sgamma
directs government affairs for the Denver-based trade group Independent
Petroleum Association of Mountain States. In November, her office issued a
report criticizing the Department of Interior. Among the many concerns, was
the amount of land offered for lease.

“Our full paper looked at all of the things that the Interior Department is
doing to make it more difficult to develop American natural gas and oil on
federal lands. And one of those things is a slow down in permitting.”

But the government says a slow down in permits and leases is not causing
lower profits for oil and gas. As it is, companies are not drilling or
pumping where they already have leases – because there’s a glut of
supplies.

In Western Colorado, the Thompson Divide Coalition wants to cancel leases
and prevent drilling. Lisa Moreno heads up the alliance of ranchers,
hunters, and conservationists.

“The fact of the matter is, is the industry has a huge amount of acreage
under lease that they haven’t developed.”

Moreno says energy companies have leased about 47 million acres, but the
oil and gas companies are only using about one-third of that land right
now.

So why do oil and gas companies want more land? Even if energy companies
don’t use the lands for drilling, they’re still an important asset.

Jeremy Nichols is Climate and Energy Program Director for WildEarth
Guardians. Nichols says leases represent assets and are used to attract
investors.

“And so drilling is just part of what they do. They’re also basically land
holding companies. You know, they’re buying and selling each other left and
right. And so it’s more than just to drill or not to drill. It’s a lot
more, it’s a lot more complicated than that.”

If that’s the case, why is the government opening more leases?

Well, Jeremy Nichols thinks Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is trying to
kiss and make up.

“You know, I’ll be honest I think Salazar appearing conciliatory. But the
oil and gas industry is going to be critical no matter what Salazar does.
The oil and gas industry just doesn’t like to be regulated; they don’t like
to be told what to do. And so they’re going to complain no matter what.”

And so, more of the public’s land will be held by oil and gas drillers who
won’t be producing much until the economy recovers, prices go up and they
can make more money.

For The Environment Report, I’m Conrad Wilson.

Related Links

Pushing Power Companies for More Renewables

  • Renewable energy groups say they want the federal government to tell power companies that more power has to come from renewable energy. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

Renewable energy groups are
calling on the federal government
to do more to support their
industries. They want the
government to set standards
for where the country gets
its power. Mark Brush reports:

Transcript

Renewable energy groups are
calling on the federal government
to do more to support their
industries. They want the
government to set standards
for where the country gets
its power. Mark Brush reports:

The groups say they want the federal government to tell power companies that more power has to come from renewable energy. Most power companies in the country are basically regulated monopolies.

Denise Bode is the president of the American Wind Energy Association. She used to work as a public utility regulator. Bode says it’s up to the government to ask one question when they regulate these monopolies.

“What’s in the public interest? And, you know, often times as a state public utility commissioner I would make the determination as to what kind of power generation that we would authorize our utilities to do and what was in the public interest.”

Bode says it is in the public interest to get more power from cleaner, renewable sources.

Some big utilities oppose having one federal standard – and there are a lot reasons why they oppose it – but one of them is that states are already handling it. There are 30 states that have some kind of renewable targets in place.


For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Biofuels in Europe: Part 2

  • Erhard Thäle and his wife grow organic crops like corn, peas and rye in these fields. They’ve lost money the last three years. Thäle know wants to sell his crops for energy. (Photo by Sadie Babits)

Farmers are finding they can
make more money selling crops
for energy than for food. A third
of all corn grown in the US gets
turned into ethanol. It’s tough
to balance the need for energy
and food when millions around
the world die from starvation each
year. Still, farmers are reconsidering
their roles – including in Germany.
In the second part of our three-part
series on biofuels in Europe, Sadie
Babits meets with one German
farmer who wants to make the switch
and become an energy farmer:

Transcript

Farmers are finding they can
make more money selling crops
for energy than for food. A third
of all corn grown in the US gets
turned into ethanol. It’s tough
to balance the need for energy
and food when millions around
the world die from starvation each
year. Still, farmers are reconsidering
their roles – including in Germany.
In the second part of our three-part
series on biofuels in Europe, Sadie
Babits meets with one German
farmer who wants to make the switch
and become an energy farmer:

Erhard Thale jokes a lot about being an organic farmer. It’s about all he can do.

“He has like his corn harvest from two years ago is still lying down on his farm so it’s not sold on the market.”

It’s hard to imagine. We’re outside Ludwigsfelde not too far from Berlin. Thale’s land looks green and healthy – not bad for late fall. But looks can be deceiving. Thale says he’s lost money for the past three years. He blames his land and a volatile world market.

“Then My wife comes and asks, ‘where do we go from here? Piggybank is empty. Money gone.’”

Thale says he can make more money selling his organic corn and rye for energy instead of food. He’s not joking around. There’s a growing movement in Germany to get farmers like Thale to set some of their land aside to grow grains just for energy. There are now areas throughout the country developing so called “bio-energy regions.” The idea is that a community like Ludwigsfelde would produce its energy locally.

Farmers like Thale would sell their grains and manure to a regional bio-energy power plant. Those materials would get turned into green energy. The 20,000 residents who live here wouldn’t have to rely on fossil fuels and they’d cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. Sounds promising. But Thale says he’d build his own plant if he had three million dollars. Then he could keep all the profits from selling energy.

“He needs an uncle in the U.S. with two million euros.” (laughter)

Other farmers, though, are cashing in, finding money in, well, poop.

(sound of milking machine)

A cow chews her cud as an automatic machine does the milking. This milking parlor is part of an agricultural training center here in west central Germany. This is the greenest farm I’ve been on. There’s a bio-energy power plant. Wind turbines and solar arrays.

Klaus Wagner runs the center. He says this cow’s manure is more valuable than the milk.

“That can’t be.”

Wagner sees a growing rivalry between dairy farmers who want to sell milk and those who want to sell manure for biogas.

“I guess that the milk and energy production on the other side belongs together. And those farmers who built 3-4 years ago biogas plant they earn real money now. The biogas plant substitutes the milking production.”

It really comes down to a question of sustainability. How much land here in Germany and, for that matter, the U.S. should be set aside for making energy? It’s not an easy answer. In the long run, if farmers grow grains for energy instead of food, that will impact the food supply and eventually what we pay at the grocery store.

For The Environment Report, I’m Sadie Babits.

Related Links

Timber Bandits

  • Last year in Alabama, timber thieves stole more than a half million dollars worth of trees. (Photo by Randolph Femmer, courtesy of the National Biological Information Infrastructure)

The construction slump has meant
less demand for two-by-fours, but
trees are still worth big bucks.
An individual tree can be worth
anywhere from a hundred dollars
to thousands. And Tanya Ott reports timber theft is up
because of the economy:

Transcript

The construction slump has meant
less demand for two-by-fours, but
trees are still worth big bucks.
An individual tree can be worth
anywhere from a hundred dollars
to thousands. And Tanya Ott reports timber theft is up
because of the economy:

(sound of timber truck)

Timber is an important revenue stream for some areas. But from New York to
Washington State, forest managers say timber thieves have been pretty
active. Last year in Alabama, they stole more than a half million dollars
worth of trees.

State forester Linda Casey says landowners might have
earmarked that money to pay off the mortgage or send their kids to college.

“If they have timber stolen they just lost the only chance that
they have to achieve whatever goal that they had designated to use this
money for.”

Foresters say reckless timber thieves also damage wildlife habitats.

States
are cracking down. This month, Alabama will decide on tough new rules that
would make it a misdemeanor to even step on private forest land without
permission.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tanya Ott.

Related Links

Wind Turbines and Property Values

  • An author of the report says they accounted for the housing bubble burst, and they still found that being close to a wind turbine did not affect how quickly a home sells. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

A new study finds living near
a wind turbine does not have
a noticeable impact on the
value of your home. Rebecca
Williams has more:

Transcript

A new study finds living near
a wind turbine does not have
a noticeable impact on the
value of your home. Rebecca
Williams has more:

Researchers looked at the sale prices of almost 7500 homes around the country over eleven years. The homes were as close as 800 feet to a turbine or as far as 10 miles away.

Ryan Wiser is a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. He’s an author of the report. He says being near a wind turbine did not have a widespread impact on property values.

“There may be still some sense that the aesthetics of a place has been impacted either positively or negatively and that may affect one’s impression of value, even if it doesn’t affect actual home sales prices.”

Wiser says they accounted for the housing bubble burst, and they still found that being close to a wind turbine did not affect how quickly a home sells.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

European Cap-And-Trade Example

  • Europe was the first to do carbon cap-and-trade, four years ago. (Photo courtesy of NASA)

Congress is haggling over a climate
bill that includes a carbon cap-and-
trade system. In many ways, it’s
similar to the one the European Union
put in place several years ago. Liam
Moriarty looks at what
the European experience has been and
what the lessons for the US might be:

Transcript

Congress is haggling over a climate
bill that includes a carbon cap-and-
trade system. In many ways, it’s
similar to the one the European Union
put in place several years ago. Liam
Moriarty looks at what
the European experience has been and
what the lessons for the US might be:

Slashing greenhouse gas emissions is hard. Our economy is powered mostly by fossil fuels. Switching to clean fuels will be disruptive and expensive, at least to start with.

So how do we get from here to there? The approach that’s proving most popular is what’s called “cap-and-trade.” It works like this – first, there’s the cap.

“We’re going to put an absolute limit on the quantity of carbon-based fuels that we’re going to burn. And we’re going to develop a system to make sure we’re not burning more fossil fuels than that.”

Alan Durning heads the Sightline Institute, a sustainability-oriented think tank in Seattle. He explains that once you put the cap in place…

“Then, we’re going to let the market decide who exactly should burn the fossil fuels based on who has better opportunities to reduce their emissions.”

That’s the “trade” part. Companies get permits to put out a certain amount of greenhouse gases. Outfits that can cut their emissions more than they need to can sell their unused pollution permits to companies that can’t.

The cap gets ratcheted down over time. There are fewer permits out there to buy. Eventually even the most polluting companies have to reduce their emissions, as well.

The goal is to wean ourselves off dirty fuels by making them more expensive. And that makes cleaner fuels more attractive.

Europe was the first to do carbon cap and trade, four years ago. And things got off to a rough start. They set the cap on emissions too high and way overestimated the number of permits – or allowances – that companies would need.

“We have too many allowances. Simple supply means that the prices of those allowances crashes. They don’t have much value, and therefore the price went down to close to zero.”

That’s Vicki Pollard. She follows climate change negotiations for the European Commission. She says the whole system got knocked out of kilter.

For the first two years, European carbon emissions actually went up. After the collapse of Phase One, big changes were made. The next phase of the trading system has a tighter cap, more stringent reporting requirements and enforcement with teeth.


Today, Europe’s on track to meet its current emissions target. But environmentalists, such as Sanjeev Kumar with the World Wildlife Fund in Brussels, say those targets are still driven more by politics than by science.

“We have a cap that’s very weak, i.e. that means that it doesn’t mean that we’re going to achieve the levels of decarbonization that we need within the time scale.”

Leading climate scientists say we have to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by the middle of this century to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Business still has concerns about the EU cap and trade scheme. Folker Franz is with BusinessEurope, sort of the European version of the US Chamber of Commerce. He says companies worry about the additional cost of carbon emissions putting them at a competitive disadvantage.

“If you produce one ton of steel, you emit roughly one ton of CO2. So any ton of steel produced in the EU is right now some 17 dollars more than outside the European Union. And that makes a difference.”

But, Franz says, European businesses accept the need to take prompt action on climate change and are on board with the stricter cap and trade rules coming over the next few years.

Americans have watched Europe struggle with carbon cap-and-trade. The Sightline Institute’s Alan Durning says we can benefit from Europe’s willingness to break new ground.

“It was a big advance when they started it, because nothing like it had ever been done. But, it’s not the be-all-and-end-all. In fact, the United States now has an opportunity to learn from their mistakes and leapfrog ahead to a much better climate policy.”

Durning says an American cap and trade system could avoid the costly stumbles that’ve hampered Europe’s carbon reduction efforts.

For The Environment Report, I’m Liam Moriarty.

Related Links

Companies for the Climate Bill

  • A big shift away from fossil fuels isn’t scaring off everybody. Some businesses are actually lobbying for climate change legislation. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

As Congress begins debate on climate
change legislation, American businesses
are watching very closely. Some are
worried that a new law could bankrupt
them with energy costs. But others
see a bright future under carbon limits.
Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

As Congress begins debate on climate
change legislation, American businesses
are watching very closely. Some are
worried that a new law could bankrupt
them with energy costs. But others
see a bright future under carbon limits.
Julie Grant reports:

Jeff Holmstead is an environmental attorney and has been working on clean air issues for two decades now. He led the Air Division of the Environmental Protection Agency under the Bush Administration and has worked on some of the most significant environmental regulations in the nation’s history. But he says the current climate change bill is the biggest thing he’s seen.

“It’s a big deal. Much bigger than really any other environmental legislation or regulation than people have had to deal with in the past.”

Holmstead says the stakes are just so high. He says the costs could reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars for American businesses.

“And there’s just also enormous amounts of uncertainty as to how we would fundamentally change our society, which has really grown up largely using fossil fuels. Whether we can truly switch away from that in the kind of time frame that people are talking about.”

But a big shift away from fossil fuels isn’t scaring off everybody. Some businesses are actually lobbying for climate change legislation.

Commercial: “Climate change is real. But solving it is a real opportunity. If we build clean energy technologies in America, we’ll generate the jobs that will power the 21st century and jumpstart our economy. We need a can-do plan that caps greenhouse gas pollution and creates jobs here at home.”

This commercial is not made by a bunch of tree-huggers, liberals, or Al Gore. It stars the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, and corporate CEOs from Deere and Company and the Eaton Corporation. Eaton makes everything from circuit breakers to hoses to hybrid trucks.

“Yeah, Eaton is a power management company that sales about
15-billion dollars and 70,000 employees worldwide.”

That’s Joe Wolfsberger. He’s in charge of environmental programs at Eaton. The company wants Congress to approve climate change legislation and to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Wolfsberger says it could be a great kick-start for the economy and help create jobs.

“We also see a very big opportunity for Eaton and other companies, especially in this power management area. We’ll be able to provide solutions for people to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions going forward, to help reduce the amount of fuel they consume on the road as part of their operations.”

The company has already created new hybrid transmissions for delivery trucks. They’re used in lots of UPS, Fed-Ex, and Wal-Mart trucks. Wolfsberger says it improves gas mileage 50% to 70%.

Wolfsberger says a lot of companies are still questioning whether climate change is real. He says Eaton CEO Alexander Cutler gets asked about it a lot.

“And his response to them is, ‘it doesn’t really matter if the data is good or not. It doesn’t matter if it’s a normal climatic cycle. The question is, if you as a company can do better, you should do better.’”

But that may be easy to say when your company will benefit from climate change legislation. It’s a lot tougher when your business is producing natural gas or making steel and depends on heavy use of fossil fuels.

Environmental attorney Jeff Holmstead says the price of reducing greenhouse gases is going to be a lot higher for these types of companies if a bill passes. He says that’s what the debate is all about.

“Should we be spending a hundred billion dollars a year, should we be spending a trillion dollars a year? I think most people believe we could significantly reduce our CO2 emissions, it’s just a question of how much we’re willing to pay, and also what we get for that.”

And this what Congress will be debating in the coming months – whether the possibility of higher energy bills is worth the chance to have a more stable climate and more energy independence.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Clearing Up Cap-And-Trade

  • In cap-and-trade, businesses can purchase the right to pollute from other companies that reduce their emissions more than they need to. (Photo courtesy of the US EPA)

Congress is considering restricting
carbon emissions causing climate
change with a cap-and-trade scheme.
But, recent polls show only a handful
of people have heard of cap-and-trade.
Even fewer understand what it is.
Lester Graham reports cap-and-trade
is not new:

Transcript

Congress is considering restricting
carbon emissions causing climate
change with a cap-and-trade scheme.
But, recent polls show only a handful
of people have heard of cap-and-trade.
Even fewer understand what it is.
Lester Graham reports cap-and-trade
is not new:

We’ve been using the market-based tool to reduce other pollution.

Frank O’Donnell is with the environmental group Clean Air Watch. He says ‘remember acid rain?’ The government ‘capped’ the pollutants causing acid rain. And then came the ‘trade’ part.

“Sources can either reduce their emissions further or purchase the right to pollute from other companies that reduce their emissions more than they need to.”

O’Donnell says that cap-and-trade was cheaper than anybody predicted, and it reduced acid rain. But it didn’t eliminate it.

“And the reason is that the cap-and-trade target was essentially a politically-driven target. It was not one based fully on science.”

In fact, the US EPA is now proposing cutting acid rain pollutants more.

O’Donnell thinks a cap-and-trade scheme for carbon emmissions could be far more susceptible to political maneuvering.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Entrepreneurs for Sustainability

  • E4S offers parties, workshops, and tours so business owners can take a look at how things like solar energy is being used by other companies. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

Lots of businesses want to become more
energy efficient and reduce waste to
save money. And many want to go further
to become more environmentally-friendly.
But they’re not sure how to do it. Julie
Grant reports about groups working to help
businesses move toward sustainability:

Transcript

Lots of businesses want to become more
energy efficient and reduce waste to
save money. And many want to go further
to become more environmentally-friendly.
But they’re not sure how to do it. Julie
Grant reports about groups working to help
businesses move toward sustainability:

(sound of a party)

This party is full of business owners, union leaders, MBA students, and lots of other folks interested in figuring how to run successful companies that aren’t bad for the environment. Holly Harlan has been hosting these kinds of gatherings for nearly a decade. She has literally made it her job to assist companies move toward sustainability. She started this group, Entrepreneurs for Sustainability – known as E4S – back in 2000.

When she started out, it was nearly all start-up companies. Now it’s more established firms. She wants me to meet Christopher Moody.

Harlan: “Well, Chris works for a larger company. He’s on the green council at Keybank.”

Moody: “Sure.”

Harlan: “And so, they’re getting started on their sustainability journey. And he was just sharing with me what they’re first steps were.”

Moody: “Our first steps are to begin to understand what it is what we’re currently doing. Where are we now? And, next step is, how can we improve on it? I think that’s where it all begins.”

Harlan: “Really, doing a baseline, understanding what you’re doing now that’s already moving in this direction. Celebrating those successes and finding the next steps.”

When Harlan first started E4S, most of the companies she heard from then were starting to offer green products and services – green cleaning, green lawn care, and solar panels.

“Whereas, companies like GE and Wal-Mart, certainly this wasn’t on their radar in 2000. But around 2006, then we started hearing more about existing businesses that wanted to change.”

Harlan says E4S wanted find ways to assist those already established companies to make changes.

E4S parties aren’t just for networking. They have an informational component. This one is focused on solar panel installations for businesses. Harlan is trying to give business leaders more information about whether it’s a good energy strategy for their factories, banks and start-up companies.

“And when is it right to invest? Is the technology ready? Are the costs, you know, what is the support I can get to implement these. To understand the opportunity in solar. And providing people the opportunity, I say, kick the tires and really figure out is this worth something for my business to invest in?”

After an initial information party like this, E4S will offer workshops – and tours – so business owners can take a look at how solar energy is being used by other companies – to give them a real on-the-ground understanding. Then Harlan’s group goes one step further – and helps those that are interested connect with solar installers.

Sustainable business groups like E4S have been forming in cities around the country in recent years.

Jeff Krejci is with Interface Carpet Company – which has been working toward becoming a green business for many years. He says the business community needs independent groups like Entrepreneurs for Sustainability.

“And it’s interesting. Everybody’s reading it. You hear it. It’s on every billboard. But people really want to know – what does sustainability mean? And there’s really not a whole lot of places you can turn to. You can go online. Go on websites. But still, it’s everybody trying to promote their own product.”

The sustainability groups want businesses to see that they can reduce their costs – while doing better for the environment and society.

Before she started E4S, Holly Harlan worked in industrial engineering and economic development. But once she heard about companies designing their processes more efficiently, more sustainably – her own light turned on.

“I suddenly saw opportunities everywhere; everyplace that I visited. From museums, hotels, restaurants, manufacturing companies. Places to save money and places to make money. Because I saw the world differently.”

Now Harlan is trying to get more people to see through these new glasses. To provide a better quality of life in the future – and make good economic decisions today.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Businesses Save Money by Reducing Waste

  • The lot that started Baldassari's quest to eliminate waste from his business. (Photo by Nancy Paladino of The Taylor Companies)

When you’re in the business of making things, you can wind
up with a lot of waste material. But these days more
companies are realizing trash has value. Julie Grant reports
instead of spending big bucks to dump their waste in a
landfill, these companies are making money from it:

Transcript

When you’re in the business of making things, you can wind
up with a lot of waste material. But these days more
companies are realizing trash has value. Julie Grant reports
instead of spending big bucks to dump their waste in a
landfill, these companies are making money from it:

Jeff Baldassari’s company makes sleek, upscale office
furniture.

“I would have never guessed ten years ago I’d
be the guy telling you this story right now.”

Baldassari is the CEO of The Taylor Companies.

A few years ago he started planning for a new factory. The
site where they wanted to build it was an old brownfield.

That’s a site that had been contaminated by a past
manufacturer.

Baldassari says they got grant money to clean up the land,
and it got them thinking about the environment – really for the
first time.

“‘Okay we cleaned up this brownfield – but
let’s not stop there. What else can we do for
the environment, what else can we do for our
bottom line to pay for this new facility, to
get it to pay for itself?’”

They started looking at their waste.

(sound of a factory)

On the factory floor, a worker is tracing the shape of a chair
leg onto a piece of wood. After it’s cut, the scrap wood is
tossed into a large box.

“Trees don’t grow in the shape of furniture
parts. So there is a lot of waste. Ultimately,
40% of each board ends up as scrap when it’s
all said and done – 30% to 40% will end up as
scrap.”

Baldassari says they used to pay to send all that scrap wood
to the landfill – along with huge dumpsters full of sawdust.
That cost the company.

But his team started making some calls. They found horse
farms that wanted sawdust for bedding. They found
companies that wanted wood chips for mulch.

Instead paying to have dumpsters of waste hauled away,
they found markets for the waste material.

It was the same deal with leather coverings for the chairs
and sofas. One-fourth of the leather used to end up in the
scrap heap as trash. Now a hand-bag maker in Montreal
comes to pick it up for purses and wallets.

And Baldassari is pretty happy about it. These days he’s
sending only one-eighth of the waste to the landfill as before.
That saves the company $30,000 dollars a year.

For many companies, this is the future.

Joel Makower says smart corporate leaders are finding ways
to reach zero-waste. Makower is the executive editor of
greenbiz.com.

“We’re starting to see companies think in
terms of closed loop systems. Factories
where basically there may not be any
smokestacks, drain pipes, or dumpsters.
where every waste product is turned into
some kind of raw material for another
process.”

But a lot of these companies are not necessarily cutting
waste because it’s good for the earth. Like Jeff Baldassari,
these corporate leaders often start the process as a way to
save money.

These days Baldassari says he’s the kind businessman he
never guessed he’d be: one who’s always looking for ways
to eliminate waste:

“Once I got started, I literally became
addicted to it. But it was addicted, in the
sense again, it helped our bottom line.”

Baldassari wants it clear: he’s not a tree-hugger. But, at this
point, he’s actually having fun. He’s caught up in finding
ways to save money by eliminating waste.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links