Marc
7th April 2002, 01:47 AM
From: http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5334
Speaking at Stanford Business School on March 11, 2002, BP chief executive John Browne announced that his company had met its self-imposed target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions -- nearly eight years ahead of schedule, and at no net cost to the company.
It was Browne who, five years earlier at Stanford, had sent shock waves through the energy industry by announcing that his company had decided that the risks of climate change justified precautionary action. The following year, Browne set another first in the energy industry by pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from his firm's operations by 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2010, nearly twice the average cut called for by the Kyoto Protocol. At Stanford, he revealed that "we've delivered on that target," well ahead of time. BP had reduced emissions by more than nine million tons below their 1990 level.
BP hit its target at no net economic cost. "That achievement," Browne noted, "is the product not of a single magic bullet but of hundreds of different initiatives carried through by tens of thousands of people across BP over the last five years." The company cut pollution by improving efficiency, by plugging natural gas pipeline leaks, by cutting back on gas flaring at refineries, and by adopting cleaner products, such as low-sulfur transport fuels and natural gas. Through a company-wide emissions trading program, it ensured that the goal could be attained at the lowest cost, promoting deep cuts by the divisions that were most able to make them.
As a result, BP hit its target at no net economic cost. Savings from improved energy efficiency outweighed expenditures. A refinery in Texas saved $5 million and 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. A chemicals plant in Korea cut costs by $4.5 million and CO2 emissions by 49,000 tons. Browne calls the net economic benefit "a positive surprise -- because it begins to answer the fears expressed by those who believed that the costs of taking precautionary action would be huge and unsustainable."
Speaking at Stanford Business School on March 11, 2002, BP chief executive John Browne announced that his company had met its self-imposed target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions -- nearly eight years ahead of schedule, and at no net cost to the company.
It was Browne who, five years earlier at Stanford, had sent shock waves through the energy industry by announcing that his company had decided that the risks of climate change justified precautionary action. The following year, Browne set another first in the energy industry by pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from his firm's operations by 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2010, nearly twice the average cut called for by the Kyoto Protocol. At Stanford, he revealed that "we've delivered on that target," well ahead of time. BP had reduced emissions by more than nine million tons below their 1990 level.
BP hit its target at no net economic cost. "That achievement," Browne noted, "is the product not of a single magic bullet but of hundreds of different initiatives carried through by tens of thousands of people across BP over the last five years." The company cut pollution by improving efficiency, by plugging natural gas pipeline leaks, by cutting back on gas flaring at refineries, and by adopting cleaner products, such as low-sulfur transport fuels and natural gas. Through a company-wide emissions trading program, it ensured that the goal could be attained at the lowest cost, promoting deep cuts by the divisions that were most able to make them.
As a result, BP hit its target at no net economic cost. Savings from improved energy efficiency outweighed expenditures. A refinery in Texas saved $5 million and 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. A chemicals plant in Korea cut costs by $4.5 million and CO2 emissions by 49,000 tons. Browne calls the net economic benefit "a positive surprise -- because it begins to answer the fears expressed by those who believed that the costs of taking precautionary action would be huge and unsustainable."
