Environmental Management Program - Reducing electric and fuel use, waste management

[tarheels4 - 2007]

Hey guys as an auditor that just made a recommendation against registration to ISO 14001 I wouldn't buy off on any of the targets and numbers you y'all have given. Not 1 of you provided any information on how "environmental" performance was being improved, how pollution was being prevented or how you were complying with applicable legislative requirements. You were saving money and KW hours. I have yet to see where a $ or a KW has directly impacted the environment.

Now if you can show where the reduction in KW hours relates to "x" tons of coal (or other natural resource) not being used to generate electricity, or to the reduction of "x" tons of emissions, ash and so forth, then your numbers would have real meaning.

I couldn't care less how much money you save, but I am interested in what you are doing for the environment. What you do has to reflect that.

That was a typical shot gun response from Randy. If you can't see how use of KWH of electricity and natural gas use impacts on the environment you shouldn't be auditing for a registrar.

You might not care how much an organization saves from it's EMPs but management, in most cases, would not approve them if they didn't result in a cost savings.

 

[Randy]

Unless you can show how you are improving environmental performance you're wrong! The whole standard is about environmental, not financial performance...It's called an "Environmental Management System"

It's not for me to see, it's for them to prove.

Show me and the world right now, today, how a KW does anything to the environment positive or negative. Or a dollar.

Money and KW's can be ancilliary improvements but that's not what is sought, we're talking "environmental performance" improvement.

 

[tarheels4 - 2007]

Unless you can show how you are improving environmental performance you're wrong! The whole standard is about environmental, not financial performance...It's called an "Environmental Management System"

Not all those posts related to money Randy. You make broad statements and paint every one in wrongness.

And I know I am "wrong". You are the only one that is ever right. We peons know nothing.

 

[IEGeek - 2006]

Saving money =====

I agree that most of the responses were geared towards saving money, HOWEVER, in saving money on your utility bills are you not using less energy? Yes if we can save 13% on our energy bill, it must mean we are using less electricity which in turn means we are burning less coal, using less nuclear energy, less lightbulbs which can be recycled, less mercury, less water, less natural gas etc etc. I thought it was implied(deadly statement, I know) that by saving money on energy you (the end user) is using less. Most top management do not give a rat's patoot about reducing consummable materials, however translated to a cost savings financially makes them stand up and take notice. As it appears most of us are always trying to make a case to top management, why not go with what makes sense to them? You don't talk to a race car driver about the best way around a track by relating it to a jump shot???? Go with what they know.

Just some thoughts.....

 

[tarheels4 - 2007]

Show me and the world right now, today, how a KW does anything to the environment positive or negative. Or a dollar.

Randy, if you can't see that use of KWs of electricity can impact the environment, then I am sorry for you.

 

[Randy]

And I know I am "wrong". You are the only one that is ever right. We peons know nothing.

"XXX experience with major management systems means you get the guidance and the hands-on assistance you need to prepare for conformance to ISO 14001."

And your expertise, background and credentials are?

Mine are well documented, passing tests that have been posed to me, and when proven wrong in the past (yes, it has occurred) I've admitted it unashamedly, thanking the person for putting me on the correct pathway. (Part of the learning and individual growth process I might add).

Now Grasshopper, answer this....What direct effect does, or can, a KW have upon air? Remember..."direct" effect.

 

[tarheels4 - 2007]

"XXX experience with major management systems means you get the guidance and the hands-on assistance you need to prepare for conformance to ISO 14001."

And your expertise, background and credentials are?

Mine are well documented, passing tests that have been posed to me, and when proven wrong in the past (yes, it has occurred) I've admitted it unashamedly, thanking the person for putting me on the correct pathway. (Part of the learning and individual growth process I might add).

Now Grasshopper, answer this....What direct effect does, or can, a KW have upon air? Remember..."direct" effect.

Randy, I have been in the environmental business since 1985. I have been an EMS LA through the IEMA/EARA scheme since 1999. I currently audit for two registrars. Half my time is 3rd auditing the other half is consulting.

No Randy, I don't think you have ever admitted to a mistake. I have watched how over the past couple of years you have ranted and raved and tried to cow people in to submission. And for the most part I think your tactics have been useful to you. I think there are many on here that are afraid to get into a disagreement with you because you are so unprofessional.

Randy, you must be the only one on this board that thinks use of electricity does not have an environmental impact.

Now SOILDER, drop and give me 50.

 

[Randy]

Now that we've established what and who you are we can proceed.

Which is better for an environmental objective and target?


1a) We are going to reduce the estimated generation of emissions in the air by X tons by reducing our electrical usage X KW hours.

1b) We are going to reduce the estmated utilization of X tons of coal (or X barrels of oil or whatever resource) by reducing our electrical usage X KW hours.

or

2) We are going to save X dollars by reducing our electrical usage by X KW hours.


BTW, at the age of 53 I am only required to give about 30.

 

[IEGeek - 2006]

As an observer of this dialogue from the beginning, I have a couple of thoughts.

1. I agree that just by saying that you are going to reduce costs, you are not addressing the environmental impact.

2. I choose answers 1a, 1b and 2. They are all significant impacts to the environment and here is how I think they are all relevant;

By saying you are going to reduce your energy costs it speaks to top management ("top management SHALL be committed...) That would certainly make them be committed, knowing that there is a financial transaction in there somewhere. Also, every Kw used means your are using a non-renewable resource, whether it be coal, gas, etc. By reducing your usage financially, you are reducing the use of the non-renewable resource. They go hand in hand. I do not think anyone said that as an environmental objective they said "we are going to save money" The original question was how to set goals for energy reduction.

You have to know what your usage is before you can set a goal to reduce and the most accurate reading of your energy usage is your energy provider via past bills.

As for my background and experience; I was taught and certified by you Randy about two years ago and now I am a member of top management for a company. I have taken two companies through an ISO14001 certification. I am not as experienced as you guys that is for sure.

Just some thoughts.....

 

[tarheels4 - 2007]

Now that we've established what and who you are we can proceed.

Which is better for an environmental objective and target?


1a) We are going to reduce the estimated generation of emissions in the air by X tons by reducing our electrical usage X KW hours.

1b) We are going to reduce the estmated utilization of X tons of coal (or X barrels of oil or whatever resource) by reducing our electrical usage X KW hours.

or

2) We are going to save X dollars by reducing our electrical usage by X KW hours.


BTW, at the age of 53 I am only required to give about 30.

Randy, originally you claimed electricity use could not have an environmental impact. Now you are talking about objectives and targets.

As far a setting targets that relate to cost savings, certainly this, in most cases, is not a good environmental measureable. On the other hand, as a consultant, I encourgage organizations to identify ways to reduce cost and set enviornmental targets for those things. So they track progress toward achievement of the environmental target and track cost reduction to show management what a team player they are. Only someone that didn't want to be in manufactuing for very long wouldn't do that.