I do believe there are only 2 ways too be carbon neutral.
1st You are not in business.
2nd You are a photosynthesizing entity.
Other than that I don't believe there are any.
How about some input and thoughts!!
I think the first option you mention is very doable. Imagine offloading some of the power to run a press from the grid. It's a start anyway.
All of these together could be the best combination. The problem is that you cannot buy anything that has not been touched by fossil fuel. From raw materials to manufacturing to distribution there is always fossil fuel used.
Originally Posted by mattf
You can have a much smaller carbon footprint using all of the above but it is virtually impossible to be carbon neutral.
I agree, at this point in time fossil fuels are ingrained into our society because of its relative cheapness. We are use to the technology and the ease of use and thats why we keep using it. There are probably other "political" reasons, but those get way to overblown at times.
Originally Posted by Green Printer
I also agree that buying in to these kinds of initiatives to become carbon neutral is always helpful. Whatever the amount doesn't matter, as long as people take the time and the effort to put forth steps that create the results needed to lessen their footprint. Every business with one solar panel can save at times a lot in the longterm, or just one small wind turbine can also be an opportunity. Put one of these on ALL businesses no matter their size and there will be a significant improvement within how much carbon emissions we release into the atmosphere.
Any little bit helps, hell I don't throw as much away in the garbarge as I used to, and I recycle my shredded bills are ferret shavings :P
Man stopped being carbon neutral when he discovered meat tasted better cooked over an open flame.
I wonder if he took flack from his neighbor in the next cave who was content with fruit and nuts?
Hi Mattf -
Originally Posted by mattf
As a supplier, as much as our focus is on developing and selling products with the smallest environmental impact we can while still providing the performance you need, you're right that no product is completely carbon-neutral. We can also do as much for the environment by helping eliminate waste in the pressroom through better performance as we can by reducing chemistry in plate development - so we're taking both paths.
After that though, what do we do about the remaining carbon impact? We can purchase carbon offsets to make the product "carbon neutral" in theory, but does that have enough credibility today to be effective? It also adds costs to the product - costs that have to be justified by the business benefits of marketing a carbon-neutral product, or costs that will have to be passed down the chain to the printer, and ultimately onto your customers too.
I hope our society gets to the point where the benefits of doing such things outweigh the costs, and people are willing to spend the extra money to achieve environmental goals. Are we there yet? I think we're close, but with the current economy it's a tough sell.
Thoughts from anyone?
Kevin Cazabon / email@example.com
Link on Facebook, LinkedIn. Twitter: @DigiFlexUSA
Not just the cooking of the meat.
Originally Posted by alan4color
From Time magazine:
In a 2006 report, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions — by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock takes up a lot of space — nearly one-third of the earth's entire landmass and results in trees being cut down to make space for pasture or farmland to grow animal feed. In Latin America, the FAO estimates that some 70% of former forest cover has been converted for grazing. Lost forest cover heats the planet, because trees absorb CO2 while they're alive — and when they're burned or cut down, the greenhouse gas is released back into the atmosphere.
Then there's manure — all that animal waste generates nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that has 296 times the warming effect of CO2. And of course, there is cow flatulence: as cattle digest grass or grain, they produce methane gas, of which they expel up to 200 L a day. Given that there are 100 million cattle in the U.S. alone, and that methane has 23 times the warming impact of CO2, the gas adds up.
In 2008, global meat production is expected to top 280 million tons, and that figure could nearly double by 2050.
Producing all that meat will do more than just warm the world; it will also raise pressure on land resources. The FAO estimates that about 20% of the planet's pastureland has been degraded by grazing animals, and increased demand for meat means increased demand for animal feed — much of the world's grain production is fed to animals rather than to humans. The expanded production of meat has been facilitated by industrial feedlots, which bleed antibiotics and other noxious chemicals. And of course, the human health impact of too much meat can be seen in everything from bloated waistlines in America to rising rates of cardiovascular disease in developing nations, where heart attacks were once as rare as a T-bone steak.
Giving up the average 176 lb. of meat consumed per person in the U.S. a year is one of the greenest lifestyle changes you can make as an individual. The geophysicists Gidon Eschel and Pamela Martin have estimated that if every American reduced meat consumption by just 20%, the greenhouse gas savings would be the same as if we all switched from a normal sedan to a hybrid Prius.
my print blog here: Quality In Print
Hmm interesting Gordo.. but I've never seen smog hovering around a farm.
Apparently methane does not make smog.
Originally Posted by prepressguru
From the Fresno (California) Bee (snipped for space:
Cows rival cars as smog producers
The Valley's 2.6 million cows emit tons of gases that turn into pollution, but it's difficult to quantify just how much.
Indeed, plumes of gases waft from San Joaquin Valley dairies where prodigious amounts of livestock waste are stockpiled. By 2005, cows will lead cars in venting this so-called "reactive organic gas," a main ingredient of smog.
Millions of tons of waste from the 1.1 million dairy cows in the Valley, like these at a Kings County dairy near Hanford, are flushed into large, uncovered lagoons. Until the 1990s, nobody knew that the waste created gases that add to the Valley's air problem. In the Valley's thick, tenacious fog, tiny particles form as ammonia and combine with other chemicals. The Valley's No. 1 source of ammonia is the dairy industry.
These little ammonia-based specks hang in the fog for hours and easily evade the body's defense mechanisms, penetrating deep into people's lungs. Such tiny particles are now being linked to high death rates and heart problems.
The Valley is home to an estimated 1.1 million dairy cows, which is about one-third of the size of the human population here. But if you throw in seasonal grazing herds, beef cattle and other bovine classes, more than 2.6 million cows live in the Valley at certain times of the year.
An adult cow expels 20 times more waste per day than a human.
The waste is concentrated in dairies where many cows are congregated in fairly small areas. Millions of tons of waste usually are flushed into large, uncovered lagoons where it decomposes. Until the 1990s, nobody knew it was an air problem.
The smog-making gases include ethyl alcohol, ethyl amine, isoprophyl alcohol, propyl acetate and trimethyl amine.
Here's how the wintertime particles form: Ammonia combines with nitric acid, which forms from pollutants called nitrogen oxides that come from diesel trucks and cars. The combination makes tiny, potent specks known as ammonium nitrate.
Scientists call it PM2.5, which means particulate matter 2.5 microns wide. For comparison, a human hair is about 60 microns wide.
Medical science considers these particles a significant health hazard. The state Air Resources Board suspects 66,000 tons of ammonia annually rising from dairies is the main reason.