A colleague recently sent me a link to a web site called CarbonCounter.org. It's one of a number of web-based calculators for individuals to determine their CO2 output. I followed the steps and came up with a modest result that didn't tell me much. I found this carbon counter's formula for calculations too basic, it's easy enough for anyone to complete, but not particularly useful. A search for other such calculators surfaced one that was a bit more sophisticated, developed by the Bonneville Environmental Foundation. There, I punched in my daily commute (9 miles), type of car I drive (95 Subaru Legacy sedan), age of appliances at home (don't ask), annual energy consumption, and my annual airline miles. My total was 491 lbs. (223 kg.) -- less than average according to the site.

Both sites offer a method for offsetting my personal carbon footprint, mitigating my results by supporting on-the-ground actions like forest protection and other climate actions, such as Bonneville's Green Tags, which invest in renewable energy sources. There are also plentiful suggestions for further reducing my output, like changing my commuting patterns or mode of transportation, upgrading my car or appliances, and reducing my air travel. (Do I really need to attend that meeting in Park City in October or can I just pick up the transcripts later?)

Personal carbon generation is one thing, but how about in the workplace? I began to wonder whether a carbon counter or carbon inventory program could influence business decisions and corporate approaches to climate change. Could calculating carbon and creating reduction plans be used to inform climate strategies for business, strategies that could help the bottom line (at the very least, through resulting reductions in energy consumption and achieving greater efficiency)?

Well, yes and no. While most online carbon counters rely on what many business decision makers may consider oversimplified data and statistics, a number of office tools combine a detailed carbon inventory with real-world solutions that slash both emissions and operational costs. A quick survey of the more business-friendly sites revealed tools, guides, and programs designed to help business be greener. These include the World Resource Institute (WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development's GHG Protocol, the EPA's Climate Leaders Program, the Climate Neutral Network's metrics and certification program, and the Global Environmental Management Initiative's self-assessment survey and action planning for companies at the corporate-wide and facilities scales, available online.

But for change agents at whatever level, I found "Working 9-to-5 on Climate Change: An Office Guide," produced by WRI, to be most useful. This workbook style guide is perfect for middle managers and simple enough for CEOs who want to achieve business results and help the environment. Here's how it works: a team of colleagues conducts a carbon inventory based on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, determining whether their company has Scope 1, 2, or 3 emissions. (1 = from a source owned by the company, such as company cars; 2 = non-company owned sources such as electricity from providers; and 3 = all others, such as emissions from cars rented or leased by the company.) Once emissions are calculated, the workbook walks readers through establishing reduction targets using a variety of methods. Some ideas include decreasing energy use or buying green power, deploying compact fluorescent lighting, limiting air travel and commuting, adopting Energy Star equipment standards, and even using offsets to bring down a company's overall numbers.

Some of the reduction planning is a no-brainer: two-sided printing defaults and turning off computers and lights when not in use. Others require some up front costs, such as replacing old computers and copiers with more energy efficient equipment (and don't forget to recycle those being replaced!). Or how about that out-dated and over capacity HVAC that uses more energy than it needs and malfunctions more often than it produces? The EPA estimates this replacement strategy can reduce energy costs for a typical office by 30%. In one example, the operators of New York's 4 Times Square apparently deployed a number of efficiency technologies to save $500,000 on energy consumption and, according to at least one source, resulting in a reduction somewhere north of 40%.

Clearly there are bottom line benefits that make a good business case for implementing a carbon reduction plan, more so if it's part of an overall climate strategy that can be shared with shareholders, investors, and potential customers. And the initial motivation need not be entirely green. A recent issue of Business Week reports that FedEx and UPS are each developing hybrid delivery vehicles to replace their diesel-fueled fleets over the next ten years. Both companies indicate their programs are based on business decisions not necessarily environmental impacts - the long-term cost savings associated with operating a clean engine hybrid fleet as opposed to dirty-engine diesel far outweigh the up front investments in replacing the fleet – but so what? If you're like me, you've noticed the delivery vans parked out front, often idling while a delivery or pick up is made and, even if the driver turns off the engine, starting it up after a short trip can produce more carbon. I'm certain that both companies will use this to establish a green market advantage when the time comes; perhaps they'll get the green bug as a result.

Once you've calculated your company's savings -- and pitched the bottom-line impact to upper management – it's time to implement the reduction plan, being careful to document the cost savings over time for such items as energy use, prolonged equipment life-span, and use of materials. There may even be some employee retention and health benefits associated with such changes. (See Bob Willard's "The Sustainability Advantage" for more on such business case advantages.) What would your boss say if you could generate savings of $500,000 or more a year? How about your shareholders – both those most concerned with the traditional bottom line and those subscribing to the triple bottom line approach? Suppose you can demonstrate that the changes are part of an overall climate strategy that will reduce your company's impact on the environment by 10% against a base year (say, 1990 levels, as some have suggested). You may have just found a way for your company to crack into the market of 55 million (U.S.) households that self-identify as "environmentally concerned," which by the way your competition has neglected.

Reduced costs, improved shareholder value, and even better market share? Sounds like a no-brainer. It's as easy as 1, 2, 3.

---------
Scott Edward Anderson has written previous columns as the "Green Skeptic" for GreenBiz.com. He offsets his carbon footprint by working for and donating to The Nature Conservancy.