What they remain unaware of, is that the same companies only have 7 months left to escape the much larger and more costly second phase of the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme, and that only cutting their electricity consumption now will enable them to duck out of the scheme.

The registration news has been heralded a welcome relief by many CRC commentators, following dire predictions last month of up to 7000 companies likely to miss the registration deadline (companies with half the participation threshold also have to register their consumption despite not entering the full scheme). The news has been overstated somewhat though: the original number of CRC participants was expected to be around 5000, so just where the 1000-2000 other companies have gone to enable the Environment Agency to claim ‘almost half’ had registered is yet to be seen.

With fines of £5000 plus £500 per day that the registration is delayed, missing the CRC deadline could be massively costly for some companies, most of which are likely to be in the smaller end of the spectrum of those companies covered by the CRC scheme.

Those same companies are also those most at risk of being dragged into the larger and more comprehensive second phase of the scheme, when it might have been avoidable for them. They now only have 7 months left to make a difference and beat the next deadline.

The qualification period for the first CRC phase was across 2008, before the scheme popped up on anyone’s radar. This prevented companies from taking action to cut their energy consumption then to avoid the costs associated with participation in the scheme.

The looming CRC deadline has continued to overshadow the qualification period for the second CRC phase - right now! The qualification period is running from April 2010 to April 2011, so any company wishing to duck under the next CRC qualification threshold will need to take action straight away or be stuck in 7 more years of carbon accounting hell.

Need to know more CRC strategies? Download the Art Of CRC - Sample Success Strategies for a CRC Samurai today!

Related posts:

1. Avoid the CRC Scheme for 7 More Years! The Super Secret Reason To Act Now
2. Meet The CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme
3. Business Reason No. 1 to Act Now In The CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme

We’ve chosen EcoSmart, since they’ve been trumpeting the fact that their latest 40W LED light bulb has dipped under the $20 mark - it is available from www.homedepot.com for $19.97 at time of writing. We’ve contrasted this bulb with their 40W CFL equivalent, also available from the same online retailer here.

The key information for each bulb is presented below:

The Financial Case for LED Lighting - There isn’t one

Let’s focus on the purely financial arguments first. There is a difference of 0.4W power consumption between the CFL and LED light bulbs, which over the course of the lifetime of the CFL bulb amounts to (0.4W*10000h=) 4kWh. Over the life of the LED bulb, five CFL bulbs would be required which would cost ($1.46*5=) $7.30, leaving a price difference of ($19.97-$7.30=) $12.67. The CFL light bulbs over this lifetime would use (0.4W*50000h=) 20kWh more than the LED bulb.

Over the lifetime of the LED bulb, therefore, the average energy price needed for this LED bulb to be more cost effective than the equivalent CFL light bulb would be ($12.67/20kWh=) $0.63 per kWh.

For reference, the average US residential energy price is $0.12 per kWh - the price of electricity would have to increase five-fold before LED light bulbs at this price level became financially superior to CFL light bulbs.

Alternatively, at current average energy prices this LED light bulb would have to be priced at ($0.12*20kWh+$7.30=) $9.70 before they perform financially equivalent to their CFL bulb competitors - half the price currently available.

Poor Lighting, Worse Warranty

Even when LED lighting reaches financial parity against CFL lights, there’s still some obvious catching up to do. Firstly, the warranty period for the LED light bulb is almost only half of the CFL bulb - a CFL bulb used for 3 hours a day will operate under warranty for it’s entire expected lifespan, whereas the LED bulb will only be covered for 11% of it’s lifetime.

Even worse is the light output. Despite the fact that both bulbs are described as ‘40W equivalent’, the CFL spits out 28% more light than the LED, with the CFL creating 23% more lumens per Watt. In this case, therefore, the LED bulb is far less efficient than the CFL at doing it’s job of emitting light. Many households would be tempted to use more LED lights to light the same space than they would using CFL or incandescent bulbs, which would increase energy use further.

Avoid the LED hype

LED lighting quite simply doesn’t stack up against CFL light bulbs and other fluorescent technologies. It has, however, done a very good job of convincing the green media that it is the future, which is why it is referred to relentlessly. At the moment, though, it is lighting’s equivalent of the Toyota Prius - something to show off to your friends, a status symbol of your trendy conscientiousness, and a mark of your desire to waste money on expensive solutions to problems better solved through cheaper methods.

The Prius isn’t the greenest car in the world, and LED lighting isn’t the greenest either. Their underlying technologies may be the future, but we live in the present and the environment needs urgent action now, not later.

Image of LED lights by Last Hero @ Flickr

Related posts:

1. Efficient Light Bulbs Replace Banned Incandescents In Europe
2. Household Flourescent Lights Finally Catch Up With Commercial Lighting
3. Mercury-Free Energy Efficient Lighting From Vu1

The current headlines coming out of Russia are similar to those generated by the 2003’s European heatwave - the deadliest on record - with death rates soaring through heat stress, especially the elderly. However, rising temperatures can have far more wide-reaching effects as well, with crop yields being the most obvious worldwide problem. Increasing temperatures can have a huge impact of agricultural output, leading to global food shortages, rising food prices and starvation.

A study in 2004 found the rice yields in the Philippines fell 10% for every 1°C rise in night temperatures, but was based on data from a research station. Now, however, US researchers from Duke University have taken their findings from the field, studying records from 227 working, fully-irrigated ‘green revolution’ rice farms across south-east Asia and India.

Their findings were stark: yields have fallen 10-20% over the past 25 years in some locations. They too found that as the nights got hotter the yield dropped.

Yields benefited from an increase in daytime temperature, but not enough to offset the detrimental effects of the higher night temperatures. The reason given for the decrease in crop yield was that the higher temperatures forced the rice plants to expend energy to respire more, without being able to make up the difference through photosynthesis.

Additionally, the daytime temperatures had not reached a point where they started to also decrease the yield as well. Studies on corn have shown that when the cross-over temperature is reached, yields start to fail dramatically.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 report noted that a 3°C rise in global temperatures would see an average impact of increased stress to all crops in all regions. At present, national emission commitments and increased industrial expansion have set a course for a 4°C rise in global temperatures by 2050 (and the Devil doesn’t like it!)

The result? Food shortages, leading to increased food prices in the developed world and greater starvation in the developing world. As if the latter wasn’t bad enough, famine inevitably leads to crime, political instability, war and refugees.

Expect heat resistant crop strains to start appearing at the top of the genetic engineering priority list - where there’s a crisis there’s a profit.

Image of a rice field by Rainer Ebert

Related posts:

1. Industrial Farming Has Already Saved The World From Climate Change!
2. £18 Pints Of Beer: The Shocking Cost Of Climate Change
3. Record Temperatures And Record Energy Use

With the Russian 37°C heatwave currently doubling Moscow’s death rate, and Pakistan suffering from cataclysmic flooding, these warm weather patterns are bringing more than just some nice weather for a picnic. The countries currently experiencing records temperatures are:

• Ascension Island
• Belarus
• Chad
• Colombia
• Cyprus
• Finland
• Kuwait
• Iraq
• Myanmar
• Niger
• Pakistan
• Qatar
• Russia
• Saudi Arabia
• Solomon Islands
• Sudan
• Ukraine

By contrast, only one country has set a record low temperature this year: Guinea. Over the past decade, 75 countries (33%) have set all-time hottest temperature records, whereas only 15 countries have seen temperatures hit an all-time low.

It’s not just the temperatures that have sent records tumbling. The heatwaves are also causing record energy use in areas of the world as well, as people try to find relief through their air conditioning. Texas saw record energy use last week as the temperatures soared, reaching 64GW of power consumption.

Such trends will be of little comfort to climate change campaigners, who would be hoping that energy use in the developed world would start to fall in order to reduce carbon emissions. Instead, energy use appears to be rising in order to cope with the effects of higher temperatures rather than reduce in order to avoid them.

Greater energy efficiency in the household and workplace is needed to lower energy use, through projects such as more energy efficient lighting and air conditioning. The latter is particularly vital in avoiding the summer energy peaks: one megawatt is enough to power 500 Texan homes under usual circumstances, but when the air conditioning switches on it is only enough to power 200 homes instead.

Image by Alex{Garcia} @ Flickr

Related posts:

1. Climate Change Crop Yields Will Lead To Starvation
2. Kyoto 2.0 Set To Fall At The First Hurdle
3. Shorter Weddings Won’t Save Pakistan From Energy Crisis

The argument generally goes like this: developed nations have caused climate change by polluting the atmosphere in their quest for greater profits, so developed nations should be the ones to help those countries who haven’t not industrialised, don’t have the finances to protect themselves from the effects of climate change, and are often likely to be the worst hit by increased incidences of flooding, drought and other shifts in weather patterns.

There is a certain level of acceptance behind the demands from such developing countries, many of whom are serial recipients of international aid due to levels of poverty, starvation and war. However, a couple of claimants spoke out again this week in highly contrasting demands which both raise rather more controversial concerns.

Saudi Arabia - Supply or demands

On the downright ugly side of the climate compensation debate sits Saudi Arabia. Facing the possibility of lowering demand for petroleum in a world trying to reduce dependency on fossil fuels, Saudi Arabia and some other OPEC countries are claiming that they stand to lose around $19bn every year in oil profits.

Rather than acknowledge the diminishing value of it’s primary economic resource and adapt it’s economy accordingly, just as other economies are having to adapt to climate change, Saudi Arabia believes that it should be compensated for the lost revenues from it’s oil empire. The country’s contention is that because it only has oil and sand as resources it is being unfairly penalised.

The demand was first made almost a year ago, and was seen by many as just a part of the political positioning that countries took in the run-up to the Copenhagen conference. However, the position has failed to soften since the collapse of the talks, spreading alarm amongst other claimants with more appreciable stakes, especially the Alliance of Small Island Nations. Their fear is that Saudi Arabia’s claim would take a massive chunk out of available climate compensation funding, leaving more deserving nations with less to get by with.

There is also much anger that Saudi Arabia, having reaped the rewards of supply and demand from the massive escalation of oil prices over the last decade, should be so quick to decry the evils of the market when demand for it’s commodity dissipates. The International Energy Agency last year also found that oil-producing countries would not lose money for many years: a finding the Saudis contest vehemently.

Equador - Greenwashed blackmail

If the Saudi demands seem downright ludicrous to all and sundry outside of the Middle East, then Equador’s latest gambit has split opinion down the middle. To some it’s a great mechanism to lock oil under the ground and protect precious rainforests. To others it is nothing but greenwashed blackmail.

There is nothing particularly radical about the idea of paying countries to not destroy their forests: the REDD proposal at Copenhagen sought to do this, and was seen as the most likely source of agreement at the talks. However, Equador are seeking to take the idea and supercharge it, seeking compensation not only for not developing 675 rainforested square miles of the Amazon’s Yasuni national park, but for not extracting the vast oil reserves that have been found beneath.

In exchange for leaving the oil under the ground, Equador are seeking compensation from the developed world at half the value of the oil on today’s market, equating to $3.6bn. As carbon offsets, the oil would be worth $5bn on the global carbon markets.

Under the terms of a unique trust fund set up between the government of Equador and the UN, all oil and timber in the agreed area of Yasuni would be protected from exploitation forever. The legally-binding commitment would be enforced once the money had been found, which would go towards further forest protection, renewable energy and much-needed services for indigenous people.

European governments have shown interest in investing, partially with an eye to offsetting their own emissions against it. But there is also wide concern that the deal is flawed, with the whole Yasuni national park failing to be protected from oil drilling and logging, and Equador’s sanctioning of further oil exploration in other nearby areas of rainforest.

Of course, there is also the concern that future political regimes could decide to exploit the oil anyway - there is little detail yet as to how Equador would be found accountable should it renege on it’s commitment to protecting the area.

Ultimately the deal amounts to little more than blackmail: if you don’t stump up the money, we’re going to destroy loads of forests and burn loads of oil. Oh and by the way: we’re going to keep doing it elsewhere too, so what are you going to do about that…?

Image of a rainforest by Abeeeer @ Flickr

Related posts:

1. Record Temperatures And Record Energy Use
2. Copenhagen Conundrum 4: Aviation And International Shipping
3. Carbon Offsets: Will the Martin Luther of Climate Change Please Stand Up?

Environmentalists have always looked to warn of the dangers of climate change through the eyes of a cuddly mammal whose life is in danger through related destruction of it’s habitat. The plight of the polar bear has become the cliched case study for this: barely a person on the planet hasn’t seen images of polar bears standing on tiny islands of ice, the implication of course being that global warming has melted the rest of the iconic predator’s wintry domain.

Another example is the American pika: a miniature-sized relative of the rabbit which lives in the Rockies. It is particularly susceptible to temperature shifts, since a 3°C rise in it’s body temperature proves fatal due to it’s high metabolic rate. Populations have been forced to move progressively further upslope as the lowlands have begun warming.

Despite the obvious dangers to the pika’s survival as a species in the face of climate change, the US government is refusing to grant the mammal protection under the Endangered Species Act, much to the anger of various environmental groups who are trying to use the legislation to open up yet another front against US inaction against climate change. The groups hope to use the threat to sea ice and mountain habitats to force protective measures against further warming, using a range of species including the whitebark pine, the mist forestfly and the Pacific walrus as other targets.

The Bush administration did declare the polar bear as threatened, but in doing so barred the wildlife service from regulating greenhouse gases when attempting to fulfil it’s obligations towards species. This is because the environmental damage caused by climate change cannot be traced back to a single polluter, since it is being caused by the cumulative emissions of households, companies and governments globally. In the absence of convenient sources of blame, and in the face of opposition towards taking any measures which might upset businesses, US politicians are pressuring government agencies to avoid inconvenient climate change-based animal protection declarations.

Environmental groups are crying foul, but the tactic of using endangered animals is a double-edged sword. Despite the need for greater renewable energy generation to reduce emissions, environmentalists are fighting ecologists on a number of fronts. Most recently the battle ground has been solar energy, with rare desert turtles and mayflies the species most at risk from large solar installations, but other renewable energy technologies have their own biological planning nemeses, whether it’s wind power vs bats, birds and livestock; hydroelectric power vs fish and river dolphins; or tidal power vs just about everything which lives in the sea!

As well as fighting the same battle from both sides, climate change activists also have to deal with the rather inconvenient fact that what’s bad for one cuddly animal might be good for another. Whilst the pika is starting to struggle under the effects of longer summers, another Rockies mammal is relishing the recent balmy weather. According to research in Nature, the yellow-bellied marmot is seeing a population explosion driven by increased weight gain from longer active periods. With the hibernation period shortened, the marmots have taken advantage of their extra leisure time by eating and procreating more, tripling their numbers in ten years.

Indeed, that sort of behaviour may be the better cause for climate activists. People might feel sorry for species endangered by climate change, but if the threat of exploding vermin populations accompanies warmer weather, actively causing a nuisance in people’s own back yards, it might be more effective at driving people into action.

Brace yourself for a wave of biblical-esque warnings of locusts, rats and other nasties…

Image of a yellow-bellied marmot by Ethan K @ Flickr

Related posts:

1. Photovoltaic Energy: Ecologists vs Environmentalists
2. Eco-Nationalism: How Right-Wing Groups Will Hijack Climate Change Politics
3. Energy Efficiency: Avoiding Climate Change, Free Of Charge

Despite well-grounded accusations that China was the primary reason that Copenhagen failed, the Obama Administration was the other principle architect of the last-minute BASIC coup which sidestepped negotiations to railroad through the agendas of the USA, Brazil, South Africa, India and China, leaving the rest of the world sidelined and disregarded.

Aside from Obama having a flight to catch and not intending to miss it(!), the move was strongly in the US government’s interests. Without having won approval for climate legislation in both the Senate and Congress, with politicians played for fools by China, America could not guarantee any commitments laid on the table at the conference - a mistake made previously by Al Gore at Kyoto. Copenhagen was therefore sacrificed by the US in an effort to stall for time: to come to the negotiating table with something concrete which it could win more concessions for. All that was missing was an iconic paper-waving disembarkation from Airforce One with the words ‘Polar bears for our time’.

However, the stalling tactics have only delayed what some will claim was inevitable. The US Senate has finally abandoned it’s attempt to pass cap-and-trade legislation, unwilling to expend further political capital to gain sufficient support for the measures. The replacement bill now being formed has almost no obligations towards targets, renewable energy or indeed anything else which will help the country to come close to meeting it’s measly target of a 4% carbon emission reduction by 2020 against 1990 levels.

In the absence of an over-arching national cap-and-trade framework, the US will be left relying on smaller regional initiatives and on the EPA to attack individual emitters using the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act - a scenario that politicians were desperate to avoid, but obviously not desperate enough. The likelihood of these efforts and those of individual companies compensating for the country growing out of recession again is somewhat remote.

By contrast, China Daily has announced that the Chinese government intends to have a national cap-and-trade scheme in place within the next five years. Despite being the most polluting country on Earth, China still has per capita emissions far below most of the developed world, and plans to cut it’s carbon intensity by around 40% by 2020 from 2005 levels.

Unlike the US, Chinese politicians have the luxury of not needing to listen quite as closely to the voices of their people, although the voice of business often whispers in the ears of decision-makers just as loudly. Despite that, Chinese premier Wen Jiabao has signalled that heavily-polluting factories face closure in order for China to hit its targets, showing that the Chinese are very serious in their intentions towards climate change. The worst iron, steel and cement producers will be placed in the same firing line as coal power stations, with reduced capacity and orders for the worst offenders.

All this despite having no legal obligations to do so - why? China is aware that it is emerging onto the world stage as a maturing superpower, and as a result will be expected to play it’s part in helping solve the world’s problems. Dominating the green industries of the future will guarantee industrial supremacy, but the goodwill from other nations it has so sorely lacked in the past will help build greater trade relations and unlock greater supplies of raw resources, enabling China’s economy to continue to grow not just past the US, but to stay ahead of it’s most likely future rival: India.

Image by Ross Tucknott

Related posts:

1. China Prepares For Carbon Intensity Targets In Copenhagen
2. USA, China Agree Carbon ‘Easing’ Targets… But What Are They?
3. Let Battle Commence: Green ‘Buy America’ Will Kick-Start Carbon Trade Wars

The bad news is that the current rate of ocean acidification far outstrips what has gone before, making generational adaption to the current rising oceanic pH far more unlikely for all but the most simple planktons.

Ocean acidification occurs due to carbon dioxide dissolving into sea water, removing it from the atmosphere but creating mild carbonic acid. Rising ocean acidity is expected to have a number of serious impacts upon worldwide aquatic ecosystems, but the main area for concern is usually the ability of simple species towards the foot of the food chain to synthesise their shells, which dissolve in acid. Calcium carbonate structures are widespread amongst zooplankton, as well as being the building blocks of corals, mollusc shells and a host of other organisms.

The fear is that disruption from ocean acidification at these lower levels of the food chain would have massive ramifications for the pyramid of predators above.

Now, scientists from Switzerland and Italy has published research in Science showing that during a previous period of comparatively rapid ocean acidification, plankton proved fairly resilient to the changes, despite some species dying out and others suffering malformation and stunted growth. The conclusions were reached after studies on ancient ocean sediments.

About 120 million years ago, during the early part of the Cretaceous period, a series of massive volcanic eruptions pumped huge amounts of carbon dioxide into Earth’s atmosphere, raising it’s concentration to about twice today’s level. Eventually, the oceans absorbed much of that carbon dioxide, which in turn significantly increased the water’s acidity. Ocean pH returned to normal about 160,000 years later.

The findings are not entirely unexpected, since planktons fast life cycle makes genetic responses to evolutionary pressures theoretically feasible within human lifetimes. The good news definitely stops there though, since the current rate of ocean acidification far outstrips the environmental conditions of the period studied, and the timescale over which the organism can adapt relative to it’s own life cycle is crucial. Likewise, longer-lived organisms such as sea snails, urchins and corals have far fewer generations over which genetic changes can be selected for successfully.

In a further dose of bittersweet news, the same study found that ocean acidification also spread progressively downwards from the surface waters into the depths over time: something not yet detected in modern times. The upside of this is that it would increase the ability of the world’s ocean’s to soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The downside is of course that no aquatic ecosystem is safe from the effects of increasing acidity over the coming century.

Image of a sea snail, urchin and coral - all at risk from ocean acidification - by Debs (ò‿ó)♪ @ Flickr

Related posts:

1. Ocean Acidification Masks The Smell Of Death
2. Environmental Protection Agency To Use Water To Regulate Carbon
3. Photovoltaic Energy: Ecologists vs Environmentalists

There are thousands of companies in the same boat as you, most of which risking fines by not even having yet registered their inclusion in the compulsory legislation. Most of those who considered themselves prepared take that view on the accounting side, whereas very few have started taking any strategic steps towards conquering the CRC league table and profiting from their participation. Questions surround the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme, with the uncertainty surrounding the league tables in particular causing consternation amongst decision-makers.

The Art Of CRC: Your guide to exploiting the scheme

In order to help clear up some of the confusion, Somar International decided to crunch some hypothetical  numbers to answer some of the questions for you, and in the process uncovered some important hidden devils in the detail which will affect any CRC strategy. The questions we set out to answer included:

• What level of annual emissions reduction could be sustainable over the longer term?
• Could longer payback projects become more financially viable later on?
• What needs to happen to escape the CRC scheme?
• How can a company grow out of the recession without increasing emissions?
• What else is in the CRC scheme that we might have missed?

Hypothetical data. Real strategies.

Basing our investigation on the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s official CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme User Guide (downloadable from here), the answer to our last question was quite a bit! After playing with the numbers for a while, we decided to put our findings out there for you to play with too in the form of our playfully-titled CRC strategy guide: Art Of CRC - Sample Success Strategies for a CRC Samurai. Our aim was to provide some advice and insight based on scenarios and figures rather than replicating the hand-waving washy advice that has floated around the Internet so far.

We’ve already broken the news that you only have 9 months left to avoid the CRC scheme for seven more years - this CRC strategy document takes things a lot further.

Do not read the Art Of CRC if you know:

• The qualification period for CRC’s second capped phase is running from April 2010 to March 2011, concurrently with the first year of the first phase.
• The finer points of the CRC timeline: when you can exit, and how long before you might get dragged in again.
• The effects of the five-year rolling average on your emissions targets and PR. (What do you mean, you haven’t heard of the CRC’s five-year rolling average?!)
• That the UK’s commercial and industrial emissions have slumped by around 10%, meaning that future CRC inclusion thresholds and your competitor’s emissions will probably have dropped by just as much.
• The most likely sources of potential ‘greenwashing’ accusations associated with the CRC scheme.
• The difference that starting to cut emissions early rather than waiting later will have on how easy hitting targets will be (because of the five-year rolling average).

If you already know the answers to all of the above, then you are already well ahead of the competition. If you still have chinks in your CRC knowledge, though, then you should download the Art Of CRC strategy guide today!

Stay ahead of the game

The Art Of CRC strategy guide is not intended to be the be-all and end-all of CRC strategy. Instead, it will serve as the starting point for delving into the hidden mechanics of the CRC scheme, having a huge impact on decisions such as what kind of energy-efficiency projects to roll out in your company and when, and how to attempt to decouple your emissions from your growth.

To keep up to date with continuing discussions on CRC strategy, you should subscribe to the Energy-Saving News RSS feed, or get updates sent to your email via the form below.

Related posts:

1. CRC Strategy Guide - Coming 19th July 2010
2. Avoid the CRC Scheme for 7 More Years! The Super Secret Reason To Act Now
3. Business Reason No. 2 for Immediate CRC Action: The CRC League Table

Well, Australians seem to think so now. The Energy Efficiency Council of Australia issued a report which estimates that under current trends and investments, energy efficiency will deliver 65% of global carbon reduction by 2020 and 53% by 2030.

That means that over the next decade, energy efficiency will be responsible for twice as much carbon emission reductions as clean coal, nuclear and renewable energy sources all combined.

On a more local scale, energy efficiency would be equivalent to removing every single Australian car from the road altogether.

Businesses are the primary arena massive gains in energy efficiency, saving companies billions in energy costs and reducing atmospheric pollution in the bargain. 40% of Australia’s energy usage is caused by just 220 companies. Despite the lack of an Australian cap-and-trade scheme, the business case for energy efficiency is clear.

Companies can cut energy use through a multitude of ways, from insulation and energy efficient lighting to cradle-to-cradle sustainable design. Whatever the method, the results are clear: lower costs, quick return on investment, less legislation risks and stronger green PR. Leave the Ostrich Block and cut your energy use now - the longer you leave it, the more money you’re wasting!

Image of a rusty Australian car by certified su @ Flickr

Related posts:

1. Cuts Your Energy Costs: CRC Reason 3 For Immediate Energy Efficiency Action
2. UK Energy Efficiency Home Loans Take A Lesson From The Carbon Trust
3. Australia Dumps Carbon Trading Scheme