 Our ASSE Hospitality Branch chair, David Natalizia said it well in his introduction of the January 2008 white paper on Hospitality Greening.
Environmental concerns are big news today. “Green buildings” and “carbon-neutral” endeavors have received much media attention recently, and interest is growing in all things environmental. With increased public awareness, discussion of changes to our environment and rising oil prices, it is clear that “greening” is one of the major issues of our time.
If you agree, I challenge every professional to consider what is your role going to be in helping your organization “Go Green”? I hope you take time to read our white paper. I have started to formulate ideas on how EH&S professionals can leverage their practice expertise in this endeavor. Till then, here are some ideas I have running around my head.
Let me begin with my definition of what “Going Green” means:
What Is Greening?
Greening or environmental stewardship means taking responsibility for reducing the environmental impacts of the services you provide and the businesses you operate.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has defined environmental stewardship as “an ethic of respect” for the inherent values of healthy natural systems (the environment) and as a practice that sustains those benefits for current and future generations.
Where I Think We Can Begin Leveraging Our EH&S Expertise:
- We look for ways to sustain and build upon safety performance. This process is a useful model when making green improvement. We have to accept that each company culture will have a strategy, capital budget & timeline for improvements. We’ll need to work in the range of baby steps to full eco-improvements. From light to dark green.
- Greening is a culture change like a safety management program. I like to say that it “starts at the top to improve the bottom line”. A successful greening effort will look at opportunities to reduce energy costs and where you have recyclables that are worth money to other businesses. There are many benefits that management can easily grasp as a rationale to take this on. More savvy executives will understand the non monetary benefits of repositioning a brand as eco friendly.
- Helping executive management understand the complexity of getting their team to execute a green strategy is not unlike a safety effort. This is something that needs active participation and support to make improvements. “Going Green” can not be done by the expert resource alone.
- Safety, health and environmental professionals must understand the implications of this increased focus on environmental concerns. Ideally, efforts to make an operation more “green” can also result in improved safety and health for workers involved and for the general public.
- Greening efforts eliminate or reduce some traditional risks, but they may increase existing risks or introduce new ones. Hospitality Branch members are ready to work within the risk assessment/management areas.
What Are Current Incentives On Going Green
The U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design system is regarded as the national standard for green building design. It has been the standard many organizations, public entities and individuals had used to construct green buildings and homes.
The LEED system rates the effectiveness of "green" building across categories to determine the certification of a building. The certification range from highes to lowest is certified platinum, gold and silver.
One of the most areas of interest in green building is the indoor air quality category of LEED. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classifies indoor air quality as one of the top five environmental health risks today, Studies have provided evidence that poor indoor air quality affects the health and performance of the people who work, live and study in buildings. Avoiding liability for poor indoor air quality can help in the context of workers' compensation claims and governmental regulatory violations.
The LEED standards can impact indoor air quality claims by ensuring that ventilation and airflow are at a level that minimizes the potential for adverse health effects within a building. In addition, a building owner, manager or developer can argue against a claim of injury from poor indoor air quality by demonstrating that the building meets the LEED standard for indoor air quality.
Legislative Update:
Facilities in “All Sectors of the Economy” will be subject to Upcoming Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting
Facilities emitting carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, fluorocarbons, and other “greenhouse” gases will be regulated, potentially affecting tens of thousands of manufacturing, agricultural, mining, waste management, and other entities.
A twist in the national global climate debate is a bill arising out of Congress' recent activity before Christmas 2007. By virtue of a new congressional directive buried deeply in a FY 2008 appropriations bill, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is now required to issue regulations for “mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy of the United States.” EPA must issue a proposed rule by September 2008 and a final rule by June 2009. (H.R. 2764, December 26, 2007).
It specifies that EPA is to issue these mandatory requirements under its CAA authority. Under CAA §113, a facility that fails to file GHG reports in accordance with the new regulations could be subject to civil penalties of $32,500 per day, and any person who knowingly fails to comply could be subject to criminal fines and imprisonment.
California enacted the first economy-wide limits on greenhouse gases last year. The law, AB32, intends to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020.
Congress is working on a bill by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut. The bill, expected to be the centerpiece of the Senate's efforts to address climate change, would cap emissions and gradually reduce them using a market-oriented cap-and-trade system in which allowances to emit greenhouse gases would be bought and sold.
The bill requires cuts in carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from electric utilities, transportation and manufacturing, accounting for about 75 percent of U.S emissions.
The bill would cap greenhouse gases at the 2005 emission level starting in 2012 and gradually reduce them to 1990 levels - a 15 percent reduction - by 2020. The measure requires deeper cuts over the long term: a 65 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. The bill would not pre-empt tougher climate rules enacted by states like California and would offer incentives to states that act early.
I hope this has given you some thought about where you can connect your expertise to “Going Green.” I am interested in keeping this conversation going on what needs to be done and the tools needed to do it. Please let me know your thoughts, successes and challenges on “Going Green.” |
