July 5, 2007
Carbon Footprints Need Annual Updates
Starbucks has calculated the carbon footprint of its North American locations only once, in 2003, when it had approximately 3,700 stores in North America, Forbes reports. It now has 6,281 U.S. company-owned stores and more than 1500 international locations.
At that time, Starbucks emitted 295,000 tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Starbucks decided to leave out an additional 81,000 tons of carbon dioxide it emitted by transporting coffee materials and disposing of solid waste.
That 295,000-ton figure gives Starbucks a small carbon footprint, among a list of about 1,000 companies compiled by the Carbon Disclosure Project. Near the top of the list is American Electric Power with 146.5 million tons of carbon emissions. Next in line are oil and gas companies Royal Dutch/Shell and British Petroleum with 105 million tons and 92 million tons.
Comparatively, General Electric’s 12.4 million ton footprint makes it a medium-size emitter. The smallest carbon emitters weighed in at a few thousand tons. Most of the lower footprints belong to insurance companies, retailers and banks.
The EPA asks companies to check their numbers annually. Both Intel and Sun Microsystems, for example, do just that.
Advertisers
Make sustainability part of your strategy.
Get equipped at the SAP Sustainability Resource Center. >>
Unclear about the EPA's new GHG Rule?
Learn how it could affect your business. >>
EPA mandatory emissions reporting starts Jan 1st
CSA Standards can help your organization get ready for compliance. Find out how. >>
Product Environmental Compliance Best Practices
How to achieve compliance at a significantly lower cost. Download the full report. >>
Join the Discussion
Recent Daily News [ see all ]
- 11/20/2009
- 11/19/2009
- 11/18/2009
- Ontario May Follow California’s Lead on TV Energy Efficiency
- EPA Is One Step Closer to New Ship Emissions Standards
- European Paper Industry Cuts CO2 Emissions by 42% since 1990
- CDP Launches Water Disclosure Project
- Whirlpool Cuts Water Use by Nearly 22% from 2004 to 2008
- National Grid Again Rejects High Costs of Offshore Wind
- California City’s Green Building Ordinance Applies to Commercial Buildings
- Agilent To Save $3.5M Over 10 Years With Solar
- S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks
- Texas, China Wind Partners May Build U.S. Factory to Appease Critical Lawmaker
- Volvo, Mack Engines First to Meet 2010 EPA Emissions Standards
- Around the Web – Nike, Google, Nissan, Bush’s Green Library, WWF
- Fossil Fuel Emissions Rose 29% since 2000
- SEC Charges Four in ‘Green’ Investment Ponzi Scheme
- No Sunny Skies for Two Solar Projects in Texas, California
- Canada Delays GHG Emissions Regs, Russia Ups Emissions Cuts
- News Corp. Taps Hara for Energy Efficiency, Environmental Management
- Rising Sea Levels Would Hit U.S. East Coast Hardest
- Building an Energy-Efficient Data Center Using Virtualization Technology
- Trade Group on EPA Chemical Regs: ‘If Everything is a Priority, Then Nothing is a Priority’
- A/V Equipment Gets New Energy Star Requirements
- By Scaling Back Catalogs, JC Penney to Save 30% on Paper
- Around the Web – Starbucks, EcoFactor, UPS, Brownfields, Eco-Labels
- Subaru Touts Energy & Environmental Initiatives
- U.S., China Partner on Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency
- Green Buildings Do Double Duty: Reduce Energy Use, Lower Financial Risk
- UK to Ease Rules for On-Site Renewable Energy Installations
- Intel Eyes Wind, Electric Cars
- Nike Tops Annual Climate Action Scores
- Iranian Tanker Firm to Cut Fuel Use 28%
- Corporate Jetsetters Can be Carbon Offsetters
- USPS Energy Use Down 9% From 2005 to 2008
- From Solar Applications to Christmas, LEDs Light the Night
- EPA May Regulate Sulfur Dioxide Emissions on Hourly Basis
- MITEI: Sustainable Energy & Terawatt-Scale Photovoltaics
- Around the Web – Health Care & Energy, Shell, NBC
Charts [ see all ]
Popular Topics
Energy Efficiency
Data Center
Emissions
Facilities
Electricity
Sustainability
Water
Supply Chain
Efficiency
Green Marketing
Strategy & Leadership
Research
Fleets & Transportation
Carbon Finance
Conventional Energy
Clean Energy
Waste & Recycling
Paper & Packaging
Policy & Law
Utilities
Construction
Comments and Discussions
Trade Association on Trade Group on EPA Chemical Regs: ‘If Everything is a Priority, Then Nothing is a Priority’
"Seriously… that..."
Gary Markowitz on Supermarkets Tackle Emissions Reductions, Fuel Efficiency
"Supermarkets waste over 10 percent of their energy through improper..."
peter in ireland on Ontario May Follow California’s Lead on TV Energy Efficiency
"Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot! 1...."
Environmental Leader on S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks
"The survey respondents (the PDF report mentions 4,000 respondents in 38..."
Jake on UPS Trying New Hydraulic Hybrid Trucks
"A point of clarification: the Reuters press release referenced herein reports that 20 UPS will purchase..."
Custom Organic Shirts on S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks
"90% of North Americans believe it is urgent to get a global climate..."
peter dublin on California City’s Green Building Ordinance Applies to Commercial Buildings
"Why energy efficiebnt regulation on buildings –..."




Reader Comments
Carbon footprints won’t change under the scheme of carbon offset purchasing. I’ll give Starbucks credit, because they don’t have the individual site footprint, to install anything but solar, and it would be difficult to justify. But the rest of the corporate players that are purchasing carbon credits, and bragging about it, need to know that soon, consumers will know this is just green publicity, and they will be offended by it. When is someone of stature going to come forward and say, checkbook environmentalism doe not reduce you carbon footprint? Carbon doesn’t magically disappear when you purchase carbon offsets, it just provides soap box time, opportunity to tell the world how wonderful you are, look at me, holding a handfull of carbon offset credits in front of your smokestack, give me a break. Companies should only be allowed to purchase carbon offsets, that have actually installed renewables, like geothermal and solar. This is such a farse, American’s are so gullible, reduction of carbon has taken a back seat to itself, carbon offsets are a very dangerous misleading fine example of our ignorance in renewables. And the public is onboard,hook,line and sinker.
Brian Mello | July 5th, 2007