Reading on the website of Department of Environmental Malaysia, the IMPAK issue no.2, I have came across on the article written by Ris Ramlee on the Manufacturing sector pratises on reducing carbon emissions. The article stated that the CO2 emissions, worldwide have now surpassed 28 billion tonnes per year annually and at the current pace are projected to reach over 40 billion tones per year by 2025. Some greenhouse gases (GHG) like hydrofluorocarbons, methane and nitrous oxide are released as by-products of certain manufacturing industry processes, which adversely affect the ozone layer, leading to global warming.
On record, the manufacturing industry which accounts for an average 80% of industrial energy consumption, also accounts for an average 80% of industrial energy-related carbon emissions agriculture, mining, forestry and fisheries account for the remaining 20%). Three industries namely petroleum, chemicals, and primary metals, emitted almost 60% of the energy-related carbon in manufacturing. The next three largest emitters (paper, food and stone, glass and clay products industry) produced an additional 22% of the energy related manufacturing emissions.
The carbon intensity of energy use is the amount of carbon emitted per unit of energy used. Both the mix of energy sources used and the uses of energy affect carbon intensity. For electricity that manufacturers purchase, the carbon emissions occur where the electricity is generated, rather than at the manufacturing establishment.
Becoming ‘carbon neutral’ means that the manufacturing industry has neutralized the effect of its greenhouse gas emissions so that its industrial activities no longer contribute to global warming. An alternative to carbon neutrality is carbon reduction, which describes the effort of manufacturing industry to reduce its future carbon emissions to an earlier volume – for example, proposing that 2015 emissions equal emission levels of 1995. The most direct way of reducing carbon emissions is by using less carbon-based energy. Any effort to reduce the consumption of carbon-based electricity, natural gas and refined crude oil products (gasoline, heating fuels) contributes directly to carbon reduction. Details of other carbon reduction programmes will be described in the following sections.
The following are some of the programs / actions / solutions that can be used as offset programs to shrink CO2 emissions in manufacturing industries:
o Energy Efficiency
o Fuel Switching
o Management System
o Monitoring and Reporting
o Partnerships
o Process Changes
o Product and Service
o Strategies and Targets
o Supply Chain Management
o Transport and Planning
o Waste Management
o Training and Employees
o Tree Planting
Based on the article, it is the programs constructed are the action needed to improve the manufacturing industry to handle the carbon emissions problem. However the main approach is probably be the integrated manner to cooperation with many parties. All parties such as consumers, industry and government must work hand in hand together to achieve the main objective of low carbon emissions. Through the assessment of the processes and approachs available to improve the environment situation. Plus with the long term planning and the programmers on consumer education and awareness, we will able to change our lifestyle and move towards green environment. Please give your opinion in this matter..
All the detail information on the above article you can go to http:// http://www.doe.gov.my/
Sustainable consumption, cradle to grave, cradle to cradle and what else? These are the jargons that nice to hear but do people really understand about it? To those involve with environment these are great. People who pollute the environment are not really understood about the meaning of these jargons. They are confused with the weird vocabularies. What is LCA? What is Product stewardship? What is GHG? Ozone? Climate change? What I am as a polluter supposed to do? The fact is factory in Malaysia is struggling to understand about Schedule Waste. They are working very hard to comply with the law. Do not expect these factories operators will follow with the jargons that confused them. Production volume is crucial for business sustainability. Is the introduction of the jargons just to get the political benefit of a person or countries? Are we thinking so big that the basic been neglected?
ReplyDeleteIn an instance, a few weeks ago I watched television about earth hour. The guest was trying to educate the people on energy saving. She told the audience that to help control the climate we should not use metal like roof or use light color for the house. She had even told the audience to pull out plug if the electricity is not in use because electricity can still flow to the equipment. Ironically, the electric bill for her house is RM 580 per month. It shows that the guest is not practicing on what been said. The guest house has big fish pond which requires pump to run 24 hours. Do we need that?
In a nutshell, I see people or countries involved in environment for their own benefit. Do we really concern about environment? Material is still the utmost. We can spend a few thousand dollars for hand phone or up to date gadget but not on solar heater which is claims to be expensive
i believe that the future is all about energy efficiency. Malaysia in particular has published a EE guideline "The Malaysian Industrial Energy Audit Guidelines". It is a standard general energy audit guide book that can be used by both the energy consulting firms and fulfilling the expectations and needs of the clients.
ReplyDeleteBy practicing EE, we not only save energy but productivity can also improve. The guide is contributed and supported by Kettha, PTM, UNDP and TNB.
For more information, you can refer to the guide "The Malaysian Industrial Energy Audit Guidelines"
Reducing carbon emissions in manufacturing sector by using energy efficient technology or solutions may not be so easy. Institutional, behavioral, economic or other barriers could defer manufacturing industry practice low carbon emission. The followings are some of the barrier impedance manufacturing industry practice low carbon emission:
ReplyDeletea) Small manufacturing plants often lack the information and institutional capability to analyze and manage their carbon emission.
b) Manufacturers have no incentive given to reduce carbon emission but practicing low carbon emission will resulting impact on their operating costs and uptake cost for new technology.
c) The adoption of high efficient or low carbon emission technologies could require high capital cost. Therefore, the manufacturing plants may still continue to use relatively high carbon emission technology due to lack the up-front capital to purchase new technology.
d) The difficulty of integrating complex systems might create impediments for manufacturing industry to practice low carbon emission.
e) Lack of targeted technology incentives, research and development initiatives, education programs, and technical expertise.
A 130-billion dollar market for so-called carbon credits has grown out of the idea that when it comes to global climate control, where carbon dioxide comes from is less important than the total amount produced.
ReplyDeleteThe Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a component of the UN's global programme to address climate change, permits governments and companies in industrialised nations to offset stringent greenhouse gas (GHG) emission quotas established under the Kyoto Protocol by investing in emission- reduction projects in developing countries.
I think it's the problem that developed countries makes worst,but because of their power all of neglection comes back to developing country.So,they need to find an other fuel for industry.But lake of information and struggle makes this action slowly.