Here is another post in my series. The others weren’t really in my field of expertise, but my view of what the experts in those field think. However methods to abate green house gases (GHG) was within my scope of work as a technology strategist when I worked for Honeywell, and Honeywell makes many products that do reduce emissions and/or save energy. Many of the most authoritative recent documents in the area of abatement come from McKinsey. These studies were based on a wide spread working group of companies and experts in the area. I knew some people involved in this and highly respect them, so I think the reports are pretty solid. The site on Climate Change, contains many documents on the topic. The original document, published in December 2007, is really a must read if you have any interest in understanding where green house gases come from and what methods might work to help reduce them. These are pretty neutral documents, fact based, and no hyperbole. There are documents there for many countries besides the US.

The most widely publicized part of this work is the abatement curve, which shows where the “biggest bang for the buck” would come from. Below is an eye-chart view, go to document to see the original.

I wanted to post it, because even from this view you can see the basic idea. The bars going down represent changes that have negative cost. That is these changes, like more energy efficient lighting in buildings, not only reduce GHG, they save money. This means that 40% of the needed GHG emissions could come from actions that also save money. This is really important and shows that there could be immediate economic benefit as well from some of these changes. The other good thing about these curves, and this is from the Acara Challenge standpoint, is that they show where high impact areas could be to address GHG emissions. So overall, these are important and are used a lot by policy makers, which is good.