CRU is an independent business analysis and consultancy group focused on the mining, metals, power, cables, fertilizer and chemical sectors.

Founded in the late 1960s and still privately owned to ensure its independence, the group employs around 250 people in London, Beijing, Santiago, Sydney, Mumbai and the United States.

David Assersohn is based at the head office in London and is responsible for Facilities Management. His previous career was in printing.

Is too much made of low-carbon technology at the expense of common sense?

"I'd put that the other way round and say that low carbon technology is common sense. It's generally accepted that we can't carry on as we have done. We need to develop low-carbon technology as fast as possible."

Is enough being done to encourage smaller businesses tackle climate change?

"No it isn't considering what happens to the world if climate change continues. Smaller businesses need much more encouragement. They can't spare people to work full-time on lowering their carbon footprint and often they don't have the money to spend on the changes necessary.

"The encouragement that you refer to is necessary at two levels. It's needed at chief executive level, but it's also needed for the person at the coalface.

"In my case, I've got a day job and I've taken up this [carbon reduction] work on my own initiative. In small and medium-sized businesses I'm sure that there are lots of people like me working at it whenever we can find time. It's very important to give encouragement and practical advice to us.

"I think there are two ways forward. The first is to change the public's way of thinking and to get people generally more aware. The organisations working in this field have made enormous progress, but there are still too many people who refuse to accept that climate change is connected to human activity. Others accept that there is a connection but think that their own activities are not significant enough to matter. Education and awareness are vital.

"The other way forward is through legislation. If some people really won't accept that they should change to a lower-carbon or less-polluting practice, then maybe they have to be forced by legislation. For example, for most of the 20th century we added lead to petrol. It was very harmful, but there was huge pressure to keep the practice. Finally the necessary legislation got pushed through and lead was banned."

Do non-manufacturing or knowledge-based businesses face any particular low carbon challenges?

"I'd identify two challenges. First, there is often no major saving that we can make. It has to be achieved through lots of small savings and that's harder work.

"Secondly, in knowledge-based businesses like CRU, everyone has traditionally been big users of paper. We need to work hard to educate staff to work on screen and to archive online, not on paper in filing cabinets. In our case, the key to persuading people has been to show them that retrieval of knowledge is much easier from an electronic system than looking through paper."

Is enough being done to pool low-carbon knowledge and practice?

"No, definitely not. Big organisations can have a person who is qualified and working full-time in this field. SMEs can't do that.

"As I mentioned, I have a day job and I'm educating myself in the low-carbon field as I go. I think that in this financial climate, many smaller companies would be reluctant to pay for people like me to go on the necessary courses, or to conferences.

"We have to get all our knowledge and practice from websites and other freely-available sources. The more this knowledge is pooled the better. Maybe e-groups would be a good idea. Members could swap ideas and tips."

Are Government carbon reduction targets necessary and achievable?

"Targets are most certainly necessary. Our society won't make worthwhile progress in this field without targets. I'm only sorry that in many cases the dates set for achieving the new levels are so far off. The other point is that we can only ask third-world countries to cut emissions and pollution if we ourselves set the example.

"Are the targets achievable? Yes, they have to be achieved, but I think there is hope here. Every year, more people come round to the idea that the world is not something to be exploited indefinitely."

How do you engage colleagues on the low-carbon journey?

"It has to be education, but I'd like to make a point that isn't often mentioned.

"The low-carbon journey can be uphill work. Most people are in favour, but even then, that means providing they don't have to make a sacrifice or an extra effort. However, education can persuade them to change their practices.

"Then there is a core of people who say that climate change is not their responsibility and they are the ones who can dilute your efforts if you do not work hard on them. Showing them cost savings is often the answer."

What are your own proudest low carbon achievements?

"I've got two and a half! We've cut our power consumption by nearly 20 per cent. We've done this by a prolonged campaign to get people to turn things off, backed up with movement detector switches or time switches and also by rationing the use of air conditioning to times when it really is needed.

"The other one is cutting down on air travel. Our consultants used to travel regularly all over the world. By installing conferencing equipment, we've been able to cut that mileage significantly.

"Finally, my half-achievement is that we have started to cut down on the use of paper. I'm proud that I personally haven't filed a sheet of paper since May 2007.

"As a Facilities Manager, I have masses of 'paperwork' but it's all dealt with and filed online. Of course some paper is necessary, but I'm encouraging people to follow me as much as they can.

"We used to buy about 12 tonnes of paper a year for our printers and copiers. It's now down to 8 tonnes and I'm sure we can drive it down further."

What's top of your in-tray?

To reduce waste. We still throw out far too much. I'm working hard to increase the percentage that we recycle and we must make sure that we get the full benefit of the WEEE regulations. What comes into the CRU building is paper, packaging, office machinery and some plastic. In theory, all waste from those items should be capable of being recycled."

Any advice for fellow low-carbon practitioners?

"Get the top people on side! I mean the Chief Executive, finance director or whoever it is.

"Lowering the organisation's carbon output is going to mean changes in practice and realistically, it may also mean some spending in order to make those changes. You are going to need consent for that.

"Finally, it can be lonely but keep banging on. There's no greater prize."

Bail-Out Or Buy-In? Government In The Downturn

The storm that began blowing through the world economy last year has already claimed high profile casualties, and many of those left stunned in its wake will have switched their short-term priorities in a way barely conceivable just a short while ago.

For many companies it will be tempting to focus on simply staying afloat for the next year or so, and to view investment plans drafted before the downturn with scepticism. In this context plans to cut carbon emissions may well have been drained of their urgency, particularly where investment is needed for them to be realised.

The need to tackle a “wait and see” attitude to emissions reduction seems to have shaped a speech made by Director General Richard Lambert Speech at the CBI Climate Change Summit in December last year. “Volatile oil and share prices and much tighter credit conditions have led a string of Europe’s biggest companies to review their investment programmes,” he said.

Loss of momentum would be disastrous

The economic crisis may also be pushing climate change down the UK Government’s list of priorities, Lambert suggested. “Any loss of momentum would be disastrous. Targets aren’t getting any less stretching. In fact, the Climate Change Act has just lifted our carbon reduction target to 80% by 2050,” he said.

Pressing ahead with the transition to a low carbon economy is also one of the drivers for the UK to build a diverse energy mix, he said. Failing to pursue this objective “would come back to haunt us sooner rather than later. In all probability, the recovery will see another surge in oil prices and drive up the cost of energy for countries without a secure domestic supply,” Lambert said.

The barometer of business confidence produced each year by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) reveals a business community reeling from the downturn. The Annual Global CEO Survey concludes that “CEOs around the world are retrenching, indeed many claim to be entering ‘survival mode.'"

In this context it is no surprise that dealing with climate change is failing to rise up the agenda for most CEOs. Indeed, the PwC research shows that CEOs who are “not very concerned” or “not at all concerned” about climate change in relation to the growth of their business has actually risen slightly, from 65% in 2008 to 74% in 2009. By contrast, CEOs who are “extremely concerned” by the impact of the downturn on their growth prospects has doubled over the same period, from 21% to 42%.

Counting the cost of the downturn

So, overall what effect will the downturn have on emissions from business? “That’s a difficult one, partly because we don’t yet know how bad the downturn is going to be,” says Andrew Pendleton, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR).

“A contraction in industrial output would mean lower emissions, but I suspect that over the medium term the downturn will be negative for climate change because companies will be less likely to put in the up-front investment needed to reduce their emissions. Lower industrial output might mask the problem. On the other hand it might buy us a couple of extra years to act, but overall I suspect it’s bad news” he says.

The companies least likely to put their emissions reduction efforts on hold are those that have made it a strategic issue led by their most senior people, suggests Emily Farnworth, Director of Corporate Engagement at The Climate Group, a coalition of governments and some of the world’s largest companies. “We’re working with leaders in this area, so in all cases senior management has signed off aggressive emissions reduction policies. They understand the business case – not just in terms of risk, but also the opportunities,” she says.

Although the finance sector was the first to feel the full force of the downturn, it is also among those with the clearest view of the strategic value of a low carbon business. “Some of the largest banks and insurance companies have signed up to huge commitments to reduce their own emissions. But they can also see this as an investment issue – companies that are doing well with managing their emissions, or are helping to solve the problems, are going to be a pretty good bet as a long-term investment,” she says.

A window of opportunity?

Our economic woes undoubtedly give governments more leverage over companies, particularly when public money is being used for bail-outs. “There is a slim area of opportunity certainly. Regardless of how deep the recession is, we won’t make the kind of progress we need without government – policy is critical,” says Andrew Pendleton of IPPR.

“Governments have a powerful bargaining chip in public money, but they have to act decisively and clearly. Apart from any other reason they have to be clear in what they’re doing because they have to explain to taxpayers why their money is being used to bail out industries,” Pendleton says.

The UK government could learn from examples such as Germany and particularly the US, suggests Professor Steve Rayner of the Said Business School at Oxford University. “One of the significant commitments made by Obama is not just to support R&D work, but the demonstration and deployment of green energy,” Rayner says.

“We can’t make the reduction in emissions we need by efficiency measures alone – what we need is a technological transformation. What I mean by that is we have to bring down the cost of non-fossil fuels rapidly, and governments need to focus on sources of green energy that are between three and fifteen years away from being competitive. Those under three years will be picked up by venture capitalists, those further than fifteen years away will be too late,” Rayner suggests.

Emissions trading schemes may encourage greater efficiency, but they will not provide the investment in green energy that we need, he says. This is because any scheme first has to establish a price for carbon that is reasonably stable and rising, and this has to offset the cost of fossil fuel before green energy becomes even remotely attractive as an investment opportunity. And this has to happen before R&D on new sources of green energy can even begin.

“It’s got to be stimulated by very significant investments from governments. It’s much quicker and the public will end up paying anyway,” he says.

Key questions:

• How does our long-term strategy reflect the need to reduce emissions?
• What opportunities could come from investing in emissions reduction?
• How can we cut both our costs and emissions?