Carbon

One of the things I really want Oil is Dumb to do that hardly anyone else does is to account for our energy and resource use comprehensively.

Here's what I mean. It's becoming increasingly popular these days for companies (and people for that matter) to think about their carbon emissions. We're very aware of our carbon use, and how carbon emissions contribute to global warming by being a greenhouse gas. But here's the thing. Carbon is not the whole story. There are a lot of other emissions that are important, like sulfur dioxide; and we also need to think about our consumption of resources, like paper, which are also a major strain on the environment. Not to mention how much energy we use in the first place.

As an example, a company that operates a manufacturing plant for scientific instruments might use mercury. Let's say they're concerned about the environment, and they've decided to assess and offset their carbon emissions from the energy they use in their manufacturing. So they can be carbon neutral, but as a byproduct of their manufacturing they still dump mercury in a river. So do they get to claim that they're an environmentally friendly company? I think the answer is obviously no. Mercury is toxic, and call me crazy, but if you dump poison into the water supply, I think you're doing something bad for the world.

So these are my thoughts on carbon. Carbon is a great proxy for how environmentally responsible your company is. It is correlated to many other things. If I cut my electricity use dramatically then less coal needs to be burned and less carbon goes into the air. Or if I use less paper, then not only am I saving trees, but less paper needs to be made, which saves electricity and water, both of which in turn save coal, which in turn reduces carbon. So they are all interrelated.

But while this is true, they aren't completely the same thing, as in the example about the mercury. I think tons and tons of companies fall into this category. You can't be carbon neutral and dump mercury into a lake, and still think you're doing something good for the environment. So being carbon neutral is good, but it doesn't mean I am good to the environment.

So here's what I'm doing. I'm going to go all out, and comprehensively account for all of my resource use, and all of my emissions. A while back, when I first started Oil is Dumb, I made this decision. And I decided to keep accounting records for all these things just like I keep accounting records for money. I've been doing this for a year and a half. I decided that for us to consider ourselves solvent as a company, we had to take in more money that we spend, but we also had to conserve more resources that we used, offset more emissions that we emitted, and in general to actually leave the planet in better condition that we found it.

Here is the list of accounting records we keep: oil, electricity, natural gas, paper, water, landfill waste, carbon dioxide, sufur dioxide, nitrous oxides, and mercury. Why doesn't every company do this? We think they should. And here is my favorite thing about Oil is Dumb: as a company, Oil is Dumb has conserved more oil that we have used, used a net negative amount of natural gas, paper, and water; have produced a net negative amount of landfill waste, CO2, SO2, NOx, and mercury, and the business has conserved more electricity than it takes to run itself. It's really amazing. But the most amazing part is how easy it proved to be. I couldn't believe how easy it was. Honestly, I think if other companies even tried, many could do it. We call this being eco-negative, and we call this business model Upside-down business.