point-of-view, not just an environmental one, for this iswhere real traction will be achieved.Optimising your existing assets is an effective way toreduce consumption rapidly and provide a fast returnon investment. eSolve works closely with AssuredEnergy Solutions to deliver facility-wide turnkeysolutions. Affiliated to Energy Automation SystemsInc. (EASI) in the US, they deliver rapid energy savingresults from applying their technology to motors, airconditioning, refrigeration and heating systems. By focusing on removing waste and reactiveenergy, heat build up and harmonics, theydeliver results facility-wide. Savings canrange from 6 to 20 per cent with payback typically within three years. These savings are measured using the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol, and with 30years experience and over 80,000installations around the world for majorglobal corporations they have the knowledgeand proof to provide a service underwritten byLloyds of London. Working with BP Solar, commencing in September2007, EASI introduced multiple solutions. Withintwo years, savings of just under US$300,000 had been achieved and the project had beenfinanced entirely from those savings. Accurate utilitymonitoring is vital to the optimisation proposal.Deciding how to invest, to achieve the greatest saving,needs to be done from a knowledge based viewpoint. An organisation needs to understandexactly where the energy is being used to make the most sensible decision to ensure maximum saving and the best possible returns. Monitoring is also vital in providing the information that can impact on user habits and help delegate theresponsibility for energy consumption to end users, habits that the Carbon Trust in the UK calculatecould save 20 per cent of annual energy spend. With savings of this magnitude, accurate monitoringwill probably enjoy a return on investment inside 12 months. The most effective example of the use of thisinformation is in educational establishments. Schoolsand colleges are bringing environmental studies intotheir core curriculum; the use of monitoring throughoutthe estate enables students to conduct experiments tosee the effect of changing habits. How much energycan be saved by lowering the temperature in the libraryby one degree? What change in electricityconsumption can be monitored when classroomlighting is adjusted? But what really drives this concept home with childrenis the realisation of the sheer quantity of carbon thatcan be saved by making these changes. Students of allages are concerned about the effects of climatechange and bringing this information to them whenthey can see the direct benefits of their actions isenormously powerful.These methods of achieving reduction are simple,effective and lucrative. eSolve is providing a route for these solutions in to companies by approaching key decision makers with a business proposal, abusiness proposal with a compelling and powerfulenvironmental theme. nFINANCE061BIOGRAPHIESTim Ford is Chairman of eSolve Partners LLP. Mr Fordis a past President of the University of Reading andwas also Chairman of Employment Tribunals andDeputy Chairman of Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital.He is a member of the Chartered Institute ofArbitrators, Fellow of the Institute of Directors, andFellow of the Royal Society of Arts.David Beer is Associate of eSolve Partners LLP. MrBeer has over twenty years of global commercial,management, and business experience. Over the lastfour years he has helped small start up climatechanges businesses get to market. He has anexcellent understanding of the key climate changeand sustainable challenges businesses now face andhow these risks and opportunities need to beintegrated into corporate decision making. Contact: David Beer Telephone: +44 779 969 4058Email: david.beer@esolvepartners.com

he Conference of the Parties inCopenhagen was seriously oversold.There was a reason for this: without anagreement in 2009 on a new set ofemissions reduction targets, which could then beratified by Parties (a process taking some time), the chances of new targets being placed when the first commitment period expired in 2012 were very low. "Mind the gap" (between the end of the firstcommitment period and the start of the next one) wasthe slogan before Copenhagen. But it was very clearthat however much the gap needed to be minded, ifcountries were not ready to agree, there would be noagreement. And it was very clear from early in 2009that key countries were not going to be ready: thenegotiations can be nudged forward by the applicationof political pressure and brinkmanship, but only somuch. Yet the hype was allowed to build up: the UNSecretary General said: "Seal the Deal" and the mediaexcitement of Copenhagen was built up. But the truthwas there was no deal to be sealed. No-one told themedia, however, and the resulting let-down in thenegotiations was hugely exaggerated. The feeling that this was the last "hurrah" of theUNFCCC system was increased by the emergence ofthe Copenhagen Accord. This document appeared forthe first time to open up the possibility that largedeveloping countries would set down their emissionsreduction proposals alongside those of developedcountries, even if not expressed in the same format,and would acknowledge some degree of third partymonitoring and verification. The Accord may havebeen agreed, but it was not a document that belongedto the negotiations, and all the UNFCCC process feltable to do with it was take note of it. Many observers felt that the only hope of progress layin pushing the Accord forward somewhere else: theG8, the G20, the US-led Major Economies Forum, orone of the many bespoke discussion groups ofMinisters. Even those most despairing of the UNprocess feel that after agreement in one of theseexternal forums, the agreement will have to be broughtback to the UN negotiations for some sort of approval,if not for transformation into a new bindinginternational treaty.But two very serious problems are emerging with thismodel. The first is the key issue of substance, theCatch-22, that has divided the parties for some yearsnow. What is the level, nature and duration ofdeveloped country emissions reduction commitmentsthat would be accepted by the rest of the world? Andwhat actions will the larger developing countries taketo reduce their emissions, which would justify furtherdeveloped country commitments? The CopenhagenAccord hinted that some key developing countrieswould be prepared to bridge some of the gap. Butmuch, much more than that is required before a newglobal agreement can be reached. Precisely what willthey do, how much financial and technical support willthey need, and what counter-offer will that producefrom the developed countries? The most important andintractable part of that last question is what the US willdo. The halting progress through Congress of USlegislation suggests that the answer is not a great deal.The second problem is that there appears to be littlemomentum behind the job of getting seriousdiscussion of the Copenhagen Accord issues in thealternative, or supplementary forums. The CanadianPresidency of the G8 so far shows little inclination toput climate change high on the Agenda, despite high-level concerns expressed in the UN. The KoreanCLIMATE CHANGE: THE G8 THE UNFCCC AND THE SUBSTANCE062EMISSIONS TRADINGTHENRY DERWENT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE INTERNATIONAL EMISSIONS TRADING ASSOCIATION (IETA)" "THE ACCORDMAY HAVE BEENAGREED, BUT ITWAS NOT A DOCUMENT THATBELONGED TO THENEGOTIATIONS,AND ALL THE UNFCCC PROCESSFELT ABLE TO DOWITH IT WAS TAKENOTE OF IT,?