(no subject) : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
| 21 |
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
I have already counseled my client to avoid the easy answer route and they are very aware of the pitfalls.
I gave them this example: In the 1700, Pickfords ran a fleet of canal boats that did most of the haulage in this country on our waterways. They still exist - they run a fleet of articulated lorries instead. At some time in the past they shifted off the water and on to the roads. They knew they were a haulage firm not at canal boat firm.
So I've asked them - are they an emissions reduction business or a climate change solution business. They are all very serious about being the latter, they firmly believe that selling emissions reductions to business is a stepping stone in getting big business and the public to engage with this subject and make changes.
(For business to use this company they have to have an emissions survey done and they get piles of consultancy along with their offsets which make recommendations about how to directly reduce their emissions, how to involved staff, how to communicate accordingly with customers etc. Mr Big Shot CEO doesn't get a quick fix, he gets a report and a challenge with his offset purchase. Which I think is pretty cool.)
They just don't know how to articulate it at the moment. Which is where I come in.