Last year marked 25 years since the signing of the Montreal Protocol, a global accord to save the ozone layer. Just two years prior, the first published evidence of the existence of an ozone hole came to light and, crucially, the causal link to chlorinated flurocarbons (CFCs). Two years to take decisive, coordinated, global action to save the planet? So, what’s the difference between the ozone crisis and climate change crisis? PR spin is a big factor. With the ozone hole, people believed the science and got on with a solution. With climate change, serious money is being spent on attempts to discredit the scientific consensus and protect fossil fuel revenue. And, of course, there’s the investment. An affordable, effective alternative to CFCs was available which did exactly what it said on the (aerosol) tin. Weaning ourselves off fossil fuel use is going to be cripplingly expensive, right? Yet here’s a curious thing: many companies are actually making more money through making a commitment to cut emissions. Our story on New Zealand’s carbon opportunity (pg16) profiles Golden Bay Cement, which recently cut its coal use by a third, substituting it for renewable wood fuel in its kilns, reducing CO2 emissions by 58,000 tonnes and saving $3m a year in energy costs. It’s one of an ever-expanding group of forward-thinking organisations nailing their colours to the mast and reaping the rewards.