Search

There were a number of food recalls last year. The latest one, a voluntary recall, was of protein bars possibly contaminated with salmonella. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that every year 3,000 Americans die of foodborne diseases, 128,000 are hospitalized, and one in six (or 48 million people) gets sick. In January 2011, President Obama signed the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act into law. Two years later, the FDA has finally released the first two of five new rules.

It is interesting that the rules are released just a month after two non-profit advocacy groups, the Center for Food Safety and the Center for Environmental Health, filed a lawsuit against the FDA for not releasing the proposed rules to implement the Food Safety Modernization Act. The lawsuit claimed that the FDA missed deadlines.

The first two rules released by the FDA are:

• Preventive Controls for Human Food: This rule sets safety requirements for facilities that process, package or store food for people. It requires that food facilities implement "preventive controls," a science-based set of measures intended to prevent foodborne illness.


• Produce Safety: The food-safety law requires that science-based standards be set for the production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables, and FDA is proposing such standards for growing, harvesting, packing, and holding produce on farms.

Under the new rules, most food facilities would be required to create a written plan that does the following, according to the FDA's website:

• Evaluates hazards that are reasonably likely to occur in food


• Specifies the steps that will be put in place to minimize or prevent those hazards


• Specifies how these controls will be monitored


• Maintains routine records of the monitoring


• Specifies what actions will be taken to correct problems that arise

"While the plan will come from the food companies, the planning and execution are done under the watchful eye of FDA, " said Donald Kraemer, senior advisor at FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. "The agency will evaluate the plans and will continue to inspect the facilities," Kraemer said.

One of the three other new rules yet to be proposed would require foreign supplier verification for importers. This rule would require importers to verify that foreign suppliers follow procedures that "provide the same level of health protection as that required of domestic food producers," according to the FDA. The other two rules are:

• Accredited third party certification


• Preventive controls for animal food: This would implement similar preventive controls as those proposed for human food

Hopefully, it will not take the FDA another two years to release the other three food safety rules.

Image credit: Flickr user, SodanieChea

By Jeffrey Hollender

Consider this common scenario: raw materials are extracted from the earth, transported to a processing facility and with the use of various chemicals and human labor, are transformed into a product. This product is transported again, to a store, where it is sold.  You buy it, and assume you are paying a fair price because all the costs to produce, transport and sell the product are included in the price you pay.

Wrong! Only some of the costs are included in the price – the rest are actually born by society as a whole.

If we look more carefully at everything that happened to get our product to the marketplace, we see a host of costs not accounted for in the price tag. For example, perhaps the raw materials were mined in a way that forever altered the landscape or geology at the site. Or, consider the pollution costs due to fossil-fuel-based manufacturing and transportation. And think about the employees at the store, who may be paid minimum part-time wages, which they need to supplement with government assistance for food or healthcare.

Few consumers are aware that the prices they pay for most products and services are artificially low and don’t reflect the full cost.

Businesses are free to use, abuse, consume, and destroy nature with no financial consequences thanks to a phenomenon called cost externalization. Tacitly blessed by governments and the accounting profession, the externalization of costs is a tradition that’s become deeply imbedded in our economy. But its days are numbered, just as our planet’s resources are limited. The more we see the environmental and social destruction that it is responsible for, the more we see that this accounting trick is, in a word, unsustainable.

While some leading businesses are voluntarily taking responsibility for some of these costs by either internalizing or, better yet, simply eliminating them, what really needs to change are the ground rules. We need agreed upon standards on how to measure these externalized costs, incentives to fully document these costs and ways to provide accountability.

The U.S. economic system subsidizes businesses that harm the public welfare and creates an uneven playing field for businesses that do it right. We need new policies that create incentives to do good, which includes accounting for the full cost of doing business so that those who already internalize those costs can thrive. We need an economy that is responsible to the environment and puts community accountability ahead of profits.

The good news is that there are already creative thinkers figuring out ways to make this happen. In many cases, the search for cost effective solutions takes creativity, systems-based thinking, and most effectively, transforming the root of the problem. Going beyond the traditional cap and trade, and polluter pays principles, there are new laws, policies and initiatives being explored that reevaluate what we as a society consider important.

For example, my home state of Vermont is taking a cue from the country of Bhutan by implementing a policy that requires the state to analyze “progress” in an entirely different way. Instead of measuring progress by the traditional GDP, this new measurement evaluates progress in terms of the effect on public welfare as a whole, which takes into account community relationships, public spaces, environmental preservation, and the standard of living for each individual and family. Initiatives like this are springing up all across the country (and world) and could be a promising start to full cost accounting. When the focus moves from simply focusing on profits to how the business impacts the public, external costs will be internalized by the business itself, or eliminated completely.

Another promising practice we have seen is the emergence of worker-owned cooperative networks that are growing throughout the world. Networks such as the Mondragon Cooperatives and the Evergreen Initiative in Cleveland allow the workers to own their enterprise and network with other owners to develop sustainable business strategies. They have the ability to put a higher priority on democracy, education and the sustainable development of their surroundings, rather than solely maximizing profits at the expense of their community. While cooperative developments do not avoid externalizing costs all together, having ownership over an enterprise is an important step in directing where the costs of externalities go.

Nothing will change unless the people and organizations involved in correcting issues begin to collaborate, pool resources and realize that at a very fundamental level, many of us are working toward a common goal: the pursuit of a better future. Multi-sector organizations that bring a strong unified voice to distinct groups to set forth a new economy are crucial in transforming our system. A partial list of these important organizations includes: the American Sustainable Business Council,  Green Recovery (Energy), Embrace Obama’s Agenda, National Council on Science and the Environment (biodiversity in a rapidly changing world), AME, UNEP – Green Job, New Economics Institute, NEW (New Economy Working Group), NER (New Economy Round Table), Business Alliance for Local Living Economies, Social Venture Network, Social Enterprise Alliance, B Lab, Fourth Sector Network, and New Voices of Business. These are the leaders who can best push for the policy changes – both in Washington and in board rooms – that put in place new rules that will end the practice of externalization.

These organizations, policies and initiatives are critical to establishing a new economy: one that works in harmony with the planet and puts human welfare above profits.

Jeffrey Hollender is co-founder and former CEO of Seventh Generation. He is the author of the bestseller, How to Make the World a Better Place, a Beginner’s Guide, as well as five additional books, including The Responsibility Revolution and Planet Home. He is a board member of Greenpeace US and Verite and also co-founder of the American Sustainable Business Council.

Policy Points is produced by the American Sustainable Business Council. The editor is Richard Eidlin, Director – Public Policy and Business Engagement.

[image credit: Autoneum: Flickr cc]

This post originally appeared on ESCM

By Oliver Campbell

The attitude of many companies is changing when it comes to prioritizing "green" initiatives and focusing attention on sustainability in the supply chain. The effects of climate change are real, the consequences are serious, and businesses are recognizing ways in which they can help by reducing their carbon footprint.

At the same time, companies are striving to make their supply chains more efficient, and environmental efforts can prove key to increasing productivity. Sourcing materials, production, travel and waste management should all work in tandem with a company’s broader green initiatives to deliver the most effective results.

With the economic downturn, one might assume that companies would abandon their green initiatives in favor of cheaper alternatives but a PwC report released earlier this year, Sustainable Packaging: Myth or Reality, discovered quite the opposite. It found that sustainability investment has increased rather than decreased during the economic downturn, as companies are paying greater attention to the effective use of resources. Companies are more conscious of finding ways to make every aspect of their business more efficient from production to sourcing materials.

Packaging is a key part of this process. Any company which supplies physical equipment needs to consider packaging, and the efficiencies packaging can provide. It is now more feasible than ever to create packaging that is beneficial to the environment while also being valuable from a business perspective. Businesses can minimize the impact of business operations, while at the same time create new possibilities for customers to reduce their environmental impact.

Many different materials can be used as green alternatives to traditional packaging. One example of a natural material is bamboo, which is a rapidly renewable member of the grass family with tremendous tensile strength that serves as a great alternative to more commonly used molded paper pulp, foams and corrugate. In addition to being highly sustainable, bamboo also helps promote healthy soil and, when harvested correctly, doesn’t require replanting, making it an ideal renewable resource. Also, bamboo is the fastest-growing woody plant in the world and can grow up to 24 inches per day, so the material is practically always readily available, which is vital for large companies which often need substantial amounts of packaging.

Sustainability can also be built into all processes associated with the production of the bamboo. In our own experience for example, after it is harvested, the bamboo is mechanically pulped at a nearby facility. During this process, 70 percent of the water is reclaimed and used in the process (the other 30 percent is lost to vaporization). Nothing is poured out, and no toxic chemicals are used. If it's sunny, the pulp is dried by the sun, reducing electricity use.

Another rather unusual source of a highly durable packaging solution is the humble and unassuming mushroom, which we at Dell are currently piloting as a packaging material for our servers. The mushroom bioscience is based on using common agricultural waste products: cotton hulls, rice hulls or wheat chaff are placed in a mold and injected with mushroom spawn. Five to ten days later, the mushroom root structure completes its growth, having used the energy residing in the sugars and carbohydrates of the agricultural waste instead of external energy sources such as petroleum. The final product looks and acts like Styrofoam, only this is organic, biodegradable and can be used as compost or mulch, which makes for easier and more environmentally-friendly disposal. In addition, this material is also surprisingly durable and tough.

More common alternative solutions can kickstart green packaging in your organization. Other options include: high-density polyethylene (HDPE), which is made using recycled-content plastics derived from recycled milk cartons and detergent bottles; molded paper pulp; lightweight air cushions that can be dramatically minimized before disposal. The alternatives are evolving practically every day.

The case of sourcing materials responsibly has become equally important when it comes to manufacturing your packaging. Every step of your packaging process presents an opportunity to minimize your carbon footprint. Sourcing materials locally and packaging locally by creating an "in-region" solution means that you cut down on the carbon you would emit if you were sending transporting materials back and forth over long distances. This could help you save on the overall costs of shipping materials, while also helping reduce carbon emissions in the long run.

Customers, governments and other stakeholders are paying more attention than ever to the sustainability and efficiency of the supply chain, and packaging is a pivotal part of this. Not only do these new alternatives offer the chance to reduce your carbon footprint but they can also contribute to substantial savings. Dell’s packaging strategy has eliminated 20 million pounds of packaging between 2008 and 2012 and also cut costs by more than $18 million, demonstrating that there are real and tangible benefits. With the rapid development of technology and alternative packaging solutions being studied constantly, these benefits have the potential to be far greater in the future for anyone who chooses to adopt a sustainable approach to packaging.

Oliver Campbell is director of procurement for packaging and packaging engineering at Dell, Inc. 

For further information, visit: www.dell.com/poweringthepossible.

[image credit: Dell, Inc.: Flickr cc]

This piece was originally published on Think Progress.

By Rob Honeycutt

Climate scientists are in the unfortunate position of being the messengers of bad news. So in a way, climate change denial is a massive attempt to shoot the messenger.

There are so many existing technologies to address climate change that are positive messages that too often get lost in the noise.  I want to share what I see coming from my industry, which is manufacturing.

Specifically, I want to address how things are manufactured rather than technological solutions.

The big picture

As we all know, over the past 30 years, vast portions of the world’s manufacturing base has moved to Asia, primarily China.  What you find there is a spiderweb network of small factories supplying parts to each other forming a distribution chain of goods.  Those goods are all being delivered by tens of thousands of these little blue diesel trucks, each belching out heavy particulates, CO2 and any number of unhealthy substances.  None of the factories are located in any rational proximity to each other; it’s fairly random.  The surface streets they travel are generally choked with traffic.  Then, each of those factories is running on the Chinese grid, fueled by a lot of dirty coal.  Most factories also keep back up diesel generators running, since the Chinese grid is often unreliable.  I’ve even seen small, clearly unregulated, coal-fired generators tucked away back in various coves and backstreets putting out very heavy smoke.

Then, of course, all the finished goods are trucked to port, loaded onto an unending train of container ships crossing the Pacific and heading out to all corners of the world.  Each of those is burning bunker fuel, which is something akin to asphalt.  And on top of that you have designers, engineers and execs flying back and forth to Asia numerous times each year to manage their projects.  I have one friend who does 8 to 10 trips a year to China as a product designer, and that’s pretty normal.

Taiichi Ohno and Toyota

Some 70 years ago a man named Taiichi Ohno pioneered Toyota’s incessant quest to ferret out waste from their production systems.  His work heralded in a new wave of manufacturing efficiency.  You may perhaps remember how the Japanese were crushing the U.S. auto industry in the 1970s and 80s.  This was primarily due to systems developed by Ohno.

Taiichi Ohno identified what he termed the “seven forms of waste” or “muda,” as it’s referred to in Japanese.  One of the primary forms of muda is “transportation waste.”  Moving product was always to be kept at its barest minimum since it adds no value to the end product.  There are reams of research on this, and yet, over the past 30 years, transportation waste has exploded to epic proportions.  None of it adding value.  All of it putting vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Not even thinking of CO2, and only being focused on efficiency, what Toyota did to minimize this was to work in Keiretsu’s.  They were “families” of suppliers who maintained their facilities in near proximity to the main Toyota assembly plants and they operated their supply chain on hourly delivery schedules.  Over half a century ago Toyota and Taiichi Ohno showed us that operations should always be located as close together as possible.  This got lost in the mad rush to move production to China.

Efficiency improves quality

The work of Taiichi Ohno and Toyota eventually lead to the “Lean manufacturing” movement.   Hand-in-hand with elimination of transportation waste came the reduction of in-process inventory levels.  One of the first things a company learns, and often why companies will abandon Lean, is that reducing inventory exposes problems.  With high inventory levels and extensive transportation, problems get hidden and passed along downstream.  With Lean, problems can’t hide and have to be fixed or the entire factory shuts down.  What this promotes (demands, actually) is a process of continual improvement.

Practicing Lean manufacturing over long periods of time translates into ever improving quality of goods.  As manufacturing guru, W. Edwards Deming, was always quoted to say, “Quality always costs less.”  As counterintuitive as that sounds, it is a fact.  The implication is that by eliminating transportation waste and leaning out production, you create far more efficient systems, and produce far higher quality goods for less. In this you can vastly reduce CO2 emissions and create more profitable businesses.

The present opportunity

There is a new movement emerging to start bringing manufacturing back to the U.S., partially evidenced by Apple’s recent comments that they would be bringing some of their production back to the US.  But I see a much larger opportunity here.

My background is in manufacturing, with 23 years experience in both domestic and off-shore production across a wide range of products.  I am launching a new product on the Kickstarter website to set up a domestic factory in the SF bay area producing a simple consumer electronics product; a set of bluetooth earbuds.

Though initially I’ll be just looking to set to do final assembly, the long term plan with this business is to create a vertically integrated process where, in house, we run a large portion of the creation of the product.  We will look to bring in printed circuit board assembly, injection molding for the outer case and earbud parts, and the extrusion process for creating the earbud cords.  We will eventually even bring in the printing processes for creating the product packaging.  All this so that no process is anything more than a few yards from the next step in assembly.  Then the cherry on top will be to have a solar PV installation powering the whole thing.

In this, we would eliminate huge inefficiencies and remove nearly all the middle supply chain CO2 emissions related to the product by removing nearly all the transportation waste, and at the same time creating a more profitable domestic manufacturing business.

One of the goals of this business will be to show other businesses what the opportunity is.  Too often people get the idea that addressing climate change will involve higher priced goods.  I believe that’s wrong.  These methods can give people reason to want to give the messenger a great big hug because, yes, we can mitigate CO2 emissions and actually have a stronger economy for it.

If you’d like to support this project, click here.

Rob Honeycutt is the founder of the bag company, Timbuk2.  He was the first to implement an online “build-your-own” mass customization, which became the inspiration for the NIKE iD program. He also has extensive experience with off shore production, having worked with over 100 different factories in China.  Rob lives in Berkeley with his wife and two children, and is a contributing author at Skeptical Science.

[image credit: Chris: Flickr cc]

By Danielle Stewart

230 Park Ave, also known as the Helmsley Building in New York City, will be lit up every night for the first time this new year.

The system being installed is an environmentally friendly LED light system that is very similar to the lights in the Times Square New Year's Eve Ball. Every night the lights will be slightly different except for their energy efficient status. The computer
-controlled LED light system changes color and can be programmed to put on quite a show. The lighting crew says due to the programmable controls, the exterior can go from “tame to wild” in a matter of minutes.

NY1 reporter Adam Balkin interviewed a spokesman for the company that retrofitted The Helmsley Building, and he said, "The building's going to pop, it's going to stand out and it's going to be visible from 40 blocks away -- something that's never been this way before."

What is very interesting about this retrofit and other recent retrofits like this is that not only is this a pretty sight to be seen, it also shows the world that historic buildings and iconic structures can all change and become environmentally friendlier; it only takes people becoming more aware of not only the visual benefits but the long term environmental benefit as well. In 2010, this very building became the first pre-war office building in New York to earn Gold LEED status.

"Typically what we're going to do is we'll come up with one static look, it'll stay that way for 20 minutes, or 27 minutes, and then there will be a three minute dynamic change into a different color set," Says Al Borden, spokesmen for the lighting company.

As an energy-efficient lighting manufacturer, Precision Paragon [P2] loves sharing inspirational stories such as these to spread the word about retrofits and promote all the amazing uses for LEDs inside and out of buildings new and old.

 

By Chris Long

When storms and other natural disasters strike, small businesses are especially vulnerable to power outages. While larger companies may have multiple locations that can pick up the slack while operations at one site shut down, the same is usually not true for the typical small business.

As a result, small business owners should take every available precaution to protect themselves from the wrath of nature. In fact, failure to plan for a power outage could result in a loss of business, inability to communicate with customers or clients, temporary (or even long-term) closure, and loss of inventory.

Companies can combat these potential issues by obtaining a generator, which will help restore electricity in the event that power goes out. Regardless of whether you're a one-man show or a rapidly growing small business with numerous employees, having a generator onsite can help avoid the pitfalls that might otherwise ensue in the event of a power outage. The information below outlines some basic information all small business owners should consider when determining whether to purchase a generator.

Different kinds of generators

Two basic varieties of generators are available on the market. Automatic, or standby, generators are permanently connected to a building's electrical system. When the power shuts down, those generators automatically detect the problem and restore power to the building. On the other hand, portable, or backup, generators run on gasoline or diesel and have to be manually installed once a power outage occurs. While automatic generators require little or no work for the business owner, portable generators are typically less expensive.

Safety first

When it comes to generators, safety should be the first priority. Portable generators often emit potentially harmful levels of carbon monoxide. Therefore, they should never be placed indoors when operational. Instead, most manufacturers and industry experts recommend placing standby generators outside at least ten feet from the building it is servicing. That reduces the possibility that harmful emissions will enter the building through windows, doors, or other openings. However, as an extra precaution, management should ensure that buildings are equipped with operational carbon monoxide and smoke detectors. In addition, use heavy-duty, grounded extension cords that are designed for outdoor use.

Never refuel gas-powered generators while they are running. In fact, it's best to let the generator cool off completely before refueling to avoid a fire or explosion.

Capacity

Before making a purchase, discuss your energy needs with a company representative or salesperson. A typical generator cannot harness enough wattage to power an entire commercial building. Therefore, focus on what your main priorities will be in the event of a power outage and ensure that the model you select can satisfy your needs.

Properly operating a generator

First and foremost, you should always operate a generator according to the manufacturer's instructions. Consulting local building codes may also be necessary depending on the kind of generator you select. And never be shy about asking questions of the retailer or a licensed electrician. It's much better to get all the information upfront rather than scrambling to find answers in an emergency situation.

To minimize potential operational problems, generators should be tested periodically. Again, don't wait until you're in a bind and actually need the generator to find out that it isn't working properly. In addition, take great care not to overload a generator, as that could cause a fire or damage appliances.

Noise

Unfortunately, noise is a normal byproduct of generator use. And some models are particularly loud. Therefore, operate the generator only when necessary to avoid disturbing neighbors. Automatic standby generators are generally quieter than portable models.

Conservation

Operating a generator only when necessary is important. If no power is needed at a given moment, make sure to turn off the generator to avoid waste. Also, keep in mind less expensive alternatives to running a generator. For example, in certain circumstances, battery-powered lights might work just as well as light fixtures fueled by a generator.

A generator may not be a foolproof solution to keeping your small business going during a power outage. However, generators can be helpful in minimizing the problems that going off grid can cause.

Chris Long is a store associate at a Chicago-area Home Depot. Chris writes truck rental tips, steam cleaner rental tips and a variety of other equipment tool rental topics.

It gives us great pleasure to announce the launch of The Rise of the Sharing Economy, our first crowdfunded article series and something we hope will create a tremendous impact well beyond our core readers.

We’re very thankful to everyone who kicked in and shared the campaign page – especially corporate sponsors like Wheelz, HUB Bay Area, Skeo, Saatchi & Saatchi S, uSwapia, Munchery, ISOS Group, EcoSupply, TrustCloud, Collaborative Consumption, hylo, and Profit Through Ethics.

Remind me what this is all about...

To understand what we're writing about, here's a rundown of the sharing economy concept: Let’s say you need a pickup truck to move some furniture. Your neighbor lends you his truck, and you pay him for the time. Now, extend that model to anything and use web-based social networking to connect with the entire world – not just your neighborhood. That’s the sharing economy. We've written for years about this concept - sometimes called the access economy, or even "collaborative consumption."

In a sharing economy, anyone can run a small business on the side, and you can have easy access to hundreds of things you never had before – without the financial, environmental, and time cost of ownership.  Most significantly, a sharing economy can help build local economies, strengthen communities and reduce the consumption of resources.

What to expect:

The purpose of this series is to help mainstream the sharing economy as a conversational topic. More specifically, we'll explore the various business models that make up the sharing economy. Not just explanatory stuff, but all of the following and more:

• Regulatory and legal issues


• Real measurement of the sharing economy's economic and environmental impacts


• Role of large companies in the sharing economy


• Startup profiles


• The "sharing economy" meme - is this really the best name for the subject?


• Marketing the sharing economy

Can I still get involved?

Yes, on a case-by-case basis, we'll consider additional guest posts as well as topic suggestions. Companies looking to partner with us on distribution, advertising, or other ideas are also welcome to get in touch.

 

Manufacturers use the term “excess capacity” to refer to an underutilized asset that is not being fully exploited to create value, be it an idle assembly line or a factory running only one shift when it could potentially be running two or three.

When viewed from this perspective, the non-commercial sector of our society can clearly be seen as overflowing with excess capacity. It could take the form of anything from an extra bedroom sitting empty, to an underutilized piece of garden equipment, to your car sitting idle while you work at home.

Given the massive degree of interconnectedness we now enjoy, the opportunity has emerged to very efficiently match up that excess capacity with those who have a need for it.

Thus we have the basis for the sharing economy; a newly emergent business trend that might just revolutionize the way business is done.

Of course, no sooner does such a trend emerge than the question arises; is this a threat to existing businesses, or an opportunity? The answer, of course, has to be both.

Reshuffling is not the same as harming, though, of course, every time there is reshuffling there will be winners and losers.

If I were to decide to chip in with a neighbor or two to buy a snowblower to share (I could have used one this week), that could be seen as a potential loss of sales if compared to the scenario where each of us bought our own. On the other hand, given the cost involved, none of us might have bought one. Furthermore, since it will be getting extra use, we might decide to buy a more expensive model than any of us might have purchased individually.

Looking at the experience of Airbnb, one of the pioneering enterprises in this space, a San Francisco-based company that matches available rooms with would-be travelers, bears this out. Fourteen percent of visitors using the service said that they would not have come at all without the availability of these affordable rooms. In addition, the average Airbnb stay was two nights longer than the average hotel room stay. All told, the service generated some $56 million for San Francisco's local economy.

Another advantage of an operation like Airbnb is the fact that not only does the money remain in the local economy, but it also ends up where it is really needed (60 percent of hosts had incomes below the city’s median).

Of course, some of that business came at the expense of existing hotels. Though there is nothing preventing them from following a similar model, which, to some extent they already do through services like Hotwire  and Priceline, which sell off excess capacity at discounted rates. Some other big companies are starting to dip a toe in as well. Look at U-Haul’s entry into the car-sharing business, for example. U Car Share is presently focusing on college towns, where it operates in some 38 localities.

Halfway between buying and sharing would be renting. Companies like Getable, which traces its lineage back to Netflix, have wrapped their heads around what that might look like online.

There is a fundamental difference between these ventures and the kind of collaborative consumption that characterizes the sharing economy. Sharing economy transactions are inherently peer-to-peer in nature.

Of course, that term, peer-to-peer, immediately brings to mind the music industry which has become the front line in the battle between an emerging sharing model and a long-established business model based on sales of recorded media.

From the industry perspective, those who share are demonized as pirates whose sharing is characterized as stealing. These accusations have resulted in new legislative actions known as SOPA/PIPA, sponsored by the industry in an attempt to stem the tide of unauthorized sharing, which are still being debated in Congress. But according to Julian Sanchez, cited in Forbes, online file-sharing has actually not harmed the music industry.

The argument is far from settled and it will probably continue for some time. The fact is, the possibilities unleashed by our newly hyper-connected society are just beginning to be exploited. Things are going to continue changing and evolving and it is going to take some time for attitudes and regulations to catch up.

Tim O’Reilly says that a big part of the problem lies in our ability to track value capture (which we’re good at), and value creation (which we’re not). He gives the example of drying clothes on a clothesline, whose value is not counted as an application of solar energy.  (Video). There are millions of these tiny value creation actions occurring daily, most of which occur below the radar.

But the radar seems to be getting lower and we are beginning to recognize value wherever it occurs as opposed to those places we’ve been accustomed to look.

Of course, when you buy a snowblower, or a chain saw, there is no implicit agreement accompanying your purchase (.i.e. copyright) that forbids you from letting your neighbor borrow it. Though I would not be surprised, as the sharing economy keeps growing, to see some indignant manufacturer lobbying for a new law that will do exactly that.

A better strategy, I think, would be to try and find a way to participate. Retailers or manufacturers, for example, could provide a gateway service by creating a database of customers who have purchased certain items by location which could be utilized for peer-to-peer sharing with appropriate fees attached.

The sharing economy, like any other major business transformation, represents economic impact to incumbent providers while representing freedom and value to those who have adapted their lifestyles to take advantage of the opportunity presented.

Of course, there is no reason that businesses, who also have lots of excess capacity, couldn't share with each other, too. Even competitors could also join forces when it comes to reducing the overall impact on the planet.

When the dust settles and the new landscape emerges, it will be organized and prioritized along the lines of the value created and made readily available to consumers in tomorrow’s world.

Image credit: “Cowboy” Ben Alman: Flickr creative commons; Pixabay

 

Last week media outlets were abuzz with Starbucks’ announcement, as promised, that its company-owned stores will sell reusable cups for $1 in order to boost recycling. Since 1985, the Seattle-based coffee giant has offered customers a discount when they bring in their own reusable cups. But the 10 cent discount has hardly been enough of an incentive to encourage consumers to bring their own cup and end the mounting waste that their iconic white cups continue to generate.

In 2011, Starbucks estimated its customers brought in their own cups 34 million times, a 30 percent increase from 2009. That’s the good news: the more inconvenient fact is that means only one in 50 Starbucks customers (two percent) bothered to bring in a reusable cup. Back in 2008, Starbucks revealed a strategy to serve 25 percent of its drinks in reusable cups by 2015; but that goal proved to be so elusive that the company downsized that goal to five percent. Nudging consumers to kick the disposable cup habit will be a tough task, even with the offer of a reusable $1 cup.

Starbucks has attempted similar tactics before. In fact, last month, Starbucks had a $30 reusable tumbler on sale that promised free coffee for all of January 2013. There were a few issues, despite all the buzz on the coupon and mommy blogger sites: first the price; next, the tumbler was hideous; finally, there was some dubious math--supposedly this was a “$70 value.” Consumers, at least in my neighborhood, responded in kind; those tumblers hit the clearance table pretty quickly--in fact I think there are still a few there.

And like many reusable cup announcements, the hype does not result in follow up. Last summer in Europe, McDonald’s revealed that it would give away some chic reusable coffee cups designed by Patrick Norguet. But there is no word, however, whether these cups made any dent in McDonald’s coffee cup waste across the pond. Even Mr. Norguet has been silent.

Let’s just cut to the chase: consumers (like me) who bring in their cup like a dutiful Boy Scout do so because of their desire to curb waste, not because they save a dime. And that dime is not enough of an incentive to the other 98 percent. For example, let’s take a look at those 5 cent per bag discounts at Whole Foods or Target if you bring in your own reusable sacks. How many times has the cashier forgotten to give you that pesky discount--and how many times could you be troubled to remind them? And the problem is not just with consumers: on its Responsibility portal, Starbucks “advocates” for an improved recycling infrastructure for its cups. In other words, Starbucks infers that by reducing that annoying double-cupping it has done enough on this front; let the municipalities deal with the waste and absolve the company of any responsibility.

Starbucks could do more and really up the ante. Offer more than a dime discount. Train its employees to remind its guests that coffee tastes better in a ceramic cup, and offer one if they are staying in the store to imbibe in their beverages--and offer that discount. For this feel-good company that offers such great vibes (to the point of near creepiness), experiment with do-goodery charitable campaigns and divert that dime or quarter discount to charity. And for its Gold Level Card Holders (which has become a joke because like a Gold-level American Express card, these are easy to score), offer those more frequent customers additional “benefits” for walking in with those reusable cups. A more aggressive and experimental recycling approach by Starbucks corporate, better training of its employees and most of all, pressing consumers to change their ways, are all necessary for Starbucks to reverse the embarrassing amount of waste the company generates.

As it stands, the $1 reusable cup probably will not make much of a difference--that 26 percent boost in reusable cup usage, as quoted in the LA Times, during its pilot testing in the Pacific Northwest is telling. In fact, the pledge to “rinse out the cup” as if this was some sort of service borders on silliness--Starbucks baristas do so anyway, including sanitizing my hot pink 1990 edition of the Fresno State Country Store cup (which is probably a BPA leakage cesspit, but that’s another story).

The upshot is that Starbucks already stands out for offering health insurance to its workers and for transforming the coffee culture in the U.S. Now it is time to ramp up its corporate social responsibility agenda, take action, and save money on waste diversion.

Starbucks could also tout this move on its media site; this announcement did not make the cut with a new steel cut oatmeal breakfast, the partnership with Square or new stores in Vietnam.

Leon Kaye, based in Fresno, California, is a sustainability consultant and the editor of GreenGoPost.com. He also contributes to Guardian Sustainable Business; his work has also appeared on Sustainable Brands, Inhabitat and Earth911. You can follow Leon and ask him questions on Twitter or Instagram (greengopost).

Image credit: Starbucks

By now the New Year’s fiscal cliff deal has received quite a bit of press. We have already discussed the significance of extending the Wind Production Tax Credit here earlier. Less well known is the inclusion of measures included in the deal to revive tax credits for advanced biofuels. It is well worth a moment to examine these to understand what impact these actions might have on both our future energy and food supply.

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 revived a number of tax credits that had expired at the end of 2011 and revised the definition of biofuels to include algae-based fuels.

According to the National Biodiesel Board, the restoration of the $1 per gallon credit for biodiesel producers which originated in 2005 and expired in 2011, could potentially add up to 30,000 new jobs this year.  According to Anne Steckel, vice president of federal affairs at the National Biodiesel Board, "It's been a long year with a lot of missed opportunity and lost jobs in the biodiesel industry. But we're pleased that Congress has finally approved an extension so that we can get production back on track.” According to research, had the incentive been in place this year, an additional 300 million gallons would have been produced, supporting more than 19,000 additional jobs. This is just another example of how the adage about having to spend money to make money applies to government as much as it does to business.

Bob Dineen, of the Renewable Fuels Association, who we spoke with back in October said, “The one year extension of the [$1.01 per gallon] cellulosic producer tax credit and accelerated depreciation provides some measure of certainty to ensure that 2013 will be a year of growth and milestones for the advanced ethanol industry.”

Also of note is the replacement of the term “cellulosic” biofuels, with “second generation” which has been expanded to include algae as a qualified feedstock.

Tax credits are not particularly useful in the short term for companies that are not yet profitable, but these new definitions will help to spur investment. Under the new law, credit can now be taken for the more than half of the algae that end up as carbohydrate residue, after the lipid content is directly converted to biodiesel or other oil substitute. The carbohydrate content can then be used as feedstock to produce ethanol using first generation (starch-based) technology. The algae credit is expected to cost taxpayers $59 million.

These credits will certainly help to stabilize the investment climate for second generation biofuel producers.

Meanwhile, the Renewable Fuel Standard, which mandates 36 billion gallons of biofuel be incorporated into the nation’s gasoline supply by 2022, is left unchanged, though not necessarily unaffected.

For those concerned about the impact of corn ethanol on the food supply, this bill will have little impact since most of the conflict occurs with corn and the RFS already caps the amount of ethanol that can be produced from corn at 15 billion gallons. As we are already very close to meeting that cap, there will be very little additional growth in corn ethanol. The remaining 21 billion gallons must be made up of biofuels from other sources, largely from feedstocks such as cellulosic ethanol, which are generally more sustainable and less threatening to food production.

As a result, we can expect to see less conflict with the food supply and a more efficient overall process since, for example, the cellulosic portion of the corn plants (e.g. stalks, leaves) can now potentially be used to provide additional fuel from the same amount of land, water and fertilizer resources consumed. Alternatively, in the case of purpose-grown cellulosic feedstocks like switchgrass, these can be grown in more marginal, less fertile lands, requiring less water and other resources.

[Image credit: glbrc communications: Flickr Creative Commons]

RP Siegel, PE, is an inventor, consultant and author. He co-wrote the eco-thriller Vapor Trails, the first in a series covering the human side of various sustainability issues including energy, food, and water in an exciting and entertaining format. Now available on Kindle.

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter.