Search

By Cecilia Allen and the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives

The Flemish region of Belgium boasts the highest waste diversion rate in Europe. Almost three-fourths of the residential waste produced in the region is reused, recycled, or composted. Since the first Waste Decree was approved in Flanders in 1981, regional goals (for overall residential waste generation, separate collection, and residual waste after source separation and home composting) have been met and then exceeded, allowing more ambitious goals to be set in subsequent waste plans that are developed every four to five years. With these successes, the emphasis of waste management policies transitioned from disposal to source separation and recycling, and finally to waste prevention. Per capita waste generation in Flanders has held steady since 2000, showing a rare example of economic growth without increased waste generation.

The first plan for vegetable, fruit, and garden (VFG) waste, developed between 1991 and 1995, led to the creation of the non-profit Flemish compost organization, VLACO. VLACO encourages organic waste prevention, promotes composting at all levels, certifies compost, and operates as a reference and assistance entity on organic waste materials.

Organic materials are treated through composting and anaerobic digestion. In the beginning, there was one centralized compost plant that received mixed residential waste, but the compost quality was so bad that source separation was made a requirement in the regional plans for organic materials. The second plan for organic materials required separate collection of green waste (produced in public parks and areas as a result of pruning) or VFG waste, and advocated home composting. Subsequent organic materials plans have focused on promoting further home composting and cycle gardening, and encouraging businesses to compost.

By 2010, 35 compost plants in Flanders (8 for VFG waste and 27 for green waste) and 29 anaerobic digestion plants were processing organic residential waste together with manure and agricultural waste. Approximately 4,900 tons of organic materials were composted or treated through anaerobic digestion every day. VLACO estimated the energy savings and reduction in CO2 emissions resulting from compost production, compared to a scenario in which the organics were treated through incineration with energy recovery: in 2007, 480,000 fewer tons of CO2 were emitted due to separate collection and composting of 833,000 tons of organic materials.

The Flemish government mandates source separated collection throughout the region. In order to encourage improvements in separation, it also sets targets for per capita residential waste production, home composting, and maximum residuals, which must be met by all municipalities in the region.

In 1998, landfilling of unsorted waste, separated waste suitable for recovery, combustible waste, and all pharmaceuticals was banned, and incineration of separated recyclables and unsorted waste was also prohibited.In addition to incinerator and landfill restrictions, financial mechanisms are used to discourage burying and burning. There is an environmental tax for residual waste treatment that ranges from $9 per ton for incineration to $95 per ton for landfilling. In 2009, the revenues from these levies totaled $36 million.

One of Flanders’ central strategies to prevent waste goes to the root of the waste problem: the very design of products. To address this, the agency has created a set of tools to promote clean production and sustainable design. These include:

“ECOLIZER” – a tool for designers to estimate the environmental impact of products. It includes a set of indicators relating to materials, processing, transport, energy, and waste treatment, allowing designers to identify opportunities to reduce those impacts by changing the design.

Eco-efficiency assessment – a program to evaluate the efficiency of small and medium companies. It identifies points of intervention for reducing waste, improving energy and water efficiency, increasing recycling, and so on. The test is free of charge.

Inspirational online database – a collection of case studies of businesses that have implemented clean production and eco-design methods.

In 2008, $1.19 million in subsidies were given to reuse and recycling centers. In 2009, Flanders had over 110 second-hand shops employing a total of 3,861 employees and serving over 3.6 million paying customers. The government also organizes “Ecodesign awards” for students and professionals as a way to encourage innovations in waste prevention. The prizes range between $508 and $5,080.

Flemish waste legislation makes it mandatory for producers, importers, and retailers of certain items to take back waste products and meet collection and recovery targets. These obligations apply to batteries and accumulators, vehicles, printed matter, tires, electrical and electronic equipment, lubricating and industrial oils, lighting equipment, animal and vegetable fats and oils, and medicines. People can return broken or obsolete products to retailers free of charge. Producers are then responsible for management and treatment of the products according to specific requirements that include recovery targets. By law, new construction projects that generate over 1,000 m3 of debris must present a “deconstruction” plan and waste inventory and are responsible for recycling this waste. According to OVAM, 90 percent of construction and demolition waste—11 million tons—was recycled in 2010.

Waste Prevention Strategies Directed at Households and Individuals

Pay As You Throw (PAYT). The hallmark of this significant waste prevention strategy is the application of graduated taxes to different types of waste. Most expensive is the collection of residual waste, followed by the collection of organic materials, with the lowest taxes applied to plastic bottles, metal packaging, and drink cartons. Collection of paper and cardboard, glass bottles, and textiles is free. Tax on bulky waste varies depending on the quantity.

Home composting. Successful approaches to promote composting have included annual charges for the collection of organic materials ($51 for a 120 liter bin), educating citizens about home composting through communication campaigns, promoting “cycle gardening” to reuse yard waste, encouraging composting at schools, and composting demonstrations at community compost plants. An estimated 100,000 tons of organic materials were kept out of the collection and management system in 2008, thanks to home composting. In densely populated areas, the government encourages community compost plants, where citizens can take their organic materials. These facilities usually use compost bins, and so do not take up much space. By 2010, approximately 34 percent of the Flemish population—almost two million people—was composting at home.

Green event assessment and guide. Online tools are available for organizers to calculate the ecological footprint of their events and to prevent waste during events. The agency also maintains an online list of places that lend reusable tableware for events and parties. Additional waste prevention campaigns for citizens include promoting the use of tap water instead of bottled, encouraging bulk purchasing, discouraging the use of packaging and disposable bags, and providing “Please No Publicity” stickers distributed to citizens to reduce junk mail.

Regulating Products That Enter the Market

Although waste management is a local and regional responsibility, the Belgian federal government sets the standards for products that enter the market and eventually become waste. These policies include an Eco-tax Act for items like beverage containers, some packaging, and disposable cameras and batteries; a federal act that discourages producers from manufacturing items that increase waste problems or pose health or pollution risks; the adoption of standard labels for products meeting certain environmental and social criteria; and the publication of a green procurement guide.

Throughout Belgium, packaging is the producer’s responsibility. Nearly all the companies that produce household packaging are grouped in a single organization known as FOST Plus. Each participating company pays a fee based on the type and amount of packaging they are responsible for introducing into the market. The organization funds the public collection, sorting, and recycling of these materials. According to FOST Plus, the recycling rate for household packaging in Belgium has increased from 28 percent in 1995 to 91.5 percent in 2010.

Flanders accounts for 60 percent of the total household packaging recycled in the country (415,763 tons in 2010). FOST Plus estimates that compared to incineration, recycling prevented the emission of 860,000 tons of CO2. A 2006 study estimated that the total cost per inhabitant for the packaging management system in Belgium, accounting for income from recycling sales, was $7.34 per year.

By dividing responsibility appropriately between municipal, regional, and national governments, Flanders has successfully implemented a comprehensive strategy for waste prevention, recycling, and composting. The results speak for themselves: stable waste generation and the highest diversion rate in Europe.

Check out GAIA’s website here, download the full Zero Waste report here, and follow GAIA on Facebook and Twitter.

Read more from Other Worlds here, and follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

Copyright GAIA. You may reprint this article in whole or in part. Please credit any text or original research you use to GAIA.

[Image credit: City of York Council UK, Flickr]

This morning Avis announced that it will acquire car-sharing leader Zipcar for about $500 million. Avis will pay $12.25 per share of Zipcar stock in cash, or almost 50 percent over Zipcar’s closing price on December 31. The boards of both companies have already approved the transaction and the deal should close by spring of this year. Zipcar shareholders will score after months of flat performance, unless of course they bought at the IPO price of $18 or at the company’s peak share price of $31.50. The company was certainly a disruptor within the car rental business, but since its founding in 2000 Zipcar has had difficulty staying profitable.

The acquisition in part sends a signal that collaborative consumption, or the sharing economy, is here to stay, and that large companies are realizing that their businesses face competition from new models that no one even thought of just a few years ago. So is this really a sign that the sharing of goods and services is ready to scale, or is this just another big company swallowing competition to protect its turf?

Car-sharing has grown to a $400 million dollar business, with Zipcar setting the standard by its service, convenience and positioning of fleets at over 300 university campuses across the U.S. Other services such as Getaround and RelayRides have picked up on this bandwagon by going a step further (liability issues aside) and allowing car owners to rent out their own cars while they are idle at home or the office. Zipcar has claimed the car-sharing market will eventually be worth $10 billion in North America alone; with younger drivers eschewing the rush to get that driver’s license at 16 or 17, let alone preferring to share instead of owning a car, that trend is here to stay.

While the business press led by the Wall Street Journal welcomed the Avis-Zipcar acquisition, not everyone was enthusiastic. Washington Post writer Steven Pearlstein predicts that Zipcar will eventually disappear, that Avis will soon eviscerate its newest subsidiary, and called for the Department of Justice’s antitrust division to step in and halt the deal. But is it really in Avis’ best interest to sabotage a service with devoted customers? Gizmodo’s Peter Ha sees opportunity for Avis; Zipcar could score even more customers who would have access to more cars--including those precious vans coveted in New York for that weekend run to the Red Hook IKEA.

Avis’s executives, platitudes aside, would be wise to leverage the company’s capacity and boost Zipcar’s services. The sharing economy is only going to grow, not wither because some big guys and gals snap up new and innovative companies. Wiping out Zipcar would be a small step back, but consumers accustomed to sharing will find another way to avoid being shackled to auto companies or rental car companies. As Forbes contributor Tim Worstall explained, this deal could build value, not destroy a valued service because of the huge deals Avis gains when purchasing cars; consumer choice in this space could actually increase.

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: Zipcar

By John Schulz, Director of Sustainability Operations at AT&T

In a given day, my cell phone plays the role of alarm clock, navigation system and personal assistant.  The next day it is my meteorologist and entertainment system. Oh, and I also use it to communicate with co-workers, business partners, friends and family.  It’s so thoroughly a part of my daily routine that I rarely stop to think about what makes it all work. Recently though, I’ve been looking into a resource that helps make it all work but is rarely, if ever, discussed. It’s water.

This idea of “embedded water” represents the sum of the water that is used in every step of a product’s life cycle. You usually hear about embedded water related to food and drink, and that is fairly intuitive because crops demand water, but there seems to be less public dialogue about the embedded water in other items we use each day like electronics and communications technologies.

In the case of my phone, there is embedded water in manufacturing it and delivering it. There is also embedded water in using it. How? Every time a phone – or any other device – connects to a network that signal flows through a complex maze of equipment that is housed in a diverse collection of facilities. These facilities house the equipment that makes the 21st century digital economy and lifestyle possible, but the equipment demands electricity to run and throws off substantial heat in the process.  It’s critical to keep the equipment cool, and the mechanical gear used to accomplish that climate control frequently uses water. My colleague Tim Fleming, Senior Energy Manager, explains the link between building cooling and water in this video. In fact, the EPA estimates that a full quarter of the daily water of U.S. buildings is used by cooling systems.

To address this challenge, AT&T and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) joined forces. To start reducing the water used in AT&T’s operations, and thus the water embedded in using our phones and network, AT&T and EDF are running cooling efficiency pilots to identify best practices in three categories: better water treatment technologies, improved operational practices and increased use of “free air” cooling. Our hope is that we will identify concrete ways to reduce AT&T’s 3.4 billion gallon water footprint, and announce the results of our pilot in early 2013. We anticipate finding ways to save millions of gallons of water per year for AT&T, and potentially billions of gallons if the solutions are adopted by other industries.

Understanding and reducing the water embedded in products and services is one of the keys to the future of water management. We are looking forward to adding to the understanding of embedded water as we share the results of our pilots. The great part about this effort is that there are so many buildings that use water in their cooling process, and they’ll all be able to utilize the techniques and tools we uncover during our work with EDF. And that’s what this is really all about: reducing the water used to cool the buildings in which we live and work every day, helping us to be as efficient as possible with the amount of “embedded water” in our lives.

[image credit: Peter Kemmer: Flickr cc]

Tesla has announced the opening of three new Supercharger stations on the east coast. Located in Newark, DE and Milford, CT (where the town’s two stations are on both the northbound and southbound sides of I-95), the new charging stations, according to Tesla, will make it possible to drive one of its roadsters between the Boston and Washington, DC metropolitan areas.

As is the case with the six charging stations in California, the Supercharger stations are located in areas where there are plenty of options for road warriors to refuel (er, recharge)--well, as far as rest stops go. The “adrenaline shot” for Tesla’s batteries can boost a Tesla battery a total of half a charge for one of its car’s batteries in 30 minutes, the equivalent of 150 miles of range.

For Tesla owners, the east coast supercharging stations make traveling along I-95 (the artery of the U.S. eastern seaboard) almost as attractive an option as commuting by Tesla in California. Currently six Supercharging stations are operational in California, and all of them are in heavily trafficked areas such as Tejon Ranch, Harris Ranch and Gilroy. Additional stations in Folsom and Barstow make commutes by electric vehicle (EV) to playgrounds such as Lake Tahoe and Las Vegas a viable option. Electric vehicles suffer from the perception that a drive between San Francisco and LA--or Boston and DC--is too tedious without means to recharge one’s car quickly, even if the reality is that most car owners do not complete such drives often.

To that end, Tesla claims it will have at least 100 of these charging stations by 2015. The average Tesla owner may not be intrigued by options such as Dunkin’ Donuts or McDonald’s while he or she waits for the car to score a recharge, but compared to the 16 miles a 240 volt recharger offers a Tesla in 30 minutes, the 90KW Supercharger is a much more attractive option.

Tesla has faced countless challenges the past several years, from consumer bias against EVs to the recent financial crises and even a recent divestment by the Abu Dhabi government. Nevertheless its all-electric Model S won the most recent Motor Trend Car of the Year award, and the new Supercharger stations will only boost the appeal of the Tesla Brand. Tesla claims that much of the power at these Supercharger stations will generate power from solar energy. Tesla has a long way to go if it is going to meet this Supercharger goal in two years, but in the meantime, owners who travel between San Francisco and LA or along the east coast will have plenty of fun on the road.

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: Tesla

With the New Year and newly minted, well-intentioned resolutions upon us, I thought it might be a good time to post some compass readings with respect to the world energy picture. My year-end summary emphasized the growing importance of natural gas as an energy source, and the piece that came after that described America’s soon-to-be emergence as the leading producer of oil and gas.

A new announcement this week puts these discussions, as well as our recent gains in sustainable energy into perspective, dramatically revealing how much further we still have to go when we look at the global picture. The Worldwatch Institute report points out that while oil still represents the largest energy source, both coal and natural gas have seen significant increases in production and consumption. The report, which tracks usage through the end of 2011, says that coal consumption increased by 5.4 percent, while natural gas usage rose 2.2 percent.

This brings coal’s share of the energy mix up to 28 percent, the highest percentage on record since the IEA began tracking this data in 1971 (it was likely higher than that at some point before that year). The increase comes despite rising global awareness of carbon’s role in causing climate change, and despite coal being the largest carbon-emitting energy source of all.

Seventy percent of global demand came from countries outside of the OECD, mainly India and China. In fact, China alone accounted for nearly 50 percent of all demand. The U.S. was the second largest user, though it saw a decrease in consumption of roughly 5 percent which was offset by shale gas and wind. In 2008, coal accounted for 50 percent of all U.S. electric generation. That number is expected to drop to 30 percent by 2020. Despite the decline, the U.S. still accounts for 45 percent of all OECD consumption.

India had the second highest coal consumption growth rate and is expected to overtake the U.S. as number two by 2025, becoming the largest net importer of coal, much of which will come from the U.S., which has the largest reserves of any country. China, which is third, after Russia, has substantial reserves, which is one of the reasons they are burning it so freely to power their rapidly growing economy. During the decade from 2001-11, China accounted for 80 percent of the increase in global demand.

So while U.S. coal consumption continues to drop, production remains steady, with an export boom underway. Exports have doubled in just the past three years.

So, in essence, all the coal that we have stopped burning domestically, is being burned in China and India instead, plus a whole lot more.

That might be good for coal producers (though mining jobs continue to fall primarily due to automation), but it is not good for anyone concerned about curbing carbon emissions in an effort to rein in a runaway climate.

So, what is China doing about this? Do they merely have their heads in the sand? Are they blithely ignoring the problem while focusing exclusively on economic growth?

While it is easy for us to point fingers, we should keep in mind that people who live in glass houses, otherwise known as greenhouses, should not throw stones.  The fact is that China is doing quite a bit to curb emissions. True, they are producing lots of carbon, but they are using it far more effectively than we ever did. Over the past twenty years, China has reduced the amount of carbon emitted per unit of GDP faster than any other nation. Their 12^th Five Year Plan, which covers 2011-15, contains a number of substantial carbon reduction initiatives. Among these are:

• Increase the proportion of non-fossil fuels in energy consumption to 11.4 percent by 2015


• Reduce energy per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 16 percent by 2015


• Reduce carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 17 percent by 2015

Additionally, as part of UN climate negotiations, China pledged to increase forest coverage by 40 million hectares and forest stock volume by 1.3 billion cubic meters compared to 2005, by 2020.

China also plans to establish carbon trading markets in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong, which may go national by 2015.

They also claim the world’s largest installed base of renewable electricity generation. China’s investment in clean energy surged this past year, growing 92 percent in 2Q to $18.3 billion, or a little over 30 percent of the global total. China has also surpassed the U.S. in smart grid investment and in wind power. Chinese wind generation capacity is projected to roughly double by 2015.

Of course, both the U.S. and China can do a lot more to speed the transition. Neither country has demonstrated anything close to Germany’s commitment to renewables, though, of course, circumstances vary.

China’s rapid growth follows the contours of the economic landscape, in which energy plays a major role. The passage of a carbon tax in the U.S., therefore, could possibly be the largest single step to drive progress on this critically urgent issue.

What else can be done? Peter Ward, a professor of Biology and Earth Science at the University of Washington, and an expert on extinctions, says that we should stop exporting coal to China.

Whether we could muster the political will in Washington to take such a principled stand in the face of protests over government intervention in business and job losses, is questionable at best. But, as Ward points out, these seemingly drastic choices will likely pale in comparison to the choices that will probably be foisted upon our descendants.

[Image credit: wombatundergound1: 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.

Last week Sempra U.S. Gas & Power and BP Wind Energy launched a 21 megawatt (MW) wind power facility on the island of Maui. The Auwahi Wind Farm off of Maui’s southern coast opened on December 27, nine months after ground broke on the project within the Ulupalakua Ranch.

According to Sempra, the wind farm will generate enough electricity to power 10,000 homes. Leaders including then-Hawaii Lt. Gov. (now U.S. Senator) Brian Shatz touted the eight-turbine wind farm as another step towards Hawaii’s goal of scoring 40 percent of its power from clean energy sources by 2030. While the 50th state has attracted plenty of attention over its ambitious solar energy program, wind power has also been an important cog in Hawaii’s renewable energy agenda.

Despite the fickle economy of the past decade, Maui’s tourism-based economy has continued to surge while concerns over the environment dogs large projects such as Auwahi. Traffic was also an issue, so the project’s managers took several steps to minimize construction traffic. Larger turbines reduced the total count from the original 15 to eight to reduce the overall transport needed to build the site. Sempra and BP set the traffic schedule to avoid the transport of materials during peak times. The 180 workers assigned to the site also carpooled a minimum 25 percent of the time to keep more cars and trucks off local roads.

Power from the Auwahi Wind Farm will be sold to Maui Electric Company (MECO) under a 20 year contract. Advocates of clean energy may want to mute their praise of Auwahi as a “green jobs” generator; the wind farm at most will employ four or five employees. But what is encouraging about Auwahi is the battery capacity onsite: a 10 MW battery will have the ability to store as much as 4.4 megawatt hours of electricity.

So, despite the constant threat of the “fiscal cliff,” Hawaii’s volatile tourist industry and often vehement criticism of wind power, this form of energy is not going away anytime soon. Fossil fuels will only continue their price trajectory upward, so look for Hawaii, as well as other states, to continue to put more wind power farms on the drawing board.

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: Sempra

By Pat Proano, Assistant Deputy Director, County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works

Californians have always been at the forefront of sustainability.

There is no better demonstration of this leadership than here in the County of Los Angeles, where we continue to be recognized with awards for excellence and achievement in the development and restoration of sustainable multi-use eco-systems and capital projects that consistently earn Leadership in Energy and Environmental design (LEED) certification.

We have also become master recyclers and maintain some of the highest recycling rates in the U.S. In Los Angeles alone, we recycle nearly two thirds of our trash. But despite this success, we are now at a critical juncture in how to sustainably manage our waste.

Conversion technology - also known as waste to energy - offers the answer for handling that small percentage of materials that just cannot be recycled.

Put simply, CTs are facilities that convert trash into electricity or biofuels, as well as other useful byproducts. These technologies have been embraced by governments and citizens around the globe, and countries such as Japan, Israel and Spain have relied on them for countless years for the management of municipal waste. Not only would we generate new green collar jobs by constructing these facilities locally, but we would be creating a less environmentally impactful system with increased recycling rates and reduced air emissions.

Seven years ago, the LA County Board of Supervisors saw the need to establish a more sustainable waste management system that reduces our reliance on landfills. Coupled with the imminent closure of Puente Hills Landfill, the country’s largest landfill, and the escalating price of shipping waste to remote parts of California by rail, alternatives had to be found. The Board approved a multi-phased program aimed at promoting the development of sophisticated new CT facilities in the region.

However, state regulations have not kept pace with these local efforts, and have, in fact, hindered development of conversion technologies. Current definitions are confusing and, in some cases, scientifically inaccurate, making it difficult for them to be permitted in this state. If we cannot develop these facilities, we will continue to put trash in the ground—the least desirable option for all Californians.

While we’ve been waiting for a legislative fix, municipalities continue to be left with the same outdated methods for managing waste in our communities.  What does that look like?  Since the year 2000, Californians have thrown away approximately half a billion tons of trash.

In other words, even after reducing, reusing and recycling over half of the waste we generated, over the last decade we threw away enough trash to fill the renowned Pasadena Rose Bowl nearly 2,000 times over.

Recently, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors took a major step forward in developing conversion technologies in California with its unanimous approval of a motion calling on Sacramento to modernize outdated regulations and develop a friendlier attitude to the development of CT facilities in the state.

And Sacramento itself seems to recognize the role conversion technologies can play in the management of waste.

California Governor Jerry Brown’s office recently expressed its support for establishing a “technology neutral, feedstock-based performance standard” to replace the current unscientific definition written into state law and establish a clearer permit pathway for CTs. Also, in August, the governor adopted a comprehensive BioEnergy Action Plan, collaboratively written by nearly a dozen state environmental and regulatory agencies, that calls for accelerating the production of renewable energy and clean burning fuels from solid waste and other biomass sources in the state.

We are enthusiastic about the opportunity to put these technologies into practice locally and throughout the state. We must continue working in good faith with those in Sacramento and statewide to ensure that the benefits of conversion technologies are available to all Californians.

Let’s find a way forward by developing modern definitions. Let’s work from a factually correct understanding of conversion technologies and a clear-eyed assessment of their importance in a modern, efficient system. Only by working together can we create the most sustainable waste system that respects the environment and economy for all Californians.

[image credit: Floyd B. Bariscale: Flickr cc]

Pat Proano is an Assistant Deputy Director at the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, overseeing the Department’s Environmental Programs Division. A 30-year veteran of Los Angeles County, Proano has most recently been at the forefront of the County’s efforts at integrating Conversion Technologies into the municipal waste system.

This is part of a series of articles by MBA students at California College of the Arts dMBA program. Follow along here.

By Alex M. Vazquez

It just happens. Amidst all of the meetings, managing a department, and cutting costs in a struggling economy, a key employee just resigns.   A slight panic ensues as the search begins to find and train a replacement as quickly as possible. And in the meantime, I must take on the extra workload created by the employee’s absence. I find myself asking, “Was there anything I could have done differently to avoid this situation?”

Turnover has high costs that range from 10 to 30 percent of the employee’s annual salary. The costs are both direct expenses such as recruiting and the expense of the loss of productivity and institutional knowledge.

There is a wide array of both articulated and unarticulated reasons why someone leaves their job. Managers who focus on development and training their successors at every opportunity can avoid many of these reasons.  These are the managers who see a thriving employee as someone who can be trusted and trained to take on new responsibilities and potentially move into a management position. They build skills and leadership training into their daily interactions with staff. The impact of this perspective on culture can be immense, as staff will know they are highly valued by both their manager and the company. It enables a culture of ongoing learning, innovation, and teambuilding, which is vital to a sustainable workplace. By empowering staff through training and developing new skills, companies can retain high performing, loyal staff and avoid the high costs of recruiting and training a new employee.

When managers are exposed to this perspective, the first response may be a combination of, “How do I keep my highly trained staff from leaving or what if they take my job?” Of course, there is no way of ensuring that an employee will not leave the company, but by implementing the practice of training your successor, you can ensure the company has a strong pool of employees to pull from, in the event a position becomes available. You will not be left wondering how you are going to fit an entire recruitment and training cycle into your already busy workday, because you will already know of internal candidates that are qualified for the job. As for the concern of someone replacing you – don’t forget that as you train someone in a job or skill that you possess, it allows you to show your ability at developing high functioning staff and opens you up to gaining additional skills as you will have more time to pursue those opportunities, for your own development and for the company’s growth.

What would it look like if your managers had created a culture of training a successor at every opportunity?  What would it have looked like for you in that position and for the company?  This level of investment into staff will be reciprocated either by successful staff performance or by establishing a reputation of a culture of development, which will be highly sought after by job seekers. By training your successor, it will increase the productivity, skill and innovation of your workforce, allow you to better retain top talent, and give you a faster, more effective response mechanism to change

By Gia Machlin

It’s that time of year when we look back and reflect on the past year and make silly lists.  Well this list is far from silly – it is quite sobering news for many of us to accept.  In 2012, climate change came to the forefront.  Here are 5 reasons why:

5) 2012 was the hottest year on record.   

A December 2012 report by the independent non profit organization Climate Central states: “There is a 99.99999999 percent chance that 2012 will be the hottest year ever recorded in the continental 48 states, based on our analysis of 118 years of temperature records through Dec. 10, 2012.”  Not that we won’t see more days with below freezing temperatures and chilling winds, but those days are becoming less frequent.  While this is good news for those that hate the cold, it is bad news for the planet, as sea levels rise and arctic habitats disappear.

4) Politicians are starting to notice.

Other than the quite embarrassing absence of any mention of climate change in the presidential debates this fall, more leaders in business, politics, and the media are bringing this issue to the forefront. Eight out of ten companies are incorporating climate change into their business agenda and organizations including the World Bank, the American Meteorological Society, and even the head of the world’s largest mining company, Australian BHP Billiton, have issued statements regarding the reality and threat of climate change.  Governor Cuomo, Mayor Bloomberg, other political leaders are also making climate change preparation a top policy issue.

3) This summer the US suffered from the worst drought in the last 50 years.

Unfortunately, climate scientists predict that droughts like this one and the ones seen in the last few years around the world will become more common. Thinking beyond the financial impact of the drought on farmers, and our own pockets, the increased crop prices will have “severe consequences on the precarious lives and livelihoods of people in poverty” according to Oxfam.  This will lead to spreading food unrest and ultimately political instability much quicker then we expect, according to the experts.  Sounds pretty grim.

2) The Ski Industry is noticing

A 2012 NRDC report concluded that the U.S. ski industry loses close to $1.7 billion in revenue and 13,000 jobs in years with lower snowfall. This one is very near and dear to my heart.  My 14 year old son and 9 year old daughter participate in the ski teams and training programs at Mount Snow, Vermont (from where I am writing this post).  I’d say just about nothing makes my son happier than his time on the ski slopes.  He is only interested in going to college near a ski resort.  According to this report, the average number of days with snow cover in the Northeast will decrease by 50% to 75% in the coming years.  Will my son move to Alaska?  Are there non-stop flights from NYC?

And the number one reason 2012 was the year that made us pay attention to climate change is:

1) Hurricane Sandy

Hurricane Sandy devastated the mighty Big Apple and made us all stand up and pay attention. Climate scientists have long been warning us that much of Manhattan will be under water by the end of the century.  On October 29, 2012, we saw that begin to unfold in front of our eyes.  And while New Yorkers have a wonderful sense of community and resilience in times of crisis, many of us remain sheltered from the impacts of weather events, living in our high rises and ordering sushi to our hearts’ delight.  In the days after the hurricane, when many people in the tri-state area were without power, suffering from water and wind damage, and much worse, those of us who were lucky enough to remain unscathed watched from our living rooms as our neighbors suffered endlessly.  And excuse me if I sound cynical, but while we felt sadness and did what we could to help those in need, we also had to deal with our own major inconveniences such as no mass transportation, no school, very few restaurants, cars under water at downtown garages, and the like.  Climate change finally hit the 1%, and could no longer be ignored as something that affects “the rest of the world.”

For those passionate about the environment and optimistic about the potential for partnerships between businesses and NGOs, last week’s tragic death of Rebecca Tarbotton marks a tragic start to 2013. The Executive Director of Rainforest Action Network (RAN) died in a freak accident last Wednesday at a beach north of Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. Tarbotton was 39.

For many of the environmental movement’s most passionate advocates and true believers, Tarbotton’s ascent to head of RAN was inspirational. While young women have long been in the trenches fighting for environmental justice, climate change awareness and the need for a cleaner and greener economy, the leadership at many large environmental organizations did not reflect the troops fighting at the community level. Therefore, Tarbotton’s appointment as head of RAN in 2010, after three years at the organization, was a huge milestone.

Tarbotton’s activism hardly stopped once she took RAN’s helm. She was among the 1200 arrested for protesting in front of the White House against the Keystone Pipeline. She was also vehement in her opposition to mountaintop removal (MTR) of coal, speaking out at Bank of America shareholders meeting. Her leadership in this fight had a role in convincing several banks, including BofA, to develop policies limiting the finance of companies involved in MTR mining.

Her greatest achievement, however, was reaching a remarkable agreement with Disney. After 18 months of negotiations between RAN and Tarbotton, the media and entertainment giant agreed to cease procuring paper from endangered forests in Indonesia and elsewhere for the company’s entire operations. As Danny Kennedy, an entrepreneur and activist said to Forbes in an email, “Disney execs danced for her, timber tycoons ran from RAN because of her.” Not even Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) and its well funded public relations machine could cower Tarbotton: after Disney became yet another corporate domino that cut ties with APP, the paper company’s communications department meekly announced it would provide RAN any information the NGO requested.

Rebecca Tarbotton is survived by her husband, Mateo Williford, her brothers Jess and Cameron and her mother, Mary Tarbotton. Public memorial services in San Francisco and her native British Columbia are pending. She leaves behind an incredible legacy of dedication and pragmatism, unbridled optimism and enormous shoes that will not be soon filled.

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: Rainforest Action Network