Search

Submitted by Earth Share

By Kal Stein, President & CEO, EarthShare

There are many issues affecting our planet and our daily lives, and many ways of dealing with them. Consider the issue of climate change, for example. Not only are there a number of suggestions and initiatives to mitigate its effects, there are also those who deny that it is even taking place, and yet others who would insist that it is not a man-made dilemma.

As I made clear in a recent post, the need for reliable environmental information from viable sources is incredibly important -- a fact that places companies in a unique position as 'gatekeepers' that can connect their employees with information and organizations they may otherwise have never known about. Once employees get involved in projects and causes that matter to them, they also become more engaged within the workplace.  This can reap serious benefits for employers.

So what are some of those issues and -- more importantly -- what kind of information does it take to encourage employees to step across the threshold from interested non-participants to active participants?

At EarthShare, our goal is to be a trustworthy partner that facilitates the process of introducing new audiences to and connecting them with America's most respected environmental and conservation charities. Because we are committed to providing the information our partners and supporters need to make educated decisions about where to give their support, our list of concerns is more than just a pet project: it's a snapshot of the most pressing environmental issues we face as a society. 

Here are a select few that every employee – and employer – can relate to:

1. Making our Businesses Greener

Not all philanthropic efforts are about charitable giving. Often, they're about changing our own behaviors and those of the people around us. With companies now starting to see the value of being green, sustainability officers have become almost ubiquitous.

Natural resources are becoming scarce and costly; simultaneously, customers, employees and investors are increasingly environmentally conscious. As the benefits become more apparent (and the alternatives more untenable), our member organizations are working with business and industry in a variety of ways to help them strengthen their commitment to sustainability.

It is no longer debatable that championing sustainability allows businesses to align deeply with their missions and engage customers on a more meaningful level. More and more companies are opening up the responsibility for sustainability to green teams, usually comprised of employee champions across the organization with often very varied skill sets.

One of the ways we support our partners is by convening Green Team Roundtables in major markets across the country to bring sustainability and environmental leaders together to share ideas, educate each other and discuss challenges and roadblocks in a private forum. (Watch for more on this in a later post.) The attractiveness of a private forum in a socially and digitally connected world is appealing for our partners and aligns well with our mission of educating them and learning from each others’ skills and perspectives.

2. Climate Change

Of all the issues out there, climate change is easily the most contentious.

There’s probably no other environmental issue today that has so much misperception surrounding it, and such a range of people and organizations lined up to deny that it exists. That denialism and obfuscation has significantly affected our society’s ability to meet the challenge head-on is one of the main reasons that organizations like EarthShare are a critical part of connecting people with authentic, accurate information.

Part of our role is to work with our vetted member organizations and other reliable sources to provide information and resources that inform current and potential supporters about the latest research in the field, the organizations that are leading the way in finding solutions, and providing them with effective ways to make a difference. Our workplace partners consistently tell us that these resources are invaluable in motivating employees, encouraging workplace giving and shifting the mindset on critical issues and behaviors.

How can a business-to-business organization place water efficiency in business terms for example? And how is deforestation affecting a manufacturer's long-term business plan and new markets? Why should a healthcare company invest in planting trees in China or working with farmers in Rwanda on clean technology and efficient resource allocation?

All these questions are connected to climate change but hard to connect to a business' bottom line without extensive research, measurement and projections. EarthShare’s program connects businesses and workforces with organizations working to address these gaps, and to support their sustainable development efforts while helping them make a difference.

3. Children’s Health and the Environment

While the connection between obesity and the environment may not be immediately apparent, it is a strong one. Obesity is a defining challenge of our age and one that touches a range of societal issues, from the cost and availability of healthcare to food production and marketing practices. When you consider that obesity now affects 17 percent of all children and adolescents in America and that this is triple the rate from just one generation ago, it is clear that the place to begin fighting it is in childhood. This means modified diets and behavioral changes that include, of course, increased physical activity. 

The need for healthy and safe places for kids to recreate outdoors – such as community parks and playgrounds -- could not be more essential to this equation. And in urban environments and lower income communities where fresh air and green space may be in short supply, it’s even more necessary.

On the flipside, however, while getting children off the computer and outside is a worthwhile goal, it can be counterproductive if their outdoor environment exposes them to harmful toxins. Exposure to certain pesticides, for instance, has been linked to lasting health problems in children, including asthma, preadolescent breast cancer, diabetes, leukemia, obesity, organ defects, autism and more.

One of the most likely places a child will encounter pesticides is at school: on sports fields, playgrounds, and even in classrooms. Children are more vulnerable to chemicals like pesticides than any other age group, and even low levels of chemicals are dangerous because of their developing organs and high metabolisms.

Building awareness and implementing programs that offer safe alternatives to harmful chemicals is an important challenge that several of our member charities focus on every day through their mission work.

Incidentally, one of the factors that affects giving and philanthropy is a strong sense of connection to the local community. Connecting with EarthShare member organizations working to develop and protect parks and playgrounds, as well as protect our children in their school environments, is an easy way to unite cause with passion.

4. Wildlife Protection

With the risks to our planet's wildlife increasing in recent years, it is no longer just man's best friend that needs protection. In the aftermath of environmental disasters such as the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, for instance, species including marine life are developing deformities, shifting the ecosystem, and even becoming extinct. Whether we’re talking about pollination or pest reduction, or regulation of prey numbers to maintain the delicate balance necessary for healthy forests and other ecosystems – wildlife occupies a crucial role in our ecology.

From creating safe landing spots for migratory birds and keeping coastal regions habitable for fish stocks, to preventing poaching on the African savanna, the need to protect wildlife is acute and is one that resonates with many people. And, like so many other issues, wildlife protection isn't simply an end in itself. It's an issue that touches everything from the safety of our food supply, to the concept of biodiversity.

While these issues are diverse and only represent a handful of causes being addressed by the environmental and conservation community, they are all issues that can be tackled at local and national levels through community engagement and workplace giving. For companies that want to make a difference and ensure that they fulfill their social license to operate, these issues present opportunities. Which one will you champion?

***************

More: One Environment. One Simple Way to Care for it

Last week, we saw an uproar of protests for and against Chick-fil-A, not because of the company itself, but because of the founder, Dan Cathy’s, position against the legality of gay marriage.  Cathy runs his company based on his religious convictions.  His biblical understanding also informs his position on gay marriage.

Most individuals who advocate for sustainability tend to also be in favor of gay marriage rights, and may even agree with the protest against Cathy and Chick-fil-A.  But what if that same religious conviction inspired action towards environmental sustainability?  How would that change not only what we think of, but whether we do or do not buy from Chick-fil-A?

Setting aside politics
Since there is so much emotion based on the gay marriage political positions, before we digress into Chick-fil-A’s environmental sustainability, we have to acknowledge the elephant in the room, and cast it aside for the moment.

Chick-fil-A has become a symbol to express our political positions on the legality of gay marriage.  Chick-fil-A is not the cause of whether or not gay marriage should be legal, but is a physical manifestation of where folks can show their anger or encouragement for their own cause.

Supporters of the gay marriage position are protesting and boycotting restaurants.  Opposers of the gay marriage position are buying more and more Chick-fil-A, probably more than they would normally.

There are even some folks who support gay marriage, yet do not boycott Chick-fil-A’s because they support of the companies right to free speech.  We have to cast these debates aside to give Chick-fil-A a fair assessment on what they are doing for the environment, and why they are doing it.

Caring for the environment
For some of us, we are stewards of the environment for the sake of the planet itself.  For other folks, we are custodian to terra firma for the benefit of people.  Perhaps some folks do it because it will make them great profit.

And yet other folks are caretakers of the earth based on biblical or religious values.  Chick-fil-A’s calling for environmental stewardship falls into the biblical or religious values category.

On environmental stewardship, Chick-fil-A writes:

Our Corporate Purpose calls for us to be "a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us" and "to have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A." With this in mind, Chick-fil-A cares about and is committed to being good stewards of the environment, as well as the communities in which we operate.

Environmental sustainability focus areas
Just like any company, there are many areas to cover in sustainability.  Chick-fil-A focuses on four areas:

• sustainable new restaurant development


• energy and water in existing restaurants


• sustainable supply chain


• cup recycling.

Chick-fil-A is breaking ground with a LEED® Gold certified restaurant in Montgomery Plaza, Fort Worth, Texas.  The company is using this restaurant as a test case, and if it is successful, plans to build more LEED restaurants in the future.  Let’s pray that all their new restaurants meet the LEED standard.

At the same time, Chick-fil-A is retrofitting existing restaurants, which include more efficient lighting and refrigeration, as well as water faucet restrictors.

Similar to what Walmart has done with their suppliers, Chick-fil-A has “asked [their] suppliers to join us on our environmental stewardship journey.”  The details of such efforts are not listed, but it would be interesting to see what innovations come from a restaurant supply chain partnership.  Could Chick-fil-A be the Walmart of restaurant supply chains?

One thing we may call a red flag on the first one cup recycling, because Chick-fil-A uses foam cups.  Yes, foam cups are recyclable (and some paper cups are not recyclable) as Chick-fil-A claims.  But, there are some challenges to recycling foam cups, such as demand for recycled polystyrene.

For a company whose business isn't in sustainability, these is a pretty good effort towards environmental sustainability.

To support or not?
What do you think of Chick-fil-A’s environmental sustainability efforts?  What is the reason you are a steward for the environment?  If a company is adamantly against your political position, yet for your environmental position, do you support or boycott that company?

Image credit: Mike Mozart/Flickr

Submitted by Beth Busenhart

By Beth Busenhart and Flory Wilson (pictured)

As we continue to explore the co-mingled flavors in the alphabet soup of impact investing, anyone familiar with the concept of Morningstar investment rankings or Capital IQ financial analytics will identify the role of GIIRS Ratings & Analytics (“GIIRS”) immediately.

When trying to decide where to invest money, there is no shortage of options in the marketplace. From mutual funds to private equity, the universe is diverse, and each category offers a systematic way for investors to evaluate vehicles, largely based on financial performance. Impact investing should be no different, however, the evaluation should also include an assessment of social and environmental impact, such as the number of housing units built, children fed or seats opened in schools.

GIIRS Ratings & Analytics provides a methodology for evaluating investment opportunities within the category of impact investing. The GIIRS Impact Ratings and Analytics platform work in tandem to gather and make available meaningful data that can be used to compare and contrast investment options in the impact space.

To achieve true blended value, it is not enough for an investment portfolio to show only a financial return alongside an annual report filled with anecdotal information on social benefits, perhaps in the form of a corporate social responsibility report or similar. To get the clearest picture of impact and deliver a “wow” factor to stakeholders, an investment portfolio ideally should demonstrate that financial return is a direct result of a socially responsible business model delivering profitability through sustainable practices.  

What is a GIIRS Impact Rating and how does it work to evaluate impact?

For impact investing to achieve credibility as an asset class, investors need a reliable way to compare investment opportunities and measure the performance of a fund’s portfolio over time. To meet this need, GIIRS has built a rigorous assessment process for both companies and funds. Data is self-reported by companies and reviewed by a third-party verification service provider, Deloitte & Touche, before a company can receive a rating.

Fund ratings include a weighted average of underlying portfolio companies as well as an assessment of the fund managers themselves. A GIIRS Impact Rating includes an overall rating and impact area (Governance, Workers, Community, Environment) ratings as well as key performance indicators (KPIs) specific to the industry in which the company operates, geography, size and mission. Roughly 30 of the KPIs included in the GIIRS Impact Assessment are from the IRIS taxonomy, and throughout the assessment, IRIS definitions are utilized to ensure compliance with the impact industry standard language.

GIIRS Analytics provide a logical extension of the GIIRS Impact Ratings by making collected data and KPI information available to the investment community for due diligence, advanced reporting and benchmarking.

GIIRS, IRIS and PULSE: Competitive or Complementary?

With the availability of GIIRS for entering data and receiving ratings, the IRIS taxonomy for using a standard language on impact performance and publishing impact data reports, and PULSE for collecting, tracking and reporting impact data, some companies and funds may wonder if these tools represent competing solutions for the industry.

  Depending on the needs and goals of the company or fund, there is a business case for an organization to employ one or all of the tools. They do work in a complementary way to fill different needs at different times. While the value proposition may seem nuanced now, it will become clearer how each product serves a specific niche as the industry scales.

Consider how GIIRS supports the standards defined by the IRIS taxonomy but has a market based strategy at its core. A stated goal of GIIRS is to drive capital to impact investments. The role GIIRS plays in this process is to provide a comprehensive, comparable and verified measure of positive social and environmental impact for funds and companies and an analytics platform that allows investors and fund managers to manage and benchmark across a broad portfolio of impact data, create customized reporting, and screen mission-aligned companies and funds.

Separately, IRIS provides a foundation for measuring and demonstrating impact by identifying and defining standards for the industry. But IRIS also releases a data report.

So how is it different?

The IRIS data report is a performance analysis for the impact investing industry made up of aggregate data anonymously contributed by organizations. The purpose of this report is to provide insight into the overall performance of specific sectors of the industry from an impact standpoint.

A common misconception about GIIRS and PULSE is that they are alternative solutions. This could not be further from the truth. PULSE finds its sweet spot as an internal management tool for collecting, tracking and reporting on impact data. This is different from GIIRS, which provides the means for a company or fund manager to make the results of mission driven work available in a transparent manner by obtaining a rating and benchmarking performance against peer organizations in the same sector, geography and size.

Using PULSE as the basis for its internal technology strategy around impact management, a fund manager or company will be in a position to leverage the wealth of data across an entire portfolio of projects or products. This will allow for better decision making with regard to new investments or strategic direction.  

As part of ongoing efforts to educate on these tools, it is important to keep in mind that impact investing, as an industry, is in its infancy. Early adopters and thought leaders are feeling their way to make a case for the power of conscious capital. The teams at GIIRS, PULSE and IRIS all believe in the benefits of cooperation and transparency to help bolster the efforts of those doing the hard work for social and environmental change.

Flory Wilson is the director, international for GIIRS at B Lab. She joined B Lab in April 2010, working on the core team that has launched the Global Impact Investing Rating System (GIIRS) Ratings & Analytics. Flory chairs the Emerging Markets Standards Advisory Council that crafted the GIIRS rating methodology and led a beta-test of the GIIRS assessment in early 2011 that involved over 200 companies and 25 leading impact investing funds in 30 different countries. Flory also focuses on business development; working with emerging market based mission-driven enterprises, investment vehicles and impact investors who are using GIIRS Ratings & Analytics, and GIIRS' communications efforts. Flory can be reached at fwilson@giirs.org.

Presidio Graduate School’s Macroeconomics course for Spring 2012 is authoring a series of articles. The articles on this “micro-blog” reflect reactions and thoughts on news items, economic theory, and other issues as they pertain to the concept of sustainability. Follow along here.

What if we could increase a nation’s GDP by anywhere from 3-16 percent by making one tiny change? What if we could increase crop yields by 20-30 percent and reduce the number of hungry people around the globe by 12-17 percent? What would you say to increasing household incomes by 25 percent by making the same small change?

The change is investing in women. When 10 percent more girls go to school, a country’s GDP can be expected to rise by 3 percent on average, while reducing barriers to females entering the work force in the US, Europe, and Japan could lead to a GDP increase of up to 16 percent. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization notes that if women have the same access to land and resources as men, their crops can be far more productive, reducing the number of hungry in the world by up to 150 million and helping to achieve Millennium Development Goal One to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.

In North Africa and the Middle East, studies show that increasing women in the workforce could dramatically bolster household incomes, and as a result change expenditure patterns (more on food and education, less on alcohol and tobacco) and improve child survival rates, nutrition, and educational attainment. Investing in women is not a new phenomenon, but it is one that is gaining traction.

The case for investing in women has been made; 90 percent of women’s income is reinvested in their families as opposed to upwards of only 40 percent of men's income. Women invest in their communities, which leads to increased financial growth and social opportunities for members of those communities. Although the female participation in the labor force has risen over time for all income levels, there is still a large gender discrimination gap for women the world over, particularly in developing countries. As one might imagine, these gender gaps are the most prevalent for the very poorest women in the poorest of nations. In Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of South Asia, school enrollment for girls is on par with that of American girls in back in 1810.

Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen has drawn attention to gender inequity in the developing world, and holds that women and girls are key to solving global poverty. These gaps can be bridged through direct microfinance loans made to women in poor countries. Institutions such as the Grameen Bank have been investing in women since the 1970s, which as of October 2011 had over 8 million female borrowers in rural Bangladesh (despite the controversy surrounding founder Muhammad Yunus).

Women’s WorldBanking, for example, has been encouraging women’s access to finances and participation in their economies since 1979 by offering a network of 39 financial institutions from 27 countries to help women start their own businesses. The Kiva Foundation strives to alleviate poverty through lending, and also sees microfinance as a way to empower women the world over. Yet another model is Heifer International’s Women in Livestock Development (WiLD) project, which aims to end hunger and poverty by empowering the world’s women through livestock gifts and training.

Four million women who live in low-income countries die every year who would not otherwise if they lived in medium- to high-income countries. These numbers must be brought down - and they can be - through small and simple changes. If we invest in women through microfinance, women have shown that they will re-invest and help bring themselves, their families, communities, and countries into a better financial state.

By investing in women, we can decrease female mortality rates and increase education and income while improving the health and well-being of our communities at large.

Image credit: Tumisu via Pixabay

The core of the Earth, some 4,000 miles beneath its surface, is a fiery morass of superheated gas and molten rock which exists at roughly 7200 degrees Fahrenheit. That temperature is maintained by the decay of radioactive particles located within the Earth’s core. Technically, one could say that geothermal power is a form of nuclear power, though with far different implications from nuclear power as we know it, since these reactions occur in a containment vessel with walls thousands of miles thick. Even so, we still get things like uranium and radon gas, seeping up to the surface.

Moving away from the core, the temperature cools down to the point where it might be 1500 degrees, fifty miles down and 3-400 degrees, three to four miles below the surface. Since the Earth is not at all uniform, these results will vary. There will be some places where the crust is thinner than others, which means the hotter temperatures will be closer to the surface. Hot springs, geysers and, of course, volcanoes can often be found in these places. The Earth’s crust varies from roughly 20 to 40 miles thick as measured from the surface. (It is thinner beneath the sea.)

The amount of thermal energy contained in the Earth’s crust is enormous. Experts estimate it at an equivalent of 79 million billion barrels of oil, or roughly 15,000 times more than estimated worldwide oil reserves. And unlike oil, much of that heat is continually replenished. The hydrothermal resource base (found in hot springs, etc.) has been estimated at 100,000 MW or more.

Geothermal resources vary from location to location, but as new technologies emerge that are capable of utilizing lower temperatures, geothermal power will become more widespread. Iceland, already generates more than 25 percent of its energy from geothermal.

A major new project was recently announced in Kenya.

So how do you produce electricity from this abundant source? It actually almost as simple as drilling a hole in the ground, sending water down, having steam come up and running that steam through a turbine. There are of course many nuances. You can see a nice presentation here.

Geothermal power, like solar thermal power, can also be harnessed for low intensity heat at shallower depths, which can be used for space and water heating and cooling.

So what are some of the pros and cons?

Pros

• Almost entirely emission free


• Zero carbon


• The process can scrub out sulfur that might have otherwise been released


• No fuel required (no mining or transportation)


• Not subject to the same fluctuations as solar or wind


• Smallest land footprint of any major power source


• Virtually limitless supply


• Inherently simple and reliable


• Can provide base load or peak power


• Already cost competitive in some areas


• Could be built underground


• Some level of geothermal energy available most places


• New technologies show promise to utilize lower temperatures

Cons

• Prime sites are very location-specific


• Prime sites are often far from population centers


• Losses due to long distance transmission of electricity


• Water usage


• Sulfur dioxide and silica emissions


• High construction costs


• Drilling into heated rock is very difficult


• Minimum temperature of 350F+  generally required


• Care must be taken to manage heat and not overuse it

All in all, this is a very positive balance. There is certainly a lot of potential here and one would expect to see a growing number of systems emerging around the world in places where the resource is abundant.

***

What about other energy sources?

• Pros and Cons of Wind Power


• Pros and Cons of Fusion Power


• Pros and Cons of Tar sands oil


• Pros and Cons of Solar Heating and Cooling


• Pros and Cons of Concentrating Solar Power


• Pros and Cons of Solar photovoltaics


• Pros and Cons of Natural Gas


• Pros and Cons of Fuel Cell Energy


• Pros and Cons of Biomass Energy


• Pros and Cons of Combined Heat and Power


• Pros and Cons of Clean Coal


• Pros and Cons of Algae Based Biofuel


• Pros and Cons of Liquid Flouride Thorium Power


• Pros and Cons of Tidal Power


• Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy

[Image credit: Eyeline-imagery: Flickr Creative Commons]

RP Siegel, PE, is the President of Rain Mountain LLC. He is also the co-author of 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 year's "Wasting Water is Weird" PSA campaign won the hearts of media insiders because it turned a norm -- freely flowing water -- on its head. Water is ubiquitous when a faucet flows freely and wasting often happens in the privacy of a bathroom or kitchen. What's the most impactful way to get the message through to potentially reluctant customers? Laughter.

The campaign garnered an impressive 432 million impressions - not bad, considering the initial investment from Bosch, Kohler, Lowe's, and P&G was only $600,000.

How did these four groups - competitors in some classes - ever manage to join together to produce any kind of public service announcement? Let alone one as risqué as that with creepy Rip as its spokesperson?

The answer comes from Suzanne Shelton, President and CEO of The Shelton Group, the developers of the concept and content. Shelton spoke at Sustainable Brands 2012.

The Shelton Group, a sustainable research and production firm, developed the campaign pro bono while the brands put up the production funds. The partnership began with the problem: water shortages and a lack of awareness about the need to conserve water. The brands involved assumed that consumers were wasting water because they didn't know any better. The project started with the assumption that Americans just need to better understand the vital importance of water conservation.

The Shelton Group did some research and discovered that in many cases people do know that they need to conserve water - but that fact alone didn't change their behavior. As Shelton said, "Shorter showers are not awesome." It takes more than knowledge to change behavior because change can be uncomfortable.

People needed to be pushed out of their comfort zone in order to be moved to act. The Shelton Group proposed a challenging shift in the project goals: rather than focusing on awareness-building, the campaign would focus on behavior change. The path to behavior change involves four steps: move people from automatic behaviors to conscious choices, make the problem visual (visuals are very compelling motivators), make the problem uncomfortable enough to change, and give people a specific simple action.

Twenty-two percent of people are actively engaged in green and sustainable behaviors, and the Shelton Group figured that if they could be made aware that their behaviors were not matching their values, they might have a shot at changing their behavior. But that meant making people a bit uncomfortable. Hence, Rip was born.

Shelton wasn't sure if the brands involved would stick around after they heard about the shifting goals and the new campaign spokesman, a creepy guy. But, in fact, the collaboration encouraged everyone to stay on board.

When brands collaborate, it's possible to take greater creative risks
Because there were multiple brands participating, they were able to share the risk of producing an off-color ad campaign. Says Shelton, "Rip was a risk – suddenly the risk was spread among multiple brands so it was easier to buy in." Rather than creating infighting, the collaboration allowed the groups to share responsibility - and blame - if there was negative feedback.

There were also a number of other lessons learned:

Brands can make a bigger impact together
This campaign generated hundreds of millions of impressions and continues to receive online views, said Shelton. "Just imagine if Lowe's had taken their $100k and tried to make a difference, they would have had a much smaller impact."

Innovative brand integration
The Water is Weird spots didn't draw attention to their sponsors at all - they didn't even include logos. The brands get their chance to engage through the Water is Weird homepage. Rip has his own Facebook page and Twitter feed, which allowed the brands to interact with Rip and make suggestions like water-saving faucets.

Here's a look at one of their spots:

http://youtu.be/-I1oyppakM0

Day and night, the vast waters of the ocean press and recede along the shorelines of Earth’s every continent in accordance to the celestial movements of our planet in relation to the sun and the moon. This tidal movement is particularly pronounced in certain areas, like the Bay of Fundy, for example, where Spring tides can reach a height of 50 feet or more.

Innovators have long recognized the potential to capture great quantities of clean, free energy from these tides that can be used to spin turbines and readily produce electricity. Records of ocean power conversion date back to 900A.D. where the power of tidal movement was used to grind grains. The first modern commercial tidal power was installed off the coast of St. Malo, in Northern France. Installed in 1965, it has been operating continuously since then, producing 240 MW with every tide. This plant operates using a tidal barrage, which is a type of dam that closes off a basin with gates, captures the tidal flow, then releases it back through a turbine. This is still the most common type of tidal plant in use today, though there are two other types: the tidal fences and tidal turbines.

Tidal fences block a channel directing the tidal flow through turbines that are contained within the fence.

Tidal turbines are freestanding machines that can be thought of as underwater wind turbines, spinning as the tidal flow moves past them.

Because these are purely mechanical device, with no boiling fluids or heat transfer required, efficiencies are quite high, generally in the neighborhood of 80%. Unlike solar and wind, the power coming from these systems is quite predictable, though, like those other renewables, it is also not continuous. They only generate power during tidal surges which occur roughly 10 hours per day. The other issue is the ecologically sensitive areas where these turbines are often placed. Their impacts on biodiversity in fragile coastal ecosystems, while not always completely understood, can often be quite harmful. Let’s rack up the pluses and minuses.

Tidal Power Pros and Cons

Pros

• Renewable. Requires no fuel.


• Emission-free


• Reliable, a plant can last 100 years


• High efficiency


• Predictable output


• Could potentially provide a storm surge barrier.


• Environmental impacts are local, not global

Cons

• Expensive to build


• Very location specific (only 20 sites identified with high potential)


• Non-continuous, storage or grid-backup required


• Locations are often remote


• Barrages may restrict access to open water


• Can change tidal level of surrounding area


• Impact on fish, marine mammals and birds


• Disrupts regular tidal cycles


• Decreases salinity in tidal basins


• Mud flats (where many birds feed) adversely impacted


• Captures dirt, waste and pollution near the coast


• Reduces kinetic energy in the ocean

 

As you can see, tidal power can be expected to play a small, yet not insignificant role in the overall renewable energy ensemble. It has been estimated that it could potentially produce 20% of Britain’s electricity. More research is required to understand how best to tap this resource with minimal environmental harm. Cost also remains a barrier at the moment, but that could change, either through product innovation, or through price increases in other sources. The baseline technology is basically the same as what was used in the 60's which suggests that there are opportunities for innovation. Indeed, Rolls-Royce recently announced a 500 kW tidal stream plant, a type of tidal turbine that has become operational at a test facility, 40 meters deep off the cost of Scotland. Deployed last June it had already delivered 100MWh as of October.

***

What about other energy sources?

• Pros and Cons of Wind Power


• Pros and Cons of Fusion Power


• Pros and Cons of Tar sands oil


• Pros and Cons of Solar Heating and Cooling


• Pros and Cons of Concentrating Solar Power


• Pros and Cons of Solar photovoltaics


• Pros and Cons of Natural Gas


• Pros and Cons of Fuel Cell Energy


• Pros and Cons of Biomass Energy


• Pros and Cons of Combined Heat and Power


• Pros and Cons of Clean Coal


• Pros and Cons of Algae Based Biofuel


• Pros and Cons of Liquid Flouride Thorium Power


• Pros and Cons of Tidal Power


• Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy

[Image credit: rickz: Flickr Creative Commons]

 

RP Siegel, PE, is the President of Rain Mountain LLC. He is also the co-author of 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.

Originally Posted on EcoSalon

By Jessica Marati
For some, Whole Foods is a god-send – a convenient, well-stocked supermarket filled with a trustworthy, if somewhat overpriced, mix of natural and organic foods. For others, Whole Foods is a symbol of capitalism's ills, a cornerstone of the “Industrialized Organic” complex that is contributing to the death of the small farmer.

Most people I know lie somewhere in the middle: they can’t deny the appeal of a one-stop-shop for their healthy yuppie lifestyles, but they’re skeptical of how conscience-friendly a company can be once it’s grown into a publicly traded corporation. In this week’s Behind the Label, we take a look at the good and the bad of Whole Foods, with a particular focus on its in-house 365 Everyday Value^® brand.

If you’re a natural foodie on a budget, you’re probably familiar with 365 Everyday Value, which encompasses a range of products from butter to body wash to balsamic vinegar. 365 products tend to be basic in nature and cheaper than their shelf-mates. But how trust-worthy are they?

The Good
Whole Foods had a humble start as a small natural foods store in Austin, Texas, started by 25-year-old college drop-out (and current CEO) John Mackey, his then-girlfriend Rene Lawson, and a staff of 19. Today, Whole Foods is a publicly-traded company with more than 310 stores in the U.S. and United Kingdom and plans for aggressive expansion in secondary markets over the next decade.

In addition to stocking a wide variety of organic, natural, and locally-sourced foods, Whole Foods also offers a number of generic products under its 365 Everyday Value^® brand, which claims to “fill your pantry without emptying your pocketbook.” All 365 products are either certified organic or enrolled in the Non-GMO Project, which verifies that genetically modified organisms are not present in the product. As mentioned in the recent article Behind the Label on Kashi, verification from the Non-GMO Project can be difficult given the preponderance of genetically engineered crops in America, so Whole Foods’ commitment to this issue is worth noting.

Whole Foods has also been a heavy proponent of GMO labeling, a popular topic in the natural foods community.

Our goal at Whole Foods Market is to provide informed consumer choice with regard to genetically engineered ingredients (also known as GMOs or Genetically Modified Organisms). Clearly labeled products enable shoppers who want to avoid foods made with GMOs to do so.

In addition to its stance on GMO transparency, Whole Foods’ quality standards have been recognized as being among the top in the industry, and the company maintains a list of “unacceptable ingredients,” which it says will never appear on its shelves.

 

The Bad
The 365 Everyday Value^® brand's reputation hasn’t always been so squeaky clean. In 2008, a television report from WJLA in Washington, DC, questioned if consumers can trust Whole Foods 365 organic products if the label says that they are made in China. Standards are more lax in China, and the distance these products travels lessens the environmental benefit of choosing organic.

http://youtu.be/JQ31Ljd9T_Y

In a detailed rebuttal to WJLA, Whole Foods' Organic Certification Coordinator Joe Dickson said that products from China can absolutely be certified organic. In the rebuttal, Dickson points out that USDA organic certification measures food integrity regardless of where in the world crops are grown.

 

Whole Foods Market is a pioneer in promoting and selling natural and organic foods and we have done more in our history as a company to promote and build organics than any other retailer … This is not “selling an image;” this is actually making sure that every one of our 275 stores is operating in compliance with the National Organic Standards and upholding organic integrity in everything they do.

 

Whole Foods’ assurances have done little to appease foods activists like the Organic Consumers Association, which picketed a Chicago Whole Foods in 2011 for selling genetically modified brands like Tofutti, Kashi, and Boca Burgers.

The Questionable
Whole Foods has taken major strides toward offering organic and GMO-free products at reasonable prices, particularly with its 365 Everyday Value^® line. But naturally, the company’s growth and success have earned it many critics, including author and food activist Michael Pollan, who associated Whole Foods with what he calls “Industrialized Organic” in his popular book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Whole Foods CEO John Mackey responded to Pollan's claims in an open letter:

I am not sure if merely because of our size and success Whole Foods Market deserves the pejorative label “Big Organic” or “Industrial Organic,” or even to be linked to those categories. I would argue instead that organic agriculture owes much of its growth and success over the past 20 years to Whole Foods Market’s successful growth and commitment to organic. As an organization we continually challenge ourselves to be responsible and ethical tenants of the planet. Through our stores, large and small organic farmers, both local and international, can offer their products to an increasingly educated population that is more interested in organics every day.

 

Pollan, who professes much respect for Mackey and Whole Foods, responded:

After visiting a great many large organic farms to research my book, many of them your suppliers, it seems to me undeniable that organic agriculture has industrialized over the past few years, and that Whole Foods has played a part in that process–for good and for ill … And as I tried to make clear in my account of the organic industry, much is gained when organic gets big … But surely we can recognize all these important gains without turning a blind eye to the costs: the sacrifice of small farmers and of some of the founding principles of organic farming (its commitment to polyculture, for example; to “whole” rather than highly processed foods; to social and economic sustainability, etc.)

 

It all seems to trace back to the big corporation/small business dilemma: do you buy your organic kale and locally-harvested honey at the strip mall supermarket, or do you support your local farmers and neighborhood natural foods store? If price wasn't an inhibitor, I'm sure most conscious consumers would go with the second option.

But even on Whole Foods' shelves that conundrum exists. Buy the locally-sourced salad dressing for $13.99, or the generic 365 version for $3.99? The up-and-coming fair trade brand body lotion for $15, or the 365 cream for $5?

While I appreciate the lower-priced options, I can’t help but notice a disconnect. If Whole Foods wants to truly support local farmers and small businesses, the company should stop undercutting their offerings with its lower-priced, mass-produced, 365-branded items.

***

EcoSalon is the web's leading conscious culture and fashion publication for women. Featuring style, design, life and culture, the arts, food, sex and relationships, EcoSalon is the first and finest general interest website for the modern green woman.

SEE ALSO:

Behind the Label: The Kashi Controversy

Behind the Label: McDonald’s See What We’re Made Of Campaign

Behind the Label: Chipotle, Food With Integrity

Check out all Behind the Label columns here.

Image credit: Flickr/Mike Mozart

Presidio Graduate School’s Macroeconomics course for Spring 2012, is authoring a series of articles. The articles on this “micro-blog” reflect reactions and thoughts on news items, economic theory, and other issues as they pertain to the concept of sustainability.  Follow along here.

By Nick Sanderson

Water scarcity is a global reality — nearly half of the world’s population will suffer from severe water shortages by the year 2050 and over $335 billion in investment over the next twenty years is needed to maintain our current drinking water infrastructure.

The distribution of water throughout the world is inefficient and new market tools are being developed to address the issues revolving around water rights and allocation.  In the United States, water rights and allocation limits are assigned in a “first-in-time, first-in-right” method where property owners are allowed to withdraw a percentage of water each year because they happen to be “the first ones to spot it.” Critics argue that water right allocation laws do not create any incentives for conservation efforts and some still have clauses built in that require holders to withdraw the maximum amount of water allocated or lose their rights entirely.

An alternative to traditional water tariff scheduling is being developed throughout the world to address these issues of inefficiency and is pricing water relative to supply and demand. The most established market exists today (and has so for over 20 years) in the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia. It is here that the country’s National Water Initiative has created permanent and seasonal water allocations that can be traded through water brokers when amounts are in excess of demand. The price at which it can be traded depends, of course, on the demand for the water and relevant market forces. This model places a more desirable price on water and “punishes” major consumers who cannot take the necessary measures to curb consumption. The efficiency of the water trading market is such that the initial price for water will be equalized throughout the community of consumers, but the marginal price for water during the secondary trade will fall along every consumer's individual demand curve.  This will force users to shift resources from low value activities to high value activities and in turn give a more economically viable price to water.

In the United States today, there are a host of water market programs that differ slightly from the Australian precedent, and one in particular, payments for watershed services (PWS), has gained significant traction in protecting valuable watersheds throughout the U.S. but the coordination required to combine the 81 active market-based water management programs throughout the country is difficult.

Ecosystem Marketplace estimates that over $10 trillion in water transfers occur each year impacting 3.24 billion hectares of wetland ecosystems. A new program developed by Ecosystem Marketplace has attempted to coordinate all the existing water trading markets into one dashboard called the Watershed Connect and has been operating for three years now.  Additionally, the USDA just announced on May 25^th that it will launch the Water Quality Network in September, a program designed to target companies creating impactful water market changes and support them through federal grants.

Sprinklers running in the middle of the day and people hosing down sidewalks will be a figment of the past if true pricing water markets develop throughout the world.  If one traces the evolution of energy markets from transaction costs to true costs they can see that the ability to provide clean, reliable sources of energy is dependent upon the reduction in consumption.  One reduction method in the case of water is to establish a market for water that can respond to supply and demand and make consumers choose between wasteful practices and conservation.

We've partnered with AHA!, a creative communications firm, to deliver this series on CR communications. Throughout the series, we'll explore why your company's CR communications plan should go beyond the CSR report and give you tools to keep communication flowing all year long. 

In an earlier post, Christian Hicks, Creative Director of Corporate Responsibility at AHA! listed seven signs he uses to determine if a company has a great CSR report including simplicity, engagement, trustworthiness, and a positive forecast.

Many reports are released every year, and, according to GreenBiz and Ernst & Young, the number is growing. Here are ten reports that impressed our TriplePundit writers. To Hicks’ list, we’ll add our own signs, ranging from innovation to interactivity to arresting visuals to positive, proven results. Not coincidentally, many of the companies that generated these creative accountings are strong CSR leaders themselves, although a few on the list might surprise you.

1. Nike. Veteran writer Leon Kaye, who has reviewed several reports on this list, called Nike’s 2011 report, “quite possibly one of the most compelling and engaging I have ever come across.” Although aesthetics couldn’t hide some of the issues Nike admitted to in the pages, like excessive overtime and hazardous chemical management, Kaye ultimately gave this report a big thumbs up for innovation, education, and how it managed to “bring sustainability alive,” using demonstrations and accessible language to engage users.


2. Patagonia. It’s no surprise to find Patagonia on this list as the company has long been a CSR trailblazer. Patagonia goes far beyond a simple report to demonstrate its commitment to CSR. This year alone it has stood at the front of the line to register as a B corp, told customers to consume less, and most recently, released The Footprint Chronicles, tracking its product materials from cradle to consumer. Simply putting the name Patagonia on any CSR report is guaranteed to inspire trust, show positive results and look forward to the next groundbreaking goal.


3. Seventh Generation. Its 2008 report was named Best Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise SME report by Ceres, and its 2009 report pleased Deborah Fleischer by being entirely web-based and interactive. However, as with Nike, we aren’t fooled by a little fun. Seventh Generation’s reports also deliver solid data on its goals, clear measurement, transparency and the ability to drill down into the details.


4. Coca Cola Enterprises. Not to be confused with Coca-Cola, CCE is its European bottling cousin, who, last year, released a CSR report that is not only “chock full of case studies and human interest stories, but it is also full of quantitative data that allows the reader to decide whether the company is making enough impact on the environmental, social, and governance fronts.” Kaye reports that on top of that, CCE released an engaging video that nutshells it all for you. You can learn more about CCE's sustainability work here.


5. GE. GE, like Patagonia, has long been known as a green innovator. Its Ecomagination initiative all but eclipses any annual report with its extensive web and social media presence and steady stream of innovative green news all year long. The annual report connects the dots and forecasts what new challenges the company is aiming for in the future. Rather than a single article about GE’s sustainability report, Kaye wrote a series about it’s accomplishments.


6. L’Oréal. As you might expect, the cosmetic giant’s report is gorgeous, but once you get past its glossy exterior, the inner data beauty shines through. L’Oréal shows it has technological depth by its focus on plant-based materials, and heart by its development of “artificial skin.” The company has increased production of this reconstructed biological tissue, which it uses to discontinue animal testing. The company has also shared this breakthrough with hospitals to benefit burn victims. Far from superficial, L’Oréal’s report shows real depth.


7. Philips. As with L’Oréal, Philips’ CSR report shows stakeholders a whole new side to the company. Literally. The CEO letter begins, “Dear Stakeholder…” Reviewer Raz Godelnik reminds us that although most conjure images of LED lighting when thinking of Philips, there is much more to the company. Green products comprise 39 percent of its total sales, and one of its standout items in 2011 was a recycled designer coffee machine made from old electronic appliances (I’ll bet you didn’t see that one coming). Philips also showed a sensitive social side with their dedication to “oral healthcare, light therapy, water and air purification products and solar-powered lamps.”


8. H&M. Fashion and cosmetics are two unlikely CSR candidates, yet, here they are. Although they both face industry challenges to being sustainable, both companies have shown dedication and improvement. Fashion is fraught with consumption and waste, yet H&M’s report went against the grain to impress Kaye, addressing many industry criticisms. Despite being the largest user of organic cotton, the company streamlined its processes to conserve 13.2 million gallons of water. A whopping 71 percent of management positions are held by women, and the company has supported educating Bangladesh workers on their rights and developed an ethical clothing line. Fashion will always have resource consumption issues and room for improvement, but this report shows that H&M has taken some great strides.


9. GM. In its first CSR report after the automobile industry shakeup, GM comes off as a phoenix rising from the ashes. This report really needed to inspire trust and have a strong forward vision in order to dispel any lingering ire taxpayers have about bailing out the car company. The fact that Leon Kaye, who often writes about Detroit’s transformation, is giving the report’s claims the benefit of the doubt says something for the persuasiveness of the content. GM’s stated focus on (water) conservation and reducing waste, while slightly ironic, shows that the company is moving in the right direction. GM’s commitment to give back to Detroit, a community struggling due to the auto industry’s mismanagement, also helps its sincerity efforts.


10. SAP. RP Siegel had high expectations for the information titan’s annual sustainability report, and he was not disappointed. “One would expect their annual sustainability report to be a highly readable and information-rich document, which is exactly what it is.” In keeping with its transition from physical installation to cloud computing, its report has morphed from PDF to interactive, web-based format. SAP goes beyond describing their own conservation efforts and demonstrates how their products help other companies achieve their sustainability goals.

We capped our list at ten, but there are many outstanding reports out there. Which ones impressed you?

Image credit: Unsplash