Search

This post is part of a blogging series by marketing students at the Presidio Graduate School's MBA program. You can follow along here.

By Ariel Raymon

Once again, 41 year old Dov Charney, CEO of the LA based t-shirt selling empire, American Apparel, a company whose brand is built on providing fashionable clothing manufactured in a “sweatshop free” environment, is being sued for sexual harassment. With five women making sexual harassment complaints last month against the CEO, the company image is slowly becoming an ironic representation of exploitation.

In the eyes of some entrepreneurs, Dov Charney is a hero for building a successful apparel company in the US without compromising his commitment to providing fair labor practices. Operating in a market where most clothing is outsourced to China, not only does Mr.Charney pay employees almost double the state regulated minimum wage, he provides them with health insurance, subsidized lunch, free parking, well lit and ventilated working conditions, and paid time off to take English classes provided on site. When the company went public in 2008, employees received an average of 500 shares each, worth about $4,500. In a saturated market where 97% of apparel products sold in the US are outsourced for production, Dov is committed to making all American Apparel products in his factory in downtown Los Angeles. With “the highest-paid apparel workers in the world," he has received praise from anti-sweatshop activists for being a leader in providing fair treatment to garment workers in the US.

On the other hand, Mr.Charney’s unorthodox business practices and provocative advertising techniques have been the subject of controversy among his young, urban, twenty-something target audience. After getting sucked into the catalogue for a minute, I noticed the ads are more like soft-core porn than an advertisement for a product. Dov claims to use many of his sales associates as models in his advertising and explains that he does much of the photography himself. Additionally, the CEO is open about having sexual relationships with some of his employees, and often holds work meetings in his bedroom. To me, his behavior is blatant admittance of crossing into a PR nightmare.

Dov’s actions communicate mixed messages to consumers. As the public face of the company, he suggests that he cares about workers rights, but continues to be charged with sexual assault and harassment charges. This contradictory approach regarding treatment of American Apparel employees is a double standard. From a business perspective, his actions pose a serious risk to the integrity of the company, and the board should oust him. Furthermore, this is the perfect opportunity for American Apparel to re-brand. As an informed consumer, I associate the sexually provocative ads with sexual assault. Moving from trashy, exploitative advertising, into a classier aesthetic may help disconnect Dov’s actions from the brand, helping the public to realize that American Apparel’s core mission is to provide fashionable, garments in an environment that fosters fair labor practices.

But in the meantime what do socially responsible, concerned consumers do?

Image credit: Sherwin Huang/Flickr

By Pankaj Arora

When you’re sitting on an archipelago with more than 100 volcanoes and a unique cross-section of tectonic plates underneath, the 54 odd nuclear reactors, the possibility of disaster starts to look like a "when" rather than an "if."

The 40 year old Fukushima reactor was built in the 1970s, when Japan’s first wave of nuclear construction began. Since the power back up failed in the disaster international attention has been drawn to nuclear energy and its designation as a clean fuel.

Tens of thousands of people in Germany formed a human chain recently to demonstrate their fear of and opposition to the nuclear power. The protesters urged the state to learn from the Japanese disaster and reconsider nuclear.

Prior to the earthquake in Japan, a nuclear renaissance was emerging worldwide. Now more than ever, nervous consumers will demand increased safety standards, more rigorous planning, careful checklists and increased transparency in the whole nuclear political system.

Planning for safe nuclear energy

There are 3 major challenges to be overcome with nuclear power:

• Problem of nuclear waste disposal and recycling


• Radiation hazard


• High cost and high capacity installation over long time frame

Good strategic planning raises awareness about potential threats and opportunities. Many feel that it is still a clean, safe and cheap way to supply energy with a relatively good track record – only 3 major accidents over 14,000 reactor hours of experience in 32 countries – 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. TheWorld Nuclear Association) tells us that one was contained without harm to anyone, the next involved intense fire without provision for containment and the third severely tested the limits of containment. The Association also lays out an approach of Prevention, Monitoring and Action - which works best with high quality design and construction.

Stewart Brand, a long standing proponent of nuclear power called nuclear a ‘design problem’ which can be fixed. He says, “Radiation that looks like a great evil in basically a design problem. Nuclear provides a clean base load electricity that produces waste just a size of a coke can as compared to a coal fired plant that belches out 16,000 tons/year of CO2 emission for the same power supply. It needs to be made safer so that each state, each province can run its own modular and thorium power plants that can be carried on trucks, require no refueling and can be run for 60 years and then be buried in their own grave.”

Dr. James Hansen, Director at NASA Goddard Institute of Space studies, the most popular pro-nuclear advocate, in an interview with the Bigthink website, proposes that renewable energy is still very expensive and doesn’t provide consistent base load energy. The current second generation nuclear plants have technical problems that third and fourth generation reactor designs can overcome - like the full use of nuclear waste - but such designs will come in the next 10-12 years.

Proper planning with advanced design of nuclear reactors is what is needed to move ahead with the nuclear agenda.

Nuclear security is the most essential element of safe nuclear. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nuclear security plan can be achieved through "prevention, detection of and response to malicious acts, and Information coordination and analysis.

Proper nuclear security protocol will include:

• Potential hazard to the local community. Choosing appropriate geological locations to construct the power plants.


• Strong Regulatory infrastructure to promote harmonized safety standards


• Total cost of the reactor – including the CO2 emissions released in the initial construction


• Total time taken to build the reactor


• Installed capacity to be high as only then the costs can be justified


• Involvement of all stakeholders – Electric power companies, local and central government, scientific community, banks and general public


• Nuclear waste – either to be buried in deep saline formations or be recycled back into the reactor as currently done by France and Japan


• Security and terrorism


• Decommissioning

Transparency

The Fukushima incident has called for increased transparency in the public and private sector, as the plant’s operator Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) received severe scrutiny from the international community because of the problems at the reactor.

Conflicting views prevail in the mainstream - on one end of spectrum are people like James Hansen, Stewart Brand, The World Nuclear Association and on the other are people like Al Gore who brought mass awareness to the world about global warming and activists like The Greenpeace opposing nuclear as dirty, expensive, unsafe and a threat to world peace. This presents a confusing picture to the masses.

What's next

The risks of a nuclear blow out are immense and can’t be discounted. The dangerous, risky and the poisonous effects can last forever. Even Japan’s Fukushima incident hasn’t done much to stall other countries' expansion of nuclear power. The International Herald Tribune stated that – China has 11 operational reactors and 10 new ones in the making, and India has 20 current and plans to build dozens in the future – and so are countries like Italy, Russia, Czech Republic, and middle-eastern countries like UAE, Jordan, Bahrain also sticking to their nuclear energy policies. About 3/4^th of France, 1/3^rd of Japan and 1/5^th of US is powered by nuclear power.  Even Japan plans to move ahead with its 60% goal of going nuclear in the coming years.

Nuclear energy is one step up from the fossil fuels – at least you know your hazard in nuclear reactors – coal plants externalizes the emissions on the society. The world is heading to nuclear, no doubt – the question is how good can we get on our designs and transparency system that can act as transitionary technology leading into the world of sun and wind. If the right parties sit at the discussion table with a set of appropriate checklists and common goals, which will bring higher transparency, accidents and radiation hazards, can be controlled, thus touting its claim as a clean, sustainable energy source of the future.

Pankaj Arora blogs at http://environz.org/ and is passionate about sustainability and believes that however we may call it, one thing is a given -  it’s huge and it’s everywhere, slowly shaping our lives. He is also an Engineer and is studying MBA in Sustainable Management.

Image credit: Unsplash

Despite the weak regulatory environment at the federal level in both the U.S. and Canada, there is growing demand for helping executives understand how to mitigate climate change at a profit.  This demand comes from local regulation, such as California’s cap and trade program and Ontario’s regulation phasing out coal-fired power plants, and other drivers such as the desire to increase efficiencies or the need to meet increasingly stringent supplier requirements, such as those from Walmart.

A few weeks ago I wrote about the top Executive MBA programs promoting profitable solutions to climate change, something I refer to as Climate Capitalism.

This week I’d like to look at companies offering strategic consulting services to assist companies identify climate capitalism opportunities.  I used a range of sources for this research including: this research from Verdantix, other related articles, and direct email and phone conversations with some of the top contenders.  Also I relied on my own experience working the past few years in the carbon markets to provide some guidance.

This top 10 list is based on a few criteria such as a focus on climate strategy and the years of experience the consulting firm has with the provisioning of strategic management services in the area of climate change.  I also looked for thought leadership in the space.  Hopefully this list helps aspiring climate capitalist job seekers to identify potential employers, and also provides some guidance to corporations seeking climate strategy guidance. (The list is in alphabetical order as I was not able to truly distinguish amongst these leaders)

1.)   AT Kearney. Like McKinsey & Company, AT Kearney has a long track record of success in business and strategy consulting.  In fact, their predecessor was founded in 1926, the same year as McKinsey (below).  AT Kearney, in recent years, has begun to move into the environment and climate change arena.  Their sustainability group offers sustainability strategy, product and service optimization and sustainable supply chain consulting.  AT Kearney of course is active in thought leadership in the areas of sustainability and climate change strategy and practice.

2.)   Blue Skye is a niche sustainability strategy consultancy that deserves to be mentioned here.  While only founded in the past 10 years (2003), they have quickly built a name for themselves by providing quality sustainability consulting.  In their own words, Blue Skye uses “the lens of sustainability to create new, innovative, wealth-creating strategies. We reframe, restage, and reshape "corporate, social, and environmental responsibility" to be an opportunity, not an obligation.” Turning environmental and climate change challenges into business opportunities is what this whole series in Triple Pundit is about.

3.)   ICF International does not have the same ubiquitous brand recognition that companies like AT Kearney and McKinsey have but it definitely has an impressive track record in climate change consulting.  Their climate group: “helps public- and private-sector clients worldwide develop climate change policy, interpret and comply with regulations, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, evaluate risks, and identify opportunities.”  Carbon Finance Magazine has rated ICF the Best Carbon Advisory/Consultancy five years in a row.

4.)   McKinsey & Company Consulting. When it comes to strategic management consulting services of any type, it is hard to argue with McKinsey.  McKinsey was founded in 1926 and has regularly been at the top of the rankings for strategic consulting work.  This gives them an advantage when they decide to apply their expertise to emerging fields like climate change. Their sustainability group is quite active in thought leadership and consulting in areas such as carbon management, the economics of climate change and water issues associated with climate change.

5.)   PwC, formerly known as Price Waterhouse Coopers, like McKenzie and AT Kearney has a long track record of strategic and business consultancy expertise dating back to the founding of its predecessors in the 1800’s.    Their Global Sustainability practice has over 700 sustainability and climate change consultants and has “been advising policy makers and business on climate change since 1997, helping them to analyse issues and develop practical solutions to the challenges they face.”

6.)   SustainAbility. Like Blue Skye, SustainAbility is a niche sustainability consultancy with a strong focus on strategy and an emerging practice in climate change.  Their climate change strategy practice focuses on “Developing strategic responses to the risks and opportunities posed by climate change.” Recent clients in this arena include Shell and Ford Motor Company.

Others that would surely enter in anyone’s top 10 list include, 7.) Strategy& (formerly Booz & Company), 8.) CH2M HILL, 9.) Deloitte, and 10.) GreenOrder.

Trillions of dollars will be spent in the next decade on low carbon solutions across every sector of the economy.  With that kind of money on the line, you can bet that there will be a growth in demand for consultants who can read a balance sheet, articulate a business case, and understand technology trends, regulation and other drivers associated with the transition to the low carbon economy.  If you are looking for a job like this or a company that excels in this area to provide consulting to your business, these top 10, and many others are a good place to start your search.

Image credit: Pexels

In 2009, I co-founded a company called CO2 IMPACT to develop high quality carbon offset projects in the Americas. While I have a Ph.D. in business, I have frequently been too focused on my values to justify the business case for a lower carbon footprint. I guess I care too much about what we are doing to the planet and what we are leaving behind for my son, Mateo.

Along the way, I have learned a painful lesson that hopefully can help other aspiring climate capitalists: most people and industry don’t really care about the planet or climate change. They care about things that matter to their pocket book or to their bottom line. I am of course exaggerating a bit as, for example, most of the Triple Pundit readers care about the environmental and social impacts of their activities, not just the financial.

Most of us noticed that Obama’s recent rhetoric about energy efficiency and renewables avoided the topic of climate change altogether. This is not because Obama suddenly doesn’t care about climate change. It is that he has learned what messaging works with the American people. Jobs, economy, jobs, oh yes, and did I mention jobs?

How we frame the issues and opportunities related to the low-carbon economy is incredibly important. Too many of us, myself included, wear our passion on our sleeves and focus on the wrong issues in trying to help engage a skeptical public to make the transition.

This is of course why Peter Byck developed a documentary, Carbon Nation, (which I blogged about here recently), a climate change solutions movie “that doesn’t even care if you believe in climate change.” This is also the reason why I co-wrote the forthcoming book, Climate Capitalism with Hunter Lovins. We hope that by removing the “debate” about climate change from the conversation and focusing on the profits, jobs and economic growth that can be achieved by making the switch to a low-carbon economy, we might have more of an impact on public discourse and private action.

When CO2 IMPACT first started promoting our services to the market, our messaging focused on our ability to help companies reduce their emissions and generate extra revenue by selling the carbon offsets into the market. My opinion now is that was definitely the wrong message. We now focus on showing how companies can save money, or make more money, by engaging in energy efficiency, fuel switching or methane capture projects. Oh yeah, and by the way you can make some additional revenue from offsets to improve the project ROI and grow your “green” brand at the same time.

Take our coal mine methane projects in Colombia. There have been two explosions from excessive gas in underground coal mines in Colombia this year killing 26 people. Last year more than 200 miners were killed in similar explosions. While there are socially responsible mining companies who are absolutely concerned about the health and safety of their employees, the best arguments to get clients to embrace coal mine methane capture projects are financial. Mitigate operational risks of explosions, gain access to the methane as a cheap, green energy source, reduce their operating costs from ventilation systems (if you drain much of the gas there is less ventilation requirements) and oh yes, reduce their climate impact and gain additional carbon offset revenue.

Think Latin American coal mines are the only companies who care more about their bottom line than their impact on climate change? North American companies, except for a few notable exceptions, are the same way. Many recent articles in Triple Pundit have rightly recognized Wal-Mart for its recent transition to being a climate leader, including a recent post in this series. Does anyone really think that Wal-Mart is doing this because they have suddenly become treehugging liberals? I don’t think so. They are doing it because they are saving money. And lots of it. And Wal-Mart, yes Wal-Mart, won the Aspen Institute’s 2009 Corporate Energy Efficiency Award because of this commitment.

GE has made major efforts to promote their low-carbon green solutions. Sure they use their campaign to build their green credentials, but mostly they are doing it to generate more green bills. The Ecoimagination program is generating more than $18 billion per year in revenues for GE.

In conclusion, my point is for all of us who care about the planet and want to be part of the transition to the low-carbon economy, we need to focus more on the economy part, and slightly less on the low-carbon part. That is the fastest way to get to 350ppm.

Twitter: boydcohen

Image credit: Francesco Ungaro/Pexels

By Hunter Richards

Demand is on the rise for organic produce. A survey by the Organic Trade Association found that sales revenue from organic food in the U.S. had exploded to $25 billion by 2009 - twenty-five times that of 1990.

Organic farmers can’t use the same technology as conventional farmers - like pesticides and genetic engineering - to increase yields. There’s a misconception that they stubbornly shun technology, preferring age-old tradition over modern methods. But it’s not true. These farmers can use their understanding of natural processes - the mating habits of pests, for example - to optimize yields and care for their crops. The surprising results can make you wonder where to draw the line between technology and nature.

Organic Solutions: Software and Beyond

Jeff Birkby, Outreach Director for the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, recognizes technology’s broad potential: “To me, technology is neutral; it’s neither good nor bad. It’s how it’s applied that makes the difference.”

There must be a way for technology to help organic farmers. I began researching this article with software in mind because, unlike pest removal chemicals and other conventional farming technologies, data management tools don’t directly affect crops - organic farmers are free to use them. And the systems are certainly there - Farmigo for business data management is one example. The Georgia Institute of Technology is even developing a new user interface for soil moisture data software.

But I became fascinated at how organic farmers can apply specialized technology in their fields rather than just in the office. Unlike their conventional counterparts, organic farming technologies cooperate with ecosystems. It made me question the definition of technology.

Can Technology and Nature Cooperate?

Ted Quaday, Communications Director of the Organic Farming Research Foundation, clarified the issue when I spoke to him. “We’re taking new knowledge, new information, and transferring that into real practical solutions in the farm field . . . is that new, innovative technology? I would argue that it is.”

According to the definition that I found on Merriam-Webster’s website, Ted’s right:

tech·nol·o·gy (noun, \tek-ˈnä-lə-jē\) - the practical application of knowledge, especially in a particular area.

Who said technology had to involve spinning blades and steel? Organic farmers use new research in the field - it’s an alternative type of technology.

The Trade-offs of Technology

Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers save time and labor in conventional farming practices. But the resulting efficiency comes at a cost. The production, transport, and use of these substances threatens water quality and leaves a sinister carbon footprint. The runoff causes algal blooms in the Gulf of Mexico, draining oxygen from the surrounding area and killing nearby fish.

With more natural farming methods, organic farms avoid damaging the environment. These examples reveal how technology can help, even while adapting to natural processes:

Fertilization and Yield

To increase yields, conventional farmers use chemical fertilizers. But mechanical tools can be suitable alternatives. The roller crimper, a device dragged by a tractor through alfalfa and hay fields during harvest, breaks down the cell walls of plant stems to accelerate decomposition. This man-made tool increases soil fertility by speeding up the natural decomposition process - without artificial chemicals.

Another simple innovation that can increase yield quantity in organic farms is the hoop house, which is very much like a greenhouse - only easier, faster, and cheaper to build. Consisting of raised beds in a walled-off piece of land, it extends the growing season by protecting crops from bad weather and keeping them warm. More crops can then be produced for the local market, avoiding the need to import them from another location (which cuts down on potential carbon emissions). This research-oriented improvement helps farmers increase yields and benefit financially in a clean way.

Pest and Weed Control

Conventional farmers use potent substances in apple orchards to get rid of codling moths, tent caterpillars and other destructive pests. Organic farmers can’t use these chemicals because of their destructive side effects, but there are alternatives. Surround, a type of biodegradable clay, can be sprayed on apples to confuse insects. Once affected, pests no longer recognize the apples as food. The clay washes off and dissolves in rain, with none of the harmful effects of the more conventional methods.

Thanks to a better understanding of insect mating habits and chemistry, farmers can target and destroy pest populations without even touching the crops and soil. They can set up sticky traps, coated with female pheromones, that attract male flies and maggots. When they come in to mate, they become trapped and eventually die. Understanding the chemistry and deploying these traps required new research and designs, so it’s clearly a form of technology. It’s just not the giant robot with chainsaw hands that we all tend to imagine.

A Delicate Balance

Pure technology or not, organic farmers can merge nature and human creation to improve efficiency and protect produce. Adhering to strict standards has forced organic farming into creative action. Nature and technology, two apparently polar opposites, have seldom shared such a symbiotic relationship.

This was post was written by Hunter Richards, who blogs for Software Advice. The original article can be found here - Organic Farmers: Can They Be Tech Savvy?

Image credit: Unsplash

It’s hardly news that after more than two decades of talk about the need for sustainable development, we humans continue to have a poor track record when it comes to achieving sustainable results. How can we implement change while up against the overwhelming current of business as usual? It will take a new perspective, new approaches and different means of leadership.

For the first time, a condensed & balanced triple-bottom-line set of defining articles, collectively entitled The Fractal Frontier - Sustainable Development Trilogy, is now available for your review. The trilogy examines the reasons for our past failures, a new scientific basis for the essence of achieving sustainable development in the future, the nine universal principles that must be built into any sustainable project, ways to educate, plan and lead teams to achieve sustainable results, and much more.

SLDI News & Commentary Update: Developing a Sustainable Oregon Coast 

The southern coast of Oregon is a rare place on earth, where beautiful wild & scenic rivers tumble down through steep canyons, and the tallest and largest carbon-sequestering forests in the world on their way to a rocky coastline with wide stretches of sandy beach, before pouring out into the mighty Pacific ocean. Along the rugged coast are picturesque working ports, made of hillside homes, small waterfront cafe’s, vibrant art communities, and more parks per mile than anywhere in the USA.

The Port Orford Ocean Resource Team (POORT) has a mission to engage Port Orford fishers and other community members in developing and implementing a Port Orford Community Stewardship Area Plan that ensures the long-term sustainability of the Port Orford reef ecosystem and social system dependent on it. The Redfish Rocks area south of Port Orford has been designated a pilot marine reserve and a broader area of some 30 miles in length along the southern Oregon coast forming a unique 935-square-mile land and sea stewardship area is to protect terrestrial, freshwater, intertidal and ocean reserves. This model sustainability initiative is a prime example of a trend described in the current Oregon Planners Journal entitled Ecosystem Services: A new approach to planning that can help the profession to plan sustainably.

On February 11th, POORT will hold its 3rd annual Land-Sea Connection workshop to share healthy best practices with proactive agencies, NGO's and local stakeholders to improve collaboration within the stewardship area and encourage implementation of the Port Orford Marine Economic Recovery Plan. Located in the stewardship area headwaters along a 1000’ ridgetop overlooking old growth forest and the marine reserve, Ocean Mountain Ranch is a SLDI carbon-negative project that will provide for long-term yield of high-quality hardwood, softwood, and wildlife habitat while serving as a model organic forestry/grazing operation incorporating residential, agricultural, educational, recreational, and industrial activities to promote sustainable land development best practices on the southern Oregon coast by mixing nature, tradition, and economics for a sustainable future. You can watch a documentary preview of this ground-breaking eco-forestry project here.

Financing for ecosystem services is beginning to emerge from some compassionate climate capitalists who have been seeking out carbon offset projects that not only reduce carbon emissions but also have significant social, economic and/or environmental benefits in the communities where the projects are developed. These projects are often referred to as having co-benefits or some call them charismatic projects.  Charismatic carbon projects are poised to experience significant growth because there is increasing demand from offset buyers because companies that buy charismatic offsets gain more brand value for buying them than if they had just bought garden variety offsets.

Feature Publication

The Fractal Frontier - Sustainable Development Trilogy 

This trilogy of articles examines the essence of sustainability and presents some new perspectives on achieving sustainable results. Part I – Designing a Big Wheel for Civilization explores our checkered history regarding sustainability and provides a foundation of understanding for the future. Part II – Like Life Itself, Sustainable Development is Fractal presents new scientific understandings of economics, nature and social psychology and their impacts on sustainable development. Part III – The Universal Principles of Sustainable Development begins the process of defining the requisite outcomes in order to achieve sustainable results on any project.

Pass It Forward 
In the Pass-It-Forward spirit, SLDI is gifting the information in the document, along with the SLDI Code^™ sustainable development matrix, on behalf of the sustainable land development industry, to anyone interested in collaborating to achieve sustainable results. 

It is important to note that the information contained in the document is universal in its application and need not be confined to land development projects.

Your participation and comments are welcome.

Image credit: Jesse Gardner via Unsplash

According to the EPA’s Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment children receive 50% of their lifetime cancer risks in the first two years of life. In past testing conducted by the Food and Drug Administration eight industry-leading baby foods were found to have measurable amounts of 16 pesticides, including three of which were consider to be carcinogens! It is due to facts like these and their growing dissemination via social media that the Green Economic Revolution is being lead by Concerned Caregivers (moms!) seeking to protect their loved ones.

Linking with Concerned Caregivers is a powerful “secret sauce” for many of the successful businesses in my network that are experiencing significant revenue growth. Here’s yet another example of such a business called the Nest Collective. Sheryl O’Loughlin, the company’s “Chief Mom,” is a former CEO of Clif Bar and a working mom. She and her company have “Pure From The Start™” as their mantra for their line of baby food called Plum Organics that are totally organic with no pesticides or chemicals.
Watch this video of Sheryl to learn Nest Collective’s best practices for growing green revenues while also addressing one of America’s most important issues, namely how to provide our children with a diet and environment that will sustain their future!

Image credit: Plum Organics via PR Newswire

Walmart is rolling out Geo Girl, a new line of cosmetics in recyclable packaging for tweens (8- to 12-year-old girls) in March 2011. Walmart has hit all the cosmetic buttons: natural ingredients, sensitivity to young skin, low price point and recyclable packaging. It sounds good, except the target audience age range. Should 8- to 12-year-olds wear cosmetics?
 
If you are talking about the occasional silly dress-up day with friends where they paint each other’s faces at home and wash it off before going outside, then I can see using it sparingly for that purpose (didn’t we all love to do that?) However, Joel Carden, executive vice president, marketing and sales for Pacific World says, “These are real cosmetics with natural ingredients that will create return purchases and create a true beauty consumer.” Translated that means that Walmart wants to cash in on the reported $2 billion tween market, so most likely they will not be promoting the occasional dress-up day, but daily use – otherwise there wouldn’t be those frequent repeat sales.
 
Among the 69 Geo Girl product offerings are blush, mascara, face shimmer, and lipstick as well as anti-aging products (no details on what those are). Why would an 8-year-old (or 10- or 12-year-old) need blush or mascara, not to mention an anti-aging product? The most common reasons women wear makeup are: to look attractive; to feel more confident; to look younger (mature women); to look older (teens); to hide blemishes, wrinkles, bags under the eyes, etc.; and to be sexually appealing. Of course there is nothing wrong with adult women wearing makeup, but for which of these reasons should tweens wear cosmetics?

Encouraging repeat sales of an essentially unnecessary product for this age range, eco-friendly packaging or not, is still environmentally unfriendly. All those used up tubes and jars have to go somewhere. During this past holiday season much ado was made about not buying in excess and not buying unneeded products. Although Geo Girl will sell in the $3.99 to $5.99 range, cosmetics for tweens could be seen as an extraneous line item in the household budget.

Studies show that girls are susceptible to body image issues and developing low self-esteem, as well as being confronted with issues about dating and sex at younger and younger ages. The NYU Child Study Center (NYUCSC) reports that girls’ self esteem peaks when they are about 9 years old and then declines steeply. 20 to 40 percent of girls begin dieting at age 10. As early as age 10, girls are faced with “teen” issues such as dating and sex, and 73 percent of 8- to 12-year-olds dress like teens and talk like teens. 
  Why does self-esteem drop? The NYUCSC says that starting in these pre-teen years girls become hyper-aware of their bodies and equate them to their perceived worth to others. Their self-esteem is tied to physical attributes and appearance, and girls feel like they can’t measure up to society’s standards.

While Geo Girl isn’t the first cosmetic line to be marketed to tweens, there is a disturbing trend in product marketing to treat this age group as older and more sexualized than they should be. If you walk down the girls' aisle at any major department store, you’ll see narrowly-cut, tight-fitting clothing, belly-baring fashion trends, shirts that emphasize developing breasts and high-heeled shoes - all in sizes for girls as young as 5 or 6.

Promoting “beauty care” to tweens says that 8- to 12-year-old girls are not attractive without looking sexy. Tampa dermatologist Dr. Seth Forman has spoken out against the line claiming that it not only focuses on superficial looks at a crucial age, but the skin care products themselves could harm young skin. Psychiatrist Dr. Henry Paul cautions that the use of makeup can sometimes be addictive, resulting in girls who are addicted to being "beautiful" and don't see themselves as anything else which can lead to an erosion of self-esteem in the long run. 

Of course, parents play a huge role in building girls’ self-esteem and combating the relentless sexualization and unattainable body images girls are bombarded by in the media every day. It is also, ultimately, a parent’s decision whether their tween daughter buys and wears Geo Girl. Cosmetics, themselves, aren’t evil. It’s all in the message they can send to young girls who are already struggling to maintain their self-esteem, compounded by a society that seems determined to cut their childhood short.

Image credit: Unsplash

While much of the conversation at the Sustainable Food Summit focused on tools, resources, information-sharing and partnerships to help companies bolster their sustainability efforts, the old David vs. Goliath scenario inevitably reared its ugly – but organic! – head.

Safeway, the national grocery chain, continues to develop its own brands to compete in the organic and health and wellness categories. The recognizable O Organics line contains over 300 products and Eating Right (“nutritional”) and Bright Green (home care products) are also part of the healthier mix. In the last 90 days, the retailer has introduced two new green-minded product lines: In-Kind (+90% natural personal care products) and Open Nature (100% natural meats and poultry). Although the term “100% natural” is not a true certification (and, frankly, doesn’t carry any weight with the converted), many consumers don’t know any better. It is these less savvy shoppers to whom the store caters, as Safeway learned through research that 90% of consumers acknowledge a link between diet and health. And so it continues to pursue market share.

The company’s strategy “to make high quality organics affordable and accessible to everyone, everywhere” is having an impact on more than just the consumer. Safeway claims that consumers find the organic market cluttered and confusing, with a multitude of niche brands. Moreover, they think it’s too expensive. So the grocer is addressing these concerns by limiting choice and lowering price. How does it limit choice? Well, if the O Organics line is next to a comparable organic product that costs more, consumers primarily concerned with price will likely by the O Organics line. As this continues to happen, the retailer will determine that people don’t want to buy the other organic product and drop it from its inventory, thereby effectively forcing out smaller organic brands; while Safeway is increasing access to organics, it’s also decreasing access to the larger organic market. And let’s not forget that the more products they introduce into limited shelf real estate, the more products they have to remove.

While it’s easy to hate on the big guys in favor of the small guys, this situation does present a conundrum. Yes, it is good for the planet if more people have access to organic, healthier products. In-Kind products don’t contain parabens, pthalates or petroleum based products, to name a few. It’s incredible to see how many high-end brands can’t say as much. The problem is that by making it about price, Safeway is undercutting small brands much like subsidies undercut small farmers and, according to the presenter from Organic Valley, only less than 5% of US farmers (or under 100,000) are not subsidized. (Moreover, it's these very subsidies that make organic products seem "expensive" to consumers when really their prices reflect the true cost of production.) This sad fate of the American farmer does not bode well for the small organic players who have paved this path from niche to mainstream with innovative approaches; they created the demand that Safeway is now intent on meeting.

We’re finally at the tipping point, but now what do we do? How can we increase access to organic and sustainable products without repeating a tragic history that already plagues our food system?

Image credit: Artur Rutkowski and Monstruo Estudio via Unsplash

While many people still have their suspicions about carbon offsets and suggest that offsets are a copout from reducing a company’s (or individual’s) own emissions, carbon offsets do play an important role in the global effort to combat climate change.  In some instances, achieving significant reductions from a company’s own activities is either cost-prohibitive or technologically impractical.  Companies should, of course, develop their emissions baselines and reduce as much as possible before purchasing offsets.

With the recent legislative hurdles removed, California and the Western Climate Initiative are now poised to enter the fray with their own cap and trade system.  It is important to note that not all carbon offsets are created equal. Some are developed to higher standards to ensure that the project indeed reduced emissions above and beyond business as usual (“additionality”).  Also, some compassionate climate capitalists have been seeking out carbon offset projects that not only reduce carbon emissions but also have significant social, economic and/or environmental benefits in the communities where the projects are developed.

These projects are often referred to as having co-benefits or some call them charismatic projects.  Charismatic carbon projects are poised to experience significant growth because there is increasing demand from offset buyers because companies that buy charismatic offsets gain more brand value for buying them than if they had just bought garden variety offsets.  Charismatic carbon projects can be certified to high standards such as the Gold Standard or the CCB Standards, both of which require thresholds for quality offsets, additionality, as well as demonstration that the project had positive local benefits for the community.

Here are a few interesting examples of charismatic carbon projects from around the world:

Cape Town, South Africa:

This Clean Development Mechanism project involved the installation of solar hot water heating, insulation and energy efficient lighting in low-income housing in Africa.  The project will reduce an expected 138,000 tons of CO2 throughout its lifetime.  But the co-benefits go well beyond emissions reductions.  The project resulted in a 56% decrease in household spending on electricity, created 85 jobs, and resulted in a 76% reduction in respiratory illness due to warmer homes in the winter. A local community member summarized the benefits: “The project brought skills and jobs for young men, they don’t hang around street corners anymore, it has brought dignity to the community ... Our children are much safer now, no more hanging wires...We are warm. We are saving. We don’t get flu as often. Life is much easier.”

Kenya, Africa:

Wildlife Works is an innovative holistic carbon project developer focused on developing high quality charismatic forest projects.  Their first project, Rukinga Wildlife Sanctuary, an 80,000 acre wildlife corridor, had been under threat from cattle grazing, poachers and farming.  Through Wildlife Works’ innovative model they are not only protecting the forest and generating carbon offsets, they have also helped to create sustainable employment in the community for 56 people.  Many other climate capitalists are seeking to combine forest protection and community enhancement such as Ecosystem Restoration Associates who developed the first Gold level certified CCBA project in Canada, and the Green World Campaign, based in Colorado.

Huila, Colombia

My company, CO2 IMPACT, is developing a charismatic carbon project in a hard-working brick-making region of Colombia. The brick-makers currently have their own home-made, super inefficient and polluting kilns (usually in their backyards) where they burn coal or wood to make bricks.  Due to the inefficiencies from their kilns, the quality of the bricks is low, and the inefficiencies result in high operating costs, leaving little profit margin. On top of this, the brick-makers' whole families, including children, frequently work in the kilns, exposing themselves to high levels of contaminants.  Our project in Huila, in partnership with a local NGO, Corciencias, has established 5 cooperatives and is leveraging carbon finance to secure 7 eco-efficient kilns to replace more than 100 artisanal kilns in the community.  We expect to generate 100,000 tons per year of carbon offsets for 10 years (1 million tons total) while increasing the efficiency by 60% and hopefully reducing child labor and rates of respiratory disease.

In a previous article here at Triple Pundit I was critical of Bolivia’s President Evo Morales’ radical stance against capitalism.  I believe that capitalism is a required component to solving the climate crisis and I think it would be hard for even President Morales to argue with charismatic projects.

Boyd Cohen is the CEO of CO2 IMPACT, a carbon origination company based in Vancouver, Canada and Bogota, Colombia. Boyd is also the co-author of the forthcoming book, Climate Capitalism: Capitalism in the Age of Climate Change.

Image credit: Mali Maeder/Pexels