Search

Anyone who owns shares in a publicly-traded company has the right to voice their opinion on key decisions that company makes. Through a process called proxy voting, individual shareholders can weigh in on issues like how much the company pays executives, the information it discloses to investors and the public, and its policies related to workers and the environment.

If you own stock — even if you purchased a few shares on a mobile app years ago — you likely get emails every spring reminding you: "It's time to vote!" But many individual investors don't know what proxy voting is, why it matters or how to do it. If you're curious about proxy voting and how it can help you align your money with your values, read on for the need to know. 

What is proxy voting? 

Publicly-traded companies hold annual meetings for their shareholders every year around May and June. Executives present key information about the company's financial performance, and issues related to company policy are put to shareholder vote.

Unless they're incredibly wealthy, most individuals who own stocks do not have the opportunity to attend a company's annual shareholders meeting. Since they can't attend in person, they're given a proxy ballot, similar to an absentee ballot in political elections, and their votes are counted in accordance with how many shares they own. These votes generally aren't binding — in other words, a company doesn't have to enact a policy just because shareholders voted for it — but they often inform the company's decisions as executives want to keep their investors happy. 

Why does proxy voting matter?

Environmental and social justice advocates have used the shareholder and proxy voting process for decades as a way to influence companies to improve their impact on people and the planet. These stakeholders — which include nonprofits, impact investors and shareholder advocacy organizations — purchase stock in large companies and use that influence to file what are known as shareholder resolutions which request that a company act on a specific issue.

This could be publicly reporting certain data — related to greenhouse gas emissions, plastic use or diversity in leadership, for example — or enacting a specific policy. Large institutional investors, such as asset managers and mutual fund providers, also file shareholder resolutions on various issues they feel could put their investments at risk. Around 400 shareholder resolutions related to sustainability and social impact in particular are filed with U.S. public companies every year, according to the shareholder advocacy organization As You Sow.

Many companies prefer not to raise these issues at their shareholder meetings, out of concern it could harm their reputations, and opt to agree to the terms of a resolution before it comes to a vote — for example, by agreeing to disclose how much plastic they use or how many women and people of color hold leadership roles. Around 30 percent of the environmental and social resolutions filed last year were withdrawn after the company agreed to terms, according to an analysis from Harvard Law School's Forum on Corporate Governance. 

When issues do come to a vote, they can have a major influence on what companies do — even if the resolution does not receive majority support from shareholders. "Votes with more than 10 percent support are difficult for companies to ignore," according to As You Sow. "Resolutions with 20 percent or more support send a clear message to corporate management that the current company policy is too risky or not beneficial to shareholder interests. Only the least responsive company would ignore one in five of its shareholders." 

How do I vote my proxies?

Most individual shareholders don't exercise their proxy voting rights. Individual investors voted less than 30 percent of the shares they owned in U.S. public companies last year, according to Broadridge ProxyPulse's 2023 Proxy Season Review. Considering a 20 percent support rate among shareholders could sway a company's decisions, each investor holds real power if they choose to make their voices heard. 

If you're looking to get started with proxy voting, you're in luck, because proxy season is right around the corner. If you own stock in a company, either that company or the brokerage firm you purchased the stock with will send you an update on proxy voting about 60 days before the next annual shareholders meeting. For most companies, these updates start going out around March and April.

If you opt for electronic communications, this update will come into your email inbox. Otherwise, you may receive a proxy voting card in the mail. If you have a physical card, you can use it to support, oppose or abstain from voting on various proposals up for decision and return it in the mail before the company's annual meeting. Emails will include a link to vote online up to 24 hours before the meeting. 

As You Sow also offers an option for individual investors to automate the process. Shareholders can register at AsYouVote.org to redirect their proxy voting emails to As You Sow, and the organization will fill out the forms according to its sustainability-aligned proxy guidelines. Users then receive an email with a link to the completed form and an option to further customize as they choose. 

"I think a lot of people feel guilty. They see all these proxy statements piling up in their inbox and they think, 'I just can't deal with it,'"  Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow, told TriplePundit last year. "What you'll get instead is, 'Thanks for voting.' You'll feel great about yourself, and it takes literally two minutes to set up." 

This article is part of Money Month in our 2024 Sustainable Living Challenge, where we unpack accessible ways to align your money with your values and leverage sustainable living to save money at home. Learn more and take the challenge here. 

Gathering Scope 3 emissions data from suppliers isn’t easy for food and beverage companies, but new remote sensing and analytics technology can help. 

Bunge, one of the oldest and biggest grain agribusinesses in the world, is using these systems in collaboration with the agriculture technology innovator Indigo Ag — resulting in a more efficient, streamlined process that takes a full ecosystem approach to assembling key supplier data from a variety of sources.

The new Scope 3 opportunity for food and beverage companies

The partnership with Indigo Ag grew out of Bunge’s realization that grain processors can drive the pace of food systems decarbonization by leveraging their pivotal role in the supply chain.

“We were getting inquiries from customers that wanted us to bring solutions to the table,” said Gregg Christensen, Bunge’s head of corn milling. “We were getting many different requests, but they all wanted the same outcome. It was time to streamline a program, led by us, to avoid duplication.”

Chris Malone, Indigo Ag’s VP of market opportunities, emphasizes the importance of agribusinesses like Bunge in a full ecosystem approach to decarbonizing the agricultural supply chain.

“The origin of this project with Bunge North American Milling Group was in looking back at the way food supply chains have been decarbonized in past years,” Malone said. “Over the past few years, a large CPG would orchestrate a program, bring it all the way down to farmers, and then potentially connect grain processors in the middle. That can be complicated, and it’s not realistic or efficient for every food company to be able to have that capability. Partnering directly with grain processors opens up a new way to decarbonize the food supply chain.”

The need for food and beverage companies to move the needle on Scope 3 emissions from their supply chains is clear, especially regarding emissions from agriculture. The rise of industrial-scale agriculture has enabled global food production to keep pace in an era of rapid population growth. However, as a result agriculture is now the second-largest source of greenhouse gases in the world. It accounts for up to 28 percent of all global emissions, according to the World Bank.

One key area of progress is demonstrated by the adoption of sustainable and regenerative agriculture practices that help sequester carbon and reduce the reliance on emissions-producing fertilizer.  “Scientists have estimated that soils — mostly, agricultural ones — could sequester over a billion additional tons of carbon each year,” notes the MIT Climate Portal.

Encouraging and enabling farmers to grow more resilient crops that produce less greenhouse gas emissions is another key factor in managing scope 3 emissions from a company’s value chain. Solutions in the emissions-differentiated crop area include reducing emissions from fertilizer as well as crop rotation diversity. 

Streamlining the Scope 3 pathway from field to food and beverage companies

Connecting climate-smart farms with food and beverage companies more efficiently is the next step, and that’s where Bunge’s partnership with Indigo Ag comes in. Now operating in 14 countries, Indigo Ag launched in 2013 with a science-based platform to support and quantify the impact of regenerative practices.

Rather than incorporating suppliers as an afterthought in carbon accounting, Indigo Ag treats them as the focal point for progress. 

“The solution was to look at suppliers like Bunge as the fulcrum of a full ecosystem approach,” Malone said. “Food and beverage companies are not buying crops from the field. They are buying processed ingredients. Suppliers like Bunge are the ideal point where a program can be created to measure the carbon score of those ingredients.”

Scope 3 benefits and a holistic supply chain

Bunge’s close connection to the grower experience was an important factor in the company’s decision to engage in a technology partnership with Indigo Ag.

“Across our business, we’ve adopted a carbon-focused decision-making process,” Christensen said. “We are striving to bring a climate-focused lens to everything we do, and a big part of that is contributing to innovative solutions.”

In particular to the partnership, “what was intriguing was the ease of data collection and the speed to implementation,” he explained. “Data collection can be a very heavy lift for the growers. There are many different programs out there, so finding one that centers on the grower experience is critical. Indigo Ag provides rigor in terms of methodology and in terms of outcomes.”

Empowering the food systems middle-person for rapid decarbonization

The full ecosystem model enables suppliers to provide carbon benefits to food and beverage companies while building their relationships with growers into a more connected, holistic endeavor, Christensen said. 

“We are strategically positioned for companies to reduce their carbon in the supply chain,” he said. “Because trust is so important with the growers and Bunge has that, it allows us to play a critical role and bring them on board, get the data and quantify the outcomes.”

Food and beverage companies also benefit from the flexibility built into Bunge’s program. The growers continue to rely on their own experience and expert networks for guidance, while the Indigo Ag platform presents them with new revenue opportunities.

“We view ourselves as a marketing arm of the grower. We engage with them and help them find incentives to sustain them on their farms for generations to come,” Christensen said. “We don’t tell them what to do. We partner and we do it together.”

Next steps for food and beverage companies

Growers have been highly receptive to participating in the Indigo Ag platform, and that has been mirrored by interest on the food and beverage side,” Christensen said.

“Engagement has been pretty robust,” he told us. In addition to the technology partnership with Bunge, Indigo Ag also develops programs directly with the top tier of retailers and food and beverage companies. “A lot of food and beverage companies have already made substantial reductions. As you start to do these programs, you really see that we can get there easier than we think. In almost every conversation I have with food and feed customers, nearly everyone wants to show progress in this space — not necessarily for publicity, but because the need for impact is real.”

Image courtesy of Indigo Ag

This article series is sponsored by Indigo Ag and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team.

This story on how people are using solutions storytelling to tackle tough problems is part of The Solutions Effect, a monthly newsletter covering the best of solutions journalism in the sustainability and social impact space. If you aren't already getting this newsletter, you can sign up here. 

If you sift through a few climate change communication guides and research papers, you’ll start to notice a trend. 

In an article about using narratives to better communicate climate science, researchers recommend connecting with the audience by considering what they care about and overcoming fear by highlighting the benefits that come with climate-related lifestyle changes. 

In a study about communicating science to motivate action, researchers focused a messaging campaign on how climate change impacts birds. They combined that with examples of actions people could take to help address the problem. The campaign led to more than 33,000 bird enthusiasts taking action to support clean energy policies, which contributed to legislative wins in four U.S. states. 

In its Communicating on Climate Change guide, the United Nations recommends sharing solutions to keep people feeling empowered and motivated instead of overwhelmed. 

In last month’s Solutions Effect, I wrote about news avoidance and how people avoiding the news are looking for more positive and solutions-focused journalism.

Did you catch the trend? The way you frame the problem matters, a lot. Solutions journalism is one example of an effective way to frame discussions about problems without causing people to tune out, but we can’t reach all audiences through the news. Solutions-focused framing can be — and is — applied to other methods of communication to engage people in these difficult conversations, too. 

Video games

Every week, 212.6 million Americans (65 percent of the population) play video games for at least an hour, according to a report from the Entertainment Software Association. The majority of them play for at least four hours. I used to be a part of that weekly number and can vouch for how incredibly powerful a fictional story can be when you actively play a role in it. 

Some game developers are using that storytelling power to share climate messaging. The game Terra Nil, for example, requires players to transform environmental wastelands, polluted oceans, and flooded cities into thriving ecosystems. Players may need to use geothermal energy or repurpose skyscrapers to grow bamboo, for example. That may not sound like the escapist fun we often associate with video games, but over 300,000 people had already played it a week after it launched, Bloomberg reported. 

This is a growing theme. Players in Alba: A Wildlife Adventure gather petition signatures to stop a property developer from turning a wildlife reserve into a hotel. Green New Deal Simulator asks players to decarbonize the U.S. and draws inspiration from real-world policies. 

The connection and community fostered by gameplay are powerful. But the beauty of this style of communication is the ability to break big problems into manageable pieces (like levels in the game) to make them feel solvable. 

“Games are also really good at [fostering] this idea of progression,” Deborah Mensah-Bonsu, founder of the consultancy Games for Good, told Bloomberg. “You don’t have to solve the whole thing in one go. There’s steps. If you take the first step, that will then fuel action for the next step. As long as those things feel doable, you’re going to be much more likely to reach that larger behavior change or that larger change as a society. I feel games can really help people to get on that ladder of ‘Let’s do something together’ and ‘Let’s do more.’”

The industry still has its own environmental impacts to tackle, though. It’s estimated to generate 24 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year.

Cookbooks 

I know that I can search for any recipe imaginable online, and one might argue I don’t need a cookbook. But I beg to differ. Flipping through a cookbook when I don’t know what to cook for dinner is less daunting than scavenging the internet for options. As more people begin to change their diets to reduce their environmental impact, cookbooks could become a new way to encourage conversation about the climate. Making climate-conscious recipes easily accessible also makes personal action easier. With an estimated 30 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions stemming from the food system, every effort counts. 

Good Catch: A Guide to Sustainable Fish and Seafood with Recipes from the World's Oceans was published last year with the intent to share seafood recipes while educating readers on sustainable fishing and the impacts of seafood sourcing, as TriplePundit previously reported. The book blends recipes with personal anecdotes and scientific analysis to make the topic more approachable.

“Having a true conversation about food sourcing will offend a lot of people,” Valentine Thomas, the book's author, told TriplePundit. “What can we do instead of calling each other pieces of shit because somebody's eating a steak, or patting each other on the back because we shared a campaign about saving the turtles? Realistic conversations are how we're going to evolve as a species.” 

Climate cookbooks are far from popular right now, but “you can see a whisper of a subgenre beginning to emerge. At least a dozen have been published since 2020,” Caroline Saunders, a climate cuisine specialist and newsletter author, wrote for Grist. 

Saunders lists several intriguing cookbooks like Eating for Pleasure, People, and Planet, which covers themes like eating plant-based, low-waste, and using local, seasonal ingredients. And For People and Planet, a cookbook created by the United Nations and the Kitchen Connection Alliance, explains topics like biodiversity, food waste reduction and the food system. 

Comedy 

Much of the issue with climate change information is that it’s often dull or frightening. It seems an increasing number of people are turning to comedy to remedy that, and there’s science behind why that works. Humor can help people process negative emotions while sustaining feelings of hope, according to an analysis by Emma Carroll-Monteil, an environment and sustainability education researcher at the University of Edinburgh. Though not all climate-focused comedy is framed through solutions, I’ve seen a few examples that are, and I hope to see that niche grow. 

Research has shown that combining humor and education increases the enjoyment of learning, increases the amount of information people perceive they’ve learned, and promotes new ideas and behaviors, according to the analysis. Since most adults learn about climate change through media, this is a particularly good way to reach those who didn’t learn about it in school. 

But it does require that the jokes are well received. As we’ve seen many times across all forms of media, that’s not always the case. 

Beyond the stand-up stage, podcasts like “The Climate Denier’s Playbook” also take a swing at using humor to discuss climate change in new ways. Hosted by Rollie Williams and Nicole Conlan, “two comedians with master's degrees in climate science and policy and urban planning,” the podcast does an excellent job of using humor to discuss the myths and misinformation around climate change. It’s also mentioned in this New York Times article by climate and environment journalist Hilary Howard which includes several non-podcast examples. 

Of course, solutions-focused framing can apply to any of the issues we face. Climate change is just one example. Next time you’re tasked with engaging an audience with a problem, give it a try. And if you already use solutions to frame stories about problems in your industry, let me know how you do so here! 

The less we buy, the less we waste. That concept sounds great in theory, but how realistic is it? A popular social media challenge could reveal the answer. The “no-buy month” — also dubbed the “no-spend challenge” or “no-spend month” — gained traction over the past few years as participants seek to rein in their spending and, more recently, their environmental impact. While the experiment makes a fitting New Year’s resolution and often coincides with January, it can be implemented any time.

How I fell into my first no-buy month

My first no-buy month was May 2023, though I didn’t know there was a name for what I was doing at the time. I had just relocated to Baja California Sur, Mexico, and was staying in temporary housing while I searched for a long-term rental. It was only logical not to buy anything since it would have to be packed up and moved soon anyway. 

Admittedly, my consumption of takeout food was a little excessive during the COVID-19 pandemic, but that habit was easy enough to break once I moved to Mexico. Aside from one order of rotisserie chicken, I cooked all of my meals from May until August and still do most of the time. Doing so allowed me to eliminate nearly all food waste and save a ton of money.

With zero other funds spent on any other non-necessities in May 2023, the chicken and a few adult beverages from the grocery store were the only exceptions to my first no-buy month. And the home I moved into in June came fully furnished, so it was easy enough to continue along the same path even after the month was over.

In truth, it wasn’t much of a challenge or departure from the already minimalistic lifestyle I adopted while backpacking Central America in 2017. Even after I returned to the U.S. and settled back down, I liked how not having “stuff” eliminated clutter and made it easier to keep my place sparkling clean. So, I was already accustomed to not buying much outside of books and new shoes when the old ones wore out. At one point, a friend started gifting me her used clothes, which made it easy to give up those purchases, as well.

The basic tenets of a no-buy month

While my already minimalist lifestyle no doubt made the switch to no-buy remarkably easy, you don’t need to have that sort of previous experience to succeed at it. Even if you love to shop, have a daily coffee shop habit, and revel in dining out, it’s totally possible to give up unnecessary purchases for 30 days. There’s a good chance you’ll be amazed by the difference buying less can make, and you just might want to continue a similar practice after the month is over.

There are no set rules to a no-buy month. It can be as strict or as lenient as the challenger feels comfortable with. The point isn’t to deprive ourselves of necessities, but rather to experience how easy it can be to use fewer resources, create less waste, and save some cash in the process. In essence, it’s an easy way to pause our participation in consumer culture and, in my case, accumulate less stuff that I would have to cram into my vehicle.

Of course, the regular rent or mortgage still has to be paid during the challenge, as do utilities, insurance, car payments, credit cards and other recurring bills. We all still have to eat — though this is a great time to use up as much of our existing groceries as possible and forego restaurant meals, takeout and coffee shops. And any of the usual cleaning or hygiene products that run out during the month will have to be replaced. There will still be gas to buy, parking to pay for, or bus passes to purchase, but if there’s an opportunity to walk, bike, or switch from driving to public transit, this is the perfect time to give it a try.

There are plenty of gray areas in a no-buy month that we all have to decide for ourselves. You’ll probably still want to buy a gift for a close friend or family member’s birthday, for example. There are also events to attend and entertainment to be had. Again, it’s not about deprivation but eliminating unnecessary indulgences is key. You can still go out on dates or attend fancy events, just wear something that’s already in your closet instead of buying a whole new outfit.

Would I do a no-buy month again?

This question probably sounds like a no-brainer — and it is. I’ve basically adhered to the same tenets since my no-buy month last May. I did have to buy new hiking boots after my old ones wore out and new running shoes after my only pair was forgotten outside during a hurricane. While I was at it, I splurged on a pair of canvas shoes that I didn’t really need. I also purchased a shawl and a blanket that were arguably not necessities. I’ve gone out for coffee once and gotten takeout a few more times. I do go out to eat every once in a while, and much more than usual while a friend was visiting recently. I will have to buy a few new clothing items soon, but for now, I’m making what I have work. Birthdays and holidays also bring exceptions, as I’ve ordered presents for loved ones (though I did considerably more cash gifts this past year).

I don’t say all of that to brag. Rather, to make the point that once you get into the habit of avoiding unnecessary purchases, it’s easier to maintain the same expectations long term.

It is important not to set the bar too high at first. If you feel like you’re missing out, the whole thing can backfire, and you could end up trying to make up for it with excessive spending later. That’s why I don’t count the times when I couldn’t afford to make any unnecessary purchases as no-buy months. They were inevitably followed up by splurges once I got back on my feet, and I didn’t exactly learn anything from those experiences.

The no-buy month has become as much of a lifestyle for me as minimalism was previously. And I wouldn’t want it any other way — not only for sustainability’s sake, but also because it’s pretty much impossible to live my traveling lifestyle when I’ve got a bunch of stuff weighing me down.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published its long-awaited climate disclosure rule earlier this month, compelling public companies to make data on their greenhouse gas emissions available to investors. Public officials allied with fossil energy interests have already filed at least two lawsuits to block it. But the Joe Biden administration is forging ahead with a $6 billion program to decarbonize cement, steel and other energy-intensive industries, regardless of what happens in court.

Here come the lawsuits

The new SEC rules build on existing requirements for climate-related disclosures made by public companies.

“The final rules reflect the commission’s efforts to respond to investors’ demand for more consistent, comparable, and reliable information about the financial effects of climate-related risks on a registrant’s operations and how it manages those risks while balancing concerns about mitigating the associated costs of the rules,” according to the SEC.

Some environmental organizations were critical of the final rulemaking, and fossil energy stakeholders also weighed in. That includes a petition for review joined by 10 Republican-led states, filed in the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which handles cases from Florida, Alabama and Georgia.

The lawsuit is somewhat vague as to details, though Utility Dive is among the news organizations noting that opponents argue the SEC overstepped its authority.

“Petitioners will show that the final rule exceeds the agency’s statutory authority and otherwise is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law,” the lawsuit reads. “Petitioners thus ask that this court declare unlawful and vacate the commission’s final action.”

The 11th Circuit took no immediate action, but the 5th Circuit, which handles cases from Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, issued an administrative stay in response to a request filed by the firms Liberty Energy and Nomad Proppant Services. Administrative stays halt further legal proceedings until a ruling is made on the request.

The Republican-led states of Louisiana and Mississippi were also a part of a 5th Circuit lawsuit that was filed along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Longview Chamber of Commerce and two Texas-based stakeholder organizations, the Texas Association of Business and the Texas Alliance of Energy.

Fossil energy stakeholders are not the only ones unhappy with the new rules. The environmental organization Sierra Club and the Sierra Club Foundation filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals accusing the SEC of not going far enough to protect investors.

“Through legal recourse, we aim to hold the SEC accountable to its mission: protect and empower the rights of every single investor,” Dan Chu, executive director of the Sierra Club Foundation, said in a statement, noting that the Foundation is itself an investor.

A $6 billion boost for decarbonization

The new rule was not scheduled to go into effect until 60 days after it was announced on March 6, so the 5th Circuit administrative stay will not have an immediate impact on the timeline. Still, the clock is ticking, and public companies in the U.S. are already being advised to prepare for implementation.

“Companies need to continue to evolve governance and disclosure of climate-related risks and performance not only to prepare for SEC requirements, but also to find new sources of competitive advantage and to realize opportunities while meeting evolving stakeholder expectations in a rapidly changing world,” Joe Sczurko, president of earth and environment at the leading consultancy WSP USA, wrote for TriplePundit.  

That chore just got a little easier for the dozens of leading U.S. companies that qualified for funding through a new $6 billion decarbonization program organized under the U.S. Department of Energy. The funds are allocated from the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.

The sprawling 20-state, 33-project program is aimed at applying a broad slate of carbon-reducing technologies to industries that are difficult to decarbonize through ordinary electrification alone.

“The projects will focus on the highest emitting industries where decarbonization technologies will have the greatest impact, including aluminum and other metals, cement and concrete, chemicals and refining, iron and steel, and more,” according to a statement from the department.

The program is also expected to create tens of thousands of new jobs, with a focus on community benefits and labor rights. “Nearly 80 percent of the projects are located in a disadvantaged community,” according to the Department of Energy.

Food and beverage firms can lead the way

The funding program showcases new technologies, with the expectation that the qualifying projects will model best practices for adoption throughout their industries.

Three of the top food and beverage brands in the U.S. are represented in the Department of Energy’s list of highest-emitting industries. They were selected based partly on their ability to showcase technologies that lend themselves to widespread adoption and high consumer visibility.

“These projects can increase consumer awareness around embodied emissions by decarbonizing products that Americans consume every day like ice cream, ketchup and BBQ sauce,” according to the department. 

One of the awardees is the consumer goods company Unilever, which plans to deploy up to $20.9 million in federal funding to replace gas boilers at several locations with electric boilers and heat pumps. The system also involves recovering waste heat.

“Along with reduced emissions, this project has an extremely high replicability potential and will create a model that could lead to further decarbonization throughout the food and beverage sector where approximately 50 percent of processing emissions are from low temperature heating,” according to the Department of Energy.

Similarly, the food company Kraft Heinz was awarded up to $170.9 million for a multi-state project that includes renewable energy and energy storage elements integrated with heat pumps, electric heaters, electric boilers and biogas boilers.

The U.S. branch of the beverage company Diageo won the third award in the food and beverage category. It was awarded up to $75 million to demonstrate how on-site renewable energy can be paired with new large-scale, long-duration energy storage technology to replace gas-fired heating systems. The battery, developed by the firm Rondo Energy, is designed to provide continuous energy from wind and solar resources — even when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.

As for the new SEC rule, it will be difficult to stuff the genie back in the bottle. The Department of Energy program is all but certain to foster climate-based competition throughout the U.S. food and beverage industry. Once the new systems are up and running, household brands under the Unilever, Kraft Heinz, and Diageo umbrellas are going to set a high bar for others to meet, regardless of what happens in court.

Avocados are having their day in the sun. From breakfast to dinnertime, this creamy delicacy is enjoyed in tacos, guacamole, smoothies, desserts and more. 

Not only are avocados tasty, but they’re also renowned for their health benefits, providing a good source of potassium, fiber and other nutrients. 

In the U.S., we’ve fallen hook, line and sinker for avocados, eating over 2.7 billion pounds annually. The vast majority come from their country of origin, Mexico, where avocados have been enjoyed for thousands of years. In just 10 years, exports to the U.S. from Mexico have more than doubled. 

This booming business has its roots in trees — technically, avocados are fruit — which means that the healthy avocado industry is intrinsically connected to and dependent on the health of the environment.. That’s why one of the many nurseries across Mexico has set out to grow avocados more sustainably, setting an industry example from day one.

Cultivating avocado trees sustainably 

Before that avocado was mashed into guacamole, it had to start somewhere. Our southern neighbor is the largest producer of avocados in the world. In turn, the western state of Michoacán grows the most avocados in the country, predominantly on small family-run orchards and farms.

Emblematic of the region, Amadeo Teytud comes from generations of avocado producers. Today, he runs an avocado nursery, Viveros La Sidra. Together with his family, they supply over 60,000 avocado trees per year to the surrounding regions.

Teytud left Michoacán to complete his studies in agricultural engineering, but he always planned to return home. “Production of good quality trees and trees with good genetics was lacking here,” he said. “So I started to investigate what all the nurseries here were like, how they implemented everything from seed… I set out to get a plant with good genetics and improve production here in Michoacán.”

For instance, Viveros La Sidra utilizes a hybrid avocado tree — taking the Criollo avocado variety as rootstock and grafting it with Hass or Mendez varieties. The resulting plant has a stronger trunk and roots, producing a fruit better suited to the weather.

Teytud and his team also strive to run the Viveros La Sidra nursery sustainably. “We try to apply as few chemicals as possible to combat pests and diseases in order to let the tree create defenses from the moment it’s planted in the field,” Teytud said.

They also use organic fertilizers in their nursery, such as compost and manure, to further limit chemical use, Teytud explained.

Another particular challenge is water. While water needs vary based on factors like temperature, humidity and local seasonal weather conditions, an adult avocado tree could require 10 to 30 gallons of water per day in hot climates.

Viveros La Sidra tackles this issue in a few ways. Thanks to Michoacán’s abundant rainfall, the nursery doesn’t need irrigation water for nearly half of the year. In fact, many orchards in the area rely solely on rainfall for their water needs, Teytud explained. For the rest of the year, they use water sparingly, only applying what each tree needs. 

Finally, to avoid plastic pollution, they attempted to use coconut fiber bags for their seedlings. However, the natural product didn’t last the full cycle from planting to selling the tree. Instead, they reverted to using plastic bags and found a way to recycle them.  

Overcoming challenges


Of course, as with any agricultural sector, there are some environmental issues surrounding this fruit. Expanding production could present risks for deforestation, for example. And although plants like avocado trees pull carbon from the air and store it, in a process known as carbon sequestration, there is some carbon footprint as a result of the avocado supply chain.

Reflecting on the avocado industry over the years, Teytud also said he’s seen the impact of new environmental regulations and the positive changes that occur when growers and nurseries invest in sustainability. “It is no longer like it was years ago — there were too many nurseries, too many plants,” he said.

Farmers in the region also have to make adjustments as they begin to feel the effects of climate change. “We've had more problems with it being too hot,” Teytud said. “In recent years, it has rained much less than in past years, so we try to take care of the water as much as possible to prevent it from being wasted and contaminated.”

He adds that growers like him aren’t alone in raising the bar: Some organizations have also stepped in to help.

For instance, the Association of Avocado Exporting Producers and Packers of Mexico supports sustainable farming practices including conserving water, prohibiting cattle grazing and hunting, and using agrochemicals safely. The trade group also supports forest conservation, reforesting over 5,500 acres in Michoacán since 2011.

Another organization, the Mexican Hass Avocado Importer Association, is working to protect monarch butterflies. Joining forces with Forests for Monarchs, the group helped to plant 1.4 million trees in monarch overwintering habitats and the surrounding areas of Michoacán. The partners also educate local communities on conservation and sustainable farming.

A greener future 

Nicknamed green gold, avocados have come a long way. Once a rare, luxury item in the U.S., this $4 billion industry now supports over 436,000 jobs here and across the border. And with increased interest in healthy and plant-based diets, the global demand for this superfood is predicted to skyrocket. 

Teytud said he and his team are continuing to improve sustainability for their nursery and the region. Ensuring this fruit is produced sustainably from day one ensures a healthier product and a healthier planet where more people can enjoy their avocado toasts now and in the future.

This article series is sponsored by the Avocado Institute of Mexico and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team.

For college students in the United States, classes are in full swing, midterms are wrapping up, and the list of on-campus resources that professors shared on the first day of class was probably forgotten weeks ago. 

I want to jog your memory for our 2024 Sustainable Living Challenge because the student benefits your school offers can save you a lot of money and help you live more sustainably.

Public transportation 

Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., accounting for about 29 percent of the country’s total emissions, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Public transportation emits far fewer greenhouse gases than driving or carpooling because the large number of people using it at once makes it more efficient. On top of that, many colleges are transitioning their fleets to electric. 

Most colleges in the U.S. offer transit passes that allow students to ride on-campus buses, and some of them extend to public transportation around the city, too. Often, these passes are free or are already a part of the fees you’re paying to attend school, so you may as well use them. If it’s not included or free, there’s probably an option for you to use public transit at a significant discount.

When I was a student using free public transit, I spent less money on gas, car maintenance and on-campus parking fees. And it actually made my commute quicker. 

The library and lending more than books 

One of the biggest mistakes I made during my first semester of college was buying all of my textbooks new from the campus bookstore. I would have saved hundreds of dollars if I rented my books, used the library, or bought used books instead of new ones. Plus, I wouldn’t have added more used books to the thousands already in circulation when I was done with them. 

Plenty of bookstores in-person and online rent or sell used textbooks. You can also find them on platforms like Facebook marketplace. The library was my favorite option, but it usually only had one or two copies of the books I needed, so I had to be diligent about reserving them. 

These options all work for non-textbook items, too. My school gave students free access to cameras and lighting equipment, audio recording studios and 3D printers. Students could even borrow business-professional clothes for job interviews and career fairs instead of buying new pieces they might only wear a couple of times. Sharing all of these things means fewer of them need to be produced new, and fewer of them end up in landfills at the end of the semester. 

Have fun on campus 

My college budget broadened my definition of fun. My friends and I spent a lot of time enjoying each other’s company at home, but I also attended plenty of free university and student-organization-led events centered around my interest in the environment. 

Whether we were picking up litter along the local river or reusing “garbage” to make art, there’s nothing a bunch of college students can’t make fun. You’ll likely find a calendar of university-led events with a quick Google search, but it’s also worth checking out the directory of student-led organizations on campus. There’s probably more than one that aligns with your interests. 

One of my favorite things to do was visit the walking trails, botanical gardens, and nature reserves that the college owned. Spending time in nature can benefit your physical and mental health, but these spaces also provide wildlife habitat, support the local ecosystem, and mitigate urban heat, among other benefits. Ensuring natural areas are used and appreciated is a good way to incentivize the school to keep them around. 

Sustainability classes and research 

College is a great opportunity to gain knowledge about sustainability even if classes on the topic aren’t required for your degree. I took several introductory classes as electives.

Though that didn’t necessarily save me money, the things you’ll learn might qualify you to join one of your school’s sustainability or environment-related research projects. Many of those positions are paid. While I didn’t take that route, I can confidently say the information I learned in those classes helps me in my career after college. 

Put your money to good use 

For many people, myself included, entering college comes with a crash course in the world of finance. While you’re learning about loans, interest rates and taxes, you may also learn that banks make money by lending our money elsewhere when we leave it in our accounts. 

Most banks lend to and invest in the fossil fuel industry. As a result, it’s estimated that every $1,000 in a savings account at one of those institutions is indirectly linked to the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are produced by flying from New York to Seattle each year, according to the climate solutions nonprofit Project Drawdown. If you have the time to do a bit of research, you can find financial institutions with commitments to social and environmental causes that are third-party certified to choose from instead.

Many colleges are also attached to credit unions. These member-owned, not-for-profit financial institutions are less likely to be linked to fossil fuels because their focus is investing in their communities. You’ll need to look into whether your school’s credit union is linked to fossil fuels and how it interacts with the community, but many of them provide free financial education, donate to local organizations and work with small businesses. 

This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist's weekly newsletter here.

Wealthy investors and asset managers wield a lot of power over the major companies whose stock they own or control. Every year, shareholder advocacy groups hope to exert that power for good by filing shareholder resolutions — 500-word proposals that might ask companies to voluntarily reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, or to disclose more information on their resource use. 

Shareholders typically vote on resolutions between April and June during a period known as “proxy season,” named after the proxy statements that companies distribute to investors ahead of their annual shareholder meetings. These votes aren’t binding, but they can influence companies’ decisions and generate press around a particular issue.

This year, activist investors are notching wins even before the beginning of proxy season. Shareholder advocacy groups have already extracted a handful of plastics-related concessions from major companies — including the entertainment behemoth Disney, the food processing giant Hormel, and Choice Hotels, one of the largest hotel chains in the world. The companies’ new commitments include reporting on and reducing the amount of plastics they use in their packaging, as well as more closely monitoring hazardous plastic additives.

Activist investment firms like Green Century Capital Management — which manages over $1 billion in assets — must make a business case for environmental action. Douglass Guernsey, a shareholder advocate at Green Century Capital Management who helped negotiate the agreements with Disney and Choice Hotels, said the new commitments show that companies are waking up to the threat that single-use plastics pose to their bottom line. Between the prospect of more stringent state regulations, new lawsuits against plastic producers, and a global plastics treaty being negotiated by the United Nations, plastics are facing some potentially severe regulatory and reputational prospects over the coming years.

“It’s unnerving investors,” Guernsey said, and the scale of the problem is “just starting to dawn on corporate managers.”

The companies’ pledges also shed light on the shareholder advocacy strategy, which is not necessarily to sway companies through voting on shareholder resolutions, but to use the prospect of a vote as a negotiating tool. According to Guernsey, shareholder advocates almost always prefer to reach an agreement with companies through dialogue — they only file a resolution if they feel that it’s needed to keep the conversation going. In some cases, after a resolution is filed, companies agree to make some kind of commitment in exchange for the resolution’s withdrawal.

That’s essentially what happened with Hormel. A nonprofit shareholder advocacy organization called As You Sow started talking to the company last fall, asking them to take more responsibility for plastic packaging after their products are sold to customers. As You Sow organizes investors and asset managers around a range of social and environmental issues, and it persuaded investors holding nearly $2 trillion in shares to vote for the 48 resolutions it introduced in 2023. Kelly McBee, As You Sow’s circular economy manager, said she had “productive conversations” with Hormel, but she still wanted to see more support for laws that make companies financially responsible for the trash they produce (known as “extended producer responsibility,” or EPR, laws), as well as more investment in plastic collection and recycling infrastructure.

“That’s when we moved into the shareholder resolution phase,” McBee said. After As You Sow’s filing, Hormel came back to the table offering some additional plastics commitments, including a pledge to reduce its cumulative packaging use by 10 million pounds by 2030. It also agreed to form an industry working group to advance policies that make packaging more recyclable or reusable, and to publish by the end of 2024 a report on ways for Hormel to become a more circular company, meaning one that minimizes waste. As You Sow withdrew its shareholder resolution in response to the new commitments.

“Hormel was pretty great to work with, they seemed genuinely motivated,” McBee said. Back in 2021, As You Sow had given the company an F grade on its plastic pollution scorecard, in part due to a lack of transparency around its plastics use and poor support for plastic waste collection and management.

The commitments secured by Green Century followed a similar arc. After talks with Disney and Choice Hotels, Green Century filed shareholder resolutions and then withdrew them in exchange for corporate pledges to measure, report, and set new targets for reducing their plastics use. 

Disney had already been “ahead of the curve,” Guernsey said, with commitments to eliminate single-use plastics on its cruise ships by 2025 and to achieve zero-waste in its theme parks by 2030. But more measurement and reporting will increase transparency around the company’s progress. Choice Hotels had already committed to phase out single-use polystyrene foam packaging by the end of 2023 and transition to bulk shampoo and other amenities by 2025. But an organization-wide plastics inventory will now allow the chain to set its first overall reduction goal by early next year. 

Other commitments recently secured by Green Century and other investors include one from the retail chain Costco, which agreed in October to report plastics use across its Kirkland-branded products, and another from the beverage conglomerate Keurig Dr. Pepper, which agreed in January to restrict its suppliers from using certain bisphenols — a family of plastic additives linked to hormone disruption. Green Century is planning to unveil more plastic commitments — largely related to increasing disclosure and reducing plastics use — from about a dozen more companies in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, As You Sow has filed plastic-related shareholder resolutions at at least 14 other companies.

Not all negotiations between companies and shareholder advocates result in a mutual agreement, and resolutions that go to a vote can’t force a company’s hand. A 2023 resolution asking Amazon to reduce its plastic packaging, for instance, was largely ignored by the company despite receiving support from nearly half of its shareholders. “All votes on shareholder proposals are nonbinding,” McBee explained. “So even if 100 percent of shareholders vote on something, the company doesn’t have to take that action.”

Votes can still have indirect influence, though. If a company ignores the will of its shareholders, McBee said, they can sell their shares, reducing its valuation and access to capital. Companies that disregard shareholder resolutions might also make potential investors think twice about sinking their money into the company, or perhaps inspire lawmakers to write legislation forcing companies to take steps they won’t take voluntarily.

Still, many advocates question the power of shareholders to effect systemic change. Even after their most recent pledges, companies like Disney and Hormel will likely continue to be large plastic polluters — not to mention their other environmental impacts, like the emissions associated with Disney’s fossil fuel-powered cruise ships and Hormel’s industrial meat products. Some environmental groups pressure major investors to sell their shares in polluting companies rather than to try to change them from within. Others favor advocating for more stringent government regulations.

“[R]elying on shareholders to make corporations more accountable and socially responsible is misguided,” wrote Warren Staples, a former lecturer in social procurement at the University of Melbourne, and Andrew Linden, an corporate governance researcher at RMIT University, in a 2019 essay. “There are far more direct and systemically effective measures available to do that.”

Choice Hotels, Costco, Disney, Hormel, and Keurig Dr. Pepper did not respond to Grist’s request for comment.

Even shareholder advocates acknowledge their strategy’s limitations, including on plastics. Globally, two garbage trucks’ worth of plastic enter the ocean every minute, and plastics and petrochemical companies are planning to make even more of the material over the coming decades. To rein in the plastics problem, Guernsey said, “overall regulation is going to be important” — especially standardized requirements for companies to disclose and report their plastics use, as well as more EPR legislation and bans on particular types of plastic.

Image credits: Brian Yurasits/Unsplash and Erik Mclean/Pexels

This article originally appeared in Grist. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

We’ve talked a lot about how living sustainably can save you money, but the hard-earned savings you’re holding in your bank account may be an indirect source of a ton of greenhouse gas emissions. 

When you leave money in your account, the bank uses it to make more money by lending it elsewhere. Banks primarily make money from the interest earned from lending and fees, but they also do so by making investments, and most banks lend to and invest in the fossil fuel industry.

The 60 biggest banks in the world funneled $5.5 trillion into the industry from 2016 to 2022, according to the 2023 Banking on Climate Chaos Fossil Fuel Finance Report. The 20 largest oil and gas companies are supplying over half of the resources used for fossil fuel expansion, and just 10 banks are responsible for 58 percent of their financing since the Paris Agreement, according to the report. Those banks include names like Citi, JPMorgan Chase, BNP Paribas and Bank of America. 

As a result, it’s estimated that every $1,000 in a savings account is linked to the same amount of greenhouse gases emitted by flying from New York to Seattle each year, according to the climate solutions nonprofit Project Drawdown. 

The situation may seem bleak, but there are banks committed to doing environmental and social good. And switching banks is a relatively easy action that can have a powerful impact. “Moving from a carbon-intensive bank to a climate-responsible bank could reduce the personal banking emissions of an average person in the U.S. by 76 percent,” according to Project Drawdown. 

So, what does it take to make the switch?

The first step is research. You can start by looking into your bank — maybe it’s already committed to not doing business with the fossil fuel industry. Check its website or contact the bank directly to see if it has a third-party certification or has made a public commitment against funding causes that lead to social or environmental harm. But be wary of vague statements like “environmentally friendly” or “sustainable” with no evidence to back them up. Terms like that aren’t regulated, so you may need to look further into your bank’s impact reports, lending criteria, or external rankings to confirm those claims. 

If you determine it’s time to switch banks, there are tools out there that can help you. Several third-party certifications exist for financial institutions committed to social and environmental responsibility. These can quickly narrow your search. 

For example, less than 20 banks and financial technology services are certified B Corporations, a certification that scores businesses based on factors tied to governance, workers, community, customers and the environment. Alongside that, fewer than 10 U.S. banks, credit unions and financial technology services are Fossil Free certified. Run by the nonprofit Bank Green, the only requirement is to never finance fossil fuel companies or projects. If you’re looking for other qualifications, several other memberships, certifications and designations can be found online. 

Certifications are not foolproof, and some require more effort than others. You should look carefully to assess which ones align with your values but, at the least, certifications ensure banks provide proof that they’re making good on their commitments. 

Online tools like Bank for Good can do some of this research for you. Bank for Good is a database of banks and credit cards that were vetted by a coalition of organizations to guarantee they are fossil-free. You can search for approved financial institutions that meet your needs by selecting criteria like your state, whether you want access to an in-person location, whether they offer business accounts, and if they are a certified B Corporation, among others. 

Despite having so many ways to filter your search, it can be difficult to find an option that meets multiple criteria. You may have to sacrifice some of your wants, particularly if you’re looking for an in-person location. When searching for a bank in Colorado with an in-person location, for example, no options appear. When that requirement is removed, multiple options become available — including more specific ones like those focused on clean energy financing and those that are Black- and Latino-owned or led. 

Another option to consider is local credit unions, which are member-owned, not-for-profit financial institutions focused on investing in their communities. Many of them provide free financial education, donate to local organizations and work with small businesses. They’re less likely to be linked to fossil fuels because of that community focus, but you’ll still need to do some research into their operations to confirm.

Once you’ve decided, you can prepare to open an account at your new financial institution by making a list of direct deposits, subscriptions, and automatic payments you’ll need to transfer and checking if they have a minimum balance requirement you’ll need to meet to open the account. This requirement typically ranges from $0 to $100, but it can be much more than that. After the account is open, it’s good practice to check that your banking information is updated across all services, subscriptions, employers, and anywhere else that may need it. The finance company NerdWallet recommends only emptying and closing your old account once you are certain any existing checks and automatic payments have cleared and getting written confirmation that it is closed. 

The capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) are proving to be beneficial to wildlife. Conservation teams and researchers are integrating AI into their environmental protection practices and using it to conserve natural resources, monitor ecosystems long-term, and measure the impact of natural disasters.

Conservation relies on biodiversity measurements that are timely and accurate, and AI can support monitoring and measurement systems. That type of integration is working for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), a conservation organization working with communities in almost 100 countries to protect wildlife and ecosystems. 

"We bring in data from all over the world, and the number of sensors that are pouring data in, the specificity of the data … and the speed is just accelerating," Dave Thau, the global data and technology lead scientist at WWF, told TriplePundit. "You need artificial intelligence to understand all of that information. Both on a global scale, which we work on, and also a local scale, which we work on, as well.” 

How to use AI for natural resource conservation

WWF has many uses for AI, including partnerships with academic, private-sector and non-governmental organizations, as well as people in house who are working with AI, Thau said. 

One of its many AI-integrated projects is Eyes on Recovery. Launched with a range of local, on-the-ground partners and supported by Google.org, the project was created to monitor the impacts of the Australian bushfires in 2020. 

During the bushfires, more than 12 million hectares of forest land were destroyed and an estimated 1.25 billion animals were killed. After the fires, the Eyes on Recovery team installed more than 600 camera traps in bushfire affected areas to monitor wildlife recovery. This allowed researchers to monitor important local and endangered species like the Kangaroo Island dunnart, a mouse-sized marsupial that is challenging to spot given its small size. 

The footage captured by the cameras is sent to an online tool called Wildlife Insights, which uses Google’s AI technology to sort and analyze the images. The team used initial photos from the project to train the AI to accurately identify different animals. Anyone with camera traps can add photos to the platform to contribute to the publicly-available data. 

“We can get a sense of which species are coming back, which are not, and what we can do to help those that are coming back,” Thau said.

Another example of an AI-enabled project is Forest Foresight. Last year, WWF-Netherlands and its partners collaborated with computer scientists and AI professionals to build an AI model that can predict illegal deforestation so action can be taken before it occurs. The model uses satellite images combined with data like population density, to study how forest loss happened in similar places in the past. That information helps it to predict areas that are at risk and alert local authorities and stakeholders. 

The tool predicts deforestation up to six months in advance with 80 percent accuracy, according to WWF. In Gabon, Forest Foresight also prevented illegal gold mining on 74 acres of forest land. 

"That system is being applied in several countries around the world, has been successful in finding places where deforestation is likely to increase, and has enabled organizations to intervene before it happens," Thau said.

Benefits and drawbacks of AI integration 

Still, AI integration can pose challenges and create social and environmental risks. Improper use of tools can skew data, create opportunities for greenwashing, dismiss data rights of local communities and spark language barriers.

WWF faced challenges figuring out where to use AI, how best to use it, and how to work with new applications, Thau said. 

But using AI comes with benefits and positive long-term impacts, too. Including understanding the effects of WWF projects and knowing what's actually working, Thau said. 

"We use artificial intelligence to understand where we can be impactful, what areas could benefit from conservation efforts, and understand risky events." Thau said. 

In addition to its technical capabilities, AI can enable engagement between organizations and local communities. Best practices and recommendations will ensure that all decision-makers are able to participate and understand the technology's insights. Leveraging the technology for environmental protection and conservation practices is making these collaborations possible.