Search

By Jessica Oaks

You've no doubt heard the term carbon footprint before. Though such a phrase may cause you to roll your eyes, it's an indisputable fact that manufactured products leave an impact on the environment – some more so than others. Thankfully, you can do your part to help offset this impact.

With global warming and climate change becoming growing concerns, it perhaps isn't enough to drink "responsibly” in the year 2016 and beyond. We may, as a society, be obligated to drink in an environmentally-friendly way as well.

What does that mean, exactly? Well, on the bright side, it can mean having your cake and eating it, too, if you go about it the right way. Purchase drinks only from companies that use environmentally-conscious production processes, and you can enjoy an alcoholic beverage on occasion and not feel guilty about the impact you're having on the world around you.

Again, if you approach things the right way.

Where does your alcohol come from?

Even a product as simple as water can have a huge impact on the environment (so consider how harmful, say, batteries are). This is plainly evident in Southern California, which is experiencing one of its worst droughts in memory. Regardless of the root causes, the effects of the drought are only made worse by the massive water-consumption requirements of the area; with more than 20 million people, Southern California has a population roughly equal to that of Australia. That is a massive number of people in a relatively small area, and the situation isn't helped by the fact that the area typically experiences little rainfall. Perhaps it was inevitable then that a drought of this magnitude would impact the area and get people thinking about water conservation and climate change.

It's important to note, however, that water is used for far more than bottled water. When it comes to packaged beverages, obvious uses are soft drinks, energy drinks and bottled coffees – but there are less obvious uses, too. With alcohol production, there's an extra, often unrecognized side effect, and that is for every liter or gallon of alcohol that you see bottled in the grocery store, there may be 5 or 10 gallons of water that went into its production – water that goes unused or becomes unfit for use. In an area like Southern California, this can be truly devastating, but ultimately, water pollution and water waste are harmful no matter where they occur. And then, of course, there are the related concerns stemming from the transportation of these goods around the world.

With any product, there are the environmental concerns stemming from its production, and those stemming from its transportation. Think of it this way: Every time you enjoy a bottle of Evian or Fiji Water in your office break room, that bottle of water had to arrive to your vending machine from its country of origin – and that required airplanes, boats, trucks and trains, all of which burned tremendous amounts of fossil fuels to get to you. If that water came from France or Fiji, that's a lot of fuel. That, in a nutshell, is what a product's carbon footprint is. The globalization of consumer products means that simply by drinking a bottle of water, you could be contributing to climate change through the production of CO2 gases. When you add in further production steps, such as those necessary to make, say, beer or liquor, the impact only grows. Of course, consumer products aren't going away, so what's the solution?

Thankfully, some companies are starting to take action to help mitigate their impact on the environment. And you can do your part, too.

The smaller the impact, the “friendlier” the drink

More and more liquor producers are starting to realize that their products have an impact on the world. And to help minimize this impact, these producers are starting to act.

Captain Morgan makes its drinks responsibly, thanks to its parent company's actions. Diageo, the owner of Captain Morgan, recently installed water evaporators at its rum facilities in an effort to reduce wastewater. And other producers are getting in on the action, too.

While some are taking steps to improve the production process, others still are advocating for more sustainable packaging. That box of wine that you're so quick to mock? It's actually the more environmentally-friendly option.

If you want to do your part, buy local products, choose items with sustainable or recycled packaging, and research different companies' production processes. You may be surprised to find the steps modern producers are taking to lessen their burden on the environment. Why not reward them with your dollars and cents?

Image credit: Flickr/Didriks

Jessica Oaks is a freelance journalist who loves to cover technology news and the ways that technology makes life easier. She also blogs at FreshlyTechy.com. Check her out on Twitter @TechyJessy.

By Josh Fox

The United States is undergoing a massive energy transition that isn't receiving enough attention, and it could render the Paris climate agreement meaningless. We're swapping one climate-damaging fuel, coal, for another that is actually worse: fracked gas.

It’s a stark contradiction for U.S. climate policy. The Obama administration used its executive power to push the agreement and its aspirational goal of keeping warming to “well below" 2 degrees Celsius. The agreement is a good thing. But for the U.S., a big part of reaching its intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) commitment is implementing the Clean Power Plan, the EPA’s framework for states to reduce their carbon emissions. It’s designed to facilitate a wholesale transition from coal to natural gas, much of which is a product of fracking.

Phasing out coal is also a good thing, but replacing it with gas will send emissions soaring, and put that “below 2 degree” goal out of reach – that is, unless communities succeed in standing up to the fossil fuel industry and replacing coal with renewables, not gas. By themselves, current INDCs connected to the Paris agreement will lead to a 3.5-degree warmer future. Any hope of grounding Paris’s lofty goals in reality depends on the grassroots acting fast to stop the gas industry juggernaut.

Gas power plants emit less CO2 than coal, so they sneak under the Clean Power Plan CO2 limits, and it’s easy and cheap to swap gas burners for coal burners in existing power plants. But natural gas is mostly methane, which is about a hundred times more powerful than CO2 as a warming agent. Gas drilling, fracking, and transport via pipelines and compressors means massive amounts of it will leak directly into the atmosphere before it’s even burned, swamping any potential gains in CO2 emissions for the global climate, while also causing local environmental and health damage.

The industry is currently proposing, and the Obama administration is busy approving, hundreds of power plants, hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines, compressor stations, LNG terminals and other fracked gas infrastructure across America. It’s like Keystone XL times 100 (in Roman numerals that would be Keystone CD, for “carbon dump”). They’re ramming through the Constitution pipeline in upstate New York, the CPV power plant in Middletown, New York, the NED pipeline through New England, two massive gas fired power plants in Denton, Texas, the Millennium pipeline expansion in Pennsylvania, the Tennessee pipeline in West Virginia, the gas storage facility at Seneca Lake, New York, and on and on.

Local communities are fighting these projects across the country, but they are largely unconnected to each other and lack the tools and resources they need to win. We urgently have to change that, because unless they do win, we will have 40 more years of fracked gas extraction and usage built into the energy system, and we can forget about keeping warming under 2 degrees.

Here’s the good news: Cities and towns can make the transition to renewables now. Some are succeeding in stopping fracked-gas infrastructure projects and winning bans and moratoria on fracking, but they know the only permanent ban is switching to a different energy source. Local grassroots support for renewables is strong and getting stronger, and there’s a growing knowledge and experience base for how to translate it successfully to utility scale projects. Renewables are ready: Solar, wind, conservation, geothermal and some renewable fuels already work better than fossil fuels, and they’re getting better all the time. There’s lot of money to be made on investing in them, and those opportunities can match up with trillions that have been divested from fossil fuels.

In some places, like California and New York, there’s a favorable state/local legislative environment for renewables. Portland, Oregon, has passed a resolution prohibiting new fossil-fuel development, and towns and cities across the West Coast are signing on. It’s also true that in many places pro-renewables laws and regulations are under siege from fossil fuel interests and ALEC-backed bills are hindering renewables development. But at least we have some policy templates that states can follow.

If we can put these available elements together – know-how, financing and policy -- we can give communities the tools they need to say “no” to the massive buildup in gas infrastructure, and “yes” to viable, utility-scale renewable alternatives. Then renewables can scale up, local environments, safety and health won’t be destroyed, and US emissions could fall to within range of the Paris targets.

I’ve made a new film, “How To Let Go of the World (and Love All the Things Climate Can’t Change)” about the power of local communities to determine their own climate and energy solutions democratically, and reject the industry bid to lock in more fossil fuels for decades to come. Here’s the trailer:

https://vimeo.com/147539163

It’s premiering at Sundance next month, then we’re taking it on a grassroots solutions tour to 100 cities and towns on the front lines of the fight against dangerous fossil fuel infrastructure. We’ll travel with experts and resources that can help them lead a renewable energy revolution, one community at a time. It’s the locally determined contributions of communities like these, not the imposed agenda of the gas industry, that could put us within reach of Paris’s aspirations.

Filmmaker Josh Fox is artistic director of the International WOW Company. His 2010 film GASLANDS galvanized the anti-fracking movement, and his new film on communities fighting climate change premiers at the Sundance Film Festival in January.

By Solène Pignet
With 2015 soon drawing to a close, many impact entrepreneurs and fellow changemakers are looking back to check what has been achieved, and what’s missing.

• Did you achieve everything you hoped to this year?


• Do you know what can you do to make even more progress toward your mission next year?

You have two options: wait and see what 'happens' ... or take action and plan to make it happen! Here are five reasons why you should go for the second option.

1. Impact happens on purpose

I am sure you experience this every single week of your entrepreneurial journey: Nothing happens unless you work on it to happen.

Of course, there is a part of chance and unexpected partnerships spicing things up, but the truth is: What you do and how you communicate about it is what is attracting those opportunities to you.

Getting clear on what kind of impact you want to create, and what you need for that to happen (even if not everything is in your hands), is key. It makes it much easier to attract the right opportunities and focus on the actions that will lead you to where you want to go.

2. Planning is not only reserved for launch

Look back and remember how much you used to plan before launching your social enterprise. Okay, maybe you even planned too much -- as it was a good excuse to procrastinate on actually getting started. Maybe at the time you had difficulties to forecast what would actually happen, and your “plan” became obsolete quite rapidly … but you did make a plan, didn’t you?!

Defining a vision, setting goals and identifying key actions are part of the entrepreneur’s job -- and not only before launching! Now that you have already (some) experience, you can use all those new information to make an even more effective plan!

3. Planning allows you to take a step back from your daily challenges

As an impact entrepreneur, it is easy to get caught into the daily multitasking and problem-solving. It's so easy that we all tend to procrastinate on important yet not-that-urgent things.

Taking a time to work on your business is as important as the things you can do when working in your business.

The end of the year is a good excuse to take this necessary step back.

4. Planning is not just about the future; it is also a celebration of today

When you take a step back to plan your next year, you also look back at what you already achieved -- and that is a great opportunity to celebrate!

How many times a year do you take a break from your challenges and actually look at what’s going well? Not just the big wins and amazing opportunities, but also the smaller challenges that you resolved, the tiny changes that led to a big improvements, the qualitative impact you’ve created beyond the numbers.

Yes, planning is not just “making a plan," but also an opportunity to re-boost your confidence by celebrating what has already been achieved, and set even brighter, bolder goals to move forward.

5. Planning is like using a GPS: It allows you to go the extra mile

• Who uses a GPS in his own neighborhood? Probably only my mom (sorry, mom ;) ).


• Who does not use a GPS when going to a far away, unknown place? The people who end up getting lost and waste time asking around.

If you wanna stay inside your comfort zone, and if you are happy with the impact you created so far, do just that again next year. Fine. Don’t plan, you already know what to do.

But if you want to challenge yourself, if you are the kind of person who likes to go the extra mile, push the limits and go out of his comfort zone, then go for it! Planning is what will secure your step forward.

Now, does it mean you won’t get lost? Does it mean “the lady” won’t say “turn left now” in the middle of the brand new highway? No, that is for sure still going to happen. But at least you will have maximized your chances to go as fast and as far as you can!

Image credit: no attribution, COO licence, source : pexels.com/planning

Solène is a globetrotter, committed to sustainable development and passionate about alternative entrepreneurship. She founded Creators for Good in 2014. She provides online consulting services to (aspiring) entrepreneurs willing to make a difference in the world.

She is also the co-host of The Global #SocEnt Lab, an online community accelerating collaborations between social entrepreneurs around the world.

By Kayla Matthews

When 70 percent of the medical decisions in the United Sates are influenced by laboratory tests, it’s critical for those tests to be reliable. Inaccurate medical tests can be wasteful or even dangerous. Forgetting to calibrate a testing machine may seem like a minor offense, but it can lead to deadly miscalculations in how much medication a patient needs.

Unfortunately, current medical testing practices are woefully insufficient. Like any business, labs are always looking for ways to save a little time and money. But are the time and money saved worth the cost to patients’ well-being?

Simple doesn’t mean foolproof

Labs that perform only waived tests can obtain a Certificate of Waiver (COW) under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA), exempting them from routine inspections. To be waived, tests must be simple and accurate, requiring little-to-no technical knowledge to perform.

The tests that fall under this category pose minimal risk to patients and are cleared for home use. Some well-known examples include finger pricks to measure blood glucose and cheek swabs to detect HIV.

Even waived tests are not foolproof, though. Botched paternity tests can tear families apart, and a false negative on an HIV test can leave a patient without life-sustaining treatment.

Unfortunately, many healthcare professionals are lured into a false sense of security by the simple nature of these tests. With the lack of regulation, it’s easy to make careless mistakes when administering waived tests.

Proficiency testing (PT) is a form of external quality control required for all non-waived tests, but waived tests are exempt. However, enrolling in an optional PT program is a good way for labs to improve the integrity of their waived testing procedures.

Accept no exceptions to regulation

Laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) occupy another regulatory loophole. Commercial test kits must be reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before hitting the market, but no such requirement exists for tests created and used within individual labs.

As technology advances, LDTs are becoming more complex and widespread. Without consistent FDA evaluation, it’s virtually impossible to ensure the accuracy and usefulness of these individually-developed tests.

Tests with poor sensitivity may leave serious conditions undetected and untreated. For example, the lab-developed SurePath Collection Medium test for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) is prone to false negatives, allowing the virus to advance into full-blown cervical cancer without early detection.

Other LDTs are prone to false positives, indicating a condition that isn’t actually present. This is common in ovarian cancer screenings, leading to the invasive and pricey removal of perfectly healthy ovaries.

In other cases, LDTs are irrelevant or are based on bad research. These unnecessary tests can be costly to patients, society and the environment. For instance, the CARE Clinics Autism Biomarkers Test was based on disproven research. A total of 2,027 children were misdiagnosed over a four-year period, leading to an estimated $66.1 million in inappropriate services.

A two-pronged solution

Increased federal oversight of medical testing technology is an obvious solution to these quality control problems, but it’s only part of the picture. Labs can expedite the process by taking responsibility into their own hands. Here are four ways labs can demonstrate their commitment to scientific integrity and quality patient care:

• Research tests carefully: It’s essential to meticulously research tests before implementing them. This is the best way to avoid tests that are poor quality or based on obsolete research.


• Practice equipment maintenance: Equipment repairs and calibration are a vital part of running a lab. Worn-down equipment can significantly impact test results.


• Train staff thoroughly: When training staff, emphasize the importance of following procedures. Be explicit about why each step is important, and provide clear and frequent feedback so mistakes can be corrected early.


• Harvest outside feedback: Enrolling in proficiency testing or other external quality control programs helps ensure no corners are being cut.

We’re a long way from perfecting the art of medical testing, but increased federal regulation and a commitment to quality from individual labs are definite steps in the right direction.

Image by University of Exeter

For in many communities in China, air quality problems are the norm, not the random exception. The hazy photos of residents donning masks to protect themselves from inhaling smog may seem like overkill to the average Los Angeles resident, but according to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, where clean air is often at risk, it's no laughing matter. To underscore this danger, the embassy has devoted a page on its website to monitoring smog conditions in the city, complete with a multi-colored chart describing the medical risks associated with air pollution.

It's also prompted at least one restaurant in a city south of Beijing to install its own air filtration system -- and to come up with a novel way of covering the expense.

The restaurant, located in Zhangjiagang City, in the Jiangsu Province, began charging for "air cleaning" after it installed an air filtration system. The restaurant defended the charge after patrons complained about being charged an extra fee of one yuan, or 15 cents at the end of the meal.

Since then, the restaurant has  been told by the local government that the fee is illegal, since inhaling is generally not an option and therefore can't be sold to the patron as a commodity. But some comments on Weibo (China's popular social media) have suggest that Chinese patrons aren't that put off by the charge.

"[There] is nothing wrong with charging this extra fee," wrote one commenter. "The kind of dining environment decides the kind of pricing.”

For those of us old enough to remember when drinking water was free (come on, it wasn't that long ago), and didn't come in flimsy clear bottles that could only be found squeezed between the beer and the soft drinks in the convenience section, charging for clean air has an eerie ring to it. So does rational discussion about whether patrons who pay for a classier meal should also pay for breathing higher-quality air.

The discussion also seems to belie a point that NASA recently made when it wrapped up a 9-year-long study of air pollution across the globe. It found that nitrogen dioxide emissions from congestion and power plants could be pin-pointed from space quite clearly. Those areas that had either reduced their carbon emissions or were not as developed industrially (war-torn Syria, oddly enough was used as an example) did not exhibit the same nitrogen dioxide emissions.

The takeaway says NASA, is that "[when] governments step in and say we're going to build something here or we're going to regulate this pollutant, you see the impact in the data."

The same can said about human nature: It's a great barometer for those things that governments need to protect.

Images: 1) Benjamin Vander Steen; 2) Nicolo Lazatti; 3) NASA Goddard Space Center

We all have our yearly holiday traditions: a favorite dish, a treasured carol or that family gathering you wait for all year long. But do you stop to consider the environment amidst your holiday merriment?

Here at 3p, we strive to weave sustainability into everything we do. So, we asked our staffers to share a sustainable holiday tradition. From our family to yours, we hope these small ideas can give you a little inspiration this season.

Have a sustainable holiday tradition you'd like to share? Tell us about it on social media using the hashtag #3pholiday or share in the comments below.

Nick Aster: 3p founder and publisher

"Our family reuses ribbons year after year and generally uses the morning newspaper to wrap presents. It looks kinda cool, actually!"

Click here to read posts from Nick.

Jen Boynton: 3p editor-in-chief

"On New Year's Day, my late grandmother's birthday, my family always gets together for a fancy brunch. The photo above is from our New Year's Day gathering while visiting family in Hawaii last year. While we leisurely eat our way though plate after plate, we review the past year's highlights and challenges. It's a great opportunity to reflect on everything we've accomplished rather than focus solely on what's to come. There's always plenty of champagne to toast to a sweet new year."

Click here to read posts from Jen.

Jan Lee: 3p correspondent

"In lieu of gifts, we donate to charities in the name of a relative or friend. We usually pick a charity that reflects the specific interests or focus of the individual or family. So, one family will receive notice of a donation to an organization that helps improve parks and other amenities for local kids in their metro area, while another will receive a card from a wildlife organization that supports endangered species. It's a great hit at both Chanukah and Christmas."

Click here to read posts from Jan.

RP Siegel: 3p correspondent

"We fill a Ziploc with some food, warm clothes, a dollar or two, a Christmas card, and such and hand it out to homeless people we happen across."

Click here to read posts from RP.

Tom Schueneman: 3p correspondent

"Ever since I can remember, one of my favorite Christmas decorations was a simple Christmas tree lamp consisting of a cone-shaped piece of cardboard with sparkles on the outside and little slits up and down the cone. It rested on a pointed bracket over a standard, blue-coated lightbulb. As the lightbulb heated up, the rising warm air pushed through the slits on the cardboard tree, making it spin around.

"Not necessarily a high-tech or sustainable design, but I still put that old tree out every year. Admittedly a little tired looking now, it is the same lightbulb that came with it when my parents bought it in the mid-fifties, a couple years before I was born. The modest little tree powered by the heat of a light bulb has sustained the joy of Christmas in our family for decades."

Click here to read posts from Tom.

Tina Casey: 3p correspondent

"We have a live tree, which will get chipped for mulch after the holidays. The lights and ornaments are from various thrift shops, not for the sake of sustainability, just for the sake of having unusual (and inexpensive) ornaments."

Click here to read posts from Tina.

Mary Mazzoni: 3p senior editor

"My parents and I have purchased evergreen trees with root balls every holiday since my childhood. After making their appearance as the yearly Christmas tree, decorated with mostly heirloom ornaments, we planted the firs, pines and spruces in the front yard. Each of the evergreens seen above is a reminder of holidays past -- and our yard grows more beautiful by the year!"

Bill Roth: 3p correspondent

"Once the kids were in high school, my family stopped giving each other Christmas presents.

"Instead we gave the money we would have spent on presents to charities that helped others. No gift wrapping to throw away, no fighting for parking spaces at the mall, no gift returns … a reduced environmental footprint plus the satisfaction that we fulfilled the Christmas spirit by helping those in need."

Click here to read posts from Bill.

Lesley Lammers: 3p correspondent

"I bought a small pine tree that is a house plant, and I'm using it as my Christmas tree this year ... I also buy used holiday tins at Goodwill, cook lots of treats and reuse the tins to send the goodies to friends as presents."

Click here to read posts from Lesley.

Marissa Rosen: 3p social media director

"Something I've done in the past is forgo giving material gifts, and instead give each family on my shopping list a group donation to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). That way, they get a card that says "you saved an elephant, thanks to Marissa's holiday donation for you" or something like that, instead of a useless purchase of an item that they don't need!"

Click here to read posts from Marissa.

Renee Farris: 3p correspondent

"My tradition is to read Nick Kristof's Holiday Gift Giving Guide and give gifts with meaning alongside regular presents. My large family draws names for Christmas gifts, so I only give a handful of people presents. This year I gave my nieces and nephew Legos, books, games and the gift of education to a girl for a year. One sister-in-law I gave mixing bowls, a dish drying rack, and (for a mere $25) eyesight to a blind person. I gave another sister-in-law a clothing gift card and helped disadvantaged minority school kids since she's a school teacher.

"For a ladies' Secret Santa gift exchange, I bought a solar lamp for a refugee ... then decided to give candy instead, since I didn't know how a donation in honor of the person would be received. Wish I would have stuck with the lantern. Most of the nonprofits I donate to for Christmas have cards that can be printed, mailed, or emailed to let my gift recipient know that I donated in their honor. When relatives ask me what I would like for Christmas, I always include donations to my favorite nonprofits.

"I also like to give gifts in reusable Christmas cloth gift bags. The reusable bags have seen many many Christmases in my family! They recirculate every year."

Click here to read posts from Renee.

All images courtesy of the TriplePundit team. 

Last spring, I visited my brother, Mark Cowell, owner of Blue Stone Farm in Otsego, Michigan. He was busy harvesting kale, onions and asparagus for the first farmers market of the season. His vegetables are pesticide-free and his chickens are free range.

All of his annual CSA shares were spoken for, and my son was excited about stocking up on dandelion jelly since we were out and he will not eat store-bought jam. My kids are also fans of the Concord grape jelly, the zucchini bread and the fresh green beans, although they don’t really understand all that goes into growing and harvesting fresh food. But, I know we are lucky to have access to healthy, locally-grown produce.

Often people feel that farmers market produce is more expensive and outside their food budget, but some organizations, like Fair Food Network and the Michigan Farmers Market Association, are working hard to make locally-grown produce more accessible to low-income families.

In 2009, Fair Food Network launched an innovative program called Double Up Food Bucks that allows SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefit recipients to redeem them at farmers markets to double their money up to $20 (for a total of $40) per market, per day so they can take home more locally grown fresh fruits and vegetables. This expands their food budget for healthy food, increases the number of customers at farmers markets, increases farmers’ income and keeps more dollars in the local economy. The USDA estimates that “every $1 in new SNAP benefits spent can result in up to $1.80 in total economic activity.”

“One of the biggest benefits of the program is that by spending locally, instead of at Walmart, that money stays within the community,“ Mark said.

Until 2015, Double Up Food Bucks was funded entirely by private donors. Double Up’s strong track record in Michigan informed and inspired bi-partisan support for a new $100 million healthy food incentive grants program established in the 2014 Farm Bill. In March, Fair Food Network received a $5.1 million award, the largest award to a nonprofit in the first round of funding to further expand the program in Michigan.

I talked to the Texas Township Farmers Market Manager (in Kalamazoo, Michigan), Emily Beutel. She has seen the program gain popularity by leaps and bounds each year.

In 2009, five farmers markets in Detroit participated in Double Up, and now over 150 sites across the state do, including 20 grocery stores in one of the first pilots in the nation, an important next frontier in healthy food incentives to reach more low-income families and expand the program benefits to mid-size farmers who can serve these larger markets.

The program has impacted more than 300,000 low-income families and 1,000 farmers each year The number of customers at the Texas Township market, and the use of SNAP funds, has grown, and more than that, Beutel and Mark have seen how enthusiastic and loyal many customers have become.

Beutel has watched customers develop close, long-term relationships with individual farmers, and learn about different types of fruits and vegetables and how to prepare them. Even after some customers got to a place where they no longer needed SNAP benefits, they continued to come to the market and buy from their preferred farmers.

“Local food is not a luxury item,” Beutel says. “Everyone should have access to it. It’s about everyone having a basic right to eat healthy, local food. We are really proud to be a part of that.”

The summer, as usual, was a busy one for Mark, harvesting and preparing his goods for CSA customers and markets in southwest Michigan. Business was good.

As the West Michigan farmers market season was winding down, I asked how the Double Up Bucks program was going. He said that he, Emily and some of the other farmers didn’t see the bigger SNAP numbers they thought they might see this summer. However, he said, this fall they felt like the numbers went back up.

I contacted Fair Food Network to see if they had any current numbers on how the program was doing and spoke to Emilie Engelhard, Communications Director.

Engelhard told me that each year, demand for Double Up has grown and the value of SNAP benefits spent with farmers has increased, including this year. Fair Food Network is now working with local partners in dozens of other states to bring this proven model to their communities. While Michigan isn’t widely known for pioneering sustainability efforts, it is far and away the leader in the Midwest states for SNAP use at farmers markets and number three in the nation, even though eight states distributed more SNAP benefits.

Engelhard shared some USDA data on SNAP use at farmers markets. According to Alan Shannon, Public Affairs Director of USDA-FNS/Midwest, SNAP redemptions in the six Midwest Region states (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, and WI) grew from $2.3 million in 2012 to $2.8 million in 2014, with Michigan leading the way.

The USDA also reported that overall, farmers markets (FMs) nationwide are working hard to reach more people in their communities and provide fresh local food for a wider customer base. According to a 2014 Farmers Market Managers Survey (45% of farmers markets in USDA directory), 64% of FM managers reported increased numbers of customers and 63% reported higher sales. “A majority of FMs (52%) are involved in increasing access to fresh foods through supplemental coupons, CSAs, and direct marketing to restaurants and food service providers. The states with most FMs are: California, New York, Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois. Taken together, FM economic viability is improving and increasing healthy food access to vulnerable populations.”

In addition, Engelhard says, “the $5.1 million grant from the USDA’s Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive (FINI) grants program awarded in March 2015 (plus matching funds) will allow us to expand the program in Michigan to more farmers markets and up to 50 grocery and small food stores, and help markets adopt mobile technology and be open year-round.”

She also did a bit of research on the numbers at the Texas Township Farmers Market, and although the final numbers are still being tallied for the season, she says that they are consistently strong.

“Double Up and SNAP distributed to customers are nearly identical at Texas Township farmers market this year compared to the same time period last year (June – August). The only noticeable difference is that the market is reporting less Double Up and SNAP transactions and less new customers compared to the same time period last year.  This could indicate that there are more returning customers coming to the market and maximizing the match compared to last year.”

Engelhard suggested that a vendor (like Mark) might feel like they are seeing less Double Up transactions because there are fewer new faces compared to last year even though the dollars in the marketplace are very comparable.  Also, she says, some experienced Double Up users could also be holding onto their tokens to redeem in peak season, which could explain that bump Mark noticed this fall.

One positive reason that the numbers may have dipped is that fewer people are receiving SNAP benefits each year as we move away from the recession. The USDA reported that the “average monthly SNAP participation in 2014 was 46.5 million, down from 47.6 million in 2013..” So this seemingly slower sales period during the summer might also underline the transition that Mark and Beutel talked about, namely that when customers no longer need SNAP benefits, they continue to shop at the farmers market with their own funds, which would keep sales numbers steady while Double Up transactions seemed more infrequent.

Of course, the Texas Township Farmers Market is just one small market in Michigan, but overall, the news for rural markets in Michigan is also very good. According to a Fair Food Network report:

“In 2014, more than one-third of the farmers’ markets that participated in the program were in communities of fewer than 50,000 people, and 50 of these markets were in rural communities with populations of less than 20,000. Almost 20 percent of the SNAP and Double Up dollars were spent in these markets last year, and 34 new rural markets and farmstands joined the program in 2015. Rural residents also used Double Up incentives at higher rates than urban shoppers, which may dispel myths that farmers’ markets are an affluent urban phenomenon.”

Blue Stone Farm doesn't have any more farmers markets this year, but we still get jars of jelly whenever we can. We’ll keep buying it as long as they can make it, and then we’ll live off of our frozen green beans and wait for next spring.

It will be interesting to see what other changes the Double Up Bucks program brings to farmers markets in Michigan and other states in the future.

images courtesy of Blue Stone Farm

Whether the climate agreement signed at the COP21 talks in Paris becomes reality or becomes stifled in national capitals worldwide, the fact remains that conference has increased awareness about the risks that stem for climate change. The shift towards cleaner sources of energy, however, have already been underway. Even before COP21, more global corporations, along with national and regional governments, have been making new commitments to use renewables and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Here in the U.S., natural gas has become the fuel of choice for new power plants connected to the grid. China, the world’s largest coal producer and consumer, appears to be burning less coal—although some experts suggest the country is under-reporting its coal consumption.

Whether the Chinese government is fudging the data or not, however, coal is slowly on its way out—not as fast as some advocates would like, but the evidence suggests this trend is indeed occurring. At least, such an outlook is according to Cleveland-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), which suggests that China already reached peak coal in 2014.

According to the IEEFA’s latest report, in addition to other commentary, the coal industry is in “deep structural decline.” Despite the fear that accelerated demand for energy in China and India would have a debilitating effect on the world’s climate, IEEFA’s analysts insist that the world’s largest economies have already moved past peak coal. According to their data, China’s coal production has peaked in 2013 and imports have continued to decrease; India’s demand for thermal coal imports likely peaked earlier this year; and Japan’s energy struggle post-Fukushima notwithstanding, that nation’s thermal coal imports probably peaked last year as well.

In a press release issued last week, IEEFA bluntly described the global coal industry as one in demise: “declining demand, excess supply, under-utilized coal-related rail and port infrastructure, relentless cost down initiatives, excessive financial leverage, asset write-downs and unprecedented stranded assets shareholder wealth destruction.” Post-COP21, investors in the global coal industry have responded in kind—the larger coal companies have witnessed a huge hit to their stock prices and overall financial performances, anywhere from 10 to almost 40 percent.

Granted, this outlook is coming from an organization that has been quick to stand up to the American coal industry in recent years. IEEFA has opposed bailout plans for coal-fired plants in Ohio and West Virginia; has led the charge to close what it describes as aging and obsolete coal fired plants across the country; and has documented what it alleges are spikes in electricity prices in regions where new coal burning plants were launched.

For those advocates who insist that the increased deployment of clean energy projects is the best path to limiting climate change this century, the IEEFA’s gives them more ammunition--not to mention an early Christmas gift in the form of continued momentum post-Paris. Meanwhile, the increased adoption of clean energy worldwide, despite the current low costs of fossil fuels worldwide, suggests that coal is in for an even rougher year in 2016.

Image credit: Flickr (Oatsy40)

By P.J. Marshall

The Restoration has begun. It’s official.

From the very first speeches on the first day of COP21, landscape-scale restoration was on the global agenda as never before.

Prince Charles was among the first to address the assembled delegates, and was also the first to touch on landscape-scale restoration, elevating it alongside its more commonly discussed cousin, preventing deforestation.

"Given that we have managed to reduce the world's tropical forests so significantly over recent decades (with over 500 million hectares lost since 1950), the restoration of forest landscapes should not be an afterthought - but an equal priority to halting deforestation and degradation," he said.

Then, at the Global Landscapes Forum on Dec. 5 and 6, where more than 3,000 representatives of business and civil society, double the expected attendance, converged to discuss the role landscapes can play in “solutions to the planet’s greatest climate and development challenges,” landscape-scale restoration was the buzz phrase. Described by some as the largest side event at the conference, where there was standing room only, the event saw the CEOs of multinationals including Veolia and Danone discuss their perspective on investing in landscape scale restoration to tackle climate change, global poverty and environmental degradation simultaneously.

At Restore the Earth, we hosted a breakfast on Wednesday Dec. 9, where thought leaders including Hunter Lovins, BSR’s Eric Olson and USBCSD’s Andrew Mangan joined us for a robust discussion on the opportunity for the private sector in leading on restoration.

And finally, there it is, right there in Article 5.1 of the historic global agreement inked in Paris on Saturday night. It reads:

“Parties should take action to conserve and enhance, as appropriate, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases as referred to in Article 4, paragraph 1(d), of the Convention, including forests.”

It’s that “enhance” that is so important to us at Restore the Earth. It signals a new appreciation of the role that landscape restoration can – indeed must – play in our urgent quest to keep the world to within 2 degrees, now 1.5 degrees Celsius, warming.

Of course, shifting our energy economy towards low carbon sources is a huge part of the work that lies ahead. We have to stop putting more carbon into the atmosphere as a matter of the utmost urgency.

But there’s another side that is equally important – and urgent. We also need to rapidly implement strategies to mitigate and sequester the carbon that we’ve already emitted. The path to get there is through landscape-scale restoration – restoring our degraded ecosystems - which can contribute 0.5 degree C of the solution by the end of the century.

At COP21, there was much focus on the challenge that so many of the solutions to hold us to the 1.5 degrees C goal feel hypothetical and untested. Landscape-scale restoration is different. We’ve proven landscape restoration works, on the ground. At Restore the Earth. We’ve already restored 45,000 acres along North America’s Gulf Coast. To get there, we’ve raised more than $29million in funding and collaborated with public and private partners including U.S. Fish & Wildlife, USDA/Natural Resource Conservation Service, Shell, CITGO, Entergy, Wells Fargo and Timberland. We’ve deployed 26,000 volunteers. Today, these reforested areas have restored habitat, created jobs, and brought back the rich green landscape that contributes so much to the Gulf Coast communities and culture. And we’ve been able to prove that this work yields incredible value, creating $9 of value for every $1 invested. So for an estimated cost of purchasing, restoring and permanently conserving degraded land of $5,000 per acre, we can create $45,000 of value.

This is just the start. The need now is to rapidly scale up this work to a more epic level. At REF, our next grand project is to restore North America’s Amazon, 1 million acres of degraded land in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. If we succeed in this project, it will reduce America’s carbon footprint by fully 2 percent. It will also generate billions in social, environmental and economic value.

The U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) estimates that we have the potential to restore 2 billion hectares of land globally—an area larger than South America. That’s a huge investment opportunity for leaders with the vision to take it on.

As the old Chinese proverb says, "The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now."

So let’s get to work. Join the restoration. It has begun.

Restore the Earth, a registered not-for-profit, works with public- and private-sector partners to restore the Earth’s essential forest and wetland ecosystems. Since Hurricane Katrina in 2008, the organization has secured more than $29 million in public and private funding to reforest more than 45,000 acres along the Gulf Coast. Restore the Earth was also the first to deploy restoration on oil-soiled wetlands after the Deepwater Horizon spill. Currently, Restore the Earth is working to restore 1 million acres of degraded land in the Mississippi River Basin—North America’s Amazon. 

Elon Musk and a few dozen of his tech cohorts think they know how to solve the crisis posed by the Volkswagen emissions scandal: Make the automaker come up with a truly zero-emissions model.

Don’t penalize Volkswagen with hefty fines and recalls that may not be pursued by consumers, the group argues, but compel the company apply the technology and expertise it's gained over the past decade to come up with a car that can revolutionize the auto industry.

Last week the consortium of tech leaders, which included heads of companies like SolarCity, Ceres and the Sierra Club, called on the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to adopt an innovative approach to VW's admitted use of software that could undermine emission inspections.

"The VW emissions scandal is mainly the result of physics meeting fiction," says the consortium, which points out that even if Volkswagen is required to recall the affected vehicles, "[drivers] won’t come in for a fix that compromises performance." What is needed isn't more lost revenue, but more productive data (and maybe even a wholly emissions-free car) that steers the planet toward lowering greenhouse gases.

"'[Cure] the air, not the cars,'" they continue, "and reap multiples of what damage has been caused while strongly advancing California’s interests in transitioning to zero emission vehicles."

To do this, the group offered a five-step plan:

• Release VW of its requirement to fix those vehicles already on the road in California. That number is relatively insignificant to the actual vehicle emission levels in the state.


• Require VW to "accelerate greatly its rollout of zero emission vehicles." The authors suggest that they "present zero opportunities for cheating," and therefore won't cost the state added overhead to enforce.


• Set aggressive expectations for that roll-out, with a 10 to one reduction in emissions over a five-year period. Use VW's previous  "diesel cheating" vehicles as the comparison bar for those new standards.


• Make the company invest in new factories and research facilities, a goal that VW has stated it is already working to accomplish. Only, require the company to invest those dollars in facilities in California, where it will create more jobs. The money that would be spent on penalties, the group argues, can be better spent developing California-based technology.


• Allow the company to have a say in the timing by allowing zero emission credits to be applied to the endeavor.

The group points out that the idea isn't exactly new: In the 1990s, the Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency went after diesel truck manufacturers' deceptive behaviors by requiring the companies to conform to new, accelerated standards. Requiring VW to use its technology to develop a truly zero-emissions vehicle is ultimately a win-win for California as well as consumers.

This isn't the first time that Musk has spoken up on the VW scandal. In September, he challenged agencies to implement random emissions testing, with the observation that the world has "reached the limit of what’s possible with diesel and gasoline." What is needed now is a new form of technology that can move past these challenges.

CARB has not yet offered a response to the proposal. The agency is due to issue a ruling on VW's proposed plan to recall vehicles containing the deceptive software by Jan. 14. With the current increasing demand for more resourceful answers to California's environmental challenges, it will be interesting to see what steps California's leading environmental agency opts to take for the new year.

Image: Flickr/Blowing Puffer Fish