Search

Plastics: They’re everywhere and in almost everything — from electronics and automobiles to food packaging and chewing gum. In fact, the average American generates between 88 and 122 pounds of plastic waste at home every year. Sadly, 8 million metric tons of plastic finds its way into the world's oceans each year.

The Ocean Conservancy warns that unless drastic measures are taken – in 2025 the ocean could contain 1 ton of plastic for every 3 tons of fish.

Although the scope of the problem may sound overwhelming, combined with the fact that global plastic production is expected to increase significantly, the Ocean Conservancy in partnership with the McKinsey Center for Business and Environment released Stemming the Tide: Land-based strategies for a plastic-free ocean: a solution-oriented report detailing how to reduce plastic waste in oceans by 45 percent by 2025 and eliminate the problem by 2035.

Five countries account for 60 percent of the total leakage of plastic into the ocean: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. To achieve this reversal of the status quo, however, all hands are needed on deck in a concerted land-based global response.

"Today's report, for the first time, outlines a specific path forward for the reduction, and ultimate elimination, of plastic waste in the oceans," said Andreas Merkl, CEO of the Ocean Conservancy on Sept. 30. "The report's findings confirm what many have long thought - that ocean plastic solutions actually begin on land. It will take a coordinated effort of industry, NGOs and government to solve this growing economic and environmental problem."

The global cost of this undertaking could be as low as $5 billion annually, but it would also provide economic benefits. The exact impact of ocean plastic pollution is difficult to quantify, but it does impact tourism revenue, human health and property values. Marine life, including seabirds, whales and sea turtles, are dying from ingesting or becoming entangled in marine plastic; livelihoods are threatened; and navigational challenges are created for shipping and transportation industry.

"Considering this is a global environmental challenge impacting sanitation and health, land values, important sources of global protein, and the growth of the consumer goods and packaging industries, an estimated $5 billion scale of intervention makes this one of the most solvable of the environmental challenges we collectively face," said Dr. Martin Stuchtey, director of the McKinsey Center for Business and Environment.

The report calls for both a private and public investment, with solutions for different time horizons. Rapid development of waste-collection systems and mitigating post-collection leakage is the first step. Next, the development and implementation of treatment options. In the long term, the report identifies a critical need for supply-chain cooperation and innovations in recovery and treatment technologies, the development of new materials, and product design that promotes reuse and recycling.

In the short and medium term, the report calls for accelerated development of waste collection and plugging of post-collection leakage, followed by the development and rollout of commercially-viable treatment options.

The report emphasizes the need for fast, effective global solutions with diverse benefits, while also making multidimensional decisions across an integrated lifecycle of plastics. This would require a multi-stakeholder approach for rapid progress, including the important role of industry.

"We're committed to working toward a future of a plastic-free ocean," said Jeff Wooster, global sustainability director for Dow Packaging and Specialty Plastics, a partner on the report. "Companies don't make plastic with the intent of it ending up in the ocean, and we acknowledge the strong role industry must play in order to help eliminate ocean plastic waste by 2035."

Image credit: Flickr/epSos .de

The collaborative economy may be just the shot in the arm that capitalism needs as the alternative to corporate power, and also what corporations need to survive.

The latest report from Jeremiah Owyang, founder of Crowd Companies Council, and Alexandra Samuel, released on Monday, was written in conjunction with Vision Critical, which provides a cloud-based customer intelligence platform. The report makes the trenchant point that because the collaborative economy movement is here to stay and growing, its threat to traditional companies “can’t be underestimated.” They call it a tactical report on “how to survive and win.”

If corporations haven’t been paying attention to what’s happening with the collaborative economy, they better start, the authors say.

The report concludes that more than half of North Americans have “woken up to a new way a new way of getting the products and services they need."

"It’s called the collaborative economy, and it’s the biggest shift in the business landscape since the advent of the Internet itself," the report reads. "And just like the Internet, it’s changing the rules for how we market, sell and innovate. To compete in this growing economy, established corporations must develop new strategies.”

According to the report, the collaborative economy is defined as an economic movement “where common technologies enable people to get the goods and services they need from each other, peer to peer, instead of buying from established corporations.”

It’s a new economic reality, and a new form of consumption and exchange. For example, in this new and transformative landscape, the world’s largest hospitality brand, Airbnb, does not own a single room or hotel. The world’s largest car service, Uber, doesn’t own a single vehicle. And eBay, one of the world’s largest retailers, is driven by people buying and selling preowned goods. These companies are part of a “much larger shift that is transforming our lives, our economy and the way we do business.”

The 27-page report is a “roadmap” that outlines how companies can “compete and thrive” in a marketplace where “you partner with your customers instead of simply selling to them.”

It’s a much bigger deal than you might think: More than 110 million North Americans are now part of the collaborative economy, according to the report, and participation has grown by 25 percent in the past year alone. That’s impressive, but the report states that current rates of growth, more than 6 in 10 Americans will use a sharing service in the coming year, and that by 2017, 8 in 10 Americans will be part of the collaborative economy.

“The continued, rapid growth of collaboration means every business needs to think about how to combat, complement or compete in this space,” the report's authors wrote. The analysis describes three paths companies can take: price, convenience and brand.

Price: 82 percent of sharing transactions are partially motivated by price — “making financial savings one of the top drivers of the collaborative economy.”

Convenience: Convenience is the most popular reason that people give for using sharing services, and it matters across all sharing categories. “It’s a lot harder for traditional companies to compete with sharing services on convenience. It’s easy to get sharers to consider buying by offering them a lower price; but when it comes to convenience, it’s more likely that existing buyers will convert to sharing.”

Brand: Branding is still relevant, even in a sharing, peer-to-peer economy; in fact “big brands actually matter more than ever … in the collaborative economy, customers turn to brands as way of determining whether a transaction is trustworthy.”  People prefer known brands, the report concludes, and it is trust that determines whether buyers are willing to consider sharing.

So, in order for established companies to deal with the risks posed by the collaborative economy, they need to compete on price. Established brands with broad revenue bases “are well-positioned to compete by offering value.”

They also need to compete on convenience, as local content continues to have great value to sharers. Because sharing services increasingly are identified as large, global powerhouses — rather than associated with the local community of buyers and sellers — “traditional businesses may be in a better position to provide the local goods that appeal to community-minded sharers.”

Finally, traditional companies should compete on brand. This is because “some sharing economy startups are under scrutiny,” the report continues, “and our research indicates they’re not as universally loved as established companies.” For example, Uber executives in France were arrested for running an illegal taxi service. And municipal governments in locations such as San Francisco and New York have moved to ban Airbnb.

“These developments reflect a key vulnerability of the collaborative economy: As sharing companies have taken off, they’ve come in for a lot of criticism as well as praise.” As brands become better known, they can attract negative as well as positive sentiment. “That risk is much greater for sharing brands than for conventional brands, because so much of the sharing experience depends on the users themselves,” the report notes.

To compete in the collaborative economy, “established companies need to recognize the role of price, convenience and brand in driving traditional buyers towards sharing. But each of these can also provide a path to wooing customers back to your company—particularly if you tap into sharing models to serve your customers in new ways.”

That sounds like a win-win for all companies, new and old, in the collaborative economy.

Image: Collaborative Economy Honeycomb from the Crowd Companies website

By Robert Fenn

On Sept. 15, the latest version of the world’s most recognized environmental standard – ISO 14001 – was published following three years of work.

Since its release in 1996, adoption has won fans because of its broad look at all potential environmental issues. The revision – ISO 14001:2015 – is aimed at helping organizations respond to global sustainability challenges and ensure they continue to derive benefits from implementing an Environmental Management System.

In conjunction with obtaining certification to the standard, ISO 14001’s holistic approach to managing environmental impact has allowed organizations to demonstrate ‘green’ credentials as a differentiator in competitive scenarios. As a result, not only has the standard helped implementers save money through improved resource efficiency and reduced waste, but certification has helped them win work, too.

What’s changing?

The changes to the requirements in ISO 14001 are ultimately designed for organizations to get their Environmental Management Systems working harder for them, with a greater focus on:

• Leadership involvement;


• Communication and participation;


• Protecting the environment, and;


• Lifecycle thinking

Fundamentally, the structure of ISO 14001:2015 has also changed to share a common structure with other ISO management standards such as ISO 9001:2015 and ISO 27001:2013. This makes creating an integrated Management System considerably more straightforward.

How will the revision benefit organizations?

ISO 14001:2015 presents an opportunity for organizations to show they meet the very latest in global best practice for environmental management. In a recent survey conducted by IEMA, over 40 percent of respondents said the revised standard will bring greater buy-in from senior management. If this is achieved, organizations should find increased benefits from greater engagement and accountability with staff at all levels.

The IEMA survey also revealed 40 percent of respondents saved at least US$15,000 per year, with some businesses saving over $7.5 million annually as a result of using the outgoing ISO 14001:2004 thanks to energy efficiency measures and improved waste management.

IEMA also cited clients generating new business opportunities as a result of holding ISO 14001 certification. This is something supported in the British Assessment Bureau’s 2015 Client Satisfaction Survey, where 73 percent found certification helped them to qualify for or directly win business. A further 21 percent said ISO 14001 helped raise their organization’s profile.

Not forgetting the internal benefits, 86 percent said they had improved processes and efficiencies. This resulted in 96 percent of clients surveyed saying they would recommend the environmental standard.

We'll be digging out our woolly jumpers this Autumn - DWT reduced gas use by 55% compared to last yr by having the heating on less #iso14001

— Devon Wildlife Trust (@DevonWildlife) September 15, 2015

What will be the impact of ISO 14001:2015?

As the above figures show, ISO 14001:2015 will build on a solid foundation left by its predecessors. With the new requirements encouraging organizations to consider their environmental impact from cradle to grave, together with improved engagement of its leaders and staff, the reach of the standards looks set to travel much deeper into the world’s supply chain.

The latest ISO Survey shows that, despite many waiting for the new revision, adoption of the outgoing ISO 14001:2004 was still growing. Between 2013 and 2014, ISO reported 324,148 certificates in circulation, which represents 7.46 percent growth. In reality, this figure only scratches the surface, as submissions to the survey are not mandatory. It is estimated the figure is closer to 1 million.

With ISO 14001:2015 more accessible thanks to its less prescriptive nature, now has never been a better time for organizations to wake up to the realities of environmental management being part of core strategy.

Do you have experience with ISO 14001? Join the conversation via Twitter @TriplePundit.

Image credit: iStock photo

It may help consumers work, rest and play but the iconic Mars bar is also now helping to improve the lives of West African cocoa farmers.

From today, the first bars featuring Fairtrade-certified cocoa roll out of the factory and into shops and also mark the company's move to commit to Fairtrade’s new Cocoa Sourcing Program.

The Fairtrade Cocoa Program, which was launched in partnership with Mars Chocolate Germany for its TWIX brand there last year, specifically aims to deliver more opportunities for cocoa farmers to sell on Fairtrade terms and connect them with businesses that actively support efforts to improve farmer livelihoods.

Alongside paying Fairtrade Premiums to farmers’ organisations, Mars is working in partnership with Fairtrade cocoa co-operatives on the ground in Côte d’Ivoire who are building their own farmer-led projects to improve cocoa yields for the long-term, through measures such as training farmers in the effective use of fertilisers and planting techniques and providing access to improved high yielding and disease resistant crops.

By 2016, the total Fairtrade premiums paid by Mars globally to cocoa cooperatives in West Africa will reach over US$2m per year.

Globally, Mars’ Sustainable Cocoa Initiative focuses on cocoa science research, transferring technology and agricultural methods to cocoa farmers to increase their productivity and working to promote certified sustainable practices. In 2009, Mars, Inc. was the first global chocolate company to commit to certify its entire cocoa supply as being produced in a sustainable manner by 2020.

Blas Maquivar, president, Mars Chocolate UK, commented: “At Mars, ‘Mutuality’ is one of our guiding principles and this is a true example of sharing mutual benefits with partners throughout our supply chain."
 

Image: Mars, Inc. is one of 10 major food companies making its climate commitments known. 

The days of business push-back on environmental legislation are in the rearview mirror, at least for the food industry. So long, don't let the door hit you on the way out!

Yesterday 10 major food companies -- coordinated by Ceres and led by Mars -- released a letter to U.S. and global leaders calling for action on climate change. The signatories are a mix of major food conglomerates and mid-sized companies with a known sustainability bent: Mars, General Mills, Nestle USA, Unilever, Danone Dairy North America, Stonyfield Farm, Ben & Jerry's, Kellogg Company, New Belgium Brewery and Clif Bar.

"Climate change is bad for farmers and for agriculture. Drought, flooding and hotter growing conditions threaten the world's food supply and contribute to food insecurity," the letter, which also ran in full page ads in the Washington Post and Financial times, states.

Beyond calling for action in Paris, the letter includes three commitments: re-energize our companies' continued efforts to ensure that our supply chain becomes (sic) more sustainable, talk transparently about our efforts and share best practices, and use our voices to advocate for governments to set clear, achievable measurable, enforceable science-based targets for carbon emissions reductions.

This last commitment -- to lobby for carbon targets -- is the most exciting of the bunch. These ten companies have holdings and work with suppliers all around the world and in districts all around the U.S.. By making their preference for a carbon target known to their legislators, they influence the political process and offer a path through the political minefield that supporting environmental legislation has become.

The letter signing was announced at a Washington D.C. roundtable attended by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Rep. Christopher Gibson (R-NY), who have joined together across the aisle to advocate for action on climate change. At the roundtable, Sen. Whitehouse spoke from the heart,

"Modern life has put a great many of us into a private bubble of consumption. There is too much distance between us and the natural world, we are no longer dependent on nearby farms. So the signals of distress that the earth and atmosphere are sending are falling on deaf ears. It’s really important that the big agriculture and food companies that provide the bridge between natural world and our bubble understand the importance of action on climate change."

He spoke to the courage the companies took in taking this position in favor of climate action.

His words were echoed and seconded by representatives from 4 of the signatories who were present for the announcement. Barry Parkin Chief Sustainability Officer, Mars Inc. explained, "Mars is a global food business with operations around the world and a presence in 150 companies. We have a big carbon footprint due to all the agriculture and we have a big responsibility." The company has set an aggressive target to eliminate or offset 100% of emissions from its direct operations by 2014. While laudable, direct operations only account for 14 percent of Mars' total carbon footprint, so there is more work to be done

Parkin explained why Mars was taking a leadership position, "It's the right thing to do. We're doing this for our kids, grandkids and future generations. We're also doing it for the millions of farmers in our supply chain. Many are smallholders living on the edge. Many of us will get by [survive climate change], they may not."

Tom Langan from Unilever echoed the business case, "Climate change impacts our business directly to the tune of three hundred million euros a year." He spoke passionately about the droughts occurring with greater frequency around the world, "Water is a major problem. Consumers need water to use our products." Deforestation is also a big concern and the company is tracking impacts in palm oil, soy, and deforestation around the world. "We want to be influential voice on climate change. But we need to work together. We can reach all our goals and it won’t make a difference. We need government support because we live in a carbon based economy. This is our message for Paris. We can’t change ourselves. We're calling for a responsible, meaningful carbon price."

Mindy Lubber, CEO of Ceres, closed the session, stating, "The leaders sitting here today have helped to emphatically dispel notions that this [climate change action] is for liberals.... There isn’t a leader anywhere who wouldn’t jump in front of a truck to save children. Climate change is that truck."

One hopes that as these ten companies take a stand, others will fall in step and that this pressure will build to make climate action more politically palatable. One way or the other, it is looking likely that the U.S. will sign on to some kind of commitment in Paris. Whether or not congress will be able to pass legislation to support it is another question entirely. It looks like they'll be at the table, even if they have to be dragged there kicking and screaming.

Image credit: Zeyus Media/Flickr

 

By Robbie Brown, Fuji Xerox.

Most businesses benefit from ecosystem services. However it is becoming clear that these assets are finite and we simply don’t have enough natural materials to meet the demand.

All organizations have financial goals and making a profit is critical to be a financially sustainable organization.  To make financial capital a reality we need to draw from natural capital i.e. Mother Nature’s ‘bank’ of natural resources, to produce manufactured products and business services. Some typical natural resources may include trees, minerals and fossil fuels. Through the extraction process whole ecologies can be transformed, impacting ecosystem services that produce essential benefits such as clean air, water and a stable climate. We are essentially making constant withdrawals without a mandate for making any deposits back to nature’s reserves. If Mother Nature was a bank manager she'd serve us an ‘ecological overdraft’ notice. However, natural systems sit outside the conventional economy as externalities and therefore don’t appear on the business balance sheet. Unfortunately the invisibility of impacts on natural capital does not make a business immune to nature’s feedback. Natural systems are feeding back into social and economic systems and impacting financial capital. We are playing witness to this very fact with the increase in natural disaster events.

For example the increasing rate of heatwaves in Australia costs businesses over $7 billion in lost productivity annually. It is with these examples that businesses should be motivated to mitigate increasing environmental degradation.

Of course businesses should address low hanging fruit by investing in operational efficiency, such as lighting upgrades, print efficiency solutions and other IT infrastructure operations and workforce engagement to encourage sustainable commuting. But building a sustainable business is more complex and will eventually involve larger scale solutions to ensure that businesses are actively contributing to the reduction of their natural capital impacts in a more meaningful way.

How can businesses make better decisions and adopt more sustainable measures while meeting financial targets?

The first step is to ask the right question.  At what stage does your product or service negatively impact the environment most?

The answer will involve a better understanding of the lifecycle of your products and services. This could include measuring, and managing environmental impacts  over a products life cycle. The science of Lifecycle Assessment (LCA) helps businesses to determine the point in a product’s lifecycle that is most environmentally intensive. Through the process the business will engage with their entire supply chain where the majority of impacts likely lie. For some products the end-of-life (EOL) stage may be the most intensive. This is true for many paper products when they are landfilled instead of recycled. FXA’s paper LCA found that the carbon emissions of paper in landfill can account for over 30 percent of an entire product footprint. For other products the most destructive stages can be hidden deep in the supply chain exposing the business to significant financial and reputational risks.

The message is to make natural capital your ally by understanding the value it provides to your business both directly and indirectly. In 2016 the first iteration of the Natural Capital Protocol (NCP) will be available to help business transform their operations through understanding and incorporating their impacts and dependencies on natural capital. The intention of the NCP will be to bring the natural capital ‘externalities’ onto the business balance sheet help make better decisions, holistically manage their risks and adapt to new business opportunities.

Robbie Brown is Sustainability Manager at Fuji Xerox.

 

Photo Credit: Holly Lay

 

The impact of the Volkswagen emissions scandal is enormous, affecting the health of local communities as well as the livelihood and reputation of auto dealers and mechanics, on top of hundreds of thousands of car owners who bought into the company's "clean diesel" marketing. That's just for starters. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has also placed all auto manufacturers under heightened scrutiny, and the scandal casts a pall over Volkswagen's other sustainability projects.

The Volkswagen scandal ripple effect

The Environmental Protection Agency held a press conference on September 25 to update journalists on its response to the Volkswagen scandal. Triple Pundit dialed in by phone, and we can testify that the agency's officials were extremely forceful in their presentations.

Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, kicked things off by providing journalists with the big picture on EPA emissions regulations. She made the case that that air quality has "dramatically" improved as a result of federal oversight, and she noted that the regulations "level the playing field" for auto manufacturers. As a simple matter of consumer protection and truth in advertising, EPA regulations also ensure that consumers "get what they pay for."

Christopher Grundler, Director of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality, described the criminality of cheating on emissions testing. He laid out EPA's jurisdiction, stating that "it is not legal to sell a new car in the United States without EPA certification."

Noting that the EPA auditing process changes as automobile technology progresses, Grundler described how EPA is "upping its game" in response to the Volkswagen scandal and "putting manufacturers on notice" that the agency will be looking specifically for defeat devices. He wouldn't give away any specifics, except to let manufacturers know that "we will be keeping your car longer."

On September 25, EPA also sent a letter notifying auto manufacturers of the change in emissions testing procedures. It was short and to the point. Here is the relevant passage:

...EPA may test or require testing on any vehicle at a designated location, using driving cycles and conditions that may reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal operation and use, for the purposes of investigating a potential defeat device.

Such testing can be expected in addition to the standard emissions test cycles when Emissions Data Vehicles (EDV), and Fuel Economy Data Vehicles (FEDV) are tested by EPA. Manufacturers should expect that this additional testing may add time to the confirmatory test process and that additional mileage may be accumulated on the EDVs and FEDVs...

To be clear, the ripple effect on other manufacturers should turn out to be a positive. With tighter procedures in place, auto manufacturers can use the more stringent standards in their marketing -- if their vehicles achieve certification, that is.

The Other Ripple Effect

Regardless of whether or not Volkswagen's other models pass the new procedures, the enormous black mark of its criminal behavior casts a shadow of suspicion over the entire "clean diesel" market in general, and it also affects public perception of the company's CSR intentions.

The emissions scandal is not simply a case of consumer fraud. Concrete public health impacts are involved, which certainly undercut Volkswagen's "Think Blue" CSR program, especially regarding its carbon offset initiatives.

The engineered deceit behind the scandal also calls into question whether or not sustainability systems at its "green" manufacturing facilities are really performing the way they are supposed to.

Similarly, the Volkswagen emissions scandal taints a number of other European brands involved a  "clean diesel" marketing push aimed specifically at U.S. car buyers. The initiative, "Clean Diesel: Clearly Better" launched in 2012 including BMW, Daimler AG, Porsche, and Mercedes in addition to the Volkswagen and Audi brands.

The scandal may also raise renewed investigations into the compatibility of Volkswagen diesel engines with biodiesel, and call into question the company's commitment to continue evolving as higher blends of biodiesel enter the market.

Ironically, back in February Volkswagen called for more investment in electric vehicles, a zero-emission solution that virtually eliminates EPA certification procedures.

Volkswagen has been involved in R&D initiatives for electric vehicles as well as an effort to boost the electric vehicle charging network in the U.S. Last year the company even began offering a turnkey solar package for homeowners with the purchase of its e-Golf model.

Unfortunately, if consumers turn away from the entire brand, Volkwagen may see its share of the U.S. electric market plummet.

Image: via U.S. EPA

 

The 2016 presidential race, once again, is so far full more of sideshows than serious debates on policy. Never mind that the next president will have a huge impact on the Supreme Court, needs to figure out how to bolster a declining middle class and will have a wide array of foreign policy headaches, from ISIL to Putin to an increasingly fragmented Europe. Serious decisions on climate change will also have to be made, whether or not oil stays at $50 a barrel or if the COP21 talks in Paris later this year are a success.

So despite the rhetoric from the likes of Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, and no matter where your opinions lie, expect climate change and energy policy to add to the silly season rather than engender serious, thoughtful ideas. And while we naturally expect the Democrats to be “for it,” and the Republicans “against it,” a recent poll conducted jointly by Echelon Insights, North Star Opinion Research and Public Opinion Strategies will raise some eyebrows with the critical Iowa caucuses only four months away.

According to this poll, conducted late last month, a vast majority of Republicans are open to new forms of energy in order to reduce the country’s dependence on imported fossil fuels. And many of these questions asked in the poll received a majority or at a minimum, surprisingly strong agreement among those described as conservative Republicans. So has the ice melted? Have the Republicans, who generations ago were the “progressive” environmental party that broke up the oil business trusts  while establishing the National Park Service (Teddy Roosevelt), funded science programs (Dwight Eisenhower) and established the Environmental Protection Agency (Richard Nixon) . . . ready to turn the corner?

“Many Conservative Republicans Believe Climate Change Is a Real Threat,” blared a headline earlier this week in the New York Times. Well, not exactly. 54 percent do agree that mankind has some kind of role with the world’s changing climate, and an overwhelming majority agree that the U.S. needs to accelerate the deployment of clean energy. No question used the word, "threat," however: after all, such rhetoric would have sabotaged the results for which the poll’s supporters had hoped.

As with most polls, the devil in the details is how the questions are asked. The pollsters were savvy enough to use the term “clean energy,” not “green,” “alternative” or even “renewable.” Hypothetical scenarios, such as pollsters asking whether one would support a candidate who would expand clean energy development to reduce foreign oil imports, cut air pollution and improve public health versus one who discussed the EPA or need for clean energy subsidies, were among the questions. That former imaginary candidate, of course, won by a landslide, and that was true for all groups of respondents, across the political spectrum.

The poll was funded by Jim Faison, a North Carolina businessman who helped establish ClearPath, an advocacy group that aims to accelerate America’s clean energy future with conservative solutions. The group is working to raise $175 million to lobby the Republican party to shift its stubborn position on climate change. ClearPath’s site showcases many facts that demonstrate Republican politicians have taken decisive action on environmental issues--including laws passed during the George H. W. Bush administration that slashed “acid rain” during the 1980s and 1990s by the implementation of market-based solutions.

So will Faison’s and ClearPath’s agenda change hearts and minds? The amount of money they are raising is impressive, but that sum is a child’s piggy bank compared to the funds, and power, the Koch Brothers have over the Republican party. Pundits also point to what is going on with the Republicans in the wake of Jim Boehner’s resignation as Speaker of the House, as it is clear that the Tea Party is calling the shots within the party. But anything can happen in American politics: after all, some Tea Partiers are aligning with organizations such as the Sierra Club to make the installation of residential solar power easier and less bureaucratic. But compromise is integral to political success, and the lack of it in Congress most likely means inertia on climate change is the most realistic prediction. Image credit: Leon Kaye

This week, Walmart went into contract to buy 58 percent of the estimated output from Pattern Energy Group's new Logan's Gap Wind farm in Texas under a 10-year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA).

The 87-turbine facility was fully operational earlier this week, and the 200-megawatt facility is expected to produce enough energy to power 50,000 homes. The agreement however does not give Walmart responsibility for installing, operating, or maintaining the wind farm.

Walmart is using its scale and buying power to increase the deployment of clean energy projects by agreeing to purchase wind power over the long-term. PPAs make it easier for the project to secure low-cost financing, as there is a guaranteed buyer for the power once the project is operational, thus lowering the cost of the generated power. This is a win-win arrangement, as it lowers the business risk of the project and Walmart can secure energy at a lower cost.

Traditionally, Walmart preferred shorter term power purchase agreements, but this didn't help renewable energy projects secure low-cost financing. "Prior to 2006, the renewable energy industry sought 20-25 year PPAs, while Walmart was accustomed to buying power in 1-year or less contracts," states Walmart's Approach to Renewable Energy. "Walmart worked to bring the two perspectives closer together. Through information and education, Walmart has become comfortable with longer contracts, and helped renewable developers secure financing for much shorter contract lengths."

This PPA with is a big step for Walmart realizing its goal started in 2005 of using 100 percent renewable energy. For a company with revenue of $485.7 billion in revenue in 2014 and 11,000 stores in 27 countries, this is no small feat. Currently, 26 percent of the company's power comes from renewable sources.

“Walmart has a goal to be supplied by 100 percent renewable energy, and sourcing from wind energy projects — like the Logan’s Gap Wind facility — is a core component in the mix,” said Mark Vanderhelm, vice president of energy for Walmart. “The energy we’ll procure from this facility represents nearly one-fifth of the U.S. portion of our goal to source seven billion kilowatt hours of renewable energy by 2020. That’s a significant leap forward on our renewable energy journey.”

While some companies have reached goals of using 100 percent renewable energy more rapidly, Walmart has taken a more gradual approach, due to scale and cost concerns.  Energy efficiency initiatives are also an important component of reaching this goal, as it will reduce overall energy use.

"After assessing all of these options, we have determined an approach to renewable energy that best leverages our scale and buying power to drive new renewable projects, while demonstrating that doing what’s right for our future doesn’t have to cost more today," states Walmart's Approach to Renewable Energy.

Although the power rate has not been disclosed, a spokesman said the price is at or below utility prices. This is a major component of Walmart's overall goal in sourcing 100 percent renewable power, as it seeks cost-effective, stable renewable energy sources. As a company that takes pride in offering low prices and procuring inventory at a low cost, this is an extension of the Walmart brand.

Walmart was one of nine major companies to announce during Climate Week NYC 2015 it was joining the RE100, pledging to source 100% of its power from renewable sources.  This pledge was created to engage influential companies as global leaders in clean energy deployment, and the completion of the Logan's Gap Wind project signals a major milestone for Walmart.

Image credit: Flickr/TLPOSCHARSKY

 

By Rory Wilding

In my previous post I discussed how mental shortcuts may block us from making sensible and sustainable decisions. Now I'll look at what can be done to tackle these mental biases or how we can even use these cognitive biases to make smarter more sustainable choices.

There is a plethora of research and interventions dedicated to helping people make happier and healthier decisions stemming from Nudge Theory. The idea of the Nudge came to prominence in 2008 with the global popularity of the release of Professor Thaler's book, also called Nudge. Nudges are more formally known as "choice architecture." This architecture alters people’s behavior in a predictable way -- nudges can be successfully used to change behavior without banning any options or significantly changing their economic incentives. To count as a mere nudge, the intervention must be easy and cheap to avoid. The UK was one of the first governments in the world to construct a behavioral insights team (BIT) dedicated to nudging behavior in the right direction.  For example, the BIT found that tax payments increased when the payment due notice included a mention of the fact that most citizens pay on time. Other nations have followed suit with both Australia and the United States now implementing ideas based around the theory.

The insights from behavioral economics are not a new fad. This research began in the 1960s, has been replicated time and time again. Principles from the lab have successfully been implemented in the real world to change behavior ranging from non-payment of debts to organ donation.

The ethics of nudges in relation to sustainability has been covered elsewhere so we are not going to dive into whether it's the right thing to do. The big question we have is given the scale of the climate change challenge, what is being done or suggested to nudge people’s behavior in the right direction?

We previously discussed how sunk costs and high capital expenditure anchors can reinforce the status quo and stop individuals from acting. We think that the low carbon loans are a great way to break down these psychological barriers. Energy efficiency loans are repaid through the efficiency savings a company makes. This means they can migrate to more sustainable practices for free, however unfortunately this funding is often only available to larger organizations rather than individuals. We think it would be great to see this kind of funding extended to individual consumers by forward thinking organizations, for instance home broadband providers.

Analysis Paralysis is a tough one to challenge. There seem to be an ever-growing barrage of green led initiatives out there; so which ones are worth our time and attention? Simple - the ones that work. Interventions with clear payback should become the new default mode of operation – home automation (through smart thermostats and water meters) plus LED lighting are really easy wins that everyone household could safely benefit from. Government and industry needs to communicate this effectively so people can easily discern hero interventions from the hype to help shape effective decisions.

Often to break Status Quo biases we need to look at what the default is. In 2015 there are 2.6 billion people around the world using email. That means we should be seriously considering whether sending a paper letter needs to happen. We have noted that many businesses have set paperless billing as the default which is better for business bottom lines, better for profit margins, and, when set as the default option, better for individuals who don't need to think to make a sustainability contribution.

Attribution substitution often leads us astray when we need to make judgements that are computationally complex; to offset this we need to think of solutions that make these decisions much simpler. Home automation is a great example here. We have traditionally done a poor job of keeping track of our energy expenditure simply because its difficult to calculate how much energy we are using over a given period. Home automation apps, such as the Nest smart thermostat, are really going a long way to combatting this by showing us exactly how much we are using or even going a step further to notify us how and where we can save money on our heating bills.

A key point here is there are no one size fits all approach to using choice architecture to tackling psychological barriers to sustainability. It may even be that these interventions have not been designed with behavioral economics in mind. It is however clear that these interventions influence the mental shortcuts that have been repeatedly verified in the lab, to influence our behavior and help us make more sustainable decisions.

It has been stated in the past that nudges may not be enough and we may need tougher government policy to enforce cleaner living. That may be true but we behavioral economics and nudges hold a lot of promise in the sustainability arena. Put simply we our behavior led us into this situation, changing our behavior can lead our way out if it to a greener, cleaner, future.

Image credit: Jeff Easter, Flickr

Rory is the commercial director of Which LED Light, the UKs leading independent LED light comparison service. Rory has a background in Psychology and is interested in the climate change challenge from a  behaviour change perspective. Follow Rory on Twitter at @WhichLEDlight.