Search

The room at tonight's Hult Prize ceremony was filled with luminaries in the fields of business, sustainability and politics. Nobel prize winners, prime ministers, and CEOs were a dime a dozen. But, at the end of the day, anything associated with the Clinton Global Initiative is about smart people who are trying to solve real problems. Tonight's winner? A group from National Chengchi University in Taipei called IMPCT.co whose PlayCares concept aims to revolutionize the way kids in urban slums receive care and education.

The problem:

The concept has already won the support of an initial Indiegogo campaign as well as that of a variety of NGO partners and will be well worth watching as a creative, and profitable solution to a whole set of very serious problems.

Think you've got what it takes? Get a team together for next year!

Image c/o @hultprize twitter team

This weekend, United Nations member states will adopt a new set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the three-day UN Sustainable Development Summit. The new goals replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which were adopted in 2000 and expire this year.

While the MDGs mainly dealt with health, education and poverty in the world’s poorest nations, the SDGs deal with those topics but add other issues environmental, gender inequality, and access to clean water. What about business and the SDGs? Is there a triple bottom line (3BL) case to be made for the SDGs? Let's take a closer look at each goal to find out. 

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals and the triple bottom line

1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere.

There are startling facts about global extreme poverty rates. While it is has reduced by over half since 1990, one in five people in developing countries still live on less than $1.25 a day. Businesses can play a role in reducing extreme poverty rates by creating jobs and boosting the economy.

2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.

There are an estimated 795 million people hungry globally, that’s one in nine people. Most of the world’s hungry live in developing countries. A 2012 WorldWatch blog post chronicled five companies that are reducing hunger,  including PepsiCo.

PepsiCo has been a partner of the UN World Food Program since 2008. In 2011, the company committed to developing market-based solutions to food and nutritional insecurity in Ethiopia. As part of this commitment, PepsiCo committed $3.5 million to WFP to develop a locally sourced, chickpea product geared for malnourished children.

PepsiCo also helps reduce hunger in the U.S. For that aim, it partners with Feed the Children. There are two recent examples of its partnership with the organization. The latest one occurred in Chicago where the company helped provide food to 800 families in need. In August, the company partnered with Feed the Children in Detroit to help provide food for 1,600 families in need.

3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.

Many pharmaceutical companies are multi-national. Progress in areas like reducing tuberculosis, polio and HIV/AIDS is being made by companies in partnership with non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Take Gavi, an NGO with the goal of making vaccines more affordable for low-income countries through expanding suppliers to include developing country manufacturers.

4. Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning.

Education is the backbone of any society. Although progress has been made globally to increase access to education, 57 million children are still out of school. Many of those children may be future doctors, lawyers, scientists, and entrepreneurs.

5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.

The head of many households around the world are women. When businesses help girls and women have equal access to education, work and health care they not only create future customers but future entrepreneurs. In developing countries, there are an estimated eight to 10 million small and medium enterprises (SMEs) with at least one female owner, according to the World Bank.

6. Ensure access to water and sanitation for all.

Water is necessary to live, and it is a necessary part of many, if not most businesses. When it comes to providing access to clean drinking water in developing countries, one company readily comes to mind. That is Unilever.

Unilever uses its personal hygiene brands to increase access to clean drinking water, including Pureit which has provided clean drinking water to 55 million people. Pureit water filtration systems remove contaminants in drinking water. Since 80 percent of diseases in the developing world are water related, Pureit helps save lives. Pureit partners with PSI and a local microfinance institute to provide access to its purifiers in installment payments.

7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.

Our current way of life depends on energy, and every business depends on energy to keep running. Consider the first thing you do when walking into any room: turn on the lights. Increasing the use of clean power to provide that electricity is good for the planet, its people and the bottom line.

8. Promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth, employment and decent work for all.

About half of the global population lives on the equivalent of about $2 a day, but for some people having a job doesn’t mean they escape poverty. The access to decent work that provides a sustainable living is a part of the 3BL, as people are the first part of that bottom line.

9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote sustainable industrialization and foster innovation.

Communities are the backbone of any country, and it is in communities where businesses thrive. The fact that about 2.6 billion people in the developing world still face problems in accessing full-time electricity is a problem that businesses can help solve. Businesses can also solve other problems, such as lack of access to basic sanitation or reliable phone services.

10. Reduce inequality within and among countries.

Although income inequality between countries has been reduced, income inequality, on average, increased by 11 percent in developing countries between 1990 and 2010. One way that can companies can reduce income inequality is to provide a living wage. A TriplePundit article last year listed 10 U.S. companies that pay above the minimum wage. At the top of the list is Costco, which starts employees start out at $11.50 an hour. Costco employees earn an average of $21 an hour.

11. Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.

It is within cities where the majority of the world’s businesses are located. And it is within cities that most of the world’s population lives. Half of the world’s 3.5 billion people live in cities. When cities thrive, so do communities.

12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.

One of the goals within this goal is reducing per capita food waste by half at the retail and consumer levels by 2030. A staggering amount of food is wasted globally. The cost of food waste is more than just financial, as General Mills points out. Food waste rotting in landfills creates methane, a greenhouse gas with a warming potential 21 times that of carbon dioxide.

General Mills works to ensure that the amount of food waste is less than two percent of its total product volume. It does so by making its food production more efficient and donating surplus food. In 2014, the company donated 12,600 metric tons of surplus food to charitable organizations in the U.S.

13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.

The benefits of businesses tackling climate change far outweigh the costs. The economic costs of doing nothing, or what a Tufts University report describes as “business-as-usual conditions,” without new climate policies, will add up to $1.9 trillion, or 1.8 percent, of U.S. output per year by 2100 in four cost categories (increased hurricane damages, residential real estate losses due to sea level rise, increased energy costs, and water supply costs).

14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources.

Oceans and seas are a vital part of our earth. Over three billion people on this planet rely on marine and coastal biodiversity to make a living. The global market value of marine and coastal resources and industries is an estimated $3 trillion a year, or about five percent of global GDP.

15. Sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, halt biodiversity loss.

There is a business case to be made for protecting the world’s forests. About 1.6 billion people around the world depend on forests to make a living. Thirteen million hectares of forest are lost every year. That means many people lose their livelihood.

16. Promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies.

The lack of just, peaceful and inclusive societies costs money. Every year corruption, bribery, theft and tax evasion cost developing countries $1.26 trillion, according to the UN. That is money that could be used to help people that live on less than $2 a day. But is that part of the 3BL? Here’s another question. Shouldn’t businesses ensure that societies are just, peaceful and inclusive? Isn’t that good for their bottom lines, including the 3BL?

17. Revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.

In order for these SDGs to be achieved, there need to be partnerships with governments, civil society and the private sector. In other words, businesses can partner with governments and civil society to ensure there is progress toward each goal.

Image credits: United Nations and SDG Watch Austria/Flickr

By John Davidson SABMiller plc

There was a time not long ago when the threats to business profitability and sustainability from water shortages were largely ignored by corporate investors. Companies like ours fully understood how essential water was to us and our future and the demands that put on how we operated and behaved. But in general there was little pressure from investors to act or to fund the inevitable short-term costs. For some businesses, this could be a brake on the changes needed.

These barriers are disappearing fast. Last month more than 60 leading institutional investors publicly called for companies to give a higher priority to good water management. This shows that there is now a widespread recognition of just what a risk this is to future profitability.

This weekend, the UN General Assembly will approve the Sustainable Development Goals intended to tackle the world’s big social and environmental challenges. Goal Six seeks to ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. With 70% of the world’s fresh water going into agricultural and other supply chains, business has a critical delivery role to play.

But tackling this problem effectively has to go well beyond simply reducing water use in operations. For long-term results, it must also involve businesses working with local communities, governments, and civil society to manage and conserve shared water resources.

This is an approach which SABMiller is already following – and for good reason. We pride ourselves on being the most local of the global brewers, sourcing our crops and brewing our beers as close as we can to the communities where they are consumed. This requires us to understand local water stresses and challenges.

Local water stress hurts us both directly and indirectly. Without access to water in the future, we won’t be able to produce our beers. Nor will farmers be able to grow the crops we need. But indirectly, water stress also holds back other local businesses and communities – and if they don’t prosper, there will inevitably be less demand for our products.

So the business case for us to care about water stress is strong. And this is true not just in agricultural areas but also in cities, which are growing in the developing world at the rate of five million people a month. Lack of access to clean water and poor sanitation is one of the major causes of poverty.

Helping to ease water stresses takes us into unfamiliar territory. It requires us to look outside our traditional core competences as brewers and work on finding long-term solutions for all water users that maintain the integrity of the natural systems. This requires cooperation with a whole range of other groups including national and local government, other businesses, campaigning groups and, of course, communities.

This must go beyond improving infrastructure, important as that is. As a joint report by SABMiller and WWF shows, water security also requires programs that strengthen the resilience of ecosystems and societies from the shocks and stresses resulting from climate and population shifts.

What does this mean in practice? Let me give three examples from three different continents. Our brewery near Bogota has faced rising water charges from the local utility company in recent years, due to treatment costs caused by increased sediment levels in the river. These were the result largely of the clearing of vegetation by farmers and cattle ranchers upstream.

The solution was to support The Nature Conservancy’s Water Fund – an innovative mechanism to support the rehabilitation of the watershed through investments in more sustainable farming practices and higher milk-yielding cattle. In return, farmers commit to long term conservation agreements.

The expected reduction in sediment should deliver savings of $4 million per year for the Bogota water utility and, of course, for its users. Water bills fall, farmers develop more efficient and sustainable practices, and natural resources and the community’s future are protected.

South Africa’s Strategic Water Partners’ Network is another example of a bold partnership which brings together government, companies, and civil society groups. Joined up policy interventions have led to improved water use in agriculture, better waste water management, and increased municipal and industrial water efficiency.

In India, SABMiller has partnered with a local agricultural institute to work with small-holder farmers and communities in the Telengana area. India, with 17 per cent of the world’s population and just 4 per cent of its fresh-water resources is in the front-line of the battle against water stress. This availability challenge is made worse by the inefficient use of water by agriculture, which in India accounts for 90 per cent of fresh water consumption compared to the 70 per cent global average.

Our initiative involves working across the board with communities to secure water resources. There is investment in infrastructure to harvest and retain better rainwater. Farmers are helped to increase yields – more crop per drop – through improved practices. Incomes are also being improved by supporting communities to develop new enterprises such as using spent malt from our local brewery to increase the milk yield of their cows. The ultimate aim is to create a model than improves water availability, water usage, and incomes in a way that can be scaled and replicated.

These partnerships illustrate an important change that has occurred since the Millennium Development Goals were agreed in 2000. Business is no longer an after-thought, perhaps to be approached for funding, but is now understood to be integral to development. There is a greater focus on how the right core business investment can have a multiplier effect across value chains and communities to drive important development outcomes than on the investment alone. Companies in turn have recognised that healthy successful businesses require healthy, successful communities.

As we move beyond the debate about the Sustainable Development Goals and into implementation, it is this new alignment of interest which offers the best hope for transformative change. We should welcome, rather than be suspicious of, the profit imperative being used to help solve some of society’s toughest challenges.

John Davidson is General Counsel and Corporate Affairs Director, SABMiller plc John joined the group as General Counsel and Group Company Secretary in 2006. In November 2014 he assumed responsibility for regulatory affairs, communications and sustainable development, and is now General Counsel and Corporate Affairs Director. 

Image credit: docentjoyce, Flickr 

Climate Week 2015 events are heating up all across New York City, and TriplePundit is on the ground reporting. While there's still plenty of action scheduled for the weekend and early next week, we've found plenty to see and explore already.

Can't be in New York in person? Live vicariously through us with these six things we learned so far during Climate Week NYC.

1. All eyes are on Paris

With December’s COP21 climate talks quickly approaching, Climate Week NYC 2015 represents a key milestone event that allows companies and governments to send a timely reminder to negotiators about their desire for climate action. It was tough to go five minutes in New York this week without hearing something about COP21 -- and for good reason.

The negotiations are shaping up to be the biggest, potentially most historic gathering of global climate and environment leaders in human history. Still not quite sure what COP21 is and why it's so important? Check out our cheat-sheet here.

2. But companies aren't waiting for world leaders to take action ...

We're all waiting with bated breath to see what will appear in the Paris text. But that doesn't mean companies are holding off on making big commitments on climate change.

General Mills kicked things off before Climate Week even started: pledging in August to reduce absolute greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent across its full value chain – from farm to fork to landfill – over the next 10 years. On the second day of Climate Week, five global companies also rose up to answer the call, making the bold commitment to go carbon neutral by 2050.

"We’re hopefully giving governments the message: ‘Business is operating ahead of current political consensus. So, please create certainty to let more businesses effectively create the low-carbon economy,’" Keith Tuffley, CEO of the B Team, a nonprofit sustainable business collective, told TriplePundit. "The more certainty they can provide on the long-term goal, the more business and investors are going to do it for themselves."

3. ... And neither are local governments

Local governments also made bold moves during Climate Week: On Tuesday, 20 regional and local governments, which together comprise 10 percent of the world’s GDP, committed to drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. By the time COP21 opens in Paris, 20 additional regional governments are expected to add their names to this agreement.

These “sub-national” governments, which span the Americas, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, say their collective climate targets could prevent the emission of as much as 7.9 gigatons of CO2 by 2030 — an amount of carbon larger than the amount emitted in 2012 by the United States, the world’s second highest greenhouse gas emitter.

4. Companies are getting serious about renewables ...

When it comes to corporate commitments, the floodgates burst open once Climate Week kicked off -- with renewable energy taking center stage. Nine top firms, including Starbucks and Walmart, pledged to work toward 100 percent renewable energy through the RE100 initiative. Nine more, including Amazon and Etsy, linked up with the World Resources Institute and WWF to spur progress on renewables.

“This year is such a big year on climate change,” Emily Farnsworth of the Climate Group, who oversees the RE100 program, told TriplePundit in an exclusive interview. “There are a lot of businesses that want to make bold commitments to demonstrate — ahead of the negotiations in Paris — that businesses are actually very serious about tackling climate change. And a 100 percent renewable electricity goal is one thing that can really back that up.”

5. ... And seriously rethinking fossil fuels

Along with going all-in on renewables, companies and private investors are beginning to seriously rethink fossil fuels. On Tuesday, oil and gas divestment supporters and media gathered in a packed room at New York’s Paley Center for Media to hear this year’s tally of divestment commitments.

With last year’s count at $52 billion, and a modest number of companies and private investors signed up, the Divest-Invest campaign aimed to triple the number of commitments from universities, companies and individuals who previously relied on oil and gas investments as part of their portfolios. The organization did far better than that assertive goal.

“To date, 430 institutions and 2,040 individuals across 43 countries and representing $2.6 trillion in assets have committed to divest from fossil fuel companies,” says the organization. The surge translates to a 50-fold increase in divestment assets since last year’s Climate Week.

6. The best is yet to come

It has been a big year for Climate Week, but the action is far from over.

This year, the Climate Week NYC signature event takes place at the tail-end of the week: on Sept. 28, to coincide with the U.N. General Assembly. The annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative also goes down next week, so be sure to keep your eye on this page so you won't miss a beat.

Image credit: United Nations Photo/Flickr

You may know Mars Inc. for its timeless candy such as Snickers and M&M’s, and to a lesser extent, brands such as Uncle Ben’s Rice and Pedigree pet foods. But this $33 billion company is also taking on some compelling projects that the company says will make the company much more “sustainable in a generation.” One example of Mars’ investments in sustainability is the Mesquite Creek Wind Farm in western Texas.

Announced last year, Mesquite Creek generates 200 megawatts of wind power, enough to electrify 61,000 American homes, or the equivalent of what Mars claims is sufficient to power its entire U.S. operation. Bloomberg reported the project’s cost, including its 118 GE wind turbines, was $345 million. The wind farm was financed largely by Sumitomo Corporation of Americas, which previously had invested in five utility-scale renewable power projects in the U.S.

This wind farm, located halfway between the Texas cities of Lubbock and Midland, represents a huge step forward for Mars’ promise to eliminate all greenhouse gases from its global operations by 2040. One goal of the company was to reduce its fossil fuel energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent this year—and Mesquite Creek allowed Mars to stay on target this year, according to Kevin Rabinovitch, Global Sustainability Director of Mars. “This wind farm keeps us on the path to meet our 2040 goals without adding cost to the business,” said Rabinovitch during a telephone interview earlier this week.

Despite the slump in oil prices, which most analysts say will stay well below $50 a barrel for the foreseeable future, investments in renewable power projects keep surging because they have reached cost parity with fossil fuels. Renewables are also a way for companies to hedge their operational costs in the event petroleum prices spike again—after all, the only thing we can predict about the cost of oil is that it is unpredictable. Renewable energy contracts, often underwritten as a power purchase agreement (PPA), allow organizations to purchase electrical power at a set price for the long term, as long as 20 years. Mesquite Creek itself is proving to be an attractive investment, due to Duke Energy’s recent purchase of a stake in the wind farm.

In the case of Mars, the company partnered with Sumitomo to underwrite the project. That power generated at Mesquite Creek will be sold on the market; Mars, in turn, receives renewable energy certificates (RECs) to compensate for its standard electricity consumption within the U.S. “This allows us to invest in renewable energy, even though most of our facilities here in the U.S. are not necessarily best suited for a retrofit with renewable energy technologies such as solar,” explained Rabinovitch. Mars, which traces its history back to 1911, has 70 offices and warehouses across the U.S. Most sites, however, are only suited to smaller scale projects, such as a two-megawatt solar installation at one of its New Jersey facilities.

At a time when the debate over climate change is often polarizing and shrill—especially in the lead up to the COP21 talks in Paris that start in late November—Rabinovitch’s outlook was decidedly refreshing. Much renewable energy and climate change talk is buried in public relations language and generalities, but Mr. Rabinovitch eschewed such jargon. “We are trying to commit to targets based on science—this is not just about what we should or want to do, but we base our decisions on the external facts that scientists present to us,” he added as we wrapped up our interview.

As any company touting such a project would, Mars puts the Mesquite Creek’s impact in the context of what the company is about. The wind farm’s annual 800,000 megawatt-hours of wind power is enough to make 13 billion chocolate Snickers bars or 125 million 40-pound bags of Pedigree dog food—with perhaps spare power to dish out some packs of Juicy Fruit Gum and tins of Altoids.

But in all seriousness, Mars is taking a holistic view towards decarbonizing its global business—while working to ensure it has reliable sources of raw materials to keep its operations running in the long term. Aware that developing countries are bearing the brunt of climate change, Mars says it is working with its suppliers to ensure it has reliable and sustainable streams of rice, palm oil, fish, and of course, cacao. Mars, says Rabinovitch, has worked with cacao farmers on techniques such as better pruning, effective soil management, smart watering and the incorporation of more resilient cacao varietals. The result has been an overall tripling of yield from half a ton to 1.5 tons of cacao per hectare. “We want to prepare these farmers in the event of climate change—so even if they have a bad harvest, they will still come out ahead. This is just another way we are working to prevent the future from being different from what we think it will be today,” he said.

Many companies are great at setting goals when it comes to clean energy and climate change, and whether all this comes to fruition in 2020 or 2025 remains to be seen and leaves many of us dubious. But Mars has built a solid track record around these challenges, and will be a most interesting company to watch in the coming decade.

Image credits: Tom Fisk and Peter Leahy via Pexels

 

By Liz Hardee

This December, delegates from both developed and developing countries will gather in Paris for what promises — one way or another — to be the most historic set of climate negotiations the world has ever seen. The stakes could not be higher. According to the best available science, we must be on a downward emissions trajectory worldwide by 2050, in order to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius and protect ourselves from climate change’s worst impacts. Most believe we have only a decade in which to take the actions that would put us on this path.

Many articles on the topic have been quick to point out that the emission reduction pledges made by countries ahead of these talks are insufficient to meet the 2-degree target. This argument largely (and cynically) misses the point: these negotiations are likely to be much more successful than any prior attempt.

Here are a few important points about the Paris talks:

This is the first attempt ever made by all U.N. member nations to set internal emission reduction goals from the bottom up. The Paris negotiations are a starting point, not an ending point. Though many nations have already begun the cycle of setting and meeting emission goals (like the EU member nations, and notably, China), there has never been a comparable worldwide effort; focused from the bottom up, with each country setting what it believes to be a reachable internal goal. It is true that no one country can mitigate climate change alone, but this “show of good faith,” if successful, will prove that it is possible for the world to come together around this planetary problem, and lay the groundwork for future agreements with more ambitious goals.

The ending date for national targets is catching attention. Most countries’ goals have been centered on the year 2030. This is the year, for many, that they expect to have reduced emissions 25% or more from current levels — and the primary reason experts argue that these targets will not be enough. If a country sets a goal for 2030, it is likely that 2030 would also be the first year they would think about revisiting and strengthening that goal. Since greenhouse gases are persistent and can stick around in the atmosphere for long periods of time, goals that can be revisited earlier are more likely to be effective. If you hear environmental advocates call for 2025 targets, this is why.

Momentum is already building, and what happens in Paris won’t stay in Paris. Jurisdictions that have set climate goals know from experience that setting an initial goal is the first step in a process of rapid decarbonization. California, which passed its landmark Global Warming Solutions Act in 2006, recently adopted Senate Bill 350, which significantly increases the adoption of renewables and building energy efficiency, making its already unilateral targets even more ambitious.

France, host to the upcoming climate talks, has recently announced a plan to decrease fossil fuel consumption by 30 percent and increase energy efficiency 50 percent by 2030—above and beyond what is required of the country under the EU’s cap and trade system. These individual and incremental actions have added up over time; in 2016, roughly one quarter of all emissions worldwide will be under some form of carbon pricing (China, so often mischaracterized as “doing nothing” to address emissions, will have a national carbon pricing mechanism next year). As more countries come to the table with plans for meeting those goals, we are likely to see this percentage rise.

The biggest sticking point is philosophical, not scientific. The factor most likely to give negotiators a hard time is not whether any one country’s targets are strong enough; it is whether those countries most responsible for climate change will help those least responsible to implement low carbon development strategies. The Green Climate Fund — paid into by wealthier countries for this purpose — was designed to help. It is estimated that efforts to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate change will cost $100 billion per year, but the Green Climate Fund contains only $10 billion in pledges so far. The success of these negotiations, therefore, rides primarily on whether developed countries can demonstrate a serious commitment to providing aid to developing nations.

In the end, though Paris will not get us to 2 degrees Celsius, it is likely to give us something the world desperately needs: a new hope that a stabilized climate is not out of reach.

Image credit: Flickr/Moyan Brenn

Liz Hardee is the Senior Analyst for The Climate Trust.

It was once the manna for health food maniacs and vegetarians, but soy has become the Martin Shkreli of food. Almond milk has knocked off soy milk as the number one non-dairy milk of choice in the U.S.; the food is often maligned as a toxic allergen; and men’s health magazines run warnings of how soy possibly can alter one’s hormonal balance due to estrogen—though, peeking down my shirt, I do not see any such evidence from 20+ years of eating and drinking soy products, way before soy was cool and long after it has been shunned.

After all, soy is high in protein, can serve as a solid meat alternative and some soy in the diet could be beneficial for the heart.

But much of soy’s perception problem stems from what is occurring worldwide in the agriculture sector. South America now produces more soybeans than in North America, where soy has long been a lucrative commodity. Brazil has transformed much of its rustic savannah-like cerrado into massive farms, which include soy as a new cash crop. Currently 85 percent of the world’s soy crop is crushed into soybean oil or meal. Of all the soybeans on earth that are crushed, 98 percent of them are processed into animal feed, due to the world’s growing demand for animal protein. So that organic, fluffy, healthful tofu or fake soy meat you are buying at the store, while benign, is not making a difference on the global soy market. You’re not causing the displacement of local crops or fomenting deforestation. But, a bevy of other consumer products are linked to soy’s disruption to the environment and communities.

To that end, the Paris-based Consumer Goods Forum (CGF), an international coalition of retailers and consumer goods manufacturers, says it is taking steps to solve this problem. CGF has developed a framework that it believes can help companies manage the soy consumed within their supply chains. As more companies realize their 2020 promises to reduce or even eliminate deforestation are only a paltry five years away, they need guidance on how to achieve goals. Should this framework catch on and succeed, we may start to hear about a “soy footprint” in the same vein as carbon accounting, water footprint, and timber certification.

Companies criticized for the environmental impact, and seeking to correct those trends, confront a bevy of challenges. As with palm oil, soy is often purchased through several layers of vendors, posing a challenge to traceability. Soy is reported to encroach everywhere from the Amazon to lesser-known but equally fragile ecosystems in the U.S. and Canada. And how much soy is too much soy? A meat company’s feed lot in one region may use a different formulation from one just a few hundred miles away.

The answer, according to CGF, is the “Soy Ladder.” This framework, based on research data, leverages data in a way analogous to how the U.S. Dodd-Frank Act measures risk due to conflict minerals. These guidelines offer an idea of how to measure the prevalence of soy within a company’s supply chain, and whether that company’s consumption puts that company at risk of contributing significantly to deforestation. For example, soy directly purchased and controlled is labeled as “Tier 1.” Soy used in feed for animal, eggs and dairy products comprises the next tier. Derivatives such as lecithin used in chocolate or soy oil in margarine comprise the final tier.

Whether these guidelines, which are still in flux, will be effective remains to be seen. Businesses will still have leeway as to how intensively they wish to report their soy consumption. Many may choose to report only direct purchases of soy or a few layers delineated by this framework—others may just want to report soy purchased from regions where deforestation is a definite risk. The result could be a more educated public—or one further spooked once they have a greater understanding of their total soy consumption.

Image credit: CSIRO

By Kate Drew

The word travel is enticing — the word tourist, not so much, and tourism, even less so. But, put the word sustainable in front of tourism, and it becomes something fine. It becomes traveling with the intent to make a positive impact somewhere. And that sounds better. Taking a tour of a small village in Peru that connects visitors with local women making handmade crafts warms the heart far more than gorging on the buffet at an all-inclusive resort.

In three of their 169 targets, the United Nations' proposed Sustainable Development Goals address sustainable tourism — behind which is a strategic yet little discussed effort to promote development from within a given locale. Although the General Assembly has in the past recognized the value of sustainable tourism as a tool to eradicate poverty, this is the first time specific objectives have been attached to it.

The Sustainable Development Goals build on an earlier set that was agreed upon by the U.N. in 2000 with the aim of setting an agenda for development across the world. The targets that relate to sustainable tourism pinpoint job creation, promotion of local culture, evaluation of the impact of sustainable tourism and improvement in the effective use of marine resources. All of them allude to an approach to sustainable tourism that builds on the traditional one.

A typical indicator of tourism’s impact on development has been the service industry — but this leaves a lot out. The new targets include using natural resources and other economic sectors as indicators of success. They are designed to help governments implement better strategies that boost their economies through tourism.

Helena Rey, program officer at the United Nations Environment Program, said that if countries start implementing policies and strategies for sustainable tourism, they could then achieve or contribute to their own development. "Tourism can be a tool for development,” Rey said. “For some countries, tourism is the main source of income. And it should be taken seriously.”

World Travel and Tourism Council data shows that global contribution from travel and tourism to the world’s GDP was $7.6 billion, or 9.8 percent of the total, in 2014. It is expected to rise by 3.7 percent in 2015.

“It’s not the first time that tourism has been recognized by the General Assembly—but it’s the first time that specific indicators and targets have been requested,” Rey said. “This is really a turning point in how countries will look at their tourism development.”

That may be, but not everyone thinks the path the targets point to is the right one. Marie-Danielle Samuel, co-founder of Yachay Wasi, a Peruvian-focused NGO, said that indigenous peoples and local communities are largely left out of the document — which hinders attempts to properly define sustainable tourism. In a recent statement, she argued for the U.N. to incorporate the Commission on Sustainable Development’s 1999 definition, which stated that “if more indigenous ownership could be developed, the perception of tourism as a foreign-dominated sector would be reduced.”

The targets are workable, of course, but they don’t acknowledge what sustainable itself means, Samuel said. In her statement, she called the document “an un-realistic catch-all for all the ills of modern world.”

It’s not surprising that the U.N.’s attempt to narrow in on tourism is still too broad for critics. The entire set of Sustainable Development Goals has drawn criticism from media outlets for being too diffuse and bloated. “Moses brought ten commandments down from Mount Sinai. If only the U.N.’s proposed list of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were as concise,” mocked the Economist in March.

For sustainable tourism, the inclusion of these targets is just a start. There is a roadmap in place, but it is clear that there is more work to be done. “The biggest challenge from now on,” Rey said, “is going to be implementation.”

Countries will need to measure the effectiveness of their strategies, and will need guidelines to do so — which the U.N. is in the process of addressing. But this is yet another process that will take time. Indicators to help governments monitor their progress in meeting the targets have not been agreed upon yet, said Faye Leone, content editor at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, adding that formal recommendations are slated for proposal in November.

Drawing a line from the U.N. to individual governments, and then finally to the tourism sector is difficult. And even drawn, the path isn’t always clear. Tourists, even those with admirable intentions, often end up benefitting foreign entities, as opposed to local or indigenous communities—this is called leakage. Their money is funneled in and then right back out, when locals do not have control over their own sites and attractions. In promoting sustainable tourism, there needs to be emphasis on the benefit to local communities, explained Samuel.

“Some of the profits should go to those communities — officially,” she said. “That should be something that the U.N. pushes.”

Image credit: Flickr/Tony

Kate Drew is an M.A. candidate at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute, where she is pursing a dual degree in Journalism and International Relations. She completed her undergraduate degree in Finance and International Business at Villanova University in 2010, and worked in the five years following as an Editorial Analyst at Value Line Publishing. Her research interests range from international economics to intelligence and security.

A few years ago, I wrote an article about the Volkswagen Group committing to strict carbon emissions limits. Recently, someone on Twitter asked me how I now feel about VW. I answered that I am disgusted.

Why am I disgusted with the automaker? By now, most of you know the Environmental Protection Agency found certain VW models, possibly as many as 11 million cars in total, had been rigged with a device that reduced nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions when tested. An analysis by the Guardian found that those U.S. VW vehicles “would have spewed between 10,392 and 41,571 tons of the toxic gas into the air each year if they had covered the average annual U.S. mileage.” Complying with the EPA’s standards would have meant those vehicles would only have emitted 1,039 tons of NOx per year.

Both the EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) initiated investigations into VW. The groups found the device designed to cheat emissions tests after researchers at West Virginia University did an independent analysis. After the EPA and CARB sent letters to VW, the company admitted the cars contained the devices.

“Using a defeat device in cars to evade clean air standards is illegal and a threat to public health,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, in a statement. “Working closely with the California Air Resources Board, EPA is committed to making sure that all automakers play by the same rules. EPA will continue to investigate these very serious matters.”

Why is that such a big deal? NOx contributes to ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution. In the San Joaquin Valley where I live, both types of pollution are all too common. The Valley has one of the nation’s worst air basins. PM2.5 is linked with a slew of health problems, including asthma. Valley residents have some of the highest asthma rates.

So, what VW did truly does endanger public health. As the Bloomberg Review states, “What Volkswagen did appears to be in a category all its own, and it deserves special condemnation.” However, Bloomberg adds, “But other carmakers game the system, and regulators tolerate it. That is the dirty little secret of emissions and efficiency testing, and the EPA needs to clean it up.”

Not only does VW need to do what needs to be done to ensure this kind of cheating on emissions tests never occurs, but the EPA also needs to do a better job of testing and enforcing its own standards. The American people, including my fellow Valley residents, deserve better.

Image credit: Flickr/DaDaAce

Anyone who has a degree in journalism will remember sitting through classes where the Associated Press’ (AP) Stylebook was regarded as the bible of journalists. And when the AP makes changes to that bible, it's major. And changes have been made in regards to climate change.

The Stylebook now states that the AP will “avoid the use of 'skeptics' or 'deniers'" in regards to global warming and will instead use the term 'doubters.' The Stylebook furthers states: “To describe those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. Avoid use of skeptics or deniers.” 

What is the big deal about using the term 'skeptic' in regards to people who deny climate change is occurring? According to the AP, scientists who consider themselves to be true skeptics “complain that non-scientists who reject mainstream climate science have usurped the phrase.” Those true skeptics prefer the term “climate change denier.” So, why is the AP banning the term 'denier' as well?

The AP’s stated reason is that “those who reject climate science say the phrase denier has the pejorative ring of Holocaust denier so the Associated Press prefers climate change doubter or someone who rejects mainstream science.” In other words, the AP is concerned about what climate change deniers (yes, I’m using the word) feel.

Consider that the majority of the world’s climate scientists not only say climate change is occurring, but also that it is manmade. A study published in 2013 in Environmental Research Letters reviewed scientific literature on climate change and found that 97.2 percent of all climate scientists concur that climate change is manmade. That is an overwhelming consensus. So, why is the AP so concerned with the feelings of the climate change deniers? I don’t have the answer.

Ronald A. Lindsay, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry, is glad about the AP dropping the use of the word skeptic. He said that the Center for Inquiry is “very glad that the word ‘skeptic’ will no longer be used to describe deniers of climate science, such as Sen. James Inhofe, who claims to believe that global warming is a hoax.”

However, Lindsay thinks that replacing skeptic with the word doubter is a problem. “The AP’s journalism is read throughout the world, and heavily influences the public’s understanding of crucial issues such as climate change,” he said. “Referring to deniers as ‘doubters’ still imbues those who reject scientific fact with an intellectual legitimacy they have not earned. The general public, we fear, will still not get a clear picture of which public figures are basing their positions on reality, and which are not.”

The Washington Post's Erik Wemple wrote in a blog post that the AP “managed to create a contradiction” by dropping the use of the term “denier.” He added that the AP “have succumbed to a specious argument that the term 'denier' can’t be paired with another term without tinging it with Holocaust implications.” To Wemple, that “seems like a dicey precedent.” 

Image credit: Flickr/kartfamily