Search

It was not long ago that the chief sustainability officer—or whatever title that person or committee tucked into their email signature—was often someone on the outside looking in. For many companies, appointing a CSO was done to assuage some stakeholders with corporate social responsibility projects. That officer was also charged with giving a public face to the company’s efforts related to their sustainability agenda. But recent trends show that oft-heard complaint is less and less true. We see more companies, from the logistics sector to snack manufacturers, appointing a CSO, and one who has a role with teeth to get things done. They are increasing involved in day-to-day decision making within the C-suite, and their numbers are increasing annually. Now a report from the Weinreb Group shows the role of the CSO has matured even more the past few years.

And what is the biggest shift underway? These CSOs are no longer simply internal program managers—they, in the report’s words, are “strategic lynchpins” who are integral to a company’s overall strategy, often identify new opportunities for innovation and lead impactful strategic initiatives from within and outside the company.

According to the report, which profiled 36 executives tasked with this role at U.S. publicly traded companies, the role of the CSO is changing in five ways:

• Collective benefit: As just mentioned, the CSO’s role is more strategic and less tactical. Instead of focusing on environmental and social projects, he or she is part of the company’s overall plan to deliver value to both stakeholders and shareholders.


• Innovation: Yes, this word is overused by companies as they to differentiate themselves in the marketplace. But CSOs often have a more central role as companies develop projects with a goal to inspire new manufacturing processes, products and technologies. Nike is one example of how innovation, related to the more sustainable use of raw materials, is part and parcel of the company’s overall strategy.


• Stakeholder engagement: No longer a backbencher, the CSO is taking on more responsibility for communicating the company’s commitment to sustainability to external and internal stakeholders. He or she has more leeway to work with the media and the company’s customers as the role becomes more visible.


• Access across the company: Tying in to the CSO’s increased influence within the company, the CSOs surveyed in this report reported that they had access to the business across all functions and levels. It should be noted that the CSOs surveyed by Weinreb have had a long history with their organizations: on average they were with their companies for 10 years and 86 percent were hired from within instead of recruited from outside the company. So this should not be surprising since many of them are already well-known and have established credibility within the company.


• A team player: As with any c-suite position, the CSO’s success rests with his or her ability to work with multiple teams throughout the company—and in turn that allows sustainability thinking to be embedded throughout the company. As a CSO for a Silicon Valley firm told me a few years ago, the response to “how can I make my job sustainable” was as follows: “Allow me to access the data and materials to which you have access, but I need, to help our company make the right decisions—that is your sustainable job right there.”

One last trend—sustainability, is less of a man’s world. The Weinreb Group reports women now make up 42 percent of CSO positions—that is more than double the past two years. Watch for this role to evolve even more this decade. After all, the microscope companies are under thanks to social media, and the increasing demands of stakeholders, really give them no choice.

After a year in the Middle East and Latin America, Leon Kaye is based in California again. Follow him on Instagram and Twitter. Other thoughts of his are on his site, greengopost.com.

Image credit: Vlad Lazarenko

Compared to dirty coal, natural gas looks like a clean fuel. As fracking becomes more widespread, natural gas is becoming more abundant. It is often touted as a bridge fuel, serving our energy needs until technology advances in renewable energy and carbon capture and sequestration are achieved. Unfortunately, this thinking is flawed, and natural gas may in fact be a culprit holding back clean energy development and use, according to a new study that uses integrated assessment models.

“We didn’t really know how our first experiment would turn out, but we were surprised how little difference abundant gas made to total greenhouse gas emissions even though it was dramatically changing the global energy system,” said James “Jae” Edmonds, chief scientist at the Joint Global Change Research Institute of the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). “When we saw all five modeling teams reporting little difference in climate change, we knew we were onto something.”

The potent secret of natural gas: Fugitive methane

It is often said that natural gas produces half the carbon emissions of a coal power plant. Certainly, this is a bold step in the right direction, right? Unfortunately it is often overlooked that methane, an odorless and colorless gas, is the primary component of natural gas.

If carbon emissions seem like bad news for the climate, consider that methane is 84 time more potent than carbon dioxide in the short-term. Although it doesn't remain the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide, it is exponentially more effective in trapping heat for two decades.

During natural gas production, processing, storage, distribution and use, methane is inevitably released into the atmosphere. Given the complexity of the natural gas supply chain in the U.S., this is a very difficult issue to measure and tackle.

Some tangible actions have been taken in recent years to address methane pollution: The Obama administration created a methane strategy that may lead to federal regulation; Colorado issued a set of air regulations (the first to address methane); and Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Ct) and Susan Collins (R-Me) introduced  the 2014 Super Pollutants Act.

Displacing use of lower carbon energy

One thing that shatters the concept of natural gas as a bridge fuel is economic behavior. Given the abundance and low cost of natural, it is difficult for clean energy to compete with the fuel without policies in place. Considering that in the best case scenario, natural gas is merely a bridge fuel and doesn't provide a long-term solution to climate change, it is counterproductive from a climate perspective for it to displace the use of clean energy.

With simple supply and demand market forces at play, this trend will continue, especially since incentives for natural gas use fuel demand. U.S. subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear are 12 times higher than for renewables. This in turn encourages natural gas technology to advance, which lowers prices and reliability, furthering the trend. More is needed to encourage the development and use of clean energy, such as policies that encourage low-carbon technologies and financial incentives, such as the Production Tax Credit for wind energy.

Low energy costs encourage greater energy use

With the increased use of fracking, the natural gas supply has expanded considerably, causing prices to drop. When energy prices are low, people are incentivized to use more.

“Abundant gas may have a lot of benefits — economic growth, local air pollution, energy security, and so on," says Haewon McJeon, an economist at the PNNL. "There’s been some hope that slowing climate change could also be one of its benefits, but that turns out not to be the case.”

Image credit: Flickr/Seth Anderson

Forty nine minutes after returning to work after the 2013 New Year break Britain's highest paid director earned as much as a worker on the living wage earns in a year, according to new TUC research looking at directors' pay in Britain's top 350 companies.

Simon Peckham, chief executive of investment firm Melrose, received more than £31m (£31,157,399) or £119,836 a day. This is 2,238 times more than a worker on the living wage of £7.65 an hour who worked 35 hours a week.

The top pay research contained in Executive Excess was provided by independent researchers Incomes Data Services. It covers the year ending April 2013 and shows that across the FTSE 100 the average (median) total earnings for the highest paid director was £3,195,353 – 230 times an annual full-time non-London living wage.

Companies with high inequality between top pay and that of the rest of their staff perform less well, according to research. But employees and investors do not have access to robust information that would allow them to assess the gap between top directors and staff in the rest of their company. The TUC is calling on the government to compel firms to disclose full information about employee pay.

Only 39 out of 288 companies (14%) asked by the TUC to provide sufficient data to make an accurate calculation of the ratio between director and staff pay even replied to the request. A third of them provided no more information than was in their annual report.

At present companies are only required to publish a figure for the total cost of staff remuneration and the number of staff they employ. But while these totals allow calculation of a figure for average pay, different companies compile the data in different ways. For example, some include overseas staff based in countries where pay might be higher or lower than the UK. Some companies include contractors and some do not. And a crude mean of this type only reveals what an average staff member earns a year without taking into account whether they work full or part-time.

TUC General Secretary Frances O'Grady said: “While most are suffering continuing cuts in their living standards despite the recovery, boardroom pay just gets bigger and bigger every year. It is obscene that anyone needs to earn more than 2,000 times the living wage."

 

Picture credit: © Miketea | Dreamstime.com - Money Background Photo

Leading businesses including Acciona, Coca-Cola Enterprises, DSM, Ferrovial, Philips, Skanska, Shell, and Unilever are urging EU ministers to agree an ambitious package on climate change at this week’s European Council meeting.

Philippe Joubert, chair of The Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group said: “We have systematically called for an ambitious 2030 Climate & Energy package that takes energy security into consideration and delivers EU emission-reduction targets. This is in businesses’ interests, and in the interests of all European citizens. Failure to agree a deal this week will delay much-needed low carbon investments in Europe and will impact innovation and low carbon competitiveness.”

The group supports a target of at least a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, and 50% if other countries take comparable action. It also supports targets of at least 30% for renewables deployment and at least 30% for energy savings. This is the most progressive stance taken by a group representing such a wide variety of sectors - from retail to energy companies.

The Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group argues that EU long-term energy security and climate policy must go hand in hand in order to give businesses the confidence they need to invest in low carbon technologies and other climate-friendly reforms. Reform of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and a strong carbon price to drive low carbon investments must be a priority alongside targets for low carbon and energy efficient technologies.

Noel Morrin, CSO, Skanska commented: “There is a business case for action that applies across the whole of Europe. We’re looking to our political leaders to agree a bold package that ensures European energy independence, drives down emissions and incentivises much greater energy efficiency. This is what’s needed to deliver low carbon economic development, greater competitiveness, jobs, and growth.”

With winter just around the corner and El Niño still a probable forecast, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has news for state governments: Prepare for climate change now or risk losing access to funding.

The agency has just released a draft of its forthcoming State Mitigation Plan Review Guide, which includes new guidelines in assessing and planning for climate change. Entitled a 'Draft for Public Comment,' the document highlights some key changes in FEMA’s regulations for those states receiving federal emergency funding – including the need to prepare for, and assess, climate change risk.

States have always been required to formulate hazard mitigation plans, which help the governments assess their potential risk to environmental disasters. However, mitigation plans largely rely upon historical data, such as previous disasters, to spell out mitigation procedures. This is the first year in which states will be expected to “look forward” and assess their future risks for yet unprecedented climate change events.

FEMA vs. state governors

This requirement isn’t liable to sit well with some state governors, specifically those who have expressed doubt about the existence of human-made climate change.

That list includes Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma, which have all benefited from federal funding during recent disasters, yet have either weak climate change policies or have gone on record to question its existence.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry attempted to sue the EPA in 2012 for attempting to regulate climate change, despite the fact that his state has been experiencing an exceptional drought. During that same year, Texas was deluged by more than 9,000 wildfires. Perry’s administration applied for and received funding to fight 25 large fires, before being told by FEMA that its cash-strapped funding, which provides priority support for survivor assistance and relocation, was not available to fight any more Texas wildfires.

The $1 billion FEMA emergencies

FEMA’s dwindling funding is at the heart of its new policy change, which aims to improve states’ ability to prepare for and deal with environmental threats before they become crises. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, the cost and frequency of environmental disasters are growing. Floods, droughts, snow storms and tornadoes have taken precedence in recent years, with costs averaging around $1 billion for each occurrence in 2013.

Still, FEMA isn’t setting itself up for an easy fight with state governments, particularly when it comes to those administrations that refuse to accept that climate change may be man-made. In July, the Center for American Progress published a breakdown of U.S. governors according to their views and policies regarding global warming issues. Fifteen have gone on record to question the origin of climate change, and in some cases have taken steps to block legislation that would regulate or recognize the existence of global warming trends. Those 15 include Texas, Oklahoma and North Carolina, all of which have relied on FEMA funding for natural disasters in the past four years.

Earlier this year, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin signed a bill that would allow residents who generate their own energy from wind or solar to be charged a state fee. North Carolina Gov. Pat McCroy has gone on record to state that climate change is “in God’s hands.” Since that time, his administration has all but stopped implementing climate change strategies and has lifted a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in the state. North Carolina has been forced to access FEMA funding more than six times since 2010.

NRDC: Is FEMA wording clear enough?

Some environmentalists have suggested that FEMA’s draft wording may not be strong enough to make it clear to administrations what they need to do to meet the new guidelines.

Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Becky Hammer has pointed out that the FEMA’s requirement to states that it begin “assessing risk in light of a changing climate” may be too vague for state disaster planners to know how to implement this new requirement.

It may be that the concept of how to deal with future climate change threats is still a challenge for FEMA as well, as it tries to grapple not only with the increasing financial burden of unexpected climate disasters, but also the challenge of finding the right wording to get the urgency of action across to state governments .

Still, while some state governments are still wrestling with this concept, others are already implementing changes to address climate change. More than a dozen states have taken steps to meet climate challenges, including California, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Another 12 are lukewarm on the issue but have begun to introduce climate change into the discussions about how best to protect their state resources from environmental change. Whether FEMA would deny funding next year as it implements these new guidelines is still up for debate. But the new draft wording, along with the Obama administration's many other changes, signal a shift in federal funding policies.

The comment period for these new guidelines ended Friday. FEMA has not announced when the final version will be out, but will likely include some changes that NRDC and others have put forward to clarify just how states should prepare for environmental changes that come with the controversial issue of global warming.

Hurricane Katrina damage (2005) - USDA;

North Carolina tornado (2011) - USASOC News Service

General Motors (GM) continues to expand its global zero-waste program, inching closer to its goal of having 125 total facilities landfill-free by 2020. Eleven new facilities are now officially zero waste, and they range from assembly plants to regional headquarters. Following its own mantra of "reduce, reuse, recycle and compost,” GM has expanded this program to 122 facilities -- over half of them outside of North America.

According to GM, the conversion of these factories and offices to landfill-free status helps the automaker prevent more than 600,000 tons of carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere annually. At last count, the company estimates that 97 percent of all waste at its landfill-free plants is recycled or reused; the remainder is converted into energy within the plants.

The amount of waste GM recycles hardly is small change: The company in the past has estimated that it generates about US$1 billion in revenues from raw materials that do not end up going into cars. Three years running, GM’s zero-waste plan is a solid example of a company rolling out sustainability goals — and actually meeting them.

The blueprint for GM’s zero-waste program launched in 2011 and has been a central part of the company’s sustainability plan. According to the company, both taking a long-term view, and engaging employees to ensure that they are part of the process, were leading factors in this program’s ongoing success. When the zero-waste program started, it at first cost about $10 for each ton of waste the company generated. That figure has fallen 92 percent, due to several factors: a strong network of business partners who can haul away any scrap; a more lean and efficient supply chain; reliable data collection; and, of course, better materials.

So, while intuitively one would assume metal is behind GM’s recycling program — and, of course, that is a large part of GM’s raw materials -- the reuse and recycling initiatives are all over the map, literally:

• An assembly plant in Zaragoza, Spain composts wastewater sludge into fertilizer, while inside the shop reuses 80 percent of the solvents used within its operations.


• The operations facility in Grand Rapids, Michigan recycles oil in-house several times, saving the company $1.2 million annually. It also reprocesses wastewater sludge into a renewable fuel source.


• An engine assembly plant in Joinville, Brazil, which is already LEED Gold certified, also composts cafeteria waste for the landscaping onsite.


• The zero-waste mantra starts at the company’s headquarters in the Detroit Renaissance Center, which has been zero waste since 2012.

John Bradburn, GM’s global manager of waste reduction, has had a hand in many of these projects large and small. His pet project of diverting 3,000 pounds of coffee grounds from a suburban Detroit site may not sound like much, but it is an example of how little ideas can add up to create a big impact.

The new approach towards raw material usage is showing up throughout the company in other ways. GM is even dabbling into the sharing economy — though, of course, the automakers have no choice considering shared car services are picking up steam and the percentage of young adults who have driver’s licenses is declining.

In the end, all of these programs are about saving money and assuaging stakeholders — but if the results are less of an environmental impact in a world where materials are becoming more scarce, then let’s hope other automakers follow GM’s lead on waste diversion.

Image credit: GM

After a year in the Middle East and Latin America, Leon Kaye is based in California again. Follow him on Instagram and Twitter. Other thoughts of his are on his site, greengopost.com.

Researchers at Ford Motor Co. have been working to replace petroleum-based plastic with renewable alternatives for nearly 15 years. Back in 2000, Debbie Mielewski, senior technical leader for sustainable materials at Ford Research, and her team devised a chemical formula to replace petroleum-based automotive foam with foam made from soybean oil.

It wasn't always easy. As Mielewski explained to a group of journalists in the research lab last week, the first soy-based foam the team tested was "the most miserable, stinky, terrible foam ever. It smelled like burnt popcorn."

But, she continued, the team had plenty of time to perfect the formula. Why? To put it bluntly: because the rest of the company wasn't expecting much anyway.

"Way back in 2000, people said: 'Why the heck do you want to do this? Petroleum is cheap; we've been doing it for 50 years with the petroleum-based chemicals. Why would we want to change it?'" Mielewski recalled that she and her colleague Ellen Lee were "thrown out of every conference room in the whole company."

As the researchers continued their work, it often seemed as if the department wouldn't live to see the results. But, in the innovative spirit of his great-grandfather, Executive Chairman Bill Ford wouldn't hear of it. "Every time the project was about to be shut down due to resource constraints, we would hear from behind the scenes that Bill Ford met with somebody and that we were going to keep going," Mielewski said.

Finally, after years in the laboratory, the team's hard work paid off. In 2007, Mielewski, Lee and their colleagues completed a soy-based foam that met every specification Ford had in place for its automotive foam. "That's when the magic sort of happened for us: Oil went from $40 a barrel to over $160 a barrel," Mielewski continued with a smile. "The phones started ringing off the hook, and they said, 'You know that really crappy idea? That's a good idea.'"

The company first rolled out its soy-based foam in the 2007 Mustang. Although Mielewski worried that speed-loving Mustang enthusiasts may not "want beans in their seats," both customers and the media quickly fell in love with the concept. "That sort of spurred us on to keep going," she said.

Fast forward to today: Ford has since rolled out soy-based foams to every vehicle it makes in North America -- saving 1.5 million pounds of oil annually. Around 85 percent of all headrests across the Ford line now contain soy foam. "We're migrating it out, and that was the whole intent," Mielewski said. "You don't want to develop one of these materials if you're not going to use it extensively and actually do good for the environment."

The company is looking to expand its use of soy foam to door panels, steering wheels and carpet insulation, Mielewski said. "If it can be done for seat cushions and backs, it can probably be done for all the other applications as well."

The 'growth' of renewable materials at Ford

With the soy foam perfected, the plastics research team had no plans to slow down -- and the company has since developed and launched eight plant-based materials for use in its car parts.

"We're trying to, in all cases, substitute things we can grow for these petroleum-based materials that are not sustainable and not good for the planet," Mielewski said. "When you use a plant, the really cool thing is: While the plant is growing it's taking in CO2, so we're reducing greenhouse gas emissions every time we use a plant."

Introducing natural materials is helpful in more ways than one: "The nice thing is that not only are they based on renewable resources that you can grow but they're a lower density than talc or glass fiber," said Ellen Lee, team leader for plastics research. "So, in the end the composite material is lighter in weight, which helps us additionally with fuel economy."

In addition to soybean oil, here are a few other renewable materials Ford uses to supplement petroleum, as well as glass and mineral reinforcement agents, in its plastic parts:

• Wheat straw: Wheat straw, a byproduct of wheat production that is typically discarded or burned, is used to replace the glass fibers or minerals commonly used to reinforce plastic parts. Wheat straw-based plastics were rolled out in the Ford Flex in 2009, with additional applications under development.


• Kenaf: Kenaf, a tropical plant in the cotton family that looks similar to bamboo, replaces oil-based resin in plastic door interior bolsters on the Ford Escape. The use of kenaf in vehicle door bolsters offsets 300,000 pounds of oil-based resin per year in North America.


• Guayule: This Southwestern plant is under development as a rubber and latex alternative. The company is also looking to dandelion root for its similarly rubber-like properties.


• Coconut fiber: In North America, Ford uses a coconut-fiber trunk liner in its flagship electric vehicle, the Focus Electric.


• Rice hulls: A composite plastic material reinforced with rice hulls was introduced in the wire harness of the 2014 Ford F-150. The rice hulls, which are a byproduct of rice grains, are sourced from farms in the U.S.


• Cellulose: An industry first application of cellulose-reinforced plastic was introduced in the 2014 Lincoln MKX. This material, sourced from sustainably harvested trees and related byproducts, is being used to replace fiberglass reinforcement in the center console.


• Retired currency: An estimated 3.6 million pounds of retired U.S. currency is shredded every year, and Ford has bright ideas for the Treasury Department's discards. The company's research team is currently developing ways to use shredded currency to reinforce plastic in components like, fittingly enough, console coin trays.

Forging partnerships for a more sustainable future

While Ford is making significant strides on its quest to "grow" its own car parts, the company doesn't plan to embark on its journey alone. Back in 2012, Ford joined with four other leading companies -- Coca-Cola, Heinz, Nike and Procter & Gamble -- in a strategic working group to ramp up the development of bioplastic.

The cooperation had its foundation in Coca-Cola’s PlantBottle, a PET product the beverage giant released in 2009 that is partially manufactured out of plant-based resins. Coca-Cola licensed the product to Heinz a year earlier, and both Nike and P&G also plan to use it in products and packaging. Ford researchers are now working with Coca-Cola to adapt the technology for use in vehicle fabrics, and a demonstration vehicle with PlantBottle-based interior fabrics went on display late last year.

But that's not the only way the partnership is driving innovation in alternative materials: Earlier this year, Ford and Heinz announced that they would work together to transform tomato scraps left over from the ketchup giant's manufacturing facilities into bio-based plastic.

Mielewski jokingly recalled the light-bulb moment when she and CEO Alan Mulally were chatting with some executives at Heinz. After the Heinz folks complained about the excess tomato fiber heading to landfills from their plants, Mielewski and Mulally looked at each other and said, "We can do something with it."

Ford's research team is currently testing these tomato scraps, made up of peels, stems and seeds from the more than 2 million tons of tomatoes Heinz uses annually, for plastic reinforcement. The ultimate goal of the five-company-strong partnership is to develop a 100 percent bio-based plastic.

“We are delighted that the technology has been validated," Vidhu Nagpal, associate director of packaging R&D for Heinz, said earlier this year. "Although we are in the very early stages of research, and many questions remain, we are excited about the possibilities this could produce for both Heinz and Ford, and the advancement of sustainable 100 percent plant-based plastics."

While we're surely a long way away from "growing" the plastics we use in our daily lives, the research underway at companies like Ford is slowly bringing us closer to achieving that goal. Considering the fact that Ford alone uses about 300 pounds of plastic in every vehicle it manufactures, one thing is for certain: Every little bit helps.

Images by Mary Mazzoni

Editor’s Note: Travel accommodations for the author and Triple Pundit were provided by Ford. 

Based in Philadelphia, Mary Mazzoni is a senior editor at TriplePundit. She is also a freelance journalist who frequently writes about sustainability, corporate social responsibility and clean tech. Her work has appeared in the Philadelphia Daily News, the Huffington Post, Sustainable Brands, Earth911 and the Daily Meal. You can follow her on Twitter @mary_mazzoni.

Ed note: This article and its title have been updated since this piece was first published and includes statements from NOW and Chevron.  

So, it seems kind of weird at first glance that the National Organization of Women would come down in support of Chevron. Coincidentally, just months after Chevron donated $50,000 million bucks to the National Organization of Women, the legal arm of NOW, Legal Momentum, filed a legal brief in favor of the oil company in its legal plight in Ecuador.

This isn't as out of left field as it might seem, since NOW has its own reasons for supporting a particular ruling on the RICO injunction. But the substantial donation and its timing  sure raises eyebrows, particularly since the toxic waste at the root of the ruling had a particularly strong impact on Ecuadorian women and their children.

Money really complicates something that should seem simple and raises questions of corruption. NOW may have had good intentions, but that donation sure makes it seem like quid pro quo. Ironically, that sort of corruption is one of NOW's reasons for siding with Chevron, as the organization cites the integrity of RICO injunctions as their reason for getting involved at all -- RICO being the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and "corruption" traditionally defined as "dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery."

So, if NOW was motivated to urge the court to uphold the integrity of the RICO Act in part because of a healthy donation, that would be ... kind of funny. And definitely ironic.

This case is complicated. Let's back up a bit with a little history:

Texaco formed a partnership with Petroecuador to drill for oil in Ecuador. Texaco was apparently in charge of the waste pools, and hundreds of them were left to fester and leak toxic deadly crap into the water supply after Texaco left. Then Chevron purchased Texaco, which was facing a lawsuit from people who lived in the polluted areas. In 2011, an Ecuadoran court told Chevron, to paraphrase, "You have to pay $18 billion in fees to clean this crap up." And then in 2014, a U.S. court found that part of the reason the Ecuador side won was because the lawyer, Steven Donziger, cut some corners and manufactured evidence to make his case.  The U.S. Federal court found that the verdict was based on coercion, bribery and money laundering. Enter the RICO injunction to stay the seizing of U.S. assets based on the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

So, how does the National Organization of Women factor into this? After all, you can't just be an amicus curiae without some sort of cause. Amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," is an unsolicited third party who provides additional information in a lawsuit. Unsolicited meaning, you know, to help out because you have cause to do so. Not, for example, because you were paid  to do so.

NOW does have a legitimate interest in RICO injunctions as the organization use them in cases involving sex slave trafficking and activists who seek to block access to women's health care clinics. These injunctions help NOW keep the bad guys -- and their businesses -- from continuing to profit from human rights violations.  As quoted in Bloomberg Businessweek, the brief states "If prosecutors 'can rely on that grant of judicial authority to seek equitable relief—and everyone agrees they can and regularly do—then private actors can, too... The text and structure of the statute are dispositive of the question presented here, on this basis alone.'”

The troubling issue is that  NOW did not disclose Chevron's donation and other conflicts of interest in their brief. As I understand it, NOW is not obligated to do so. But it sure as heck does muddy the waters.

Of course, NOW did not take these accusations of conflict of interest well.

“I find this outrageous,” Elaine Wood, Legal Momentum’s chairwoman and the author of its brief, says, as quoted in Bloomberg Businessweek. “We do not have a position on Chevron and the pollution issues. We are merely expressing our long-established view of RICO.”

When we followed up with Legal Momentum for a comment, Communications Associate Jean Gazis sent over the following list of relevant facts:

1. Calling the contributions from Chevron and Gibson Dunn “major donations” is a mischaracterization. They were just 2 of more than 200 corporations and law firms that supported us in Fiscal Years 2013-2014. The total for both firms for the two years was just $90,000; our annual revenue is around $3 million.


2.  There was no failure to disclose, the financial information is on our website (the 990 forms and annual reports for the past ten years are posted on the site) and we were not asked for this information.


3. The court decision that instigated the brief was not even made until after the donations were received, thus it is impossible for the donations to be connected with it.  The donations were connected with our events honoring leading women in business in law, one of whom at a 2013 event was a Chevron employee.


4. Legal Momentum is not a membership organization


5. Our policies have never ignored women of color; our poverty work, our immigration work, our My Brother’s Keeper initiative, and our clients all largely affect/include women of color.

Chevron was also not amused, stating “This is yet another despicable attempt by Steven Donziger’s team to smear and attack anyone who does not endorse their fraudulent behavior. These allegations are shameless and only serve to reveal their level of desperation.”

Donziger's team, however, holds firm, citing additional evident of conflict of interest. Karen Hinton, a spokesperson for Steven Donziger who represents the Ecuadorians, said:

“NOW’s Legal Momentum should have disclosed Chevron’s and Gibson Dunn’s financial contributions as well as the relationship between Elaine Wood, Chair of Legal Momentum’s Board, and Chevron. Ms. Wood works as a Managing Director at Alvarez & Marsal, which lists Chevron as a client. Ms. Wood also wrote the amicus brief for Legal Momentum and is a former employee of Kroll, one of the largest private investigative firm in the world. Kroll also has Chevron as a client. It has been well-documented Kroll’s role in spying for Chevron in Ecuador.

“The Ecuadorians are disappointed in NOW’s decision to support Chevron’s legal position in the case, especially since it has been silent on the legal arguments for two years and, to our knowledge, Chevron has not been an active supporter of a woman’s right to choose. Certainly NOW and Legal Momentum have the right to submit the amicus brief, even though we argue Chevron's lack of concern for the well-being and health of women and children in Ecuador’s rainforest, impacted by Chevron’s contamination, should be of greater importance to the leaders of NOW and Legal Momentum.”

Legal Momentum called Hinton's role into question as well stating via email, "Karen Hinton is just not an “independent blogger” or “spokesperson” but a principal in a PR firm that has been working on the anti-Chevron side. Its website includes the following on its ”client results” page: “Coordinating a major media campaign to draw attention to Chevron’s extensive contamination of the Ecuadorian rainforest, resulting from its oil drilling there for over three decades. This campaign has resulted in widespread news coverage, including substantive articles in all of the national newspapers, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. CBS’ 60 Minutes also aired a piece called Amazon Crude that depicted the rainforest’s destruction and its impact upon the people.” It is not clear who is the client or how long Hinton has been involved in this issue."

If you are still reading, it's clear to us at TriplePundit that this is one long fight with many key players with quite a bit on the line. At the end of the day, $50,000 is a lot, but is it enough to sway NOW's opinion on RICO? Probably not, but it might be enough to make now the right time for an amicus brief they might have written anyway.

Image Credit: Daniel Oines: Source

Last week the American Petroleum Institute (API) was sued for trademark infringement by Choose Energy, Inc. For 10 years, San Francisco-based Choose Energy has been operating an online marketplace that allows consumers to compare home and business power options from natural gas to solar. In a lawsuit filed last week in a California federal court, Choose Energy, which operates the website ChooseEnergy.com, accuses the API’s launch of ChooseEnergy.org of confusing consumers and harming the company’s goodwill, or in layman’s terms, the company’s reputation and therefore its customers’ confidence.

The suit claims API’s site has confused Choose Energy’s potential customers, especially those who contact the firm through its chat interface, call center and via social media interaction on the Choose Energy’s Twitter account. The bulk of Choose Energy’s business is from working as a broker offering various energy options in the 10 states and the District of Columbia that have deregulated energy markets. So, API's launch, the company insists, is having an adverse impact on its business. Considering API's past use of fake Twitter accounts and litigation over renewable energy regulations in the past, this may not be too big a surprise to observers.

Perusing through both websites, any confusion between the sites’ content dissipates quickly; but the content API has included within ChooseEnergy.org makes it clear why Choose Energy filed the lawsuit. Choose Energy’s site allows homes and businesses to check if their local utility market is deregulated: a quick search within a suburban Baltimore zip code shows the difference between sticking with the local utility or switching to a company that uses only renewable energy. Meanwhile, the API’s site is clearly a promotional, if not a propaganda tool for the fossil fuels sector. The API does not denigrate or attack renewables on ChooseEnergy.org — but it clearly touts what the API claims are the benefits the oil and gas industry brings to the U.S. while offering endless statistics and breakdowns by each state.

Choose Energy claims that its federal registration of the Choose Energy trademarks, one completed in 2002 and one this year — and its use and promotion of the Choose Energy name — makes it clear that it has common law rights on the Choose Energy name. The fact that consumers have contacted the company asking if the firm is a political organization, and has fielded similar inquiries on Twitter, according to Choose Energy, indicates unfair competition and trademark infringement across the board.

Projecting a voice of fossil fuels, while looking over their environmental impact, and using practically the same name as a company that promotes renewables and carbon offsets? Add the fact a Google search for “choose energy” brings up links on both pages, it may seem this is a clear-cut case of unfair competition, if not outright sabotage. But trademark law can be murky — can you trademark a phrase or not? What may seem unfair and unethical may not necessarily be illegal. But no matter how this legal case pans out, the API’s approach comes across as odd — and a public relations embarrassment.

Image credit: Choose Energy, Inc.

After a year in the Middle East and Latin America, Leon Kaye is based in California again. Follow him on Instagram and Twitter. Other thoughts of his are on his site, greengopost.com.

Editor's Note: This summer, Tamanna Mohapatra, a master's student in Columbia University's Sustainability Management Program, took a ride with City Harvest and got an up-close look at food waste and hunger in New York City. This is the first post in a two-part feature detailing her experience.

By Tamanna Mohapatra

Lincoln Hernandez, originally from the Dominican Republic, now calls Queens, New York his home. He drives a truck on the east side of Manhattan for City Harvest, a New York City-based food rescue program, every weekday from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m.

On a Tuesday in August, he arrived at 8:30 in the morning to pick me up from Trader Joe’s grocery store on Broadway and 14th Street, so I could observe him in his rounds of food collection. Mr. Hernandez has been with City Harvest for close to four years now.

“You can remember my name because I am the 16th president of the United States,” he joked. Kidding aside, when asked about how he liked working at City Harvest, he said, “I feel more good working here than when going to church. I feel so great collecting and distributing food.”

We are both immigrants, he from the Caribbean and I from India. Food waste as a concept was relatively alien to us before arriving in the United States, especially the astronomical proportions found here.

That Tuesday morning, we both did our part in trying to make a dent in this very noticeable yet unchallenged social, economic and environmental issue by hauling bag after bag of fresh and one-day-old food, and lots of bread, into the mid-sized refrigerated City Harvest truck. Our stash at the end of just one trip was 2,600 pounds of edible, wholesome food! This is food that would have been thrown away if not for City Harvest’s food rescue program.

City Harvest is in the business of rescuing food. Jonathan Bloom, author of "American Wasteland," states: “Food rescue does not involve superheroes in capes. Also called food recovery, it is the practice of retrieving edible food that would otherwise go to waste and distributing it to those in need. In most cases, the recovered food is perfectly edible, but not sellable.”

City Harvest collects excess food, both prepared and uncooked, from restaurants, cafeterias, hotels and grocery stores -- basically any commercial or nonprofit organization that wishes to donate. They then give away all the food on the same day to some 400 community programs around New York City, mostly in the Bronx borough.

Their fleet consists of 18 trucks and three bikes, with 32 drivers, three bikers and three helpers. All trucks start from the City Harvest warehouse in Long Island City and conduct pickups during three time slots: morning, midday and night. In a sense, City Harvest is a 24/7 business. Each truck makes about 21 stops, including unplanned ones; numbers vary on a daily basis.

“Even with so much food being available for pickup, only 10 percent is picked up by City Harvest,” said Mr. Hernandez.

Understanding the issue

That unfortunately sums up the situation of food waste globally, nationally and specifically in New York City. The global consulting company McKinsey concluded in a 2011 report, “The food waste in North America and Europe alone could feed all of the world’s hungry three times over. Moreover, cutting our food waste by half would have the same effect as taking half the cars off our roads.”

In restaurants, mishandling existing food, large portions and menus contribute to much food waste. In households, fresh products make up most of the wasted food. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that a typical American throws out 40 percent of fresh fish, 23 percent of eggs and 20 percent of milk. Citrus fruits and cherries top the list for fruits, and sweet potatoes, onions and greens are the most commonly wasted vegetables.

The Natural Resource Defense Council, a reputed, New York City-based international environmental advocacy group, brought out a highly researched and quoted issue paper on the subject of food waste in America. The report, published just over a year ago, posits that in 2012 Americans threw away 40 percent of all food produced for consumption. This number has increased by 50 percent since the 1970s, with a total value of all waste food estimated to be around $165 billion a year. The Department of Agriculture estimated that recovering just 5 percent of the food that is wasted could feed 4 million people a day; recovering 25 percent would feed 20 million people.

Food waste at glance

So, what is food waste? The Food Waste Reduction Alliance defines food waste as “any solid or liquid food substance, raw or cooked, which is discarded, or intended or required to be discarded.” This includes food that can be rescued and is safe to consume, but is thrown out for no good reason. Oftentimes this last category isn’t added in the definition food waste -- but it's the heart of where most food waste happens. In New York City and most cities in the U.S., food waste is considered municipal solid waste.

Food waste and hunger ironically and unfortunately exist together in our society. As per the Environmental Protection Agency, “Food waste is a serious concern at many levels. Despite all of this discarded food, people are still going hungry.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that 14 percent of U.S. households were “food insecure” in 2010, meaning they were not always certain where their next meal would come from. We live in a culture that, on the one hand, produces enough food to feed the entire population of the planet, but on the other hand wastes about a third of all the food produced globally, heightening both hunger and food insecurity.

The situation with food waste feels even more compelling and dire when witnessed at a local level. Often considered the global financial capital of the world and a very efficiently run city, New York City has some very telling food waste statistics. The latest figures from the Bloomberg administration have it pegged at 1.2 million tons going into landfills every year.

On a related note, the Food Research and Action Center, a leading nonprofit organization working on hunger and under-nutrition in the United States, lists the south Bronx as having the country’s second highest rate of food hardship at 32.7 percent. “Food hardship” is described by them as a “yes” answer by a respondent household to the Gallup question, “Have there been times in the past twelve months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?”

Food waste, hunger and City Harvest

A morning spent volunteering this summer at the soup kitchen of the Holy Apostle Church at 296 9th Ave.‎ exposed me to people facing food hardships. Some were well dressed and looked like they were on their way to work -- or, more realistically, looking for work. But all of them were there because the church was providing them a free meal, mostly donations from food rescue programs and some purchased with financial donations.

Organizations such as City Harvest bring a promising solution. They consider themselves different from food banks. Every year, food that is rescued feeds about a million hungry New Yorkers from a total population of 19 million. The official poverty rate in New York City is pegged at 21.3 percent as stated in the Annual Report by the New York City Center for Economic Opportunity.

Organizations like City Harvest have two main goals: to reuse good food literally going down the drain and to combat hunger by using this existing good food.

By the end of 2013, City Harvest hopes to have collected and distributed more than 46 million pounds of excess food from all across New York City. That’s approximately equal to the weight of 93 Statues of Liberty!

On the food collection drive that Tuesday morning,, it was astounding to see the amount of bread produced and not eaten. Just one bread supplier, Eli’s Bread, donated over a thousand pounds of bread in one day. While on the drive, we stopped at both small and large grocery stores. One of them was the fancy Italian supermarket Eataly in the Flatiron district. It’s strange to see a usually overcrowded store at 8:30 in the morning with nary a customer. The warehouse entrance, of course, was quite busy. Eataly was provided with donation bags earlier and had packed for us four to five bags of fresh bread -- for a total weight of 500 pounds. That amount is enough to feed 500 people dinner for two nights.

The packaged boxes had CH (City Harvest’s initials) written on them. When asked what the boxes contained, one of the workers jokingly replied, “Dead bodies chopped up!” In actuality, they contained all sorts of food ranging from rice, beans, pasta, sauces, spreads and olives. That was about 200 pounds. So, our first stop had proved quite productive with 750 pounds of food collected.

Getting excess food to those who need it

How is City Harvest so successful in convincing businesses to donate excess food? The organization has made a lot of progress in the last 30 years. They help feed more than 1 million people each year by rescuing some 126,000 pounds of food every day. Currently, City Harvest has close to 5000 donors, including some big names like Fresh Direct, BJs and Whole Foods Market. The amount of food recovered is astounding.

Just during the months of April-July 2013, Whole Foods Markets donated 113,875 pounds of poultry, frozen fish, packaged and baked goods. These figures are for New York City only, but they give a good sense of the amount of food waste happening nationally.

The Environmental Protection Agency has been trying to tackle this issue at a national level through programs like the Food Recovery Challenge. Rachel Chaput, a life scientist at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on a phone interview remarked, “The biggest obstacle to collecting unwanted food is that restaurants and grocery chains just don’t have or want to give the time. Initially it takes a certain commitment before financial savings show.”

Why don't more businesses donate their surplus food? In part two of this feature, Tamanna Mohapatra will explore some of the legal barriers business owners perceive -- and how misinformation can result is excess food heading to landfills. Stay tuned for more tomorrow on TriplePundit! 

Image credits: City Harvest via Facebook

Tamanna Mohapatra is a student pursuing her MS in Sustainability Management at Columbia University.