Search

From badly underestimated methane emissions and groundwater contamination to triggering earthquakes, the multiple human and environmental health threats posed by horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) of shale deposits to release natural gas and petroleum have been well documented.

Negligence and shoddy practices by oil and gas companies exploring for natural gas and petroleum in tightly-packed shale deposits also threatens ecosystems, human health and safety, and critical natural resources on the surface – including precious freshwater resources.

On Sept. 2, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Justice announced a settlement with Trans Energy that requires the oil and gas company to restore streams and wetlands at 15 sites in West Virginia -- across which it had allegedly discharged dredge or fill material without authorization. In addition to paying a $3 million penalty that is to be divided equally between the EPA and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), it's estimated that Trans Energy will spend over $13 million to complete stipulated environmental mitigation and restoration work.

Damaging West Virginia streams and wetlands

According to evidence amassed by the EPA, WVDEP and the public, Trans Energy in 2011 and 2012, “impounded streams and discharged sand, dirt, rocks and other materials into streams and wetlands without a federal permit to construct well pads, impoundments, road crossings and other facilities related to natural gas extraction.” The violations allegedly impacted some 13,000 linear feet of stream and over an acre of wetlands.

In the summer of 2014, Trans Energy conducted an internal audit and ultimately disclosed to EPA alleged violations at another eight locations. The consent decree announced on Sept. 2 covers alleged violations at these locations as well.

The EPA highlights that filling wetlands and damaging streams can have serious consequences for human and environmental health and safety:

“Streams, rivers, and wetlands benefit the environment by reducing flood risks, filtering pollutants, recharging groundwater and drinking water supplies, and providing food and habitat for acquatic species,” EPA states in a news release.

“As part of our commitment to safe development of domestic energy supplies, EPA is working to protect wetlands and local water supplies on which communities depend,” Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator of EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, was quoted as saying. “By enforcing environmental laws, we’re helping to ensure a level playing field for responsible businesses."

Added Sam Hirsch, acting attorney general of the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division:

“Today’s agreement requires that Trans Energy take important steps to comply with state and federal laws that are critical to protecting our nation’s waters, wetlands and streams. We will continue to ensure that the development of our nation’s domestic energy resources, including through the use of hydraulic fracturing techniques, complies with the Clean Water Act and other applicable federal laws.”

Fracking and water resources

Besides having to dump dredge and fill material, companies using fracking to extract oil and gas across the extensive Marcellus Shale are tapping streams and rivers in Pennsylvania and West Virginia heavily.

Thousands of fracking wells are up and running across the Marcellus Shale, an area that extends from northern New York State to the south, west and east into Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Ohio and West Virginia.

On average, fracking wells in Ohio and Pennsylvania use 4.1 to 5.6 million gallons of freshwater, according to a study conducted by researchers at San Jose State University and the consulting company Downstream Strategies. Furthermore, they concluded that 80 percent of fracking rig water in West Virginia comes from surface waterways.

*Images credit: 1) Fracking West Virginia; 2) West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey

Yes, now you can grab an ice cold Popsicle on a hot sunny day while strolling through New York City’s Central Park — from a vendor using a solar-powered ice cream freezer.

The freezers being tested in Central Park operate free of electricity — vendors can even charge their own mobile devices by plugging them into outlets attached to the freezer units.

It seems fitting that Unilever, the world’s largest producer of ice cream, is rolling out the world’s first solar freezers in Central Park to keep those Popsicles, Good Humor or Magnum-brand bars cold while at the same time putting no strain on the environment.

Brandchannel reported the freezers are part of the company’s Sustainable Living Plan, which features a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from refrigeration. “It’s a strategic move for Unilever that already relies on more than two million POS freezers to reach consumers and may become the first commercially-viable solar freezer in the category,” contributor Sheila Shayon wrote.

Unilever committed to purchase 850,000 freezers between 2010 and 2015, but it has already exceeded that goal, buying nearly 1.05 million freezers to date. The freezers, made using recycled materials, reduce energy consumption to less than 0.5 kilowatt-hours per day — equivalent to running a television for about three hours. This in turn reduces the load on national power grids and eliminates the need for producing large quantities of dry ice.

The freezer's efficiency can be monitored on any mobile device — tracking and sharing geo-location data, energy use, cooling performance and supply of products. The company also recently announced new ice cream cabinets for retailers, developed for its Wall's brand, that boast a 70 percent reduction in energy use.

The solar freezers follow Unilever’s efforts to remove the last remaining hydrofluorocarbons-reliant freezers from use. Unilever has been used a climate-friendly hydrocarbon refrigerant alternative since 2004. More recently it has been driving an industry commitment to phase out damaging HFC’s by 2015 through participation in the Consumer Goods Forum.

“We have committed to using refrigerants which have a GWP (global warming potential) of less than three, such as hydrocarbons (HC), CO2, ammonia, water and air, which can all be used as cooling agents in refrigerators and freezers,” Unilever says. “Almost all our production facilities and cold stores already use ammonia in their refrigeration systems. Ammonia has the added benefit of being very energy-efficient for large-scale use.”

Any news that advances the cause of guilt-free ice cream consumption is good news. There’s a kind of natural and spiritual unity in using the sun to freeze your ice cream treat.

Image: Unilever solar ice cream freezer from Unilever website

Kimberly-Clark produces mainly paper-based personal care products, including popular brands such as Cottonelle, so it’s only fitting that the global company focuses on sustainable forestry.

Its latest corporate social responsibility report lists short- and long-term goals to make its products more sustainably produced. One of the short-term goals is to source 100 percent of its wood fiber from suppliers who have achieved third-party certification by 2015. It has already achieved this goal. Two of K-C’s long term-goals also involve sustainable forestry, including obtaining 90 percent of the fiber in its tissue products from environmentally-preferred sources by 2025. At the end of 2013, K-C was at 71.1 percent. Second, the company planned to transition to at least 50 percent of wood fiber sourced from natural forests to alternative fiber sources by 2025. At the end of 2013, K-C achieved 24 percent reduction of fiber sourced from natural forest.

K-C states it will not knowingly use conflict wood, illegal fiber or fiber procured from special forest areas, including endangered forests. All K-C tissue mills in North America and about 50 percent of mills in other regions are chain-of-custody certified. The goal is to achieve 100 percent chain-of-custody certification for all of its mills by 2016.

Reducing water use

K-C uses vast amounts of water in its manufacturing process, so focusing on water use reduction is also important. Its water reduction goal is to reduce water use by 25 percent by 2015, a goal it met the goal in 2013 by achieving a 26.4 percent reduction. K-C met the goal through a more efficient manufacturing footprint, water conservation programs, and upgrading water and waste systems. In addition, mill staff optimized water use reduction programs and effluent recycling systems that were installed in 2012. K-C also completed six major water reduction projects in 2013.

Striving to keep waste out of landfills

Some goals are harder than others to achieve. The goal for 2013 was to have 85 percent of its manufacturing waste diverted from landfills, but the company only achieved an 81.6 percent diversion rate. However, it is an increase from 78 percent in 2012, and 58 percent of the company’s facilities met the 2015 goal of sending zero manufacturing waste to landfills. K-C is on track to be near 90 percent landfill-free by the end of 2014.

One of the ways the company is reducing its waste is to stop making it. For example, K-C is on track to eliminate the production of over 210 million diapers that don’t mean its quality standards. Its manufacturing team is developing similar plans for other child care products in 2014.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions through energy conservation

In 2013, K-C achieved greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions of 3 percent from 2012 levels, and a 6.4 percent reduction from the baseline year of 2010 -- meeting its 2015 goal two years early. The majority of K-C’s operational GHG emissions come from energy use at its manufacturing facilities, so the company focuses on energy conservation and increasing renewable energy use.

Renewable energy use ranges from biofuels sourced from wood waste or landfill gas in the U.S., Switzerland, Brazil and Thailand to solar power installations in the U.S. and Italy. K-C has deployed cogeneration at four manufacturing plants since 2005. The latest cogeneration system is in a mill in Millicent, Australia and produces over 90 percent of the facility’s electricity needs. All of the mill’s steam is produced through a waste heat recovery steam generator, and additional waste heat is incorporated into the tissue manufacturing process to reduce over 60 percent of the natural gas used to dry its tissue.

Image credit: Wikipedia

Over 40% of women in the UK tech or IT industries have witnessed or experienced sexism in the workplace, a new survey has revealed.

Sexism continues to be entrenched in the tech and IT working environment it seems, with 71% of female workers labelling it an industry issue.

The survey, conducted by Crunch, the online accounting firm, asked male and female tech staff about their experiences relating to sexism and gender discrimination.

More than half (51%) of female respondents described the workplace sexism problem as ’moderate’ or ‘extreme’. In contrast, only 32% of their male colleagues agreed the issue is so widespread.

Despite its prevalence, sexism in tech remains largely unreported. Less than half (45%) of respondents said they would report a sexist act to management. 29% say they would leave the issue unreported, while 26% said they were unsure if they would take the issue further.

Laurence Barry, development manager at Crunch Accounting, said: "There is a serious shortage of skilled tech workers in this country and yet we may be discouraging half the potential candidates from a sustained career in this industry with outdated sexism. It is a problem that the entire industry needs to address. That needs to start with all tech workers, male and female, taking responsibility for reporting and responding to any sexism they experience in the workplace and with managers treating it as a serious problem.

“We also need more women in STEM education at all levels, so that the tech industries are recruiting higher numbers of female STEM graduates. This leads to a virtuous circle, because the more women we have in technology the more we see how false that gender gap is and we breakdown those barriers.”

 

Picture credit: © Xochicalco | Dreamstime.com - Woman Ignored Photo
 

3p Traceability Week is now underway! Join Triple Pundit and a panel of experts to discuss traceability in four controversial arenas — Seafood, Fashion, Minerals and Medical Marijuana.  Ask your questions in the comments section, and follow along here. The Q&A closes on Tuesday, September 16. 

As economies become more globalized, supply chains become immeasurably more complex. A given product often travels thousands of miles before arriving on a store shelf, and ingredients or components within that product may hail from all over the world. So, how do we know if a product is safe for our families and aligns with our values? Was it produced in an environmentally preferable way that also benefited the person who made it, or are environmental and human rights problems lurking within its supply chain?

Join Triple Pundit and a panel of experts for 3p Traceability Week to discuss traceability in four controversial arenas -- seafood, fashion, minerals and medical marijuana.

Our featured panelists are: 

• Seafood: Cheryl Dahle, CEO of Flip Labs and founder of Future of Fish


• Fashion: Founder Matthew Reynolds and the Indigenous team


• Minerals: Tristan Mecham, director of product development, and the Source Intelligence team


• Medical marijuana: The MJ Freeway team

Here's how it works: Follow each conversation here. Start asking your questions in the comments section below each post, and our experts will be on-hand all week to answer them. Pretty simple, right?

The expert Q&A will run from Wednesday, September 10, through Tuesday, September 16. We hope you'll join the conversation!

Image credit: FTCblog

Editor's Note: This article is part of a short series on creating resilient cities, sponsored by Siemens. Please join us for a live Google Hangout with Siemens and Arup on October 1, where we’ll talk about this issue live! RSVP here.

Climate change is not going away, so cities large and small must adopt resilient and collaborative strategies not only to cope with the mounting risks they face, but also to survive. It’s no longer a matter of picking and choosing what piece of crumbling infrastructure to repair with scarce funds this year or next — the entire urban organism has to deal with rising waters, super storms, health and food security, air and surface pollution, and increasing numbers of residents.

The stakes are even higher as populations worldwide increasingly cluster around urban areas. “The world is undergoing the largest wave of urban growth in history,” says the United Nations Population Fund. In 2008, for the first time, more than half of the world’s population lived in towns and cities.

Cities are on the front line of the changing climate

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in its findings on the implications of climate change for cities: “Urban centers account for more than half of the world’s population, most of its economic activity and the majority of energy-related emissions. The role of cities in reducing emissions and protecting their inhabitants is therefore central to effective climate policies,” IPCC concluded.

Many emerging climate change risks are concentrated in urban areas, and climate change impacts on cities are increasing, IPCC continued. Key issues include rising temperatures, heat stress, water security and pollution, sea-level rise and storm surges, extreme weather events, heavy rainfall and strong winds, inland flooding, food security, and ocean acidification.

Due to the growth in urban populations, the number of people exposed to climate change risk is increasing: “Rapid urbanization in low- and middle income countries has already increased the number of highly vulnerable urban communities living in informal settlements, many of which are at high risk from extreme weather events.”

On the flip side, rapidly developing cities in industrializing countries may also have the “greatest potential for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.” The problem is that many rapidly developing cities “lack the financial, technological, institutional and governance capacity required for effective mitigation,” IPCC said. That’s where the notion of resilience comes in big time, because “steps that build resilience and enable sustainable development in urban areas can accelerate successful climate change adaptation globally.” Resilient cities may be the solution. 

An entire resilient cities movement has emerged

Arup, Siemens and Regional Plan Association (RPA) recently explored the role of technology in enhancing the resilience of cities and their critical infrastructure systems in a report, Toolkit for Resilient Cities. (Click here to view  the full report).

Between 2000 and 2012, the report noted, natural disasters – including weather, health and seismic events – caused $1.7 trillion in damages worldwide.

“Across the globe, governments, business and communities are seeing an ever-increasing frequency of extreme weather-related events,” the report noted. These events are occurring against a backdrop of global population growth and urbanization, “leading to a complex knot of interrelated pressures.”

In emerging and established cities alike, “these trends are changing the spatial pattern of risk and radically altering perceptions of whether a city is ‘safe’ or ‘well prepared.’” Cities thus face huge challenges to maintain social well-being and economic vitality in an atmosphere laden with complexity, uncertainty and major risk.

A new approach to infrastructure planning

Cities need a new way of thinking about the design, planning, building and management of essential infrastructure — including energy, mobility, water, sanitation, shelter, information, emergency response and other critical services, the report continued. Basically, they are the first responders in the critical early stages of a crisis and in many regions, the only entities around for support, resources and reconstruction as the crisis ebbs and wanes.

In short, they need to be smart and … resilient. Cities are similar to global supply chains: If one part of the chain fails, the entire enterprise is at risk. A resilient city can survive, adapt and grow no matter the stresses and shocks they experience.

The Arup/Siemens/RPA report defined resilience as “the ability of a system to survive and thrive in the face of a complex, uncertain and ever-changing future.” It’s a mindset that encompasses both short-term cycles and long-term trends: “Minimizing disruptions in the face of shocks and stresses, recovering rapidly when they do occur, and adapting steadily to become better able to thrive as conditions continue to change.”

The report focuses on physical infrastructure, including energy, transportation, water and buildings. These particular systems were highlighted because they underpin many other essential city operations and services, including sanitation, emergency response, and the delivery of food, fuel and other materials.

Resiliency embodies and embraces five important facets

• Robustness: infrastructure that can withstand the impacts of hazard events without significant damage or function loss


• Redundancy: systems with the capacity to absorb sudden changes in demand or partial loss of supply


• Diversity and flexibility: services are supplied through a number of pathways that use distributed resources and multifunctional equipment


• Responsiveness: responsive systems use automated monitoring, short feedback loops and controls at multiple points


• Coordination: knowledge is shared, planning is collaborative and strategic

Any way one looks at it, creating resilient city systems will require major changes, a high degree of collaboration, and advanced technology and instrumentation to facilitate the development of systems with greater ability to withstand and respond to sudden impacts. Also, lots of money and a high degree of innovative thinking.

Resiliency requires system thinking

Further, resilient infrastructure networks must incorporate components that will continue to function in an ever-changing environment. Equipment must be able to withstand stronger winds, more intense rainfall, higher temperatures and other impacts. Energy, transportation and water infrastructure can be designed to operate both as part of a large system and to serve a more localized community independently of the wider network.

System monitoring and control is supported by increased application of IT networks and IT-enabled equipment, such as sensors and field devices, either embedded in new infrastructure or retrofitted into existing assets.

Urban planning and land use policies can direct development in ways that protect people and structures from harm when disaster strikes. “Buffers, building codes, easements, transfers of development rights, and no-build and no-rebuild zones can aid in this goal.”

Resilience practices should be adopted in policies, planning and construction across all city districts, “to ensure that resilience of the whole city is increased and not enhanced in one community at the expense of another.” Governance thus needs to take a “whole system” approach to city management, meaning collaboration and a minimum of turf battles. “Collaborative planning should be normal behavior, not just a crisis response strategy.”

And of course it all comes down to money. Innovative and sustainable financing mechanisms are needed to support investments in resilient city infrastructure, for both capital and operational investment. To put it mildly, this can be a “particular challenge” especially for cities in low income countries. Innovative approaches can involve new incentives and revenue streams such as grants, taxes and fees.

New York City’s experience in the wake of Superstorm Sandy in October 2012 exposed the vulnerability of the city’s electrical grid. The Arup/Siemens/RPA report features a case study and economic analysis developed to illustrate the business case for investing in resilience technologies by “improving infrastructure robustness, redundancy, responsiveness, flexibility and diversity to the grid, while also increasing capacity and efficiency in normal times.”

The case study says that just repairing the damage in NYC from Sandy would cost up to $3 billion over 20 years, based on an estimated price tag of $350 to $450 million every three years.

Increasing infrastructure robustness (flood and wind protection measures for critical assets) in order to avoid or minimize the constant cycle of needed repairs could be implemented fairly quickly, within three years, with a cost of about $400 million. Implementing those measures might reduce the cost of repair and response over the next 20 years by about $2 billion.

But “robustness investments” are a defensive solution designed to reduce losses. Full investment would mean long-term benefits for the city in addition to protections against loss. We'll delve more deeply into the New York City case in future articles in this series.

Resiliency around the globe

Last month the Rockefeller Foundation kicked off its 2014 100 Resilient Cities Challenge, which aims to help “build resilience to the social, economic, and physical challenges that cities face in an increasingly urbanized world.” Each of the 100 cities selected will receive funding to hire a “Chief Resilience Officer” and assistance in developing and implementing a resilience strategy.

“We can’t predict the next disruption or catastrophe. But we can control how we respond to these challenges. We can adapt to the shocks and stresses of our world and transform them into opportunities for growth,” the 100 Resilient Cities’ site says. While shocks include events like earthquakes, fires and floods, stresses include high unemployment, inefficient public transportation, endemic violence or chronic food and water shortages. The challenge aims to help cities be better prepared for adverse events and better able to deliver basic services in both good and bad times. Last December the Rockefeller Foundation announced the first 33 cities selected, including Medellín, Colombia, New York City, and Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Resilient systems share and demonstrate certain core characteristics:

• Constant learning


• Rapid rebound


• Limited or “safe” failure


• Flexibility


• Spare capacity

Along with eight international organizations, ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability joined a new urban resilience partnership announced at the World Urban Forum in Medellin, Colombia in April.

“There has been a tremendous outpouring of support for urban resilience in recent years. This new collaboration represents a consolidation of those efforts as we prepare for an explosion of urbanization in the 21st century,” said Margareta Wahlström, UNISDR Chief and Co-patron of the Resilient Cities congress 2012 and 2013.

The partnership includes U.N.-Habitat, UNISDR, The World Bank Group, the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR); the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB); the Rockefeller Foundation; the 100 Resilient Cities Centennial Challenge Program, pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation; the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group; and ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability.

In a fundamental way, the mission for resilient cities is to become more urban while at the same time becoming greener and more sustainable.

Perhaps Peter Newman, author of Resilient Cities: Responding to Peak Oil and Climate Change, summed it best in an interview with the American Society of Landscape Architects: “A resilient city is sustainable in its economy, environment, and community, but it has a deeper quality which enables it to quickly adapt to challenges and rebuild itself for any challenge it faces. This is a spiritual quality, which we can see in individuals, families, communities, and businesses, when they are able to face their problems honestly and reinvent themselves rather than live in denial.”

Image credit: Cover picture extracted from the Toolkit for Resilient Cities report

The U.S. solar market hit a major milestone in the second quarter of this year, with more than half a million homes and businesses now generating solar energy, according to a new report by GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).

According to the Q2 2014 U.S. Solar Market Insight Report, the United States installed 1,133 megawatts of solar photovoltaics (PV) in the second quarter of this year. The residential and commercial segments accounted for nearly half of all solar PV installations in the quarter.

The residential market has seen the most consistent growth of any segment for years and is expected to continue on its upward path. Across the U.S., cumulative PV and concentrating solar power (CSP) operating capacity has surpassed 15.9 gigawatts, enough to power more than 3.2 million homes.

This expansion of solar power also has been a boon to the economy, the report's authors say. Today, the solar industry employs 143,000 Americans and pumps nearly $15 billion a year into the economy. Much of this can be credited to effective public policies, such as the solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC), net energy metering and renewable portfolio standards (RPS).

The utility PV segment made up 55 percent of U.S. solar installations in the second quarter of 2014, which has accounted for more than half of national PV installations for the fifth straight quarter. In just two years, the utility segment quadrupled its cumulative size -- growing from 1,784 MW in the first half of 2012 to 7,308 MW today.

Solar continues to be a primary source of new electric generation capacity in the U.S., with 53 percent of new electric generating capacity in the first half of 2014 coming from solar. With new sources of capital being unlocked, design and engineering innovations reducing system prices, and sales channels rapidly diversifying, the solar market is expected to drive significant growth for the next few years. GTM Research and SEIA forecast 6.5 GW of PV will be installed in the United States by the end of this year, up 36 percent over 2013.

Notably, the report says that for the first time ever, more than 100 MW of residential PV came online without any state incentive. However, growth remains driven primarily by the utility solar PV market, which installed 625 MW in Q2 2014, up from 543 MW in Q2 2013.

Renewables, including solar and wind, have the potential for wide-scale economic revitalization — that is, if we implement the right policies and frameworks. In June, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) released a report that analyzed the circumstances under which renewable energy can boost economies and benefit communities by studying the effects of solar and wind energy on the environment, economy and society. It found that the large-scale deployment of renewable energy can create jobs, increase incomes, improve trade balances and contribute to industrial development.

We still have a long way to go before we can power our entire society with renewables, but it is encouraging to see progress being made and how far we have come. We are on the right track.

Image  Credit: Flickr Maureen McHale

Based in Washington, D.C., Mike Hower is a writer, thinker and strategic communicator that revels in driving the conversation at the intersection of sustainable business and policy. He has cultivated diverse experience working for the United States Congress in Washington, D.C., helping Silicon Valley startups with strategic communications and teaching in South America. Connect with him on LinkedIn or follow him on Twitter (@mikehower)

Clicktivism. It has a great ring to it, no? It says everything about our online culture these days where just about anything can be accomplished with enough single, willing clicks – including the viral success of an online petition.

Micah White, the well-known activist and former editor of Adbusters, first enlightened us to this issue in 2010 with his controversial article on the insidious petitions that are said to now populate the Internet. Petitions like that half-page appeal a friend sends you that urges more government money for Ebola treatment, or the letter demanding banks stop increased charges to checking accounts. For some, clicktivism represents a growing apathy in American social life -- an erosion not only of activism, but of core values.

“Gone is faith in the power of ideas, or the poetry of deeds, to enact social change,” White says. Petitions are pushed out now in the thousands to tens of thousands. “[Subject] lines are A/B tested and messages vetted for widest appeal.”

But the truth is: While the system for inspiring social action has changed, the concept – or the problem, depending on how you look at it – is still the same. Clicktivism isn’t revolutionary. It’s no more novel than online petitions are. They are both extensions of a time when carefully hand-typed, multi-page submissions filled a vital role in American community life.

At one time, paper petitions were a galvanizing force to local politics. They were also an educational mechanism for inspiring broader activism. They could change the composition of city council overnight, and spearhead state and federal investigations. They could make or break a politician’s career aspirations. And while they were only available in most cases for demonstrated registered voters, they spoke volumes about the citizens’ belief in a democratic system.

These days, petitions live largely behind Web addresses like Change.org, Care2.com and CredoAction.com, where average citizens can still take up an issue and galvanize a response. To critics, who have caught on to the fact that these organizations are funded and staffed by money-making entities, clicktivism -- aka the inspired amassing of millions of signatures -- is more a ruse than a social commentary. Nithin Coca makes his point on this by noting that the founder of Change.org earns money from each petition that is posted and has a net worth in the millions. According to Coca, Change.org gets its success by enlisting – and charging – nonprofits and others that post petitions on its site. Most of those petitions, he notes, are simple, “little big issues” that readers can wrap their minds around. They aren’t things, he says, that are going to change the world in enormous ways.

“I don't need to tell you the world is facing huge challenges at the moment: Syria, Gaza, climate change, Tibet. Then go to Change.org. You won't find many of these issues on there,” Coca says.

To be fair: You will now. Petitions on Change.org, as Coca notes, are mind-boggling in coverage. And they do address topics as complex and life-changing as peace in Syria and Gaza, climate change policies, and human rights in Tibet.

But as White notes, they also are remarkably discerning as to what a reader will click on. The petitions that have been sent to me seem to know me like a book (and if you haven’t figured this out, I have signed a few petitions; I have also rejected a few as well). They appeal to not only the human element of their cause but also what will best make me writhe with concern. And for the most part, they don’t include topics that might either offend me or be so far outside of my circle of concern as to appear inappropriate.

And that is where critics may have a point. Those who sign online petitions out of conviction (and I believe most do), believe that their electronic signature is making a difference. Where it gets a bit uncomfortable is when one finds that petitions they wouldn’t endorse are being posted on the site at the same time. Sponsors – whether by the almighty dollar or the electronic signature – like to feel that the organization that is getting their signature actually identifies with their values. Signing one’s name for humanitarian and social causes may be a business for some, but it isn’t a business for the average supporter.

To get Change.org's side of things, I reached out to its founder, Ben Rattray, with an interview request. I received a nice letter from Change.org with a promise to forward on the request. Neither Rattray nor his communications team replied to my two requests.

But that’s fair as well. Critics are quick to condemn clicktivism as a deceptive symptom of our Internet age. They ask: Why should businesses be able to make money by helping nonprofits raise money and signatures? But by the same token, why should companies that make vaccines or provide transport for medical supplies be able to make a profit? Why should doctors be able to run successful businesses and own large houses?

We may be uncomfortable with the concept of clicktivism, but its advent has touched communities large and small. Defeating pink slime (temporarily) is far from its greatest accomplishment. It’s had a voice in Egypt, in Syrian human rights, in healthcare management, and most decidedly in the fair and transparent operation of U.S. court systems. Like the old paper petition, clicktivism is a sign of the times -- and today’s best evidence that democratic values are still at work.

Image credit: Change.org

Editor's Note: This is the final post in a six-part series examining the Supreme Court’s 2010 “Citizens United” decision that affirmed the legality of treating corporations as persons. Using JPMorgan Chase as an example, Donald J. Munro of the University of Michigan focuses on how certain human moral values and some corporate behaviors are incompatible. You can follow the whole series here. 

By Donald J. Munro

Foresight is not prognostication or fortune telling based on finding signs about the future. Rather, it refers to some awareness of the probable risks or advantages likely to follow as consequences of our actions. It is usually based on factual information about these risks and consequences.

This value derives from our primitive instinct to seek out survival resources and avoid predators and dangerous paths that can cause injury or death. In other words, experience and learning influence evolution; “…individuals that learn to predict during life also improve their food-finding ability during life.” It involves the ability to come up with creative responses to hunger and to avoiding danger.

Experience results in learning or new knowledge, as when we make or revise choices, based on earlier instances of successful or unsuccessful choices. At the cellular level, existing synapses are strengthened by the outcomes of choices, as when the brain causes dopamine to flag certain neurons. So being able to learn and revise choices helps us to cultivate foresight.

Biological basis of foresight

As Antonio Damasio put it, “Eventually, in a fruitful combination with past memories, imagination, and reasoning, feelings led to the emergence of foresight and the possibility of creating novel, non-stereotypical responses” (Antonio Damasio, "Looking for Spinoza," p. 80). Steven Pinker described the brain function this way: “The faculties underlying empathy, foresight, and self-respect are information-processing systems that accept input and commandeer other parts of the brain and body” (in "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature," p. 166).

Foresight may also involve predictions of how the law or fellow citizens will respond to our choices, as in the expectation of rewards or punishments. In the case of corporations, if they care about human moral values, foresight would go beyond the factors predicting financial profit/loss. It would also include predictions about impact on people’s health and well-being, on their families and communities, and on their self-respect.

If, prior to the Great Recession that began in 2008, executives of financial services companies had been taught that investor foreknowledge of risk was a virtue, investors might have responded by calling a halt to certain of the derivatives trades that carried excessive risk. But even inside financial services companies, often no one was even aware of the risks.

For example, when the American International Group (AIG), the worldwide insurance company, began to collapse in August 2008, the executives had no idea of the magnitude of its debt; they thought it might be around $20 billion. No one had taken the trouble to find out. But it took a team of outside bankers only 72 hours to discover that it was at least $85 billion and counting. (See also Eric Dash and Andrew Ross Sorkin, “Throwing a Lifeline to a Troubled Giant,” NYT 9/18/2008, p. C11.)

The reason for inattention to the risks is not lack of smart people. As the corporate governance advisor Robert Monks has written, "Very smart, very creative people want to be challenged and one of the constant challenges on Wall Street is to create new products that make a lot of money…this includes technically legal products that skirt the law or are one step ahead of laws. It must be a thrill to find that open space where law hasn’t yet been created. The global financial market has some wide-open frontiers, and there’s no sheriff in town.”

One can assume that JPMorgan Chase has the ability of foresight to advise their investors, if it cared to identify its risks. What risks did JPMorgan Chase pass on to investors, without also providing knowledge about the risks involved? It bundled bad loans into mortgage-backed securities, and sold them to investors, who had no idea of the risks they were buying into. The buyers lost money when the loans lost value, and the bank escaped much of the damage.

JPMorgan Chase record on risks

1. On Jan. 14, 2013, JPMorgan Chase agreed to a Consent Order with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, mainly concerning the Chief Investment Officer’s risk management functions. The firm cooperated fully with the investigations. On Feb. 14, 2013, those regulators took official enforcement action against the bank, targeting risk management and money laundering controls. On March 14, 2013, a Senate panel issued a critique of the bank (regarding the bank’s $6.2 billion trading loss in 2012). The report found that the bank’s executives ignored growing risks and hid the losses from federal investigators. [source: GMI Ratings]. They did so by inflating the value of their positions to hide their losses.

2. In mid-September, 2013, JPMorgan Chase said that it would spend an additional $4 billion and commit as many as 5,000 employees to compliance and risk management functions, and it agreed to establish a new office of oversight and control. [source: James B. Stewart, “When Trying to Follow Rules Isn’t Enough,” in NYT Business, 9/21/13, pp. 1 and 5]

Robert Monks has proposed separating commercial banking and investment banking. In July, 2013 Senators Elizabeth Warren (D.-Mass) and John McCain (R.-Arizona) introduced legislation to do the same thing. This would allow bright risk takers in the financial industry to figure out clever products, using private money. When their casino bets fail, the taxpayers would not be responsible.

Image credit: Flickr/longislandwins

Donald J. Munro is professor emeritus of philosophy and Chinese at the University of Michigan. Munro connects venerable philosophical traditions to modern scientific discoveries, always with a concern for the ethics of human action. His books include The Concept of Man in Contemporary China, Images of Human Nature: A Song Portrait, and Individualism and Holism: Studies in Confucian and Taoist Values. In recent years he has been the Ch’ien Mu Lecturer in Chinese History and Culture (2006) and the Tang Junyi Visiting Professor (2009) at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He is a founding member of the Interfaith Partnership for political Action (ippa.us).

Editor's Note: This is the first post in a three-part series on environmental business issues facing Mid-coast Maine.

The last 200 years have left their mark on the Penobscot Bay and River in Mid-coast Maine, which show the effects of things like commercial fishing, dam construction, industrialization and logging. Although historical accounts from the Penobscot Indians tell of salmon runs so thick that people could walk across the river on the backs of fish, the Atlantic salmon was listed as an endangered specie in 2009. The recent removal of two dams on the Penboscot River restored access to 1,000 miles of fish habitat, while maintaining hydroelectric power production, and aquatic life is expected to increase.

The newest threat to the bay ecosystem is the proposed dredging of Searsport Harbor at Mack Point in Searsport, Maine by the Army Corps of Engineers. The plan is to deepen the port's entrance from 35 to 40 feet and widen it from 500 to 650 feet. This harbor is the second busiest in Maine and is located in Penobscot Bay, near the mouth of the Penobscot River. The proposed project would involve moving 929,000 cubic yards of material and relocating it further down the bay. This controversial $12 million project is supported by some who believe it will encourage regional economic activity and opposed by others for numerous reasons.

Two of the largest beneficiaries of the project are Sprague Energy and Irving Oil, foreign-owned oil companies that make heavy use of Searsport Harbor. Ships with drafts more than 35 feet must currently wait for high tide to berth, causing delays. Data from the Corps' Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, however, estimates that making the channel deeper will reduce weight periods for only eight vessels each year.

Portland Harbor, Maine's largest port, also also has a channel depths of 35 feet. If the Searsport dredging project moves forward, the harbor will have the same depth as Boston Harbor, a far busier port.

“It’s very important that this port remain competitive,"  says John Porter, president of the Bangor Region Chamber of Commerce. "The shipping world has changed. The double hulls and other technological innovations, they protect our environment but they do need a deeper channel.”

Some plan proponents believe that the port could lose business to alternative means of transportation, including trucks if Searsport Harbor is not dredged. John H. Henshaw, executive director of the Maine Port Authority, says that, per ton of cargo, ships are the most environmentally friendly way to transport goods. 

Much of the support from the project comes from Bangor, which is up the Penboscot River from Searport Harbor. This town rose in importance from the logging industry in the 1830s and was the busiest logging port in the world for a short time. The fall of the logging industry and the associated mills was an economic blow for Bangor, and they do not benefit as greatly from some of the economic activities common to the coast, such as lobstering and tourism. Not surprisingly, the Bangor City Council officially supports the dredging project after an 8 to 1 vote.

"They think if we just dredge that these ghost ships will come back," explains Ron Huber, executive director of Friends of the Penobscot Bay, referring to the previously booming Bangor port. "They think, if you build it, they will come."

If bigger ships did come, Huber says there would need to be more infrastructure. "As you make things available for big ships, you would need to have much larger facilities. You could reindustrialize the upper bay. But World War II-era industrialization left a trail of waste behind." Huber believes these environmental issues should be mitigated first, especially since some of the waste would get stirred up from dredging the harbor.

Some of the most concerning waste in Penobscot Bay is from the former HoltraChem, a Penobscot River-front plant that ran from 1967 to 1982. The factory produced 23,000 pounds of toxic mercury every year for papermaking and other industries. This caused mercury contamination in the Penobscot River and Bay. Some parts of the bay were recently closed to lobster fisherman due to elevated mercury levels and dredging will likely exacerbate the mercury issue.

"The area [of Penobscot Bay] that they want to dig hasn't been dug out in 80 years or more," Huber says. "As a result, there is a  lot of mercury that has sunk down there. In fact, as they are digging up all the wastes of the whole industrial age, including from when the paper mills weren't as clean. They will then be dropping hundreds of thousands of tons of contaminated mud into the bay a few miles south, between Belfast and Islesboro. This double resuspension of this mercury is quite tricky."

With nearly half of all Maine lobster catches coming from the Penobscot Bay, dredging will have a huge impact on the lobster industry. The value at the dock was $157 million in 2012 for the area, and it is an important aspect of the coastal economy. If the dredging doesn't cause irreparable, long-term harm to lobster populations, the associated mercury contamination could tarnish the reputation of Maine lobster. The Local 207 of the Maine Lobstering Union and the two lobster councils that represent 2,100 area fisherman oppose the dredging.

Ultimately, whether to dredge Searsport Harbor comes down to what activities should be encouraged. Penobscot Bay attracts a lot of tourists and summer residents, and greater industrialization of the area will make it less appealing for tourists seeking a natural setting. The lobster industry will certainly be impacted, both by a decline in population and potentially reputation. The fish populations and associated wildlife will be hampered, despite the removal of two dams.

The desire for economic growth in a state that has experienced very slow growth since the economic downturn is understandable, particularly for poor inland communities that want to be connected to global markets. The dredging project would certainly benefit the companies doing the dredging work and likely Irving Oil and Sprague Energy, but it is unclear if the project will create much more than short-term jobs and environmental turmoil.

Is it worth paving, or in this case dredging, paradise?

Image credit: Friends of Penobscot Bay, courtesy of Project LightHawk

Sarah Lozanova is a regular contributor to environmental and energy publications and websites, including Mother Earth Living, Green Building & Design, Triple Pundit, Urban Farm, and Solar Today. Her experience includes work with small-scale solar energy installations and utility-scale wind farms. She earned an MBA in sustainable management from the Presidio Graduate School and she resides in Belfast Cohousing & Ecovillage in Mid-coast Maine with her husband and two children.