Search

By Jessica Oaks

You may not realize it, but at this very moment, you're probably wasting electricity. Don't feel too bad though; the fact of the matter is, most people are using more electricity than they need. The home is filled with electronic devices, and keeping track of them all can be a real hassle. Most of us tend not to think about it. After all, what damage can possibly be done by leaving the lights on in a room or setting the thermostat a couple of degrees cooler? Well, more than you probably think.

When it comes to electrical usage, one should think of the age-old economic theory, the Tragedy of the Commons. The principle is simple: Individuals acting rationally and in their own self-interest can actually act against the best interests of the group, by wasting a common resource needed by the collective whole. You may not believe that you're using an exorbitant amount of electricity, but over time, this usage adds up. And this usage burdens the electrical grid and increases your spending. Thankfully, by being conscious of this fact, you can make changes that benefit your wallet, and the community as well.

Changing your habits

Lowering your electricity usage is like exercising and eating healthy – the only way to do it is to do it. Plain and simple. If you leave a room, switch off the lights and television; when you're not at home during the day, set your thermostat at a higher temperature so that you're not wasting electricity cooling an unoccupied house; and if you have old stereo or multimedia equipment – including DVD players, CD players or computers – unplug them rather than leave them in stand-by mode. Each of these actions can help you save electricity incrementally, all of which can lower your electricity bill. By how much? Well, consider these costs:

• Cost to run 5 incandescent bulbs: 30 cents per day or $110 per year


• Additional cost of running Non-EnergyStar-rated television: $55 per year


• Cost of running multimedia devices in stand-by mode: $67 per year


• Cost of running air conditioning while at work: $200 per season

Simply by changing your electricity usage habits, you can save hundreds of dollars over the course of a year. With that money, you could buy a new EnergyStar-rated TV set, make a car payment, take the family to Disneyland or buy new furniture. Most people, if told they could make an extra $500 simply by switching off lights, adjusting their thermostats and unplugging old DVD players, would probably jump at the opportunity to do so. Well, you can!

Technology is your friend

Modern technology is your ally when it comes to saving electricity. Not only because modern devices use far less electrical power than devices of old – an EnergyStar-rated television is on average 25 percent more efficient than a traditional television – but also because there are more and more tools available to help manage electricity usage.

Samsung spearheaded the Smart Home initiative with energy-efficient devices and appliances that can all be synced together, so that they run smoothly, and more importantly, efficiently. With sync devices like those offered by Samsung, you will never have to worry about leaving the air on all day again, because you will be notified via text if you are away for a certain amount of time. That is the promise of modern technology, and why individuals who are interested in saving electricity should be adopting these new devices.

Samsung is so committed to the home of the future, in fact, that the company has filed more than 150 patents with the United States patent office over the last decade or so related to home automation. It is a concept that makes sense in principle – control all of your electronic devices at once, centrally and remotely – but only recent technological developments, such as smartphones and wireless connectivity, have actually made it possible in practice. Adoption may be slow at present, but with each passing year, you can expect devices like the Nest thermostat, recently purchased by Google for $3.2 billion, to start becoming commonplace. If indicators are to be believed, the long-promised Jetsons home of the future may finally be upon us!

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

By Cheryl Dahle

In the last 10 years we've seen 25 of the top U.S. retailers make commitments to purchasing sustainable seafood. We’ve seen a lot less traction and follow-through on those commitments. The fact remains that there is not enough responsible fish — whether you define that as Marine Stewardship Council certified, Monterey Bay Aquarium green-listed, or some other eco-label — to satisfy current demand for fish. As a result, many companies are defaulting on their promised timelines, or disguising a lot of questionable fish purchases from farms that are certified or in the process of being certified. As you might guess, the loophole in that bolded phrase is big enough to pilot a commercial trawler through it.

The truth is that leading companies could be doing a lot more to drive supply chains in the right direction other than just committing to buy better fish. Here’s a short list of ways that next generation leaders are engaging:

Invest in supply. There’s not enough responsible fish. So, figure out how to make more. Forward-thinking retailers as well as distributors are putting money into fishery improvement projects, or FIPs, to help local communities and fishers get on the path to making the changes necessary to being environmentally sustainable. Bringing a guaranteed market to even a small fishery can go a long way toward helping these communities develop better governance and practices.

Another way to think about creating sustainable supply would be to support the development of breakthrough sustainable aquaculture. While there are proven methods to raising environmentally sound fish, both on land and in the ocean, those aren’t yet proven business models. Forward thinking companies could invest in initiatives that are targeting the market barriers to thriving and eco-responsible fish farming. Or, they might look at co-investing in a farm to help it scale, as a way to secure dedicated supply. Imagine a network of fish farms in urban centers throughout the U.S., bringing jobs, sustainable and locally sourced fish to communities across the country. Future of Fish is recruiting aquaculture partners to look at funding this initiative of local fish farms across the country.

Buy Local. Truly committed companies have shortened their supply chains and focused on domestic sourcing. Bon Appétit is a great example. Their Fish to Fork program goes beyond a purchase commitment on paper to getting in the trenches to source fish that meets their corporate values. That means buying fish that is low on the trophic scale, meets their definition of “local” (both in the number of miles out to sea and across land that fish travels) and favors small boat operators.

They hired 14 chefs in various regions to serve as “piscators,” or expert buyers empowered to forge sourcing relationships with local fishers. That’s real commitment to deal with the complexity of fish sourcing, not just buying an eco-rating when it’s convenient. Even as the supply chain continues to wrestle with issues of widespread fraud and mislabeling (much of that due to fact that we import more than 90 percent of our fish here in the U.S.) some domestic fisheries producing responsibly harvested fish are collapsing economically. If more companies stepped up like Bon Appétit, we might prevent that.

Pool Purchasing Power. One of the most promising developments in the last few years has been a business-level community supported fishery. Dock to Dish, led by Sean Barrett in New York, has organized purchasing cooperatives of restaurants that borrow from the thriving models for individual consumers to purchase shares in fisheries or local produce. By pooling resources, the businesses can get access to steady amounts of fish, and know their fishmonger personally. There’s no reason why other businesses can’t follow suit with a similar model.

Invest in Traceability. Instead of passing the buck to distributors, companies need to take a leadership role in supply chain technology — not just to verify the sustainability of fish, but also ensure that it wasn’t harvested illegally or using slave labor. Today, the description of “slave-free” fish isn’t a claim that any retailer steps up to make. The technology exists to make that claim possible, if the will exists to implement it. Future of Fish is recruiting companies interested in a pilot project to make that idea a reality.

The bad news for companies is that we’re out of the “low hanging fruit” solutions that are easy to implement. The good news is that a few corporate leaders with a bit of commitment and smart investment could chart a path of innovation across fisheries that would leave competitors in their wake.

Image credit: Flickr/mrthk

Cheryl Dahle is a journalist and entrepreneur who has worked at the intersection of business and social transformation for more than a decade, Cheryl conceived and co-led the effort to found Future of Fish.

Just like private companies, nonprofit organizations are in need of talent: There are approximately 2 million nonprofit board member seats that need to be filled each year, and over 90 percent of nonprofit organizations say they would like to use skilled volunteers to help them carry out their mission, according to LinkedIn. And individuals are hungry to offer their services – from students hoping to build their resumes, professionals who want to give back to retirees and stay-at-home parents looking to keep their skills fresh.

But how can these nonprofits seeking skilled volunteers and individuals with just the right expertise find each other? LinkedIn and volunteer engagement network VolunteerMatch aim to solve this challenge, announcing last month that the two organizations will partner to make it easier for nonprofits to successfully recruit experienced volunteers and board members.

A team of product managers and engineers from both organizations has developed a technology bridge, so opportunities for skilled volunteer positions that are posted to VolunteerMatch.org will now automatically be posted on LinkedIn as well. This will allow the 100,000 nonprofits that use VolunteerMatch to promote their volunteer positions the additional opportunity to reach the 300 million members of the world’s largest professional network on the Internet.

For LinkedIn members, this partnership will give them access to thousands of new listings for nonprofit volunteer and board positions that might match their particular skill set and interests. Back in January, the Mountain View, Calif.-based company launched the LinkedIn Volunteer Marketplace, to connect its users with volunteer opportunities from organizations like Catchafire, Taproot Foundation, BoardSource and, of course, VolunteerMatch. Under the new collaboration, professionals using LinkedIn are now able to browse through all of VolunteerMatch’s listings for skilled volunteers – more than 5,000 opportunities – rather than a selection of positions.

“Skilled volunteering has become a critical form of support for nonprofit organizations,” said VolunteerMatch President Greg Baldwin in a statement. “But fragmentation, disorganization and dilution keep too many great organizations from finding the help that they need. We’re proud to be partnering with LinkedIn to use technology to help the social sector find the talent and skills it deserves. Not every partnership in Silicon Valley puts the needs of the community first, but we are pleased to say this one does."

And it seems likely that the new partnership will be met with success: During a pilot program, VolunteerMatch witnessed twice – and sometimes triple – the typical amount of sign-ups from interested volunteers on LinkedIn and predicted the trend will continue now that all of its skilled-volunteer listings are live on LinkedIn’s site, the organization said in a statement.

LinkedIn membership’s eagerness to give back to their communities will also play a role in the program’s outcome. Starting in September, LinkedIn made it possible for users to announce their interest in philanthropy on their profiles, and as of April, more than a million members indicated that they are actively seeking volunteer work.

Nonprofits can benefit from the help of skilled volunteers, but the volunteers themselves can also reap rewards – and not just that warm fuzzy feeling you get from contributing to a good cause. A 2013 study from the Corporation for National and Community Service, a federal agency that promotes volunteerism, followed more than 70,000 unemployed individuals for 10 years and found that those who did volunteer work had a 27 percent better chance of landing a job than those who didn’t. One reason for the higher employment levels among past volunteers is that learning new skills or knowledge and then employing them during a volunteer position may “demonstrate higher levels of capacity, potentially making the volunteer more attractive to and productive for employers,” according to the study, entitled "Volunteering as a Pathway to Employment."

In addition, a recent survey on LinkedIn reported that 42 percent of hiring managers said they consider volunteer work equivalent to full-time work experience, and 20 percent said they had hired a job applicant because of his or her previous volunteer experience. So while a nonprofit organization can accomplish its goals working with skilled volunteers – a social media expert can conduct an outreach campaign for the group or a financial expert can serve as a board member – volunteers can advance their careers: gaining valuable new skills, networking with important industry players and getting closer to securing their dream job.

Image credit: VolunteerMatch

Passionate about both writing and sustainability, Alexis Petru is freelance journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area whose work has appeared on Earth911, Huffington Post and Patch.com. Prior to working as a writer, she coordinated environmental programs for Bay Area cities and counties. Connect with Alexis on Twitter at @alexispetru

Two years ago I reported on an inspiring project kicking off in Mozambique: clean cookstoves, powered by locally produced ethanol made from locally grown cassava, sold neighbor-to-neighbor. CleanStar Mozambique attempted to tackle deforestation, land degradation, malnutrition, poverty, indoor air pollution and carbon emissions with one innovative initiative.

It appeared they'd thought of everything: The plan featured plenty of job development with a biofuel plant in the Sofala province, contracts with local farmers to grow cassava, a locally relevant marketing plan, and a pack of international investors to give the project a boost.

However, the project faced formidable challenges from the beginning. CleanStar Mozambique's plan was to create a market for stoves and build a full pipeline for fuel -- from cassava seeds to store delivery --  all at the same time. The venture-funded social enterprise needed to source local cassava, keep the factory running, manage shipping to ensure a consistent supply of ethanol at the stores, and educate consumers to build demand for the stoves. The marketing plan for the stoves was one of the most innovative parts of the plan. As I shared in an earlier post:

Mozambican women spend hours a day cooking the family’s meals over charcoal stoves, which are dirty, smelly and cause respiratory problems. They also don’t make the greatest cooking vessels, with their uneven heat and cooking surface....

Ethanol is a clean-burning fuel, and ethanol stoves make cooking faster, cleaner, and more pleasurable. So, NDZiLO sells ethanol stoves, often woman-to-woman, like Avon.

Unlike other clean cookstove projects which donate stoves without educating consumers about their use, CleanStar Mozambique was focused on meeting the consumers' needs for a better cooking experience.

But the company struggled to build demand while managing the sourcing and operations of a biofuel plant. In 2013 the company decided to get out of the biofuel manufacturing business to focus on the stoves, stating in a press release:

To strengthen its future development CSM [CleanStar Mozambique] has decided to restructure its operations. As part of this, the company will suspend its agro-forestry and ethanol production operations in the Sofala province while conducting a strategic review of the best possible options for continuing these activities, to which CSM remains committed.

This restructuring included a new name: NewFire Africa.

Sadly, the restructuring proved unsuccessful, and earlier this month NewFire Africa announced a voluntary liquidation, due to continued losses.

In a statement, Investment Fund for Developing Countries and Novozymes lauded the energy company's 1 million liters of fuel and 33,000 stoves sold and stated that despite this demand, "The company was unable to achieve the scale and retail penetration required to make the venture financially viable."

CleanStar Mozambique had the backing of an international cadre of corporate and financial supporters and a strong business plan which focused on consumer needs. Yet, the firm still struggled to build demand for a better product with a cleaner cooking experience.

Sustainability is a field full of optimists.We have to be, right? We believe that despite evidence to the contrary, there is still time to turn the world into a place where we manage our resources with the needs of future generations in mind. Yet, it's important to remember that, at the end of the day, business is business. Customer needs are paramount. Despite how great NewFire Africa's solution was, it just wasn't good enough to beat out the other options middle-class Mozambican women have for cooking their meals.

So, maybe demand for a better stove was not as high as CleanStar Mozambique had hoped. Or maybe their marketing plan was just off. Maybe the product was premature for the market. There are a million reasons why good products fail.

That doesn't mean this audacious plan wasn't worth trying. We're left with 33,000 customers out there with a high-quality, cleaner-burning stove and millions of people around the world who were inspired by this initiative. CleanStar Mozambique shows us that running a true triple bottom line business is a challenge even under the best of circumstances. But somehow, recognizing how easy it is to fail means we have nothing to lose if we give it another shot.

Update: The CleanStar project managers contacted us to indicate that the required level of sales to sustain production and the lack of stove uptake or non-acceptance by  consumers were not the main reasons why the project failed.    They explain that the fees and costs were too high and that the market was not ready to pay the resulting high price for the product; in parallel a diversion of funds resulted in the early closure of the pilot project. The project has now been restructured, although withdrawal of support by the original investors means that the local partner (who was responsible for developing and managing the customer base) has been forced to secure capital elsewhere.  As of November 2015, the local partner is working to bring the stove project back to profitability, though still constrained by the lack of available capital.

 

Image credit: CleanStar Mozambique

Editor's Note: This post originally appeared on the Erb Perspective blog, a publication of the Frederick A. and Barbara M. Erb Institute at the University of Michigan.

By Andrew Hoffman

To protect something, we have to love it.  And to love it, we have to take the time to appreciate its beauty and value. Last week, I took some time to do just that.  After giving a keynote address at the new Center for Climate Communication at the very-green University of California Merced, I added three extra days with a old friend to tour the Sierra Nevada and Yosemite National Park on the back of a motorcycle (Harley Davidson Road King for those who care about such things).

Those three days reminded me of what our work is about, allowed me time to reflect on our purpose and, at the most basic level, helped to restore my soul. Experiencing the countryside on a motorcycle is a special way to explore.  It’s not like seeing the world through the framed barrier of a windshield.  The world is right there beneath your feet. You can reach down and touch it, and sometimes it reaches up and touches you – at one point, a bee landed inside my leather jacket and proceeded to sting me twice before I could come safely to a stop.  As you ride, you feel the slightest change in temperature, and you smell everything – fruit groves, grape vines, pine forests, mountain waterfalls, barbeques and dry fields. As you lean and balance through the switchbacks of the back roads, you are effortlessly part of the environment around you; it feels like thought into motion.

The weekend traversing Yosemite Valley was a visceral reminder of what we need to preserve for future generations (just as Teddy Roosevelt and Ansel Adams did before us). Our National Park system is still, as Ken Burns described it, “America’s Best Idea;” and our affection for it crosses political divides, geographic boundaries, and income levels. But while we love nature, our relationship with it is not always easy and the signs of that uneasy relationship were visible throughout the ride.

We stopped in Hetch-Hetchy Valley to see the historic site for the 1923 national debate over whether to turn this breathtaking valley into a source of drinking water and electric power for the city of San Francisco.  For Gifford Pinchot, the answer was clear – this was the greatest good for the greatest number.  For John Muir, this was a sacrilege – Hetch Hetchy should be left as it is for its own inherent value. I have taught and written about this epic battle for years, but had only now seen it first hand.  After seeing it, I will speak differently about what it represents for the needs of humans and nature. And, I will understand more personally the ways in which this clash manifests itself today.

For example, the signs of a water stressed Central Valley were all too clear.  California is coming off its driest year since record keeping began in the 1800s, and the past two winters have been abnormally dry as well.  Farmers and conservationists are now in a heated battle over the priorities for the limited available water.  On the one side, the drought is forcing hundreds of thousands of acres to go unplanted of fruits, vegetables, nuts and grains this year, and farmers are warning of a strained local economy and higher food prices. On the other side, the challenge of protecting fragile ecosystems and species has lead regulators to allocate water to the endangered delta smelt. Route 99 from Fresno to Merced was dotted with the signs of angry farmers who see the water shortage as man-made and want the government to fix it by reallocating water to agriculture. To John Muir and Gifford Pinchot this debate would have seemed all too familiar.

The clash over water is the downstream effect of what can be seen in the highlands above; Sierra snowpack is just 18 percent of average for this time of year. As we drove across the Tioga Pass Road at 9,000 feet, the road was lined with snow banks as high as 2 feet. But this wasn’t normal; this was the earliest opening of the Road, which usually doesn’t see travelers until July. The lack of snow now assures that water in the Central Valley will remain insufficient for farmers in the future.

Crossing the Stanislaus National Forest, the fresh remnants of last August’s Rim Forest Fire were evident everywhere. Caused by a hunter’s illegal fire that went out of control, this was the third largest in California history (and the largest on record in the Sierra Nevada), consuming over 400 square miles of forest.  Along the road, we saw massive trees that had been cut down, scorched and black on the outside and intact, large dimension lumber on the inside.  Posted signs warned of the penalty for illegally removing the valuable timber. The Forest Service has proposed to allowsalvage logging on about 30,000 acres of high intensity burned area and along 148 miles of high use road in the burn perimeter.  But conservationists oppose the removal of what they see as a critical part of the restoring habitat and prefer to let “nature heal itself.”

All of these experiences reinforce for me the importance of what we are doing at the Erb Institute: searching for ways to balance the needs of a strong economy with the goals of a healthy environment.  Future generations will expect us to give them both. To see these tensions first hand reminds me of the important work that we have to do.  To see this natural beauty first hand fills me with the love and passion to actually do it.  The first is a problem to solve; the second is why we care. We need both in equal supply.

Image courtesy of Andrew Hoffman

Andrew Hoffman is Professor at the Ross School of Business, the School of Natural Resources and Environment, and the Faculty Director of the Erb Institute at the University of Michigan. The Institute works to create a sustainable world through the power of business. You can find Andy on Google + and Twitter.

By Kristen Scheyder

If you’re a regular reader of Triple Pundit, chances are good that you’ve heard of “impact," “sustainable” or “mission” investing, which according to their broadest definitions mean investing to generate a social and/or environmental impact, alongside a financial return.

Chances are slimmer, however, that you’ve heard as much about CDFIs (community development financial institutions), which have a 30+ year track record of investing in underserved U.S. markets for social and environmental impact. CDFIs make loans and investments to foster economic equality, environmental sustainability, food access, health care, education, affordable housing and more. As financial intermediaries, CDFIs offer a convenient way for mission-driven investors to target their capital towards particular economic or environmental issues – while prudently managing risk.

The Citi Foundation has supported CDFIs for more than two decades, believing in their power to create economic opportunity for low-income individuals, families and their communities. CDFIs are one way to increase the flow of capital and the supply of financial products and services in the open market to those outside the economic mainstream. Through thought leadership, pro bono involvement and our financial support, we aim to build and expand this important industry to ensure greater access to capital for all.

A crucial component of expanding CDFI capacity is through the increased availability of up-to-date and reliable performance information. That’s why, together with our partner Aeris (formerly known as CARS Inc.), an information service that provides data, analysis, ratings and advisory services to CDFI investors, we worked to build a solution that supports investors’ research and due diligence on CDFIs, while simultaneously creating a useful management tool for CDFIs.

The result? The Aeris Cloud, an online database that for the first time gives investors access to analytic tools on the financial and impact performance of CDFIs. These tools include standardized, GAAP-compliant, real-time data that enables investors to target specific impact areas in which they wish to invest (e.g., environment, energy, healthy food, women), and provides on-the-spot access to quarterly performance data to underwrite and monitor these investments. In addition to the real-time peer and industry trend analyses, the Aeris Cloud gives subscribers access to Aeris Ratings Reports – the only third-party assessment of a CDFI’s financial strength and impact performance.

http://vimeo.com/96234207

The Citi Foundation will continue to work with organizations like Aeris, and other leaders in the CDFI industry, to help meet the financial needs of lower-income communities and promote economic progress. Expanding the marketplace and breadth of U.S. community investing to grow the supply of capital for CDFIs will continue to be an important component of that work.

Kristen Scheyder leads the Citi Foundation's U.S. Financial Capability, Inclusive Finance and Urban Transformation portfolios. She collaborates with national organizations to develop innovative programs that expand Citi's partnerships and initiatives with U.S. municipal and community development organizations, to innovate, attain scale and achieve financial sustainability. Kristen has been a community development practitioner for 20+ years, with experience in the banking, government and nonprofit sectors.

Syngenta has withdrawn an ‘emergency’ application to allow a bee-harming pesticide,banned by the EU, to be used on British crops.

The news follows campaigning earlier this week asking ministers to stand up to intense lobbying from the pesticide industry, led by The Bee Coalition, a collection of organisations including Friends of the Earth, Buglife, the Pesticide Action Network UK, the Soil Association and the Environmental Justice Foundation.

The pesticide in question was one of three neonicotinoids given a two-year EU ban last year after a review of all of the scientific research linked them to damaging bee health, despite opposition from the UK Government.

Friends of the Earth’s Head of Campaigns Andrew Pendleton commented: “Our under-threat bees can breathe a bit easier this evening. We’re delighted Syngenta has withdrawn this application – the scientific evidence linking neonicotinoid pesticides to bee decline is stacking up.

“Ministers are currently finalising their action plan for protecting Britain’s bees. The National Pollinator Strategy must get tough on all the causes of bee decline – including pesticides.”

 

STORY updated 4/7/14

 

Picture credit: © Damomz | Dreamstime Stock Photos

 

Europe’s largest companies are coming under increasing political pressure to cut their carbon footprint ahead of crunch climate talks next year, but carbon trading is now just one of many tools being deployed to curb the use of fossil fuels, reports John McGarrity

 

When world leaders and environment ministers from around 190 countries gather in on the outskirts of Paris to hammer out a potential successor to the Kyoto Protocol at the end of next year, the world’s largest companies will be asked to back tough carbon reduction targets and help prevent runaway – and economically-ruinous – climate change.

Such a deal, should it be signed, is likely to look very different from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which placed the burden of emissions cuts on the resources sector - mainly in rich countries – prompting the EU to launch an emissions trading scheme for big producers and users of energy that had only a very limited success in reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

While improved carbon trading schemes – backed by tighter caps on CO2 - is still likely to play a major role in countries’ efforts to cut emissions in future decades, other pressures could deliver big cuts in carbon at company level compared to a scenario where boardrooms do nothing.

Environmental taxes, government efforts to control airborne pollution from fossil fuels, global divestment campaigns involving some of the world’s biggest institutional investors, and direct action on multinationals by pressure groups, are all prompting tougher action by boardrooms across almost all industry sectors.

Global IT and social media companies such as Google and Facebook are increasingly investing in renewable energy or are building low-carbon data centres to deal with the increasing demand for information and streamed content, responding to intense pressure from green groups and motivated by potential long-term profits in switching away from fossil fuels.

Producers of consumer goods and the food and beverage sector - most notably Unilever - are changing their supply chains to cut transport-related emissions and source commodities more carefully - particularly palm oil blamed for destruction of rainforests.

‘Divestment’ campaigns
Meanwhile the finance sector – including banks such as HSBC and Deutsche Bank – are limiting their exposure to coal and other fossil fuels as a global ‘divestment’ campaign gathers increasing momentum.

And increasingly, national and state governments are stepping in to compel companies to do more to measure their carbon emissions and take action to reduce their impact on climate change.

For almost a year, companies listed in the UK have been required to measure their carbon footprint and declare them in corporate accounts, while privately-owned enterprises are being encouraged to calculate emissions on a voluntary basis as the country tries to navigate a path to ambitious medium and long-term carbon cuts.

And in the US, where most states are not yet covered by carbon trading, over 40% of Fortune 500 companies have either set targets for greenhouse reductions, energy efficiency, or renewable energy, according to a report in June from Ceres, a US-based environmental reporting network.

And it is in the US, where use of wind and solar and energy efficiency at manufacturing plants and headquarters is leading to the most noticeable emissions cuts, says the CDP, which measures corporate efforts to rein in fossil fuel use.

The CDP reckons that the 53 Fortune 100 index of the US’ largest companies cut their annual emissions by 58 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, saving them $1.1 billion annually and comparable to retiring 15 coal plants.

But while many high profile companies in Europe and the US are taking strong measures to cut emissions through greater use of renewable and energy saving targets, the majority are not, meaning that corporate efforts as a whole remain insufficient.

Without carbon trading, the corporate sector is unlikely to cut carbon in line with what will be needed under national targets, notes Dirk Forrister, head of the International Emissions Trading Scheme and a former adviser to President Clinton.

“Carbon trading is still the best way of delivering emissions cuts at least cost, and policymakers are learning from the mistakes that will make schemes more effective. Carbon trading in the EU, China and the US will be hugely relevant for companies in future decades,” says Forrister.

At present, prices for carbon allowances in the EU emissions trading scheme languish around 5 euros, around a sixth of their high water mark seen in 2008.

This has deprived the world’s largest carbon market of a strong price signal to switch to cleaner energy and seen an increase the burning of coal compared to more expensive gas.

For companies not covered by the ETS, the switch from gas to coal - and weak carbon prices - has kept down energy prices, but threatens longer term EU carbon reduction targets – 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050.

In response, the EU has agreed measures to reduce the amount of CO2 power plants and heavy industry can emit after 2020, meaning that companies are taking measures to cushion themselves against higher energy and carbon costs by investing more in renewable energy.

Last month, a partnership of pharmaceutical companies including GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis completed a wind energy project to power their Irish manufacturing operations in Cork, motivated mainly by the need to reduce carbon-related energy costs.
The architects of the EU’s carbon trading scheme and energy efficiency policy intend that non-ETS sectors – such as transport, buildings and agriculture - do more to make cuts in emissions cuts that will be required through a future global climate agreement.
But it is not only on home ground that carbon trading will remain highly relevant for European companies, as major export markets in the Americas and Asia increasingly embrace the idea of putting a price on emissions.

Under proposals announced by the US Environmental Protection Agency last month, individual states can use a range of measures, including carbon trading, cut emissions from coal-fired power plants.

This could expand carbon trading beyond north-eastern states, California and some Canadian provinces, the early movers in North America’s cap-and-trade efforts, although some resource-dependent states such as Texas are likely to eschew markets in favour of regulation if the Obama plan is implemented.

Meanwhile, in China, the world’s largest emitter, pilot carbon trading in megacities such as Beijing, Chongqing, Shanghai and Shenzhen is likely to expanded on a nationwide basis.

Developing markets
Meanwhile, other developing countries, including India and Vietnam, may have carbon trading schemes in place within the next decade, meaning that European and North American companies will find it increasingly difficult to avoid paying for the costs of their carbon footprint if they relocate operations abroad.

“Effective carbon trading schemes around the world could have a huge impact on companies’ supply chains, particularly if power prices increase through a shift to gas or renewable energy,” notes IETA’s Forrister.

Without robust carbon prices in both developed and developing countries, a major shift away from relatively cheap coal is unlikely, as the thousands of new coal-fired plants built in China and India in the past decade will be both an economic and political necessity for future economic growth, says the International Energy Agency.

Despite the increasing efforts of the UN to persuade the world’s largest companies to do their bit in slashing carbon emissions, narrow, sectional interests are likely to predominate at next year’s Paris meeting. There, it will be up to individual countries to decide which industries must make the biggest sacrifices to meet future targets.

 

UK pension funds and asset man-agement companies including British Airways Pension Fund, Legal & General, Scottish Widows Investment Partnership and Aviva Investors could potentially have £37.3bn (€45bn) collectively invested in ‘land grabs’ worldwide, according to a new report from by Friends of the Earth (FoE).

Titled ‘What’s Your Pension Funding? How UK Institutional Investors Finance the Global Land Grab’, the 40-page report is claimed to be the first time that UK pension funds and asset management companies have been linked directly - via their investments - to global firms either known or alleged to be involved in cases of land grabbing from communities in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

The practice of land grabbing - whereby wealthy businesses acquire large tracts of cheap unused land to grow crops for fuel and for other industries - can also see the rights of the affected people and communities infringed. It has resulted in families being forcibly kicked off their land they use to grow food - with no compensation - and in some cases are lives lost.

Samuel Lowe, FoE’s Land Grabs Campaigner and one of the report’s three co-authors, commenting said: “Our future retirement funds are often being secured at the expense of the poor and powerless through widespread land grabbing. And, in some cases our pensions are actually under threat of being wiped-out due to the risky nature of large-scale land acquisition deals.”

Lowe called for “stringent international laws” by the Government to rule out all of the impacts associated with land grabbing and asserted that: “UK investors must stop funding companies linked to this scandal.” Blackrock, the asset manager, holds by far the most shares and bonds in the 23 high-risk and land grab associated companies, with total holdings of £9.85bn, followed by Legal & General with £8.739bn.

FoE is also calling for the UK Government to examine the role played by pension funds and asset management firms in funding these land grabs, and urged institutional investors to stop investing in companies - either linked to or associated with large-scale land acquisitions - until there are UK laws to rule out the wide range of social and environmental impacts of land grabs.

Furthermore, the campaigning group is pushing for Governments to “urgently” bring ‘UN Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests’ into legislation “with the explicit aim of ruling out land grabs in their own, and in other countries.”

Listing various case studies, the report points to many of these investments in companies involved in large-scale land acquisitions made by UK pension funds that may be fuelling and financing an “unprecedented global land grab”, potentially violating human rights, destroying local food security, forests and sensitive habitats.

With land grabbing increasingly placing hundreds of poor communities at risk of violence and displacement, the report argued: “For investors this presents substantial ethical, operational and financial risks.

“Voluntary codes such as the UN Global Compact, UN Principles for Responsible Investment and the World Bank Principles on Responsible Agriculture Investment are no guarantee that land investments are not causing significant harm. Investors must look beyond voluntary codes of conduct for a true assessment of risks and be more demanding of the companies they invest in.” 

The £6.19m Guinness Alternative Energy C fund surpassed its peers in the UK Registered funds sector in the year to 31 May 2014 with a +22.07% cumulative return versus less than spectacular past three- and five-year performances of -14.37%/180th and -22.95%/152th, respectively. Craton Capital Renewable, Alternative & Sustainable Resources A fund was runner up on the past one-year horizon (+19.90%), reversing rankings on the previous month’s Morningstar analysis with the £62.03m Triodos Sustainable Pioneer K Retail fund (+19.53%). The £73.04m Premier Ethical A Income fund, which ranked fourth top over the last 12 months with +19.01%, posted a stellar +110.83/10th rank over the last five years.

SUNARES just shaded it from Iveagh Wealth EUR X Acc fund (-15.23%) to take the sector’s wooden spoon over the past one year with -15.74%/204th (-57.79%/185th over past three years).

MAP Clean Technology Fund I beat Economie Durable A fund by a country mile for the past 12 months posting +133.65%, although the latter was a consistent performer over both one- and three-year time horizons with respective performances of +66.47% and +71.47% - ranking it second top both times. LSF Asian Solar & Wind A1 fund was in third place this time with +49.93% over the past 12 months, but seriously lagged with -14.31%/1,004th over three years. FIP Développement Durable A A/I fund bottom ranked out of 1,100 funds at -33.09% over the past year (-36.66%/1,010th over three). Triodos Vastgoedfonds ranked second from bottom over the past year and placed 1,012th over past three (-39.42%).

Across the US Mutual funds sector, which displayed the best peer group average at +94.25% over the last five years, the $16.48m Firsthand Alternative Energy fund outclassed rivals on a past one-year horizon with +43.34% versus a lacklustre -2.83%/172th rank over the past three years and +9.41%/158th rank over past five, respectively. The $24.32m Guinness Atkinson Alternative Energy fund was second top producing +34.81% over the past year versus -20.56%/176th over the past three-years horizon and -3.48%/185th over last five. The $629.12m Eventide Gilead N fund ranked fourth top on a past one-year view (+27.74%) and was No.1 over three years (+67.83%) and a mighty +165.82% (4th) over five years. Epiphany FFV Latin America A bottom ranked here among 192 funds on -2.77% for the past year.

The UK Individual Pensions sector posted the best peer group average over one- and three-year periods at +27.37% and +38.43%, respectively.