Search

Food Runners Keeps the Unfortunate Fed in San Francisco

3P Author ID
367
Primary Category
Content

Two things that define today’s San Francisco — bicycling and tech companies — are helping a 27-year-old nonprofit keep some of the city’s less fortunate from going hungry. Mary Risley, founder of a local cooking school, founded Food Runners in 1987 to pick up uneaten food from local businesses in order to distribute it to charities feeding the hungry. In turn those struggling with the city’s rising rents can get by while less food waste ends up in landfill.

Risley’s organization has become busier the past year, in part because of the tech companies in the city's SOMA neighborhood with their cafeterias cooking more food than their employees can eat. Economics and the surging cost of living also play a role: As a recent San Francisco Chronicle article noted, the amount of food donations Food Runners has picked up has spiked 50 percent in the past year. But not only Silicon Valley-type companies are donating to the nonprofit.

Grocery stores, including the local Whole Foods and Faletti, also donate to Food Runners. Local bakeries do the same, along with restaurants including COCO500, Kokkari and Piperade. Food Runners also includes wholesalers, farmers markets, hospitals and photographers among its regular donors.

What is most impressive about Food Donors is that Risley accomplishes the deliveries, logistics and relationships with various charities on a skeleton staff and shoestring budget. A volunteer arranges food pickups and drop-offs and a truck driver who hauls the larger loads. And another volunteer bicycle courier plies the streets of SOMA to transfer the unwanted food from the likes of Twitter and Google to those who could really use it.

It has been a long road for Mary Risley and Food Runners, which started in her home as a network connecting businesses and local agencies via telephones and a small group of volunteers. Five years later the organization launched the Planned Overage program, in which participating restaurants use leftover ingredients to create meals for 25 to 30 people. The UPS Foundation eventually donated a refrigerated truck to Food Runners, and by 1997 the organization had the means hire a full-time truck driver to transfer large amounts of food every day. By 2000 the Chronicle had named Risley as one of the most influential people in the Bay Area, and the James Beard Foundation named her its “Humanitarian of the Year.”

Now approaching 30 years, Food Runners is still going strong and feeding San Francisco’s hungry. A similar organization on the Peninsula now does the same work that covers south of San Francisco to San Jose. Companies interested in donating food can call Food Runners at 415-929-1866 or can learn more about the organization on its website. Food Runners Peninsula can be contacted at 415-826-6903.

Image credit: Food Runners

Leon Kaye has lived in Abu Dhabi for the past year and is currently spending some time in Uruguay. Follow him on Instagram and Twitter. Other thoughts of his are on his site, greengopost.com.

3P ID
191138
Prime
Off

Millennials on a Mission with Nexus

3P Author ID
100
Primary Category
Content

Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in “The Millennials Perspective” issue of Green Money JournalClick here to view more posts in this series.

By Brian Weinberg

Aron Ping D’Souza, a young philanthropist and Australian native, first attended a Nexus Summit in London in 2012. There, he was exposed to Sir Ronald Cohen’s work on impact investing and social impact bonds. The idea that for-profit investing could be a vehicle for social impact was new and powerful to him. It ignited his imagination on how he could bring these new relationships and extraordinary ideas back to his home country in the name of good.

A little more than a year later, he launched Good Super, Australia's first social impact retirement fund at the first Nexus Summit in Australia, which he chaired. Good Super is aiming to reach US$1 billion in assets by the end of 2014, supporting countless companies taking on major issues, ranging from clean energy to extreme poverty.

The leadership of the Alana Institute, of Sao Paulo, Brazil, Marcos Nisti and Ana Lucia Villela (a member of the prominent Itau banking family) attended the inaugural Nexus Global Youth Summit in 2011. There, in a flash of inspiration, they conceived a new business strategy to help tackle hunger issues globally. They started Satisfeito, a network of Brazilian restaurants that provide customers the option for a two-thirds portion of a given meal, at the same price, in order to contribute to Satisfeito. The money the restaurants save by serving the Satisfeito portion is then transferred to organizations that combat child hunger. Together, this program has sparked a funding mechanism that has provided over 44,000 meals for people in need.

How did this happen? What is Nexus?


At its core, Nexus is a movement. Practically speaking, it is a leading convener of young wealth-holders and social entrepreneurs on topics related to philanthropy, impact investing and global problem-solving. Participating families range from the Rockefellers and the Saudi royal family, to those behind major corporations like 7-Eleven, Hilton Hotels and more. The network boasts over 2,000 members from 70 countries. People from all around the world come together as part of this movement dedicated to a better world.

Nexus began in July of 2011, when Jonah Wittkamper, Rachel Cohen Gerrol and a small group of committed young visionaries convened the first Nexus Global Youth Summit on Innovative Philanthropy and Social Entrepreneurship at the headquarters of the United Nations in New York City. Their goal was to address several unmet needs:


  1. Educate young wealth holders about the possibility of investing in worthwhile causes;

  2. Feature leading young social entrepreneurs in the movement for global transformation;

  3. Develop an annual platform to set agendas, feature youth-led innovations, and move the needle on key youth issues; and

  4. Unite young philanthropy support organizations to focus and collaborate on youth issues, form globally diverse networks, and bridge the communities of wealth and social entrepreneurship.

Since 2011 Nexus has hosted more than 10 summits around the world, and 20 teams are now self-organizing in their respective countries to continue to build the movement locally. Recently, Private Wealth magazine featured Nexus’ co-founders in an in-depth interview titled “Millennial Investors Unite” and the New York Times covered the White House Conference on Next Gen Philanthropy that Nexus partnered with the Office of Science & Technology to help organize.

Zac Russell, board member of the Russell Family Foundation and Nexus advisor, says that Nexus’ value stems from the fact that “there is no agenda pushed onto me; it’s natural and real.” The conference itself begins with Nexus’ co-founder, Jonah Wittkamper, asking everyone to close their eyes. “Imagine for a second that in this one moment, everyone in the room will support you for the rest of your life,” he says. “This is an invitation to become a member of a different kind of community.”

It is a different kind of community. Some people describe philanthropy events as transactional, with participants solicited by a flurry of shiny auction items and expensive dinners. Many conferences are highly political and ideological, creating a polarizing experience for attendees.

Nexus is neither. It is relational. It creates a curated, safe space for authentic connection between members to both discover and build upon what excites them most.

Read Brian's Complete article here -  www.greenmoneyjournal.com/july-2014/nexus/

Brian Weinberg is a Global Operations Coordinator for Nexus. Previously, he served on the investment team at MicroVest investing over USD $40 million in debt/equity investments across seven countries in Latin America. Brian also likes to start things. He founded justgood.org a marketplace that delivers happiness on demand. Other ventures include Blendedprofit.com, Givingtuesdaylive.org, Recycle to Eradicate Poverty, and a real estate firm. This work has garnered press coverage from organizations ranging from NPR to a documentary hosted by Jeff Foxworthy to partners like Southwest Airlines, Whole Foods, Grameen Foundation, and the City of Dallas among others. Brian has been awarded a number of fellowships and awards, including the Ashoka Youth Venture Ambassadorship & Grantee, Clinton Global Initiative U Grantee, Starting Bloc Fellowship, Sandbox Fellowship, and the Opportunity Collaboration Cordes Fellowship. Brian also writes for the Huffington Post and CSRwire in addition to hosting GAMECHANGERS; a thought leader interview series designed to push a constructive dialogue forward on how to grow the good economy.

3P ID
190889
Prime
Off

Dr. Pepper Snapple Group is Serious About Reducing Waste

3P Author ID
93
Content

Dr. Pepper Snapple Group has surpassed several of its environmental targets, as its latest corporate social responsibility (CSR) report reveals.  The company that has over 50 beverage brands is really serious about reducing waste. DPS set a goal of recycling 60 million pounds of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic by 2015, but last year recycled 60.7 million pounds.

The company also achieved its goal of an 80 percent recycling rate by 2015 -- four years early in 2011. DPS set a new goal of a 90 percent recycling rate of its solid manufacturing waste. It is well on its way to meeting the new goal: In 2013, it recycled over 85 percent of its manufacturing solid waste, a 3 percent increase from 2012. Some of its sites achieved double-digit increases in their recycling rates in 2013. One of those sites is its Miami plant which achieved a recycle rate of 83 percent, up from 61 percent a year earlier.

Through partnerships, DPS is also able to promote recycling: It works with the American Beverage Association to help develop an industry approach to reducing waste. It began partnering with Keep America Beautiful in 2013 to support recycling efforts in communities across the country. Through its partnership, the company donated $300,000 to put recycling bins in public parks, which gives consumers more access to local recycling systems. DPS renewed the partnership for 2014.

Working on reducing fuel use


DPS is also working on reducing its overall fuel use, and set a new baseline for its goal of increasing product shipments per gallon of fuel use by 20 percent by 2015.

The beverage giant admits that its progress towards the goal “has been relatively flat,” which it attributes to a “slight decrease in production volume year-over-year and a shift to other lower-emission methods of transportation.” It is taking steps to meet its goal, including increasing the efficiency of its product shipments by reducing the miles driven per shipment by over 3 percent.

Another way it is reducing fuel use is by using EPA SmartWay-certified carriers in its third-party logistics. It has been an EPA SmartWay member since 2010.

Conserving water and protecting watersheds


Water is the main ingredient in the company’s products, so reducing its use will be a big achievement. The goal is to use 1.77 gallons of water per gallon of finished products and discharge 0.79 gallons of wastewater per gallon of finished product. In 2013, DPS used about 2.05 gallons of water for each gallon of finished product and discharged 0.88 gallons of wastewater per gallon of finished product.

DPS also promotes good water stewardship by partnering with certain nonprofits, including the Nature Conservancy (TNC). Through its four-year, $1 million partnership with TNC, the company has helped protect 2 million acres of watershed in the Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, Texas areas.

Energy continues with efficiency projects


DPS admits that progress towards its goal for its energy use “has remained flat” because energy efficiency improvements have been offset by production volume changes. However, its energy efficiency investments have resulted in improvements in various sites.

One of those sites is the company’s 850,000-square-foot distribution center in Victorville, California, which received LEED Silver certification. Its Plano, Texas, headquarters received LEED Gold certification for a multi-use building and is Energy Star certified by the EPA.

Image credit: Dr. Pepper Snapple Group

3P ID
191078
Prime
Off

Solar System Will Power New Dropbox Office

3P Author ID
93
Primary Category
Content

Dropbox provides a handy and free service that allows you to share documents, videos and photos with people. Founded in 2007, the site has over 300 million users globally. Its new San Francisco office, which is LEED Platinum certified, will feature a solar energy system designed by UGE, a global distributed renewable energy company. The 25.2 kilowatt (kW) photovoltaic system will supply enough energy to offset the electricity used in the six-story building designed by William McDonough Partners. The PV system will feature 84 300-watt solar panels.

"On-site renewable energy will power a sustainable future for Dropbox -- a visible step forward for an innovative company located in the heart of the tech capital of the world," Scott Van Pelt, director of engineering at UGE, said in a statement. "UGE's software tools have played a crucial role in designing efficient solar and wind systems based on site-specific resources, so it's both exciting and fitting that one of our energy solutions will top the headquarters of a leader in cloud technology."

UGE has designed other renewable energy (wind and solar), lighting and battery storage systems for global companies, including Hilton, BMW, Ford, BMW and Ford:


  • The Hilton Resort in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, installed six UGE wind turbines on its roof.

  • UGE designed a hybrid renewable energy system for a BMW dealership in Beijing, China, consisting of five wind turbines and 100 kW of solar panels.

  • Ford dealership in Ontario, Canada, installed an UGE wind turbine to power its brand sign located in front of the site. The wind turbine is located next to the sign.

UGE also designed and supplied a renewable energy outdoor lighting system for a Whole Foods store in Brooklyn, New York, and a renewable energy system for the Philadelphia Eagles’ stadium. The Brooklyn Whole Foods, opened in December 2013, features 19 UGE Sanya SLS streetlights which are powered by both the wind and sun. The store also features two UGE Sanya Skypump electric vehicle charging stations. The store achieved LEED Platinum certification.

The Philadelphia Eagles’ stadium is the first professional stadium in the U.S. to install a renewable energy system capable of generating all of the electricity needed onsite. The system features both wind turbines and solar panels which produce about six times the amount of power needed every year for all of the team’s home games.

Image credit: UGE

3P ID
191128
Prime
Off

3p Weekend: 5 Reasons for Companies to Care About Employee Satisfaction

3P Author ID
8779
Primary Category
Content

With a busy week behind you and the weekend within reach, there’s no shame in taking things a bit easy on Friday afternoon. With this in mind, every Friday TriplePundit will give you a fun, easy read on a topic you care about. So, take a break from those endless email threads, and spend five minutes catching up on the latest trends in sustainability and business.

Employee engagement and satisfaction is a hot topic in the sustainability space right now, but some companies may still find themselves asking: What is a happy employee really worth? Well, quite a bit actually. To prove it, this week we rounded up five reasons for companies to start caring about employee satisfaction. (If you can't keep your eyes off the clock, feel free to 'accidentally' leave this article in the office copy machine.)

1. Healthier profits


While it's not set in stone that unhappy employees lead to business failure -- or vice-versa -- research shows that companies with satisfied staff tend to pull in higher profits.

A 2010 Gallup study determined that an unhappy staff can foreshadow a downturn in profits. Gallup revisited the subject in 2012 and found that companies in the top quartile for engaged employees, compared with the bottom quartile, had 22 percent higher profitability. In another recent study of 64 organizations conducted by IBM Kenexa, researchers found that organizations with highly engaged employees achieve twice the annual net income of organizations whose employees lag behind on engagement, Forbes reports.

2. Better stock returns


Want better stock returns? Boosting employee satisfaction may be just the ticket, according to an academic study released earlier this month.

Specifically, researchers looked at the relationship between employee satisfaction and stock returns, using lists of the “Best Companies to Work For” in 14 countries as their database, Triple Pundit contributor Raz Godelnik reports. The researchers found that “employee satisfaction is associated with positive abnormal returns in countries with high labor market flexibility, such as the U.S. and U.K., but not in countries with low labor market flexibility, such as Germany.”

In other words, greater employee satisfaction contributes to higher stock returns, at least in labor markets that are more flexible, so that's something for executives to keep in mind if they notice declining stock prices and more long-faces in the break room.

3. Increased customer loyalty

In a recent blog post on Triple Pundit, Gwen Migita, VP of sustainability and community affairs for Caesars Entertainment, drew a direct link between customer loyalty and employee engagement in sustainability programs.

"At Caesars Entertainment, we have found that the best way to engage our customers in our sustainability journey is by engaging our most valuable asset: our employees," Mitiga wrote. In fact, a study commissioned by the company and conducted by Harvard Business School found that customer loyalty and satisfaction – that is, customers’ willingness to return to one of the company's hotels or casinos and their overall experience – is directly linked to employees’ level of participation in sustainable activities at work.

4. Fewer mishaps


Another key takeaway from Gallup's 2012 report is that engaged and satisfied employees also tend to have fewer mishaps at work: Companies in the top quartile for engaged employees, compared with the bottom quartile, had 28 percent less theft and 48 percent fewer safety incidents, according to the findings.

5. More participation in CSR programs


This one should probably go without saying, but you'd be surprised how many companies fail to draw a link between satisfied employees and the success of corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs. It's just common sense: An engaged, satisfied employee will be far more willing to participate in volunteer initiatives, corporate giving programs and other CSR opportunities at work, while unsatisfied employees are likely counting down the minutes until they can get out the door.

So, it's no huge shock that companies that are well known for happy employees, like Microsoft, Patagonia and SAP, are also industry leaders in employee volunteering and other CSR programs. The bottom line is: If a company wants to curate a sustainable and socially-responsible brand image, it's important to start at its own HQ if executives want employees -- or the rest of us, for that matter -- to take notice.

Image credit: Glen Wright via Flickr

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

3P ID
191045
Prime
Off

NRG Energy Crowdsources Presidential Hunt

3P Author ID
8579
Primary Category
Content

Executive recruiting appears to be changing. Energy company NRG has put out a call for a new president for its solar company NRG Home, and it isn’t expecting to hear from professional headhunters.

Instead, it’s turned up the megaphone and reached out to its customers and clients – anyone actually, who isn’t a “corporation, partnership or other business entity.”

And the person who refers the winning candidate gets $100,000.

It’s the latest evidence of crowd-sourced recruiting and a concept handily referred to as the “X-prize” approach, in which members of the public have a chance to earn a handsome return for an innovative, hard-to-find or novel idea.

Crowdfunding searches: A growing concept

Jobylon, in Sweden, has made a business with this approach: The company encourages readers to pitch a reference of a qualified friend in exchange for the potential to win a moderately-sized "bounty."

It also pitches its concept to employers. "The best candidates are not actively looking to change jobs," says Jobylon on its website,  "you need to find them."

Closer to home, Change.org has used this recruiting approach to find the right employee. Its pull was not just the $1,000 it offered for a stellar staffing lead, but the other $1,000 it promised to donate to a charity of choice. Given the fact that Change.org gains much of its strength from nonprofit initiatives, that wasn’t a bad $2,000 investment.

A headhunter or crowfunding solar expertise?


In this case, NRG could probably do quite well with the expertise of a professional headhunter that has a good knowledge of the global renewable energy market. But the corporation wouldn’t get half the publicity it would get by offering $100,000 for an enthusiastic referral.

With the latest round of solar tax credits due to end in 2016,  a crowd-sourced search that potentially touches all corners of the country may be a great way to promote a company’s growing services, especially when most headhunters charge more than 100 Gs for this level of executive search.

And NRG admits that it’s heading into new but potentially rewarding territory with an executive search of this level.

"Since this is the first time anything like this has been done, we don’t know what kind of volume we’ll get, but we are prepared to sift through all the referrals that we receive,” notes CEO and President David Crane. “In the worst-case scenario, we don’t find anybody, but we generate some buzz about what we’re trying to do with NRG Home.”

And yes, individuals can elect themselves. Should they win, the $100,000 goes to a charity of the employee’s choice.

Time-relased perks


NRG has clearly thought this process out, and well enough that it could be an incentive for other companies that want to use crowdsourcing as a way to both find staff and pitch their story. The referring party receives the first $50,000 upon hire, and the second installment after the employee has reached six months employment “in good standing.” It doesn’t clarify what the fine print is when it comes to the good standing of a president of a major company.

Hopefully NRG will share a bit about how the search went and what responses it received in the process. Given that the submission period ends today,  August 22 at 5 p.m. EST, Human Resources will probably be deep into the culling process very soon,  so get your referral in quickly if you think you’ve got that perfect president in mind.

Image credit: NRG

3P ID
190980
Prime
Off

Could a Carbon Tax Cut Down on Corporate Inversions?

3P Author ID
365
Primary Category
Content

Marc Hafstead of the nonpartisan think tank Resources for the Future, along with Lawrence Goulder of Stanford University, have come up with an idea that could potentially address two important problems in one broad policy action. The first, which is where they'll likely began, is the problem of corporate inversions. No, that’s not corporations standing on their heads; it’s when they buy another company in a country with a lower tax rate so that they can begin paying taxes there instead of here in the U.S., where they receive the most government services. The other problem is climate change.

The two did an analysis of the gross domestic product (GDP) impact of a revenue-neutral carbon tax, under three scenarios. In the first scenario, revenues are returned directly to Americans in a lump sum. The second uses the revenue to pay for tax cuts on individuals, while the third did the same, except that the tax cuts would go to corporations.

In all three cases the impact was small. Based on a carbon tax beginning at $10 per ton, and then increasing each year by 5 percent, they found that the GDP impact by 2040 would range from 0.24 to 0.56 percent of GDP, with the lowest stemming from the proceeds being used to reduce corporate taxes, while the highest came from the lump sum rebates to individuals.

The reasoning behind their paper goes something like this: There is a perception that U.S. corporate tax rates are too high, making it difficult for American companies to compete. Indeed, nominal U.S. corporate tax rates are among the highest in the world. But that is not what most companies pay. Indeed, the U.S. corporate tax rates are a bit like the MSRP on new cars. Nobody actually pays that amount. U.S. tax laws are filled with loopholes that companies routinely take advantage of. According to Edward Kleinbard at USC, even though the nominal tax rate in 2010 was 35 percent, in fact, companies paid an average of only 12.6 percent. Most people remember the headline that GE paid zero taxes a few years back. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, 26 companies including GE, Boeing and Verizon paid no taxes at all during the period from 2008-2012. All were presumably playing by the rules, using legitimate deductions that are part of the federal tax code. Some companies are better at playing this game than others.

The presumption of the paper’s authors is that if corporate tax rates were reduced by offsetting carbon tax revenues to a point where they became “more fair,” then fewer companies would bail out through corporate inversion. That might be a stretch. Companies by and large do whatever they can to increase profitability, fair or otherwise, especially if their actions are perfectly legal.

President Barack Obama, speaking of this phenomenon earlier this month said: “It’s not right. The lost revenue to Treasury means it has got to be made up somewhere, and that typically is going to be a bunch of hard-working Americans who either pay through higher taxes themselves or through reduced services.”

Of course, the shift to revenues from a carbon tax could open the door to tax reform which could then make it illegal, or at least more difficult, for companies to take this step. Already, comments from the administration have caused several companies to reconsider their moves overseas.

The far more important point here, I think, is the argument that using the funds for corporate tax relief could make the carbon tax more attractive to Republicans and thereby give the legislation a better chance of passage. Most Democrats already favor the idea because of its environmental benefits.

At the same time, the concerns over the GDP impact determined by the simulations are overblown. Even as some conservative fuss over the costs and ask for a business case for sustainability, the real question should be: What is the business case for doing nothing?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates a cost for the EPA’s regulation of fossil fuel plants to limit emissions at around 0.20 percent of GDP, a number which falls roughly in line with Hafstead and Goulder’s estimates.

At the same time the Guardian estimates the cost of doing nothing about climate change to be 1.6 percent of global GDP. Of course, things like storm damage and the impact of droughts are extremely difficult to estimate, so the costs could potentially be much higher, especially if impacts were to accelerate as most scientists expect. We’re only beginning to develop an appreciation of the implications of a radically disturbed climate. Our lives and our economies are so radically interconnected with countless natural systems that will be affected, it would be nearly impossible not to overlook some potential impacts from where we stand today.

Closer to home, the Natural Resources Defense Council estimates the cost of doing nothing to be 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP. That’s anywhere from 3.2 to 7.5 times the estimated cost of the carbon tax. But even if the action were to break even, or even cost a few billion as the authors suggest, the avoided costs in suffering and loss of life prevented would be something that only the most hard-hearted among us could possibly ignore.

Image credit: Marina: Flickr Creative Commons

RP Siegel, PE, is an author, inventor and consultant. He has written for numerous publications ranging from Huffington Post to Mechanical Engineering. He and Roger Saillant co-wrote the successful eco-thriller Vapor Trails. RP, who is a regular contributor to Triple Pundit and Justmeans, sees it as his mission to help articulate and clarify the problems and challenges confronting our planet at this time, as well as the steadily emerging list of proposed solutions. His uniquely combined engineering and humanities background help to bring both global perspective and analytical detail to bear on the questions at hand.

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter.

3P ID
191044
Prime
Off

Researchers Tally Up the Ecological Cost of Eating Beef

3P Author ID
8579
Primary Category
Content

Bad news for beef eaters: That juicy steak dinner that many Americans look forward to each week now has a clear ecological price to it – and according to researchers it’s a lot higher than the tally associated with raising poultry and pork-based products.

Researchers from two different institutes in the U.S. and Israel tabulated the environmental and financial costs of producing different kinds of foods, such as beef, poultry, dairy and eggs. They wanted to find out what the environmental impact would be, particularly in areas where drought exists or climate change has affected the overhead associated with such industries. Released late last month, the study was headed by Dr. Ron Milo of the Weizmann Institute’s Department of Plant Sciences and involved researchers at Yale University and in New York. Their results were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Tallying the ecological cost of eating beef


It was no surprise that beef was the most costly of the five to produce, said Milo and his research assistant Alon Shepon: “The surprise was in the size of the gap: In total, eating beef is more costly by an order of magnitude – about 10 times, on average – to the environment than other animal-derived foods, including pork and poultry.”

To calculate the ecological cost of each type of food industry, researchers looked at the costs per nutritional unit. For instances in which climate change has impacted the way animals are fed, such as in California’s arid ranchlands, those factors were taken into account. So were costs in areas where cows were not grazed but fed in feedlots and depended on food stocks that took more irrigation and less ranchland.

The bottom line, said Milo and his associates, is a clear indication that beef production has significant impact on the earth’s environment.

“[The] research shows that the price of irrigating and fertilizing the crops fed to milk cows – as well as the relative inefficiency of cows in comparison to other livestock – jacks up the cost significantly." The production of poultry, dairy, egg and pork sources “all came out fairly similarly,” which was also surprising to researchers since dairy production is often "thought to be relatively environmentally benign."

Cows generally require "28 times more land and 11 times more irrigation water," the researchers reported, and release as much as five times more greenhouse gases than either poultry or egg production.

Cattle require on average 28 times more land and 11 times more irrigation water, are responsible for releasing 5 times more greenhouse gases, and consume 6 times as much nitrogen as egg production or poultry. - See more at: http://www.weizmann-usa.org/media/2014/07/21/the-real-price-of-steak-comparing-environmental-costs-of-animal-based-foods#sthash.SVaQrbLy.dpuf

While this may be the last thing that beef eaters want to hear, Milo said the research may help people make improved food choices as they calculate the hidden costs of their favorite foods. It may also help scientists and food producers find new ways to reduce production costs.

And what about those who don't eat meat?


Vegetarians who drink milk but have always squirmed at the idea that the cow ultimately ends up on dinner tables will be happy to know that the no-kill milk industry is catching on. The cows that provide the milk in this case are allowed to live out their senior years in relative comfort on the back forty, rather than be sent to a meat-processing plant.

After the U.K. company Ahimsa Dairy began offering no-kill milk in 2011, the idea caught on here in the States. Pennsylvania-based Gita Nagari Creamery, which has actually been providing milk to a select number of vegetarian communities for some years, has now opened up a public mail-order service.

Of course, the milk isn’t cheap. One gallon of Gita's no-kill milk runs about $10; that includes a $2.50 contribution to the cow's private entitlement fund, which helps to ensure that she and her offspring can live out their years in a respectable setting, and $1.50 that goes toward the care of the bull. (Of course, I'd be tempted to ask why the guy gets less.)

For many vegetarians who want to drink their milk but don’t want to contribute to animal slaughter, the financial price of no-kill milk (and the maintenance of such animals after they stop producing) is within reason. According to the Weizmann study, however, that too may one day bear an ecological cost we just won't be able to afford.

Image credit: USDA

 

 

3P ID
189461
Prime
Off

Plastics Recycling: You're Doing it Wrong. And So is Everybody Else!

3P Author ID
100
Primary Category
Content

By Russell Klein

What is going on with your plastic, America?

Are you someone relying on those little numbers in a recycling symbol?  Whether your relationship involves curbside collection, 10-cent refunds, grocery bag fees or foam container bans, as a consumer you’re probably winging it when it comes to managing the largest parts of your plastic habit. Be it resolved right here and today, if you’re not a recycling professional what you know about plastics recovery is wrong.

Do any of the following statements sound familiar? “My building only recycles 1s and 2s!” “Doesn’t that bag have a triangle on it? Put it in the recycling bin!” “Oh! If that bottle has a 7, you need to put it with the compostables!”

If you have uttered any of these things, in fact if you’ve even thought about it, you need to stop.  Why?  If you will bear with me for the next two minutes, I’d like to guide you to become a better-informed steward for the environment.  How?  Why?  For the past 25 years, our modest national efforts to do-the-right-thing by recycling plastic products have suffered from widespread misunderstanding and even marketing disinformation.  Don’t want to be part of the problem?  Consider this an intervention.

To start off, this    is not an indication of recyclability.   Nor are any of these:  

In fact, just to be clear, these emblems are not indicative of:


  • Recyclability

  • Recycled content

  • Compatibility with other products of the same number

  • Sustainable Greeny Goodness

What they are


In the 1980s, the American plastics industry was feeling a squeeze. Environmentalists were concerned over the abandonment of refillable glass and metal vessels by an increased use of disposable, litter-ready plastic bottles. Scrap businesses were finding it hard to sort look-alike plastics, and state legislatures were pushing for a national, codified system to help recyclers identify all of these plastic bottles.

As a result of these pressures, in 1988 the Society of the Plastics Industry (an American trade association) introduced the Resin Identification Codes (RICs), pictured below.  This was a once-in-a-generation, sector-wide initiative, intended to address the concerns of environmentalists, industrialists and state governments seeking a way to tame and organize the matter of plastics recovery.  Placed on the bottom of plastic bottles,  markings depicting numbers inside a triangle of chasing arrows identified the six most commonly used plastics (also known as resins), with a seventh class as a catchall for everything else.

Borrowing the “chasing arrows” from the internationally-recognized recycling Möbius Strip quickly proved controversial, and to this day this system conveys far less than self-appointed recycling gurus assume.  We will come back to this.

At the time of their launch, these marks were solely intended to help waste sorters identify the plastics used in bottles. The markings were placed on the bottom of the bottles so they would not affect consumer purchasing decisions. Indeed, they were never meant to be used by the general public at all!  Bottles were the original target of the Resin Identification Codes as they were the most readily collected, sorted and remarketed plastic scrap available.  Nonetheless, it was only a year after the RICs' introduction that manufacturers of other forms, so-called “rigid plastics” (e.g. buckets, baskets, wide-mouthed jars), were invited to participate in this marking system as well.

Unfortunately, it didn’t take long for the system to outgrow its cradle.  In the late 1980s and early 1990s, states all over the country rushed to adopt language to drive public recycling in the wake of a famous national garbage scandal (Homework:  look up The Mobro 4000).  As a result, community messaging and commercial product marketing aimed at the general public began to reference the RICs to define plastic recycling opportunities and to guide consumer behaviors. Unfortunately, this simultaneously created two major, national misperceptions:  Forever after the public would a) look for the chasing arrows for reassurance of end-of-life product options, and b) rely upon RIC numbers as the end-all be-all arbiter of which plastic container should go where.  Thus, even communities who in the early days may have known enough to ask exclusively for bottles marked with 1s or 2s nonetheless eventually found their recycling containers filled with all kinds of dissimilar — and ultimately useless – packaging forms.

Why is it useless?  What is it that thwarts recyclability when plastics of a single number are lumped together?  There are two things; the first is chemistry.  Think of it this way: Every major product shape represents a different manufacturing process.  A bottle, a laundry basket and a trash bin may all contain the ingredient high-density polyethylene (HDPE, or No. 2), nonetheless, their chemical recipes are as different as their forms because each was manufactured for a different purpose, in a different manner, by a different machine.  The recipe that works for a machine that air-inflates bottles all day is not the same as that which is required for a machine injecting plastics into molded cups.  Nonetheless, because each manufacturer began with high-density polyethylene, both objects are marked on the bottom with the No. 2 triangle.  However, melt these products together for recycling purposes and you get … a smelly, chunky mess that's useless to either manufacturer.

Pretty devastating, huh?  So when does recycling actually work?


Consumer product recycling is only possible when you have three things going for you: consistent, post-consumer collections; economical remanufacturing; and consistent consumer demand.  If you cannot efficiently collect similar products to send to a manufacturer, you lose economy of scale.  If the used materials are too contaminated, too expensive to process (clean or sort) or too costly to ship across country, you may lose customers to your competitor in the next region or to companies selling only virgin materials. Bear in mind, clean post-consumer goods are hard to guarantee.  Sometimes what seems like a little bit of contamination in your plastic, paper or glass may produce discolored newsprint, bottles with cracks or jars with bubbles.  Nonetheless, consumers expect recycled products to be just as good as the original material … but less expensive. In reality, this is very hard to do in the absence of a well-trained, committed community that properly sorts its recyclables.

So, now the resin codes (RICs) are applied across products of all shapes and chemical variations, occasionally for the misguided, commercial advantage of ‘green credentials.’  So how does one know when a number in a recycling triangle is a legitimate indication of something?  The answer is: By and large, you don’t. Assuming a single recycling program would attempt to recover only all No. 1s, or only all No. 2s, thereby including bottles, cups, buckets, wall trim, action figures, etc., as we said before, manufacturers downstream would quickly find that melting such products together produces only a colorful, chunky, contaminated mess. To reiterate: Within the RICs, there are too many chemical variants distributed among too few categories.

At this point, as a concerned consumer, you’re beginning to recognize two major problems: a meaningless number and a misleading recycling sign.  If you’re still determined to use these marks to understand what is recyclable in your home or office collection, ask yourself a question: How could a bottling company 400 miles away possibly know what’s acceptable in this particular neighborhood or office building?  Alternatively, was the product imported from manufacturers abroad?  In that case, a meaningful indication of recyclability is even less likely.

The bottom line is: this numbered system so beloved – or hated – by consumers everywhere wasn’t meant for you, the consumer, and fell apart early on.  It’s time to let it go in favor of something better.  And to those of you who continually argue with your spouse – or your local recycling office – over the recyclability of a strawberry container “because it has a number one!” … Cut it out.  Let it go.  It’s over.

Epilogue. Where does this leave a conscientious recycler?


  1. Ask your local government recycling office what products are mandated for recycling in your community. If you receive collection from a private company (at your office, school or apartment building), ask the property manager for a clear description of acceptable materials. Although most recyclers sort based upon shape (e.g. bottles, trays, tubs, etc.), it is possible your collection representative will offer you literature that remains mired in Resin Identification Code numbers. While you might offer to assist their future efforts to clarify this information (via the recycling center relevant to your community), until then you should follow the rules as given.

  2. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) publishes the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims ("Green Guides").  First published in 1996 and most recently revised in 2012, this document explains to manufacturers and consumers exactly what kinds of qualifications are required when suggesting recyclability or recycled content to American consumers.

  3. The Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI), in cooperation with ASTM International and a cross-section of government, consumer and manufacturing stakeholders has announced it will soon be asking its members to replace the chasing arrows of the Resin ID codes with numbers in a solid, closed triangle.  This compromise allows industry members to avoid inappropriate marketing claims while not spending millions of dollars for major retooling of machinery.

  4. There is a growing on-package labeling program that organizes manufacturers, brand owners, and retailers around a common system that is applicable to all materials. The Sustainable Packaging Coalition, a project of the US non-profit, GreenBlue, is currently working with dozens of national brands and retailers to grow the How2Recycle Label Program, a labeling system designed to ensure its members comply with the Federal Trade Commission’s recommendations, mentioned above.
FINAL THOUGHT: Your local recycling opportunities always depend upon a) what materials are mandated for recycling by your local government, and b) what [else] is consistently accepted by your school, home or office recycling collection service?

To keep the dialogue going, if you can find your municipality’s list of required recyclables online, please paste it below in the comments section or share the link.

Image credit: Shutterstock.com

Before his recent move to private industry, Russell Klein was the District of Columbia's only municipal recycling educator for over a decade.  During this tenure, he made hundreds of presentations before the public regarding waste reduction, municipal regulatory compliance and stakeholder engagement.  Russell was also responsible for directing (and co-founding) the Material Resource Sustainability Internship (MRSI).  This initiative leveraged dozens of public-private partnerships to aggressively prepare college students for environmental stewardship roles as well as future career opportunities.  Follow Russell on Twitter @WasteWhys

3P ID
190905
Prime
Off

Human Values and Corporate Social Impact: Fairness in Pay Ratios

3P Author ID
100
Primary Category
Content

Editor's Note: This is the fourth 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

Fairness is associated with equality in the distribution of goods, often referred to as “distributive justice.” It derives from the practice of equal sharing, seen in children starting around age 7 or 8.

Among children, fairness is often tied to empathy, and can be found in parental rules that are designed to prevent another child from feeling unhappy. It is also related to reciprocity, meaning fairness in exchanges of valuable goods. Cooperation in groups thrives where there is reciprocity, as James Q. Wilson has discussed.

Culture determines the varying boundaries of what constitutes “equal shares.” And who is “equal” in status. In our own society, popular opinion may accept a certain unequal ratio between CEO pay and the average pay of other workers, but not beyond a given point. That is when executive pay becomes a political topic on which shareholders may have an “advisory role,” and very often have opinions contrary to those of the board of directors. In the 1970s, management specialist Peter Drucker advised companies to stick to a ratio of 20-to-1 between CEOs and average worker pay, to avoid resentment.

At the unconscious level, our judgments of what is fair may be biased, reflecting the views of a group to which we belong, especially in conflicts with other groups. This is often the case when an authoritative leader within the group expresses the bias and through persuasion or coercion gets others to follow. Absent that situation, the danger of bias can be lessened to the degree that there are facts to discuss. For example, let us now turn to the facts in the case of JPMorgan Chase:

Summary of executive pay at JPMorgan Chase for 2012


“On Jan. 16, 2013, the board of JPMorgan announced that CEO Jamie Dimon’s bonus for 2012 would be cut in half, citing the company’s $6.2 billion 'London Whale' trading loss … Despite the board’s decision to cut Jamie Dimon’s bonus for 2012, there are concerns related to the company’s executive compensation practices. Most notably, annual incentive compensation at JPMorgan continues to be paid at the discretion of the Compensation and Management Committee, so that each of the named executive officers (NEOs) received annual bonuses of at least $2.9 million to $4.5 million. Discretionary incentive awards undermine the integrity of pay-for-performance compensation philosophy," analysts at GMIRatings wrote.

Executive pay for 2012:

James L. Dimon, Chairman of the Board and CEO: $18, 717,013

Daniel E. Pinto, Co-Chief Executive Officer: $17, 009, 797

Matthew E. Zames, Chief Operating Officer: $16, 604,301

Ratio of executive pay to pay of other workers for 2012:

JPMorgan Chase pay ratio: 229-to-1; CEO pay and benefits: $18.7 million FY ended 2012

JPMorgan Chase average worker pay and benefits: $81,772, FY ended 2012.

How much richer than you and me is the average chief executive?


Back in 2013, Lydia DePillis of the Washington Post examined the Economic Policy Institute's latest white paper, which "tracks the growth of CEO compensation over the last half century." Here are the major takeaways, as reported by DePillis in the Washington Post:

  • "Average pay for the CEOs of the top 350 firms, including the stock options they exercised, was $14.1 million in 2012 -- up 37.4 percent from 2009.

  • That's a bit higher than it would be if you just measured stock options granted. "Firms apparently pared back the value of new options granted because CEOs fared so well by cashing in options as stock prices grew," the report's authors write.

  • The ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay is 273-to-1, down from a high of 383-to-1 in 2000, but up from 20-to-1 in 1965.

  • CEO pay has increased faster than wages to high-skilled workers, suggesting that the salary market isn't very efficient. "Consequently, if CEOs earned less or were taxed more, there would be no adverse impact on output or employment," the report concludes.

  • CEO pay is now also closely tracking the S&P 500 index, which didn't used to be the case."
Next: Trust and integrity

Image credit: Flickr/jurvetson

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).

3P ID
191024
Prime
Off