Search

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) and Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Star program is one of the most recognizable and trusted environmental labels in the marketplace – but it wasn’t always that way.

Launched in 1992 to help consumers find the most energy-efficient products, the program initially allowed companies to sign up to use the Energy Star logo by self-reporting their products’ energy savings; the EPA and DOE would perform only occasional spot-checks on items carrying the eco-label. But a federal audit in 2010 revealed that some Energy Star products did not live up to their energy-savings claims. Worse, the program even accepted several fictitious products created by the Government Accountability Office to investigate Energy Star’s certification process like a gasoline-powered alarm clock the size of an electric generator.

Since the scandal, the EPA and DOE changed the way the energy-efficiency initiative approves new products, now requiring companies to have their products – and energy-savings claims – tested at independent laboratories.

The case of Energy Star illustrates the dilemma consumers face when they come across a product with a label boasting environmental responsibility: Can consumers trust that the claims these eco-labels make are true?

The legal landscape

When a shopper finds an environmental claim on a product – especially if it’s an official-looking label – he may think this stamp of approval is endorsed by the government, but that’s not necessarily the case. In 2012, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) strengthened its regulations on environmental marketing claims – or “Green Guides” – as a host of such assertions flooded the marketplace, due to growing consumer demand for eco-friendly products.

“The FTC Green Guides clarified the rules of the game,” says Scot Case, director of market development for UL Environment, which conducts testing, certification and validation for companies’ environmental claims. “Before the FTC Green Guides it was the wild, wild West … Now it’s just the Wild West.”

While government oversight of environmental claims and labels has improved, there are still cases of “greenwashing” in the marketplace. This year alone, Case says, a plastic lumber company exaggerated its products’ recycled content, a plastics company made false claims about its products’ biodegradability and a diaper company misled customers into believing its diapers were fully compostable and biodegradable. Fortunately, these companies and their false advertising were caught by the FTC, but what about greenwashing cases that slip by?

Tips and resources for consumers

The EPA has several key recommendations for shoppers looking to purchase more environmentally-friendly products: Look for eco-labels backed by widely-respected, trusted organizations and claims that have been verified by an independent third-party. A label should also be based on a set of standards, the EPA says, and that criteria should be readily accessible to the public – for example, published online.

The FTC agrees, writing in its “Shopping Green” guide for consumers: “Seals or certifications can be useful, but only if they’re backed up by solid standards and give you enough information to understand what they mean. A package also should tell you about any connections the company has to the organization behind the seal, if a connection might influence your opinion about the certificate or seal.”

For example, the nonprofit Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) purports to certify palm oil that was grown without contributing to deforestation. But environmental groups like Greenpeace have criticized RSPO’s verification program due to the palm oil’s industry heavy-handed influence over the group.

As with most types of research these days, it seems consumers’ best bet is to go online to investigate a green label they encounter. I recently noticed a Cradle to Cradle seal on my bottle of Method shower cleaner, and while I’m familiar with the term, “cradle to cradle,” I didn’t know much about the certification program. After a quick Internet search, I discovered that this standard to recognize a product’s overall environmental impact seemed reliable: It is based on a strict set of standards, it requires independent testing and it does not seem to be under any undue corporate influence.

In addition to simply looking up eco-labels one at a time on the web, consumers can get Consumer Reports’ opinion on environmental claims through its GreenerChoices.org database of labels. For example, the database tells us that the phrase, “100 percent biocompatible,” essentially has no meaning and no standard behind it, whereas the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s organic label is highly meaningful and is verified.

The EPA lists its green labeling programs, such as Energy Star and WaterSense, on its website, and the FTC’s “Going Green” consumer guide explains green marketing claims such as “non-toxic,” “ozone-friendly” and “recyclable.” UL’s Scot Case also recommends consumers check out Ecolabel Index, an online directory that is currently tracking 459 eco-labels worldwide.

If it’s not easy to find information about a label online, Case says, consider that to be a red flag; it may not be a reliable claim.

“Don’t use a label unless you understand it,” Case says. “Look for independent, third-party validation, and complain loudly if you don’t get it.”

Image courtesy of UL Environment

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

Germany's offshore wind investment received a big, much-needed boost on August 11 as Munich City Utilities and Sweden's Vattenfall announced a huge wind-farm investment off the German North Sea coast.

Due to start construction in 2015 and come online in 2017, the $1.6 billion Sandbank offshore wind farm project entails Vattenfall installing 72 turbines off the German North Sea coast. That would add a massive 1.4 terawatt-hours (TWh) of clean, renewable electricity to the German grid, enough to supply some 400,000 homes, according to an AFP news report.

1.4 terawatt-hours of offshore wind power capacity

Vattenfall will own a 51 percent ownership stake in Sandbank. The Swedish energy group operates 900 turbines in Northern Europe and the U.K., making it the second largest offshore wind farm operator worldwide, according to the company.

Commenting on Sandbank, Vattenfall's Gunnar Groebler stated:

"The Sandbank project is further testament to Vattenfall's strategy of consistently focusing our growth efforts on the expansion of renewable energy," said an executive responsible for renewable energy.”

Sandbank is the first offshore wind farm project announced since Germany enacted a new version of its renewable energy law on August 1. That included a reduction in state support for offshore wind farms. It's the second North Sea wind farm project between Vattenfall and Munich City Utilities. The 80-turbine Dan Tysk, the first, is due to begin operations in 2015.

Europe's offshore wind power sector

Commenting on market conditions in Europe's offshore wind power sector, European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) Deputy Chief Executive Officer Justin Wilkes stated:

“To ensure healthy growth in the latter part of the decade, and to ensure offshore wind energy plays its role in meeting the EU’s competitiveness, security, renewable and climate objectives, the industry must be given longer-term visibility. An ambitious deal on the 2030 Climate and Energy package by the EU’s Heads of State in October would send the right signal, making their decision particularly important for the offshore wind sector.”

Sixteen offshore wind farms with a total 4.9 gigawatts (GW) of power capacity are under construction in Europe, according to the latest report from the EWEA released July 14. A total of 781 megawatts (MW) from 224 offshore wind turbines were fully grid-connected during 2014's first half, a 25 percent drop from that a year prior.

"Despite offshore wind power installations being lower than in the first six months of last year, it remains the fastest growing power sector in Europe," Wilkes noted.

In addition, 282 offshore wind turbines were installed and were awaiting connection to the grid, bringing the total awaiting grid connection to 310. That will add another 1,200 MW to the European Union's total offshore wind power capacity, according to EWEA.

*Images credit: 1), 2): Vattenfall; 3) EWEA

Tesla Motors' proposed “Gigafactory,” Elon Musk’s vision of a massive factory that would revamp the global supply chain for lithium-ion batteries and then sharply reduce their cost, still does not have an official location.

California was not even on the radar, as rumor had it the Reno, Nevada area was the frontrunner to land this factory that promises to employ up to 6,500 people — in fact, excavation of a proposed site has already been completed. Arizona, New Mexico and Texas were also in the running in the event negotiations.

But suddenly California is making the charge to woo Tesla Motors. According to the Los Angeles Times, California lawmakers would exempt Tesla, Panasonic and other potential partners from some of the state’s environmental regulations in order to move the Gigafactory forward. Democrats and Republicans are working with Gov. Jerry Brown’s office to pass legislation that would reduce the factory’s cost by as much as 10 percent.

Key to the Gigafactory establishing roots in California would be a rollback of some of the regulations that comprise the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Revered by environmentalists as much as it is reviled by business groups, CEQA, signed into law by Gov. Ronald Reagan more than 40 years ago, has produced a massive body of environmental regulations that would overwhelm even the most seasoned environmental or business lawyer.

CEQA’s overall function is to oversee environmental reviews, mitigate potential damage by new construction and development projects, encourage public participation in the state’s environmental review process and improve cooperation between state agencies when it comes to making decisions that could have an impact on the state’s environment. Business interests claim the laws make California a difficult state in which to conduct commerce; nearby states have been able to lure companies away from California in part because of CEQA’s extensive reach. Public interest groups respond: Communities have a voice in how land is developed and point to public health and safety benefits. Now the state is poised to make some changes in the law to promote a gigantic clean technology project.

So why would California’s state leaders suddenly make a pitch to Tesla Motors and Mr. Musk, even though he has said the state’s chances of landing the Gigafactory are a “long shot?” After all, Gov. Brown is expected to cruise to re-election over his Republican opponent — though he has also been the subject of plenty of barbs over Toyota’s recent decision to relocate its U.S. headquarters to Texas from the Los Angeles suburb of Torrance. Legislative leaders on both sides of the aisle are cooperating, a rare spectacle in the state capitol.

At a time when all red and blue states are pursuing more clean technology investment (depending, of course, on who the donors are), any politician would want a project like that of Tesla Motors as part of his or her legacy. The timing of California’s pitch is also prescient: A few years ago, the state’s finances were such a mess that a half-billion dollar incentive package would have gone nowhere in Sacramento. Still on shaky ground, the state’s budget has improved. So, in the eyes of many, now is the chance to land a project that would have an economic multiplier effect and boost California’s reputation as the go-to place for clean technology. Or as one San Jose Mercury News writer has opined, such a move will put “CEQA in a shredder.”

Image credit: Tesla Motors

Leon Kaye has lived in Abu Dhabi for the past year and is on his way back to California. Follow him on Instagram and Twitter. Other thoughts of his are on his site, greengopost.com.

We laud corporate social responsibility. As a society, we put those generous acts of concern that companies do at the top of the scale when it comes to trust and our concept of product reliability. Safeway’s many local donation campaigns, McDonald’s long-standing Ronald McDonald charities, the numerous companies that have donated to community hunger programs, child education and the like. In fact, these days, it would likely be harder to find a company that doesn’t have a well publicized CSR program than 20 that do.

And American society is not alone. In India, Mahatma Gandhi introduced the concept of trusteeship to companies in the early 1900s, encouraging them to take a leading role in social responsibility. So, the Indian parliament’s landmark legislation in 2013 that large companies must donate 2 percent of their earnings to CSR projects each year is really not earth-shaking when it comes to social perspectives in the world’s largest democratic nation.

India’s new CSR mandate

Under India’s Companies Act of 2013, companies that have a net worth of $80 million, a turnover of at least $160 million, or net profits of at least $800,000 must develop a CSR policy and spend the minimum (2 percent of net profit) required on CSR. And of course, they are required to report their CSR projects.

Companies can direct the funds to a wide spectrum of needs, ranging from program that combats hunger and poverty to protecting the environment. While they cannot fulfill their obligation by donating money to political causes, they can donate to projects that have been initiated by the government. They can donate the funds through a third-party source, and small and medium startups also have the advantage of collaborating with other companies and pooling their resources for special projects.

Corporate criticisms from nonprofits

Interestingly, some of the loudest criticisms of the parliament’s revision of its antiquated 1956 Companies Act have come from philanthropists. Wipro Chairman Azim Premji, who is known for his large donations to community development programs opposed the change, expressing concern that “Spending two per cent on CSR is a lot, especially for companies that are trying to scale up in these difficult times.”

Ratan Tata, former chair of the Tata Group and also well-known for his philanthropic efforts, expressed concern that India might not have the infrastructure established to enforce such an ambitious program.

“You will have a registered NGO, you will have the money, the money goes to the NGO and it may be three or four years before the whole thing explodes in a series of fraudulent operations,” Tata said in an interview with Philanthropy Age. And it isn’t that Tata doesn’t support philanthropy. The Tata Group regularly disburses about 4 percent of its net profits to charities.

India’s ‘prosperous tomorrow’

But in the eyes of many, the implementation of a 2 percent CSR requirement for large corporations is not only fair, but necessary. As Tata pointed out, there is still significant work to be done to reverse malnutrition in India.

“You cannot have a prosperous tomorrow if, each year, 17 million people are vulnerable to this infirmity,” said Tata, speaking of the average yearly population growth rate in India.

Whether mandating CSR responsibilities will ensure that a social principle that was put into place almost a century ago by Mahatma Gandhi can help eradicate such disparity is the question. As Tata and Premji both note, it will take good government management techniques to ensure that the CSR programs and the monies collected actually meet their intended goals. Still, its notable that the world's largest democracy, with sizable economic challenges still ahead of it, sees corporate social responsibilities not as a luxury or a laudable choice, but a vital part of its corporate development strategy.

Image credit: Aerzte3welt

Criminal justice reform advocates (and hip-hop fans) rejoice: Avowedly apolitical rap mogul Shawn Carter (aka Jay-Z) used the stage at a recent San Francisco concert to throw his support behind California’s Proposition 47 (Prop 47).

Not known for forays into politics, Jay stepped out of his comfort zone just three months before Californians will have a chance to vote on what could be the most important ballot initiative in the state’s history.  (No, I haven’t forgotten about Prop 8.)

If approved, Prop 47, known as the Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative, will reduce the penalty for most nonviolent crimes from a felony to a misdemeanor and direct the money saved from incarcerating fewer individuals -- estimated to be between $150 million and $250 million each year -- to a Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund.

Prop 47’s potential effects

If passed, Prop 47 will have an immediate impact on California’s prisons and the state’s otherwise prison-bound population.

First and foremost, the initiative would reclassify low-level shoplifting and theft, possession of narcotics, and possession of marijuana -- all currently felonies -- as misdemeanors.  In California, three-quarters of those incarcerated are serving time for nonviolent offenses, and roughly one in six is locked up for nothing more than drug possession, so the future impact would be great.  In addition to keeping low-level, nonviolent offenders out of prison in the future, the initiative would also allow roughly 10,000 current prisoners to seek re-sentencing.

Second, as Jay-Z noted from the stage, the savings generated by Prop 47 would also allow California to “build more schools, less [sic] prisons,” as well as to increase mental health services for at-risk populations and improve services for victims.  According to the text of the proposed measure, each year the money saved by the initiative would be distributed as follows:

• The lions-share (65 percent) would be devoted to supporting mental health and substance abuse treatment for those already in the criminal justice system, with an eye toward reducing recidivism of low-level, nonviolent offenders;


• A quarter of the savings would be earmarked for reducing truancy and/or supporting those who have been the victims of crime or are most at-risk of dropping out of public K-12 schools; and


• The final 10 percent would be used to make grants to trauma recovery centers to provide services to victims of crime.

America’s broken criminal justice system

California’s prisons, unconstitutionally overcrowded as they may be, are still just one part of a larger, national problem:  America’s criminal justice system is broken.  Consider the following:  (i) In the last 35 years, America’s prison population has grown by about 800 percent (yes, that’s an eight with two zeroes) to 2.3 million people, leading to the highest per-capita incarceration rate in the world; (ii) even though we only have 5 percent of the world’s population, we have 25 percent of its prisoners, a proportion so staggeringly absurd one is apt to glaze over its significance; and (iii) nonviolent offenders constitute 90 percent of the federal prison population.

As The Economist put it, in America, “[M]inor crimes are punished severely, serious ones ferociously.”  Of the more than 2 million incarcerated Americans, at least 80,000 are in solitary confinement or some type of segregated housing designed specifically to create feelings of claustrophobia and sensory deprivation, often leading to great psychological harm.  The human cost of the American incarceration system is perhaps impossible to calculate; the financial cost is calculable but astonishing: $80 billion a year, or $35,000 per inmate.

For people of color, the scourge of America’s prison-industrial complex is simply a fact of life; our incarceration policies have been called the “New Jim Crow” in light of the disproportionate and detrimental impact they have on people of color and their families and communities.  The Sentencing Project estimates that 1 in 3 black men will be imprisoned at some point in their lives, and 1 in 10 black men in their 30s can be found in prison or jail every single day.

These figures are no accident -- they are the result of disproportionate arrest and sentencing practices.  According to an ACLU study, for example, despite roughly equal rates of marijuana use among blacks and whites, blacks are almost four times more likely to be arrested for possession.  In Ferguson, Missouri, the St. Louis suburb where 18-year-old Michael Brown was recently shot dead by the police, 93 percent of arrests and 86 percent of traffic stops were of blacks, even though Ferguson’s population is just two-thirds black, and whites in Ferguson are much more likely to have contraband on them when stopped.

The same disturbing trends are found in major cities like New York.  Once arrested, sentences of black men are 20 percent higher than those of white men convicted of similar crimes, an issue exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s disastrous 2005 decision in U.S. v. Booker.

Jay’s story and reach

None of these statistics or sad stories should be news to Jay-Z.  After all, while he’s now worth upwards of $500 million, Shawn Carter the boy grew up in a blighted part of Brooklyn notorious for drugs and violence, where the cycle of incarceration was part of the community’s fabric.  In his track “Where I’m From,” he describes the Marcy Houses -- the Bedford-Stuyvesant public housing projects that he once called home -- as a place where “you can't put your vest away and say you'll wear it tomorrow, ‘cause the day after we'll be saying, ‘Damn, I was just with him yesterday.'”  Jay’s drug-slinging past is also no secret.

Perhaps in part because of his past, Jay-Z’s political reticence -- particularly on issues relating to the African American community -- has invited some harsh criticism in the past.  Despite endorsing President Obama (and engaging in certain charitable works), the rapper has said he has “zero interest” in politics.  Like many, Jay’s apathy appears to be rooted in what he sees as the disconnect between politicians and the people they are elected to serve.  In a 2010 interview with the Guardian, he said he sees politicians as “a bunch of liars” and politics as “a bunch of self-interest. It's not about the people, it's about [politicians] themselves and their rise to power.”

So it came as a bit of a surprise when he used the high-profile “On the Run” tour to endorse Prop 47.  The importance of Jay-Z’s support for the initiative has to do with his reach.  In addition to being a pop-culture icon and one of the most successful rappers in the world, he’s also an unbelievably influential businessman (and “a Business, Man”).  When Jay-Z partnered with Samsung to give Samsung customers early access to his latest album, "Magna Carta...Holy Grail" (a deal valued at $20 million), the company purchased a million advance copies of the record, giving it platinum status before it even came out.  He’s been photographed in the White House Situation Room.  His Roc Nation record label is home to the likes of Rihanna, Shakira, and Santigold.  Roc Nation Sports, launched in 2013 as Roc Nation’s “sports management” wing, already handles star athletes like Robinson Cano, Kevin Durant, and Victor Cruz.  In 2007, Jay sold his stake in Rocawear, the clothing company he co-founded, for $204 million in cash.  And then there’s his marriage to -- and touring partnership with -- Beyonce, a public force in her own right.

In short, as a figure in popular culture Jay-Z’s influence is unparalleled and his reach unmatched.  If he remains vocal, his support could give Prop 47 the push it needs to pass in November.  Regardless of the outcome in this fall, Jay should be applauded.  Let's hope his efforts continue and aren't for naught.

Image credit: Flickr/v1ctor

Whole Foods has long made a splash for its stance on genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. Non-GMO labeling and signs are all over its stores and prove this has been part of its overall success is in the company’s performance.

While many retailers disappeared after the 2008 financial crisis, Whole Foods continued to grow. Its stock price has long been on an upward trajectory, and the stock has stoked plenty of portfolios with its split last year. Shoppers cram the beautiful stores to buy everything from pricey supplements to the more cost-competitive 365 Everyday Value private label products — and of course, the artisan goodies, from breads to cheeses to snacks.

But the company’s promise to have GMO labeling on all of its products by 2018 is having consequences. As the Guardian showcased last week, artisan cheesemakers who rely on Whole Foods to sell their products are worried about Whole Foods' directives to its suppliers. Why? While many of these cheesemakers allow their cows to graze on grass, shun antibiotics and churn their products in small batches, some do use a small amount of GMO feed. Similar challenges are faced by small vineyards and breweries that could find traces of GMOs within their supply chains. The result has been angst within small businesses, many of which are headed by people who have devoted their lives, and finances, to their beloved crafts. That one GMO ingredient in their product's supply chain could have a massive impact on their businesses.

Blame for this absurd trend must be laid on all sides. The shenanigans of companies such as Monsanto, which spent millions to defeat California’s GMO-labeling initiative, Proposition 37, fuels a fair amount of anti-GMO sentiment. A U.S. Department of Agriculture that comes across as siding with agribusiness over the interests of small farmers also fans the flame. Then there are the spit-spats over studies that indicate GMOs are evil — or then again, maybe they are not. Indeed, it is fair that customers have the right to know what is in their food. Transparency is often the banner call many of those deeply involved in the GMO controversy. And after all, while Monsanto has long been against any GMO labeling, the company actually supported such efforts across the pond.

But at the same time, many anti-GMO activists base their invective on emotion, not science — analogous to the conventional-vs-organic debate when it comes to produce and most food in general. Oddly enough, Whole Foods’ self-serving top 10 tips to avoid GMOs does not even mention why GMOs are to be avoided. Celebrities weighing in on GMOs launch about as much eye-rolling as those who have weighed in on the debate over vaccinations. And let’s remember when GMOs first appeared in the mid-1990s, they were often lauded as one way to feed a world that could reach 9 billion people by 2050. Now the debate has shifted to an organic vs. frankenfood debate, with no middle ground.

The result is that the small businesses many of us put on a pedestal for their deliverance of healthful foods are now in danger of losing customers. And rambling blog articles railing against GMO foods, which again, do not even outline the perceived dangers or risks, hardly help the small local cheesemaker, brewer or vineyard. The hysteria generated against the likes of Cargill, ADM and Monsanto have caught up too many small businesses in this web — leaving out any middle ground, reasonable debate and acknowledgement that maybe, just maybe, GMOs have a justifiable role in delivering safe, secure, healthy, and YES artisan and handcrafted foods we pay a pretty penny, or not, to enjoy.

Image credit: Whole Foods

Leon Kaye has lived in Abu Dhabi for the past year and is on his way back to California. Follow him on Instagram and Twitter. Other thoughts of his are on his site, greengopost.com.

Fourteen percent of carpet was recycled into new products or used to produce energy last year – rather than buried in landfills – according to a new report from the Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE), a nonprofit initiated by both the carpet industry and government agencies to boost carpet recycling nationwide.

This figure may seem like a drop in the bucket against the 3.7 billion pounds of carpet discarded in 2013, but it actually represents a significant improvement over previous years: Diversion of carpet from the landfill rose 52 percent from 2012 to 2013.

CARE estimates that the environmental impact of keeping this material from the landfill is equivalent to taking 40,822 cars off the road or powering 17,692 homes for one year, the organization wrote in its annual report for 2013.

Of the more than 500 million pounds of carpet rescued from the landfill in 2013, 4 percent was used to power cement production facilities, while 10 percent was combusted to create thermal energy in waste-to-energy plants, the report found. Around 2 percent was able to be reused – refurbished and resold or donated back into the marketplace – and less than 1 percent was incinerated.

Thirty-five percent of the carpet diverted from the landfill was recycled into new products, according to the report: About half was manufactured into engineered plastic resins that can be used to make composite lumber, tile backer board, roofing shingles and automotive parts. The other 44 percent was turned back into new carpet in a closed-loop process – the “holy grail” of recycling.

Interestingly, at a time when manufacturing continues to leave the United States and many recyclables are shipped overseas to China, 93 percent of the carpet collected stayed in the U.S. for recycling, reuse or energy generation, the report stated.

CARE also provided details on its carpet recovery efforts in California, where legislation now mandates that carpet manufacturers finance and manage the collection and recycling of their products. The Golden State, which is the first in the country to pass such a policy, designated CARE as the lead organization to carry out carpet recycling in the state.

Modeled after similar industry-funded recycling programs in Europe and Canada, California’s carpet stewardship law is an example of extended producer responsibility (EPR), where the manufacturers of a product take responsibility for the environmental and social impacts of their product throughout its lifecycle – from sourcing the material and production to consumer use and disposal. EPR has multiple benefits: It relieves governments and taxpayers from the high costs of product disposal, and it encourages manufacturers to make more sustainable products – because they are faced with the externalities of their operations.

Disposal dilemmas

Carpet poses a unique waste management challenge: The bulky material takes up precious space in landfills and, each year, accounts for over 1 percent of the country’s total waste stream by weight or 2 percent by volume, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Furthermore, the process to recycle the floor covering isn’t so simple. Carpet is made up of two components – the face fiber, often made from nylon, polypropylene (PP) plastic or polyester, and the backing system, which is typically latex or PVC. In order to turn an old piece of carpet into a new product, a recycler must separate these two components and identify their material type – since different material types cannot be processed together.

There are also no carpet recycling facilities capable of processing  high volumes of carpet made from polyester – or polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic – according to CARE’s report. This lack of recycling infrastructure for polyester carpet is a growing problem as more and more carpet is made from PET: Polyester carpet accounted for 34 percent of all carpet collected last year – up 10 percent from 2012, the report's authors found. CARE is attempting to tackle this dilemma, releasing a request for proposals in June for assistance in developing viable recycling outlets for PET carpet.

While CARE has many obstacles to overcome before it can advance national carpet recycling even further, its progress is promising, and its efforts – especially since they represent an industry taking leadership for the waste management of its products – should be commended.

Image credit: Flickr/Reuse Warehouse

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

Hyatt Hotels Corp. recently announced a new initiative to add more responsibly-sourced seafood at its hotels.

The first goal of the initiative is for responsibly-sourced seafood to comprise 50 percent of the company's inventory by 2018. Part of that goal will be sourcing over 15 percent from fisheries or farms certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) or the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC).

Hyatt has already been partnering with World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to stop sourcing very vulnerable seafood species. With WWF’s help, the chain conducted an assessment of global seafood procurement processes at its hotels and identified steps it could take to improve the sustainability of its seafood sourcing practices.

One step it will take is to focus first on certain species including salmon, shrimp, grouper, Chilean sea bass and tuna. Another step is instituting a complete ban on procuring and eating shark fin at all of its restaurants and food and beverage outlets around the world. This step builds on its 2012 commitment to remove shark fin from all restaurant menus. Hyatt will also have employees involved in food and beverage offerings at the company’s owned and managed full-service hotels undergo a sustainable seafood training program developed with WWF. All of these initiatives will be measured with WWF analysis and recommendations.

The sustainable seafood initiative is part of Hyatt’s food and beverage philosophy it calls Food: Thoughtfully Sourced, Carefully Served, which focuses on providing more sustainable food and beverage choices. The philosophy ties into its corporate social responsibility (CSR) platform, Hyatt Thrive. Part of its CSR strategy are three guiding principles: serving people, serving the community and serving the planet. It is ingraining those three principles into its food and beverage choices, including using cage-free eggs and all-natural beef.

Other hotels focus on sustainable seafood

Other hotels and hotel chains are incorporating sustainable seafood into its sourcing practices. Two hotels in Asia have recently participated in events to highlight the importance of sustainable seafood. Back in April, Hilton Singapore announced that two of its restaurants would participate in the Sustainable Seafood Festival held in June. Organized by WWF, the festival raised awareness among the general public about sustainable seafood options. China World Hotel held events to promote sustainable seafood during the month of June. In May, the hotel participated in a Green Sustainable Seafood Promotion, with the Marine Stewardship Council and the WWF which encouraged consumers to choose responsibly sourced seafood.

In 2011, Marriott International launched a new initiative to source more sustainable seafood by partnering with CleanFish Alliance. The initiative is called the Future Fish program, and the target is to procure at least 50 percent of its seafood from sustainable sources. Marriott works with seafood distributors who source sustainable seafood. In its 2013 CSR report, Marriott stated that as of February 2012, it stopped including shark fin soup on its banquet and restaurant menus as part of its Future Fish program.

The efforts of companies like Marriott and Hyatt to source more sustainable seafood are paying off. The proportion of assessed marine fish stocks fished within biologically sustainable levels was over 70 percent in 2011, according to a 2014 report on world fisheries. Less than 30 percent of fish stocks were overfished. In 2008, the percentage of stocks fished at unsustainable levels was 32.5 percent. The report calls the decrease a “positive sign in the right direction.”

Image crédit: Frits Hoogesteger

For the first time demand for Certified Sustainable Palm Oil (CSPO) has grown faster than supply, driven by a 64.7% leap in the sales of physical CSPO, according to new figures from the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).

Sales of physical CSPO, reported in the eTrace system through Identity Preserved (IP), Segregated (SG) and Mass Balance (MB) supply chains, have grown by an unprecedented 64.7% during the first two quarters of this year compared to the same period last year, reaching 1,117,042 metric tonnes. Meanwhile, sales of GreenPalm Certificates have grown by 37.9%, reaching 1,361,396 MT.??

RSPO Secretary General Darrel Webber commented: “This is good news for certified growers who will now get more return on investment for their sustainable practices. The key to making the whole palm oil industry sustainable is to share responsibility between palm oil producer and consumer markets.”??

Total CSPO sales, including both physical CSPO and GreenPalm Certificates, have grown by 48.8%, reaching record 2,478,438 metric tonnes. ??This is the first time that CSPO sales have grown faster than supply, which increased by 29% over the first two quarters of 2014 compared with the same period last year.

Picture credit: © Ldambies | Dreamstime.com

We write a lot of stories these days about the remarkable growth of solar and wind power and how they are truly transforming the energy landscape. Another important component of this sea change is energy efficiency (EE), though we haven’t been writing as much about that, perhaps because it’s not as sexy and exciting as shiny new solar panels or towering wind turbines. But there is another reason: Investment in energy efficiency projects has been in a long-term decline, going back to a peak of about $2 billion annually in 1992, which has drifted down to about $1.2 billion in recent years.

Last year, utilities in Indiana were ordered to refund $32 million to ratepayers. Those funds represented the balance of $74 million that was collected for energy efficiency projects, many of which were never implemented.

In Nevada, EE savings declined 61 percent last year, compared to those realized four years earlier. Reports blamed a lack of state policies and incentives for the decline. This seems apparent when comparing Nevada with neighboring Arizona where utility customers saved three times as much due to efficiency measures, despite the similar climate.

State incentives constitute one factor in the decline; financing is another. A program called PACE had been quite popular until 2010, when it ran into trouble. PACE, which stands for Property-Assessed Clean Energy Financing, essentially allowed homeowners to borrow money from the city for clean energy and energy efficient upgrades, and then repay the loans through annual property tax assessments. Complex financing rules made it impossible for the loans to be sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for consolidation, which really put a damper on things.

Chris Hummel, chief marketing officer of Schneider Electric, thinks that all of that is about to change. After ticking off some $7 billion in new financing going into efficiency from state banks in Europe and the U.S., he told the Guardian the reasons why energy efficiency is about to come roaring back.

The first reason is awareness, particularly in the business community. Both price increases and price uncertainty are now weighing on the minds of executives in industries ranging from data centers to food. The International Energy Agency estimates that $8 trillion of the $48 trillion we’ll need to get us where we need to be by 2035 will go into efficiency.

Technology has brought much of the low-hanging fruit even lower. Things like LED light bulbs that pay for themselves in less than two years, to solar panels that have dropped in price by a factor of a hundred or more. “Smart” devices are almost always more efficient than their not-so-smart predecessors, sometimes by a lot. Besides smart devices, there are increasing numbers of software applications to help people save energy in many facets of life.

New business models, including a newly reinvigorated PACE program, as well as utility based on-bill financing programs, share the implicit goal of making the costs invisible. Since the energy savings continue to increase relative to the cost, it’s much easier to use those savings to pay for improvements.

Finally, there is the distribution that has now become ubiquitous. You no longer need to go to a “green store” to get a more efficient version of anything you can think of. It’s everywhere. Today you can find the high efficiency version of just about any widget you can think of, sitting right next to the regular widget in any big box store; that is, if there even are any more regular widgets available. The same is true for contractors: building, heating, electrical — all of them are well-equipped to help you set you up with the latest, most efficient items and services, because they too can see the writing on the wall.

Image credit: Siemens nv/SA: 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.