Search

A growing number of millennials are living with their parents. This is one of the findings of a Pew survey on Americans living in multi-generational family households.

According to the survey, young adults ages 25 to 34 (aka millennials) “have been a major component of the growth in the population living with multiple generations since 1980 — and especially since 2010. By 2012, roughly one-in-four of these young adults (23.6 percent) lived in multi-generational households, up from 18.7 percent in 2007 and 11 percent in 1980.”

It’s not necessarily that millennials love their parents nowadays more than ever and have hard time leaving the house. Apparently, there are number of reasons for this phenomenon, including millennials’ delayed entry to adulthood, but also, and probably mainly, economic reasons.

According to a State of the Nation's Housing report released last month by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University “tight credit, high unemployment and record levels of student loan debt are moderating growth and keeping young people and other first-time homebuyers out of the market.”

So, this is good news, right? Millennials seem to adopt a more responsible economic behavior, avoiding the same reckless financial decisions that got so many people in trouble only a few years ago. And besides, aren't multi-generational households more sustainable? After all, they use resources more efficiently, serve as an economic safety net and may even help family relationships.

Well, not so fast. The reports on this trend widely present it as a problem rather than an opportunity. Why? Because by not buying houses, millennials are hurting the real estate recovery and a weak housing market has been a burden on the U.S. economic growth. Dina ElBoghdady and Emily Badger explained this connection on the Washington Post:

“The decisions they [the Millennials] make about their living arrangements will, by extension, affect the economy, which has traditionally relied on the housing market to create construction jobs and generate consumer spending for everything from dishes to furniture to pricey appliances.”

So the way this trend is framed in the media is something like this: Millennials living with their parents = one of the reasons for the slow growth of the U.S. economy = bad thing. Or as David Dayen puts it: “A 'kids living in the basement' economy simply has no vigor.”

In fairness, it’s not that anyone writing about this trend wishes for millennials to act recklessly or take risks they can’t afford. However, it seems like the expectations are that millennials will get back to ‘business as usual’ – i.e. get out of their basement, find a real job, get married, buy a house and start consuming like adults.

And this is the problem. The reports about the trend indicate that millennials’ behavior, which David Dayen calls on the New Republic “the Great Delay,” is abnormal and aspire for the return of the ‘normal’ and the sooner the better, but is this really what we should hope for?

I doubt that, and the reason is that the ‘business as usual’ everyone seems to be longing for is nothing but the same old economy model based on debt, consumption of stuff and everlasting growth. This model, as we already know is unsustainable and a recipe for trouble - at best it will provide some limited economic short-term, but more likely it will just pave the road to the next crisis.

So why do we still want it so much? Do we have such a short memory? Don’t we know better?

Apparently no, as Jo Confino, executive editor of the Guardian and chairman and editorial director of Guardian Sustainable Business explains:

“Because we have been raised in the current system, we unconsciously believe it is the natural order of things - rather than a social construct we can change. The economic system is like a mother and we, the babies are fearful of what would happen if we abandon her.”

I guess some of you might wonder at this stage what’s the alternative? Do I suggest that millennials will delay their adulthood forever and will stay as much as possible in their cozy basements?

The answer is: No. I don’t think Alan of The Hangover is the best role model for the millennials (and the same goes to any of the man-child characters in Judd Apatow’s films). At the same time, I don’t think we should look at multi-generational housing as a negative phenomenon that just stalls the economy. Instead, we should look at this trend more comprehensively, exploring its potential as a component of a more sustainable economy model, especially when it comes to aging populations.

Naturally, most millennials would eventually like to leave their basement, start their own families and purchase their own home. Yet, we should encourage them to follow a new path – not a 20th century model that is unsustainable and will put their wellbeing in risk, but a 21st century model that is based on sustainable principles.

It’s time to be honest and tell the millennials that the party everyone is encouraging them to join is over.  The dream of a big house is the suburbs with two cars, a secured job and life of overconsumption is a reflection of the past, not their future.

To paraphrase President Barack Obama, it’s time to do away with an economic model that belongs to the “Mad Men” era and start thinking in terms that are relevant to this era: steady state economy, sharing economy, sustainable development, design for social innovation and sustainability, and the responsible economy, just to name a few.

So, my fellow millennials, please don’t listen to the news and ignore the voices rushing you to leave the basement (unless these are your parents talking to you) and do it whenever you feel the time is right, i.e. you can actually afford it. Otherwise, it won’t be long before you return to the basement only to find out that your siblings (aka generation Z) have already claimed it.

Image credit: Faruk Ates, Flickr Creative Commons

Raz Godelnik is an Assistant Professor of Strategic Design and Management at Parsons The New School of Design. You can follow Raz on Twitter.

Has there ever been a better time to be a corporation?  I doubt it.  Corporations might disagree, and we’re all familiar with corporate lamentations regarding the increasingly challenging web of federal regulations (Dodd-Frank; the FCPA) they supposedly struggle to navigate.  Yet, it’s hard to dispute that these are good times for big business, and “Exhibit A” could easily be the utter dearth of criminal prosecutions for corporations that are guilty of pollution.

Funding Woes.  According to a recent study published by the Crime Report (TCR), criminal prosecutions of corporate polluters are becoming less and less common by the day.  One explanation for this phenomenon is the dwindling funding allotted to the government entity responsible for the protecting the environment, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In case you missed it, Congress has made a recent habit of slashing EPA funding.  (Yes, this is the same do nothing Congress that is currently contemplating spending American tax dollars on a lawsuit against the President.)  Unsurprisingly, these cuts have come primarily at the hands of Congressional Republicans, whose most recent transgression has been the approval of a 9 percent decrease in EPA funding, but President Obama has done some damage as well (the President’s proposed 2015 budgetlowered EPA funding by some $300 million).  And this is not just a 2014 trend.  As Congressional Republicans boasted when the federal government nearly imploded (again) in January, they have successfully cut the EPA's funding by 20 percent since 2010.

One result of these money troubles is a serious lack of manpower.  For instance, the Department of Justice’s Environmental Crimes Section is equipped with just 38 prosecutors, and the EPA’s Environmental Crimes Section has just 200 agents.  These are the folks who are given primary responsibility for monitoring environmental violations across the country.  Yet, with such a pitifully understaffed roster, the federal government’s capacity to pursue America’s worst environmental offenders is seriously hampered.

The Civil Alternative.  Despite its dwindling resources, the EPA has significant authority to prosecute environmental crimes, thanks to the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Acts.  Yet, the EPA – much like its corollary in the financial sphere, the Securities and Exchange Commission – also has discretion to pursue civil, rather than criminal remedies.  How does the EPA choose to wield this discretionary power?  By significantly favoring civil cases to criminal ones, of course.   TCR nicely sums up the disparity between civil and criminal prosecutions this way:  “More than 64,000 facilities are currently listed in agency databases as being in violation of federal environmental laws, but in most years, fewer than one-half of one percent of violations trigger criminal investigations, according to EPA records” (my emphasis).

The reason behind the government’s preference or civil cases in the environmental context mirrors the reasoning behind the Department of Justice and SEC’s failure to bring criminal charges in cases stemming from the financial crisis – civil cases are cheaper to bring and easier to make.

Priorities and Politics.  Perhaps the most troubling element in all of this is that, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Congressional Republicans still think the EPA is overstepping.  According to Representative Ken Calvert (R-CA), “This year, there is a great deal of concern over the number of regulatory actions being pursued by the EPA in the absence of legislation and without clear congressional direction.”  In other words, there is anything but bipartisan agreement regarding the relative success and/or mandate of the EPA.

Compare the government’s relative reticence in the environmental context with its posture toward drug offenses.  One struggles to comprehend these statistics:

•      As of 2012, the government had spent $20 billion to $25 billion a year on counter-narcotics efforts over the last decade.


•      The more than $15 billion the federal government spent on the “drug war” in 2010 amounted to $500 per second.


•      As of this second, state and federal spending on the drug war totaled $22,561,466,356 in 2014.


•      Someone is arrested every 19 seconds for a drug-related offense.


•      As of 2012, nearly one in five inmates in state prisons and half of those in federal prisons are doing time for drug offenses.

How can one explain this disparity?  And, more importantly, where do we go from here?  As I wrote last month, there are some encouraging developments in the realm of potential liability for corporate polluters.  Yet, unless our government decides to prioritize the prosecution of environmental crimes (over low-level and comparatively harmless drug offenses, for example), it seems unlikely that we will see any real uptick in criminal charges for environmental violations.  As TCR points out, the total number of investigations by the EPA’s Criminal Enforcement Division has steadily decreased since 2001, and it is not like we’re anywhere near political consensus on any environmental issue.  So, kudos to TCR and the Fund for Investigative Journalism – TCR’s partner in its recent efforts in this area – but we still have a lot of work to do.

Image credit: Flickr/Curran Kelleher

You bought that spiffy new all-electric Tesla Model S, so why not build the charging stations to go along with it?

This is what Chinese businessman Yi Zong decided to do after he purchased his Tesla earlier this year. He realized that charging his vehicle would be a problem in China because, well, there are few stations in that country. Zong installed recharging facilities on his own dime, or yuan as the case may be, in 16 cities between Beijing and his home in Guangzhou — a 3,573-mile corridor.

Zong, one of the first Chinese owners of the Model S, calls his project the country’s “first electric-charging road,” according to a report at Caixin Online, a Beijing-based media group.

Basically, Zong needed a way to get his new Tesla home from the dealership; his idea evolved to a “demonstration of the power of Internet-based organizing and a grassroots alternative to government-backed charging-facility projects,” the Caixin report says.

His first idea was to bring a charger with him and ask to use power outlets at the hotels he stayed at along the way. But he didn’t just want to drive back home once, he wanted to set up a route that could be used by future drivers of electric cars.

Zong contacted Wu Bixuan, the Tesla executive in charge of China operations, and told her that he wanted to buy 20 recharging facilities to donate along the road to Guangzhou. He also posted notices on the networking site Sina Weibo, China’s equivalent to Twitter, and through a popular messaging app WeChat, seeking property owners along the route with a spare parking space near a heavy-duty electrical outlet.

He would then donate and install the chargers in the space and mark it on an online map of the “China Electric Road.” The owners of the parking spaces could decide whether to charge a fee or offer the service for free. “If we install at hotels, we can handle everything on our own and avoid dealing with property management, power companies and the government,” Zong said in the Caixin interview. “Seven hours of charging costs the property owners about 30 yuan [about $5] in electricity. But if the driver has a meal or spends the night at the hotel, this can become a profit model.”

He received more than 500 responses to the social-media campaign, so he added more conditions: four-star hotel, free parking and locations that were easy to find. He then chose spots in 16 cities.

Zong admits the network has some problems. For example, the recharging facilities can handle Tesla cars and electric cars from other companies, but their wide spacing — from 62 miles to 248 miles apart — is too much for most electric cars. Tesla’s Model S can travel 310 miles per charge.

In addition, Zong installed slow chargers, not the newer rapid-charging stations that Tesla and the government are focusing on. A full charge for a Model S at one of Zong’s stations takes at least eight hours, requiring overnight stays at every stop.

When asked what his network cost, Zong gave an indirect answer to Caixin, saying it was twice what he paid for his electric car. A new Tesla Model S costs at least 730,000 yuan ($118,000).

Zong started his trip from Beijing to Guangzhou on May 25, attracting crowds of interested onlookers along the way. “I think I’m the best sales manager Tesla has,” he said. “There was just so much interest along the way. I must have sold at least 150 cars.”

Now there’s a lesson about individual entrepreneurship for other countries with wide open spaces, EV range worry and a need for charging stations.

Image: Tesla Model S charging via Caixin.com

News of further follow-through on President Barack Obama's Climate Action Plan broke over the course of the past two weeks: The Department of Interior and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) announced plans to auction nearly 80,000 acres of Atlantic Ocean waters off the coast of Maryland and proposed leasing another 344,000 acres off the New Jersey coast for offshore wind energy development.

BOEM has awarded five commercial offshore wind energy leases off the Atlantic Coast so far, part and parcel of the Obama administration's Smart from the Start sustainable offshore wind energy development program. Collectively, these span more than 277,500 acres and have brought in over $5 million in high-bids for the U.S. Treasury.

Researchers at Stanford University have determined that Atlantic offshore winds could yield enough renewable electricity to power at least one-third of the entire U.S., or the entire East Coast from Maine to Florida. The challenges associated with turning this promise into reality are numerous and varied, however.

Potential 1,450 MW of Maryland offshore wind power

Through Smart from the Start, BOEM has already awarded two non-competitive leases to Cape Wind in Nantucket Sound off the Massachusetts coast and another in offshore Delaware.

Scheduled to take place August 19, the Maryland Wind Energy Area (MWEA) competitive lease sale will add nearly 80,000 acres to the 477,500 in BOEM awards thus far. To be auctioned off in two parcels, MWEA could support wind turbines with a total capacity of between 850 and 1,450 megawatts (MW) if fully developed, according to an analysis by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). That's enough electricity to power some 300,000 U.S. homes.

Sixteen companies have qualified and are vying for the offshore wind energy development lease areas:

• Apex Offshore Maryland


• Bluewater Wind Maryland


• Convalt Energy


• Dominion Wind Development


• EDF Renewable Energy


• Energy Management


• Fishermen’s Energy


• Green Sail Energy


• IBERDROLA RENEWABLES


• Maryland Offshore Wind


• Orisol Energy U.S.


• RES America Developments


• SCS Maryland Energy


• Sea Breeze Energy


• Seawind Renewable Energy Corporation


• U.S. Wind

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell highlighted the key roles Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley and BOEM's Maryland Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force played in laying all the groundwork for the Aug. 19 offshore wind energy development auction.

Commenting on the U.S. offshore wind energy milestone, Gov. O'Malley said:

"To combat climate change, we must develop cleaner, renewable sources of energy -- and today's announcement is a tremendous step forward for the U.S. offshore wind industry. As we continue our work to drive up renewable energy generation in Maryland by 20 percent by 2022, the O'Malley-Brown Administration is committed to continuing to work with our federal partners to do everything we can to meet this goal and create a stronger, more sustainable future for generations to come.”

Proposed New Jersey offshore wind auction

Following up on the July 2 announcement of Maryland Wind Energy Area offshore lease auction, Interior Secretary Jewell and BOEM Acting Director Walter Cruickshank on July 17 announced the proposed sale of leases for nearly 344,000 acres off the New Jersey coast for commercial wind energy leasing.

Akin to the federal-state institutional framework used to develop the MWEA, the New Jersey Wind Energy Area (NJWEA) was mapped out by BOEM in consultation with members of its New Jersey Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force. The group includes federal, state, tribal and local government partners.

NREL again played an important role in defining and delineating the NJWEA. Divided into two parcels about seven nautical miles off the coast of Atlantic city, the NJWEA could support as much as 3,400 MW of commercial offshore wind power generation – enough to power some 1.2 million homes, according to NREL's study.

Commenting on the proposed NJWEA auction, BOEM Acting Director Cruickshank state,

“The key to responsible offshore development is substantial stakeholder engagement to identify and address any concerns early in the process. Members of the New Jersey Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force have demonstrated leadership and foresight in making sure that the wind energy planning process considers input from many important stakeholders, including industry, environmental organizations, and the maritime community."

NJWEA's Proposed Sale Notice is to be published in the Federal Register on July 21. The proposal will from then be open for public comment for 60 days, a period that will end on Sept. 19. That date will also serve as the deadline for any companies or groups interested in bidding at the auction to submit their qualification packages.

In addition to the proposed offshore wind development lease auction offshore New Jersey, Interior and BOEM expect to hold a competitive auction for Wind Energy Areas off the Massachusetts coast in the coming year.

Images credit: 1) Anonymous, offshore wind farm Denmark; 2) & 3) BOEM

The Kroger Co. has reduced energy use in its stores by 34.6 percent since 2000, saving more than 2.5 billion kilowatt hours (kWh). That's enough electricity to power every home in Charlotte, North Carolina for a year -- or the equivalent of taking 362,000 cars off the road for a year. The largest supermarket chain in the U.S. and fifth-largest retailer in the world, Kroger recently published its eighth annual sustainability report, which includes its energy usage reduction efforts.

Kroger’s manufacturing plants also continue to reduce their use of electricity and gas. As of this year's report, they have saved enough energy to power 8,411 American homes for a year, and cut enough gas to power 442,446 American homes for a year.

Its manufacturing plants are also reducing water use: In 2013, Kroger manufacturing plants reduced water use by 61 million gallons of water. That is equivalent to the annual water use of 1,455 American homes. Additionally, water use at stores in four of its western divisions was reduced by 7.6 percent last year. These figures crushed an initial 5 percent company-wide reduction target for 2014.

Not everything is completely rosy in Kroger’s sustainability report. The company's total carbon footprint increased by 3.8 percent in 2013 compared to 2012. The retailer attributes this stat to the 20 percent increase “assigned to the refrigerant primarily used in our systems.” However, Kroger is the in process of converting grocery stores from HCFC systems that deplete the ozone layer to HFC systems.

Renewable energy use

A few Kroger stores and facilities use renewable energy. The Turkey Hill Dairy in Lancaster, Pennsylvania (a Kroger subsidiary) purchases 25 percent of its energy needs from wind power produced at the Frey Farm Wind Turbine Project. That's enough power to produce 6 million gallons of ice cream and 15 million gallons of iced tea, two Turkey Hill specialties, for an entire year.

Additionally, four Kroger stores have about 400 kilowatts (kW) of solar energy that produce almost 585,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) a year. A new store designed for a 200 kW solar array in Los Alamos, New Mexico is being built. Kroger’s Clackamas Distribution Center in Oregon was the first distribution center (DC) to install a photovoltaic system in 2011. The system has a 500 kWh capacity which provides about 10 percent of the DC’s power needs.

Waste reduction efforts

Reducing food waste is important to Kroger. The Ralph’s/Food 4 Less DC in Compton, California utilizes the Kroger Recovery System which uses anaerobic digestion to turn food waste into biogas. The system processed 46,500 tons of food waste in 2013. The biogas is used to help power the DC. The system reduces food waste costs by $4.5 million and reduces carbon emissions by an estimated 90,000 tons a year.

Kroger has another waste-to-fuel project at its Turkey Hill Dairy: A total of 988 stores participate in some type of organic waste diversion program. Through Kroger’s Perishable Donations Partnership, stores can donate perishable food that is still safe to eat but is no longer “retail-ready.”

Kroger is also reducing waste at manufacturing plants and distribution centers. The retailer joined the Environmental Protection Agency’s Waste Wise Program and adopted the EPA’s “zero waste” definition for its company-wide sustainability efforts. The goal is to meet and exceed the “zero waste” threshold of 90 percent in all of its facilities. In 2013, 27 of its 32 corporately managed manufacturing plants were designated as “zero waste” facilities. Kroger’s manufacturing plants reduced waste by 27.5 percent the same year from 2012.

Recycling plastic bags and more

Kroger has recycling measures in place. Its stores and manufacturing and distribution facilities recycled over 1.1 billion pounds of corrugated cardboard and paper in 2013. It provides recycling bins for customers to recycle plastic bags, dry-cleaning bags and plastic shrink-wrap in all of its stores. In 2013, Kroger recycled 35 million pounds of plastic from its stores and distribution centers, a 10 percent increase from 2012 and 33 percent since 2011. Kroger reduces the use of plastic bags through better bagging practices and encouraging customers to use reusable bags.

Image credit: Jonesdr77

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.

While some still view climate change as some distant or unidentifiable threat (and others simply argue its effects "won't be so bad"), the impacts of rising tides and surging temperatures are already changing lives around the world. From South Florida to the Pacific Islands, this list represents thousands of lives that are forever altered by the warming climate -- and a threat to millions more unless something changes quickly.

1. Miami, Florida, United States

"Climate change is no longer viewed as a future threat round here," atmosphere expert Professor Ben Kirtman, of the University of Miami, told the Guardian in a recent interview. "It is something that we are having to deal with today."

As noted by the Guardian, Miami's once glamorous beachfront thoroughfare has been reduced to a one-lane passage in many places, with blockades and road work closing in on all sides to stop the rising tide. Every year, with the coming of fall and spring tides, ocean surges break up over the beach and pour through storm drains -- destroying cars and damaging homes and businesses.

"This never used to happen," laundromat owner Eliseo Toussaint told the New York Times, as he watched saltwater fill the streets and block his front door. "I've owned this place eight years and now it's all the time."

Read more in the Guardian.

2. Bangkok, Thailand

Bangkok residents are already experiencing dramatic temperature increases as a result of climate change, with rising tides threatening further damage. The average maximum temperatures observed in Bangkok have risen by 0.8 degrees Celsius from 1961 to 2007, the United Nations Environmental Program highlights in a new report.

According to the report: "The impacts of climate change on the city are likely to be quite severe, including major flooding due to Bangkok’s low elevation, increased land subsidence which is already occurring, problems of water supply provision and contamination, air pollution and oppressive heat with associated health consequences, increases in infectious diseases and decrease in biomass production."

Read more from the U.N. Environmental Program.

3. Coastal cities in Indonesia and Bangladesh

Experts expect about 250 million people worldwide to move by 2050 as a result of climate change. Of those, 20 million to 30 million climate change refugees are expected to come from Bangladesh, likely the largest number from one place, the Toronto Star reports.

Already, cyclones, tropical storms and other natural disasters, along with rising sea levels, have forced thousands from their homes in coastal Indonesia and Bangladesh into the slums of Dhaka. After taking residence in the overcrowded city, many find a home in shantytowns, where sanitation is minimal to nonexistent and monsoon season often brings malaria and cholera outbreaks.

Read more in the Toronto Star.

4. Newtok, Alaska, United States

Last year, the Guardian ran a compelling and timely four-part series entitled "America's First Climate Refugees." Specifically, the series focused on native Alaskan villages on the shores of the Bering Sea.

In the village of Newtok, for example, floods and erosion are eating away the land at alarming rates. Shorter, warmer winters, earlier springs and rising waters threaten to transform the area into an ever-shrinking island, which could completely disappear, possibly within the next five years.

Some coastal Alaskan villages are exploring ways to prevent erosion and flood damage, but in areas like Newtok, which is situated in a low-lying wetlands unable to support infrastructure projects, residents have no choice but to move.

Read more in the Guardian.

5. Sovereign Pacific islands

The first mass exodus related to climate change has already happened in Kiribati, a group of 32 islands located in the central tropical Pacific Ocean. Back in 2012, the archipelago began moving its entire population to Fiji to avoid rising seas. If rising sea levels persist at current rates, the entire nation will be submerged by 2100.

Unfortunately, Kiribati is not alone. The Caterat Islanders of Papua New Guinea, for example, were the world’s first community to be entirely displaced by climate change. The island is predicted to be completely underwater by 2015.

Read more here on Triple Pundit.

Image credits: 1.) Flickr/maxstrz 2.) Flickr/eguidetravel

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.

The electronics industry has become the de facto face of innovation in the post- WWII era.

When it comes to sustainability in the electronics industry, much attention is being paid to e-waste and energy efficiency. However, there is much more to making a sustainable smart product in the 21st century. That's why UL – Underwriters Laboratories – through UL Environment developed the UL 110 standard for mobile phones, tablets and other "smart" products.

The UL ISR 110 standard is points-based and devices that receive the certification must:

• contain environmentally preferable materials;


• be manufactured using environmentally and socially responsible practices;


• be recyclable at end-of-life;


• make use of recycled and recyclable packaging;


• have minimal environmental impact;


• have minimal human health risks;


• perform efficiently; and


• demonstrate innovation in sustainable manufacturing.

Mobile devices create a unique challenge from a sustainability certification perspective. They are complex pieces of equipment, contain metals that may have come from conflict regions and chemicals that may be harmful to human health; they are also difficult to recycle given the high number of components they include, and at the end of the day, each one only gets used for an average of 18 months.

Yet, creating a greener product can provide a competitive advantage, as Scot Case, UL Environment director of markets development, explained in a 3p interview. “There are retailers that know their customers want to buy greener products, but they're not positioned to define exactly what a greener product is," Case said. "They need an independent, third-party to help define, develop and implement them.”

Collaboration to define, develop, implement and verify eco labels, certifications and sustainability standards for electronics products across the value chain is key to leveling the commercial playing field.

“A lot of what we do,” UL Environment sustainability scientist Dr. Bill Hoffman said, “revolves around development of multi-attribute standards and technical panels – stakeholder groups representing a variety of different organizations, bringing that collective expertise to bear. There's much more than just our organization involved in order to get the full spectrum of viewpoints and expertise.”

Sprint, for example, worked with UL Environment to define just what a “greener” mobile phone should be. “They turned to us to help define what a sustainable mobile phone is,” Case said. Today, every consumer electronics (CE) device that connects to Sprint's networks has to be UL 110 certified.

Sustainable electronics: Moving beyond e-waste recycling and energy efficiency

Initially focusing on e-waste and the energy efficiency of CE products opened the gateway, so to speak, to a wider and deeper assessment of environmental sustainability in the electronics industry, Case pointed out. This now encompasses the environmental impacts of electronics materials sourcing, manufacturing processes, and impacts throughout product and process life cycles, including waste disposal, recycling and reuse.

Carrying sustainability concepts even further, sustainability certifications and standards now seek to assess the overall sustainability of the entire range of electronics companies' operations and supply chains, as well as the energy used to power them. Consumer electronics industry participants, and society as a whole, even the environment and all living things, stand to benefit as a result.

Evolving standards

The field of sustainable electronics certification and standards-setting is a dynamic and evolving one, Hoffman added. The 110 standard covers mobile phones. We have also developed related standards for Wi-Fi hotspots (UL 2853) and for slate-like tablet devices (UL 2841). UL also certifies to the IEEE 1680 series of standards, which include standards for personal computers, and ‘smart’ TVs, he told 3p.

The rapid pace of innovation, change and obsolescence – planned or unplanned – is another important issue to address when developing and verifying sustainable electronics standards.

“How fast the industry moves is an issue that has to be considered,” Case pointed out. “That's led to a focus on end-of-life and materials sourcing, usage, recycling and reuse, as well as extending the useful life of products through repair and maintenance.

“Certainly all our standards include an end-of-life component. We're having that discussion right now regarding mobile phone standards, which includes how easy they are to repair.

"'Can you extend the lifetime of it?' Issues revolving around collection and reuse – there is a whole series of different issues really that ultimately aim to to maximize use of products and minimize their impacts. Obviously, if you can reuse materials, you save all the materials and energy that would go into building new ones.”

These standards don't just stop at the lifecycle. They also consider the environmental claims made by manufacturers. It's not enough just to have standards and certifications, Case highlighted. “We're validating the accuracy of environmental claims. When a manufacturer states that their product is made of 100 percent recyclable plastic,” for example, “UL sends a team out to validate those claims.”

This past May, UL Environment issued its first closed-loop Environmental Claim Validation to Dell. As a result, “Dell's OptiPlex 3030 All-in-One computers are verified to contain a minimum of 10 percent post-consumer closed loop recycled content,” according to a press release.

This specific claim validation, UL Environment explains, “goes beyond a recycled content claim because it involves a closed loop, meaning that plastic from old electronics is being reused to create parts for new computers.”

Such environmental and human health and safety standards provide a vital service to consumers and the broader public, making the invisible visible, Case added:

“There are hidden health, environmental and social impacts associated with cell phones, and these have been addressed in the [UL110] standard. If you look at it, it's very appealing to 'eco geeks,' but it's also very simple for someone like my mom to understand and use.

For more for more on sustainable electronics, explore UL Environment's Sustainable Product Database.

Image courtesy of UL Environment

Will we ever be able to get all of our energy from renewable sources? There is certainly enough supply available. Enough sunlight hits the Earth every hour to power the entire human world for a year. But right now, it would take a 310,000-square-mile solar farm (about twice the size of Oregon), or 6 million wind turbines to capture enough sunshine or wind to provide all of the world’s electrical power.

If that sounds like a lot, it is-- which is why we will continue to use a mix of sources including natural gas and coal to meet our electrical demand for some time to come. The renewable numbers will continue to shrink as long as the technology and our efficiency improves faster than the population grows. In the mean time, coal, despite being the dirtiest fuel available, is still abundant and still produces 30 percent of the world’s energy. In 2012, the U.S. used coal to produce 43 percent of our electricity, while in China coal produced 81 percent. In other places, like South Africa, it contributed over 90 percent.

While there are a number of problems associated with burning coal, the biggest is the amount of carbon dioxide it produces: Coal combustion generates anywhere between 200 and 230 pounds of CO2 for every million BTUs of heat produced. That is roughly twice the amount emitted by natural gas.

The new EPA Clean Power Plant rule will put pressure on utilities to either clean up their coal plants or switch to a cleaner fuel. Many are already switching to natural gas, but another approach that has been talked about for a long time, carbon sequestration, is finally getting a chance to demonstrate its capabilities in a full-scale commercial operation.

Just this week, NRG announced the Petra Nova Carbon Capture Project, the world’s largest post-combustion carbon capture power generation plant. The project will be a joint venture between NRG’s wholly-owned subsidiary Petra Nova Holdings, and JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration Corp.

According to the press release, this commercial-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) system will utilize existing technology to capture 90 percent of the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the processed flue gas from an existing coal plant in Fort Bend County, southwest of Houston. Construction on the project has already begun.

One reason that this technology has been slow to catch on is that CO2 capture represents a substantial cost and energy burden to the operator. If this could be offset by finding a productive use for the CO2, that would make the economics more attractive.

That’s exactly what NRG will be doing here. The company will pump the CO2 into the ground to pressurize an otherwise depleted oilfield to improve its yield in a process called enhanced oil recovery (EOR). EOR has been around since 1972, utilizing various injection fluids including steam, water, natural gas and CO2. To date, most of the CO2 that’s been used has come from naturally-occurring reservoirs. Demonstrations of this combined approach already exist in Salah in Algeria, Sleipner in the North Sea, and Weyburn in Saskatchewan. The Weyburn operator, which gets its CO2 from the Dakota Gasification plant 200 miles to the south, estimates that EOR could add an additional 25 years to the oil field’s life, yielding an additional 130 million barrels.

The NRG Petra Nova project is expected to boost production at the nearby West Ranch oilfield from 500 to 15,000 barrels per day.

“Our objective is simple: We want to continue to provide safe, affordable and reliable power to our customers, but without risking the health of the planet as a result of our activities,” David Crane, president and CEO of NRG Energy, said in a press release. “This project is an enormous step in that direction, plus it continues the trend of enhancing domestic oil production; thus further reducing our national dependence on foreign sources of oil.”

The project will receive a grant of up to $167 million from the DOE as part of the Clean Coal Power Initiative Program (CCPI), a cost-shared collaboration between the federal government and private industry, as part of President Barack Obama’s all-of-the above energy policy.

Environmentalists have opposed CCS technology in the past -- claiming that it is expensive, unproven and that it perpetuates the mining, transportation and combustion of coal, all of which are fraught with environmental impacts. They say the money would be better invested in inherently cleaner technologies.

The point is well-taken, though it looks past the fact that coal is still very much with us -- especially in places like China, where the use of this technology could certainly make a difference. In the meantime, natural gas has taken the spotlight, due to the vast amounts of natural gas now being produced here in the U.S. Ideally we will begin to see carbon-capture and storage technology applied to natural gas plants, which will improve their carbon footprint from simply being “cleaner than coal,” to actually being clean.

Image credit: NRG

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 eco-thriller Vapor Trails. RP 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.

Nestlé yet again finds itself in another bottled water controversy.

One of the great marketing scams of the past generation, bottled water has been a financial windfall for Nestlé and many other food and beverage companies. Despite most of the U.S. having one of the safest drinking water infrastructures on the globe, bottling companies have made a mint convincing consumers they need bottled water. Never mind the excessive cost, the plastic waste and fuel wasted hauling heavy crates of water across the country — these companies and trade associations disingenuously position bottled water as a “consumer choice,” and a fight against obesity.

The controversy continues in the California desert. The state, along with much of the country, has endured one of its worst droughts on record. Residents can now be fined up to $500 for excessive watering as spit-spats between farming, fishing, business and environmental interests fester. One company, however, has been bottling water for several years in one of the driest parts of the state, the Coachella Valley.

Nestlé, which sells the most bottled water in the U.S., is attracting more attention for bottling water in a region suffering from depleted groundwater. Maybe it’s just a drop in the bucket compared to how else water is wasted in the region. Perhaps Arrowhead-branded bottles of water are significantly contributing to lower aquifer levels.

But we don’t really know because since 2009 Nestlé has refused to disclose how much water it is pumping.

As Desert Sun writer Ian James explained, the problem is that the Cabazon bottling plant is on an Indian reservation. Because the Morongo Band of Mission Indians is a “sovereign nation,” the tribe does not have to disclose water levels or information on groundwater. The Desert Sun requested data on groundwater levels, but Nestlé refused to respond. Nor does the company share any data with other local water districts or government agencies. In an email, the company blandly claimed it “operates in strict accordance with all federal and state public health regulations, pursuant to our agreement with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians.”

Finding common ground will not be easy. Plenty of local residents are questioning whether it is wise to bottle and export water in a region that averages three inches of rain a year, where aquifers that took millennia to fill are not being replenished. Others will point out the plant provides about 250 non-casino jobs in a local economy that offers few opportunities outside retail and tourism.

The real issue here is transparency. Nestlé has long assaulted anyone who will listen with social media campaigns and press releases boasting about what a responsible company it is, along with its dedication to “shared value.” But hiding behind a “sovereign nation,” lawyers and mealy-mouthed corporate statements, Nestlé is sporting a black eye in this fight.

True, Nestlé is not the only company siphoning off water for dubious uses — a local casino and resort, plus a concrete plant, are also tapping into these aquifers. One can also point out local water supplies keeping golf courses, sidewalks and annual plants clean and green. But Nestlé has an opportunity to take a stand, disclose the amount of water used in the Cabazon plant, and let stakeholders have access to data and decide for themselves whether the bottling plant has a severe impact on local water supplies or not. Instead, as in the case of far too many companies, Nestlé wants to pick and choose examples of how they are socially and environmentally responsible and therefore, creating “shared value.”

Triple Pundit has long covered the bottled water vs. tap water controversy; read more here.

Image credit: Leon Kaye

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.

The race for big oil companies to cut greenhouse gas emissions is fierce. As zero-emissions solutions from renewable energies and technologies begin to set new expectations for energy production, oil companies are being called to accelerate their environmental efficiencies and, more importantly, compete with foreign oil distributors.

In order to snuff out the competition, Canadian producers are turning to innovative solutions to spur local collaboration and invest in advanced technologies to increase environmental performance and reduce emissions.

Earlier this month, General Electric announced the launch of its GE GHG Ecomagination Innovation Challenge: Energy Efficiency Solutions for Canada’s Oil Sands. The competition aims to provide CAD$1 million to the best global minds to help develop solutions that can be scaled and commercialized within the industry.

More specifically, the challenge calls for proposals that will identify new uses for waste heat and improved efficiency of steam generation.

Canada’s oil sands are the third-largest oil reserve in the world, next to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, representing a significant source of energy that remains high in demand among global energy markets.

The competition follows the 2012 formation of Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance, comprised of 13 oil companies working collectively to expand research and development and implementation of innovative solutions to drive responsible growth of the oil sands.

“Collaboration is key to solving big challenges,” Elyse Allan, president and CEO of GE Canada, said in a press statement. “GE recognizes that by working together, we can develop technology that will enable ongoing, responsible development of Canada’s oil resources — an important driver of the country’s economy and future prosperity.”

Strategic advisors for the competition include Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (COSIA) and Alberta Innovates – Energy and Environment Solutions (AI-EES).

The specifics of the award include up to four respondents receiving CAD$25,00 each in cash prizes. Winners of the competition who sign a joint development agreement with GE will receive an additional CAD $100,000 in development grants.

The GHG Ecomagination Innovation Challenge represents the sixth challenge in GE’s series of competitions. Previous challenges spanned the U.S., China, Australia, New Zealand and the Middle East.

The winners of the first part of the challenge will be announced in January 2015. Entries are now being accepted at www.geghgecochallenge.com.

Image via Wikimedia Commons

Sherrell Dorsey is social impact branding and communications strategist, social entrepreneur and advocate for environmental, social and economic equity in underserved communities. Visit Sherrell atwww.sherrelldosey.com and follow her on Twitter and Instagram @sherrell_dorsey.