Search

My grandfather worked as a plant manager at Ford Motor Co. for 34 years. When I ask him about his experience, he does not refer to Ford as a company, but as a family. Since his retirement, Ford has remained an important part of our own family. F-150s have served as the toolbox for our family farm for years. Ford minivans have transported us on exciting journeys to faraway destinations, albeit fraught with epic battles between siblings in the backseat. I learned how to drive behind the wheel of a Ford and emerged unharmed from a Ford following a nasty collision. My family has never purchased a vehicle that wasn’t a Ford. I would venture to say that Ford has left a far greater influence on the lives of my family and I than any large corporation in the world.

As I toured the factories in Dearborn, Michigan during last week’s annual Ford Trends Conference, I listened to today’s employees echo my grandfather’s talk of the Ford family. The same employees glowed with pride about the recent announcement of Ford’s No. 1 ranking on Interbrand and Deloitte’s Annual Best Global Green Brands list.

Throughout the conference, I couldn’t help but ponder the intersection of these two sentiments. What does family have to do with a company’s commitment to sustainability? The answers are probably most obvious in smaller, family-owned companies. However, I might argue that many of our most recognizable brands represent even more powerful testaments to sustainability of the family legacy through cultures that endure for generations despite the added pressures of public ownership and attention. Consider Forrest E. Mars Sr. who, in 1947, documented his commitment to building a business that creates a “mutuality of benefits” for all stakeholders -- a culture which lives on through Mars’ Principles in Action summary. Or the Waltons of Walmart, who’s longtime commitment to a sustainable supply chain inspired a sustainability index, which now evaluates suppliers in over 200 product categories.

Ask Ford Executive Chairman Bill Ford whether there’s a more intrinsic case for sustainable business than the family legacy: “What my great-grandfather established, especially his legacy of innovation, continues to inspire our commitment to a strong business, great products and a better world. We are putting unexpected levels of technology within reach of millions of people, accelerating the development of new products that customers want and value, and driving growth by creating jobs and bringing the freedom of mobility to the world.” Like the legacy of innovation forged by the iconic Henry Ford, family-affiliated companies find their identity in the ethos they leave to family generations that follow. If the future is a company’s priority, how can quick, short-term gains possibly take precedent over long-term viability?

This serves to explain how Ford has managed to set itself apart from competitors in recent years. The auto giant has taken its share of hits, no doubt. But after years of duking it out with both cross-town and cross-Pacific rivals, Ford has lived up to its reputation for toughness by adapting to change the game altogether. The automaker now offers seven electrified models, including six hybrids and the purely battery-fueled Focus Electric. And its signature F-150 pickup truck has set the bar among competitors with a full aluminum body that cuts 700 lbs from last year’s model without sacrificing size. From its industry leadership in developing renewable energy infrastructure, to achieving a 62 percent reduction in global water consumption since 2000, Ford continues to push the envelope with its legacy of innovation.

But, as I learned in Dearborn, the Ford family’s commitment to sustainability extends far beyond its own products or even the transportation industry. Todd Walton, Manager of Ford’s Environmental Quality Office, talked about how Ford’s water stewardship initiatives are addressing issues related to water access in communities around the world. In recent years, Ford has invested millions of dollars in wastewater treatment and rainwater harvesting and purification projects around assembly plants in water-scarce regions of India, South Africa and South China. “Ford has been growing in many areas of the world where water access and availability are a concern,” said Walton. “So we’ve been actively working there to help people get access to fresh drinking water. In India, we have launched projects to install water filters in government-run pre-school centers for children and primary schools near our plants. We also run campaigns to communicate the importance of clean drinking water for children.”

Ford's annual Trends Conference makes it clear that the company is looking at the world through the eyes of the next generation. Today’s Ford family is not inheriting the family business, they are borrowing it from their grandchildren.

Image credit: Sweet & Simplicity Blog

Covering nearly 75 percent of the Earth's surface, the ocean is the single largest ecosystem on the planet. From influencing weather patterns and climate trends and providing food, essential nutrition, livelihoods and recreation for billions to supplying the oxygen we breathe, it's difficult to overestimate the influence of the ocean on the development, evolution and maintenance of life and human civilization.

Unfortunately, the health of the global ocean is in decline. “Habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, overfishing, pollution, climate change and ocean acidification are pushing the ocean system to the point of collapse,” according to an introductory letter from the co-chairs of the Global Ocean Commission.

“Governance is woefully inadequate, and on the high seas, anarchy rules the waves. Technological advance, combined with a lack of regulation, is widening the gap between rich and poor as those countries that can, exploit dwindling resources while those that can’t experience the consequences of those actions. Regional stability, food security, climate resilience, and our children’s future are all under threat.”

In “From Decline to Recovery: A Rescue Package for the Global Ocean,” the Global Ocean Commission Report 2014 puts forth a package of eight proposals that it believes can turn the tide and reverse the degradation of the global ocean within the next decade. That's if the proposals are “expeditiously acted upon,” which is why the commission is also issuing “Mission Ocean,” a call to action for public and private sector leaders and concerned individuals the world over.

High seas in decline

The Global Ocean Commission doesn't pull any punches when describing the current state of the global ocean. As Commission co-chairs José Maria Figueres, Trevor Manuel and David Miliband state: “The ocean is under threat, and humanity’s approach to it is uncontrolled.

“Benign neglect by the majority, and active abuse by the minority, have fueled a cycle of decline. No single body shoulders responsibility for ocean health, and an absence of accountability is characterized by blind exploitation of resources and a willful lack of care. We call this the cycle of decline.”

The focal point of the 2014 Global Ocean Commission report is the high seas – the 64 percent of the global ocean that falls outside statutory 200-nautical mile national boundaries.

“Almost inconceivably large and remote,” the open ocean, the report authors highlight, “is the great physical and biological pump at the heart of the global atmospheric and thermal regulation and the driver of water and nutrient cycles” that support all life on earth.”

Putting an economic value on the high seas

Natural capital accounting is in its infancy, and we as a species still have much to learn about the world ocean and the wide range of ecosystem services it provides humankind. In seeking to come up with an estimate of the economic value of the high seas ecosystem, the report authors note that they are, if anything, undervalued.

Following is a list of the high seas ecosystems services identified in the report:

• Air purification;


• Waste treatment and life cycle maintenance;


• High seas carbon capture and storage;


• High seas provisioning of fish and other seafood;


• Genetic and ornamental resources;


• Tourism, leisure and recreation.

The economic value of high seas carbon storage and fisheries

Commission researchers have come up with estimates of the economic value of two key high seas ecosystem services: carbon storage and fisheries. Each, according to the report, generates tens of billions of dollars of value to societies every year.

The global ocean and highs seas provide human societies with a wide range of fundamental ecosystem services. That includes the central role it plays in determining weather patterns and climate. As the Global Ocean Commission report authors state:

“The global ocean produces almost half of all the oxygen we breathe and absorbs more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide we emit into the atmosphere. More than 90% of the heat trapped in the Earth system by greenhouse gas emissions is stored in the ocean, providing a buffer against the full impacts of climate change on land; however, this is having alarming consequences on ocean life and is perhaps the largest unseen environmental disaster of our time.”

Storing the equivalent of some 2 billion-plus metric tons of CO2 annually, commission researchers estimate the value of high seas carbon storage at $148 billion a year, ranging from $74 billion to $222 billion annually. “By comparison,” the report authors note, “the entire Official Development Aid outlay for 2013 was $134.8 billion.”

Turning to the economic value of high seas fisheries, commission researchers found that nearly 10 million metric tons of fish are caught annually on the high seas – just over 12 percent of the global annual marine fisheries catch, which stands at 80 million metric tons. The estimated landed value comes in at around $16 billion, about 15 percent of the total landed value of marine fisheries of around $109 billion.

3p has been doing some extensive, in-depth reporting on sustainable seafood. You can check it out here.

The need for international high seas governance

Its inaccessibility essentially left the high seas an international marine reserve – until about the middle of the 20th century, that is. Technological advances and the advent of factory fishing fleets have pushed high seas ecosystems into decline, while the rise of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is changing ocean chemistry and threatening the entire marine food web.

In its 2014 report, the Global Ocean Commission identifies five key drivers of high seas ocean decline:

1. Rising demand for resources;


2. Technological advances;


3. Decline of fish stocks;


4. Climate change, biodiversity and habitat loss;


5. Weak High Seas governance;

The commission then goes on to elaborate eight proposals that can put the high seas on the path to recovery:

1. U.N. Sustainable Development Goal for the Ocean – Putting a healthy living ocean at the heart of development;


2. Governing the High Seas – Promoting care and recovery;


3. No More Overfishing – Ending harmful high seas subsidies;


4. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing – closing seas, ports and markets;


5. Plastics – Keeping them out of the ocean;


6. Offshore oil and gas – Establishing international safety standards and liability;


7. Global ocean accountability Board charged with monitoring progress toward a ealthy ocean;


8. Creating a High Seas Regeneration Zone.

A new system of international environmental governance for the high seas is essential if the high seas are to recover, the Commission asserts. As they point out, the 200 nautical mile limit established with the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is an abstract, human legal construct “with little bearing on ecological reality.” “Fish, coral reefs, pollution and the detrimental impacts of climate change do not respect the 200 nautical mile frontier of State jurisdiction,” the reports authors continue.

As they make clear, the Global Ocean Commission is well aware of the difficulty of the task.

“The task of saving the global ocean is one that no government or company or individual can achieve alone. Stopping the abusive and unsustainable exploitation of natural resources and freedoms, and restoring ocean health, requires a coalition for change with a clear mission.

“We are convinced that if the package of eight proposals that we now put forward is expeditiously acted upon, it is possible, within the next decade, to reverse the degradation of the global ocean.

“The high seas are facing a cycle of declining ecosystem health and productivity. It is our joint responsibility to act urgently and decisively to reverse the decline of this immense global commons. Failure to do so would be an unforgivable betrayal of current and future generations.”

Image credits: Global Ocean Commission

By Jessica Oaks

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

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

Changing your habits

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

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


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


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


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

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

Technology is your friend

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

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

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

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

By Cheryl Dahle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image credit: Flickr/mrthk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image credit: VolunteerMatch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This restructuring included a new name: NewFire Africa.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Image credit: CleanStar Mozambique

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

By Andrew Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image courtesy of Andrew Hoffman

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

By Kristen Scheyder

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

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

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

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

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

http://vimeo.com/96234207

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

STORY updated 4/7/14

 

Picture credit: © Damomz | Dreamstime Stock Photos

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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