Search

Apple enthusiasts in the U.S. looking to upgrade their iPhones have been able to trade in their old devices for a newer model at Apple stores since last summer. But now the tech giant is expanding its iPhone buyback and recycling program to Canadian stores, the Vancouver Sun reported, offering store credit of up to $275 for working but unwanted iPhones.

The trade-in program is an affordable way for consumers to move up to a newer iPhone model, the Calif.-based company said in a statement, and represents a larger trend of retailers and mobile carriers jumping into the growing market for refurbished electronic devices already occupied by companies like Gazelle. There will be approximately 396 million idle or inactive mobile devices in the U.S. by the end of the year, marketing analytics firm Compass Intelligence predicts, and of all those electronics, only 80 million will be recycled – clearly indicating an opportunity for increased collection and recycling.

Prior to the expansion of Apple’s in-store buyback program, Canadian iPhone users could mail in old devices to the company for recycling, but did not receive any cash or store credit in return. Now Canadians can bring an iPhone into any Apple retail location, where staff will evaluate the phone’s condition and determine the amount of credit the company will pay – up to a maximum of $275. Devices for either business or personal use are both eligible for the trade-in program, Apple said, and stores will also accept non-working phones for recycling. Phones collected at Apple’s Canadian stores will be handled by mobile phone distributor Brightstar Corp., the Canadian Broadcast Corp. reported.

Apple rolled out its iPhone buyback program in the U.S. last August and in the United Kingdom, France and Germany earlier this year.

While it’s difficult to compare prices for used iPhones promised by different companies (prices vary widely based on phone model and condition), Apple’s $275 maximum trade-in credit is priced to compete with the other retailers, mobile carriers and electronics buyback companies vying for your old smart phone.

Image credit: Apple

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

Earlier this month, the news was filled with stories about recent studies that showed the growing, and often devastating, impacts of climate change – from an increase in malaria cases in Africa and South America to heavier losses in global crop yields to spikes in crime.

Yet, Americans don’t seem to be overly concerned. A new Gallup survey looking at the degree Americans worry about different issues found that only 24 percent of Americans worry a great deal about climate change. Fifty-one percent of them worry about it very little or not at all.

So what do you think when you read that?

I know it’s very easy to get upset about these results or wonder if this is that surprising given the American record so far on climate change, but if you leave these emotions aside for a minute you can actually find some interesting lessons in this survey that might even give us a clue about the way to change these results.

1. Learn how the budget deficit is framed

Behavioral economist Dr. Dan Ariely explains it very clearly – if we had to design a problem that would maximize human apathy, we would come up with climate change. “Think about all the elements,” he says, “long in the future, will happen to other people first, we don’t see [it] progressing, we don’t see anybody suffering and anything we would do is a drop in the bucket.”

It makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Interestingly, the elements Ariely describes seem to apply also to the federal budget deficit. It’s a long-term issue, it’s difficult to see actual progress, you don’t really see anyone suffering now because of the debt (unless you count people who receive less support in food stamps), poor people will feel it first and there’s nothing much you can do to solve it.

So how come this issue (“government spending and the budget deficit”) got to second place on Gallop’s list, with 58 percent worrying great deal about it, only one point less than the issue that came in first (the economy)?

One explanation is that the difference is due to the way these issues are framed in the public discourse. Climate change has been framed as a long-term problem with questionable and unproven impacts, while the budget deficit has been framed as a big and urgent problem, which will lead us to “a future in which we’re impoverished by the need to pay back money we’ve been borrowing,” as Paul Krugman describes it.

So the problem with climate change is not necessarily about the fact that we are not wired to worry over long-term issues (although this is probably true), but that it is poorly framed. Maybe taking a look at the playbook of those promoting the budget deficit as an urgent matter that we should all be worried about right now will help figuring out how to reframe climate change.

2. “Climate change” has become a tainted concept

How else can you explain the fact that 66 percent of the respondents say they worry either a great deal (31 percent) or a fair amount (35 percent) about the quality of the environment while only 49 percent worry similarly about climate change (24 percent and 25 percent respectively).

The only explanation I have, other than that many respondents watched Johan Rockstrom’s TED talk about planetary boundaries and are worried about the health of other systems, is that the efforts to question the scientific basis of climate change and the integrity of the people leading the fight against it have succeeded.

The result is that we have “the environment” as a more neutral concept that a larger number of people feel is worthy enough to worry about, and “climate change/global warming” that apparently get some people who worry about the environment uncomfortable enough to scale down their concerns about it or not worry at all.

3. People don’t connect the dots between climate change and other problems

When you look at the list of problems that people worry about more than climate change it is apparent that part of the problem is that people don’t connect the dots between climate change and its impacts on many issues they seem to worry much more about. The economy is one thing, but the list goes on to include the availability and affordability of energy, hunger and even crime and violence.

It’s clear that for many people communicating the concept of climate change just as a huge problem isn’t effective. The “one explanation for all” mechanism to fight climate change, like the one we saw on An Inconvenient Truth, just doesn’t work anymore. There’s a need now to address different audiences with different arguments in accordance with the issues they’re more worried about.

It is worth mentioning though that we should be careful of not characterizing climate change as the meta-problem responsible for every major problem in the world – people just won’t buy it.

4. Democrats are also part of the problem

You might not be too surprised to hear that only 10 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaners worry about climate change according to the survey, but it might be surprising that only 36 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaners do so.

These figures mean the Democrats are part of the problem as much as the Republicans are. It’s a different scale comparing to Republicans, but it is still worthwhile noting that Democrats are also influenced from an environment where climate change is mostly on the defense.

It would be only fair to mention that last week 28 U.S. Democratic senators “held an all-night 'talkathon' Monday to call attention to climate change.” This is great, but these senators (and their fellow Democrats on the Hill) will need to have many more sleepless nights if they really want to see a change in the way climate change is perceived in general and in the Democratic camp in particular.

Image credit: Marian Gonzalez, 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.

If you’re a New Jersey resident thinking about buying a Tesla Model S, you’d better act fast: You have until the end of the month to purchase the all-electric sedan from the company’s stores in the Garden State. Starting April 1, the luxury electric car maker will not be able to sell cars from its New Jersey stores, according to a ruling made last week by the state’s motor vehicle commission.

New Jersey joins Texas and Arizona in prohibiting car manufacturers from selling vehicles directly to consumers, in favor of having franchised dealerships make auto sales. Tesla does not use dealerships to sell its Model S sedan, but instead, markets it cars online and at company-owned stores.

As to be expected, Tesla CEO Elon Musk was not happy about the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission’s recent decision, calling it an attack on technological innovation and consumer choice and “an affront to the very concept of the free market” in a post to the company’s blog on Friday.

According to Musk, auto dealer franchise laws were enacted to prevent instances of car manufacturers pressuring franchisees to sell dealerships back to auto companies at a low price – after the franchisees invested considerable capital in building their businesses. These laws are written reasonably and clearly in most states, Musk wrote on the Tesla blog, but in some states, the law’s language is ambiguous, and the car dealership lobby is trying to use the legislation to compel Tesla to sell its vehicles through their businesses.

Why does the electric car maker chose to bypass dealerships and use a direct sales model? Musk wrote that car dealerships don’t have a vested interest in promoting electric vehicles: Sales of gasoline-powered cars account for nearly all of a dealer’s revenue, while electric car sales currently make up none of its income. Musk pointed to Fisker and Coda as electric car companies that failed in their efforts to market vehicles at traditional dealerships.

In addition, Musk wrote, car dealerships make the bulk of their profit from servicing vehicles, but electric vehicles require far less service than their gas-guzzling counterparts – another disincentive to dealers pushing electric cars to their customers.

Musk also pointed the finger at New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, already embroiled in the George Washington “Bridgegate” scandal, who he said went back on previous commitments to bring the proposed ruling to a vote in the state legislature. But Christie’s office disagreed, telling the Huffington Post, “Since Tesla first began operating in New Jersey one year ago, it was made clear that the company would need to engage the legislature on a bill to establish their new direct-sales operations under New Jersey law."

Supporters of the motor vehicle commission’s decision, including the New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers, say the policy doesn’t just protect auto dealers, but also safeguards consumers. Manufacturers see warranty and safety recalls as a headache, Coalition President Jim Appleton told ABC News, but dealerships are incentivized to report warranty and safety recalls to consumers because they are paid to perform recall services by car companies.

Will a ban on Tesla’s direct sales in three states – and a proposed ban in New York – put a damper on the Palo Alto, Calif.-based company? In the Internet age, you can buy anything online – and the same holds true for a Model S. Tesla’s New Jersey stores will cease car sales on March 30 and then become car-viewing “galleries,” but electric car enthusiasts in the Garden State can buy a Tesla anytime online. With a car battery “Gigafactory” and new car models in the works, it is unlikely that anything can stop Telsa’s momentum – or Musk’s so-crazy-they-just-might-work solutions to tricky problems.

Image credit: Tesla Motors

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

General Motors announced the opening last week of its latest LEED Gold engine factory in Joinville, Brazil -- the first LEED Gold automotive plant in South America.

The plant features a 350 kW solar CHP array that provides enough electricity to handle all the lighting for both the factory floor and the offices. That’s equivalent to powering 220 homes. At the same time, it heats 15,000 liters (3,962 gallons) of hot water per day. Together, the heat and power generated provides a combined savings of 28 tons of CO2 per day: 10.5 tons from the electricity and 17.6 tons from the hot water heating.

The plant, which is GM’s sixth LEED-certified plant worldwide, also contains a reverse-osmosis water purification system that recycles wastewater for industrial purposes such as cooling towers. This filtration system, an automotive first, saves an estimated 22.9 million liters (6 million gallons) per year, enough to fill nine Olympic-sized swimming pools. The plant also harvests natural light and utilizes plantings to pre-filter wastewater.

The plant’s completion was delayed by strong rains and floods in the area.

Santiago Chamorro, president, General Motors do Brasil, said: “The environmental performance of this plant has been on our minds since Day One of construction. This operation embodies GM’s outlook on integrating sustainability into every decision we make – from building efficient facilities to designing efficient vehicles.”

Since 2005, GM’s Brazilian operations have reduced water consumption by 58 percent and energy use by 36 percent on a per-vehicle basis. Non-recyclable waste was reduced by 76 percent, putting the operation on the path to landfill-free status, something GM has been committed to.

When I spoke with John Bradburn, GM’s manager of waste reduction last summer, they were up to 106 plants that were landfill-free worldwide, including six in South America. Many of them are using things like excess plastic and paint sludge to make pallets, eliminating the need for wooden pallets.

David Tulauskas, GM’s sustainability chief, told me last year that: “Traditionally, companies have been considered great if they delivered great quarterly results. Going forward, greatness is going to depend not only on financial results, but on their environmental and social performance. That’s how we’re approaching it at GM. This is about top-line growth opportunities, bottom line improvements and risk mitigation that delivers long term stakeholder value in a responsible manner."

GM’s first factory given LEED certification by the U.S. Green Building Council was in Lansing Delta Township, Mich. It began production near the end of 2006. That plant, which used more than 25 percent recycled material in its construction, has a roof made of a special polymer to minimize heat absorption and is expected to save $1 million in annual energy costs. It is also uses roof drains and other water conservation practices to save more than 15 million liters (3.9 million gallons) per year. That factory also received a Gold rating

This is one area where large multinationals can spread constructive and sustainable ideas across the planet, while saving money and improving their image at the same time.

Do projects of this type actually save money? According to information posted by NRDC, LEED projects on average show little to no difference in upfront construction costs if planned properly, while they often cost considerably less money to operate.

Images courtesy of General Motors

RP Siegel, PE, is an inventor, consultant and author. He writes for numerous publications including Justmeans, ThomasNet, Huffington Post, and Energy Viewpoints. He co-wrote the eco-thriller Vapor Trails, the first in a series covering the human side of various sustainability issues including energy, food, and water in an exciting and entertaining romp that is currently being adapted for the big screen. Now available on Kindle.

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter.

Yes, everyone values solar power—except maybe Big Oil—but how much is it actually worth in terms of dollars and cents? At least the start of an answer came last week from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.

Minnesota is the first state in the nation to craft a “value-of-solar” formula for calculating the value of solar power generated by consumers. The big deal is that the methodology is not just about how much solar power is worth to the utility company and its customers, but to society and the environment, according to a ThinkProgress article.

“Minnesota has really set itself apart by determining a methodology to calculate the true value of solar to the electricity grid — a value that should include the full range of benefits as well as the costs,” said Mari Hernandez, energy research associate at the Center for American Progress, as quoted in the article. “This decision could influence other states as they evaluate how to move forward with their own solar-related policies.”

Why is this important? Well, for one thing we put values on fossil-fuels: Stocks rise or fall as the cost of a barrel of oil fluctuates. Carbon-pricing is also a factor in calculating the cost of various sequestration and emissions reduction technologies. When a consumer installs a solar system, it’s not all about feeling good and doing the right thing to cut back on the electricity that comes from fossil fuels. There’s also a clear benefit to the utility companies.

As the article relates, solar panels feed excess energy back to the grid, helping to alleviate the pressure during peak demand hours. Also, because less electricity is being transmitted to customers through transmission lines, it saves utilities on the wear and tear to the lines and cost of replacing them with new ones.

The trick lies in determining the worth of the excess solar power produced by customers and sold back to the grid. All of which makes Minnesota’s move groundbreaking: The commission chose to look beyond the economic value of solar power to the utility and take into consideration the cost to society and the environment that comes from burning fossil fuels. The decision comes after “nearly two years of discussions among state officials, utility representatives and solar advocates,” prompted by a 2013 bill “requiring the state’s energy office to develop a formula that utilities may use to determine how it should compensate customers who generate electricity from solar panels,” Midwest Energy News reported.

Thus the commission adopted the U.S. government’s "social cost of carbon" estimate of how much carbon emissions harm the economy — such as the cost to public health, agricultural output, sea-level rise and other damaging effects that stem from carbon pollution and climate change.

As Jeff Spross has explained on Climate Progress, such estimates vary widely, and “the relevant science has put together studies pegging the SCC at anything from $55 per ton, to $100 per ton, to as much as $900 per ton.”

That’s a huge and potentially meaningless range, which makes Minnesota’s decision to use the government’s calculation a precedent for states looking to determine the true impact of clean energy.

“Investor-owned utilities will now have the voluntary option of applying to use the value-of-solar formula instead of the retail electricity rate when crediting customers for unused electricity they generate from solar panels,” according to the Midwest Energy News report.

It’s all about the metering, apparently. The state’s new formula is optional, but solar customers in Minnesota will be backed up by the current compensation structure, a policy called net metering. Hernandez says it’s worth pointing out the differences between the state’s new voluntary tariff and the state’s current net metering policy. Through net metering, customers who generate their own renewable power, such as solar power, receive a credit for any excess electricity they produce beyond what they use on-site. Under a value of solar tariff — also considered a feed-in tariff — customers buy all of the electricity they use on-site from the utility, and then sell all of the solar power they produce to the utility.

That’s where calculating the value of solar power—including its worth to the stakeholders involved as well as to society and the environment—becomes a bit dodgy, difficult and likely controversial. The point is that utilities don’t really want to pay customers using solar power, they want to get paid.

Image: Williams/Rooftop Solar Panels by SolarEWorld via Flickr CC

You’ve heard of recycling leftover food scraps into a soil amendment for farms, but now a California startup is transforming food waste from grocery stores into a fertilizer that can compete with conventional nitrogen-based soil conditioners that leach chemicals into groundwater, rivers and oceans.

We interviewed Dan Morash, founder of West Sacramento-based California Safe Soil (CSS), to learn more about how its Harvest-to-Harvest (H2H) fertilizer saves resources, reduces pollution and improves soil.

TriplePundit: How is your product, H2H, environmentally responsible?

Dan Morash: It makes productive use of something that is otherwise being wasted. Each 1,000 pounds of food waste generates 700 pounds of carbon dioxide and methane greenhouse gas emissions, as well as hydrogen sulfide – swamp gas – which is poisonous and leaches into ground water. We cut greenhouse gas emissions by reducing truck traffic, since our facilities are located near the supermarkets [where CSS picks up food waste], rather than in remote locations.

On the farm side, farms can cut their use of nitrate fertilizer and still increase crop yield, reducing the rate of nitrate runoff into groundwater.  H2H can be delivered directly through drip lines to the crop root zone. Drip line technology is over 90 percent efficient in [transporting water]. The alternative technology, flood irrigation, is less than 50 percent efficient. Now, farms have every incentive to convert to drip, since they can deliver water, fertilizer and organic material, all through their drip lines.

3p: What is the process to turn food waste into fertilizer? How is it similar or different from the processes undertaken at conventional commercial composting facilities?

DM: We use heat, enzymes and mechanical action to pull the nutrients from food – similar to human digestion. The product contains the same nutrients that enter your blood stream and sustain your body.  The process takes only three hours, including pasteurization, which is done for food safety. Composting takes three months. Over that time, microbes metabolize the nutrients in food and produce the aforementioned 70 percent conversion to carbon dioxide and methane emissions. Compost has many positive benefits, such as improving soil tilth and water-holding capacity. However, most of the nutrients are gone by the time the process is completed.

3p: Since food waste degrades in three months with traditional composting and three hours with your process, does your process require more energy and other resources than conventional composting?

DM: Food waste doesn’t degrade with our process. Enzymes cut long-chain molecules, like proteins, fats and carbohydrates, into short-chain molecules, like amino acids, fatty acids, and simple sugars – which are ubiquitously available to organisms that live in the soil. Our process requires electricity to run our equipment and warm water to heat our digester. It is not energy intensive, especially compared with the energy used to transport food waste to remote composting locations and the energy required to turn and aerate compost windrows.

3p: Where are you currently collecting food waste?

DM: Safeway, Save Mart, Nugget Markets, Whole Foods and Grocery Outlet [in the West Sacramento area].

3p: You’re currently collecting food waste for free, but plan to charge customers for that service in the future. How will you make your collection cost-competitive with garbage company rates?

DM: By charging less than the garbage companies charge. We can do this because our facilities are located near the supermarkets, compared to remotely located landfills, and because we produce a valuable finished product, so we do not just rely on “tip fees” charged to customers for our financial viability.

3p: How much food waste have you collected and converted into fertilizer since you started the company?

DM: We have been running a pilot plant in West Sacramento for nearly two years, where we have collected approximately 1,000 tons of food waste, which we have converted to 200,000 gallons of fertilizer – enough for 4,000 acres of sustainable farming for one year.

3p: Where do you sell H2H? Who are your biggest customers?

DM: Our target markets are California farms [that grow] almonds, strawberries, leafy greens/vegetables, tomatoes and wine grapes... We also expect to sell retail through a retail supplier of organic fertilizers.

3p: What benefits does the H2H fertilizer offer? What were the findings of the independent research trials on H2H conducted at the University of California, Davis?

DM: We have shown crop yield increases from 10 to 40 percent in our target crops. We have also shown significant increases in soil organic matter. Tests show that farmers can save money by using H2H and reduce their use of nitrate fertilizers and compost.

3p: Ninety percent of the food waste you collect is converted into fertilizer. What happens to the remaining 10 percent?

DM: It has tested very well as an organic pig feed. We have a balanced diet, which gets chewed, cooked, digested and pasteurized. The solids are easy for pigs to digest and popular with the pigs. Farmers get a higher conversion ratio – more pig and less manure – than with conventional feed.

3p: What are your company’s plans for the near future?

DM: We are about to announce an agreement in principle with a major supermarket: It will provide us with all the produce, meat, deli and bakery items it can’t sell or donate from all its stores. This will result in the construction of two CSS commercial-scale projects, starting later this year.

Image credit: Dan Morash

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

The global anti-corruption organisation Transparency International is now accepting nominations for its 2014 Integrity Awards.

Launched in 2000, the awards recognise the courage and determination of individuals and groups taking remarkable steps to combat corruption, often at great personal risk.

Past winners come from all walks of life and have included a schoolteacher and a pilot as well as public officials, activists and journalists. Between them they have brought down corrupt politicians, exposed organised crime networks and helped recover millions in stolen assets. Their actions echo a common message: corruption can be challenged.

In 2013, awards were presented to Angolan human rights activist Rafael Marques de Morais and Chinese journalist and blogger Luo Changping.

The nominations are judged by a committee of 11 experts from the anti-corruption movement.

Nominations are open to the public and can be submitted here until 1 June 2014.

This year’s winners will receive their trophies after September 2014.
 

 

Picture courtesy: © Fotovika | Dreamstime.com

Ernst Ligteringen is to step down as chief executive at the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)  by the middle of 2015.

“During his tenure, the number of organizations producing sustainability reports has increased from a handful of pioneers into the thousands, of which over 75% refer to the GRI Guidelines. GRI’s truly global reach, with strong stakeholder networks and Focal Point offices in almost every continent, speaks volumes about Ernst’s vision of a global organization providing a global standard,” said Christianna Wood, chairman of the GRI board.

“With the dissemination of the new G4 Guidelines well in place, the Board and Ernst believe that now is a good time for the smooth handover to a new Chief Executive.”

Ligteringen commented “I moved to Amsterdam to lead GRI because I believed in sustainability reporting and its capacity to change the world for the better. That is something I believe now more than ever. It is gratifying to see how businesses and other organizations are benefitting from using GRI’s Guidelines to help create a more sustainable world.” 

GRI has retained the services of Perrett Laver to assist in the search for its new chief executive.

California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control has announced the beginning of a new program that will be designed to monitor and regulate toxic substances found in consumer goods.

On Thursday the DTSC implemented the first phase of the agency’s new “Safer Consumer Products” program by releasing the names of three types products it says contain substances that are toxic to the human body and are under regulatory consideration by the state.

The three Priority Products are:

• Children’s padded sleeping products like sleeping mats and bassinets that contain unreacted diisocyanates, a known carcinogen

• Spray polyurethane foam (SPF) materials used for insulation that contain unreacted diisocyanates, a suspected carcinogen

• Paint and varnish strippers, and surface cleaners that contain methylene chloride, a known carcinogen

Debbie Raphael, the director of department at the DTSC, stressed that at this stage, the department was not banning these substances. “We are starting a conversation with manufacturers.”

Raphael noted that months of effort was put into researching each of the products and the associated chemicals used in them, and that the DTSC is hoping to engage product manufacturers in removing these substances from standard consumer use by finding safer alternatives.

Deputy Director of the DTSC, Meredith Williams, said that researchers have been able to confirm that there are already products on the market that can replace the use of diisocyanates in children’s products and paint and varnish strippers. The spray polyurethane foam, however, does not yet have a safe alternative on the market. The department was therefore appealing to manufacturers to find alternative manufacturing processes that don’t require the use of unreacted diisocyanates. According to the DTSC, exposure is known to cause asthma and skin rashes and is suspected to cause cancer.

“People become more sensitized to them after one use,” said Williams. She admitted, however, that finding an alternative for the chemical in this product may be difficult, since the diisocyanates act as a propellant for the foam insulation.

“This will be a challenge for manufacturers,” she said.

Williams said the goal of the announcement was also to encourage (California) consumers to make "educated decisions" about the items they buy and "to be aware of the possible exposure" to toxic chemicals that may be under state review, but are not yet under new regulations.

“I want to stress again, this is not a ban. This is a process,” said Williams. Consumers who purchase any of these kinds of products are encouraged to read the labels and ask questions. If they are unsure about whether the products they are buying contain these toxic substances, “ask the manufacturer. If that fails, ask the retailer.”

The department’s Safer Consumer Products regulations went into effect in October 2013, and is directed toward increasing review and regulation of toxic substances in consumer products. The department said that if warranted, it may choose to ban these three toxic substances from use or sale in California, following a 12-month review process. For now, however, the program’s aim is to encourage discussion and research into alternative methods for manufacturing these consumer products.

The Oakland, Calif.-based Center for Environmental Health released a statement Thursday welcoming the DTSC’s decision to include these three products on its new Priority Products list. CEH says it has been attempting to raise awareness about the dangers of diisocyanates, which are currently being used in children’s bedding products as a flame retardant. The nonprofit organization recently launched litigation against manufacturers that use the chemical in children’s bed products.

“The state’s action today is a small but important step in the drive for safer products made without harmful chemicals,” said Michael Green, CEH’s executive director. “Our work has already demonstrated that national makers of children's nap mats can eliminate all flame retardants, which are completely unnecessary and can harm children’s health. We expect any other companies that make these products will be able to work with DTSC and follow suit quickly.”

Federal regulations concerning toxic chemicals in consumer products have not been updated for more than 30 years. The CEH said that although Congress is currently reviewing proposals to update these rules,  current proposals in both the House and Senate could preempt these efforts. If passed, they could also preempt state regulations like California’s Prop 65, which has been successful in pushing for better oversight of manufacturing processes for consumer products sold within the state.

Image of baby in bassinet by Shingleback

“Costa Rica opposition group says to scrap 2021 carbon neutrality target,” reads the headline of a recent Reuters news article. Standing on its own, the headline is accurate. However, lacking context, it could be misleading, causing readers who don't venture beyond the headline to conclude that Costa Rica will be dropping its goal of achieving carbon neutrality completely.

Reading further, Reuters reporter Marcelo Teixeira makes it clear that while Costa Rica's “leftist” opposition PAC (Citizens' Action Party) party, whose candidate Luis Guillermo Solis appears to be a shoo-in to win the presidency in an April 6 runoff election, believes the 2021 goal of achieving carbon neutrality is too optimistic, it doesn't intend to drop the carbon neutrality goal or other climate change mitigation and adaptation policies.

To the contrary, PAC doesn't intend to drop Costa Rica's carbon neutrality goal; the party believes the Central American country just needs more time to achieve it. Already a world leader when it comes to low carbon emissions and the use of renewable energy, further gains are harder to come by, particularly when it comes to transportation and diversifying its renewable energy base.

Achieving national carbon neutrality

Costa Rica is already one of the world's low-carbon and renewable energy leaders, as well as being at the forefront of nations when it comes to ecosystems and biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. The first is thanks in large part to an abundance of hydro and geothermal power, Costa Rica's leaders appear steadfast in their commitment to broaden and diversify the country's clean, renewable energy base and to become the world's first completely carbon-neutral society.

That's not to say that becoming carbon neutral is a simple, straightforward or easily achievable task, however. In fact, Costa Rica intends to be the first in the world to do so. PAC leaders just think the country needs a bit more time.

"We don't think it would be possible to reach carbon neutrality by 2021, because the most important tasks to reduce emissions in the country are yet to be done," Citizens' Action Party environmental adviser Patricia Madrigal was quoted as saying in Reuters' report.

That notwithstanding, as Reuters' Teixeira writes,

"Madrigal said the PAC has no intention of abandoning the carbon neutrality goal, nor other climate policies, but believes a more realistic year to reach the target would be around 2025 if reforms are carried out as planned."

Driving emissions reductions in transportation

Madrigal elaborated by saying that while the country has been able to achieve substantial carbon and greenhouse gas emissions reductions in agriculture as well as the power sector, realizing further gains by reducing emissions in the transport and energy sectors are required, and not easy to come by.

Costa Rica in 2009 announced its intention to become carbon neutral as a society by 2021. It has enacted a series of ambitious measures to realize that goal, receiving praise from environmental groups and multilateral organizations dealing with climate change.

About 93 percent of Costa Rica's electricity is generated by clean, renewable sources. Seventy-six percent comes from hydroelectric power generation. Geothermal energy supplies another 13 percent. Fossil fuel power plants supply around 9 percent, wind power more than 4 percent, and biomass around 1.4 percent, according to the latest statistics from ICE (Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad), Costa Rica's state-owned electric utility.

Costa Rica's government leaders in January 2013 announced plans to increase renewable energy use further by adding more geothermal energy capacity and diversifying by fostering adoption of solar energy generation.

Also in 2013, Costa Rica's Ministry of the Environment and Energy, Department of Climate Change, International Center of Political Economy and the U.N. Development Programme released a study of public transportation – taxis and buses – with the aim of charting a course to achieve carbon neutrality in the sector.

“A technological paradigm shift is necessary in the transportation sector if we want to realize further gains in reducing the carbon footprint in this sector,” the study authors concluded.

While noting that mass public transportation is a much more energy-efficient alternative than the use of private vehicles, they add they believe it's possible to find other means to reduce or even eliminate carbon emissions in the transportation sector.

The groups' survey and analysis is intended as a prerequisite to identifying such mechanisms, which they add can be used in formulating Costa Rica's National Appropriate Mitigation Action plans as required by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

As the report authors explain, “This has been done from existing information gaps and supplementing with surveys of both transportation sector guilds, generating data that is substantial and necessary for the development of NAMA measures that can contribute to reducing the carbon footprint in the near future.”

Image, graph courtesy Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE)