Search

Air pollution is now the world’s single greatest environmental health risk, according to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) new findings that show poor air quality is responsible for 7 million deaths a year – one in eight total deaths worldwide. WHO estimates that indoor air pollution caused 4.3 million deaths in 2012 in households that burn wood, coal or biomass as cooking fuel, while outdoor air pollution contributed to 3.7 million deaths the same year. Because many people are exposed to both indoor and outdoor air pollutants, WHO could not simply add the two figures together, but came up with an estimated total of 7 million deaths in 2012.

It is already common knowledge that poor air quality can trigger and aggravate respiratory diseases like acute respiratory infections and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. But WHO reported that its new data also shows a stronger correlation between air pollution and cancer, as well as air quality and cardiovascular diseases, including strokes and heart disease.

“The risks from air pollution are now far greater than previously thought or understood, particularly for heart disease and strokes,” Dr. Maria Neira, director of WHO’s department for public health, said in a statement. “Few risks have a greater impact on global health today than air pollution; the evidence signals the need for concerted action to clean up the air we all breathe.”

WHO’s new data also revealed that cardiovascular diseases accounted for the vast majority of deaths linked to air pollution: 40 percent of deaths caused by outdoor air pollution were due to heart disease and another 40 percent were from strokes. Of deaths linked to indoor air pollution, strokes made up 34 percent of fatalities, while heart disease represented 26 percent. Lung cancer accounted for 6 percent of both outdoor and indoor air pollution-linked deaths.

Low- and middle-income countries in Southeast Asia and the western Pacific were the most affected by poor air quality, WHO reported, with a total of 3.3 million deaths due to indoor air pollution and 2.6 million deaths from outdoor air pollution. Poor air quality was also more likely to impact low-income women and children, according to Dr. Flavia Bustreo, assistant director of WHO’s general family health department, because they spend more time at home breathing in pollutants from wood, coal or biomass stoves.  Approximately 2.9 billion people worldwide use wood, coal or dung as cooking fuel in their homes.

In countries with poor air quality, WHO recommends government policies and programs to curb air pollution; indeed, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that our country’s clean air laws prevented 160,000 premature deaths in 2010. And in 2020, the agency predicts 230,000 premature deaths will be avoided because of improved air quality.

Air quality regulations can even spur economic growth: The U.S. Clean Air Act kickstarted the country’s environmental technologies industry, creating markets for cleaner vehicles, alternative fuels and pollution controls. By 2007, this industry was generating approximately $282 billion in revenues, producing $40 billion in exports and supporting 1.6 million jobs, the EPA reported.

WHO based its new estimates on the organization’s latest mortality data for 2012, as well as new global data mapping technology that included satellite data, ground-level emission monitoring and models of how pollution spreads through the air. Later this year, WHO plans to release data on outdoor and indoor air pollution-linked deaths by country, indoor air quality guidelines for household fuel combustion and an update on air quality measurements in 1,600 cities in different regions around the world.

Image credit: Flickr/Keith Bacongo

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

I just got back from the Wall Street Journal's ECO:nomics conference in Santa Barbara and put together a handful of great video interviews.  You can follow along on our conference page here for all of them, as well as past years' coverage.

Brillio is a $100M startup that’s set to launch in the next few weeks. A global technology consulting firm, Brillio is focused on leveraging emerging technologies in, among other vertical markets, the energy/utilities industry. With innovation 'hot spots’ due to open in the U.S. in 2014, Brillio is investing in new market opportunities to help organizations achieve competitive dominance beyond strategic advantage and quality management.

I had a chance to sit down with Raj Mamodia, Brillo's CEO, to learn more about how Brillio will help companies, especially utilities cope with fast changing technology, fast changing customer behavior, and the basics of running complex operations.  The goal, from a sustainability perspective, is to greatly increase efficiencies that can save not only money, but many negative externalities that the energy sector faces.

Watch the video after the jump:

In an increasingly responsive environment, consumer influence brings brands dangerously close to the edges of both innovation and implosion. Social media, the mother of all sounding boards for consumer activism, advocacy and subsequent protest, fuels the fire of messages that easily become distorted or misguided -- making for murky water and confusion among consumers who mean well as they seek to protect their own best interests and demand transparency from the companies they support. Responding in such an environment requires that brands take consumer concerns seriously and adopt policies and practices that re-instill consumer trust.

Such was the case for personal care products giant Johnson & Johnson, which suffered a very public battle when the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CSC) called for a consumer boycott of the company over potentially cancer-causing chemicals found in Johnson’s Baby Shampoo. A stream of fiery darts were thrown at the brand when CSC purchased and reviewed the shampoo sold in 13 countries and discovered that the Johnson’s Baby Shampoo sold in the United States contained two carcinogens: formaldehyde and 1,4,-dioxane. These ingredients, however, were not formulated in the shampoos sold in other countries. Parents and special interest groups were unrelenting in their outrage towards a brand they trusted to care for their children.

In its initial response, Johnson & Johnson did its best to assuage concerned parents by admitting that the ingredients were indeed included in their products, however, at trace levels deemed safe by toxicologists and governing agencies. Global toxicologist, Susan Nettesheim, who spoke with TIME, explained that the formaldehyde in solution (as in shampoo) is not the same as the formaldehyde gas that, when breathed, is carcinogenic. Also, as she tried to explain, the formaldehyde in Johnson’s Baby Shampoo biodegraded and, as a result of bath water not being hot enough, was unable to turn into gas. Parents and interest groups were not assuaged by this answer; and with good reason—they’ve been conditioned not to be.

The dynamic consumer shift to ecologically sound practices and processes has cultivated a demographic largely influenced by fear. To date the European Union lists 1,373 substances prohibited in cosmetics products. It is only appropriate for consumers to call into question the governance of chemical regulation and safety when standards elsewhere seem much more stringent.

From food dyes linked to hyperactivity and ADHD in children, to parabens discovered in breast cancer tissue studies, the message that the media, proponents and marketers have been selling is steady and clear: chemicals = death. Simply put, the breakdown in consumer trust among brands and government has led to consumer outcry for transparency and protection from brands that seek to profit from misleading marketing messages.

While some may argue that chemophobia presents an irrational fear of chemicals rooted in speculation and not facts, consumer demand and critique of chemical safety and practices will continue to grow and become ever more amplified by an increasingly connected social media environment.

Alternatively, mitigating formaldehyde fears in its shampoo was not Johnson & Johnson’s direct objective. Protecting their wholesome brand image and instilling trust in parents was far more valuable than arguing in favor of questionable chemical safety.

It was in this letter to Lisa Archer, the director of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, that Johnson & Johnson publicly course-corrected their narrative and re-affirmed their core values:

“But we understand that the bond of trust we have with the people who use our products often means going beyond safety alone. We listen to consumers, and respond to their needs and values, and their desire for products that are more sustainable and gentle on both people and the environment. We are continually making changes as we seek the next generation of pure, mild and gentle ingredients that parents can continue to use with complete confidence and peace of mind.”

By acknowledging consumer fears, Johnson & Johnson provided agency and recognition to concerned consumers.  By promising to clean up its products and remove chemicals of concern across all of its baby products by 2015, Johnson & Johnson demonstrated leadership that expertly reinforced commitment to its core values. Brands across all industries and sectors vying for consumer trust can learn substantial lessons from Johnson & Johnson’s ability to respond with care, shamelessly calm consumer fears, improve transparency, and re-establish trust and confidence.

Companies that make the active choice to dismiss consumer complaints will do so at their own peril, effectively staging a war that will begin and end at the check out counter.

Image credit: Flickr/quinnanya

Governments must put policies in place to prevent the cumulative emission of more than a trillion tonnes of carbon, according to a statement from leading global businesses today.

The Trillion Tonne Communiqué, coordinated by The Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group, has so far been signed by 70 companies from 5 continents, including major multinationals like Acciona, Adidas, CalSTRS, EDF Energy, ING, Mars, Shell, TetraPak, and Unilever, with a collective turnover of at least $90bn. It calls for a ‘rapid and focused response’ to the threat of rising global carbon emissions, and the ‘disruptive climate impacts’ inevitably associated with them.

Eliot Whittington, deputy director of The Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group said: “This communiqué sends a clear message from business at a critical time, when events in the Ukraine have refocused global attention on energy security, and just as the scientific consensus reminds us all of the imperative of collective action.”

Specifically the communiqué calls on governments to set a timeline for achieving net zero emissions before the end of the century as well as design a credible strategy to transform the energy system and create a plan to manage reliance on fossil fuels, especially coal.

The Trillion Tonne Communiqué is the seventh in a series coordinated by the Corporate Leaders Group, representing the voice of progressive international business. In the last week it has been endorsed in speeches by two leading ceos, Paul Polman of Unilever and Vincent de Rivaaz of EDF Energy.

This year’s statement comes ahead of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the actions scientists believe are necessary to mitigate climate change. It also looks to the UN climate change talks in Paris in 2015 as a major opportunity to secure global agreement on a net zero emissions goal. 

See here to read the full communiqué.  
 
 

Higher performance turbines, lower manufacturing costs and lower prices for consumers drove new U.S. wind energy construction to record heights in early 2014 -- despite the U.S. Congress still debating whether or not to renew the federal renewable energy production tax credit (PTC), which expired Dec. 31. In many parts of the U.S., wind energy is now the cheapest form of electricity generation – cheaper than natural gas and even coal, NextEra chief financial office Moray P. Dewhurst recently stated on an earnings call.

The federal wind energy PTC has been instrumental in the U.S. wind energy industry achieving that milestone. Yet, Congress has been playing “now-you-see-it-now-you-don't” with the U.S. wind energy industry for two decades now. Every time the PTC expires, wind energy investment and new capacity tumbles; when it's in place, wind energy booms. It's just bad policy, emblematic of the divisive partisanship, cronyism, lack of foresight and political leadership that has come to characterize U.S. politics.

In its “Outlook for Renewable Energy 2014,” the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), working in conjunction with U.S. renewable energy industry trade associations, presents facts and figures that clearly illustrate the triple-bottom-line benefits and advantages the U.S. wind energy industry brings to American society, and how the renewable energy PTC has played a seminal role in spurring them on to realization.

Wind energy: Cheapest energy source in the U.S.

Faced with the increasingly urgent need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels and build a new clean energy infrastructure for the 21st century and beyond, members of Congress continue to oppose clean, renewable energy policies that carry tremendous, clearly demonstrated economic, social and environmental benefits and advantages. They also continue to support subsidies and incentives for one of the most profitable, dangerously polluting and politically powerful lobbies in U.S. history – the oil and gas industry.

The first section of ACORE's “Outlook for Renewable Energy 2014” on the U.S. wind energy sector very clearly and concisely makes the case as to why the wind energy industry more than merits the support of the federal, as well as state and local, governments.

Now the cheapest means of generating electricity in many parts of the country, net power generation from wind energy was up 19 percent year-over-year in 2014, meeting 4.13 percent of U.S. grid demand, according to ACORE and the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). Among U.S. states, 27.38 percent of Iowa, 25.95 percent of South Dakota and 19.39 percent of Kansas's electricity came from wind energy in 2013.

Not only is wind energy lowering electricity rates, the prices consumers are paying in parts of the country where wind-generated electricity isn't being added to the grid are going up. As ACORE highlights,

“The 11 states that produce more than 7 percent of their electricity from wind energy have seen their electricity prices fall by 0.37 percent over the last five years, while all other states have seen their electricity prices increase by 7.79 percent over that period. This is clear evidence for wind energy’s impact on keeping consumers’ electricity prices down.”

A record of more than 10,900 megawatts (MW) of new wind power capacity began construction, and more than 12,000 MW were under construction in last year's fourth quarter -- just ahead of expiration of the wind energy PTC. Upon completion, these 90-plus projects will generate enough clean, renewable electricity to supply another 3.5 million households, according to ACORE.

Last year also marked important developments in the nascent U.S. offshore wind energy industry. As ACORE highlights, in addition to the University of Maine's DeepCwind Consortium launching a pilot project, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) held auctions for ocean areas off Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Virginia. Maryland passed legislation to support 200 MW of offshore wind power, while the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) continued its groundbreaking work on seven offshore wind power demonstration projects.

Overall wind energy costs have fallen 43 percent in four years. Driven by advances in technology and stable, supportive policy, wind has been set on a pace to supply 20 percent of U.S. power grid needs by 2030, ACORE continues in its latest annual outlook for the U.S. renewable energy industry.

Wind energy PTC's outsized returns

Moreover, the wind energy PTC attracted $25 billion in private sector investment in one year – 17 times the current annual value of the tax credit, ACORE highlights. As Morgan Stanley's chairman of institutional securities Jeffrey Holzschuh added in a press release:

“The financial markets have responded to greater American consumer interest in renewable energy with increasing levels of private sector investment. Spurred by growing individual as well as business demand, private sector investment in the U.S. clean energy sector surpassed $100 billion in 2012-2013, stimulating significant economic development while supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs.”

That $25 billion single-year total is long-term private sector capital expenditure that likely would not have occurred had the PTC not been in place. And, as Morgan Stanley's Holzschuh highlighted, that's generating well-paying green jobs -- lots of them. More than 70 percent of the value of wind turbines in the U.S. now carry the “Made-in-the-USA” label, ACORE notes.

Wind power, climate change and the water-energy nexus

There are yet more benefits and economic, social and environmental advantages to making use of wind energy. The wind that fuels this clean, renewable source of electricity generation is free once construction costs and ongoing operating and maintenance costs are recovered. As ACORE points out:

“Zero-fuel-cost wind energy directly displaces the output of the most expensive and least efficient power plants currently operating.”

According to market rules, grid operators add electricity to the grid in response to demand based only on the fuel costs and variable operations and maintenance costs of generation sources. Hence, wind and other zero-fuel-cost generating sources, such as solar, always rank first and displace more expensive power sources.

As a result, wind, solar and other such zero-cost-fuels are yielding very real social and environmental benefits in that they push the least efficient fossil-fuel power plants out of the market. That's not only reducing the cost of electricity, it's reducing air, land and water pollution, as well as carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. That mitigates the the threats of climate change, and the already rising costs of extreme weather events.

There's more. Enhancing water conservation and water efficiency has become a critical need in the U.S. Extracting and refining coal, oil and natural gas, as well as using it to generate electricity, all require water -- and lots of it. The more we use to produce electricity and fuels for transportation, the less we have for drinking and food production.

Using wind and solar energy to generate electricity significantly reduces water consumption and use.

Wind power alone saved 36.5 billion gallons of water in 2013, according to ACORE's report. Dubbing wind energy a “drought-resistant cash crop,” farmers and ranchers are receiving consistent income from wind turbines installed on their land.

Now when you stack up and add, or multiply, all the advantages and benefits wind, solar and renewable energy afford society as compared to the predominant source of energy of the past 100-plus years – coal, oil and natural gas – it's a wonder how the elected “representatives of the people” could get away with continuing to support and subsidize fossil fuels while opposing and seeking to eliminate the comparatively little that's been done to support, subsidize and otherwise provide incentives for renewable sources of energy.

This begs the question of whom, exactly, our elected “representatives” are actually serving. And that's a question for another article, a series of articles, or indeed, an entire book.

Images courtesy of ACORE

From local to global, conservation of natural resources and ecosystems -- and the quality of our air, land and waters -- have become increasingly public, and pressing, issues in recent decades. Pressures on fundamental ecosystems and services are increasing along with the costs and risks associated with climate change. At the same time, local communities across the U.S. are struggling to cope with changing demographics, rapid and profound technological change, sluggish job creation, and widening gaps in income, wealth and political representation.

The numerous and varied benefits to be gained by doing more with less -- by reducing waste, reusing, and recycling materials, water and energy -- are widely acknowledged. Doing so creates cleaner, healthier communities and helps minimize destructive environmental impacts. Yet, in the face of all this, Americans continue to lag compared to their industrialized peers when it comes to recycling. Furthermore, the positive economic impacts recycling is having in terms of boosting local and regional economies are underappreciated, undervalued or largely unnoticed.

The shortfall of domestic U.S. supply and the demand for recycled materials hits home in the Southeast, where manufacturers make use of more recycled materials than in any other region of the nation. Recycling is a growth industry, one that continued to expand through the depths of the last recession. Why? “Because there's value there,” Southeast Recycling Development Council (SERDC) executive director Will Sagar highlighted in a 3p interview.

Recycling: Creating green jobs, boosting local economies

According to a College of Charleston study, employment in the recycling industry in South Carolina grew from 26,537 in 1995 to 37,440 in 2005. With a total $6.5 billion economic impact, recycling contributed $69 million in state tax revenue -- a figure SERDC forecast would grow 12 percent over the ensuing five years.

The size and vitality of the recycling industry is even more impressive viewed nationally. The recycling industry generated some $236 billion in revenues in 2007 and employed more than 1 million people, accounting for about 2 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).

Skepticism regarding the economics and benefits of recycling persists despite the results of numerous empirical research studies to the contrary, however. The benefits recycling confers with regard to local economic growth and development, job creation and increasing business competitiveness needs to be more widely known and more highly valued, according to recycling specialists and advocates.

As College of Charleston professors Frank Hefner and Calvin Blackwell, authors of a widely cited report, “The Economic Impact of the Recycling Industry in South Carolina,” state:

“That recycling is beneficial for the environment is probably an uncontested proposition. What is becoming increasingly more obvious is that recycling contributes to the economic health of a state's economy.”

The Southeast Recycling Development Council

SERDC's on a mission to get the word out, and to get more people to participate more actively in recycling programs across 11 Southeast states. A nonprofit organization, SERDC came together in 2006 after representatives from Southeast manufacturers met to discuss a common, competitive need – the need for more domestic recycled materials to feed their manufacturing facilities.

Joining with the EPA and state and local government agencies to promote and foster recycling across the eight EPA Region 4 and three additional Southeastern states, SERDC now unites industry, government and non-government organizations (NGOs) in promoting sustainable recycling in: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

The economic impact and benefits of recycling are manifold, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) makes clear in its fact sheet, “The Economics of Recycling in the Southeast: Understanding the Whole Picture.” Key among them are job creation, budgetary savings, tax revenue generation and creation of economic development opportunities.

The study carried out by the College of Charleston's Hefner and Blackwell for the South Carolina Department of Commerce, which is in the process of being updated, found that in 2005 the state's recycling industry yielded the following very real benefits:

• Jobs - Directly and indirectly supported 37,440 jobs with $1.5 billion in personal income impact.


• Revenue - Produced an estimated $69 million in state tax revenue.


• Economic Impact - Generated an estimated total economic impact of $6.5 billion.

And that's just for starters. Hefner and Blackwell also concluded that at current rates of growth, the state's recycling industry would have an $11 billion-plus positive impact on South Carolina's economy by 2010. Moreover, the state would realize an immediate cost savings of as much as $30 million if all of the common recyclable materials in the state's waste stream were recycled.

The South Carolina researchers also found that pay in the state's recycling sector is above average, and forecast that job creation in the recycling sector would grow at an extraordinary 12 percent rate over the ensuing five years.

Recycling: A green job-creation engine

Growth in income and employment become increasingly skewed in the U.S. since the 1970s. The recycling industry as an engine of well-paid job creation is one of the sector's least well-known, overlooked or ignored attributes, SERDC's Sagar points out.

While SERDC is working with governments and manufacturers to spur recycling in the Southeast, California has set a target of recycling 75 percent of its waste by 2020. Recycling's job creation potential is a key facet of the plan.

The California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) put the state's waste stream at 72.8 million tons in 2010 and forecast that would grow to 80 million by 2020, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) highlights in a March blog post. Only half of that is reduced, recycled or composted at present. The rest is dumped in landfills, incinerated or sent to other states or countries for final disposal -- often fouling land, water and air, and people's health.

Increasing California's recycling rate to 75 percent by 2020 would create a minimum 110,000 new recycling jobs and many more in associated business sectors, according to the results of a Tellus Institute study commissioned by NRDC. Recycling 75 percent of plastic waste alone (an additional 2.12 million tons) would create 29,000 new jobs, more than any other material.

Comparing the various waste processing options in terms of job creation, Tellus Institute researchers found that landfilling and incineration would create the fewest number of jobs per ton of waste. Entitled, “From Waste to Jobs: What Achieving 75 Percent Recycling Means for California,” the study can be downloaded free from NRDC's website.

Look for Part II of this series on 3p, coming soon.

Image credit: CP Manufacturing

Graph credit: Alcoa

Pie Chart credit: Californians Against Waste

Alaska Air Group, which operates Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air, has committed to reduce aircraft fuel consumption by 20 percent and use a sustainable aviation biofuel at one or more airports by 2020.

The Seattle-based group’s 93-page sustainability report for 2013, “Innovating for Our Future”—only its second such report—said that since the last report in 2011 fuel efficiency improvements have saved more than 10 million gallons of fuel. The two airlines also cut waste by 50 percent per passenger, saving nearly 2,900 tons of recyclables. Alaska and Horizon are the only airlines that recycle on every domestic flight.

The two airlines have also reduced greenhouse gases by 30.4 percent per revenue mile since the 2004 baseline year.

Air Group’s latest sustainability report covers the airlines’ efforts in accordance with Global Reporting Initiative G4 Core Guidelines, an international standard for sustainability reporting on people, the planet and performance.

Additional highlights from the past two years include:

• Air Group signed an off-take agreement with Hawaii BioEnergy to buy sustainable aviation biofuels from the Hawaiian Islands beginning in 2018. The airline has set a goal of using sustainable biofuels at one or more of its airports by 2020.


• Alaska Air Group contributed $15.5 million in cash and in-kind contributions to more than 1,300 charitable organizations since 2011.


• All Horizon Air flights and three-quarters of Alaska Airlines flights arriving at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport are using a new method of airport approaches, which allow aircraft to fly shorter, continuous descents. Estimates are that Greener Skies approaches will save more than 2 million gallons of fuel annually for all properly equipped airlines and reduce emissions by 22,400 metric tons of CO2 — equal to the emissions contained in 96 rail cars of coal. Noise exposure for an estimated 750,000 people in the Puget Sound region has also been reduced.


• Alaska and Horizon reduced fuel use by 10 million gallons since 2011 (as measured per revenue passenger mile) by flying the Boeing 737 and Bombardier Q400 — the most fuel-efficient aircraft in their classes. The airlines installed winglets on aircraft, used cutting-edge satellite navigation procedures and switched to electric vehicles for airport operations at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, among other measures. The International Council on Clean Transportation ranked Alaska Airlines No. 1 in fuel efficiency among U.S. domestic airlines in 2013.


• By using ground power and preconditioned air while aircraft are parked at the gates, instead of running the aircraft auxiliary power unit (APU), the company saves an estimated 3 million gallons of fuel each year.

Alaska Airlines ordered 50 new Boeing 737 aircraft in the fall of 2012, part of a plan to replace older fleet models with larger, more efficient aircraft. Thirty-seven of the new jets will be MAX aircraft, expected to be
13 percent more fuel-efficient and cost at least 10 percent less to operate per seat mile than the most efficient of Alaska’s current aircraft.

“By maintaining a young fleet and upgrading our airplanes with state-of-the-art aerodynamic and engine improvements, we operate the two most fuel-efficient aircraft fleets in their class,” the report says.

Last year Alaska Air Group began pilot-testing the implementation of a vendor scorecard, which includes environmental sustainability criteria in waste, sustainable sourcing and energy use along the company’s supply chain. It requests information regarding sustainability efforts from all vendors: “In certain cases, specific requirements must be met, and vendors that do not meet the criteria are not considered.” For example, as part of the group’s food and beverage criteria, vendors must commit to 100 percent recycling.

CEO Brad Tilden asserts it’s all about “doing the right thing” for people, plant and performance -- a very good take on the 3P’s.

Image: Alaska Air jet from the 2013 Sustainability Report.

Investigators at California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) have been hard at work – this time inspecting trash disposal sites behind Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse stores for toxic dumping. In conjunction with the investigative skills of Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI), DTSC determined that Lowe’s stores had been illegally dumping toxic materials at landfill sites that weren’t authorized to receive the materials.

The DTSC says that the materials included pesticides, aerosols, mercury-based fluorescent bulbs and other items not eligible for landfill disposal. Investigators state that more than 110 stores across the state were found to be dumping toxic items improperly.

Between 2011 and 2013, OCI investigators visited dumpster locations throughout California and gathered evidence. “These dumpster examinations revealed that Lowe’s was routinely and systematically sending hazardous wastes into local landfills throughout California,” the DTSC stated in its April 2 press release. Those items included in some cases batteries, plastics and other items that customers donated to the store’s widely publicized recycling program.

Under Wednesday’s judgment, Lowe’s will pay $18.1 million; $12.9 million will be paid in civil penalties and costs. Another $5.3 million will go toward projects that aid in consumer protection, environmental enforcement and hazardous waste abatement in California. DTSC will also receive approximately $1.67 million of the paid amount in penalties. Some 30 district and city attorneys from Los Angeles to San Diego also joined in the civil environmental enforcement action, which was led by district attorneys from Alameda, Solano and San Joaquin counties.

California stores are required to segregate their hazardous substances and dispose of them via authorized hazardous disposal methods. This includes pharmaceuticals normally dispensed in pharmacies as well as chemicals that would be sold in hardware or home improvement stores. The DTSC says this accomplishes two purposes: To ensure employees, the public and the environment aren’t exposed to hazardous substances through accidental or unsafe handling and to guard against dangerous mixing of chemicals after they have been disposed.

Lowe’s is not the first large retailer to be found guilty of illegal dumping in California. According to DTSC, since 2010 its actions have brought in more than $100 million in penalties and fees from large-scale toxic dumpings. Those who were “sleuthed” by California’s toxic investigators include some of the country’s largest stores.

Retailer	Year	Total Settlement	Money Recouped by DTSC
Wal-Mart	2010	$27.7 Million	$1.17 Million
Target	2011	$22.5 Million	$578,000
Walgreens	2012	$16.6 Million	$991,625
CVS	2012	$13.75 Million	$249,625
Costco	2012	$3.5 Million	$37,750
Save Mart	2013	$2.55 Million	$28,000
Lowe’s	2014	$18.1 Million	$1.67 Million

Of that $104.7 million in settlements, says the agency, “DTSC received about $4.8 million in costs, penalties or judgments.”

Image credit: Mike Mozart

In the United States, an estimated 9 billion chickens, pigs and cattle are consumed each year, with a vast majority raised in Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).This form of food production typically emphasizes profit over farm animal treatment and sustainability. However, consumer demand for higher welfare animal proteins is increasing, likely due to heightened consumer awareness.

Americans are prioritizing animal welfare and consciously-raised foods over price and variety, according to the 2014 Cone Communications Food Issues Trend Tracker. A staggering 69 percent of respondents said they prioritize animal welfare when buying animal proteins.

“Consumers are demanding transparency in animal protein sourcing as the viral impact of social media greatly increases visible risk of poor conditions being seen by consumers,” says  Janice Neitzel, Principal of Sustainable Solutions Group, a firm that guides companies in responsible sourcing and traceability of animal proteins. Neitzel sees humane sourcing of animal products as an opportunity for food companies and restaurants to improve their brands, especially private label brands, boost food safety, as well as to minimize liabilities.

Intense livestock confinement has been under scrutiny in recent years, with prominent issues including veal crates for calves, gestation crates for pregnant pigs, and battery cages for egg-laying hens. The European Union has outlawed these types of extreme animal confinement.  Many U.S. food companies and restaurants are requiring animal welfare improvements in their supply chains, often after NGOs have brought visibility to the conditions and food companies and restaurants receive pressure from consumers.

Gestation crates for pregnant pigs

Throughout their entire pregnancy, 70 percent of U.S. breeding pigs are confined to crates that aren't large enough for the pig to turn around, explains Neitzel. Consumer demand for humanely-raised animal proteins has fueled action, including 60 food companies that have created policies to eliminate the use of gestation crates for pigs moving forward.

Chipotle has been sourcing crate-free pork since opening its first store and requires pigs to be raised on pasture or in deeply-bedded pens. All levels in Whole Foods’ 5-Step Animal Welfare program ban gestation crates. Tyson Foods is undertaking system-wide shift towards a system that allows pigs to turn around, McDonald's created a 10-year plan with input from suppliers, and Wendy’s is calling for complete removal of gestation crates from its supply chain in the U.S. and Canada.

Consumer demand for higher welfare animal products has led the way for changes in supply chain. Canadian pork producer, Olymel made the following statement on its new policy: “Our company believes that the entire pork production sector will have to respond positively to the demands of an increasing number of domestic and international clients who favor pork products originating from facilities which do not use crates to house pregnant sows.”

Companies that have created new policies to ensure humane handling have received praise from NGOs. “We appreciate that Wendy’s and other food companies are walking the walk when it comes to their commitments to eliminate a cruel system that’s simply out of step with how people think animals ought to be treated,” said Josh Balk, director of food policy for the Humane Society of the United States. “There’s clearly no future for gestation crates in pork production.”

Battery cages for egg-laying hens

Egg-laying hens are among the most confined animals in agribusiness, with a mere 67 square inches of cage space, which causes the hens’ muscles and bones deteriorate. Several U.S. states have outlawed battery cages for egg-laying hens, but no national restriction exists. Numerous restaurants and food companies have made a commitment to sourcing a percentage of cage-free eggs in their supply chains.

Neitzel explains that cage-free hens can spread their wings and lay eggs in nests or in nest boxes. Comfort Coop eggs sold in California are American Humane Certified laid by hens living in enriched cages with room to flap their wings and bob their heads. In full transparency, egg producer JS West provides a 24/7 live video cam for consumers to see how the hens are raised.

Major food companies have made announcements about sourcing cage-free eggs, including Starbucks, Unilever, Burger King, Carl’s Jr., Subway, McDonald’s and Kraft.  Although many fast food restaurants have been responding to consumer demand for humanely raised eggs, there are still an estimated 250 million hens in battery cages across the U.S.

Third-party audits and standards

Despite numerous improvements in the humane raising and handling of animals for food, there are many opportunities for improvement, driven by greater understanding of the issues by consumers. “Retailers and food service companies are in a tough position when it comes to animal welfare in the supply chain because consumers assume that there is already high animal welfare,” explains Neitzel.

“As consumers are learning more about the various conditions in which livestock are raised, they are looking for credible indicators of high animal welfare in foods they buy and consume. Retailers and food service companies need a third party benchmark to understand levels of animal welfare in their supply chain and third-party assessment of animal welfare audits, especially for private label products.”

Image credit compliments of JS West

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.

"Made in the U.S.A" isn't exactly the norm these days. More than 97 percent of apparel and 98 percent of shoes sold in the U.S. are made overseas, compared to 5 percent in the 1960s. Nevertheless, a 2013 poll found that 78 percent of Americans would rather buy an American product if given the opportunity.

We can all rattle off a few small, niche companies that manufacture on this side of the pond (and everyone knows those Chryslers are "Imported from Detroit"), but do any other big names manufacture in the U.S. anymore? Surprisingly, yes. 

1. 3M

3M has been producing the workaholic's beloved Scotch tape and Post-it notes at its plant in Cynthiana, Ky. since 1985 -- and you can be sure every pack of Post-its you buy in the U.S. was made here. The company is also well-known for its sustainability and CSR programs; it has provided more than $21 million in grants for sustainability initiatives through its environmental giving programs since 2001 and cut its GHG emissions by 72 percent since 1990.

2. Whirlpool

Based in Michigan, Whirlpool still makes a surprising number of its products in America. Of the products Whirlpool sells in the U.S., it makes 80 percent in U.S. plants, according to Consumer Reports. The appliance manufacturer also recently teamed up with fellow Michigan giant Ford on a line of smart appliances that help consumers cut energy use.

3. New Balance

New Balance no longer manufactures all of its sneakers and athletic wear in the U.S., but it has a respectable selection of American-made gear. One out of every four shoes they sold in the U.S. was made here last year, according to the company, and you can easily find American-made choices on its online store or sites like Zappos.

4. HP

Most technology companies shipped manufacturing overseas years ago, and while HP hasn't exactly shunned globalization, it offers a solid selection of American-made PCs. According to the company 36 percent of the business desktop PCs sold in the U.S. were built in the U.S. in 2012, along with 100 percent of workstation PCs. Last year HP also became the first IT company to set supply chain emissions goals and pledge to make its supply chain conflict-free.

5. Rubbermaid

Rubbermaid manufactures an impressive 80 percent of its products in the U.S. Its factories are also designed with sustainability in mind. Its headquarters in Atlanta, Ga. boasts a 12,000-gallon closed loop water recycling system, and the company has reduced plastic waste at its plants by 98 percent over the past four years.

6. Deere & Co.

Yes, this homegrown American farm equipment company (more commonly known as John Deere) still manufactures most of those bright green tractors on this side of the pond. The iconic firm also entered into a $200 million push to launch the public-private Manufacturing Innovation Institute in January -- part of President Barack Obama’s initiatives to boost the U.S. manufacturing sector into next-generation technologies.

7. GE

While many of General Electric's products are indeed made overseas, the company still employs 131,000 U.S. workers and has moved a significant number of manufacturing jobs back to America in recent years. The company also exported $18 billion worth of U.S.-made goods in 2011.

8. La-Z-Boy

Good news for socially conscious couch potatoes, nearly all of La-Z-Boy's recliners, sofas and chairs are still manufactured in its five U.S. plants. Its plant in Dayton, Tenn., was even named one of the 10 Best Plants in North America for 2012 by IndustryWeek magazine. The company is quick to note that those delightfully cozy chairs still contain a mix of both domestic and imported materials, but at least it's transparent about it.

9. American Apparel

American Apparel has seen its fair share of scandal, from banned ads to sexual harassment allegations against its CEO, but through thick and thin the T-Shirt giant's products have still been "Made in Downtown LA." Centered around its "sweatshop-free" model, the company has also made a pretty solid commitment to sustainability -- going virtually landfill-free at its manufacturing facilities and generating up to 20 percent of its electricity needs through solar power.

10. High-end labels from the Garment Center

While many high-end fashion labels succumb to the uniquely tragic scenario of a garment that costs hundreds of dollars being produced under poor working conditions, a surprising number of labels still manufacture their coveted clothing in New York City's Garment Center. Notable names include Brooks Brothers, Nanette Lepore, Nicole Miller and Jason Wu -- many of which have lent their names to the nonprofit Save the Garment Center. Even as new development threatens its existence, the Garment Center still employs 7,100 New Yorkers in manufacturing jobs.

Image credit: Flickr/djs1021

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