Search

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)

Eco-friendly cleaning supply company Method is known for pushing the envelope even in the sustainable business community: encouraging a work culture of "weirdness” to keep employees happy and recycling plastic litter from the Great Pacific garbage patch into product packaging.

Now the San Francisco-headquartered company is working on another cutting-edge initiative -- unveiling design plans for its first U.S. manufacturing plant that it hopes will be the first LEED Platinum certified factory in the consumer packaged goods industry.

Method, along with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, announced details of the new facility, set to be built on the city’s South Side, in a groundbreaking ceremony on March 4. The factory will create nearly 100 new manufacturing jobs for Chicago residents, and Method said it plans to recruit residents from the Pullman neighborhood where the plant is located.

"The opportunity to build our first manufacturing plant in Chicago marks a milestone in Method's journey of aligning our interests as a business with the interests of society and the environment," said Adam Lowry, co-founder and chief greenskeeper of Method, in a statement.

Indeed, whether or not the factory attains LEED Platinum status, its green design features, coupled with its benefits to the local community, will make Method’s plant a success story of sustainable business and the triple bottom line.

Set to be built at a former lumberyard that is now a brownfield site, the facility will include a refurbished wind turbine and a solar array that will generate about half of the plant’s annual electricity. Method’s eventual goal is to run the factory entirely on renewable energy.

The building will feature a transparent south-facing wall to reduce the need for artificial lighting and serve as a metaphor for Method’s corporate transparency. Method and its design partner William McDonough + Partners will choose environmentally responsible building materials endorsed by the Cradle-to-Cradle certification program.

Many of the factory’s green design elements will make it a good neighbor, said the plant’s lead architect William McDonough in a statement. The facility’s green roof will grow fresh fruits and vegetables for the local community, and 17 of the property’s 22 acres will be landscaped with native plants and remain as green space, which will revitalize the brownfield site and beautify the surrounding Pullman neighborhood.

Method and Williams McDonough + Partners aim to make the plant welcoming to the local community, installing a sidewalk around the property rather than a fence and inviting the public inside for tours of its eco-friendly manufacturing process.

"We have these images of factories as gritty buildings with smokestacks — facilities that no families would want in or near their neighborhoods … Method’s new factory is a living dedication to clean in as many ways as possible; think about a tree -- it produces oxygen, absorbs carbon, purifies water, produces food and transforms solar energy.

"This factory is a clean factory. The energy will be clean. The water will be clean. The production will be clean. The building will be full of daylight and fresh air.  The products made here are as clean as anyone can make them and help people have beautifully clean places to live," McDonough said in a statement.

Method currently works with other U.S. manufacturers to make their products, so the new factory will be the first manufacturing facility the company owns and operates.

Method’s new investment indicates that even when business is booming for the company that was acquired by Ecover in 2012, the green business will remain true to its roots and expand in an environmentally and socially responsible way.

“Building our world-class factory is an important evolution in our company’s growth and we hope it serves as a model of what manufacturing and urban revitalization looks like in the 21^st century,” said Method CEO Drew Fraser in a statement. “We aim to show that sustainable business is better business by creating an advanced, flexible and cost-effective facility that will fuel both the growth of our business and the renewal of the Pullman area.”

Image credit: Method

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

It may seem quaint to some, but at a fundamental level, there are ethical, moral, even spiritual motives for we humans to do our best to conserve wilderness, ecosystems and biodiversity. Then, of course, there are the most pragmatic and self-interested: all our economic activities and the health and well-being of all our societies is dependent on healthy ecosystems, and biological diversity is central to assuring health ecosystems.

Though perhaps best known, and criticized, for bankrolling development of large-scale infrastructure projects such as coal-fired and hydroelectric power plants, the World Bank has likewise been instrumental in helping conserve biodiversity and sustainably utilize the numerous and varied services diverse ecosystems provide.

The World Bank has also been a key agent in helping realize the eight U.N. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Though results to date are very much mixed, researchers, agents and policy makers have found that there are ways of achieving the MDG goals that are self-reinforcing and effective. Such synergy exists, for instance, when it comes to achieving two MDGs: reducing poverty and ensuring environmental sustainability.

Biodiversity conservation and alleviating poverty

The ongoing existence and success of our species rests on some 4 billion years of evolution of life on Earth, and the interaction of all that life with Earth's physical, inorganic environment. Our ability to survive, much less thrive, is predicated on the health of ecosystems, the services they provide, and our ability to act in harmony with the self-regulating processes manifest in nature.

The World Bank makes the point simply and succinctly:

“Animal, plant and marine biodiversity keeps ecosystems functional. Healthy ecosystems allow us to survive, get enough food to eat and make a living.”

There's a direct linkage between the MDG goals of conserving biodiversity, maintaining the health and integrity of ecosystems, and alleviating poverty. It's estimated that nearly half the world's human population – more than 3 billion people – live on less than $2.50 a day.

At least 80 percent live on less than $10 a day, and the income gap is widening globally: More than 80 percent of the world's population lives in countries where income differentials are widening. Some 75 percent of the world's impoverished, moreover, live in rural areas and depend on nature for their water, food and livelihoods.

As the World Bank states:

“The loss of iconic species is a tragedy with broad and deep impact. Animal, plant and marine biodiversity keeps ecosystems functional. Healthy ecosystems allow us to survive, get enough food to eat and make a living. When species disappear or fall in number, ecosystems and people—especially the world’s poorest—suffer.”

But you can't eat scenery, or can you?

All well and good, but in a day and age of less and less in the way of government-sponsored public infrastructure and services, there isn't any private profit motive in conserving biodiversity, or alleviating poverty for that matter, is there? The World Bank, along with other international organizations, national governments, NGOs and local communities, has been stepping into the breach.

As JustMeans' Vikas Vij writes in a recent blog post:

"The World Bank has actively invested more than $1 billion to protect nature and wildlife. The Bank is also the largest provider of development assistance to fight environment and natural resources crime, with $300 million invested in forestry, fisheries and wildlife law enforcement. At a time when habitats are disappearing and poaching is on the rise, collective action to protect biodiversity has become crucial."

Throughout the world, countries are being threatened by the degradation and loss of terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems and biodiversity, poverty, and growing disparities in income and economic opportunities. Ironically, it's often economic development often brings this about.

Well aware of this seeming paradox, the World Bank since 1988 has invested $4 billion in biodiversity projects. That's spurred another $4 billion in co-financing.

With the MDG end date of 2015 right around the corner and the U.N. in the midst of formulating a succeeding, post-2015 agenda centered on sustainable development, the multilateral development bank is working to raise the profile, and the stakes, of its biodiversity and poverty alleviation initiatives. As the World Bank explains:

“Developing country partners are increasingly aware that biodiversity and ecosystem services can be an engine for inclusive green growth and an important part of the solution to emerging global challenges, from climate change to food insecurity. It has also been learned—through long and often hard experience—that good nature conservation is possible.

“Conservation can also be affordable and cost-effective as well as beneficial to poor communities when it is done right. To do it right—especially in an era of diminishing public expenditures for biodiversity conservation—innovation, communication and effective partnerships are needed between governments, communities, financial institutions, companies and conservation organizations.”

The "Greening Development" environment strategy

At the core of such efforts, forging “green, clean, resilient” development paths is the driving theme of the “World Bank Group Environment Strategy 2012-2022.” Key to realizing the goals expressed in its environment strategy, the World Bank is taking a wide range of steps, including:

• Greening national income accounts by working with organizations such as the Global Partnership on Wealth Accounting of Ecosystem Services (WAVES) to strengthen and intensify efforts to support countries factoring natural capital into economic decision-making.
• Building partnerships that span government, science groups, businesses, NGOs, legal and law enforcement and others with the aim of strengthening the institutional and legal frameworks for formulating, assessing, implementing and enforcing actions that address biodiversity loss and improverishment.
• Establishing and expanding protected area systems through programs such as the Amazon Region Protected Areas program in Brazil, and a similar effort to protect the Upper Guinean Tropical Rainforest in Liberia.
• Engaging communities in co-management, including initiatives such as Pakistan's Protected Areas Management Project and the Wildlife Conservation Leasing Demonstration Project in Kenya.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Sy4hXw53_P8

Image and graphic courtesy of the World Bank

Next month, legally married same-sex couples are going to be filing their taxes differently than in previous years, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has recently released a video introducing changes to the filing process, resulting from last summer’s Supreme Court decision to strike down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The most radical feature of these new tax implications is that the federal government recognizes the marriage of same-sex couples as long as they wedded in a jurisdiction that allows same-sex unions, regardless of where the spouses live now. That means that the federal government would consider a gay or lesbian couple to be legally married – and receive all the corresponding federal tax benefits – if the duo got hitched in their home state of Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal, but then had to move to Colorado, a state that does not authorize same-sex unions. The government would also acknowledge same-sex marriages performed in foreign countries that authorize such unions, meaning a married couple from New Zealand could move to the U.S. and still have their union recognized, or an American couple vacationing in Canada could get married, come home to Louisiana and be considered married by the federal government.

http://youtu.be/G1pAihAyKuA

In the video, friendly IRS spokeswoman Michelle explains that legally married same-sex couples now need to file their federal income tax return just as heterosexual spouses do – as either married filing jointly or married filing separately. The new tax status will apply to all federal tax provisions where marriage is a factor, such as claiming personal and dependency exemptions, receiving employee benefits and contributing to an individual retirement account. Couples don’t need to amend tax returns from previous years, but they can, using form 1040X, in case they are eligible for a refund.

The IRS has also compiled a FAQ sheet to provide further information to same-sex married couples filing their tax returns as married for the first time this year.

These changes to the federal tax law stem from the Supreme Court’s decision in the United States v. Windsor case, which overturned provisions in DOMA that barred the federal government from recognizing the legal marriages of same-sex couples. Following the court’s landmark verdict, the Treasury Department and IRS made a ruling that legally married same-sex couples will be treated as married for all federal tax purposes, including income, estate and gift taxes.

Because U.S. v. Windsor was only concerned with DOMA and federal tax law, state governments are not required to recognize same-sex unions: Thus, a gay couple may be considered married by the federal government but treated as single by their state, if same-sex marriage is not legal there. This dichotomy in the law will create confusion this year as some states instruct taxpayers to write their federal filing status – single, married filing jointly, etc. – on their state tax return.

Gay and lesbian married couples can learn more about filing their taxes this year by visiting the Human Rights Campaign’s online resource center or during a free webinar – “Taxes after DOMA: What do same-sex married couples need to know when filing their taxes?” – hosted by the Human Rights Campaign and the National Women’s Law Center today at 2 p.m. EDT.

Image credit: Flickr/John Morgan

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

With the world population now hovering around 7 billion and the increased strain put on the environment by developing nations such as India and China, the need for environmentally friendly business practices is more important than ever. Although the United States still has much to do to improve its reputation in this area – per capita, the United States trails only a few nations in energy consumption, all of which have much smaller population sizes – individual business owners can do their part, starting today.

If you own or operate a business and are interested in reducing your company's environmental impact, consider cloud communications solutions from leading providers such as Mitel. Storing data and information in the cloud can help you minimize your carbon footprint by taking advantage of shared resources. Think of it this way: Why dedicate your own resources to solve a problem when you can call upon pre-existing resources? That is just one of the many promises of working in the cloud.

Cloud computing: Global reach with (nearly) zero footprint

Admittedly, pinpointing the exact degree to which cloud computing can reduce your carbon footprint is difficult to do, if not impossible. This is partially due to the fact that every company's needs are different. That being said, the general consensus is in, and it states clearly: using the cloud can save energy costs and reduce CO2 emissions.

By how much though? Well, the predictions vary, but the CDP (formerly Carbon Disclosure Project), a nonprofit group that measures, tracks and analyzes corporate climate change information, estimates that cloud computing could save large U.S. corporate entities up to $12.3 billion in energy costs annually through 2020, and reduce CO2 emissions by 85.7 million metric tons per annum. Even if these figures are optimistic by half, the benefits of such an approach are clear.

A number of reasons help contribute to this low environmental impact. In general, cloud computing is a more sustainable approach to data storage than doing so locally because it calls upon a shared, centralized network. By consolidating storage into a central hub, you eliminate the need for individual devices, such as hard drives and computers. And this means that those devices no longer have to be manufactured, powered, cooled or maintained. In summation, centralization leads to energy conservation. It really is that simple.

Make the change today to save tomorrow

If you are interested in pursuing cloud computing as a solution for a data storage problem, you have options. Whether you simply require external storage or are looking for servers to support an online presence, you don't have to rely upon your own hardware. Companies like Dropbox, Box, Amazon, Google and a number of individual hosting companies all offer cloud computing services. Simply do your research and choose the provider that best suits your needs and budget.

Ultimately, making such a change will reap your company not only financial rewards, but moral benefits as well. We all must do our part to conserve natural resources and reduce our impact on the environment – why not start here?

Image credit: TradingAcademy.com via Flickr

Barclays, HSBC, Citigroup and Royal Bank of Scotland are among 16 banks being sued by the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporations (FDIC) over allegations of rigging the London interbank offer rate (Libor).

The Libor rate is the interest rate at which banks offer to lend funds to one another in the international market.

The FDIC said the manipulation caused substantial losses to 38 US banks which were shut down during and after the 2008 financial crisis.

The US regulator accuses the banks mentioned in its lawsuit of rigging the rate from August 2007 to at least mid-2011.

Other banks named in the lawsuit include Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Lloyds Bank, Credit Suisse, UBS and Rabobank.

Over the past two years, regulators worldwide have been investigating the manipulation of the rate and there have been £2.26bn in fines levied so far.

 

Picture credit: © Roland Nagy | Dreamstime.com
 

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.

Before we get on to this week's 3p Weekend, let's pose a question: What is a green job? It's a simple question but one that has no official answer. In March 2012, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) took a crack at defining green jobs and calculating their saturation in the market in a detailed survey of the green economy. There are some limitations to their definition, but it's consistent with most that came before it (and it makes sense to us for the most part). So, let's decide to use it as our go-to for this list.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's move on to the fun part: It's tough to deny that the green jobs sector is making waves across the country, even as overall unemployment rates are slow to decline. BLS determined that green employment is growing at a faster rate than the overall economy, with no sign of slowing down anytime soon.

The saturation of green jobs is growing across all industries, but a select few are leading the charge. Read on for seven booming green job sectors set to explode in the 21st century. 

1. Water

The BLS reports that 50 percent of all jobs in the water industry are green jobs, which is pretty impressive if you ask us. As this sector continues to expand (comprising water supply and irrigation, scarcity planning and management, testing and research; the list goes on and on), job opportunities will likely grow right along with it. "With 21,500 green jobs and a nearly 50 percent green intensity, [the water industry] is undoubtedly significant to the broader green economy, yet it has room to grow," BLS observed in its report.

2. Solar

A 2014 report from the Solar Foundation reveals that the U.S. solar energy sector continues to create jobs at a much higher rate than the economy overall. The U.S. added 56 new solar jobs a day for nearly all of 2013 -- meaning solar employment grew at a rate 10 times the national average. Installers added the most solar workers over the past year, growing by 22 percent.

3. Manufacturing

Manufacturing may be in trouble in the U.S. as a whole, but green manufacturing is a different story. BLS found that 20.4 percent of all green jobs in the U.S. are in the manufacturing sector, although it represents only 10.8 percent of total employment. In a separate report on the green economy, Brookings Institute observed that, "The electric vehicles (EV), green chemical products, and lighting segments are all especially manufacturing intensive." As consumer prices in these segments continue to drop, the green manufacturing sector seems poised to continue this upward climb.

4. Construction

Green jobs make up 6.3 percent of all jobs in the U.S. construction sector, according to BLS. This figure is fairly modest compared to other industries on this list, but it still represents nearly 400,000 green jobs. With sustainability becoming the name of the game when it comes to new building construction, green job numbers in this sector have nowhere to go but up.

5. Transportation

If you haven't heard, people are using public transportation way more these days. In fact, Americans took a record 10.7 billion public transit trips in 2013, according to data released this week. Transportation options range from hybrid-electric buses, to car-sharing services, to expanding rail lines -- leaving growth opportunities in the sector wide open. More than 200,000 people held green public transit jobs in 2012 -- a trend that's undoubtedly on the uptick.

6. Environmental engineering

Environmental engineers apply knowledge of biology and chemistry to tackle real-world challenges like pollution, recycling and urban planning. Although the BLS reported only 53,200 U.S. environmental engineering jobs in 2012, the sector carries hefty promise for growth. CNN Money named it one of the top 10 fastest growing industries, as well as their overall No. 5 best job.

7. Sharing economy entrepreneurship

Back in 2009, three friends founded a ridesharing service called Uber -- now servicing 70 cities across the U.S. A year earlier, three guys named Nathan Blecharczyk, Brian Chesky and Joe Gebbia launched Airbnb -- which now boasts more than 500,000 listings and recently attracted the talents of hospitality guru Chip Conley. Indeed, it's a wide world out there for an entrepreneur with a great idea and the passion, work ethic and tireless resolve to make it reality. U.S. entrepreneurship has hit record highs in recent years, and with the sharing economy on the rise, entrepreneurs in this sector will likely see this boost continue.

Image credit: Flickr/USDAgov

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.

Fish has been part of the human diet and culture since the beginning of time.  It seems almost inconceivable that it could suddenly stop being available. But we're headed for a cliff if we don't improve sustainable fishing worldwide.

Last year I found myself sputtering in disbelief when the waitress told me lake perch sliders were no longer available at my favorite local bar and grill.  That same week a local fast food place that had always offered a lake perch sandwich switched to a generic fried "fish" sandwich. Along the Michigan coast of Lake Michigan, yellow perch has long been traditional and ubiquitous fare. But numerous factors including severely limited commercial fishing and a precipitous drop in Lake Michigan perch populations has eroded availability of this cultural staple.

This is a microcosm of an even larger issue. The world's oceans are in decline. Ocean catch reached its highest point, "peak fish," back in the 1990s. It's been declining fairly steadily since then. We're taking more fish from the ocean in unsustainable ways than the ocean can provide. As of 2010 fishing operations harvested over 80 million metric tons of wild caught fish worldwide. That doesn't even include the bycatch -- the undesired marine life caught while harvesting a desired species. Bycatch, estimated to be between 7 million and 38 million metric tons globally, can sometimes dwarf the desired harvest for a given species.  In one extreme example, wild shrimp can come at a cost of 62 pounds of bycatch per pound of shrimp. So when we talk about the depletion of ocean wildlife, it goes beyond what we see on our plates.

According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization 87 percent of the wild fisheries globally are stressed. That is, they're either over exploited, fished at the maximum level, are depleted or working toward recovery. In the past 10 years, many top predator populations, like tuna, have declined by 90 percent causing a massive imbalance in the ecosystem.

Meanwhile, demand for fish is outpacing the growth in the human population. While the world's population grows at 1.7 percent annually, fish production grows at 3.2 percent annually.

Wait a minute...if wild ocean catch peaked in the late 20th century, how can fish production be rising? The answer there is aquaculture. Farmed fish accounts for almost half of the fish consumed by people worldwide these days, and this total continues to grow. Aquaculture comes with its own ecological complications and threats to wild fish populations. They're likened to "floating pig farms" in the ocean, producing enormous amounts of concentrated waste with oxygen-consuming bacteria that suffocates life at the ocean floor. They are also breeding grounds for diseases and parasites that spread to the general fish population. And it's also worth noting that about a quarter of the food for that farmed fish comes from ocean catch. There's no free lunch to be had with farmed fish as it's currently practiced.  It produces more fish, but adds more hardship to the already threatened wild populations which make up over half of the fish supply. It's not a cure-all.

So here we are: growing demand for fish as the human population explodes and ocean species decline. Almost half of the world's population, 3 billion people, rely on this resource for a key source of protein. And communities in virtually every coastal nation on Earth rely on fishing for their livelihoods.

What will happen  if we don't manage this resource wisely? We're already seeing the effects of overfishing above and beyond the ecological disaster.  The loss of fishing revenue can shred the generations-old underpinnings of communities. "Many of the Somali pirates we hear about used to be small, local fishermen but were displaced by large commercial fishing operations that depleted the fish" says Cheryl Dahle, founder of Future of Fish. The displaced fishermen sought out another way to provide for their families: piracy.

In 1992, the cod fishery collapsed along the Atlantic coast of Canada. Whole Newfoundland communities which had made their living on fishing for centuries experienced massive unemployment and community upheaval. Another fishing disruption in the groundfish fishery along the coast of New England caused similar disaster. According to research underway by Future of Fish:

"The challenges associated with the transition to sector management combined with deep cuts in quota have resulted in financial and psychological crisis for many members of the fishery. Some are unable to bring in enough income to cover basic living expenses...A recent study found that due to the fishery’s disaster declaration in late 2012, incidence of social disruption (e.g., changes in family, work, and community interactions) and high levels of psychological stress were common among groundfish permit holders."

A friend of mine from a multi-generational fishing family experienced the same thing growing up. When commercial fishing in the Great Lakes was severely limited in 1985 her father, a commercial fisherman, lost his livelihood and had to move the family to another coastal region.

Fishing is important business for coastal communities.

In 2010, fish production accounted for $218 billion in economic activity globally, a lot of which supports fishing communities in the developing world that rely on this resource as food and a living. It is absolutely essential -- ecologically, economically and socially --to take a long-term, strategic view of this resource. I'd always wondered why if the state of the oceans is so dire, why not simply make a massive effort to stop eating fish? Dahle says: "This punishes the communities who depend on fishing. And we need to learn to have a more positive relationship with this resource."

Of course, overfishing is only a part of the problem facing ocean ecosystems. Our oceans face pollution, agricultural runoff, invasive species and a changing climate -- just to name a few things. Where does overfishing rank in the order of threats? "Don't ask me to rank them," says Dr. Richard Methot, NOAA Science Advisor for Stock Assessments. "Fish stock as a factor is the thing that is most visible for us…increasingly we recognize that as we get the fishing up to sustainable levels the other impacts are easier to see. Addressing the particular impact of pollution or climate change will happen locally. We address all the factors within the ecosystem context."

Dahle agrees, declining to rank overfishing against other threats to ocean life: "Overfishing is absolutely fixable, and the most direct threat to individual species. We have to stop taking too much out of the ocean because overfished systems are less resilient to the other threats."

The United States and other developed nations have the resources to support excellent fishery management practices, identifying troubled fisheries and setting catch limits that help fish populations rebound to sustainable levels. Unfortunately, we in the U.S. import 86 percent of the fish we eat. So domestic management is only a small part of the scope. But of the thousands of fisheries around the world, only hundreds are closely monitored. So how do we promote sustainable fisheries around the world?

U.S. fish consumers must work to create demand for restaurants and distributors to know where our fish comes from. As I stated earlier, many companies, particularly of the fast food variety, identify their seafood simply as "fish" -- it's almost comical in its animal-class generality like offering "bird" nuggets or maybe a juicy "mammal burger." This vagueness also makes it impossible for consumers to have an educated understanding of what they're eating. Dahle says: "Consumers should ask about the fish they're buying. The server may not know. But what it does is it creates a demand for having that information."

It's also important for consumers to actually know to the best of their own ability where their food comes from. For this there are many tools. NOAA offers FishWatch.org to help consumers make wiser, more educated choices about the seafood they're purchasing: where it comes from, how it's harvested and pointers on how to avoid "seafood fraud" (intentionally mislabeled fish).  All aspects of the supply chain should be transparent and traceable. Too often the fish we eat is commoditized to the point where sustainable fish is mixed in with unsustainable fish.

Governmental agencies monitor fish stocks and ecosystems and establish catch limits, while nongovernment organizations work with fishing communities worldwide to establish catch limits and no-fish zones where fish can spawn and repopulate the region for sustainability.

Other organizations like Future of Fish seek to empower entrepreneurs to develop innovative practices for a sustainable global supply chain for seafood.

The U.N. Food and Agricultural organization is also calling on entrepreneurs and all elements of the fishing supply chain to reduce fish waste. According to a recent report published in the journal Trends in Food Science and Technology, Norwegian fishermen dumped about 220,000 tons of wild fish scraps into the sea after processing their catch. These sorts of scraps include such parts as fish heads which are consumed in many parts of the world, and contain a lot of meat.

The global overfishing crisis is an instance where we know the threat and the risks, but we also have a firm understanding of the solution: known management practices and reaching out to third world communities, making the most of the product, traceability and creating demand for knowing where our fish come from. It benefits everybody to avert this disaster.

When asked about the future of the world's oceans, Dahle says: "I'm optimistic. I'm optimistic because we know what to do."

Image Credit: Pexels