Search

When it comes to making decisions about your home, your options are pretty straightforward — you can switch to LED lights to save on energy, choose low-flow fixtures to use less water, or consider rooftop solar to be part of the switch to clean energy. But what about all the things outside your home that are impacted by your actions? It is no different when a large company like Meta looks at its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions landscape. The company first tackled emissions at home — as in, offices, data centers and energy choices — and now it has turned attention to all emissions related to the work it does.

In climate parlance, the in-house work falls under Scopes 1 and 2: direct emissions from sources controlled or owned by a company and those associated with purchased energy. Scope 3 covers the emissions from a company’s value chain, such as purchased goods and services, employee travel, and the use and transport of sold products. The third scope is the heavy lifting for most companies and organizations. 

Increasing ambition on the road to net zero

In 2018, Meta committed to cutting operational GHG emissions by 75 percent from 2017 levels and using 100 percent renewable energy, both by 2020. It further pledged to achieve net zero GHG emissions for its global operations every year going forward. The company exceeded its original target, cutting Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 94 percent by the end of 2020 and closing the gap on the last 6 percent with high-quality carbon removal projects, such as reforestation projects in Kenya and Uganda.

Having put in the work on direct emissions, Meta turned to emissions from its partners and suppliers, aiming to reach net zero GHG emissions across the entire value chain by 2030 in a new goal announced last year. That means cutting emissions associated with capital goods like data center materials and hardware, as well as purchased goods and services like consultants and employee travel.

Surpassing the original target bodes well and gives Meta expertise going into the more ambitious, wide-reaching goal. “Very good data is important to drive decision-making,” Sylvia Lee, program lead for Meta’s net zero program, told TriplePundit. “We have excellent team members to help address our Scopes 1 and 2 with renewable energy, but it took a long time to get the right data. We’re repeating that process now for Scope 3.”

Improving the efficiency of data centers to drive down emissions

Data centers are responsible for about 1 percent of global electricity demand and are a top emissions driver for most technology companies. “Data centers are a very large part of our emissions,” Lee told us. “Scope 1 is mostly offices. Scope 2, because of renewable energy, is mostly zero. For Scope 3, it’s hardware and construction of data centers. We’re trying to focus on reduction as much as we can.” 

To do that, the company is focusing on three key objectives: use less material, switch to low-carbon alternative materials, and increase the deployment of renewable energy across the value chain. Using less means making data centers more efficient and extending the life of current materials using circular economy principles. When data centers need to be upgraded or built, the company will look at alternatives to replace carbon-intensive building materials like cement. Finally, it will work with suppliers to help them set individual carbon reduction and renewable energy goals, Lee said. 

Telecommuting and emissions in the new world of work

When the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020, Meta employees, like everyone else, turned to working from home. The pivot to almost universal telework shifted the Scope 1 and 2 emissions related to office operations to Scope 3 emissions related to employee energy use. Like many of the challenges companies faced amidst the pandemic, figuring out how to measure these emissions was entirely new to Meta. “We followed the GHG Protocol [an international standard], and there was not much in there about telecommuting,” Lee said. 

The company turned to a consultant to figure out how to account for these emissions and integrate them into its Scope 3 targets. The resulting white paper created a benchmark for employee energy use by assessing where employees live and the local electric grid mix, as well as the number of hours they worked, average square footage of home office space and average energy usage.

“In the old days, we looked at employee surveys to understand how they commuted to work,” Lee explained. "We offered shuttles to help reduce commuting emissions.” But most of that data was rendered irrelevant by the pandemic, and there’s a general consensus that a number of eligible employees may continue to choose to work remotely even after the pandemic has eased. 

“Moving forward, as we look to return to the office, we anticipate that many  employees will take advantage of our flexible working strategy to go to the office only half the time, while a good portion of our  employees will be fully remote,” Lee said. Thus, figuring out how to address emissions from teleworking will be a necessary part of the company’s strategy to meet its net zero goals.

What’s left: Choosing innovative carbon removal projects

The company managed to meet its Scope 1 and 2 targets primarily through direct emissions reductions, and it’s hoping to do the same with the new net-zero goal. For emissions that can’t be cut, it will invest in carbon removal projects to offset the impact. Here, the Meta team says they’re deliberate in the projects they choose — with an eye toward driving the market, not just choosing from what is available.

While nature-based carbon removal solutions like planting trees are well understood and offer many co-benefits, Meta is also looking toward technological solutions where feasible. “There is a lot of technology that’s promising, but purchasing carbon credits in this space is difficult — they are not yet available or are super expensive,” Patrick Nease, program coordinator for Meta’s carbon removal program, told TriplePundit. “We see ourselves playing a role in investing in this space.”

Still, so far the methodology is not adequate to verify and quantify many carbon removal technologies, Lee said. “We want to be a participant and also a driver so that robust methodologies can exist in technological carbon removal,” she told us. “We want to drive the space,” Nease added, “but be careful in how we drive it.”

Lessons learned

Having already set and surpassed an ambitious climate goal, Meta will look to leverage the lessons it learned to do the same with value chain emissions, Lee said. Meeting the 100 percent renewable energy goal, for example, means renewable energy is now part of the structure of the company. “It has become an integral part of how we do business,” she explained. “Now when we build a new data center, renewable energy is a must. So how do we continue to embed sustainability in our core processes and existing company processes? How do we work with key suppliers to embed it into our business? How can we share our knowledge in a way that’s helpful to them?”

Scope 3 emissions are complicated and not always straightforward. Measuring is the first step, followed by building the target and figuring out how to meet it. In the end, maybe the Scope 1 and 2 goals are less like a house and more like the foundation from which to build.

This article series is sponsored by Meta and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team. 

Image credit: Tim Swaan/Unsplash

The reality we all face today is that just about every company is now a data and technology company. Even if an enterprise’s business model is focused on making things, technology is largely driving the process. Of course, that means many companies’ operations are running on bits and bytes. That isn’t a bad thing, necessarily, but one problem is that as technologies such as artificial intelligence have roles in helping companies function day to day, there are always some risks. Among them are the impacts that algorithmic bias can have on a company’s hiring process — which are not great optics at a time when companies are striving to boost (or ahem, start) their diversity, inclusion and equity (DEI) efforts.

To that end, a coalition of U.S. companies has pledged to stop algorithmic bias from having any effects on their hiring practices.

The Data and Trust Alliance is comprised of more than a dozen companies that have committed to taking steps to ensure that algorithmic bias is removed from the ways in which they hire people. The corporations that are a part of this effort include American Express, Deloitte, General Motors, IBM, Mastercard, Nielsen, Nike and Under Armour.

As part of the Alliance, participating companies acknowledge the reality: Algorithms, artificial intelligence and data have huge influence in day-to-day and long-term business decisions. Nevertheless, just as how more companies are becoming aware of how their operations affect the planet, there is also that very human element — including the truth that many people have been excluded from various opportunities because such 21st-century technologies have screened them out (and continue to do so).

Announced only yesterday, these brands have so far been vague on how they will manage algorithmic bias so that it is eliminated from any hiring decisions. The three pillars of their commitment include sharing best practices, i.e., how they are getting this done; new tools to harness algorithms, artificial intelligence and data for the better; and to be clear, this is a working group, not a “think tank” or lobbying group.

To start, the Alliance has released a set of guidelines framed by 55 questions spread across 13 categories, the goals of which include preparing companies so that they can better vet vendors on various criteria, including transparency, ethics and testing for bias.

And while left unsaid, there is the wider goal to secure these companies’ brand reputations. No one wants to be in the middle of a social or traditional media firestorm with reports of certain demographics being shafted from new jobs or promotions yet again: So to prevent those fires, get rid of any kindling, as in such data or algorithms that could end up causing bias before a human can even see a person’s human resources (HR) information or a resume.

“As a leading data and analytics company, we know that equitable and unbiased data is essential to trust and truth,” said David Kenny, CEO of Nielsen. “The Alliance’s anti-bias criteria for HR algorithms are essential to trust and truth when hiring and developing a winning team.”

Image credit: Van Tay Media via Unsplash

By supporting vaccine mandates and abortion rights, some employers appear to have put themselves squarely in the middle of a moral quandary. However, that is not the case. When viewed through the lens of the workplace environment and public health, there is no conflict between requiring one employee to get vaccinated against a transmissible virus, while supporting another’s decision to end a pregnancy.

Abortion as a public health issue

In the 50 years since the Supreme Court rendered its decision on the Roe v. Wade abortion rights case, state policy makers have steadily chipped away at the right of individuals to terminate a pregnancy. Meanwhile, the matter of public health has gone all but untouched.

The argument in support of abortion on demand rests partly on the notion that public policy should resolve an individual’s right to terminate their pregnancy only after a fetus crosses the threshold between dependence on the womb and existence on the Earth. As a corollary, abortion on demand supports the notion that the health and safety of the womb’s owner take precedence over that of the womb’s occupant.

The subtext of all this is the constitutional right of the individual to make medical choices in private consultation with persons of their own choosing, and that is perhaps why supporters of abortion rights have lost their case.

The focus on constitutional rights is a necessary one, but it is also a distraction. Abortion is not simply an individual right. It is a fundamental matter of public health.

Editor's note: Be sure to subscribe to our Brands Taking Stands newsletter, which comes out every Wednesday.

Last September, Supreme Court biographer and legal analyst Joan Biskupic wrote an article for CNN that sheds some light on the public health aspect of abortion rights.

She notes that the constitutional right to privacy was recognized by both Republican and Democratic appointees to the Supreme Court during the Roe v. Wade arguments.

Justice Harry Blackmun, a Nixon appointee, wrote the opinion. However, it was another Nixon appointee, Lewis Powell, who made a pivotal suggestion that evokes public health.

The original proposal was to make 12 weeks the cutoff for abortion on demand. Along with others in the majority, Powell convinced Blackmun that the cutoff should be almost doubled.

“Blackmun himself explained as he prepared to amend his views that viability has logical and biological justifications,” Biskupic recounts, citing from his writings:

“'There is a practical aspect, too,” he continued in a memo to fellow justices, “for I am sure that there are many pregnant women, particularly younger girls, who may refuse to face the fact of pregnancy and who, for one reason or another, do not get around to medical consultation until the end of the first trimester is upon them or, indeed, has passed.”

Public health and the ‘practical aspect’

Although the Roe v. Wade decision has been heralded as a validation of personal liberty under the constitution, Blackmun’s decision appears to reach for the opposite conclusion. It is freighted with concepts of logic, biological fact, practicality and group impacts that belong squarely in the field of public health.

In the context of Blackmun’s memo, ignorance of one’s own condition, lack of access to professional help, fear of pregnancy and any fear of reprisal are all matters of public health, not individual liberty.

Public health is the common ground on which employers can support vaccine mandates for their employees, customers and clients, while also supporting a person’s decision to terminate a pregnancy.

As a matter of bottom-line practicality, employers can and should consider opposition to abortion as a threat to the workplace environment, with potentially catastrophic impacts on employee health and well-being, similar to the threat posed by allowing unvaccinated persons to come and go in the workplace during a lethal pandemic.

In the context of the ongoing worker shortage, corporate leaders have an additional incentive to help ensure that pregnant employees and job seekers have an unfettered right to render a decision about their pregnancy.

How to change hearts and minds: don’t bother

As amply illustrated by the hysterical reaction to vaccine mandates, there is no sense arguing with someone who opposes abortion on demand. Generations of fetal worship have poisoned the well, infecting powerful policy makers as well as the general public with the idea that matters of personal morality, however ill-founded, should always hold sway over public health considerations.

At this point, activism is the only solution, and this is an area in which corporate leaders can make a real difference.

Throughout the 20th century, women and their allies organized in massive numbers to fight for equal rights and a place at the policy making table, making themselves known as voters while corporate America sat by and watched.

Today it is different. Today, many U.S. corporations loudly profess to support women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, and racial equality, albeit with varying degrees of commitment.

With the Supreme Court all but certain to vaporize the last remnants of Roe v. Wade, perhaps now is the time for corporate leaders to stop cheering from the sidelines, and start focusing their financial muscle on solutions that support both public welfare and individual rights.

If corporate leaders are too afraid to tackle the issues head on, then fine. They can certainly fight for equal access to the ballot and let the weight of public opinion be reflected in the will of the electorate, not the privileged few.

After all, this is still a democracy, right?

Image credit: Ian Hutchinson via Unsplash

The global gaming industry is worth well over $300 billion, according to at least one survey, and half a billion gamers have joined this community over the past three years. The result is that gamers, as well as game developers, are not the stereotype many of us still assume: the pasty white guy living in his parents’ basement ranting on Reddit when he’s not conquering the virtual world.

Nevertheless, the data and commentary out there suggest the gaming community still has a long road ahead to ensure everyone and anyone feel welcome. The lingering effects of the harassment of women and non-white gamers during “Gamergate,” for example, never went away. The recent accusations of harassment and discrimination at Activision Blizzard are also a reminder that the industry has plenty of work ahead if it hopes to truly become inclusive.

And who’s leading this charge? Many drag queens are doing more than holding court in the gaming world: They’re performing, showcasing fashion and, yes, playing. Not only are they breaking down barriers, but they’re also playing a role in making gaming an even more valuable industry — one that has already become more lucrative than the global film and sports industries combined.

“Not today, Satan! Not today!” — the response to just about everything from Bianca Del Rio, winner of RuPaul’s Drag Race Season 6. Among the drag queens who have been long leaving their marks on gaming is Deere, who among many crowns wears one as the founder of Stream Queens, a group on Twitch that boasts about 100 streamers who fiercely make themselves known. She's also served more than realness as a brand ambassador for Twitch. Her drive to make gaming a space for everyone led to Gayming Mag naming her as the LGBTQ Streamer of the Year for 2021. In fact, Twitch has become Deere’s prime source of revenue — not a surprise considering she has almost 50,000 followers on the platform.

Editor's note: Be sure to subscribe to our Brands Taking Stands newsletter, which comes out every Wednesday.

It hasn’t been an easy road for Deere and her peers. While shows starting with RuPaul’s have nudged drag closer toward acceptance and no longer relegated to midnight shows at bars, gaming hasn’t yet been the most welcoming stage. She's spoken out against the harassment to which drag queens have been subjected on platforms such as Twitch — among the hideous behaviors they've endured include "swatting," as in when someone makes a fake call to law enforcement that leads to officers accosting that person in his or her home. Nevertheless, she keeps on coming through for her community. 

“I get trolled consistently while livestreaming,” Deere told Vogue’s Christian Allaire last week. “However, I believe that by being an example, we can change the world. Through showcasing diversity in the gaming industry, we can show people out there struggling, and kids that need examples of different people in the media, that they belong.”

The wider LGBTQ community offers gaming companies an opportunity to win more customers and, of course, more revenue. One survey conducted during the peak of the pandemic found that at least 10 percent of all gamers identified as LGBTQ and spent more on gaming than their straight counterparts. Take a step back for a second and the link makes sense: Gaming has long offered an escape when the real world was far too harsh and judgmental. And being told to shelter in place during the COVID-19 crisis seemed akin to going back into the closet for many LGBTQ citizens.

During an interview she gave earlier this summer, Deere mentioned that she’s reminded constantly about the isolation many in the LGBTQ community feel. “The most heartbreaking side of this is, every once and a while, I get people in my Twitch chat or in DMs that say, ‘thank you so much for making this content, thank you for being an example and entertaining and putting yourself out there, because being gay/trans/queer/enjoying or doing drag is illegal or frowned upon where I’m from. I’m unable to be myself and this is my only outlet and exposure to the community and you make a space where I can be myself’,” she told the Daily Dot. “This is such a beautiful commentary but it’s also so heartbreaking that they’re unable to express themselves safely in their surroundings.”

Deere’s determination to shantay and stay offers a lesson to companies. While companies keep touting their DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) chops — at an increasing pace, at least according to one study — many communities are still overlooked, which is another way of telling them that they don’t matter. This community needs more than a death drop. It deserves commitment.

A few companies outside the gaming industry have celebrated drag queens and have been true allies: Absolut was a sponsor of Drag Race in its early days, and United Airlines held a drag event pre-pandemic in partnership with the Trevor Project. The result — which can include trust and brand loyalty — is a win-win for customers, the community and, yes, companies.

Companies would be wise to slay it and open those garage doors, showcase these drag queens, let them turn the party and to paraphrase RuPaul, not sashay away from them.

Image credit: Deere via Instagram

With residential and commercial buildings contributing to nearly 40 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, climate advocates and green-minded policymakers are amplifying their efforts to inspire investment and legislation around decarbonization and electrification of buildings. Such investment will inch states and governments closer toward reaching ambitious and impending net-zero carbon targets, but affordable housing advocates warn it must be done equitably or risk leaving low-income communities behind.

“Electrification and decarbonization is inevitable,” energy efficiency and building science expert Krista Egger told Triple Pundit. “But equitable electrification and decarbonization is not inevitable unless we act proactively.”

The challenge of electrification

As electrification is prioritized and higher-income residents swap out gas-powered appliances for electric ones, low-income residents unable to make the same investments may face a price spike from natural gas companies finding themselves with a smaller pool of customers. Those higher income residents will not only enjoy monthly savings on their utility bills, but they’ll avoid the health risks associated with prolonged exposure to gas appliances. Low-income communities prioritizing basic needs like food over marginal monthly savings are likely to be excluded from such benefits, leading to even greater health and wealth disparities. And that’s not to mention the climate impacts of not electrifying and decarbonizing - impacts that hit communities of color and low-income residents harder than their wealthier neighbors.

At Egger’s role as Vice President of Initiatives at Enterprise Community Partners, a nonprofit tackling the United States’ small affordable housing stock, she’s mainstreaming the inclusion of green initiatives into affordable housing development.

“We view climate change as a threat multiplier for the community that we serve and our approach at Enterprise is not just looking at the climate change with sea level rise, flooding and crises, but how these changes really affect the lives of those that live in affordable housing,” Egger said. “How can we intervene, really explicitly, right now, and be able to tell a different story 10-20 years from now?”

One such intervention from Enterprise is the Green Communities program, which seeks to scale industry green building practices through holistic people- and resident-centered approaches, advocacy work and technical assistance to developers and investors.

The cornerstone of the initiative is the Green Communities Criteria, a one-of-its-kind checklist of standards that developers must abide by to ensure clean and green development of affordable housing units. Thirty states have mandated or encouraged developers seeking affordable housing funding to become Green Communities certified.

Affordable housing and electrification: can the two co-exist?

Affordable housing and sustainable design are often considered incompatible. How, after all, can you tackle the dearth of affordable housing in the United States while also requiring developers to jump through hoops to comply with building more responsibly and sustainably?

Egger says affordable and sustainable housing do not have to be mutually exclusive. Affordable housing developers are better off addressing climate resilience from the get-go because it makes for a stronger long-term investment in their property. Residents will feel cool in the summer and warm in the winter, better protected from climate shocks, and void of breathing in toxic particulate matters that arise from fossil fuels. And that’s all while paying less.

The benefits aren’t exclusive to the residents though. Developers and building managers will not only hear fewer complaints from residents, but they’ll also require fewer energy efficiency upgrades in later years. If electrification and decarbonization of buildings truly is inevitable, why wait to retrofit buildings later on?

“When we are creating new housing, we really want to make sure it’s going to be habitable, safe, efficient and affordable to operate over the long-term,” Egger said. “That’s why a marginal investment in green features for properties is a good decision.”

Momentum for the affordable housing sector

Affordable housing and climate activists are closely watching the Biden Administration’s Build Back Better Act as it works its way through Congress. The $1.75 trillion bill approved by the U.S. House includes considerable investment in the intersection of green and affordable housing. In addition to generous tax incentives (like the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and Neighborhood Homes Tax credit) that are sure to spur affordable housing development, the bill earmarked $150 billion for affordable housing and community development.

The commitments from the bill align with Enterprise’s hopes for affordable housing that is also sustainable. In an article co-authored by Egger and three other housing and energy experts, they jointly supported the bill as an “historic opportunity to meet new climate commitments while influencing our country’s housing shortage, racial inequities, health crisis, and the economic downturn.”

The bottom line

Above all, Egger says, is the need to ensure the push for electrification and decarbonization among the housing sector doesn’t increase the energy or cost burden on low-income residents in affordable housing.

“If we don’t do anything today, we’re going to be exacerbating these inequities in a way that’s going to lead to significant health and life safety outcomes for those who are most vulnerable,” Egger said.

Image credit: Brandon Griggs via Unsplash

Remember the widespread power outages in Texas last February that left 4.5 million homes and businesses without power at their peak? Now, nearly a year later, some utility grid experts warn the same situation could repeat itself. Moreover, a cold snap or winter storm could leave the Texas grid vulnerable yet again.

What caused the 2021 Texas power crisis?

In February, unseasonably cold temperatures, combined with a series of snow and ice storms hit Texas, creating a sharp increase in energy demand due to a heightened need for space heating. Almost 40 percent of Texans heat their homes with natural gas and the remainder with electricity, so demand for the two skyrocketed with frigid temperatures.

But, about half of Texas’ power comes from natural gas, and the cold snap caused natural gas fields to close and pipelines to freeze, right as demand increased. In addition, some coal, nuclear and wind power plants were also shuttered or were forced to decrease their output. It was a perfect storm for widespread failures as the state’s grid nearly completely collapsed.

In addition to widespread power outages, many Texans were left without safe drinking water and needed to boil the tap water or find bottled water. Sadly, 151 people perished due to the storm itself, and Buzzfeed News estimates that hundreds of medically vulnerable people died from the power outage. For example, some used their vehicles in garages to stay warm, leading to carbon monoxide poisoning. Others died from the cold itself.

This catastrophe highlights how the Texas utility grid is not resilient during extreme weather and the catastrophic impacts of being unprepared. This concept is especially troublesome because climate change will likely bring more problems.

Why is the Texas grid still vulnerable?

Some experts warn the same situation could repeat itself, especially with the right weather conditions. But, wasn't this situation corrected after the hard lesson in February 2021, wasn’t this situation corrected?

As some energy experts are saying otherwise, Governor Greg Abbot is reassuring Texans. “I can guarantee the lights will stay on,” Abbott told FOX 7 in Austin during Thanksgiving week. “I signed almost a dozen laws that make the power grid more effective.” He is referring to multiple laws he signed that have an impact on the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT).

However, according to some energy experts, new restrictions allow too much wiggle room, and some of the needed upgrades could take months or years to implement. Two of the biggest hurdles are weatherizing power plants and ensuring a consistent natural gas supply during frigid temperatures, but the restrictions don’t adequately address these needed upgrades.

The Texas power grid is separate from the national power grids that serve the eastern and western United States. Thus, it is outside of the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and therefore avoids many federal regulations. The Texas Legislature creates the laws that oversee ERCOT, which manages most of the Texas power grid. Thus, the lack of resiliency with the Texas grid is largely outside of the domain of the federal government.

“If we see a recurrence of the storm we saw last year, people should probably be worried,” director of Public Citizen’s Texas office Adrian Shelley told the Texas Tribune. The Texas power grid just wasn’t created with such weather in mind.

“Extreme weather events, such as the one in February 2021, are unfortunately becoming more commonplace and the electricity ecosystem needs to come together to plan for and prepare to operate under more extreme, longer duration, and wide area weather events,” Jim Robb, the president and CEO of North American Electric Reliability Corp., said in a statement.

Just as many Texans must prepare for hurricanes, perhaps the same is true during the heating season and potential related power outages. Households having operating carbon monoxide detectors, a supply of safe drinking water, and a strategy for keeping warm is a good start.

Some consider the Texas power grid failure a cautionary tale of climate change and how infrastructure can fail from extreme weather. Often, infrastructure wasn’t created with a turbulent climate in mind, thus it fails when weather strays from the previous norm.

Image credit: Zack Brame via Unsplash

At the recent COP26 climate talks, countries and companies largely focused on tackling climate change by decarbonizing the energy sector. Such tactics include commitments to curb the finance of fossil fuel projects, address the challenge of methane emissions, and reduce the carbon intensity of industries like aluminum and steel.

Such agreements, while critical, are only part of the climate action equation, as research suggests shifting to renewable energy will eliminate just over half of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. “Meeting climate targets will also require tackling the remaining 45 percent of emissions associated with making products,” the Ellen MacArthur Foundation concluded in a 2019 report. “A circular economy offers a systemic and cost-effective approach to tackling this challenge.”

The role of packaging in addressing climate change risks

It’s clear the circular economy will never become reality without more innovations and efficiency in packaging. After all, packaging touches just about everything that passes through global supply chains. This is especially true in wealthier countries, or what the global NGO Circle Economy calls “shift countries.” Such nations are home to a minority of the world’s population but generate more than 40 percent of global emissions and drive about a third of global resource extraction. They also produce an astounding 11.6 billion metric tons of waste annually. 

In its 2021 Circularity Gap Report, Circle Economy found that only 8.6 percent of the world’s economy is actually circular — and the evidence suggests that ratio is declining, not increasing.

While those statistics are daunting, slashing global waste is still possible. “Countries can design for the future, eliminating excess resource use in packaging and product design, and prioritize the use of regenerative resources, for example by using biodegradable materials for packaging or certain product components,” the NGO concluded.

One company that is determined to drive innovation within the circular economy is Siegwerk, a global supplier of printing inks for packaging applications. Partnering with a bevy of organizations focused on recycling and circularity solutions, Siegwerk has committed to having 75 percent of all its sales enable circular packaging by enabling less, reusable, recyclable and renewable packaging.

The numbers alone make a strong case for why all companies should eschew virgin materials for packaging and take the necessary steps to use recycled content. “Plastic packaging that is made of recycled content has a 50 percent lower carbon footprint compared to one made of virgin material,” Alina Marm, Siegwerk’s head of global sustainability and circular economy, said during the recent Henkel Sustainability Days online forum. “If you actually used a change model in how we use packaging and switch from single-use to reuse models, we see a benefit of 50 to 80 percent reduction in CO2, depending on what packaging substrate [is used].”

Rethinking plastic to close packaging’s climate action gap

Plastic is lightweight, low in cost, and can be shaped to encase and protect just about any product on the market. Thanks to these attributes, plastic has become more popular as a packaging material in the last half century. But the proliferation of single-use plastic has entrenched a linear “make-take-dispose” model that consumes vast amounts of resources and leaves a harmful scar on the environment, biodiversity and increasingly society — likely above the overall value plastic offers in a linear system. Circular economic models, on the other hand, respect the natural boundaries of the planet while minimizing waste and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

More global organizations have recognized this. “Net zero cannot be achieved by decarbonizing the energy sector alone,” the World Economic Forum (WEF) concluded in a March 2021 report. In a nod to the role that packaging can have in such a transformation, WEF offered this reminder: “Circularity is needed to tackle climate goals within the next decade.”

While greater focus on the circular economy is welcome, Marm of Siegwerk reiterates that the road ahead is a long one. “While change is rapid in respect to climate change, circular packaging is not addressing it all yet,” she said. “We have some climate action gaps. If you look at the global plastics emissions among the lifecycle of plastic, you see that only 9 percent result from the actual managed end-of-life scenarios, the remaining emissions caused by sourcing and converting.” That shows us that optimizing only for end-of-life is not sufficient — it must be paired with feeding that recycled material back into the system and using less overall. 

To cut global emissions, circularity must become the norm

The impact that the manufacture of packaging materials such as plastic has on the global environment will only surge in the coming decades if circularity — thought holistically — does not become the norm. According to the World Resources Institute: “As the population and consumerism increases, so does the demand for materials. Emissions are likely to grow fast without changes to current production and consumption. For steel, cement, aluminum and plastics, emissions are predicted to rise by a factor of two to four by 2050.” For plastic alone, this means that 10 percent of the 1.5 degrees carbon budget will be needed. 

Marm is among the circularity thought leaders who say the role of global plastics manufacturing has been overlooked. “We’re to some extent neglecting the utter drivers for greenhouse gas emissions, whether it be extraction, raw material production or the conversion of packaging and hence limiting the potential circular packaging has,” she explained.

A circular economy model can actually create more opportunities for companies that are part of the global plastics value chain: “27 percent of all plastic packaging today is technically recyclable, not recycled, [but] technically recyclable. So we still have a way to go, giving us ample economic opportunity,” Marm said. 

The social case for accelerating toward a circular economy

The case for circularity is not solely an environmental or economic one. “Our economic model really builds on an exploitive capitalist model,” Marm explained. “I know these are harsh words, but think about one of the definitions of capitalism: It is the extraction of the surplus of value. We’re extracting from natural resources, but also very much from the human beings in our global community.”

While wealthier countries have successfully exported the make-take-dispose model globally, few developing nations have the waste management infrastructure necessary to absorb the high volumes of single-use waste now being produced within their borders. Many rely on self-employed refuse collectors to keep streets and waterways clean, but these individuals tend to be poorly paid and face significant health risks at work. “The informal sector, which covers a vast amount of our waste management, can actually source all the material that we need in the recycling space,” Marm said. “We’d better give them a better stake at the table.”

Further, many rich countries export their waste, further overburdening the waste management systems in poorer countries and forcing them to burn and dump — rather than recover — most of the waste they import.

Circle Economy’s 2021 Gap Report also emphasizes the importance the informal sector has in addressing these challenges. “Teaming up to create joint value and aligning the role of the decentralized labor sector with waste management processes will be necessary to reduce footprints and material use from both construction and demolition waste…and solid municipal waste,” the NGO concluded. “By introducing waste management infrastructure, halting waste-imports from shift countries and formalizing waste pickers — allowing them to work in safer conditions in processing facilities — these issues may be addressed.”

For Marm, the social and environmental cases are inextricably linked — and both make a compelling argument for a global rethink of waste. “If you just think about the sheer amount of waste that we’re producing in Europe and the U.S., and shipping off to other countries, well aware that they do not have the infrastructure, that they are going to carry the environmental, social and economic burden of our consumerism, seeing all this, I think it becomes evident why I’m pushing us to challenge the underlying economic model,” she said.

This article series is sponsored by Siegwerk Druckfarben and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team.

Image credit: ink drop/Adobe Stock

Recently, the Japanese automaker Nissan unveiled its 2030 vision showing what it says is a stronger commitment to electric vehicles (EVs) and the circular economy. The automaker will invest $17.6 billion over five years to electrify more vehicles with plans to create 23 electrified models by 2030, with 15 being all-electric. In addition, the automaker intends to reach a 50 percent electrification mix for the Nissan and Infiniti brands by the end of fiscal year 2030.

“We are proud of our long track record of innovation, and of our role in delivering the EV revolution. With our new ambition, we continue to take the lead in accelerating the natural shift to EVs by creating customer pull through an attractive proposition by driving excitement, enabling adoption, and creating a cleaner world,” said Nissan COO Ashwani Gupta.

Advancing all-solid-state batteries

Nissan also plans to establish a global battery supply system to support the expansion of EVs. In fact, it is working on all-solid-state batteries (ASSB) and plans to release its proprietary ASSB by 2028. Plans also call for opening such a pilot battery plant in Yokohama, Japan, as early as 2024. The company anticipates decreasing battery costs with this approach to $75 per kilowatt hour (kWh) by 2028 and $65 per kWh subsequently.

By working with its various partners, Nissan seeks to increase its worldwide battery production capacity to 52 GWh by 2026, and to 130 GWh by 2030, according to a press release.

ASSB has a higher energy density than lithium-ion batteries, which currently power most EVs. Also, all-solid-state batteries don’t have the same safety concerns as lithium-ion batteries as they at lower risk of exploding or catching fire. Thus, cars with ASSBs theoretically wouldn’t need as many safety components, saving space. Therefore, these batteries could extend the range of EVs, save money, and reduce charging times to one-third; however, they are not commercially viable just yet.

Long-term plans underway at Nissan

The automaker also plans to expand its battery refurbishing facilities beyond Japan by adding new plants in Europe around 2022 and the United States three years later, which could help to further the circular economy. Nissan’s recent announcements are in line with its vision to be carbon-neutral by 2050, a pledge that includes the lifecycle of its products. Nissan previously created a six-year environmental plan in 2011.

Clearly, these actions show how Nissan, as is the case with other automakers, is placing electrification closer to the center of its long-term business strategy. Historically, Nissan and its luxury division Infiniti’s EV track records have been mixed. Infiniti currently has no electric vehicles in its lineup, but Nissan was early in introducing the all-electric Leaf in late 2010. It quickly became the world’s top-selling EV, and over 500,000 units sold by its tenth anniversary.

When compared to its competitors, the 2022 Leaf is relatively economical, starting at $28,375, but it has a range of only 149 miles. This is lackluster compared to other EVs on the market, including the 2022 Chevy Bolt, which touts a 259-mile range with a starting price of $31,995.

But Nissan is going beyond the Leaf. The automaker is about to release its second all-electric vehicle in early 2022, the Ariya, with a starting price of around $40,000. The longest-range version of this crossover model has an estimated range of 300 miles and should hit the market in early 2022. The Nissan Ariya is offered in either front-wheel drive or all-wheel drive and features ProPilot 2.0, Nissan's semi-autonomous driving system.

The competition and future plans for EVs

As global demand for electric vehicles increases, many legacy automakers are shifting their manufacturing efforts to EVs, and Nissan is not alone in investing billions.

• General Motors pledges to sell only zero-emissions vehicles by 2035 and have 30 new electric vehicle models by 2025.
• Toyota, a leader in hybrids, is investing more than $13 billion in EV batteries.
• BMW plans for EVs to make up 50 percent of its sales by 2030 and already has several all-electric models on the market, including the iX SUV and i4 sedan.
• Kia intends to roll out 11 electric vehicles by 2025 and already has two, the Niro EV and EV6.
• Ford is investing $22 billion in electrification through 2025 and is introducing an all-electric version of the ever-popular F150 pickup in 2022.
• Also, all-electric U.S. automakers Rivian, Lucid Motors, and Tesla have models on the market.

Although Nissan’s recent announcements were certainly good news for the advancement of electrification, its plans for the upcoming this decade is fairly similar to its competitors. What could set Nissan apart this decade is its proprietary ASSB technology, especially if the automaker can quickly and successfully bring these batteries to market.

Image credit of the Ariya via Nissan USA

It’s no revelation that human activity generates a lot of organic waste. Whether households are discarding food scraps and flushing toilets, or food and beverage companies generate waste byproducts to create the delights we consume — the results are that we are continually creating a lot of biomass we need to get rid of.

But rather than looking at our organic waste as something merely to be dealt with, increasingly, it’s something that offers tremendous opportunity. On aggregate, our organic waste streams serve as a potential gold mine of an energy source.

According to Mike Theodoulou of Suez Water Technologies and Solutions, with whom TriplePundit recently spoke, in the U.S. alone, there are 436 million gigajoules (GJ) of energy available that could be derived from wastewater treatment, landfills, manure, and other organic waste streams. Basically, the availability of cheap energy from all the bits we don’t want.

To date, Suez alone via 46 installations of its anaerobic digester projects has generated the equivalent energy of powering 60,000 homes per year, while across North America there’s still tremendous untapped potential to expand.

The energy we are talking about is renewable natural gas (RNG) derived from breaking down organic waste in anaerobic digesters.

When organic waste is broken down in these digesters (see the accompanying picture of a Suez anaerobic digester) methane gas is the key output. Since methane is the essence of natural gas, when biogas from anaerobic digesters is upgraded to pipeline quality, resultant RNG can be injected into natural gas pipelines and sold into the energy markets. In short, waste becomes a revenue stream.

There are attractive additional financial benefits of producing RNG too. Producers not only realize the inherent value of the RNG itself, but also the value from renewable energy credits they generate with it. Key among these include renewable credits available under California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), and RIN credits under the federal governments’ Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program.

As a rule of thumb, Theodoulou, a senior product manager of anaerobic digestion technologies at Suez, told 3p that these energy credits are worth roughly five times the value of the RNG itself. Refiners and fuel importers are the buyers of these credits who must prove they are in regulatory compliance with blending the requisite percentage of renewables into their energy pipelines.

In short, producing RNG is an attractive opportunity for entities that must manage organic waste streams, and broadly, there are four main categories of customers who are candidates for establishing an RNG facility using anaerobic digesters.

Municipalities who are in the business of wastewater and sewage treatment. Industrial entities like food and beverage or pulp and paper companies. Waste companies who haul away domestic waste and also private investors, who are interested in setting up a project, defining sources of waste and organizing financing and selling RNG into the market. Private investors, in fact, might sell to the other above-mentioned customers.

It’s worth noting too, that as well as generating revenue from both RNG and renewable credits, there’s another advantage that comes as a result of cost avoidance.

If you are, for example, a food and beverage company, you are already having to pay someone to manage your waste stream. If you establish an anaerobic digester facility, at the same time as you are generating revenue from your waste, you no longer have to pay someone to manage it. This saving helps offset the cost of setting up the operation.

All things considered, the return on investment in an RNG project is actually fairly rapid.

Theodoulou explained that for municipalities, it typically takes four to seven years for a project to reach its full payback, but for industrial customers that can be reduced to as few as two to three years. This is because again, they can immediately avoid existing costs like sewage surcharges they otherwise would have to pay.

Where companies like Suez add value is putting it all together. They not only supply the anaerobic digesters, but they also assess the viability of the project by assessing the proper feedstock (inputs) while they also warrant the production of the biogas itself. This includes assuring the quality of the gas and the amount of gas a project will produce based on the amount of feedstock that is going in.

Theodoulou explained that in Europe, the market for this is already pretty competitive and well established. In North America, however, he foresees growth potential exists for at least the next 15 to 20 years. Attractive opportunities also exist in Central and South America.

He stresses that although there are of course compelling reasons to set up anaerobic digesters for environmental reasons (significant CO2 and methane that would otherwise vent to the atmosphere is avoided), “a project does have to stand on its own from the financial aspect.”

At the moment, renewable energy credits certainly help establish the financial case, but in the future, he believes projects could function without them. For example, using RNG at point of generation to fuel fleet vehicles is a possible scenario where localization establishes viability without need for any extraneous regulatory mechanisms.

Image credit via Suez Water Technologies and Solutions