It seems rallying cries for a so-called "green recovery" from the coronavirus are building by the day. As governments spend trillions of dollars to cope with the pandemic and chart a way forward, advocates ranging from business leaders to environmental NGOs have thrown their weight behind policies that leverage stimulus funds for sustainable development. This week, healthcare professionals entered the mix. 

On Tuesday, more than 350 health organizations signed an open letter to world leaders in the G-20, which represents both industrial and developing nations, calling for a "healthy recovery" that limits air pollution and mitigates climate change.

The groups represent over half of the global medical workforce, or more than 40 million health professionals. They called on G-20 leaders to engage their chief medical officers and scientific advisors directly in the production of COVID-19 stimulus packages — and to solicit their feedback about potential implications for public health and wellbeing. 

"The enormous investments your governments will make over the coming months in key sectors like health care, transport, energy and agriculture must have health protection and promotion embedded at their core," the groups wrote in their letter. 

To understand what that means in practice, let's dive into the letter — and what experts are saying about it — for a closer look. 

What health professionals mean by a "green recovery"

Before the pandemic, air pollution from traffic, energy production, waste incineration and agriculture was linked to 7 million premature deaths each year, the health organizations observed in their letter. Around 780 million people lacked access to clean drinking water. And 800 million people were already experiencing direct impacts from climate change, with billions at even greater risk if current emissions pathways continue. 

"A truly healthy recovery will not allow pollution to continue to cloud the air we breathe and the water we drink. It will not permit unabated climate change and deforestation, potentially unleashing new health threats upon vulnerable populations," the groups including the World Medical Association and the International Council of Nurses told G-20 leaders. "To achieve that healthy economy, we must use smarter incentives and disincentives in the service of a healthier, more resilient society."'

Their vision for a green recovery is bold and includes "major reforms to current fossil fuel subsidies," shifting the majority of funds toward renewable energy development. 

For perspective, that would be a lot of cash: Global governments funneled more than $400 billion in direct subsidies to fossil fuel companies in 2018, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). When factoring in world leaders' failure to put a price on carbon, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimated that governments — and their taxpayers — back the fossil fuel industry to the tune of a staggering $5 trillion each year. 

The health groups pointed to a 2020 study from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), which estimates that shifting the energy system away from fossil fuels could spur nearly $100 trillion in global GDP gains between now and 2050. 

“Climate change poses an imminent and serious threat to the health of the world’s population," Annette Kennedy, president of the International Council of Nurses, said in a statement. "We are calling on governments to make sure that pollution levels do not return to previous levels, so that our children and grandchildren will be able to grow up healthily in a livable and sustainable climate. Only by investing in both healthcare and the environment can we create a sustainable future.”

Worker rights are also on the agenda, as the groups call for "access to well-paying jobs that do not exacerbate pollution or nature degradation." More than 1.1 million people work in the fossil fuel industry in the U.S. alone. Like workers across virtually every sector, many have lost their jobs amid coronavirus lockdowns. Groups including the World Resources Institute (WRI) say the recovery period is an ideal time to ensure a fair transition for fossil fuel workers, including coverage for income, training and relocation for those facing job loss.

Further, a recent economic analysis from the Sierra Club indicates a green recovery in the U.S. — aimed at rethinking energy production, transportation, manufacturing and land use — could create 9 million good-paying jobs every year over the next decade. A global analysis from Oxford University similarly concluded that green recovery plans have potential for the highest returns on investment in the form of job creation, economic stimulus, and public and environmental health. 

"Tackling climate change has the answer to our economic problems,” Cameron Hepburn, director of the Smith School of enterprise and the environment at Oxford University and lead author of the study, told the Guardian. 

Health experts seem to agree. “Health professionals are at the frontlines of this emergency, and we are seeing the immense loss of lives because of acting too late,” said Miguel Jorge, the president of the World Medical Association, in a statement. “We know now more than ever that healthy lives depend on a healthy planet. As we walk on the road to recovery, we need to build a system that will protect us from further damage." 

Will governments listen?

Whether world leaders will heed the call for a green recovery is yet to be seen, but national governments including the European Union and South Korea have indicated that some elements of a green recovery plan may be on the table. 

“There will be a difficult debate about the allocation of funds," German Chancellor Angela Merkel said at a virtual climate meeting of 30 world leaders last month, as quoted by the Guardian. "But it is important that recovery programs always keep an eye on the climate. We must not sideline climate, but invest in climate technologies.”

The next G-20 summit is set for November. Empowering women and children, protecting the environment, and ensuring equitable access to technology are all on the agenda. 

Image credit: Roman Koester/Unsplash

The Golden State's landmark California Beverage Container Recycling system, enacted in 1987 to increase recycling rates for plastic, glass and aluminum beverage containers, is facing a crisis. Plastic bottle redemption rates have fallen from a high of 85 percent to just 75 percent last year, as recycling collection centers close across the state. If legislators don’t work on a fix soon, it could get worse.

“The key factor we identified to be contributing to declining return rates was the failure of the current program to ensure that there are sufficient convenient redemption points,” ​said Sarah Edwards, CEO of Eunomia North America, in a press statement. “The current container recycling program needs reform.”

What can be done to boost plastic bottle redemption rates in the Golden State?

A report just released by the Changing Markets Foundation and National Stewardship Action Council argues that unspent funds should be utilized by CalRecycle, the state waste management authority, to enhance plastic bottle redemption options and invest in pilot programs. Then, they argue, the bill can hit its long-term goal of a 95 percent recycling rate in the state.

“Modernization of the bottle bill will also bring significant environmental benefits and reduce financial burden on public authorities that are spending half a billion dollars on clean-ups,” ​said Nusa Urbancic, Campaigns Director of Changing Markets, in a press statement. “Unlocking these benefits, California could, once again, show environmental leadership it is famous for.”

The irony is that California’s bottle system is one of the few functioning plastic recovery programs in the country. Since it was enacted, it has resulted in more than 400 billion beverage containers being recycled. What’s happening in California, though, is part of a larger issue facing the country as a whole. Simply put, the United States is facing a plastic crisis.

Recycling systems can’t keep up with mounting plastic waste

Over the past decade, plastic production and consumption has boomed, but recycling and recovery systems have not. In fact, the national recycling rate has plateaued – and it is the recycling of primarily plastic that is lagging. Only 4.4 percent of plastic was recycled in 2018, as compared to 27 percent for glass, or 66 percent for paper. Part of the problem is the multitude of plastics that exist, but another factor is the limited market for recycled plastic to re-enter the economy. Virgin plastic, produced from oil, is just too cheap.

The end results include the growing mounds of plastic filling up landfills. It got worse since 2018, when China stopped accepting plastic imports. Many cities and states relied on their ability to send plastic to China, as they lacked the facilities to recycle or process it here. China’s ban left many municipalities across the country with a problem – nowhere to send, or, soon, store plastic. Much of it ended up in landfills, and some have even stopped accepting plastic for recycling entirely.

The failure of the California plastic bottle redemption system to keep up is partly a failure of the state, but a big share of the responsibility falls on companies like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and other beverage producers. For years, they have talked up their green credentials – PepsiCo, for instance, made a commitment to increase their beverage container recycling rate to 50 percent by 2018. Coca-Cola has said it has a goal to collect and recycle a bottle or can for each one it sells by 2030.

But by and large, beverage companies have failed to deliver, and a big part of that is their limited investment into recycling or investments in systems that can help recover and reuse plastic.

Beverage companies’ rhetoric isn’t matching their actions

“Due to public concern about the plastic pollution crisis worldwide, we are witnessing a parade of corporations scrambling to look greener by putting forward false solutions to justify their addiction to single-use packaging,” said Greenpeace USA Global Project Leader Graham Forbes in a press statement.

This is why, even though we know we are using too much plastic, and that we need to cut back on single use plastic in particular, the plastics industry is building new plants to feed our plastic addiction. What’s even worse is the sector’s push to use the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to have cities, states, and other regions rescind plastic bag bans – despite little to no evidence of any public health benefit.

For now, California can be a model by fixing the broken container deposit system, and then passing the even more ambitious California Circular Economy and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act, now currently awaiting vote in Sacramento and already seeing fierce opposition from the plastic industry. The bill, if passed, would regulate all types of single-use plastic packaging, not only bottles. Only then can California play its role in solving the global plastic crisis.

Image credit: Pixabay

Note: the author has done related research work for Changing Markets, though not on this specific report[1] 

Can move this around. Technically my research is for a different report on plastic in the US

With up to 40 percent of food wasted and the U.S. food supply chain currently struggling, interest in developing new ways to make food is surging. To that end, the Upcycled Food Association is looking ahead to more food companies joining its ranks as well as starting a product certification program later this year. Founded in 2019, the organization’s mission focused on “reducing food waste by growing the upcycled food economy,” whether that be retailers selling misshaped vegetables or repurposing grains used to brew beer into snack foods.

The definition was created recently by the nonprofit’s task force, which worked for six months and included researchers from Harvard and Drexel Universities, members of nonprofits ReFED, Natural Resources Defense Council and the World Wildlife Fund. A report and infographic of the findings are scheduled to be released to the public.

As defined by the task force, "Upcycled foods use ingredients that otherwise would not have gone to human consumption, are procured and produced using verifiable supply chains and have a positive impact on the environment." 

Ben Gray, chief operations officer of the Upcycled Food Association, said in a release that the definition would help the group "clarify the vision" and be the basis for the new product certification program. 

When the certification program is up and running, food products that meet a series of requirements will be marked with a seal indicating they are Certified Upcycled. Resources will be available to teach shoppers about the impact of upcycled foods and help them find upcycled products locally. 

A clear definition also could be another boost for a rapidly growing industry. According to one estimate, the upcycled food industry could be valued at more than $46 billion, with a 5 percent compound annual growth rate predicted, noted a report published by Future Market Insights last year.  

The association now has more than 70 members, mostly in the U.S., and about 400 different upcycled food products on the market. Companies are using the byproducts from food waste in beverages and food as well as supplements, biofuel and pet food. Member businesses include the Ugly Company, which sells upcycled fruit, and Hidden Gem Beverage Co., which produces drinks from avocado seeds. A potential partnership is in the works between Cargill and Renmatix. The companies are researching upcycling plant materials into food ingredients, which could be included in baked goods, meat products, dairy items, sauces and soups.

Besides emerging as a growth industry, upcycled food has the benefits of reducing the cost of tons of food being wasted annually and the impact of that food waste on the environment. Retailers lose about $18.2 billion a year from food waste, according to ReFED. As reported by the World Resources Institute, as much as one-third of the food produced for peoples’ tables is wasted.

Using upcycled ingredients also can help decrease the more than 70 billion tons of greenhouse gases food waste creates, according to Forbes; that amount represents about 8 percent of greenhouse gas emissions produced by humans. 

“Reducing food waste is the single greatest solution to climate change according to Project Drawdown," noted Gray.

Shoppers also are increasingly influenced by sustainability and reducing food waste in their shopping choices, even during the upheaval of the novel coronavirus pandemic, which indicates there is even more promise for a growing market for upcycled goods. In fact, the number of consumers considering the environment when shopping increased since last year and even since the beginning of the pandemic. Last year, 71 percent of consumers reported reflecting on the environment at least occasionally when shopping. The figure was up to 78 percent by March 6, and on April 10, after many people had been in quarantine for several weeks, the figure went to 83 percent. 

Upcycled foods also could play a stabilizing role as the supply chain struggles to adjust to the pandemic. According to Emily Broad Leib, director of Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic and task force member, "Scaling up the use of upcycled foods offers a powerful opportunity to make our supply chain more efficient and resilient."

Image credit: Imperfect Foods/Facebook

The Big Three U.S. automakers officially restarted their production lines on May 18. The meticulously planned day was carefully coordinated in collaboration with labor unions, health experts and other stakeholders. The joint effort was intended to demonstrate best practices for protecting worker safety in other U.S. industries during the COVID-19 outbreak. It should have been a shining moment for brand reputation.

Unfortunately, all did not go according to plan. Instead, the Big Three reopening served as another reminder that corporations must act more aggressively to uphold the basic principles of social responsibility when elected leaders drop the ball.

Planning ahead for a safe return to work

The Big Three automakers — Ford, General Motors, and Fiat Chrysler — were among scores of leading U.S. companies that President Trump named on April 14, when he announced the formation of “Great American Economic Revival Industry Groups.” The participants were tasked with laying plans for reopening workplaces that had been shuttered in the effort to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

Apparently the Big Three took their mission seriously. Working with experts, they agreed on a phased-in approach and circulated new safety guidelines under the title, “Return to Work Manufacturing Playbook.”

In an online introduction, Ford listed its human resources, manufacturing operations, corporate medical and safety, labor affairs, and purchasing among the internal divisions involved.

Ford also emphasized that the guidelines are “based upon the guidance provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), and the World Health Organization (WHO).”

In addition, Ford has previously drawn attention to its collaboration with labor unions and other groups on COVID-19 safety, as well as its experience in restarting operations in China and the European Union.

Ford, GM and Fiat Chrysler have also gathered experience in disease prevention while deploying their facilities to manufacture medical supplies during the COVID-19 outbreak, in the U.S. and elsewhere.

In short, the table was set to demonstrate U.S. manufacturing resilience at its finest.

One less mask, more hot water for Ford

Against this backdrop, on May 21 President Trump visited Ford’s Rawsonville Components Plant in Ypsilanti, Michigan, which is currently manufacturing medical supplies.

According to numerous news reports, the president wore a mask initially but removed it later in the visit.

In doing so, the president violated Ford’s safety protocols and undermined weeks of effort. He also ignored health experts from multiple agencies within his own administration, as if to publicly challenge their ability to render any useful guidance at all.

Speaking truth to power in the age of COVID-19: it’s complicated

Ford has been criticized for not ejecting the president when he violated clearly established rules for visiting the plant. At the least, the company could have terminated the visit before the president appeared in public without a mask.

They probably wish they had done so. In his public remarks, Trump evoked the virulent anti-Semitism of Ford’s founder, Henry Ford, who deployed both his newspaper and the company’s dealerships to spread his ideas.

To be fair, though, the stage for accommodating the president had already been set. The whole visit was in apparent violation of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s COVID-19 safety orders, which included suspending factory tours and other nonessential visits.

However, on May 19 the Detroit Free Press reported that Whitmer would not attempt to prevent the president from visiting Michigan.

Brand reputation in the age of COVID-19

So, what will happen the next time the president requests to visit a business that is enforcing strict workplace safety guidelines to prevent the spread of COVID-19?

Based on his behavior in Ypsilanti, the answer should be a polite but firm “no.”

Presidents come and go, but the lifespan of a leading brand lasts for generations. After months of suffering, death, and economic upheaval, the president has yet to articulate a consistent message on COVID-19 prevention. Meanwhile, he flouts official orders against non-essential travel, and ignores workplace safety requirements that protect workers and the public against a potentially fatal disease.

CEOs at leading companies have already been tested by the president’s policies on LGBTQ rights, immigration issues, racism and gun control and other areas where the direct impact on human life is distant or difficult to quantify precisely. 

With COVID-19, there is no such difficulty. The numbers are there in black and white, and the lethal consequences of presidential misdirection are literally stalking the factory floor.

Image credit: Ford Motor Co.

Mariposa, California, and the surrounding county that shares its name are gems for many reasons. Let’s start with mariposa, Spanish for butterfly and a perfect name for this area, as one of the best reasons to visit this small county are the monarch butterflies and other species that make their home in the foothills. The town of 2,200 is rich in architecture that dates back to the Gold Rush era, and its county courthouse (shown above) is the oldest such building still in use in the Golden State. Mariposa is also the gateway to the spectacular Merced River canyon and the Arch Rock entrance of nearby Yosemite National Park. Larger than Rhode Island with one-sixtieth of the state’s population, Mariposa County offers a picture-perfect postcard snapshot of rural America.

Home to just over 18,000 people, Mariposa County has certainly been prepared as tourists and the outdoors industry are ready for a reopening of business. Local officials have shown how municipalities can manage through a crisis: A recent Los Angeles Times profile details how county leaders focused on managing best they could during this crisis, and in doing so raised the bar for crisis management. At a time when the idea of contact tracing is now hyper-politicized, local public health officials have managed to test at least 5 percent of its population. Contrast that with nearby Fresno County, one hub of “Reopen California” protests where less than 2 percent of its 1 million residents have been tested for COVID-19. The millions of annual visitors ready to drive to Yosemite at a moment’s notice will test Mariposa’s resilience, but the region’s private and public sectors are prepared to manage as best they can.

But like much of rural America, Mariposa County does not benefit from the community engagement and community development programs that corporations are quick to showcase when given the opportunity.

Let’s start with internet access. In a state that boasts 97 percent of its residents having access to broadband, only 10 percent of Mariposa County residents can say they do. That statistic doesn’t bode well for rural communities hoping to benefit from an influx of remote workers – and Facebook’s recent announcement that it may adjust compensation based on employees’ new locations sends a strong signal that any mass relocation of the American workforce won’t occur soon. Estimates suggest as many as 42 million Americans lack access to broadband, including about 24 percent of rural residents. Almost 60 percent of rural Americans said in a 2018 survey that access to broadband is a problem where they live; even if they have it, their internet may not perform so well.

Companies including Microsoft and AT&T say they are addressing this problem, but if they are, rural residents aren’t getting the affordable broadband memo. Microsoft’s president, Brad Smith, recently urged the U.S. Congress to fund broadband in rural communities as part of a COVID-19 relief package, but there’s no guarantee such public investments will happen any time soon, especially with federal deficits reaching unsustainable levels. Meanwhile, residents whose work, such as dairy farming, is increasingly dependent on internet access, find they have to go to extraordinary measures to keep their businesses afloat.

Mariposa County’s economy faces challenges that much of rural America confronts when the question of economic diversification comes up. The county’s economy leans largely on tourism, the public sector and retail – in that order. Fields like technology, professional services and finance – all of which lend themselves perfectly to working remotely – lag when compared to the U.S. economy and that of California’s.

The same goes for healthcare and banking, two other industries that have already been lurching toward a tipping point across much of rural America. Mariposa’s lone hospital has 34 beds, leaving it with a notably lower ratio of hospital beds per 1,000 residents when compared to Silicon Valley (Santa Clara County), a mere three-hour drive away.

In the end, this is a chicken-and-the-egg problem that cannot solve itself. Employees who could telework would be open to relocating, which would create opportunities to launch small “hubs” as companies rethink leasing space at massive office parks or skyscrapers — and discover that, yes, more remote areas certainly have talent. But these same workers need to be able to log in, and they want to ensure they have essential services like healthcare and banking. And therein lies another opportunity for companies and industries to work together for the good of all residents — and help boost their long-term profitability.

Image credit: Leon Kaye

The need to expand reliable, affordable access to clean water has been thrown into sharp focus by the novel coronavirus pandemic. Accelerated action is more urgent than ever. The question is how. 

One key to the answer may be found in the global transition to renewable energy. Just 10 years ago, wind turbines and solar panels were perceived as pricey, trendy gimmicks for the well-to-do. Much has changed since then.

Renewable energy has emerged as a powerful tool for strengthening the resiliency and reliability of electricity grids, improving energy access across all income groups, remediating economic and environmental injustice, creating new jobs, and attracting top innovators.

The move toward more sustainable forms of energy is taking place on both a massive, centralized scale and on a smaller-scale, decentralized basis. To follow a similar trajectory, stakeholders in water technology and treatment could consider scaling out as well as scaling up.

Scale down to scale out

Where large-scale, centralized water treatment is concerned, one important advance over the past 25 years is the emergence of nanoscale filtration technology, a relatively new process by which water is filtered through a membrane to remove solids and contaminants. Nanoscale filtration can be used to purify drinking water, to make wastewater potable, and even to desalinate seawater or brackish water for use as a drinking source. Three scientists at DuPont Water Solutions were recently recognized by the American Chemistry Society for their contributions in this area.

A key challenge now is to reach rural areas and far-flung populations, where building major new water infrastructure can be prohibitively expensive. Here, the renewable energy sector provides a model for growth through its emphasis on locally-sourced energy that serves local needs.

In the water technology field, the portable LifeStraw filter demonstrates that it is possible to shrink effective treatment systems down to pocket-sized scale. However, cost and supply chain issues indicate that personal water filters are not a long-term global solution. To scale out, water solutions need to be simple, accessible and affordable for whole communities.

One promising avenue of interest is in the area of a microbial systems, such as this simple sand filtration system developed by Purdue University for use in rural developing communities. In another example of the microbial approach, researchers at the University of Bath in the U.K. are working to fine-tune a simple technology based on sunlight and plastic bottles to create portable, affordable filtration systems capable of producing enough clean drinking water for an entire household. 

Capturing water from uncommon sources is another pathway, as represented by fog-catching systems: Virginia Tech, for example, has been exploring new fog-catching technology under the poetic moniker “fog harp,” piquing interest from stakeholders in Bangladesh, Mexico and South Africa.

Growing the water technology workforce

Another aspect of the renewable energy revolution is its emphasis on jobs and economic development. Signs are already emerging that the renewable energy trend will accelerate on the heels of the COVID-19 crisis, as both public policymakers and private-sector stakeholders focus on building a more sustainable future.

Water technology advocates could take a page from the renewable energy playbook by identifying groups — military veterans, for example — that can adapt other life skills to various occupations in water resources. Over the long run, a focus on workforce development pays off in public policy as workers become advocates, activists, ambassadors and voters.

As the Brookings Institute concluded in a 2018 study of the U.S. water utilities sector: “The country’s water infrastructure is strategically positioned to support more inclusive economic development.” 

Attracting the innovators

In the U.S. in particular, another key driver of renewables is the nation’s focus on research and development through the U.S. Department of Energy. The departments of Defense and Agriculture have also contributed substantially to the efforts to scale up clean power. 

A pivotal point occurred in 2011, when former President Barack Obama established the “Sunshot” program, modeled on the famous Moonshot program that sent the first man into outer space. In addition to attracting top innovators in solar and wind technology, the effort has engaged information technology experts and startups in developing new applications that help lower the cost of renewable energy and improve access.

A similar nationally coordinated effort on behalf of water technology could help raise the profile of water innovators and attract additional talent into the field. The Israeli government’s long-term water technology investments, for example, effectively created a $2 billion water business made up of hundreds of companies. In the United Arab Emirates, a massive new desalination project, partially funded by government agencies, will be able to produce up to 180 million gallons of fresh water per day when it comes online in 2022, helping the country cope with existing water stress and safeguard against future scarcity. 

Renewable energy itself can also help scale up next-generation water technologies by cutting costs and improving efficiency, as a key issue with securing, transporting and storing water over the years has been its impact on energy usage. 

One large U.S. water utility discloses that 90 percent of its electricity consumption and 80 percent of its carbon emissions come from the electricity it uses to run its operations. For municipalities, drinking water and wastewater plants can account for as much as 40 percent of their total energy consumption, and these water systems nationwide generate 2 percent of energy use within the U.S., according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Bringing innovators from both sectors together can mitigate energy impacts while delivering clean water cheaply and efficiently. 

Gaining interest from investors

From an investor interest perspective, wind turbines and solar panels have an advantage because they are visible. Much of the world’s water technology infrastructure, in contrast, is located underground or hidden behind the walls of nondescript buildings, and most people simply don’t know much about it or how it works. 

The World Wildlife Fund's work in connecting water access with habitat preservation offers one potential solution. These efforts, such as the installation of constructed wetlands and the establishment of watershed-wide partnerships around conservation, come with an added bonus of providing a visual handle for investors focused on environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, said Evan Freund, senior director for infrastructure and large initiatives on the WWF’s U.S. freshwater team.

"When we have engaged with some of the big asset owners and investors, they recognize the pressure they’re getting,” Freund told TriplePundit. “The big pension funds are increasingly ESG-oriented, and there is clearly a recognition that bankable, sustainable projects have to be at the forefront in their portfolios.”

Under the umbrella of green infrastructure, habitat conservation can involve whole-of-community benefits in terms of cutting costs, creating jobs, attracting innovators, improving public health, and providing a buffer against extreme weather events.

Fixing the management

In Freund’s experience, there is plenty of room for growth in the green infrastructure field. The overarching challenge, though, is one of policy. 

As tragically illustrated by the experience of Flint, Michigan, public ownership of water infrastructure is no protection against bad management. “What’s fundamentally important is the governance about the delivery of public services,” Freund explained. “Nothing is more important than water supply.”

For advanced water technologies to follow a similar path to renewable energies and reach communities in need, all of these aspects — workforce, innovation, ESG investment and policy — must work together. The technologies are there. We just need the collective commitment to make it happen.

This article series is sponsored by DuPont Water Solutions and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team. 

Image credit: Science in HD and Shotlist via Unsplash 

Consumer sentiment began to trend away from disposable packaging — particularly plastics — over the past few years, as images of waterways choked in waste circulated in the media. In a survey conducted by PBS NewsHour last year, two-thirds of U.S. respondents said they'd be willing to pay more to avoid single-use plastic packaging in everyday products. 

Then came the novel coronavirus, and with it a resurgence in single-use systems. Cities including Philadelphia, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Bellingham, Washington, have delayed or suspended plastic bag bans out of fear that the virus could transfer from surfaces to reusable shopping bags and ultimately infect consumers. Major outlets including Starbucks have temporarily banned reusable cups due to similar concerns for health and hygiene. 

The plastics industry has seized the opportunity to pressure lawmakers to permanently undo bag bans and similar legislation. But others, including executives at the reusable packaging platform Loop, aren't buying it. 

"Single-use is not sterile either," Heather Crawford, Loop’s global VP of marketing and e-commerce, told TriplePundit. "When you buy a disposable package off the shelf, it's been exposed to all kinds of different elements across the supply chain, including packing, transport, or even the customer who picked it up before you and put it back. Reuse in and of itself isn't the problem. It's the method by which it's done." 

We spoke with Crawford by phone to learn how the platform often dubbed the milkman of the information age is coping with surging demand for at-home delivery in the midst of the coronavirus — and how safe, hygienic reuse systems can help to prevent a backslide in consumer behavior around single-use packaging. 

Loop provides a safe and sustainable alternative during the coronavirus crisis

For those who aren't familiar with Loop, here's a general rundown of how it works: Subscribers choose mainstream grocery, personal care and household products in an online store, and the items are shipped to their door in a reusable tote. When the products are gone, customers simply place the containers back into the tote and schedule a free home pickup through Loop's logistics provider, UPS. Loop sends the packaging through an industrial cleaning process before shipping it back to brands to be refilled, and then the cycle begins again. 

"I wouldn't say we've made any structural or operational changes" due to the coronavirus, Crawford said, "because a lot of the elements of the reuse system are already in place for consumer health and safety." Even outside the context of a global pandemic, reuse systems like Loop's must be hygienic in order to keep customers safe and retain public trust, she told us.

"Another thing that's important to consider is the dwell time," Crawford added. After packages are picked up and shipped to Loop's cleaning facilities, it's "typically been anywhere from several days to much more likely several weeks" before they're opened, inspected and put into the cleaning process, she explained. "In the return phase, in the cleaning phase, even in reshipment, there's a much longer dwell time than the disposable package that was placed on the shelf an hour ago by the store associate." 

Epidemiologists estimate that the coronavirus can survive a maximum of three days on plastic and stainless steel surfaces, so this is an important factor to note — for the safety of warehouse employees as well as customers. 

"The critical element in changing consumer mindsets is that they can trust the hygienic standards of the reuse system," Crawford said. "One global trend that we're seeing is we're watching the stay-at-home orders force us to reduce our environmental footprint, which has resulted in a tremendous positive benefit to the environment — and that's not going unnoticed by consumers. Many are now seeing this as an even higher priority, looking for more sustainable and responsible ways to purchase the things that they need — and I think certain types of reuse systems will survive, where there's trust."

Protecting employees when it matters most

Along with the dwell time already baked into the system, Loop says it's taking additional steps to keep employees safe. All employees who can work from home are doing so, but those working in Loop's cleaning facilities and logistics warehouses — where products are packed into reusable totes and shipped — are essential to keep the company's supply chain running. 

For these employees, "we have really vigorous health and safety protocols in place," Crawford said, which include providing adequate healthcare coverage and protective equipment for every person and ensuring social distancing while at work. 

If a confirmed coronavirus case or exposure is reported at any of Loop's facilities, the company is ready with protocols to ensure product quarantine, standardization and evaluation of all staff. "Luckily we haven't needed to undergo any of these processes, but we do have all of these policies in place," she told us. 

Meeting demand, eyeing expansion 

As people shelter in their homes, home delivery for groceries and household products is surging — and Loop is no exception. "We are experiencing record high demand on the platform," Crawford said, with sales nearly doubling in April compared to March.

"Like many retailers, our greatest challenge has simply been keeping up with the demand and restocking product inventory as quickly as we can," she said. "We've definitely experienced out-of-stocks in top-selling products." 

For the most part, though, customers looking for grocery and household staples like snack foods, dried beans, pasta and cleaning products will find them in stock, and the Loop platform adds new branded products nearly every week, which has continued through the pandemic.

Over the past three weeks, the Plaine Products bath and body line (pictured above), as well as Seventh Generation laundry detergent and the Oral-B Clic Toothbrush, have newly arrived on Loop. The platform which already sells well-known brands like Crest, Tide, Glad and Gillette is also continuing to add new brand partners.

"We have continued to ink new partnerships at a really steady pace even since the stay-at-home orders began back in March," Crawford said. "In addition to continuing to sign on new brands, we also have hundreds of brands in our pipeline that are currently working on developing their durable packages," as it can take companies a while to redesign their packages to be reusable. 

Along with the expansion of brand partnerships and its own private-label collection, Loop is expecting big things ahead. Having launched in 2019 across 10 U.S. states in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, the company recently announced it would expand across the entire continental U.S. by this summer.

For her part, Crawford expects demand for reuse systems like Loop's to remain steady, and perhaps even increase, during the pandemic. "Consumers are understandably anxious in this new world, but they still want to make purposeful purchases," she told us. "If you can meet shoppers where they are — which is, right now, at home and online — and also establish trust in the safety and hygiene of the reuse system, even in a difficult situation, what we're seeing is that consumers still really embrace it." 

Images courtesy of Loop

As we linger in the third month of this global public health crisis, many of us still find gaps in our local supermarkets’ shelves – the usual suspects naturally being paper products, frozen vegetables and within the meat section. As the U.S. meat sector in particular confronts one fiasco after another, one nascent industry is having a field day: Plant-based protein companies are raking it in.

According to Nielsen data that the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month, plant-based protein companies are seeing a huge surge in sales — 264 percent to be exact as of May 2. Some of this increase has its origin in the errors the meatpacking industry has made, including the failure to enforce social distancing guidelines, which caused COVID-19 outbreaks to unfold at some of the largest meat processing companies in the U.S. Accusations over the poor treatment of employees also hasn’t helped boost the sector’s reputation. The industry’s own admission that its supply chain is struggling has also led to fears that millions of animals could be needlessly slaughtered while food insecurity is on the rise.

“I’d always been trying to block out a lot of what was going on behind the scenes of the meat industry, but I can’t ignore it forever,” one consumer said to the New York Times in a recent interview. Nowadays, however, consumers who feel repulsed by what they perceive to be the meat industry’s cruelty to animals and workers alike have more options — and when it comes to taste, these fake meats can hold their own.

But plant-based protein companies can point to other factors accounting for their rise. While meat companies are susceptible to such risks as disease outbreaks, drought and the lifecycle of farm animals, the makers of plant-based alternatives can by and large dodge those bullets. Sure, bad weather can lead to price increases, but a company like Turtle Island Foods (the maker of Tofurkey) or Beyond Meat can pivot quickly and buy ingredients elsewhere. For a surge in demand, there’s no need to build another new expensive processing plant – these companies can add more shifts. As Matt Simon of Wired recently pointed out, for better or worse, the manufacturing of plant-based protein products is far less labor-intensive than the butchering of animals. “Facilities that produce plant-based meat rely heavily on machinery to mix and extrude ingredients, so employees aren’t standing as closely together as they would be in a meatpacking plant,” Simon wrote last week.

This trend is hardly unique here in the U.S. In fact, the evidence suggests plant-based protein companies are having a moment in Asia as well. Concerns about meat safety are on the rise, nudging more consumers to have a more open mind about alternatives made from soy or pea protein. With Starbucks reportedly working on an agreement with Beyond Meat to have its products appear on its menus in China, the plant-based protein revolution is moving beyond what just a year ago we could have dismissed as edgy public relations moves.

The path forward for plant-based protein products is still not entirely without roadblocks. Millions of unemployed consumers could balk at what for many of them is a premium to pay for faux meat. An unforeseen shock such as a sudden food safety problem could also turn consumers off. And even though the White House has floated the idea of slashing cattle imports, U.S. policies often shift at the whims of its current occupant – and in any event, many consumers are open to purchasing meat sourced from Mexico and other countries. At the same time, as more consumers stash plant-based alternatives in their refrigerators and freezers, the changes are high that come mealtime, they’ll find that moment of desperation ended up tasting better later on than they had first assumed.

Image credit: Beyond Meat/Facebook

There have been rumblings in recent weeks that corporate sustainability initiatives will be pushed aside or abandoned in favor of pure economic survival. But that’s not how Matt Hill, CEO of One Tree Planted, a nonprofit focused on global reforestation, sees it.

One of the largest tree planting organizations in North America, the organization said that during 2019 it planted over 4 million trees worldwide, thanks in part to successful partnerships with businesses. Hill says he is “busier than ever” despite the COVID-19 pandemic, connecting with companies like Nestlé, which recently pledged to plant trees across Latin America, as well as AstraZeneca, with its 50 million tree initiative that the company says part of its five-year commitment to global reforestation.

“Our followers are fiercely passionate about change,” Hill told TriplePundit. “If anything, the pandemic has highlighted how important human action really is. This is a wake-up call, a glimpse into a cleaner planet. And it’s not lost on us how the unity witnessed here in light of the pandemic can be applied towards addressing climate issues as well.”

Companies are facing undeniable economic pressures due to the pandemic, but that doesn’t mean sustainability programs are the first on the chopping block. If they are, it is likely those brands that used sustainability as a marketing tool rather than making it integral to their processes, Francois Souchet, Lead of Make Fashion Circular at the Ellen Macarthur Foundation, told Forbes. “The closer (sustainability and investment) are to the core and the more integrated, the harder they are to cut off.”

Key to corporate sustainability: give your team a cause to rally behind

Even if sustainability drops off the agenda temporarily, it should rebound, according to many business and sustainability leaders. In dozens of recent conversations with Fortune 500 chief sustainability officers, Politico found them to be “surprisingly unified, agreeing that the pandemic has accelerated their environmental plans rather than putting them on the back burner.”

For Hill, now is the time to lean in on corporate sustainability, as it’s important to keep employees engaged when so many of them are working remotely. “Just because it feels like our world has come to a screeching halt, and in many ways it has, that doesn’t mean climate change will take a break. As we come off of the 50th anniversary of Earth Day last month, it’s important to reflect on how the businesses of today can influence the next 50 years,” he said.

“Humans are responsible for the state of the earth, and businesses are equipped to make a big impact, quickly. It’s also our experience that corporate sustainability programs help build team morale internally and give employees a common and positive goal outside of their everyday workflow,” Hill continued. “Now, probably more than ever, your team is likely looking for something to rally behind – even if they rally remotely.”

Reforestation can head off future pandemics

Much more than a feel-good initiative to engage employees and local communities, reforesting the planet is critical to reverse biodiversity loss and head off the worst of climate change. According to a study published in Science by the Institute of Integrative Biology in Zurich, Switzerland, the solution to climate change is to plant one trillion trees. And especially timely now, the majority of research shows that deforestation contributes to zoonotic diseases, as infectious disease researcher Amy Vittor shared on One Tree Planted's video podcast. In addition, Nigel Sizer of the Rainforest Alliance recently told Ethical Corporation that to prevent future pandemics, “no company should source from recently deforested land.”

 “It comes down to the encroachment of wildlife habitats,” Hill says. “The more we come into close contact with wildlife the more susceptible we are to pathogens. But reforestation is all about re-establishing nature after some disturbance, create more habitats for wildlife, re-establish native forests, and to achieve a balance between nature and people.”

For Hill, simply planting a tree—or a hundred or a million—is an important way for business to keep their sustainability programs rooted in an uncertain time. “My advice would be that you don’t have to come up with a huge daunting plan to get started, just decide that it’s something you want to start and take the first step. Plant some trees, share your story, get your team on board. This is a great time to pause and plan for the future, so make it a future you feel good about.”

Image credit: One Tree Planted

Analysts were already predicting the end of recycling last year, when mountains of waste began to pile up after China and other countries began refusing to accept such shipments from overseas. The COVID-19 outbreak has further complicated global recycling markets. However, there are indications that the recycling industry can emerge from the crisis as a stronger and more resilient force than ever before.

Not all recycling is created equal

First, it is important to note that every recyclable material has its own market. The COVID-19 crisis has had a differing impact on different types of recyclables.

Paper is a case in point. The crisis has touched off a surge in demand for paper products typically made with recycled fibers, like toilet paper and cardboard shipping boxes.

The demand side is just one aspect of the COVID-19 effect, though. The crisis has also had an impact on the incoming stream of paper for recycling, as workers around the globe are confined to home. The recycled paper supply chain was stronger when more workplaces were open. With more people working from home, less paper is available for recycling.

Expanding the market for recycled paper with new technology

That demand-supply tension could remain challenging for paper manufacturers, all the more so as new recycling technology emerges.

One especially interesting development is a new recycling facility planned for the city of Lancaster, California. It will take in mixed paper from the municipality and subject it to a patented gasification process, to produce reclaimed hydrogen.

Hydrogen is used in many common industrial processes, from steelmaking to food production. Its role in the transportation sector has also been growing.

Fossil fuels comprise the main source of hydrogen today, but green hydrogen alternatives are emerging. So far, the activity has mainly focused on splitting water with an electrical current, deploying wind or solar power.

The gasification option could provide an additional commercial pathway for green hydrogen, while also helping municipal governments develop more sustainable and economical waste management plans.

The company behind the hydrogen project,  SGH2, also has its eye on gasifying other types of waste.

There is keen interest in the success of the SGH2 project across the industry. In addition to support from the city’s policy makers, the project is being shepherded by a public-private consortium that includes the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, UC Berkeley, and the companies Fluor, Thermosolv, Integrity Engineers, Millenium, HyetHydrogen and Hexagon.

Upcycling for better foam recycling

Another interesting technology breakthrough is taking place in the area of polyurethane foam recycling.

The foam problem is a significant one because of its sheer size, as polyurethane is the common denominator in mattresses and cushions among many other items.

Foam resists melting and reformation, so it cannot be recycled like other plastics. Until now, the main approach has been to shred it and downcycle it in the form of carpet padding and similar products, or simply burn it for energy.

The solution may be at hand. Researchers at Northwestern University and the University of Minnesota have developed a new process that transforms foam into a durable, moldable plastic, creating new pathways for upcycling.

As with the paper-to-hydrogen project, the new approach does not simply reduce a material into smaller bits. Instead, it transforms the material into a new substance that can then be deployed for other uses.

Making industrial waste better than new

Industrial waste is another area in which the transformative approach could have a significant impact.

One recent example comes from an Australian research consortium, which has combined waste cooking oil, waste sulfur, and the petroleum refinery waste chemical dicyclopentadiene to create a new kind of rubber.

According to the researchers, the new rubber is durable enough to use for car tires.

The new rubber can also self-repair seamlessly and return to its original strength within minutes, by applying a simple catalyst at room temperature.

Flinders University, which hosts the research, notes that every year the equivalent of 48 million tires reach the end of their useful lives in Australia alone, and only 16 percent are recycled. Making tires with a more durable, repairable form of rubber would have a significant impact on the tire disposal problem as well as providing a new market for industrial waste.

Bio-based solutions for plastic waste

This kind of two-tiered thinking is also evident in the field of bio-based recycling, where microbes and natural digestive processes do the heavy lifting.

One recent example is an entire food system envisioned at Pennsylvania’s Clarion University, where researchers are exploring the use of moth larvae that can digest polyethylene.

The new system is a complete waste-to-food cycle in which larvae at recycling centers are eventually fed to chickens for human consumption.

The discovery of a plastic-eating microbe by a Germany-based research team holds similar promise. The research is part of a broader European Union effort aimed at breaking down petrochemical waste into biodegradable materials for re-use.

As the bottom line motivation for green products and packaging continues to accelerate, look for new, transformative recycling pathways to emerge. Recycling as we know it may be going away, but only because the recycling industry of the future is beginning to take shape.

Image credit: Michael Jin/Unsplash