Search

Europe is still bullish on offshore wind power, and the North Sea is the focal point of the region’s push to integrate more renewables into its electricity grid.

The latest such project is the Gemini Wind Park, located about 53 miles off the northern shore of the Netherlands. Named after the astrological sign Gemini, this North Sea wind farm is actually a pair of offshore facilities, each containing 75 wind turbines. Each turbine soars over 500 feet tall and generates 4 megawatts of power. In total, the wind farm’s 150 turbines, spread across over 25 square miles, will provide 600 MW of clean energy, enough to provide 785,000 households, or 1.5 million Dutch citizens, with a secure source of electricity.

This project should help the Netherlands inch toward its goal of sourcing 14 percent of its power from renewables, a metric critics say the Dutch government is struggling to achieve. Despite the country’s reputation for leading on sustainable development, it still sources 95 percent of its energy from fossil fuels.

The $3 billion project presented its share of logistical challenges, reported the French news agency AFP. But the kinks appear to have been worked out.

On one hand, its distance from the Dutch shoreline keeps it well out of seaside residents’ view, nixing a criticism often hurled at offshore wind projects. And the wind speeds in this region of the North Sea are consistently high, averaging approximately 22 miles per hour, answering questions of consistency.

The electricity generated at these turbines is transmitted to two offshore substations before being transferred 68 miles to the coastal town of Eemshaven.

Gemini’s backers, which include the Canadian renewables company Northland Power, the German manufacturer Siemens and Dutch contractor Van Oord, say the wind farm will reduce the Netherlands’ carbon emissions by 1.25 million metric tons annually. The ongoing maintenance of the wind farm will also provide an economic benefit of between 75 and 100 jobs. At its peak construction phase last year, the project employed 500 people, according to its CEO.

Now operational, Gemini is the second largest offshore wind farm in the North Sea, coming just behind the 630 MW London Array, an installation in the Thames River estuary that was completed in 2013 by Dong Energy, E.ON and Masdar. Another wind farm located off the British shore, Greater Gabbard, ranks as the third largest in the region, generating 504 MW of clean power.

Image credit: Gemini Wind Park

Few companies are as brazenly deceptive as ExxonMobil, the largest oil company in the United States. We know about its years of funding anti-climate research despite acknowledging climate change internally as a risk, for which it is now under investigation. And we remember how it avoided responsibility for the Exxon-Valdez Oil Spill in 1989.

Meanwhile, in Texas, the company consistently violated the Clear Air Act and released toxic chemicals into the environment for more than 16,000 days, a federal court ruled last month. Only a citizen suit, led by Environment Texas and the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, was able to ultimately hold Exxon responsible for pollution from its refinery and chemical plant in Baytown, about 25 miles outside Houston.

“This ruling shows how crucial the citizen enforcement provision of the Clean Air Act really is for Texas residents. It means that private citizens victimized by the world’s biggest polluters can get justice in the American court system, even when government regulators look the other way,” Luke Metzger, director of Environment Texas, said in a press statement announcing the ruling.

Exxon will be fined $19.95 million, which is believed to be the largest civil penalty ever imposed in an environmental citizen suit such as this one. While it may seem like peanuts to a company worth, at least estimate, over $400 billion, it is meaningful and sets a precedent.

“[This] decision sends a resounding message that it will not pay to pollute Texas,” Dr. Neil Carman, the clean air program director for the Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter, said in a press statement. “Compliance with air pollution laws and operating permits is mandatory, not optional, and we will not stand idly by when polluters put our health and safety at risk.”

The case also shows the power of the Clean Air Act. Unfortunately, this is one of several pieces of legislation that may be weakened under the anti-environment, anti-health, anti-people administration now in power in Washington, D.C, which also happened to nominate Exxon’s former CEO as secretary of state.

The reason they cite for rolling back clean air rules? Over-regulation. If anything, the environment is not being protected enough, as polluting companies like Exxon often get a free pass to do as they please – and it is us, regular citizens, who suffer.

We must fight to keep the Clean Air Act in place, and even strengthen it to ensure that citizens across the country can use it to hold companies like Exxon responsible for their actions. And we also need to fully punish Exxon for its transgressions -- including its efforts to stymie U.S. climate policy by funding denial campaigns.

Photo Credit: W. Clarke via Wikimedia Commons

Last week the Florida Senate passed a bill to implement wide-ranging changes that many expect will allow solar to, finally, take off in the state.

Florida shifting to clean energy is a big deal. It’s the third most populous state and has some of the best solar resources in the country: Independent estimates put it at No. 3 nationally, but it lags in installations. Due primarily to entrenched energy interests, Florida is far behind other solar-rich states, such as California, in going green. That may finally change.

“The Florida legislature took a historic step forward today to expand solar across the state while recognizing Floridians’ desire for more choice over their energy options,” Tom Kimbis, executive vice president for the Solar Energy Industries Association, said in a press statement last week in response to the passage of Senate Bill 90.

So, what took so long for Florida to go solar? Not surprisingly, powerful energy stakeholders such as the Koch brothers had something to do with it as major funders of anti-solar initiatives. A breathtaking story published in Rolling Stone last year showed, bluntly, just how far special interests were willing to go to keep Floridians stuck overpaying for dirty energy.

"The solar industry in Florida has been boxed out by investor-owned utilities (IOUs) that reap massive profits from natural gas and coal. These IOUs wield outsize political power in the state capital of Tallahassee, and flex it to protect their absolute monopoly on electricity sales," wrote Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone.

"We live in the Stone Age in regard to renewable power," state Rep. Dwight Dudley, the ranking Democrat on the energy subcommittee in the Florida House, told the paper. "The power companies hold sway here, and the consumers are at their mercy."

With the state legislature under the firm control of utilities – which are the biggest donors – solar advocates went straight to voters last year. It wasn’t going to be easy because the utilities had a lot on their side – money, political power and considerable sway.

The pro-solar Amendment 4 won decisively this past August with over 70 percent of voters. This caused panic, and the investor-owned utilities came up with a counter plan, pushing another, deceptive ballot initiative that would negate Amendment 4 and keep Florida in the solar dark age.

But what happened next was stunning. Three months later, the deceptive, pro-utility, heavily funded Amendment 1 failed, finishing well below the necessary 60 percent threshold. Florida was, despite the wishes of big utilities, going solar.

SB 90 is the enabling legislation for Amendment 4. It passed the state legislature on Thursday and is awaiting a signature from Gov. Rick Scott. Once approved, it will make rooftop solar installations far easier in the state.

Florida's solar story is an example of how citizen power can defeat special interests and make us all better off. And for Florida, the move to clean energy comes not a moment too soon.

Photo Credit: Tournament Committee via Flickr

The dilemma of waste

Waste is a human novelty. Circularity is inherent in the natural world; nothing is left discarded, unused or wasted.

Americans generated 254 million tons of trash in 2014, according to EPA estimates. At least 136 million tons of that went into one of the more than 2,000 landfills across the country. The first modern landfill didn't open until 1937, an extraordinary expansion of waste management in only 80 years. America has become a "land of landfills," as 3p correspondent Nithin Coca wrote on TriplePundit last year.

According to those same EPA estimates, I will generate nearly 4.5 pounds of trash by the end of the day, as will every other "average" American.

But what about the average American business? Here it gets even more complicated.

Redefine waste

In the rush forward into new technologies and industrial processes, the variety of materials entering the economy is now much more complex than when that first landfill opened in 1937. The challenge is not just the sheer volume that necessitates many "special needs" cases for waste management, but also the type and purpose of the original product. Take, for instance, materials containing proprietary or sensitive data. Nobody needs reminding of the perils of our hyper-connected, data-driven world.

Terms like 'the cloud" suggest an ephemeral quality to data. But as anyone who's shredded old bank account statements knows, data lives in the "real" world. At the industrial level, data destruction requires a process of materials management not found in typical recycling facilities and certainly not at landfills.

While secured and certified data destruction is an obvious example, it's not just hard drives and floppy disks. There are many materials, and many different reasons, for which assured destruction is the best solution. In situations like these, recycling or reuse is not an option.

The good news is that this is an opportunity for companies to adopt a different perspective to the open-ended concept of waste. 

Think feedstock

For Covanta, a solutions provider for industrial recycling, waste recovery and energy-from-waste production, one company's waste is another company's feedstock. TriplePundit spoke with Covanta's Stephen Diaz, Vice President, Sustainable Solutions. Of all the different types of situations and materials requiring specialized end-of-life handling, not once did Diaz refer to any of it as "waste." It's all feedstock to him. And "we do the gamut."

Pharmaceuticals and discarded drug trials; discarded or recalled consumer package goods; food recalls; confidential industrial R&D, machinery and prototypes; cosmetics, lotions and creams; over-the-counter medicines and vitamin supplements: It's all feedstock for Covanta's energy-from-waste process (EfW) that bends that open-ended straight line of waste into a triple-bottom-line circle.

Closing the circle: Assured destruction

Based on a lifecycle assessment approach, the U.S. EPA estimates that every ton of municipal solid waste diverted from landfill to an EfW facility will reduce lifecycle GHG emissions by one ton of carbon equivalent. The typical hierarchy of waste, an inverted pyramid, lists energy recovery as one of the least preferred options. But in certain situations -- such as the handling of personal information or decommissioned product -- it's the only option, Diaz told us.

"It's very sensitive," Diaz said. "These customers don't want the product reused or resold."

Covanta's assured destruction service uses an EfW process to incinerate materials at close to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The heat creates steam to turn a turbine, which generates electricity to power the process. Excess energy is sold to the grid. Electronic waste containing sensitive information is managed through Covanta's Electronic Waste Recycling Program.

Just as importantly, the assured destruction provided by companies like Covanta is certified and legally binding, offering added assurance for corporate clients."We give quite a few certificates," Diaz explained, including everything from tax records to certification that meets several federal agency requirements.

Build a relationship for success

Assured destruction entails more than simply incineration. It starts with secured transportation from the client's location directly into the hopper, where it is fed into the boilers without being mixed with other materials. Clients can even watch the destruction from a viewing room if requested.

"In some cases, they meet us there," Diaz told us of the business teams Covanta serves. "They watch it go right into the boilers."

Before any of this happens, however, Covanta's team works closely with their customers to create a specific solution for their needs. Some customers know what they need and "know that we're the best at what we do," Diaz said. "They want to utilize our process [of destruction] in a secured manner."

For others, Diaz went on, "We'll go and talk with them about their sustainable initiatives. We'll walk them through ... and in some cases, we do a little road trip and take them to the plants [so they can] see it for themselves firsthand ..."

"...and a marriage is formed about our sustainable environment and what they're looking for. Then we start talking to them about their different types of feedstock." That's when we'll "open the door for them."

"When we're trying to solve a problem by providing a solution, we sit back and we listen."

This customer-centric, end-to-end solutions approach has "worked out real well for us," Diaz said simply.

Closing the loop

Covanta's approach to end-of-life materials handling, from the top of the waste hierarchy to EfW, is an example of how to deal with the "dilemma of waste."

This fundamental value of finding solutions for the transition to a sustainable, circular economy is embodied in the company's 2007 Clean World Initiative. Ten years on, it remains the lifeblood of its mission: "to make Covanta-generated Energy-from-Waste (EfW) the cleanest and most reliable source of energy available in the world, with the lowest overall impact on our environment.”

As the common meme goes, "There is no away." The stream of materials thrown into that great away that doesn't exist makes it abundantly clear we've only begun to deal with the instability of a linear economy.

As in nature, waste is only feedstock for the next cycle. Whether through specialized services like assured destruction or end-of-life solutions for municipal waste, we must push to make sure more of this feedstock finds its way to another use. And as the modern economy seeks to close the loop, companies like Covanta play an important role -- both as a service provider and partner to industry.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/-KmTbHInScw

Image credits: 1) Unsplash, 2) Celestine Ngulube; 3) Covanta; 4) EPA

Should the U.S. stay in the Paris climate agreement, or should it go? President Donald Trump previously indicated that he intends to yank the U.S. out of the agreement, though his top advisors are reportedly divided on whether that is a good idea politically, environmentally and economically.

Polls indicate that Americans want to stay in the agreement by an overwhelming margin. But as Trump continues to dismantle the environmental legacy of his predecessor, a political and public relations tug-of-war has emerged between consumer-facing companies that want to stick with Paris and trade groups that insist the U.S. pull out of the agreement.

On one side are the 38 trade groups that co-signed a letter to the president insisting that the U.S. withdraw from the climate treaty negotiated at the December 2015 COP21 climate talks in Paris. These organizations include the American Energy Alliance, which yesterday said that remaining a party to the treaty would “undermine the Trump administration’s efforts to protect American families from unnecessary and burdensome climate regulations.”

Critics pointed out that several of these organizations, including the American Energy Alliance, receive much of their funding from known climate action legislation opponents including the Koch brothers. Another co-signer of the letter, the Heartland Institute, was recently exposed for sending materials to school teachers that questioned the veracity of climate change science.

But many of America's best-known companies and brands are pushing back hard, saying that participation in the Paris climate agreement is actually a net positive for both U.S. businesses and the national economy. In a full-page advertisement that will appear this week in publications including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, these companies make the case for why they believe the Paris agreement will lead to a more competitive economy, create jobs and reduce long-term business risks.

These businesses represent a wide range of industries such as technology, health care, apparel and consumer packaged goods. And some of America's most recognized brands, including Facebook, Gap, Adobe, Apple, Levi’s, Mars and Unilever, appear as signatories. Insisting that the U.S. remain engaged and lead action when it comes to taking on climate change, the ad implores the Trump White House to “best exercise global leadership and advance U.S. interests by remaining a full partner in this vital global effort.” The ads were sponsored by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, along with the Boston-based activist investor group Ceres.

Key Trump advisors – including first daughter Ivanka Trump, who is reportedly in favor of leading efforts to take on climate change – are scheduled to discuss the future of U.S. involvement in the Paris climate deal next week. But nothing is certain.

Additional environmental and energy bills, including the repeal of a methane rule passed under the Barack Obama administration, face some opposition by Republicans in Congress; similar pushback surrounded a proposal to expand oil and gas drilling on public lands. As with health care and certainly tax reform, internecine warfare within the GOP could stall the energy and environmental agenda the president pledged during last year’s campaign.

Regardless of whether or not the U.S. leaves the Paris agreement, American climate scientists who doubt their work will find traction on this side of the Atlantic have an ally on the continent. Not only did newly elected French President Emmanuel Macron mention climate change in his short victory speech on Sunday night, he has made it clear that he welcomes such research in France.

"Please, come to France. You are welcome. It's your nation," Macron said in a widely posted message a few weeks after Trump became president -- which began circulating on social media shortly after his win.

I have a message for you guys. #ScienceMarch pic.twitter.com/ZnkFIIksdx

— Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) February 10, 2017

Image credit: UN Climate Change/Flickr

Leaders of the European Union may be breathing a sigh of relief at the election of Emmanuel Macron as president of France -- and many in the media are treating the outcome as a firewall against the wave of populism that led to Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump.

But with less than a week before Macron moves into Élysée Palace, he can count on having a short political honeymoon. Many Europeans, including the 34 percent of French citizens who did not vote for Macron, are frustrated by a stagnant economy and years of stubbornly high unemployment. And much of these citizens’ invective is directed at the European Union, which is often viewed as wasteful, overreaching and aloof to the concerns and needs of most of the bloc’s 508 million citizens.

The time has come for EU and national leaders to find new ways to cope with outsourced manufacturing, automation and the continent’s high cost of living. And citizens are warming up to new ideas that go beyond the usual debates over trade deals, tax increases, or cuts and labor protections. One idea to which Europeans are increasingly open is a universal basic income, according to the Berlin-based research firm Dalia.

A survey the firm completed earlier this spring revealed that at least 68 percent of Europeans would vote “yes” on a referendum to introduce some level of a basic income – a slight increase from the same survey last year. And while over half say they want to wait until they see the results of pilots currently underway elsewhere in Europe or abroad, almost a third say they want to see it introduced as soon as possible.

Of course, many Europeans feel trepidation about rolling out a universal basic income as no widely scaled system has ever been implemented. Most on the left say such a mechanism would help citizens cope with volatility in the labor markets and factors such as automation and offshoring. Those on the right often say it could be far easier to administer than a bevy of social welfare programs. Others say it can change the life we live, from one focused on relentless economic growth to one that fosters sustainable development.

But concerns abound across the political spectrum, and understandably so. Over half of those surveyed by Dalia say they are concerned that a basic income would encourage people to stop working. And in a sign that populism and nativism are hardly going away, 39 percent agreed with the statement that “foreigners might come to my country and take advantage of the benefit.”

Obviously, budgets are a concern in rolling out a basic income program. But policymakers should take a look at how Europeans said they would react individually if such a program were in place. Almost 40 percent of the survey's respondents said it would not have an impact on their work choices, while close to 20 percent said they would spend more time with their family. People also said they may have more time to do volunteer work or gain additional skills. In fact, more respondents said they would work as freelancers than those who said they would simply stop working, which totaled only 4 percent.

The quantitative value of those qualitative benefits will be difficult to enumerate, but they should not be overlooked. The bottom line is that many citizens are simply stressed out with the daily, weekly and monthly grinds of meeting expenses.

A few pilots are underway that could either bolster or weaken the ongoing arguments concerning the rollout of a universal basic income. Finland is paying 560 euros (US$611) a month to 2,000 citizens to gauge whether it can solve problems related to unemployment and poverty while reducing the cost of bureaucracy. In the Netherlands, Utrecht is one of four cities that will pay citizens almost $1,000 to test the concept of a basic income – with participating citizens subjected different levels of rules and restrictions. Canada’s most populous province, Ontario, is launching a pilot later this year. And in Kenya, an NGO has undertaken a long-term project to see if unconditional cash transfers can lift people out of poverty.

Here in the U.S., there is little talk of such a system, though one minor party candidate in California says he has a plan. In Alaska, a check residents receive annually thanks to the state’s oil production is a universal basic income to many observers, only branded differently.

If insanity is defined as doing the same things repeatedly only to expect different results, that argument has certainly become true on both sides of the pond. Policies that have been in place for decades are not working for many citizens. In France, concerns over the lack of work opportunities merit a discussion that reaches beyond whether or not the 35-hour French work week is sacrosanct or in need of an overhaul.

So far, any debate over a universal basic income has not gone far in the country. One candidate for the French presidency, Benoit Hamon, suggested such a monthly payment, but his candidacy floundered and he received only 6.4 percent of the vote in the first round – though, in fairness, he was saddled by being in the same party as the unpopular incumbent president.

With no political party backing him, Macron needs to find ideas that appeal to both the left and right. An openness to testing out a universal basic income in some of France’s hardest hit industrial regions could be a signal that he is truly coming from the “radical center.”

Image credit: World Economic Forum/Flickr

Uber is expanding its self-driving car testing operations to Canada, Fortune magazine reported this week.

In what Canadian newspaper the Globe and Mail described as yet another Silicon Valley “raid” of our northern neighbor's artificial intelligence talent, the ridesharing company hired a leading expert in autonomous car technology from the University of Toronto. Uber reportedly added eight of the university’s students to its local payroll and indicated it plans to bring on more hires at its new Advanced Technologies Group center.

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick was certainly eager to share the news on Monday, as the announcement was clearly a welcome diversion from the numerous public relations gaffes that plagued the company over the past year.

“Toronto has emerged as an important hub of artificial intelligence research, which is critical to the future of transportation,” Kalanick wrote in a blog post yesterday. “That’s why we’re also making a significant multi-year financial commitment.”

But part of the reason for Uber’s move into Canada’s largest city may be that it has worn out its welcome elsewhere.

Uber is betting heavily on autonomous vehicle technology as the company envisions a future where driverless cars ferry passengers from home to work and then to social engagements after hours. The company was accused of “arrogance” after refusing to apply for permits that the city of San Francisco said were necessary in order to test its self-driving cars. Uber temporarily grounded that fleet as the outcry grew louder, though its self-driving vehicles were spotted regularly on San Francisco’s streets during most of this year.

Uber also appeared to have worn out its welcome in Pittsburgh, a city once known for its industrial and steelmaking might but that has since transformed itself into a leading technology research and development center. One of the western Pennsylvania city’s universities, Carnegie Mellon, has long enjoyed a reputation as a leading hub of artificial intelligence and robotics, which in turn lured Uber to open a large technology center in the city in 2015.

Both civic leaders and residents complained that Uber did not keep its end of the bargain with the local community, and Pittsburgh’s mayor has been quick to criticize the company for conduct that came across as predatory to many residents. And Uber’s reticence to support Pittsburgh’s bid for a multimillion-dollar smart cities grant that instead went to Columbus, Ohio, left the city’s leadership resentful.

Accusations of turmoil within Uber’s management ranks did not help the company as it has tried to fend off accusations of sexual harassment and a lack of diversity, along with allegations of dubious business practices that pushed Google to file a lawsuit against the company.

While the overall history of self-driving cars shows that they promise to be far safer than those driven by humans, Recode correspondent Johana Bhuiyan described Uber’s progress on this front as a “mess.” Recode obtained internal documents indicating that Uber’s progress on self-driving progress has been “unsteady” at best. Chaos and frustration led many top employees to leave the company, adding to the spate of bad news that Uber cannot seem to stanch.

And therein lies the possible explanation for Uber moving across the border, even though the professor the company hired, Raquel Urtasan, is widely regarded as a leading expert in autonomous vehicle technology.

Nevertheless, while Uber has burned many bridges in the U.S., commentary from some Canadians indicate that such bridges in Canada may not stand for too long. Jim Balsillie, former CEO of RIM, the maker of the Blackberry, criticized Uber’s move into Toronto as one that will thrive from Canadian taxpayers’ subsidies of university research – benefiting Uber and the U.S. Treasury while doing little to boost Canadian employment and revenues in return.

Image credit: Foo Conner/Flickr

By Joseph Kirschke

India is the world’s fastest-growing energy consumer and a global leader in clean energy -- third only to China and the U.S. And by 2035, when non-fossil fuel capacity surges from 22 to 54 percent, India will have reached critical mass as the planet’s most populous nation.

India’s 1.3 billion people also offer investors an unprecedented opportunity to scale climate resilient communities, commerce, and industry in one of the world’s most dynamic emerging market economies where up to 460 million must survive without electricity.

And with prolific metals, minerals, and fuels including iron, steel, coal, lignite, aluminum and bauxite, one of the world’s largest mining industries offers a fast-evolving solution.

India’s government, with international help, is pushing hard for renewables: In fact, new coal-fired power plants are on hold until 2022 – the year 175 gigawatt of solar and wind power are projected to come online. Meanwhile, energy needs for India’s power-hungry mines remain at a premium.

Last month, state-owned National Aluminium Company Ltd. announced plans for 150 megawatts in solar and wind power. London-listed multinational Vedanta Resources had already entered the country's solar sector by bidding for 500 MW in projects; then, in December, subsidiary Hindustan Zinc pledged solar deployments of 115 MW in addition to currently installed 474 MW of thermal power and 274 MW of wind.

Indian mining companies aren’t alone: Since 2011, mines worldwide are economizing through alternative energy. This subsector, expanding in Chile, Canada, Australia and Africa, is poised to save billions as installations are forecast to quadruple to $3.9 billion within five years.

Fossil fuels were the backbone of India’s commodity-driven supercycle of the 2000s which, together with China’s, was the greatest in modern history. Amid mounting smog, heat waves and droughts – and collapsing prices for clean technology – Indian coal and oil firms are now unlikely allies with solar.

Coal India Ltd., the world’s largest state-owned coal miner, is planning more than 600 MW of solar in four states, while NLC India Ltd. has tendered for 260 MW of grid-connected solar in two. Oil giants Indian Oil Corp. and Oil India Ltd. have similarly permitted a 1 GW solar farm.

But the true potential lies in integrating these deployments with existing clean-energy distribution in regions home to at least a third of the world’s population living without electricity. A prime example is India’s high-voltage Green Energy Corridor underwritten by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) which, despite some success, has officials concerned over uneven penetration in the poor states it aims to benefit.

Madhya Pradesh, where Coal India has signed for 200 MW of solar, is one. Rajasthan, home to India’s largest single deposit of lead, zinc and silver – and where Hindustan Zinc commissioned 15 MW of solar late last year – is another. Elsewhere, in Andhra Pradesh, Tata Power Renewable Energy Ltd. operates a 100 MW wind farm.

In Gujarat, Gujarat Mineral Development Corp. installed a 5 MW solar farm at a reclaimed mine. And in Maharashtra, under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Chang (UNFCCC), the renewable energy division of iron ore producer Essel Mining and Industries Ltd. installed 75 MW of wind in exchange for carbon credits.

The industrial-scale infrastructure associated with India's mechanized mines -- including extensive transportation systems -- hold promise, too. In particular, efforts are underway to green segments of India’s railway network – one of the world’s largest – which consumes more diesel and electricity than any other part of the economy.

Indeed, as climate change is being recognized as an existential threat, India has seldom held more appeal for international asset managers – even among some of the biggest, normally risk-averse institutional investors like pension funds, banks and insurance firms. Yet amid green bonds, climate funds and other inventive mechanisms, large financiers still grapple with cohesive approaches.

Perhaps most onerous is India's lack of development coupled with erratic policies and regulations. But a flexible and burgeoning impact investment market can stimulate matching finance from development agencies, lenders and large institutions. Take the Rockefeller Foundation's Smart Power India initiative, the country’s largest “anchor-based” network encompassing telecommunications towers, which seeks to spread clean energy to 1,000 rural Indian villages this year.

Acumen is also India-focused and invests millions in off-grid clean energy for homes and businesses; Frontier Markets, a Rajasthan-based for-profit, seeks to provide clean energy access to 1 million Indian households by 2020. Last week, reports emerged private equity fund Actis will invest $500 million into a successful bidder for a World Bank-financed 750 MW solar park.

One nonprofit is advancing this narrative, if quietly, through a unique human capital approach.

Barefoot College is a pioneer which trains women from across the global south to become solar engineers and educators. After sponsoring their travel, the NGO -- also Rajasthan-based -- enabled participants from 77 countries to bring newfound technical skills back to their local communities.

One returned home to Ollagüe, Chile, where Italy’s Enel Green Power installed a solar plant with more than 1,600 photovoltaic panels through a partnership with Phoenix-based mining giant Freeport McMoRan Inc. Now the 150 families of the indigenous Quechua community are enjoying their first ongoing supply of electric power.

For all the challenges inherent in its extreme poverty, India is blessed with mineral resources, clean energy and an entrepreneurial spirit which may make it the planet's ideal ecosystem in the fight against industrial carbon emissions.

And for investors striving to enact change through COP21 and its $13.5 trillion commitments, it cannot be overlooked.

Image courtesy of the author

Joseph Kirschke is a consultant who advises mining companies on sustainability and clean energy, is a former editor at Mining Media International, a Jacksonville-based publishing house

By Brian Collett — Premier Inn has become the world’s largest national hotel chain to gain the certification of the Marine Stewardship Council, the NGO better known as the MSC, that promotes sustainable fishing.

All 635 Premier locations, including the Beefeater, Brewer’s Fayre, and Table Table brands, now feature the MSC blue tick on their menus.

In practical terms, three million extra fish and chip meals will now be served with the certification every year in the UK. Altogether, 2,000 UK restaurants are MSC-certified.

James Pitcher, sustainability director for Whitbread, Britain’s biggest catering group, which owns Premier, said: ‘It is becoming ever more important for the hospitality industry to operate a sustainable, traceable supply chain, and it is something we have been focusing on for a while now.

‘Our customers expect us to do the right thing, so we are immensely proud to have achieve MSC certification for our restaurant brands’.

In Italy, the German budget supermarket chain Lidl, with 552 stores, has committed to selling more wild-caught fish and seafood and aquaculture products with sustainability certifications from the MSC; the Aquaculture Stewardship Council, which also promotes sustainability; and Friend of the Sea, which supports conservation of the marine habitat.

Lidl Italy announced that it would attempt to eliminate products sourced from illegal fishing, overfished areas, endangered species and transshipment at sea.

Additionally, it will try to avoid suppliers that disregard the welfare of their fish and seafood through the use of chemicals and antibiotics, and those that ignore human rights.

A company statement said: ‘Lidl Italy is committed through a new purchasing policy to promoting a more sustainable fishing to protect fish species and marine ecosystems’.

By Tom Idle — Business respect for human rights was given a big boost with the “historic step” taken by the French Parliament to green light the much-awaited corporate duty of vigilance law. 

The legislation applies to the largest of French companies, with at least 5,000 employees if their head office is located in France, or 10,000 employees if it is located abroad. Around 200 companies are likely to be directly covered. The law will, for the first time, mandate that businesses consider and address the negative impacts their activities might be having on people and planet.  

Once a year, they will need to publish ‘public vigilance’ plans, highlighting not only in-house efforts to tackle instances of human rights abuse, but also the efforts of suppliers and sub-contractors. Failure to transparently publish such details could result in a fine of up to €10 million. And should a company fail to develop a plan and that then leads to injuries that could have otherwise been prevented, a €30 million fine could be handed down. 

The French’s Government’s appetite for getting more stringent when it comes to corporate human rights activity is one part of a growing trend by governments responding to increased pressures from individuals, investors, NGOs and activists to weed out abuse and social injustice along company supply chains. The UK’s Modern Slavery Act and the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act have helped to pave the way for more progressive regulation in an area that has for too long been ignored by the public and private sector alike. 

It has been two years since the UK’s MSA came into force, a piece of legislation warmly welcomed across the board. And it is starting to have an impact. The conviction of the Markowski brothers, sentenced to six years in prison for trafficking young men from Poland to work in a Sports Direct warehouse, is evidence that it is working. Their actions described as being like something out of a Dickens novel, Erwin and Krystian encouraged vulnerable Poles to one of its warehouses in the north of England where they were paid below the legal minimum and faced full body searches every morning before coming into work. 

However, question marks remain as to the real impact the MSA is likely to have in the long-term. The jury is still out as to whether the regulation’s tick-box-encouraging exercises will really deliver the changes NGOs have been calling for, especially when it comes to dealing with the most serious instances of human rights abuses, both in the UK and around the world. 

Yes, the all-important issue of worker wellbeing has reached the boardroom for the first time, with more than 12,000 CEOs within businesses turning over more than £36m annually now having to put their signature to a modern slavery statement. Effectively, these documents are a way of proving a business is doing meaningful due diligence to find risks and do something about eradicating forced labour and human rights abuse from its own operations and supply chain. 

The quality of such reporting has been called into question by the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC), the organisation which maintains a registry of some 1,300 MSA statements.  

In an analysis of the first 27 FTSE 100 companies to report under the MSA, it found a “gulf in the quality of action between a handful of leading companies and the rest”. While the likes of Marks & Spencer and SABMiller were singled out for producing the most detailed statements that disclosed some robust measures, “improvements are needed across the board”. 

However, despite the lacklustre findings, it is clear the MSA is driving change, according to Patricia Carrier, project manager of the MSA Registry at the BHRCC. “Statements we analysed stated that as a result of the Act, modern slavery policies and processes have been developed and implemented, or were in the process of being developed,” she says. 

Marks & Spencer has, as of May 2016, revised its ‘global sourcing principles’ on forced labour and agency labour by adding a new statement prohibiting the payment of direct or indirect recruitment fees to secure a job, and requiring suppliers to have adequate due diligence in place to ensure this does not happen. 

The media business Sky has conducted a specific modern slavery risk assessment across its own operations and all its suppliers. Fashion brand Burberry is developing specific modern slavery and labour rights training for staff that interact with its supply chain networks.  

Meanwhile, a Ethical Trading Initiative and Hult International Business School investigation confirmed that most companies are “more actively engaging with peers since the Act”, believing that the engagement with stakeholders is critical for significant change. 

One of the biggest gaps in reporting noted by BHRRC was the lack of detailed information on the structure of supply chains and the specific risks or instances of modern slavery in the supply chain. “This is particularly discouraging…from investors to consumers, people reading these statements want know what companies are sourcing and from where,” says the BHRRC.  

The truth is, few companies yet know completely what their supply chains truly look like, let alone whether human rights abuse is happening on the ground. 

But the UK’s MSA is offering a blueprint for other nations to follow. In the US, loopholes in trading laws have been closed to better identify instances of modern slavery. In the Netherlands, the government has passed a new law on child labour and in Australia, a parliamentary inquiry has been opened on the subject of adopting its own version of the MSA. 

The political and economic uncertain times in which we find ourselves are significant for many reasons. Finally dealing with age-old instances of human rights abuses hangs in the balance, and governments have a real opportunity to make a difference to the corporate response to the issue. 

US President Donald Trump’s efforts to protect American interests above all else puts Bangladesh’s garment sector at risk as it recovers and improves workers’ rights four years on from the Rana Plaza disaster, which saw more than 1,000 people lose their lives as a result of poor health and safety checks. As its biggest export market, US intervention could be crucial in driving through the changes needed on the ground. 

Similarly, the UK’s exit from the European Union could mean Bangladeshi-made garments entering into the UK market no longer qualify for duty- and quota-free access. When markets are squeezed, the temptation is to put social protection issues on the back burner – something the country can ill-afford to do.  

The official warning from the EU, which currently accounts for around 62% of all Bangladesh’s garment exports, is a good example of what governments can do to affect change. Trading preferences will be scrapped unless the country makes progress in the implementation of workers’ rights, says the European Commission. Currently, Bangladesh gets duty-free access to EU countries for all products under the Everything But Arms preferential tariff scheme. Fail to tackle workers’ rights in a meaningful way and those privileges will be removed, a move which might see a 12% tariff applied to Bangladesh imports. 

It is early days in the evolution of company responses to human rights, but thanks to lawmakers responding to increased stakeholder pressure, the tide is slowly turning. And that is just as well; the issue of worker exploitation is one that no company wants to be embroiled in, as well as one that every company is most certainly exposed to. Being as open and transparent as possible remains the best way for companies to future proof themselves by taking steps now on due diligence.