Search

 

By Leah Y Parks

The arrival of the all-electric Chevy Bolt marks a milestone in the worldwide electric vehicle wave and an important indication that the American auto industry will have a significant presence in this market.

Why do so many experts consider this car so important, and how are the early-adopter states poised to benefit from welcoming its arrival?

Motor Trend Magazine named the 2017 Chevy Bolt its Motor Trend Car of the Year, in great part because it sees the car as a “game-changer.” The Bolt is the first midlevel long-range electric vehicle to hit U.S. roads. At a roughly $30,000 price point after tax incentives and a 238-mile range, this all-electric car is considered fit for mass-market adoption. There are more to come.

General Motors chose to deliver the cars first to California and Oregon. Cars were first delivered to California in November 2016. And by Jan. 9, cars were zooming around Oregon roads as well.

The electric car industry is poised to grow exponentially. The technology has matured, and we are at the cusp of massive EV adoption. Even depressed oil prices are not slowing their rise.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and Navigant Research predict electric vehicles will cost the same as gas-powered cars by the mid-2020s. Navigant Research expects that by the year 2025 more than 37 million vehicles will have a plug worldwide.

Tony Seba, instructor of entrepreneurship at Stanford University, foresees the end of the gasoline-powered car and estimates that “all new mass-market vehicles will be electric” by 2030.

These predictions are being made not only by analysts, but also by executives in the auto industry itself.

Ford Motors CEO Mark Fields said this month that the “era of the electric car is dawning.” He sees the number of electrified vehicles exceeding gasoline-powered cars within the next 15 years.

Tesla has started production at its lithium-ion battery 'Gigafactory' with the goal of producing 1 million cars per year by 2020. It plans to start shipping the 400,000 pre-ordered mid-range Tesla Model 3s by the end of this year.

Chinese car company BYD, backed by both Warren Buffet and the Chinese government, is also building gigafactories similar to Tesla's and has become the world’s top selling EV manufacturer. It plans to sell cars in the U.S. in the next two to three years

European companies Volkswagen, BMW and Mercedes are also investing heavily in the electric vehicle market, with plans for plug-in vehicles to comprise 15 to 25 percent of their sales by 2025.

Ford is investing 4.5 billion in 13 new electric vehicles, including a 300-mile range SUV and a hybrid F-150 pickup truck.

Countries, states and urban centers embracing this technology can position themselves as leaders in the industry. The economic growth potential is enormous.

A recent report by the Business and Sustainable Development Commission finds that hybrids and EVs will account for 62 percent of light-duty vehicle sales and offer roughly $315 billion in global business opportunities by 2030.

States like Oregon, California and Washington are already seeing benefits from supporting the clean-tech industry.

In Oregon, for example, Solar World, Vestas and Energy Storage Systems are but a few clean-technology companies that have set up shop. The state's clean-tech business cluster benefits both rural and urban communities. Innovative companies are creating products such as clean-energy software for farmers and biodegradable polymers that nurture seeds and seedlings through dry soil conditions.

As part of its clean-tech industry, Oregon has developed a strong electric transport business cluster, bustling with electric motorcycles, charging stations, electric fork lifts, airplane tugs, streetcars, battery components, demonstration projects and more.

The challenge will be to fully embrace the opportunities that the EV sector provides. Continuing research and development, the implementation of infrastructure, and support by an enabling legal framework are key.

The U.S. position as the leader of this 21st-century auto industry is not secure.

China has emerged as the clear global clean-energy leader. It has the largest lithium-ion, solar and wind manufacturing companies worldwide.

We can expect the country to strive to dominate the electric auto market as it has done for solar and wind.

In 2015 and 2016, China invested nearly double what the U.S. invested in renewables. It also supports 4.5 times more renewable energy jobs than the United States. Despite a recent slowdown, China plans to invest heavily in renewable energy generation, promising $361 billion in renewable fuel investments by 2020.

China also announced plans to develop an infrastructure capable of handling 5 million EVs by 2020 and an additional 3 million new EVs per year by the year 2025. This will result in a 1,000 percent increase over present sales.

Germany, an automotive powerhouse, is committed to being a world leader in this sector. The German Federal Council (German Bundestrat) adopted a bipartisan measure in the fall of 2016 to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles in the country after 2030. The German government recommended that the European Union pass a resolution to do the same for all of Europe.

The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and India have also taken steps to implement laws for zero-emissions cars.

The U.S. cannot afford to fall behind in this market.

The Chevy Bolt -- a mid-level, 200+ range, all-electric car -- has arrived. Its entrance has been quiet but significant. This is just the beginning. The future of the transformed auto industry is unfolding before our very eyes.

The time has come to position the United States and our local communities as leaders in this exploding industry. A commitment to the electric vehicle is an opportunity we can no longer ignore.

Image credits: 1) Courtesy of Chevrolet (press use only); 2) FuelEconomy.gov

Leah Y Parks is currently an editor for ElectricityPolicy.com and Electricity Daily and is co-author of the book, “All-Electric America: A Climate Solution and the Hopeful Future.” She serves on City of Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler's Environmental Policy Task Force and has written extensively about innovations in energy storage, smart grid technology, energy infrastructure, and renewable energy.   Ms. Parks holds a Masters of Science degree from Stanford University in Civil and Environmental Engineering and a BA from the University of Wisconsin in International Relations. 

The relationship between climate change and food security is hardly a new topic. But a new study examining the impact of rising temperatures on crop yields puts a terrifyingly fine point on the conversation.

Among the more sobering conclusions: Half of the country's corn harvest could be wiped out by 2100 without efficient reductions in greenhouse gases. Meanwhile, production of soybeans and wheat could fall by 40 percent and 20 percent, respectively.

“Projections tell us that in the U.S., these crops will suffer from hotter days," lead author Bernhard Schauberger told Scientific American. "Since these days will get more frequent with climate change, there will be harvest losses."

The study, published last week in the journal Nature Communications, noted the impact of such a scenario would reach far beyond U.S. borders — potentially affecting commodity prices globally and hurting food security in developing countries that rely on American exports.

Water stress key

The authors of the study, released by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, relied on sophisticated computer models in drawing their conclusions. The chief culprit, they determined, was water stress due to rising temperatures.

This is how it works: As the earth warms, evaporation rates increase -- drawing moisture out of the soil and leaving less for thirsty plants. Meanwhile, thirsty plants try to cope by allocating more of their energy to root-growth and closing their pores to prevent water from escaping. The problem is that all of this root growth comes at the expense of stems, leaves and fruits, and water retention comes only at the expense of carbon dioxide uptake — which is essential for photosynthesis and growth.

The result: Every day the temperature soars above 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 degrees Celsius) means a decline in yields.

Authors of the Potsdam study said increased irrigation could safeguard crops, but only to a point. After the temperature climbs above 97 degrees Fahrenheit, all bets are off.

The problem gets even thornier in regions where water scarcity is already an issue — a category likely to expand considerably as the world's population increases and water demand soars.

“There are lots of irrigated parts of the world, like northern India, which are already starting to run out of resources," the University of Chicago's Joshua Elliot, one of the report's co-authors, told Scientific American.

"Some estimates say there will be widespread irrigation deficits in the next 20 years — and then you have a double-whammy effect, where temperatures are increasing and you don't have the water you need to irrigate your crops.”

What to do about it

A number of companies are exploring novel technologies that could help farmers cope with an increasingly hostile climate — including genetically modifying crops to be more heat-tolerant and even developing agricultural sprays to activate existing drought-response mechanisms.

At least one genetically engineered, drought-tolerant crop is already on the market in the U.S.: DroughtGard, a corn hybrid created by Monsanto, was approved for sale in 2011 and has so far achieved mixed results. The plant has also been green-lighted in Australia, Canada, Mexico and Japan.

Meanwhile, in Argentina, a researcher has developed a genetically modified soybean she claims can increase yields by 14 percent during drought. The product has already been approved for sale in Argentina and is now undergoing field trials in the U.S.

While these developments hold potential, any discussion of genetically modified organisms also raises controversy — both due to the possibility of unforeseen ecological consequences and the risk of farmers becoming dependent on big corporations for their feed stock.

For the time being, Elliot told Scientific American, these technologies are simply too unproven to be relied upon as a fail-safe. More likely, farmers will cope by moving their operations to friendlier climates. As the nation's agricultural geography shifts, the Corn Belt will likely move northward, and the farm fields of the South fall fallow.

“Parts of Iowa could be growing cotton," Elliot said, "and the Deep South — where cotton is currently grown — will probably be too hot to grow anything.”

Image credit: Pexels

Feeling suppressed by a newly-energized wave of skepticism surrounding climate change stemming from Donald Trump’s rise to the presidency, scientists have considered leaving their labs for an office in Washington.

And a newly spawned group called 314 Action, named for the first three digits of pi, wants to help by supporting scientists who make a run for public office. 

The organization, founded by chemist and former breast cancer researcher Shaughnessy Naughton, will provide scientists with money and mentorship to support the process of running for Congress.

Naughton unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 2014 and 2016, where she lost in the Pennsylvania Democratic primaries. She understands firsthand how challenging it can be burst onto the political scene with limited experience, so 314 Action looks to assuage those challenges. 

“Partly, we’re making the case for why they should run -- and Donald Trump is really helping us with that,” Naughton told The Atlantic this week.

It didn’t take long for Trump to turn scientists’ fears into reality. In his first week in office, Trump has discredited climate change; ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to delete all climate change information from its website (a proposition it later rolled back); imposed gag orders on some federal agencies; and appointed Rick Perry, who once called the science behind climate change a “phony mess” but has recently admitted human’s role in climate change, to run the Department of Energy.

The reaction to a Trump presidency has churned strong membership numbers for Naughton and 314 Action thus far. In just two weeks, more than 650 STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) candidates signed up for 314 Action training.

314 Action lists five goals on its website:

• Strengthen communication among the STEM community, the public and our elected officials;


• Educate and advocate for and defend the integrity of science and its use;


• Provide a voice for the STEM community on social issues;


• Promote the responsible use of data driven fact based approaches in public policy;


• Increase public engagement with the STEM Community through media.

The primary focus leans toward committing to a Congress that not only believes in climate change, but is also forced to table legislation about it. But 314 Action also mentions the need for research on gun violence. “It’s time to end the gag order on gun research. We need politicians who will have the courage to stand up to the NRA…” the mission statement reads.

Scientists all across the United States, not just those signing up for 3114 Action, have been moved to stand up to a president who seems critical of science.

Jonathan Berman of the University of Texas Health Science Center, inspired by the Women’s March in which hundreds and thousands of women flooded the streets across the country in protest of Trump, created a Facebook page advocating for scientists to march in Washington. Berman watched as the followers ballooned from 200 on one day to more than 220,000 the next. The group tweeted that the date of the march will be revealed next week.

Scientists are hardly represented in Congress. Only a few representatives boast undergraduate degrees in science and even fewer have doctoral degrees, but 314 Action believes it’s time for a change. The political action committee said it will only back Democratic candidates as of now, drawing a distinction between the two parties’ views on climate change.  

Image credit: Flickr/Michael Gwyther-Jones

American businesses have a message for the newly-elected U.S. president: Climate change is real. And it needs to be addressed. Now.

More than 700 businesses sent an open letter to President Donald Trump, Congress and former President Barack Obama calling for a "low-carbon USA" that relies on innovative green energy and implementation of the Paris Climate Agreement.

"We want the U.S. economy to be energy efficient and powered by low-carbon energy," the business leaders stated in their letter. "Cost-effective and innovative solutions can help us achieve these objectives. Failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk."

The initiative, which was coordinated by a host of environmental and business organizations including Ceres, the Environmental Defense Fund and Environmental Entrepreneurs, highlights three major concerns:

• Continuation of low-carbon policies to allow the U.S. to meet or exceed its promised national commitment;


• Investment in the low-carbon economy at home and abroad in order to give financial decision-makers clarity and boost the confidence of investors worldwide;


• Continued U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement, in order to provide the long-term direction needed to keep global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius

Of course, this is likely not the kind of welcome-to-the-White-House missive that Trump expects to see in his first week in office. His now-famous declaration that climate change is a "hoax" set the tone for what many businesses have expected from the administration's first 100 days and has worried those who work hard to incorporate sustainable measures into their businesses.

"Thousands of employees and millions of sellers rely on eBay for their livelihoods, and that’s a responsibility we take very seriously," eBay's director of global impact, Lori Duvall, said in an accompanying statement.

Sealed Air CEO Jerome Peribere also stressed his company's commitment to sustainable measures that are supported by federal policies. “At Sealed Air, we are proud to reaffirm our commitment to this objective and to underline the important role that businesses have in combating climate change."

The signers also include non-governmental organizations that have placed sustainability at the center of their social and environmental initiatives, such as the religious organizations Sisters of Charity of New York and the Sisters of St. Francis.

What may speak the loudest to the new administration as it plans out its stance is the broad spectrum of companies that have spoken up for a positive approach to combating climate change. With just about every sector of industry represented on the letter (and an invitation for more to sign), the backers represent billions of dollars of U.S. revenue.

That's not to say they will have an easy time convincing Trump. For one, plenty of voices would chime in to remind him of the policies that he backed when he campaigned for election -- and their support.

"I don't think he should take their advice," Mario Lewis told PRI's The World. Lewis is a senior fellow at the right-wing Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is known for its endorsement of limited government and has referred to climate change as "alarmism."

Lewis wasted no time in attempting to discredit the letter's signers by suggesting they had commercial interest, not altruistic or compelling reasons, to support things like the Paris agreement.

Irrespective of how Lewis sizes up their message, these business leaders aren't alone in their concerns. Trump also received a written appeal from 706 physics and astronomy experts imploring him to make climate change an "urgent priority"on his to-do list. And like U.S. corporations that support addressing global warming, they touch on the very issue that is critical to a sustainable and viable Trump White House: protecting and creating jobs.

"Addressing climate change will involve short-term costs, but will also mean new investments, new jobs and new opportunities for global leadership; things that Americans around the country will welcome," the letter, which arrived to at Trump Tower last Wednesday, noted.

So, will Trump listen to a cadre of pro-sustainability companies and academia? And how will he factor that into his agenda, which he said this week includes "cutting [government] regulations by 75 percent, maybe more?"

The new president may have sized up his potential for intercepting research into global warming and other issues he doesn't agree with. But he'll likely have a harder time dismantling the decades-long efforts of sustainable businesses that know climate change is no hoax.

Image credit: Lowcarbonusa.org

Many in the environmental community sounded alarms during the first week of Donald Trumps presidency.

First, President Trump removed references to climate change from the White House website and replaced them with a statement on his administration’s energy policy that seeks to reduce “burdensome regulations on our energy industry.” Then, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus issued a memorandum that puts a hold on pending or new regulations and might affect almost completed Department of Energy efficiency standards for a number of products, including air conditioners.

Trump’s regulatory freeze stands in contrast with a recent report by the Environmental Defense Fund's Climate Corps. Transitioning to a more environmentally sustainable and energy-efficient economy, the group says, can accomplish an even bigger task on Trump's to-do list: create jobs.

Sustainable energy and energy efficiency employs 4 million to 4.5 million Americans -- and those numbers are poised to increase, Climate Corps says.

A look at the renewable energy sector serves as a good example. Renewable energy employment is “growing rapidly,” Climate Corps says. Solar employment opportunities are growing 12 times faster than the rest of the U.S. economy. And wind turbine technician is the fastest growing profession in the U.S.

American renewable energy jobs had a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6 percent since 2012. Over the past five years, annual growth in oil and gas extraction, coal mining, and processing jobs ranged from 9 percent to 22 percent. But jobs in those sectors have seen an overall decline with a CAGR of -4.25 percent.

Additionally, the renewable energy economy creates more jobs than the fossil fuel industry per dollar invested, says Climate Corps. Investments in renewable energy generate about three times more direct and indirect jobs than comparable investments in fossil fuels.

Of course, all of this job growth stems from the rapid deployment of wind and solar energy in the U.S. And this will only continue as costs fall ever lower: Solar PV panel production costs decreased by 72 percent between 2010 and 2015, which makes solar PV cost-competitive with fossil-fuel generated power in many markets. So it's no surprise that solar deployment expanded tenfold since 2010. America also more than doubled its installed wind capacity from 2009 to 2015. 

Both wind and solar are projected to experience significant growth in the coming decades, owed largely to continued cost reductions. The 2015 congressional extension of the investment tax credit (ITC) is expected to create an additional 220,000 solar jobs by 2023.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance predicts solar and wind will account for 64 percent of new power generating capacity added globally between now and 2040.

Other sectors in the clean-energy economy are also experiencing significant growth, including energy efficiency.

Increasing investments in building energy efficiency, partly fueled by state and local policies, means the sector now employs about 2.2 million people across the country, a 7 percent increase from 2015. 

Energy-efficiency jobs typically offer good pay and are available to people lacking college degrees. Almost half of all energy-efficiency jobs are held by people with a high school diploma or less, and the average wages are nearly $5,000 above the national median.

The government plays an important role in supporting the growth of clean energy and sustainability markets through policies and programs. Policymakers at all levels of government need to realize that the clean-energy economy creates jobs.

As Liz Delaney, program director of EDF Climate Corps, wrote in a recent blog post: “Efforts to roll back or weaken environmental and energy policies will negatively impact current and future U.S. jobs, while slowing clean energy innovation.”

Trump or no Trump, the U.S. Department of Energy is still cooking up new ways to get zero-emission, hydrogen-powered vehicles into the hands of ordinary motorists. On Jan. 19, just one day before Inauguration Day (aka the National Day of Patriotic Devotion), the Energy Department awarded a $1 million prize to the developers of a new, compact hydrogen fueling station called SimpleFuel.

The award is significant step in the zero-emission direction. The Energy Department is banking on both hydrogen fuel cell and battery electric vehicles to help wean the U.S. off of petroleum fuel. But few motorists will buy a hydrogen-powered car unless they have a place to fill 'er up. The $1 million in prize money will help get those new hydrogen fuel stations off the ground.

Hydrogen fuel stations everywhere

For those of you new to the topic, hydrogen fuel cells produce electricity through a reaction between hydrogen and air. The only emission is water.

Fuel cell electric vehicles basically produce their own electricity on the go, so they can be fueled up as quickly as a gasmobile. In contrast, battery EVs need to stop and recharge. Even a high-powered, quick-charge station can take far longer than a typical stop at a gas station.

The fast fill-up is a big advantage for fuel cells over battery EVs, but not necessarily a complete one. Battery EV charging stations can fit into a very small space, and some EVs can even be plugged straight into a household circuit.

Commercial hydrogen fuel stations, on the other hand, tend to be too large and bulky for general use.

To help spur companies to develop more compact fueling stations, in October 2015 the Energy Department launched the H2 Refuel H-Prize Competition for a small scale hydrogen fueling station.

Here's the how the agency describes the H2 competition:

"... The H2 Refuel H-Prize Competition challenged America's innovators to deploy an on-site hydrogen generation system, using electricity or natural gas, to fuel hydrogen vehicles, that can be used in homes, community centers, small businesses, or similar locations."

The simple solution

As illustrated by the rendering at the top of this article, the SimpleFuel station can fit into a standard fueling aisle at a typical gas station.

That means many existing gas stations could install fuel cell stations, making access more convenient for fuel cell EV owners.

The SimpleFuel team nailed down the big H2 prize by deploying a compact hydrogen station last year. Data collection was scheduled for July through October, and it appears the system passed with flying colors.

That's a good thing in terms of managing climate change, because the H2 prize provided contestants with the option of producing hydrogen from the conventional source, fossil natural gas. In the U.S., that would mean a heavy dose of fracking with all the attendant risks and impacts including greenhouse gas emissions.

The SimpleFuel team went with the other alternative, which is to produce hydrogen from water using an electrical current. If the electricity is sourced from wind or solar, that's icing on the sustainability cake.

The team -- a consortium made up of the companies Ivys Energy Solutions, hydrogen specialists McPhy Energy North America and global compression experts PDC Machines -- has also created a fueling station that can fit into a range of uses:

The initial SimpleFuel product line is designed to target several small-scale hydrogen dispensing markets, including home and local/distributed refueling of consumer FCEVs, refueling for fuel cell vehicle fleets, and industrial fuel cell vehicle refueling.

Here comes hydrogen, Trump or no Trump

President Donald Trump promised to support the fossil fuel industry during the campaign season, and so far he's been as good as his word.

With less than a week in office, the president has already signed executive orders that would restart two significant petroleum transportation projects, the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. In the meantime, Republicans in Congress are also following through on their pledge to cut funding from the Energy Department.

However, that won't necessarily put a crimp in the growth of the hydrogen fuel cell EV market. The American business community is already heavily invested in fuel cell technology, and so are key federal agencies including the Department of Defense.

In addition to startups, legacy companies such as GE and Ryder have been laying big plans for the hydrogen fuel cell EV market, and a non-federal funding network for R&D is already at hand.

The H2 prize, for example, is administered by something called the Hydrogen Education Foundation. This alternative fuel nonprofit organization was established in 2004 -- yes, during a Republican administration (that would be George W. Bush, for those of you keeping score at home).

In any case, if petroleum ever flows through the Keystone and Dakota pipelines, American motorists won't necessarily get the benefit of cheaper gas prices. Most if not all of that oil is destined for the export market.

Image (cropped): via ivysinc.com.

Companies insist they are improving their disclosures related to the use of palm oil within their supply chains. But the evidence suggests the industry is still wreaking havoc on the environment worldwide.

One of the problems is that many of the companies that are the foundation of the global palm oil industry, such as Wilmar and Musim Mas, are privately owned. There is little incentive for these companies to disclose how palm oil’s environmental and human rights impacts could affect their long-term business (not to mention any current ecological or human rights issues resulting from their role in palm oil production).

This week, the sustainable leadership advocacy group Ceres issued a suggested set of guidelines that it urged the entire palm oil industry to use when sharing disclosure statements with stakeholders.

The 16-page document was issued with input from some of the world’s leading environmental NGOs, including CDP, Conservation International, Oxfam, Rainforest Action Network, Rainforest Alliance and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Green Century Capital Management, an investment management firm that applies strict sustainability criteria to the companies included within its index funds, was also consulted in the drafting of these new disclosure criteria.

One could best describe the new disclosure guidelines as a mini version of GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) reporting standards, only laser-focused on palm oil suppliers and manufacturers.

Growers, processors and traders, for example, would in general be held to a 21-point disclosure process. Beyond revealing basic information about the company’s scope (as in subsidiaries and joint ventures), companies are requested to disclose the percentage of the palm oil that they procure from traceable mills, estates and concessions.

Human rights are also central to these guidelines, and palm oil firms are instructed to publicly declare their efforts to monitor and support land tenure rights, as well as issue any grievances made against a company.

In addition, land use policies would also be public information. Not only should these firms disclose lands under their management that are devoted to palm oil cultivation, Ceres says, but they should also reveal the amount of acreage planned for palm oil growing in the upcoming year.

Furthermore, as a response to the wildfires that devastated many of Indonesia’s forests last year, Ceres and its partners think companies should be more specific about their land restoration policies, how the monitor and evaluate fires and deforestation, and the greenhouse gas emissions created by both palm oil production and land use change.

The NGOs also aim to hold palm oil manufacturers to an extensive disclosure plan. Traceability is key, as Ceres requests these companies report on the acreage and physical boundaries of each parcel, as well as the landowner's name.

Companies should also disclose how they support the smallholders (suppliers with land holdings smaller than 25 hectares) that are part of their supply chains, Ceres says, whether these programs include measures such as no-deforestation policies, crop rotation or certification.

Ceres also insists that retailers join the palm oil disclosure bandwagon. Similar to how growers and manufacturers would communicate with stakeholders, disclosure on this front is about names, names, names.

The reporting guidelines suggest retail firms name the traders in their supply chains, and share how exactly they assess and engage their suppliers. These companies are also asked to reveal the third-party certifications they use, as well as the percentage of product that can be verified by these systems.

According to at least one NGO, such a process goes beyond stating commitments and would spur these companies into action.

“For too long, companies that produce and use palm oil have gotten away with paper commitments that they are repeatedly found violating," Glenn Hurowitz, CEO of Mighty, told TriplePundit in an email.

"Now, these companies will finally have to report directly on the metrics that matter: the origins of their palm oil, how they are assessing responsible land development, and what deforestation, peatland clearance, or human rights abuses have been found in their supply chain and how are they dealing with it. More reporting will spur urgently needed action and accountability."

The big question is whether the world’s largest palm oil companies will pay any attention to these suggested guidelines.

Despite the growing outrage over the impact palm oil has on wildlife, forests and human rights, many of these companies still stubbornly refuse to be transparent. And in fact, some have pushed back hard – as in the IOI Group suing the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) after it was kicked out of that group last year.

Nevertheless, the industry would be wise to clean up its act and be more open about its operations and global impact. After all, the recent controversy over Nutella’s use of palm oil places this ingredient in more consumers’ cross-hairs. And whether or not palm oil really causes cancer, this episode opens more eyes to palm oil’s reality: It has become a cancer on the planet.

Image credit: Rainforest Action Network/Flickr

Vancouver, Canada's largest west coast city, is rethinking the way it handles urban density.

For years, the metropolitan area benefited from its sprawling geography of valleys, coastal watersheds and lush deltas. As the city grew in size, smaller urban neighborhoods became suburbs: pockets of housing developments and culs-de-sac that would eventually soak up more population than the city that gives the Vancouver Metropolitan Region its name.

The problem, urban planners point out, is that this type of development hasn't necessarily taken community needs into account. Sure, there are stores, malls, restaurants and medical facilities, but what about jobs?

According to recent studies, 43 percent of residents in Vancouver's neighboring Fraser Valley Regional District commute outside of their cities for work, often drawn by jobs 15 to 25 miles away from their homes. Regional infrastructure like the Lower Mainland's intricate web of bridges and highways aren't considered sufficient for another decade of urban sprawl.

The answer, some urban planners insist, isn't building out but building up: Building mini-urban centers that not only provide more affordable housing, but can also lure the industries that would make working and playing closer to home possible.

And urban populations aren't the only ones who will benefit from innovative plans that increase density in Vancouver's backyard, environmentalists point out. Mother Nature will, too.

Bringing jobs closer to home means fewer greenhouse gas emissions on the highway, less commuting across British Columbia's valuable agricultural bread basket, and less demand for carbon-based fuels.

But a new report suggests another surprising benefits to increasing density in urban centers: Thoughtful urban planning that reduces land expenditure for residential planning not only means more area for agricultural use, but also a reduction in GHG emissions.

The report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined what emission levels would look like in different living environments. Their data showed a potential for lower greenhouse emissions in denser population areas where residential amenities were paired with improved access to jobs. People not only traveled less, but they also used less space and less amenities.

While there is no perfect urban model for every city, the study noted: "[In] developing regions, urban density tends to be the more critical factor in building energy use. Large-scale retrofitting of building stock later rather than sooner results in more energy savings by the middle of the century."

The authors point out that simply building higher and more compact cities isn't the answer. Redesigning the world's cities needs to be accompanied by energy-efficient technology that "can contribute to both local and global sustainability."

And there's the real challenge. Vancouver discovered some 20 years ago that simply shrinking the size of newly built apartments to 600 or 700 square feet and building denser neighborhoods near public transportation didn't create sustainable neighborhoods.

Among other things, it encouraged migration to outlying, growing cities where land prices were lower and houses could be more expansive. In other words: It encouraged the production of GHG emissions by incentivizing more commuting from neighborhoods that had the amenities but not the jobs.

Vancouver and its neighbors are now trying to change that by finding ways to make local neighborhoods more integral and sustainable. As the authors of the PNAS report noted, it isn't easy. Urban density has been declining for the last three decades. The Vancouver Lower Mainland's growth mirrors a global trend that has impacted energy usage and GHG emission levels in growing urban centers. According to the authors, the answer isn't smaller cities -- it's more compact cities.

Whether this research will sit well with tomorrow's young families, as many cities with sprawling suburbia at their doors have discovered, will depend on how those cities are planned. For Vancouver's part, that includes not only creating more jobs near residential neighborhoods, but also incentivizing developers and other urban investors to contribute back into the communities they build.

The money or in-kind contributions from developers can help ensure adequate green spaces and more innovative design. And, coupled with a robust focus on green standards, they could lay the groundwork for cities that residents and businesses really want to call home.

Image credit: Flickr/David J Laporte

Hellmann’s says its entire U.S. consumer portfolio of mayonnaise and mayonnaise dressings is now made with only cage-free eggs. Hellmann’s, owned by Unilever, reached its cage-free target three years ahead of schedule, the company announced on Monday. 

Hellmann’s set the goal in 2010, at a time when only 2 percent of egg-laying hens in the U.S. were cage-free. That figure rose to 7.8 percent as of September 2016.

Most egg-laying hens in the U.S. are confined in battery cages that provide only 67 inches of space. That is smaller than a sheet of letter-sized paper. The hens are unable to spread their wings or engage in normal chicken behavior such as nesting, perching and dustbathing.

“When Hellmann's first made this commitment, there simply weren't enough cage-free hens in America to supply the volume of eggs needed," Russel Lilly, marketing director for Hellmann’s, said in a statement. “The sheer number of eggs that go into Hellmann's products – 331 million a year – means we had to completely rebuild our supply chain in order to make our goal a reality.”

Hellmann’s is just one of a number of companies that have made commitments to phase out confinement systems such as battery cages. Seventy-seven percent of companies assessed in the Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare 2016 report have published policies concerning close confinement, as opposed to 72 percent in 2015. The Benchmark 2016 is the fifth annual report looked at the animal welfare policies of 99 companies, including Unilever.

The commitments companies make to phasing out confinement systems are important, as they send signals to producers.

Finding alternatives to close confinement systems is the big barrier to wiping out those cruel systems. When companies make commitments to phase out close confinement systems from their supply chains with a clear timeline, they "can provide suppliers with confidence that there will be a market for animals reared in more extensive systems,” according to the report. Innovation and scale are incentivized as a result and that helps reduce the cost of alternative systems.

Consumers and nonprofit organizations are putting increasing pressure on companies to eliminate close confinement systems, particularly cages for hens and sow gestation crates.

A number of companies have made commitments to phase out caged hens from their supply chains, including McDonald’s, Panera Bread, Taco Bell, Starbucks, Tesco and Walmart. Smithfield Foods is among the food producers phasing out sow gestation crates. The commitments by global companies will have “significant influence in the industry,” the report states.

The increasing importance of farm animal welfare as a business issue

More and more companies are aware that farm animal welfare is an important issue. The Benchmark report found that 87 percent of companies assessed acknowledge farm animal welfare as a business issue. However, only 73 percent have formalized their commitments in “overarching policies or equivalent documents.”

But there’s more good news: 65 percent have set farm animal welfare-related targets, and 45 percent described their management responsibilities for farm animal welfare.

Companies are increasing the attention they pay to farm animal welfare. The overall score across the companies surveyed increased year-on-year by about 5 percent from 2012 to 2013, by 2 percent from 2013 to 2014, and by 3 percent from 2014 to 2015. The average score for companies increased by another 5 percent last year.

Companies are also increasingly publishing objectives and targets for farm animal welfare: 65 percent of those studied published such targets last year. 

Although the average score in the Benchmark 2016 is low, some companies have made significant improvements in their farm animal welfare management and reporting over the last year. This year, 26 companies moved up at least one tier in the Benchmark, out of a possible six tiers. Two companies, Cargill and Mondelēz International, moved up two tiers.

Ten of the companies that ranked in the bottom two tiers in 2015 have moved up at least one tier in 2016. In May 2016, those companies received a letter co-signed by 18 institutional investors asking them to account for their poor performance in the Benchmark, which may account for their increased efforts. 

Image credit: Animal Freedom