Search

Airbnb, along with other sharing economy companies, has long touted their sustainability street cred. Now, the short-term lodging service is going a step further by partnering with SolarCity.

The San Mateo-based clean power provider, which recently merged with Tesla Motors, is offering Airbnb hosts up to $1,000 in cash for installing solar power systems on their rooftops. In addition, Airbnb hosts who are also SolarCity customers will score a $100 Airbnb booking credit.

So, will Airbnb hosts jump at the offer? As Fortune noted on Tuesday, the average cost of installing a solar power system is anywhere from $25,000 to $35,000, so that 1K check may not get many homeowners to budge. Of course, depending on the host’s location, tax incentives can reduce that total. And SolarCity is among the many solar power installers that provide monthly payment options. For those who rely significantly on Airbnb income, but find that other financial benefits are lacking, receiving a thousand bucks in the mail could be enough of an incentive.

Moreover, Airbnb and SolarCity are clearly appealing to millennials by talking up the environmental benefits of investing in residential solar. SolarCity claims the average rooftop solar power system can prevent the emissions of 150 metric tons of carbon dioxide over its lifetime. That amount, SolarCity insists, is equivalent to taking 125 road trips from New York to San Francisco (363,375 miles) or leaving 75 metric tons (166,000 pounds) of coal in the ground.

Meanwhile, Airbnb claims 13 million homes and 36 million bedrooms sit empty on any given night. The company has long made the case that utilizing those empty spaces is both environmentally responsible and an economic no-brainer.

Two years ago, Airbnb commissioned the research firm Cleantech Group to measure the environmental benefits of home sharing. The results were all over the map, from the estimate that travelers from Canada and the U.S. who used Airbnb conserve the equivalent of 270 Olympic-sized swimming pools of water, to the conclusion that room-sharing displaced the emissions of 33,000 cars from North American roads. Airbnb claimed that a survey of its hosts in Europe resulted in even more impressive metrics.

While this promotion is clearly targeted to hosts, Airbnb guests can also sign up. Interested consumers simply enter a code generated by Airbnb in order to start the process with SolarCity.

For Airbnb, this program with SolarCity is another opportunity to repair its reputation, which has been battered over the past year. The company found itself the target of protests over proven allegations of racial discrimination by its hosts. And it hired big D.C. names such as Eric Holder and Chris Lehane in an attempt to rehabilitate its image. In addition, the company’s valuation has earned it the unflattering moniker of a tech “unicorn,” which critics say symbolizes what is wrong with the investment community and the tech sector in general.

Hence this clean energy program can help Airbnb renew its focus on the sharing economy’s core values, starting with sustainable consumption – a much more constructive narrative for the company than its more recent role as the poster child of what is wrong with Silicon Valley.

Image credit: SolarCity

As policymakers and the private sector begin to take action to address climate change and other environmental issues, the need emerges for every individual to take responsibility to his or her contribution. While changes at home can’t solve the many environmental crises we face today, they sure can help — especially when adopted en masse and combined with policy action.

With this in mind, TriplePundit is launching a special series to explore how every individual can take action on sustainability, in partnership with Whirlpool Corporation. We'll offer practical methods to reduce food waste at home and work, touch on water and energy usage in America today, and explore ways to drive positive policy forward.

The series kicks off later today with a Twitter chat on America's food waste crisis. Join TriplePundit, Whirlpool Corporation and our special guests -- the Natural Resources Defense Council, Blue Apron and Zero Percent -- to discuss the issues surrounding food waste in America and ways to move forward. Just follow the hashtag #FoodWaste3p at 11 a.m. PT/2 p.m. ET.

In advance of the chat, TriplePundit spoke with Ron Voglewede, global sustainability director for Whirlpool Corporation, to learn more about how the company is embracing sustainability and actionable ways consumers can do the same.

TriplePundit: For starters, can you tell us a bit about how Whirlpool is reducing its environmental footprint, from design to manufacturing? 

Ron Voglewede: Whirlpool Corporation has a 46-year commitment to sustainability. This commitment encompasses innovation and improvements in our product development, manufacturing and operations.

On average, the refrigerators, washers, dishwashers, and freezers we make today are more energy efficient than the ones we made five years ago and 10 years ago.

We also are targeting zero manufacturing landfill waste (sending no manufacturing or packaging waste to any landfill) by 2022. We have met this goal in one of our largest regions, Latin America, where all three manufacturing plants in Brazil have achieved zero waste to landfill.

Recently we broke ground on the installment of wind turbines at our facilities in Ottawa and Marion, Ohio, with the potential to make Whirlpool Corporation one of the largest Fortune 500 consumers of on-site wind energy in the United States. Collectively, we expect to generate enough clean energy to power more than 2,400 average American homes per year. The wind farm being built near our Findlay, Ohio, plant is expected to provide 22 percent of the plant’s electric needs, the equivalent to the amount required to power 300 to 400 homes.

3p: How is the company embracing circular economy design? 

RV: We embrace circular economy through reuse of materials from our products at end of life.  The recycled materials can be used to make other products such as furniture, food containers and playground equipment instead of being sent to landfills. We are actively recycling products in North America, South America and Europe.  We have also pioneered efforts to safely dispose of ozone-depleting refrigerants.

3p: How does Whirlpool's product design help customers be more sustainable at home? Energy usage? Food waste reduction?

RV: Whirlpool Corporation has received 36 Energy Star Awards since 1998, for continued commitment to energy- and water-efficient products, more than any other appliance manufacturer in the U.S. and Canada.

The refrigerators we build today use 60 percent less energy than those built in 1980, while their capacity has increased by 23 percent. Our clothes washers today use 74 percent less energy and 43 percent less water than those built in 1992, while their capacity has increased by 42 percent.

Appliance design also allows us to address consumer behavior around food and food spoilage. For instance, we’ve designed refrigerators such as our Whirlpool Double Door French Door Refrigerator with better line of sight inside, so you can see what food you have before it goes bad. Newer refrigerators across our portfolio also have improved airflow systems that help preserve produce to keep it fresher longer.

3p: There are so many factors that influence sustainability in the home. Why should individuals focus on appliances? 

RV: The majority of the environmental impact created by an appliance occurs during its in-home use. Energy-efficient and Energy Star certified appliances can make a big difference in reducing that impact – which also translates to cost-saving on home utility bills.

To wit, a new Energy Star certified dishwasher uses less than half as much energy as washing dishes by hand and saves nearly 5,000 gallons of water a year. Over the lifetime of the product, an Energy Star certified clothes washer can save 1,100 kilowatt-hours of electricity, more than 2.5 million BTUs of natural gas, and 33,000 gallons of water.

No matter the appliance, focusing on those with sustainable features and energy output pays dividends for people and planet.

3p: Whirlpool partnered with Purdue University to transform an off-campus home into a living sustainability laboratory. Can you tell us more about this? What can everyday homeowners learn from the ReNEWW model home? 

RV: Whirlpool Corporation created the first lived in, fully-retrofitted, net zero energy, water and waste home -- the ReNEWW House. Along with Purdue University, we're transforming this 1920s bungalow into a world-class living laboratory and sustainable living showcase.

ReNEWW House will provide valuable insights for our homebuilder partners and customers on technologies that enable sustainable living. At this world class facility we’re collaborating with Purdue researchers to accelerate the development of the next generation of ultra-high efficiency appliances that increase core performance while lowering their impact on the environment and cost to operate.

3p: Research shows a growing number of individuals want to reduce their personal footprints and increase sustainability at home, but many don't know how to get started. Any advice for them? 

RV: Taking a close look at your own food consumption and food waste is a great place to start. Reducing food waste has direct connections to a more sustainable future, with food waste currently accounting for more than 20 percent of America’s landfills and American families on average sending more than 400 pounds of food waste to landfills each year.

Identifying ways to store and organize food in ways that optimize preservation and prevent forgetting the food items you already have are two great ways to reduce your footprint. At-home composting and food recycling systems are another.

Appliances are, of course, another great way to increase sustainability at home. Replacing older, inefficient models with Energy Star certified offerings will dramatically reduce home energy use. This leads not only to lower utility costs for the individual, but also lower energy emissions -- which contribute to improved environmental conditions for our planet.

Image credit: Nils Stahl/Pexels

Last week, the Chicago Sun Times reported that Tyson Foods purchased a 5 percent stake in Beyond Meat, the Southern California-based purveyor of meat analogs that strive to be similar to chicken and beef. The company earned praise for creating meat alternatives made from ingredients such as carrot fiber and pea flower. And its coconut oil and beet juice “Beyond Burger” is even on display in some butcher cases at Whole Foods. Neither Beyond Meat, which is privately owned, or Tyson disclosed the financial terms of the deal.

Tyson’s investment is, at a minimum, disconcerting to some animal welfare activists and Beyond Meat stakeholders. But as Ethan Brown, founder and CEO of the seven-year-old fake meat startup, explained: This new relationship between Tyson and Beyond Meat has far more benefits than one would assume. After all, a growing planet demands more protein; both companies can learn from one another; and a more fragmented market means more consumer choice and also the chance for new  business.

The reality is that -- after decades of public awareness campaigns and concerns over public health, the environment and animal rights -- the global meat industry is responding in kind. The Soy Moratorium, founded a decade ago, helped halt the pace of deforestation in Brazil that resulted from lands being transformed into farms growing animal feed; more food companies such as McDonald’s are transitioning away from poultry containing antibiotics; and the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) is working with NGOs to reduce the meatpacking industry’s environmental impact by making it more efficient and sustainable.

Meatpacking companies and firms such as Beyond Meat, which really should be described as food technology companies, are wrong to dismiss each other or to view each other as competitors. Instead, they are complements. Tyson will gain in the long term from diversifying its portfolio. Beyond Meat will score more business opportunities by having closer access to Tyson’s body of knowledge as it seeks to improve its products by making them almost indistinguishable from animal meat in taste and appearance.

And in any event -- despite fears that a growing meat industry will result in unchecked sustainable development, especially in the case of beef -- the future does not have to be dystopian as food trends indicate otherwise. David Hughes, a professor and noted speaker on the international food industry, recently told a recent GRSB conference that beef will never be able to compete on price and scale with far cheaper aquaculture and poultry. Furthermore, the proliferation of more food options, from hot cases in supermarkets to fast casual restaurants, offer more consumer choice. As more people eat more of their meals alone, they are not looking to cook dinner: Rather, they are seeking a “solution” for that meal, no matter what the time of day may be. Hence, an opening for meatless products has hardly been exploited.

To that end, beef will become not a mass-marketed food; rather, it will be more of a niche food product. And as meat analogs become more price competitive and offer comparable taste and texture (arguably, many already are), more consumers will incorporate them into their diet. On that point, Brown points out this is not an “us versus them” debate: Consumers will decide based on reasons related to their health, wallet and values.

Tyson’s investment reveals that the meat industry will start following the path of other food and beverage companies. Honest Tea is now a subsidiary of Coca-Cola, with no changes to its bottled teas and juices. Stodgy Kellogg owns Kashi, which says it is still devoted to the organics movement. And Unilever will not change how Seventh Generation makes its plant-based cleaning products at the risk of losing customers.

In the end, there is no reason why meat companies cannot profit from selling meatless food products, which would be a win for consumer choice, the environment, health and, for many of us, our retirement portfolios.

Image credit: Beyond Meat

A small town called Eight Mile in Alabama experienced a mercaptan spill at a Mobile Gas as facility eight years ago. Mercaptan is a chemical that is added so a gas leak can be detected, as natural gas is odorless and colorless. It smells like rotten eggs. Some stakeholders, like Columbia Gas of Massachusetts, claim it is a “harmless, nontoxic” chemical. But the citizens of Eight Mile aren’t likely to agree.

Eight Mile is an unincorporated town of around 13,000 named for its distance from the city of Mobile. It now finds itself connected to a far larger city some 2,000 miles away: Sempra Energy owns Mobile Gas, as well as the Southern California Gas Co., which was responsible for the natural gas leak in Porter Ranch, California, in January 2016.

The Eight Mile event occurred as a result of a lightning strike that caused mercaptan to leak from a storage tank. In 2012, Mobile Gas collected samples from a groundwater spring at a beaver pond and found it contained mercaptan. Flash forward four years, and residents continue to complain about the smell. As Eight Mile resident Geraldine Harper told DeSmogBlog in August, “For years we have been told there is not a problem anymore, though the smell of gas never really goes away and I’m sure breathing that stuff is making my health worse.”

Back in July, Harper and over 200 others attended a public meeting hosted by the We Matter Eight Mile Community Association. At the meeting, environmental scientist and community advocate Wilma Subra “confirmed what many feared -- their air is getting worse, not better,” DeSmog reported.

As much as 6,000 pounds of mercaptan might have leaked into the area’s groundwater, according to a deposition by an employee of Mobile Gas, which a lawyer suing the company provided to AL.com. That is a tremendous amount. And it explains why a 2012 Alabama Department of Public Health health survey of residents near the spill found that a third sought out treatment for “symptoms attributed to the odor (mercaptan).”

The majority of residents reported that for over 14 out of 30 days, during the time of the survey, they were “physically and mentally unhealthy, in addition to being unable to do normal activities.” The residents complained of nasal congestion, dyspnea, cough, wheezing, loss of appetite, eye irritations, headache, dizziness, agitated behavior, difficulty concentrating, and worsening hypertension.

Affected residents were evacuated after the Porter Ranch spill. But Eight Mile residents are still dealing with the effects of their spill eight years later. A Los Angeles Times report contrasts the response to the two leaks. While members of Porter Ranch, who are predominately white, were evacuated and relocated right after the leak, the mostly African-American residents of Eight Mile “have been largely ignored, stuck for eight years with the stifling rotten egg stench,” wrote LA Times reporter Ivan Penn.

It’s the classic tale of two cities -- or in this case, a tale of two leaks. And it exposes not only lax corporate responsibility and government response, but also the underbelly of America: the classism and racism that everyone would rather keep hidden. 

Part of the problem for Eight Mile residents is that mercaptan isn’t classified on the EPA’s toxic substance list or on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) list of highly hazardous chemicals, as Mobile Gas mentioned in a section on its website devoted to the Eight Mile leak. President Barack Obama signed a bill into law in June that modernized the Toxic Substances Control Act, which makes it possible for the EPA to conduct studies on mercaptan so it can be added to the list. A Change.org petition asks the EPA “to do what is necessary” to put mercaptan on the list.

What is crystal clear from the Eight Mile leak is that Americans deserve better than being exposed to a substance for eight years that causes chronic health problems.

Image credit: Flickr/J Stephen Conn

By Ann Tartre

Both the Security and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Regulation S-K concept release in April of 2016 and the new GRI G4 guidelines that came into full effect in January 2016 are causing sustainability practitioners to take a long, hard look at the topic of materiality. And as the landscape surrounding the subject changes, many organizations have become unsure about how to address the issue.

The SEC’s current definition of materiality differs greatly from broader definitions of materiality according to reporting frameworks like the GRI. Corporate legal departments and risk management staff fear that disclosing non-financial sustainability risks such as resource scarcity or impacts from climate change in CSR reports could be misinterpreted by activist investors, open a company up to lawsuits, and potentially affect stock prices.

Meanwhile, the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) insists that companies are taking risks by using different definitions of materiality or assuming they can’t be liable for voluntary disclosure of sustainability information not required by the SEC. SASB recommends using “material” only when describing sustainability information that meets the securities law definition, and claims that its framework helps companies to do so.

Confusion and concern about materiality is legitimate, but it does not have to be paralyzing. In this issue of Perspectives, you’ll learn how different factors are fueling the debate around the word “materiality,” and see how a few leading companies are addressing the issue in their CSR reports. We’ve also identified some questions to consider that can help refine your organization’s approach and four tactics for helping your team develop its strategy.

To read the full examination of the subject of materiality, download the report here.

Ann Tartre is a Sustainability Strategist at thinkPARALLAX – a strategic creative communications agency with a passion for building brands with purpose. Ann works at the intersection of business strategy, sustainability, and communications, helping organization cultivate knowledge, spread awareness, and create purposeful connections with audiences.

Today, Whirlpool Corp., the Natural Resources Defense Council, Blue Apron, Zero Percent and TriplePundit came together at #FoodWaste3p to discuss the issues surrounding food waste in America.

The facts on food waste are becoming all too familiar. In the U.S., 30 to 40 percent of the food supply is wasted, totaling more than 20 pounds per person, per month. Worldwide, about a third of all food produced is lost or wasted.

And this food waste has environmental implications, too, as it makes up the second-highest component of landfills -- which, according to a report by UNEP and the World Resources Institute, are our planet’s largest source of methane emissions.

On the heels of World Food Day, our chat took a closer look at this critical issue, and the ways the public sector and business leaders can drive innovation and research to create the change we need.

During #FoodWaste3p, we discussed the following and much more:

• Large-scale solutions like commercial composting


• Smaller-scale (but equally important) solutions like home food organization and preservation


• “Best by” date regulation to reduce consumer confusion

 
 

FEATURED GUESTS:

• Ron Voglewede (@WhirlpoolCorp) - Global Sustainability Director at Whirlpool


• Dana Gunders (@DGunders) - Senior Scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council


• Blue Apron (@BlueApron) - Leading fresh ingredient and recipe delivery service in the U.S.


• Raj Karmani (@ZeroPercent) - Founder & Chief Impact Officer at Zero Percent

MODERATORS:

• Nick Aster (@NickAster) -- TriplePundit Founder and Publisher


• Marissa Rosen (@MarissaR1) -- TriplePundit Director of Social Media


• Jen Boynton (@JenBoynton) -- TriplePundit Editor-In-Chief

--

About Whirlpool Corporation

Whirlpool Corporation (NYSE: WHR) is the number one major appliance manufacturer in the world, with approximately $21 billion in annual sales, 97,000 employees and 70 manufacturing and technology research centers in 2015. The company markets Whirlpool, KitchenAid, Maytag, Consul, Brastemp, Amana, Bauknecht, Jenn-Air, Indesit and other major brand names in nearly every country throughout the world. Additional information about the company can be found at WhirlpoolCorp.com.

About NRDC

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 2 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world's natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City; Washington, D.C.; Los Angeles; San Francisco; Chicago; Bozeman, Montana; and Beijing. For more information on the work we do, visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC.

About Blue Apron

Blue Apron is the leading fresh ingredient and recipe delivery service in the United States. By delivering step-by-step recipes and seasonal, pre-portioned ingredients sourced directly from farms and suppliers, Blue Apron makes it fun and easy to cook incredible meals at home.

About Zero Percent

Zero Percent is a system designed to help businesses move surplus, edible food by posting donations on our online food donations marketplace. The system automatically alerts volunteers at nearby soup kitchens and shelters, through text and email, until it can find one volunteer who accepts to pick up the donation. Learn more at https://app.zeropercent.us.

Forced labor remains a problem in many industries, with global textiles and garments being no exception. Despite considerable progress in the last few years due to rising awareness, forced labor still occurs in cotton fields and factories across the world, connected to us by the realities of modern global supply chains.

The basics: What is forced labor?

Forced labor is, quite simply, the use of coercion to force people to work for little or no pay. It can take the form of modern day slavery, but also perpetuates itself through less overt practices such as debt bondage – where workers are forced to work to pay off absurdly high-interest loans with no other recourse.

In the garment industry, forced labor is most commonly found in two areas. One is at the beginning of the supply chain: Labor-intensive crops, such as cotton, often require copious work for cultivation and harvest. And forced labor is not uncommon in the fields.

"In countries where rule of law is weak or corruption is high, and where there's agricultural production [of crops] such as cotton, there is a high risk that forced labor is something that's happening," Kilian Moote, director of KnowTheChain.org, a project of Humanity United, told TriplePundit.

Forced labor happens in fields around the world, but one of the worst scenarios unfolds in Uzbekistan, a dictatorial country in Central Asia. Cotton harvesting season turns huge parts of the nation into vast forced-labor plantations, with Uzbek cotton being exported to East Asia and, from there, around the world.

Forced labor is also pervasive in garment factories, where fabrics are transformed into the countless pieces of apparel we wear every day. Few factories remain in developed, Global North countries these days, with cheap labor costs having resulted in the mass migration of garment labor into Asia and, increasingly, Africa. It is generally easier to understand forced labor at this level, Moote told us.

"There is a better understanding [of forced labor] as it related to the final stage of manufacturing because there's a greater degree of visibility about how forced labor is connected to specific brands or companies," he explained.

In fact, advocacy groups found countless instances of forced labor in factories, but the sheer complexity of the industry makes it hard to paint broad pictures. Factories that treat workers well can be found in the same regions as those using forced labor. And from the outside, it can be nearly impossible tell the difference. The problem is that, too often, products created from both good and bad factories end up in the same supply chain – and, ultimately, in your local mall.

Supply chains and forced labor

The final piece of the puzzle is the increasing interconnections between factories and farms around the world and consumers in developed countries like the United States. The reality is this: We live in a globalized world. Several decades ago, a local market would only include products made within the region, or, at most, nationally. Today, our local grocery store -- no matter how big or small -- carries countless products made in quite possibly in every country in the world.

Apparel companies rely on a huge mix of suppliers to provide the materials that make up the products we buy in department stores and malls. In an industry in which profit margins are thin, and competition is rife, many choose to purchase from the cheapest suppliers. But that low cost comes with a high price for workers.

Another factor is that companies often do not know who their suppliers' suppliers are. And, too often, they don't care. That means while the suppliers from which a company directly purchases materials may not use forced labor, it may exist further down the supply chain, where the brand or company has little insight.

"Companies are being more transparent with who their suppliers are," Moote said. "Now the next step ... is How do we begin looking at that second tier or deeper – input suppliers, subcontractors?"

There is no one-size-fits-all solution, because all supply chains are not created equal. Some companies, like Nike -- which made serious changes after activists discovered child labor in its supply chain -- have a deep understanding of their suppliers. But it is a fact that forced labor exists in the global apparel industry – and until it is stopped everywhere, it impacts all companies, both good and bad. That means we need greater collaboration as well, something that is not happening enough thus far.

"Individual brands need to understand what collaboration means in their sector," Moote insisted. "And they have to move beyond this business fear that collaboration can't happen."

Humanity United and its many allies hope to play a role in fostering deep collaboration in the industry. Understanding the problem – and its existence – is the first step. Now, advocates from the for-profit and nonprofit sectors need to come together to figure out how best to implement better policies and practices that can put at end to forced labor in the garment industry. We must ensure that in the future, when we go into a mall, all the products we find are 100 percent ethical.

Image credit: Pshittig via Pixabay

Brexit has dominated British politics since this summer's shocking referendum, but the new Tory government under Theresa May has another thorn in its side. The environmental NGO ClientEarth is suing the United Kingdom for failing to deal with what it calls a “national air pollution crisis.”

ClientEarth, which describes itself as a group of activist lawyers committed to a cleaner planet, claims the U.K. failed to comply with laws drafted to cap the maximum concentrations of nitrogen oxide in the air. Despite a 2010 deadline for European Union compliance, the lawsuit charges that 38 out of 43 air quality zones across the country fall short of these air pollution standards and, even worse, are not on course to meet minimum levels until 2025.

This is the second time that ClientEarth has sued the U.K.’s environmental ministry for alleged failures in bringing down air pollution levels. In April 2015, shortly after David Cameron and the Conservative Party won national elections in a landslide, ClientEarth’s litigation led the U.K. Supreme Court to rule that the government’s plans to improve air quality were ineffective and needed to be rewritten.

The NGO insists it has been unwavering in its litigation largely because of what it concludes are the 40,000 premature deaths in the United Kingdom attributed to air pollution. And it described the current government’s latest directive announcing the introduction of new clean air zones as vague and “overoptimistic.”

Much of the blame, in ClientEarth’s view, is at the hands of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne. The group accused the former treasury minister, who stepped down after May became Prime Minister in the wake of the Brexit vote, of opposing any new air quality compliance measure because of their fiscal impact on the country’s budget.

According to ClientEarth, one of the largest culprits in the U.K.’s struggle to rein in emissions is diesel-powered automobiles, which the organization says are subjected to “laughable” emissions testing by the U.K. transportation department. As the fallout from last year’s Volkswagen emissions scandal mounted, all diesel vehicles the department tested fell short of acceptable nitrogen oxide levels, further contributing to the country’s air quality woes.

Describing the air quality in the U.K. as a “public health crisis,” ClientEarth urged far more proactive measures from the government in order to tackle the problem head-on. Indeed, other press reports throughout the country back up ClientEarth’s assessment that the U.K.’s air quality is at a tipping point. The Telegraph, a center-right newspaper often sympathetic to the Tories, even published a report suggesting that U.K. air pollution levels were responsible for more traffic accidents in recent years.

Whether the current government will budge, however, is the big question. Negotiating the U.K. out of the European Union remains May’s top priority, and time is of the essence as ClientEarth’s litigation is largely based on laws mandated by Brussels. And while electric vehicles appear to resonate with U.K. drivers and solar power at times generated more electricity than coal in recent months, the country’s energy policy faces many uncertainties as the government finds a way to divorce itself from Europe.

Nevertheless, ClientEarth says it is weary of the government’s excuses and foot dragging. The group called for better labeling of cars so consumers understand their emissions levels, a retrofitting of the nation’s public transportation infrastructure, and an ambitious launch of clean air zones in urban areas. Writing in the Guardian on Monday, ClientEarth CEO James Thornton asked Britons publicly, “Why are you and I still inhaling unlawful levels of nitrogen dioxide nearly 20 years after it should have been cleaned up?”

Image credit: David Holt/Flickr

Global awareness of the ongoing deforestation across the Amazon biome first reached a fever pitch in the 1980s, when more consumers were persuaded of the connection between Brazil’s beef industry and deforestation.

McDonald’s, already facing criticism for its use of polystyrene packaging, became the focal point of global protests. The fast food giant eventually announced in 1989 that it would no longer source from any producers raising cattle in the Amazon, declared a huge win for environmental groups. A generation later, the Amazon would force McDonald’s under the spotlight again as its chicken products were linked to soy from the region and that crop’s contribution to deforestation. Hence the 2006 Soy Moratorium, long hailed for slowing what critics say is the destruction of Amazonian rain forests.

McDonald’s hit the news again with a summer announcement that it would once source beef from areas in the Amazon that, in the company's view, are producing sustainable and responsibly-raised cattle.

To critics, this move at the very least is puzzling, as McDonald’s pledged to remove any links to deforestation across its entire global supply chain last year. For a company that to many symbolizes craven "corporatization," the decision to procure beef from the Amazon after a 27-year hiatus comes across as a poorly thought-out public relations move.

After all, McDonald’s continues to struggle with sales as younger consumers flock to fast-casual chains and eateries that impart a social mission, such as Panera Bread and Chipotle. An all-day breakfast menu lifted McDonald’s out of its worst doldrums, but in Wall Street’s view, the company’s performance is still flat. Renewed business ties with beef producers in the Amazon, at first glance, appears to endanger the company's fragile reputation.

The truth about the beef raised for McDonald's in the Amazon, however, is far more nuanced.

McDonald’s first purchases of beef for its 800-plus restaurants in Brazil comes from a pilot program in the west-central state of Mato Grasso. This program, Novo Campo (“new field”), started in 2012 with 14 ranchers in the municipality of Alta Floresta. The initiative's backers say it engages the beef industry's entire value chain: Ranchers, slaughterhouses, producers and retailers are all required to follow a set list of sustainability commitments.

According to Instituto Centro de Vida (ICV), the program’s administrator, the benefits are numerous: improved land management, better water stewardship, more rigorous training, increased cattle stock density on land, reduced methane emissions and a superior quality of beef. ICV insists the cattle’s overall environmental impact has decreased, largely due to improved efficiency, which has long been a challenge for the Brazilian beef sector.

The stubborn fact is that Brazil is a sovereign nation, and will develop its natural capital, as in its forests, into financial assets as it sees fit. The country of 200 million is simply following the template of Europe and North America, which over centuries transformed their forests in the quest to evolve into wealthy industrial societies. True, NGOs can reply that Brazil does not want to make the same mistakes Western countries made, as in the heavy air pollution that long blanketed many European cities or America’s superfund sites -- not to mention Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River fire in 1969. But unless wealthier countries choose to compensate Brazil for not cutting down forests, at the same value at which the country gains financially for doing so, expect charges of hypocrisy to trump environmental concerns.

The best possible option is meeting somewhere in the middle. Some of those forests, even too many of these valuable lands throughout Brazil, may be gone. Nevertheless, at a minimum, that land can be managed well, used efficiently and foster sustainable economic development for local communities. The use of better grasses on these lands can reduce ranchers' environmental impacts. Careful stewardship of local water resources can create business opportunities for the manufacture of tanks and other local irrigation infrastructure needs. Locals can be hired to build fencing that hem in cattle and prevent further deforestation. And they can also be hired to work on these lands, knowing they will be treated fairly as companies such as McDonald's do not need any more dings on their reputations.

In contrast: If companies, including McDonald’s, pull out of a region, they also spurn the good work that is happening thanks to programs such as Novo Campo. Furthermore, those companies lose any leverage to influence and transform land management for the better. Abandoning the region hardly guarantees deforestation will stall; if anything, the complete lack of engagement will only increase the rate at which these forests disappear if more is not done to care for lands that are already developed.

Image credit: ICV/Flickr