Search

Delivery giant UPS has launched its first range-extended electric delivery vehicle for initial trials in the UK, developed in collaboration with TEVVA Motors.

Range-extending technology allows electric vehicles to go further, serving routes that would otherwise be beyond the capability of a conventional electric vehicle.

“With around 5,800 alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles worldwide, sustainability is more than a practice at UPS, it’s a value. This vehicle highlights our commitment to integrating new technologies into our delivery fleet,” says Peter Harris, sustainability director, UPS Europe.

“Finding the best, most responsible fleet solutions to suit our business and serve our customers is an important part of our sustainability strategy.”

The Range Extended Electric Vehicle will operate in a suburban environment, covering about 100km to 150km per day. The prototype will initially run for 12 months to assess the potential for the vehicle to be used more widely in UPS operations.

• Bus operators across England are now able to bid for a share of £5m funding to fit buses with green technology and offer better journeys. The Clean Bus Technology Fund 2015 will allow local authorities to bid for up to £500,000 – enough to retrofit hundreds of buses that will reduce NOx (nitrogen oxides) emissions and improve air quality. The fund is open for bids until the end of October, with a particular focus on pollution hotspots in cites and urban areas. The winners will be announced towards the end of the year. The government has also launched the £500,000 Air Quality Grant Scheme for 2015/16. This scheme supports local authority projects to improve air quality with successful schemes previously encouraging local cycling projects, developing and implementing local low emission strategies and local engagement and awareness raising initiatives.

Editor's Note: This post originally appeared on the World Resources Institute blog. 

By Andrew Maddocks, Robert Samuel Young and Paul Reig

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s new Clean Power Plan has been heralded as a major step toward a low-carbon economy in the United States. By reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, the new policy is designed to promote the development of renewable energy sources nationwide.

However, the plan’s impact on water resources has been largely overlooked, even though power plants are significant water users across the U.S., accounting for 45 percent of total water withdrawals. The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that, on average, producing the electricity you use in your home results in more freshwater withdrawals than all of your daily water-related tasks, like sprinkling lawns and washing dishes. Where that electricity comes from makes a big difference in how much water is involved, though. Thirsty energy sources like coal can take 20,000 gallons per megawatt hour to 50,000 gallons per megawatt hour, while wind power requires almost no water at all.

Water stress will likely become a more important factor in future energy decisions. By the time the Clean Power Plan is fully implemented in 2030, over half of the contiguous U.S. is likely to be arid or suffer from high or extremely high water stress. Since companies, farms and homes in these areas will already use most of the available water, there will probably be intense competition for any additional withdrawals. Reports of a megadrought coming to the central and southwestern U.S. highlight that region’s vulnerability to growing water scarcity.

So what impact will the Clean Power Plan have on this water-scarce future? It’s hard to know. How states decide to meet their individual emissions targets will affect the nation’s energy mix. Improved energy efficiency would lead power plants to use less water, while adding carbon capture and sequestration technology to coal plants would make them even thirstier than they are now.

Natural gas will probably hold its place in the future U.S. energy mix as a lower-emissions fossil fuel alternative to coal. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) listed the shift of generation from existing coal plants to existing natural gas plants as one compliance option to reduce emissions. The plan itself predicts that natural gas will be the nation’s largest electricity source in 2030.

U.S. natural gas production has risen dramatically over the past decade, largely as a result of hydraulic fracturing, or fracturing. Much of the debate revolves around water issues: fracturing a single well requires between 1.8 million and 6 million gallons of water, while drilling a conventional natural gas well takes only 50,000 to 660,000 gallons. Critics also voice concerns over which contains high quantities of salt, sand and harmful chemicals.

When it comes to water and fracturing, it’s all about location and time. Although fracturing accounts for only one-thousandth of total U.S. water withdrawal, wells are often clustered in a small area. In fact, almost a third of water use in some U.S. counties stems from fracturing. Additionally, wells only require large volumes of water for a few days at the beginning of the fracturing process, so new well development can make a significant impact on water availability in an area. Aqueduct’s water stress projections can lend additional insight into the issue: by 2030, nearly 63 percent of areas in the U.S. where natural gas could be fracked will be arid or suffer from high or extremely high water stress.

These high water stress levels mean that U.S. states need to be careful about where they develop natural gas resources. Fracturing in a water-stressed area will only add to existing competition for water by domestic, industrial and agricultural users. Still, there are ways to lessen the stress. Operators can use non-freshwater sources or recycle wastewater to decrease freshwater use. Alternatively, states can invest in renewable energy like wind and solar photovoltaic power, which require almost no water at all.

The Clean Power Plan is a major step to bring the U.S. closer to a future powered completely by low-emissions energy sources. But as states begin to plan how to meet the new emissions targets, they should keep water in mind. Aqueduct’s water stress projections allow state policymakers to consider current and future water issues before deciding how to reach their emissions goals. With proper implementation, the Clean Power Plan can protect our water as well as our climate for decades to come.

Image credit: Flickr/Simon Fraser University

Graphics courtesy of the World Resources Institute.

Editor's Note: This post originally appeared on Unreasonable.is.  

By Corey Kohn

When I first became a partner at DOJO4, things were rocking steady, decent clients were finding us with little or no effort on our part, and a general sense of creamy, rich ease pervaded the business. Nevertheless, our then-CEO and I spoke often about the longevity of the industry and the fact that DOJO4’s success was tied to the bubble-like nature of the tech industry.

We talked a lot about business development and how to best insulate ourselves in the long term against an eventual downturn. At the time, I could not foresee the tech bubble bursting any time soon, but the answer to where we should be putting our energy for long-term stability and success was crystal clear to me from the get go: human suffering.

That’s right. The painful truth is that solving the problems of human and environmental disease is one of the only guaranteed growth industries. That may sound like a dismal pronouncement, but I also see it as the greatest opportunity of our time. At DOJO4 — and many, many other tech businesses—we have all the circumstances in place to apply our skills, talents, and ingenuity to solving real problems, using the same technical and design innovations that we had been applying mostly just to commercial endeavors.

Making that shift would allow us to engage our work in a genuinely meaningful way and allow us to have a sustainable, impactful business at the same time. This line of thinking can run somewhat counter to conventional business-school wisdom. Make money and help people at the same time? No way. Helping people and the environment is the domain of NGOs, non-profits, and philanthropies.

This reaction is an unfortunate outcome of our cultural approach to altruism. Donating our time and money for the benefit of others can be a wonderful thing but it is not the only — maybe not even the best — way to galvanize our best efforts for the benefit of ailing social and environmental systems.

The relatively recent rise of social entrepreneurship has exposed this approach and solution — using the power of business to provide innovative solutions to society’s most pressing social problems, tackling major social and environmental issues, and offering new ideas for wide-scale change. Rather than leaving societal needs to the government or business sectors, these entrepreneurs find what is not working and solve the problem by changing the system, selling the solution, and persuading entire societies to move in different directions.

At their best, this is what technologists can do, too: solve the problem by changing the system, spreading the solution, and persuading entire societies to move in different directions.

With my outsider’s perspective on the tech industry (I was educated as a scientist and have spent most of my career in documentary film), I continue to marvel at the fact that the most inspired technologists have essentially the same qualities as entrepreneurs (such as the willingness to self-correct, share credit, and break free of established structures).

Unfortunately, we’ve squandered a lot of our developer smarts and talent on creating commercially self-fulfilling junk food for the mind and an intricate digital economy stickily entwined with proprietary software, profits, and data appropriation. Many technologists feel like they are stuck with that as their only option. But, if you really want a better world, a successful career and a more meaningful life, writing code that directly alleviates human and environmental suffering is a real option and a living, breathing opportunity.

It is possible. Several years after those initial conversations at DOJO4, we’ve committed to that triple bottom line of people, planet, and profits. We see that the alleviation of human, social, and environmental suffering is the best use of our energy because this ‘sector’ has essentially endless needs, and is thus a fertile, demand-full market; it draws on the best qualities of developers’ innate approach to problem-solving and knowledge-building; it allows us to feel more engaged in a meaningful life, and that means we do better work.

So far, acknowledging that solving ‘real’ human and environmental problems is a valuable growth industry, and choosing to put all our eggs in that basket, is the best business decision we’ve ever made.

Image credit: Flickr/Xenja Santorelli

Corey Kohn is the COO of dojo4, a creative software design, development and media team in Boulder, Colorado.

 

By Emmanuelle Haack

Last October, the 28 EU member states adopted the binding EU Directive on disclosure of non-financial information. More recently, a new French proposal for a binding new reporting framework is signaling further regulatory upswing.

Two years after the Rana Plaza tragedy, the French proposal seeks to make parent companies liable for their global supply chain -- representing a move to a full liability regime with fines of up to 10 million euros (US$11.2 million).

Until recently, the law has played a limited part in the push for corporate transparency on environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) issues, a space that has been largely unfocused and undefined. Transparency on these issues was, until recently, fueled by NGO and corporate initiatives to “do good.”

Consequently, many companies were blamed for greenwashing, as their reports lacked rigor and were disconnected from the business.

During the 'voluntary days,' lawyers were seen as “discouraging too much disclosure on these issues,” consistent with guidance to keep reports uncluttered, whereas corporate communications and sustainability professionals were advocating greater transparency. This type of transparency was most often incorporated into sustainability reports that were less likely to be subject to the same level of rigorous verification as an annual (financial) report.

But the time has come for the inevitable friendship between lawyers and corporate ESG experts. Our latest research shows a 45 percent growth in the number of ESG-related regulations calling for more robust corporate transparency worldwide since 2012.

As Vanessa Harvard-Williams, head of global law firm Linklaters’ sustainability practice and co-head of its risk and governance team, explains: “Regulatory developments around ESG should be watched closely by business and lawyers alike – we are now making the transition from a normative to a compliance framework. Although the regulatory risks of non-compliance with these regulations are often quite limited, the potential reputational and commercial damage from being seen not to comply can be significant.”

With ESG issues becoming regulated, business has to be in a position to provide the required information in a timely and accurate way. Non-compliance with these new regulations is likely to bring with it reputation risks, in addition to triggering potential regulatory fines and, in a few cases, litigation threats. Over time, it may also give rise to procurement issues where business or government purchasers apply ESG criteria.

Companies have to ask themselves: how do we understand these new regulatory risks and opportunities, and are our legal teams and advisors equipped with the right information to respond?

Incoming regulations in this area are often less developed than in more mature areas of law; this causes problems in determining what information is required, and in drawing the line between “nice-to-have” and “must-have.”

Take conflict minerals as an example. This topic gained importance in 2012 with the U.S.Dodd-Frank Act. On May 20, 2015, the EU Parliament received400 positive votes that EU importers sourcing in conflict areas should disclose this information. More regulation seems likely, though the capacity of businesses to supply demonstrably conflict free minerals remains very restricted at present.

In the meantime, EU-registered large or listed companies engaged in extractive activities are preparing to report on any payments within certain categories made to government or government owned entities above 100,000 euros (or around $112,000) with respect to these activities. Reporting will commence in financial year 2016 for the UK and in financial year 2017 for the rest of the EU.

Companies active in the U.K. with a turnover of 36 million euros will also be required to report on the steps taken to ensure that their own activities and those of their supply chains are free from modern slavery and human trafficking, under a reporting obligation that takes force October 2015.

Let’s look at the broader momentum for more robust disclosure.

Governments are increasingly enacting transparency requirements within their legal regimes. This is, in part, a move to contain global corruption risks, as well as a response to pressure from civil society and to the eroding tolerance of the public for governance failures in the private sector.

In some cases, countries perceive that having strong regulatory frameworks will help them to benefit from the soaring amount of cross-border investments that are happening nowadays. Maybe they understand that in today’s hyper-connected world, the reputation of a country cannot be seen separate from the reputation of the companies driving its economy.

With the Toshiba scandals spread all over major headlines last month, Japan suffered. In Japan, regulatory changes are a fundamental part of the process to restore trust following a series of governance failures.

It is no coincidence that the new Japanese Corporate Code of Governance was recently revised: the country is moving towards building a new corporate governance image following high profile challenges, including Toyota in 2010, Olympus a year later, the management of the Great Earthquake in 2011 and, most recently, the Toshiba issues.

These examples shed light on the importance of an effective regulatory framework to facilitate a country’s ability to prevent serious wrongdoing, subsequent cover-ups and severe financial consequences.

Integrating ESG and transparency is without question becoming the new normal – and not just from a compliance standpoint. Companies that dare to ignore those developments are at high regulatory, reputational, and competitive risk. As a business, it vital to understand which countries are pushing the envelope.

Here are a few tips for being prepared.

First, look at voluntary guidance. Many regulations derive their inspiration from already existing international standards and voluntary guidance, such as the Ruggie Principles, the Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines, the 2015 OECD Principles of Corporate Governance or the ILO Declarations.

Helle Bank Jorgensen, chairman of eRevalue, CEO for the advisory firm B. Accountability and a facilitator for U.N. Global Compact Board Program, confirms the development from soft to hard law over her 25-year-career: “When I studied business law and trained to become a state authorized public accountant, it was legal to deduct bribery in tax-returns, though not well-regarded.”<

“Today,” she explains, “MBA students are shocked that it has ever been legal. The late Ray Anderson, founder of Interface might have said it best: ‘In the future people like me will go to jail.’ He was referring to the environmental harm companies could legally do.”

“Another example,” Jorgensen continues, “is the above-mentioned French law proposal. Since the mid-nineties, I have helped many leading brands in building responsible supply chain programs; however, it all started because stakeholders wanted to hold companies to a higher standard, while the CEOs originally said this is not our responsibility – it is that of our suppliers. So yes, stakeholder dialogue and keeping an eye on soft regulations is a must for companies that want to last in this fast-changing environment.”

Second, watch the courts. TheDutch Court breakthrough judgement in June added a momentum to climate change that is now reverberating in global civil movements worldwide. By ruling that the government was knowingly contributing to a breach, the Hague allowed a group of citizens to sue their government over its inaction on climate change.

With Belgium, Norway and the U.K. already embracing similar initiatives, it is said that the Urgenda Climate Case could act as a powerful precedent for more cases to be triggered.

Third, watch how companies and law firms respond to a new compliance regime. These new laws and rulings need to be implemented by putting company secretaries and general counsel front and center.

Sustainability issues are no longer dealt exclusively with by the corporate responsibility committee or corporate communications professional. Business need to understand the issues from a legal perspective, and prepare to respond accordingly.

More broadly, sustainability and business’ role in society are increasingly important issues for boards to consider and manage together with other enterprise risks and opportunities.

Last week, for instance, we witnessed the launch of a Campaign urging listed company’s board of directors to issue an annual Statement of Significant Audiences and Materialityin order to communicate publically who their stakeholders are and what are the material issues or objectives of the company.

The American Bar Association, U.N. Global Compact General Counsel Ursula Wynhoven and Professor Robert Eccles initiated a knowledge sharing project to enable this project.

Through notes posted with the ABA, law firms around the world have explained the treatment of sustainability issues under corporate law relating to directors’ duties and company reporting. The focus of this exercise, much like the work done by law firms in support of Professor Ruggie’s U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights is to define the parameters of those legal duties.

In particular, there was value in clarifying that social and environmental risks can form one of a range of factors to be considered in the discharge of fiduciary and other duties, demonstrating what is known in the U.K. as “enlightened shareholder value.”

The template for these notes was developed by the team with Harvard-Williams of Linklaters.

The above examples reinforce the growing regulatory push for more robust transparency, and the resulting complexity of understanding the evolving changes and high cost associated with keeping up.

What’s next? Some questions we’re thinking about include: How is the sharing economy going to be regulated? What about the circular economy? Are there going to be further rulings on supply chain responsibility? Or, as questioned in this week’s FT article, are stock exchanges going to tighten up their listing requirements on ESG?

Emmanuelle Haack is a Regulatory Analytics Associate at eRevalue.

Learn more about how we’re staying on-top of today’s rapidly changing regulatory landscape aboard Datamaran.

We’d like to thank Vanessa Harvard-Willams (Linklaters) and Helle Bank Jorgensen (eRevalue, B.Accountability, UN Global Compact) for their contributions.

By Graham Sinclair 

On August 20, Fortune Magazine released its first companies’ Change the World (CTW) ranking of “businesses that are doing well by doing good." The Fortune cover story aims to answer the small question: Is capitalism a good thing?  It’s a huge ask, and hats off to Fortune for attempting to add to their rankings franchises.

Fortune’s approach lists 51 companies that made “sizable impact on major global social or environmental problems as part of their competitive strategy.” The timing for the project is attributed by Fortune editors partly to the Pope’s calls for a rethink of consumption capitalism and the role of business in society and the planet, highlighted in Vatican's encyclical. No doubt it's also in time for the Pope’s visit to the U.S., around the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals launch in New York in late September 2015.

Fortune is a dominant brand in business rankings, at least in OECD markets. Fortune lists include annual rankings of “the world’s top companies and executives” and are often their best-selling issues on newsstands. Adding CTW is a calculated risk, shared with FSG, a consultancy, and Harvard Business School professor, Michael Porter, best known for his strategy work (Porter's 5 Forces) and lately for a pivot into shared value, leading to the Shared Value Initiative.

Reaction to CTW has been mixed. Fortune did a decent job marketing the rankings using its channels, to audiences on CBS, Facebook and Fortune.com, if not always coherently. The ranked companies (for example, Starbucks and Discovery) have been tipping their hats to CTW, as one would expect from company PR professionals and as expected in any companies ranking business model: Any ranking relies on the PR multipliers.

Some company mentions have made more, and some less, of the Porter and FSG input. All sustainability practitioners may need to reference it in some way going forward. Opinionistas have ranged from “where’s the ranking?” by Andrew Winston in HuffPo, to “only seven European companies” flagged on Reddit, to the comments section weirdness on Fortune editor Alan Murray’s LinkedIn post at launch. Murray may have sparked that with his followership by throwing in an Ayn Rand reference or his hyperbolic close: “The future of capitalism — and the future of mankind — depends on it." It's probably part of the journey of the former deputy managing editor at the Wall Street Journal, who has had a convoluted history on the topic of materiality of environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors as material to business strategy (remember Will 'Social Responsibility' Harm Business?).

Everyone reading TriplePundit has moved well beyond the idea of profit motive as the sole factor for business or professional success. Sure, we want to test the ROI of sustainability, but stakeholders have replaced shareholders in the last decade. In fairness, Porter’s shared value pivot only found full voice in his 2013 TED Global. But how many sustainability practitioners today are convinced by the contention in the Porter and Kramer 2011 HBR article that “most companies remain stuck in a 'social responsibility' mindset in which societal issues are at the periphery, not the core”? Yet firms lacking strategic citizenship remains the “big idea” for CTW in 2015. Is this new? Is it innovative? Is it representative?

Which companies made the list?

Most of the firms you have heard of (full ranking with callouts is here) with both listed and unlisted companies, privately-held majors like Cargill, and minors like SpaceX. Under-reported successes like Jain Irrigation do feature.

Strangely, the 50 companies became 51 when the adjudicators could not break the tie for first place, split between London- and Kenyan-listed telecoms majors Vodafone and Safaricom, respectively. Dale Buss, posting on Brandchannel, spotted that there is no big oil or big manufacturers, and the shocker: Ikea and Nike are on the list, but Apple is not.

Kramer claims the combination of doing good business and society is “the magic to getting on this list.” CTW claims that the world mostly has U.S.-headquartered firms that get it right: 24 of 51. This U.S. overweight may reflect the familiarity of Fortune’s readership or FSG’s influence base, but if CTW seeks to be changing the world, a more global lens makes sense. Geographic diversity would increase the opportunity for alternative ideas from other business cultures, models or widgets. My experience in frontier and emerging markets suggests more CTW answers will be ideated, developed and/ or executed by companies headquartered outside the U.S. in future years.

What are the criteria that reveal to us these role models? Not clear, and that undermines this valiant effort. The "magic" is lost. Rankings are all about leveraging the intrinsic competitive instinct in firms, and their employees. The 1997 American romantic comedy for which Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt won the Academy Award, As Good as It Gets, has an iconic scene in which Nicholson’s (disagreeable) character Melvin Udall fumbles his way to that famous compliment: “you make me want to be a better man”. Does CTW 2015 make companies want to be better companies, or professionals want to work for them, with them or consume their products? Maybe, maybe not.  CTW methodology is opaquely described in a classic black box of barely 240 words. Murray claims “academics and thought leaders were involved, with 19 journalists credited led by Erika Fry." The list’s adjudication vagueness is also unhelpful in assessing the overlap with members of the Shared Value Initiative or clients of FSG or the advertisers on Fortune properties.

Designing new ratings, rankings or indexes is never easy. My advice in 2014 to the Gates Foundation as they reviewed their funding of aspirational indexes (Access to Medicine Index, Access to Nutrition Index) and industry reviews like SustainAbility's Rate The Raters Project offer advice for the CTW brain-trust. The three critical components of any successful (read: influential and long-standing) index are:

1. Strong, transparent criteria based in best practice and research,


2. Quality judges being accountable to adjudicate rigorously, and


3. Multi-platform, decade-long strategic marketing.

CTW can update on all these vectors, starting with getting a really useful website with a tighter focus on what exactly matters, and what fails.

So what’s the critical optimist to make of this -- is this as good as it gets? Fair play to Fortune and partners for getting this up. Sustainability is hard work and incremental change almost always deserves a round of applause. But is this as good as it gets for a list of companies with “innovative strategies that positively impact the world”? We do not need another index. We do need any insightful index to review and rank companies, governments, cities or citizens making stuff happen on one planet.  Will CTW  get closer to an Oscar-winning performance in 2016? In a competitive world, here’s hoping CTW -- and the threat of substitutes -- sharpen the picture of new models and new companies that change the world.

Image credit: Flickr/Paul Bica

Graham Sinclair is Principal at SinCo LLC - Sustainable Investment Consulting LLC. Connect with him @ESGarchitect or LinkedIn.com/GrahamSinclair. 

Coca-Cola Enterprises (CCE) has been named in the 2015 Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI), the first time the company has been listed.

The DJSI, reviewed annually by the S&P Dow Jones Index Committee and RobecoSAM, is a global index which tracks the financial performance of leading sustainability-driven companies. It is based on an analysis of financially material economic, environmental and social factors. Companies are only listed in the annual ranking if they are best in class within their industry for sustainability.

The three largest additions (by free-float market capitalization) to the DJSI World this year include Bank of America Corp, Telefonica SA and BHP Billiton Ltd. Notable deletions include Cisco Systems Inc, PepsiCo Inc and Royal Bank of Canada.

The components list for the DJSI will be published on the Sustainability Indices website next week and all changes are effective from 21 September 2015. 

David Blitzer, md and chairman of the Index Committee at S&P Dow Jones Indices commented: “More and more investors look at companies’ environmental policies and track records in making their investment decisions. The Dow Jones Sustainability Indices are comprehensive benchmarks that allow investors to gauge the collective performance of those companies that meet the RobecoSAM standard for corporate sustainability and to formulate global allocations consistent with sustainable investment standards and practices.”

 

Picture credit: © Clafko11 | Dreamstime.com

TriplePundit is developing a three-part multimedia series to examine the challenges facing many tech companies when it comes to their impact on communities. Next up: Service economy.

While tech company head-counts explode, service economy outfits like restaurants, bars supermarkets, pharmacies, dry cleaners and coffee shops, as well as support services like landscaping, janitorial and housekeeping staff, come online to meet the daily needs of high-income employees. While these businesses offer many new jobs, they don’t pay very well. We’ll explore the lives of these low-wage workers. Where are the people who have these jobs living, and how are they faring?

We’ll investigate

• Where people who clean offices and work in restaurants live


• The rise of the gig economy and the lack of workplace protections for new workers

 

Read more about the project here.

As the climate change calendar moves swiftly to the crucial COP21 negotiations in Paris, here’s a question: Are world leaders kidding themselves with their commitments to limit warming by the end of the century to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial level?

Probably so.

A report published this month by Climate Action Tracker says the targets countries have set so far to limit their contribution to climate change over the next several years won’t do enough to keep global warming below the 2 degrees Celsius threshold. That’s the generally accepted point beyond which scientists say major catastrophic effects will regularly occur, such as severe drought, rising seas and supercharged storms, as well as food and water security challenges.

The report analyzed the 29 Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) — or countries’ goals for limiting warming post-2020 — submitted to the United Nations so far. The finding? If countries stick to these commitments for 2030 and don’t take additional action against climate change, keeping warming below 2 degrees C will be “nearly impossible.”

“It is clear that if the Paris meeting locks in present climate commitments for 2030, holding warming below 2 degrees C could essentially become infeasible, and 1.5 degrees C beyond reach. Given the present level of pledged climate action, commitments should only be made until 2025,” Bill Hare, a co-author of the report and founder and CEO of Climate Analytics, said in a statement. “The INDCs therefore need to be considerably strengthened for the period 2020 to 2025.”

Climate Action Trackers’ finding is not much of a surprise, but it does confirm there is a big job ahead for the delegates in Paris.

NBC News in November reported: “Given the world's historic emissions combined with a continued reliance on fossil fuels to power humanity for the foreseeable future, limiting the increase to 2°C is all but impossible, according to David Victor, a professor of international relations and an expert on climate change policy at the University of California, San Diego.”

Victor said: "There is no scenario by which any accord that's realistic on this planet is going to get us to 2 degrees because the trajectory on emissions right now is way above 2 degrees.”

The report lays out some general ways that countries could stick to the 2 degrees Celsius pathway. According to the report, countries need to plan to reduce emissions by 12 to 15 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2025 and 17 to 21 gigatons by 2030 in order to be consistent with a 2-degrees pathway. It does note that limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius could still be possible, as long as more action is taken after Paris.

Another big complication is that INDCs have yet to come from 140 countries, the report says. “The ten highest emitters yet to submit INDCs are India, Brazil, Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and Pakistan, together accounting for 18 percent of global emissions not yet covered by INDCs (excluding LULUCF — land use, land-use change and forestry).”

The report outlines three “clear” policy conclusions:

• Most governments that have already submitted an INDC need to review their targets in light of the global goal and, in most cases, will need to increase the level of ambition. Those that are yet to submit need to work to ensure the highest level of ambition.


• If the present 2030 INDC ambition levels are locked in, there is a high probability that limiting warming below 2 degrees Celsius becomes extremely difficult or infeasible and that the possibility of limiting warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2100 is foreclosed. The Paris Agreement under negotiation needs to ensure that 2030 levels are not locked in, and that a new cycle of targets for the 2025- to 2030 period can be developed.


• With current policies being insufficient to limit emissions to the INDC levels by 2025, it is clear that efforts to encourage greater policy action need to be ramped up as part of the Paris Agreement.

Nobody said it would be easy, but we seem intent on making it harder all the time.

Image credit: Flickr/Moyan Brenn

Just about everyone who is paying attention to climate change is looking forward with anticipation to the COP21 meeting in Paris. Indeed, many pundits have announced that the need for a significant actionable agreement is in the “do-or-die” range.

With the actual meeting still three months away, a lot of preliminary action is providing a strong “so far so good” signal. The latest preliminary meeting, which ended last week, produced a first comprehensive draft of a “universal climate change agreement,” that will take effect in 2020.

The draft, which will be drawn up by representatives Ahmed Djoghlaf of Algeria and Daniel Reifsnyder of the United States, will “present clear options and ways forward on all elements of the agreement and the decisions that will operationalize it," according to a UNFCCC press release.

According to Djoghlaf, who co-chairs the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP), which is tasked with reaching the agreement to put the world on a path to stay beneath a 2-degree Celsius temperature rise: “Countries have crystalized their positions, and have requested the co-chairs to produce a concise basis for negotiations with clear options for the next negotiating session in October. This means that we will arrive in Paris on time without too much turbulence -- not before, not later.”

Reifsnyder added: “What parties are looking for now is a better basis from which to negotiate. This week, we achieved an enormous amount of clarity as to where we are going which makes this possible and allows us to speed up.”

Still to be done: Delivery of the basis for negotiations during the first week in October, followed by the final ADP meeting before the conference in Bonn, the week of Oct. 19.

According to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), “The document will retain sets of options reflecting the different views and positions where governments still need to agree common landing zones.”

Laurence Tubiana, special climate envoy for the government of France, commented that countries “have clarified all the different pieces of the puzzle. Now, all pieces of the puzzle will be assembled and this will enable the negotiations to pick up pace.”

“I am very encouraged,” said executive secretary of the UNFCCC, Christiana Figueres. “This session has yet again proven that all countries are moving in the direction of progress and all agree that Paris is the final destination for the new universal agreement.”

A total of 59 countries have already submitted their Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), the latest being Colombia. The INDC is the bottoms-up version of the target setting process, which allows each country to submit their own plan, based on what they consider achievable.

Each plan must include “quantifiable information on the reference point (including, as appropriate, a base year), time frames and/or periods for implementation, scope and coverage, planning processes, assumptions and methodological approaches including those for estimating and accounting for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and, as appropriate, removals, and how the party considers that its intended nationally determined contribution is fair and ambitious, in light of its national circumstances, and how it contributes towards achieving the objective of the Convention.”

Image courtesy of the U.N.

National Geographic’s fair trade marketplace, Novica, has raked in over $63 million for artisans around the world. Guided by one simple mantra, “spread happiness," the company is proving that happiness works.

Novica’s mission is to promote global happiness through happy artisans and happy customers. For the artisans, this means fair prices, no binding contracts, and the freedom to turn their craft into a sustainable business. For the customers, this means having access to unique, quality, handmade products, and the joy of helping to nurture the craft of global artisans.

“More than fair trade, more than microcredit, more than anything else I can think of – if that artisan’s family is happy, we’ve succeeded,” explained co-founder Roberto Milk in the company’s Happiness Manifesto. “At the very core of what we do – at our very essence, we’ve succeeded only if we make both artisans and customers happy.” This happiness is achieved through three guiding principles: connect, empower and preserve.

Connect

Artisans from around the world, especially those living in rural communities, do not have the means to sell their products on the international market. Novica connects artisans to a global marketplace of socially-conscious customers, by providing a free platform to market and sell their products.

Novica connects artisans with the regional support they need by positioning a team of local art experts in different countries around the world. From product development advice to quality control assistance, local staff is available to make the item listing process as simple and efficient as possible.

Novica also connects the artisans with consumers by providing detailed artisan profiles to inform consumers about who made the products they’re purchasing. The company makes an effort to capture the real story of the artisan by placing a portrait and detailed biography on every product page.

Empower

In a world where there are so many mass-produced products -- with no record of who made them and under what conditions -- Novica empowers consumers by providing them with the information they need to make more conscious choices. It gives consumers the choice to say no to sweatshops and child labor, while encouraging them to use their wallets to vote for a happier world.

Novica empowers artisans to build a sustainable business from their crafts. The company uses a completely transparent system where artisans have control over their work. They are free to raise or lower their own prices, and can withdraw their products at any time.

In partnership with Kiva, Novica offers 0 percent interest loans to artisans who want to expand their business and bring more income to their wider communities. This business model cuts out the financial middlemen by allowing lenders to provide micro financing to the artisan of their choice, directly through the website. Once the loan is repaid, lenders can either recycle the loan by supporting another artisan, withdraw the funds or convert them to store credits.

Preserve

Novica promotes cultural sustainability by preserving ancient artistic traditions for future generations to enjoy. Throughout history, artists and artisans have been forced to give up their art in favor of a more lucrative careers, leading to lost traditions and cultural practices. The Novica marketplace allows artisans to carry on with their craft, so that they can operate sustainable creative businesses.

Local sourcing teams in every region are tasked with finding the most unique and precious art traditions around. They look for originality, quality of workmanship, and pieces they know that customers will love. Through the platform’s Keepers Of The Arts page, Novica promotes awareness for endangered traditions, and provides a place where customers can target their support.

The story

The idea for Novica came to co-founder Roberto Milk in a flash of inspiration, during a Portuguese language class at Stanford in 1995. As his graduation day approached, questions began circling around in his head, “What would I do with my life? What path would be most fulfilling? And how would I pay my bills after graduation?”

“In other words, I was totally lost,” he explained.

It was around this time that Milk met Mina Olivera, a captivating Brazilian girl who showed up one night at a party he was deejaying. “From the first moment we met, I knew she was the one,” Milk claims. “Suddenly, learning Portuguese became my top priority.”

The next day, Milk registered for a class taught by Karin van den Dool, a highly respected, elderly Brazilian professor.  Several months into the course, the Professor began speaking about the rich handicraft traditions of Brazil. The problem, she said, was that many artisans could no longer make a living practicing their craft. “Artisans in Brazil have such beautiful pieces,” she said. “But you can’t find them here. And if you do, they’re extremely expensive. That’s why these traditions are dying.”

“As she said this, she turned to look at me directly,” Milk recalled. “I know it sounds crazy, but she locked eyes with mine, and said these words, which are forever burned in my memory. She said – ‘Someone needs to do something about this.’” “These words changed everything. They were the spark that started it all.”

Milk, with the support of Mina Olivera (who later became his wife), her mother Armenia Nercessian, younger brother Andy and best friend Charles, launched Novica in 1999 with co-founders Jose Cervantes and Micheal Burns. By mid-summer 1999, the company started selling the products of over 200 artisan groups in its first four regions.

Soon after, National Geographic came on board as a major investor, giving Novica instant brand recognition and allowing the company to reach a wider audience of art and culture lovers. Along with investments from the IFC and Frog Capital and extensive coverage of their innovative business model by news outlets such as NPR and Los Angeles Times, the company was able to break its first $5 million in November 2003.

Over 10 years later, in 2014, Novica launched its enhanced mission to spread happiness around the world. By June 2014, the company had sent over $50 million to artisans and celebrated their fifteenth anniversary. As for what’s next, Milk asserted that he wants Novica to become the global happiness company.

“Whether it’s a long lasting project for change, or a fleeting moment where the children in a poor neighborhood get to be kids again, our happiness projects will take on many forms, and affect many different lives around the world.” It’s no question that Novica plans on spreading happiness in the years to come."

Image credits: Novica