Search

Lead poisoning is a significant problem in India, particularly for small children. In recent years, the government of India has pushed to reduce lead exposure, which is often caused by environmental factors, such as aging infrastructure, unsafe eating utensils that have been made with lead, paint, leaded gasoline and air pollution. Unlike in North America, where many of these factors have been reduced through regulation and public education, a significant number of children still suffer from lead exposure.

A 1999 study throughout India showed that of some 22,000 children aged 12 or younger, more than half had concentrations higher than the World Health Organization's threshold of lead in their bodies. Since then, a great deal has been done to try to reduce the presence of lead in the environment, but this continues to be a challenge in some of the country's industrialized areas. Ten years after that study, research showed that children in at least seven of India's largest cities are still at risk for lead poisoning. In some cities, the level is more than five times WHO's allowable limit for lead exposure.

In June, food manufacturer Nestle India found itself embroiled in this issue, when state governments forced Nestle to yank packages of its Maggi Noodles from grocery shelves. According to the Food and Safety Standards of India, random samplings of the product tested in excess of permissible lead limits. Within days, more than six states had banned the products, which are considered practically a staple in India.

According to Nestle, it routinely tests lead levels in the ingredients it uses and sources "ingredients from regions with the lowest levels of lead." The company insisted in press statements that the levels were within acceptable limits, but it has not published the test results to explain the conflict.

Although the courts in India have since lifted the bans, the government isn't satisfied. It slapped Nestle with a $100 million suit for "unfair trade practices," accusing the company of not adhering to food safety laws. And even though Nestle is free to sell Maggi Noodles in India again, the financial loss has already been felt by Nestle India. By the time the bans lifted, more than 400 million packages of the products had been incinerated.

To put this recall into perspective, it was enough to push the local division into loss in the second quarter -- and cause a 20 percent drop in profits. It also prompted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to put Maggi products through increased testing. The ripple effects of the ban and drop in consumer confidence was felt across the globe wherever Maggi products are sold.

While India states that the issue relates specifically to the safety of Maggi products, this isn't the first time Nestle has run into controversy concerning the safety of its products. As in this case, the problems largely had to do with "misunderstandings," either about the methods in which products were to be used (such as in the 1970s in Latin America and later in Bangladesh) or the company's water provision and procurement methods.

How much does public opinion and previous controversy play into a government's incentive to protect its people? How much does it affect the confidence of a consumer base? How well Nestle regains its footing in India may soon tell.

Interestingly, not everyone in India is convinced that the government handled the controversy to the benefit of Maggi's considerable consumer base. Most just want to be able to see their favorite product back on the shelves. And that is probably the biggest indicator of whether Nestle and its globally popular noodles will be able to regain their footing in India.

Images: 1) Flickr/Sixth6sense; Flickr/Ravindernav

More than 30 officials were arrested in Brazil after an investigation revealed local businessmen and sawmill owners were timber laundering and illegally lying about how much timber they were allowed to access.

Brazilian timber, traditionally used for dense hardwoods seen in construction, decking and furniture, is exported to the EU — particularly France — and the U.S. at incredibly high rates.

Many of the arrests took place in the up-and-coming city of Santarem. Sitting in an oasis of natural reserves, indigenous territory and large-scale farms, Santarem is riddled with deforestation and malpractice in oversupplying timber in either sensitive or protected areas of Brazil.

Prosecutors said they stumbled into the case after hacking into the phone of a suspected drug smuggler. The smuggler, known as Pacoca, ditched the drugs and put his focus into timber laundering, unknowingly drawing the investigators with him. The prosecutors think he and a partner created fake documentation for more than 100,000 cubic meters of timber per month.

This was, by no means, a small-scale task: Prosecutor Fabiana Schneider said the operation drew some of the “biggest illegal traders of timber in Brazil.”

The laundering was mostly done by falsely reporting how much timber the landowner is entitled to cut from his property. Prosecutors said, in one case, officials fiddled with the documentation to increase an approval for 121 cubic meters of wood to 121,000 cubic meters. The trees are then cut, cleaned and distributed to timber yards. The timber is taken to numerous different locations during these processes, making it tough to track the validity and legality of its origin.

According to an article in the Guardian, most Brazilian timber exports are sustainability logged, but police say at least 80 percent of timber produced from Para, the Brazilian state where Santarem is located, is illegally logged. Cookie-cutter organizations that oblige by the deforestation limits and rules set up by Brazil and other environmentalists stand no chance in competing against scheming organizations that use false documentation to increase their business.

The Guardian also reported that securing the suspects behind bars is no easy task due to Brazilian judges’ leniency toward environmental crimes. However, prosecutors will attempt to enact a new law that could give abusers three to eight years in jail. The Brazilian courts have a chance to set an example for those loggers illegally obtaining timber by cracking down on the 30-plus individuals arrested Monday.

Image credit: Flickr/Dwood Photography

A group of Interface employees are pictured on the company’s blog site in bathing suits in the Chattahoochee River in Atlanta holding carpet tiles that spell out, “We're with you.” Why would employees from Interface, a company that makes modular carpet tiles, stand in their swimsuits holding a sign? They're voicing support for New Belgium Brewing Co., which is facing a boycott in a Colorado town over donations to environmental groups.

When the news came out earlier this summer that New Belgium donated to the nonprofit group WildEarth Guardians, the northwestern Colorado town of Craig started a boycott of the craft brewing company. Craig is a coal-mining town, and WildEarth Guardians brought a lawsuit against the Department of the Interior over its environmental impact assessment. Many residents in Craig depend on work in the coal mine.

GreenBiz reported that last May “judges found officials had given the green light to an expansion of the mine without considering the full environmental impacts of burning more coal.” The Department of the Interior will not appeal the ruling.

New Belgium is a company that believes strongly in sustainability. As stated on its website, “We believe in using every tool at our disposal to create the vibrant future we envision for the earth and her inhabitants.” It’s a company that puts its proverbial money where its mouth is, as is evidenced by its support of WildEarth Guardians. Not bad at all for the fourth largest brewing company in the U.S.

Judging by statements by Dana Villeneuve, sustainability specialist at New Belgium, the brewing company is not deterred by the boycott in Craig. “We work very hard to be very, very frank about how much coal and natural gas we use to make our beer because we think it would be incredibly hypocritical of us to do otherwise,” Villeneuve said. “And simultaneously we believe in advocating for a future where renewables are a bigger piece of the pie.”

Interface’s support of New Belgium speaks volumes about its commitment to sustainability. As stated in a blog post, Interface employees stood in the Chattahoochee River in Atlanta to “tell another courageous business that we support them.” Interface and New Belgium are clearly two companies with a passionate and deep commitment to creating a better future. With companies like them, we really do stand a chance of carving the kind of future that the planet and its people need.

Image credit: Interface

By Daniel Matthews

The 2014 numbers for America’s craft beer industry are in, and crafties are excited. The industry is in the midst of a renaissance. Craft brewing is at an all-time peak, with diversity reigning and craft breweries contributing to the sustainability efforts of local economies.

According to the Brewer’s Association, in 2014 craft breweries numbered at nearly 3,500, a 19.4 percent increase from 2013. In terms of market share, craft beer sales accounted for 11 percent of intake, with a 22 percent growth in sales from 2013.

Alongside the daily reality of watching these breweries thrive, the growing numbers are heartening for advocates of sustainable economies.

First, let’s get our terms straight. Exactly what is a craft brewery? The temptation is to say it’s any brewery that crafts small batches of specialty beer. But the craft beer craze is marked by desire for a more specific level of exclusivity, a higher standard some mistake as snobbery.

A craft brew isn’t considered a craft brew unless the grain portion is all-malt (instead of rice or corn). Besides malted barley, hops, yeast and water, any added ingredients must contribute flavor. A craft brewer must produce 6 million or fewer barrels per year. And 75 percent of the company must be owned by a hands-on party, not a member of the alcoholic beverage industry.

American beer sales are dominated by Anheuser-Busch InBev, which produces 18.1 percent of the world’s beer. U.S.-based Anheuser-Busch merged with InBev, a Belgian-Brazilian conglomerate, to create AB InBev in 2008.

The craft brew standard is specifically formulated to exclude producers like AB InBev, but the company continues to buy out breweries in an effort to harness the craft craze. The buy-outs redefine “craft brewery." Brewers get to continue their work unchecked, producing the same products with the same level of care -- the same “craft." But they leave the 75 percent ownership stipulation by the wayside.

In my hometown, one of the sell-outs is 10 Barrel Brewing, which has a brewpub in the heart of downtown Boise, Idaho. The brewery's sale to AB InBev last year raised controversy due to Idaho’s law that grants special rights to small brewers. According to the law, if 10 Barrel isn’t a small brewer anymore it can’t operate a brewpub, i.e. it can’t sell directly to the consumer. Large brewers are required to sell through an independent retailer so they can’t monopolize the system.

In June, the state determined that 10 Barrel can continue its brewpub because AB InBev isn’t an Idaho licensed brewer, effectively giving 10 Barrel a loophole. The place may look local, but now a good percentage of the dollar you spend there will go to AB Inbev. Not a lot of that dollar will go toward sustaining the local economy. But 10 Barrel’s business will thrive.

Still, despite the lure of the corporate dollar, thousands of craft breweries around the nation hold out and continue independently contributing to sustainable local economies. One of the new, exciting upstarts in Boise is called Payette Brewing Co. Voted Best Local Brewery, in 2016 Payette plans on opening a $4.5 million production facility in downtown Boise.

Owner Mike Francis is a former engineer for Boeing who decided to pursue his brewing dream by founding the brewery in 2010. Francis is an Idaho native. The state makes starting your own business a snap, so locating the brewery here made perfect sense.

One of the ways Payette gives back to the community is through its Payette Forward program, which donates to nonprofit organizations and sponsors events, as long as the organization throwing the event is a nonprofit. Payette prefers not to give to political and religious applicants, unless they are all about an independent cause, such as supporting the local food bank. Payette partners with local food trucks that set up shop right out front of the pub.

Payette has also partnered with Ninkasi Brewing, a Eugene, Oregon, member of the Willamette Valley Sustainable Foods Alliance. Ninkasi ranks as No. 36 on the Brewers Association's list of the top 50 craft brewers in 2014.

Distribution is one of the biggest concerns for craft brewers trying to make a living. In January, Ninkasi resisted the AB Inbev pull and opted to go through two regional distributors, in part to stay aligned with the values of “independent and local wholesalers." Additionally, Brewpublic reports that Ninkasi will team up with Maletis Beverage to give money from every keg sold in September to the Portland Firefighters Association, Local 43. With the high volume of fires this season, it’s safe to say this is a good cause.

Overall, you can’t blame a brewer for wanting to harness the distributive power of a large brewing company like AB Inbev. But the diversity, integrity, creativity and sustainability companies like Payette and Ninkasi bring to the field goes a long way toward helping America’s craft brewing revolution and local economies thrive. Here’s to more amazing new brews in America!

Image credit: Flickr/Visit Florida Editor

Daniel Matthews is a beer enthusiast, freelance writer, and musician. He's written for Social Media Today, GM-Volt, Smart Data Collective, and YFS Magazine. You can find on Twitter @danielmatthews0.

The heat is on for fossil fuel companies in more ways than one with the launch of a major new initiative to build stronger leadership by oil, gas and coal companies on climate change.

The 'Heat Is On' initiative is guided by a Senior Advisory Panel made up of former and current leaders from industry, government, international organisations and civil society including Lord John Browne (executive chairman of L1 Energy and former ceo of BP), Connie Hedegaard (former EU Commissioner for Climate Action), Prof Dame Julia King (member of the UK's Committee on Climate Change and former senior Rolls-Royce executive) and Sir Mark Moody-Stuart (former chairman of Shell and Anglo American)

It is led and co-ordinated by Critical Resource, an advisory firm supporting responsible practices in the extractive industries.

Critical Resource says that the goal of the initiative is to enable oil, gas and coal companies to play a meaningful and important role in helping the world to limit global mean temperature rise to 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, the internationally-accepted policy goal. The initiative is a quest for ‘big ideas’ on how the industry can transform itself to operate profitably in carbon-constrained world, it maintains.

The first phase of the initiative will involve a period of engagement and dialogue with senior industry executives and independent experts to develop ideas for practical changes the industry can make.

The results of this first phase will be published in advance of the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris later this year. 

Today TriplePundit, Neil Hawkins, Jeff Wooster and Andrew Winston came together for a special Twitter Chat about the circular economy and the innovative Energy Bag project.

During this hour-long Twitter Chat, we took an analytical look at the circular economy in America. We discussed the transition to a circular economy, where waste is designed into new products and services. We also took a deeper look at how consumers can turn plastic into energy.

The Dow Chemical Co. worked with the city and citizens of Citrus Heights, California, on the Energy Bag pilot program. Over the course of the three-month program, 7,800 households collected nearly 8,000 bags of plastic waste, which was turned into 512 gallons of synthetic crude oil. Most importantly, nearly 3 tons of plastic waste was kept out of landfills!
Prompted by TriplePundit, Hawkins, Wooster and Winston addressed the following topics, and more:

• How The Dow Chemical Co.’s #EnergyBag pilot program is increasing excitement about the value of the circular economy,


• How Citrus Heights residents experimented in a case study with the purple bag; what they learned,


• How non-recycled plastic items like juice pouches and candy wrappers can be converted into energy,


• What this project has done to increase homeowner knowledge about plastic recycling,


• How the Energy Bag pilot helped to identify a way to keep more material out of the landfill,


• How you can encourage neighbors in your town to start a similar program!

 
 

 

FEATURED GUESTS WERE:

• Neil Hawkins (@NeilCHawkins) – Corporate Vice President and Chief Sustainability Officer, The Dow Chemical Company


• Jeff Wooster (@JeffWoosterRS) – Global Sustainability Director, Dow Packaging and Specialty Plastics


• Andrew Winston (@AndrewWinston) – Author of "The Big Pivot," co-author of "Green to Gold"

 

MODERATORS WERE:

TriplePundit's team including:

• Nick Aster (@NickAster) — Founder and Publisher


• Marissa Rosen (@MarissaR1) — Director of Social Media


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


• Mary Mazzoni (@Mary_Mazzoni) — Senior Editor

The Energy Bag project will drive awareness of the opportunities for collaboration among experts, innovators and policymakers in plastics recycling. For more information, check out the project online.

 

At the end of November, governments will come together in Paris to hammer out agreements for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Under the KP, there are two greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions offsetting mechanisms: joint implementation (JI) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

JI allows countries with emissions-reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol to generate Emission Reduction Units (ERUs) from GHG reduction projects and transfer them to other countries. Almost 872 million ERUs had been issued under JI as of March 2015, about a third of all Kyoto offset credits. In a nutshell, JIs are carbon credits and include things like reforestation projects.

Perhaps government heads should read this recent report by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), which found that the use of JI actually may have enabled GHG emissions to be about 600 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) more than if countries had met their emissions targets domestically.

Ukraine, Russia, Poland and Germany have the highest ERU issuances. Those four countries have 439 projects registered and over 800 million ERUs issued, which account for 94 percent of ERU issuances. The report found “environmental integrity concerns” for over 80 percent of ERUs in Russia and Ukraine. By contrast, environmental integrity in Poland was rated at 70 percent and 97 percent in Germany.

That is troubling because, as the report points out, the design of JI should prevent that from happening. The whole point of JI is to reduce emissions. Each country with an emissions target receives allowances called Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) that are equivalent to its total emissions budget for the commitment period. A host country has to cancel one AAU for every ERU it issues. So, if a JI project is either over-credited or not additional, the host country would have to make up the difference with more mitigation action.

So, what went wrong? Several countries had emissions targets during the first commitment period that were well above their business-as-usual emissions. That caused large AAU excesses. When that happens, host countries can use surplus AAUs to cover their ERUs, which allows them to not take additional mitigation action -- allowing over-credited or non-additional JI projects to cause higher global emissions.

What’s the fix?

What can be done to fix the JI mechanism? The report recommends several things, including:

• Project cycle procedures should ensure full transparency with all documentation publicly available. That is needed because lack of transparency is a big concern in some JI host countries where full documentation for the projects is not publicly available.


• Only internationally accepted methodologies should be eligible for use. The trouble is that many projects applied their own approaches for additionality demonstration and the calculation of emissions reductions. In many cases, they ended up using inappropriate approaches.

Hammering out a good climate change agreement is important, and that includes fixing the problems with JI. Hopefully, the powers that be will take note

Image credit: Reforestation via Flickr

While it’s been difficult to motivate a number of people to take action or even feel concerned about climate change, some have succeeded by linking the presence of emissions and poor air quality with health issues, perhaps because that hits closer to home. The EPA, for example, has based many of its economic arguments for reining in air pollution on the millions of dollars in health care costs that can be avoided. China, where over a million people die each year due to air pollution, has certainly become the poster child of what can happen at the intersection of the two issues.

But what about here in the U.S.? Do we have cause for concern? Is anyone linking climate-disrupting fossil fuel emissions with health impacts right here at home in our families and communities?

A newly formed company called Vivergy (combines the Latin root for “life” and energy) is doing just that. Its website allows you to see what the air quality is in your town and relates it back to secondhand smoke. I was surprised to learn that in the city I call home, Rochester, New York, the air pollution level is equivalent to having a smoker living in my home three months out of the year. The site also provides tools to assess your impact and suggestions for how you can reduce it.

I spoke with Vivergy’s founder and CEO, Kevin Kononenko, a recent University of Michigan graduate, about this undertaking.

TriplePundit: What got you interested in this?

Kevin Kononenko: It is incredibly hard for the human brain to understand large-scale ecosystem change. When communicators discuss issues in terms of long timeframes, global scale and scientific units, it is super hard for people to emotionally connect on a daily basis. I wanted to find a way to bring energy issues down to the human scale -- right here (wherever your community is) and right now.

Air pollution provided this opportunity since it is a much more localized phenomenon than many environmental issues, and we have an awesome monitoring network here in the United States that spits out data hourly. But that was not going to be enough, since the data is measured in micrograms per cubic meter of particulate matter. So, I did research in the field of human exposure science until I found studies that specifically compared air pollution and cigarette smoke in terms of PM2.5 (tiny particles in the air that can enter the lungs). And then people could actually connect to the data and see how it affected them and their loved ones.  

3p: What is the key message you want people to know?

KK: People should know that their energy decisions affect the wellbeing of children in their community, but there are a few things you can do about it. Much like the concept of secondhand smoke, when you use dirty fuels for home energy, in your vehicle, for shipping your goods or traveling via plane, air pollution enters your community and affects the health of those around you. Children and older folks with asthma are especially sensitive.

At the same time, if you are able to reduce your use of these dirty fuels, you actually stand a chance of experiencing the positive impact of your actions. Example: In a couple cases, groups have placed air pollution monitors at schools and observed the patterns of pollution in that micro-environment over the course of the day. What they find is that pollution peaks while many parents and buses are sitting in the parking lot dropping kids off and picking kids up. So, if people are able to stop idling and carpool, they could actually see a measurable change in exposure!

3p: How will your website help?

KK: The Share My Air tool allows individuals to compare air pollution in their community to other communities across the U.S. in understandable terms (cigarette smoke), so they know what they are exposed to exactly. The main Vivergy site allows you to find your Pollution Score, which is a measure for your impact on local air pollution. After that, we can give you customized goals that allow you to reduce your Pollution Score and watch as you improve relative to community members. We also allow groups to sign up to see who can become a clean air champion within your particular group and to hold others accountable for taking action.

3p: What has been the response so far?

KK: Almost every single person has really appreciated the cigarette messaging and has been thankful that the numbers are in understandable (and occasionally shocking) terms. This is regardless of their background on air pollution science, which is very encouraging.

Now we are trying to get some groups signed up on the site, because it is no fun to fight local air pollution alone! Most parents would be very uncomfortable with their child spending 26 minutes a day in a car with a smoker, so now the question is whether we can help them act on that in ways that they feel are meaningful and reasonable. But the key is that every single parent shares this value and agrees that it may not align with the other ways they take care of their kids.

3p: How does participation take you beyond your personal contribution?

KK: One thing I am curious to learn about as the site develops and users sign up is how this changes the cultural connotation of using dirty fuels. Since the site is auto-reporting all positive actions logged, it creates a ton of reminders for each individual that others are taking action and they can too.

So, rather than just putting in LED bulbs and wondering what actually happened, you get to log that on the site, watch your score fall, and then others know that at least one person is making the transition to LED bulbs. It creates social transparency so it becomes more reasonable for all to act on local air pollution. I am very curious to see how this can influence behaviors - every action logged will serve as a reminder that these changes are possible and happening all around you.

3p: What are some of the best and worst places in the U.S. for air quality?

KK: The worst place for air quality is the Central Valley of California, including places like Fresno, Madera and Merced. It is surrounded by mountains, so air in the valley is trapped, and a combination of agricultural dust and vehicle emissions can build up there.

Some of the best places in the U.S. are in the Pacific Northwest, places like Portland and Seattle. Since it rains so frequently there, the pollution is consistently cleared and rarely accumulates to high levels.

Image credit: Vivergy

The decision to pursue higher education can be unnerving, especially if you've already found a job you love. But Tim Trefzer, a recent graduate of the Executive Master’s in Sustainability & Leadership (EMSL) program at Arizona State University, proves it's possible to get the best of both worlds.

By choosing a degree program that allowed him to study in person and online, Trefzer was able to keep his dream green job -- overseeing environmentally-friendly events and sports games in Atlanta -- while gaining new skills to help him do the job even better.

TriplePundit talked with Trefzer to find out more about his decision to pursue a sustainability education and how it impacted his career.

TriplePundit: Let's start by talking about your experience at ASU. What was your focus of study, and when did you graduate?

Tim Trefzer: I was one of 15 in the first Executive Master’s in Sustainability & Leadership (EMSL) program at ASU. The program was focused in four key areas designated for sustainability professionals: global context, strategy, communications and leadership. I graduated in January 2015, and because the program was conducted both in person and online, I was able to maintain my position in Atlanta while pursuing my degree.

3p: What made you decide to pursue a sustainability degree?

TT: I’d actually been seeking a graduate degree program for some time before discovering EMSL. I realized that people in positions I aspired to be in primarily had graduate degrees, and having studied business as an undergraduate at Florida State University and not sustainability, I wanted to fully emphasize sustainability comprehension. The four core concepts in EMSL were precisely what I had hoped to improve, so I found the program to be a good fit.

3p: What are you up to now? Briefly describe your current role and responsibilities and how long you've been on the job.

TT: Since 2010 I’ve overseen the sustainability journey of the Georgia World Congress Center Authority, which owns and operates the 3.9 million-square-foot Georgia World Congress Center, the 71,250-seat Georgia Dome, and 20-acre Centennial Olympic Park, and also manages the Savannah International Trade and Convention Center.

I have several areas in which I focus, including improving operational efficiencies, waste collection and diversion, LEED certification (the GWCC is the world’s largest LEED certified convention center), environmental strategic planning, communications, and community and event outreach and engagement.

Working in the events industry provides a unique stage to create and influence environmental and societal change both inside and outside of our organization, and I feel fortunate to have a powerful platform to see and support that change.

In 2013, I chaired the sustainability committee for the Men’s Final Four held in Atlanta, which the NCAA deemed to be the greenest in its history. I’m also on the board of directors for the Green Meetings Industry Council (GMIC), representing a traditionally wasteful industry that has embraced (and is now leading) its own sustainability movement.

Driving sustainability forward in an industry and in a region of the country that isn’t historically environmentally progressive is what drives me to continue to do this work.

3p: Have you found that your sustainability education was a benefit in the field? 

TT: Definitely. And I continue to find new ways that it benefits me. Not only was I able to apply concepts from the classroom to issues I was facing on a day-to-day basis, but I was also exposed to the various issues my peers in other industries were facing so that I could anticipate how they would affect me and my role at the GWCCA. Speaking of peers, I’m able to tap into the ASU School of Sustainability’s extensive network of professionals, which I’ve discovered is an invaluable resource. The sustainability industry is still relatively small, and connecting through this network only helps to unify and advance our movement.

3p: Do you have any advice for students who are thinking about a sustainability degree?

TT: I’m a big believer in continuing education and would certainly encourage folks considering a degree in sustainability to explore all of their options based on individual goals or desired career path. Some sustainability degrees only take into account environmental considerations, while others emphasize the financial component as to sell sustainability in business. Fortunately, more schools are developing sustainability degrees, so the variety and quantity of options continue to grow.

3p: What's your biggest sustainability pet peeve and why? Disposable grocery bags? Trash in the compost? Cars double-parked in the bike lane? Share your thoughts!

TT: Hmm… I have to pick just one?! Just kidding. I’ll sound like I’m on my soapbox, but I find it peculiar that so many environmentalists and sustainability professionals eat meat. Most are aware that cutting out meat is one of the best daily choices that one can make to reduce environmental impact.

I understand that there are more sustainable meat options, and that an occasional indulgence is likely the best I could expect from most. Yet I still find it funny when, especially at conferences, we’ll go from discussing the resource effects of factory farming to a chicken and pork lunch without batting an eye. I’ll step off my soapbox now.

There are time when companies need more information to act – for example, making implementable drought-action plans. But there are times when lack of action is the equivalent to allowing atrocities to occur. Rainforest Action Network (RAN) is calling out 20 laggards that are, by refusing to enact strong palm oil procurement policies, allowing for social and environmental violations to spread on the other side of the world.

Palm oil cultivation is a known problem. It is a chief driver of deforestation in Southeast Asia, decimating the homes of Sumatran rhinos, tigers and elephants. This deforestation is also a chief cause of carbon emissions, and scientists strongly believe that if we are to avert catastrophic climate change, then deforestation needs to be stopped -- and fast.

That, of course, doesn't get into the other ethical issues facing palm oil. In the past, plantations have been known to use child labor, are an end-point for human traffickers and often treat workers viciously. Palm oil plantations spreading into indigenous lands is also a chief source of conflict as deforestation encroaches into traditional lands, oftentimes holy lands.

This palm oil ends up all mixed together in global supply chains, and ends up in our packaged goods. Remember the big move against trans-fats? They are most often being replaced by palm oil, which, in less than 15 years, has gone from being a barely used good to one of America's most consumed oils.

Rainforest Action Network is calling out 20 snack food companies including Kraft Foods Group, Hillshire Brands Company, Grupo Bimbo, H.J. Heinz Company, Campbell Soup Company, Hormel, Unilever and PepsiCo for not doing enough to stop the use of conflict palm oil in their products.

“As palm oil plantations continue to spread across Indonesia, Malaysia and beyond to Africa, Papua New Guinea and Latin America, endangered rainforests are falling faster than ever and systematic abuse of communities and workers’ rights remains rife throughout the industry,” said Gemma Tillack, agribusiness campaign director for Rainforest Action Network (RAN).

RAN believes that companies have an obligation to implement strong, independently-verifiable standards and account for every single drop of palm oil in their supply chains to ensure it comes from ethical sources. There is, in RAN's mind, no excuse for gigantic multinational companies with millions, sometimes billions, in revenues to not practice this common-sense supply chain management.

Several of the companies are those whose products your everyday purchases. This includes: Kraft Foods Group, Nissin Foods, Hillshire Brands, Heinz, Campbell Soup, Hormel and PepsiCo.

The biggest name in this list is, without question, PepsiCo, owner of several palm oil containing products including Frito Lays, Quaker Chewy Granola Bars and Cheetos. As one of the biggest distributors of food and beverages, and with a supply chain that extends to nearly everywhere in the world, PepsiCo should be a leader, not a laggard, when it comes to palm oil

“The global palm oil industry is fast approaching a tipping point and PepsiCo’s global scale and influence gives it a crucial role to play in finally eliminating Conflict Palm Oil from our food supply," said Rainforest Action Network’s Ginger Cassady in a press statement.

RAN plans numerous actions to raise awareness of the Snack Food 20 and push them to implement stronger palm oil procurement policies that will help save Southeast Asia's forests. Click here to stand with them today.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons