Search

By Dale Wannen

If you have an account with one of the large brokerage firms out there, like Morgan Stanley or Chase, you may think, “Oh well, my small amount of assets can’t amount to these companies doing harm to the planet." Think again. Most investment advisors at these firms take a management fee. Of that management fee they charge, a certain percentage gets sent up to headquarters that contributes toward the money-making machine. These same companies offering you free golf balls and “unbiased” investment advice are also lending millions, if not billions, to the largest source of CO2 in the world, coal.

Coal plants are the nation’s top source of carbon dioxide emissions, the primary cause of global warming. The U.S. still accounts for 20 percent of the world’s coal production with China ranking first -- producing 40 percent of the world’s use. Burning coal is also a leading cause of smog, acid rain and toxic air pollution. This leads me to my first point. Who is actually lending money to these coal companies to stay in business? This list may surprise you.  Shouldn’t they all be going out of business? While the state of California has cut coal production by 35 percent since 10 years ago, states like Texas and Arkansas have seen double-digit growth.

The fifth annual Coal Finance Report Card, published by Rainforest Action Network, the Sierra Club and BankTrack, looks at the impacts of the banking sector’s financing of the dirty coal industry. These investments have yielded extreme consequences -- ranging from spills of coal ash that contaminated public water supplies to bankruptcies that left taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars. In 2013, investment banks poured $31.7 billion into financing U.S. coal mining and coal-fired power companies.

In spite of reports from top investment banks that found the financial case for investment in coal to be crumbling, U.S. banks led 50 loan and bond transactions with coal companies that practice mountaintop removal mining and electric power producers that operate large coal-fired power plant fleets. The divestment movement clearly has not reached all parties.

The report’s grades and league tables highlight how some banks, including Wells Fargo, took steps to reduce their exposure to the coal industry by phasing out financing relationships with the largest producers of mountaintop removal coal, becoming the first U.S. banks since the first Report Card was published in 2010 to earn a “B” grade. However, other banks, including Barclays (No. 1 in financing of mountaintop removal coal companies in 2013 with $550 million), Citigroup (No. 1 in financing of coal-fired power companies in 2013 with $6.5 billion) and Morgan Stanley (D+ grade), deepened or maintained strong ties to the coal industry.

Banking and holding your investment accounts with independent firms focused only on sustainable investing  can keep those assets and advisory fees away from going toward those coal-mining companies.

Image credit: 1) Flickr/martin 2) BankTrack

Dale Wannen is President of Sustainvest Asset Management, an investment advisory firm focused on sustainable and responsible investing (SRI) based in Petaluma, CA. Dale has an MBA in Sustainable Management from Presidio Graduate School in San Francisco. 

Editor's note: This post originally appeared on the Sustainable Business Consulting blog.

By Kevin Wilhelm and the Sustainable Business Consulting team

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently voted 3-2 on a proposed rule to link CEO compensation to company financial performance. The rule came from the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, and while the information required in the rule is already publicly available, the rule would make it more transparent and simpler for stakeholders to find and understand.

The news surrounding this rule and other public calls for business transparency in the past few years got us thinking about our own firm, Sustainable Business Consulting (SBC). Our mission is to help companies realize the business value of integrating sustainability — including increasing transparency. But we also strive to live that mission internally. We believe that if we can test out and succeed with innovative transparency practices, then we can better help other companies achieve the same.

There are two specific practices of which we are especially proud: setting our CEO’s salary and implementing open-book financials. We want to share our journeys with you to establish each. We encourage you to reach out if you want to learn more about our experience or talk about setting out on a similar journey yourself.

The day we set our CEO's compensation

One day toward the end of 2014, our CEO, Kevin Wilhelm, turned to our team and said, “You know, with all this press about the pay differential between CEOs and front-line workers, I want all of you to set my salary in 2015.”

That’s not something you hear every day, especially in today’s business world.

The vast difference between CEO and worker pay has been all over the headlines in recent years. In 2013, U.S. CEOs were paid a whopping 331 times more than the average worker. Perhaps more alarming than that number itself is how rapidly it has increased over the years. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio in 1978 was 29.9-to-1, and CEO compensation rose by 937 percent between then and 2013, more than double stock market growth. Over the same period, workers’ pay grew by only 10.2 percent.

Without looking at the numbers, many of us have an understanding that CEO-to-worker pay ratio is high, but do we have a concept for how high it really is? A recent Harvard Business School study revealed that people’s perceptions of CEO salaries are far different from reality. Individuals surveyed in 40 countries estimated current CEO salaries to be about 10 times that of workers, and stated their ideal ratio would be about 4:1. That’s a little different from our 331:1 in the U.S., which also happens to have the largest ratio by far (the next highest is Switzerland at 148:1).

According to the same study, sentiments related to CEO compensation are fairly universal: “It turns out that most people, regardless of nationality or set of beliefs, share similar sentiments about how much CEOs should be paid — and, for the most part, these estimates are markedly lower than the amounts company leaders actually earn.”

Back to our company, SBC, and our challenge. We thought, “How can our small firm be part of a solution on such a large issue?” Kevin’s answer was simple — lead. SBC is a company that empowers its employees. And what’s more empowering to employees than deciding what your CEO’s work is worth to your company?

Like many ideas that seem simple on paper, the actual implementation was a terrifying prospect, not just for Kevin but actually for our entire team. None of us had ever done this — it had never even occurred to us! Who were we to say how much our CEO should make? Moreover, what if we set the salary lower than he was expecting? Would there be repercussions in our salary discussions? Or what if we accidentally blew the budget by compensating him too much? We knew this was important work, though, so we trudged through the discomfort and came up with a plan.

How did we do it? We researched traditional tactics and guidelines that Boards of Directors use to evaluate CEOs and came up with our own evaluation criteria. We decided on eight categories and assigned each a weight according to how important we thought they were to our organization. The three that rose to the top were knowledge and skills; relationships with clients, the community and suppliers; and business development.

Then we sat down and evaluated our CEO to truly determine his value to the organization.

We used the results from our evaluation to nail down Kevin’s actual salary number, and once again, what seemed like a relatively simple step got complicated. We had to get past the idea that we weren’t choosing the salary of anybody – this was our CEO.

We scored our evaluation results and determined which salary levels to assign to each range of scores. This involved digging in to our budget, forecasting the following year and perhaps most importantly, determining our own CEO-to-worker ratio that felt authentic to our organization.

It wasn’t easy, but we decided on a base salary ratio range between 1.5:1 and 3:1, depending on our budget in any given year.

The whole experience was invaluable. As a company that already fosters open communication and transparency, this formal process took it to a new level.

And while developing our own evaluation criteria and engaging in meaningful conversations with Kevin were important, perhaps the most significant step was the most simple: choosing the final salary ratio. So often, organizations engage in lofty conversations and make plans without taking action. It took courage and a few weeks of discussion, but settling on our CEO-to-worker ratio and implementing it allowed us to walk the talk and take a step toward a larger, societal solution to a major issue.

And Kevin’s feelings after the whole process? “It was a big leap of faith and a bit risky. I wasn’t sure how it would all play out, and in the end, what I might end up getting paid! Looking back, I’m confident we made the right decision, and our company is stronger for it. I invite other CEOs to follow our lead.”

The day we opened our company's books

It wasn’t until after the financial crash of 2008 that the SBC team, and its CEO, truly understood what it meant to be fully transparent.

Like many companies, as we headed into 2009, we faced a harsh financial reality. Many of our clients were telling us that they loved us, and that we had done exceptional work, but due to budget cuts on their end, we were not likely to have any work with them for the next year or two.

All of this put tremendous pressure on our company’s bottom line. Like most CEOs, I was stressed about how I was going to meet payroll while also trying to decide how much our financial situation I should share with my employees. I finally said, “The heck with it. If we won’t be 100 percent transparent, who will?”

So, on March 1, 2009, I opened up my books to every employee in my company.

I had never considered doing this before. In fact, although I had read case studies of other organizations doing it, I had never known anyone who had personal experience with this level of transparency. But with revenues declining and my not being able to sleep many nights, I felt that everyone would benefit from understanding the true economic reality. I figured that I had little to lose and much to gain.

We started with an honest and frank discussion about the state of the budget and forecasted revenues, and we talked about what that could mean for everyone. The employees, of course, had been feeling anxious, too, but our conversation provided them with the opportunity to speak frankly, share their fears and, most importantly, engage and feel empowered to help come up with a solution. “It made it so that there were no surprises,” said Senior Consultant Ruth Lee. “It showed trust through all tiers of the company and fostered a stronger team feeling that we’re all in this together.”

We immediately started brainstorming ways to save money, get new clients and improve our process efficiency. “By presenting the situation transparently, we could all ask ourselves what we could do,” said Lee. What was amazing was that this new level of transparency led to increased morale, a better financial understanding of the company by my employees and a feeling that we were all in control of the situation.

So, instead of me just saying, “No,” to new equipment purchases or ideas, together we would decide to hold off on a non-vital purchase for the next few months. In fact, in many cases it was my employees themselves who mentioned shifting some expenses into the future and canceling others. This financial transparency continues to this day in how we make shared decisions, and we make smarter financial decisions because we have more perspectives in the room.

What I learned was that if I trusted my employees and showed them respect, they would engage. None of this was easy, but instituting our open-book policy was a leap of faith that resulted in one of the achievements that I’m most proud of with my firm.

It has been eight years since our “experiment,” and open-book financials are now business as usual for us. This level of transparency now feels normal.

I invite other leaders to pursue the practice of open-book financials, or something like it, with their employees. It will be tough at first, but if you want to have the most engaged workforce and stakeholders in our ever-evolving business landscape, transparency is key.

Image credit: Flickr/Mackenzie Kosut

Kevin Wilhelm is CEO of Sustainable Business Consulting (SBC).

REC, a leading global provider of solar energy solutions, has completed tests to confirm that its solar panels can be deployed in floating solar installations to the same standards of reliability, performance and quality as on rooftops or in ground-mounted installations.

REC points out that while the cost of solar technology continues to fall and is beginning to reach grid parity in more and more regions around the world, the greatest barrier to expansion might be acreage. No matter how much sunshine they enjoy, countries and regions where space is at a premium, such as Japan, the US east coast, England, and Hong Kong, need to be more flexible in terms of solar applications.

It maintains that the total installed capacity of solar photovoltaic is expected to increase to 4,600 gigawatts (GW) by 2050 from 150 GW today. REC suggests that with projects sized from a few kilowatts to several megawatts, floating solar installations could power thousands of households, and enable otherwise underused artificial freshwater bodies to double up as real estate for floating solar installations.

A rare and elusive rabbit has been found, held and photographed by a researcher from the University of East Anglia (UEA).

The Annamite Striped rabbit, found in the forests of Laos and Vietnam, was first documented by rabbit expert Dr Diana Bell and colleagues from UEA’s School of Biological Sciences in the journal Nature in 1999. It has rarely been seen since.

Under the tutelage of Dr Bell and in collaboration with a team from WWF Vietnam, Sarah Woodfin embarked on her trip to study the rabbit – which is named after its home in the Annamite mountains.

She said: “I didn’t expect that I would ever see one up close. I thought that if I was very lucky, I might see one from a distance in the forest. I certainly never expected that I would have the opportunity to hold one of these magnificent animals. I was utterly delighted. My team and I encountered the rabbit completely by chance on the first night of my trip."

Sarah travelled to the WWF conservation area to survey and analyse the rabbit’s habitat and vegetation. She plans to use this information to model the potential distribution of the rabbit which will help further conservation efforts.

She added: “It is genetically very distinct from other rabbit species. Sadly there is a possibility that this species could be at risk of extinction due to deforestation and hunting. It is therefore extremely important that we understand as much as possible about this species so that we can evaluate its conservation status and implement appropriate conservation measures.”

The research project is funded by ZGap (the Zoological Society for the Conservation of Species and Populations) and the Thrigby Hall Conservation Fund. 

We all know the job market is changing, but you may be surprised to learn how much. A recent study from the U.S. Department of Labor concluded that the future of young people will center around solving problems that haven't been identified, using tools that haven't been invented yet, in careers that don't yet exist. In fact, an estimated 65 percent of teens and 20-somethings will ultimately work in careers that don't exist today.

That's a pretty staggering statistic, and it begs the question: How are we preparing young people to become the problem-solvers and changemakers of tomorrow?

If you ask software giant Adobe, it's all about creativity -- a stance that makes a ton of sense if you think about it: Problem-solving and creativity naturally go hand-in-hand, after all.

Yet, when it comes to the public education system -- particularly in the United States -- "creativity is in crisis." That's the message Adobe hopes to share through its Adobe Youth Voices program, a global initiative that brings media-making experiences to young people. Lauren Stevenson, director of the program, elaborated in an recent interview with TriplePundit:

"The No Child Left Behind legislation has led to a pretty reductive curriculum in our schools, and young people have... learned how to give the 'right answer.' The curriculum has been a lot less focused on imagination, on problem-solving and on critical thinking," she told 3p.

"I think that's the intent behind the new Common Core standard. But young people who are a product of schools that used that No Child Left Behind curriculum have had a pretty narrow experience, where creativity really hasn't been part of the classroom ... You can see it in the lack of arts education, but it's also in the way literacy and mathematics are taught."

Adobe began the Adobe Youth Voices program nine years ago to address this gap. Through the program, it provides training and curriculum to educators, particularly those in underserved districts or educational settings "where there is not yet capacity for youth media-making opportunities," Stevenson said.

Adobe works with 12 partners around the world to deliver the program, which also puts the company's suite of creative tools in the hands of young people -- most of whom are trying out Photoshop, Illustrator or InDesign for the first time. The program is being implemented in 60 countries at more than 800 sites, ranging from school classrooms to youth organizations in community-based settings. Since its inception, the program has brought its curriculum to around 15,000 educators and nearly a quarter of a million students.

While giving young people the tools and training to express themselves is a feat in and of itself, the AYV program doesn't stop there. Its curriculum is focused on not only digital media-making, but also "helping young people create with purpose" and "create media that has impact on the critical issues in our lives and our communities," Stevenson told us.

Educating for social change

It's often said that knowledge is power, and the power that comes with unleashing a young person's imagination and directing it toward social change is clear: Four AYV participants recently presented their work at the Ashoka Future Forum, while others made their big debut at the Sundance Film Festival. After creating an acclaimed short film, "International Boulevard," which documents sex trafficking in Oakland, California, AYV graduate Rebecca Dharmapalan (pictured above) now sits as chair of Oakland's Youth Commission.

Adobe also commits $1 million in scholarship funding annually for students who excel at the AYV program but don't have the money to attend college, awarding 75 four-year scholarships to date. The program also recognizes exceptional projects with the annual Adobe Youth Voices Award, giving students a national platform for their ideas.

While each of these young people have a different story to tell -- some speak to gender and social inequality, others about the environment and how we relate to our surroundings -- it's clear that the empowerment realized through knowing and owning one's own voice is a driving force throughout.

"In terms of preparing young people for a successful future, creativity is absolutely critical because young people are going to need to not just respond to new possibilities, but also create them," Stevenson said.

Creativity 2.0

Jose Vadi, who serves as creative youth development lead for Adobe, knows this struggle with inner voice and confidence firsthand. After moving from his hometown of Los Angeles to attend the University of California, Berkeley, Vadi felt like a fish out of water.

That's when he found the Bay Area literacy nonprofit Youth Speaks, a producer of local and national youth poetry slams, festivals and reading series. Vadi thrived and quickly moved into a mentorship role -- taking over local English classes once or twice a week with his own original curriculum and even teaching the power of the spoken word at detention centers. Through this work Vadi realized the power of peer-to-peer youth engagement, creativity and personal vulnerability.  He's carried that through his career from a director role at Youth Speaks to several digital projects before finding his way to Adobe.

The marriage of digital technology and traditional artistic medium are now at the core of Vadi's work. When it comes to self-expression, engaging youth around not only past-era standards like writing, painting or photography, but also modern digital technology will only become more paramount, Vadi said.

"I don't even think it's a question anymore," said Vadi, who joined the Adobe team in April. "I think young people are answering that for us on a daily basis through their work. If you look online today, particularly in the creative community of young people … a lot of the cutting-edge digital forms are being shaped and curated by young people themselves."

That's not to say all young people have the tools with which to do this, another factor Adobe hopes to address with its program: "It's an equity issue definitely -- all young people deserve opportunities and support to develop their creative capacity, and right now that's not a reality in a lot of communities."

Overcoming inequity

It's already difficult as a young person to recognize your own voice and develop the confidence to share it with others. These challenges only become more pronounced if you're from an area where school districts teeter on the brink of bankruptcy and opportunities are few and far between.

"It's really unfortunate," Vadi added. "We should always be able to afford expanding the creativity and potential of young people. Period ... At the same time I understand a lot of the constraints that schools face."

Of course, waiting for the system to change itself has proven to be an unreliable solution. Therein lies the potential of community-based programs like Youth Speaks and company-aided initiatives like Adobe Youth Voices, which can operate outside the normal confines of the public school system.

"Adobe can alleviate some of the burden in terms of resources, in terms of tools, in terms of teaching how to use those tools ... and help to be a middle man that doesn't add another cog to the daily experiences of educators and school districts," Vadi explains.

As Vadi's own experience shows, inspiring one young person can have a ripple effect that reaches hundred if not thousands more -- a point Stevenson underscored at the close of our conversation.

"Opportunities like the ones that are presented in [AYV curriculum] are really pivotal for transforming our education system and young people's preparation for their futures," she said. "We need young people coming up who can lead, who can envision the world to be different than it is, and can make it so."

Image courtesy of Adobe

This article is part of a series on “The ROI of Sustainability,” written with the support of MeterHero. MeterHero helps companies and organizations offset their water and energy footprints through consumer engagement. To follow along with the rest of the series, click here.

ROI of Sustainability began a few weeks back with a conversation with McGee Young of MeterHero. Young told us that, for him, companies should emphasize two things when making the business case for sustainability: preparing for what will certainly be an uncertain future by focusing on resiliency, and engaging with and developing long-term relationships with customers.

This week, we spoke with Kim Marotta, sustainability director for MillerCoors Brewing Co. For Kim, the emphasis is also on increasing resiliency, particularly with respect to the company's water supply. The business benefits to corporate responsibility at MillerCoors also involve stakeholder engagement, in its case primarily with employees and the growers that form the backbone of the company's supply chain. Obviously, ensuring a continuous supply of high-quality water, as well as key agricultural ingredients, is in its strategic interest.

The conversation ranged back and forth over several different geographies, beginning with California. Just a few months ago, I wrote about MillerCoors’ Irwindale, California, brewery, focusing on the new solar installation that facilitated an improvement in the gallons of product per unit of energy. Now, because of the drought, the spotlight is on water.

TriplePundit: Starting with current events, can you tell us what MillerCoors has been doing in California that could impact the drought there?

Kim Marotta: We have been working hand-in-hand for quite some time with the water master there, with the water district and with other stakeholders in that region. So, when Gov. Brown asked for across-the-board water reductions, we had already been working aggressively in that area. Since 2009, we’ve saved over 186 million gallons of water at that [Irwindale] brewery. At the same time, look at what is happening in Texas with all the flooding. We’ve been working at the Trinity watershed near Fort Worth, which supplies 40 percent of the water to Texans.

3p: You’ve been working there to help conserve water. But what can be done to prepare for a flood?

KM: We’ve been involved in a project known as Water As A Crop. Thanks to the success of the pilot, 117 landowners throughout the Trinity River Basin now participate in the Chambers Creek National Water Quality Initiative, and have committed to improving practices on 28,000 acres of land.

MillerCoors sponsors this partnership with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the local soil and water conservation district, and the local nonprofit organization Trinity Waters. Among other things, they plant tall prairie grass to help with water retention in flood-prone areas. This reduces runoff, topsoil loss and sedimentation. More than $6.8 million in grants have reimbursed farmers and ranchers in the Trinity River Basin for the costs of implementing these projects.

Our employees have also responded to flood recovery efforts. After [Hurricane Katrina], we had a distributor convention in New Orleans. We had a day set aside for volunteers to help with local cleanup efforts.

3p: I suppose that even flooding can contribute to water scarcity if water sources become contaminated as a result. Can you put these water efforts in context of your corporate social responsibility (CSR) agenda?

KM: There are two primary areas: social and environmental. On the social side, we have alcohol responsibility – our Great Beer, Great Responsibility program, where the goal is to reduce drunk driving, underage drinking and binge drinking.

On the environmental side, it’s water. Our company is committed to restoring water back to our watersheds. So, we are working in the watersheds that are the greatest concern for us, whether they are water-stressed or water scarce.

Our goal is to improve both water quantity and quality. In Texas, it’s Trinity; in Irwindale, it’s San Gabriel Valley; and in Golden, Colorado, it’s the Colorado River. The latter includes reforestation efforts with [the U.S. Forest Service] in response to wild fires where runoff impacts both quality and quantity of water. These efforts include both conservation partnerships as well as employee volunteer programs, such as cleanup efforts in local communities where we work. Then, of course, there is the question of reducing the amount of water we use to brew beer and to grow great high-country barley.

Our employees are also tremendously engaged in our efforts in conserving energy, water and waste. We are well on our way toward our goal of making all of our major breweries zero-waste-to-landfill.

3p: What accounts for most of the water used in beer production?

KM: Surprisingly, over 90 percent is in the agriculture supply chain, particularly barley.

3p: So, what measures are you taking to reduce that?

KM: There’s our Idaho Showcase Barley Farm, in Silver Creek Valley, which has now grown to become Showcase Barley Valley. Implementation of best practices there has led to 550 million gallons saved in a year.

3p: Can you explain these best practices?

KM: Turning off the guns on large [irrigation] pivots, using GPS and satellite technology to better understand how much water is needed and when, or changing out nozzles. We’re also piloting a version of the MeterHero app with our farmers to help track their water consumption.

Bill Coors said that, “barley is to beer as grapes are to wine.” So, it’s very important to us that we have high-quality barley. We are hand-in-hand with our 850 barley growers that account for more than 70 percent of the barley we purchase. We have strong relationships with them through our Brewing Materials team. They work with those growers on developing sustainability practices. We have two of our own farms and our own agronomists, [meaning] we can test some of these projects before sharing them with the growers or putting them into practice.

3p: What kind of things have they done?

KM: In one project in San Luis Valley, in Colorado, we looked at final irrigation and peak-harvest and found an opportunity to harvest earlier, which means cutting off irrigation as much as a week sooner. This could potentially save 2 billion gallons in the San Luis Valley alone.

3p: How does the interaction on this sustainability journey work between you and the growers?

KM: Our growers are experts, and we have experts too. We share best practices. There is learning together back and forth. We’ve also been working with University of Idaho and the Nature Conservancy in understanding final irrigation needs.

Nature Conservancy has done variable rate irrigation in Georgia using GPS-based systems. They agreed to share their knowledge with us. It was applied in Idaho, and they helped work with the growers to put many of these practices in place. That work in Idaho has blossomed into the Showcase Valley, where we have saved over 550 million gallons. Now we are working with them in California.

3p: Bringing us back full circle. What’s going on there?

KM: We started the California Water Action Coalition a year ago, also with the Nature Conservancy as a lead partner, along with the Pacific Institute, EDF, General Mills, Coca-Cola, Campbell Soup and various water utilities. The Nature Conservancy not only brings expertise, but they are also great conveners and help us manage stakeholder relationships. There are 80 to 100 stakeholder groups involved who agreed to form this coalition.

3p: So, what are the biggest challenges you face when implementing new programs like these?

KM: The need is so large, but you have to start so small. You really need to be patient. We talk about doing it grower by grower, whether you’re talking about Texas, or Idaho, or Colorado. You’re spending the time, doing the research, looking at the final irrigation, getting the result, doing it again the next year. You want to just go full steam ahead, but you have to be so patient, and learn, make mistakes, learn more, get some best practices and then move forward.

3p: How have things changed since you’ve been with the company?

KM: Many years ago, these learnings were happening in just a small part of our team. What’s been great now, if you fast-forward to 2015, sustainability is one of the top five goals for MillerCoors. So, it’s not just our team carrying the water (no pun intended); it’s part of our business and everyone owns it, which is great. It took some time to get there, to get the hearts and minds aligned. It wasn’t like that several years ago. It’s good to look back and reflect.

3p: You’re saying now that everyone has their objectives aligned with that goal, everyone has ample reasons to support it, whatever their personal feelings might be. That suggest that there was some inertia.

KM: We were a brand new company back in 2008. And right when we were formed, sustainability was chosen as one of the top goals. We had a CEO and a senior leadership team and plant managers that were really committed. But it does take some time to get everybody across the business looking at the opportunities, working together, embedding it in their day-to-day and really understanding how it can be good for business and good for the environment.

Even when you have people on the same page, you have to start slowly. You can’t go to 850 growers in the supply chain, each with their own soils, climates and so on, and say: "Here’s a quick one-size-fits-all solution so we can save water." We have to do this community by community, grower by grower, crop by crop — so it’s a slow process.

3p: I know from my time in the corporate world that people have individual objectives that they have to satisfy, that they’re going to be evaluated against as employees. If someone comes along with a request that doesn’t align with those objectives, it’s not going to get the same priority, correct?

KM: That’s right. But it’s even more than that. Back in 2008, we were focused on brewing beer and working to grow this brand new business. So, we might not have realized that if we’re going to reduce our energy use, we're still going to be able to produce really great beer. We can do both, but it took a while to realize that.

If you tell people we’re going to reduce energy by 15 percent, they’re going to say, “That’s great, but I’ve got a job to do and I’ve got to keep my eye on that.” It takes some time for people to realize that you can do your job well and reduce energy, or water usage or waste.

3p: I wonder if it’s just a matter of concentration. When we were kids, we learned how to ride a bike. Then after a while we got so we could ride with one hand. And then later we learned to ride with no hands. But you pretty much have to start with both hands on the handlebars. Likewise, if you’re a new business, you need to get the basic things figured out before you can start taking your hands off the bars, so to speak.

KM: Definitely. I like that analogy.

Image credit: MillerCoors

Water and energy, two of our most important resources, are more closely tied together than you might realize, and the historic California drought is bringing this relationship to the forefront.

I don't have to tell you that California is going through a prolonged drought, the impacts of which are affecting the entire country. But did you realize that water is a main source of energy consumption? And that, vice-versa, energy production often requires massive amounts of water?

This fantastic New York Times piece explores what they call the water-energy nexus in California, where a vast infrastructure exists to transport water from wetter, less populated areas to drier, more densely populated areas. The writer, Felicity Barringer, also explains how energy demands are increasing dramatically due to the recent drought.

This is only a small piece of the puzzle, however. Energy and water are both resources that are inextricably tied together, and as we move toward a clean energy, planet-first economic future, we need to better integrate water and energy management into our planning.

Renewables, not fracking (or nuclear)

Did you know that water is a crucial factor in how many fossil-fuel based power generators produce electricity? Many power plants use steam to move turbines that create electricity, a process that would be impossible without cheap, plentiful water.

Ever worse is fracking, which requires massive injections of chemical-laden water to force natural gas out -- water that, thus far, drillers are getting at far-too-low costs.

Even nuclear power, ofter cited as a carbon-free energy source, requires massive amounts of water to keep reactors cool. That is why the Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Plant in Japan was located near the ocean and not up in the mountains where it would have been safe from a Tsunami – because it needed lots of ocean water. This alone should be enough for California and the entire water-scarce Southwest to steer clear of nuclear.

So, what energy sources are the most water-friendly? Surprise, it's renewables! Solar only requires a small amount of water for cleaning panels, and wind also has a very low water-footprint. This is just another reason (among the plenty that already exist) to promote clean, renewable energy now.

Interconnected

Climate change is only going to increase global water scarcity, and global economic development is only going to increase the need for energy. The current path of building water-intensive fossil fuel energy systems is not sustainable.

We need to look more holistically at systems to see how they are interconnected and promote energy sources, like wind and solar, that use less water. That, along with better efficiency measures, can help mitigate the impacts of droughts like the one California is experiencing right now. No better time to push for this future than now!

Image credit: Flickr/Anthony Quintano

Mexican migrant workers cleared to work legally in the U.S. were housed in rat-infested rooms, paid less than the promised wage and prevented from leaving the Kentucky tobacco fields they managed, according to federal lawsuits against six farmers.

The three lawsuits filed on behalf of the Mexican workers spell out clear abuses of the H-2 visa program, which provides legal workers jobs at low-skilled levels. H-2A visas are valid for one year and are typically reserved for agricultural work. While the Mexican migrant workers can legally work in the country, they depend on employers to keep their visas valid.

The lawsuits outline the breach of these visa programs, claiming that the farmers promised decent wages and fine housing but didn’t fulfill those needs. The federal government sets an H-2A wage rate, and the pricing varies state to state. The rate is increasing annually in Kentucky, with the working wage for Mexicans under the H-2A visa program reaching $10.28 an hour in 2015. In some instances, migrants were making less than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, the lawsuits allege.

Kentucky’s wages are increasing periodically, as the state's House of Representatives recently passed a bill push the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour by 2017. So, while workers in Kentucky will enjoy the fruits of their labor, the Mexican workers providing painful fieldwork are not.

The guest-worker program has provided Kentucky with a lot of agricultural benefits, as the foreign workers lend noteworthy hours and work to jobs that would otherwise go unfilled. Mexican workers are called upon to complete chores of harvesting tobacco and stripping leaves from harvested stalks to prep the crop to be sold.

The 39 Mexican workers opening up the case claim their employers charged them for housing, which went against the program’s rules. One lawsuit said the housing conditions were unsanitary and unfinished, leaving the workers with rats and without beds, kitchen tables or proper sewer systems.

Another lawsuit alleged that the house didn’t have a working shower, forcing the workers to bathe out of buckets after long, grueling days of work. The house also leaked and didn’t have a strong heating system, the suit alleges.

One of the three suits alleged that the workers were illegally charged $2,000 for their visas, $80 a month in rent, and $180 for transportation purposes en route from Mexico to Kentucky, according to a Fox News report. A different lawsuit accused farmers of confiscating workers’ passports, forcing them to finish their work before the tobacco season ends.

This isn’t the first time Kentucky has been involved in shady practices over mistreating guest workers. In May of this year, a Kentucky tobacco farm had to pay more than $28,000 in reimbursements for wages and civil penalties to 21 Mexican H-2A workers, according to a ThinkProgress article. On a separate occasion last year, a Bluegrass State farmer was fined $3,500 “for serious worker health and safety violations.” The buck doesn’t stop there, as these lawsuits are certainly worth thousands of dollars if proven to be true.

Kentucky, a state located a whopping 1,572 miles away from Mexico’s northernmost border, seems like an unlikely candidate for such mistreatment of Mexican workers, but the availability of work tricks these migrants into leaving their unemployed lives for a chance at the American dream -- only to sleep with rats.

The H-2A program will be tested once again in Kentucky, but who’s to tell if it’s the last time.

Image credit: Flickr/ibz_omar

As many as 350 people line the streets in tents, shacks and treehouses in San Jose, California’s infamous homeless establishment, the Jungle, longing to be the young tech-savvy professionals that make up the success of Silicon Valley.

The state of the Jungle has become so grungy and filthy, officials in the tenth-largest city in the country are closing down the shantytown-esque living quarters.

While apartment rents in one of the richest cities in the country reach $2,500 a month, the homeless struggle to survive in such squalor. Two years ago, 75 percent of the nearly 7,600 homeless people in San Jose and the surrounding Santa Clara County were sleeping outside -- a percentage larger than any other U.S. metropolitan area, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The town, popularized by Fortune 500 powerhouses Facebook, Google, Apple, HP, Intel and Cisco (to name a few), is riddled with homelessness. The valley continues to pour millions upon millions of dollars into the fight against homelessness, but officials struggle to curb the growing rate of homeless people in the area.

A report commissioned by Destination: Home found that county communities spent more than $500 billion hospitalizing, jailing and providing social services to the more than 100,000 individuals who were homeless for some period of the study's six-year span. At $312 million per year, healthcare spending for the homeless made up the majority of the cost, with justice-system spending close behind.

An Economic Roundtable report analyzed what makes the county’s rent costs so unaffordable. They found that about 60 percent of all county spending went to only 10 percent of the homeless population, ineffectively helping fewer than 3,000 people who were identified as chronically homeless.

Providing housing with supportive services for the most-expensive, chronically homeless people would have saved about $42,700 per person compared to the cost of leaving them to dwindle in the streets of the Santa Clara Valley unattended. If Silicon Valley communities focused all their energy on helping those persistently homeless, instead of sprinkling money around in a manner proven ineffective, it could have saved $120 million a year.

The vast majority of the average $200 million Santa Clara County spent on justice-system costs involving homeless people was attributed to jailing people with nowhere to live. A paper written by University of California, Berkeley law students revealed that the towns making up the famed Silicon Valley had a combined 33 different laws criminalizing homelessness.

California cities are looking to combat such laws that cost the county $196 million annually for prosecuting and jailing the homeless. Palo Alto, home of Ivy-of-the-west Stanford University, recently retracted a new law that outlawed sleeping in cars.

Decades of research indicates that neighborhood property values benefit immensely from the existence of buildings like halfway houses, according to a ThinkProgress article. Homelessness in the area isn’t improving because of the headache-worthy rent rates and the lack of low-skill jobs -- and government vouchers just don’t go as far in a valley pop-culturized by HBO’s “Silicon Valley.”

State Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins introduced a plan to create a steady stream of money for housing subsidies by charging a $75 fee on some real estate document filings. The fees would go to the California Housing Trust Fund, and could provide millions of dollars of funding that would be put toward building affordable housing. A similar bill has failed twice before, but Atkins’ touch and tweak may give it the appeal to both sides that would push the piece of legislation into action.

As the county continues to fizzle homeless people out of the Jungle, the high-tech workers cash their checks at an annual average of $195,000, according to a 2013 report from Jones Lang LaSalle. The gap is startling and growing even further with each invention, app and download these mega-companies deliver.

Image credit: Flickr/ Richard Masoner

A new report from global consultancy Mercer identifies the ‘what?’ the ‘so what?’ and the ‘now what?’ in terms of the impact of climate change on investment returns. The insights enable investors to build resilience into their portfolios under an uncertain future.

The research, titled “Investing in a time of climate change”, maintains that investors can manage the risk most effectively by looking ‘under the hood’ of their portfolios and factoring climate change into their risk modelling, which may require a significant behavioural shift.

Mercer collaborated with 16 investment partners, collectively responsible for more than US$1.5 trillion, to produce the report. It was supported by IFC, the private sector arm of the World Bank Group, in partnership with Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, Germany, and the UK Department for International Development (DFID). The study was also supported with contributions from Mercer’s sister companies NERA Economic Consulting and Guy Carpenter, and input from 13 advisory group members.

The investment modelling in Mercer’s report estimates the potential impact of climate change on returns for portfolios, asset classes and industry sectors between 2015 and 2050, based on four climate change scenarios and four climate risk factors. The four scenarios represent a rise in global temperature above pre-industrial era temperatures of 2°C, 3°C and two 4°C scenarios (with different levels of potential physical impacts).

See the report here.

Helga Birgden, Partner and Global Responsible Investment Business Leader at Mercer said: “Whilst it is challenging, we have attempted to quantify the potential investment impacts of climate change. We recognise that markets do not always price in change; they are notoriously poor at anticipating incremental structural change and long-term downside risk until it is upon us.”

“This report can act as a guide to creating an action plan. Whether it is setting portfolio de-carbonisation targets, investing in solutions that address risks and opportunities, or increasing engagement with managers and companies, our report shows investors how they might take action. Engaging with policy makers is also crucial and helps empower investors in their role as ‘future makers’.”

David Nussbaum, WWF-UK chief executive, commenting on the report, added: “This report highlights that investors should see the opportunities in addition to the risks from climate change. The tides are turning toward a low carbon future and away from the unsustainable status quo. Investment is needed to accelerate this unavoidable trend and those who are ahead of this trend, the report shows, may in fact better secure their financial future.

“It is now time for us to make sure that our investments are safe for the long term, safe financially and safe for our precious planet.”