Search

With a busy week behind you and the weekend within reach, there’s no shame in taking things a bit easy on Friday afternoon. With this in mind, every Friday TriplePundit will give you a fun, easy read on a topic you care about. So, take a break from those endless email threads and spend five minutes catching up on the latest trends in sustainability and business.

Once dismissed as something of an unachievable hippie fantasy, the circular economy has emerged as a key talking point in the sustainability set. Invented by Walter R. Stahel in the 1970s and popularized by William McDonough and Michael Braungart in their 2002 book of the same name, the cradle-to-cradle framework is a lynchpin of the circular economy conversation in the 21st century.

In cradle-to-cradle production, all material inputs and outputs are seen either as technical or biological nutrients. Technical nutrients can be recycled or reused with no loss of quality, and biological nutrients composted or consumed.

Founded by McDonough and Braungart in 2010, the Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute took the concept to the next level by developing a third-party standard through which companies can continually develop their products.

According to the Institute, the Cradle to Cradle Certified Product Standard looks at a product through five quality categories — material health, material reutilization, renewable energy and carbon management, water stewardship, and social fairness. A product receives an achievement level in each category — Basic, Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum — with the lowest achievement level representing the product’s overall mark. Every two years, manufacturers must demonstrate good faith efforts to improve their products in order to have them re-certified.

The requirements for the certification are tough to achieve, and only a select few companies have made the grade as of yet. This week we tip our hats to eight of those companies that are leading the charge to a truly circular economy.

1. Method

Thanks to nontoxic and biodegradable ingredients, Method has achieved C2C Gold certification for several of its household cleaning products, including its 8x Laundry Detergent, All-Purpose Natural Surface Cleaner and bathroom care product group. C2C has yet to award Platinum certification to any product, so these Gold-star items are basically the market front-runners.

Although Method made its first big splash by selling hand soap in bottles made from recovered ocean plastic, these C2C certifications apply only to its product formulations, not its packaging.

2. Aveda

Thanks to its preference for natural ingredients, Aveda was able to achieve C2C Gold certification for 10 of its product formulations. With post-consumer recycled milk jugs making up a minimum of 80 percent of its bottles, the packaging on these products also received C2C Silver certification -- making Aveda a clear leader in the hair care industry.

3. JBC Belgium

JBC Belgium is Belgium’s first fashion store to launch a Cradle to Cradle Certified Basic collection. This is the first step in its long-term plan to develop clothes whose materials can be reused without any quality loss.

4. Lauffenmühle

After years of development, Lauffenmühle now offers an innovative textile yarn that's ideal for work wear (think: scrubs and service uniforms). Up to now, mainly cotton and polyester blends were used in the industry -- a big no-no for for cradle-to-cradle because it necessitates downcycling at end-of-life.

Lauffenmühle's new textiles consist of a blend of cellulosic fibers derived from FSC-certified wood and biodegradable synthetic polymers made from plants not used for food. All raw materials, ingredients, chemicals and dyes are safe for biological systems and are C2C certified at Gold level.

5. Carlsberg Group

Best known for its namesake pilsner, the Carlsberg Group is making moves toward a cradle-to-cradle system for its packaging. So far, the company has achieved C2C Bronze certification for its Carlsberg lager and Somersby cider cans sold in the U.K. market.

6. Herman Miller

Herman Miller's Aeron chair has become synonymous with comfort and sleek style in the office. But did you know it's also environmentally sustainable?

In addition to its well-known ergonomic and functional qualities, Bill Stumpf and Don Chadwick designed the Aeron chair to be sparing of natural resources, durable and repairable, and constructed for ease of disassembly and recycling, according to the Institute. The C2C Silver certified Aeron is up to 94 percent recyclable, contains up to 64 percent recycled content, and has no PVC.

7. Shaw Industries

Shaw Industries, the world's largest carpet manufacturer, has been producing Cradle-to-Cradle certified products for more than a decade, and they now make up 64 percent of the company’s sales. At the heart of the company's success is Nylon 6, the only 100 percent closed-loop, cradle-to-cradle fiber currently available in the carpet industry.

Evergreen Nylon Recycling, Shaw’s nylon recycling operation in Augusta, Georgia, employs patented technology that converts post-consumer Nylon 6 carpet into caprolactam, the building block of this fiber. This cycle can be repeated over and over again without the loss of any aesthetic or performance properties. The company has recycled 100 million pounds of carpet in the last 12 months, creating new fibers and keeping post-consumer carpet from entering the landfill.

8. gDiapers

Moms looking for a sustainable solution to one of parenting's stinky situations may be happy to learn that green diaper brand gDiapers is even more eco-friendly than they thought. gDiapers disposable inserts were the first consumer packaged good to be C2C certified (Silver) and the first to feature the Cradle-to-Cradle Certified logo on packaging. It's also the only diaper brand to be C2C certified.

The disposable inserts tuck inside reusable diaper covers called gPants -- creating a part reusable, part disposable solution. The disposable inserts break down in a home compost pile in 3 months While gDiapers ran into trouble with the FTC over biodegradability claims, and there are no easy answers in the world of diapering, the C2C designation rightly marks gDiapers as one of the greenest options out there.

Image credit: Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute 

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.

The world has a waste problem. Every year in the United States (the world’s top waste producer), Americans create 254 million tons of trash – 167 million tons of which end up in landfills. Much of this waste is actually valuable.

Seizing an opportunity to conserve resources, reduce environmental impact and create jobs, the city of San Francisco set a goal in 2002 to achieve zero waste by 2020. Through its three-bin collection system and partnerships with local organizations to raise awareness of waste reduction efforts, the city has already reached 80 percent waste diversion in commercial and residential buildings – and better yet, has found that achieving zero waste can be as good for Mother Earth as it is for municipal wallets.

Trash and treasure

Since its launch, the city’s zero-waste program created policies, financial incentives, and significant outreach to its 850,000 residents and business owners to promote the use of its black-green-and-blue bin system to separate trash from treasure.

Unlike trash, items that are composted and recycled create a return for the city. Recyclables are baled and sold to their respective markets: Scrap metal and certain plastics, for example, are often sent to Asia and imported back in the form of new products, and compostables are processed and transformed into nutrient-rich fertilizer, which is sold to local farms. Landfill waste, on the other hand, costs money.

These efforts extend to materials that are harder to recycle, like textiles. As part of its goal to reach zero waste, the city announced a partnership with I:CO last year to facilitate the reuse and recycling of clothing, shoes and textiles within retail stores, residential buildings and donation spots. San Francisco has also partnered with local employers and nonprofits to educate and engage citizens in the process.

“Textiles are one of the top materials that we waste,” said Jared Blumenfeld, former head of the San Francisco Department of Environment and current EPA Region 9 director, in a statement. “In fact, San Franciscans throw away more than 4,500 pounds of textiles each hour to the landfill. This is an unbelievable amount of preventable waste, and we’re excited to see San Francisco companies coming together to reverse this trend."

Textile recycling not only conserves raw materials and saves on landfill costs, but when that waste is transformed into new products, such as wall insulation, it also creates new revenue streams.

According to the city’s Department of Environment, the zero-waste program is “funded solely from revenue generated through refuse rates charged to customers” – which range from $25 to $35 a month for a typical household, depending on the size of the black trash bins. Therefore, it’s not an added cost to city dwellers beyond what they were already paying.

Green jobs

Another benefit for local residents is that the program helps create green jobs. The city’s Environment Now green careers program prepares workers for the green economy and helps them access jobs that contribute to the city’s zero-waste goals.

Waste diversion-related green jobs are not only positive for the environment, but they also fuel the economy. According to the Blue Green Alliance, the U.S. would gain 1.1 million new jobs if the nation actively diverted 75 percent of its trash from landfill. San Francisco currently employs about 1,050 residents and actively recruits and trains new employees.

Beyond recycling

While San Francisco’s zero-waste goals and efforts are laudable, one critique is the city’s emphasis on the last “R” of the common phrase “Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.”

Jacquie Ottman, green marketing pioneer and founder of the waste reduction community WeHateToWaste, sees greater value in educating the public on the merits of reducing overall consumption and reusing products, rather than the consumption-centric focus of recycling.

“The greenest product is the one that already exists,” Ottman told 3p. “We need to reduce and reuse – that means don’t waste. We are missing an opportunity to reinforce that message with consumers.”

According to WeHateToWaste, repairing, repurposing and sharing products is the true key to a no-waste mindset. When we find creative ways to use what we already have and reduce our consumption, we get closer to saving natural resources and reducing costs.

The point is: Let’s not pat ourselves on the back too quickly just for recycling that plastic bottle or composting yesterday’s food scraps. Let’s find ways to truly reduce impact by avoiding the creation of waste altogether.

That’s how we can all get to zero waste – and get a nice return on our investments.

Image credit: San Francisco Department of Environment 

On Monday, while the world was waiting for a word from Geneva, where the negotiators were about to announce on the agreement with Iran, the eyes of the sharing economy were focused on The New School in New York.

The reason was an economic speech from Hillary Clinton, in which she was expected to address the sharing economy for the first time. And indeed the Democratic presidential candidate did exactly that, offering the following observation:

“Many Americans are making extra money renting out a spare room, designing a website ... even driving their own car. This on-demand or so called 'gig' economy is creating exciting opportunities and unleashing innovation, but it's also raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future."

Clinton’s remarks received a lot of media attention, but the discussion was mainly either politically-oriented (for example, how it could it impact her relationships with Silicon Valley), or recycled the talking points in the ongoing debate on whether the sharing economy generates good jobs.

I’d like to add two more points to the discussion on Clinton’s remarks, including my two cents on whether she is right or wrong in her critique of the sharing economy.

Problem: The Uberization of the sharing economy

Two weeks ago I wrote here about the tension between value-based and values-based approaches in the sharing economy. While this tension doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon, it’s also important to make it clear that, at least in the U.S., there seems to be a clear winner in the ‘fight’ between these approaches – the former.

More specifically the Uber model seems to be winning, as the endless list of on-demand companies copying the Uber model and the long list of startups wishing to become “the Uber of __________” (complete the blank for your industry of choice) indicate.

The result is what I call the Uberization of the sharing economy. Or, in the words of PandoDaily’s Sarah Lacy: “Uber IS the sharing economy.” Lacy referred to Uber’s magnitude and impact, but I believe it’s also true in terms of becoming the dominant business model in the sharing economy.

The latest example is of course Clinton’s speech, where she referred to the Uber model as representing all of the thousands of companies that are associated with the sharing economy. (It’s true she mentions other services, but they all apply the Uber model one way or another.) In other words, now the Uber model and the sharing economy become synonymous, so it’s Hillary versus the sharing economy, not Hillary versus Uber.

What’s wrong with the Uber model? It’s a fair question as, after all, this model succeeded to create a stellar user experience -- taking the friction out of the taxi-riding experience and delivering great value for its customers. However, this model reflects a flawed design that has two parties in mind -- company and customers, while the Uber business model actually includes three parties – company, service providers (drivers) and customers.

The result is a broken relationship, especially between the drivers and Uber and the drivers and customers. One Uber driver described the relationship with the company as follows: “You’d be hard-pressed to find Uber drivers with warm fuzzy feelings about the company. We are providing the services, but we are the worst paid and least respected. Travis [Kalanick] is the hero and the drivers are just peons.”

These conflicts seem to get only worse with other sharing economy companies that copy the Uber model, aiming to provide a seamless service for the users, not to create peer-to-peer relationships. As a result, humanizing these experiences becomes part of the friction that should be eliminated. This is a recipe for dystopia. These sharing economy services aren’t enhancing relationship between people, but actually eroding them.

Solution: Bottom-up innovation that's supported, not driven by, regulation

“As president, I will work with every possible partner to turn the tide to make these currents of change start working for us more than against us, to strengthen, not hollow out, the American middle class. Because I think at our best, that’s what Americans do. We are problem solvers, not deniers. We don’t hide from change; we harness it.”

Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a solution to the problem she presented. She’s not alone. Ending the Uberization of the sharing economy is not an easy task and requires offering better value for the companies, for the service providers and for the customers.

I don’t believe this solution could be driven by regulation, as top-down solutions usually don’t include innovation. The solution should be a bottom-up one driven by a new model that, as I’ve mentioned here before, will create and sustain mutually respectful relationships between these parties.

Will it be a worker cooperative? A Silicon Valley VC-funded startup? I don’t know, and it probably doesn’t matter too much. What matters is that the new model that will win over the Uber model will be based on a better design and vision, integrating usability and desirability with what Cameron Tonkinwise described as “economic relations that have a social thickness to them.”

What does this model actually looks like? I’ll share more details with you in the upcoming weeks.

Finally: Was Clinton right in her critique of the sharing economy?

I think Clinton’s critique on the Uber model is an important addition to the conversation we already have about the sustainability of this model. Somehow a dichotomy was established between providing customers with a stellar user experience and providing service providers with decent working conditions, and it’s time to show this dichotomy is false.

This conversation, driven so far mostly by service providers, media (see here and here) and the judicial system (see here and here), is important as it already started changing the dynamics of the Uberization trend with companies like Instacart offering some of their workers to become employees.

With greater exposure provided by people like Hillary Clinton, there is a good chance to change the current dynamics even further -- creating a new iteration of the sharing economy (the great economy?) that will be great for everyone involved, including the people that actually make this ‘magic’ happen – the service providers.

Image credit: VDCPIX.com, Flickr Creative Commons

Amazon is more than just an online store. It’s a company that invests in renewable energy. Amazon Web Services (AWS) recently announced that it contracted with Iberdrola Renewables to build and operate a 208 megawatt wind farm in North Carolina's Perquimans and Pasquotank counties. When completed, it will be the first utility-scale wind farm in the state.

Called the Amazon Wind Farm U.S. East, it is expected to come online in December 2016. It will generate approximately 670,000 megawatt hours of wind energy a year. That's enough to power over 61,000 American homes annually. The energy will be delivered to the electrical grid that supplies AWS Cloud data centers.

In November 2014, AWS announced its commitment to achieve 100 percent renewable energy use globally. In April, the company announced that about 25 percent of the power it used globally comes from renewable energy. The goal is to increase that figure to at least 40 percent renewable energy use by the end of 2016.

In January, AWS announced a renewable energy project called the Amazon Wind Farm (Fowler Ridge) in Benton County, Indiana. It is expected to generate 500,000 MWh of wind power a year, or the annual energy usage of 46,000 American homes, and is expected to come online in January 2016. The energy generated will also be used to help power AWS Cloud data centers.

AWS doesn’t just invest in wind power to help meet its renewable energy goals. Last month, the company announced a solar power project called Amazon Solar Farm U.S. East in Virginia, which is expected to generate 170,000 MWh of solar power a year. It is expected to come online in October 2016 and will be the largest solar farm in Virginia with all energy generated powering AWS Cloud data centers.

Combined with the North Carolina wind farm project, Amazon’s renewable power projects will deliver over 1.3 million MWh of power, or enough energy to power 15,000 American homes a year.

The huge potential for wind power in the U.S.

Amazon’s investment in wind farms is smart given the big potential for wind power in the U.S. Currently, wind power generates enough electricity to power over 11 million American homes, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). In some months, wind power generates 6 percent of the nation’s electricity -- but that doesn't begin to touch its potential. Some experts think wind power could generate 30 percent of electricity needs in the U.S.

Investing in wind power is one way to reduce carbon emissions. Climate science experts say that carbon emissions need to be reduced to from the current 400 parts per million (ppm) to 350 ppm in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. So, wind power, and renewable energy in general, is good for the environment and the economy. The current wind power sector provides jobs for at least 75,000 Americans. A 250 MW wind farm (about 100 turbines) creates 1,073 jobs over the lifetime of the project. That's the ole triple bottom line at work.

Image credit: Flickr/Warrenski

Greenpeace just released its Carting Away the Oceans report that ranks supermarkets on their efforts to protect oceans and seafood workers.

The winners that get to hoist their sails high are Whole Foods, Wegmans, Hy-Vee and Safeway. Each of these retailers use policies, political advocacy and industry conversations to address illegal and unregulated fishing as well as human rights abuses.

The losers that are stinking like rotting fish are Southeastern Grocers, Roundy’s, Publix, A&P and Save Mart. They ended up in the report’s “fail” category.

The overall findings show that retailers are not doing enough to prevent the widespread problems of illegal and unsustainable fishing as well as human rights abuses in the seafood supply chain. It’s a whale of a problem.

Human rights: Let’s play fair

Working conditions on a fishing boat are some of the worst. There isn’t much monitoring, control, surveillance or enforcement at sea. Some problems attached to the industry include low pay, poor sanitation, unsafe equipment and long working hours. There are cases of forced labor, human trafficking and murder. The high demand for cheap seafood and the race for more fish propel companies to keep fishing boats at sea longer and in dangerous situations.

I don’t have that card, go fish… With a pole

Tuna is the second most popular seafood product. Americans eat 1 billion pounds of it every year. Here’s the sad part: 80 percent of canned tuna comes from “destructive, irresponsible, and wasteful fishing practices,” according to the Greenpeace report. The biggest sharks circling in these waters of irresponsibility are StarKist, Bumble Bee and Chicken of the Sea.

On the retail end, Walmart, Kroger, Albertsons-Safeway, Publix, Delhaize and Meijer stock tuna caught through abusive and illegal practices, according to the report.

Greenpeace created the sustainability guide below that ranks the most common tuna brands. How well does the tuna you eat stack up?

The No. 1 tuna brand is Wild Planet. All Wild Planet fish are pole-and-line or troll caught. This has minimal impact to other sea creatures like turtles and dolphins.

Some brands advertise their fish as “wild caught,” which sounds great but doesn’t have anything to do with sustainable fishing -- it just means the fish were caught in the ocean (perhaps using big polluting plastic nets) instead of farmed. Other meaningless descriptions are “sustainably caught” and “responsibly caught.” Those words are empty unless accompanied by certifications and details explaining how the fish were caught.

The report also mentions a handful of companies that swam against the current and asked the government to protect ecologically rich waters like Alaska’s Bering Sea. Thank you Whole Foods, Wegmans, Giant Eagle, Costco, Roundy’s and Southeastern Grocers for asking the government to treat vulnerable areas like a seal pup and keep it nice and safe from predators.

Greenpeace has decided that petitions are nice but protests are probably more effective. Feel free to wear your Finding Nemo costume to Walmart on July 25 because Greenpeace activists will be celebrating “a day of action” at Walmart stores, everyone’s favorite retailer to hate on. The activists will speak with customers in hopes that everyone will demand that the leviathan retailer be a team player and only sell responsible seafood.

Earlier this year, protests sparked Walmart to commit to treating pigs, cows, and chickens better. Hopefully Walmart will once again be persuaded to live up to the second half of its motto, “Live better.”

Many thanks to Greenpeace for providing such a helpful report! As Finding Nemo's Dory would say, “When life gets you down do you know what you’ve gotta do? Just keep swimming, swimming, swimming.”

Image credits: Greenpeace

"Parks and Recreation" star Nick Offerman and comedic video website Funny or Die joined forces to create a parody on unhealthy cafeteria lunches to raise awareness for the American Heart Association. At the end of the video, "because our kids health shouldn't be a laughing matter" flashes across the screen, juxtaposing Offerman's captivating effort to convince the audience that pepperoni pizza grows on plants.

https://youtu.be/0weSjPKi4cs

There was something about the freedom of getting a $5 bill each day for lunch. Waiting all day in my fourth grade class for the lunch bell to sound so I could select from the smorgasbord of junk that my body would soon disagree with. My teachers watched carefully as I scarfed down my homemade peanut butter and jelly just so I could be the first in the snack line. Would it be ice cream, hot fries or Otis Spunkmeyer cookies? My 11-year-old self never seemed to have a propensity for saving, so why not all three?

Now, more than 1 in 3 American kids is overweight or obese — nearly triple the rate from 1963 — and lawmakers are pointing to school lunches for reform. In 2010, Congress passed and enacted the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. The initiative, which boosted nutrition standards for foods sold in schools, was only enacted as a five-year program. Without congressional action, the bill will expire on Sept. 30 of this year. The parody, aimed to highlight what kids would be eating if this bill weren't in place, raises awareness for the progress made from the act.

According to the American Heart Association, children are now eating 16 percent more vegetables and 23 percent more fruit. Children who participate in the National School Lunch Program have an overall better-quality diet, the organization said. The association also said that healthier children are more inclined to become healthy adults, a lifestyle bridge that could save billions of dollars.

First lady Michelle Obama has headed the healthier school lunches movement as well as created Let's Move, a program urging kids to exercise and combat obesity. While Obama and the American Heart Association teamed up to transform lunches in public schools, the process wasn't completely welcomed with open-arms. Students and faculty were outraged at the change in food quality after the program was introduced, with food turning from pizza to colorless yuck you may see on a Nickelodeon show or "Orange is the New Black."

In later 2014, #ThanksMichelleObama was trending on Twitter and was often accompanied with a picture of a less-than-appetizing platter of "mystery mush," as one tweet eloquently put it.

Despite the aesthetically unpleasing food in the program's inaugural year, anything is better than Offerman's "hot, moist sloppy Joes" grown from the earth. Congress only has a few months to reach an extension before kids in the country are back to eating a "fresh-picked bushel of hot, flaky fish fingers."

Image credit: Flickr/U.S. Department of Agriculture

By Arsalan Ahmed

Sustainability has always been the ultimate pursuit of happiness. However, most professionals who opt for a career in sustainability do so because they value the importance of preserving our environment over the amount of money they are getting in return.

The gesture to help people and the community at large is indeed praiseworthy, but the fact is that one’s own sustainability is of equal importance, especially when there are educational liabilities after graduation to clear or a family tagging along or a large amount of student loan debt.

While entry-level jobs in sustainability may not be as lucrative, the good news is that the pay scale gets better as one goes up the ladder. Generally sustainability jobs in the sciences and management pay higher than those in social sciences and humanities. Here are seven careers in sustainability that pay more than just well.

1. Chief sustainability executives

Chief, vice-president, director – the titles generally vary, but these guys fill the top sustainability position in a corporation and rake an average salary of about $166,000 per year. They are responsible for envisioning, expanding and implementing sustainability creativities within the organization. They obviously have immense power as the buck generally stops with them when it comes to deciding how sustainability is practiced and enforced within a company.

2. Natural science managers

As the job title suggests, natural science managers are both scientists and managers who coordinate teams of scientists and researchers working collectively on sustainability projects. For instance, if there are many people, such as a chemist, an atmospheric scientist, and an environmentalist, working on one bi project, the natural science manager will overlook all of the three – and other team members included. And like most sustainability executives, science managers too earn in the six figures with an average of $114,000 per year.

3. Operations managers

Also known as general managers, operations managers bring the ideas, tone and directions of the chief sustainability executive to life in the everyday operations, processes and services of an organization. The general manager’s responsibilities include things like waste minimization, recycling, pollution prevention, and keeping a track of financials, energy efficiency and conservation. On an average, general managers are paid $95,000 per year, however in some organizations they too are paid in the six-figure bracket.

4. Chemical engineers

These engineers who are paid just about as well as general managers ($92,000 per annum) working within the sustainability industry are actually responsible for making chemical processes more environmental friendly and sustainable. Chemical engineers engineer chemicals that are biodegradable, and those that reduce pollution and waste hazards associated with processes dependent on the use of chemicals.

5. Atmospheric scientists

Atmospheric scientists generally rake in $89,000 per year. Yet their job is key to determining the sustainability of the global ecosystem. Atmospheric scientists study the effects of chemical and industrial processes on the air we breathe, and also the impact of air pollution on the climate and organisms. They are also responsible for coming up with ways to reduce the amount of air pollution.

6. Environmental engineers

Environmental engineers are paid $79,000 per year which still beats a number of high-earning jobs in the healthcare industry. Environmental engineers come up with biological and chemical solutions to a number of environmental problems including water and air pollution control, recycling, safe pest management, waste and sewage disposal, and public health issues. Other areas of focus for an environmental engineer could include developing new processes that turn waste into usable products.

7. Health and safety engineers

Health and safety engineers typically earn $75,000 a year and are responsible for designing processes and systems that help to ensure the safety of people working within a controlled organizational or non-organizational environment. They focus on the work-related safety and health of employees, air and water control, machine inspections among a number of other things.

Arsalan Ahmed is a passionate blogger who loves to write on Finance and Student Career Building related topics.

The re-introduction of the London congestion charge exemption for vehicles powered by LPG and incentives to convert to vehicles to the alternative fuel, could help to save the lives and improve the health of thousands of Londoners.

The claim comes from Autogas Ltd following new research by King’s College London which revealed that 9,400 die each year in London as a result of long-term exposure to air pollution, more than twice as many people as previously thought.

The premature deaths are caused by two key pollutants, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and fine particulates (PM2.5) which are both significantly lower in vehicles powered by autogas LPG compared with both petrol and diesel. Indeed, NO2 emissions from autogas vehicles are up to 80% lower than diesel and particulates are up to 98% lower than diesel.

“These latest figures are incredibly worrying and show that immediate action is required by the Mayor’s office to protect the health and save the lives of those living and travelling into the city,” comments Linda Gomersall, general manager, Autogas.

“In the past, incentives were available to those converting to LPG. Motorists travelling into the Capital on autogas LPG were also rewarded for taking the cleaner option by receiving a 100 percent discount from the congestion charge. However, since the Mayor’s office removed this discount and the wider conversion incentive was withdrawn, many drivers fail to consider this cleaner alternative, often going back to more heavily polluting diesels.

"By re-introducing the discount for LPG powered cars and offering conversion incentives once again, many motorists will be encouraged back to the cleaner fuel and we can start making an immediate improvement in London’s air quality.”

Already, 150,000 drivers across the UK benefit from driving on autogas LPG, which as well as emitting fewer harmful pollutants, also helps users slash their fuel bills by up to 40 percent. Despite the relatively low levels of take-up in the UK, autogas LPG is widely used by more than 10 million drivers throughout the rest of Europe.

Autogas is a joint venture between Shell and Calor. Established in 2000 with the sole aim of making automotive LPG more readily available to fleet and private motorists, the company now has LPG refuelling installations on more than 215 petrol forecourts throughout the UK.

 

Two myths consistently being put forward by conservative think-tanks are that government regulation hurts the economy and that efforts to take action on climate change will raise energy prices.

These assertions are primarily put forth through imagined scenarios, rather than actual data. The problem with the scenarios is not that they have too much imagination in them, but rather they often don’t have enough. They tend to look at what impact a certain new rule might have, in a world where the rule takes effect and nothing else changes. They don’t reflect the true vibrancy, adaptability and creativity that exists within our economy.

For example, if a coal plant shuts down, a certain number of jobs are lost there. But that’s not the whole story. That energy will be produced somewhere else, which will create new jobs, while, at the same time, improving our air and water quality. Of course, there will be some winners and losers, but overall, the data shows that the impact of regulation on the economy is small, without even taking into account the huge, costly disasters that tend to occur when regulations are relaxed or not properly enforced. Do the words “Gulf oil spill” ring any bells?

The bigger picture is that the regulations are an effort to steer the economy in a direction that is safer, more equitable and more sustainable. They don’t always work, but that is the intention. Indeed, regulations are one of the few tools available for doing so.

Business people are always looking for opportunities. So, when prices start to go up in one area, it won’t be long before another, cheaper option suddenly appears. That’s the way the economy really works.

Let’s take a look at what’s happened to energy prices in the Northeast once a price on carbon was instituted under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Organizations like the Institute for Energy Research and the Heritage Foundation have argued against any type of carbon tax or cap-and-trade program, saying that they would “inflict high costs on families.”

What has actually taken place differs widely from these dire predictions. Since its inception across New England and Mid-Atlantic states in 2011, RGGI’s cap-and-trade program has produced an additional $1.3 billion in economic activity while reducing carbon emissions by 15 percent. All of this was achieved while reducing electricity prices by $460 million. That is hardly in line with the disastrous outcome that had been predicted. The nine states all saw benefits from their participation. New Jersey was initially part of the initiative, but under Gov. Chris Christie’s leadership the state withdrew in 2011.

Here’s how it works. Each state is given a cap, which is the total amount of carbon that their utilities can produce each quarter. A number of permits corresponding to the total amount of carbon are then auctioned off. The states use the proceeds raised by the auction to invest in programs that facilitate carbon reduction, such as efficiency retrofits or renewables. Then, the number of permits is gradually reduced each year.

This market-based solution provides a situation where the cleaner a utility is, the fewer permits it needs to buy. It’s simple economics. And if a state has permits left over due to the improvements they’ve made, those permits can be sold or traded to other utilities.

According to Andrea Okie, a report author from the Analysis Group who wrote a recent study on the program, the reinvestments made by the states have been key to both boosting state economies and allowing utilities to meet the targeted reductions. The states have collectively spent 59 percent of the funds on energy efficiency, 15 percent on renewables, and 13 percent on consumer financing and bill-paying assistance. An additional 12 percent went into other greenhouse gas programs and administration, and 1 percent went into clean technology research.

So, how does this reduce prices? In a few words, by reducing demand. One of the biggest costs that utilities bear is maintaining the ability to respond to demand spikes. The most highly responsive forms of generation that are used for this purpose, are among the least efficient. By reducing the need for these so-called “peaker plants,” costs go down for everyone.

Under the EPA’s new Clean Power Plan, which is due to be released next month, all states will be required to reduce the carbon emitted by their electric utilities. While some states will undoubtedly be busily hiring lawyers to fight the rule, the smart ones will take a serious look at a model like this one, which will not only allow them to meet the new EPA standards, but will also reduce costs for consumers and boost their economy at the same time.

Image credit: Christian Jacobsen: Flickr Creative Commons

We’ve all fallen for fads and wanted the nicest product on the market. I’m unashamed to say that when Heelys were introduced in my susceptible pint-size years, I was the first kid sliding down my elementary school hallway. Or how in the '70s, it was social suicide to not have a lava lamp adorning your dresser. Well in Japan in the 1980s, the fad was to join incredibly expensive golf courses and country clubs — so much so that some clubs cost millions of dollars to be a part of.

The high interest in joining golf clubs spawned a massive rush to build more. And now, as the interest faded in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Japan is plastered with a number of abandoned golf courses.

The Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, which released the most radioactive material since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, forced Japanese officials to revisit their current energy plan. Now faced with a proposal to double the amount of renewable power sources by 2030, Japan is quickly looking for solutions. In fact, the country is already building solar power plants that float on water to capture the sun’s heat on the warm Pacific Ocean.

Staring down a goal that must be fulfilled in 15 short years, Japan is turning to the logical option of constructing solar plants on its many abandon golf courses. Kyocera, a solar power company, recently announced that it broke ground on a 23-megawatt solar plant on an old golf course the Kyoto prefecture. Estimates suggest that once the 18 holes are transformed fully in 2017, the plant will generate enough electricity for 8,100 local homes annually.

But, that’s just the beginning: Kyocera also announced its intention to start construction on another golf course next year that would bring enough power to 30,500 households. The anticipated 92-megawatt plant will boast more than 340,000 solar panels and is expected to be operational in 2018. Other energy companies want in on the action, as Pacifico Energy is also building solar plants on the old links in Japan. Both companies are selling the electricity generated to a local utility.

Replacing golf courses with solar plants is an interesting idea, and it may catch on sooner rather than later. The United States already has plans to replace the courses in New York and Minnesota, with other states likely on their way, too.

Photo courtesy of Kyocera