YEP Comments

The Youth Earth Plan, version 0.5, is now available at http://www.ourtask.org/yep.pdf, and we welcome comments on it. Note that each line of the draft YEP has a number in the left margin. If you have a general comment on the YEP, you need not specify line numbers. If you have a comment on a specific part of the text, please begin your comments with specific line numbers so that we can understand clearly which part of the text you are referring to.

For example, a comment might be: "Lines 245-265: You need revise the text to make clear that _______." Please post comments below. All comments will be available for everyone to see. We will collect comments until sometime in October and then begin preparing a new version of the Youth Earth Plan. Thank you for your assistance.

Post a Comment!!

.

Home Depot to CFLs - Bring it

Home Depot announced Tuesday that they will take any unbroken, burnt-out Compact Fluorescent Lightbulb and recycle it for you. For free. No strings attached.

According to the release, "The bulbs will then be managed responsibly by an environmental management company who will coordinate CFL packaging, transportation and recycling to maximize safety and ensure environmental compliance." Also, the release says that Home Depot started to take CFLs last year in Canada.

It is so refreshing that a corporation does something good for the environment like this. In case you don't know, CFLs need proper disposal because they contain mercury. Too bad we don't concern ourselves with power plants and mercury. It's funny, because the EPA says that CFLs reduce the amount of mercury exposure because CFLs cut down on the amount of energy that power plants need to produce. Wouldn't it make more sense to just limit the amount of mercury released by power plants in the first place?

Anyway, good for Home Depot. What would be truly amazing would be if we started to use LED lights instead of CFLs. That way we don't have any disposal problems related to mercury, and they'll last longer. At least in the meantime we have a safe, semi-convenient, way to dispose of CFLs.

Pepsi did WHAT????

I read an article yesterday about Pepsi's efforts to be more environmentally responsible…but this article didn't give Pepsi a pat on the back for social responsibility. This article was deriding Pepsi for investing in risky activities that might not be profitable for its shareholders. Citing the Free Enterprise Action Fund, the article emphasized that businesses should live by the sole principle of generating profits for their shareholders. Indeed, that idea makes sense – I was taught that the purpose of business is to generate profits and that they should all have competitors so that each business must compete to make the most money and the cheapest product. This free market "game" is supposed to ensure that the most efficient processes prevail and consumers get to choose the cheapest products.

But there is a slight problem with this model. In an effort to drive down prices and make big profits for CEOs and shareholders, most business practices are destroying the environment, depleting resources, and not paying suppliers and/or workers fair wages. When we created this "game" we call the free market, we forgot to include checks and balances that protect the common good and future generations.

Currently, we rely on the government to provide the checks and balances that protect the common good – in the U.S., the EPA is supposed to regulate pollution etc, the FDA is supposed to make sure products don't harm our health, and we rely on laws (and unions) to protect workers' rights. But relative to the size and scale of companies, especially large corporations, these checks and balances are tiny, and the organizations protecting the common good are underfunded and understaffed. Further, the government organizations that are supposed to be working for the good of the people rely on lobbying groups (often funded by large corporations) to inform them about issues that might harm the common good.

Some businesses have introduced the concept of the "triple bottom line" so that their companies strive not only for maximum profits but for social and environmental "profits" also. However, until shareholders, governments, consumers, and the international community are all on board, these companies will struggle to compete with those who strive to increase profits at all costs.

Do you think corporations should play a greater role in promoting social justice and environmental protection? Do you think the government should play a greater role? What role can consumers play and how can we educate ourselves?

Why Corporations (should) Want to Stop Ecosystem Degradation

Article by Craig Hanson, Cross-posted from WRI (World Resources Institute)

Companies Respond to Ecosystem Degradation
Location: Montreux, Switzerland

Climate change may dominate headlines today. Ecosystem degradation will do so tomorrow. Why should business care? Because ecosystem health goes straight to the bottom line.

Just ask the beverage industry, which depends on nature’s ability to filter and provide fresh water.

Ask agribusiness, which relies on grasslands for insect pollinators, nutrient cycling, and erosion control.

Ask the insurance industry, which benefits from the fact that coastal marshes reduce the damage caused by hurricanes and that wetlands absorb water from floods.

If you’re still not convinced then ask a host of other industries that rely on forests for benefits ranging from wood to genetic resources, carbon sequestration, and tourism.

In short, healthy ecosystems and the services they provide underpin corporate performance.

The findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment–the largest audit ever conducted of the condition and trends in the world’s ecosystems–is thus a cause of concern. The Assessment found that ecosystems have declined more rapidly and extensively over the past 50 years than at any other comparable time in human history. In fact, 15 of the 24 ecosystem services it evaluated had degraded over the past half century. These trends portend new winners and losers in the world of business.

Today in Montreux, Switzerland, WRI and its partners launched a set of guidelines to help companies prepare for this new landscape. The guidelines, called the Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (ESR), consist of a structured methodology that helps managers develop strategies to manage business risks and opportunities arising from their company’s dependence and impact on ecosystems. WRI developed the ESR with support from the Meridian Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, and with feedback from “road tests” by five WBCSD companies—Akzo Nobel, BC Hydro, Mondi, Rio Tinto, and Syngenta.

The road-tests helped companies identify new business risks and opportunities. For instance, Mondi, Europe’s largest producer of office paper, developed strategies that will increase the company’s efficiency in using freshwater—a scarce ecosystem service—and will lead to new markets for the company’s byproducts. BC Hydro factored ecosystem services into its water-use planning processes, resulting in greater regulatory certainty, fewer lawsuits, and improved stakeholder relationships. Other companies used the guidelines to anticipate new markets and government policies that may emerge in response to ecosystem degradation.

In addition, the guidelines augment existing business strategy development and environmental management. For example, environmental impact assessments are often not fully attuned to the risks and opportunities arising from the use and decline of ecosystem services. Many “traditional” tools are better suited to handle conventional issues of pollution and natural resource consumption. Most focus on environmental impacts, not dependence. Furthermore, they typically focus on risks, not business opportunities. As a result, companies may be caught unprepared or miss new sources of revenue associated with ecosystem change.

By filling these gaps, the guidelines help make the connection between ecosystem health and the bottom line. They also offer a promising approach for companies to manage emerging risks—and opportunities—while at the same time becoming better stewards of the environment.

Climate change concerns are rising to the top of the corporate agenda; those about ecosystem services won’t be far behind.

----end of article---

Does this new paradigm of businesses being dependent on ecosystems make sense? Why have businesses and corporations typically neglected this perspective and facilitated ecosystem degradation instead of working to prevent it?