Race to Be Green: 2008

Today, Newsweek landed in my mailbox. I was excited, but not just because I got mail. The cover story of this week is - Environment and Leadership: Who's the Greenest of Them All?

So, I'll spare you most of the story, because although it's interesting, you can read it here, and in all honesty you'll probably not be surprised if you've been staying up-to-date with the race. It does a good job of summarizing the three Presidential candidates' positions on the environment. My favorite part: no matter what happens, next year the policy in the White House will be different.

The worst about this article though was the ad in the middle and the statistics. First the ad - for a hybrid Chevy Tahoe, "America's first full-size hybrid SUV." Oh yay! It gets 14mpg in the city and a whopping 20 on the highway. Are we seriously celebrating this? This is why the United States has this problem in the first place. You don't see SUVs, hybrid or not, in Europe. It's time for smaller cars.

The second thing that got to me was the stats. Newsweek cited that "The environment has emerged as a leading concern. Last year, three in 10 voters said they cared about the issue, up from 11 percent in 2005." As much as I'm excited that the number grew from the measly 11%, 30 isn't really amazing. Do we not realize that without the environment we couldn't live?

How can we seriously expect a change in the public's perception of the environment when we're selling hybrid SUVs that get worse gas mileage than most sedans? How much harm do you think the next 9 months will have on the environment until we get a new set of ideas in DC? And, realistically, how fast do you expect any action to happen?

Just some thoughts, feel free to weigh in and ask questions of your own!

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?

The Carbon Tax Debate...Continued

From ES&T
What would happen if policy makers in the U.S. suddenly approved a tax on CO2? Would electric utilities instantaneously switch to more efficient power plants with lower CO2 emissions? Would consumers immediately become more careful of their electricity use?

According to the article in Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T), the answer is "YES".

A tax on CO2 emissions as low as $35 per metric ton (t) would lead to a 10% reduction in CO2 from facilities located in the Northeast and Midwest, whereas the same price would result in reductions one-third as large in Texas.

The study indicated that a carbon tax would indeed lower consumer demand for electricity, implying that consumers would begin to invest in more energy efficient appliances and reduce energy use. Other studies suggested that a carbon tax would effectively lead energy companies to invest in low-carbon technologies.

A couple blogs ago, we were debating the idea of a gas tax vs. a carbon tax vs. a cap and trade system. You may recall that the political feasibility of a carbon tax was questioned. Co-author of this study, Granger Morgan, agrees that the introduction of carbon tax is not likely. "I don't think anybody would actually instantaneously switch on a high carbon price. It will probably be phased in or done through a cap-and-trade system, and that is how it should be," he asserts.

Recall that Sharlissa recommended this article describing the different implications of a carbon tax and cap and trade system. The author advocates a cap and trade system but warns about the danger of creating a secondary carbon market in which carbon traders have a stake in not completely eliminating carbon emissions.

Do you agree that America's first step to addressing climate change should be a cap and trade system? Under a cap and trade system, do you think a secondary carbon market could be avoided, or do you think the US would fall prey to the same problems seen in Europe?

Why we need an increase in the Gas Tax

Two words - Gas Tax - are probably the worst words that a politician could ever utter, especially now. It would probably mark the beginning of the end for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain. But why are we so averse to a Gas Tax?

A recent proposal in Virginia was just defeated. It "would have raised the state's gas tax of 17.5 cents a gallon, last raised in 1986, by a penny a year for the next five years. The Senate approved the plan, which would have raised $260 million annually when fully phased in."

Another reason that the gas tax was voted against was because the "federal government could be getting ready to raise the federal gas tax". I highly doubt that the feds are going to raise the gas tax as most Americans don't like the idea of paying even more for gas (however, considering that Congress' approval ratings are at 22%, they might as well take a shot - it can't get too much lower than that). Plus, the gov't massively subsidizes oil and that isn't going to stop until we actually run out of oil.

I like to look across the ocean at England, actually all of Europe for example. They have tiny cars, in large part because gas is so expensive there. It really is impossible to drive an SUV unless you have lots of money. I for one think a higher gas tax would be great. Granted, I don't have a lot of money, but this proposal would've raised gas by a penny per year. I can afford that. Plus, maybe it'll push more people to walk to work, or bike, or take mass transit.

When is America going to realize that we need to curb our dependence on oil? Or, do we already know it and just not realize the sacrifices we need to make? Do we have to make gas so expensive that we're forced to curb the dependence?

It's Official: We have ONE Earth and ONE big problem

"...the world does not face separate crises - the "environmental crisis", "development crisis", and "energy crisis" are all one"

This statement was quoted in Thursday's press release for the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)'s latest Global Environment Outlook, or GEO4.

As you may know, OT has been researching the latest, most respected international reports to get an idea of what our future holds - what type of world we are set to inherit from our parents. The GEO4 report is the most comprehensive study available, and it does an excellent job of highlighting our biggest global challenges and showing how challenges in each sector are related.

While we (humanity) have successfully addressed many global issues such as ozone layer depletion, protection of many natural areas, and regional health improvements, many greater challenges threaten to undo to the progress we have achieved. The study reveals that current trends in most major areas (climate change, consumption levels, food production, water demand, biodiversity, etc.) are highly unfavorable. If current trends continue, we will likely face many large-scale, interrelated disasters.

As the report emphasizes, major problems are highly interrelated so it's important to focus on holistic solutions that address the bigger problem. For example, it is short-sighted to try to eradicate poverty (improve economic growth) through the continued use of fossil-powered energy. Gasoline cars and coal-fired power plants would greatly improve the standard of living for many people in the world - for a short period of time. However, the compounded impacts of increased pollution, rising fossil energy prices and climate change would likely counteract the previous efforts to combat poverty. In fact, climate change (caused by increase in use of fossil fuels) is projected to lead to water shortages, land changes, floods, and other consequences that will be disastrous for the world's poorest people because they lack the capital to adapt to these changes. (Recall the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the poor populations along the Gulf Coast and the tsunami's impact on the poor populations around Indonesia.)

Instead, true poverty eradication will come from holistic solutions that emphasize building economic growth on education, clean energies, high efficiency, environmental protection, and emergency preparedness. In fact, global shifts towards these holistic solutions are necessary, not just for poverty eradication, but for prevention of major disasters in the upcoming century. Humanity has faced many great disasters such as major world wars, plagues, food shortages, and the fall of many civilizations. But these events have primarily led to regional disasters. With our growing population and global interdependence, we are now more vulnerable than ever to global disasters - wars involving WMDs, global epidemics, global food shortages, and the fall of our global civilization.

Luckily, we have global communications and improved global diplomacy that will help us utilize and develop the many tools we need to address the challenges we face. But everyone must immediately focus on holistic, sustainable solutions in our pursuits of economic growth and well-being. As stated in the GEO4 report,
"while governments are expected to take the lead, other stakeholders are just as important to ensure success in achieving sustainable development. The need couldn't be more urgent and the time couldn't be more opportune, with our enhanced understanding of the challenges we face, to act now to safeguard our own survival and that of future generations"

How can you personally take real steps towards addressing these challenges? How can our government and social institutions take real steps toward addressing these challenges?

Oils That Don't Pollute

The pesticide industry is the biggest scapegoat (and rightly so) for many of the toxins that are accumulating in our environment and in our bodies. Before the Stockholm Convention banned them, most pesticides and many chemicals used in pesticide production were persistent organic pollutants (POPs) or persistent bioaccumulative chemicals (PBTs). Substances are considered persistent toxins if they don't degrade naturally and/or our bodies cannot process them; thus, they persist and accumulate in the environment and in our bodies. As they build up in living tissues, they can reach toxic levels.

While POPs and PBCs are regulated in industries in developed countries, they are still produced in some developing countries. And though modern pesticides may not be produced from the most dangerous POPs and PBCs, they are still produced from toxic substances, and their production often involves other toxic substances.

The pesticide companies may have convinced you that their chemical is the only effective way to manage pests. But, a scientist at Vanderbilt University may have evidence to the contrary. In this press release, the scientists describes that he realized the insect-repellent powers of essential oils and set out to understand the molecular mechanisms that made them effective. He then used his molecular understanding to create mixtures of oils that provided non-toxic alternatives to pesticides.

Unfortunately, most modern companies seem more concerned with perpetuating their best-seling products rather than phasing out harmful products and investing in new alternatives. (The movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" is a perfect example of this behavior.)
Usually a company's budget includes funding to deal with problems created by their products, rather than funding for research, development, and transition to safer/better alternatives.

As noted in "Who Killed the Electric Car", the consumer is, in part, to blame. Unless we show concern and demand safer products, companies will not produce them. Businesses exist to make money, and as long as we give our money to the businesses that don't look out for our best interests, they will thrive, beating out smaller, socially responsible businesses. So do your homework - be an informed consumer. You are what you buy.

Religious leader takes step towards sustainability

The pope (the leader of the Catholic faith), declared a "Save Creation Day". It's great to see religions recognizing that respecting the natural world is actually a fundamental part of their teachings and spirituality. Now if we can connect that idea with respecting each other, then we might be on our way to a healthy and peaceful world...

Culture-Shapers stepping up

In this article, the three culture-shapers: business, government, and education are working together to reconnect our society to its ecological roots. In some areas, new government-funded public schools are being built using the USGBC's LEED certification for green buildings. Because green schools are strongly correlated with improved student attendance and performance, Washington state is enacting a new law to require new government-funded schools to be green. Let's hope it catches on across the country...and world

An offer to clean up Bhopal goes ignored.

Chemical and Engineering News reports (subscription required) on a recent offer to clean up after one of history’s most notorious industrial accidents: an explosion at a Union Carbide pesticide plant, in the capital of India’s then-largest state, killing thousands in one night in 1984. The estimated long term death toll from exposure is 15,000. (Compare this to 9/11 and imagine the anger it has generated.) The article shows children playing on the contaminated site, which has not been cleaned up after 22 years.

Cherokee Investment Partners volunteered last August to clean up the site, leading the fundraising effort as well as investing $1M of their own. The Indian government has dragged its feet on the response. Local activists are furious in their opposition to Cherokee’s offer. Did you read that right?

Yes, because they insist that only Dow Chemical (which acquired Union Carbide) should pay. The activists probably feel that if they get their cleanup, they may lose billions in liability and punitive damages. (To clarify, Union Carbide did settle with the Indian government for about half a billion in 1989. But the settlement did not address liability, so no lawsuits could be filed.)

But their children are still playing on soil contaminated with some of the most toxic chemicals known. The article asks, “if an offer of a free cleanup by one of the world's largest site remediation companies fails to initiate action in Bhopal, what will?”

The significance for OT is that desire and resources are not enough to solve big, persistent problems. Persistent problems are that way because people in control have interests in perpetuating the situation. To solve the global scale problems that face the next few generations, it is not enough to understand the problems and to have the technology and capital: it is also necessary to understand the vested interests and be able to negotiate a solution.

Coming To Terms With Risk: The Food System

By Bill Barney

Chemical and Engineering News this week has an article on the American food safety system. This article was inspired by the E. coli outbreaks from contaminated spinach in August. The fact that it was published the same week as another E. coli outbreak is a coincidence that only highlights the frequency of these problems.

The August outbreak was likely caused by feral pigs picking up E. coli bacteria from a free-range cattle ranch, and wandering into nearby spinach fields, contaminating them. Although new testing programs have reduced E. coli infections from meat, no such testing programs exist for vegetables—often served raw with only a cursory washing. The problem, according to the article, is that our cattle factory-farming system is both increasing the ability of E. coli to survive in cattle, and is creating the huge manure ponds that contribute to contamination of nearby crops.

This article made me think about how our affluent American society views risk, and ask if there is a contradiction that is going to have to be dealt with by coming generations.

We now use our wealth and technology to satisfy an extreme avoidance of risk. But it seems that a focus on personal risk reduction is leading to increases in societal risk (that is, risk for other people). Some examples:

• overzealous pursuit of wealth at the expense of a healthy environment (the E. coli incidents are just one example)
• use of child car seats that require bigger cars (3 seats requires a minivan), leading to more dangerous collisions
• increasing social distance between the rich and poor, because the rich fear exposure to disease or crime (Donald Trump won't even shake your hand)

(N.B. Reducing infant mortality allows smaller families—reducing consumption and emancipates women—so the feedback does not always work against society.)

The sustainability debate often runs up against a question: does sustainability require the politically powerful middle class to accept a lower standard of living? I'll phrase it differently: how will people learn to accept a higher level of personal risk, in order to lower the overall risk to society?

For anyone wh is not on our email list, here are some links to BBC stories of some awesome projects initiated by youth:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/europe/6172468.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6205286.stm