Environment Forum
Global environmental challenges
Muddled up in climate politics
Asher Miller is executive director of think tank Post Carbon Institute. Any opinion expressed here is his own.
For those of us hoping for substantive climate or energy legislation in the near future, Tuesday’s election was a mixed bag at best.
And that’s after having lowered our expectations following Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) decision to pull the plug on advancing the American Power Act back in July.
If Democrats couldn’t muster the votes or political capital with majorities in both houses of Congress, there was little chance following a mid-term election that was sure to weaken their hold.
Tuesday’s bright spot came out of California, where the state’s 2006 landmark climate legislation (CA AB32) was upheld by voters who either didn’t buy the argument made by Proposition 23 proponents that AB32 would hurt the economy or didn’t take well to out-of-state oil companies telling them what to do. Yet even this “victory” is a mixed bag.
Sure, it’s a relief to see Prop 23 defeated and climate hawks Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom elected as Governor and Lieutenant Governor, respectively.
Detroit vs. Silicon Valley as green auto hub
There’s a debate touring its way around the blogosphere these days: should the new green auto industry be based in Motor City Detroit or shiny, happy Silicon Valley?
The Valley in southern San Fransisco Bay area is already a hub for electronics expertise – certainly a cornerstone in the pursuit for innovative design and engineering. The world’s largest high-tech companies, including Apple, Google, Facebook, and Intel are headquartered there.
The culture of the region, a recent NPR series pointed out, is “where people are used to taking a chip, a cell or an idea and working on it until it becomes something big.”
But is that enough to build a manufacturing industry?
GreenCarReports.com says no way, and for three reasons. Car companies need money and lots of time to mature to a point where they make any money, not exactly the model for the quick-turn success Silicon Valley hosts by the bucketfull. Secondly, programmers, coders and microelectronics experts may rule the tech industry, but electric cars require a whole different specialized skill set – automotive mechatronics (combining mechanical and electronic engineering) and high-voltage systems skills. Lastly, the cost of living is high in California and it’s too highly-regulated a place for companies to locate, especially if they manufacture physical goods.
Tesla may be there, but one yet-to-turn-a-profit automaker does not an industry make. (Incidentally they chose California because of a sales tax exemption on the purchase of manufacturing equipment and grants for training staff. )
The Green Gauge: Kimberly-Clark, NCR face pollution charges
Leading this week’s Green Gauge, a breakdown of companies in the news for behavior affecting the environment, are Kimberly-Clark and NCR who are being sued along with seven others for PCB pollution dating back more than 50 years.
Selections of headlines about publicly-traded companies were made by Christopher Greenwald, director of data content at ASSET4, a Thomson Reuters business that provides investment research on the environmental, social and governance performance of major global corporations. These ratings are not recommendations to buy or sell.
Kimberly-Clark Corp. and NCR Corp.
The long-lasting risks of environmental pollution were revealed recently, as the U.S. Department of Justice filed a major law suit against Kimberly-Clark, NCR, and nine other companies to pay for continued clean-up and environmental restoration work relating to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) pollution in Wisconsin’s Fox River and Green Bay from the mid-1950s to the early 1970s. Although $300 million has already been paid for clean-up efforts at the site, the Department of Justice claims that $550 million of additional clean-up and $400 million of natural resource restoration work is still required. The lawsuit claims that the companies originally responsible for the pollution have resisted taking full financial responsibility for the clean-up costs as well as the efforts necessary to repair the long-term damage to natural resources that resulted from the pollution.
The Green Gauge: Vedanta, Sterlite ordered to shut smelter
This month, Vedanta Resources and subsidiary Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. made headlines for posing a public health risk to the surrounding community in southern India with pollution from a large copper smelter. They share the top spot in this issue of The Green Gauge, a breakdown of companies recently in the news for winning or losing credibility based on environment-related activity.
Selections of companies were made by Christopher Greenwald, director of data content at ASSET4, a Thomson Reuters business that provides investment research on the environmental, social and governance performance of major global corporations. These ratings are not recommendations to buy or sell.
Vedanta Resources, Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vedanta Resources faces a new environmental setback in India after a Madras High Court ordered the closure of a large copper smelter at Tuticorin belonging to Vedanta’s Indian subsidiary, Sterlite Industries. Claiming that “the right to have a living atmosphere congenial to human existence is part of the right to life,” the Madras court argued that toxic emissions from the copper smelter, the 9th largest in the world, posed a public health risk to the surrounding community. The Indian Supreme Court granted permission for the facility to continue to operate while Vedanta appeals the verdict.
Murphy Oil Corp. Murphy Oil recently reached a settlement with the U.S. Justice Department as a result of violations of the Clean Air Act at its refineries in Meraux, Louisiana and Superior, Wisconsin. The settlement, which resulted from high emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and benzene at the facilities, requires Murphy to pay $1.25 million in a civil penalty, $1.5 million for a supplemental environmental project as well as to spend $142 million for upgraded pollution control equipment at the facilities. The total settlement amount of $144.75 million represents 16 percent of the company’s FY 2010 net profit.
Target Corp. A California judge has ordered Target to stop disposing of defective goods that should qualify as hazardous waste following a lawsuit filed by several cities and the state of California that could eventually result in significant fines against the company. The lawsuit contends that Target has routinely disposed of items such as pesticides, bleach, and electronics improperly throughout the state, including 5,000 pounds of unsalable hazardous waste that was sent to a local food bank in Los Angeles. Target denies the charges and claims that it has a comprehensive program to ensure that its waste disposal is compliant with California state laws.
Enbridge In the wake of a series of environmental problems in its pipeline system in the mid-West including a damaging spill in the Kalamazoo River in July, the Wisconsin Attorney General also announced that the company faces $1 million in fines due to violations of state air pollution laws. The violations, which date as far back as 2001, include failures to maintain proper seals on gaskets and storage tanks at the company’s Superior terminal.
True or false? Online shopping greener than the mall
Unless you’re in the habit of purchasing bulk orders when you shop online, you can ditch the notion you are helping the environment by skipping a trip to the mall, a recent study has found.
New research by The Institution of Engineering and Technology at Newcastle University in Britain shows online shoppers must order more than 25 items to have any less impact on the environment than traditional shopping due to resources required for shipping and handling.
The study looked at “rebound” effects — or unintended side-effects of policies designed to reduce carbon emissions — of activities that are commonly thought to be green.
Working from home is another commonly mistaken “green” activity, the study said. This practice actually increases home energy use by as much as 30 per cent, and can lead to people moving further from the workplace, stretching urban sprawl and automobile use which increases pollution, the study said.
“Policy makers must do their homework to ensure that rebound effects do not negate the positive benefits of their policy initiatives and simply move carbon emissions from one sector to another,” said Professor Phil Blythe, Chair of the IET Transport Policy Panel and Professor of Intelligent Transport Systems at Newcastle University that produced the report.
While the study focused on transportation issues in the UK, bringing the study to the U.S. could be beneficial for local policy planning, green technology website Green.blorge notes. ” What works in New York City or Boston won’t work for New Orleans or Jackson, Mississippi,” the website says.
While the concept of a rebound effect is important and should be illustrated, the two specifics cited in this article seem to differ substantially in this way:
While I can’t really know about the environmental impacts of shipping a package from an online merchant to my home, I have a lot of say in how much my personal energy usage increases or decreases due to working from home.
The implied assumption that people who work at home live in sprawl-land and not in a fairly dense urban area may not be true. In fact, working from home is more convenient if one lives near coffee shops, business customers, libraries, and other places to either conduct business or get out of the house while still being productive. Taking a short walk in a real community also is beneficial to a home worker.
These features typically occurs not in sprawling subdivisions but in more urban parts of a region.
Secondly, energy usage may increase at home but driving may decrease, and there is also a lower energy consumption at some workplace. I’ve yet to see a workplace where people are as careful about turning out the lights and generally stretching the organization’s money as they are at home.
Thirdly, what if there is more than one home worker in a household? That’s not unusual these days. The marginal energy cost of the second worker may be negligible.
But my point is that the work at home situation all depends on the particular circumstances, and they are circumstances an individual can judge. So perhaps it’s less productive to research working at home than on-line shopping.
Solar-powered Jets
The New York Jets have reached for the brightest star of all – the sun.
On Tuesday, the NFL team announced completion of the largest solar power system in the National Football League at its headquarters in Florham Park, New Jersey.
The system, made by Yingli Green Energy, is the latest in a series of attempts made by the Chinese solar company to stand out in an increasingly crowded solar space.
Earlier this year, Yingli jostled for space with some of the biggest brands in the world, including McDonald’s, Coca Cola, Budweiser and Emirates during the most anticipated sporting event of the year — the soccer World Cup.
Yingli’s system, powered by over 3000 panels, will reduce emissions by 540 metric tons each year, equal to taking over 100 cars off the road.
For a relatively unknown solar company, these moves should help build a brand name and strike a chord with consumers. And the association with such high-profile sporting events could give solar technology a boost as well.
The Jets are to be congratulated on this green move, one I hope serves as both an inspiration and model for other sports teams, including at the non-professional level.
As for the headline writer for this blog, I give a big FAIL. I clicked on the link thinking there must have been some tremendous breakthrough in generating solar power that would enable a jet — as in an airplane, not a football player — able to perform using solar power. And I suspect that may well have been the motive. In my book, that’s on the same level as false advertising and snake-oil salesman tricks.
PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!
The future of carbon reporting
– Liz Logan is a partner in PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Sustainability and Climate Change practice and leads the company’s efforts as adviser to the Carbon Disclosure Project. Doug Kangos is a PwC partner who focuses on assisting companies respond to demands of greenhouse gas emissions and sustainability reporting. Any views expressed here are their own. –
Carbon reporting by U.S.-based companies today has broad similarities to financial reporting before the enactment of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Just as market forces and regulation evolved then, so too now are we seeing a similar trend.
We expect that within this decade, more companies will regard carbon as significant and will develop and implement increasingly sophisticated and accurate programs to track, manage and report emissions data. And to the extent that carbon emissions are monetized through, for example, a cap-and-trade system, they will become subject to conventional accounting and reporting, with their demands for high levels of accuracy, reliability and timeliness.
Reporting demands can come from many sources. Procter & Gamble, for example, recently joined Wal-Mart Stores and others in initiating a sustainability scorecard program for its suppliers. While the substance of these programs varies with the nature of each business, the trend is undeniable and serves as a springboard for other manufacturers and retailers to follow.
Based on these early programs, companies should prepare themselves for more data requests in the near term from major customers.
Investors, in particular, are demanding disclosure of companies’ carbon numbers. Investors want to know that the information can be validated in some manner, whether explicitly by third-party assurance or through disclosure of comparable key performance indicators used by management. When necessary, investors will triangulate all the information they can find so as to feel a level of comfort that the numbers seem reasonable.
Building assurances about these measures is a journey that can take companies several years and can consist of a number of stages and starts with assessment and reflection. Doing so enables an organization to gain valuable knowledge about its challenges and opportunities, which can pay off in efficiencies and increased strategic value.
The most significant carbon emitters are not those companies based in the US but their 2nd and higher tier suppliers whom they have no direct leverage.
We will never know the real carbon risk until all stakeholders including the accounting and assurance firms are ready to embrace transparency of their business practices.
Special report: Ten years of oil spills
The Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and subsequent oil leak this summer captured urgent intellectual efforts of leading scientists around the world.
Though it was the largest marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry, it was not the first oil spill nor will it be the last.
To date, scientific studies and published reports on the topic number in the hundreds of thousands. After two months of sorting these reports, Thomson Reuters’ Science Watch is releasing their findings in an extensive Special Topic report with the most influential research on oil spills, from remediation (including dispersants) to bioindicators. Citation data from January 2000 to June 2010 was approached from various angles, and trends and anomalies emerge handily.
Science Watch also launched an interactive map that snapshots key research at over 10 global spill sites, including photos. Another section published graphs that detail key findings of scientific reviews.
Longterm effects of BP’s Macondo blowout and spill that sent close to 5 million barrels of crude oil into the Atlantic ocean this summer are yet to be known. Perhaps the hard scientific research of the past can help researchers probe the questions to alleviate any potential damage in the future.
The Green Gauge: Shale developers hit speed bumps
Development of shale gas has attracted myriad fans and enemies in recent months: those who cheer a source of natural gas on the home turf of the U.S. and environmentalists who warn the process to release the gas underground risks contaminating drinking water.
This month, Chesapeake Energy, Denbury Resources and Southwest Energy Co. each made headlines for environmental mishaps, and share the top spot in this issue of The Green Gauge, a breakdown of companies that made headlines Sept. 6 to Sept 19 for winning or losing credibility based on environment-related activity.
Selections of companies were made by Christopher Greenwald, director of data content at ASSET4, a Thomson Reuters business that provides investment research on the environmental, social and governance performance of major global corporations. These ratings are not recommendations to buy or sell.
Chesapeake Energy, Denbury Resources, Southwest Energy Co.
In the wake of the Gulf Oil disaster, environmentalists have become increasingly critical of the process of hydraulic fracturing, which involves blasting water, sand and chemicals into shale rock underground in order to retrieve natural gas. A recent public hearing by the EPA on hydraulic fracturing in Binghamton, New York drew about 200 protesters, and the NGO Riverkeeper published a study in conjunction with the hearings outlining the risks of the technique for water contamination.
Several companies active in hydraulic fracturing for shale gas have faced notable controversies surrounding the impacts of the practice in recent weeks. Chesapeake Energy, a company that hopes to expand its hydraulic fracturing into New York State, was ordered to ensure the safety of its shale wells in Pennsylvania, after the Department of Environmental Protection found methane concentrations in water that could be traced back to several of the company’s sites.
History is replete with mining and oil companies drilling and mining, and when they have finished destroying the environment, they merely say, “Thanks, sorry for the mess.”, and then they leave. As long as they are allowed to walk away from their mistakes, and leave the rest of us to live with polluted water, air, land, etc., this will not end.
Jay Leno’s garage: a lot of EVs
The fact that comedian Jay Leno has a serious collection of cars in his 17,000 square-foot-garage in southern California may not surprise fans, but his soft spot for electric and hybrid vehicles most likely will turn a few heads.
In this exclusive interview with GigaOM‘s Green Overdrive crew, the host of “The Tonight Show” opens the door to his solar-powered home for dozens and dozens of cars for an animated tour of his collection, including three cherished vintage electric models from the 1900s.
