Self Reporting Doesn’t Cut it: Why We Need a National GHG Measurement System
Posted by BC Upham November 20th, 2009 
1 Comment
Say you’re the Mayor of San Francisco. You’re spending million of dollars every year to increase energy efficiency, install solar panels and encourage the use of electric cars — all in an effort to lower your city’s greenhouse gas emissions, in line with (hypothetical) newly-enacted Federal greenhouse gas reduction guidelines.
Meanwhile, the (hypothetical) Mayor of Sacramento, who doesn’t believe in global warming, and certainly doesn’t believe in spending a dime to reduce the city’s carbon footprint, has completely ignored the GHG guidelines, and then lied about it on self-reported greenhouse gas inventories required by the Feds.
Both cities benefit from reduced emissions, but only one is spending the money to do so. How fair is that?
Not very. Which is why Congress is currently considering a National Greenhouse Gas Observation and Analysis System. The system would consist of a network of hundreds of greenhouse gas monitors that could analyze GHG concentrations on the regional, state, and even local level.
Can A Company That Makes Roundup Be Sustainable?
Posted by Gina-Marie Cheeseman November 20th, 2009 4 Comments
While waiting for the PBS show, the NewsHour, to begin, I saw a Monsanto advertisement which said, “Monsanto…producing more, conversing more…that’s sustainable agriculture.” On Monsanto’s website the company states its commitment to “help farmers produce more and conserve more” by 2030. One of the ways Monsanto will achieve its goal is through “developing improved seeds.”
In 1996, Monsanto, the world’s largest agrochemical company, introduced Roundup Ready Soybeans, which included “in-seed tolerance to Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides.” Roundup Ready seeds are the “most common herbicides used with cultivated GMOs.” Roundup itself is one of the most common herbicides. Roundup Ready seeds ensure that glyphosate, the chemical name for Roundup, will be used on crops.
Campaign against Sustainable Forestry Initiative Escalates
Posted by Audrey November 19th, 2009 4 Comments
ForestEthics versus SFI. The green industry is overwhelmed by trustmarks and certification organizatons. As a result, consumers don’t know whom to believe anymore. As it turns out SFI (Sustainable Forestry Initiative) is funded and managed primarily by large logging companies, whereas ForestEthics is an environmental nonprofit dedicated to protecting endangered forests. (And then there’s the Forest Stewardship Council – FSC – just to make things even more complicated, as highlighted in this NY Times article.)
Both ForestEthics and the Sierra club have filed complaints against SFI at both the Federal Trade Commission and the Internal Revenue Service. The organizations accused the certification program of lax standards and deceptive marketing intended to obscure responsible foresting standards. But this ongoing war came to a head at last week’s Greenbuild conference.
Organized Crime Mixed Up in Environmental Initiatives — Again
Posted by BC Upham November 18th, 2009 0 Comments
As goes the financial markets, so go the renewable energy markets. If there’s an opportunity to make a buck, or in this case, a euro, by ripping people off, rest assured, someone will do it.
In the latest case, two Italian businessmen are accused of involvement in a scheme to collect public subsidies for wind power by building sham wind farms. A two year investigation, dubbed “Gone With the Wind” by Italian anti-fraud police, culminated Tuesday with the arrest of Oreste Vigorito, head of the IVPC energy company and president of Italy’s National Association of Wind Energy, and Vito Nicastri, a Sicilian business associate on allegations of defrauding the government of millions in subsidies, according to the Financial Times.
Anti-mafia investigators in Sicily, where some of the wind farms are located, have launched a parallel investigation.
Business Not As Usual: Twitter Commentary On Corporate Succession Planning
Posted by John Laumer November 15th, 2009 0 Comments
- When corporate executive change gossip spills outside the pages of financial pages of record and onto thousands of cell phones, something big and new is going on. Wouldn’t you know, the first big example has something to do with maintaining a company’s green image. See Vattenfall Wakes Up to VattenFAIL Reputation: Did Twitter Help Topple CEO? for discussion. Business significance: U2/C3
Johnson & Johnson’s Sustainability Strategy Includes Avoiding Greenwashing
Posted by Nayelli Gonzalez November 14th, 2009 0 Comments
When you hear the name Johnson & Johnson, you might think about baby oil, baby powder and band-aids–and not necessarily think of them as leaders in sustainability. At a speaker panel at the Net Impact Conference on Friday, several J&J company leaders spoke to how the company’s Credo is the backbone of its sustainability strategy and how they have avoided greenwashing as they implement their “Healthy Planet 2010 goals.”
During the talk, Al Iannuzzi, Senior Director of J&J’s Worldwide Environmental Health & Safety unit, told a story of his early days as an environmentalist in the 1970s who believed that “corporations are evil.” He resisted working for big corporations until he read J&J’s Credo–which upholds its responsibility to its employees, the environment and communities–and found an interesting job within the company. He’s been with J&J now for nearly 30 years and wants everyone to know how J&J is using business for good.
7-Eleven Wrapping Nature’s Naturally Wrapped Fruit
Posted by Audrey November 11th, 2009 3 Comments
There are so many great things about bananas. In addition to being an important source of fiber, vitamin C, and potassium, they’re naturally wrapped, so companies that sell them don’t have to worry about packaging. That is, unless that company is 7-Eleven.
Last month, 7-Eleven tested a new plastic wrap to keep single bananas yellow and firm for five days (more than double the two-day shelf life for unwrapped bananas), according to an article from ABC news. This is no small matter, as the chain will sell more than 27 million bananas this year.
That means 27 million individual plastic wrappers that are entirely unnecessary. But the question is, who is the culprit here?
California Group Blames Immigrants for Climate Change
Posted by BC Upham November 10th, 2009 13 Comments
A California anti-immigration group has created a multimedia ad campaign blaming immigrants for climate change and environmental degradation in California. Californians for Population Stabilization, or CAP, argues that immigrants, legal and illegal, increase their carbon footprint four-fold when they move to the US and “Americanize” their consumption habits, thus exacerbating climate problems.
Listen to the radio ad here.
According to CAP President Diane Hull, “Californians [have] made significant progress in energy conservation over the last couple of decades. However, the progress has been mitigated by massive population growth over the same period, driven by immigration and births to immigrants.” Hull continues:
Homemade Harvey: “This Package Is Landfill Friendly”
Posted by Nick Aster November 7th, 2009 1 Comment
Opportunity Green’s been brimming with great speakers and quality products to talk about. But occasionally there’s a lemon. I was puzzled to see what looked like flattened toothpaste tubes in a bucket of ice on the patio today. They turned out to be a crushed fruit product called “Homemade Harvey” – an all organic fruit paste that squeezes out of a pouch.
Now, there’s nothing un-green about selling fresh crushed fruit. In fact, the product is probably good for you if you can stomach the aesthetic of squirting goo into your mouth. But Harvey’s stated claim of “100% Crushed Fruit, 0% Bad Stuff” overlooks a rather obvious element of the big picture: Non-recyclable, heavy and probably unnecessary packaging. What really cracks me up is the claim on the bottom of the pouch, and I quote, “This Package is Landfill Friendly“. Uh huh. And so is the chair I’m sitting in. At least we can’t accuse them of greenwashing….
Ohio Utility Ships Customers Energy-Efficient Bulbs, Plus a Huge Bill
Posted by BC Upham October 26th, 2009 9 Comments
Call it greening run amok. Or, more likely, poor planning combined with petty penny pinching by a large corporation. FirstEnergy, an Ohio utility, sent two $3.50 energy-saving compact florescent light-bulbs (CFLs) to customers, and then charged them $21 for the bulbs — whether they wanted them or not.
According to news reports, the remaining $14 was to pay the utility back for the electricity customers would not be using because they had the new bulbs. But if customers don’t use the bulbs, or if they already have their own, they still have to pay the fee.
The scam program, which was set to begin October 12 but has been “postponed,” was FirstEnergy’s response to the state’s new energy law, which requires investor-owned electric utilities to reduce consumption by 22.2 percent by 2025. The bulb distribution was supposed to help FirstEnergy’s customers meet the new requirements.
FirstEnergy, which was a little startled by the outcry, pointed out that customers would save $60 over the life of the bulb. It was unclear if this figure was before or after the $21 fee.
Should Eco-Labels Come from Government or Third Party Private Organizations?
Posted by Scott Cooney October 23rd, 2009 7 Comments
According to Ecolabelling.org, there are more than 300 eco-labels commonly applied to products and services as diverse as building products and cleaning supplies. The website defines an eco-label as, “any consumer facing logo that claims an added environmental or social benefit.” Off the top of my head, I could only come up with about 20, and I work as a sustainability consultant and green business writer. As a fairly savvy eco-consumer, I would expect to know more about these labels, and to know more of them.
Some of these I know are good, such as the USDA Organic symbol, Energy Star for appliances, LEED for green building, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) for sustainable forest products like wood and paper, and the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) for sustainable fish. Some I know are bad, such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), an industry-backed, greenwashing “eco-label” for wood products that is significantly less rigorous as FSC. But many, like the Green Seal…I simply don’t know enough about them, nor do I, as an industry professional, let alone a green consumer, have the time to learn about them all.
This leads to the inevitable conclusion that there are simply too many eco-labels, which leads to a lot of consumer confusion.
Cattle Company Forces Change in Michael Pollan University Lecture
Posted by BC Upham October 16th, 2009 1 Comment
Where’s the beef? At Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
After receiving pressure from the owner of an agribusiness — that just happens to be a major donor — the university decided to turn what was to be a guest lecture by noted sustainable agriculture guru Michael Pollan, into a “panel discussion” including a scientist favored by the beef industry, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Bottle Rocket: SIGG Faces Class Action Suit
Posted by Bill DiBenedetto October 13th, 2009 11 Comments
It turns out that even trace amounts of BPA, or bisphenol A, can create a public relations – and public trust – nightmare for a product marketed as an eco-friendly and reusable alternative to single-use plastic water bottles. This is especially true when the manufacturer is caught in a lie about it.
Just ask SIGG Switzerland and its U.S. subsidiary, the maker of hip, colorful reusable water bottles. It has what could turn into a damaging and costly lawsuit on its hands as a result of what was at the very least is a gross misrepresentation and marketing blunder.
BPA is a manufactured chemical compound that is commonly used in the production of plastics and epoxy resins. It mimics the estrogen hormone and is considered a possible health risk. When concerns about BPA and SIGG products were raised several years ago CEO Steve Wasik said testing showed “no presence of lead, phthalates, Bysphenol A (BPA), Bysphenol B (BPB) or any other chemicals which scientists have deemed as potentially harmful” in SIGG aluminum bottles.
Mercedes-Benz, Greenwashing, and the Boy that Cried Wolf
Posted by Sarah Harper October 2nd, 2009 1 Comment
Mercedes-Benz was recently busted for greenwashing of sorts: advertising the carbon emissions data of its new E-class saloon series in misleading terms. As punishment, Mercedes is not allowed to show the misleading advertisement in its current form. The incident is more than unfortunate, I believe, since its implications for green business could be manifold – ranging from delays in the greening of the auto industry to a sort of “boy that cried wolf” effect among consumers. The episode also has me wondering: do we take greenwashing seriously enough?
According to a report by businessgreen.com, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), a UK-based advertising watchdog, busted Mercedes for advertising the E-class series’ CO2 emissions as being 139 g/km. In reality, the series’ emissions depend on a number of factors, including whether the car has a manual or automatic gearbox, and whether it runs on diesel fuel. Even when a consumer chooses the most fuel-efficient of these options, only two of the 24 available specifications boast 139 g/km.
Sponsors
Where We’re Going
Nov 19, 09
San Jose: The Tech Awards
Dec 2, 09
Bard CEP National Climate Seminar: Hon. Ed Markey Sponsor event
Dec 16, 09
Bard CEP National Climate Seminar: Eban Goodstein, Live from Copenhagen Sponsor event
Partners
Recent Comments