The GREEN MARKET ORACLE

Climate Change Pushed Off the G8 Agenda in June 2013

2013-06-19T13:04:00.002-04:00

The crisis in Syria has pushed climate change off the G8 agenda. Although world leaders at the G8 summit in Lough Erne, Ireland were supposed to address climate change at the June meeting, but this was preempted by events in Syria.

The preceding G8 meeting in April delivered a weak communique on climate change that articulated support for the UNFCCC climate talks and indicated that climate risk would be discussed at the Lough Erne meeting in June. Climate change is one of five priorities for the UK’s G8 presidency.

In March France and Germany indicated that they wanted climate change to be a priority issue at the Lough Erne meetings, but this was rejected. Instead world leaders focused on Syria, transparency and tax reform.

French President Hollande, writing in the Huffington Post last week, said: “It is the responsibility of the international community as a whole to ensure the success of the negotiations. The G8 must do its part and give a strong political impetus to curb carbon emissions.”

“The economic community and world leaders need to understand what the World Bank and the OECD are saying, that dealing with climate change is not an environmental issue. It’s about preparing your economy for the future,” the European climate action commissioner Connie Hedegaard told the BBC.

Friends of the Earth’s executive director Andy Atkins said, "G8 policies are not only failing to tackle major international crises like climate change, world hunger and the trashing of our natural resources; they often make them worse...The world’s richest nations must stop pursuing economic growth at any cost and build economies that allow us all to live sustainably and equitably within the planet’s limited resources,”

To make matters worse Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper used the meeting as an opportunity to push for the expansion of the tar sands through his advocacy in support of Keystone XL pipeline.

The news is not all bad as the focus on ending tax evasion and boosting transparency has important implications for sustainable development. Further, the fact that G8 leaders managed to defy expectations and secure unanimous agreement on Syria, offers a glimmer of hope that they will also be able to build a consensus on climate change this fall.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

The G8 Climate Change Roundtable: Principles, Policy and Participating Companies

2013-06-19T08:00:00.000-04:00

The G8 Climate Change Roundtable was formed in January 2005 at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Its purpose was to address the global climate change issue facing governments, business and civil society. The first meeting was held in Gleneagles, Scotland, from 6–8 July 2005, to coincide with the 31st G8 summit.

The roundtable was established by twenty-three leading international businesses with the assistance of G8 President and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, to co-operatively engage in a global plan of action. The aim of the group was to ensure that a long-term policy framework was set up to enable consistent and transparent market-based solutions in mitigating climate change, while also addressing issues linked to climate change; such as economic growth, poverty, and adequate energy supplies. Carbon trading is one of the most popular pricing mechanisms used to the reduce greenhouse emissions worldwide.

The group devised a Framework for Action which called for technology incentive programs, the establishment of common metrics, for example in energy efficiency, and the expansion of emissions trading schemes.

Some of the companies participating include Ford, British Airways, HSBC, EdF and BP.Now, the Climate Change Roundtable has a membership of 150 businesses spread across the globe.

Environmentalists raised concerns that the body's statement does not call for targets or include timetables. Friends of the Earth noted that the roundtable represented a major shift by the business community towards efforts to mitigate climate change.

Key Principles

The G8 Climate Change Roundtable stated 5 key points to be addressed:

Companies must recognize their responsibility in addressing climate change.
The issue of climate change requires further international attention and support.
Market forces must be considered in the crafting of a solution, consumer support is needed to solve the problem.
Specific policies for the mitigation of climate change.
Specific policies which should be adopted by G8 members.

Key Principles for Business

The G8 Climate Change Roundtable developed 5 key principles for businesses to consider when crafting a climate change mitigation strategy. These principles are:

Strategies should be based on scientific and economic facts.
Businesses should adopt market based policy frameworks which are transparent and offer consistent price signals in the long-term.
Solutions should be adopted globally in order to achieve long term success.
Climate change solutions should be considered separately from other global challenges, such as ensuring access to energy, expanding availability of clean water, alleviating poverty, and achieving economic growth in emerging markets.
Businesses should seek a system wide solution, identifying opportunities for CO2 mitigation throughout the supply chain.

Key Principles for Governments

The G8 Climate Change Roundtable developed 3 key principles for governments to consider when addressing climate change. These principles are:

Focus their resources on measuring the effects of climate change on human, economic and environmental health.
Increase their understanding of current and future changes taking place within the global environment. (e.g. sea level rise, sea/ice cover).
Quickly and effectively adopt climate stabilization policies with the goal of mitigating future environmental harm.

Policy Framework

The G8 Climate Change Roundtable aimed to create a long-term policy framework which was both transparent and consistent. Through market based solutions such as carbon trading, the Roundtable established a policy framework which now encompasses 150 businesses across the globe.

By creating long term value, these members established a market based framework extending to 2030 and indicative signals extending to 2050. This policy framework they hoped would take on a global scale, with consistent policies throughout the various states. The framework was meant to not only mitigate climate change but also promote sustainable development by addressing issues of poverty, energy and economic growth in emerging markets.

The Roundtable recommended encouraging technological innovation through performance based incentives. By quickly commercializing low carbon technologies they aimed to mitigate climate change quickly. They noted that by ensuring that climate change mitigation goals aligned with societal goals, governments would be able to optimize greenhouse gas reductions. By ensuring that emerging markets, such as China, India, Brazil, South African and Mexico, invest in low carbon economic growth, new technologies can be applied globally while streamlining emerging markets. New investments should align with societal goals, creating partnerships between G8 nations as well as emerging nations. Through such a partnership, members can effectively collaborate on specific projects within countries or rapid dissemination of specific technologies.

Members of the new policy framework should establish common metrics. By streamlining greenhouse emissions reporting processes and systems, countries can achieve this goal. Business and G8 governments should use supply chain drivers and the power of procurement to integrate climate change solutions into their global supply chain requirements. By committing to the use of the Roundtable’s policy framework throughout the supply chain, optimal greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved.

Participating Companies

ABB, Fred Kindle, CEO 
Alcan, Travis Engen, President and CEO 
BP, John Browne, Group Chief Executive 
British Airways, Martin Broughton, Chairman 
BT, Ben Verwaayen, CEO 
Cinergy, James E. Rogers, Chairman, President & CEO 
Cisco Systems, Robert Lloyd, President, Operations, Europe, Middle East, Africa 
Deloitte, John Connolly, CEO, UK and Global Managing Director, Deloitte, Touche Tohmatsu
Deutsche Bank, Tessen von Heydebreck, Member of the Board of Managing Directors
E.ON, Burckhard Bergmann, Member Executive Board of E.ON, CEO of E.ON Ruhrgas
EADS, François Auque, Head of Space Division 
EdF, Pierre Gadonneix, Chairman and CEO
  Eskom, Reuel J. Khoza, Non-Executive Chairman 
Ford, William Clay Ford, Chairman and CEO 
HP, Mark Hurd, President and CEO  HSBC, Sir John Bond, Group Chairman 
Petrobras, Jose Eduardo de Barros Dutra, President and CEO 
RAO UESR, Anatoly B. Chubais, CEO 
Rio Tinto, Paul Skinner, Chairman 
Siemens, Klaus Kleinfeld, President and CEO
  Swiss Re, Jacques Aigrain, Deputy CEO 
Toyota, Katsuhiro Nakagawa, Vice Chairman 
Vattenfall, Lars G. Josefsson, President and CEO 
Volkswagen, Bernd Pischetsrieder, Chairman of the Board of Management

Source: Wikipedia

Wind Energy Storage Solution Employing Concrete Spheres

2013-06-18T12:07:00.000-04:00

Offshore wind holds tremendous promise, however the intermittent and unpredictable presence of wind imposes limits on this technology. However a new approach from researchers at MIT may have solved this problem with an approach that stores energy to be used when there is no wind.

This concept employs places huge concrete spheres which would anchor wind turbines to the sea floor. When a wind turbine produces more energy than is needed, power would be diverted to drive a pump attached to the underwater structure, pumping seawater from a 30-meter-diameter hollow sphere. Then when there is no wind the water would flow back into the sphere through a turbine attached to a generator, producing energy.

A 25-meter sphere could store up to 6 megawatt-hours of power. One thousand spheres attached to wind turbines could produce as much coal or nuclear plant.

The system could also operate with shore based renewable sources of electricity like solar plants. Preliminary estimates indicate that one such sphere could be built and deployed at a cost of about $12 million but as the spheres are mass produced costs would come down. This could result in an estimated storage cost of about 6 cents per kilowatt-hour.

A 30-inch-diameter prototype was built in 2011 demonstrated the feasibility of the concept. MIT has filed for a patent on the system.

Due to its carbon emissions profile, one of the major problems associated with the concept is the amount of concrete that would be required. To address this problem the concrete spheres could be made, in part, using large quantities of waste fly ash from existing coal plants

The researchers at MIT estimate that these concrete sphere floating wind turbines could create enough capacity to supply one-third of U.S. electricity needs.

Click here to see a full report on the concept published in IEEE Transactions and co-authored by Alexander Slocum, the Pappalardo Professor of Mechanical Engineering at MIT; Brian Hodder, a researcher at the MIT Energy Initiative; and three MIT alumni and a former high school student who worked on the project.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Harnessing Wind Energy Without Blades
Top Ten Wind Power States in the US in 2012
Wind and Renewable Energy in Europe: Problems and Solutions
US Wind Energy Doubles and Eclipses Natural Gas in 2012
Record Year for US Wind Power in 2012
Obama Administration's Wind Energy Leases
10 Leading Wind Energy Countries
Six Markets for Global Wind Power
Fiscal Cliff Deal Extends PTC and ITC for US Wind Energy
Cleantechnica: Top 10 Wind Power Stories of 2012
EWEA's Offshore Wind Statistics
China and the Growth of Global Wind Power
UK Wind Energy
New Wind Energy Venture in Texas
AES Wins Wind Project of the Year
Wind Technology and Investment
US Wind Energy Market Review and Forecasts (2012)

wind, renewables, renewable energy, power, electricity, solving, solutions, new, novel, innovative, research, battery, storage, capacity,

Top Ten Wind Power States in the US (2012)

2013-06-18T08:03:00.000-04:00

Led by states like Texas, California, Kansas, and Oklahoma, wind power saw prodigious growth in the United States last year. In 2012 US wind power grew significantly with 13,124 megawatts (MW) of installed capacity. By the end of the year the country had more than 60,000 MW (60 gigawatts) of cumulative wind capacity.

Here are the top ten leading states for US wind power in 2012:

1. Texas (1,826 MW)
2. California (1,656 MW)
3. Kansas (1,440 MW)
4. Oklahoma (1,127 MW)
5. Illinois (823 MW)
6. Iowa (814 MW)
7. Oregon (640 MW)
8. Michigan (611 MW)
9. Pennsylvania (550 MW)
10. Colorado (496 MW)

For more information click here.

Related Articles
US Wind Energy Doubles and Eclipses Natural Gas in 2012
Record Year for US Wind Power in 2012
Obama Administration's Wind Energy Leases
10 Leading Wind Energy Countries
Six Markets for Global Wind Power
Fiscal Cliff Deal Extends PTC and ITC for US Wind Energy
Cleantechnica: Top 10 Wind Power Stories of 2012
EWEA's Offshore Wind Statistics
China and the Growth of Global Wind Power
UK Wind Energy
New Wind Energy Venture in Texas
AES Wins Wind Project of the Year
Wind Technology and Investment
US Wind Energy Market Review and Forecasts (2012)

Harnessing Wind Energy Without Blades

2013-06-17T13:42:00.000-04:00

Wind turbines are a large and growing source of energy but the turning blades have led to concerns about sound and impacts on bird populations. People have also complained that such wind turbines are an eye-sore. A new structure designed by Dutch architecture firm Mecanoo and installed at the Delft University of Technology convert wind to energy without any moving parts.

The new technological innovation was developed by the Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science faculty at Delft. It uses the movement of electrically charged water droplets to generate power.

The prototype of the EWICON (Electrostatic Wind Energy Converter) is not impacted by traditional wear and tear that limit the life of traditional blade based turbines. As such it requires very little maintenance. Further it makes no noise and casts no shadows.

The new bladeless technology has already been incorporated into the design of a project in Rotterdam.

Related Articles
US Wind Energy Doubles and Eclipses Natural Gas in 2012
Record Year for US Wind Power in 2012
Obama Administration's Wind Energy Leases
10 Leading Wind Energy Countries
Six Markets for Global Wind Power
Fiscal Cliff Deal Extends PTC and ITC for US Wind Energy
Cleantechnica: Top 10 Wind Power Stories of 2012
EWEA's Offshore Wind Statistics
China and the Growth of Global Wind Power
UK Wind Energy
New Wind Energy Venture in Texas
AES Wins Wind Project of the Year
Wind Technology and Investment
US Wind Energy Market Review and Forecasts (2012)

Wind and Renewable Energy in Europe: Problems and Solutions

2013-06-17T09:00:00.000-04:00

Each year wind energy contributes more than €27 billion to the European economy, it also provides jobs for more than 280,000 people across the continent. While this might seem like a lot, it accounts for only a fraction of European energy requirements.

Every day the EU spends almost a billion Euros on oil imports. This is because the continet has no internal supplies of oil and consequently it must important more than half of its domestic energy requirements.

Increasing energy independence is good for the European economy and, to the extent that new sources of energy are renewable, good for the environment.

To wean the continent off of fossil fuels, the cost of pollution must be factored and subsidies should be terminated.

In the last five years the Climate and Energy Package has secured a sustained expansion of renewable energy whch has supported the growth of renewables and job creation.

Despite these bright spots, the carbon credit program is in serious disarray and a number of governments are abandoning support for renewables. This is putting the continent's 2020 goals in doubt.

Investors have taken note and in 2012, investments in renewable energy fell by 51 percent in Italy and by around 68 percent in Spain.

Europe urgently needs to remove barriers and establish new policy initiatives in particular readjustments to the carbon credit market.

To achieve ambitious emission reduction targets and reach bold renewable energy targets Europe needs a new framework for its climate and energy policy.

Related Articles
US Wind Energy Doubles and Eclipses Natural Gas in 2012
Record Year for US Wind Power in 2012
Obama Administration's Wind Energy Leases
10 Leading Wind Energy Countries
Six Markets for Global Wind Power
Fiscal Cliff Deal Extends PTC and ITC for US Wind Energy
Cleantechnica: Top 10 Wind Power Stories of 2012
EWEA's Offshore Wind Statistics
China and the Growth of Global Wind Power
UK Wind Energy
New Wind Energy Venture in Texas
AES Wins Wind Project of the Year
Wind Technology and Investment
US Wind Energy Market Review and Forecasts (2012)

Event - Offshore Wind Economics & Finance Europe 2013

2013-06-16T16:27:00.000-04:00

Offshore Wind Economics & Finance: Europe 2013 will take place on Wednesday 16 October - Thursday 17 October in London, United Kingdom. ACI’s 2nd Offshore Wind Economics & Finance: Europe will take place on 16-17 October 2013 in London, UK. Bringing together 50-80 of the industry’s leading experts and executives from across the entire value chain (banks, international financing institutions, VC/PE companies, offshore wind farm owners/operators, utility companies, offshore wind farm developers, wind technology suppliers and R&D, government and regulators, lawyers and insurance firms) for two days of interactive discussion, excellent networking opportunities and the very latest updates from project investment activity around Europe, ACI’s 2nd Offshore Wind Economics & Finance: Europe will present you with the knowledge, experience & contacts you need to drive your business forward.

Key Topics

• Investment Activity Update & Forecast
• Investment Risk and Insurance
• National Policy Implementation
• Capital Expenditure Analysis for European Projects
• Operational Expenditure & Cost of Energy
• Private Equity & Venture Capital
• The Impact of Development Bank Financing
• Debt Financing and Offshore Wind
• Project Financing & Economics: Case Study Examples
• Shaping the Future of Offshore Wind Economics: Technology & Strategy

Who Will Attend?

All ACI’s meetings are strictly end-user focussed and attract a target group of senior level decision makers from the industry.

Delegates will be drawn from:

Banks - MDs, heads of wind & power
International financing institutions - Project finance director
VC/PE companies - Financial managers, partners & directors
Offshore wind farm owners/operators - CFO, CEO
Utility companies - Finance manager, offshore department
Offshore wind farm developers - MDs, project & finance managers
Wind technology suppliers and R&D - Sales and product managers
Government and regulators - Renewable energy officers
Lawyers and insurance firms - Risk and investment consultants

Confirmed Speakers

Kevin Magner, Director - Corporate Finance Advisory, Deloitte
Julian Brown, Country Director UK Wind, AREVA UK
Joanna de Montgros, Head of Practice, Manager UK & Ireland, GL Garrand Hassan
Martin Benatar, Managing Consultant, Benatar and Co. Limited
Christopher Willow, Senior Associate, BVG Associates
Marc Fevre, Partner, Baker & McKenzie
David Guíu, Head of Sales Offshore Europe, Gamesa
Michelle T Davies, Head Of Clean Energy And Sustainability, Eversheds LLP
Michiel Engelaar, Project Finance, European Investment Bank
Alejandro Ciruelos, Vice President, Santander Global Banking & Markets
Allan Baker, MD - Global Head Of Power Advisory & Project Finance, Societe Generale
Stefan Kilgus, Partner, Watson, Farley & Williams
Rolant Stanze, President, PNE Wind AG
Clément Weber, Director, Green Giraffe Energy Bankers UK
David Cripps, Senior Technical Manager, Blade Dynamics Ltd
Aaron Smith, Offshore Wind Program, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
Breanne Gellatly, Offshore Wind Accelerator Delivery Manager, The Carbon Trust
Bernard Bulder, Research Coordinator, ECN Wind Energy

For Further Information Contact Dimitri Pavlyk Tel: + 44 (0) 20 3141 0627 / Email: dpavlyk@acieu.net

To register click here.

Related Articles
US Wind Energy Doubles and Eclipses Natural Gas in 2012
Record Year for US Wind Power in 2012
Obama Administration's Wind Energy Leases
10 Leading Wind Energy Countries
Six Markets for Global Wind Power
Fiscal Cliff Deal Extends PTC and ITC for US Wind Energy
Cleantechnica: Top 10 Wind Power Stories of 2012
EWEA's Offshore Wind Statistics
China and the Growth of Global Wind Power
UK Wind Energy
New Wind Energy Venture in Texas
AES Wins Wind Project of the Year
Wind Technology and Investment
US Wind Energy Market Review and Forecasts (2012)

Event - Offshore Consenting Conference 2013

2013-06-16T12:47:00.000-04:00

The second edition of the Offshore Consenting Conference 2013 will take place on 26 June 2013, in London, United Kingdom. This event encourages industry-wide coordination to optimise processes through consenting regimes. As the first Round 3 projects come closer to being consented, it is important to assess and learn from the challenges that have been encountered throughout the process in order to look forward to consenting future offshore wind schemes.

To see the conference agenda for 2013 click here.

Highlights will include:

The latest interpretation of the Habitat Regulations and progress of developments since Defra’s Implementation Review Future-proofing consents – strategies for incorporating R&D unknowns into applications
Approaches for defining cumulative impact constraints and best-practice methods for assessments
An update of on the Planning Inspectorate’s consenting regime one year on and what challenges the first projects through the system have faced

Who should attend?

Developers, Consultants, Lawyers and Stakeholders:
Consents Manager
Environment & Consents Manager/Consultant
Project Developer/Manager
Planning Manager/Engineer
EIA Manager/Consultant
Stakeholder Manager
Round 3 Manager
Regulatory Policy Manager
Partner
Associate
Offshore Renewables Advisor
Marine Advisor

For more information click here.

Related Articles
US Wind Energy Doubles and Eclipses Natural Gas in 2012
Record Year for US Wind Power in 2012
Obama Administration's Wind Energy Leases
10 Leading Wind Energy Countries
Six Markets for Global Wind Power
Fiscal Cliff Deal Extends PTC and ITC for US Wind Energy
Cleantechnica: Top 10 Wind Power Stories of 2012
EWEA's Offshore Wind Statistics
China and the Growth of Global Wind Power
UK Wind Energy
New Wind Energy Venture in Texas
AES Wins Wind Project of the Year
Wind Technology and Investment
US Wind Energy Market Review and Forecasts (2012)

Event - Global Wind Power Finance and Risk

2013-06-16T07:11:00.000-04:00

The 4th annual Global Wind Power Finance & Risk conference and exhibition will take place on 19—20 June 2013, London, United Kingdom. This event is the premier annual wind finance gathering, it brings together c-level representatives from leading utilities, developers, financiers and investors, providing not only outstanding scope for networking with decision-makers, but also targeted and in-depth conference sessions.

Who Attends Global Wind Power finance? Previous attendees have included:

• A word about wind • ABB • ABO Wind • Ackermans & Van Haaren • ADB • Aephoria capital • African Development Bank • Alatec Ingenieros Consultores y Arquitectos • Alstom • Alterra Power Crop • AMSC • ArcLight Energy Marketing • AREVA Energietechnik • Areva Renewables • Argus Media • Augusta & Co • Availon Holding • AWS Truepower • Bank of America Merrill Lynch • Bank ofIreland • Barclays • BBC Chartering • Belwind & InControl • Beten International • BEWAG • Blackrock Lntemational Limited -renewable Power Group • Bloomberg NEF • BNP PARIBAS • Boralex Inc • BTC • California Independent System Operator • Campbell Lutyens & Co • Cape Wind

And many others, for the complete list click here.

The senior speaker line-up includes:

Chris Hunt, Managing Director, Riverstone
Tom Murley, Head of Renewable Energy, HgCapital
Rui Teixeira, Chief Financial Officer, EDP Renewables
David Jones, Managing Director, Allianz Capital Partners
Dima Rifai, Chief Executive Officer, Paradigm Change Capital
Robert Mansley, Managing Director, GIB(Green Investment Bank)
Cord Landsmann, Chief Financial Officer, E.ON C&R
Dominik Thumfart, Managing Director, Infrastructure & Energy Finance, Deutsche Bank
Magnus Goodlad, Head of Renewables, Hermes GPE
Keiji Okagaki, Vice President, Marubeni Europower
Ole Kjems Sørensen, Senior Director - M&A, DONG Energy
Ian Berry, Fund Manager – Infrastructure and Renewable Energy, Aviva Investors

Please click here to see the full 40+ c-level speaker line-up.

The agenda for 2013 includes

Extended, focused offshore wind finance sessions
New sessions on risk and insurance
Latest insights into buying and selling wind power projects
Utility and developer case studies
Unique sessions on new sources of capital beyond bank debt, including leading institutional investor presentations

To register click here

Related Articles
US Wind Energy Doubles and Eclipses Natural Gas in 2012
Record Year for US Wind Power in 2012
Obama Administration's Wind Energy Leases
10 Leading Wind Energy Countries
Six Markets for Global Wind Power
Fiscal Cliff Deal Extends PTC and ITC for US Wind Energy
Cleantechnica: Top 10 Wind Power Stories of 2012
EWEA's Offshore Wind Statistics
China and the Growth of Global Wind Power
UK Wind Energy
New Wind Energy Venture in Texas
AES Wins Wind Project of the Year
Wind Technology and Investment
US Wind Energy Market Review and Forecasts (2012)

Video - Climate Refugees the Documentary

2013-06-15T16:54:00.002-04:00

Trailer for the multi-award winning documentary Climate Refugees. The film was the first to illuminate the human face of climate change. The first non-partisan film on our changing climate. Learn more at www.climaterefugees.com

Related Articles What is Environmental Migration and Who are Climate Refugees
Video - Beyond Environmental Refuge

Video - Beyond Environmental Refuge

2013-06-15T16:43:00.001-04:00

Beyond environmental refugees: How climate change will affect the world's (human) migration patterns -- Scientists and security agencies warn that hundreds of millions will become environmental refugees in coming decades, forced by climate change to flee their homes and communities in the face of food shortages, water scarcity, rising sea levels, and extreme weather events. Events like these can and do cause people to migrate in search of safety, but the impacts of climate change on global migration patterns will felt on much larger scales and for more subtle reasons. The number of people who migrate voluntarily to seek job opportunities or to diversify household income sources will skyrocket as households adapt to the impacts of climate change specific to their home region. For those of us living in the potential destinations of these new migrants, the goal is not to prevent them from coming, but to innovate migration programs and policies that benefit sending and receiving areas alike.

Related Articles
What is Environmental Migration and Who are Climate Refugees
Video - Climate Refugees the Documentary

Video - Van Jones Attacks the Keystone XL Pipeline

2013-06-15T06:24:00.000-04:00

In this video former Obama administration green jobs adviser Van Jones weighs in on the Keystone XL. He makes some powerful statements about what is at stake and debunks some popular lies about the pipeline.

Related Articles Interview with Former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones on his Work and the Climate Movement
Van Jones Succumbs to Republican Pressure

Video - Changing the Narrative to Change the World

2013-06-15T06:16:00.000-04:00

This video from SustainableMan offers an eloquent essay from Charles Eisenstein, author of The Ascent of Humanity and Sacred Economics. Eisenstein proposes that to change our world, we need to change the story: “The greatest illusion of this world is the illusion of separation.” How do we change the world? Change the story. The greatest illusion of this world is the illusion of separation." ~ Once the story our world is built on reflects the reality of interconnection, we will be on a true path towards sustainability. The speaker is Charles Eisenstein (author of 'The Ascent of Humanity' and 'Sacred Economics').

Related Posts
Video - It's all in our heads: The psychology of sustainability
The Symbolism of Easter in an Ecological Context
A New Environmental Movement Breeds Hope for the Future
Crafting a Positive Environmental Narrative
Pessimism is Impeding Environmental Advocacy
Environmental Success Stories: Mercury, SLCPs and Many More
Video - Narratives on Carbon Pollution: Are Individuals to Blame for Carbon Pollution?
Video - Making People Care About Climate Change: The Psychology of Risk Perception
Building Support for Action on Climate Change Before We Reach Tipping Points
A Thanksgiving Infused with Environmental Gratitude
How Morality Can Win the War on Climate Change
An Environmentalist and a Buddhist Monk Discuss Human Behavior
Sacred Economics: Exploring the Myth of Separation (Video)
The Religious Psychology of Green
Green Ethics
Green Ethics and Trade

Corporate Sustainability Leadership in America

2013-06-14T16:33:00.002-04:00

New evidence has emerged indicating that while we are seeing some corporate leadership in America, there is still a lot of work to be done to increase the inculcation of sustainability practices and performances. Widespread corporate action is lacking with only around a quarter of the 600 largest US publicly traded companies showing true sustainability leadership. Specifically corporations are lacking in governance, stakeholder engagement, disclosure and performance,

These are the findings of a Ceres analysis conducted by Sustainalytics titled "The Road to 2020: Corporate Progress on the Ceres Roadmap for Sustainability." The report is subtitled "A Strategic Vision and Practical Framework for Sustainable Corporations in the 21st Century Economy."

The Ceres report singled out Alcoa, Xcel and Intel as leaders and Baxter and Ford earned top marks for stakeholder engagement. However 50 percent of the companies assessed disclose no efforts on stakeholder engagement.

Half of the companies assessed are publishing sustainability reports with just under one third employing the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines. While just under half are making progress on emissions reductions and a third have specific targets for emissions reductions.

As far as supply chains are concerned Nike and Hewlett Packard were identified as among the leaders. A total of 43 percent have a supplier code in place and a quarter of companies assessed disclose supply chain monitoring and performance information.

To see the Ceres report click here.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
The 2013 World's Most Ethical Companies (Ethisphere)
2013 World's Most Admired Companies (Fortune Magazine)
The World's Most Sustainable Companies: The Global 100 (2013)
The Overwhelming Logic of Sustainable Business
Sustainability is an Unstoppable Megatrend

The Most Meaningful Global Brands of 2013: A Study of Consumer Scepticism

2013-06-14T11:51:00.000-04:00

An index produced by the by Havas Media Group measures the benefits brands bring to people’s lives. The Meaningful Brand Index (MBi) is determined by consumer perceptions of improvements to personal and collective well-being. In essence the MBi measures "meaningful connections" between a brand and consumers.

As explained by Havas Media "meaningful connections describes how we connect brands to people and create shared value for brands and communities. It is supported by Meaningful Brands - our unique framework to analyse and track the connections brands have with our quality of life and well-being."

Here are the top 10 leading brands as identified by the MBi

1. Google
2. Samsung
3. Microsoft
4. Nestle
5. Sony
6. Ikea
6. Dove
7. Nike
7. Walmart
8. Danone
9. Philips
10. P&G

The index comprises a total of 700 brands and sampled the views of more than 134,000 consumers in 23 countries. MBi measures a brand’s benefits alongside its affect on 12 different areas of well-being, including health, happiness, financial, relationships and community.

One of the most noteworthy observations of the MBi is that only 20 percent of brands are perceived as making a meaningful difference in people’s lives.

While brand benefits are of value to the consumer, those that offer little benefit are viewed as entirely disposable.

"The long-standing relationship between people and brands is broken. Much of the trust, respect and loyalty people had for many brands has disintegrated."

Those surveyed indicated that they would not care if almost three quarters (73 %) of brands disappeared. In Europe and the US, the survey indicated that they would not care if 92 percent of brands disappeared. In Latin America, that figure drops to 58 percent and in Asia 49 percent.

For more information click here.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Corporate Sustainability Leadership in America
The Most Meaningful Global Brands of 2013
The 2013 World's Most Ethical Companies (Ethisphere)
2013 World's Most Admired Companies (Fortune Magazine)
The World's Most Sustainable Companies: The Global 100 (2013)
The Overwhelming Logic of Sustainable Business
Sustainability is an Unstoppable Megatrend

Sustainability Calling: Its Now or Never

2013-06-14T07:51:00.000-04:00

Sustainability is gaining ground but many are waiting on the sidelines for the right moment to engage. There are tremendous opportunities to contribute to the green economy and protect the long term viability of your business in the process. The alternative to engaging sustainability is untenable both for your business and the health of the planet. The urgency of building a sustainable global economy now cannot be overstated. There is much to be done including reducing energy use, cutting emissions, decreasing water consumption, and working to green your supply chains.

Martin Rohner, the director of the Alternativ Bank Schweiz made a noteworthy comment at the 3rd annual G21 Swiss Sustainability Forum, in Lausanne, Switzerland. He lamented that while some offer excuses for delaying action, leadership is required today.

At the G21 Swiss Sustainability Forum on finance, directors of global companies and research institutes talked about the difficulty of change. They urged patience and insisted that it takes time to ensure that sustainability does not interfere with profit.

Rohner hit the nail on the head when he said “We will go nowhere as long as there is no real leadership for truly responsible business, either here in Switzerland or abroad.” We cannot wait, now is the time to remove roadblocks to sustainability, educate consumers and divest from unsustainable corporations.

Failing to engage sustainability ensures your obsolescence. In some cases this may delay profits, but what choice to we have? If so much were not in the balance, we could argue that it is a good idea to wait and time your entry prudently. However time is a luxury we do not have, we cannot dither, the immanent threats we face demand that we get involved today.

Leadership is required and while this often entails an element of risk, it is nowhere near as risky as waiting on the sidelines. If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

You are being called to join the green economy and help solve the world’s most pressing problems. Will you heed the call?

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
The Overwhelming Logic of Sustainable Business
Sustainability is an Unstoppable Megatrend
Cost Benefit Analysis of Sustainable Business
20 Studies Demonstrate the Business Case for Sustainability
Video - The Business Case for Sustainability
The New Sustainability Advantage (Book)
Adopt CSR or Risk a Consumer Boycott
Mandating Corporate Sustainability Data
The Sustainable Supply Chain Imperative
The Benefits of Employee Engagement in Sustainability
Sustainability Past and Future: Executives Review 2012 and Make Predictions for 2013
Consumer Awareness Driving Corporate Sustainability in 2013
Top 5 Sustainability Trends for 2013
The Pervasiveness of Sustainability: Three Trends That Matter in 2013
The Growth of Corporate Sustainability in 2013
Video - Ray Anderson: The business logic of sustainability

Small Businesses are Going Green in America

2013-06-13T16:15:00.004-04:00

A new report from the nonprofit, Green America, shows that a record number of small businesses are going green. The report is titled, "The Big Green Opportunity for Small Business in the U.S."

The findings in this report are welcome news as the small business community has been understandably slower then corporate America in adopting more sustainable business practices.

Here are some of the survey's key findings:

The green economy is growing much faster than the traditional economy
79 percent of companies strongly agree that green products and services give them a competitive advantage
75 percent of companies who sell green products and services saw an increase in sales during the recession

Those are just some of the reasons that Intuit reports sustainability will become a "competitive requirement for small businesses within the next 10 years."

To download the report click here.

Related Posts
10 Sustainability Initiatives for Small Businesses
Small Businesses Can Benefit from the Growing Green Market Too
Green Guide for SMEs from the Carbon Trust
GRI Certified Sustainability Reporting for Small Business
GRI Underutilized by Canadian SMEs
Cost Benefit Analysis of Sustainable Business
Small Business, Green Technology and Creativity
Black the New Green: The Power of Small Gestures
Guide to Implementing Environmental Compliance
Helping Small Business Accept US Cap-and-Trade
Small Business Guide to Social Media
Twitter for Small Business

Russia, Ukraine and Belarus Derail 2013 UN Climate Talks in Bonn

2013-06-13T08:08:00.002-04:00

The United Nation's (UN) climate talks in Bonn, Germany have collapsed despite the fact that we have marched past the symbolic milestone of 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2. Russia, Ukraine and Belarus have rejected a compromise and effectively stalled discussions on climate compensation, adaptation and finance until the main summit in Warsaw in November.

The problems originated last year in Doha when Russia, Ukraine and Belarus expressed concern over the extension of the Kytoto Protoco, which is currently the world's only obligatory climate agreement. (Although the US and Canada are not signed on).

“We’re getting the impression these three countries are not interested in climate change,” said the Tuvalu delegate whose nation is one of those most vulnerable to sea level rise. The deep concern of delegates from Tuvalu and other vulnerable islands is justified. We have not seen these levels of atmospheric CO2 in more than 3 million years when sea levels were 80 feet higher than they are today.

Even though Island nations are most vulnerable, climate change will adversely impact every nation on earth. History will record the wreckless shortsightedness.

While Russia is questioning the process the reality is that they are using the process as leverage to politicize their point.

"Governments need to look up from their legal and procedural tricks and focus on the planetary emergency that is hitting Africa first and hardest," declared Mithika Mwenda, coordinator of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance. "Russia's shenanigans have set back critical work on loss and damage mechanisms and so now Poland, as host of the next summit, must find a way to ensure this issue is dealt with fully."

Some fatalistically believe the UN climate negotiations are doomed to fail. Many detractors of the UN process favor of action at local or regional level. However, they are fooling themselves if they think we can significantly impact emissions in the absence of an overarching global treaty.

While it is easy to point to yet another failure at UN climate talks it is important to understand that despite the position of the three holdouts, progress has been made. The highly destructive stance of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus have overshadowed progress on other aspects of the ongoing negotiations Negotiations of the UN climate process, including the new 2015 treaty.

Despite very serious obstacles we cannot give way to fatalism and despair. The UN process is the only shot we have and we need to stay at it until the job gets done.

As Tomasz Chruszczow, chair of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI)said, "it is up to the Parties to save the world.”

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Russia Lining Up Investors for Arctic Drilling
Copenhagen Accord: Global Emissions Cuts
Russia Contributes to the Failure of COP17
Greenpeace International Representative Kumi Naidoo on the Failure of COP 18 (Video)
Why We Did Not Make More Progress at COP 18: A Short History of Climate Change Negotiations (Video)
Achievements of COP 18: The Doha Climate Gateway
COP 18: Bridging the Gulf Between Science and Reality
COP 18: The History of Carbon and Respective Responsibilities
COP 18: WBCSD on Establishing a Global Carbon Market
Figueres on COP 18: We Need Domestic Legislation
Christiana Figueres on the Objectives of COP 18 (Video)

Climate Deniers Could Learn from Pascal's Wager

2013-06-12T17:19:00.004-04:00

Rather than engage in protracted psuedo-scientific debates, perhaps a touch of philosophy might help some climate deniers to see the value of acting to combat climate change.

Climate deniers must go through a series of intellectual gymnastics to find pretexts to poke holes in the legion of scientists and plethora of independent research that supports anthropogenic climate change. Perhaps the following philosophical position may save them from the effort needed for their intellectlual contortions.

Blaise Pascal famously said, “Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.”

While Pascal's Wager was meant to apply to God it could just as well apply to global warming. For the sake of argument, let us pretend that climate change does not materialize as predicted, what harm is there in reducing pollution and finding cleaner sources of fuel? If as is far more likely scientific predictions prove accurate, their belief, however ingenuine, may have helped to stave off an unprecedented cataclysm.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Science and Pernicious Ignorance of Climate Change Denial
Why We Need to Reach American Climate Change Deniers
Video - Evolution and Global Warming Denialism: How the Public is Misled
Climate Scientist Cleared: Deniers Deprived of Misinformation Strategy
How to get Through to Climate Change Deniers
New York Times Inadvertently Supports Climate Denial
Republicans' Anti-Science Stance on Climate Change
Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change
The Business of Climate Change Deception
The Kochs' Climate Science Denial
Koch Industries Financing Climate Denial
A Reintroduction to the Climate Denying Duo Known as the Koch Brothers
The Koch Brother's Ties to GOP
The Kochs' War Against Obama and the Democrats
Right Wing War Against Sustainability
What is Wrong with the Right

Making the Environment Everyone's Concern

2013-06-12T12:24:00.002-04:00

Everyone needs to get involved if we are to have a chance at altering our environmentally destructive trajectory. At present, environmentalism is largely the domain of a minority of elites. While there are numerous exceptions, environmentalists tend to be better educated and more affluent than the general population. While the support and leadership of these elites is entirely laudable, we will never see the degree of changes we need to see as long as environmentalism remains a minority concern.

Environmentalism is an attempt to balance relations between humans and the various natural systems on which they depend.

Environmental concerns have recurred in diverse forms, in different parts of the world, throughout history. For example in 1272, King Edward of England issued a proclamation which banned the burning of sea-coal after its smoke had become a problem in London. However, this early effort to clean the air in the UK did not protect the country from the industrial revolution and rampant air pollution.

More recently we have seen some contemporary governments, businesses and NGOs assume leadership roles in defense of the environment. These efforts have been invaluable, but on their own they have not turned the tide. This may be because action which emanates from above is rarely as deep or enduring as actions which reflect embedded values.

A review of human history reveals that we once abided by ecological values that were sewn into the fabric of our daily lives. Traditional hunter and gatherer societies lived close to the land and were of necessity ecologically minded. While there is no way of going back to an earlier time in human history, we can learn something from "primitive" societies.

The hierarchical structures of the modern world as well as the rise of immense cities are two factors which have helped to insolate us from nature and undermined our interest in environmental stewardship.

If the general population does not value nature or understand the impacts of human habitation we cannot be expected to collectively address the environmental threats we face.. Likewise if we leave environmental action to governments, business, NGOs and other elites we will not make the necessary changes on the required scale.

To make the environment everyone's concern, we must cultivate an understanding of our personal relationship to nature, not as as abstract theory but as an aspect of our experience. Most importantly we need to inculcate environmental concerns into our popular ethics and morality.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Turkish Environmentalists Spark National Protests
What Americans Need to Understand about Environmental Activism on World Environment Day
Video - It's all in our heads: The psychology of sustainability
The Symbolism of Easter in an Ecological Context
A New Environmental Movement Breeds Hope for the Future
Crafting a Positive Environmental Narrative
Building Support for Action on Climate Change Before We Reach Tipping Points
Why We Need to Reach American Climate Change Deniers
How Morality Can Win the War on Climate Change
An Environmentalist and a Buddhist Monk Discuss Human Behavior
Sacred Economics: Exploring the Myth of Separation (Video)
The Religious Psychology of Green
Green Ethics
Green Ethics and Trade

Jeremy Rifkin on the "Third Industrial Revolution": How Renewable Energy and the Internet are Changing the World

2013-06-12T07:53:00.000-04:00

Renowned economist Jeremy Rifkin has put forth a compelling theory about how Internet technology and renewable energy are merging to create a powerful "Third Industrial Revolution." Here is a brief except of Rifkin's presentation at a March 20, 2013 sustainability conference in Montreal, Canada. Rifkin was one of a number of experts who discussed energy efficiency, green cities and clean energy.

The conference was titled "Going Green - Smart Choices for a Sustainable Future." Specialists shared ideas on the main challenges and business opportunities associated with the emergence of an "intelligent" economy, based on clean energy and sustainable growth. The event reviewed best practices for creating partnership opportunities between cities.

"Internet technology and renewable energy are merging to create a powerful 'Third Industrial Revolution.' Imagine hundreds of millions of people producing their own green energy in their homes, offices and factories, and sharing it with each other in an 'energy Internet,' just like we now create and share information online. The five pillars of the Third Industrial Revolution will create thousands of businesses and millions of jobs, and usher in a fundamental reordering of human relationships, from hierarchical to lateral power, that will impact the way we conduct business, govern society, educate our children and engage in civic life," said Mr. Rifkin in his presentation.
Rifkin is president of the Foundation on Economic Trends and a best-selling author. Supporting evidence for his thesis appears to be borne out in the profound changes witnessed in what is widely referred to as the Arab Spring.

For more information on Rifkin's theory click here.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Videos
The Revolutionary Power of Social Media Driving Corporate Sustainability
The Growth of Social Media as an Increasingly Important Vehicle for the Environment
Environmental Activism and Social Media
Social Media and Sustainability
US Government Support for Renewable Energy Projects
The Solar Industry at a Glance: Past Present and Future
Global Wind Energy at a Glance (China, EU, US)
US Wind Energy Doubles and Eclipses Natural Gas in 2012
Renewable Energy Is Our Only Hope
Government Incentives are Growing Renewable Energy
Renewable Energy Surpasses Nuclear in the US

Interview with Former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones on his Work and the Climate Movement

2013-06-11T19:50:00.000-04:00

This interview by Jason Mark was originally published in the Earth Island Journal.
__________________________________

“The arc of the moral universe is long,” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “but it bends toward justice.” That famous line could also serve as an apt description for the comeback of Van Jones. In 2009, the veteran social justice and environmental activist was hounded out of his White House job by right wing loudmouth Glenn Beck. “A high tech lynching,” is how one commentator described the concocted controversy that led Jones to resign his post as special advisor for green jobs. Fast-forward four years, and Jones remains one of the most inspiring figures in the progressive movement. He has a new organization—Rebuild the Dream, dedicated to repairing the tattered social safety net of the U.S.—and is a paid pundit on CNN. And Glenn Beck? He’s off somewhere in the hinterlands of Internet television, peddling goldbug fantasies.

Looking back today, Jones doesn’t express much bitterness about the episode. “Your successes give you your confidence and your setbacks give you your character,” he told me in a recent interview. While he still promotes the hopeful, and heartfelt, vision of a green and fair economy, the experience of a public takedown seems to have spiked his optimism with a bit of political sobriety. “My failures are the things that tend to give me real insight about what works and what doesn’t work.”

If anything, his roller coaster career seems to have given the preternaturally strategic Jones even more political savvy. Among other observations, Jones feels that environmentalists specifically, and progressives generally, do a poor job of celebrating their victories.

“Depending on what you call a green job, there are as many as 3 million green jobs,” he told me. “I don’t know why people say, ‘Well, jeez, green jobs are such a failure,’ … I’d like to have a few more failures like that.”

Me, too. It would help demonstrate, as Jones himself has proved, that the arc of the moral universe isn’t as long as we might fear.

Mark: When we talked to you right before the Forward on Climate rally in Washington you had some pretty strong words for President Obama, saying that if he approves the Keystone XL pipeline, the first thing it will run over will be his credibility. If you were a betting man, where would you put your money on whether the president is going to approve the pipeline?

Jones: Well, I think if you look at the signals that [the administration] is sending, you would have to come to the conclusion that it’s more likely that they will approve this awful pipeline than that they will reject it. However, they did just receive a million online comments almost entirely opposing the project. The EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] just came out saying that the State Department’s environmental review was inadequate, which I think shows there are cracks inside the administration. And I don’t think this fight is over. I think you would be kidding yourself if you said that the environmentalists are in the lead—but I think you’d also be wrong to say that the race is over. I think that environmentalists—and not just environmentalists, but people who have the good sense to understand economics and math and have any intelligence at all—can still win. But it’s going to take more pressure. The other factor I would say is that never underestimate the power of a really good film. Al Gore showed that. He changed the entire global conversation with one really good film. Well, Bill McKibben just put out in the online world arguably an equally powerful film, Do the Math. Never underestimate the power of that to wind up on the screen of someone with power, or that person’s spouse or child or neighbor. So this fight is not over.

Mark: Some important progress was made in President Obama’s first term, including a significant down payment on the green economy via the stimulus package and increased fuel-economy standards for car and trucks. But in general I think many people are disappointed that the president hasn’t shown more leadership around the climate crisis. Why haven’t we seen more passionate leadership from the president on the environment?

Jones: I don’t think we have seen consistent and passionate leadership from any part of society—including the environmental movement—on the climate issue. With the exception of a few lonely voices. I think the failure to pass cap and trade left the entire environmental movement somewhat disoriented. When you get as close as we did and you come up short, it takes a while for people to get life back into them. I think that 350.org, the youth and the other people that are in this fight—the Native Americans and the farmers and the ranchers have been fighting against the [Keystone XL] pipeline—and Bill McKibben have been carrying the banner since 2010. And it’s definitely good work. But in general a president does not get too far ahead of the public on any major issue. If you look at civil rights, it wasn’t Lyndon Johnson who led the civil rights movement. There was Selma, and you had people in the streets, and you had people going to jail and you had a spokesperson like Dr. King—and it was in that context that Johnson did what he did.
I think we have this myth that presidents lead great movements. What happens is that presidents ratify the achievements of great movements. And you see that in the LGBT movement. The president was able to come out and say he was personally for marriage equality after a tenacious movement and fight in the streets, in the courts and in the media. Hollywood had already won ground so he can safely occupy it.
Usually presidents don’t bail out failed movements. They usually stand behind rising movements. You can see that with immigration, you see that with marriage equality.

Mark: This is the 64-million-dollar question that everyone in the environmental movement is asking, but what do you think are some of the explanations for why we haven’t seen an ascendant movement that would create the political space for the president?

Jones: Well, I think that to the extent that climate solutions seem abstract and the concern of an intellectual elite, it makes the movement more vulnerable to being dismissed. And then there’s the importance of the state of the struggle. Al Gore raised the alarm with his film An Inconvenient Truth, and then an overlapping set of people raised up the solution of a green economy that would fix the problem while delivering more work, more wealth and better help to people who who need that. That particular formulation really threatened the polluters. The idea that we were coming forward with economic solutions that were business-friendly, pro-innovation, pro-investment, pro-American independence, that could actually deliver more jobs than the coal companies—that scared the bejeebers out of the Koch Brothers. And it scared the bejeebers out of the Heritage Foundation. And it scared the bejeebers out of Big Coal and Big Oil. Those forces don’t get together and attack ideas they think are weak and stupid. They get together and attack ideas that are strong and promising. And they declared on the front page of the Heritage Foundation website that “ending the myth of green jobs” was their number one priority. And then they came after the idea, hammer and tongs, to obliterate it from public discussion.

Rather than the environmental movement, and the labor movement, and the civil rights movement and the anti-poverty movement rallying around the idea—saying that if they are attacking the idea with this much force, we must be onto something—people backed away from it and handed them a victory. The reality is it’s very hard to deliver economic change of any kind inside of 12 months. You can easily say, “Well, they passed the stimulus bill, and there are no green jobs, and therefore the idea didn’t work.” But that’s a pretty stupid idea for us to buy. The very first time that green jobs was even incorporated into federal law was in the 2007 energy bill—the Green Jobs Act of 2007 that Bush signed. And there was not a penny put behind [the idea] until 2009. The very first time that you had any federal funding for green jobs at all was in 2009. And people were already saying, “Green jobs do not work.” I mean, it was the most ridiculous surrender of high ground that I have seen in a political movement. To actually give up on your best idea 12 months after you just got your first penny for it. And then to never mention green jobs again.

That shows the fragility of the commitment to this idea. That’s why I think there isn’t a very broad [environmental] movement. A very broad movement would have to be an eco-populist movement, not an eco-elitist movement. It would have to be an eco-populist movement pointing to solutions that would help ordinary people. When we had that, we got hammered as any promising movement is going to get hammered. But rather than staying the course, and fighting it through and doubling down, I think there was this sense of running for the hills as soon as the polling numbers started to tank on the idea.

Even civil rights was not popular at one time—obviously, since it took 100 years to get to civil rights. Civil rights was desperately unpopular for 344 years. The forces that convened and converged to make green jobs such a hopeful possibility couldn’t even withstand 344 days of hard attack. So we have to go back and look in the mirror and think.

Mark: Speaking of an eco-populism, despite some good-faith efforts to forge more solidarity between environmental groups and people of color organizations, the environmental movement continues to be very monochromatic. As I wrote right after the election, if your social movement looks more like a Romney-Ryan rally than an Obama-Biden rally, you’re in trouble. What will it take to have an environmental movement that really reflects the diversity of this country?

Jones: That may be the wrong question. In may be that trying to figure out how to make the environmental movement more brown might not be the right question. It might be that the better question is: How do we make other movements more green? It could be you just have some built in cultural patterns inside of whatever is now called the environmental movement, patterns that will be too difficult to overturn in a frontal way. It might actually be more fruitful to say, “How do we take these rising movements that are much more diverse already and get them to be more green?” Get them to hold ecological solutions much closer in their own hearts as they try to solve their economic problems. That might actually wind up being more fruitful.

Mark: OK, then—how would that happen?

Jones: Well, the Latino community polls off the charts as pro-environment. The African-American community polls nearly off the charts in numbers. In fact, by polling, not by intensity, but in terms of broad support, the African-American community is much more environmentally friendly than the white community. And so I think we should go fishing where the fish are. There is a lot of environmental sentiment in the rising majority already that we don’t have to go fight for. We don’t have to get the Tea Party to join the environmental ranks. I think there’s a lot to work with in existing rising movements. The challenge is that those communities have a lot of other tough problems. So there’s an intensity question. But I mean, honestly, most Latinos and African-Americans are not going to get jobs in the coal industry. They are not going to get jobs from the oil industry. But they could get jobs in the clean energy economy, either putting up solar panels or selling them or marketing them. Or creating the hydroponic, organic food co-ops. There are a lot more economic solutions available to the rising majority that are green than what the Koch Brothers are going to be offering.

So there are innovations out there that we could drive more deeply into communities of color that might actually have the effect of more environmental ideas taken into the bloodstream without having to overturn 30 or 40 years of cultural dynamics in the self-identified environmental movement.

Mark: Your newest organization, Rebuild the Dream, is focused on bread and butter issues. How do you put these ecological solutions “into the bloodstream,” as you say, while working on student loan debt, the foreclosure crisis, the continuing unemployment crisis?

Jones: Well, first, I want to come back to the green jobs thing, since a lot of people are critical of it. According to Brookings, there are 2.4 million green jobs in America right now. I don’t think anyone knows that. According to the Department of Labor, there are 3.1 to 3.2 million green jobs in America right now. That’s compared to 80,000 coal miners. There’s 70,000 people who got up today and went to work in the wind industry alone. We almost have job parity between coal and wind, and that’s despite the fact that fracking has flooded the market with cheap natural gas that is undercutting the wind industry. We still have 70,000 Americans who went to work in the wind industry today, this morning. That doesn’t include the solar industry. Depending on what you call a green job and how you define it, there are as many as 3 million green jobs. So why is that considered a defeat? I really just want to circle back on that before I talk about the other stuff I’ve been working on. We don’t claim the victories we get. I don’t know any other movement that got its first nickel of federal money in 2009 that’s got 3 million jobs. I mean, I don’t know why people say, “Well, jeez, green jobs are such a failure.” OK, can we ask for some more failures like that? I’d like to have a few more failures like that. I think the main problem is that we didn’t say, “We want a million green jobs by 2013.” Had we said that, we would have overshot our goal by twice. If you completely shift the economy into a clean energy economy I suppose you could have 7 million green jobs. What happened to the green jobs idea is that it suddenly became an overnight panacea to produce a utopia—as opposed to an economic development opportunity pathway to create a few million jobs. In our enthusiasm for the solution we kind of suggested it would happen in 12 months—and then it was a failure. I think that kind of mistake is understandable for a young movement, for a new movement, for a new idea. But there’s not even an idea to replace it.

This is where my frustration comes in. For some people this was just another way to frame what they wanted to do. For some of us, it was survival. Like, this is how we’re going to have jobs for our children. In a survival fight, you don’t give up in 12 months just because the mainstream media has given up on it. In a survival fight, you don’t give up on it in 12 months just because Koch Brothers don’t like it. In a survival fight, you don’t give up in 12 months because the polling data isn’t as strong as it was. So I think that is part of the problem. For some people, it was never a real commitment to marginal communities, to laid-off workers, to folks in Appalachia who could have better work while we fix the climate. It was just a frame. And once the frame was damaged, it was just a sound bite. And once the sound bite took heavy fire from our opponents, a lot of people just walked away. When they walked away, they forgot to look over their shoulder and see 2 to 3 million Americans working right now who wouldn’t be working. And since you’re not looking for that, you don’t see it.

People say, “I don’t know anybody with a green job.” Well, how many people do you know who work in coal mines? There’s only 80,000 of them. You probably don’t know any of them. But the people who are pro-coal sure make sure you see them everywhere. You can conjure up the image of a coal miner in your mind. Because the people who believe in that make sure it’s in the public mind even though there are not that many people coal mining. There are just as many people working in wind. But how much time do we spend celebrating them?

We’d rather talk about how we couldn’t have done better and shouldn’t have done better. It’s just to say that it’s very hard to do better tomorrow if you don’t claim your victories of yesterday and today.
I’m in this strange position of being frustrated and critical. But I don’t only want to be frustrated and critical, because we have actually done some amazing things. Think of the big picture. Gore’s movie came out in 2006. Nobody was talking about climate change on the national stage in 2005. In the 2004 campaign between Kerry and Bush, climate wasn’t even an issue. In 2008, four years later, it was one of the main issues. In 2012, it didn’t fall off the radar—it was driven off the radar by a concerted effort of some of the most powerful forces in American society. After we had got $90 billion of funding though the stimulus bill—90 billion with a B—for the biggest clean energy investment ever, after we had got the House of Representatives to pass climate legislation, and after we had gotten the president to push fuel economy on automobiles for the first time in years—then we got a counterattack. Which is understandable. But we didn’t have a strong enough coalition who was committed to our strategy to withstand that. So now we’re back on our heels, and now we have to get back in the game. But that’s not, “We suck, and green jobs mysteriously never happened.” It did happen. It just didn’t happen at the scale people had hoped. But people’s hopes were ill-defined in the first place.

Mark: You’ve worn a number of hats in your career—community-based attorney, author, White House official, now CNN pundit. In which of those roles did you feel the most empowered to make progressive social change?

Jones: Well, it’s interesting, because it’s the two extremes. But I think that when I was a broke, marginal, grassroots organizer I felt like I could get a lot done because you have no ties to the system. You can just fight the fight you just want to fight. And often you end up winning. Because it’s that kind of David and Goliath syndrome where you don’t know how much strength you have until you throw the punch. And you don’t know much strength they have until they get punched. Sometimes you end up pulling these miraculous victories. I was very happy, for instance, to play a big role in preventing the construction of the superjail for kids they were going to build in Oakland in the early 2000s. I’ve always been proud of that victory, more than anything else I’ve ever been a part of. Or in the mid-1990s, getting the SFPD [San Francisco Police Department] to fire Marc Andaya for his role in beating to death Aaron Williams. That fight was back in 1997. It was my first real true victory for community justice. I look back to those fights with joy because it just shows what ordinary people can do with literally nothing more than determination.

And then, on the other extreme, working in the White House was a great opportunity. Getting the chance to basically play the role of an organizer inside the federal family. The inter-agency process that I headed was moving $80 billion out the door into communities across the country. I got a chance to work with almost a dozen agencies on behalf of the White House. So all my organizing skills from my grassroots days suddenly became incredibly handy. So at the furthest end of being an outsider and the furthest end of being an insider were the two times I probably felt the most effective.

Mark: So what would you say to young, up-and-coming progressive organizers who are not going to find themselves on either of those ends, but instead somewhere in the squishy middle?
Jones: I think finding mentors and role models always pays off. I’ve been so lucky. In my early life I had veterans from SNCC [the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee] who took me under the wing. Dinky Forman and Dottie Zellner were two SNCC workers who took me under their wing and continue to give me council. Carrie [Caroline] Kerry Kennedy and Arianna Huffington at different stages of my journey were instrumental in connecting me with opportunities, advisors and donors. Josh Mailman, who founded the Social Venture Network, was there for me at critical times. Al Gore was one of the first people to call me after I left the White House to encourage me. He said, “People have lost much bigger jobs in the White House than you have.” Which I thought was the perfect thing to say. So I’ve been open to getting that kind of help.

What worries me about some of the younger activists is how isolated they seem to be at times in their own sub- sub- sub-cultures. And people in my age group, who are in their 40s, have a real responsibility to go above and beyond the call of duty to reach out, to be supportive, to be encouraging and to learn from the next generation. I think that’s critical.

If there’s anything I would say, it’s embrace failure. Almost all of the things that get put on your resume are successes, and that’s what tends to make it into your self-esteem bucket. But all of my failures are the things that tend to give me real insight about what works and what doesn’t work. Your successes give you your confidence and your setbacks give you your character. And you have to have a lot of setbacks, and as a result have a much more sober and realistic view about how hard this work is. But, I’ve never been beat up, I’ve never been shot at, I’ve never had dogs set on me or fire hoses on me. Compared to earlier generations of activists, that’s pretty good. I think it’s important to keep that perspective. Any good planet needs a lot of sunshine and a lot of shit in order to grow. The question is if you can turn the shit into fertilizer.

Related Article Van Jones Succumbs to Republican Pressure

ISO Revisions Seek Overarching Guidance on 14001 Environmental Management Systems and Other ISO Standards

2013-06-11T06:02:00.000-04:00

Revisions are being undertaken in ISO 14001 in order to create an overarching format in conformity with Annex SL (previously ISO Guide 83) which defines the framework for a generic management system. This new guidance is holistic and is intended to end conflicts, duplication, confusion and misunderstanding from different MSS management systems. Since being issued in 1996 and then revised in 2004, the ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems standard has been adopted by more than 250,000 organizations around the world.

Annex SL, is described as a “high level structure and identical text for management system standards and common core management system terms and definitions.” Annex SL offers overarching guidance on ISO management system standards (MSS). It is intended to help explain how different standards fit together with minimum redundancy. Annex SL offers a common format, structure and core requirements for ISO 14001, ISO 9001, ISO 27001 and ISO 50001.

ISO's goal in revising its standards is to conform to Annex SL so that standards share a common format. However this is no easy feat as consensus is required from all 130 participating countries. All new ISO MSS will adhere to this framework and all current MSS will migrate at their next revision. In future all ISO MSS should be consistent and compatible.

The ISO Technical Committee (TC) 207 has started the process of revising ISO 14001, with a target of issuing a Final Version in 2015.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Integrating ISO 26000 (Social Responsibility) into your Management Systems
ISO 50001 Energy Management Standard
Benefits of The ISO 50001 Energy Management
The Implications of ISO 50001 for Your Business
The Importance of ISO 50001 On Demand Webinar
ISO 50001 Podcast Series ISO Principles for Environmental Labels ISO 14020 Series
ISO Standards and Greener Vehicles
ISO 14001 Certification in the Solar Sector
ISO Sustainable Buildings Standards
Cititec ISO Environmental Management
ISO Campus 14001 Environmental Training

Is Apple's Adoption of Sustainability Too Little Too Late?

2013-06-10T11:21:00.002-04:00

Apple is trying to offset its long history of unsustainable practices through a number of initiatives that include hiring former EPA head Lisa Jackson. Even if the company manages to clean up its act, they may be haunted by their past for years to come. As Apple strives to improve its sustainable performance, the company is being battered by allegations of tax avoidance. Over the last few years Apple has been plagued with a number of problems including criticisms of their labor force in China, concerns about their supply chain and a forced reversal on EPEAT.

These factors seem to have eroded the firm's bottom line. Apple's profits and stock valuations have all suffered in recent months. From the beginning of 2009 until the end of 2012 Apple's (AAPL) meteoric rise seemed unstoppable. Then the stock plummeted losing almost half its value in the first quarter of 2013 (Going from a high of more than $700 per share in September 2012 to $390 per share in April, 2013).

In 2011, Apple was accused of treating its Chinese workforce "inhumanely." Apple's supply chain has also been accused of being unsustainable, and According to a report issued by anti-pollution activists in China, Apple secretive supply chain is both poisonous and dirty.

Apple has done a 180 with its suppliers in China. In terms of progressive environmental policies, the company has gone from being one of the most uncooperative electronics companies to one of China's most proactive IT suppliers. Although Apple has significantly increased its sustainability efforts in a bid to try to catch up with other tech companies. One of the most significant efforts is Apple's new 500,000-square-foot data center in Maiden, N.C., which will be entirely powered by renewable energy.

In July, 2012, Apple reversed its position on EPEAT. This reversal demonstrates the company's recognition of the value of sustainability to its customer base. Apple was forced to capitulate on EPEAT due to the burgeoning demand for more responsible corporate conduct from customers, institutional buyers and activists. It also reflects the purchasing and procurement policies of institutional buyers like Kaiser Permanente, McKesson and HDR which demand EPEAT certification.

If nothing else, Apple is a marketing Svengali. Like the villainous hypnotist in George du Maurier's novel Trilby, the firm has managed to control the public's perception. But the company's unsustainable history cannot be concealed forever.

As explained in a Fortune article, despite being anything but green, Apple has excelled at promoting itself as a responsible corporate global citizen in terms of environmental, social and governance issues. According to Brandlogic's 2012 Sustainability Leadership Report, Apple is a company "whose perceived performance far exceeds its actual achievement."

In 2012, Brandlogic's Denis Riney offered this assessment:

"On the reality side," he writes, "Apple made significant gains from 2012 to 2011, improving their SRS [sustainability reality score] from 29.3 to 45.8, a 16.5 point increase vs. a 9.3-point increase for the 100 companies overall. Its perceived ESG [environmental, social, governance] scores increased as well, from 53.5 to 55.6, in year when the average perception score dropped 2.7 points."

According to the 2012 Brandindex Sustainability Leadership Report Apple's ability to fool the public is especially pronounced in the developing world. Apple's reputation is falling among investment professionals but rising among recent university graduates and supply chain professionals:

However, Apple's unsustainable design which on the one hand are part of a marketing strategy that has led to astronomical profits on the other makes the company a sustainability laggard. A business model that encourages people to regularly upgrade technological devices is doomed to fail in an increasingly resource constrained world.

It looks as though Apple's CEO Tim Cook is getting the message. At the end of May 2013 he announced that the company has hired former US Environmental Protection Agency Chief Lisa Jackson to oversee environmental activities including greentech and efficiency.

“Apple has shown how innovation can drive real progress by removing toxics from its products, incorporating renewable energy in its data center plans, and continually raising the bar for energy efficiency in the electronics industry,” Jackson said. “I look forward to helping support and promote these efforts, as well as leading new ones in the future aimed at protecting the environment.”

Only time will tell if hiring Jackson and other sustainability initiatives can bridge the gap between the public's perception of the brand and its actual performance.

"While there is no doubt that the positive halo around the Apple brand has some influence on the perceptions of these audiences," Riney concludes, "it is hard to imagine that Apple's extreme Promoter position will last long term."

Apple is trying to catch-up on sustainability, however, the chickens may have come home to roost. The company, once the darling of the tech industry, has a hard road to hoe. Despite the positive perception of the brand in 2012, a March report which showed a 114 percent increase in the use of renewable energy and hiring Jackson in May.

Although Apple should be lauded for its efforts, the fact that it is a late-comer to the sustainability table constitutes a serious problem for the brand. This is particularly true of a corporate behemoth like Apple, where their efforts may be seen as too little too late.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Apple Hires Lisa Jackson as Part of New Sustainability Efforts Apple's Reversal on EPEAT http://www.thegreenmarketoracle.com/2012/07/apples-reversal-on-epeat-says-lot-about.html
Steve Jobs: Apple's Product Recycling Efforts
Under Steve Jobs Leadership Apple Removed Toxic Chemicals from its Products
Video: Steve Jobs 2005 Stanford Commencement Speech
Video: Steve Jobs on Computer Efficiency
Apple's iPhone Green Applications
10 Energy Efficient Electronics for College
Greenpeace Green Electronics Guide
Greenpeace's Ranking of Electronic Companies
Cleantech the Next Great Investment Opportunity
Top 10 Global Sustainability Leaders (Report)

Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map: World Energy Outlook Special Report

2013-06-10T08:15:00.000-04:00

The world is not doing enough to combat climate change. This June 10, 2013 report offers four policy suggestions that would curb emissions and enable us to stay within 2 °C without incurring a net cost.

This report is part of the IEA's efforts to provide reliable and unbiased research, statistics, analysis and recommendations. The International Energy Agency (IEA) is an autonomous organisation which works to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for its 28 member countries and beyond. Founded in response to the 1973/4 oil crisis, the IEA’s initial role was to help countries co-ordinate a collective response to major disruptions in oil supply through the release of emergency oil stocks to the markets.
_____________________________

To address the urgent need for action to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions situation the report recommends four specific energy measures which can be quickly and effectively implemented to arrest emissions at no net economic cost. Governments have agreed upon the need to collectively limit the average global temperature increase to no more than 2 °C but we are not expected to find an agreement before 2015 and new legal obligations will not begin before 2020. While many dismiss the hope of staying within 2 °C, this Special Report states that this goal is still viable if government put reforms to the energy sector at the top of their policy agendas.

1. Targeted energy efficiency measures in buildings, industry and transport account for nearly half the emissions reduction in 2020, with the additional investment required being more than offset by reduced spending on fuel bills.

2. Limiting the construction and use of the least-efficient coal-fired power plants delivers more than 20% of the emissions reduction and helps curb local air pollution. The share of power generation from renewables increases (from around 20% today to 27% in 2020), as does that from natural gas.

3. Actions to halve expected methane (a potent greenhouse gas) releases into the atmosphere from the upstream oil and gas industry in 2020 provide 18% of the savings.

4. Implementing a partial phase-out of fossil fuel consumption subsidies accounts for 12% of the reduction in emissions and supports efficiency efforts.

The report also reviews elements of action to achieve further reductions, after 2020. It also demonstrates that the energy sector, acting in its own best interest needs to immediately address the risks implicit in climate change.

To download the entire report click here (PDF)

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Energy Emissions Comparisons
IAIA12 Energy Future: The Role of Impact
8 Congressional Reports on Energy
Energy & Environmental Report
Breakdown of Obama's Clean Energy
The Future of Energy and the Environment
The Chinese Government is Investing in Clean Energy
Government Incentives are Growing Renewable Energy
Republican Opposition to Obama's Clean Energy
GE's Immelt Calls Current US Energy Policy "Stupid"