Climate Technology

SRI pioneer Joan Bavaria looks ahead

To celebrate its 15th anniversary, the GreenMoney Journal asked leaders in the realms of green business and socially responsible investing to forecast 15 years into the future. How green will our economy be in 2022? GreenMoney's anniversary issue features responses from Amy Domini of Domini Social Investments, Gary Hirshberg of Stonyfield Farm, futurist Hazel Henderson, and others.

Here, reprinted with permission, is a view from Joan Bavaria, president of Trillium Asset Management Company. (Also read a perspective from Mindy Lubber of Ceres.)

What will socially responsible investing (SRI) look like in 15 years? I believe we are in a period of rapid growth with an uncertain outcome. Those of us who are involved in and support socially responsible investing, mission-related investing, corporate social responsibility, and all that involves introducing social and environmental considerations in a market economy must concentrate on what needs to happen to continue making progress, clearly visioning our desired outcomes.

Whole Foods CEO secretly hearts Wal-Mart

In January 2005, a poster on a Yahoo message board made a bold prediction on how Whole Foods stock would fare. “13 years from now Whole Foods will be a $800+ stock,” he insisted, adding that “the company is going to keep on strongly growing for another 10+ years.” Looking at the company’s stock chart […]

McDonald’s trucks to use french fry grease as fuel

On July 2, McDonald's announced plans to convert its entire British fleet of 155 delivery trucks, which consume about 6 million liters (a little less than 1.6 million gallons) of diesel per year, to run on cooking oil from Britain's 1,200 McDonald's restaurants. The company pledged to make the switch within the next twelve months. In an apparently unintentionally ironic statement, VP John Howe said the fuel wouldn't smell like french fries -- though, he remarked, the Pavlovian effect that would have been "one of the best marketing campaigns we've ever had." Two steps forward, too many back.

Mindy S. Lubber of CERES looks at how far we’ve come and what the future might hold

To celebrate its 15th anniversary, the GreenMoney Journal asked leaders in the realms of green business and socially responsible investing to forecast 15 years into the future. How green will our economy be in 2022? GreenMoney's anniversary issue features responses from Amy Domini of Domini Social Investments, Gary Hirshberg of Stonyfield Farm, futurist Hazel Henderson, and others.

Here, reprinted with permission, is a view from Mindy S. Lubber, president of Ceres, a leading coalition of investors, environmental groups, and other public-interest organizations working with companies to address sustainability challenges such as global climate change. Ceres also directs the Investor Network on Climate Risk, a network of more than 50 institutional investors collectively managing $4 trillion in assets. (Tune in later this week for a perspective from Joan Bavaria, president of Trillium Asset Management Company.)

If past is prologue, then to forecast where businesses will be in tackling environmental protection, humane labor practices, biodiversity, water supply, and other sustainability challenges, we have to look back.

Fifteen years ago, when the GreenMoney Journal was launched, a relative handful of niche companies such as Ben & Jerry's, Timberland, and Tom's of Maine were integrating the social consciences of their founders and even, in some cases, their spiritual values, into the capitalist model. But these companies were far outside the mainstream of American corporate culture, throwbacks to the idealism of the 1960s, and represented a tiny fraction of American corporate power.

Indeed, for decades there had been strong and pervasive resistance in the corporate world to environmental responsibility, transparency, and sustainable business practices. Such corporate values were seen as the province of the "tree-hugger" fringe and the notion that this could ever change was widely dismissed as a pipe dream.

Fast-forward 15 years to a single week in May 2007. Citigroup, one of the world's largest financial conglomerates, announces that it will commit $50 billion over 10 years on investments and project financing to reduce global carbon emissions, including development of alternative energy and clean technologies. News Corp., one of the word's largest media companies, led by the ultraconservative Rupert Murdoch, announces that it will become carbon "neutral" by 2010. And IBM, the venerable computer giant, announces it is spending $1 billion to become more energy efficient across its global operations. All in a single week! In each case, these decisions were driven by bottom-line economics and a recognition that sustainability is a core business issue.

If I Could Escape

Ford, Southern California Edison partner to test plug-in hybrids Two No. 2 businesses have unveiled a first-of-its-kind alliance: Ford Motor Co., the No. 2 automaker in the U.S., and Southern California Edison, the country’s second-largest utility, will partner for “real-world” testing of plug-in hybrid vehicles. Starting late this year, Ford will begin sending 20 plug-in […]

Breaking all the offset rules

[Important update to this post here.]

One reason I began posting my Rules of Carbon Offsets is a dubious program by the California utility PG&E called ClimateSmart, which is supposed to allow PG&E customers to become "climate neutral."

This program actually manages to violate rules zero, 1, and 2 all at once! It really makes clear why offsets are bastardized emissions reductions -- and why trees are an especially dubious offset.

This picture graces the "Our Projects" page of the ClimateSmart website. The caption reads : "Photo of van Eck Forest, courtesy of Pacific Forest Trust." Well, that burns rule 1 and 2 -- no trees, and certainly not trees in a California forest comprising half your offset portfolio. (This forestry offset is particularly outrageous, as we will see at the end of this post.)

Worse, what PG&E is offering to do is offset customer's greenhouse gas emissions generated from their electricity purchases and natural gas consumption.

The $64,000 question is why doesn't PG&E just sell renewable power to its customers? Remember rule zero of offsets:

Before you pay others to reduce their emissions on your behalf, you need to do everything reasonably possible to reduce your own emissions first. As the saying goes, "Physician, heal thyself" before presuming to heal other people.

How does rule zero apply here? Consider what PG&E says:

The fastest, most cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to use your energy more efficiently -- taking advantage of PG&E's smart energy rebates and programs. After doing what you can to reduce your energy use, make the rest "climate neutral" with ClimateSmart.

OK, energy efficiency is the first thing you do -- I've made that argument myself many times. But after doing what you can to reduce your energy use, the obvious next step is not paying someone else to reduce their emissions, but to purchase green power, directly eliminating any greenhouse gas emissions from your electricity use.

Carbon offsets are tricky business

Joseph Romm has been running a series of "rules of the road for carbon offsets" on these pages. This is a worthwhile endeavor, and as good of an excuse as any for me to provide some shade and color to the frequently misconceived debate over offsets. Although I mostly agree with Romm's conclusions, I don't think he chose the best route to reach them.

My intent is not to rebut Romm's proposed rules -- again, I (mostly) agree with all of the guidelines posted so far, even if they do contain some important errors of fact and emphasis. And more generally, I strongly support efforts to arm individuals with more information about offset quality.

But the rules are framed a bit oddly, offered up as some sort of counterpoint to a lawless industry peddling easy environmental solutions to polluters run amok. The first post announces an "aim to pick a fight with those overhyping offsets."

Michael Kieschnick, president of Working Assets, answers questions

Michael Kieschnick. What work do you do? I am the president of Working Assets, a social-change company that uses the business of wireless and credit cards to achieve environmental and social progress. Over the years, we have also generated over $50 million in donations to progressive groups, many of them working for wonderful environmental causes. […]

Offsets should be the last thing you need to turn to

Before you pay others to reduce their emissions on your behalf, you need to do everything reasonably possible to reduce your own emissions first. As the saying goes, "Physician, heal thyself," before presuming to heal other people.

This rule is so obvious I almost forgot it. And yet many people, including Google and PG&E, don't seem to get it.

The whole point of offsets is not to make you feel good, and it's not to allow you to continue polluting as much as you want (by, say, supporting new coal plants or other dirty forms of power). Offsets are cheap and in some sense bastardized emissions reductions (more on this in a future post).

In general, the point of offsets is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and specifically to allow you to offset any emissions that are left over after you have cleaned up your own act -- or to offset emissions from one-time events such as concerts.

Stewards Jolly

Mega-corporations sign U.N.-sponsored climate compact More than 150 companies, including Ikea, Unilever, and Coca-Cola, have signed a U.N.-sponsored climate declaration that commits them to setting and reporting on emissions-reduction goals, while asking governments to enact a post-Kyoto, market-based plan. OK, it’s a voluntary pact with a touchy-feely name — “Caring for Climate: The Business Leadership […]