Month: May 2007

Interview – Greening the Business World

Some businesses once considered
‘bad actors’ by environmentalists are now being
praised for leading the ‘corporate greening’
movement. Lester Graham spoke with an advisor who
helped some of those companies, John Elkington.
Elkington is the founder of the consulting firm
SustainAbility. He says not all corporations have
realized the importance of becoming more
environmentally-friendly at the same time:

Transcript

Some businesses once considered
‘bad actors’ by environmentalists are now being
praised for leading the ‘corporate greening’
movement. Lester Graham spoke with an advisor who
helped some of those companies, John Elkington.
Elkington is the founder of the consulting firm
SustainAbility. He says not all corporations have
realized the importance of becoming more
environmentally-friendly at the same time:


JE: Around the world, different regions are in very different places
and companies are in different places as a result of that. In the
United States you’ve had a period of, to some degree on issues like
climate change, denial. And that’s beginning to break down, and it’s
breaking down very rapidly. So you see companies, for example in the
financial sector like Goldman-Saks, talking about the environment and
green issues in a very, very different way than they would’ve done a
few years ago.


You see General Electric, which hasn’t been a great ally of
environmental movement, launching it’s Ecomagination initiative. And
initially, people dismissing that very much as greenwash, but when you
look at the numbers, very serious growth going on inside that business
and some of these areas. And then, perhaps to top it all, you see Wal-
Mart, most peoples’ sort of bogey company in a way, announcing some if
its initiatives around renewable energy, energy efficiency, sustainable
fisheries and so on. And in a sense, it almost doesn’t matter whether
Wal-Mart is serious or genuinely wanting to go green or whatever. This
stuff is starting to cascade through the supply chain. They have 61,000
vendors, these companies around the world. And the work that we do with
companies, they’re saying, whether they’re 3M, or Dupont, or Dow…
they’re saying this company is serious and it’s driving us to do things
we hadn’t previously thought were possible.


LG: Let’s look at consumer level. I think typically, most people are
not spending a lot of time researching which brand of corn flakes is
most carbon-free or sustainable. I think most people make their
decisions on commercials or packaging at the store. How can they make
better choices about sustainable products or companies?


JE: You’re absolutely right. I think most people rely on things like
brands. I mean, they trust a brand or they don’t and they hope a brand
will deal with environmental or fair trade or whatever issues
appropriately. But there are certain moments when things start to speed
up, and this is one of them, and then a different set of actors come
in.


I mean, traditionally, the activist campaigning groups, the NGOs, and
so on, play an incredibly important role in denting brands or building
the credibility of particular brands. And increasingly you get these
standards around environmental and fair trade issues. But I think
actually the key actors at the moment – this is certainly true in
Europe and my own country, the United Kingdom – you’re seeing
supermarkets getting involved again. They did it in the late 80s, early
90s, they played a very important role. That has a huge knock on
impact.


LG: Let’s talk about the energy sector for just a moment. We’ve seen a
lot of renewable energy being built around the world lately. But we
seem to see a lot of power companies, some oil companies still digging
in their heels and fighting tooth and nail to keep things just the way
they are. Are we going to see a sea change in the energy sector like we
are beginning to see in many of the other sectors of the economy?


JE: That’s a very difficult question to answer because I think you’re
going to see several different trends at the same time. You’re going to
see for example, the coal industry, Peabody and people like that,
digging in and saying basically, we’re going to burn a huge amount of
coal. Yes it’s going to have to be clean coal but you’re going to have
that trend. You’re going to have the Exxon Mobiles of this world trying
to look a bit more civilized and say we’ve been misunderstood, we’ve
got to communicate better and so on… But basically still, anti-
climate change is a big issue.


And then you’ve got a bunch of actors. In Europe, you’ve got companies
like Statoil, BP, Shell, who’ve actually gone through that tipping
point quite a number of years back, basically believe climate change is
a reality… Still thing fossil fuels is a very large part of our
energy future, but still starting to explore renewables and energy
efficiency and so on. So I think you’ve got a differentiation and I
don’t think this is an issue of leopards changing their spots. I mean,
some of the companies that are finding this very difficult to deal with
will continue to find it very difficult to deal with even if they
become a bit more sophisticated on the communication front.


HOST TAG: John Elkington is the founder of the consulting firm
SustainAbility. He spoke with the Environment Report’s Lester Graham.

Related Links

New Coal Plants on the Drawing Board

  • Members of Dooda Desert Rock. From left, Alice Gilmore, Elouise Brown, her son JC, her brother-in-law and her grandfather, Julius Gilmore. Her grandparents Alice and Julius lived their whole lives just down the hill from here. They would have to be relocated if the power plant is built. (Photo by Daniel Kraker)

To meet the country’s growing demand for
energy, there are about 150 new
coal-burning power plants on the drawing board.
But not everyone is thrilled about relying on
coal as a future energy source. Daniel Kraker
takes us to a place where people have
lived next to these power plants for decades.
And now they’re fighting plans to build another
one:

Transcript

There’s been a lot of talk about developing clean energy sources, like wind and solar
power. But coal is still king. And to meet the country’s growing energy demand there are
about 150 new coal fired power plants on the drawing board. But not everyone is thrilled
about relying on coal as a significant future energy source. Daniel Kraker takes us to a
place where people have lived next to these power plants for decades. And now they’re
fighting plans to build another one:


In northwest New Mexico, the Navajo Indian reservation is a spectacular other-worldly
landscape of mesas and giant sandstone rock formations jutting out of the red earth.
Underneath the ground are huge reserves of coal. This is where the Navajo government
and a company called Sithe Global Power want to build a 1500-megawatt power plant
called Desert Rock, and it’s here where a small group of Navajos who oppose the project
have set up their base of resistance.


“It’s called Dooda Desert Rock, Dooda means ‘no’ in Navajo.”


That’s Elouise Brown. She’s president of a group of Navajos who live near the proposed
construction site. They’ve been camped out there since December, in a small plywood
shack attached to a trailer. Brown says she’s quit her day job to protest the project full-time:


“I think this whole coal plant is just, people are just looking at dollar signs. They don’t
care about their people, they don’t care about their mother earth, global warming…And I
think it’s about time that we be heard, we’re going to stand here and stay here until
somebody listens to us.”


Brown walks outside the shack with her son and grandfather, Julius Gilmore. He points
out in Navajo where the power plant would go.


“You see the drill down there? It’s just northeast of there…”


“And that’s your grandfather’s house right there?”


“Yes.”


Her grandparents have spent their entire life there. They’ll have to be relocated if the plant
is built.


From the protestors’ camp the tips of two giant smokestacks are visible. The Four Corners
and San Juan Generating Stations were built in the 1970s during the last big construction
wave of coal fired plants. Desert Rock would be the third power plant in this area. Frank
Maisano is a spokesman for Desert Rock:


“Already in the region there is 2300 megawatts of new requests for power, and that is just to
satisfy massive growth in the region right now. Those who say that, ‘Oh we just won’t use
coal.’ They’re not looking at the larger picture, which says we really do have to have a
balanced approach, not just that we don’t like this one little carbon dioxide emission that
comes from this plant.”


Maisano says Desert Rock would be one of the cleanest coal fired plants in the country.
He says scrubbers would remove many of the harmful chemicals that can lead to health
problems and smog. And it would cough up less carbon dioxide than the older generation
of coal-fired plants.


“It’s a higher heat rate so that the coal is heated up so it combusts more completely,
basically what you’re doing is, you’re getting more efficiency, you’re getting more
megawatts out of less coal.”


Still, Desert Rock would emit about 10 million tons of CO2 every year. That’s only about
15% less than older plants. There are 150 coal fired plants like this one on the
drawing board across the country, and 40 of those are likely to start up in the next five
years.


Many environmentalists worry if Desert Rock and other coal plants are built, we’ll be
saddling the country with growing greenhouse gas emissions for decades to come.
Roger Clark is Air and Energy Director with the Grand Canyon Trust:


“As a nation we should consider a ban on all new coal plants. We’re at a point now where
we need to start reversing the amount of greenhouse gasses that we’re putting into the
atmosphere. It’s 19th century technology here in the 21st century that is something that we
don’t need.”


The country’s population is growing, and our thirst for energy is growing right along with
it. Roger Clark and others believe we can meet that growing demand through energy
efficiency improvements, combined with investments in renewables.


Here in the southwest, the Navajo Nation is in the early stages of developing a wind farm.
But that would only produce 200 megawatts of electricity; Desert Rock would be seven
times that size.


The tribe’s primary focus in this debate isn’t CO2 emissions, or climate change, it’s
revenue. Desert Rock would generate an estimated 50 million dollars annually for the
impoverished tribe. If the plant gets its final environmental approvals, and it isn’t taken to
court, that money could start flowing as early as 2012.


For the Environment Report, I’m Daniel Kraker

Related Links

Guidelines for Windmills

  • Wind farms are being constructed across the nation. Experts think there should be clear criteria about how they're built. (Photo by Lester Graham)

A new study says more planning and
guidelines are needed to put wind energy
farms in the right places. Chuck Quirmbach
reports… windmills are sometimes built in
migrating bird flyways or block scenic views:

Transcript

A new study says more planning and
guidelines are needed to put wind energy
farms in the right places. Chuck Quirmbach
reports… windmills are sometimes built in
migrating bird flyways or block scenic views:


Wind energy generation has been growing and the growth is expected to
continue. A report by the National Research Council predicts that by
the year 2020, wind energy will offset the increase in carbon dioxide
pollution from coal-burning power plants by almost 5 percent. But wind
turbines can disturb wildlife and to some people, be an eyesore. So the
new report recommends that regulators adopt an evaluation guide for
proposed projects.


Study director David Policansky says the guide should make it easier to
site wind farms:


“So even if following that guide leads people to avoid some areas, we
believe that following the guide will just rationalize the process and
make it more streamlined and effective for everybody.”


The study also urges governments to work together to analyze the
cumulative effect of wind projects.


For the Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Trucks Sell Despite Polls

A new poll says a majority of pickup owners
support higher federal fuel economy standards,
even though those higher standards could make
trucks more expensive and less available.
Dustin Dwyer reports:

Transcript

A new poll says a majority of pickup owners
support higher federal fuel economy standards,
even though those higher standards could make
trucks more expensive and less available.
Dustin Dwyer reports:


Kevin Curtis of the National Environmental Trust says 83%
of truck owners in the poll support stricter fuel standards.


“Pickup owners really, when faced with the arguments that my pickup will
be more expensive, or, heaven forbid, my pickup won’t even be
available to me, they just didn’t believe it.”


But it’s a different story when people reach the dealer show
floor.


There, Charles Territo of the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers says more than half of all buyers still choose
trucks, SUVs and minivans that burn more gas.


“And until there’s a reason for consumers to make decisions other
than the decisions they’re making now on vehicle choice, it’s
going to be very hard to change the fleetwide fuel economy.”


For the Environment Report, I’m Dustin Dwyer.

Related Links

Chemicals and Breast Cancer

New research is helping identify chemicals in the environment that
might increase the risk of getting breast cancer. Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

New research is helping identify chemicals in the environment that
might increase the risk of getting breast cancer. Mark Brush has more:


Breast cancer is the leading cause of death for US women in their late
30s to their early 50s. A new study points to 216 chemicals that might
be increasing the risks of getting the disease.


The researchers compiled data from hundreds of animal studies that have
linked environmental pollutants to increases in breast tumors. The
research is published in the journal Cancer.


Julia Brody is with the Silent Spring Institute. She’s the principal
investigator of the new study:


“There really hasn’t been adequate attention to possible environmental
factors in breast cancer. This is a relatively new field of study, so
it’s an area where there’s an enormous knowledge gap.”


Breast cancer rates have been dropping in last several years. And
Brody thinks the rates could drop even more as potential environmental
risks are identified.


For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Banned Firewood for Sale

  • Logs from ash trees that had to be cut down after they were infested with emerald ash borer beetles. (Photo by Rebecca Williams)

In more and more places, you can’t bring firewood with you when you go
camping. That’s because officials are worried about a destructive
beetle that people are spreading by moving firewood all over the
nation. Scientists say the best thing you can do is buy firewood where
you camp. But as Rebecca Williams reports, even then… you can’t
always know if the wood you’re buying is safe:

Transcript

In more and more places, you can’t bring firewood with you when you go
camping. That’s because officials are worried about a destructive
beetle that people are spreading by moving firewood all over the
nation. Scientists say the best thing you can do is buy firewood where
you camp. But as Rebecca Williams reports, even then… you can’t
always know if the wood you’re buying is safe:


(Sound of crackling fire)


There’s something sort of magical about a fire. Without it, there’d be
no roasted marshmallows, no ghost stories. And it would get pretty cold at
night. That’s why a lot of people toss some firewood in their car on
the way to camp out. It’s just habit.


But lately it’s gotten risky to move firewood. That wood could be
carrying tiny stowaways with big appetites. Especially a metallic
green beetle called the emerald ash borer.


The ash borer eats through the living layer of ash trees, so the trees
starve to death. It’s thought to have gotten into the States in wood
packing material from China. So far, it’s killed more than 20 million
ash trees in the upper Midwest and Ontario. That’s costing
millions of dollars in lost trees and wood.


People can move the beetle long distances unknowingly by moving
firewood, because the bug hides underneath the bark.


Elizabeth Pentico is trying to stop people from moving that infested
wood. She’s with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. She supervises
USDA inspectors looking for people moving firewood out of quarantined
states:


“If someone has a shipment of logs that’s fairly easy to see, but 25
pieces of firewood in the back of a pickup truck with a camper is a
whole different issue. The firewood pathway is very difficult because
it is so low profile and because everyone moves firewood.”


Pentico says the best thing to do is buy firewood locally… and burn it
all up. But she says a lot of times, if you buy it from a gas station,
supermarket, or home improvement store, there won’t be any way to know
for sure if the firewood is safe.


Recently, that’s been a problem. Firewood from a company in Illinois
was shipped to Menard’s home improvement stores in 10 states. Illinois
is under a federal quarantine for emerald ash borer. So no hardwood
firewood can cross state lines, unless it’s been treated to kill
emerald ash borer larvae.


But somebody messed up.


Jane Larson is a spokesperson with the Wisconsin Department of
Agriculture. She says in this case, the firewood company had an
agreement with the federal government to ship firewood across state
lines:


“Part of that agreement is they’d sell wood that had the bark removed,
or it would be ‘debarked.’ And we were finding here that the wood was not
debarked.”


Larson says a nationwide recall was put in place. But she says a few
Menard’s stores were still selling the firewood a week after the recall
notice was issued.


In a written statement to The Environment Report, a Menard’s
spokesperson says quote – “Menard’s was in complete cooperation with
the USDA firewood recall and has obtained a new vendor.”


But officials say this incident shows how easily the ash borer can
spread.


USDA’s Elizabeth Pentico says even if you buy a firewood
bundle that says it’s from Texas, that doesn’t mean that’s where the
firewood came from:


“We had a distribution center here in Michigan. The broker for the
firewood was in Texas. The wood itself came out of Missouri and the
wood was distributed to Ohio and Indiana.”


So you can see, firewood can travel around a lot.


You can even buy firewood on eBay, by the semi-load. Pentico says her
inspectors have to watch the Net closely:


“They’ve even come across some firewood chatrooms that have firewood sales.
You can indicate that firewood is illegal. The officers stopped a sale
of Michigan firewood going to California by just typing in and saying
you know, that’s an illegal movement.”


But Pentico says officers do have to catch the wood actually crossing
state lines before the laws can be enforced.


Some people in the firewood industry agree it’s like hide and seek for
inspectors.


Jim Albring is a firewood dealer who’s been in the business for more
than 25 years:


“A lot of firewood business is done by little individuals, guys that
cut on the weekends and so forth, and you try to change the mindset of those people
and say you can’t cut ash, you can’t sell ash, well they’re going to
cut what they want to cut. They’re individuals… and if there’s ash in
it, so there’s ash in it.”


The inspectors say it’s very hard even for a trained eye to tell the
difference between ash wood that might be infested and any other kind
of wood that’s safe. So they say the best thing to do is to not move
firewood at all. Buy local and burn it up as soon as you can.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Adapting to Climate Change

Businesses are beginning to talk about climate change in different
terms. Instead of debating whether humans are causing it, there’s a
lot more talk about what climate change might mean to the business
climate. Lester Graham reports there are questions about what might
happen to affect business as global temperatures and weather patterns change:

Transcript

Businesses are beginning to talk about climate change in different
terms. Instead of debating whether humans are causing it, there’s a
lot more talk about what climate change might mean to the business
climate. Lester Graham reports there are questions about what might
happen to affect business as global temperatures and weather patterns change:


For the last couple of decades, the people who’ve been arguing that we
have to do something to reduce the greenhouse emissions causing global
warming avoided one subject:


“People did not want to talk about adaptation or coping with climate
change because that was seen as a cop-out.”


That’s Rosina Bierbaum. She was a science advisor during the Clinton
administration and is now the Dean of the School of Natural Resources
and Environment at the University of Michigan.


The fear was, if you could figure out a way to cope with global
warming, you wouldn’t do anything to reduce the emissions causing it.


But Bierbaum says with concensus among the majority of the scientists in
the world that global warming is happening and humans are contributing,
the point has been made. Time to move on:


“It’s only really been, I would say, in the last two years that the
science has become so clear, that the changes are occurring so fast.
And we’re seeing them already… that society is realizing we’ve got to
cope with those changes now and there are more in store for us.”


Actually, Bierbaum thinks we’re really kind of behind in thinking about
the consequences of global warming. It’s not just the polar ice caps
melting and the rising sea levels. There are a lot of everyday sort of
things that will likely change.


For instance, what kind of plants should you put in your home
landscaping? Will the tree you plant today survive in the changing
climate? How flexible is your business if the climate changes weather
patterns?


Thomas Karl is the Director of the National Climatic Data Center at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He says people have
to start thinking about things like that. And Karl says it’s not just
higher temperatures, but sudden dramatic changes, such as maybe no snow
in the Northern states for a couple of years at a time. Or dry spells
that could make rivers so low that barges can’t travel up and down
them:


“What really has important impacts are the extreme events. I think the
questions being asked along these lines are ‘How vulnerable am I to
these episodic conditions?’ and ‘What do we need to do to prepare
ourselves for the possibility that things may not change gradually, but
could be quite abrupt change?'”


Some of those extreme events are heavier storms. As hurricane Katrina
showed, that could affect a lot of things. For example, the oil
industry is looking at its refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. With more
and more intense hurricanes, could it be worth building
refineries somewhere else?


There’s a lot at risk.


Franklin Nutter is the President of the Reinsurance Association of
America: the insurers of the insurance companies. He says with more
forest fires in the West, and unpredictability in agriculture, and more
violent storm surges on the coasts… all due to climate change, it’s
going to cost:


“Someone has to pay for the repair and recovery. If the insurance
mechanism is going to be the intermediary that translates those costs
into people’s premiums, then the answer is insurance premiums are going
to have to match those.”


And that means we’re all going to pay higher insurance costs because
some people and businesses are going to ignore, or miscalculate, how
climate change is going to affect them:


“The Association of British Insurers did a study looking at just the
effect of climate change on insurability and held steady population
growth, property values, all of those things. And they concluded that
you could see insurance premiums rise by 60% by mid-century just as a
result of climate change.”


That means if nothing changed: no inflation, no currency change…
nothing except global warming, insurance rates go up 60% during the
next 30 to 40 years. You’re already seeing it.


Some climate change experts say we can slow the impacts of global
warming by reducing greenhouse emissions now. But we’re already
seeing change… and we will see more.


There will be winners in global climate change. Some growing seasons
will be extended. Some areas will get more precipitation. But there
will likely be a lot more losers as businesses and people either can’t
or won’t adjust to the changing climate of their region.


For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Canada’s Co2 Plan Called Scam

Canada’s conservative government recently unveiled the final details of
its long awaited policy on fighting climate change… and it says it
will not meet its Kyoto targets. And as Dan Karpenchuk reports, so far
the proposed eight billion dollar policy has been a tough sell:

Transcript

Canada’s conservative government recently unveiled the final details of
its long awaited policy on fighting climate change… and it says it
will not meet its Kyoto targets. And as Dan Karpenchuk reports, so far
the proposed eight billion dollar policy has been a tough sell:


Canadian Environment minister John Baird, laid out the details of the
framework policy called Turning the Corner, something he described as
the most ambitious environmental plan ever tabled in Canada:


“Canadian industry is today served notice that it will have to become
more efficient in order to both reduce its greenhouse gasses and to
reduce air pollution. We will do this by mandating strict targets for industry.”


Under the new green plan, the government hopes to reduce current
emissions 20% by the year 2020. It calls for industries to make
in-house reductions, participate in domestic emissions trading, buy
energy offsets and invest in a technology fund.


But there are no specifics. Canada’s oil industry, one of the biggest
polluters, is breathing easier, relieved there will be no hard caps on
emissions.


But environmentalists say it doesn’t even match the commitments made by
some other countries. And the liberals call it a scam.


For the Environment Report, I’m Dan Karpenchuk.

Related Links

Recycling Unused Paint

A new study by the Environmental Protection Agency shows that after a
typical painting project – there’s about ten percent of the paint
leftover. Mark Brush reports on an effort to set up collection centers
for unused paint:

Transcript

A new study by the Environmental Protection Agency shows that after a
typical painting project – there’s about ten percent of the paint
leftover. Mark Brush reports on an effort to set up collection centers
for unused paint:


Like a lot of people, I’ve got all these old paint cans down in my
basement.


(Sound of paint cans clinking)


I’m planning to take most of them to a nearby collection center, but
many cities don’t have a collection center. So, of the 65 million
gallons of leftover paint around the country, a lot of it gets dumped.


Scott Cassell is the executive director of the Product Stewardship
Institute:


“This paint is going into our waterways, it’s polluting the
environment, it’s wasting resources so we need to mine for titanium
dioxide and other ingredients in the paint again. I think if people
understood that, they would be more than willing to pay a nominal fee
for the proper management of this product.”


Cassell’s group wants a fee to be tacked on to every can of paint. He
says this so-called “eco fee” will help pay for a national paint
collection program. Many paint manufacturers say they favor the plan.


For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Sea Ice Melting Faster Than Predicted

  • Arctic sea ice is melting at a faster rate than the most advanced computer models had projected. (Photo by M. Tsukernik, courtesy of the National Snow and Ice Data Center)

New research shows Arctic sea ice is melting much faster than predicted
by computer models. Rebecca Williams reports the researchers say that
could accelerate the impacts of global warming:

Transcript

New research shows Arctic sea ice is melting much faster than predicted
by computer models. Rebecca Williams reports the researchers say that
could accelerate the impacts of global warming:


Greenhouse gasses trapped in the atmosphere are making the Arctic sea ice
melt. Scientists have been relying on computer models to predict how
fast the ice will melt.


Researchers at the National Snow and Ice Data Center found actual
measurements show the ice melt is happening about 30 years ahead of
what the models predicted.


Julienne Stroeve is the study’s lead author. She says summertime
Arctic sea ice could be gone completely by the first half of this
century:


“I’m definitely concerned that it’s going to happen in the next 30 or
40 years… It’s a huge climate shift for our planet. I think we’re
going to have a much warmer planet than we’re used to seeing.”


Stroeve says it’s not clear how weather patterns might change, but she
says it’s possible the loss of the sea ice could lead to more natural
disasters such as stronger storms and drought.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links