The mercury doesn't lie: We've hit a troubling climate change milestone - The Boston Globe:
Bill McKibben gives a quick notice of the unbelievable occurrence. The 2 degrees Celsius above normal is that critical milestone that governments have arbitrarily chosen as the drop-dead level for the planet.
We'll congratulations, we have gotten there!
Somewhat humorously, you gotta laugh or you will cry, Anchorage, Alaska is importing snow for the great dog sled race. First year for no-show of snow!
Bill was active in the 350.org effort to try to roll back the CO2 levels of the planet to 350ppm from the 400 level we now find ourselves. Of course it has been only upward since then.
Ouch!
Double ouch!
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Thursday, February 11, 2016
The State of Green Business, 2016 | GreenBiz
The State of Green Business, 2016 | GreenBiz:
The latest report by GreenBiz (and Trucost) on the State of Green Business is great. Optimistic, but no green-colored glasses. There was a lot of progress in Paris (COP21) in December, but the progress from businesses is were major progress seems to be forming.
It is great to see businesses taking more control and starting to shape sustainability arguments and the form the solutions. We at SustainZine are not great proponents of big government efforts coming to "help" solve all the world's sustainability issues; businesses can avoid this help by being proactive (and no, proactive does not mean and army of K-street lobbyists protect smoke-stack industries and to inhibit all forms of progress).
More and more companies are offering more transparency about social and environmental impacts. More companies are stepping forward with transparency on the labels (Campbell's "non-GMO" labeling, for example) and more transparency on the footprint of the supply chain, and cradle-to-cradle efforts. Management should monitor their full impact on the environment, and investors should care about progress in the most critical areas of the business. Employees are critical to any and every sustainability effort, on corporate facilities, in transit, or in their personal lives.
It is possible to develop new business models. The sharing economy is kicking huge industries in the rears. The sharing economy is causing massive and dynamic reallocated of time and resources of homes, cars, crowd funding and innovation on a time-share basis. The old economies of taxis and hotels are going to have to scramble to stay relevant, often sending them to court and to congress to try to stop the renegades from tipping over the ship. The time and resources savings from a sharing economy, often have profound savings to the environment. Many of these improvements in performance will go unmeasured by the traditional metrics of performance (like GDP).
On a leadership level. Just saying it out loud, seems to be the GIANT step: measurement, forming initiatives and the monitoring progress toward goals. As of 2014, about half of the companies had Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction targets. That percentage seems to be increasing at about 2-4% per year since this reporting was started a decade or so ago.
The current targets by companies represents only about 28% of what is needed in reductions by about 2030 of about 3 gigatons of GHG emissions reduction per year. With the magic of compounding geometric growth, the required reductions per year would need to be about 32 gigatons each year if we wait until 2050. (Or 51 gigatons reduction per year if we continue business as usual until 2100; obviously far too late to consider seriously since CO2 persists in the atmosphere for about 100 years.)
Sidebar on GHGs. In terms of greenhouse gasses, this year has blasted through the 400 ppm level for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Look at the Keening Curve on this. January 2016 was 402.5 ppm. We may never be below 400 ppm again. Since this is an El Nino year, the September-to-September increase should be about +4 ppm, not the current trend of +2.2ppm per year base on the lowest month of the year (September in Mauna Loa, Hawaii). Paul Keening developed this curve starting with observatory data starting in 1958 when the CO2 level in the atmosphere was below 320 ppm. At that time the annual increase was about +0.75 ppm but quickly jumped during the global industrialization to the current average increase of +2.2 ppm each year. Many (rapidly becoming most) scientist believe that we need to get down below the 350 ppm level to avoid massive impacts from warming and climate change.
A decent percentage of companies are reporting on water, about 20% in the US and 15% globally. This seems unnecessary for many companies.
There is an interesting discussion and presentation related to natural capital (R&D, investments, profits and savings). Natural capital costs are the unpaid costs to the economy from pollution, natural resource depletion and related health costs (see the Natural Capital Project and at Stanford). Natural capital takes into consideration factors that tends to elude normal accounting and finance. A company's financials may show profits, but when all costs are considered -- including externalities -- those profits might evaporate. In fact, the S&P 500 have natural costs of about $1T per year and overall natural costs have escalated about 22% since the great recession. If all costs were considered, about 115% (to 153%) of corporate accounting profits would be wiped out in the US (and globally). (Even if you question the cost assignments for natural costing, the general methodology is sound; and this is not a pretty picture of corporate sustainability in terms of true profits.)
So, in the real world, with full costing, corporations, on average, are not profitable. And, if the company is not sustainable, then the true costs and profits are not real. Right?
Innovation and patents: Lot's of CleanTech patents, but the number is way down. The measure of Clean Tech patents is fuzzy and getting fuzzier. Electronic and auto companies (Toyota & Honda) are at the top of the list of patents. But IBM is not listed.
GreenBiz and Trucost have a wonderful 2016 report; and lots of progress is being made, in large and small ways. But keep in mind that too much reporting is, well, too much. We don't want businesses to adopt (or have forced on them) the same approach from education where testing and reporting has replaced much (most) of the teaching/learning!:-(
But, for the 50% of business that is not reporting (may not be monitoring at all), no metrics and no reporting has multiple implications. First, you obviously don't have a business plan, if you don't also have a sustainability plan in it. Second, you definitely don't know your true costs if you don't assess externalities and supply chain. Third, you have no idea what all your risks are, so you have no ability to manage or mitigate them. Even Sarbains-Oxley would have to kick in at some point when it becomes "material" to the company. Lastly, you don't know if you are actually, and truly profitable, your accounting system misrepresents the business.
If you like Sarbains-Oxley, then you will have no end of joy if/when governments starts requiring more environmental or natural capital reporting. Seems like businesses should take initiatives voluntarily, and on their own terms. A sustainable leader would insist on knowing a fully sustainable path forward. Investors, business partners and employees would want to know.
Note that this report is based on a Trucost database of 12,000 global companies that represents 93% of the world markets by market cap.
'via Blog this'
The latest report by GreenBiz (and Trucost) on the State of Green Business is great. Optimistic, but no green-colored glasses. There was a lot of progress in Paris (COP21) in December, but the progress from businesses is were major progress seems to be forming.
It is great to see businesses taking more control and starting to shape sustainability arguments and the form the solutions. We at SustainZine are not great proponents of big government efforts coming to "help" solve all the world's sustainability issues; businesses can avoid this help by being proactive (and no, proactive does not mean and army of K-street lobbyists protect smoke-stack industries and to inhibit all forms of progress).
More and more companies are offering more transparency about social and environmental impacts. More companies are stepping forward with transparency on the labels (Campbell's "non-GMO" labeling, for example) and more transparency on the footprint of the supply chain, and cradle-to-cradle efforts. Management should monitor their full impact on the environment, and investors should care about progress in the most critical areas of the business. Employees are critical to any and every sustainability effort, on corporate facilities, in transit, or in their personal lives.
It is possible to develop new business models. The sharing economy is kicking huge industries in the rears. The sharing economy is causing massive and dynamic reallocated of time and resources of homes, cars, crowd funding and innovation on a time-share basis. The old economies of taxis and hotels are going to have to scramble to stay relevant, often sending them to court and to congress to try to stop the renegades from tipping over the ship. The time and resources savings from a sharing economy, often have profound savings to the environment. Many of these improvements in performance will go unmeasured by the traditional metrics of performance (like GDP).
On a leadership level. Just saying it out loud, seems to be the GIANT step: measurement, forming initiatives and the monitoring progress toward goals. As of 2014, about half of the companies had Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction targets. That percentage seems to be increasing at about 2-4% per year since this reporting was started a decade or so ago.
The current targets by companies represents only about 28% of what is needed in reductions by about 2030 of about 3 gigatons of GHG emissions reduction per year. With the magic of compounding geometric growth, the required reductions per year would need to be about 32 gigatons each year if we wait until 2050. (Or 51 gigatons reduction per year if we continue business as usual until 2100; obviously far too late to consider seriously since CO2 persists in the atmosphere for about 100 years.)
Sidebar on GHGs. In terms of greenhouse gasses, this year has blasted through the 400 ppm level for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Look at the Keening Curve on this. January 2016 was 402.5 ppm. We may never be below 400 ppm again. Since this is an El Nino year, the September-to-September increase should be about +4 ppm, not the current trend of +2.2ppm per year base on the lowest month of the year (September in Mauna Loa, Hawaii). Paul Keening developed this curve starting with observatory data starting in 1958 when the CO2 level in the atmosphere was below 320 ppm. At that time the annual increase was about +0.75 ppm but quickly jumped during the global industrialization to the current average increase of +2.2 ppm each year. Many (rapidly becoming most) scientist believe that we need to get down below the 350 ppm level to avoid massive impacts from warming and climate change.
A decent percentage of companies are reporting on water, about 20% in the US and 15% globally. This seems unnecessary for many companies.
There is an interesting discussion and presentation related to natural capital (R&D, investments, profits and savings). Natural capital costs are the unpaid costs to the economy from pollution, natural resource depletion and related health costs (see the Natural Capital Project and at Stanford). Natural capital takes into consideration factors that tends to elude normal accounting and finance. A company's financials may show profits, but when all costs are considered -- including externalities -- those profits might evaporate. In fact, the S&P 500 have natural costs of about $1T per year and overall natural costs have escalated about 22% since the great recession. If all costs were considered, about 115% (to 153%) of corporate accounting profits would be wiped out in the US (and globally). (Even if you question the cost assignments for natural costing, the general methodology is sound; and this is not a pretty picture of corporate sustainability in terms of true profits.)
So, in the real world, with full costing, corporations, on average, are not profitable. And, if the company is not sustainable, then the true costs and profits are not real. Right?
Innovation and patents: Lot's of CleanTech patents, but the number is way down. The measure of Clean Tech patents is fuzzy and getting fuzzier. Electronic and auto companies (Toyota & Honda) are at the top of the list of patents. But IBM is not listed.
GreenBiz and Trucost have a wonderful 2016 report; and lots of progress is being made, in large and small ways. But keep in mind that too much reporting is, well, too much. We don't want businesses to adopt (or have forced on them) the same approach from education where testing and reporting has replaced much (most) of the teaching/learning!:-(
But, for the 50% of business that is not reporting (may not be monitoring at all), no metrics and no reporting has multiple implications. First, you obviously don't have a business plan, if you don't also have a sustainability plan in it. Second, you definitely don't know your true costs if you don't assess externalities and supply chain. Third, you have no idea what all your risks are, so you have no ability to manage or mitigate them. Even Sarbains-Oxley would have to kick in at some point when it becomes "material" to the company. Lastly, you don't know if you are actually, and truly profitable, your accounting system misrepresents the business.
If you like Sarbains-Oxley, then you will have no end of joy if/when governments starts requiring more environmental or natural capital reporting. Seems like businesses should take initiatives voluntarily, and on their own terms. A sustainable leader would insist on knowing a fully sustainable path forward. Investors, business partners and employees would want to know.
Note that this report is based on a Trucost database of 12,000 global companies that represents 93% of the world markets by market cap.
Friday, January 22, 2016
2015 hottest year, by a mile
Sadly, 2015 was really hot. Record hot. And it set a record for breaking the record (set last year in 2014).
Ouch, ouch and double ouch!.
This was a wicked El Nino year. Only an El Nino year last century competes with the hottest 14 years this century. Apparently, the follow through from El Nino starting in 2015 should leave 2016 as a rather hot year.
One of the best summations on the subject came from NPR. Or Global Warming in Wikipedia, where you will find the best, most current, information on sustainability in the world.
Starting in 2014, we had half of the months as record hottest months. 2015 had most of the months being the hottest on record; 10 months in 2015 matched or exceeded all time recorded history records! (Ask when we last had a record COLD year, or even a record COLD month, and you will get goose bumps!)
Fortunately -- finally -- most of the people in the US are finally coming around to the fact the we do, in fact, have global warming. See blog here.
As CO2 blasted past 400 ppm in 2015, we have only just begun this journey into uncharted territory. And, CO2 can be expected to persist in the atmosphere for about 100 years.
It took the earth 50 to 500 million years to store up the coal and oil we seem determined to burn up in about 2 centuries. And in the process we are releasing mass quantities of carbon into earth's ecosystem that has been happily sequestered, like diamonds in the rough, for 100 million years or more.
We at SustainZine, propose actions that we all could take immediately. Within a day or so, we all could have taken energy efficiency actions on our homes, businesses and churches. Wa-la... Save energy, save money, save the environment (a little for each of us). A perpetuity of savings.
Telecommuting/telework is a wonderful place to start with businesses. Huge savings of energy, time and life. A perpetuity of savings if the non-drive to work, continues to work.
And there are many things like this that we can do without the "help" of government.
Education, likewise, is critical for us all to start making more informed decisions. There are easy things that we all should be doing, right here, right now. We also need to be continually aware of the BIG factors, so that they are in the forefront of our future decisions and actions.
Business as usual is something we need to continually question. That's what got us into this situation. Unconscious decisions are still decisions.
A business without a sustainability plan, does not really have a business plan.
2016 seems like a year when sustainability will start to gain firm footing in the US. Each of us can start by save a watt and save a gallon.
Ouch, ouch and double ouch!.
This was a wicked El Nino year. Only an El Nino year last century competes with the hottest 14 years this century. Apparently, the follow through from El Nino starting in 2015 should leave 2016 as a rather hot year.
One of the best summations on the subject came from NPR. Or Global Warming in Wikipedia, where you will find the best, most current, information on sustainability in the world.
Starting in 2014, we had half of the months as record hottest months. 2015 had most of the months being the hottest on record; 10 months in 2015 matched or exceeded all time recorded history records! (Ask when we last had a record COLD year, or even a record COLD month, and you will get goose bumps!)
Fortunately -- finally -- most of the people in the US are finally coming around to the fact the we do, in fact, have global warming. See blog here.
As CO2 blasted past 400 ppm in 2015, we have only just begun this journey into uncharted territory. And, CO2 can be expected to persist in the atmosphere for about 100 years.
It took the earth 50 to 500 million years to store up the coal and oil we seem determined to burn up in about 2 centuries. And in the process we are releasing mass quantities of carbon into earth's ecosystem that has been happily sequestered, like diamonds in the rough, for 100 million years or more.
We at SustainZine, propose actions that we all could take immediately. Within a day or so, we all could have taken energy efficiency actions on our homes, businesses and churches. Wa-la... Save energy, save money, save the environment (a little for each of us). A perpetuity of savings.
Telecommuting/telework is a wonderful place to start with businesses. Huge savings of energy, time and life. A perpetuity of savings if the non-drive to work, continues to work.
And there are many things like this that we can do without the "help" of government.
Education, likewise, is critical for us all to start making more informed decisions. There are easy things that we all should be doing, right here, right now. We also need to be continually aware of the BIG factors, so that they are in the forefront of our future decisions and actions.
Business as usual is something we need to continually question. That's what got us into this situation. Unconscious decisions are still decisions.
A business without a sustainability plan, does not really have a business plan.
2016 seems like a year when sustainability will start to gain firm footing in the US. Each of us can start by save a watt and save a gallon.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
FDA miss, more or less!
Uncle Sam Just Told Us To Drink Water, Not Soda. You Might've Missed It http://n.pr/1TI2QUx
The guidelines, and the pictures, should be, and could be, very simple.
More... fresh fruits and vegetables. More water. More exercise.
Less... Processed foods, red meat, and sugary soft drinks.
Simple. And fits nicely into almost any diagram you want to make.
Manatees, and turtles, back from the extinction vortex
Finally, Some Good News For Manatees And Green Sea Turtles http://n.pr/1UCUr4V
Saturday, December 19, 2015
Finding Where U.S. Forests Have Been Undisturbed for a Quarter Century « Landsat Science
Finding Where U.S. Forests Have Been Undisturbed for a Quarter Century « Landsat Science:
This is a very cool study of the "old forests" that are undisturbed in the USA. The Northeast and the pacific maintained some undisturbed forests; the south was really bad. There are many plants, animals and entire ecosystems that rely on old forests. This study demonstrates how bad it is and how much worse it could get over the next few generations (of humans).
This is a 25 year study using landsat technology (through 2010), so it doesn't address the prior 200 years since the pilgrims came to visit north america.
One of the things that we harp on endlessly at this cite is the compounding effects of human actions. In this case. The study uses exponential decay to show the compounding effects of old forest degradation. In 100 years there would be only about 20% of the old forest left in a business as usual (BAS) scenario. But that number would drop to only about 4% in another 100 years. That means that in 200 to 300 years we could expect virtually no old forests to exist.
It would be interesting if the last 10 years are significantly different. The Great Recession caused commodity prices to plummet. Wood and paper were especially hard hit. The demise of coal -- mining and burning -- in the US would help as well. Urban sprawl, slowed to a crawl.
Haung points out that the big opportunities to mitigate (old) forest loss is in the south and by minimizing fires in the west. Of course, if we let the old forest go to near zero, we could have an easy opportunity for exponential regrowth. (I'm being facetious, of course, once forest -- especially old forest -- has be used for other purposes, it is nearly impossible to move it back to nature and keep it there for 100 years or more.)
Doctor Haung, what do you think the current trend might be? Are we starting to "bend the curve" (as the old addage in finance and climate change goes)?
Visit Dr. haung's Page at U of Maryland and see a link to the study here: http://geog.umd.edu/facultyprofile/Huang/Chengquan
'via Blog this'
This is a very cool study of the "old forests" that are undisturbed in the USA. The Northeast and the pacific maintained some undisturbed forests; the south was really bad. There are many plants, animals and entire ecosystems that rely on old forests. This study demonstrates how bad it is and how much worse it could get over the next few generations (of humans).
This is a 25 year study using landsat technology (through 2010), so it doesn't address the prior 200 years since the pilgrims came to visit north america.
One of the things that we harp on endlessly at this cite is the compounding effects of human actions. In this case. The study uses exponential decay to show the compounding effects of old forest degradation. In 100 years there would be only about 20% of the old forest left in a business as usual (BAS) scenario. But that number would drop to only about 4% in another 100 years. That means that in 200 to 300 years we could expect virtually no old forests to exist.
It would be interesting if the last 10 years are significantly different. The Great Recession caused commodity prices to plummet. Wood and paper were especially hard hit. The demise of coal -- mining and burning -- in the US would help as well. Urban sprawl, slowed to a crawl.
Haung points out that the big opportunities to mitigate (old) forest loss is in the south and by minimizing fires in the west. Of course, if we let the old forest go to near zero, we could have an easy opportunity for exponential regrowth. (I'm being facetious, of course, once forest -- especially old forest -- has be used for other purposes, it is nearly impossible to move it back to nature and keep it there for 100 years or more.)
Doctor Haung, what do you think the current trend might be? Are we starting to "bend the curve" (as the old addage in finance and climate change goes)?
Visit Dr. haung's Page at U of Maryland and see a link to the study here: http://geog.umd.edu/facultyprofile/Huang/Chengquan
'via Blog this'
Friday, December 18, 2015
What just happened in solar is a bigger deal than oil exports
What just happened in solar is a bigger deal than oil exports:
Interesting how the BIG move in solar/wind in the USA is so tied to subsidies. At least for the next 5 years. But, soon, especially with the volume of growth encouraged by the subsidies, there will no longer be a need for subsidies.
The really big loser all around is (dirty) coal. Once the health and environmental costs of coal are factored in, coal moves from our cheapest source of electrical energy to one of our worst. As well, wind and solar are improving in performance rapidly.
And then there are the environmental factors of coal that start to get uglier and uglier once you start to count pollution, the health and safety issues and the contribution to greenhouse gases. Other types of energy like oil and natgas are increasingly throwing coal under the bus, too.
So, renewable electrical energy could be really booming over the next 5 years with the continued subsidies. Those subsidies are being phased out; but it all looks like an excellent plan forward toward a more renewable USA.
'via Blog this'
Interesting how the BIG move in solar/wind in the USA is so tied to subsidies. At least for the next 5 years. But, soon, especially with the volume of growth encouraged by the subsidies, there will no longer be a need for subsidies.
The really big loser all around is (dirty) coal. Once the health and environmental costs of coal are factored in, coal moves from our cheapest source of electrical energy to one of our worst. As well, wind and solar are improving in performance rapidly.
And then there are the environmental factors of coal that start to get uglier and uglier once you start to count pollution, the health and safety issues and the contribution to greenhouse gases. Other types of energy like oil and natgas are increasingly throwing coal under the bus, too.
So, renewable electrical energy could be really booming over the next 5 years with the continued subsidies. Those subsidies are being phased out; but it all looks like an excellent plan forward toward a more renewable USA.
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Economists costs will be sooner and bigger for global temps
Here is what it kind of a think if we keep doing business as usual! Things could be worse and sinner than previously expected.
http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/new_metrics/mike_hower/economists_say_climate_impacts_will_be_worse_previously_believ?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=schtweets&utm_campaign=social
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Great answers on climate and solutions.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/10/opinions/cop21-facebook-chat/index.html
This has been some of the clearest points about renewable energy, and why it is so important.
Monday, December 7, 2015
No food to waste
Chef Massimo Bottura on Why the Future of Food is in Our Trash http://www.wsj.com/articles/chef-massimo-bottura-on-why-the-future-of-food-is-in-our-trash-1449506020
We throw away about $700 worth of food each year in the USA. That's per person, last I saw, which was probably about 10 years ago.
Think of the products taken from the shelf because they are past the due date.
Capturing most of this food can go a long way toward feeding a hungry planet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)