Green Numbers: The Inspiring Stats

Want to read something inspiring? How about a few stats on how green, social and ethical issues are being implemented in corporate Canada (and global multinationals) every day?

Here's a few inspiring stats:

• What are 88% of companies willing to try?
  Nearly nine in 10 companies are currently undertaking carbon offsetting activities or would consider offsetting in the future, according to a survey of carbon management trends.
• What can increase a company's value by 80%?
  Tackling climate change could boost company value in six sectors worth a total of $7 trillion, according to a new report by the Carbon Trust.
• What has the possibility of cutting CO2 by 20%
  PLENTY magazineTom Casten, founder of Recycled Energy Development (RED) posits the US can cut 20% of its CO2 emissions if companies capture the wasted heat from their industrial processes and turn it into electricity. The idea of capturing wasted heat-–particularly the steam that billows from industrial stacks—and converting it into energy is again gaining buzz.
• Who is expecting 160% ROI on climate spending?
  Cleaning products giant JohnsonDiversey has joined the U.S. EPA's Climate Savers program, pledging $19 million toward emissions reduction efforts that the company expects will save $31 million over the next five years.

Interest peaked? Want a few more stats? Go to: By The Numbers

Power to the People: Viral Campaigns and the Beijing Olympics

Who says the people don't have power?

A marketing firm released a press release today 'warning' Olympic sponsors about the potentially high cost of sponsoring the Beijing Olympics due to the proliference, "impact and dominance of consumer driven, viral campaigns and their ability to affect global consumer behaviours."

Tony Chapman, Founder and CEO of Capital C, one of Canada's leading marketing firms, cautioned Canadian marketers to carefully consider the dangers in fulfilling their Beijing Olympic marketing programs due to the dissatisfaction of activist groups and disheartened individuals -- (all with access to the democratic medium of the internet, I might add).

Chapman states that "the Tibet controversy currently interrupting the torch journey is inspiring a reaction of global proportions. It is becoming deafening as it is digitally enabled and swirls around the world, collecting images, commentary, evidence and an ever growing community of supporters. Conversations which started with Tibet and Darfur will cross over to China's environmental record, its treatment of workers, its foreign policy and every other cause imaginable, ultimately becoming an unstoppable force impenetrable by spin doctors, brand managers, or even the most elaborate marketing campaigns."

Chapman, in his marketing wisdom, goes on to say that the reaction to China and the "viral phenomenon" surrounding demonstrate to global brands that the rules have shifted from mass media (where they were in charge), to social media (where the consumer is in charge). "This is an environment where consumer behaviour will not be based on immediate needs, but upon moral and ethical criteria. Consumers are now demanding more than great taste; they are demanding corporate integrity. Today, how a corporation behaves towards its employees, community and planet, and with whom they associate are the new benchmarks for decision making."

Buyer be warned.

Corporate heads take heed.

As Margaret Mead so cleverly stated:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

Sports Fans Jump on Carbon Credits for Beijing Olympics (even if the torch does stay out)

Despite what you might think about the Beijing Olympics, the fact that one of the world's biggest polluters is hosting the "Green" Olympics has not escaped the attention of many a cynical critic.

Yet, rather than focus on this, I would like to draw your attention to notion that shame really does work to change behaviour.

For about two decades a well-known North American travel company has offered the sports enthusiast the ultimate trip: flight, accomodation, sporting event and extras all under one umbrella. You can well imagine Olympics are a boon for this type of company. This year, however, this company (who shall remain nameless, so I am not accused of promotion or slander) is offering another perk: 40,000 lbs of TerraPass carbon offset credits.

I am not saying this company is worthy of shame (that requires analysis by credentials that I do not hold) -- what I am saying is that this company is responding to theories within behaviourial finances -- go where the market is...and the market is fickle.

At the moment green is in. Everything and anything that can attach their name to green, sustainable or ethical initiatives are doing so in droves. This change in corporate behaviour highlights all the important work environmentalists have done over the last four decades; it also highlights the importance of critical mass.

If we get enough people concerned about a topic (whether it's taxes, air pollution, pesticides on our lawn, or the latest violent flick) and business will try to capitalize on that interest.

I am not saying this a negative aspect of our 'free'-market economy.

What I am saying is that it is a predictable aspect of our economy (and an aspect activists and corporations have coopted for years).

Still, there is a powerful aspect to a groundswell movement -- millions of people supporting just one cause. It's even more amazing when those people are not the average activist, protestor, supporter or believer of socio-economic and environmental issues -- and, let's face it, most sports enthusiasts are not. Yet, a vast majority of these enthusiasts who will brave the wrath of supporting the Chinese Olympics are doing so in a more proactive manner (even if there is an argument that carbon off-setting is a greenwash)...and that means that years of shaming and blaming have come out to provide alternatives to our actions. That's growth...and I'm all over that

Junkie or Pundit -- U.S. Candidates (in their own words) on Enviro Issues

Political pundit or power junkie?
These are some of the questions the League of Conservation Voters attempt to answer through the lens of sustainability/environmentalism.

By examining each of the three leading candidates (Clinton, McCain and Obama) the League helps voters help themselves and the planet.

Think of Justice League...only without the shields and capes.

For more information go to:
Senator Clinton's rating: CLINTON on the ENVIRO
Senator McCain's rating: McCAIN on the ENVIRO
Senator Obama's rating: OBAMA on the ENVIRO

Turn up the HEAT

Pick up a paper, magazine or book and you are bound to run across at least one debate on the potential causes of Global Warming. In a new book by George Monbiot, the debate of how is surpassed by the need to act. Rather than answering the typical questions of cause and effect, Monbiot focuses on what do we do to stop it -- the most pressing question out there.

From the outset, Monbiot makes it very clear: He is not looking for a complete revision of our lifestyle. Quite appropriately he argues that as an affluent society, we will not buy into a complete overhaul of our lifestyle. He does, however, believe there are actions and solutions that can be incorporated into our creature comforts that can (and do) have a significant impact on this global issue.

A few of the areas that can enact these necessary changes are outlined in Heat, including:
*improving (dramatically!) the way we construct buildings, which includes (but is not limited to:)
*the mix of renewable and non-renewable sources must be used to supply
energy to these buildings (rather than relying solely on non-renewable)
*reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the retail and cement industries by 90%
*necessary and radical changes to land transportation (changes that do not significantly effect mobility for our affluent society)
*(this is a big one) a significant reduction of air travel. Period. He argues that airline travel is a major greenhouse gas contributor and, given available methods, there is no satisfactory way of reducing these emissions in a significant way

While Monbiot is emphatic about these changes, he is also determined to instill an attitude of possibilities. Rather than simply focus on the urgency of the situation, he focuses on the immediacy of the potential solutions. He prefaces this by explaining the problem and then setting an effective action deadline (for curbing global wamring) at 2030. Monbiot suggests that 90% or all greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by 90% by 2030 -- a goal he stresses IS possible if we take action (action he outlines as the least difficult and least painful in terms of altering our creature comforts lifestyle).

One point that Monbiot stresses that is of particular importance is the inability for voluntary change to inact the necessary reduction in emisssions. He, rightly, argues, that while strict government regulation is considered "unfashionable" it is absolute essential if we want to achieve the necessary changes. He emphasizes that while regulations by governments are considered prohibitive they can, in fact, maximize freedoms of citizens by developing more inclusive, more accessible and more attainable ideals and cultures. He believes that the combination of our current capalist-based culture and government regulations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can work because "by and large, whatever our beliefs may be, we consume as much as our incomes allow."

Monbiot's point on regulation also contradicts the current focus on new technology solutions -- a contradiction that is essential if we are to move away from the idea that a new solution will fix on old problem. In fact, Monbiot criticizes both sides of this spectrum -- from the green-technophiles who examine newer methods for these problems (without actually ever implementing a solution) and the pessimisic end of the world proponents who use this global dilemma as proof of the end of the world.

The fact is, Monbiot does not intend to make friends and align himself with potential allies. His primary focus, in this book, is to "to prompt you not to lament our governments' failures to introduce the measures required to tackle climate change, but to force them to reverse their policies, by joining what must become the world's most powerful political movement."

While there is a great deal of information on global warming on the market today, Monbiot's, HEAT, offers a compelling, action-oriented approach to the dilemma. And that is the irony. While his prescription for greenhouse gas emission is simple and effective, it has a snow-ball's chance in hell (a cliche that is closer to reality than we care to admit) of being inacted. In a culture of individualism, big business and fewer and fewer governmental regulations, Monbiot's perception of the problem, and (almost) painless prescription just does not have a chance. Pity, I certainly like a good snow storm -- just not in July.

For more information click HEAT


(Monbiot's HEAT is due out on April 1, 2007)

Do Good vs. Feel Good

Green Marketing.

In the 21st century the term is synonymous with right living (or responsible living) and the use and prevalence of these labels and descriptions has risen exponentially in the last decade. But the question remains -- are these labels representative of actual change (products and services that are actually better for the environment?) or are they a marketing ploy to distinguish and market goods and services to appeal to certain values held by consumers? In other words are eco-labels a Do Good mechanism or a Feel Good mechanism.

The idea behind eco-labeling is that these certifications verify that a product/service meets specific standards. These labels, then, represent third party validation -- an apparently objective method of determining whether or not a product or service is green. All labels (with the exception of food and hazardous material labels) are voluntary as all certification processes have been created and are administered by private enterprises (at least in North America).

For example, any structure built in North America can volunarily apply for a LEED rating system classification. This system is based on a point system that allows builders (etc.) to tally up the number of environmentally friendly products/methods that were incorporated into the construction of that building. On the surface it appears that a LEED rating would prompt builders into executing more sustainable methods of construction. But that is not the reality. As a privately owned and operated classification system (that is now widely used and accepted across North America) the LEED system weights each construction decision equally.

What does this mean? It means a designer could opt to use concrete (a product that can be the best environmental choice in certain conditions) in order to create better lighting conditions (bounced light means less light energy is required to illuminate a room -- this cuts down on energy required, which, obviously, is also a more sustainable approach to construction). However this choice would not be rewarded under the LEED system. However, a designer who opted to add in ceiling tiles (classified as MORE environmentally friendly than other ceiling tiles) would be given a point under the LEED system. Even though the LEED system is an effort to produce more sustainable buildings, the very nature of its point system means that more sustainable construction decisions are often neglected for less sustainable decisions that will offer more points (thereby classifying the building as more environmentally friendly).

Can you see the conundrum?

While eco-labeling arose due to consumer demand, there are major flaws in these systems. As privately run classification systems there is no set, national standards that must be followed, no conclusive buy-in to the system (they are all voluntary) and there is no true objectivity in setting the standards (as seen by the skewed point system that defines LEED).

As such, consumers are being sold a bill of Feel Good, rather than being offered truly constructed and produced goods and services that Do Good.

This is not to say there are not truly sustainable products and services availabe on the market. However, there is a distinct difference between environmentally friendly and green marketing -- a difference more consumers need to be made aware of.

Hey buddy: can you spare a square?

Our tushies need to toughen up!

While soft, plushy, 16-ply TP is a favourite among North American well-to-do's, the fact is our addiction to plush pile is killing the planet one square at a time. And it's time to put a stop to it.

In a report released today by the WWF, tissue and toilet paper manufacturers were given a failing grade regarding environmental policy and sustainable practices. The main point of contention was that major paper product manufacturers were not doing enough to: a)prove their timber comes from sustainable sources, b)prevent illegal logging, c)deal with land rights conflicts.

The report specifically called upon consumers to boycott the "wasteful trend" toward luxury toilet paper (and other hygiene products). Instead, the WWF urged consumers to seek out products with higher recycled content. (The report also mentioned that "extra-white" paper products should also be avoided as the extensive bleaching process was harmful to the environment).

While the report did not mention specific manufacturers by name (except when assigning an environmental score), other sources state one paper-hygiene company to avoid is Kimberly-Clark. Considered the largest tissue-products company in the world, Kimberly-Clark amasses sales in 150 countries around the world (3/4 of the world's official nations buy TP from this company). Unfortunately Kimberly-Clark failed the WWF test with an environmental score below 50 percent.

The reason for the continued pressure on tissue-product practices is that, according to the World Resources Institute, almost 80 percent of the world's original forests have been degraded or completely destroyed. Much of the loss of these ancient forests is due to human industrial uses such as logging for wood and paper products; clearing for agricultural land; and oil, gas, and hydroelectric development. (NOTE: Canada's Boreal forest represents 25 percent of the world's remaining ancient forests.)

The importance of these forests is not lost on scientists and agronominists. The world's ancient forests maintain environmental systems that are essential for life on Earth. They influence weather by controlling rainfall and evaporation of water from soil. They help stabilize the world's climate by storing large amounts of carbon that would otherwise contribute to climate change. These forests also are home to around two-thirds of the world's land-based species of plants and animals. They are also home to millions of forest-based communities and people who depend on them for their survival — economically and spiritually.

As a result, consumers concerned with saving our forests -- sparing a tree one square at a time -- can avoid products by larger paper-product manufacturers. For example, Kimberly-Clark brands include: Kleenex Facial Tissues, Scott Toilet Paper and Paper Towels, Cottonelle Toilet Paper, and Viva Paper Towels.

For the more pro-active people among us go to your university, high school, governmental building, or large business and demand to know where they obtain their paper products. In North America, only about 1/5 of the pulp that Kimberly-Clark uses for its disposable tissue products comes from recycled sources, and most of that goes into the products that go to large institutions, not consumers.

In 2004, Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council set their sights on Kimberly-Clark's practice of sacrificing virgin forests at the Altar of Blowing and Wiping, particularly as the practice applies to Canada's ancient Boreal forests. The goal of their "Kleercut" campaign is to get consumers involved in pressuring Kimberly-Clark to stop this unnecessary, wasteful practice.

For a list of paper products to buy and avoid go to:
http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/gtissue.asp
http://www.greenpeace.ca/tissue/download/guide_en.pdf
#search='best%20recycled%20paper%20products%20in%20canada'

To read the WWF report go to:
http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/index.cfm?uNewsID=82120

To read more about the Greenpeace Kleercut campaign go to:
http://www.kleercut.net/en/

To send an email to Kimberly-Clark protesting their unsustainable practices go to:
http://kleercut.net/en/sendtokc?PHPSESSID=97125610a81364d1ae6b9add7b2b2cc4

To read more about the Boreal Forests go to:
http://www.forestethics.org/article.php?list=type&type=18