Green Design » Business

The Truth About Green Business

WorldChanging Team — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:33:53 +0000

In his new book The Truth About Green Business, Natural Logic CEO Gil Friend lays out just how possible it is to run an environmentally-friendly business that provides jobs, serves the community and makes money.

This guide is filled with essential facts and insightful thinking on the subject, making it a must read for any manager who wants her/his business to play a role in the sustainable economy.

In Alex Steffen's words: "For the last few years I’ve been imagining what the essential one-volume green business handbook would look like. Now I don’t need to imagine it, because Gil Friend has written it. The Truth About Green Business is, simply, the best green business book on the market."

CC photo credit

This piece is a part of Resources from the Worldchanging Library. Throughout this series, we will present the best resources from our archives. To view the complete list, please click here.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Business at 9:33 AM)

The Truth About Green Business

WorldChanging Team — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:33:53 +0000

This guide is filled with essential facts and insightful thinking on the subject, making it a must read for any manager who wants her/his business to play a role in the sustainable economy.

CC photo credit

This piece is a part of Resources from the Worldchanging Library. Throughout this series, we will present the best resources from our archives. To view the complete list, please click here.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Business at 9:33 AM)

Take Back Your Time

WorldChanging Team — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:00:44 +0000

Take Back Your Time is a U.S./Canadian campaign that challenges time poverty: the epidemic of overwork, over-scheduling and time famine. The campaign promotes the idea mandatory vacations and of rewarding gains in productivity with time instead of stuff. In our view, such a strategy would leave Americans healthier, happier, and more connected to each other, their communities and the environment.

Take Back Your Time Day is October 24, read more about it here.

Read more in the Worldchanging Archives

This piece is a part of Resources from the Worldchanging Library. Throughout this series, we will present the best resources from our archives. To view the complete list, please click here.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Business at 9:00 AM)

Take Back Your Time

WorldChanging Team — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:00:44 +0000

Take Back Your Time Day is October 24, read more about it here.

Read more in the Worldchanging Archives

This piece is a part of Resources from the Worldchanging Library. Throughout this series, we will present the best resources from our archives. To view the complete list, please click here.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Business at 9:00 AM)

LessCarbonMoreJobs.com

WorldChanging Team — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:48:26 +0000

Find out first hand how a cap on carbon will create a new energy economy with LessCarbonMoreJobs.com, an online tool from the Environmental Defense Fund. In one of the better examples of a Google Maps mash-up, EDF has cataloged companies whose products or services are helping to reduce carbon emissions. Click on a state and the map shows the location of the companies, along with details on what they make and the number of employees. You can also find information on the local media markets -- a handy link that might prompt reporters to write stories about new jobs in the green economy.

Read more in the Worldchanging Archives

This piece is a part of Resources from the Worldchanging Library. Throughout this series, we will present the best resources from our archives. To view the complete list, please click here.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Business at 8:48 AM)

LessCarbonMoreJobs.com

WorldChanging Team — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:48:26 +0000

Read more in the Worldchanging Archives

This piece is a part of Resources from the Worldchanging Library. Throughout this series, we will present the best resources from our archives. To view the complete list, please click here.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Business at 8:48 AM)

The Green Collar Economy

WorldChanging Team — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:46:50 +0000

The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems
by Van Jones

In possibly the most important American environmental book of the year, Van Jones confronts the challenge of linking environmentalism and social equity. Even though it lacks a disciplined argument to support turning the possible into the practiced, his infectious determination to build a green economy capable of lifting all boats makes this book a welcome addition to the cause.

This piece is a part of Resources from the Worldchanging Library. Throughout this series, we will present the best resources from our archives. To view the complete list, please click here.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Business at 8:46 AM)

The Green Collar Economy

WorldChanging Team — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:46:50 +0000

The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems
by Van Jones

This piece is a part of Resources from the Worldchanging Library. Throughout this series, we will present the best resources from our archives. To view the complete list, please click here.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Business at 8:46 AM)

The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre

WorldChanging Team — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:33:39 +0000

In short, The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre is THE database for how businesses across the globe treat their workers. It is an up-to-date guide to more than 4,000 companies and their human rights records, both positive and negative. As a leading and independent resource, the Centre allows and encourages company responses to accusations in an effort to maintain balanced coverage.

This piece is a part of Resources from the Worldchanging Library. Throughout this series, we will present the best resources from our archives. To view the complete list, please click here.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Business at 8:33 AM)

The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre

WorldChanging Team — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:33:39 +0000

This piece is a part of Resources from the Worldchanging Library. Throughout this series, we will present the best resources from our archives. To view the complete list, please click here.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Business at 8:33 AM)

South Korea, A ‘Developing’ Country, Embraces 2020 Emissions Cap, With Important Implications For A Global Deal In Copenhagen

WorldChanging Team — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:54:24 +0000

This guest post is by Julian L. Wong and Dan Sanchez at the Center for American Progress.

South Korea may not be outdoing the United States’ clean energy commitments yet, but it has just announced intentions to adopt a 2020 emissions cap, the first developing (non-Annex I) country to do so. Reuters explains:

The government said it would choose a target this year from three options: an 8 percent increase from 2005 levels by 2020, unchanged from 2005, or 4 percent below 2005. Its emissions doubled from 1990 to 2005, the fastest growth in the OECD…. Officials said they marked a big commitment to head off an estimated 30 percent rise in emissions that would result if no action were taken.

One might argue if South Korea is really a developing country—it is considered one under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was adopted in 1992, but was in 1996 subsequently admitted to the OECD, which is usually thought of as a club of the rich countries.

One might also question the choice of a 2005 baseline rather than 1990, which all the targets in the Kyoto Protocol are keyed to. The reasoning behind the choice of a 2005 baseline is obvious from the quote above, which explains that South Korea's emissions have risen steeply in the years since 1990. The result is that none of the three choices will result in reductions from a 1990 level.

Nevertheless, the symbolic significance of the announcement cannot be overstated - South Korea is the first non-Annex I country to indicate that it will adopt quantifiable emissions targets for 2020. While the article notes that South Korea’s commitment could be “voluntary,” the 2020 timeframe suggests that the country may be open to a binding emissions cap in the December round of international climate talks in Copenhagen, where a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, will be negotiated and likely to cover the period of 2013 through 2020.

Why is South Korea doing this?

There are at least three reasons why South Korea is being proactive on climate action. First, there is an economic stimulus motivation. This announcement comes on the heels of a recently reported “Green New Deal” that South Korea’s President Lee Myung-Bak has been campaigning for. That effort will spend $85 Billion, or nearly 2 percent of Korea’s GDP, over the next five years on initiatives that will encourage energy efficiency, renewable energy including solar and wind power, carbon credit trading, hybrid cars and biofuels. The desired outcome, according to FT, is that this spending will create 1.56 to 1.81 million new jobs, and “for South Korea to become the world’s seventh most competitive country by 2020 in terms of energy efficiency.”

Second is energy security. South Korea is the world’s second largest LNG importer, and the world’s sixth largest petroleum importer. Given the country’s heavy reliance on such fossil fuels it has also embraced several innovative technologies to achieve such a transition:

It also aims to increase use of hybrid cars, renewable and nuclear energy consumption, energy efficiency with light-emitting diodes and smart grids to achieve the target, which will cost 0.3 to 0.5 percent of GDP.

Third, the Reuters article mentions Korea’s fear of ‘climate tariffs’ as one reason it has embraced this policy (See here):

But the government on Tuesday pointed to the future risk of border tariffs on South Korean exports. In a statement, the government said the European Union and other developed countries might punish some exporting nations that do not adopt tough greenhouse gas reduction targets.

South Korea, as the world’s fifth-largest automaker, is heavily dependent on exports of manufactured goods and petroleum products to drive its economy.

Implications for Copenhagen

South Korea’s announcement has several implications for international climate negotiations. It suggests that the increasingly artificial distinction between Annex I and non-Annex I countries may be starting to break down. At the very least, it points to the notion that a purely binary categorization between the “developed” and “developing” countries is starting to evolve into a framework that can differentiate between various degrees of development.

Just as importantly, South Korea’s plan creates a model for how more industrialized developing countries might commit to global climate action—setting a pathway for a slow down in growth of emissions that eventually peaks at some future point, and then declines.

This adds pressure to the likes of Mexico, which like South Korea, is classified as a non-Annex I country under the UNFCCC, but was subsequently admitted to the OECD in 1994. Indeed, Reuters is separately reporting that a senior Mexican environmental policy maker has indicated plans for Mexico to “put a detailed offer to cut the growth of its own greenhouse gas emissions on the negotiating table … in Copenhagen this year.” Mexico has already previously announced voluntary goals to reduce carbon emissions by 8% by 2012 from 2002 levels, and to launch a carbon emissions trading scheme by 2012, so there is good reason to believe in Mexico’s stated intentions.

If South Korea and Mexico are the first non-Annex I countries which decide to play ball, which other transition economies will start to feel the heat to follow suit? Costa Rica has made some overtures to becoming “carbon neutral” (thought what that means and how serious they are is uncertain) by 2021. What about Singapore? Or South Africa? If we go down the list of relatively industrialized “developing” countries, how far down do we have to go before we reach Brazil or China?

In addition to asking which other non-Annex I countries are “gettable” for a global deal, we should hone in on the question of how we are going to “get” them. To what extent can the same combination of economic opportunity, energy security benefits and fear of carbon tariffs be used as leverage to encourage other non-Annex I countries to commit to emissions targets? What about highlighting the co-benefits to public health of reducing other harmful air pollution like SOx and NOx in addition to CO2 reduction?

It is certainly the case that developing countries would likely want to act on each of these different drivers for climate action, but stop short of wanting to frame those actions in terms of hard targets for quantified emissions reductions. China, with its ambitious commitments to energy efficiency and renewable energy is just such a country that sees the value in diversifying energy supply, creating new innovative industries and improving both the bottom line and public health through more efficient use of fossil energy, but is unwilling to commit to absolute carbon emissions to solve a problem it genuinely and understandably sees as being caused by the West.

Perhaps an approach that quantifies the unilateral domestic green actions of developing countries in terms of effective emissions reductions, and that aggregates those reductions into a single figure that serves as a virtual “cap” that can be compared to caps from Annex I countries is one way to “get” the other non-Annex I countries on board. The Center for American Progress has previously described such a concept as the “carbon cap equivalents” approach, which could be just the mechanism the world needs to accelerate the shift away from a binary understanding of developed-versus-developing countries that is outdated and divorced from the reality, and that acknowledges the far greater diversity of development amongst the world’s nations and their corresponding capacity to address climate change.

Such a shift does not only not repudiate the concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” but adds depth to its meaning because we are effectively calling for increased differentiation amongst countries, especially in the non-Annex I block.

This piece originally appeared in Climate Progress.

Photo credit: Flickr/xmatt, Creative Commons License.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Business at 11:54 AM)

World Bank Initiates Carbon Footprint Analysis

Ben Block — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:25:11 +0000

Responding to pressure from the environmental community and U.S. lawmakers, the World Bank plans to estimate the carbon footprints of its future projects.

The Bank, in collaboration with the world's leading multilateral development banks, is creating a common method for estimating a project's associated greenhouse gas emissions. The assessments are expected to bring greater transparency to the financial institutions' development portfolios and to encourage developing-country clients to follow low-carbon development paths, analysts said.

Warren Evans, director of the World Bank's environment department, said the institution has not decided how greenhouse gas analyses would influence the composition of investment portfolios. Whether carbon footprints are factored into project costs - an inclusion known as a "shadow price" - depends on the outcome of this December's international climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark.

"I suspect that after Copenhagen we will be able to roll that [project-level analysis] out and there will be a greater amount of shadow price accounting as we move forward," Evans said at a Capitol Hill briefing earlier this month. "I do expect this to become a much more substantive part of our operations in, say, a year from now."

The Bank's decision to analyze project-level greenhouse gas emissions comes after decades of pressure from non-governmental groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Bank Information Center, to shift multilateral lending toward renewable energy and energy efficiency. It also comes at a time when many large corporations and financial institutions are starting to track their emissions - often with
government encouragement.

Other development banks are considering similar analyses of their carbon footprints. The Inter-American Development Bank has begun evaluating the direct emissions of some projects, said Emmanuel Boulet, a senior environmental specialist at the IDB.

"In the end, we may have some greenhouse gas accounting of the overall project portfolio," Boulet said in early July at a World Bank-hosted discussion on tracking investment related emissions. "For the time being, on a project basis we're trying to reduce our greenhouse gasemissions."

U.S. Senator John Kerry (Democrat-Massachusetts), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has proposed legislation that asks the U.S. Treasury Department to encourage multilateral development banks to include greenhouse gas accounting in their cost-benefit analyses.

Assigning a shadow price to development projects has already piqued the interest of some U.S. Treasury Department economists, according to David Wheeler, a Center for Global Development senior fellow who has lobbied the World Bank to measure its carbon footprint. "People in the Treasury are well aware of this and are quite supportive," he said.

A Large Carbon Footprint

The carbon-intensity of many development bank-supported investments - particularly for coal-fired power plants - has angered environmental groups. According to Bruce Rich, former senior counsel at the Environmental Defense Fund, the top five public international financers of coal-fired power plants since 1994 have collectively invested more than $23.3 billion in 96 projects throughout the developing world. Three of the top five investors are multilateral institutions: the World Bank Group, Asian Development Bank (ADB), and European Investment Bank (EIB).

"The agencies continue to be not entirely transparent. They don't list all individual projects, especially historical [investments]," Rich said at the Capitol Hill briefing.

Despite progress in creating the accounting system, Heike Mainhardt-Gibbs, a consultant with the watchdog group the Bank Information Center, remains concerned that the World Bank's secret tendencies will not improve.

"The World Bank is supposed to be more forthcoming to the public with their development projects. When they talk about their greenhouse gas methodology, they still are not promising any disclosure," Mainhardt-Gibbs said.

The World Bank already analyzes the greenhouse gases associated with its Carbon Finance Unit investments, which include projects in the areas of renewable energy and energy efficiency. In addition, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the World Bank Group's private sector division, began developing an emissions accounting system in 1997. The lending agency began carbon accounting this year for pilot projects expected to emit more than 100,000 metric tons.

Shilpa Patel, the IFC's climate change chief, said the IFC's accounting system was first met with resistance but is now a prominent feature of her agency's analyses. In recent years, IFC lending for renewable energy projects - particularly wind power - has grown dramatically, and about two-thirds of the agency's energy investments now support renewable energy.

"We have found that the measurement is really just a first step to a deeper analysis of greenhouse gas emissions," Patel wrote in an e-mail. "Often, it leads to a constructive dialogue with the client on energy efficiency improvements which not only save costs, but also reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

Developing Country Resistence

Some developing-country officials are responding negatively to any inclusion of greenhouse gases in World Bank project analyses. Such assessments are viewed as unfair as long as many industrialized countries, mainly the United States, have not yet implemented emissions restrictions on their own economies, Evans said.

"Developing countries said, ‘We don't have an obligation to pay for greenhouse gases,'" Evans said. "‘We don't want to pay for that and we don't want to see [the World Bank] using our resources for that.'"

Eduardo Paes Saboia, a senior adviser to the Bank's executive director for Brazil, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic, said at the July World Bank meeting that he supports the use of emissions data for general decision making, but that these decisions should not affect investments.

"The greenhouse gas accounting efforts being deployed contribute to analytical tools needed to make decisions," Saboia said. "However, decisions on what we focus on, invest in, should be taken on a multilateral framework...and not be used for decision making."

World Bank officials have expressed concern that some projects, notably in the transportation sector, may be disproportionately affected by a greenhouse gas accounting system. An investment such as a highway, for instance, will unavoidably lead to emissions through the clearing of land and encouragement of greater vehicle use.

Wheeler suggests, however, that the inclusion of a highway's shadow price may allow development agencies to compare low-carbon alternatives such as high-speed rail.

"It reveals the extra cost, and donors can decide whether or not they want to pay the added cost. That's fair and fully informative," Wheeler said. "It's not necessarily something developing countries need to be afraid of. It can reveal the grant funds that are needed to reveal the low-carbon path."

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.This article is a product of Eye on Earth, Worldwatch Institute's online news service.

Photo credit: Flickr/brownpau, Creative Commons License.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Ben Block in Business at 12:25 PM)

Two Steps Forward: Walmart’s Sustainability Index: The Hype and the Reality

Joel Makower — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:23:33 +0000

Walmart has just unveiled its new Sustainability Index, a project that's been in the works for more than a year, but which is — finally, after much anticipation and more than a little handwringing by industry, activists, and others — part of the public discourse.

The advance stories over the past few days have been amped up to the point of breathlessness, involving adjectives like "huge" (perhaps) and "audacious" (probably), with one story suggesting the Index will "shake the world" (um, no comment). Such hyperbole is understandable: any green commitment that Walmart makes is potentially a big deal. But now that reality has hit, it's time to take a more sober assessment of what's really going on here.

I've been watching the Index unfold over the past year. I've seen early iterations, talked to some of the many suppliers, nonprofits, academics, and consultants that Walmart has engaged in this effort, and viewed the final product.

My assessment: Like so many things related to both Walmart and sustainability, there is both more and less going on here than meets the eye.

The story in brief: Walmart's Sustainability Index is geared toward creating a way to gather sustainability information about companies and, eventually, products sold in Walmart stores. The Index will result from a set of 15 questions Walmart is asking of its 60,000 or so suppliers. (You can download the questions here - PDF.) It has asked for responses by October for its U.S. suppliers, later on for those elsewhere.

The 15 questions are grouped into four buckets: energy and climate, material efficiency, natural resources, and "people and community." That last category is particularly clever, as it allows the company to demonstrate that its concern lies beyond environmental issues to the broader arena of sustainability, which includes social issues, though the five questions included in that bucket barely scratch the surface of this topic. For example, they don't address most worker issues, like wages, health care, and the right to air grievances, among many other topics generally included in this arena.

Despite the much-ballyhooed launch, the Index isn't exactly new. The company began using a similar set of questions with suppliers about a year ago for its own private-branded products — so-called house brands like Sam's Choice and Great Value; the company has around 30 such brands. It started with dairy products, followed by textiles, which includes both home furnishings and apparels. Toys and electronics follow. Many of the manufacturers of those house brands are also major consumer product brand manufacturers, so this won't be news to many of them.

Despite what the headlines have been saying the past few days, this isn't a product-rating scheme — at least not yet, and likely not for several years. For now, Walmart will be using the results of the 15-question survey to assess companies. The questions, as you'll see, don't get down to the product level. In a second phase, the company plans to develop more sector-specific questions — say, for agricultural products or jewelry or electronics. Eventually, the company hopes that the Index will address individual products. But that's not currently in the works.

Another key point: Walmart isn't rating, grading, or ranking companies, let alone products. It hasn't established a set of criteria or set a bar for performance. This isn't an eco-labeling scheme. Rather, it is a means for providing transparency about companies, allowing them and others to compare companies to one another, showing how each performs. The information will be one of many factors it will use to assess companies. It may be a tiebreaker, all other factors (price, quality, availability, etc.) being equal.

Walmart doesn't plan to say which companies are "good" and which aren't. Its plan is to put the information out there and hope that transparency foments competition. But that won't ensure that any company will necessarily be "good." If, for example, all of the companies in a given sector are doing poorly, but one is doing a little less poorly, the least-bad one will rise to the top, though it may be far from a "good" company. Once again, this is clever on Walmart's part. While it can honestly say it is rewarding good behavior, it isn't really setting a benchmark.

As for the 15 questions. Well, they're a start. Taken together, they set a fairly middling bar, the kinds of things that some leadership companies have been doing for a decade or more. And because they deal with the company, and not its products, they omit some fairly critical details. Among them: they don't mention toxic materials used in manufacturing or in the products themselves. They don't talk about the energy efficiency of products or their recyclability or other disposition at the end of their useful lives. One need only compare Walmart's Index to Nike's Considered Index, which goes deep into product details, to see how relatively primitive it is. There are equally good examples from several other companies.

Do such shortcomings render the Walmart Sustainability Index as greenwash? No. This is a solid first effort. It's important to note that over the past year, Walmart engaged some 20 universities, a handful of environmental activist groups, associations like Business for Social Responsibility, many of its key suppliers, and a small army of consultants. Patagonia's iconoclastic founder, Yvon Chounaird, has played a role. It's gone through a great deal of thinking and more than a few iterations. (You can download a backgrounder on a slightly earlier iteration of the Index here - PDF, that contained 16 questions.) This was not some slap-dash effort.

Walmart acknowledges the iterative process. Some of its staff have told me privately, and quite proudly, that this is a "ready-fire-aim" exercise — that the company wanted to get something out there, however imperfect, and improve it as it got real-world use. That's admirable, albeit risky, but that strategy underscores how the company has been addressing most sustainability issues over the past three years: set a big goal, rally the best minds (and persuade them to do a tremendous amount of work at their own expense), make some choices, put it out there, and refine. Hey, that's pretty much how Google made it big.

Much like Google, this effort will likely head down many innovative pathways. For example, Walmart already is talking with Microsoft about creating an open-source database and tools to make information about companies and products accessible; no doubt, for consumers there will eventually be an app for that.

And Walmart has made it clear that they don't want to own this. They want it to live within some credible entity that will continue to develop and deploy the Index. (The company isn't beyond starting its own nonprofit if it isn't able to find one that suits its needs.) And the company is working to bring in other companies — Best Buy, Costco, Kroger, and Target have been part of the conversation — to adopt the Index, too, creating even more purchasing power in the marketplace.

It's definitely a bold move, one that stands to raise the bar on sustainability and transparency, empowering both retailers and consumers to leverage their buying power to affect change. It stands to spur innovation in products and processes. And it appears to be around for the long haul. Walmart has gone well beyond talking the talk here. It's changing the game. How quickly and dramatically the game really changes will be something we'll all be watching, very closely.

This article is a product of makower.com

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Joel Makower in Business at 5:23 PM)

Safe Water At The Base Of The Pyramid: What Works? What Doesn’t? What’s Next?

WorldChanging Team — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:13:29 +0000

By Francisco Noguera

IFC recently issued Safe Water for All, a thorough and illustrative report about the opportunities for the private sector in delivering clean water to the base of the pyramid. It sheds light on many of the topics covered in the review published here in NextBillion back in 2008, such as the challenges of pricing and distribution for Point of Use devices at the BoP and the many different approaches (in terms of business models, legal structures, technologies, partnerships, etc.) that can be seen in community scale models such as those of companies like EPGL, Naandi and WaterHealth International, three of many actors that have helped make this a fast-growing phenomenon in that country.

The report offers concrete recommendations to help drive these approaches to scale, many of which are concerned with the issue of offering flexible financing alternatives for entrepreneurs and for potential customers alike. However, there's an issue that comes across with even greater frequency throughout the report, and it is that of design considerations for clean water solutions at the BoP. Though technologies are already out there capable of dealing with most of water quality issues, close attention must be given to cultural and behavioral patterns, which are most relevant when it comes to a resource like water.

By offering an overview of available alternatives for water treatment at the BoP (as well as useful country profiles that characterize the opportunities for water-related ventures in various regions), IFC's report fills a gap that existed in this space's literature. However, the issue is so acute that it merits similarly thorough pieces providing in-depth analysis of the different angles of the water issue in low income communities. (We'll be publishing an updated piece on community scale approaches during the fall so stay tuned for that.) Besides, we should be swift and start discussing the role of enterprise in dealing with tomorrow's water challenges.

Indeed, entrepreneurial approaches seem to be gaining traction in some areas, dealing primarily with today's challenges of water quality and sanitation. A changing climate, degraded ecosystems and a growing population are the input variables. What are the foreseeable consequences in the availability and quality of water resources? Does enterprise have a role to play in low income settings? Yesterday's too late to start this discussion.

So while you read their water report, I'll get started on another piece by IFC concerned with mitigation and adaptation to the effects of climate change. Maybe it'll shed some light on these questions.

This piece originally appeared on NextBillion.net.

Photo credit: Flickr/Meanest Indian, Creative Commons License.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Business at 2:13 PM)

Reader Report: Sustainable Brands Conference

WorldChanging Team — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:13:43 +0000

By Agnes Mazur

Early this June, marketing and advertising experts convened in Monterey for Sustainable Brands '09, where topics discussed ranged from fair trade labeling practices to product life cycle assessment. Among the emerging ideas for securing a profitable future in a challenging economy, two struck me as particularly promising. Virgance, an incubator for profitable business with a social activist flair, and EarthEra, a fund for a renewable energy future for America.

Virgance

Can you recall a time in the past when a common yet challenging goal sparked a united global outpouring of creativity and collaboration? In searching for an answer to the troubled times we face, entrepreneur Steve Newcomb believes that the challenge of bringing about a paradigm of sustainability is parallel to landing a man on the moon. His business-savvy response to the call for innovation is Virgance, a profitable company that he ambitiously dubs “an Apollo project factory.”

Virgance is essentially a new kind of business incubator. It blends ideas of social activism and conscious capitalism in a high tech way, with a mission to promote positive change using effective business models. All projects supported by Virgance must meet the five following criteria: causing as much direct change as possible, harnessing the power of people and community, using positive mechanisms for change, operating under a common technological infrastructure, and finally, operating within a for-profit business model. Once the firm identifies worthy projects, it supports them with not only traditional capital and technological infrastructure, but also invigorates them with creativity and opportunity for participation of everyone involved. Because its projects aim to produce social movements, not products, cutting-edge social marketing strategies are always part of the plan.

Among Virgance's early projects is CarrotMob (the brainchild of Virgance President Brent Schulkin), an entity that takes the flashmob phenomenon and tweaks it to encourage responsible business. Based on the knowledge that business is motivated by profit, Carrotmob poses challenges to businesses and rewards those that show the strongest commitment to social responsibility by mobbing them with clients. Last summer, Worldchanging covered an early Carrotmob in San Francisco, where shoppers swarmed a corner store that committed to dedicating 22 percent of these sales to improving its energy efficiency. (Video here.)

Another Virgance startup is One Block off the Grid (1BOG), an initiative whose mission is to make solar power easily available, understandable, and affordable to communities across the United States. 1BOG's website allows people interested solar to learn about solar economics, incentive structures and advantages of renewable energy. By seeing how many people in a given area are interested, 1BOG can negotiate with leading solar companies in the area to facilitate a group rate, offering discounts to homeowners, large projects to installers and an objective perspective as an impartial consumer advocate. Thus far, 1BOG has launched in 20 cities and on 8012 1BOG homes, with many more to come.

Virgance has two other projects currently in pilot mode, with plans for many more that will engage big brands, small business, grassroots activists and everyday people. We hope that Newcomb and his smart, innovative team succeed in their mission to create a future that is environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable.

EarthEra: Investing in a Renewable Energy Future

NextEra, the largest producer of wind and solar energy in North America, has launched the EarthEra campaign to answer the challenge of funding and facilitating America's transition to a clean energy economy. The campaign's core concept is to produce a trust dedicated to the creation of new wind and solar projects across the United States.

Recognizing various groups' desire to contribute to a clean energy economy and the need to provide a vehicle to help them do so, EarthEra offers products for individuals, small businesses, corporations and governments. As an example, a family can calculate its carbon footprint on EarthEra's website and choose to purchase yearly offsets, while a small business can join a business network that allows them to demonstrate and market their environmental commitment to customers with the EarthEra brand. Corporations have a variety of options for becoming involved, with a wide range of products that help customers participate in the program through their purchases. An alliance with Eco-Media also allows corporations to purchase "carbon offset advertising," which contributes a percentage of revenue to help retrofit city buildings for efficient and renewable energy.

Revenue generated from the sales of these products is contributed to the Trust, currently estimated at $18 million. Working with an objective third-party trustee, NextEra has committed to dedicating 100 percent of the funds to building renewable energy facilities across the United States. Participants can view progress of the projects on EarthEra's website.

Agnes Mazur is a sustainability enthusiast based in San Jose, California. After completing her studies in Political Science, Spanish, and French at San Jose State University, she worked as a reporter in her native city of Warsaw, Poland. She has since returned to the Bay Area where she contributes to various efforts in sustainability including organizing an urban gardening project, researching up-and-coming green businesses, and attending various conferences about environmental sustainability. She hopes her love of world travel, nature and innovation can help change the world.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Business at 5:13 PM)

Climate Debate Overlooks Small Businesses

Ben Block — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:52:30 +0000

As the United States debates how it should tackle climate change, "Big Business" has generally received the most political attention.

In the United States, small businesses employ more than half the private workforce. They provide 80 percent of inner city jobs and 66 percent of rural jobs, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration

Small companies are mostly disengaged from the climate debate, businesses advocates say, yet environmentally conscious, small enterprises could become influential supporters of climate legislation.

"Small business has to be a strong constituency if this legislation is going to be passed," said Scott Hauge, president of Small Business California.
"If we are going to create the innovation, we are going to create the jobs, we are going to reduce energy use, there needs to be a concerted focus on small business."

World leaders will craft an international treaty to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change this December in Copenhagen, Denmark. Whether the United States can agree on climate change policy in the coming six months will heavily influence the outcome of the Copenhagen negotiations.

The Pew Charitable Trusts revealed last week that the U.S. clean energy economy - more than 68,000 companies that supply clean energy, energy efficiency, conservation strategies, and pollution mitigation technologies - created 770,385 jobs in 2007.

Many of these "green jobs" are small businesses, defined as an employer of 500 workers or less, according to The Center for Small Business and the Environment. In a report also released last week, the Center's Executive Director Byron Kennard said that the 27 million small businesses in the United States, which produce 51 percent of private sector output, are turning to environmentally beneficial services in greater numbers.

"These are not tree hugger prophesies. These are real businesses, taking real risks, creating real jobs," Kennard said. "Economically, politically, and socially as well, these green businesses are having a real impact."

Despite the growing contribution of small eco-entrepreneurs to the economy, no studies have measured how climate change legislation would specifically affect U.S. small businesses, Kennard said.

"Small business is always ignored," he said.

The U.S. House of Representatives is debating the American Clean Energy and Security Act, a bill that promises to reduce U.S. carbon emissions 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050, compared to 2005 levels, through a national cap-and-trade system.

In addition to placing a price on carbon, which would benefit low-carbon businesses, the legislation would increase energy efficiency standards, establish national mandates for renewable energy, and boost clean energy research.

The current version allows industrial polluters - businesses that emit more than 25,000 tons of carbon annually (such as large electric utilities, natural gas distributors, and cement producers) - to receive about 80 percent of the cap-and-trade system's emission permits for free. The remaining would be auctioned, often to polluters. These funds are intended to assist consumers with higher energy costs, avoid deforestation in tropical countries, research clean-energy technologies, help developing countries adapt to climate change, and deploy clean energy-technologies worldwide.

The bill would also form a worker assistance and job training program, which supports reducing businesses' dependency on fossil fuels. The program would be funded with roughly 0.5 percent of the permit auction funds. Commercial buildings would also be entitled to some of the legislation's financial support for weatherization programs.

Scott Sklar, steering committee chair of the Sustainable Energy Coalition, a group of national and state-level business, environmental, consumer, and energy policy organizations that promotes increased federal support for energy efficiency and renewable energy, said the legislation's benefits for small businesses are too small to provide meaningful support. He criticized the bill for prioritizing large industry instead.

"I don't think any iterations of the [climate] bills I've seen so far support small businesses," said Sklar, president of The Stella Group, a renewable energy marketing firm. "The allowances are given to big business polluters for the most part."

Molly Brogan, vice president of public affairs with the National Small Business Association, said many of her members are supportive of addressing climate change, but they are also concerned that the cap-and-trade system would create a complicated regulatory burden. Without a reliable study on how the bill may affect small businesses, especially financially, the association has not formed an official position.

"We're having such a hard time figuring out if we like this bill because it's been so hard to know quantitatively and qualitatively how it will affect our members," Brogan said.

Michael Diegel, media director for the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), is concerned that in regions where energy costs may rise-particularly in coal-reliant Midwestern states-public utility companies and large-scale manufacturers may pass the price burden onto consumers, including small businesses.

"An NFIB member in Pennsylvania runs four athletic clubs and relies heavily on electricity and natural gas to power the heating-ventilating-air conditioning system and lighting the facilities," Diegel said in an e-mail. "His energy costs run about $600,000 a year. If it goes up 40 percent - $840,000 - he says his only choice will be to close his business."

California industries used similar arguments in an unsuccessful effort to derail the state's cap-and-trade bill. Upon realizing that small business owners were likely to support the legislation if businesses could improve their energy efficiency, legislators responded with a small business toolkit. The program guides businesses on how to reduce their energy costs (and therefore greenhouse gas emissions) through voluntary efficiency gains.

"By small business stepping up to give the voice to our position, we were heard," said Hauge, who helped pass the bill in 2006. "Big business was not aligned."

But Kennard said that without a better understanding of whether small businesses would receive immediate benefits or economic trouble, support for national climate legislation is unlikely.

"Small business owners are turned on to energy efficiency. They love green jobs," he said. "But cap-and-trade smacks of regulation. They get up and walk out of the room."

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org. This article is a product of Eye on Earth, Worldwatch Institute's online news service.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Ben Block in Business at 1:52 PM)

The Original Urban Farming Company

WorldChanging Team — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:30:00 +0000

Your Backyard Farmer grows veggies in unexpected spots

By Raymond Rendleman

A small piece of property can go a long way toward feeding a family. But coaxing food from the earth takes both time and know-how, and that can be enough to intimidate many of us. Enter Your Backyard Farmer. This small business in Portland, Ore., saw an opportunity to help out many homeowners who wanted to grow their own, but weren't sure where to start.

Partners Robyn Streeter and Donna Smith completed their horticulture degrees together in 2005 and began searching for farmland. By that winter, they had an epiphany: Instead of investing in a farm, they would bolster the urban agriculture movement by helping city dwellers grow backyard crops.

Your Backyard Farmer works a lot like any other home contractor. Streeter and Smith
visit dozens of yards each week throughout the growing season to plant, maintain and harvest their clients' edible crops. With their help, even plots as small as 10-by-10 feet yield a cornucopia of produce. They also offer monthly lessons where DIY families can learn how to make their own food gardens grow.

Your Backyard Farmer’s innovative approach has gained the attention of entrepreneurs from Canada to Tasmania, and Streeter and Smith have consulted with many to help develop similar companies. But they say the most important element of their success can’t be conveyed through consultations: “We do it all by grunt labor,” Streeter says.

Each day begins for the duo before dawn, as soon as enough light shows over the horizon to reveal weeds under the squash patches. The pair uses the hands-and-knees methods of crop rotation without tilling that would be familiar to farmers over the millennia. Each portion of their fields exudes the pungency of mushroom compost mixed with the unbelievably fresh scent of the nearest vegetable. During fall, the overall effect resembles a magical supermarket in which numerous produce aisles contain still-rooted carrots, peas, onions and peppers ready to harvest.

Smith and Streeter hope that their idea goes beyond another “green” business service. It does seem like their help has expanded the conversation about city dwellers' relationship to their food. Now, they have reason to believe the idea will grow even further: for example, a group of adjacent households recently decided to forgo their fences, and commissioned Your Backyard Farmer to create a larger plot of shared space for food gardening. The project produced not only a haul of edibles ... but also a new sense of community.

Raymond Rendleman is a writer based in Portland, Ore. Readers may contact him at rrendleman [at] gmail [dot] com.

Photo by author.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Business at 3:30 PM)

The Original Urban Farming Company

WorldChanging Team — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:30:00 +0000

Your Backyard Farmer grows veggies in unexpected spots

By Raymond Rendleman

A small piece of property can go a long way toward feeding a family. But coaxing food from the earth takes both time and know-how, and that can be enough to intimidate many of us. Enter Your Backyard Farmer. This small business in Portland, Ore., saw an opportunity to help out many homeowners who wanted to grow their own, but weren't sure where to start.

Partners Robyn Streeter and Donna Smith completed their horticulture degrees together in 2005 and began searching for farmland. By that winter, they had an epiphany: Instead of investing in a farm, they would bolster the urban agriculture movement by helping city dwellers grow backyard crops.

Your Backyard Farmer works a lot like any other home contractor. Streeter and Smith
visit dozens of yards each week throughout the growing season to plant, maintain and harvest their clients' edible crops. With their help, even plots as small as 10-by-10 feet yield a cornucopia of produce. They also offer monthly lessons where DIY families can learn how to make their own food gardens grow.

Your Backyard Farmer’s innovative approach has gained the attention of entrepreneurs from Canada to Tasmania, and Streeter and Smith have consulted with many to help develop similar companies. But they say the most important element of their success can’t be conveyed through consultations: “We do it all by grunt labor,” Streeter says.

Each day begins for the duo before dawn, as soon as enough light shows over the horizon to reveal weeds under the squash patches. The pair uses the hands-and-knees methods of crop rotation without tilling that would be familiar to farmers over the millennia. Each portion of their fields exudes the pungency of mushroom compost mixed with the unbelievably fresh scent of the nearest vegetable. During fall, the overall effect resembles a magical supermarket in which numerous produce aisles contain still-rooted carrots, peas, onions and peppers ready to harvest.

Smith and Streeter hope that their idea goes beyond another “green” business service. It does seem like their help has expanded the conversation about city dwellers' relationship to their food. Now, they have reason to believe the idea will grow even further: for example, a group of adjacent households recently decided to forgo their fences, and commissioned Your Backyard Farmer to create a larger plot of shared space for food gardening. The project produced not only a haul of edibles ... but also a new sense of community.

Raymond Rendleman is a writer based in Portland, Ore. Readers may contact him at rrendleman [at] gmail [dot] com.

Photo by author.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Business at 3:30 PM)

Oregon: The Green Jobs Leader

WorldChanging Team — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:59:25 +0000

By Eric Hess

New study shows Oregon leads in green jobs.

Folks in Oregon have been trumpeting the good news all day today -- and rightly so; according to the Pew Charitable Trusts Oregon has the largest percentage of its jobs involved in the clean energy economy. (Click map for larger version)

True -- it's a small chunk (1.02 percent of the 1.9 million jobs in the state), but it shows that the state has claimed a lead in the transition to the new energy economy.

Idaho also ranked well, in the second tier with .63 percent of its jobs being green. Washington didn't fare quite as well -- only .55 percent of its 3.1 million jobs.

As we've noted before, it's hard to define exactly what green-collar jobs are. Pew puts them in the context of the clean energy economy, which it defines as:

A clean energy economy generates jobs, businesses and investments while expanding clean energy production, increasing energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, waste and pollution, and conserving water and other natural resources.
The clean energy economy cuts across five categories: (1) Clean Energy; (2) Energy Efficiency; (3) Environmentally Friendly Production; (4) Conservation and Pollution Mitigation; and (5) Training and Support.

See the NYT blog piece on it, and the report itself (pdf).

This piece originally appeared in Sightline Institute's blog, The Daily Score.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Business at 2:59 PM)

The Triumph Of Energy Efficiency: Waxman-Markey Could Save $3,900 Per Household And Create 650,000 Jobs By 2030

Joe Romm — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:34:39 +0000

<

The energy efficiency provisions in the House energy and climate bill (H.R. 2454) could save $750 per household by 2020 and $3,900 per household by 2030, according to an analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). An ACEEE news release notes that not only will efficiency reduce the costs to consumers and businesses of cutting carbon pollution:

ACEEE estimates that approximately 250,000 jobs will be created by the energy efficiency provisions in H.R. 2454 by 2020, with a total of 650,000 jobs generated by 2030.

The bill’s authors clearly understood that Energy efficiency is THE core climate solution – the biggest and lowest cost carbon-free resource by far.

The ACEEE agrees with CP and major environmental groups that a key improvement for progressives to pursue would be to “require utilities to reduce electricity demand by 10 percent by 2020″ (as opposed to the 5% to 8% the bill allows), which would result in an extra $50 billion in cumulative consumer savings by 2030—savings that Waxman-Markey is leaving on the table.

The bill has a remarkable number of energy-saving provisions [click to enlarge].

Here is ACEEE’s discussion of the key efficiency provisions of the bill (and go to their original analysis for a detailed spreadsheet of the electricity, natural gas, and CO2 savings of each provision):

The bill includes a number of key policies designed to maximize savings from energy efficiency, including improved building codes, appliance and lighting standards, and residential and commercial retrofits.

Allocations detailed in Section 782g direct 9.5% of allowances in 2012 (and decreasing amounts thereafter) to go into a State Energy and Environmental Development (SEED) account to be used by state and local governments for efficiency and renewables projects. The allocations to the SEED account will provide the funding for the REEP (Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance) program, transportation planning, building labeling, and other important energy-efficiency measures. At least 20% of the SEED money must go to funding renewable energy programs. Because the exact allocation of the SEED money will be the choice of local and state authorities, anywhere from 20-80% of the SEED money could go to energy-efficiency measures. Our analysis assumes that 75% will go to energy efficiency, providing savings as high as 2.45 quadrillion Btu’s in 2020 and 4.85 quads in 2030 (the average U.S. state uses about 2 quads/year).

Free allowances are given to natural gas utilities beginning in 2016 (Section 782b), one-third of which must be used specifically for energy efficiency. The allowances to efficiency will begin at 3% in 2016 and will ramp down over time. This could provide as much as 0.61 quads of savings in 2020 and 1.59 quads of savings in 2030. In addition, states will receive allowances based upon heating oil consumption (Section 782c), one-half of which must be used for energy efficiency programs. These allowances will be worth 1.875% of the total in 2012, ramping down to .03% in 2029.

The allowances will also be used to fund a number of other important energy efficiency programs, many of which will provide considerable monetary and energy savings for consumers. Section 201 directs 0.5% of the total emissions allowances to go to the implementation of stricter building codes. These codes will provide for 30% improvements in 2010, 50% improvements in 2014 for residential and 2015 for commercial buildings, and 5% additional improvements every 3 years after 2017/2018. Building codes are one of the most significant portions of the legislation, providing 9% of the savings from the bill in 2020, and 13% of the savings in 2030.

See “Better buildings soon? Energy and climate bill would set national energy codes.”

In addition, 1.5 % of the total allowances will be used to fund clean energy innovation centers (Section 171), which will conduct R&D on eight different categories of clean energy, including building efficiency and transportation efficiency. These will be administered by the Department of Energy, and the R &D innovations created by the centers are likely to save as much as 3 quads in 2030.

The savings Waxman-Markey could achieve are huge:

In total, the energy efficiency provisions in H.R. 2454 could reduce U.S. energy use by 4.4 quadrillion Btu’s, which accounts for about 4 percent of projected U.S. energy use in 2020. These energy efficiency savings are more than the annual energy use of 47 of the 50 states, including New York State. Moreover, such savings will avoid about 293 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2020, the equivalent of taking 49 million cars off the road for a year. By 2030, these energy efficiency savings grow to 11 quadrillion Btu’s, accounting for about 10 percent of projected U.S. energy use that year.

Imagine what the savings could be if we can improve the efficiency provisions in the bill.

This piece originally appeared in Climate Change.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Joe Romm in Business at 5:34 PM)