By Ellen Shenette

A little over a week ago, 20 of the world’s power houses came together for the Group of 20 summit. It was disappointing to see Trump hold firm to his decision to exit the Paris Agreement while 19 world leaders publicly reaffirmed their commitment. But something good has come out of Trump’s climate defiance, and I bet it’s not the reaction he was looking for: climate action.

The inability for the federal government to agree on climate doesn’t stop momentum– it fuels it. An enormous swell of energy and activism has swept across America. Businesses, states, cities and citizens are stepping up, creating plans to pursue lower emissions on their own.

There are now over 1,400 cities, states and businesses that have vowed to meet Paris commitments, sending a message that “we’re still in” and making enormous strides on devising climate solutions that keep the agenda alive. EDF Climate Corps' ten years of experience gives us an inside look into how companies, cities and non-profits are taking action.

4 ways businesses and cities can help meet Paris climate commitments
Click To Tweet

Here are four ways that the private and public sector are preparing for a low-carbon future:

1. Scale energy efficiency. The low-hanging fruit of energy efficiency has for the most part been picked. It’s time to take things to the next level by focusing on larger-scale, portfolio-level energy efficiency projects. Last year, Shuvya Arakali worked with American Eagle Outfitters to recommend HVAC retrofits, and other energy efficiency measures that could be deployed across the store portfolio and save thousands of metric tons of CO2e each year.

Manager, EDF Climate Corps

2. Invest in clean, renewable energy. Evaluate opportunities for both onsite and offsite renewable energy projects, like PPAs and VPPAs. Other procurement options includes mechanisms like green tariffs. The City of Fresno enlisted EDF Climate Corps fellow Katie Altobello-Czescik to help promote clean, smart energy initiatives including renewable generation, battery storage and demand response. Together, they worked on advancing a community-scale energy project aimed at helping local businesses and creating a net zero neighborhood.

3. Make a commitment—then execute. Be willing to set big goals and develop ambitious GHG-reduction targets that are founded upon science. Once they are set, create strategies to meet them. In 2015, Mayor Bill de Blasio set a goal to reduce New York City’s greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050. The New York City's Mayor's Office of Sustainability has deployed multiple EDF Climate Corps fellows to help develop and advance strategies to meet these ambitious goals.

4. Go beyond your own company. Tackling climate change requires looking at the big picture, more than what’s happening within internal operations. Consider your supply chains by engaging suppliers and together identifying ways to reduce scope 3—both upstream and downstream—GHG emissions. This past spring, Walmart set a goal to remove 1 gigaton (1 billion tons) of GHG emissions from its supply chain by 2030. Companies throughout Walmart’s supply chain now have the directive to go beyond “business as usual” to focus on emissions reductions in their operations.

It’s difficult not to feel discouraged when our national climate policy is moving backwards instead of forwards. But that doesn’t mean the rest of the country is. United States’ leadership will continue, albeit in this new form, and businesses and cities will keep continue to advance climate solutions through smart policy, forward-thinking business and cutting-edge innovation.

Follow Ellen on Twitter, @ellenshenette

Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog. [contact-form-7]

 

By Ben Ratner

This post originally appeared on Forbes.

Recently, at an oil and gas industry event co-hosted by Energy Dialogues and Shell in Houston, Ben Ratner, a Director at Environmental Defense Fund, met up with Michael Maher, presently with Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and a former longtime economist with ExxonMobil, to discuss the future of the natural gas industry. Specifically, they talked about the growing divide between those—in government and in the industry—who want less environmental regulation, particularly over the issue of methane emissions, and those who see sensible regulation as the best way for the industry to assure its future as offering a cleaner alternative to other, dirtier, fossil fuels.

Since Michael and Ben met in Houston, the Trump Administration announced the U.S. departure from the Paris climate agreement and postponements and potential weakening of methane emission rules from the Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Land Management. These new developments put the industry divide into sharper focus.

States could now step up to address issues that the federal government was poised to take the lead on under rules promulgated by President Obama toward the end of his term. But will states act without industry prodding or at least, support for action? And will companies most worried about license to operate intervene against delays, weakening, or even elimination of nationwide standards? Mike and Ben discuss below.

Ben: As a former oil and gas industry employee, how do you think the industry should respond to the regulatory rollbacks of the Trump administration?

Michael: This administration is moving rapidly away from a federal role in climate change policies. The question for the oil and gas industry is whether to sit back and coast on the federal failure to act or to work with states to address greenhouse emissions. Coasting may look like a cost saver for the near term, but the pendulum will eventually swing back, and a reversal of Trump’s policies is a real prospect down the road. However, if enough states—with industry support—were to effectively address methane emissions it could provide guidance for federal action down the road and protect the industry against the reputational damage of being seen to have resisted sound environmental regulation.

Michael: In the current political climate, what do you see as the role of leading companies?

Ben: The great irony here is that while the Trump attacks on environmental standards are intended to help industry by reducing costs in the short term, they may end up inflicting much greater long-term damage. A classic case of “short term gain, long term pain.”

Energy consumers, institutional investors and citizens want cleaner energy, and scrapping rules that help the industry clean up may ultimately endanger the industry’s social license to operate and make it more difficult to do business. So we will be looking hard to see which companies step forward to slow down the deregulatory torrent that is tarnishing the industry’s reputation just as demand for cleaner energy is lifting off.

In recent days, Shell and Exxon reportedly stated that they are complying with EPA’s contested methane rules, but other companies have stayed silent. Companies like ConocoPhillips and BP voiced their support for the Paris international climate agreement. With the U.S. now withdrawing from the Paris accord, will companies like these make good on addressing climate change by publicly supporting policies aimed at reducing methane emissions? We haven’t seen true industry support at the federal regulatory level, at least not yet.

At the same time, regardless of what happens in Washington, states have a golden opportunity to develop their own methane policies. In Colorado, for example, companies like Noble Energy and Anadarko worked with EDF and the state to negotiate methane and air pollution standards that work for business and the environment.

Industry played a vital role in Colorado’s success, and there will be more opportunities for industry leaders to participate in regulatory development in other states.

Ben: Are there business and reputational impacts of failing to address methane emissions?

Michael: Natural gas has historically competed with other sellers with other fuels almost totally on price. But customers and officials are increasingly looking at energy options based on environmental benefits and not just price. There is a robust debate in the Northeast, for example, about how to move forward in decarbonizing their electric power system and it is not focused solely on the costs of alternatives.

In this regard, it is in the interest of the natural gas industry to be able to promote natural gas as a much cleaner alternative to coal. But methane and associated emissions from natural gas drilling operations cloud that cleaner-than-coal claim and plays into the hands of those supporting a more rapid shift to renewables and who argue for “keeping it in the ground.”

Michael: How does EDF view methane control as part of a company’s social responsibility?

Ben: How a company manages its natural gas leaks tells you a great deal about how responsible it is, because leaks cause climate damage and can harm people’s health—especially among the most vulnerable, like children and the elderly. Also, since methane is a commercial product, if a company doesn’t know or care how much of its own product is going into thin air, that’s not a good sign.

Southwestern Energy is one example of a leader that sets a methane target, conveys to its people the value of methane management, and implements leading practices in the field. Another is Statoil, which is working with EDF and an entrepreneur to pioneer efficient new automated methane monitoring technology. These kinds of efforts can deliver financial value by recouping lost product, and demonstrating to investors, communities and other key stakeholders their lived commitment to responsible corporate behavior.

Ben: How do you see the industry tackling the methane problem?

Michael: Farsighted, well operated companies are already taking action to cut emissions, but sometimes the policy advocacy lags behind. There needs to be leadership on this issue from major players—not just singly but as a coalition urging federal agencies to retain or improve rules, rather than delay or weaken them. This coalition should also engage states in developing sound regulation of new drilling and older wells.

Some in industry are already pushing ahead with testing new technology that would reduce the cost of controlling emissions. That effort should continue, but voluntary action of this sort is not a replacement for regulations that apply across the entire industry. Nor will piecemeal voluntary efforts of a few overcome the stigma of hundreds of other companies abstaining from action to reduce their methane emissions.

Michael Maher is a senior program advisor at the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy

Ben Ratner is a Director with EDF+Business at Environmental Defense Fund

By Dakota Gangi

To address the world’s most pressing environmental challenges, we must catalyze large-scale private investment in innovative environmental solutions. One place where such solutions are greatly needed is Louisiana, where more than 2,000 square miles of coastal land have vanished since the 1930s, putting communities and industries at risk from the effects of rising seas and increased storm surges.

This week, EDF begins work to develop the nation’s second Environmental Impact Bond, with support from NatureVest’s new Conservation Investment Accelerator Program. In collaboration with our partners, Quantified Ventures and Louisiana’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, EDF will bring public, private and non-profit resources together to accelerate Louisiana’s coastal restoration and resiliency plans through a new Louisiana Coastal Wetland Restoration and Resilience Environmental Impact Bond.

Coastal wetlands are a form of “natural infrastructure” that provide storm protection by attenuating wave energy. Continual loss reduces these protective services, potentially increasing damage from a single storm by as much as $138 billion and generating an additional $53 billion in lost economic output from storm disruptions. If no actions are taken to restore and protect the coast, Louisiana could lose an additional 1,750 square miles of wetlands by 2060, posing a direct risk to as much as $3.6 billion in assets that support $7.6 billion in economic activity each year.

Can sustainable finance help save Louisiana’s Gulf Coast?

While Louisiana expects 15 years of Gulf oil spill-related funds to support restoration work, the state has identified less than half of the funding necessary. A pay-for-success environmental impact bond backed by these cash flows can help to close this funding gap by mobilizing funds from the private sector to accelerate the pace of restoration project implementation. Restoring the coast earlier in the planning horizon will allow the state to realize long-term cost savings.

Pay-for-success (PFS) is a form of performance-based contracting that ties payment for service provision to the achievement of measurable outcomes. The PFS model has emerged as a promising approach to fund social and environmental innovation. Quantified Ventures, a pay-for-success transaction specialist, paved the way for applying PFS in an environmental context with the development of DC Water’s 2016 Environmental Impact Bond (EIB).

In September 2016, the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water) raised $25 million from institutional investors Goldman Sachs Urban Investment Group and Calvert Foundation to finance the construction of green infrastructure projects that will reduce the volume of stormwater runoff entering the sewer system, thereby reducing combined sewer overflow events. If the projects perform as expected, DC Water will pay investors in accordance with the initial term rate of 3.43%. If the project outperforms expectations, DC Water will make an additional payment to investors for sharing its risk in the project. If the projects underperform expectations, then investors will make a payment to DC Water.

By sharing project risks between public and private sector partners, environmental impact bonds allow public entities to support innovative environmental solutions and private entities to put their risk-seeking capital to work. Given that sea level rise, land subsidence, storms and hurricanes add uncertainty to the successful outcome of wetland restoration, an EIB can shift part of a restoration project’s risk from Louisiana’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) to investors.

In collaboration with CPRA, EDF will select a wetland restoration project from Louisiana’s 2017 Coastal Master Plan to demonstrate the feasibility of an EIB for coastal restoration. This EIB will serve as a blueprint for investments in coastal resilience throughout Louisiana and other coastal states. We expect it may even usher in a new era of private investment in coastal resilience to help cities in the U.S. and across the globe that are already experiencing the adverse effects of climate change and are looking for solutions.

Public, Private, and Non-profit collaboration needed for a sustainable future

The amount of capital required to transition to a low-carbon economy, adapt our infrastructure to cope with the damaging effects of climate change, and preserve healthy ecosystems far exceeds the capacity of the philanthropic and public sectors alone. Of the estimated $1.5 trillion annual investment needed, roughly $700 billion is currently being invested. Innovative green investment products – like environmental impact bonds and green bonds – are helping to fill the $800 billion funding gap that remains.

We recognize that financial institutions have a role to play in addressing environmental challenges that goes beyond their direct investment dollars. EDF’s sustainable finance strategy seeks to leverage the influence, expertise and capital of the financial marketplace to protect the environment, improve livelihoods and achieve the ambitions goals in Blueprint 2020.

Dakota Gangi, Sustainable Finance and Impact Investing Manager and William K. Bowes, Jr. Fellow, EDF+Business

With the support from NatureVest’s Conservation Accelerator Program, EDF has an exciting opportunity to demonstrate how collaboration between the public, private, and non-profit sectors can address a critical environmental issue. We are excited to be working with Quantified Ventures and the state of Louisiana on this pilot project and hope that it will serve as a model for crowding-in private capital for coastal resiliency and restoration projects around the world.

Follow EDF + Biz on Twitter, @EDFBiz

Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog. [contact-form-7]

By Sean Wright

Institutional investors worldwide are increasingly encouraging oil and gas companies to improve and disclose their management strategies to minimize methane risk.

Methane – an invisible, odorless gas and main ingredient in natural gas – is routinely emitted by the global oil and gas industry, posing a reputational and economic threat to portfolios.

Natural gas is widely marketed as a low-carbon fuel because it burns roughly 50 percent cleaner than coal. But this ignores a major problem: methane. Natural gas is almost pure methane, a powerful pollutant that speeds up Earth’s warming when it escapes into the atmosphere.

Last month marked a significant milestone in investor action on the methane issue. The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) launched a new initiative representing 35 investors and U.S. $3.8 trillion in assets that will engage with the oil and gas industry across five different continents to improve its methane management and disclosure practices. The PRI initiative complements existing methane engagement efforts focused on the U.S. led by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and CERES.

EDF Senior Manager Sean Wright recently sat down with Sylvia van Waveren, a Senior Engagement Specialist with Robeco Institutional Asset Management, a Dutch-based investment firm managing over $160 billion, to discuss the matter and understand why some investors are keen to affect the status quo on methane.

Wright: Why is methane a focus of your engagements? What do you see as the risks of unmanaged methane emissions? 

Sylvia van Waveren, Senior Engagement Specialist, Robeco Institutional Asset Management

van Waveren: Methane is one of the most important drivers of engagement with the oil and gas industry. We invest in oil and gas companies worldwide. A year ago, we started engaging them, specifically on climate change – and within that the methane issue is included.

In the past, methane was viewed as a U.S. shale gas issue, but more recently it has become important in Europe as we learned that methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. So in that sense, we learned a lot from the U.S. discussions and we still do.

I would like to stress that we see the methane issue more as a business opportunity than a risk. What we often say to companies is that methane is a potential revenue source. It would be a waste if companies do not use it. 

Wright: The scope of PRI’s initiative is global, with investors from 3 different continents as far away as Australia and New Zealand, and a plan to engage with companies from the Latin America, Europe, North America and Asia-Pac. What does this level of global collaboration convey about methane emissions? 

van Waveren: I am happy and it is good to see that others have taken up the seriousness of this issue, as well.  Methane is no longer a U.S. only problem. The issue is being raised and discussed in all kinds of geographies.

I’m a firm believer in collective engagements. They can be a powerful force when the issue is not contained within borders. That is the case with greenhouse gases. So yes, I’m happy to see the PRI initiative taking off and I am an active believer in getting this solved and bringing attention to this subject.  

Global investor touts methane opportunity with oil & gas industry
Click To Tweet

Wright: In your conversations thus far with companies about methane, what resonates best when making the business case for improving methane management and disclosure?

van Waveren: When we talk about motivation at the company level, I have to be honest, it’s still early days. The European companies are talking in general terms and just now conceptualizing methane policies. If we’re lucky, they have calculated how much methane is part of their greenhouse gas emissions. And if we’re more fortunate, they are producing regional and segregated figures from carbon, but it’s really very meager how motivated the companies are and what triggers them most.

I really feel we should emphasize more with companies to get them motivated and to really look at the seriousness of methane. One issue that is particularly bothersome is that many companies do not know how to calculate, estimate and set targets to reduce methane. It is still a mystery to many of them. That’s why we come in with engagements. We need to keep them sharp on this issue and ask them for their actions, calculations and plans. 

Wright: Who are other important allies that have a role in solving this problem, and why?

van Waveren: We always would like to have an ally in the government. For example, carbon pricing or carbon fixations are all topics that we look for from the government. But in practice, that doesn’t work. Governments sometimes need more time. So we do not always wait for the government. When companies say they will wait for government, we say, “You should take a proactive approach.”

We rely very much on our knowledge that we get from within the sector. We review data analyses and make intermediate reports of scoring. We find best practice solutions and we hold companies accountable. There are also times when we name names. So in that sense, that is how engagement works. The data providers and other organizations with good knowledge and good content on methane – and EDF is certainly one of them – are very instrumental to get the knowledge that we need.

Wright: Can you give me an example of a widespread financial risk facing an industry in the past that was proactively improved by investors leading the charge – similar to this initiative?

van Waveren: More than 20 years ago, we had a greenhouse gas issue – acid rain. Investors helped solve that problem. Because of this, I’m hopeful that investors can also play a positive role in reducing methane.

I would also say the issue of Arctic drilling. Not so long ago, this was top of mind when we talked to our portfolio companies. A lot of companies have now withdrawn from Arctic drilling, especially from offshore Arctic drilling. I think investors were quite successful in sending a clear signal to the industry in a collective way that we didn’t see Arctic drilling as a good process. Maybe profitable – if at all – to the companies, but certainly not for the environment.

Wright: Thank you, Sylvia. We really appreciate your time and your thoughtful answers showing how investors can be part of the solution on methane.

By Sean Wright

In the same week Apple raised $1 billion through green bonds to invest in clean energy, and Amazon put solar panels on a million square foot processing facility, the Trump administration – at the urging of the worst elements in the oil and gas industry –proposed a two-year delay of sensible rules that would limit emissions of methane and other air pollutants.

Natural gas, which is mostly methane, has been put forward as a cleaner alternative to other fossil fuels and as an energy resource that can play a key role in the transition to a lower-carbon future. But now more than ever, that proposition is now called into serious question.

How will natural gas compete in a changing world?

Every year, oil and gas operations around the country emit some 8-10 million metric tons of methane into the air. Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas, responsible for about a quarter of the climate warming we’re experiencing today – and those emissions come mingled with a host of other smog-forming and carcinogenic pollutants.

There are cost-effective, proven ways to reduce these emissions, and leading companies are already implementing them. The problem is, many companies refuse to address the problem on their own. And now they’re looking to the Trump administration for a free pass to pollute.

When trade associations like the American Petroleum Institute attack cost-effective policies that protect public health and the climate, it sends a signal that the natural gas industry will do everything it can to maximize short-term profits – even at the risk of damaging the reputation of the industry in the eyes of the public and jeopardizing its ability to operate over the long term.

The question is: In an increasingly carbon constrained world, what is the natural gas industry’s plan for the future?

We’re not arguing that gas is at risk of going away tomorrow. The United States leads the world in natural gas production, as new technologies and processes have unlocked massive, cheap reserves. But make no mistake, the transition to cleaner energy in the U.S. and across the globe is irreversible and accelerating. In this context, fighting reasonable and necessary emissions rules only magnifies risk for the natural gas industry and its investors. It’s a head-in-the-sand approach that ignores the realities of what consumers, communities and markets demand.

Capital markets shifting to cleaner companies and forms of energy

The Trump administration’s recent moves come at a time when environmental concerns informing investment decisions are reaching record highs. For example, investors with $10 trillion in assets under management have committed to the Montreal Carbon Pledge to reduce the carbon footprint of their portfolios, with an eye towards portfolio de-carbonization in the long run.

As part of the shift to assets in lower emitting companies and industries, investors are demanding better carbon and methane disclosure as well as proactive environmental management. The recent watershed Exxon vote, in which 62% of investors (including industry titans like BlackRock and Vanguard) demanded better climate risk disclosure from Exxon management, showed that carbon risk considerations have hit the mainstream.

Increasingly, investors see methane simply as a form of carbon risk in need of management, not neglect. And methane waste can be cost-effectively managed – as proven in states like Colorado where production has continued apace even as strict methane rules have come on the books.

On top of investors’ efforts to shift portfolios towards cleaner companies, the divestment movement also continues to grow, driven by a range of environmental risks of owning fossil fuel stocks. Just recently mainstream investor CalSTRS divested from coal. Going forward, increasing numbers of investors will look carefully at the environmental record of oil and natural gas companies in determining their comfort level in continuing to invest.

Some companies lead but no substitute for commonsense rules

Companies like Southwestern Energy, Noble, Shell and others have led on methane emissions by setting methane targets, supporting state-based regulations, and working with the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership to disclose methane emissions. Their efforts certainly deserve recognition, and are supported by some investors who factor strong methane management into investment decision.

Still, voluntary actions by the few are no substitute for rules and oversight that require responsible operations by the thousands of oil and gas companies operating in the United States. Some of these companies simply lack a commitment to sustainability and to operating over the long-term, and will not rein in emissions unless they are required to do so by law.

Methane safeguards serve the long-term interests of industry and investors

As the scientific reality of climate change and consumer demand steer the world toward a cleaner energy future, will attacks on environmental protections inflict lasting damage on the oil and gas industry? Only time will tell. It’s likely, however, that if the loudest industry voices continue to oppose rules that could guide it toward a cleaner future, the industry as a whole will suffer.  Unfortunately, that will include the more forward-leaning companies, which will be dragged down by their intransigent peers. This outcome will become all the more likely thanks to the Trump administration’s erosion of environmental safeguards that are fundamental to responsible development.

It’s time for oil and gas operators and mainstream investors with a long-term view to take a look at what rules and regulations are needed to rein in methane emissions in their industry. And they also need decide if they want to align themselves with an administration whose policies may be unwittingly handicapping the very industry it attempts to serve.

By Liz Delaney

We’re halfway through “Energy Week” at the White House–a series of events promoting President Trump’s energy policies. These are policies the administration claims will boost the economy and grow America’s energy dominance (note the change from “energy interdependence” to “energy dominance”), while creating jobs by reviving America’s declining coal industry.

It’s the same plan we’ve heard since Trump’s first day as President. So let’s ask ourselves, is it working?

Slashing climate policies

In March, Trump signed an executive order to dismantle the Clean Power Plan, and on June 1st, he followed through on his promise to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement. These reckless decisions were a major setback to both our nation’s economy and our job market.

The decision to withdraw from Paris was justified by the “economic unfairness” that it would bring upon the country, citing negative effects on jobs. The administration claimed they would continue to be the “cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth”, but not at the expense of our businesses and jobs. After business and world leaders criticized his actions, Trump defended his decision by stating he was simply fulfilling a campaign promise.

This was a campaign promise to bring back [coal] jobs. It’s time we check whether Trump has delivered.

Liz Delaney, Program Director, EDF Climate Corps

America’s job board: where does coal fall on the list?

In addition to his actions on the Clean Power Plan and the Paris agreement, Trump has focused on weakening health protections that reduce the impacts associated with the production of fossil fuels, like coal. Since then, the coal mining industry has added a mere 1,000 jobs, bringing us to a total of just 51,000 coal mining jobs nationwide—keep in mind that’s roughly only .03 percent of the more than 150,000,000 jobs in the U.S—as of May 2017. And of those industry workers, only roughly one-fifth actually mine the coal. These numbers fall far behind the 50,000 coal jobs that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt claimed have been created in just the time since Trump became president.

Coal represents .03% of total US jobs. If Trump wants to deliver on jobs, he should look to clean…
Click To Tweet

It’s time we look at the long-term picture. The economic realities of the past few decades haven’t favored coal power and this isn’t going to change. The decline of coal-related jobs is partly due to the rise in cheap natural gas, combined with increased continuous automation, and the industry is forecasted to see an additional 51% reduction in generation by 2040. We’re heading in a new direction. The U.S. power sector—as states and power companies reaffirm their commitments to de-carbonization—is well-positioned to continue to reduce carbon pollution.

Meanwhile, despite Trump’s best efforts to dismantle their progress, renewables are on track to see a 169 percent increase in generation by 2040, bringing with them clean, local and well-paying jobs. There are an estimated 4-4.5 million clean and sustainability jobs in the U.S. today according to this Now Hiring report. Solar and wind alone account for close to half a million jobs, and energy efficiency makes up another 2.2 million more jobs. The rest are in fields such as natural resources conservation, corporate sustainability and environmental education.

The future of clean jobs only looks more promising. Wind turbine technicians are the fastest-growing occupations in America, adding jobs over nine times faster than the overall economy, just behind solar jobs, which are growing at a rate 17 times faster than the rest of the economy. And, investing in renewables or energy efficiency results in about 5 more jobs than the same investment in fossil fuels. That’s an opportunity we can’t afford to turn our backs on.

Moving the needle in the right direction

If Trump wants to fulfill his campaign promises of creating jobs, then he should redirect his attention from the dying coal industry to the booming clean energy sector. Why? Because it makes economic sense. That’s why business leaders, investors and politicians are demanding that the Trump administration deliver a plan to address climate change with smart policies.

There’s a way for Trump to make good on his campaign promises to bring back America's jobs and lead us closer to becoming energy “dominant”. The answer is to invest in clean energy and energy efficiency jobs.

Follow Liz on Twitter, @lizdelaneylobo

Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog. [contact-form-7]

By Tom Murray

In the absence of federal leadership and oversight, who will be the standard-bearer for the environment?

You will.

The opportunity and need for bolder private sector leadership has never been greater. Business must continue to step up and lead the way to a more sustainable world where companies, communities, and the environment thrive. Your legacy must now be a legacy of leadership and stewardship. One cannot exist without the other.

Long-term economic growth and business competitiveness depends on a thriving environment. By 2050 there will be 9.5 billion consumers on our planet, all demanding more energy, food, products and services than ever before. This presents a huge challenge, and a huge opportunity for business leadership, collaboration and advocacy.

Tom Murray, VP EDF+Business

It is up to you to inspire, influence and innovate for a future where both the economy and the environment can prosper. We know this is achievable because we’ve proven it. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has been at the forefront of this change for 25 years, bringing cutting edge science, policy, and economic expertise to high-impact companies – including McDonalds, Walmart, and KKR – to transform business as usual in their products, operations, and advocacy. But now it’s time for all of us to raise the bar.

Set big goals

When companies like Walmart, PepsiCo and Microsoft set aggressive sustainability targets, three very important things happen:

1. Loud and clear signals are sent to employees, customers, investors, competitors and other stakeholders that they are planning for long-term competitiveness; not short-term politics. By publicly committing to bold environmental goals that reflect their impact and influence, business leaders are building a legacy of responsible prosperity for their organizations.
2. Big public goals inspire competition and results. There’s never been a more important time for business to create a race to the top, not because regulations demand it, but because employees, customers, the economy, and the planet deserve it. And, business operates on a global scale. Environmental leadership and oversight –or lack thereof — in the U.S. is no reason to fall behind in the global race to dominate the clean energy sector.
3. Big challenges breed big innovations. Rarely do business leaders know exactly how they will achieve their aggressive sustainability goals; but instead use goals as an impetus to innovate. Sustainability is a business challenge like any other – solutions and efficiencies are found through strategic, innovative thinking and an openness to bring the right people to the table to find the most transformative solutions.

This effort is well underway.  To date, over 275 companies are taking action on science-based targets. Here’s a step-by-step guide to learn more about setting your own science-based target.

Collaborate for scale

Private sector leaders must work together and use their purchasing power to inspire a future where both business and the environment can prosper. There is too much rhetoric coming out of Washington, DC today about a false choice between a healthy environment and a growing economy. To borrow a well-used phrase from former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich …that’s rubbish. The good news is that we can have both.  There are currently over four million jobs in the clean energy and sustainability sectors across all U.S. states. The solar industry is growing at a rate of 12 times faster than the U.S. economy. Business is innovating to create cleaner air and water, safer products and abundant, low-cost energy supplies while figuring out how to accommodate a growing population without decimating natural resources.

Business leaders must look beyond the four walls of their own operations and drive broader change across their industries and global supply chains.

Get started with EDF’s supply chain solutions center.

It's time for business to raise the bar. We can drive a healthy economy AND a healthy environment.
Click To Tweet

Shape future safeguards

The good news is that the momentum for a sustainable future is not going to come to a screeching halt now that Trump has said the U.S. will pull out of the Paris Agreement. Business leaders have voiced their intent to stay the course, loud and clear. But business has always relied on regulatory guardrails for long-term planning when it comes to the environment. What happens now?

First, if your company is already on the front-lines of climate policy, keep your foot on the gas and your brand at the forefront. If you need help stepping up your sustainability, EDF and other NGOs are here to help to drive business- and planet-worthy victories.

Second, if you’ve been sitting on the sidelines waiting to see what happens, now is the time to join the conversation. Step up and voice your business-first reasoning for a clean energy, sustainable future. Collaborate with others in your industry to amplify the message. Join other like-minded business leaders to uphold strong, global commitments.

How you can get involved:

• Add your brand to the 1,219 mayors, governors, college and university leaders, businesses and investors who have voiced their continued support for the Paris Agreement – We Are Still In.
• Join the world’s most influential companies in committing to 100% renewables
• Ask your Representatives to join the Climate Solutions Caucus

In the absence of federal safeguards for our environment, it is time for business to lead from the front.

Follow Tom on Twitter, @tpmurray

Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog. [contact-form-7]

By Jenny Ahlen

As a parent, environmental professional and wife of an accomplished chef, I spend a lot of time thinking about food and how to make the best choices when it comes to feeding my family. That’s why EDF’s report detailing lead in food has me so concerned.

Usually I think about, and maybe even felt guilty at times, about the nutritional content and environmental impacts of the food I choose, but it never occurred to me to worry that the food itself could be contaminated with lead.  And, let’s just be clear – there is no scientific evidence of a safe level of lead in blood. Lead can harm a child’s developing brain, potentially leading to learning problems, lower IQ, as well as cause behavioral problems.

While I knew that the major exposures to lead come from lead-based paint, contaminated soil and dust, and drinking water, I didn’t realize that in order to have a comprehensive plan to protect my child from harm, contaminated food should also be on my list.

According to EDF’s analysis of FDA data from 2003 to 2013, 20% of baby food and 14% of other food sampled contained detectable levels of lead. The baby food items with the highest rates of detection include grape, mixed fruit, apple, and pear juices, sweet potatoes and carrots, arrowroot cookies, and teething biscuits.

What business and consumers can do to eliminate lead contamination in baby foods
Click To Tweet

The following chart details the percentage of various food samples where lead was detected.

There are two key takeaways from this chart.

1. Some product types have a high percent of lead detection across the samples, while other product types have much smaller percentages.
2. While many samples of products have detected levels of lead, every category has some products with no detectable levels of lead. This suggests that lead in food is a problem with a solution.

So, what is a food company to do?

• Step 1 – Set a goal of less than 1 parts per billion (ppb) of lead in baby food and other foods marketed to young children
• Step 2 – Test for lead
• Step 3 – Identify the source of contamination – is it the raw ingredients, something the food is exposed to during processing, or something else?
• Step 4 – Take steps to eliminate the contamination
• Step 5 – Remain vigilant – keep testing and improving until the contamination is eliminated

5 steps businesses can take to eliminate lead contamination in foods
Click To Tweet

What can you do?

Ask companies if they regularly test their products for lead; and whether they ensure that there is less than 1 ppb of lead in the food and juices they sell. If they don’t, let them know it is a high priority concern for you.

I’m about to have another baby, and I hope that by the time baby number two is here and ready to eat solids, food companies have taken the steps necessary to eliminate lead. That way, I can spend more time focusing on eating great food and less time worrying about if it’s  contaminated.

By Bryce Golden-Chen

My first week on the job at Environmental Defense Fund was also the week the Trump administration released its full federal budget proposal. I joined the EDF + Business team after working at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), implementing technology-to-market innovation partnerships for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The proposal slashes EERE and related offices and programs that have been at the forefront of successful public-private partnerships. At a time when the U.S. is backing out of the Paris Climate Agreement and federal clean energy technology investments are critically and urgently needed, this budget threatens American innovation.

Funding that nurtures new businesses without requiring their owners to give up any stake in their companies can be make-or-break for the early-stage startups that drive innovation. When government, well-positioned to make this kind of unique investment, puts forth tax-payer dollars, it encourages the private sector to buy-in as well—oftentimes with a multiplying effect. DOE has created opportunities like these that reduce risks for both entrepreneurs and investors. It is through this public-private collaboration that meaningful partnerships and lasting progress are possible for clean energy and our nation’s economy.

Clean energy and innovation threatened

Titled “A New Foundation for American Greatness,” the president’s budget proposal jeopardizes nearly a decade of progress in building our clean energy economy.

Trump budget breakdown: Time to defend clean energy and American innovation
Click To Tweet

Dulling the cutting edge of our nation’s innovation enterprise curtails our ability to strategically lead in scientific and technological innovations more broadly, across sectors. Decelerating cleantech research, development, demonstration, and deployment would also inhibit our ability to deal responsibly with climate change and its consequences. Specifically, the President’s plan cuts FY18 funding to EERE by over $1.4 billion, down nearly 70 percent from FY16 and FY17 levels, and it all but eliminates the $290 million Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), with a 93 percent reduction for FY18. It zeroes out EERE’s Strategic Programs Office that initiated, funds, and organizes tech-to-market efforts like the National Incubator Initiative for Clean Energy, Small Business Vouchers Pilot, and Energy I-Corps, which build innovative partnerships among startups, small businesses, incubators, and accelerators and give them unprecedented access to national lab scientists, engineers, and equipment. The plan does note that strategic subprograms would be consolidated or transferred to elsewhere within DOE. The budget also includes 70 percent cuts to both EERE’s Solar and Vehicle Technologies Offices. These are home to successful public-private partnership programs like the SunShot Initiative, which helped the solar industry achieve DOE’s vision of $1-per-watt three years early, and SuperTruck II, which builds upon the success of the original SuperTruck program that showed 115 percent improvements to freight fuel efficiency are possible.

The reductions go as far as eliminating the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs Office, which has worked with state, local, and tribal governments for decades to assist more than 7 million low-income households find significant savings through energy efficiency. These upgrades have lowered these families’ utility bills an average of $283 per year and brought demonstrated improvements to health and safety.

There is something for everyone to be concerned about in this proposed budget, and even the fossil fuel industry stands to lose.

Even DOE “crown jewels” that Energy Secretary Rick Perry vowed to protect are not safe as the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) now faces a 20 percent cut. NREL celebrates its 40th anniversary this year with its 2,200 employees who hold over 300 patents and further support the growing clean energy economy through more than 500 technology partnership agreements with businesses, nonprofits, and academic institutions. Despite these and other successes, the proposed budget significantly defunds or eliminates clean energy activities across all 17 national labs.

The contradictions between the administration’s rhetoric and numeric reality are signs that our Energy Department may very well lose its unique and leading role at home and abroad in driving innovation.

There is something for everyone to be concerned about in this proposed budget, and even the fossil fuel industry stands to lose from cuts to ARPA-E and EERE, which also work on methane leak detection and advanced combustion engines. These offices, programs, and labs have proven results, and to end or scale them back would be a disservice to U.S. industrial competitiveness and the American people.

Common ground and hope for progress

The good news is that clean energy continues to receive bipartisan support, and the proposed DOE cuts are widely opposed, including by at least six Republican senators. There is also broad consumer backing even among Trump voters for Energy Star, a joint EPA-DOE program helping consumers identify and select energy-saving products. Yet it too has been targeted by the administration. Fortunately, the private sector continues to step up, with diverse businesses and investors making serious cleantech commitments around the globe.

As I begin my work at EDF during these challenging times, I find hope in the common goal of human prosperity shared by the public and private sectors, in the opportunities created by collaborative approaches, and in the vast infrastructure and resilient spirit that are the true foundations of American entrepreneurship and innovation. Our country has a history of unexpected, rapid, and game-changing breakthroughs in science, technology, health, and sustainability that have improved the lives of millions of people. These can continue and accelerate into the future if, and only if, we do not back down now.

Photo source: U.S. Department of Agriculture / Flickr

By Tom Murray

Our businessman president just flunked one of the most important tests of his presidency: failing to listen to business leaders on the Paris climate agreement.

Despite the hundreds of companies and corporate CEOs calling for continued U.S. leadership on climate – in full-page ads in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times, on the Low Carbon USA website, and in direct outreach to the administration – Trump chose to side with the laggards. This is deeply disappointing and will harm American workers and business by undermining our competitiveness in the global clean energy economy.

Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement, however, will not stem the tide of American businesses taking action to stabilize the climate and safeguard our planet. Private sector leaders, unlike our president, have moved beyond the false choice of a healthy economy or a healthy environment; we need both. Which is why leading companies and investors are poised to deliver clean air, clean water and clean energy in ways that increase jobs, incomes and competitiveness.

While the Trump administration has ceded global leadership on climate, corporate America is moving ahead with plans to invest in clean energy and cut emissions. Long-term, global competitiveness demands it.

Leadership on climate and energy is driven by long-term economics, not short-term politics.

American business won’t back down from this latest challenge. In fact, it seems the business community is more motivated on climate than ever before. Cargill CEO David MacLennan summed it up best: “Cargill has no intention of backing away from our efforts to address climate change in our supply chains around the world and in fact this would inspire us to work even harder.”

Companies need to forge ahead by pursing aggressive science-based, emissions reduction targets and expanding their efforts to slash emissions throughout their operations and supply chains. Take PepsiCo, which recently announced that its climate goal to reduce absolute GHG emissions across its value chain by at least 20% by 2030 has been approved by the Science Based Targets initiative.

With the U.S. out of Paris, corporate leaders must continue to advance environmental and climate…
Click To Tweet

Business leaders can use Hewlett Packard Enterprises as a model. The information technology company created the world’s first comprehensive supply chain management program based on climate science and requires 80% of manufacturing suppliers to set science-based emissions reduction targets by 2025.

And just last week – despite the unsettled future of U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement – Tyson Foods announced it will develop science-based greenhouse gas and outcome-based water conservation targets for their entire supply chain.

These high-impact corporate initiatives need to be applauded, and the tools and resources used to achieve these goals should be replicated across industries.

Business will not allow positive climate momentum to come to a halt

The clean energy momentum generated by business over the last decade will not come to an abrupt halt. Companies like Apple, AB InBev and Walmart will not turn their back on the clean energy commitments they’ve made to customers, employees and the planet. Investors, like we saw with ExxonMobil, will keep pressure on companies to clearly report how climate change is affecting business.  And CEOs like General Electric's Jeffrey Immelt or Tesla's Elon Musk, who have been outspoken about remaining in the Paris agreement, will not back away from their company’s climate efforts because they understand how leaving Paris will make it harder to do business around the world. These voices need to keep encouraging others in the business community to join their efforts.

What is the plan? Inaction is unacceptable.

In this new post-Paris world, companies must now demand that the Trump administration and Congress deliver a plan to address climate change. Leading cities, states and companies will continue to move forward, but won’t be enough to deliver the reductions required from the world’s second largest emitter.  Smart climate and energy policy is required to provide the deep emission reductions the world needs and the certainty that business needs for planning, investment decisions, and job growth.

Unfortunately, the president failed to listen to the business community he was once a proud part of for so many years. With the President lagging behind, real business leaders will continue to step up lead the way to a thriving clean energy economy; EDF will have their back. We will continue to engage with business in this time of uncertainty to help shape a future where both business and nature prosper.

If the president won’t listen to business leaders in the future on climate, I hope he will follow the words of one of his favorite presidents, Abraham Lincoln, who said, “I walk slowly, but I never walk backward.”

Follow Tom on Twitter, @tpmurray

Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog. [contact-form-7]

By Theresa Eberhardt

What comes to mind when you think of Tyson Foods? Maybe it’s their eponymous brand’s wide array of chicken prepped in every shape and size. Or your morning ritual breakfast sandwiches by Jimmy Dean. Or even Hillshire Farm’s folded lunchmeats beneath the classic red container lids.

Most likely, the word “sustainability” doesn’t pop into your head—but that’s about to change.

Last week, Tyson Foods, one of the world’s largest meat producers, announced the beginning of a collaboration with the World Resources Institute (WRI) to develop science-based greenhouse gas (GHG) and outcome-based water conservation targets for their entire supply chain.

Project Coordinator, Supply Chain

This announcement comes at a time when U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement is unlikely. President Trump’s stance on climate change is disconcerting to say the least, but the ambitious goals made by corporate leaders (like Tyson) give Americans something to be proud of. The future is in sustainability, and business is on its way there.

Tyson aims to work with WRI in order to ensure that every step of their supply chain–from the suppliers for the materials and ingredients to the farmers who provide the chicken, turkey, cattle and pigs–meets their environmental targets. More and more companies are setting supply chain goals that address the sourcing of raw materials, which can be the hardest to influence, but the greatest source of impact.

This announcement follows several recent actions made by the company showing their commitment to improve the sustainability of its supply chain, including the recent hire of their first Chief Sustainability Officer, Justin Whitmore, and the elimination of antibiotics in their own brand of chicken. These initiatives are not only a significant step for Tyson Foods, but also the animal agriculture industry in general.

Industry leaders set supply chain sustainability goals, setting the bar for the agriculture sector.
Click To Tweet

As one of the largest animal agriculture companies in the world, Tyson has the opportunity to act as a role model for other companies, large and small, within the animal agriculture sector to begin adopting similar sustainable initiatives.

Major companies like Walmart, PepsiCo, Nestle, have all set targets to reduce emissions from their full supply chains. EDF has worked with a number of other food and beverage companies and retailers to set supply chain sustainability goals, including Smithfield Foods, the world's largest pork producer.

Tyson’s commitment reaffirms the notion that addressing the entire supply chain has officially become mainstream. We hope to see other major meat producers, such as Hormel, Perdue and JBS, follow in their footsteps.

Follow Theresa on Twitter, @te_eberhardt

 Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog. [contact-form-7]

Insert Twitter/Facebook sharecard image. (ideal size 1200x630px)

By Jenny Ahlen

My relationship with Walmart started over six years ago, working towards their 20 MMT greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goal. After some trial and error, and an exhaustive scan of greenhouse gas hotspots, it became clear that we would need to attack every point of the product lifecycle (including things like fertilizer optimization for crops and factory energy efficiency). Little did we know at the time that promoting energy-efficient products to Walmart shoppers–particularly LED lightbulbs–would prove to be so important to reach the goal in 2015.

As Walmart sets out on its next ambitious goal to remove 1 gigaton (aka 1 billion tons) of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) from the supply chain, I can’t help but wonder what the next game-changing product will be?

I don’t think the solution will be as easy as another LED lightbulb, but rather a series of disruptive innovations around how products are designed, sold and treated at the end of use.

Design: how to reduce impacts from the start 

Last month’s event focused on climate impacts, which largely come from the materials and processes used to manufacture and transport products.  Design changes can play a big role in reducing those impacts. It can also transform products into circular products, with their materials being recaptured by the economy or the planet to live another life as a component of a new product.

Point of Sale: how products are sold

The face of retail is shifting – not just from brick-and-mortar stores to online retail, but from an economy dominated by retail-to-customer relationships to one with more peer-to-peer transactions – just look at Airbnb and Lyft. This “sharing economy” has the potential to displace the number of new items needed as people increasingly use what has already been manufactured, sold and used. This can have big environmental benefits – sort of like eliminating food waste, but for general merchandise.

How products are designed, sold and treated at the end-of-life can be a huge opportunity for…
Click To Tweet

It hasn’t really taken off yet for retail, but companies like POSHMARK and ThredUp – where you can buy and sell fashion – and Spinlister – where you can rent someone’s bike – are working to change that. This will become more prevalent over time, especially as millennials have shown a preference for owning less things.

End of life: how to extend the life of a product

The sharing economy has the potential to delay a product from coming to its end of life as quickly, but once it does, innovative companies like Stuffstr can help consumers better manage what they do with their products by making resale, donations, recycling just as easy as throwing things away.

And, Stuffstr isn’t just an innovation that benefits end-consumers, but one that can help retailers understand how consumers use, and part with, the products they buy – creating opportunities to stay relevant as the sharing economy continues to grow.

What Now?

It’s clear that Walmart’s goal will catalyze innovation in how we think about products and their use. The GHGs that go into creating, selling and disposing of products is too great to ignore. I look forward to seeing which Walmart suppliers step up to the challenge.

 

Follow Jenny on Twitter, @JennyKAhlen

Additional Resources: Supply Chain Solutions Center

 

By Liz Delaney

 

Ten years ago, EDF found itself head-on with a challenge: how to effectively jump-start corporate energy efficiency initiatives. We started EDF Climate Corps, a summer fellowship program, with the theory that a small, intense injection of effort could catalyze investment in energy efficiency, giving companies the opportunity to capitalize on the associated cost and energy savings. That was ten years ago.

Since then, more than 800 fellows have been placed in over 430 organizations to advance corporate energy management.

Liz Delaney, Program Director, EDF Climate Corps

We have seen companies use their help to go beyond single-site projects and scale energy efficiency across their entire portfolios of facilities. This growth is representative of a vibrant and growing industry. Deploying energy efficiency has become a mainstream practice, and an entire ecosystem of service providers has cropped up to support these efforts. Employment in this market has skyrocketed and energy efficiency now represents the largest source of clean energy jobs in the country.

But the corporate energy challenge doesn’t stop there.

While energy efficiency continues to be an important way for companies to reduce carbon emissions from electricity, it can only get them so far. Alongside scaled-up efficiency efforts, holistic, strategic energy management plans that include clean energy generation (onsite and offsite) must be developed–and many companies are stepping up to the plate to do so.

Today we observe companies asking fellows to explore clean energy procurement options, dig through various state and federal incentive structures and effectively build the business case for investing in new, clean generation sources.

Today, clean energy is where energy efficiency was for companies a decade ago.

Building on the success of 10 years of fellowships, we are excited to announce that this summer over 100 new EDF Climate Corps fellows from top universities in the U.S. and China will help companies such as McDonald’s, Boston Scientific, JPMorgan Chase and Walmart meet their carbon and energy reduction goals. Fellows will scale energy efficiency, deploy clean energy technologies (1/3 of our class of over 100 fellows will work on clean energy solutions!), help companies set strategies to achieve science-based GHG goals, and even dig into carbon reductions in supply chains. They’ll also set themselves up for lasting careers in clean energy, energy efficiency and sustainability, alongside four million other Americans. We know that our network of over 1500 sustainability-focused professionals will help them along the way.

Corporate commitments for reducing carbon emissions are only getting stronger. Despite federal rollbacks in environmental protections, companies are continuing to navigate clean energy innovation, and we’re excited to see how the next 1o years of EDF Climate Corps will help drive this momentum.

Follow Liz on Twitter, @lizdelaneylobo

Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog. [contact-form-7]

Insert Twitter/Facebook sharecard image. (ideal size 1200x630px)

By Boma Brown-West

Today EDF released a new report, Smart Innovation: The Opportunity for Safer Preservatives, which offers a framework for safer chemical and product development. The report details baseline toxicological information on a select set of preservative chemicals used in personal care products, and makes the case for why and how access to uniformly developed sets of chemical health and safety information can help drive safer chemical and product innovation.

Consumers are demanding safer products for their homes, schools, and places of work. Growing awareness about the health and environmental impacts of chemicals is driving this demand. The entire consumer goods supply chain, from chemical manufacturers to retailers, plays a significant role in ensuring products on the market are healthful—i.e. made up of ingredients or materials that are as safe as possible and support healthy living.

How can we use data to strengthen the marketplace and ensure better innovation and competition for safer chemicals? Companies introduce new products into the marketplace all the time, but too few strive towards innovation that is safer for people and the planet. We need innovation that generates ingredients and materials that not only perform, but are also safer than their predecessors. Smart innovation is data-driven, deliberate, and delivers solutions that support health.

Unfortunately, the lack of availability and access to comprehensive and transparent toxicological information on chemicals across the supply chain continues to be a major obstacle to smart innovation. Such baseline information is invaluable for setting safer chemical design criteria that chemical and product developers can integrate into their R&D efforts.

In EDF's new report, we demonstrate how this type of information can be useful in the pursuit of safer preservatives – an ingredient class that has garnered much regulatory and market scrutiny. For example, major retailers like Walmart, Target, and CVS have published chemicals policies that aim to drive chemicals of concern off their shelves while ensuring consumer access to safer chemicals and products. Preservatives are present on each of these retailer’s lists of chemicals targeted for removal.

Ultimately, delivering products to the marketplace that use the safest possible ingredients requires concerted effort and informed, smart innovation. Our report discusses how this can be achieved via the creation of a collective Chemicals Assessment Clearinghouse that is leveraged across the supply chain. Such a Clearinghouse would provide a strategic intervention to unlock safer chemicals innovation to benefit companies, consumers and the environment.

By Namrita Kapur

With the U.S. role in the Paris Climate Agreement hanging in the balance, over 280 investors managing a collective $17 trillion in assets spoke up in support of the agreement:

As long-term institutional investors, we believe that the mitigation of climate change is essential for the safeguarding of our investments. . . . . We urge all nations to stand by their commitments to the agreement.

Why do investors care?  As pointed out in a blog earlier this year, for investors, it all comes down to risk and return. And, where climate change is concerned, this is a risk that is omnipresent.

Simply put, investors cannot diversify away from the risks of climate change. Unlike other risks such as currency fluctuations or new regulations, the disruptive impacts of climate change on the global economic system are so pervasive they cannot be offset by simply shifting stock portfolios from one industry to another.

A study from Cambridge University found equity portfolios face losses of up to 45% from climate shocks, with only half of these losses being “hedgeable.” Likewise, The Economist Intelligence Unit estimates that investors are at risk of losing $4.2 trillion by 2100, with losses accruing across sectors from real estate to telecom and manufacturing.

Because investors recognize that climate risk is unavoidable, they support a coordinated global effort as envisioned in the Paris Agreement. It is also why investors have already expressed such strong support for regulatory limits on carbon and methane emissions.  Governments globally will need to take further proactive action to limit greenhouse gases, and incentivize technology shifts towards lower-carbon energy.

Seizing opportunities in a low-carbon economy

Technology changes will require significant adjustments in how global capital is allocated, which is an opportunity investors are eager to seize because of the promise of risk-adjusted returns in the space.

It is estimated that a shift to a clean-energy economy will require $93 trillion in new investments between 2015 and 2030 and the rise of impact investing shows markets are starting to respond to opportunities in renewable energy, grid modernization, and energy efficiency among others.

For example, the green bond market has grown from $11 billion to $81 billion between 2011 and 2016 with projections for 2017 as high as $150 billion. On top of this, leading global investment banks have already pledged billions towards sustainable investing.

And where capital flows, so do jobs.

As we’re seeing in the US, renewable energy jobs grew at a compound annual growth rate of nearly 6% between 2012 and 2015 and the solar industry is creating jobs 12 times faster than the rest of the economy.  Similarly, the methane mitigation industry is putting Americans and Canadians to work limiting highly potent emissions from oil and gas development.

Technology and capital changes are already happening, but are unlikely to happen quickly enough on their own.  Government policies and frameworks that speed this transition, like a price on carbon, will be critical.

Which brings us back to the importance of the Paris Agreement…

The Paris Agreement is crucial to addressing climate change

Investors vote with their dollars, and are strongly backing U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement. Global investors understand the risk of climate change and see the Paris Agreement as a good return on investment, with an optimistic $17 trillion nod to the power of capital markets to provide the innovation and jobs we need if the right policies are in place. The U.S. administration should ensure it is considering the voice of investors and the capital they stand ready to put to use as it makes its decision.

By Tom Murray

A few weeks ago, I attended the Earth Day Network’s Climate Leadership Gala in Washington, DC.  Each year the event brings together more than 300 leaders from business, government and the NGO community to celebrate achievements in working towards a clean energy future. This year’s top honor, the Climate Visionary Award, was presented to Unilever CEO Paul Polman for his commitment to fighting climate change.

Bold, passionate leadership like Polman’s is essential to tackling climate change while helping to create an economy that benefits us all. He understands that it’s not a choice between business and the environment. In fact, a thriving economy depends on a thriving environment.

Corporate sustainability leadership is now more important than ever. It’s clear that the Trump Administration’s efforts to roll-back environmental protections have thrust U.S. businesses into a critical leadership role on clean energy and climate change. (In fact, I’ll be talking with business leaders later today about how they are “responding to the new norm” at the Sustainable Brands Conference.)

A thriving economy depends on a thriving environment – why business must lead on climate – @tpmurray
Click To Tweet

Over the past 25 years at EDF we’ve seen corporate sustainability go from simple operational efficiencies to global supply chain collaborations; now it’s time to go further. Business must continue to raise the bar for sustainability leadership.

How?

1. Set big goals, then tell the world

 Thinking big and setting big goals, are required to drive big innovation and big results.  Many large companies have demonstrated that if you commit to aggressive, science-based, sustainability goals, you can deliver meaningful business and environmental results. For example, Walmart, a longtime EDF partner with a track record of setting aggressive yet achievable climate goals, has recently set its sights even higher by setting a goal to source half of the company’s energy from renewable sources by 2025 and by launching Project Gigaton, a cumulative one gigaton emissions reduction in its supply chain by 2030.

And Walmart is not the only one. Other companies are stepping up as well – especially around commitments to go 100 percent renewable. Whether its online marketplace eBay committing to 100 percent renewable power in all data centers & offices by 2025, Tesco, one of the world’s largest retailers, announcing science-based targets and committing to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2030 or AB InBev committing to 100 percent renewable power, companies from diverse industries are taking a positive step forward.

While setting goals is a great first step, companies also need to communicate about the goals and progress. Not only does this increase transparency into a business’ sustainability efforts, it lets the world know that sustainability is core to its business. Publicly committing to sustainability goals sends a strong signal to suppliers, shareholders and customers.

1. Collaborate for scale

In December 2016 I wrote about Smithfield Foods, the world’s number one pork producer, and its plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent by 2025. The commitment was important both because Smithfield was the first major protein company to adopt a greenhouse gas reduction goal but also because the reductions would come from across Smithfield's supply chain, on company-owned farms, at processing facilities and throughout its transportation network.

Smithfield understands that some environmental challenges are too big to handle on their own, and they know collaboration is the key to deliver impact at scale.

Other companies are also looking beyond their own supply chain and forming mutually beneficial partnerships. Take the recent partnership between UPS and Sealed Air Corporation, for example. The two companies have announced the opening of a Packaging Innovation Center in Louisville, Kentucky where they will solve the packaging and shipping challenges of e-commerce retailers but also drive new efficiencies while minimizing waste. This is a critical issue that is material to both their businesses, and by joining forces, are finding ways to solve an environmental challenge while improving their bottom lines.

1. Publicly support smart climate policy

I can’t stress how critical it is right now for business leaders to move beyond their comfort zones and make their voices heard on smart climate and environmental policy. If you want to be a sustainability leader, continuing to hoe your own garden is no longer enough.  You need to align your strategy, operations, AND advocacy.  We know that environmental safeguards drive innovation, create jobs, and support long-term strategic planning.

The good news is leading voices are chiming in, from CEOs signing an open letter to Trump to more than 1,000 companies signing the Low-Carbon USA letter, in favor of environmental policies.

Some companies like Tiffany & Co. are also taking a public stand on their own. The company used its usual ad position in the New York Times to tell President Trump directly that Tiffany is backing policies that will lead us to a clean energy future.

The Way Forward

Taking the leadership mantle is never easy, but now is the time for every corporate leader to get off the sidelines and into the game. There’s plenty of room for more leaders like Polman who are ready to address climate change head-on, creating opportunities for economic growth, new jobs, and a cleaner future.  Will your company be next?

Follow Tom Murray on Twitter: @TPMurray

By Tom Neltner

By Tom Neltner, J.D., EDF Chemicals Policy Director and Maricel Maffini, Ph.D., Consultant

Until recently, we have known very little about lead exposure from food. Shockingly, a recent report from the EPA found that two-thirds of one-year olds get most of their lead exposure from food. This and other developments in recent years have prompted FDA to reevaluate its procedures regarding lead levels in food. Leading companies should take notice.

We have written about the health risk of lead exposure from major sources such as paint and water and the well-known fact that there is no safe level of lead in the blood of children. We also wrote about what agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are doing to reduce or eliminate persistent sources of lead exposure as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

In its recently released FAQs for lead in food, FDA describes what it has done, its current standards and its planned next steps. The agency makes no reference to EPA’s assessment and attributes all of the lead in food to contaminated soil. Because it assumes that the environment is the only source, contamination is unavoidable and lead cannot be removed from the food supply.

To limit lead in food to the greatest extent possible, FDA set the following tolerances:

• Bottled water: 5 parts per billion (ppb);
• Juices from berries and other small fruits, including grapes, and passion fruits: 50 ppb;
• Other fruit juices and nectars, including apple: 30 ppb;
• Candy likely to be consumed by small children: 100 ppb; and
• Dried fruits, including raisins: 100 ppb.

Only the bottled water tolerance is established in regulations. For the rest, FDA provides only guidance.

How did FDA set the tolerances?

The 5 ppb limit in bottled water was established by FDA in 1995 based on the inability to reliably measure below that level and that only 2 of 48 (4%) samples collected by FDA exceeded those levels. For comparison, in 2016, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended lead levels in drinking water at schools be less than 1 ppb.

The fruit juice limits are based on international food standards set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), an organization representing 188 countries and the European Union. Those standards were designed to ensure that only about 5% of the juice samples would exceed them. While Codex recognizes the risks posed by lead, its standard was not based on those risks.

For all other foods, FDA relies on a maximum daily intake level of 6 micrograms of lead per day (µg/day) for young children that it established in 1993 based on CDC’s Level of Concern of 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood (µg/dL).

One million children exceed FDA’s current maximum daily intake level

In the FAQs, FDA affirmed that “there is no known identified safe blood lead level” and acknowledges that scientific information has become available in the last decade that indicates neurotoxic effects at low levels of exposure to lead. It notes that the evidence has prompted EPA to lower its air quality standard, CDC to strengthen its standards, and the Joint WHO and FAO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) to withdraw its limit for lead because it concluded there was no safe level in food. With this backdrop, FDA is reevaluating “its methods for determining when it should take action with respect to measured levels of lead in particular foods, including those consumed by infants and toddlers.”

At EDF, we are pleased to see FDA has undertaken this long overdue reevaluation. EPA’s draft report estimates that more than 5% of children between 2 and 7 years consume more than the 6 µg of lead/day FDA says is tolerable. This estimate excludes drinking water. With 20 million children in those age groups, that means 1 million children exceed the maximum daily intake level. And, by all accounts, this 1993 level does not reflect the mounting scientific evidence that has led other science-based organizations to reduce their standards. We are also encouraged to see that FDA is willing to be more protective of children’s health by conducting its own assessment rather than just following the Codex standards for fruit juices.

Food manufacturers and retailers can better earn consumer trust and avoid more costly reactions to regulations by updating their preventive controls and supply chain management programs now to reduce lead levels in food.

By amymorse

A global group of 30 leading institutional investors coordinated by the PRI (Principles for Responsible Investment) has announced a new initiative that will encourage oil and gas companies, including gas utilities, around the world to initiate or improve efforts to measure, report, and reduce methane emissions. The move is the latest evidence that investors are concerned with the financial, reputational and environmental risks associated with unmonitored and unchecked methane venting and leakage.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with over 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe. It’s responsible for about 25% of the warming our planet is experiencing today. Globally, the oil and gas industry is among the largest man-made sources of methane.

Methane is also the main ingredient in the natural gas, the product that major global producers have marketed to investors as central to their growth in the years ahead. Companies tout gas as a clean, low-carbon fuel, ignoring the vast amounts of unburned methane escaping from their systems each year, or the lack of transparency with regard to monitoring and reduction strategies.

The owners and asset managers involved in the PRI’s methane initiative oversee more than $3 trillion. They are global in scope, representing a dozen countries across North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific. PRI plans to engage 29 companies on four continents, from across the natural gas supply chain (the names aren’t being made public). They will be urging greater transparency and stronger, more concrete actions, including setting methane targets and participating responsibly on methane policy.

A centerpiece of PRI’s ongoing efforts to improve companies’ methane management and disclosure will be the Investor’s Guide to Methane, published jointly with EDF last fall. PRI’s global methane initiative complements ongoing U.S. engagement efforts on methane led by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and CERES.

Trumping Shortsighted Politics

This is an uncertain time for the methane issue globally. On the one hand, President Trump and many U.S. lawmakers are trying to roll back methane policies established during the Obama administration. On the other, officials in Canada are expected to release draft oil and gas methane regulations this year, and similar rules are being developed in Mexico.

Political backpedaling from methane controls is shortsighted and counterproductive for both industry and environment, ignoring one of the biggest and most cost-effective opportunities we have to slow the warming of our globe. But these major investors, whose long-term investment horizons require them to look beyond the short-term calculus that dominates both politics and executive compensation packages, are taking a view to match their financial stake in the industry’s future.

What they see is a growing liability for an industry looking to the production and delivery of natural gas a growth engine over the coming decades. The problem isn’t going to go away, no matter what they’re saying in Washington.

Producers like BP, Shell and Chevron routinely cite rising global demand for natural gas as a primary driver of growth and valuation. But in markets for new electric generating capacity, natural gas is increasingly competing on a cost basis with clean, renewable sources like wind and solar. Failure to deliver on its frequent promises to deliver a more climate-friendly energy choice puts the gas industry and its investors at risk.

That makes methane the key variable. Conservative estimates are that, worldwide, companies are releasing at least 3.5 trillion cubic feet of methane to the atmosphere each year. That’s about the same amount as all the gas sold by Norway – the world’s seventh largest producer. Besides being a huge climate problem, it’s also a huge waste of a valuable product, and perhaps an indicator that attention to the integrity of operations is not as great as what companies claim.

Industry Awakens to the Problem

Concern about methane isn’t limited to oil and gas investors. There’s growing awareness within the industry itself that methane poses a reputational risk, sparking some companies to start addressing the challenge.

For example, 10 of the world’s largest oil and gas companies – BG Group, BP, Eni, Pemex, Reliance Industries, Repsol, Saudi Aramco, Shell, Statoil and Total – recently launched the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI), a billion-dollar investment to accelerate commercial deployment of low carbon energy technologies. Their primary focus will be carbon capture and storage and reducing oil and gas methane emissions.

Similarly, the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership (OGMP), a voluntary effort to improve emissions reporting and accelerate best methane reduction practices recently issued its first annual report, detailing emissions found in nine key source categories throughout individual operator’s systems. Launched in 2014, participating companies include BP, Eni, Pemex, PTT, Repsol, Southwestern Energy, Statoil, and Total.

First Steps toward Big Benefits

These are crucial first steps for the industry, and is a sign that companies looking for ways to adapt to the changing climate surrounding its business. But the industry still has a very long way to go. Fixing the problem could yield huge benefits: A 45% reduction in global oil and gas methane emissions would have roughly the same climate impact over 20 years as closing one-third of the world’s coal fired power plants.

Investor calls for action on methane are quickening and now industry needs to show shareholders it will take the necessary steps to deliver on the low-carbon fuel promise of natural gas. Investors want to invest in well-run companies with good governance, and increasingly look to methane as a proxy for efficient operations. As company executives think about how to attract capital, they will be well-served to note this emerging dynamic and proactively get ahead of the issue.

By Namrita Kapur

As the Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) blog series “Mission Possible: How Foundations Are Shaping the Future of Impact Investing” rightly states, there are increasingly innovative ways for philanthropic money to play a more strategic role in capital markets to advance social and environmental progress.

New @SSIR series shows philanthropic leaders shaping a more strategic future in impact investing….
Click To Tweet

Like the thoughtful foundation leaders contributing their perspectives to this series, we at Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) continue to evaluate, evolve and articulate our own sustainable finance strategies. And, over the past several years, we have become ever more convinced that leveraging the power of financial markets is core to delivering on the ambitious goals we laid out in our Blueprint 2020 strategic plan. This is because we know that the amount of philanthropic and public sector resources deployed to addressing our key issues is a small fraction of the total capital needed. We, therefore, must tap into the influence, expertise and capital of the private sector and the financial markets that direct those capital flows to be successful in our efforts.

EDF is a proven leader within the environmental community in working with the financial sector to drive progress on key issues. Over the past several years, EDF initiatives have raised the bar for environmental management across the private equity (PE) industry through pioneering partnerships with KKR, Carlyle, and Oak Hill Capital, delivered healthier air to millions of New York City residents by empowering building owners and operators to invest in nearly 6,000 heating oil conversions through NYC Clean Heat, and accelerated the transition to sustainable fisheries management by providing loans totaling over $4.2 million to support California Fisheries Fund borrowers.

EDF's work with financial partner @KKR_Co improved air quality through investments in energy…
Click To Tweet

Building on this successful track record, we are now introducing a robust three-part sustainable finance strategy that complements the amazing work of foundations profiled in the series:

EDF’s Sustainable Finance Strategy:

1. Getting the rules right – We are working to advance policies and practices that improve transparency, reduce risks, and create clear incentives and price signals in order to design more efficient and effective markets for environmental investment opportunities.
2. Making engagement and investment easier – To spur new investment in environmental solutions, we must lower barriers and transaction costs. We are creating and promoting tools and resources that improve information flows, standardize complex projects, and build capacity in the marketplace.
3. Demonstrating returns – Environmental investments remain below the radar for many investors. We aim to connect private capital with priority environmental opportunities by working with partners on “lighthouse” or pilot transactions that demonstrate a strong investment case, mitigate risks, and deliver returns. In the process, we are creating new investment models for others to follow and take to scale.

Spurring investment in environmental solutions starts with a sustainable finance strategy
Click To Tweet

Keep an eye out for subsequent blogs from a range of EDF experts that will profile a few specific examples to showcase how this strategy is being put into action across EDF’s programmatic work. We look forward to collaborating with those who are working in this growing space!

By Fred Krupp

With the Trump Administration pulling back on federal climate action, I am heartened to see that U.S. businesses are starting to assert their leadership role in the fight for a cleaner, safer world. Bold leadership is an essential factor for business today — and no company is delivering on this more than Walmart.

The world's largest retailer recently announced Project Gigaton, arguably one of the most ambitious efforts to reduce climate pollution by any U.S. corporation.

With Project Gigaton, Walmart and its suppliers are committing to a ‘moon shot’ goal – removing a gigaton of greenhouse gas emissions from the company's global supply chain by 2030. That's more than the annual emissions of Germany. It's the equivalent of taking 211 million cars off the road every year. In a word, it’s transformational.

Breaking the mold together, then and now

Fred Krupp, President, Environmental Defense Fund

Eleven years ago, I traveled to the top of Mount Washington with then Walmart CEO Lee Scott, and we talked about the company's vast potential to drive environmental progress. Since then, an amazing ripple effect has spread across the entire retail sector. Working together, EDF, Walmart and others have gathered commitments for optimized fertilizer use on 23 million acres of U.S. farmland; eradicated 36 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions across the retail supply chain; and improved the health and safety of hundreds of thousands of everyday products like shampoo and laundry detergent. This work is invisible to most, but massive on an environmental scale, and nothing less than trailblazing for how business leadership and legacy is measured.

For the last quarter century Environmental Defense Fund has proven the power of business-NGO partnerships to create wins for both business and the environment. Walmart’s willingness to challenge itself and its supply chain to do better has meshed perfectly with EDF’s pragmatic approach to forging innovative solutions.

Back in 2005, it was uncommon business news when Walmart announced aspirational goals to be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy, to create zero waste, and to sell products that sustain our resources and environment. Neither Walmart nor EDF knew how we’d achieve those goals, but we set off on the journey together and found success along the way.

Walmart is in it for the long haul

For leading brands like Walmart and their suppliers, long-term economics will always outweigh short-term politics. Staying the course on sustainability is motivated by competitiveness, innovation, job creation and consumer demand. Smart business leaders understand that a thriving economy depends on a thriving environment. This is not an either/or choice. By 2050, we will have 9.5 billion global consumers, all demanding more food, goods and services. The commitment to Project Gigaton signals Walmart’s readiness to plan accordingly.

For leading brands like Walmart, long-term economics will always outweigh short-term politics.
Click To Tweet

The Project Gigaton challenge is massive, but by working collaboratively, our confidence for success is high. The modern supply chain is responsible for 60% of all greenhouse gas emissions, 80% of all water use and 66% of all tropical deforestation.  This is not a goal that Walmart can do alone. It takes committed collaboration: of NGOs, partners, and an extensive network of suppliers – many leading brands in their own right – to drive reductions from factories to farms to forests, fleets and beyond.

Creating long-term prosperity for business and the environment requires long-term commitment from both business and NGOs. Together, EDF and Walmart have already climbed one mountain, and now we are ready to ascend even steeper peaks. The planet is counting on us.

Follow Fred on Twitter, @FredKrupp