By Jason Mathers

Spring is high season for corporate responsibility reports, with some of the world’s most recognizable brands — including Kellogg’s, Walmart, Anheuser-Busch, Apple, Adidas, General Mills, H&M, Lowes, CVS and Hershey’s — releasing their latest updates. While each company has its own unique sustainability challenges and priorities, every one of them has a global supply chain that requires an extensive logistics network to move goods from manufacturing facilities to end customers.

What reading these reports told me is that greening freight operations is becoming a key priority for these companies, with three trends in particular standing out to me:

1. Tracking logistics emissions is a standard practice. Seven out of the ten recently released reports included data on fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions associated with freight transportation. Several companies were tracking only emissions from outbound freight transportation, presumably because of a lack of visibility into inbound moves. Adidas, one of the three that did not include information on emissions or fuel use from freight movement, did include a detailed breakdown of moves by transport modes and emissions from distribution centers and other facilities.

2. Setting performance goals is a well-accepted practice. Four of the ten companies have performance-based goals to improve environmental impact associated with freight transportation. For example:

• Walmart is seeking to double its fleet efficiency compared to 2005, and is currently 87% of the way to meeting this impressive goal.
• General Mills has a goal to reduce fuel use for its outbound moves by 35% compared to its 2005 consumption. The company has made considerable progress too, reducing fuel use by 22% compared to 2005.
• Anheuser-Busch set a goal in 2014 to reduce greenhouse gases from its global logistics operations by 15% per hectoliter sold. Its goal has a broad scope too, including inbound and outbound transportation as well as warehousing.

3. Seeking to shape external factors is a leadership practice. Much of the impact of moving freight is beyond the operational control of these companies. They have limited influence on the availability of low-impact fuels, the efficiency of freight equipment or the capacity of intermodal systems. In addition to focusing on the factors freight shippers can control, leading companies are trying to shape the overall system to provide more low-impact choices.

Walmart embraced this dynamic by identifying “several key success factors for driving greater efficiency across the industry.” At the top of the list were policy outcomes, including the next generation fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for freight trucks. Walmart noted in its latest sustainability report that policies like this “phase 2 GHG rule can present key opportunities to improve efficiency across the industry in a coordinated, responsible and safe way.”

EDF is calling on the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation to set new fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for heavy trucks that cut fuel consumption by 40 percent in 2025 compared to 2010. It's an encouraging sign that Walmart — a large fleet operator itself and a leading freight shipper — acknowledges the significant potential benefits of well-crafted standards.

As these trends demonstrate, there is strong momentum for greening freight operations. The steps these companies are taking are consistent with the EDF Green Freight Journey:

• Tracking performance is a critical first step to improvement.
• Undertaking pilot improvement projects and scaling up the successful ones comes next.
• Setting a long-term improvement goal, like those set by General Mills, Walmart and Anheuser-Busch, is a key next step that ensures a focus on continuous improvement.

Whether your company is just starting on its own Green Freight Journey or already has an established goal, we encourage you to download the EDF Green Freight Handbook, our practical guide to help companies develop strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and overall costs linked to freight transportation.

By Ben Ratner

Don McCollough

Too much ink has been spilled on the anti-climate furor of the Koch brothers. If we lose on climate, it won’t be because of the Koch brothers or those like them.

It will be because too many potential climate champions from the business community stood quietly on the sidelines at a time when America has attractive policy opportunities to drive down economy-endangering greenhouse gas emissions.

Corporate executives have the savvy to understand the climate change problem and opportunity. They have the incentive to tackle it through smart policy, and the clout to influence politicians and policy makers. Perhaps most importantly, they can inspire each other.

And today, they have a chance to do what they do best: lead. Corporate climate leadership has nothing to do with partisanship – it’s ultimately about business acumen.

For starters, here are three immediate opportunities smart companies won’t want to miss.

1. Clean Power Plan: Will spur new jobs and investments.

The Obama administration’s plan will cut emissions from coal plants by 30 percent by 2030. This is expected to trigger a wave of clean energy investment and job creation. It will also seize energy efficiency opportunities and take advantage of America’s abundant and economic supply of natural gas.

Every company with an energy-related greenhouse gas footprint has something to gain from a cleaner power mix. Each one of those companies therefore has a stake in the Clean Power Plan.

Google and Starbucks – two large and profitable American companies by any standard – are among more than 200 businesses that have already stepped up to voice their support.

Who will follow them?

2. First-ever methane rules: Will make industry more efficient.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s upcoming methane emission rules are another opportunity for business leaders to weigh in.

The rules are part of a White House plan that seeks to reducemethane emissions – a major contributor to global warming and resource waste – by almost half in the oil and gas industry.

Globally, an estimated 3.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas leaks from the sector each year. This wasted resource would be worth about $30 billion in new revenue if sold on the energy market.

Some oil and gas companies that have already taken positive steps include Anadarko, Noble and Encana, which helped develop the nation’s first sensible methane rules in Colorado.

Engaging to support strong and sensible national standards isa good next step for companies in this space. And for others with a stake in cleaning up natural gas, such as chemical companies, and manufacturers and users of natural gas vehicles.

Climate solutions with a big impact

3. New truck standards: Can help companies cut expenses and emissions.

New clean truck standards are scheduled for release this summer. Consumer goods companies and other manufacturers stand to see significant dollar and emissionsavings as they move their goods to market.

Cummins, Wabash, Fed Ex, Con-Way, Eaton and Waste Management are among those that applauded the decision to move forward with new standards.

Putting capitalism to work

American business leadership is still the global standard and will remain so if it adds climate policy to its to-do list. While it will take time to build the bi-partisan momentum for comprehensive national climate legislation, there are immediate opportunities to move the needle.

Which companies will take the field?

This post originally appeared on EDF Voices.

You might also enjoy:

• 4 tips to invest in the low-carbon economy
• Are Apple and Google disrupting the energy market?

By Namrita Kapur

This post is part of an EDF+Business ongoing series on sustainable finance, highlighting market mechanisms and strategies that drive environmental performance by engaging private capital. EDF is actively engaging leaders with the capital and expertise needed to catalyze sector-wide changes—from accelerating investment in energy efficiency and clean energy, to protecting tropical forests, restoring depleted fisheries and saving habitats of endangered species.

On the eve of The Carlyle Group releasing its 2015 Corporate Citizenship Report, I had the chance to catch up with Jackie Roberts, Chief Sustainability Officer at Carlyle and former EDF colleague who was one of the founders of EDF’s Corporate Partnership Program. Here are highlights from our conversation:

What attracted you to your current role at Carlyle?

Rather than being in an arm’s-length advisory role, I now get into more of the details of implementation. I work directly to support sustainability leads in a broad range of companies, helping them prioritize among business goals, crystallize sustainability strategies and, most importantly, execute on a lot of different ideas. Also, as Carlyle is an owner of companies in many countries and industries, I have the opportunity to understand how aspects of sustainability play out differently across the globe. In short, it is a tremendous platform for influencing corporate sustainability.

What are you and Carlyle particularly proud of in this year’s report?

This is the first year that we have designed the report to align with the types of value creation we typically see, such as customer satisfaction, brand equity, operational efficiency and workplace strength. This year’s report moves beyond operational efficiencies into these other key drivers for companies.

What does Carlyle see as the value of ESG management for its business? How do you quantify that value? What form is that taking, both for Carlyle and its portfolio companies?

We have examples across these four ways that ESG management connects to value creation (customer satisfaction, brand equity, operational efficiency and workplace strength). A great example related to both customer satisfaction and brand equity comes from a portfolio company that quantified its sales increase for greener products. Their primary customers, mainly hotels, were requesting green products, so the company invested in this area, which paid off in increased sales – a clear win-win.

What are some of the most pressing environmental issues that Carlyle looks to address, internally and/or in its portfolio companies? How are you addressing them?

The material issues for companies vary widely – ranging from raw materials issues to what ingredients they put into their products or the equipment that they use. One area we have focused in on is equipment. Many companies have underinvested in physical capital — more efficient equipment or vehicles or upgrades to facilities. So, over the last few years, we’ve worked with a number of the companies to develop a strong business spending component. Carlyle is bringing money to upgrade and expand plants, which includes buying the latest and greatest in terms of efficiency. Through this process, we are playing a material role in being a customer for lots of environmental solutions.

How are you thinking about the role of finance in sustainability? What do you expect will change over the next five years?

I think financing of sustainability projects needs to play more of a pull role, not just offering third-party financing but sweetening the offer for companies to make it worth their time to spend on projects. Something like what the federal government did in offering straight grants as part of stimulus funding. At Johnson & Johnson and Adidas Group, with their internal funds for sustainability projects, the plant manager can get additional monies they wouldn’t have had access to for their capital budget, but they also get to keep the savings from the upgrades. We need more of these types of tangible incentives that prompt action.

What kind of response have you received while working with sustainability experts at Carlyle’s portfolio companies?

I have had a great response from individuals in companies responsible for these areas, because they’re looking for additional expertise and ideas. They see Carlyle’s expertise as a value-add, in terms of helping them develop a work plan and think about what they could be doing. I regularly have discussions with many individuals at portfolio companies and they have my phone number and can call me anytime.

As a result, this job’s been a lot of fun: I’ve done everything from helping to write the job description for a full-time sustainability person to providing deep knowledge on a particular area to working with sustainability leads on how to sell efforts internally. The help we offer is about connecting what they can do on sustainability to what their customers want or operational concerns, and we’re working with our companies to find and articulate that value.

—

For more on Carlyle’s sustainability efforts, we recommend reviewing Carlyle’s 2015 Corporate Citizenship Report. We noted a key theme that runs throughout the report is how Carlyle assesses not only the risks presented by environmental, social and governance management, but also the opportunities. “Increasingly, we also seek to identify opportunities for sustainability to enhance value,” the firm notes. We are pleased that identifying these areas for value creation in part draws on the use of the EcoValuScreen, which Carlyle and EDF created together to highlight prospects for operational enhancements. We look forward to continuing to track Carlyle’s progress on sustainability with Jackie at the helm.

By Jason Mathers

"Kenworth truck" by Lisa M. Macias, U.S. Air Force via Wikipedia

A pair of critical analyses were just released that, together, make clear the need for a strong second generation heavy truck fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standard.

The first piece is the U.S. Energy Information Agency’s (EIA) preliminary Annual Energy Outlook for 2015. I went right to the projection of fuel efficiency for new heavy trucks in 2020, which is 7.0 miles per gallon, and compared that to the projection for 2030, which is 7.2 miles per gallon. A three percent increase in efficiency for a decade is not too impressive.

As a result of this lack of projected progress on fuel efficiency and other factors, EIA expects that greenhouse gas emissions from heavy trucks will increase more than any other single end-use source by 2040 – an additional 120 million metric tons a year.

The other recent analysis is from The International Council on Clean Transportation, which released two papers on heavy truck fuel efficiency: one reviewing the potential of current and emerging efficiency technology, and the other examining the cost-effectiveness of these technologies. Among the group’s findings are:

• Already available tractor-trailer technologies can achieve 9 miles per gallon, deliver payback periods of less than a year, and be widely deployed in the 2020 to 2025 time frame.
• Advanced efficiency technologies, now emerging in the marketplace, can double fuel economy to 11 to 12 miles per gallon, with payback periods of 18 months or less in the 2025 to 2030 time frame.
• Diverse technology approaches – meaning technology packages with differing contributions from aerodynamic, engine, and other technologies – can achieve similar efficiency results.
• Even under very conservative assumptions — fuel prices remaining as low as $3.10 per gallon diesel, higher technology costs, and a high discount rate of 10 percent — the most advanced technology packages have payback periods of only 1.4 to 2.2 years.
• Typical first owners of tractor-trailers with efficiency technology packages up to 9 miles per gallon would see fuel savings 3 to 9 times greater than the upfront technology cost over the period of ownership.

ICCT’s findings demonstrate that we have the technology to cost-effectively cut truck fuel consumption in half compared to 2010 levels. EIA’s projections demonstrate that, without well designed performance-based standards, truck manufacturers are unlikely to deploy these highly cost-effective solutions.

There is good news in EIA’s report, too. The 7.0 miles per gallon in 2020 is up from 6.0 miles per gallon in 2012. The increase can be attributed to the first round of Heavy Truck Fuel Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Standards set by President Obama in 2011.

We know that well-designed fuel efficiency standards work because we are seeing it in the market today. For the second-generation standards that will be announced this spring, we urge the administration to incentivize the full-scale deployment of the advanced technologies highlighted in the ICCT analysis.

Additional reading:

• Let There Be No Doubt: We Can Cut Truck Emissions & Fuel Use Today
• Consumer Goods Companies: Stand Up For Strong Truck Standards

By Namrita Kapur

This post is part of an EDF+Business ongoing series on sustainable finance, highlighting market mechanisms and strategies that drive environmental performance. Through a variety of corporate partnerships, EDF is actively engaging leaders with the capital and expertise needed to catalyze sector-wide changes—from accelerating investment in energy efficiency and clean energy, to protecting tropical forests, restoring depleted fisheries and saving habitats of endangered species.

An issue many nonprofit and for-profit groups face is how to get beyond the pilot stage and scale up efforts. This is the crux of the issue in impact investing and was the focus of the “Bringing in Big Money” panel at this year’s Skoll World Forum.

In many areas of EDF’s work, we’ve found that the capital needed for the issues we care about – turning the corner on climate emissions, bringing fisheries under sustainable management practices, and protecting natural resources – outstrips the availability of philanthropic and public sector budgets.

On the panel, Elizabeth Littlefield, president and CEO of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), commented about how amused she is by how widely quotes from academia range on the amount of capital that can be accessed – from the relatively small numbers of the “derisive minimizers” to the large estimates of the “breathless maximizers.”

Rather than focusing on the absolute amounts, she looks at the leverage entities like OPIC can create through guarantees, insurance and, in some cases, direct financing itself. These efforts by OPIC and multilateral institutions have led to a dramatic shift in the ratio of public sector to private sector finance. In contrast with 20 years ago when public sector grants exceeded the amount of private investment capital, today, it is the reverse – $7 of direct private investment for every $1 from the public sector.

What, then, are the keys to amplifying this trend and repeating it in other sectors? Andrew Stern, Executive Director of the Global Development Incubator, offered three takeaways from his research :

• efforts to reduce transaction costs;
• addressing information asymmetries, such as availability of data from comparables; and
• testing new instruments, such as impact bonds.

Willy Foote, CEO of Root Capital, built upon that further and highlighted the type of collaboration that also has to occur – from investors willing to invest in long-term needs, such as infrastructure, to longer-range commitments of buyers of products for financial and technical capacity building to the investible entities, making them better able to manage the investments and generate a revenue upside. Charlotte Oades, Global Director at The Coca-Cola Company, seconded that, highlighting the importance of the “golden triangle” – government, civil society and business.

A few compelling examples of capacity building include Starbucks helping growers improve their practices so they can be certified Fair Trade and Organic to tap into price premiums, and nonprofits like Root Capital working with coffee organizations to teach them how to work with cash flows, balance sheets, and income statements.

Elizabeth Littlefield summed up the panel well – mobilizing private capital is about looking at the investment pool on a spectrum, and understanding how the different players can be mobilized to create returns that are likely, stable and liquid as well as impactful. We and others working in the impact investment space should take this advice to heart as we work to attract large-scale private capital to our issues.

By Christina Wolfe

Cheryl Bynum, National Program Manager at US EPA, SmartWay, presents the 2015 Affiliate Challenge Honoree award to Environmental Defense Fund.

EDF has long been a champion of the SmartWay program, EPA’s highly successful public-private partnership between more than 3,000 organizations that are committed to improved fuel efficiency and environmental performance. So we were thrilled when EPA named us a 2015 Affiliate Challenge Honoree for our efforts to promote the program in our Green Freight Handbook.

We were recognized last week at the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA) conference, and we will participate in a virtual awards ceremony tomorrow. We have impressive company: the American Trucking Association, Penske, TIA, Wisconsin Clean Cities, and the North Central Texas Council of Governments were all named as honorees as well.

The program has helped facilitate positive results in many areas, perhaps most impressively in the goods movement sector.

Success in Texas and across the nation

SmartWay’s approach is one of partnership. The program brings together partners from the public and private sectors, to demonstrate the way modified operational practices can benefit both the environment and the bottom line.

Almost 200 SmartWay partners call Texas home, and the numbers are growing, thanks to efforts from organizations like the North Texas Council of Governments, a fellow honoree that has launched a Freight Outreach Center to provide information about SmartWay to fleets.

Across the nation, companies have saved $20 billion dollars over the past ten year years through the fuel-saving steps developed by SmartWay. And the program has kept 60 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions out of our atmosphere and conserved 144 million barrels of oil in that process, as well.

The program has a simple and logical focus on fuel economy. Measures that save fuel are incentivized, and partners who embrace them are recognized for helping the environment. Partners commit to completing a simple environmental analysis comparing fleet performance from one year to the next.  As a result, a growing awareness of more advanced technologies, as well as an understanding of the benefits of reducing harmful air pollutants has begun to emerge to a more widespread audience.

And that broader community is taking their newfound awareness home. For example, the next time they see the ubiquitous black smoke emerging from the tailpipe of the neighborhood trash truck, they will be far more likely to consider the tons of air pollution emitted over the course of that truck’s lifespan, and see it for the public health hazard it is. Those kinds of realizations can be startling for many people. But increased awareness about air pollution – and the available means to do something about it – is a critical step in the effort to build broad support for cleaner air for everyone.”

SmartWay also has provided an invaluable laboratory for proving the effectiveness of fuel saving technologies. As these technologies, such as aerodynamic trailer improvements, have proven cost-effective, markets have responded with increased adoption of these solutions. Nationally, the EPA SmartWay program has helped to demonstrate the strong economic value of truck fuel efficiency, which is at the heart of current efforts to secure bold, new standards.

More than ten years ago, SmartWay promised to show how proactive environmental practices could be good for business and then made good on that promise.  SmartWay partners have saved billions of dollars in fuel, while eliminating tens of thousands of tons of harmful pollutants.   Let’s build on this momentum and make the next ten years even more successful.

This post appeared originally on EDF's Texas Clean Air Matters blog.

By Boma Brown-West

Tens of thousands of chemicals are used to make consumer products, with more entering the marketplace each year. Many chemicals are now detected routinely in indoor air, food, drinking water, house dust – and our bodies. Research has linked certain chemicals to negative health impacts ranging from cancer to abnormal development of our reproductive systems, while most chemicals lack adequate health and safety data entirely. Too often harmful substances like lead, asbestos and toxic flame retardants persist in the market – and environment – for years before action is taken. We need a new marketplace paradigm. We need companies, from chemical makers to consumer product manufacturers to retailers, to be leaders in fostering the healthy, sustainable world we all deserve.

Why companies should lead

Resiliency is the ability to successfully adapt to anything that can disrupt your system or way of life. It’s a concept that applies in the physical world and in the business world. Leading on safer chemicals improves a company’s ability to bear chemical regulations, product liability occurrences, product recalls, and other costly externalities typically not factored into the chemical selection process during product development. Resiliency helps a company mitigate costs and stay competitive.

To maintain market longevity, companies need to keep a pulse on consumer needs and regularly innovate to meet those needs. Today’s consumers want to know what’s in their products, and they want safer ingredients. Increased innovation and uptake of safer ingredients in new products can help companies meet consumer demand, stay relevant, and achieve competitive advantage.

What does leadership look like?

For 25 years, EDF has worked with corporate partners from McDonalds to AT&T to spread practices that are good for business and the environment. In working with companies like Walmart and the multitude of businesses that form its supply chain, we’ve discovered a basic blueprint for advancing safer chemicals in the marketplace. Our blueprint for safer chemicals in the marketplace is defined by five key pillars of leadership.

1. Institutional Commitment – As with any business initiative, successful outcomes require strong commitment and support from leaders across the organization – from the C-suite to middle management. Solid commitment from company executives and management in key business divisions is the only way to ensure that staff will be afforded the steady support and resources they need to be successful. This should be manifested in a written corporate chemicals policy.  Learn more.

1. Supply Chain Transparency – Before a manufacturer or retailer can flesh out its plan to introduce safer products, the company needs to understand the product's starting point. A product manufacturer needs to have a clear picture of the chemicals used to make its products, just as a retailer needs to know the chemicals contained in the products it sells. This information provides much needed clarity into the areas of greatest risk, the scope of future work and a means for measuring and monitoring progress. Learn more.

1. Informed Consumers – Sharing ingredient information with consumers is a key aspect of leadership. It shows that a company embraces and executes on the philosophy that consumers have the right to know what’s in the products they buy. Additionally, consumer transparency fosters accountability within the company to make informed decisions about the ingredients and products they buy, sell and design to meet customer demands for increased product safety and sustainability. Learn more.

1. Safer Chemicals Plan – To achieve industry leadership, a company must create and implement a Safer Chemicals Plan. This plan is the roadmap for bringing safer chemicals into products or stores and phasing out hazardous chemicals. It provides the structure for evaluating chemical safety with respect to workers, neighboring communities and consumers; prioritizing, managing and eliminating chemicals of concern; and evaluating, determining and introducing safer alternatives. The plan also provides a basis for communication with suppliers, customers and consumers. Learn more.

1. Public Commitment – Effective communication of the company's policy, timelines and progress towards goals can garner support from the general public. Telling the story about the journey – and the pitfalls along the way – can be just as powerful as sharing success stories. Going public can make the journey easier: it can reinforce internal alignment on the goals and spur the innovation of safer chemicals needed to create higher quality products. Going public can also lead to useful partnerships or engagements with organizations, which can provide companies with additional expertise or best practices. Learn more.

Behind the Label: The Blueprint for Safer Chemicals in the Marketplace

The companies that adopt these five pillars of leadership for safer chemicals in the marketplace will revolutionize how business is done.  And in doing so, they will remain relevant, resilient, and ultimately ahead of the competition.

There is no right way to start building these pillars of leadership.  Achieving industry leadership on safer chemicals is an iterative process.  Insights gained while tackling one pillar can inform and improve action on another.  What is essential is to make a start, to begin building these pillars and striving towards leadership.

Are you ready?

By EDF Staff

by Jacob Robinson, Program Coordinator, EDF Climate Corps

Here’s a provocative thought: energy managers are worth more than their weight in gold.

We often use that expression in a figurative sense—in this case, to emphasize the value of a dedicated energy manager, whose sole mission is to find financial and environmental efficiencies in a strategic way throughout an organization’s operations and mission. But could it be literally true?

Jacob Robinson

Doing the math

With the average global body mass of a person being 62 kilograms and the current price of a 1 kilogram gold bar hovering around $39,000, an individual’s weight in gold is roughly $2.4 million dollars.

As part of EDF Climate Corps, graduate-level fellows spend 10 to 12 weeks uncovering opportunities for smart energy management, identifying an average of $1 million dollars in savings per fellow. Considering what a year-round employee could do, the annual value to an organization might top $4 million.

Making the case for management

If you’re putting together a budget request for an energy manager (or integrating energy responsibilities into existing positions) and drawing up a job description, this calculation is just a starting point. The business value of energy managers and integrating energy management into existing positions can be fruitful year over year, regardless of an organization’s maturity level at which they are addressing energy management.

Further, new technologies, funding mechanisms and incentives are constantly entering the market, requiring a dedicated set of eyes to analyze the most strategic opportunities.

Tools for digging deeper

If your organization is considering building the business case for hiring an energy manager, here are some helpful resources:

• A 2013 GreenBiz survey, which found that 52 percent of a wide group of companies employ a dedicated energy manager, and noted that sustainability is increasingly being woven into organizations’ day-to-day practices;
• The key roles and pathway for an energy manager to be successful, as described in the BSR Energy Management Playbook;
• The groundwork needed to hire dedicated energy staff, including responsibilities, as described by the EPA Energy Star’s Guidelines for Energy Management;
• A study by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, which advocates that energy managers play a critical role in the development and implementation of energy efficiency policies and goals. Moreover, the report recommends good contract language from the inception to shape the energy manager engagement, screening prospective participants and building on initial results to win over senior management;
• A report by the Pew Global Center on Climate Change (now C2ES) and ICF International suggests looking at all levels of energy management teams for support, given that 69 percent of companies surveyed found champions at the plant or facility manager level;
• The Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (org) is a site that includes several energy related resources and incentives often accessed and leveraged by energy managers; and
• The ISO 50001 standard, which defines the tasks of top management as well as an energy management team, usually cross-functional. The standard is flexible as to how successful energy management is achieved.

At EDF, we aim to help organizations as they seek to quantify the value of an energy manager. If there is a data point or information you need to advocate for this position, but is missing from the list above, please let us know!

Energy managers may be worth more than their weight in gold, and like the golden goose, they keep on giving for years.

Unlike the golden goose, they’re real, and you don’t have to go on a quest to find one; you just have to make the case internally.

Also of interest:

• Are Energy Managers Making Progress? Here's a New Tool to Help
• New Case Studies in Energy Management Show the Path from 'Why' to 'How'

By Andrew Hutson

Just in time for Earth Day, McDonald’s has released a new global deforestation commitment. While this policy is new, the company is no stranger to the issue. In fact, McDonald’s was one of the first companies to be confronted in the 1980s as consumers began to recognize the “Hamburger Connection” between beef production and tropical forests. In response, the company established its Amazon Policy, which prohibited the sourcing of beef from the Amazon. Seventeen years later, McDonald’s was instrumental in creating the Soy Moratorium, an industry-wide effort which has effectively halted soy expansion on native vegetation in the Amazon Biome. (Soy is a major source of feed for chickens and other livestock).

Now, following a wave of commitments from agricultural giants such as Cargill and ADM, the new global policy is a first-of-its-kind in the fast food sector and, if executed correctly, could stand as a shining example for other companies in the food business to follow. As one of the world’s most recognized brands, McDonald’s knows any commitment with such a large impact on the planet – tropical forests are one of the largest contributors to, and buffers against, climate change – will be heavily scrutinized. So, what do we need to know as we watch this journey unfold? To radically simplify, four things come to mind:

1. McDonald’s has done its homework. McDonald’s staff has consulted with stakeholders (including EDF) in putting this policy together. As a result the commitment is strong and its key elements are in line with the most progressive out there. Among its many features, it covers all suppliers and all commodities in its supply chain around the world, is consistent with “No Deforestation, No Exploitation, No Peat” policies that seek to protect both vulnerable communities and ecosystems, and is dedicated to stakeholder engagement to get implementation right.

1. This new commitment gets a responsible company off the sidelines and into the game. McDonald’s Amazon Policy made a lot of sense when the company established it in 1989. At the time there was really no other option. The company could not continue to source beef from the region and uphold its values. But, a lot has changed over the past 25 years and many producers in the Amazon are working hard to ensure that their products don’t contribute to deforestation while supporting the economic needs of communities.  The market influence of a company like McDonald’s will make a big difference in assuring that suppliers and producers who do things the right way in the Amazon will be rewarded. The decision to think more globally and comprehensively about sourcing from sensitive regions is in many ways a bold move for the company to make and surely there are strong economic and operational rationales behind the decision as well. But, if done right, it could signal a new era for responsible producers in the Amazon.

1. The commitment covers legal compliance up front, which is essential. In Brazil, this means compliance with The Forest Code, which, among many things, requires that all rural properties be registered with the Rural Environmental Registry (Portuguese acronym CAR). Getting more rural properties registered with the CAR will enable transparency, help government agencies better target enforcement of violations, and facilitate an understanding of the legal reserve liability among producers (many properties currently do not meet the 80% of forested land required in the Amazon). In short, a large number of suppliers are likely in violation of the law and their customers may not know it. Even properties that are in compliance with the Soy Moratorium may still be illegal. In fact, soy farmers are about 5 times more likely to violate the Forest Code than the Moratorium. This is because the Moratorium covers only the portion of property dedicated to soy and not all commodities. A producer could be doing fine on soy, for example, but deforesting other portions of their property for maize or palm oil. Commitments like this can help accelerate the process of getting property owners in compliance with their legal obligation – ending illegal clearing and planting more trees where required.

1. It includes management elements essential for success. A key criticism we often have of commitments of any kind, not just deforestation, is that they are often vague on implementation details. Sometimes this is okay (if the goal is meant to be aspirational and nobody really knows how to get there). When commitments are meant to address a specific and pressing challenge, however, vagueness doesn’t cut it. McDonald’s new policy is off to a good start with  three core ingredients that will make the job easier. First, it addresses priority commodities like palm oil, beef, and soy first. This is important because these products represent the bulk of the deforestation challenge.  Second, it assigns responsibility internally. We won’t be left guessing who is on the hook for getting this done. Finally, the commitment is time bound with a target of 2030 for all commodities.  While, we would ideally like to see a more aggressive timeframe – the 2020 timeframe set by the Consumer Goods Forum is a stronger schedule – the company expects to achieve this goal sooner for priority commodities.

As strong as all of these elements are, however, the proof will ultimately be in the McNugget. A commitment represents the beginning, not the end, of the process. McDonald’s will be judged not by the quality of the commitment itself, but on how it translates that commitment into action. We’ve been impressed at the company’s sustainability successes in the past, like our partnerships on packaging and antibiotics in poultry. We are eager to ensure this trend continues – the lungs of our planet depend on it.

 

You might also enjoy:

• New Report Supports Jurisdictional Approaches to Ending Deforestation in the Amazon
• Quiet But Admirable Commitments to Ending Deforestation

 

By EDF Staff

by Peter Sopher, Policy Analyst, Clean Energy

Citigroup Inc. recently pledged $100 billion for lending, investing, and facilitating deals related to sustainability, renewable energy,  and climate change mitigation. This is yet another sign that global capital markets are enormously interested in delivering capital into clean, renewable sources of energy. But you don’t have to be Citigroup to invest in the clean energy future.

The industry’s rapid growth presents an interesting diversity of  long-term opportunities for individuals like you and me who might be looking to make investments in a low-carbon economy.

Fueled by an increased demand for solar and wind energy, clean energy investment last year beat expectations, rising 16 percent to $310 billion worldwide, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). Fortunately, this robust growth is representative of a general upward trend in clean energy investment over the past decade.

Although the vast majority of this money is coming from governments, corporations, and private equity and venture capital firms, people of all income levels can consider whether it is right for them to add clean energy to their investment portfolios. And, you don’t need millions in the bank to make these types of investments – any investor can consider whether to put their money to use  through the four financial instruments described below.

1. Climate/Green Bonds

A bond allows entities looking to finance projects to borrow money from investors for a defined period of time at a fixed interest rate. Climate/green bonds are used exclusively to finance new or existing climate/green initiatives, which are defined by the International Capital Markets Association as “projects and activities that promote climate or other environmental sustainability.”

Climate/green bonds have experienced significant success recently and constitute a large chunk of financing for clean energy investment. According to BNEF, “These have been one of the great success stories of the past two years, increasing from a paltry $3 to 5 billion per year between 2007 and 2012, then suddenly jumping to $14 billion in 2013 and $39 billion last year.”

And future prospects are bright. BNEF expects to see further rapid growth in 2015, saying, “We see the volume of green bonds doubling again this year to around $80 billion.”

2. Equities

Equity is stock or any other security representing ownership in a company. An investor who believes a company’s value will increase in the future might purchase equity, or shares of ownership, in that company via a stock exchange. This is a riskier option than a bond because if the company’s value decreases, the investor loses money.

There are plenty of publicly-traded companies operating in the clean energy space, such as solar panel manufacturers or battery storage developers. While there are a number of market risks (embedded in any investment) that need to be carefully evaluating when making an equity investment, selecting  the right technology or venture to back can be very rewarding. For example, Tesla is a publicly traded clean energy company whose stock price grew more than 40 percent to $222.41 on December 31, 2014. If an investor had purchased 100 shares on January 1st last year for about $15,000 and sold them on December 31st, she would have earned a hefty return of more than $7,000. For those who have no idea where to start, SustainableBusiness.com has compiled a “watch list” for green stocks and even has subcategories like solar and wind.

3. Index Funds

In the case of financial markets, an index is an imaginary portfolio of securities representing a particular market or a portion of it. Indices are often the basis of mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). These index funds enable investors who want to get behind an industry, but lack confidence in their abilities to identify specific winning companies, to bet on the industry at large.

Clean energy index funds might include a broad spectrum of technologies and/or geographies, or they might focus on one technology and/or geography. Below are some examples of clean energy index funds:

• PowerShares Global Clean Energy Portfolio: This ETF is based on the Wilder Hill New Energy Global Innovation Index (^NEX), which comprises 107 companies around the world for a broad spectrum of clean technologies. This index fund “seeks to deliver capital appreciation and is composed of companies that focus on greener and generally renewable sources of energy and technologies facilitating cleaner energy.” The fund, as well as the group of companies included in the index, are rebalanced and reconstituted on a quarterly basis.
• Guggenheim Solar ETF: This ETF, based on the MAC Global Solar Energy Index, includes companies distributed across the solar energy value chain, including the manufacturing of solar equipment and the financing, development, and operation of projects.

4. Yieldcos

BNEF defines a yieldco as a “publicly traded company whose main purpose is to buy and hold operational assets and pass the majority of its cash flows to investors in the form of dividends.”  In other words, individuals can buy shares in yieldcos, which are investments in specific assets that are already constructed (e.g. a solar power plant owned by another company). An attractive feature of yieldcos is they do not typically take on development or construction risk, which is born either by the parent company or a third-party developer. Those who invest in yieldcos are paid back via dividends that derive from the profits of the asset.

A number of companies have recently created yieldcos for clean energy assets, including NRG Energy, Pattern Energy Group, NextEra Energy, Abengoa SA, and TransAlta Renewables. Global solar energy company SunEdison’s new yieldco, TerraForm Power, raised $350 million in an initial public offering (IPO) in July and is planning to release an IPO for a second yieldco focusing on clean energy assets in Africa and Asia this year. And recently, the two largest U.S. solar-panel manufacturers, First Solar and SunPower, created waves when theyannounced plans to create a joint-venture yieldco.

An added bonus to clean energy yieldcos: those that own renewable resources can use the tax benefits associated with clean energy investment to lower their taxes.

A lot of money has been made (and a fair amount has been lost) through the clean energy industry over the past decade, and the surplus doesn’t need to be limited to major conglomerates like Citigroup. Making any investment can be a very risky proposition. Anyone considering an investment in any of the alternatives described here should first speak with a registered financial/investment advisor to make certain all risks are fully understood and that an investment is appropriate to the investor. Green bonds, equities, index funds, and yieldcos are just a few instruments that empower people to capitalize on this trend, while helping to fund the clean energy future.

EDF is not a registered financial advisor and as such cannot provide professional investment advice. We recommend you consult with a professional financial advisor for the most tailored, up-to-date advice about how to engage in the clean energy finance market.   

This post originally appeared on EDF Energy Exchange.

By EDF Staff

Where You'll Find Us in April:

• Namrita Kapur will be attending the Skoll World Forum on Social Entrepreneurship April 15th-17th in Oxford, England.
• Jason Mathers will be speaking at two events in April:
  • the National Shippers Strategic Transportation Council's (NASSTRAC) 2015 Annual Conference & Transportation Expo on April 12th-15th in Orlando, FL; and
  • the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation's (MAPI) Spring 2015 Global Logistics & Transportation Council Meeting on April 23rd-24th in Chicago, IL.
• Andrew Hutson will also be speaking at two events this month:
  • the Innovation Forum on how business can tackle deforestation on April 14th-15th in Washington, DC (Andrew's session is 5:00-6:00pm on the 14th); and
  • The Sustainability Consortium’s Spring Summit on April 22nd-24th in Washington, DC (Andrew's session is 3:00-4:00pm on the 23rd).
• Boma Brown-West will also be speaking at The Sustainability Consortium’s Spring Summit on April 22nd-24th in Washington, DC (Boma's session is 1:00-1:45pm on the 23rd and is titled "Obstacles to Opportunities: Chemicals of Concern in Supply Chains").
• Tom Murray will be speaking at the Conference Board's 14th Annual Sustainability Summit on April 29th in New York City.

Look for us at these conferences – and let us know if you’ll be there so we can watch for you as well!

By Boma Brown-West

If you’re in the business of using chemicals to make consumer products – things like shampoo or baby lotions, spray cleaners or laundry soap – the last few years have likely been anything but dull. State legislatures have been passing laws restricting certain chemicals from products; consumers are demanding more transparency about product ingredients; and some of the nation’s biggest retailers, including Walmart and Target, have issued chemical policies of their own.

Having worked for years to reduce the public’s exposures to hazardous chemicals and drive incentives for safer innovations in chemistry, Environmental Defense Fund is encouraged to see the growing demand for ingredient transparency and chemical safety. But for companies impacted by these new policies, adjusting to new demands may be challenging. As a business strategy, waiting to respond to the next chemical of concern or the next regulatory action, as opposed to taking proactive steps to improve transparency and chemical safety, is an unsustainable means for addressing risk.

What if your company didn’t have to worry about the next retailer’s list of priority chemicals, the next set of state or federal policy changes or regulations, or the next chemical of concern du jour to light up social media outlets?

What if your corporate policies and processes had you ready for pretty much anything?

And what if changing business as usual to improve how your company makes decisions about chemicals could put you in a leadership position, help find new markets, and even save money in the long term?

EDF knows that there is a better way to address the safety of the chemicals in your products. For 25 years, we’ve been working with corporate partners from McDonalds and Fed Ex to AT&T and others to advance beneficial business practices that also support a healthier world. Our planet faces serious challenges, and we know business can and must be part of the solution to protecting human and ecosystem health and turning the corner on climate change.

We believe that 2015 is the year that companies across the supply chain will make truly safer chemical practices an integral part of daily commerce. To support this effort, as part of EDF’s Behind the Label initiative, we will share the learnings we have gathered in working on sustainable chemistry with a multitude of businesses involved in the consumer goods supply chain, including our work with Walmart. We’ll provide a framework for business leadership in the consumer chemicals space and guidance on strategies, tools, employee engagement and other approaches that can help every company adopt best in class safer chemical practices, policies and procedures.

In the first installment of Behind the Label, we’ll preview the basic blueprint for safer chemicals in the marketplace, beginning with what EDF has found to be major pillars of leadership, including transparency, institutional commitment, change for the better, and more. We will discuss what you need to know and where to take the next critical steps toward safer chemicals.

Over the years, a lot has been written on how to make consumer products better and safer. While we’ve seen some improvement, problematic ingredients remain systemic, even as robust new science increasingly indicates old approaches to risk management are inadequate. Through Behind the Label, EDF strives to make safer chemicals actionable, by showing what’s already working for companies like yours, showcasing available tools, explaining the proven business strategies for successful implementation, and flagging what’s ahead, so you can be ready.

We look forward to the conversation.

 Boma Brown-West is a manager on EDF’s Supply Chain Team within the Corporate Partnerships Program. In her role, she is an advocate for reducing people’s exposure to toxic chemicals, by working with stakeholders across the retail supply chain, like Walmart, to promote the development and usage of safer chemicals in consumer products.

By Jason Mathers

The can-do spirit of American automotive engineers has been on full display over the past few weeks, as truck manufacturers unveil innovation after innovation to boost the efficiency of heavy trucks that move companies' freight cross-country.

It is crystal clear that we possess— today— the know-how to dramatically cut fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from heavy trucks. Moreover, we can do this while saving consumers hundreds of dollars annually and giving trucking companies the high-quality, affordable equipment they require.

Some of the recently-announced advances include:

• Wabash National unveiled two new trailer add-on products that “when used together, can boost fuel economy 9 percent or more by improving aerodynamics.”
• Dana highlighted a tandem axle that, when combined with an optimized integration, can improve fuel efficiency by a 2 percent.
• Peterbilt introduced its new Model 579 truck that improves fuel efficiency by up to 14 percent.
• Kenworth announced that predictive cruise control was now standard on some models.

All of these fuel-saving solutions are available today thanks to the acumen of engineers at these leading manufacturers. The first round of well-designed federal fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards are also driving innovations like these to the market.

Even so, the strides we are making today should only be the beginning.

Daimler's Super Truck Doubles Efficiency

The team at Daimler Trucks North America provided the best example yet of our future potential with its entry in the Department of Energy Super Truck program. DTNA announced its team has “achieved 115 percent freight efficiency improvement, surpassing the Department of Energy program’s goal of 50 percent improvement.” Its truck registered 12.2 mpg recently – a leap above the 6 MPG typical of pre-2014 trucks.

Improvements where made across the platform, including electrified auxiliaries, controlled power steering and air systems, active aerodynamics, a long-haul hybrid system, and trailer solar panels. Engine efficiency advancements were particularly noteworthy – given the permanence of such solutions.  The Detroit Diesel engine reported a 50.2 percent engine brake thermal efficiency which was combined with further improvements from engine downspeeding and the use of a waste-heat recovery system.

Daimler’s fantastic results demonstrate that – when given a goal anchored in science, economics and innovation – our engineers can deliver phenomenal results.    Daimler should now lead the way in driving these solutions to national and global scale.

Setting the Bar Higher on Fuel Efficiency and Emissions

The time has come to give our engineers a new goal.

EDF is calling on the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation to set new fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for heavy trucks that cut fuel consumption by 40 percent in 2025 compared to 2010.  This equates to an average of 10.7 mpg for new tractor-trailer trucks.

President Obama has called for new standards. These are expected to be announced late spring and were sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review this past week.

The first generation standards have created a strong, industry-supported foundation on which the coming standards can be built. These standards push improvements in all aspects of trucks through complementary engine and vehicle standards.  In fact, Daimler – a leading manufacturer of heavy trucks with the engineering prowess to set the high bar of 12.2 mpg for the Super Truck program – has recognized these standards as “very good examples of regulations that work well.”

We Have The Technology

Let there be no doubt that if we set a bold goal for 2025 we will meet it:

• Technology solutions are available today to meet the goal, and our engineers, with a target presented to them, will further innovate truck designs.
• Using these technologies will save us all money:  Trucking fleets stand to see lower lifecycle costs and reasonable paybacks; consumer goods companies and other manufacturers stand to save money when shipping their products to market; and every U.S. household stands to save hundreds of dollars a year in lower priced goods.
• There is a proven regulatory structure for bringing these type of technologies to market:  The EPA-DOT fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards are proven, broadly supported and already delivering impressive results.
• We have an urgent need for deploying these technologies: Heavy trucks account for nearly six percent of U.S. global warming emissions and are the single fastest growing end-use source of emissions – on pace to add nearly 150 million more tons annually over the coming years.

Setting a bold goal will help us take these technologies from the test track to the highway over the next decade, helping companies reduce both their costs and carbon risks, while delivering benefits for communities' air quality and the climate.

Additional reading:

• Consumer Goods Companies: Stand Up For Strong Truck Standards
• To Drive Down CO2 Emissions, Focus on Freight

By Jason Mathers

When setting and monitoring several of the key environmental performance metrics for freight, you’ll need to know how to calculate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This may sound complicated, but it’s actually quite simple.

Fuels contain carbon, which is released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide when burned. If you know how much fuel you’ve used, you can determine most of your current GHG emissions.

You can derive fuel volume by looking at how much freight you transport, the distance that freight travels, and the specific mode of transport used. Each mode will have its own emissions factor, since some modes are more efficient than others.

Here's a simple formula for calculating greenhouse gas emissions from a truck move:

The distance and weight and/or volume information needed to calculate greenhouse gas emissions is most likely already captured in your transportation management software. Information on mode-specific emissions factors are generated by several sources, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A list of emission factors is included on page 10 and 11 of EDF’s Green Freight Handbook.

Example: greenhouse gas calculation for a truck move

Using the formula from above, I'll walk through a simple emissions calculation example for a truck that travels 1,000 miles with 20 short tons of cargo (a short ton is 2,000 lbs).

• Step 1: Determine the total amount of ton-miles. Multiply 1,000 miles times 20 tons, which gives us a total of 20,000 ton-miles.
• Step 2: Get the weight-based truck emissions factor for a freight truck. The average freight truck in the U.S. emits 161.8 grams of CO2 per ton-mile.
• Step 3: Multiply this emissions factor with the total ton-miles {161.8 X 20,000), which gives us a total of 3,236,000 grams of CO2.
• Step 4: Convert the total grams into metric tons. Metric tons are the standard measurement unit for corporate emissions of greenhouse gases. There are 1,000,000 grams in a metric ton. To convert our answer from step three we divide it by 1,000,000. This gives us 3.24 metric tons of CO2 for this one move.

Even  if don’t have access to the tonnage data, you can still achieve a meaningful calculation based on mileage alone.  You’ll find an example of mileage-based calculation on page 13 of the Green Freight Handbook.

Once you have the formula, this process of greenhouse gas calculations can be easily automated using data from your transportation management software.  The key is to get started.

To learn more about getting started with green freight projects, download the Green Freight Handbook from the link below:

By Jason Mathers

(Credit: Union of Concerned Scientists)

Three billion gallons of fuel:  That is what consumer goods companies stand to save annually from strong heavy truck fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards, according to a new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

$11.5 million dollars: That is how much a large consumer goods company would save annually in 2030 from strong truck efficiency standards.

Consumer goods companies should be at the front of the pack calling for new, protective, and affordable fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for our largest trucks — protective of our air quality and the climate overall, and affordable because they will save companies money.

While they seldom directly own large delivery fleets, consumer goods companies are the largest single consumer of freight moves: accounting for nearly 30% of moves, according to an EDF-commissioned analysis from ICF International.

Most large consumer goods companies have robust environmental sustainability platforms. These increasingly include supply chain impacts. This makes sense, as nearly 90% of consumer goods impacts occur in companies' supply chains.

Product distribution is a meaningful contributor to this impact: around five percent for a pair of Timberland shoes, 8 percent for a six pack of Fat Tire craft beer, and 10 percent for an iPad. Freight moved via truck accounts for the majority of logistics-related emissions. By increasing the efficiency of heavy trucks by 46% compared to 2010, consumer goods companies will meaningfully reduce supply chain climate emissions.

Increases to fuel efficiency are good for the bottom line too. Fuel has long been a top cost for trucking, accounting for nearly 40% of per-mile cost. More efficient trucks lower lifecycle costs significantly, and reduce per-mile freight costs by 21 cents a mile, as an analysis by EDF and Ceres demonstrated last year.

President Obama pledged last year to issue new truck efficiency standards this spring. As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration ready the proposed standards for release, consumer goods companies should be leading the call for the administration to set bold standards. These companies stand the benefit the most from lower supply chain emissions and reduce shipping costs. As the largest single consumer of trucking services, calling for protective standards is the responsible course of action.

By EDF Staff

by Jennifer McPartland, Ph.D., Health Scientist

Today, the EPA Design for the Environment Program (DfE) Safer Choice program (formerly, the safer product labeling program) unveiled its newly redesigned family of three product labels. The voluntary Safer Choice program seeks to recognize and bring consumer awareness to those products whose chemical ingredients represent the safest among those within a particular chemical functional class (e.g., solvents).

Today’s milestone is the result of a public process led by the EPA DfE program to solicit feedback on a new label that better communicates the goals and purpose of the program. After more than a year, and 1,700 comments and six consumer focus groups later, the new labels will be arriving soon to a store shelf near you. 

The purpose of the EPA DfE program is to drive inherently safer chemicals and products to the marketplace. DfE accomplishes this work through two major activities: the DfE alternatives assessment partnerships and the Safer Choice program. This post and the new labels pertain to the latter.

To reiterate, the Safer Choice program—and the alternatives assessment program for that matter—is not a regulatory program, but an entirely voluntary opportunity for chemical companies and product manufacturers to gain recognition for their leadership in chemical safety. For a product to be recognized under Safer Choice, each ingredient in the product must pass criteria that delineate those chemicals that present the least hazard within that chemical’s functional class (e.g., surfactant, colorant, solvent, etc.).

In addition, a product must meet other requirements for ingredient disclosure, packaging, and performance.  Details on the chemical and product criteria are available on the Safer Choice Standard and Criteria website.

Chemicals that have been found to meet the Safer Choice chemical criteria are listed by functional class on Safer Choice’s safer chemical ingredient list. Products that have been awarded the label can be found on the Safer Choice product website. To date, over 2,500 products have received the Safer Choice label and approximately 650 chemicals are listed. Most of the Safer Choice-recognized products to date are household and industrial cleaners, but the program intends to expand into the personal care product space.

As mentioned earlier, the Safer Choice program is rolling out a family of three new labels:

• the primary Safer Choice label;
• the Safer Choice label for institutional and industrial products; and
• the Safer Choice fragrance free label.

Identifying fragrance-free products is of particular importance for individuals that have fragrance allergies or sensitization concerns. Indeed, many product manufactures have taken recent steps to disclose more information about the fragrances in products they sell.

So why has EPA decided to refresh its label?  According to EPA, the label redesign is intended to accomplish the following goals:

• Better convey the scientific rigor of EPA's product evaluation and the benefits to people and the environment with a label that is easier to display on products, materials, and in digital media;
• Increase buyers' recognition of products bearing EPA's Safer Product Label; and
• Encourage innovation and development of safer chemicals and chemical-based products.

There has been criticism from both the chemical industry and the EPA Inspector General on how adequately the prior label clearly communicated the scope and meaning of the label to consumers. It’s fair to say that putting “Design for the Environment” on a label doesn’t really convey that the program is focused specifically on reducing chemical hazard. The new label and tagline, “Safer Choice, Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards” better communicates the chemical focus of the program.

Many shoppers seem to be unfamiliar with the DfE program, especially when compared to programs like EPA Energy Star; the hope is that the new label and recent commitments from major retailers like Walmart and Wegman’s to the Safer Choice program will increase consumer awareness of the program. Walmart’s sustainable chemistry policy — which EDF helped develop — includes a commitment to strive to formulate and label its Walmart brand products under the Safer Choice program. Wegman’s has already made significant strides in getting several of its Wegman’s-brand products recognized by Safer Choice.

We certainly hope that the new labels will inspire more businesses to pursue recognition by the program, whether through chemical and production innovation or through the types of retailer leadership activities we’ve seen by Walmart and Wegman’s. The Safer Choice program provides an important and valuable opportunity to drive inherently safer chemicals to the market and to reward, with the credibility and backing of the federal government, those businesses that devote R&D to doing so.

Further reading:

• Walmart Puts Consumer Product Suppliers on Notice: The Chemical Phase-out Starts Now

By Gernot Wagner

Editor’s note: The following is excerpted from Climate Shock (2015) by Gernot Wagner, Lead Senior Economist, Environmental Defense Fund, and Martin L. Weitzman, Professor of Economics, Harvard University. Published here with permission from Princeton University Press.

Two quick questions:

Do you think climate change is an urgent problem?

Do you think getting the world off fossil fuels is difficult?

If you answered “Yes” to both of these questions, welcome. You’ll nod along, occasionally even cheer, while reading on. You’ll feel reaffirmed.

You are also in the minority. The vast majority of people answer “Yes” to one or the other question, but not both.

If you answered “Yes” only to the first question, you probably think of yourself as a committed environmentalist. You may think climate change is the issue facing society. It’s bad. It’s worse than most of us think. It’s hitting home already, and it will strike us with full force. We should be pulling out all the stops: solar panels, bike lanes, the whole lot.

You’re right, in part. Climate change is an urgent problem. But you’re fooling yourself if you think getting off fossil fuels will be simple. It will be one of the most difficult challenges modern civilization has ever faced, and it will require the most sustained, well-managed, globally cooperative effort the human species has ever mounted.

If you answered “Yes” only to the second question, chances are you don’t think climate change is the defining problem of our generation. That doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a “skeptic” or “denier” of the underlying scientific evidence; you may still think global warming is worthy of our attention. But realism dictates that we can’t stop life as we know it to mitigate a problem that’ll take decades or centuries to show its full force. Look, some people are suffering right now because of lack of energy. And whatever the United States, Europe or other high emitters do to rein in their energy consumption will be nullified by China, India and the rest catching up with the rich world’s standard of living. You know there are trade-offs. You also know that solar panels and bike lanes alone won’t do.

You, too, are right, but none of that makes climate change any less of a problem. The long lead time for solutions and the complex global web of players are precisely why we must act decisively, today.

What we know is bad, what we don’t is worse

If you are an economist, as we are, chances are you answered “Yes” to the second question. Standard economic treatments all but prescribe the stance of the “realist.” After all, economists live and breathe trade-offs. Your love for your children may go beyond anything in this world, but as economists we are obligated to say that, strictly speaking, it’s not infinite. As a parent, you may invest enormous sums of money and time into your children, but you, too, face trade-offs: between doing your day job and reading bedtime stories, between indulging now and teaching for later.

Trade-offs are particularly relevant on an average, national or global level. And they are perhaps nowhere more apparent on the planetary scale than in the case of climate change. It’s the ultimate battle of growth versus the environment. Stronger climate policy now implies higher, immediate economic costs. Coal-fired power plants will become obsolete sooner or won’t be built in the first place. That comes with costs, for coal plant owners and electricity consumers alike. The big trade-off question, then, is how these costs compare with the benefits of action, both because of lower carbon pollution and because of economic returns from investing in cleaner, leaner technologies today.

Economists often cast themselves as the rational arbiters in the middle of the debate. Our air is worse now than it was during the Stone Age, but life expectancy is a lot higher, too. Sea levels are rising, threatening hundreds of millions of lives and livelihoods, but societies have moved cities before. Getting off fossil fuels will be tough, but human ingenuity — technological change — will surely save the day once again. Life will be different, but who’s to say it will be worse? Markets have given us longer lives and untold riches. Let properly guided market forces do their magic.

There’s a lot to be said for that logic. But the operative words are “properly guided.” What, precisely, are the costs of unabated climate change? What’s known, what’s unknown, what’s unknowable? And where does what we don’t know lead us?

That last question is the key one: Most everything we know tells us climate change is bad. Most everything we don’t know tells us it’s probably much worse.

Stick it to carbon

“Bad” or “worse” doesn’t mean hopeless. In fact, no prediction of climate outcomes or damages can stand without being prefaced by a version of the words unless we act. We don’t venture predictions only to see them become true. We talk about where unfettered economic forces may lead in order to guide them in a more productive, better direction. And guide we can.

Increasingly intense hurricanes, more floods, more droughts, not to say anything of rising temperatures and rising seas are what we know is happening and will continue to happen. Tallying those effects — at least the bits we can put a dollar figure on — results in a minimum cost of $40 per ton of carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere today. But on average, the world isn’t considering anything close to these costs. The average global price is closer to negative $15 per ton, considering the massive fossil fuel subsidies in many countries.

None of that yet includes the truly frightening low-probability events. There’s a huge difference between a likely sea-level rise of 0.3 to 1 meters (1 to 3 feet) by the end of this century and eventual possible extremes of 20 meters (66 feet) or more in future centuries. And it’s debatable whether we can describe any of these extreme scenarios as “unlikely” or “low probability” to begin with. By our own, conservative calculations, there’s about a 1-in-10 chance of eventual global average warming in excess of 6 C (11 F), something that can be described only as “catastrophic” for society as we know it.

It would be easy to conclude that capitalism is the problem. Capitalism is indeed at the core of the problem. Or rather: misguided market forces are.

One seeming solution would be to simply change our ways — voluntarily change our behavior to be greener. If only we slowed down, went back to the land, and generally did more with less, climate change would be a thing of the past. Not quite. The math on voluntary action simply doesn’t add up. And the calculus of changing capitalism as we know it — however desirable that may be as an independent goal — is daunting, to say the least. It also confuses the issue.

Some, like author Naomi Klein, call for “taxing the rich and filthy.” That’s a nice turn of phrase. One might agree that we probably should be taxing the rich more. But that’s a different problem entirely. First and foremost, we ought to be taxing the filthy. Instead of “sticking it to the man,” the point is to stick it to carbon.

Far from posing a fundamental problem to capitalism, it’s capitalism, with all its innovative and entrepreneurial powers, that is our only hope of steering clear of the looming climate shock.

That’s not a call for letting markets run free. Laissez-faire may sound good with the right French accent — in theory. But it can’t work in a situation in which prices don’t reflect the true costs of our actions. Unbridled human drive — erroneously bridled drive, really — is what has gotten us into this current predicament. Properly channeled human drive and ingenuity, guided by a high enough price on carbon to reflect its true cost to society, is our best hope for getting us out.

Published on Ensia.com on February 25th, 2015. Continue reading in Climate Shock, available at booksellers everywhere.

You might also enjoy:

• Will Camels Roam Canada Again?
• We Need a Climate Insurance Policy – Now
• Climate Sensitivity Uncertainty: When is Good News Bad?

By Jason Mathers

Do your freight transportation metrics include measures for sustainability?

With freight accounting for 16 percent of corporate greenhouse gas emissions, establishing green freight practices is becoming a greater priority for large shippers.

To learn more about how to establish freight sustainability metrics, check out Chapter 2 in EDF’s Green Freight Handbook – a practical guide to the strategies companies are using to reduce their freight operations’ impact on overall greenhouse gas emissions.

Establishing baseline metrics is the logical starting point for your green freight efforts. Freight sustainability metrics provide clarity, and keep transportation teams focused on the goal of achieving emissions reductions that are measurable, and therefore meaningful.

Your baseline will include both broad corporate freight sustainability metrics and more specific freight efficiency metrics.

At a corporate level, the three most popular metrics to gauge freight sustainability , are:

1. Emissions per ton-mile – the average emissions associated with moving one ton of freight for one mile.
2. Absolute freight emissions – the total greenhouse gas emissions generated by transporting freight.
3. Total fuel consumption – the fuel used by direct freight operations and by third-partly logistics companies (3pl) and carriers in the transport of products.

Our Green Freight Handbook offers advice and formulas to determine all these numbers.

At a specific level, other freight efficiency metrics –such as average emissions per shipment, percentage of ton-miles by mode, and average miles traveled per shipment – link to specific strategies that, taken together, will ultimately drive the results you see in your corporate freight sustainability metrics.

In Emissions Reduction, Activity Doesn’t Always Equal Achievement

Real progress in freight sustainability can only be measured in numbers. That’s why starting with a baseline is so crucial. If your strategies don’t shift the numbers in a positive direction, they are clearly not the right strategies.

For instance, switching to a carrier with a new fleet of advanced trucks seems like a sound strategy, but if your empty miles double, is that progress?

Just as a gym membership doesn’t guarantee your ability to get fit, joining green clubs or purchasing green equipment doesn’t guarantee greenhouse gas reductions. Success in freight sustainability is about outcomes, and outcomes can only be measured by deploying objective freight transportation metrics to measure sustainability.

Don’t Let Perfect be the Enemy of Good

If you are at the beginning stages of your Green Freight journey, it’s best to chase progress, not perfection. Highly detailed data gathering and measurement may require time and resources you simply don’t have. In that case, scale down your program and think about focusing on a specific trade lane or region, business unit or transport mode.

By EDF Staff

by Peter Sopher, Policy Analyst, Clean Energy

Apple and Google have changed our lives forever, both because of their technological innovations and sheer size as global corporations. Now, they’re aiming to reshape the energy landscape.

This month, Apple announced plans to spend nearly $2 billion on European data centers set to run entirely on renewable energy and invested $848 million to secure power from 130MW of First Solar’s California Flats Solar Project under a 25-year power purchase agreement. Google also agreed to replace 370 wind turbines installed in the 1980s with 24 new, more efficient and bird-friendly turbines at the Altamont Pass in the San Francisco Bay Area. Moreover, there has been recent speculation Apple may be working on an electric vehicle to challenge Tesla’s dominance in that market.

These developments are impressive on their own, but they are also part of a new trend among major corporations – whose primary focus is not energy generation – proactively pursuing clean energy projects.  So, why are they doing this?

For corporations whose businesses do not rely on fossil fuels, aligning themselves with clean power is proving a prudent move both financially and for public relations.

Clean power portfolios

Of companies whose primary operations do not focus on power generation, Google is one of the most proactive in the world in terms of generating, using, and financing clean power. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s (BNEF) database, its activities include:

• Ownership of three solar plants that amount to 412.3MW of net capacity, roughly equivalent to removing 100,000 passenger vehicles from the road for a year;
• Usage of electricity from wind farms that amount to 1,603MW of capacity, roughly equivalent to removing 713,000 passenger vehicles from the road for a year;
• Financing of nearly $2.9 billion in clean power projects;
• Acquisition of Nest Labs, Inc., which sells smart thermostats, primarily, and also smoke detectors;
• And, a public goal to operate on 100 percent renewable energy (Google currently powers about 35 percent of its operations with renewable energy).

Also proactive, Apple’s activity regarding clean energy includes:

• Ownership of four solar plants that amount to 77.5MW of net capacity;
• Powering all of its data centers with renewables;
• Installation of a 10MW fuel cell system – which uses a chemical reaction, rather than combustion, to produce electricity on-site – at a North Carolina-based data center;
• The launch of HomeKit, an app enabling homeowners to control appliances such as thermostats, security systems, lights, and others on Apple devices (iPhone, iPad, etc.) remotely;
• And, plans for a completely energy self-sufficient headquarters by 2016.

Outside of tech, Wal-Mart and other non-power companies are proactively pursuing clean energy. Wal-Mart owns and/or uses electricity from solar and wind plants that amount to upwards of 380MW of capacity. By 2020, the company aims to be powered 100 percent by renewable sources.

Home Energy Management Systems (HEMS)

In June 2014, Apple launched HomeKit, an app that makes people’s lives easier by enabling them to control numerous smart devices without having to manage a growing number of different apps from individual manufacturers. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF),

“An example of HomeKit’s capabilities Apple provided when describing its integration with Siri – Apple’s virtual assistant – is for ‘setting a profile for simultaneously switching off the lights, locking the doors, and turning down the thermostat, then activating this profile at bedtime by telling Siri ‘good night’.”

BNEF further posits that Apple’s launch of HomeKit “kicks off a battle for the ‘connected home’ ecosystem,” with Google as a strong competitor.

In January 2014, Google acquired Nest for $3.2 billion, the second largest deal at the time for an energy smart technology company. Through connecting to the cloud to access energy usage and weather data, Nest predicts,

“Usage patterns and behavior of its customers [will enable] deeper savings even for customers who do not program the thermostat manually. It can also interact with utility time-of-use pricing where available and integrate with local utility demand response and peak rebate programs to help manage demand.”

Beyond Apple, Google, and utilities, home automation technology has existed for decades, and companies such as iControl Networks, Control4, Vivint, and many others provide a variety of products and services. Apple’s and Google’s entry into the connected home market, however, dramatically stiffens competition and signals accelerated growth in this space.

What’s the significance?

The economics of using, investing in, and generating clean energy are sound.  Apple and Google are first and third in the world, respectively, in terms of market capitalization. These are corporate giants dominating a capitalist system that prioritizes the bottom line. These companies see financial opportunities in the budding connected home market, and they perceive clean power purchases as financially savvy.  If they didn’t, they wouldn’t do it.

More specifically, according to BNEF, the motivation behind Apple’s recent $848 million solar purchase “is not just corporate sustainability, but financial. With current incentives available to solar, the levelised cost of electricity for a plant in California could be in the range of low $70s/MWh, perhaps even lower… This cost likely undercuts the retail electricity price currently paid by Apple in the Bay Area.”

Furthermore, the positive public relations benefits of positioning a company as clean and environmentally friendly cannot be understated. This point was underscored this past fall when Google and Facebook joined Microsoft, Amazon, Yahoo, and Yelp as tech giants leaving the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a front group and model bill factory for many corporate interests including oil, gas, and coal. A large reason Google left ALEC, according to Chairman Eric Schmidt, was the following:

“The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

Exiting ALEC has not been limited to tech juggernauts. Corporations with American brands, such as Wal-Mart, General Motors, Coca Cola, Pepsi, and McDonalds have also left.

For a long time powerful people have depended on fossil fuels for making their fortunes, but affordable alternatives are changing that dynamic. For the many successful corporations whose fortunes are not tied to fossil fuels, clean energy’s increasingly favorable economics and socially responsible brand are proving to be attractive.

Google photo source: Flickr/menéame

By Elizabeth Sturcken

Like teenagers, all ground-breaking products or ideas go through an awkward adolescent phase.  And, like teenagers, the only way products or ideas can move past the clumsy stage and blossom into a sought after, form-meets-function icon is through experience.  Meaning, real consumers have to put them through their paces: does this work? How could it work better? Revise, improve, re-test, repeat… that’s how you make something truly effective; truly great.

All this is by way of acknowledging a group of sustainable-minded collaborators on the coming-out party this week for Walmart’s “Sustainability Leaders Shop”, an online shopping portal that “will allow customers to easily identify brands that are leading sustainability within a special category”.  It is, literally, the very first time a quantifiable, science-based index of various products’ sustainable provenance is being placed in the hands of consumers at the scale that only Walmart can provide.

EDF is, in some ways, a proud parent of this teenager. As an environmental group that has been working with companies for the past 25 years, we’ve walked beside Walmart on the journey to try and create better consumer products and a better world. EDF shepherded Walmart in setting an aggressive goal of reducing 20 MMT of GHG emissions from its supply chain, and we are working with them on removing chemicals of concern from everyday products, and also in sending the demand signal for optimized fertilizer use and sustainably sourced products across its supply chain. EDF has also been working for years with The Sustainability Consortium (TSC) – which provides the scientific engine behind Walmart’s Sustainability Leaders Shop. The TSC’s tools identify “hot spots” in consumer product categories.  Walmart then takes that information, and surveys and scores their suppliers’ performance through the Sustainability Index .

A lot has gone into getting us to where we are today:  years toiling away to figure out how to accurately measure product sustainability and how to make that transparent in an easily understandable way to busy consumers. For that, Walmart and its collaborators—The Sustainability Consortium and the leading group of suppliers that have been working to improve the sustainability of products — are to be congratulated. The Sustainability Leader’s Shop is a very big, very important first step because it invites consumers into the conversation.

The first step involves boldly stepping out there, not getting everything perfect, and even stumbling at times.  But that’s what’s necessary to grow.  For example, the Sustainability Leaders Shop currently designates leaders at a supplier level instead of an individual product level, which would be more ideal but simply not realistic for millions of products.  It’s also worth noting that the TSC questions used to survey suppliers about their products and performance are constantly improving to be more quantitative and usable by companies, so the sustainability ratings will change over time as these questions improve, not just as the performance itself improves.  And the data used to assess products is self-reported by companies.  Right now the Sustainability Leaders Shop is only on Walmart.com, which does not include all products, such as fresh food.  For consumers who expect “omni-channel retail” where they can get their products and information about them through many options, we think the Sustainability Leaders Shop needs to appear in real stores, too.

We've realized for a while that what’s good for business is good for the planet.  We won’t get to the place we need to be – we can’t help the teenager through to adulthood – without consumers, suppliers, environmentalists and retailers all working together to create greener consumer products. That’s why it is an invaluable opportunity and an imperative for consumers to get engaged and motivate all suppliers to act:  Vote with your wallets and reward companies who are leading on sustainability at the Sustainability Leaders Shop.

Elizabeth Sturcken is Managing Director of EDF’s Supply Chain work and is a current board member of The Sustainability Consortium.