Photo: jurvetson

The political rhetoric about eliminating, or at least diminishing, our dependence on foreign oil is nothing new.  Seriously tackling this elusive issue was something that President Obama got behind on the campaign trail under his slogan of ‘change.’  Remember that?  Cute, huh?  Unfortunately it seems that like many of the President’s ideological visions, the implementation of an energy plan that sees our importation of oil decrease and our use of alternative energy increase has been equalized by political stagnation from the right.

Obama’s plan has four components: increasing domestic oil production, substituting biofuels and natural gas more, encouraging electric cars, and making gas-powered vehicles more efficient.  Sounds simple enough.  Not exactly revolutionary.  Yet the odds of any of these measures getting through the Republican controlled House of Representatives any time soon are about as good as the odds of Jake Gyllenhaal’s latest movie not  sucking.  Which is to say, impossible.   So more subsidies for biofuels, fogetabadit.  Extra funding for energy research and technology, no way Jose.  Oh and remember Obama’s old cap-and-trade proposal?  Do ya?  Well you might as well forget about it now.

The country’s economic rut is effecting the progress of alternative energy.  Yet we also appear reluctant to wean ourselves off of foreign oil, particularly the kind that empowers deranged despots and bigoted oligarchs.  As gas prices continue to soar in response to political instability shouldn’t it be that we start to see the real sex appeal in electric cars, wind energy, and so forth?  Anybody?  Are you listening establishment?!  Is this thing on??

Get more in the April 2^nd-8^th issue of The Economist

Photo Credit: James T M Towill

In a world of increasing oil prices, one would think that alternative energy would be on the mind.  Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case for oil companies.  What am I talking about you may ask?  I am referring to what is now being called the “Keystone Pipeline Project”.  This highly controversial project is proposing to build a 1,661-mile (2,671-kilometer) oil pipeline from Alberta, Canada all the way down to Nederland, Texas.

The project would cost the United States around $13 billion to construct the 13-inch diameter oil pipeline.  The pipeline would be transporting crude oil extracted from Canadian tar sand.  The oil would then be transported to refineries and processed in Texas.  Obviously, this is raising quite the controversy.  Environmental groups are stressing that oil is clearly not a sustainable energy source and construction of the oil pipeline would be supporting a failing industry.  There are also concerns that after constructed, the pipeline will eventually corrode and leak, causing pollution in many areas.  The general public is also unhappy because the pipeline is cutting right through many homes and farms.

If you ask me, I simply do not see any benefits to this construction.  Not only is it outrageously expensive, but it is supporting a failing industry.  Since oil is a limited resource, and we are clearly starting to run out, we SHOULD be investing the oil we have left into sustainable, alternative energy sources.  To top it all off, extracting oil from tar sands is an extremely inefficient process because two tons of tar sands are needed to produce one barrel of oil.  Cheap, usable oil is soon going to be a thing of the past.  Now is the time to invest in alternative energy to ensure a sustainable future.

Click here to see original article.

Click here to learn more about tar sands.

Photo Credit: Teng Tan

Plastic bottles have been a topic of green news for what seems like ages, and usually the bottom line is centered around consuming less, i.e. – investing in reusable bottles, etc. But what if the root of the issue was addressed instead and the option to consume plastic bottles was eliminated? Well, a couple companies have set out to do just that. PepsiCo recently announced a bottle that will be derived from plants- and not just partially like the original PlantBottle from Coca-Cola, but derived from 100% plant-based material. Could this be the beginning of a large-scale trend in eliminating plastic containers?

It’s a step in the right direction, that’s for sure. These new bottles will be made from cornhusks, switch grass and pine bark, along with a natural form of PET plastic. Meaning, these bottles can fall right into the recycling process alongside petroleum based plastic bottles. On top of that, PepsiCo plans to use byproducts from current operations (including Quaker and Tropicana brands) to make the new bottles, contributing to efficiency and cutting waste. It will take time of course, for the supply chain costs to level out and for our environment to reap the potential benefits of these new advancements, but the research and development continues at full speed.

While PepsiCo’s prototype will not be tested until 2012, it’s something to look forward to- along with further developments from other companies including Coca-Cola who continue to work toward their own version of a bottle that is both 100% renewable and recyclable bottle. Is it possible that one-day using plastic containers wont be as detrimental to our environment? What will be the unexpected effects if plant-based containers become the norm?

There are no definite answers as of yet, but the outlook is quite positive.

To enlighten yourself further, check this out.

Photo Credit: Quazie

BIGGER. Always better?  When it comes to sustainability in the retail world, that certainly isn’t the case. Corporate giants like Costco and Walmart for example, could arguably be considered unsustainable by the sheer nature of their business models, which often encourage people to purchase impulsively and in excessive amounts. But since the global economy is growing rapidly, these businesses are not going anywhere anytime soon. So, it’s nice to hear when companies like Costco adopt sustainable policies- in this case, a sustainable seafood policy along with a pledge to play more of a leadership role in aquaculture.

As the largest purchaser of seafood in North America it’s pretty cool that they also vowed to stop selling 12 species of fish listed on the Red List of Threatened Species- especially after the company received a “Fail” grade last year in a report on the seafood retail industry. And not to mention, Costco at one time was the “single-largest buyer of farmed salmon fillets in the country”, responsible for bringing the farmed-salmon industry to record levels. They also had very specific stipulations, i.e., “skinless, with any brown-colored flesh and pinbones removed”, making it hard for producers to serve the industry as a whole.

Whether or not they were following corporate giant Walmart after their move toward organic and regional foods, it illustrates action of big impact companies whose decisions have just that- a BIG impact. If the sustainability movement is going to be a cohesive global effort, business giants have to play a role.  So thanks Costco- hopefully this will be a big “deal” that truly is better.

Check out what an “oceans campaigner” at Greenpeace has to say about this.

Photo: ggalice

Ecuador’s president Rafael Corea calls Chevron a “multinational monster.”  Many celebrities have also taken to bashing Chevron, not wanting to miss the next hip environmental bandwagon.  On February 14th an Ecuadorian court lowered the boom on the American oil giant; a fine of $9.47 billion.  Perhaps the best part, if Chevron doesn’t apologize within 15 days then the fine jumps to 17.2 billion, o snap!  If the original fine were to be assessed it would go down as the greatest amount of damages ever awarded in an environmental case.

If Chevron is worried they’ve show no signs of it.  They’ve brought the case to the courts in New York and The Hague, hoping to persuade them of the fraudulent and extortive nature of the suit.  The plaintiffs are a collection of tribespeople and settlers from around the Ecuadorian Amazon region, and they fixin to get paid.  The territory in contention has been a site of oil extraction since the 1970′s.  The inhabitants cite above-average cancer rates and the dumping of 15.8 gallons of toxic waste that has contaminated fresh water drinking supply.

Chevron does acknowledge that Texaco, and oil firm they bought, did pollute the waters.  But Texaco left Ecuador in the early 1990′s, signed a remediation with the government, and claims to have done their share in the clean-up.  Chevron also maintains that the remaining pollution is from Petroecuador, the state-operated oil firm.  The staggeringly high amount levied in penalty, according to Chevron, is an attempt to get them to settle.  Ironically, a scene from the documentary “Crude” whose aim is to slam Chevron, is hurting the plaintiffs case most.  It shows some sketchy interaction between the plaintiffs’ lawyers and court officials.  Although it is pretty hard to believe in the innocence of an oil giant in this, or well, pretty much anything, some of they’re contentions seem legitimate.  I’m not a lawyer, or an economist for that matter, but maybe if you’re seeking retribution for previous wrongdoing you shouldn’t start the fine at half of your country’s GDP.  Just a thought, juuuust a thought.

Check out the February 19-25th issue of The Economist to learn more

Photo Credit: Katie Tegtmeyer

A trend seems to be developing across the country in the green building world. Traditional builders and manufacturers are pushing against green building codes and programs.

It’s no secret that builders and property developers constantly wrestle with implementing green initiatives.  Due to the more stringent requirements, in terms of performance and manufacturing, many builders still cringe at the thought of having to meet green standards.  Unfortunately, for them, many prospective tenants and buyers of large building spaces want these buildings to be on par with LEED standards.

Fairly recently, an example of the first reported legal challenges to a green building code occurred in New Mexico with the case Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (ACHRI) v. City of Albuquerque. The case focused on the Albuquerque Energy Conservation Code passed by the city on September 17, 2007. The goal of the code essentially was to create greater energy efficiency in buildings and products. Three trade associations representing HVAC product manufacturers, distributors and installers challenged the code, and the case was ultimately decided on September 30, 2010, by Judge Martha Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.

Through a extensive review of the code and federal law, Judge Vazquez pointed to the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, which expressly preempted product energy efficiency standards:

“A standard prescribed or established under section 6313(a) of this title shall, beginning on the effective date of such standard, supersede any State or local regulation concerning the energy efficiency or energy use of a product for which a standard is prescribed or established pursuant to such section.”

This case is the first official case of builders challenging green building standards, but it definitely won’t be the last.  Sustainable developers need to rally together and make green initiatives the norm.  Hopefully through persistence and demand, sustainable buildings will be woven into the DNA of our society.

Photo Credit: Edgar Zuniga Jr.

As many people have come to realize, worldwide climate is beginning to shift.  As a result, many countries are beginning to take steps towards ensuring the protection of things such as roads, railways, animals, and lighthouses.  The Department for Environmental Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in England has recently outlined their ideas for protection of their infrastructure for how they plan to deal with the problem.  There is national concern in England because the latest predictions state that southern England will be about 2.2-2.6 °C warmer by the 2080s.

England’s Highway Agency had recognized that highway roads are more likely to deteriorate quicker under higher temperatures and extreme weather conditions.  Although ideas for changes in the road quality have been voiced before, this is the first time that a formal plan has been created, which lists all of the strategies to cope with the climate changes.  One of the solutions, which was adopted in 2008, is to use a special type of road that is found in the southern parts of France.  This type of road is built to withstand the high temperatures of the very hot French area and is thought to work in southern England as well.

Since trains are such a popular travel method in England, there is also concern as to weather or not the trains will buckle in the high temperatures or if rising sea levels will flood parts of the track.  Sea levels have risen 30cm since 1840, but are project to raise an additional 70cm by 2050.  Network Rail says that it has been “ahead of the game” because it has invested £8.5m over the last 10 years into fortifying both sea defenses and warning systems to signal for rock falls.  Although counties are realizing that they may be deep in problems, it is good to see that they are recognizing that problem of climate change!

Click here to read more about how England plans to cope with climate change.

Photo Credit: Dorena-wm

Egypt has covered all news forums lately- yet not so much for matters of green news.  But, amongst the many social and political issues plaguing the country, environmental issues loom as well.  As the most vulnerable of the Arab states largely due to industry and population concentrations along the coastline, Egypt needs a comprehensive climate change agenda that it has yet to house internally under Mubarak’s leadership.  With the Mediterranean sea level on the rise threatening crops and water supply and a disrupted governmental structure, it is all the more important that the country develop a climate change plan to prepare for the future.

The coastal and delta regions of Egypt are home to one third of the population, industrial operations, and a significant amount of arable crop land- land that is increasingly affected by the infiltration of salt.  The salt is creeping into groundwater, building foundations, and crop fields, resulting in erosion and deterioration.  Though protective walls have been built and historically succeeded at combating floods, the water level now challenges the height of the walls and consequently erodes the protected land.  Whereas more developed countries have the infrastructure in place to efficiently fight the problem, many of the Egyptian regions have poor land-use management issues- from pollution to unstructured population growth. 

While external organizations like the UN have lent a helping hand, the reality is that Egypt still does not have an internal climate strategy for the country as a whole.    And, the current political and societal turmoil pushes the environmental issues to the backburner.  After the dust settles, we can only hope for action in the new government to develop a strategy aimed at conserving the very parts of Egyptian society that allow it to thrive nationally, and globally.

Further reading.

Photo Credit: Stephen Codrington

Although coal is a dirty word in rich countries concerned about air quality and carbon emissions, demand for the so-called “dirty rocks” is stronger than ever in poorer nations. According to The Economist, the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that over the next five years world consumption will increase by a fifth—assuming governments adhere to their current climate-change policies, that is.

IEA estimations predict that China—which generates over 70% of its electricity with coal—will build 600 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired power capacity in the next 25 years. And that is as much as is currently generated with coal in America, Japan and the European Union combined. Japanese bank Nomura thinks that estimation is conservative, predicting that China will add approximately 500GW of coal-fired power by 2015, more than double its current generating capacity by 2010, and also expects Indian coal-fired power generation will grow as well, albeit more slowly.

Although China is the world’s biggest coal producer, the nation has nonetheless turned to foreign suppliers recently and is likely to rely on them more in the coming years. China’s increased desire for energy and steel means that it will need 5-7% more coal each year—at least. Citigroup estimates that China will import 233m tons in 2011.

Domestic supply hasn’t been able to keep up with demand because of the location of China’s coal,  the old age of the coal mines, the expense it causes to extract and deliver the coal, among other reasons. Plans to build a new east-west passenger railway line (to open in 2013) are underway, but even with additional high-speed and light railways, China will remain dependent on ships carrying foreign coal. And India is even less capable of increasing coal production.

Asian firms will benefit most—Indonesia is currently the biggest source of imports to China due to its proximity and the high quality of its coal—but how will America factor into all of this? The world’s second-biggest coal producer after China, America has mammoth reserves coupled with a power industry that is spurning coal (responsible for currently nearly half of domestic electricity generation).

While all of this is good news for coal miners, it is bad green news. Although the power stations being built at rapid speed in China to feed the country’s new electricity grid will be relatively efficient and less polluting than older coal plants around the globe, that doesn’t change the fact that coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel, that is cheap only because its filth isn’t factored into the bill.

The coal boom is thus a setback in efforts to reign in greenhouse-gas emissions, as the Kyoto protocol makes countries responsible only for their own direct emissions. Environmentalists point out that rich countries that rebuff coal-fired power while exporting coal to countries with less ambitious targets are simply moving the problem elsewhere. As coal-fired power stations and coal exports grow, the problem of coal looms larger.

Read more about the coal conundrum at The Economist.

Free2Work is a “strategic tool to bring justice to people in labor bondage and empower individuals to be conscious consumers.” In addition to the company’s letter grade, the Free2Work app also provides information on the steps the company is taking to actively prevent exploitation from occurring. Is that not enough? Well, if you find yourself frustrated that your favorite brand is not up to par, then let the app put you in contact with your company of interest, so that feedback can be provided on where improvements should be made.

Today, there are so many industries that are at risk for forced, trafficked and/or child labor. The UN estimates 158 million children ages 5-14 are engaged in child labor. As consumers we become immediately connected to this type of exploitation and abuse – and  need to know how our products are made. Now, the very moment you decide to make a purchase, you can have all the information you need in the palm of your hand. It doesn’t get much simpler than that.

Spend your money wisely and start supporting companies that have ethical practices and fight slavery in their supply chains. Download the app and happy shopping!

Free2Work is available as a free download on iTunes.