Happy Holidays! December 23, 2009

Copenhagen’s Role in International Climate Change Agreements December 13, 2009

Earlier this month began a big milestone for international climate change affairs as the United Nations Climate Change Conference began in Copenhagen, Denmark. The conference will last for two weeks and involves many world leaders in talks about climate change. Copenhagen talks have huge potential to affect global carbon emission standards.

Repeated attempts have been made to create a worldwide carbon agreement. The first international conference on climate change was in 1992 at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. At the conference the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) was created. The framework was a voluntary and non-binding agreement for countries to reduce their carbon emissions. Since the framework was non-binding, it had little effect on global climate change.

In 1997, another agreement, the Kyoto Protocol was created as the first legally binding global emissions treaty. The agreement set forth goals towards a five percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below the 1990 levels by 2012. However, the treaty failed to get the United States to ratify the treaty, one of the major carbon emitting countries in the world.

Further international discussions lead to another climate change conference in 2007 that was held in Bali. At this conference, a Bali Road Map was formed. The road map outlined a process for planning out an agreement that could be finalized and signed at the next climate change conference held in Copenhagen.

Now at Copenhagen, world leaders have to finalize an agreement set in motion by the Bali Road Map. A plan that will revise the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and set UN countries in motion to mitigate climate change beyond 2012, the date set by the Kyoto agreement.

According to the UNFCC, the conference has four main goals:

1. Make clear how much developed countries, such as the U.S., Australia, and Japan, will limit their greenhouse gas emissions.
2. Determine how, and to what degree, developing countries, such as China, India, and Brazil, can limit their emissions without limiting economic growth.
3. Explore options for “stable and predictable financing” from developed countries that can help the developing world reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change.
4. Identify ways to ensure developing countries are treated as equal partners in decision-making, particularly when it comes to technology and finance.

As the conference continues during the next two weeks, we will examine how close world leaders come to meeting these goals set by the UNFCC. We could possibly see a global carbon emissions agreement by the end of this conference.

Holiday Shopping – Which Companies Score High on the Climate Score Card December 7, 2009

Among all the claims of green businesses, it is hard to decide which business is truly environment friendly. Climate Counts  has come up with a 22 criteria based scorecard to evaluate the businesses. Climate Counts has categorized companies in every sector such as airlines, food services, commercial banking and many more. The criteria include the companies’ policies and efforts to control pollution. It also accounts the measure and report of the climate footprint. Based on the scores of each categories (Policy stance, Report, Review and Reduce), companies are categorized as stuck, starting and striding, in the race of combating climate change. The scorecard system provides the facts based information to consumers for making right decisions. The method is also helpful for the executives from companies since they can evaluate the performance in controlling the pollution with other competitors. So while shopping this holiday season, go through the scorecards to choose an environment friendly gift!!

Precautionary Principle November 10, 2009

An additional alternative approach to environmental governance is the precautionary principle. Although it tends to garner very little support in the United States, it has made some headway in Europe. Much of the debate over the use of the precautionary principle has come out of a debate over the use of Genetically Modified Organisms or Foods (GMO) and the use of hormones in animal products. Europe’s use of the principle has, in fact, led to a ban on 7 different US foods. However, the discussion of stevia enhanced strawberries or rBGH induced cows will have to wait for another entry into this blog. For now, let’s explore what the principle is and discuss its advantages and disadvantages.

The precautionary principle, at its root, is one that seeks to protect the stakeholders of society from the potential negative externalities (unintended consequences) of actions , whether those actions be related to the environment or the food industry. As a result, the precautionary principle is a moral and political principle that emphasizes the need for scientific evidence that reflects reduced risks given the desire for action–precluding that action being taken. Central to this thesis is the notion that the burden of proof is not specifically the responsibility of the objector to an action but now the responsibility of the proponent of an action. If a company wants to produce pig-gene tomatoes, they have to prove without a reasonable doubt that there are no significant risks.

Advantages: At first glance, the precautionary principle provides policymakers with a simple common-sense approach to evaluating actions. Very simply put, if we are embarking on something new, we should think very carefully about whether it is safe or not, and we should not go ahead until we are convinced it is. This approach allows for, I believe, government regulators to catch up with private enterprise; allow government to create appropriate plans of action given “good” information; allow regulators the chance to examine the far-reaching effects of proposed action prior to that action being taken; allow for greater protection of the consumer and environment.

Disadvantages: There has been significant academic work on the precautionary principle. Much of what has been written relates to an ambiguity in notions of a weak vs. strong precautionary principle (see Cass Sustein’s Law of Fears).  Also, many advocates of agro-business, bio-chemical industries and pharmaceuticals put forward an import thesis regarding, what I consider, an important disadvantage of the principle. Basically, given the increased rigor of regulatory demands for proof of limited to no risk, many health related products may be kept from the market. There could be a potential drug that could be used to help cancer patients; however, it has not shown significant results in limited risks–although there are clear benefits–and is kept from the market. This raises the question: how much risk must be eliminated? Are all risks foreseeable?

Ultimately, as an alternative to the current command-and-control regime, precautionary principle does not stand firmly on its own, but would function best when coupled with the sustainability approach. In cases where consumer and environmental safety and sustainability are at risk, the principle would due well to address the concerns over such actions. However, in order to ensure the maintenance of well-being, precautionary principle could be avoided in instances of national security or health/life emergencies. Of course, defining such emergencies remains ambiguous but the point is that no policymakers, even the ones we disagree with, should be permitted maneuverability on issues like the environment that are continually changing.

Environmental Governance–Sustainability Approach November 1, 2009

Environmental concerns have become increasingly significant and there has been a call on government to help regulate the negative externalities of industry. For at least three decades the governance paradigm of command-and-control has dominated. However, new awareness of environmental issues has seen the so called first generation of governance critiqued as overly bureaucratic and adversarial in nature. As a result, there is growing emphasis on the need for a second generation of governance; a need for different approaches to environmental concerns. Sustainability is a principle concerned with long-term maintenance of well-being–the optimization of human well-being. Sustainability as an approach to environmental analysis and policy-making has at its core an objective to study the relationship between economic, social and environmental factors; to achieve a balance in well-being, “strategies that lead to win-win-win outcomes”.

Although there may be little consensus on how the different factors relate, we can advance the sustainability approach by examining the three prime systems that comprise the environments of our well-being: ecological, economic, and human social systems. This progressive approach understands each system as having its own value-laden imperative, where the sustainability approach is used to reconcile each distinct imperative. It is clear that potential conflicts arise, especially when policies dealing with social or ecological concerns come at economic costs. These costs may or may not garner public support and can face resistance as they are dealt with by policy makers. For example, concerns over drilling in ANWR see the clash between social concerns over the impact on native populations, environmental concerns over the disruption of elk migrations and traditional economic concerns over the need for jobs and domestic sources of oil. Regardless, “it is arguably better in terms of equity and environmental protection to have these complex tensions out in the open than simply to assume the existence of a beneficent economic system.” This is imperative in understanding the importance of the sustainability approach.

First, there is no reason to discount an approach that seeks to reconcile the differences in the systems; a balanced outcome can come from an attempt at conscious and collective action. Secondly, a disentanglement of the concepts of economic growth and environmental impact can lead to an eco-efficient adjustment towards maximizing outputs for every unit of environmental damage. Thirdly, the maximization concurrently used with “policy wedges” (taxation and incentive structures) can speed up the dematerialization of consumption. This means we use the same car but it now weighs less and is overall more efficient. Resistance and political ‘heat’ will occur due to the institutional inertia of the current governance paradigm; however, it can be reduced with proper information gathering methods (public participation mechanisms, polls) and the use of appropriate indicators (relevance, ease of understanding, reliability, accessibility). These can help reduce informational issues and allow policy makers to focus on the most salient issues; the ones that deal with minimizing environmental costs and maximizing well-being.

If you have to use a car, share one! October 21, 2009

There are undoubtedly too many cars on the road–too many single-user cars that is. There is a growing trend, however, towards carsharing. Carsharing is similar to car rental with the main differences being you can use the carsharing vehicle for as little as a half-hour and the cars are located in the communities rather than at a central car rental location. In short, carsharing serves as a unique cross between a rental car and cab service. This implies that urban dwellers across the Eastern seaboard, Seattle, Chicago, Vancouver, Toronto and even London can take part in an environmental alternative to owning a car.

As a former car owner, I know the need for mobility-independence–the ability to leave the city on a whim; however, as a steward of the environment, I also understand the need to reduce, when possible, my carbon foot print. Well, I recently found a resource that helps to achieve a frequently sought after balance between wanting/needing a car and wanting/needing to help the environment: the Zip-Car.

Zip-Car is a membership based car haring service that includes gas, insurance, maintenance, and 180 miles of free driving. Membership fees vary based on the how you plan to use the vehicle but are generally less expensive than renting car. The fees are considerably lower if you are a student or part of business that takes advantage of the Zip-Cars business-friendly plans.

There are other programs that are starting to pop up, such as Connect by Hertz, but Zip car is still the market leader in the US for now.

Trains, Planes and Automobiles! October 1, 2009

America’s growth and westward expansion was based on the dominance of the train.  By 1929 the U.S. had one of the largest and most used rail networks in the world (65,000 railroad cars in operation and 265,000 miles of tracks).  Where did this train system go?  Where America once dominated, now we lag behind Europe and Asia who both have extensive and convenient rail systems.

The decline in the dominance of train travel is due in large part to the rise of America as an auto nation.  America’s automobile companies worked to beat the trains by buying rail lines to close them and pressuring Congress to build an extensive highway system throughout the country.  Although these efforts were a huge success for the auto companies, they took their toll on the environment as well as the U.S.’ dependence on foreign oil sources.  This dependence on automobiles has lead to troubles for America, and as these problems have arisen people have looked toward trains once again.

Train travel has the least harmful impact on the environment by leaps and bounds compared to plane and auto travel.  The only method of transportation that is better in walking or biking, clearly not a practical alternative to traveling throughout the country.  The U.S. government recognizes this as a benefit to train travel, and for this and other motives, it created Amtrak in 1971 to provide rail service in the U.S..  Amtrak uses around 21,000 miles of track, mostly pre-existing freight rails, and served around 28 million customers in 2008.  While this is a large amount of people, if anyone has ever ridden Amtrak, they know that the service is incomplete and would not be able to compete against the rails in Europe.  Why does America continue to lag in a much more sustainable alternative to travel?

President Obama recognizes the tremendous potential for growth in the U.S. rail system and has allocated $8 billion to enhance the rail system.  Hopefully this will produce great strides in the rail system and U.S. can lessen its harmful impact on the environment while providing a more pleasant travel experience.

Biodiversity is More Than a Want- It’s a Necessity September 23, 2009

The brilliant colors of coral reefs in the ocean, extensive foliage in the rain forest, animals running in open Western planes.  These are the symbols of biodiversity seen all over advertisements for vacations spots labeled as “paradise.”  Maintaining environmental biodiversity is clearly important to maintain the picturesque images of the earth, the ones that get turned in to posters that say “Relax” underneath the picture and fill the covers of National Geographic magazines.  But, what needs to be recognized is that biodiversity is not just a luxury, it is critical to the health of the environment.

Natural biodiversity is important to the health of ecosystems throughout the world.  Diversity helps ecosystems function in ways such as producing a wider variety of species, ensuring natural sustainability of species and allowing ecosystems to be more able to recover successfully after disasters.  All of these functions are obviously important for the future safety of the environment, but natural biodiversity can also have an impact on the economy and directly on you.

The Convention about Life on Earth stated, “at least 40 per cent of the world’s economy and 80 per cent of the needs of the poor are derived from biological resources. In addition, the richer the diversity of life, the greater the opportunity for medical discoveries, economic development, and adaptive responses to such new challenges as climate change.”  Biodiversity provides services like promoting a greater variety of crops; protecting water resources and helping break down and absorb pollution.  It also creates numerous resources such as food, medicinal resources, wood and plant products, breeding stocks and future resources.

People and governments need to increase their education and knowledge about what biodiversity is and why it is important.  Natural diversity is crucial not just for the health and safety of the environment but also for all people and the functions of the world we have created.  We should place much more emphasis on and work tirelessly to understand and protect the resources that the earth has given us.

Are Companies’ Actions Truly Green, or Simply Green Reactions? September 17, 2009

It is currently all the rage for companies to introduce environmentally friendly products, or change their methods of production to include measures to protect the environment.  However, it is obvious that these actions are not done without a motive to increase sales or save money, especially given the current economic situation.  This motive explains the copious increase in green marketing.  TerraChoice points out that green marketing has tripled between 2006 and 2008.

A problem I see with the current onslaught of green marketing is not that these actions are being used to promote sales or save money, but that for some companies, these actions are merely defensive. In many case, companies choose to make huge strides in acting environmentally friendly when they have been criticized and given negative press for harming the environment.   A recent example is Nike and Coca-Cola’s environmentally friendly commitments after being  publicly criticized.  Nike was criticized in a Greenpeace study of hurting the Brazilian cattle in the Amazon.  In reaction to this study Slaughtering the Amazon Nike has made strides to make amends, including a possible implementation of a tracing system to ensure that future biome harm doesn’t occur.

That being said, is this issue of defensive green actions truly a problem?  Even though the companies’ motives may not be ideal, environmentally friendly actions are still advancing.  I believe it is crucial to the health of our environment that companies take charge in helping the environment.  Therefore, although it is easy to see companies’ motives as insincere,  the work they are doing to green-up their companies should be praised. They are still moving in the right direction, and if it helps their business, it can also help our economy, leading to a win-win for everyone.

Hang-Up the Rag and Bucket – Tips for Sustainable Car-Washing September 3, 2009

Washing the family car in front of the house seems like a great way to save money on a professional car wash while spending some time in the sunshine, right? What you may not realize is that with every wash, you are sending upwards of 120 gallons of soapy, toxin-laden water directly back into the watershed. Furthermore, studies show that washing you car by hand wears away at the finish on your car much faster than with a professional wash.

Since the water that runs off your driveway and into the sewer isn’t sent to a water treatment plant the soap, gasoline, oil, and heavy metals that used to be on your car are put directly into streams and rivers. Conversely, professional car washes are required by law to sent their run-off to a water treatment plant. Furthermore, your average professional car wash uses between eight and 45 gallons of water – drastically less than what you would use at home. Lastly, the cloth that is used in the overhead and side rollers in professional car washes is designed specifically to minimize damage to the car’s finish. Though they can be more expensive than their home-based counterparts, these car washes are not only better for the environment, but also better for maintaining your car’s appearance.

In the instance where a professional car wash isn’t an option, some steps can be taken to minimize your impact on the environment. A wide array of green cleaning agents can be used to take care of the car’s body, windows, hubcaps, and tires. Using a pressure-washer instead of a garden hose greatly reduces the amount of water needed to get the job done. Washing the car on a permeable surface like gravel or grass greatly reduces the amount of run-off that makes it into fragile ecosystems. Finally, instead of finishing by dumping the bucket of soapy water into the gutter, pour it into the toilet to ensure that it makes it to a water treatment facility.