Category Archives: NRDC OnEarth

Stories at NRDC’s OnEarth.

Meet the Change Makers: How UPS Delivers Big Energy Savings | OnEarth

For UPS, the world’s largest package delivery company, no time of year is more challenging than the holiday season. This year, the Atlanta-based company predicts the surge of packages it handles between Thanksgiving and Christmas will exceed half a billion. That tidal wave will peak on December 20 when, on a single day, some 28 million cardboard boxes will be loaded into UPS’s iconic big brown trucks to be delivered, at a rate of roughly 300 per second, to homes and businesses around the world.

The challenge of getting those packages where they need to be using the least amount of energy possible falls to Scott Wicker, who was named UPS’s first chief sustainability officer in 2011. Like many of UPS’s top execs, Wicker is a lifer. He got his start in 1977 unloading UPS trucks while studying to become an electrical engineer. Some three decades later, it’s fair to say Wicker is still working in trucks. Yet today, as CSO, his mandate is to improve the efficiency of UPS’s entire fleet of 93,000-plus vehicles – which includes those brown vans, long-haul trucks, and cargo planes as well as gondolas and tricycles — along with the company’s global portfolio of more than 1,800 facilities.

True to his engineering roots, Wicker approaches this challenge quantitatively. Given that fueling the UPS armada generates more than 90 percent of the company’s carbon emissions, much of UPS’s sustainability efforts focus on its fleet, such as streamlining delivery operations, developing fuel-efficient technologies, and exploring alternative fuels. In 2011, those efforts helped reduce company-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 3.5 percent, even though total package volume grew by 1.8 percent, according to a 2011 report.

OnEarth contributor Adam Aston spoke with Wicker about how UPS has achieved these gains and become one of its industry’s top performers on sustainability.

If there’s a singular example of UPS’s focus on efficiency, it’s the left-hand turn rule in which delivery routes are designed for drivers to make as few lefts as possible. How did this come about?

It’s one of a long list of tweaks we’ve been making to drivers’ routes over the years. It goes back to the ‘70s. Back then, we saw that we were wasting a lot of time making left turns. The more time a van sits waiting to turn, the more fuel is burned idling.

Can you quantify the benefits of the rule?

Partly. It’s part of a broader set of efforts to eliminate idling. Last year we avoided 98 million minutes of idling. And less idling means less fuel burned. We estimate that this effort alone saved 653,000 gallons of fuel.

So fuel efficiency is as much about how vehicles are driven, as what fuel they use or how the vehicle is designed?

Yes, some of the biggest changes to our fleet operations are the least visible. Last year, for example, we estimate we avoided driving nearly 90 million miles thanks to improvements in routing and package-flow technologies. That translates into more than 8 million gallons of fuel not burned. Our technologies determine how to load each package and where each one goes on a specific shelf in the truck.

We’re also developing the ability to adjust routing on the fly. If the driver has to veer off a route for any reason, the system can recalculate the optimal delivery sequence. Further, the system will help the driver to mix more urgent, early-morning deliveries in between less urgent deliveries with later time commitments. In the past, this hasn’t been possible — instead, all urgent packages are delivered first, regardless of lost opportunities to deliver another package nearby.

It may sound minor, but these changes can help reduce the number of miles each driver travels each day. When you multiply a few miles saved per driver per day, the aggregated savings in time, fuel, and carbon are significant.

That said, is the push for a high-mileage truck still a top priority?

Yes. With more than 90,000 vehicles, it’s a constant concern. Our fleet of alternative-fueled vehicles is the largest in the industry, and one of the most diverse. Since 2000, some 2,500 unconventional UPS vehicles have racked up over 200 million miles in service.

Many are powered by natural gas, which we’re looking to as an alternative to diesel. For example, more than 900 local delivery vans are powered by compressed natural gas (CNG) in the U.S., and almost that many vehicles in Canada are powered by propane [a close relative of natural gas]. For long distances, we also have about 59 big rigs — highway tractor-trailers — powered by liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Rounding out the alternative fleet are 381 hybrid electric models that, similar to Toyota’s Prius, use a combination of combustion, electric motors, and battery storage to boost mileage. Because they recapture so much of their energy through regenerative braking, these models are especially well-suited to urban routes, where total miles travelled is short, with many stops and starts, and pollution control is important. We’re also running a small number of ethanol-powered vehicles and pure electric vehicles, which run solely on power stored in their batteries.

We’re also excited to announce that starting this month, we’re rolling out 40 hydraulic hybrid delivery vehicles. This is a continuation of a program we piloted with the Department of Energy and other partners in 2006. Instead of storing energy in a conventional battery, these vehicles use hydraulic fluid as the storage medium. When the vehicle accelerates, some of this stored pressure helps it to start moving. During braking, the process works in reverse: the vehicle’s momentum is converted into pressure to recharge the hydraulic tanks. It’s a remarkably rugged system that can save up to 40 percent of fuel.

Why pursue so many kinds of technology?

We’d like to get off of fossil fuels. That’s our goal. Our approach is holistic because there is no silver bullet. It would be foolish to try to predict which fuel will emerge as the best or most durable.

Can you squeeze greater savings from your conventional diesel trucks?

Yes. One of the things we’re most excited about is “lightweighting.” Last year, we rolled out a test truck that looks similar to our regular delivery van, but that’s built with advanced materials that shave off 900 pounds. There are body panels made of lightweight plastic composites instead of metal sheets. Because the vehicle is so much lighter, we’re able to use a smaller engine, as well.

The trucks deliver approximately 40 percent gains in fuel efficiency, and the price is in line with the cost of a conventional vehicle. Based on that trial, we ordered 150 of these higher-mileage models. We’re also more comfortable with composite material and will consider adding more composite components into larger vehicle types.

UPS operates a lot of vehicles consumers rarely see, from planes to long-haul trucks. What are you doing with these?

To put this in perspective, more than half of UPS’s carbon dioxide emissions come from jet fuel, and the rest of our mobile fleet make up about a third of emissions.

For surface transportation, we shift as much as possible to rail, which is a far more efficient way to move goods than road. For rail and air, the efficiency options are fewer than on the road. With planes, we’re testing more efficient flight paths. Simplifying a jet’s landing pattern, by letting it glide down continuously rather than descending in a step pattern, delivers substantial savings. We’re also testing aviation biofuel. We know it works. The problem is making it at the right price.

Are your customers asking for data on the carbon impact of their shipping?

Customers began to push for this kind of data a few years ago. Big companies are facing more pressure from groups like the Carbon Disclosure Project, the federal government, and financial entities to report on their carbon footprints.

It’s been a challenge to build a system that collects all this data. But today, we’re one of the few logistics providers that calculate Scope 3 emissions, which often comprise a very large share of the total. These are the emissions produced indirectly to make goods or deliver services a company buys. [Ed. note: Scope 1 emissions are created from direct actions, such as fueling a UPS truck. Scope 2 are emitted indirectly, such as the emissions associated with electricity bought by a UPS utility. Find out more here.]

When we ship for a company, or handle its logistics, UPS becomes a major source of the company’s Scope 3 emissions. Delivering that data reliably is a very sophisticated process. Our experience developing these measures has helped us advise partners on their efforts to map out their own Scope 3 emissions, too.

Have UPS’s sustainability efforts helped attract customers?

Yes. UPS is the only U.S.-based company offering a carbon neutral shipping option across all product lines. Puma, for example, ships everything carbon neutral. Toto [a Japanese bathroom fixture maker] uses the service, too. Another example is LiveNation, which organizes touring bands. We ship of all the bands’ gears in our trucks, and, in some cases, have begun to manage transport for those tours in a carbon neutral manner.

~

Originally published at http://www.onearth.org/article/meet-the-change-makers-how-ups-delivers-big-energy-savings

Meet the Change Makers: AEG Turns Up the Volume on Sustainability | OnEarth

You may not know AEG Worldwide, but odds are good that you’ve spent an evening in one of the company’s many venues, rooting for the home team or lip-syncing a favorite song. AEG operates and often owns some of the world’s largest stadiums, concert halls, and other entertainment sites, including L.A.’s Staples Center and the newBarclays Center in Brooklyn, where the Nets will soon relocate. The company’s portfolio also includes London’s O2 Arena, a hub for the 2012 Olympic Games. Off the field, there’s no bigger player in sports than AEG — which made the company a natural target for environmental advocates seeking a high-profile partner in efforts to “green” pro sports.

Worldwide, the sports and entertainment industry’s environmental impact is huge. Yet it has historically been made up mostly of small-scale players — each running just a handful of venues — so the shift toward environmentally friendly practices has happened more slowly than in other sectors, which could be influenced by just one or two big companies going green. Back in 2007, AEG’s footprint included just seven venues. Since then, backed by billionaire-owner Philip Anschutz, CEO Tim Leiweke has rapidly expanded the scale and diversity of the company’s activities. Today AEG manages and/or services more than 110 venues on five continents and owns a share of 10 pro teams that play in its arenas, including the NBA’s fabled Lakers. And the company ranks as the second-largest event promoter in the United States., backing events such as the massive Coachella music festival.

Given AEG’s size, its global sustainability director, Jennifer Regan, has unprecedented influence over the greening of the sports and entertainment industry. Regan joined the company fresh out of college in 2007 and has risen to become its senior-most executive focused on green issues. Her team started out looking at energy use at a small number of the company’s sites but has steadily expanded its focus to include more venues and more complex measures of consumption. In 2010, AEG published the industry’s first sustainability report and debuted a green strategy known as AEG 1Earth. An update is due by year-end.OnEarth contributor Adam Aston recently caught up with Regan following her visit to the White House for a ceremony celebrating the greening of professional sports.

Twenty-six is young to be leading the green efforts at a major company. How did you get there?

I had the perfect mix of entertainment and environmental background, but the decision to really dedicate myself to corporate sustainability took shape before my junior year. I spent that summer in Senegal at the National University Cheikh Anta Diop where I studied sustainable development. On the last day of class, I had one of those life-changing moments. The professor stood me up in front of hundreds of local students and said:

You’re here because you want to learn how to do sustainable development. But what you need to recognize is there is no such thing. The only regions around the world being developed sustainably are places where wealthy nations are extracting natural resources. If you care about reducing environmental damage, start by changing business practices back home.

That message made me question what the heck I was doing in Senegal. I realized that I had much greater opportunity to affect change back home by addressing unsustainable business practices. I returned to the U.S. and redirected my studies toward issues around corporate sustainability.

Your timing turned out to be very good to join AEG’s emerging sustainability efforts. How did you make your way there?

I started looking for a corporate sustainability position after graduation. I expected I’d have to start in a position outside of sustainability and then weave those values into my role. Given my background in theater and production, I was looking at AEG for event management jobs and hoped to bring sustainability into the AEG culture.

At the time my mother was AEG’s vice president of information technology. She was helping me consider entry-level opportunities. Out of the blue, her supervisor mentioned that the CEO, Tim Leiweke, had asked for help to understand how to “make AEG green.” My mom suggested to her boss that he and I speak so that I might give him some pointers regarding first steps.

How much did you have to sell the idea?

The thinking on these areas was already taking shape. Executives were increasingly hearing from AEG’s partners — artists, promoters, athletes, sponsors, governing bodies, and civic groups — that the company needed to find better ways to address the environment. I gave a very aggressive speech on the difference between greenwashing and being truly sustainable, and provided a list of links on sustainability practices. Then I went on to travel. I wasn’t thinking that what just happened was kind of a job interview.

About ten days later, I got an email from AEG saying, “We could really use your support,” and asking if I’d be interested in a two-month engagement to help coordinate a management committee to map out the start of a formal sustainability program for AEG. I was so excited that I cancelled my trip and headed straight back to L.A.

So this was the beginning of AEG’s major push into sustainability?

Yes. In two months, we put together a 120-page report that included ten pages of detailed tasks for each major division of AEG. We presented the report to AEG’s chairman, Philip Anschutz, and to Leiweke. They reviewed it and said, “This is exactly the right direction for the company.”

Mr. Anschutz made it clear to us that energy was his number-one priority. After labor, energy is AEG’s highest cost, and energy prices were near all-time highs. So it offered quick and potentially big savings. He also wanted us to focus on venues we owned and operated. They asked me to stay on as a contractor to begin implementation. About a year later, after the program had a couple of strong wins, they offered me a full-time position as sustainability manager.

What were your biggest obstacles rolling out this program?

AEG’s biggest challenge — and biggest opportunity — is our scale and diverse business model. We have so many different business segments: facilities, concerts, sports, live entertainment, and others. Our venues range from intimate clubs that seat as few as 500 to large stadia and entire “entertainment districts” able to hold up to 115,000. Each of these venues is a different age, with different geographical and climate challenges, varying energy grids, and different municipal infrastructures.

So our first priority was to better understand what was already in place and develop a measurement and reporting program that could identify energy-savings opportunities and monitor their progress across a diverse range of venues.

When you looked at energy use, what did you find?

Initially, we did a few energy audits and site audits at a cross section of venues to identify energy projects that might translate across the portfolio. We quickly realized that there were opportunities around utility bill management and energy procurement.

Two years later, in 2010, we partnered with Summit Energy [of Louisville, Ky.] to develop a global energy strategy for AEG. They helped us identify cost-saving opportunities through rate adjustment and billing accuracy, as well as opportunities to procure energy in open market. They provided software to track and analyze electricity, water, and natural gas use as an extension of their invoicing, bill payment, and carbon accounting services.

You set some ambitious goals. How’s it going?

Until we publish an update to our sustainability report later this year, I can’t be too specific about company-wide achievements. But, we are making major progress toward our targets for 2020, compared with 2007, in the area of energy, waste, and responsible sourcing. These goals include cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 20 percent and achieving 75 percent waste diversion at ten focus venues and events.

Also, where we have direct control over purchasing, we’re aiming to spend half of our budget on what we call “high-impact” goods — those that have the greatest direct impact on human health and the environment — including more efficient lighting, greener janitorial products, high-performance cooling and heating systems, and recycled paper products.

What are some specific examples of AEG’s resource savings?

Right out of the gate, we identified opportunities for high-returns. In 2008, for instance, we installed solar panels at both the Staples Center and Nokia Theater in L.A., saving an average of $55,000 annually. The same year, we retrofitted about 500 urinals to be waterless at all of our Southern California venues. They are saving us more than 20 million gallons of water and some $70,000 in direct water costs each year.

A rule of thumb in sustainability is to eliminate waste first, then substitute green alternatives. How are you approaching this?

We think our staff’s ability to manage buildings more efficiently through small day-to-day tweaks is where we’re really going to make progress. For example, in 2010, through staff training and constant vigilance, we reduced their electricity usage by 30 percent and natural gas consumption by more than half atCitizens Business Bank Arena in Ontario, Calif.

Much of this challenge amounts to motivating staff to change long-standing habits. How do you do it?

The first step is to get them to understand the materials within their facility and their importance.

Take my battery bucket challenge. I’ve had a lot of operations managers tell me, “Sure we collect disposable batteries in our office but there are just not that many.” And I’d say, “I’m going to issue you a challenge. Put a battery bucket in three places where you don’t think there are batteries. Send out an email letting staff know about the new collection points. And let’s bet on how long it will take for that bucket to fill up.” They’ll say, “Oh, it’ll take a year.” It takes one, maybe two weeks, so I’ve won every time.

The second step is to work with them to help identify sustainable solutions.

How do you tackle those who are most resistant to change?

When it comes to sustainability, I think of my colleagues as fitting into three major categories.

There’s one group making decisions because they want to be recognized but also because the decision is in line with their values. Those are the one who are most supportive and easy to work with.

And then there are those focused strictly on success as defined by their job description and who do not necessarily value sustainability personally. These types aren’t necessarily embracing sustainability, but if it’s expected of them, they will get the job done.

Lastly, there’s the complete naysayer: the individual who disagrees with the philosophy of sustainability and doesn’t think human action adversely impacts the environment. They are only able to see results or conclusions that support their belief that the environment doesn’t need our stewardship. Even when we can prove that they’re going to save money, they’ll sometimes still find ways to say no. That’s where the high-level support has been so important: since the owner and CEO said make it so, this attitude simply is no longer acceptable.

~

TRUTH SQUAD Checking industry claims with NRDC’s sustainability experts

Influence often comes with experience. Yet, in the relatively young world of corporate sustainability, youthful energy can help catalyze change in large, slow-to-evolve organizations. AEG’s global sustainability director is a case in point. At 26, “Jen Regan is among the best arena greeners on the planet,” says Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which publishes OnEarth.

Hershkowitz has spent the past decade coordinating some of NRDC’s most prominent institutional sustainability initiatives, spanning entertainment — such as the Academy and Grammy Awards — and professional sports, including national league-wide efforts to green baseball, basketball, football, and the U.S. Tennis Association.

As the world’s largest operator of major sporting venues, AEG has unparalleled resources to develop green practices, Hershkowitz says. For example, in Los Angeles, the company hopes to build an NFL stadium dubbed Farmers Field, planned as one of the most environmentally sustainable stadiums in the world, as well as the NFL’s first LEED-certified field. AEG has even pledged to make the facility carbon neutral in part by steering more fans onto public transit. In a notoriously car-crazed city, it’s an audacious goal.

AEG’s bid is typical of how its sustainability push has heated up a green race among teams and sports leagues, says Hershkowitz. “These owners are really competitive,” he says. “Each season, it seems like a different owner is trying to out-green previous efforts.”

The company’s green agenda extends beyond sports venues, but to Hershkowitz, sports is a particularly potent industry in which to promote sustainability practices. “Just 13 percent of Americans follow science, but 61 percent follow sports. If we can move things there environmentally, its popularity opens the door to much broader change at the political level.”

For all of AEG’s progress, there’s still plenty to focus on, Hershkowitz says. The company needs to extend its reach to smaller sites and deepen its influence over operations into new areas. For instance, AEG can work with independent and in-house vendors — which provide everything from popcorn to white-linen restaurant meals — to shift them to use more sustainable materials and even offer healthier foods, he says. — Adam Aston

~

Check out the original here: http://www.onearth.org/article/meet-the-change-makers-aeg-turns-up-volume-on-sustainability

Meet the Change Makers: Starbucks’s Quest for a Better Cup | OnEarth

Starbucks didn’t invent the disposable coffee cup, but few other brands are as tightly married to their container. From Brooklyn to Bangkok, the Seattle-based roaster’s white cups are instantly identifiable. More than four billion containers crossed the company’s counters last year, and only a small percentage were recycled.

The person charged with finding a way to increase that share is Jim Hanna, Starbucks’s director of environmental impact. He joined the company in 2006 and has tackled a host of issues, from improving coffee farming, harvesting, and processing techniques to greening the chain’s 17,000-plus stores. He has a lot of success to show for those efforts: Starbucks hit its goal of buying half of all the energy for its North American stores from renewable sources in 2010, years ahead of schedule, for example. But cups, especially the amount of virgin paper they consume, are proving to be one of his greatest challenges.

The company is tackling the problem with its own version of the three R’s: recycling, reuse, and reinvention. Starbucks has piloted recycling efforts city-by-city, working out kinks with trash haulers and paper mills. It has run a nationwide contest to design better reusable mugs. And it has worked to share its findings with the industry, bringing together McDonald’s and Dunkin Donuts, for example, at a series of Cup Summits. But the heat is on. Starbucks has pledged to have cup recycling available in all of its North American outlets by 2015. Modest as this target may sound, it requires that Starbucks more or less remake the paper recycling business.

Hanna, 43, holds a degree in environmental science and has worked in environmental consulting. He says the long-term costs of corporate inaction on pressing environmental issues can be enormous, which is why Starbucks’s hunt for the perfect cup is a voluntary, but critical, initiative. By moving aggressively, the company hopes to win and retain customers, boost employee morale, and maybe even outflank competitors. On March 21, Starbucks released its2011 Global Responsibility Report, documenting both its progress and ongoing challenges. Recycling efforts made gains: the share of North American stores that can recycle hot cups has more than tripled since 2010 to 18 percent. Yet the push to avoid paper use, by spurring more consumers to use tumblers or in-store ceramic mugs, saw almost no improvement.

Hannah spoke with OnEarth’s Adam Aston about Starbucks’s successes and its struggles to solve the coffee cup problem.

What steps has Starbucks taken to lower paper use? It wasn’t so long ago that Styrofoam was the standard.

Our effort goes back to the company’s earliest days, in the 1980s. There was a period, for instance, during which customers would always get two cups to prevent them from burning their fingers. In late 1990s, we introduced the sleeve, which is made of Kraft paper. It is made from recycled content, plus it uses far less material than a whole cup. And because it doesn’t touch the beverage, it can be more easily recycled.

Why not make the whole cup out of that material?

This is where you see how the business side of the paper industry, as well as food safety rules, really complicate this challenge. It is possible to make cups out of unbleached Kraft paper, but there are a couple of limitations. First, most Kraft paper is made from recycled content and, to maintain consumer safety, the Food and Drug Administration regulates the use of post-consumer recycled paper in packaging that comes into contact with food.

Second, whatever sort of paper you use, it has to be made waterproof by lining it with another material. Wax is used in some food applications. Along with most of our competitors, we use a thin lining of food-grade polyethylene plastic.

I’m guessing that the plastic lining complicates the recycling process?

To recycle beverage cups, the cups have to be ground up. From that pulp, the plastic lining is separated using a combination of mechanical force and heat. All of this adds complexity, and cost, to the recycling process. If a paper mill has a cheaper source of fiber — one that demands less processing — it is not going to want beverage cups. And paper mills vary wildly in their abilities. Some are six months old and can handle a wide variety of materials; others are a century old and are easily gummed up by impurities like plastic. So if Seattle, say, has a modern paper mill, you may be able to recycle cups, but if New York has an older mill, or no mill, you can’t.

Working with GlobalGreen [a sustainability focused non-profit established by Mikhail Gorbachev], we ran a trial in Manhattan in 2010, sending poly-coated paper cups from a number of stores to a paper mill on Staten Island. We had mixed results: When we introduced the cups, they generated more unusable byproduct and really slowed down the mill’s processes. When we ended the trial, we had learned a lot. But we’re still looking for paper mills near New York. In other cities, we’re seeing more promising results, and in time we hope to copy and adapt those success stories elsewhere.

This suggests there are a lot of economic factors driving what can be recycled.

Yeah, the New York City pilot illustrates this point. Quite often, it’s not strictly a question of whether the process is possible, but whether there’s enough economic incentive for various parties to take on the challenge. That’s why our challenge is not only to come up with a better recipe to make the cups more easily recyclable, but also to help develop viable markets for the resulting paper.

Where are you having success with these trials?

In Chicago, we’re doing a test where we’re sending all of our paper cups to a mill in Wisconsin that makes our napkins. So the cups come back as another Starbucks product. We’d like to scale that up and test it out elsewhere. We’ve also got an industry group, the Food Services Packaging Institute, to take on this effort. By doing that, it evolves from being a Starbucks-centric project to an industry-led initiative with a much bigger potential for change.

And recycled paper can’t be used to make new cups again, right?

The FDA has rules strictly controlling the use of recycled materials in food-grade containers. The idea is to prevent impurities or disease that could sicken the public. But it dates back to a period when waste handling and paper processing technology was less advanced. Starbucks started working with the FDA about 10 years ago. We were able to make a case to use recycled paper in our coffee cups by showing that the mills we were working with could consistently make sanitary recycled containers. In 2006, we got the FDA to OK a cup with 10 percent recycled content, and that’s been our standard ever since. Ten percent may not sound like a lot, but it was a big step. Given the billions of cups we use, it saves a lot of trees from the mill.

That leads to another solution you’ve tried: getting customers to use fewer cups in the first place, especially since so many of them carry their cups out the door, rather than drinking and discarding them in stores where your recycling receptacles would be located. Yet the share of beverages you sell in reusable containers, such as tumblers that customers bring in, is surprisingly small: just 1.9 percent in 2011. That amounts to a savings of about 34 million cups, but the rate has been growing very slowly. What makes this such a challenge?

It’s harder to shift customer preferences than you might expect. We’ve always sold reusable mugs. And we offer customers a 10 cent discount if they use a tumbler. That’s more than the unit cost of a paper cup. Yet, in practice, we see that people value the convenience of having a cup when they want it and may not always want the hassle of handling and cleaning a tumbler.

Consumers are famously fickle. Attachment to plastic bags and plastic water bottles lingered for years before efforts to get rid of them caught fire. How are you trying to spark these changes?

We’re exploring many approaches to help consumers opt for alternatives to paper cups. In 2010, for instance, we ran a contest. Called the Betacup Challenge, entrants included everything from better designs for collapsible cups [such as the Cupup] to fully biodegradable designs [such as the Betacup]. The finalists stood out by including social networking and reward features that help shift behaviors. The Karma Cup, which was the overall winner, encourages customers to bring in reusable mugs by offering rewards and public recognition of the benefits of doing do. But when we tried some of these techniques out at a Seattle test store, we found there was less enthusiasm than we had seen in the online community.

We’ve increased our focus on shaping behaviors as a way to lower cup use. For example, this year we’re working to redesign stores to make ceramic wear more visible to customers, by positioning it in sight, right behind the baristas. Customers who want to enjoy their drink in the store will be reminded that they can do so in a ceramic mug that we wash and re-use. This is something that’s widely available today, but opted for less often than we’d like.

Are others in the industry collaborating with you on this challenge?

Yes. Big as we are, Starbucks still accounts for a tiny share of the 500 billion or so cups used industry-wide every year. So we’ve convened three “Cup Summits,” the first in Seattle, and the others at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to bring together manufacturers, government officials and retailers — including our competitors — to devise solutions that have the potential to shift the industry.

~

TRUTH SQUAD — Checking industry claims with NRDC’s sustainability experts

Starbucks got America hooked on Venti lattes. The problem, as NRDC’s Darby Hoovers sees it, is that we’re also hooked on the paper cups they come in. To lower its paper consumption, the coffee chain’s most effective option is to steer customers toward reusable cups, saysHoover, a senior resource specialist in NRDC’s San Francisco office.

Easier said than done, though, she acknowledges. “The reality is that Starbucks is working in a disposable culture,” says Hoover, in which consumers’ habits are tough to change. Accordingly, the coffee chain is focusing its efforts on recycling. By 2015, it has pledged to make front-of-store recycling available in all of its company-owned stores in North America.

But it’s not as simple as putting out more recycling bins. Although, technically, a growing share of recyclers can handle the challenge of processing the plastic-lined cups, a small amount of plastic can downgrade a batch of recycled paper, making it harder to process and less valuable, Hoover explains. So Starbucks has been working with select mills to improve the economics of the venture. In its Chicago stores, for example, it buys back napkins made from the paper that is recycled from used cups. The efforts are bearing fruit. During 2011, Starbucks extended the availability of in-store recycling for cups to more than 1,000 stores, largely in Canada, Chicago, and southern California, more than tripling the count from the prior year.

Starbucks’ most important role could be as an industry leader, Hoover says. If the company hits its 2015 cup recycling goal, it may trigger wider change throughout the restaurant industry. — Adam Aston

Meet the Change Makers: Avon Calls for a Green Makeover | OnEarth

Q&A with Avon’s director of corporate responsibility Susan Arnot Heaney

The first “Avon Lady” started knocking on doors in New Hampshire back in 1886, selling beauty products directly to her friends and neighbors. The door-to-door approach may seem familiar — even quaint — today, but it was groundbreaking at a time when women had few job options outside the farm or factory and rarely owned or ran their own businesses. By offering credit, products, and sales support, Avon created the possibility for them to do so. By the turn of the century, the ranks of Avon Ladies surpassed 5,000.

Today, more than 6.5 million independent sales representatives sell Avon products in over 100 countries to more than 300 million customers. Echoing its original appeal in the United States, the brand continues to find fast success opening up opportunities to women in emerging markets such as Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia. With a product line that now spans makeup, perfume, and jewelry, as well as gifts, clothes, jewelry, and housewares, Avon’s sales totaled $11.3 billion through September.

These big numbers inspire Susan Arnot Heaney, but they also make her job more difficult. As Avon’s director of corporate responsibility since 2006, Heaney focuses on developing, tracking, and reporting efforts to reduce the impact of Avon’s activities on the planet. Each year, the New York-based company has to balance expanding its business while also managing and reducing the use of resources, including trees to make hundreds of millions of catalogs, tons of palm oil for its cosmetics, more energy, water and other materials.

In recent years, Avon has mapped out in increasing detail how, when, and by how much it wants to alter its impact. Earlier this month, the company published its third corporate responsibility report detailing efforts and goals set out in 2009-2010. By 2020, for instance, Avon aims to cut its consumption of water per unit produced by 40 percent, compared with a 2005 baseline, while also aiming for 20 percent absolute reductions in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. In the same period, Avon aims for its operations to produce zero waste by fully recycling or reusing any leftovers from its factories and distribution centers.

OnEarth contributor Adam Aston recently caught up with Heaney at the unveiling of the company’s new LEED Gold-certified Manhattan headquarters to learn more about the beauty brand’s sustainability agenda and how it aims to harness the power of millions of “affiliates” — better known as Avon ladies — to help further it.

Susan Arnot HeaneyThe “Avon Lady” is practically a cultural icon, yet on Main Street, Avon storefronts are conspicuously absent. How do you get by with no brick-and-mortar stores?

It goes back to 1886, when David H. McConnell founded the company. At the time, women had relatively limited job options: teaching, factory work, and farming jobs dominated. Very few owned their own businesses.

Starting with the first Avon Lady, in New Hampshire, McConnell devised a model that let women build a business of their own, by selling cosmetics face-to-face.

The approach also meant that Avon has never built shops or showrooms. Today, our store is a brochure, and our website. Our representatives use these to show products to millions of customers in more than 100 countries. Orders are delivered by via mail, online or through mobile technology.

In terms of our sustainability efforts, this means that, unlike other big retail chains, we have never had to build — or heat, cool, and fit out — storefronts. That said, we still have millions of square feet of real estate worldwide — offices, factories and distribution centers — and ourGreen Building Promise ensures all new or major renovations around the world are certified “green,” such as our U.S. headquarters in New York City.

But this model means you print a lot of paper?

Yes. We’re one of the largest printers in the country. Our product brochures — we call them “brochures” because that’s what they were dubbed in 1886, even though you would call them catalogs — are printed around the world.

They’re smaller than a regular magazine: our current holiday brochure is about 5.5 inches wide by 8 inches high and has 227 pages. And we produce one campaign like this every two weeks, all year long, printing here in the U.S. somewhere between 13 and 17 million copies for each. Then there are our even larger international sales. Brazil, for example, is a bigger market for us than the U.S.

Keep in mind, these product brochures are never mailed. We do not do anything direct-to-consumer. Instead, we ship them to our sales representatives, who order the quantity they need and then distribute them to their customers.

Isn’t the greener path to move towards paperless catalogs and ordering?

Yes. We’re paper-intensive, but we’re reducing that. Customers can go online and page through a virtual brochure. But that approach doesn’t yet address the needs of our face-to-face sales process. We’re very careful about altering that process, but we also have a robust online business and we are experimenting with lower-paper workflows.

In addition to the web, we have mobile apps for consumers and our sales representatives to place their orders. In Eastern Europe, where a smaller volume of business lets us experiment more easily, we’re testing a paperless sales model.

Recycled is considered the greenest option, since it reduces the amount of trees that are felled. Yet supplies are limited. How do you meet your enormous appetite for paper?

Yes, so we’re tackling the paper problem through a number of efforts. Last year, we launched our Hello Green Tomorrow initiative, which ties together our global environmental management work, including paper, forestry conservation, and palm oil. As part of that we announced the Avon Paper Promise, where we instituted very stringent internal guidelines for our paper buyers.

The policy was developed with input from several environmental NGOs, including the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). In October 2010 we were invited to join the Global Forest & Trade Network (GFTN), a WWF program to end illegal logging and improve some of the world’s most threatened forests.

Our goal is that by 2020 — and I’m certain we’ll do it sooner — 100 percent of our paper will be either Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)-certified or post-consumer recycled content. FSC is our preference among the “green” options for paper, when possible. But FSC is still evolving, and at any given moment, there may not be sufficient supplies available to match the size of our paper needs.

Currently, 74 percent of our product brochures, which account for the vast majority of our paper use, have already met the Paper Promise commitment. Of that, about 25 percent of our paper is already FSC-certified, and the remainder is recycled or carries other certification.

What about product packaging?

Our impact on paper is largely driven by our brochures. Because of our direct sales approach, we tend to have far less packaging per product than brands whose products sit on a shelf in a store. In those environments, the products need more packaging to prevent damage. They need more visible branding too, to fight for a buyer’s attention. We actually don’t use cartons for a lot of our products, so for instance, a tube of moisturizer won’t be delivered in a box, packed into yet another container.

A challenge with programs such as Paper Promise is to induce change beyond your operations. How do you see Avon’s efforts in this respect?

We’ve learned that the impacts beyond us depend on our size, but also on our image. With paper, for instance, we are such a huge buyer globally that we are in strong position to influence supply trends. When we press for more FSC paper, suppliers see that demand and will alter their growing and purchasing habits in turn.

Palm oil is an environmental hot spot because tropical forests are being razed to plant palm plantations. How does this differ from the challenge you face with paper?

In some ways, paper is an easier problem to solve. In part, because we have more weight given how much we buy. But also because forests can be maintained sustainably, over decades, so that trees that are cut down can be replaced. And recycled paper offers another option. With palm, the conversion from forest to plantation cannot as easily be reversed.

The other difference is the degree of our influence. In palm oil, it’s almost the reverse: we have little buying power but enormous visibility. Food accounts for a far larger share of palm oil consumption — more than 80 percent — than cosmetics, so changes in that industry are the real driver of change. In truth, even if we stopped using palm oil tomorrow, there wouldn’t have a major impact on global palm markets. But lending our name to the issue raises it in the minds of many who wouldn’t otherwise know.

What we’ve done through the Avon Palm Oil Promise is to commit to buy only certified sustainable palm oil through the purchase of Green Palm certificates. This year we became the first major beauty company to hit the 100-percent goal.

So given Avon’s relatively small size as a palm oil user, how do the company’s actions influence other buyers?

We work with the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) to help influence industry practices. There are those NGOs who criticize the Roundtable’s efforts precisely because it engages with companies, who feel that commercial buyers are the source of the problem. I see it differently: that you have to bring everybody — the planters, buyers, and environmentalists — to the table. RSPO is the one body right now that is trying to pull everyone together. We’re doing this through Green Palm certificates, where we buy “book and claim” certificates to support plantations that commit to grow palm in a sustainable, verifiable way.

Our goal is not just to do our purchasing sustainably, but also to help drive demand for sustainable palm oil and influence other bigger buyers. We can help by raising the awareness of sustainable palm oil, increasing the supply of it, and then, through that, reducing the pressure on forests and on the endangered species that live in these endangered forests.

Palm oil aside, critics have charged that the industry has a poor track record in terms of making ingredients transparent. In fact, the U.S. Congress is considering labeling rules to require fuller disclosure. How does Avon approach this issue?

The cosmetic and personal care industry has one of the longest safety records of any, and Avon is especially proud of our 125-year commitment to safety. As one example, in a recent report on breast cancer and environmental exposures by the Institute of Medicine, the findings did not support the risk of cosmetic ingredients as a cause of concern.

Avon adheres to all labeling requirements in the more than 100 countries in which we do business. Complete ingredient disclosure is found on product labels and avon.com according to the strict guidelines established by governing bodies, allowing consumers to make personal choices on products they select.

For many companies, health and environment are lightning-rod issues, attracting lots of outside attention. But studies show consumers, in aggregate, put such concerns further down their list. How do you reconcile this?

For better or worse, most customers of any brand don’t care too terribly much what’s coming out of the back end a factory in Guangzhou. We hope more will care, since we work to keep those waste flows in accord with the best global practices. But we know from marketing studies that most of what motivates the customers are the brochures, the samples, what they see in their hands. However, numerous studies show that customers — including Avon customers — increasingly consider environmental issues as a factor in brand choice, with some studies showing an 80 or even 90 percentile level of interest.

As a result, it may be hard to say clearly that sustainability policy X drove Y sales. But we also know that sustainability is a decision with very little downside –internally with our employees or externally with suppliers and customers. And there’s tremendous upside in terms of cost reduction, risk management, and employee engagement. And it is, quite simply, the right thing to do.

What’s an example of the cost reductions that you’ve found from these efforts?

We find that there’s real passion around these issues, and that leads to real change, and genuine improvements in operations. Take Brazil, our biggest market. As you can imagine, when you’ve got hundreds of thousands of sales representatives, delivering their orders can mean criss-crossing trucks.

As part of a program requesting green improvements from our employees, the team in Brazil mapped out all these routes to find and eliminate the overlap. It was a massive project, but the savings has been amazing–in man-hours, in fuel, in speed of delivery and, ultimately, the environmental impact. And this came from someone just saying, “You know what? We have to do this better.”


TRUTH SQUAD

Checking industry claims with NRDC’s sustainability experts

Few would think of Avon as a forestry expert. Yet palm plantations in tropical Asia provide plant oils for its cosmetics. And temperate North American forests are a source of paper for its catalogs. In both markets, harmful deforestation is an ongoing threat, one that Avon is countering using its buying power and influence. NRDC experts laud Avon’s efforts in these areas but would like to see the company take even tougher steps to lower its impact and help accelerate wider change.

For palm oil, Avon has pledged to buy enough GreenPalm Certificates to cover all of its global demand. The certificate system works by offering farmers a premium price for palm grown in ways that are certified as environmentally and socially responsible, that do not destroy primary forest, and where farmers have committed to continually improve their operations. The premium paid for certificates to qualified farms acts as an incentive to lure others to improve their growing practices.

The rub? By design, certificate buyers such as Avon generally don’t receive delivery of the actual sustainably-grown oil their certificates bought. Rather, because of the way palm oil is traded, the certified crop is comingled with conventional palm oil from other producers at each stage of distribution.

This approach is “a good first step,” since it spurs farmers to change practices and boosts the total harvest of more sustainable oil, all while working within existing market mechanisms, saysDebbie Hammel, an NRDC senior resource specialist based in San Francisco. Yet Avon and others can do better, she adds. “NRDC believes that companies should progressively work to clean up their supply chains,” by requiring physical delivery of the certified palm oil, says Hammel. “This is more challenging that buying certificates, but it would ensure that none of the oil used is resulting from the harmful impacts of conventional production.”

Likewise, in its paper purchases, Avon is doing good work now but could be doing better, saysDarby Hoover, a senior resource specialist in NRDC’s San Francisco office. She lauds Avon’s commitment to buy paper certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) yet would to see Avon commit to buy a larger share of its paper from recycled sources. Recycled is better than FSC paper because to no trees are felled when making new paper from old. Moreover, less energy and chemicals are consumed to transform old paper into to recycled stock, compared with converting wood pulp into virgin paper, says Hoover.

“Avon should set a public target of 10 percent post-consumer recycled content and work towards 30 percent.” Putting that goal in writing, says Hoover, will drive industry-wide change, giving paper makers a clear incentive to buy more waste paper to convert into more recycled paper. “I’m not discouraging the use of FSC-certified paper, but there’s a hierarchy and recycled in better,” she says. — Adam Aston

 

Book Review — High Voltage: The Fast Track to Plug In the Auto Industry | OnEarth

Jim Motavalli | Rodale Books, 272 pp., $24.99

When the Toyota Prius debuted in the United States a decade ago, reactions were polarized. Fans loved its tantalizing mileage; skeptics scoffed at its relatively high cost and smug eco-imaging. Today, with more than two million sold, the groundbreaking gas-electric hybrid is as uncontroversial as it is unsexy, its success a profitable reward for an early, risky bet on green technology.

In High Voltage, the longtime automotive journalist Jim Motavalli argues that we’re at the start of a similar arc with electric vehicles, or EVs. As these finally hit the streets, we’re still early in the fascination-versus-skepticism phase. Pundits fret over “range anxiety” — how far an EV can go on a charge — while consumers are drawn to the remarkable mileage, the equivalent of as much as 100 miles per gallon of gasoline.

High Voltage: The Fast Track to Plug in the auto industry Riding shotgun with Motavalli, readers get a sense of how this technology may not only electrify most new cars (either partially or completely) but also remake the auto industry, rewire our electrical grid, and redefine how and where we refuel — all while lowering oil consumption and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

For the lay reader, Motavalli breaks down the basics of the technology, untangling the often confusing taxonomy of subspecies. There are the now-familiar gas-electric hybrids, such as the Prius, which are never plugged in. There are plug-in hybrids, such as the Volt, which recharge from an outlet but also have a gas engine for extended range. And there are the truest EVs, such as Nissan’s Leaf, which use no gasoline, drawing all their energy from a supersize battery pack.

If you think the $40,000-plus Volt is too costly, Motavalli writes, blame the battery. Higher-capacity batteries may spell the difference between success and failure, which explains, he says, why “battery companies have become the rock stars of the EV business.”

How and where EVs recharge is shaping up to be a monumental technology shift in its own right. From developing a safe, standard design for EV plugs to transforming the grid to handle the EV era, the effort has pulled in some big newcomers to the auto biz. There’s Southern California Edison, which is working out the kinks to install at-home and public charging points. Then there’s GE, which is fortifying the grid for EVs and rolling out “smart grid” technologies, including curbside gizmos that will allow even garageless city dwellers to recharge.

China, already the world’s largest auto market, looms as the EV industry’s game changer. China’s top battery maker, BYD (which is one-tenth owned by Warren Buffett), is targeting the U.S. market with both battery and plug-in hybrid models, the latter priced just south of $30,000, about $10,000 less than the Volt. They’re still crude, and safety is a question, Motavalli reports, but the same was said of the first Japanese imports in the 1960s, and those turned out to be harbingers of a sea change in design and efficiency.

Motavalli concedes that “because of high cost, range issues, relatively low fuel prices, and a scarcity of federal incentives,” EVs may yet hit one of the potholes that has crashed past runs. The odds are with them, though. High long-term oil prices are driving the shift, as are moves toward higher fuel-efficiency standards. Without some measure of electrification, Motavalli contends, few manufacturers will be able to sell in tomorrow’s car markets.

A decade from now, EVs may be just one more kind of vehicle stuck in traffic. That would be exactly the sort of humdrum success EV players hope for. And it would be great for the environment, too.

View and comment on the original story at http://www.onearth.org/article/high-voltage-the-fast-track-to-plug-in-the-auto-industry.

Meet the Change Makers: Tiffany’s Diamonds and Gold Get Greenish Sparkle With Stance Against Pebble Mine | OnEarth

Most businesses hungrily pursue new sources of vital raw materials. Tiffany & Co., by contrast, has begun to forge a different path. In the last several years, the company has taken an increasingly public and vocal stand against an enormous gold mine that has been proposed at the headwaters of Bristol Bay, Alaska. Pebble Mine, as the project is known, is estimated to hold more than $300 billion worth of gold ore and other precious metals.

Publicly listed Tiffany & Co. traces its roots back to 1837, when Charles Lewis Tiffany and John Young set up a “stationery and fancy goods emporium” in New York City. Today, with $3.1 billion in sales last year, the storied jeweler has a very big appetite for gold, diamonds, and similar earth-borne treasures. Yet Tiffany CEO and chairman Michael J. Kowalski sees the near-term costs of squelching a new gold supply as far outweighed by Pebble Mine’s potential risk to the environmental, and in turn, to Tiffany’s brand.

The proposed mine lies within a 40,000-square-mile watershed, filigreed by dozens of pristine rivers and tributaries, that is home to beavers, moose, and caribou, which feed off summertime plant growth. A huge population of bears, as well as the native Yupik people, relies on the annual return of spawning sockeye salmon, a flood of wild fish that ranks among of the world’s largest such runs. Opponents argue the fishery — worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year — and the broader ecosystem could be imperiled by mine construction and runoff of acids and dissolved metals. “I can’t think of a mine that threatens more ecological value in North America than Pebble,” Kowalski said.

Tiffany’s take on mining issues has evolved over a two-decade span that roughly coincides with Kowalski’s tenure, during which time the company has faced the overlapping crises of blood diamonds and conflict gold. Mining practices in strife- and famine-torn regions have led to grievous human rights abuses, as warring factions fight for access to mineral wealth, as well as environmental damage, such as mercury pollution from small-scale gold-mining operations. Today, the company states flatly that, with respect to mining: “We recognize that some public lands are simply not suitable for mining, and that their value for recreation and conservation is far greater than their value as a source of minerals.”

Michael J. Kowalski

Tiffany’s increasingly visible commitment to sustainability is documented in its first corporate sustainability report, released last month. In addition to advocating for responsible mining, the company has also focused on its retail operations — manufacturing its iconic blue boxes and bags, for instance, exclusively from materials certified by the Forest Stewardship Council. Efficiency upgrades and solar panels in its stores have lowered greenhouse gas emissions by more than nine percent per square foot since 2006.

OnEarth contributor Adam Aston recently discussed Tiffany’s evolving approach to sustainability with Kowalski at his office — decorated with photographs of family travels to national parks in the United States and overseas — at the company’s Fifth Avenue headquarters in midtown Manhattan.

Tiffany & Co. depends on mining, yet mining is destructive by nature. How do you decide one proposed project is promising, but another, like Pebble, is not?

It’s difficult for us to make definitive statements about what constitutes responsible mining today. But in a simplistic sense, we’re clear that it’s better to extract minerals from a legacy mine than to threaten a pristine ecosystem. That led us to Rio Tinto’s Bingham Canyon Mineoutside of Salt Lake City. The precious metals used in our U.S. manufacturing come from there as well as from recycled sources.

The mine has been there for 100 years. There are legacy issues, certainly, but today the mine is being managed responsibly. I know Mr. Redford would disagree [Ed. note: Writing for OnEarth’s Community Blog, NRDC Trustee Robert Redford has compared the threat of the proposed Pebble Mine to the environmental damage done by Bingham Canyon Mine]. But it is a worthwhile debate.

Look, we all may not be pleased with the standard of U.S. environmental regulations for mining, but they are pretty good in a global context. The greater concern is mines in less-regulated areas. Isn’t the more positive thing to source from a nearby mine that is monitored than from one that is far away, where we have no influence, and regulations are practically nonexistent, such as in, say, Papua New Guinea?

For those reasons, some have suggested that Pebble Mine would operate using the world’s best practices, including regulation and monitoring.

The argument has been made: “Well, if you really care about responsible mining, you should be a supporter of Pebble because it will be the most responsibly built and managed mine in the history of mining, and it is unfair to tar Pebble with the abuses of past mining practices.” In fairness to the Pebble Partnership (a joint venture between a subsidiary of Anglo Americanand Northern Dynasty Minerals), I want to make this clear: We have no doubt that they would do everything possible to develop that mine as responsibly as they possibly can. And I’m going to presume that the state of Alaska will do everything possible to make certain that happens if the mine goes forward.

That said, we have reached the conclusion — as have many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and local Alaska residents — that the risk is simply too great. Despite the best of intentions, the location of this mine is so inherently problematic that it is simply not worth the risk of a catastrophic event. Other jewelers have come to the same conclusion and, like us, signed The Bristol Bay Protection pledge.

Is this is first such position you’ve taken on gold mining?

No. Starting back around 1994, we began receiving a fair amount of unsolicited mail asking us to oppose the New World gold mine that was planned right outside of Yellowstone National Park. At that point, we didn’t have the ability to see into our gold or silver supply chain, nor had our company policy on these issues been developed.

We began making inquiries, and as we learned more we thought, “If the New World mine is built, and there’s a catastrophic failure of the tailings dam, the flood would destroy a good part of Yellowstone National Park. That’s not a good thing for the jewelry industry.” It was that simple. We drew the conclusion that, as leaders of the jewelry industry — not necessarily by size but certainly by reputation — it was appropriate for us to speak out in opposition.

When did you begin to formalize your mining policies?

About 10 years ago, we began to see concerns about gold mining enter the mainstream media. So around 2001, we started making inquiries to the NGO community, saying, “We’re very interested in responsibly mined metals, but what should we do?” The response shocked us because, back then, a lot of NGOs said, “There are no standards of responsible mining yet. We really can’t tell you where to go.”

In 2002, we began working with NGOs like Earthworks to move forward on this issue. Today we abide by a set of core principles around responsible development and operation of large-scale mines.

Tiffany is synonymous with diamonds. How did the crisis of blood diamonds influence your position on mining?

Our experience with blood diamonds certainly raised our awareness about the environmental and human rights risks connected to metal mining. They weren’t remotely on our radar screen when the stories first surfaced. That’s because, back in in the early ’80s, we did not manufacture the majority of our jewelry. We bought it from manufacturers around the world, primarily from Europe, and some from the U.S. We would also buy polished diamonds — not rough unfinished diamonds — from diamantaires* in historic diamond centers such as New York, Tel Aviv, or Antwerp. Because of this arrangement, we had little insight into the supply chain beyond those levels, and quite frankly, little incentive to make needed improvements to our supply practices. [*Ed. note: Diamantaire is an industry term, describing buyers, traders, and artisans who work in the middle layer of the supply chain. Diamantaires buy, cut and polish raw diamonds before they’re set into jewelry to sell to larger wholesalers or retail jewelers.]

So dependency on diamantaires left you with little control over the origin of the gems?

Yes. Then, in essence, we became our own diamantaires. We had also undertaken a separate effort to vertically integrate our supply chain, beginning some years before the blood diamond problem first surfaced. The company was growing rapidly, and we needed to assure the flow of supply of manufactured goods, and later raw materials. We committed to cutting and polishing our own diamonds so that we could buy rough diamonds at the mine head. That gave us better knowledge of where a particular diamond came from.

The horrors of Sierra Leone crystallized this part of the strategy. We knew we absolutely had to be able to identify the country of origin and, ultimately, the mine of origin of as much of our raw materials as we could.

It’s an ongoing process. We’re not all the way there, even today. But we’re confident that over time, for diamonds, we can identify the mine of origin, and attest to the social and environmental conditions at those mine sites.

Many industries have abandoned such vertical integration, arguing that high-volume specialists can be more efficient. How has taking control over your manufacturing process affected your bottom line?

By streamlining the supply chain, we have been able to capture a greater share of the profits typically taken at each step, from mine to trader, from trader to polisher, and so on. The vertical integration has been a strong profit-driver, and it’s also allowed us to try to exercise some leadership on corporate social responsibility issues around the supply chain. For example, we have invested heavily in places like Botswana and Namibia to train diamond setters and polishers. By investing in those communities, we’ve helped create industries that deliver more income than the simple extraction of gems could alone.

We’re probably rather unique, I think, for a retailer. We are without a doubt the most vertically integrated retail jeweler in the world. We make about 65 percent of all our jewelry at facilities here in the U.S., at a site in Westchester County, New York, and another in Providence, Rhode Island. This includes the jewelry we sell around the world — in fact, we’re a net exporter, even to China.

Other industries have established standards — I’m thinking of industry-created definitions of “organic” in the food business. Tiffany has been outspoken about the need for third-party standards for responsible mining. What progress are you making?

We very much believe that if there are to be standards for human rights and environmental practices in the jewelry industry, there must be genuine third-party certification, where NGOs and other stakeholders participate in the establishment of those standards. You saw this with blood diamonds. I think the industry rallied dramatically to correct the problem by creating theKimberley Process [to certify rough diamonds as conflict-free], which I think has largely been a success.

We have every control in place to be certain that diamonds from Tiffany only have Kimberley certificates. Can I make a 100 percent affirmative claim that nothing here has every come through? No one can. And that is, I think, where some of the biggest challenges are, in trying to assure supply chain integrity.

Does this position create tension with the mining industry?

We take great umbrage at criticisms we’ve faced. Some of the pro-mining folks have said of our efforts, “This is all about public relations.” In response, I say, “Hold on. We’ve been concerned about this for almost 20 years. This is not about greenwashing. This is something we’ve been committed to. It’s what our customers want. It’s about the business imperative.”

In fact, we’re pro-responsible mining because we think that’s what is essential for the growth and long-term economic health of the jewelry industry.


TRUTH SQUAD — Checking industry claims with NRDC’s sustainability experts

The prestige of Tiffany’s brand means there is real force behind the company’s efforts to reshape the way jewelry retailers and the broader mining industry are approaching sustainability, says Joel Reynolds of the Natural Resources Defense Council, who directs its urban west program and the marine mammal protection and Southern California ecosystem projects. He also leads the Save Bristol Bay campaign, bringing together a broad coalition of interests opposing the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, Alaska. In particular, he says, “Tiffany has a unique ability to draw attention to [Pebble Mine].”

As Tiffany turned up the volume on the issue, other major retailers such as Walmart and Target — which sell high volumes of lower-cost gems, gold and other jewelry — have taken notice, says Reynolds. This is leading to a process that he believes will improve industry practices and lead other major jewelry retailers to sign on to the The Bristol Bay Protection pledge, as Tiffany has done. At the core of the issue, Reynolds said, is the question of whether the mine can be built and operated without significant risk. “Under comparable hydrological circumstances, 93 percent of similar mines in the U.S. have failed to meet the standards they commit to in their original environmental impact assessments,” he notes, pointing to a 2006 study of water-quality problems at hard-rock mines.

Key state and federal deadlines for Pebble’s developers to submit permit applications for the mine were originally set for this year, but have been pushed back to 2012 and 2013. This suggests opposition to the project is getting traction, Reynolds says. Outside Alaska, the mining reform organization EarthWorks has successfully lobbied more than 60 jewelers to take the “No Dirty Gold” pledge, which would apply to the Pebble Mine. Tiffany & Co. is a long-time signatory. Target is the most recent retailer to sign on, in March of this year.

By taking this voluntary pledge, jewelers agree to abide by The Golden Rules of responsible mining: to ensure that toxins, such as sulfuric acid, don’t contaminate the land, water, and air, and that workers rights and labor standards are respected. Still, critics charge that until a third-party certification system for gold mining exists, efforts to clean up the industry will remain piecemeal and difficult to verify. — Adam Aston


Please view and comment on the original story here — the clicks help my freelancing goals. http://www.onearth.org/article/meet-the-change-makers-tiffany-jewelry

Meet the Change Makers: PUMA’s Sustainable Track Record | OnEarth

The sportswear giant is first out of the starting block with an aggressive effort to track environmental performance

PUMA has a long history of winning in dramatic style. At Beijing’s 2008 Olympic Games, Jamaica’s Usain Bolt savored his world record-setting victories in two sprints by holding up his golden PUMA track shoes in a victorious archer’s pose. In 1970, Brazilian soccer legend Pele drew TV close-ups when he interrupted the opening whistle of the World Cup to bend down and tie his PUMA soccer shoes. For the exposure, PUMA reportedly paid $120,000. Decades earlier, some of the first-ever spiked track shoes helped Jesse Owens sprint to quadruple gold-medal success at the 1936 Berlin Olympics. The shoes came from PUMA’s forerunner, founded in Germany in 1924. All along, PUMA has remained a formidable contender in the devilishly competitive business of sporting gear. While continuing a tradition of high-profile athletic endorsements, a steady stream of alliances with leading designers — including Jill Sander, Philippe Starck and Alexander McQueen — has helped the German company resurrect its brand in the U.S.

The man credited for its resurgence, and for driving sales to $3.6 billion last year, is Jochen Zeitz. Appointed to run PUMA in 1993 at age 30 — at the time, this made him the youngest-ever chairman of a listed German company — Zeitz, a German nativehas also distinguished the company as a sustainability pioneer, especially in the self-assessment and publication of its environmental impact. In 2008, he established a foundation to support innovative, sustainable solutions that balance conservation, community, culture and commerce. Last year, 48-year-old Zeitz worked with Anselm Grün, a Benedectine monk, to co-author Prayer, Profit & Principles – Monk and Manager, a book about how to confront pressing social and environmental issues.

Earlier this year, PUMA published the results of the first ever “environmental profit and loss” statement (EP&L) released by a major corporation. Building on the convention of corporate sustainability reporting, triple-bottom-line assessments, and more recently initiativesto report greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, PUMA’s EP&L attempts to put a dollar value on environmental damage not typically captured by standard financial measures. For the exercise, PUMA assessed the cascade of impacts caused by producing shoes and sportswear: from raw material production, such as cotton farming and oil drilling, to raw material processing, involving leather tanneries, the chemical industry and oil refineries.

Working with accounting giantPricewaterhouseCoopers and data firmTrucost, in May PUMA pegged the ecological costs of its operations for GHG emissions and water use at $124 million for 2010. Of the total, $9.5 million is due to PUMA’s direct actions, and the remaining $115 million are incurred in the chain of suppliers that deliver finished goods to the company. The approach is controversial. Critics have argued the system is too abstract to trigger meaningful change. But by putting a dollar value on the environmental impact of its production process, Zeitz contends PUMA is playing a “catalytic role” in helping to shift the way companies measure and record their costs, and ultimately reduce them. OnEarthcontributor Adam Aston recently spoke with Zeitz, who now serves as chief sustainability officer of PUMA’s parent company, PPR Group, as CEO of its Sport & Lifestyle Group, as well Chairman of the Board of PUMA about how the EP&L can help improve sustainability.

The corporate sustainability report is, for most companies, the most detailed assessment of their environmental impact. At PUMA, you took the process considerably further. What’s the benefit?

We’re moving away from the traditional sustainability report. Such reports are fine for senior management to chart broad efforts. But from the perspective of designers or buyers trying to understand the impact of their decisions on the environment, that approach isn’t specific enough.

That’s where the EP&L comes in. Used across the entire supply chain, it offers a better tool to look at product development and design decisions, to understand the impact of what raw materials we use, how the materials are processed, where our products are made, how they’re shipped, how we package, stock and sell them, and how we dispose of or recycle them.

What variables did you measure in your first EP&L?

The first two we focused on were carbon and water. In the next phase, to be announced shortly, we aim to add other environmental indicators, such as the precursors of smog and acid rain, waste reduction and land use impacts. Eventually, our goal is to track about 90 percent of our environmental impact. Beyond that, the final 10 percent, I think, will just get too complicated.

In phase two, we plan to assess the social impacts in sustainability, such as changes in standard of living, security and health of the communities where we and our contractors have impact.

Finally, in phase three, we want to broaden the scope to look, holistically, at the economic positives of business. If we’re truly comprehensive in this effort, we shouldn’t just look at negative things. The fact is that companies also do good things — creating jobs, paying taxes, fuelling economic growth, increasing wealth and improving quality of life. That’s also something that we want to start valuing.

What surprised you in your evaluation?

The real eye opener was how much of our impact happens so early in the supply chain. That’s when most of the carbon emissions are created and most of the water is consumed.

We estimate that over half of our carbon emissions happen in the production and processing of raw materials, in the raising of cattle for leather and treating that leather, for example.

That means that the second you decide what raw materials to use in your product, you’ve set in stone the bulk of that products’ environmental impact, no matter what happens later.

How are you using the EP&L findings to alter the way you do business?

These numbers show you where you can start to turn your product development in a better direction, by looking for alternative materials, investigating how they’re made, where and by whom. So the findings are influencing product design and development day-to-day, as well as manufacturing, sourcing, even marketing to a point. We’ve begun to share these findings with our suppliers, to help them understand why we’re strict about certain materials or processes.

Are consumers starting to see these changes?

In some cases, yes. For example, to cut the amount of cardboard in our shoe boxes, we worked with Yves Behar to create Clever Little Bag. It’s a design that cleverly combines a reusable bag with a cardboard frame. The approach does away with about two-thirds of the paper used in regular boxes — this saves trees, of course, but also huge volumes of electricity and water, given how paper is made. And since it has a built in handle, the design also eliminates the need for an extra bag at checkout. That makes it more convenient for the consumer. The process of designing this required that we coordinate with our suppliers in Asia to ensure the new approach didn’t cause troubles with how our shoes are packaged at the plant, then shipped and distributed.

Given that you don’t own most of the factories that supply PUMA sportswear, is it a challenge to push through these kinds of sustainable design decisions?

While we don’t own the factories or suppliers, we are deciding who our manufacturers will be, who our raw material suppliers are, where we buy our raw materials from, and so on. We have the ability to tell a factory: “Stop buying from that supplier.”

But, of course, there are cost implications. The full costs that we identified in our EP&L exercise are borne by all of the participants in our supply chain. Though we’re at the end of that chain, PUMA doesn’t pay the full cost of that EP&L.

That’s a reason we’re working to educate our suppliers. If we identify that the footprint of cushioning in our shoes, for example, is predominantly with the chemical industry, we can say to that industry and its suppliers: “Okay, guys, what can you do to shrink your footprint?” It’s got to be a joint initiative.

Do you worry that these efforts will drive up prices, and that higher price tags could turn off consumers?

Look, very little that we buy today is truly sustainable, but this effort has to start somewhere. I believe that brands have significant power to change consumer behavior. Consumers are starting to understand that, ultimately, we’re living on one planet and we have to look after it. There’s a natural survival mode that kicks in, where we are starting to realize that things are broken and we’ve got to change it.

For PUMA, the key is that we don’t over promise, and are very transparent and true to what we do, with honest communication about what we’ve accomplished and what we haven’t. Communicating these efforts is important: we don’t want to lose our customers’ trust by getting it wrong. Nor do we want to sell a greener product that is ignored.

We’re trying to sell a solution that is desirable in many ways­ besides its environmental impact — its design, materials, and its style. This effort has to include the consumer. Otherwise it’s not going to change things.

What have been the greatest challenges in deploying this method?

It’s not totally black and white, for sure. Data collection is a challenge, given how many suppliers feed materials into our products. But it can be done if the rules are set, and everybody plays along.

Then, of course, is the question of valuation. For example, there is not just one method of measuring the value of water or the cost of carbon.

For us, this meant being on the cautious side when it came to valuing environmental costs, generally opting for the higher cost estimate. So, for carbon, we take its social cost, around $90 per metric ton, many times the cost of a ton of carbon offsets in EU markets. The higher social cost of carbon reflects estimates of the future costs of climate change. [For background on how this value is calculated, check PUMA’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Valuation Model.]

Are you open to sharing these methods with your peers, to help them spread?

Yes, absolutely. For those that are serious and want to associate themselves with what we are doing in an open manner, we will also be open with them. We have already had a number of requests from the automotive, chemical and beverage industries, as well as from one of our competitors.

Sidebar – Truth Squad: A more environmental balance sheet

Why would a public company such as PUMA bother to report costs it isn’t required to? After all, tracking down water-use and carbon-emissions data for far-flung factories manufacturing countless products is a costly, complex effort, demanding time from top management at PUMA and its partners.

The goal is to turn transparency into a competitive advantage. In fact, while PUMA’s particular EP&L methodology is unique, it’s one of an emerging set of related standards for corporations to recognize, measure and report the non-financial impact of their activities. “Call it triple bottom line or sustainability accounting or CSR [for corporate sustainability reporting], dozens of standards are being developed that attempt to capture elements of companies’ environmental impact,” says Alisa Valderrama, a finance policy analyst at NRDC’s Center for Market Innovation. Some of the leading players in these efforts include Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Carbon Disclosure Project and CERES.

PUMA’s first effort, recording water and carbon costs on a profit and loss statement, may sound like a trivial bookkeeping shift, but the company is going a step further than most: Puma is not only disclosing impacts, but working to integrate what they learn into their bottom line. This means going beyond getting management to trim disproportionately high environmental costs. In the long term, such efforts can also help reduce the “material” risks to financial performance that companies are required to report. Energy shortages or toxic spills at a sub-contractor are examples of risks that could dent the annual returns of a company like PUMA. Lastly, share price could eventually benefit since some studies suggest that fuller disclosure of non-financial factors correlates with better investment returns.

“PUMA’s efforts sophisticated, a really holistic example,” Valderamma says. “This is costly, hard stuff: assessing your toll on the environment is not as easy as counting widgets coming of the assembly line.”

Yet she is frustrated with the broader state of reporting, because until such voluntary standards are incorporated into mainstream accounting and financial practices, their impact will be limited. “You want to get to the point where this is no longer rare and voluntary, but commonplace and expected, where Wall Street analysts are asking about EP&L in quarterly calls,” she says. “That will be the bellwether of real market change.” — Adam Aston

Meet the Change Makers: How Verizon is dialing in efficiency | OnEarth

Greening fleets, mining copper cables and tweaking data centers at Verizon

Verizon can trace its technological roots back to the 1880s, when Alexander Graham Bell’s invention first relayed voices between Manhattan and Boston. Now, as then, the New York-based company still connects old-fashioned phone calls. But these days, digital business services are emerging as big telco’s main focus, from tending corporations’ high-speed networks to building advanced mobile cell services that keep us connected everywhere.

As demand for these digital services grows, Verizon finds itself in a tight race for the top spot in the U.S. telecom market. With $107 billion in revenues last year, it trails only AT&T, which posted $113 billion in sales.

Verizon’s first chief sustainability officer, as well as vice president of supply chain, James “Jim” Gowen believes that focusing on green technology will offer Verizon a way to close the gap with its rival. The company’s efforts, Gowen points out, are already improving Verizon’s efficiency and reducing its environmental impact. In time, he says, they’ll open up new markets, too.

Verizon’s commitment to sustainability is still in its early stages. It was just two years ago that the company formally wove together a variety of ongoing eco efforts that were happening across its far-flung operations. Gowen, who is a long-time veteran of Verizon’s supply-chain operations, was promoted to his post in September 2009. Outside the office, he sits on the sustainability council at Penn State University’s school of business.

One of the biggest challenges to scaling up green efforts, Gowen admits, is Verizon’s enormous size. But that also means the impact of Verizon’s choices is proportionally large, he says.

OnEarth contributor Adam Aston recently spoke with Gowen to learn what lessons Verizon can offer other corporations greening their operations on a large scale.

What’s the scale of your global operations?

Verizon is bigger and broader than many folks realize. We have more than 190,000 employees globally, and have followed our customers overseas, so we’re doing business in more than 150 countries, with more than 90 million retail customers.

In terms of facilities, we have approximately 30,000, ranging from remote equipment sheds to very large data centers. To keep our cellular network humming, we operate approximately 40,000 cell towers.

Only a few dozen U.S. companies listed on the stock exchange, out of more than 7,000, have appointed chief sustainability officers. What led Verizon to take that step?

It was a long time in coming but was really formalized in 2009, when we surveyed green efforts across the company. Verizon was already doing a lot of work in sustainability, but our efforts were separate and often unaware of related work elsewhere in the company.

When we looked at our two big divisions — wireless and conventional wire-line services — it was amazing to me how much was going on. But it hadn’t been brought together yet. So the decision was made to create an office of sustainability, led by a new chief sustainability officer.

The next decision had to do with what the main focus of this role would be: more operational or more policy and marketing? And that affected where the new sustainability office would be based. Some companies opt for Washington, D.C., which implies more of a policy focus. We chose to emphasize operations, so the role was put into the supply chain area, under my watch, at our operations center in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.

Why now?

The pressure was coming from both outside and inside. From our corporate customers, the number of requests to document our sustainability practices as part of quotes for new business was growing steadily. Some of our partners are documenting their carbon footprints, for example, and need us to be able to estimate the impact of the services we provide to them.

Internal pressure was rising, too. There was a groundswell of employees eager to see change move faster. I was getting very frank calls, with folks telling me things like, “I work in Tampa and we don’t recycle.” That caught my attention right away. Green practices are becoming more and more important to attracting and keeping top people.

You mentioned that Verizon operates a huge fleet of vehicles. Is it a target for your green efforts?

The fleet is a major focus. On the road, we operate the third-largest private fleet in the United States, with more than 39,000 vans, trucks, and cars. Keeping them running requires 56 million gallons of fuel every year. Right now, about six percent of our fleet runs on alternative fuels. We’re aiming to boost that figure to 15 percent by 2015.

In 2010, for instance, Verizon added 1,600 alternative-energy vehicles, including specialized vehicles, such as our aerial trucks, which use a hydraulic arm to lift up a worker in a bucket and access overhead wires, as well as hybrid pickup trucks and sedans. As fuel supplies become more reliable, we’re boosting our use of biodiesel and ethanol as well.

It can be simple stuff, too. By discouraging idling by our fleet drivers, we estimate that we saved 1.7 million gallons of fuel in 2009 — roughly the same amount used by 2,800 average cars over a year.

We’re also working with other big fleet operators. In April 2011, Verizon was among five charter members of a new National Clean Fleet Program initiative by President Obama. Some of the other participants are our day-to-day competitors, but by working together, if we go to the auto industry to request greener features, its more likely those changes will happen.

How are you improving the environmental performance of your network and data centers?

Verizon is continuously upgrading our network of cables. The oldest parts of our network were built more than a century ago. There are many wires and switches that date back decades, all of which are being replaced with lighter, smaller, more energy-efficient digital systems. For example, in recent years, we’ve been replacing miles and miles of aging copper cables — some of the older ones are enormous, as thick as an arm — with fiber optics. Given the high value of copper lately, recycling this copper has been a significant source of revenue. It’s like mining our own cable network. These upgrades all deliver improvements in energy use.

Replacing conventional networks with fiber optics can deliver big savings. At a lab in Columbia, Md., Verizon is developing ways to use optical fiber in local area networks, to and from buildings on a campus or to homes in a neighborhood. To date, these have used conventional, older cable technology. Making a switch cuts the amount of power needed to send data between buildings by up to 75 percent and can deliver signals as far as 12 miles without the need to amplify them.

And within our data centers, we’re pursuing ways to lower energy use. We’ve set energy-efficiency standards for the gear we buy from suppliers of network equipment. These standards have saved some 90 million kWh of power consumption and avoided approximately 115 million pounds of CO2 emissions.

Speaking of greenhouse gas emissions, many companies have announced targets they’re working toward. Verizon hasn’t done that. How are you approaching this problem?

We are looking to lower emissions, but our focus has been on what we call an Environmentally Neutral Engineering Policy: for every kWh of demand we add to the network, we aim to remove one or more somewhere else. This has helped us cut emissions. We focus on the energy consumed by our network because electricity accounts for about 90 percent of Verizon’s overall carbon footprint. Of the remainder, about seven percent comes from fuelling our fleet, and most of the balance from operating our buildings.

Company-wide, the push to cut carbon really began in 2009. By the following year, we had lowered our CO2 emissions by a bit more than two percent. That reduction came despite double-digit growth in our network: the volume of data we moved grew by about 16 percent, to nearly 79 million terabytes. Measured this way, our “carbon intensity” efficiency improved substantially: we produced about 16 percent less CO2 for each unit of data we handled. In April, we announced our commitment to reduce our carbon intensity by another 15 percent and I’m happy to tell you that as of the third quarter we are on track.

Even as electronic gizmos become more efficient, they seem to be multiplying at our homes and offices. What is Verizon doing about its customers’ environmental impact?

In April of last year, Verizon launched two new energy efficient set-top boxes, which reduced energy usage by about a third for our customers. Then in January, we were certified as an Energy Star Service Provider for set-top boxes, and we’re now installing four different Energy Star models.

Beyond energy we realize that there are many other “green” opportunities with consumer devices. We’re working to reduce packaging and suspected toxins in our electronics. Working with cell phone makers, we’ve rolled out handsets with greener features.

Motorola’s Citrus, for example, is free of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs), chemicals that are believed to pose health hazards. The handset is manufactured from 25 percent post-consumer recycled plastic. Likewise, the packaging is four-fifths recycled, and the user manual is made from 100 percent recycled paper. And as a whole, the cell phone is certified CarbonFree through a deal with Carbonfund.org.

Verizon has played a big role in the Internet revolution, a shift that has on one hand lowered paper use and travel, but on the other has spurred the spread of power-hungry electronics. What’s that next big transformation that will affect energy trends?

The smart grid and electric vehicles are just beginning to emerge. We expect that in the long term they will significantly cut the use of fuel for transportation. Verizon is positioned to play a big role in this shift, by developing information technology, security, and communications services to help the utility sector speed the rollout of the smart grid.

For example, our Internet Protocol and wireless networks are a good match for the sorts of billing, tracking, and management challenges that utilities and car owners will face in re-charging electric vehicles at home and while traveling. By the end of last year, we had contracted with more then 20 utilities to wirelessly connect more than one million meters back to the smart grid.


Sidebar: Truth squad

NRDC’s Samir Succar on the prospects for telcos to pave the way for a smarter grid 

In the realm of sustainability, it’s common for companies to point to future green goals, whether reduced emissions or planned product lines. This can make assessing their eco-progress more of an art than a science.

Consider Verizon’s big green bet on the smart grid, the next frontier in telcos’ efforts to shape the energy impact of their customers. The need to wirelessly link digital power meters and smart appliances to the grid promises huge energy savings. Verizon, like its peers, is tackling this opportunity, but it stands out with ambitious goals to operate smart grid applications on behalf of utilities, relying on its deep expertise with data centers and complex wireless transactions.

“Digitizing the grid holds enormous opportunity,” says NRDC’s smart grid expert Samir Succar, “but it remains to be seen if Verizon will be just a neutral party relaying information to the utility, or if it can really play a role shaping customers’ habits.”

To deliver savings, Verizon and other network operators will have to alter their emphasis on performance over efficiency. Consider a recent NRDC study that revealed that by not enabling energy-savings settings on set-top boxes, cable, satellite, and data providers were costing consumers $2 billion per year in wasted energy. Verizon and the others have responded to those criticisms by rolling out lower-energy devices. 

It’s tough to gauge who’s winning in the telcos’ race for sustainability. Both AT&T and Verizon appointed chief sustainability officers in 2009, but the third-place carrier, Sprint Nextel, beat its peers in a recent green ranking of U.S. companies. Sprint was first out of the gate with four environmentally responsible cell phones. It has also committed to a 90 percent rate of collecting discarded phones, taken steps to lower its junk mail output, and is targeting cuts of 15 percent to its overall emissions by 2017. 

–Adam Aston


URL for original story: http://www.onearth.org/article/meet-the-change-makers-verizon

Meet the Change Makers: Maersk Gets Shipshape | OnEarth

How the world’s largest shipping line orders up efficiency. Maersk Line executive Jacob Sterling tells us how.

If global commerce has a circulatory system, it’s the network of thousands of container vessels that ply the world’s oceans, moving goods from port to port. On a typical run, one of these floating juggernauts might pick up thousands of tons of the latest e-gizmos from Shanghai, then a load of toys from Hong Kong to deliver to U.S. consumers. On the return trip, it might haul grain and other commodities from the Midwest, along with recycled paper and metal scrap harvested from New York City’s trash. Over the past half-century, the worldwide adoption of neatly stackable, truck-sized container boxes has driven down freight costs by 99 percent while spurring growth in global trade nearly 100-fold. Without the humble container ship, your glossy iPad would still be a figment of some designer’s imagination.

The dark side of this oceanic trade boom is pollution. Because they burn “bunker fuel” — the dirtiest and therefore cheapest type of oil  — the world’s floating freighters emit staggering volumes of black, sooty pollution. Recent EU estimates suggest that in a single year, a single gargantuan container ship vents the same amount of smog-forming sulfur oxide (SOx) gases as 50 million cars annually. By that count, it takes less than two dozen of the largest container vessels to belch out the same amount of pollution as the world’s entire stock of roughly one billion vehicles. In fact, the world’s freighter fleet is responsible for about 3.5 percent of global warming emissions, about twice the share of the aviation sector.

In the face of these numbers, Maersk Line, the world’s largest operator of container vessels, is taking steps to green its operations. This isn’t an entirely altruistic effort on Maersk’s part — it knows new air-pollution rules are soon tightening in both the EU and the United States and wants to get the jump. Last February, the Copenhagen-based company announced that it plans to build the largest, most energy-efficient container ships on the seas. In a deal with Korea’s Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering, Maersk inked plans to buy 10 new energy-efficient vessels, with options for 20 more, to be delivered by 2016. They ain’t cheap: At around $190 million apiece, and more than 1,300 feet long, the new ships will carry 18,000 containers apiece — 16 percent more than today’s largest vessels. Maersk says they will emit 20 percent less carbon dioxide per container, and featuring advanced new engines, consume 35 percent less fuel per container.

OnEarth’s Adam Aston talked with Jacob Sterling, Maersk Line’s head of climate and environment, about how the company’s very big boats can make a smaller impact on the environment.

Freight ships are among the largest mobile objects in the world. How do you decrease the environmental impact of their operations?

One way is what we call “slow steaming.” In a vessel as big as a freighter, if you cut speed by 20 percent, we found you cut fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by as much as 40 percent. We don’t run all lines 20 percent slower all the time, but we aim to do it as much as possible. For example, we may run slow on a delivery of low-value scrap metal and paper going from Europe to China, but boost speed on the return trip when we’re moving more valuable, time-sensitive fashion apparel. Also, if you slow a given vessel down by 20 percent you might need to add more ships to that route to ensure reliable service for the customer. Overall, though, we see 5 to 15 percent savings in fuel and CO2 emissions on routes that are slow steaming.

Are your big shipping customers asking for greener shipping options?

It’s growing in importance and is part of a mix of services they are seeking. But it can be challenging for them because the push to save energy and cut costs runs counter to many years of trying to make supply chains more efficient. That means that until now the paradigm has been: faster, faster, faster. So much so that in 2007, we took delivery of new, super-fast freight vessels — compared to regular freighters, they’re practically speed boats — that could go almost 30 knots [35 mph]. Conventional vessels cruise at around 25 knots [29 mph], and slow steaming is 20 knots [23 mph].

But now we’re selling off the speed boats because they’re so inefficient at slower speeds. Instead, the vessels we will take delivery of this year will have wide hull shapes and advanced engines that recapture waste heat, to be more efficient, not faster.

Is there any promise in efforts to replace the pollutant-heavy bunker fuel with biofuels?

We’re looking into it. But the volumes we need mean it’s a ways off still. The first generation of biofuels has been disappointing. Often these fuels don’t score well in terms of how much CO2 they actually save [over their entire life cycle] relative to fossil fuels. And the quantities, so far, are too low for our needs. But we’re optimistic. Unlike jets, which need very pure biofuels that remain stable at very low temperatures, our engines could work on biofuels that are less refined. It would certainly help with the challenge we face of getting sulfur out of our fuel supply, because biofuels have close to none.

In port cities such as Los Angeles, Seattle and Hong Kong, freighters are a major source of air pollution. How can you change this?

While in port and while approaching them, we’ve already begun to switch to cleaner marine diesel fuels. In Hong Kong, one of the world’s busiest ports, we led this effort, voluntarily, in a way that led about a dozen other shipping lines to do the same.

In port, the cleaner marine diesel we use is closer to automotive diesel. In Hong Kong, for instance, the fuel we’re using has just 0.1 to 0.5 percent sulfur, whereas regular bunker fuel has up to 20 times more. Bunker fuel isn’t like normal oil. It’s more like asphalt. It has to be heated first before it can be pumped into engines to be burnt.

What about using plug-in electric sources in port, as are offered in Los Angeles and other ports? Are those a factor in cutting pollution, and are they spreading in use?

Shoreside power is certainly a way to cut pollution — but it’s only an option in ports. We are looking into shoreside power, but it does have the downside that we then become dependent on the power sources available locally. Most often electricity production is based on fossil fuels, so it is not a silver bullet.

How well is the global shipping business prepared for the inevitability of rising oil prices?

Higher and more volatile fuel prices have become the new normal in the shipping industry. Increasing fuel prices increase the price on transportation, but they also has the effect that those shipping lines that are best at saving energy and fuel save a lot of money and are more profitable. So increasing fuel prices can actually drive development of cleaner shipping.

Step back and consider the full scope of Maersk Line’s efforts to green its operations. What has been the overall impact?

Since 2007, we have reduced our relative CO2 emissions by more than 14 percent per container moved. This is due to the introduction of slow steaming, as well as our continuous focus on running our vessels more efficiently. In terms of changing the culture of our company, it’s difficult to say. It has always been in the values of Maersk Line to protect the environment and try to be a good global citizen. But now environmental performance is a key element of our business strategy. I think that we as employees will become more aware of the role we play in driving Maersk Line and the shipping industry towards better environmental performance.

How do you feel the industry as a whole is responding to this challenge?

I think that the industry could step up its efforts to develop CO2 regulations for shipping. And Maersk Line strongly supports the goals of the International Maritime Organization to develop them. But without global CO2 regulations for shipping, the sector as a whole risks being seen as a laggard even though it has real potential to drive the transition toward an economy that uses fewer fossil fuels and produces less CO2.


Sidebar: Truth Squad

NRDC’s Rich Kassel weighs in on the pollution challenge facing the world’s shipping lines

Last June in Belgium, Maersk CEO Eivind Kolding told leaders of the world’s great shipping lines that if they are to maintain their role as primary carriers of the world’s goods, the industry must change. As environmental concerns multiply and technology improves, he said, the industry must reduce emissions and clean up operations.

Prodding its peers toward greener practices is nothing new for Maersk. The company “has consistently been ahead of the pack on a wide range of environmental issues,” says Rich Kassel, senior attorney and director of NRDC’s clean fuels and vehicles project. “It has continually signaled where environmental performance will go next.”

Maersk voluntarily lowered sulfur levels in its fuel at U.S. ports years before rules required it. Other industry players resisted the move, arguing that the use of high-sulfur bunker fuel was the only way to stay profitable. But emissions from the dirtier bunker fuels take a huge toll, both on nearby communities — typically low-income communities of color, which bear the brunt of the harm — and nationally, causing tens of thousands of premature deaths every year, as well as increased asthma emergencies and other serious health problems.

Maersk proved that it was possible to use cleaner fuel and still make profits. And its move made it easier for the International Maritime Organization and government regulators to require its competitors to follow suit. “When Maersk shows that something works, it’s easier to advance policies that change the entire industry,” Kassel says.

In the wake of Maersk’s switch to cleaner fuel, the IMO adopted new rules that will soon require all ships to use cleaner fuels whenever they are operating within 200 miles of U.S. coasts. Starting in 2015, ships in this zone will use fuel that contains 97 percent less sulfur than today’s average. This switch will translate into 14,000 fewer premature deaths and $110 billion in health care savings per year by 2020, Kassel says.

Adam Aston


Original URL for story: http://www.onearth.org/article/meet-the-change-makers-maersk-gets-shipshape

Meet the Change Makers: Steering Ford Toward Sustainability | OnEarth

A focus on efficiency helps Ford pull away from the Detroit pack. Executive Sue Cischke explains how.

In the long history of U.S. automakers, green strategy and profitability have rarely gone hand in hand –until, that is, Henry Ford’s great-grandson made them a centerpiece of his tenure as the company’s president and CEO. But by 2006, in the face of larger woes in the U.S. auto sector, Bill Ford had to step down from day-to-day management of the company (he now holds the title of executive chairman). Just two years later, in 2006, Bill Ford’s green vision looked cannily prescient. With gas prices spiraling skyward that summer, U.S. drivers stampeded away from gas-guzzlers. Soon after, the financial crisis leveled the economy, and car sales collapsed. Unlike its Motown rivals, Ford was able to steer clear of bankruptcy, thanks in large part to savvy financial moves by Bill Ford’s successor, Alan Mulally.

Today, with auto sales looking up again, Sue Cischke (pronounced SIS-key) believes that extending Ford’s commitment to green corporate practices and energy-efficient vehicles will help it outpace global rivals. Cischke entered the auto biz as a mechanical engineer at Chrysler in 1976, in the aftermath of the Arab oil embargo and as high-mileage Japanese imports began to fundamentally reshape the business. These days, she is Ford’s senior-most executive focused on environmental strategy, reporting to CEO Mulally as group vice president, sustainability, environment and safety engineering. One of her top responsibilities is steering Ford’s long-term vehicle development, a vital part of helping the company meet its commitment, unique among its peers, to cut the greenhouse gas emissions of all new Ford vehicles by 30 percent by 2020 (based on a 2006 baseline).

OnEarth contributor Adam Aston recently caught up with Cischke in Detroit to hear how Ford’s green push is unfolding.

Discussions about automakers going green tend to focus on vehicles. But Ford’s been pushing sustainability in its internal operations, too. How do you measure that?

We recognize that our manufacturing operations, in terms of energy use and the materials we consume, have an environmental impact. So our strategy includes increased energy efficiency in both our products and our manufacturing.

Since 2003, we’ve seen energy consumption at Ford’s factories around the globe fall by 29 percent. We’ve won a series of Energy Star awards from the EPA recognizing these efforts. We’ve undertaken countless steps, from small to big, to make these savings. On our assembly lines, for example, thepneumatic tools used to assemble cars have been made smarter, so that they power down quickly when not in use. We’ve also upgraded factory heating and lighting systems. And at some of our paint shops, we’re also converting fumes into fuel to make electricity.

Water is another concern. From 2000 to 2008, we have reduced our water usage by 56 percent. At our Cleveland plant, for example, a program to lower the amount of water used in the casting process, together with efforts to filter and reuse water thoroughly, cut fresh water use by 35 percent in 2009, on top of a 27 percent reduction the prior year. Each year, that’s saving the plant more than $1.2 million in city water costs alone. Worldwide, those kinds of efforts have saved more than 9.5 billion gallons of water at our factories. And we work aggressively to recycle the water in our plants for reuse in manufacturing.

And what about your vehicles?

Ford’s largest environmental impact comes from our products, which is why we have made the commitment to increase fuel efficiency and cut CO2 emissions in every new vehicle we produce. Ford now offers 12 cars, trucks and utility vehicles that lead their segments in fuel economy, including four with certified ratings of 40 mpg or more.

At the 2010 Detroit Auto Show, Ford announced an ambitious range of electrified vehicles. What green technology do you see as having the greatest impact?

In a car, to eke out mileage improvements, it’s about much more than the engine. It’s looking at every component as well as overall design, looking for ways to improve efficiencies. We call it paying attention in exquisite detail. It’s like going on a diet: to lose weight, you can’t just cut down on desserts. You’ve got to exercise more. The change needs to be comprehensive to last.

In the near term, I think Ford’s EcoBoost technology will have the biggest impact because it is an affordable fuel-economy technology that we will offer across most of our lineup. The centerpiece is a four-cylinder engine that delivers the power of a six-cylinder design, boosting gas mileage by up to 20 percent and reducing CO2 by as much as 15 percent. We use turbochargers and direct injection of the gasoline at higher pressures to help achieve these gains.

The approach makes other improvements possible, too. A smaller engine is lighter, so we can downsize other parts on the car — smaller brakes, lighter power-steering motors, and less rugged transmissions, for example — without sacrificing performance.

You’ve said that improving the efficiency of Ford’s entire product line with steps like EcoBoost — rather than the development of a particular advanced hybrid or electric technology — will be the company’s biggest impact. Why?

Because we developed EcoBoost and related design enhancements at a time when the industry was throwing out attention-getting, high-tech prototypes like EVs and plug-in hybrids. Those are important technologies, but will sell in small numbers for some while. We wanted a solution that was more holistic and mainstream.

It doesn’t have the same pizzazz, but because this [EcoBoost] technology will make its way into nine out of 10 of our models within a few years, most of the cars we sell will have the option to be up to 20 percent more fuel-efficient. We are adding more EVs and hybrids too.

In the near term, selling larger numbers of more efficient, affordable gasoline engines will have a bigger impact in reducing CO2 than the much smaller volume of electric vehicles.

In July, President Obama announced a landmark agreement with the auto industry to boost average fuel efficiency to 54.5 miles per gallon, for the model year 2025. In talks with lawmakers, car manufacturers have long fought to stop, delay or reduce such an increase, as they did during recent negotiations. For all the talk about greening cars, why has it been so hard for industry to change its tactics?

We look at affordability and higher mileage goals and realize we can’t just force certain technology onto consumers. When we started the first serious push for fuel economy back in the ’70s, consumers were disappointed with cars that were so underpowered they could barely get out of their own way.

That said, much has changed. In the past, the government would throw out a new mileage number and the industry would say, “No,” and the relationship was much more adversarial.

Today, we recognize efficiency as a strong reason for consumers to buy a Ford. It’s a competitive advantage for us. We are committed to improving the fuel efficiency of every new product we bring to market, but in terms of regulations, we still believe the agencies setting standards need to understand there is not a single technology solution, and that the technology advances we employ must remain affordable for car buyers.

In your role, how do you make sure that the company isn’t just paying lip service to sustainability but is getting actual, measurable results?

The thing is, the company that figures this all out is going to be the most successful. That’s a powerful incentive to get the strategy right. It’s easy for a company to project a vision and talk about the future. We’ve found it more useful to do what we need to do, and then talk about it.

Frankly, with all the noise out there about the financial troubles in the auto sector in recent years, it’s been hard for our green offerings to get the attention I think they deserve.

Our momentum is building. We’ve had a highly successful launch of our EcoBoost technology. The Escape Hybrid SUV has been on the market since 2004. The Fusion Hybrid joined the line up in 2008. And we recently announced we are bringing a new hybrid, a plug-in hybrid, and two all-electric vehicles to market within the next two years.

What does the future hold for Ford’s lineup — will it be all-electric?

It’s important to recognize that there is room for an entire range of technologies, but in terms of electrified vehicles (EVs), we see a stronger future for hybrids and plug-in hybrids. A plug-in hybrid can be charged overnight and run on batteries until they’re depleted, before switching over to a gas engine.

If I look into a crystal ball, we’re looking for two breakthroughs: battery costs have to come down as more EVs are sold, and we’re looking for new, better battery technology that will help increase driving range. Without both of those, I’m not certain whether drivers’ concerns about running out of battery power can be overcome for EVs that don’t have a traditional engine as a backup.

That’s why we’ve also focused on charging infrastructure, improving both charging speed and encouraging the development of more sites where drivers can re-charge outside their homes. We expect most people will charge at home, but we also believe consumers will become more comfortable with the concept of electric vehicles when there are a lot more places to plug them in.

In a company with some 160,000 employees around the world, simply delivering the message that sustainability is a priority seems daunting. How has Ford done that?

Our CEO Alan Mulally saw my background and appointed me to head up sustainability. Given that I started out as an engineer, his decision reinforced that the sustainability factors are woven into the earliest stages of our design process all the way through manufacturing.

Day to day, one of the ways we keep the organization’s many moving parts in sync is via a sustainability mobility governance group, which includes senior executives in charge of developing new products, R&D, marketers and others. The issues we evaluate and prioritize there help guide Ford’s highest, board-level discussions of automotive strategy.


Sidebar: Truth Squad

Checking industry claims with NRDC’s sustainability experts

Alone among its Motown rivals, Ford outran bankruptcy during the fiscal crisis. For this and for developing a genuinely greener lineup of hybrids, electric vehicles and higher mileage cars, Ford deserves praise, said Roland Hwang, NRDC’s transportation program director in San Francisco. For example, under CEO Alan Mulally, Ford has re-geared its product offering to emphasize fuel-saving options across more of its offerings. In mid-September, it ended production of the Crown Victoria sedan, a fuel-economy laggard that averaged just 16 mpg in the city.

The broad shift has proven Ford can make money selling more efficient, in some cases smaller, vehicles, said Hwang. “Ford’s return to profitably this year has been impressive,” he said, and unlike past years, “earnings weren’t driven by pickups or SUVs.” Yet this fiscal resilience cast the company in a peculiar role: as de facto leader of the automotive industry’s opposition to the White House’s push for higher mileage standards. With the federal government holding about one-third of GM stock, and nearly a tenth of Chrysler’s, Ford emerged as the industry’s flag carrier.

In May, Mulally personally lobbied Washington lawmakers to bar California from setting higher standards independent from federal rules. And behind the scenes, Ford’s top lobbyists led a push to soften the new standard, known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE). “These lobbying efforts run counter to its progress with greener vehicles,” said Hwang. In early July, the auto industry and the Obama Administration settled on a figure of 54.5 mpg by 2025, up from around 30 mpg today. A month later, Ford responded to the tougher rules with a plan to join forces with Toyota, its top international rival, to co-develop gas-electric hybrid systems for SUVs, pickups and other light trucks. Under past mileage rules, this so-called light truck category has been granted loopholes that tighten under the new standard.

There are competitive reasons for the tie-up too. The world’s other two top auto markets — China and Europe — are pushing towards mileage standards more stringent than proposed U.S. rules.  Adds Hwang: “Ford knows there’s a solid business reason to be ready sooner than later with high mileage solutions.” — Adam Aston


URL for the original story: http://www.onearth.org/article/change-makers-ford-sustainability