3.31.2011

Gem of the day

We knew it wouldn't be long until someone referenced That Movie to 'add humor' to the debate over sustainable forestry. Yes, I'm talking about Pulp Fiction.

Here's the Sustainable Forestry Initiative doing just that:

"ForestEthics continues to peddle pulp fiction about the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, repeating the same old inaccurate and misleading information."

Surely the certification wars are already gruesome enough without that kind of nauseating double entendre.

3.30.2011

Bonus gem

Here they come, one after another: clear signs of the total disconnect between the energy--read: oil--crisis we're facing and what investors/the megacorporations they blindly trust assume we should do about it--read: continue business as usual.

HSBC issued a prediction today markets will doubtless be reacting to:

“We’re confident that there are around 50 years of oil left,” Karen Ward, the bank’s senior global economist, said in an interview on CNBC.

Here's the NY Times on the counter-argument to that prediction:

"Some oil industry observers take a more optimistic view of future supplies, arguing that further development of Canadian tar sands, offshore discoveries in the Arctic and an expected surge in supply from Iraq will keep oil markets well-supplied for decades. Shale drilling has also managed to boost domestic oil production in the United States after years of decline."

So increasingly risky, hazardous methods of drilling are a-ok as long as on a superficial level the markets remain 'well-supplied'? Somebody tell me what's wrong with that. Hmm.

Gem of the day

Joe Romm over at ClimateProgress is up in arms today about Obama's scheduled speech on energy security. The speech is supposed to revolve around a new White House plan to cut the nation's oil imports 1/3 by 2025. Romm rightfully points out that the 2008 baseline used--11.1 million barrels a day--means the goal is less ambitious than it seems, since for 2009 and 2010 the good ol' US-of-A has already averaged 9 million.

But what's making Romm especially upset is the same thing most enviromental groups took issue with after the State of the Union: the total absence of climate change, global warming and carbon from Obama's rhetoric.

Why? Framing the energy--let alone sustainable development--conversation around climate in the US isn't working. If anything, it's set the sustainability agenda back significantly by giving the big energy lobbyists and their GOP friends something to debate over instead of increasing regulations and taking action.

The attempted dismantling of the EPA is a direct outcome of that ongoing, tortured debate which environmentalists will never win as long as the economy remains on the side of traditional energy (and it will in the near future).

It ain't about climate anymore. It's about better lifestyles, health and safety, and common sense. I wiil definitely play that drinking game with you though, Joe.

3.29.2011

Bonus gem

It's a zinger of a month for CSR reporting. Hot on the heels of BP, our friends at British American Tobacco have published their latest defensive shell.

My favorite part is their CEO's jargon-filled, generic answer to this question:

"For me it is clear: If we do not operate sustainably and create shared value, we will not be a successful business in the future."

"Our strategy is designed to deliver our vision of industry leadership and, as a result, build shareholder value. It is based on growth, funded by productivity and delivered by a winning organisation that acts responsibly at all times. Our balanced strategy adds value to all aspects of our business. We think this sets us apart from our competitors and ensures our long-term business sustainability. My predecessor, Paul Adams, was clear when he said that our sustainability goals are intrinsic to our strategy and are a cornerstone to building sustainable value. I agree wholeheartedly. The sustainability agenda is and will remain key to our long-term success."

To increase clarity, I suggest the following equation to replace that corporate monologue:

More cigarettes + more greenwash = Unsustainable long-term business strategy

Next up, it wouldn't be a report from the tobacco industry if we didn't have this tepid testimony to incremental innovation:

"How do we develop lower-risk products that will appeal to tobacco consumers? This is tough, and we’re still working out the science."

And for the final zinger, the concluding Q&A from the CEO interview:

"This is the 10th year of your sustainability journey. What do you think the next 10 years will bring?

Hopefully, more of the same."

Gem of the day

Joel Makower does his annual run-down of the polling frenzy in the lead up to Earth Day 2011. Here's one gem of a stat which typifies the relentless quest of these various media firms and research agencies to find PR-able nuggets in chaos of green markets:

"Lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender (LGBT) adults are accelerating their personal commitment to environmental issues at a higher rate than their heterosexual counterparts, found Harris Interactive. A majority (55 percent) of LGBT adults, say they 'personally care a great deal about the current state and future of the environment,' compared to just 33 percent of heterosexual American adults."

Green or not, it's true that as long as the GOP has its say gay Americans will have a lot more to worry about than straight Americans.

Here's another great one:

"New Consumers are looking for brands that deliver 'total value' — products that work well, last longer, cost less and, hopefully, do some good."

Right.

3.28.2011

Another non-environmental wonder

Dissident Aleksei N. Navalny on what motivates him to keep his anti-corruption site in Russia up and exposing:

“I do this because I hate these people."

Not helping his chances of climbing the ladder in the Russian business community, that's for sure. The CEO of Transneft, a major energy company there, is already claiming Mr. Navalny is working for the CIA ordered to take down Russian companies.

3.25.2011

Another non-environmental wonder

Few things are funnier right now than the outrage handily mustered by the Congressional Good Ole Party on Obama's moves in Libya.

Here's our friend Boehner crying his eyes out on behalf of The American People over the 'lack of a clearly defined role' in this foreign intervention:

"I and many other members of the House of Representatives are troubled that U.S. military resources were committed to war without clearly defining for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is and what America's role is in achieving that mission," Boehner wrote. "In fact, the limited, sometimes contradictory, case made to the American people by members of your Administration has left some fundamental questions about our engagement unanswered."

You're right Boehner. Obama has committed a truly irresponsible act. If only decisions had been made more in the style of 2002--then we'd know so little we'd have nothing to complain about.

Gem of the day

A new study out from Cone confirms our worst fears about the challenges of marketing sustainable--or at least 'less worse'--products:

"Americans Give Green Marketing Claims Too Much Credit"

Wait, what? Now we're blaming the average shopper for not being able to magically intuit the difference between 'eco-friendly', 'naturally made' and 'green'? I'm hard-pressed to think of a more convoluted way of assessing the state of green marketing, which is becoming a vortex of labels, certifications, claims and suggestive imagery that you'd need an advanced degree to navigate, let alone 5 minutes in a supermarket aisle.

3.24.2011

Uber-gem

It's here, the highlight of the corporate greening season:

The 2010 BP Sustainability Review. Two points right off the bat, because I'm feeling too ill at ease to take the entire 50-page journey through this robust defensive shell of a report:

The 2010 BP 'at-a-glance' figures, which include Volume of oil spills and Volume of oil not recovered, don't include Deepwater Horizon. Why? In their fine print: "Although there are several third-party estimates of the flow rate or total volume of oil spilled from the Deepwater Horizon incident, we believe that no accurate determination can be made or reported until further information is collected and the analysis, such as the condition of the blowout preventer, is completed." One word: bullshit.

In his CEO statement, Dudley concludes: “To those who ask if we truly understand the implications, let me say firmly that ‘we get it’. We understand that business-as-usual is not an option, and we are making substantial changes to the way we work.” 

Compare that with this bold strategy revealed earlier in the very same CEO statement:

"With global oil production from existing fields declining by around 5% a year, it’s vital that new fields are discovered and developed. This is why BP will continue to move farther into harsh, remote and complex geographies, from deep water to the Russian Arctic; from oil sands and unconventional gas to giant fields – such as Rumaila in Iraq. We believe we can help meet energy demand and create returns for investors by applying our distinctive skills, capabilities and technologies in these demanding areas.”

As per Jeff Erikson, a VP at SustainAbility who provides tepid commentary to support this report that he should never be allowed to live down:


"The critical question seemed to be, as one participant in Washington put it, “will BP stand for ‘Beyond Petroleum’ or ‘Back to Petroleum’?” Many of BP’s stakeholders are looking for early signals of BP’s answer to that question."


Might I suggest Dudley's bold statement above provides a pretty clear answer.

Gem of the day

Deloitte has a new report out with a bold title designed to capture the attention of industry rags: "Every Company is an Energy Company". There's many, oh so many gems in here, but three deserve special attention.

#1 is this diagram. The simplistic idea that it's all about 'product and profit', translating into 'buy clean', is truly spectacular. Overall it's a classic reduction that has little to no meaning.

#2 is that behavior change, and how we can get people--not just 'corporations--to use less energy gets only a one-sentence nod in the entire thing. Let alone how we get people in a more holistic sense to change their relationship with energy (by developing a relationship with it in the first place).

#3 is their explanation for why renewables have yet to become front of mind:

"Perhaps one reason that corporations have not been quick enough to understand and implement energy management is that renewable technologies like wind and solar seemed for a while likely to ascend more quickly than they have. But the accumulated experience with renewables over the past few years has dimmed expectations."

Right, and traditional energy companies--read: oil and gas and coal--have had no role to play in trying to convince people that scaling up alternatives is an ambiguous and doubt-ridden 'challenge for the future'.

3.23.2011

Gem of the day

When an energy production disaster occurs, you can be sure a gem like this isn't far behind:

"Japan Nuclear Firm Admits Missing Safety Checks at Disaster-hit Plant"

And yet, it still boggles the mind. This ain't your average storage facility, folks--it's a huge nuclear plant. So can we afford to step up the basic safety checks? Or, not even step them up, just--er--remember to do them?

"According to documents from Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), the company repeatedly missed safety checks over a 10-year period up to two weeks before the 11 March disaster, and allowed uranium fuel rods to pile up inside the 40-year-old facility."

3.21.2011

Another non-environmental wonder

Conservative think-tanks and their pseudo-publications are always full of awkwardly confusing gems. Witness this one:

"Ever wonder why the left doesn't teach history? It's one disaster after another for them."

Gem of the day

Ann Coulter never fails to blow my mind, for obvious reasons. But this gem of a column she's written, a truly unreal assessment of the Japanese nuclear explosion, goes above and beyond the call of duty:

"With the terrible earthquake and resulting tsunami that have devastated Japan, the only good news is that anyone exposed to excess radiation from the nuclear power plants is now probably much less likely to get cancer. This only seems counterintuitive because of media hysteria for the past 20 years trying to convince Americans that radiation at any dose is bad. There is, however, burgeoning evidence that excess radiation operates as a sort of cancer vaccine."

Right. Her conclusion to the article is a tour-de-force in itself:

"Remember that, so far, thousands have died only because of Mother Nature. And the survivors may outlive all of us over here in hermetically sealed, radiation-free America."

Ann, I'll buy you a one-way ticket to Minamisanriku. You can be a lesson to us all.

3.11.2011

Another non-environmental wonder

The NY Times on emotions running high inside yesterday's awkwardly misguided hearing on Muslims in the US-of-A:

"One member of Congress broke down and cried. Another was so incensed that she waved a pocket-size copy of the Constitution and declared, “This breathing document is in pain.” And there were so many angry charges of McCarthyism and countercharges of “political correctness” that it sometimes seemed that the topic at hand on Thursday in Washington was the radicalization of the House Homeland Security Committee, not American Muslims."

Right.

3.10.2011

Gem of the day

Petrobras President and CEO Sergio Gabrielli on the company's future, in an interview with Fortune:

“What we can say is that we have a lot of oil."

Another non-environmental wonder

Obama's team.

3.08.2011

Bonus gem

Every  now and then something truly weird and disturbing comes along in the paradise of green business. This is one of those things. Please explore for yourself.

In the words of GreenBiz:

"It should perhaps come as no surprise that, as people dig in to the business of greening every aspect of their work and personal lives, they will also get serious about greening their afterlives."

Gem of the day

There's many, many reasons why today's face-off between climate scientists and the House Energy and Commerce Committee over EPA regulatory scope is a bad thing, but here's the most important one:

This is not a long-term issue. This is about every American deserving clean and safe water and air, and protection from toxic chemicals and emissions. Framing it in the context of climate change only helps advocates for big business and little regulation press on short-term policy levers--i.e. economic growth and jobs--and contribute to a further erosion of the EPA's ability to lay down any rules, let alone those potentially governing greenhouse gases.

Enough climate talk already--it doesn't work in the ol' U.S.-of-A. Can I get some mountain-top coal mining bans now please? Thanks in advance.

3.07.2011

Another non-environmental wonder

The NY Times on Glenn Beck's Fox TV show:

"A serial doomsday machine that’s a bummer to watch."

Zing!

Gem of the day

Love articles that use supporting evidence like this:

"One survey found that nearly 90 percent of senior executives at Fortune 1000 companies believe sustainability is a 'moral responsibility' but that cost savings is the leading driver of sustainability related project investments."

Right, ethical obligations vs. money--I wonder which is most likely to capture the attention of your average corporate.

3.03.2011

Uber gem

An unintentionally hilarious piece of thought leadership from the oil and gas industry:

"The Gas Machine", from a microsite on Statoil which carries the unfortunate title of 'goodideas.statoil.com'

That's right, in an age where all other companies in the industry are competing to produce ambiguous greenwash about the future of energy, Statoil is laying down the line about just how much gas its ingeniously named Troll development has produced since 1996. And they're not mincing words:

"Developed through the application of innovative technology, this enormous platform has provided Europe with gas since 1996, and will carry on doing so, for many decades to come."

But wait--it's not as simple as that. The best part is that if you accept their invitation to 'take part in the conversation', you're transported to the magical homepage of 'goodideas' which carries this headline:

"Together we can solve the challenges of tomorrow."

Awkward. I think Statoil's comms team needs a 101 on thought leadership to decide which misleading message they want to choose: greenwash or dirty energy promotion. Maybe they can call these guys for help?

Gem of the day

Joe Romm delivers a whopper to the "Yes we can" team in D.C.

"I’ve been as critical of Obama about this as anybody, and like you, have come to the conclusion that he doesn’t appear to get the dire nature of the situation we’re in.  But, in ‘fairness’ to the President, it must be pointed out that the White House sucks at messaging in general."

3.02.2011

Gem of the day

It's no news that the US-of-A is currently a vortex for all things climate and energy. But this is truly a gem: according to a new report from the stalwart genius crew Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the DOE has missed all 34 congressional deadlines for setting energy efficiency standards for the 20 product categories with statutory deadlines that have passed.

The cost? $28 billion in missed energy savings by 2030. Ouch.

Another non-environmental wonder

Ever wondered what it's like to be a lobbyist for Middle Eastern oil despots? No, me either. But the NY Times has a painful insight into the awkward situation today.

The gem:

"Just last year, three of the biggest names in the lobbying club — Tony Podesta, Robert L. Livingston and Toby Moffett — pulled off a coup for one of their clients, Egypt. They met with dozens of lawmakers and helped stall a Senate bill that called on Egypt to curtail human rights abuses. Ultimately, those abuses helped bring the government down."

Right. But wait, it gets better. A window into what the conversations sounded like:


Mr. Moffett, a former congressman from Connecticut, told his old colleagues that the bill “would be viewed as an insult” by an important ally. “We were just saying to them, ‘Don’t do this now to our friends in Egypt,’ ” he recounted.

3.01.2011

Bonus gem

Guess what everyone! Our friends over at News Corp have finally, at long last achieved their goal of becoming carbon neutral. Harken, the future of corporate sustainability is here. After all, if Rupert Murdoch can afford enough offsets to make his megacorporation look less dangerous, the skies are wide open for his more innocuous peers. Here's Murdoch reveling in his achievement:

""We made a bold commitment in 2007 to embed the values of energy efficiency and environmental sustainability into all of our businesses -- for the benefit of our communities and our bottom line."

And how about the social side of things, News Corp? Journalistic integrity, anyone? Halting global progress through disinformation and climate science denial? According to their pseudo-article in Greenbiz/press release, "News Corp. also created a set of intentionally broad long-term goals with no time horizon." Wow, impressive. Included among them is this gem:

"Continue to engage its readers, employees and customers on sustainability"

Oh well, I guess that'll go in next year's CSR report. Wait--I don't even want to know what that goal looks like for News Corp in practice. I think I'll just watch Fox News instead.

Gem of the day

This can't come as a surprise after all this time, but for some reason it still does. What did BP base its projections for future energy demand in last year's annual report on?

An IEA reference scenario, which that organisation makes clear in its yearly 'World Energy Outlook' is not to be treated as realistic. In the IEA's words:

"The reference scenario does not include possible, potential or even likely future policy initiatives, thus it cannot be considered a forecast of what is likely to happen."

Right. And what impact do BP's energy projections have on its annual report? Well, they're used as justification for more complex and risky types of drilling--like offshore drilling.

When, O when, will the investment community wake up and smell the sustainability roses?