General Mills, Danone pilots provide proof for regenerative agriculture success

February 23, 2021 by  
Filed under Business, Eco, Green

Comments Off on General Mills, Danone pilots provide proof for regenerative agriculture success

General Mills, Danone pilots provide proof for regenerative agriculture success Jesse Klein Tue, 02/23/2021 – 01:30 A few years into Danone’s and General Mills’ regenerative agriculture pilots, one thing has become clear: It’s about data collection. Holistically changing our agriculture system to become more sustainable comes later.  “We really don’t have a great understanding of what happens when farmers make these transitions to regenerative systems,” said Steven Rosenzweig, senior soil scientist at General Mills. “This represents a way to get a better understanding of what’s really happening with these landscapes.” Danone recently completed a three-year pilot program for regenerative agriculture on 82,000 acres of farmland. According to Nicholas Camu, vice president of agriculture at Danone North America, the biggest reward of this pilot is the data and subsequent analysis to understand what’s going on in the fields.  The company’s project provided funding — through government grants and fund matching initiatives — to help farmers transition to no-till agriculture and crop rotation, plant cover crops and other regenerative practices. By the end of the pilot, Danone’s farmers planted cover crops on 64 percent of the total acreage and practiced no-till on 77 percent. The national average is 5 percent and 33 percent respectively. They also doubled the number of crop species to 32. By switching to these regenerative practices, Danone hoped farms would restore the soil, foster biodiversity, protect water systems, reduce greenhouse gases and sequester more carbon. But doing so in a significant way to combat climate change will take much more than three years, and probably closer to a generation. So getting the data on what worked and how well it worked is almost more important at this early stage. Danone worked with third-party verification organization EcoPractices to measure the decrease in emissions, decrease in erosion and increase in carbon soil sequestration on each farm. But the reports are not public and data has remained the property of each individual farm, so we don’t really know how the shift to regenerative agriculture practices performed.  But Danone did share that across the 82,000 acres in the pilot, 39,035 acres grew cover crops and 46,378 acres reduced till or practiced no-till. In aggregate, according to Danone, practicing regenerative agriculture in this program reduced more than 80,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent and sequestered more than 20,000 tons of carbon into the soil.  Now with that data, Danone can use its “return on investment” tool to model what happens when farmers implement regenerative agriculture techniques and can use that to convince other farms it is worth the investment.  These pilots are about finding what actually works, and not every method works for every farm. “With this tool that we developed, we can say ‘OK, you need to buy a new tractor to reduce tillage. And we now know that at this farm, it will pay itself back in four years, which gives us the right arguments to talk to the farmers and convince them that this is the right investment and we will help you cover those costs for four years,” said Camu. “That’s all thanks to this data gathering that we can really make specific solutions for specific farms.” General Mills is only one year into its three-year program but it already has laid the groundwork for a massive data dump. The program involves 24 wheat growers in Kansas, 45 grain and oat farmers in Canada and three dairy farms in Michigan. The company took baseline samples in 2019 of the birds, insects and soil carbon levels at each farm and plans to come back each year to see progress. Its overarching sustainability goal is to expand regenerative agriculture practices to 1 million acres by 2030 and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent by 2025.  “Farmers want to learn from the scientists,” said Rosenzweig. “Showing them how they’re collecting the data and what they’re finding. There’s a huge educational opportunity to transfer that knowledge from the scientists to the farmers and vice versa. The farmers are also seeing lots of things that scientists might not necessarily catch.”  These pilots are about finding what actually works, and not every method works for every farm.  Through the program, General Mills learned that the best science-based intentions can fall flat when they bump up against reality. According to Rosenzweig, the weather is the biggest unexpected challenge faced by any farmer and last year there was a record-breaking dry climate in the summer and fall in Canada followed by a wet spring. The perfect breeding ground for grasshoppers. The increase in grasshoppers created huge yield reductions as the pests ate crops.  According to Rosenzweig, even though the farmers were trying to spray fewer pesticides as part of their regenerative agriculture plan, they had to give in to control the massive grasshopper influx.  “So while [the farmers] are working towards establishing a healthy ecosystem with predator populations and general insect diversity to control against these pest outbreaks, until you have a system that’s really humming, you are still vulnerable to a lot of these pest outbreaks,” he said. During its pilot, Danone also learned that no-till agriculture didn’t work for farms where the ground is tough and full of clay. According to Camu, it compacts too fast and makes it impossible to plant anything without tillage, so they had to dial back up the tillage at those specific farms. Regenerative agriculture isn’t a light switch. Danone’s and General Mills’ pilots and subsequent data gathering are to help farmers slowly start to turn the wheel and break the high barrier of entry to regenerative agriculture. Armed with good data and anecdotal evidence, Danone plans to expand its regenerative agriculture to 100,000 acres over the next two years. “It’s best to let your farmers do the talking for you to the other farmers,” Camu said. “You have to have the right arguments and some proof. Some take the leap of faith a little bit faster than others. But then when you have those, you always have farmers that follow.” Pull Quote These pilots are about finding what actually works, and not every method works for every farm. Topics Food & Agriculture Regenerative Agriculture Farmers Featured in featured block (1 article with image touted on the front page or elsewhere) Off Duration 0 Sponsored Article Off The main take away from General Mills’ and Danone’s programs is testing the theories of carbon sequestration. //Image courtesy of Shutterstock

Original post:
General Mills, Danone pilots provide proof for regenerative agriculture success

Can California’s cap and trade address environmental justice?

December 16, 2020 by  
Filed under Business, Eco, Green

Comments Off on Can California’s cap and trade address environmental justice?

Can California’s cap and trade address environmental justice? Julia Rosen Wed, 12/16/2020 – 01:30 Growing up in North Richmond, California, Denny Khamphanthong didn’t think much of the siren that wailed once a month at 11 a.m. every first Wednesday. The alarm is a test of the community’s emergency warning system, which has alerted residents to numerous incidents over the years at the nearby Chevron oil refinery. One accident there —  a 2012 fire  — sent a cloud of black smoke billowing over San Francisco Bay and left thousands of local residents struggling to breathe. Now, when Khamphanthong explains the sound to his young nieces, he sees the fear in their eyes. “I forget that this isn’t normal,” he says. Nor is the fact that Khamphanthong and most of his childhood friends carried inhalers. Richmond, a diverse, industrial city where housing prices and incomes have lagged behind its Bay Area neighbors, has poor air quality and some of the highest rates of respiratory and cardiovascular disease in California. “There’s a lot of beautiful things that happen out of [Richmond],” says Khamphanthong, a community organizer with the Asian Pacific Environmental Network whose family emigrated from Laos in the 1980s. “But at the same time, when you look at the reality of it, it is sad.” Pollution, poverty and race collide in many other disadvantaged communities across California — and the country — and some argue that the state’s climate policies haven’t helped. While California already has cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 13 percent since their peak in 2004, many residents still suffer from high levels of air pollution — much of it produced by fossil fuels. In particular, controversy has dogged California’s cap-and-trade policy , which took effect in 2013 and regulates roughly 450 entities accounting for 85 percent of California’s emissions. The system works by setting a limit on the total amount of greenhouse gases released by refineries, power plants and other large emitters, and requires polluters to obtain permits to cover their share. The overall “cap” lowers every year, forcing polluters to reduce their emissions or purchase allowances from others who do. Environmental justice activists say the cap and trade program has not served California’s disadvantaged communities, and particularly communities of color, where many facilities operate. Economists, environmentalists and policymakers — many of them white — tout cap and trade as a cost-effective way to cut emissions while generating money for other climate initiatives. But environmental justice activists say the program has not served California’s disadvantaged communities, and particularly communities of color, where many facilities operate. In their eyes, it doesn’t do enough to address climate change and allows emitters to continue polluting the air in the meantime. For example, state records suggest that the Chevron Richmond Refinery, one of California’s largest emitters, released more greenhouse gases in 2017 and 2018 — the last years for which data are publicly available — than it has since 2008. And in several recent years, it emitted as much or more of certain air pollutants . It also dramatically has increased the volume of gas flared off as waste — another source of harmful compounds . (Representatives from Chevron said that flaring was related to a new hydrogen plant coming online, and that the refinery has made significant investments in reducing emissions of air pollutants over the past 40 years.) To many, cap and trade highlights a contradiction. “You’re hearing all this great stuff about how amazing your governor and your state is on climate leadership,” says Lucas Zucker, policy and communications director at the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy . But “it doesn’t feel like anything is changing.” As the United States reckons with its long legacy of racial injustice and the increasingly devastating consequences of climate change, questions about the efficacy and fairness of cap and trade have taken on greater urgency than ever. But seven years on, researchers, regulators and activists are still arguing about how California’s most famous climate policy has affected its most vulnerable residents — and how to do better. The air Climate change is usually seen as a global problem. But its effects are profoundly local, and often refract through long-standing patterns of inequality and racism. In the U.S. and elsewhere, low-income residents and people of color shoulder an outsized share of the climate burden. They face greater risks from heat waves , floods and other climate-related impacts. And they have suffered collateral damage from the harmful pollutants produced by using fossil fuels. As the U.S. reckons with its long legacy of racial injustice and the increasingly devastating consequences of climate change, questions about the efficacy and fairness of cap and trade have taken on greater urgency than ever. These pollutants, which include particulate matter, nitrogen and sulfur oxides, and toxic substances such as benzene, have been linked to health problems ranging from respiratory disorders to reproductive problems to cancer. Numerous studies show that polluting facilities and their emissions tend to concentrate in disadvantaged communities. “Me and my five cousins, we all have asthma,” says Abe Francis, 15, of Sacramento. When Francis was young, doctors prescribed him medication because they feared he might stop breathing in his sleep. He still struggles to catch his breath when he plays basketball at the park. “It’s incredibly scary for me,” says Francis, who is African American. According to CalEnviroScreen , the system the state uses to identify at-risk populations, his neighborhood falls in the highest fifth of pollution-affected communities in California. It ranks in the 94th percentile for poverty and roughly 90 percent of residents are people of color. Chemical plant in Wilmington, a city in California’s Los Angeles County. Shutterstock Angel DiBilio Close Authorship   In Wilmington, a predominantly Latino community in south Los Angeles, Dulce Altamirano says her children and grandchildren suffer from headaches, rashes, nosebleeds, and respiratory problems caused by pollution. “The air quality is very bad,” 45-year-old Altamirano says in Spanish, with a sigh. “I personally have many problems with breathing, with my throat. … There have been times when my husband wanted to call the paramedics.” The city sits among numerous refineries, oil wells and storage facilities, shipping ports and high-traffic roads, and some neighborhoods rank in the top 10th of CalEnviroScreen scores. Climate policies present an opportunity to address these issues because greenhouse gases and harmful air pollutants often come from the same sources, such as industrial smokestacks and vehicle tailpipes. In fact, when California passed its landmark 2006 climate law  — which directed the state to cut greenhouse gas emissions down to 1990 levels by 2020 —  supporters claimed that it would save thousands of lives through improved air quality alone. But environmental justice advocates grew concerned that these benefits would not be equally distributed when the California Air Resources Board (CARB) decided to adopt a cap-and-trade program as part of its strategy to implement the law. CARB turned to cap and trade in part because it had broad support from both environmental groups and industry players, and was already in use by a coalition of East Coast states and the European Union to tackle greenhouse gases. (In 2014, Quebec joined California’s market and several other states and countries have considered or adopted their own versions in recent years.) However, community activists worried that the system would allow companies to find ways to keep emitting, particularly in disadvantaged neighborhoods. “Anytime to you have that kind of pay-to-pollute scheme, the communities that already were being sacrificed — that becomes a business decision,” Zucker says. Some evidence suggests that these fears have come true. A 2018 study led by Lara Cushing , now at the University of California, Los Angeles, found that more than half of the facilities covered under cap and trade actually increased their in-state emissions during the first three years of the program. These facilities were also more likely to be in disadvantaged communities. (In-state emissions were offset by purchasing cleaner power and carbon credits from other projects that reduced emissions elsewhere.) A 2019 report by the environmental group Food and Water Watch found similar results for the East Coast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative — a cap-and-trade program that regulates the power sector. However, a new analysis by economists at the University of California, Santa Barbara, paints a slightly brighter picture in California. The researchers used a model to simulate how pollution spreads in the atmosphere to study how emissions translate to exposure. Like others, they found glaring disparities between disadvantaged communities and their whiter, more prosperous neighbors. But while this so-called environmental justice gap increased in the years before cap and trade took effect, it fell by 20 to 30 percent afterwards in the areas where facilities were covered by the program. The California studies, which took different approaches, do not offer a clear answer about whether cap and trade has helped or harmed disadvantaged communities in the state. Both had to wrestle with outside factors that affected emissions, such as the Great Recession and California’s other climate policies. But activists say that an even more important question mostly has gone unasked: What would have happened if California had adopted a different policy altogether? Many feel that their communities would have seen greater progress if the state had regulated emitters directly, says Katie Valenzuela . She grew up in Oildale — a town in a major oil-producing region in California’s Central Valley — and previously served as policy and political director for the California Environmental Justice Alliance . In March, Valenzuela was elected to Sacramento’s City Council District 4, representing midtown and downtown Sacramento and South Land Park. In recent years, state regulators have tried to tackle inequalities in air quality. But Valenzuela says that officials have leaned on cap and trade instead of embracing more aggressive climate policies — often at the expense of vulnerable communities: “It’s been 14 years, and we’ve still never had a meaningful discussion about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.” The money By the time California’s cap-and-trade program came up for renewal in 2017, environmental justice advocates had united against it. They felt ignored by state officials and abandoned by mainstream environmental groups. The final reauthorization bill , which extended the program until 2030, only compounded their sense of betrayal: Among other provisions, it exempted many polluting facilities from extra regulation by local air districts. This souring of relationships was particularly disastrous given that many saw California’s original climate law as an explicit effort to advance environmental justice. It was “integral to the design,” says Michel Gelobter , a social entrepreneur and environmental justice advocate who helped shape the bill when he was executive director of Redefining Progress, a sustainability think tank. The law directed state officials to consider the impacts of climate policies on “communities that are already adversely impacted by air pollution.” It also mandated that the state convene an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee to oversee its climate efforts. Even the cap-and-trade program, while far from perfect, had equitable ambitions, Gelobter says. He and other economists note that traditional environmental regulations often raise the cost of goods and services, which disproportionately harms low-income people. And the extra money that consumers pay goes into the pockets of polluters, Gelobter says. Thus, to him, the most just climate policies are those that impose a price on carbon and use the revenue to blunt the economic blow on the most vulnerable members of society. California has done exactly that. Every quarter, the state auctions off emissions allowances to polluters (some are also distributed directly to industries) and by law, 35 percent of the money raised must be spent in disadvantaged communities. In practice, however, the state has delegated far more — almost 60 percent, or roughly $3 billion in total since the first funds were released in 2014. Phil Serna , a member of the California Air Resources Board, sees this as a powerful counterpoint to critiques that cap and trade is unjust. “How we invest our resources is really a reflection of our priorities,” says Serna, also a Sacramento County supervisor. How we invest our resources is really a reflection of our priorities. Some cap-and-trade revenue goes directly to California residents , to offset the increased cost of electricity and natural gas caused by the state’s climate initiatives. The rest of the money goes toward projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or improve water quality. In disadvantaged neighborhoods, that might mean expanding public transit, increasing access to renewable energy and building efficient, affordable housing. Some feel uncomfortable about the source of these funds, because they often come at a cost to community health. “We would prefer it if there was no money coming from the cap-and-trade system because there was no pollution coming from our economy,” says Alvaro Sanchez, director of environmental equity at the nonprofit Greenlining Institute . But from an investment point of view, he says, “the money picture feels fairly positive.” In the San Joaquin Valley, cap-and-trade funds have helped low-income residents purchase clean cars. Most of the valley ranks in the upper third of CalEnviroScreen scores and the region has the worst air quality in the nation . Bakersfield leads the country in particulate pollution, and Fresno ranks second. But here, the leading culprits are  agriculture and traffic  — not the large industrial facilities covered under cap and trade. (The program regulates transportation indirectly by forcing fuel distributors to buy emission allowances.) Under an initiative called Drive Clean in the San Joaquin , residents can get up to $9,500 to trade in their old car for a hybrid or electric vehicle. So far, Drive Clean has replaced 3,000 cars and saved customers hundreds of dollars a month in gas and maintenance costs, says Tom Knox, executive director of Valley Clean Air Now , which runs the program. One of those vehicles went to Sokunrith Nop, who emigrated to the U.S. from Cambodia 41 years ago and lives in Stockton. He replaced his 1995 Honda Civic with a fully electric 2017 Fiat 500e. “I love it. It suits me perfectly,” says Nop, who needed something reliable to drive his child to school. He likes saving money on gas. And he wants to help the environment. “Everybody should drive a car like that where we don’t pollute,” Nop says. He only wishes the program could help more people like him: “Those cars are expensive.” The rub Cap and trade isn’t the only way to put a price on carbon, and it’s not the only one that raises environmental justice concerns . Such issues arise whenever policies rely on market forces to drive down emissions — because markets are famously unconcerned with equity. “It’s all about finding efficiencies,” says Kyle Meng , an economist at UCSB and co-author of the study on the environmental justice gap. Still, activists and researchers have proposed numerous ways to make California’s program fairer. For instance, regulators could require that emissions in disadvantaged communities decline at least at the same rate as the overall cap, rather than setting a statewide goal, says James Boyce , an economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Officials also could impose geographic restrictions on trading to ensure that the pollution benefits accrue more locally, or force emitters to go through local air permitting processes. California’s Environmental Justice Advisory Committee repeatedly has called on regulators to reduce the number of available allowances and do away with offsets — a cost-containment measure that allows polluters to buy added emissions credits from outside projects that reduce carbon emissions, such as planting trees or protecting them from logging , often in other states. Alicia Rivera , a community organizer for Communities for a Better Environment in Wilmington, says that she struggles to explain the concept of offsets to residents breathing unhealthy air. “The refinery gets credit, but in Wilmington, they haven’t reduced anything,” she says. (CARB has not banned offsets; however, starting in 2021, companies won’t be able to use as many, and at least half must benefit the state.) Some say that California’s program would produce more equitable results if it had a more ambitious emissions target, and thus higher carbon prices. (By the state’s own assessment , cap and trade deserves little credit for its progress so far.) Others say that it has received too much attention. Danny Cullenward , a climate policy expert at Stanford University, argues that cap and trade “claims to be able to do anything you want … while the politics frustrate any efforts to dial it up to do that.” Stanley Young, director of communications at CARB, says that cap and trade serves as a backstop for the state’s other climate policies, such as efforts to increase renewable energy use and clean up traffic pollution. He says that it works as advertised. It helps lower greenhouse gas emissions and forces companies to factor in the cost of carbon.  The program raises money, too, and California has made good on its obligation to invest the resulting funds in hard-hit communities, but some say it still could do better. Certain programs that ostensibly benefit disadvantaged communities may not actually do so; for example, a recent study by Cushing and others found that some of the state’s clean vehicle rebate programs serve more well-off Californians than low-income residents. Sanchez, of the Greenlining Institute, says that the most disadvantaged communities often lack the means to access cap-and-trade revenue. When they do, state agencies are sometimes reluctant to give control to community-based organizations, says Simeon Gant, executive director of GreenTech , a workforce training program in Sacramento whose students include teenager Abe Francis. As a result, he says, “they never get to the people they’re targeting.” Indeed, many Californians never have heard of cap and trade and remain unaware that it produces money for their benefit. Khamphanthong and others say the state should do a better job of engaging with community members to figure out what they need most. In Richmond, Khamphanthong would like to see support for green jobs that treat employees well and benefit the community. “Why not just work with us to figure out a solution?” he asks. The future In recent months, California’s cap-and-trade program has encountered problems. At the beginning of the pandemic, the spring auction brought in a fraction of the expected revenue. Over the summer, the head of California’s Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees CARB, released a letter stating that he would work with the board to reevaluate the state’s dependence on cap and trade going forward. Whatever California decides, it has to put equity first, says Jackie Cole of Veritable Good, a consulting firm that specializes in environmental justice. “If that is not the central lens through which you are developing solutions, then those communities will always be left out,” she says. New York may offer an interesting model. Last year, activists celebrated the passage of a climate law that sets even more aggressive emissions reductions goals than California. Environmental justice groups championed the bill, and they are hopeful that the state will steer clear of cap-and-trade policies (they have long fought the East Coast’s regional market). Instead, activists support imposing a polluter fee to raise money, on top of strict mandates to cut emissions. After a long negotiation among community members, local officials and industry representatives, refinery managers agreed to cut emissions of several key pollutants by 50% by 2030. Back in California, CARB passed a resolution  — “almost a constitution,” says Serna — reaffirming its commitment to social and racial justice in October. “I have every expectation that that will eventually find its place into everything that we continue to do at CARB,” he says, including managing cap and trade. (In September , Black employees at CARB wrote an open letter and proposed an action plan to address concerns about systemic racism within agency culture.) The state already has taken steps to address air pollution in disadvantaged communities, including issuing new regulations for vehicles  — a major contributor. After Francis participated in a recent CARB panel on environmental justice, the agency offered to install low-cost air monitors at his home as part of a pilot program. Francis said they already have helped his family members stay safe on unhealthy days. The state also has begun implementing a 2017 law , passed alongside the cap-and-trade extension, that creates a community-focused system for tackling harmful emissions in the most affected neighborhoods. Along with Richmond, one of the first cities to participate is Wilmington, together with neighboring Carson and West Long Beach. After a long negotiation among community members, local officials, and industry representatives, refinery managers agreed to cut emissions of several key pollutants by 50 percent by 2030. The final plan , released last year, also includes provisions to reduce pollution from traffic and oil wells. Rivera, the community organizer, says the refinery agreement represents a victory — albeit hard-won and too late for many. But Altamirano, the Wilmington resident who served as a member of the community steering committee in the negotiations, isn’t quite as hopeful. She lives close enough to a refinery to hear valves pop open and to smell the noxious fumes that seep out. Sometimes, flares illuminate the night sky above her house. And she says she’s still waiting to see change. ” Solo hablan, pero no se hace nada ,” she says. “Just talking and then doing nothing.” Listen to Public News Service’s audio version of this story. This report was made possible in part by the Fund for Environmental Journalism of the Society of Environmental Journalists . Pull Quote Environmental justice activists say the cap and trade program has not served California’s disadvantaged communities, and particularly communities of color, where many facilities operate. As the U.S. reckons with its long legacy of racial injustice and the increasingly devastating consequences of climate change, questions about the efficacy and fairness of cap and trade have taken on greater urgency than ever. How we invest our resources is really a reflection of our priorities. After a long negotiation among community members, local officials and industry representatives, refinery managers agreed to cut emissions of several key pollutants by 50% by 2030. Topics Carbon Policy Environmental Justice California YES! Magazine Featured in featured block (1 article with image touted on the front page or elsewhere) Off Duration 0 Sponsored Article Off Signage from a mass mobilization at the Chevron Oil Refinery in Richmond on August 15, 2009. Flickr planet a. Close Authorship

Go here to read the rest:
Can California’s cap and trade address environmental justice?

These were 10 key sustainable transport trends of 2020

December 16, 2020 by  
Filed under Business, Eco, Green

Comments Off on These were 10 key sustainable transport trends of 2020

These were 10 key sustainable transport trends of 2020 Katie Fehrenbacher Wed, 12/16/2020 – 01:00 Have you ever been more ready for a year to be over? In a little over two weeks, this dumpster fire of a year will be relegated to history. And while the world will be dealing with COVID-19 for many more months into 2021, something just feels so good about leaving 2020 behind.  Many books will be written about 2020 as a turning point in — you name it: American power. China relations. Democracy. In my corner of the universe, I think 2020 was a pivotal year for organizations, policymakers and the financial community to start to take sustainable and electric transportation more seriously as an emerging and powerful market — and as a key piece to tackle climate change. Here are my picks for the 10 most important sustainable transportation trends of 2020: 1. Gas car bans make it big: While some cities around the world have been adopting gasoline-powered car bans and phaseouts for a couple of years, California was the first U.S. state to adopt such an important, and jarring, measure. Just three months ago , California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order to halt the sales of new gas cars within just 15 years. Newsom signed the order as a direct response to California’s historic and tragic wildfire season and as an effort to try to ratchet up his administration’s levers to decarbonize transportation in the battle against climate change. 2. Amazon remakes e-logistics: More than any other company, Amazon has been changing how the electric truck market operates. For years, slow-moving OEMs have failed to make the kinds (and volumes) of electric trucks that commercial businesses need to move goods and people. Amazon’s answer to this problem was to partner at the ground level with startup Rivian and to place an order that turns heads: 100,000 EVs. Amazon Director of Global Fleet Ross Rachey told us at VERGE 20 : “We realized we needed to take an active role in accelerating the products and the technology.” Now Amazon is working on deploying its first Rivian electric trucks by the end of 2021. 3. Ride-hailing looks to electrify: Ride-hailing giants Uber and Lyft made big pledges this year to move to all-electric vehicles. Lyft took the plunge first, announcing it would move to all EVs for both its owned vehicles and driver-owned vehicles by 2030. Uber followed that up with its own plans to move all its vehicles to electric in the U.S., Canada and Europe by 2030 and the rest of the world by 2040. The moves show the policy pressures on these companies from cities and states to clean up their emissions, as well as the changing economics that EVs can be cheaper to operate by eliminating gasoline.  4. Fleets decarbonize with low carbon and electric: Fleet managers of public and commercial vehicle fleets are buying new electric trucks and buses and switching out diesel fleets with low-carbon fuels such as renewable diesel. These organizations are being pushed by a combination of regulations, sustainability goals and customers. While the electric truck and bus markets are young, they’re becoming increasingly competitive for certain types of vehicles running certain routes, such as last-mile delivery.  5. Tesla and Elon defy gravity: While many car companies faltered in the wake of the pandemic, Tesla continued to soar and soar. Tesla CEO Elon Musk is the second richest man in the world based on his Tesla shares, and the company plans to join the S&P on Dec. 18. The Silicon Valley-born electric car company has remade the auto industry, pushing the big car companies to chase its success into EVs, copy its online sales and promotions and mimic its over-the-air software systems.  6. Slow streets show what’s possible: 2020 saw the emergence of the slow-streets trend, where U.S. cities including Oakland, California, and Seattle blocked off miles of neighborhood streets to through traffic in a response to shelter-in-place measures. The slowed streets opened up possibilities for bikes, pedestrians and micromobility devices to move more safely, and reduced vehicles and air pollution in neighborhoods. The movement also gave city planners new tools to engage with residents and showed how cities can remake public spaces away from cars and towards humans.  7. The transport SPACs: An unusual financial tool — the Special Purpose Acquisition Company, or SPAC — emerged as the go-to choice for electric and autonomous transport companies to raise money and go public this year. It works like a reverse merger, where the company merges with a newly created entity and lists on an exchange, raising funds in the process. Why did these emerge this year? Going public via an IPO can take years, but opting for a SPAC can take mere months. Some new transport SPACs are speculative and pre-commercial, but many are legitimate companies with years of revenue and even profits. 8. Climate tech heats up: Venture capitalists and investors are increasingly interested in funding what the cool kids call “climate tech” today, and what we called cleantech in the mid-aughts. The new interest is coming from investors across the board, including old-school firms, brand-new climate funds and corporate arms ( a great resource here ). Entrepreneurs see growing markets, opportunities to work on world-changing solutions and more partners to buy energy, transport and carbontech. Is climate tech becoming so hot that there will be a bubble and bust? Probably. That’s the way Silicon Valley works.  9. Biden puts an end to the Trump darkness: While not strictly a transport story, the U.S. election of Joe Biden could be a major kickstart for the domestic electric vehicle and zero-emission vehicle industries. The president-elect could oversee the deployment of a massive ZEV infrastructure buildout and could quickly reverse the weakening of the auto emissions standards. His administration also will bring in new leadership that will prioritize decarbonizing transport and hopefully will set the bar even higher with new ZEV regulations.  10. Public transit moves into a crisis: mThe most disturbing transport story of 2020 is the crisis facing public transportation with the drop in ridership over safety concerns and COVID. Transit agencies across the U.S. are pleading with the federal government for help covering budget shortfalls, but even if tens of billions of dollars of help is approved, it likely won’t be enough. Many transit agencies will have to cut back on service, reduce staff and undermine the most climate-friendly source of transportation out there.  Topics Transportation & Mobility Clean Fleets Public Transit Electric Vehicles Featured Column Driving Change Featured in featured block (1 article with image touted on the front page or elsewhere) On Duration 0 Sponsored Article Off Rivian made headlines in September 2019 when Amazon (one of its investors) announced its plans to purchase 100,000 of the automotive startup’s all-electric delivery trucks.

Original post:
These were 10 key sustainable transport trends of 2020

Inside Cargill’s experiment to pay farmers for carbon sequestration

June 15, 2020 by  
Filed under Business, Eco, Green

Comments Off on Inside Cargill’s experiment to pay farmers for carbon sequestration

Inside Cargill’s experiment to pay farmers for carbon sequestration Heather Clancy Mon, 06/15/2020 – 00:15 Over the past year, agricultural commodities giant Cargill stepped up its global sustainability initiatives substantially, with a series of programs created to support its science-based target of reducing supply chain emissions by 30 percent by 2030.  Like many other food companies, it’s dedicating resources to promoting regenerative agricultural practices among the farmers and seeking ways that farms can profit from their efforts to sequester carbon dioxide. That’s the backstory behind its relationship with the Soil & Water Outcomes Fund , a program intended to support farmers who design and implement initiatives aimed at improving water quality and mitigating flooding and runoff, increasing carbon sequestration, reducing emissions from on-farm operations, and creating or protecting habitat. These include practices such as planting cover crops, reducing tillage and preserving edge-of-field wilderness buffers or wetland. The effort, which includes close to 10,000 acres in the pilot phase this year across 15 farms in Iowa, is administered by the Iowa Soybean Association , promoting the idea with members and advising them on best practices; and investment firm Quantified Ventures , helping with cost-benefit analyses and other operational aspects of the effort, including fundraising. The goal is to include up to 100,000 acres in Iowa next year and expand into at least two more states, according to the companies managing the program. They come to us with a program. We analyze and pay them on a tiered approach depending on what they do. Progress against a farm’s individual carbon removal or water stewardship efforts will be measured using COMET-FARM , a carbon reporting and accounting system developed by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Division and Colorado State University. “[Farmers] come to us with a program. We analyze and pay them on a tiered approach depending on what they do,” said Adam Kiel, director of conservation and external programs at Iowa Soybean. Farmers will be paid between $30 and $45 per acre this season, depending on the outcomes. The metrics for success are being defined by the fund in collaboration with local municipalities that feel the downstream effects of agricultural activities within their watersheds. To be clear, the program isn’t limited to soybean operations but it does require that the approaches being adopted are additive or new — farmers won’t be rewarded for regenerative practices that were already in place. The program started specifically to address water quality measures but evolved to embrace the broader carbon sequestration mandate.     Cargill’s role is twofold: Not only is it encouraging farmers to participate as way of helping address its Scope 3 emissions, it also will buy carbon credits through the fund on an annual basis. “The innovative nature of this program was compelling,” said Ryan Sirolli, director of row crop sustainability at Cargill. While Cargill is the only named company participating in the new fund, Mark Lambert, director of Quantified Ventures, said it is in discussion with other large companies. “We want a diversity of customers,” he said. “We see a variety of opportunities to support sustainability goals.” What does success look like? A program that touches “millions” of acres, he said. Given the disruptive effects of the COVID-19 pandemic across the global food system , it’s more important than ever to help farmers reap the financial benefits of investing in a more sustainable approach, Sirolli said. “Agriculture is getting absolutely hammered right now,” he said. Aside from this specific effort, Cargill is a founding member of the Ecosystem Services Market Consortium, which seeks to create a national marketplace by 2020. “We would love to see customers, competitors, others saying, ‘I would love to be in this space,’” Sirolli said. This isn’t the only carbon marketplace scheme in the works — and the model is raising questions about how actions are measured and verified. Startup Indigo Ag, backed by companies including recent investor FedEx , for example, is planning to pay farmers based on how much carbon they have stored in their soil — it collects soil samples to that end. Software company Nori, another rising player, is using blockchain to manage the transactions. An important actor Cargill’s influence on transforming to a more sustainable food system cannot be underestimated — it employs 160,000 people in 70 countries. The footprint of its sustainability activities, detailed in its latest sustainability report published in early June, is extensive. Among some notable highlights of its work: Using digital technologies and barcodes, the company can trace 50 percent of its “sustainable cocoa beans” supply from farm to factory; it’s also using mapping services, which will be important for identifying regions where forests are at risk. The company has reduced its “aggregated gross CO2 reduction” related to its maritime vessels — it owns an ocean fleet of over 600 vessels — by 800,000 metric tons. It’s also working closely with the Global Maritime Forum.  It’s “on track” to eliminate deforestation related to commercial palm concessions in its “third-party supply chain” by the end of 2020.  Cargill also has completed a Brazilian supply chain mapping exercise related to building “deforestation-free” supply chains for soybeans. Earlier this year at GreenBiz 20, Cargill CSO Ruth Kimmelshue acknowledged that progress to protect forests has been tougher within the soy supply chain than it has been for cocoa or palm oil. The company’s overall pledge has been to halve deforestation within its supply chains by the end of 2020 and to eliminate it entirely by 2030. Pull Quote They come to us with a program. We analyze and pay them on a tiered approach depending on what they do. Topics Carbon Removal Food & Agriculture Regenerative Agriculture Natural Climate Solutions Carbon Removal Featured in featured block (1 article with image touted on the front page or elsewhere) Off Duration 0 Sponsored Article Off

Read more:
Inside Cargill’s experiment to pay farmers for carbon sequestration

Why the private sector needs to invest in conservation agriculture right now

June 6, 2020 by  
Filed under Business, Green

Comments Off on Why the private sector needs to invest in conservation agriculture right now

Why the private sector needs to invest in conservation agriculture right now William Ginn Sat, 06/06/2020 – 02:00 This is an excerpt from ” Valuing Nature ” by William J. Ginn. Copyright 2020 William J. Ginn. Reproduced here with permission from Island Press, Washington, D.C.  Resistance to change is universal. For example, despite more than 30 years of good science and best practices that support conservation agriculture in the United States, less than 5 percent of U.S. soy, wheat, and corn farmers use cover crops, and only 25 percent have adopted crop rotation and conservation tillage practices, even though the country is losing more than 10 billion tons of soil each year as well as more than $50 billion in social and environmental benefits. One challenge is the increasing percentage of farms owned by investors who lease land year to year to the highest bidder, which gives farmers little incentive to invest in conservation practices that might take years to be fully realized. Nevertheless, [The Nature Conservancy (TNC)], along with a consortium of farmers’ groups and a contingent of seed and fertilizer companies, has set a goal of getting half of the country’s wheat, soy, and corn crops into conservation tillage by [2025] (PDF). To achieve this goal, the same kind of incentives, extension services, and creative financial mechanisms being advocated for in the developing world are going to be needed in the United States too. Building capacity and providing patient capital at the farmer level is a big challenge; at NatureVest, it is referred to as the last-mile problem. Although big-picture interventions are often understood in theory, the capacity of farmers to implement these solutions on the ground is often quite limited. Nearly everywhere these challenges exist, we need to dramatically increase the number of intermediaries who can help farmers through the difficult but necessary transition to new cropping and livestock-raising systems. It is all high-risk business, and as such, it is not always successful. Several years ago, TNC entered into an agreement with an agricultural consulting company in Argentina with the objective of helping farmers improve sheep-grazing practices. Years of overgrazing had left the region’s grasslands substantially degraded; in fact, at one point in the early years of Patagonia’s colonization, more than 45 million sheep roamed free. Today, the region is home to between 5 million and 8 million sheep, but even that number may be too many. Building capacity and providing patient capital at the farmer level is a big challenge; at NatureVest, it is referred to as the last-mile problem. The restoration plan, called the Patagonia Grassland Regeneration and Sustainability Standard, or GRASS for short, incorporated conservation science, planning, and monitoring into the management plans of wool producers. The idea was not new: rather than grazing sheep in one place continually, they are moved in and out of different pastures depending on the conditions of the grasses. This practice encourages more diversity of native grass species and expanded yields from the revitalized pastures. Done well, ranchers, sheep, native plants, and animals can thrive together. But what motivates ranchers to make these investments in better management and fencing? The basic business idea of GRASS was to improve management practices on ranches and produce a certified wool product that would attract buyers willing to pay more for sustainably grown wool. The program attracted two early adopters, Patagonia, Inc ., a brand committed to sourcing their raw materials sustainably, and Stella McCartney , a high-end clothing manufacturer and daughter of Paul McCartney. Prior to this venture, both companies had been buying their wool primarily from Australia and New Zealand, but for Patagonia in particular, a shift to sourcing from Argentina provided a nice opportunity for alignment with their brand. Dozens of ranches signed up to participate, and many saw measurable yield improvements, even though the initial wool purchases were small. Despite the program’s early successes, the program became unraveled when the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) released video footage of alleged animal abuse occurring at some of the ranches. As chief conservation officer of TNC at the time, I can say that I was not very happy with these practices, but I thought some of the allegations were overblown. For example, PETA considers docking tails of sheep to be inhumane, yet it is long-standing practice that arguably improves the health of animals. Nevertheless, both Patagonia and Stella McCartney abruptly ended their contracts with GRASS, and without a market partner, the program has failed to scale to a commercial model. Although any improvement in grazing is useful, the expected impact across the landscape now seems a distant objective. Because feeding the world is an absolute imperative, farmers, investors, and aid organizations continue their quests for new models of sustainable intensification that will both feed more people and restore the soils and hydrological systems that are essential to agriculture. Providing capital in a way that reaches the hundreds of millions of small farmers across the globe as well as the necessary skills and technical expertise is a challenge that will remain for years, but business opportunities abound. Our shared natural assets — soil, water, and a stable climate — will only increase in value as the world demands more food. Pull Quote Building capacity and providing patient capital at the farmer level is a big challenge; at NatureVest, it is referred to as the last-mile problem. Topics Corporate Strategy Food & Agriculture Biodiversity Books Food & Agriculture Conservation Conservation Finance Collective Insight GreenBiz Reads Featured in featured block (1 article with image touted on the front page or elsewhere) On Duration 0 Sponsored Article Off Flock of sheep in Patagonia, Chile. Shutterstock gg-foto Close Authorship

See more here:
Why the private sector needs to invest in conservation agriculture right now

Earth School offers kids interesting science lessons online

June 3, 2020 by  
Filed under Green

Comments Off on Earth School offers kids interesting science lessons online

Kids stuck at home due to coronavirus have another opportunity for quality online learning. Earth School, a collaboration between TED-Ed (TED’s youth and education initiative) and the United Nations’ Environment Programme, is releasing 30 short videos to teach children about connections between nature and many aspects of society. The videos started dropping on Earth Day , April 22. Since then, the collaborators have released one video daily. The last video will be posted on June 5, World Environment Day. The videos will remain online and can be viewed consecutively or randomly. Related: Take a virtual dive with NOAA More than 30 organizations helped create the videos. The World Wildlife Fund, National Geographic and BBC contributed high-quality video footage, articles and digital interactive resources. The 30 video lessons fall into six categories: The Nature of Our Stuff, The Nature of Society, The Nature of Nature, The Nature of Change, The Nature of Individual Action and The Nature of Collective Action. The producers designed them to appeal to science-curious kids with topics like the lifecycle of a T-shirt, whether we should eat bugs, where does water come from and tracking grizzly bears from space. A press release stated the program’s three goals: to help kids and parents sort through a myriad of options to find a solid, reliable science source; to keep kids interested in nature even while they’re stuck inside; and to ease the load of harried parents who suddenly find themselves in charge of their kids’ education 24/7. Watching these videos will help children understand their roles as future stewards of our troubled planet. The last two weeks of instruction offer concrete ways kids can improve the world individually and collectively. As the press release explains, “We aim to inspire the awe and wonder of nature in Earth School students and help them finish the program with a firm grasp of how deeply intertwined we are with the planet.” + Earth School Image via Lukas

Read more from the original source:
Earth School offers kids interesting science lessons online

Off-grid cabins in Brazil offer remote eco getaway

June 3, 2020 by  
Filed under Eco, Green

Comments Off on Off-grid cabins in Brazil offer remote eco getaway

While some people may find social distancing a bit inconvenient, others may have found a new way to live — and vacation. For those who are looking to continue to enjoy solitude, but in an amazingly natural landscape, Brazilian firm  Arquitetura Rural  has just unveiled two off-grid  eco cabins  located deep in a very remote Brazilian forest. Both of the eco cabins were designed for a sustainable farm located in the remote Brazilian region of Rio do Coco. The region is known for its lush forest landscape, meandering river and stunning wildlife. To better accommodate nature lovers to the area, the EcoAraguaia Farm of The Future tasked the team from Arquitetura Rural with designing two  solar-powered  eco cabins that would fit in harmony with the surroundings. Related: Embrace sustainable travel in this solar-powered A-frame cabin The first cabin, the OCA, is 904 square meters. Inspired by indigenous Brazilian architecture, the cabin is a two-story rounded volume with open sides. Made out of  sustainably-sourced local wood  from a native Brazilian tree called Cumaru, the cabin is set off the ground on stilts to protect the landscape and encourage natural ventilation and temperature control. The interior of the space, which features a large open layout, is clad in teak wood. The cabin’s roof is covered in natural palm tree fibers, which also offer optimal protection from inclement weather and provide shade for the interior spaces. The second  cabin design , the TABA, is the smaller of the two. At just 322 square feet, the cabin can accommodate up to two people. However, the farm plans to build several modules of the TABA, all connected by an elevated wooden deck. The cabin design features two large windows, which frame the incredible views. Built by local craftsmen, both of the cabins will operate completely  off-grid . Water used in the cabin is pumped from the local river, called Rio do Coco. Energy is generated by solar panels, which generate sufficient power while the sun is shining. At night, the cabins are illuminated by candles and lamps, which apart from saving energy, also keep the curious wildlife such as jaguars, howler monkeys and birds at bay. The cabins are also installed with green sanitation systems designed to operate on a zero-waste output. There is a special composting mechanism that turns  organic waste  into compost, which is then used as fertilizer for growing food. This system is used to care for the farm’s organic banana trees and papaya and sweet potato plants. + Arquitetura Rural Images via Arquitetura Rural

Go here to read the rest: 
Off-grid cabins in Brazil offer remote eco getaway

How cosmetics retailer Lush is making purposeful profit through circularity

May 12, 2020 by  
Filed under Business, Eco, Green, Recycle

Comments Off on How cosmetics retailer Lush is making purposeful profit through circularity

How cosmetics retailer Lush is making purposeful profit through circularity Katrina Shum Tue, 05/12/2020 – 01:30 This article is part of our Paradigm Shift series, produced by nonprofit PYXERA Global, on the diverse solutions driving the transition to a circular economy. See the full collection of stories and upcoming webinars with the authors  here . Commerce as we know it is going through a rapid evolution. The convergence of new technology, emerging social platforms, constrained natural resources and the evolving values of each new generation is changing the way we do business — whether it’s the sharing economy, the rise of products as a service or the retail shopping experience itself. But the accelerated growth of the retail industry has come at a cost. There’s no doubt about it — we are in the midst of a plastic pollution crisis. We’ve all seen the viral images of turtles with straws stuck up their noses, or whales washed up with bellies full of plastic bags. And one of the biggest contributors to this plastic crisis is the space we operate in: the cosmetics industry. By nature, cosmetics packaging is small and intricate, made up of many parts that are difficult to clean after use, resulting in the majority of this packaging going directly into landfills. Consider that the cosmetics industry brings in a booming $500 billion every year and imagine the waste created by default. But it doesn’t have to be like this. As businesses, we can manufacture and sell products with no packaging, create closed-loop recycling systems and collaborate with suppliers to create innovative solutions for reducing waste — all while thriving. A family-owned and operated bath and beauty business, Lush began as a single storefront in Poole, England in 1995. With no money for fancy wrapping or individual molds, Lush co-founders Mark and Mo Constantine would hand-pour soap into upcycled drain pipes or lunch pails, then cut slices for customers to order. These humble beginnings ignited a continual cycle of innovation that has driven the brand forward for more than 30 years and continues today with the evolution of more “naked” products that require no packaging at all. As a vertically integrated business at Lush, we’re in a unique position to embed our values and zero-waste philosophy throughout our value chain. The global packaging industry is set to reach over $1 trillion by 2021. What if businesses invested that money into the products themselves rather than what is wrapped around them? The waste hierarchy is well known, yet we struggle as businesses to follow it — pushing blame on cost or customer convenience. How do we start with refuse, rethink and redesign in our products and packaging, before we step down the hierarchy? How can we tackle reuse and recycle in a way that is both meaningful and impactful? Designing for sustainability and zero waste can be challenging with multiple stakeholders and competing interests throughout the lifecycle of a product. Who designs the product may be different from who makes it, who sells it or how it’s used. Different business models and organizational structures can be conducive to supporting zero-waste, closed-loop goals. As a vertically integrated business at Lush, we’re in a unique position to embed our values and zero-waste philosophy throughout our value chain. We still invent our own products, manage our own supply chains, grow some of our own raw materials, own and operate our manufacturing and distribution facilities and run our own retail shops. Now in 49 countries around the world, Lush has the creativity and agility — along with a strong base of customers who share our values — to push boundaries, innovate, make mistakes, learn, evolve and bring to market packaging-free products that prove what is possible. As businesses that bring products and packaging into our customers’ homes, the private sector has a responsibility to think about how we lead the transition toward zero-waste living. Whether you work in product innovation, packaging or marketing, we each have an opportunity to change the habits and the dialogue in society around waste in our everyday living. Over recent years, we have significantly expanded our naked or packaging-free range by reformulating products to reduce their water content, resulting in solid versions of products such as shampoo, shower gels, body lotions and toothpaste. We invented our shampoo bars back in the late 1980s and in the last five years alone we have sold over 6.5 million shampoo bars in North America, saving 19.4 million plastic bottles from being produced. That’s about 535 tons of plastic avoided, or about the weight of five blue whales. With a growing range of naked products came an opportunity to evolve a new retail experience with the rollout of Naked Shops in Milan, Berlin, Hong Kong and Manchester. Naked Shops are our way to re-imagine what a store without any packaging could look like. How do you list ingredients without a label? How does the customer find directions on how to use the product? Leveraging technology, we have developed the Lush Lens App, which allows customers to use their phones to scan products and get the typical information they would find on a physical label, along with engaging and interactive content about the ingredients and stories behind them. Moving down the waste hierarchy is reduce, reuse and then recycle. When it comes to packaging, reduce and reuse can present simple cost savings. Reducing the thickness of bottles or minimizing the use of unnecessary packaging can reduce the cost of resin and materials. Promoting reuse options such as reusable containers or reusable giftwrap can generate initial revenue and help reduce packaging costs if we set up the means for them to be properly reused. When it comes to recycling, businesses can affect the larger systems level by sourcing post-consumer recycled content (PCR). Generating significant demand and putting our dollars toward PCR content rather than virgin resources provides the market signals and funds necessary to support all players in the recycling and processing of those materials. For the products that do still require packaging at Lush, we have been sourcing 100 percent PCR content for all our plastics and 100 percent recycled paper for over a decade. Our buyers have had firsthand conversations with paper mills about the real struggles of keeping the recycled content supply chain in operation; they have heard these conversations evolve over the years without adequate demand for PCR content. We have worked for over a decade to find, connect and support suppliers and processors throughout the chain who can source, grind, process and extrude packaging that meets FDA and other quality requirements. As businesses, we can all play a role in supporting a circular economy at the macro level by simply sourcing recycled content. In addition to supporting at the macro level, businesses also have an opportunity to create circular systems for their own packaging and provide customers with a direct and transparent way to ensure their packaging is being properly processed and recycled or repurposed into new items. Lush started the Black Pot program in 2008 when global recycling rates were very low. Through this program, customers can bring back five empty black pots from any of our products in exchange for a free face mask. Black pots, the packaging for some of our haircare, skincare and shower products, returned by customers are shipped back to our factories where they are consolidated and sent to be chipped, washed, pelletized and remolded into new black pots. The reverse logistics (the process by which we recapture the value of post-consumer material) for this program has not been easy. It challenged us to rethink our black pot supply chain that had been set up in Asia. Through many conversations, we developed meaningful partnerships with local processors in Vancouver and Toronto, located within hours of our factories where our products are made. By fostering these relationships, we were able to localize our supply chain and keep our black pot recycling program within North America. With limited promotion, the program currently has a 17 percent return rate, which allows each new black pot to be made with roughly 10 percent resin from old pots and the remainder from 100 percent PCR resin. In addition to customer-facing programs, businesses also have an opportunity to initiate waste reduction and circularity programs upstream with their network of suppliers. As we have been tackling zero-waste goals in our manufacturing and distribution facilities at Lush, we recognized the need to engage our suppliers in reducing the amount of unnecessary packaging materials they send into our facilities. Including packaging questions in traditional supplier surveys and focusing on reuse opportunities with local suppliers is a good place to start. Over the past few years, we have found various reduction opportunities by simply initiating conversations with suppliers and sharing our zero waste goals. We’ve eliminated the soft plastic baggies that used to cover each of our reusable metal shampoo and lotion containers, we have worked with suppliers on larger volume containers to eliminate many smaller containers, and we’ve successfully tested a few reuse programs with local suppliers. One recent win was a cardboard box reuse program with our black pot supplier. Through our annual waste audits, we noticed that cardboard was 47 to 55 percent of the discarded material being generated in two of our production rooms. Our cardboard box reuse program allows us to reuse boxes an average of five times, saving roughly 9,000 kilograms of cardboard annually with the potential for 17,000-plus kilograms more. While reducing cardboard may not look good in the way companies typically calculate and communicate waste diversion percentages, reducing the overall discarded materials is the right thing to do and has encouraged us to rethink how we measure and value true waste reduction and reuse efforts. At Lush, we look to nature for inspiration. Similar to keystone species within larger ecosystems, we see the opportunity to be a catalyst for change and have a disproportionately positive impact on our industry to transform bathroom habits and routines around the world. Whether it’s working with our network of suppliers or bringing packaging-free products to market, as businesses we can all have a positive ripple effect in all that we do — in the decisions we make, the ingredients we put into our products, the people we do business with and the voices and values we amplify. In truth, it’s not the easy way. But if all of us use our business influence for good to raise awareness about waste issues, challenge industry working groups and support advancement of government policies, then we collectively can have a much greater positive impact on creating a cleaner, more sustainable world. T o learn more from the leaders of the circular economy transition, visit  PYXERA Global . Pull Quote As a vertically integrated business at Lush, we’re in a unique position to embed our values and zero-waste philosophy throughout our value chain. Topics Circular Economy Design & Packaging Supply Chain Paradigm Shift Cosmetics Circular Packaging Supplier Engagement Featured in featured block (1 article with image touted on the front page or elsewhere) Off Duration 0 Sponsored Article Off Courtesy of Lush Close Authorship

Excerpt from:
How cosmetics retailer Lush is making purposeful profit through circularity

Episode 190: Ambition, angst and action at Climate Week, Danone CEO prioritizes biodiversity

September 27, 2019 by  
Filed under Business, Green

Comments Off on Episode 190: Ambition, angst and action at Climate Week, Danone CEO prioritizes biodiversity

Tune in for a recap of news and conversations during more than 300 events linked to the UN General Assembly. Plus inside PepsiCo’s Sustainable Farming Program and a peek into Engie Impact.

See original here:
Episode 190: Ambition, angst and action at Climate Week, Danone CEO prioritizes biodiversity

Endangered green and loggerhead turtles make Mediterranean comeback

August 17, 2018 by  
Filed under Green

Comments Off on Endangered green and loggerhead turtles make Mediterranean comeback

For 10,000 years, green and loggerhead turtles have been nesting on the Mediterranean coast of Cyprus. In the last 100 years, they have been hunted to the brink of extinction. Thankfully, due to pioneering conservation efforts made by Cypriot marine biologists, these endearing reptiles have seen a promising bounce-back in numbers, pulling them away from the brink of extinction. Related: Turtle hatchlings spotted on Mumbai beach for the first time in nearly 20 years For thousands of years, the turtles have hatched on Cyprus’s Lara Beach, fighting the waves as they make their way to the ocean and begin their lives. The reptiles return 20 to 30 years later to lay eggs and bring about the next generation of turtle hatchlings. This phenomenon is a result of the turtles’ own biological programming, which calls them back to the same beaches that their ancestors chose long ago. Conservationists have been working tirelessly to save the endangered green and loggerhead turtle populations for four decades. Their efforts began in 1978, when only 300 turtle nests remained on Cyprus’s shores. The result is “quite spectacular,” according to Andreas Demetropoulos, founder and co-head of a turtle conservation program overseen by Cyprus’s Fisheries and Marine Research Department. His program reported approximately 1,100 nests last year alone, over three times as many as there were at the program’s beginning. Related: Sea turtles appear to be “bouncing back” from the brink of extinction The green and loggerhead turtles only nest in two countries, Turkey and Cyprus. Of the 1,500 egg-laying female green turtles, approximately 200-300 return to Cyprus to lay their eggs. More than twice as many loggerhead turtles do the same. To protect them, Cyprus’s government began its conservation program long before any other EU country, and in 1989 it passed legislation that protected two beaches that the turtles use as hatching grounds. Prior to this, residents would use the beach without regard for the turtles, but in the intervening years a conservationist culture has arisen. According to the program’s other co-head, Myroula Hadjichristophorou, “When people come [to the beaches] with their families, their children, they see the babies coming out of their nests, this is something that they will never forget.” + Sea Turtle Organization Via Phys.org

Read more from the original source: 
Endangered green and loggerhead turtles make Mediterranean comeback

Next Page »

Bad Behavior has blocked 2125 access attempts in the last 7 days.