Category Archives: climate change

Latest Episode of Energy Policy Now Podcast – Carbon Reduction Strategies

Submitted by Andy Stone, Partner at Emerson Stone

Two strategies stand out in the effort to reduce carbon emissions on an economy-wide scale. Carbon Cap and Trade, and Carbon Taxation, have been implemented with varying degrees of success in recent years, while taking very different approaches to reducing emissions.

The latest episode of the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy’s Energy Policy Now podcast takes a look at the mechanisms by which these strategies seek to reduce emissions, and the political and economic considerations that may make one or the other a best fit for a particular nation or region.

The episode features James Hines, Professor of Law and Economics at the University of Michigan, and an editorial adviser to the Kleinman Center.

Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability in the Trump Administration

By: Steve Rochlin, Co-CEO, IO Sustainability, Twitter: @SteveRochlin

The trends arising from the new Trump Administration make corporate responsibility and sustainability (CR&S) more central to business success than ever. At first this may seem counter-intuitive. Yet, recent history suggests that Republican controlled Administrations and Congresses create conditions that drive companies to enhance their commitments to CR&S. Ronald Reagan issued an executive order creating a task force calling for business to do more in alleviating social problems. George W. Bush encouraged greater corporate engagement. At the same time, activism calling for business to take on greater responsibility and leadership for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance intensifies from NGOs, investors, and media.

The private sector will have a central and often unique relationship with the Administration. One expects the Administration to pare back environmental, safety, and other regulations; corporate taxes; reporting requirements such as those for conflict minerals and extractive industry tax and royalty payments; and engagement in international agreements from Basel III to the Paris Climate Agreement. At the same time, the Administration will advance a mix of carrots and sticks to keep domestic jobs and invest in infrastructure. The Administration will seek to redo social support systems such as the Affordable Care Act, and push education, housing, health, and welfare programs to the states. Foreign policy will mix assertive and isolationist stances. The Administration will pinpoint trade and international aid efforts to areas that are viewed to enhance security, job creation, or both.

This agenda will move forward in the first multi-media Presidency to operate and communicate at the pace of internet time. In this context CR&S will be an essential Swiss Army Knife supporting business development and sales, enterprise risk management, brand and reputation, and HR. Companies should take the following steps.

1) Rethink your approach about gaining ROI from CR&S

Executives will experience admonishments that shift from one extreme – dismantle the company’s costly and distracting ESG commitments – to the other – redouble commitments and take bold ESG leadership. Designing a clear and measurable strategy to prioritize and invest in core CR&S areas is a business essential.

Fortunately, evidence from the recently published “Project ROI” report shows CR&S if done well can bump share price up by 6%, increase sales up to 20%, reduce employee turnover by half, and deliver a host of financial risk, productivity, and reputational benefits. Project ROI gives guidance on how to achieve these results and measure outcomes.

This has never been more important as we shift away from debates about privatizing public services, to innovating business solutions for the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The “SDGs” represent a $12 trillion opportunity that could create 380 million new jobs. Companies and business initiatives such as the Global e-Sustainability Initiative, IBM, NovoNordisk, and Unilever among many others are taking advantage. As they do, trends suggest that the mainstream investor community will intensify their positions that ESG performance represents an increasingly important predictor of financial performance.

2) Deepen voluntary ESG commitments and reporting

Reagan presciently saw the growing influence of the court of public opinion. A new landscape of organized activists and media has extra-judicial power. Over the last three decades, companies have participated in a massive global experiment to create self-policing stewardship mechanisms across a wide range of ESG issues from chemical-use, emissions, forests, fish, human rights, and many others. The more regulatory constraints are lifted, the higher expectations will rise for companies – especially the the biggest brands and leaders in every industry — to manage their impacts on the environment and communities. They’ll be expected more than ever before to hold their suppliers accountable for meeting so-called, “civic regulation.” It will be more important than ever to find the sweet spot between wider societal needs, and high priority ESG issues that require both management and reporting.

Some industry segments will take advantage, adhering to minimum legal requirements to undercut the costs of ESG compliance leaders. As corporate ESG reporting, commitments, and partnerships continue to establish the new normal for business success, the more these free riders will lose out.

3) Hew strongly to your company’s core values in taking public positions

The current Administration is inventing new ways to engage with the public using new and traditional media. Industries and brands are in the spotlight in ways never seen before. Project ROI finds that the public evaluates the authenticity of corporate responses and positions, and looks to the perceived reaction of employees as a barometer. Culture and values are core to determining where and when companies should pick sides or stay out of the fray. Every company should form a rapid response team with Corporate Communications, Government and Public Affairs, Legal, HR, and the CR&S team leaders attached at the hip.

4) Build your own constituency

The politicization of consumer purchasing behavior is maturing in Europe, and reaching adolescence in the US. Stakeholder outreach is no longer a side activity tied to sustainability requirements. Risk management will increasingly require companies to have access to their own constituent networks willing to serve as character witnesses, advocates, brand ambassadors, intermediaries, and intelligence agents as marketplaces, policy, and politics increasingly intermesh. Companies like Nestlé and Target and collaborative multi-stakeholder initiatives, are finding ways to define how ESG stakeholders can support competitive success. Companies will be wise to move from current forms of stakeholder engagement to corporate constituency development as the Tweets and messages fly.

5) Engage on agreed areas of collective need

Domestically this means jobs and infrastructure. Underneath these tent poles are a host of potential solutions and social innovations such as work force development (see Accenture and PwC), addressing economic opportunity (see Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, and Walmart), education (see IBM,), health (see Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Campbell Soup Company, Pfizer), and resilience.

Global companies cannot neglect emerging gaps involved in serving international issues. Now is the time to invest in creative and strategic approaches to international development.

Instruments from corporate and workplace community investment, volunteering, R&D, and cause marketing will become more strategic than ever before. The need to demonstrate progress in solving issues will outpace the need to obtain traditional photo-ops and sponsorship branding.

The bottom line is this: don’t myopically focus on the favorable tax and regulatory agenda. Companies should prepare now to be called from all quarters to partner and lead on ESG issues at an unprecedented level of intensity.

Energy Policy Now Podcast: How Alberta Overcame Discord to Enact Carbon Tax

Contributed by the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, via Andy Stone

Carbon policy unexpectedly made headlines last week when a pair of Republican party elders proposed a national carbon tax with a few unique twists. The proposal from Treasury secretaries George Schultz and James Baker actually looks similar to the carbon tax that the Canadian province of Alberta enacted on January 1st with unusually broad buy-in from environmentalists, the energy industry (Canada’s oil sands are in Alberta), indigenous groups and government.

Energy Policy Now, the podcast from Penn’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, interviews Alberta’s senior diplomat to the United States on details of the tax and the collaborative process that made it reality.

Gitane De Silva, Senior Representative to the United States, discusses plan details including the rebate checks to the majority of Albertans to offset higher energy costs. De Silva also provides insights into the provincial government’s intended uses for the balance of the C$9.6 billion in tax revenue over the next five years.

IGEL at the COP22

By Eleanor Mitch, CEO and Founder of EM Strategy Consulting, Wharton alumna

The swift approval and ratification of the Paris Agreement[1] (104 countries of the 197, or 58%, have ratified the agreement!) was nothing short of “miraculous” in CIDCE[2] president Michel Prieur[3]’s words. Never before had an international agreement been so rapidly approved and adopted by so many nations in such a short span of time (approximately 1 year). Indeed, Prieur, one of the “fathers” of the principle of non-regression in environmental law, was instrumental in ensuring the addition of “this momentum is irreversible” in para.4 of the Marrakech Action Proclamation[4]. He has participated in the drafting of many international conventions since the 1970s and sees great hope in the rapid action even though we and future generations will still have to face the grave effects of climate change.

As part of this historic movement of awakening to the realities of the changes climate change must bring about, Wharton IGEL was represented with a presentation in absentia[5] by Eric Orts[6] on the implications for business of the Paris Agreement. Indeed, one of the key sectors that will be facing changes is the business sector. While markets have already chosen more sustainable energy sources in some areas (investments in wind and solar power, and Morocco boasts the world’s largest solar power plant, which just went live in 2016[7]), much more needs to be done, all throughout the supply chain, especially in Operations.

For the first time ever at a United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties (UNFCCC-COP), an event uniting the ITC[8], IFAD[9], WTO[10], UNCTAD[11], UNFCCC[12] and UNFCCC Subsidiary Body for Implementation[13] was held to discuss how to move forward with business and trade on the Paris Agreement. During the event, Wharton IGEL Alumni Eleanor Mitch raised the point of the role of business schools, and especially IGEL’s, in leading the way to new business opportunities and innovation in sustainability. Given that Wharton graduates and those of other business schools will become business leaders, it is important to strengthen ties with the international law-making, enforcing bodies and business schools to prepare graduates to provide services and products for the challenges the world faces: environmentally displaced persons, sea-level rising, sustainable energy and consumption among others. Innovation and creativity-driven prosperity can come hand-in-hand with sustainable development.

 

[1] https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf

[2] http://cidce.org/

[3] http://cidce.org/structures-institutional/

[4] http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/marrakech_nov_2016/application/pdf/marrakech_action_proclamation.pdf

[5] Eleanor Mitch, presented for Eric Orts

[6] http://cidce.org/presentations-cop-22-cop-22-presentations/

[7] http://www.greenprophet.com/2016/02/worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-goes-live-in-morocco/

[8] http://www.intracen.org/

[9] https://www.ifad.org/

[10] https://www.wto.org/

[11] http://unctad.org/en/Pages/Home.aspx

[12] unfccc.int

[13] http://unfccc.int/bodies/body/6406/php/view/reports.php#c

After Fossil Fuels: The Next Economy

By Eric W. Orts, Guardsmark Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania; Faculty Director, Initiative for Global Environmental Leadership

October 10, 2016

David Orr asked me to serve as a rapporteur for the conference that he organized (with a little help from his friends) at Oberlin College and was held from October 5-7, 2016, and I happily agreed. Wharton’s Initiative for Global Environmental Leadership was one of the first of a number of other organizations to agree to co-sponsor this conference, but the work of attracting a remarkable group of leading experts fell mostly to David and his staff. And what an impressive group they assembled! I have gone to conferences relating to the topic of climate change for more than twenty years, and this was by far the most impressive group of its kind. Headline keynotes were given by celebrity “top influencers” including Bill McKibben, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Tom Steyer. In addition, the top executives of organizations including the Sierra Club ad CERES attended, as well as such other well-known names as Gar Alperovitz, Robert Kuttner, Hunter Lovins, and Bill Ritter.

My charge here is to attempt to review the overall course of the conference and to distill some of the major themes. My apologies in advance to anyone at the conference who may feel that I give them short shrift. Inevitably, my own intellectual bias will intrude in selecting the most important themes, but I hope to be as objective as possible in my reporting role. I will also try to be brief.

The conference divided roughly into three parts which were addressed on each day. Of course, different speakers crossed over into different areas, but in general there was an attempt to follow an agenda of organization that would lead to cumulative learning and engagement. Day 1 was devoted to a series of presentations on “theory.” Day 2 focused on elements of the post-carbon “next economy.” Day 3 considered “politics.” This report will follow this division, with transitional keynotes discussed as bridges between the categories.

Day 1: Theory

Elements of the theory needed to make progress on addressing the very large problem of global climate change were addressed by various presentations. These elements included the following.

Vision of sustainability. One must have a working definition of the goal one seeks to accomplish, and perhaps the best reference one can give here is to David Orr’s most recent book, Dangerous Years: Climate Change, the Long Emergency, and the Way Forward (2016). Both economics and politics are necessary to engage, as well as the science providing a background understanding of the challenge. A social transformation is needed to wean human civilization from the destructive use of fossil fuels—namely, coal, oil, and natural gas—and to replace them with renewable energy—such as solar, thermal, wind, and others. Making progress in greater efficiency and conservation in the use of energy is another imperative.

Systems approach. The study of interactions between the natural environment and social behavior and organizations requires a theoretical orientation appreciative of systems, rather than a reductive focus on linear processes. The “next economy” requires innovative new design and reform at both micro (local) and macro (global) levels.

Ethics and values. A general theoretical challenge is to incorporate a new sense of sustainable values and ethics into the social processes of business, work, capital markets, politics, and government. Views of business and markets as concerned strictly with “profit maximization” are inconsistent with this moral requirement. Seeing government as only a game used by people to gain power and influence is similarly impoverished.

Optimistic narratives and stories.   We know from studies in psychology that “optimism is functional” (see Martin Seligman’s work), and a general prescription from the conference seems to be that an optimistic attitude is best even when dealing with the very hard facts of current and impending climate change, including the relentless rise in global concentrations of greenhouse gases, and the fact that average global temperatures continue to set new records. Several presenters noted that 2014, 2015, and 2016 have been progressively the warmest years on record. Fourteen of the last fifteen years have been the hottest ever recorded. Nevertheless, theoretical attitudes toward solving the problem cannot succeed if they fall victim to pessimistic despondency and inaction. New language, metaphors, and concepts are needed. My own view, for example, is that rethinking the purpose and design of business firms is needed as one part of the larger solution (see Orts, Business Persons (2015)). Various presenters focused also on a need to rethink traditional concepts such as “capital” and “eco-system services.” The meanings of “sustainability” itself and somewhat newer ideas of “resilience” are also evolving.

Measurement and accountability. Scientific assessment of progress at all levels is needed as part of the theoretical background. Progress cannot be assumed, and the Paris Agreement opens the door toward better international accounting and verification of greenhouse gas emissions and various mitigation or adaptation strategies adopted by and within nation-states. Other large institutions, such as business corporations and nonprofits, should also install reliable internal accounting standards and practices, following the well-known mantra that “you manage what you measure.” Questions were raised about whether older measures of economic progress such as gross domestic product (GDP) continue to be useful—or whether it would be better to develop and follow new measures of well-being, sustainability, happiness, and freedom from hunger and homelessness.

Fairness and justice. Other key principles—emphasized, for example, by Nikki Silvestri—are fairness and justice, including especially racial justice. The phenomenon of Trump indicates also that many poor and working class whites in the United States have been hurt by current status quo policies. Everyone should be considered when making proposals for change, reform, and reinvention. Progress on climate change will not occur unless all citizens and consumers are respected and included.

McKibben Keynote

Bill McKibben provided a keynote in Finney Chapel at the end of the first day, and as a leading environmental activist (and indeed perhaps the best known activist who led the fight that shut down the Keystone Pipeline) his discussion focused on the need for a citizens’ movement to counteract the inertia and special interests supporting the status quo. McKibben struck three main themes.

Time.   First, climate change is unlike other social problems because incremental, slow progress will not be enough. Adverse effects from global warming are occurring faster than had been predicted twenty years ago. Arctic ice has melted. Ocean have acidified. Very soon, vast amounts of methane may release into the atmosphere from northern tundra landscapes. “If we do not solve [the problem] fast,” said McKibben, “we will not solve it.”

Stop fossil fuels now. According to one recent report, coal, oil, and natural gas companies own reserves that amount to four to five times the amount of carbon that can be safely emitted without blowing through the two degree Celsius average global temperature ceiling agreed as a target in the recent Paris Agreement. Another more recent report has found that current resources already being tapped by these companies will be enough to push the world past two degrees. For McKibben, and for some other environmentalists at the conference, such as the Sierra Club, this means that all expansions of fossil fuel production and distribution should be opposed and, if possible, immediately halted.

Force the change. McKibben sees the status quo, as represented by big fossil fuel companies such as ExxonMobil and their political influence, as the primary obstacle to positive change. Citizens coming together in a broad-based movement is the only way to counter the political influence of big oil and other large energy companies. A “Keystone-ization” needs to spread to other controversies, such as the current standoff at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation to block the Dakota Access pipeline. There has been a long string of recent victories, and McKibben makes a strong argument that these should continue. Politics at the national level also matters, and McKibben opposes Trump on grounds that his campaign denies climate science and threatens to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

Day 2: The Next Economy

                  Day 2 was devoted mostly to what the “next economy” in a post-carbon world would look like. Some participants, such as Gar Alperovitz, focused on the need for new local initiatives that break with the standard model of capitalist financing and management. Many examples of creative grassroots economic development were given, and a key lesson from many presentations is that good jobs are necessary for any environmental reform to succeed. The next economy must provide for secure and well-paid new jobs, because otherwise there will be no political will to make the change from business-as-usual. At the same time, other participants, such as Hunter Lovins, argued that big companies must become part of the solution too. Unilever and Walmart were discussed as positive examples, though a general consensus appeared to support the view that most large corporations were clueless, too casual, or actively dissembling (greenwashing). This widespread lack of true engagement by most businesses in finding climate solutions needs to change.

The financial markets play a large role in the problem as well. Mindy Lubber, the CEO of Ceres, examined various success stories of institutional investors pressuring public companies to disclose risk and performance measures regarding greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. In the U.S., the Securities and Exchange Commission has an important task to set “materiality” disclosure standards relating to climate change. Although the size of social impact investing may not yet have had a huge influence, it seems to be growing, and interest on college and university campuses regarding investment policies for endowments (including divestment) has been increasing too.

Mark Campanale of Carbon Tracker provided a well-received analysis of the “carbon bubble” that he and his colleagues have found in the disclosures of fossil fuel companies. A large percentage of assets currently owned by these firms “can’t be burned” if the two degree limit is to be respected. As a result, many of these companies may be financially overvalued—on the optimistic assumption that the political will is forthcoming to curtail this business model. At the moment, however, major investors do not seem perturbed—and they appear to be betting, then, that the two degree limit will be exceeded.

As for solutions, Campanale and other pointed out that the scale of the problem requires massive government (as well as private) investment. Historical low interest rates should be used to finance as much as $70 trillion in global investment in the repair and enhancement of infrastructure, including new smart grids and the development of renewable energy sources. (This very large number compares with $60 trillion as the approximate value of all publicly traded companies in the world.) A number of presenters spoke of the need for a scale of investment to address climate change similar to the expenditures made in fighting World War II. (And one questioner usefully asked: What will be the equivalent of a “Pearl Harbor moment” to provide sufficient motivation for this scale of investment?)

The need to engage with all people, especially those who feel disenfranchised or ignored by globalization, was emphasized, including urban black and white rural populations. Religious groups provide an essential organizational nexus for transformation at the local level. And leaders such as Pope Francis can have large influence at the global level. The role of cities, which account for 72 percent of greenhouse gas emissions globally, is also key. Joan Fitzgerald noted that the average greenhouse gas emissions in large cities were commonly much less that the average emissions of their countries as a whole. For example, average per capita emissions in New York and San Francisco are less than a third of average emissions of the United States as a whole.

New paradigms were also discussed, such as a need to move toward an objective of “plenitude,” as advocated by Juliet Schor, instead of economic growth. An attitude of plenitude adopts a view that natural resources should be enjoyed rather than exploited. And climate change policies need to fit into a larger strategic template that include other large-scale problems, according to Mark Mykleby and Patrick Doherty. Sustainability should go hand-in-hand with policies promoting economic prosperity and national security.

Brune Keynote

Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, gave a transitional keynote speech that echoed McKibben’s call to oppose the expansion of the fossil fuel industry as a primary target. He first noted an impressive record of success for environmentalists, particularly in the Beyond Coal campaign. Of 200 coal plants proposed fourteen years ago, for example, 90 percent were stopped by coordinated activism and litigation. Six years ago, there were 523 coal plants in the United States, and today more than half of them have been retired. The well-known example of stopping the Keystone Pipeline has been replicated by a string of recent environmentalist victories against similar pipelines and projects. Finally and perhaps most importantly, the overall cost of solar and wind technologies has become very competitive with, and often cheaper than, traditional coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear alternatives.

Brune then drew several lessons from his experience that provided a bridge to discussion about politics in the final day of the conference.

Keep winning. Recent environmentalist victories against the expansion of fossil fuel facilities should continue and, if possible, accelerate.

Reach out to Republicans and Independents as allies. Brune was the first to tag this theme which was later repeated by others. Many of the Sierra Club “wins” have occurred in very politically conservative areas of the country. Climate change cannot remain a cause only of one major party in the United States. Polls show majorities of Republicans believe in climate science and support transitional strategies (despite the rhetoric to the contrary expressed at the top national level). Supermajorities of the American public support policies to counter climate change as well, including many business leaders.

Get active.   People must organize and vote in order for change to happen. Solutions also must work for everyone (a repeated theme throughout the conference). Businesses that embrace climate friendly policies should be welcomed. And “what victory looks like” must include new well-paying jobs, including for unemployed coal miners and persistently marginalized populations.

Moss and Steyer Keynotes

A tag-team keynote session with Otis Moss and Tom Steyer highlighted themes of religion, race, and generational engagement as important. Moss reflected on his own effort to explain and translate environmental issues such as climate change to his religious constituents in order to make change “by any greens necessary.” Environmental justice links with racial justice in the United States, and Moss also emphasized the essential task of engaging younger people.

Tom Steyer agreed with the need to engage youth and described his efforts with NextGen Climate which, for example, has a presence now on fifty college campuses in Ohio. Steyer cited polls that indicated extremely high levels of support for clean energy solutions (around 80% of younger voters) and a transition to a 100% clean energy economy (91% of Millennials according to one poll).

Religious leaders are important as well, and the recent encyclical by Pope Francis carries great weight. Historically conservative icons such as leaders in the military provide another fulcrum from which change may be leveraged.

Day 3: Politics

It is fair to say that the outsized Arnold Schwarzenegger stole the show on the last day of the conference. The former Republican Governor of California made an impassioned case for both parties to tackle the challenge of climate change in a bipartisan manner. His catchphrase, riffing on a famous speech by Obama, was that “there is no Democratic water and Republican water; no Democratic air and Republican air.” He embodied pleas by other participants that Republicans had to come to the table, and he was hard to miss or ignore.

Sharing the stage with Tom Steyer, a Democrat who is known for bankrolling politicians who embrace climate friendly positions, the former Governor elevated California as an example that the rest of the United States could follow. Simply “copy us,” said Schwarzenegger, and I “guarantee” economic growth as well as climate progress. He compared California’s economic and environmental success to Germany’s.

In addition, Schwarzenegger emphasized that the fossil fuel companies (which he described as mostly coming from Texas) had to be opposed. He claimed, with respect to their attempts to lobby against reform, that “we terminated them.” (At the same time, he recognized the ability to work with them on climate-friendly projects such the introduction of hydrogen fuel by Chevron in California.) He reiterated a theme heard throughout the conference that policies to address climate change had to provide good jobs too. In his view, California provides an example for other states (including Ohio and Texas) that green policies can lead to economic prosperity. Interestingly, Schwarzenegger found that some of the biggest opponents of environmental policies or initiatives were in fact environmentalists. For example, proposals to build new solar plants in deserts were opposed and delayed on grounds of threats to endangered species such as tortoises.

Steyer largely agreed with Schwarzenegger on the main points. Both argued for economic growth (which was a contested idea for other participants who see a conflict emerging between growth and sustainability). Both emphasized the importance of jobs. Both made the case of a shift toward bipartisan engagement at the national level.

Earlier in the day, Robert Kuttner provided an incisive commentary on the current political situation. White working class people hurt by governmental policies for several decades appear to have become a wild card supporting the likes of Trump and his anti-establishment, anti-globalization, and anti-science rhetoric. Commenting on “the presence of prophetic voices” at the conference, such as McKibben, Kuttner argued that the deeper roots of Trumpism had to be recognized and countered in order to establish a political consensus to address climate change.   He argued against the “liberal elitism” that embraced climate change as a major issue and yet ignored large losses in wealth and well-being of large swaths of the population. A “possible politics” to remedy the situation could focus on reducing levels of material consumption and reversing the incentives that encourage what he called “predatory capitalism.” He also echoed calls by others at the conference for a massive investment in infrastructure, taking advantage of historically low interest rates. Climate change is a challenge “such as we’ve never faced,” he said, and we are “groping for analogies (but not in Trump’s sense of groping).” Kuttner concluded with one memorable quote from the conference, reflecting on the need to take our grandchildren’s perspective into account: “We need not just to be right; we need to win.”

Conclusion

Many others paid tribute to David Orr at the conference, and his inspiration informed many contributions. I will do so here as well, and mention again that these reflections are sifted through my own particular lenses. I would urge interested readers to consult sources provided at the conference for further avenues of self-edification and engagement. I will leave the last word to Orr, though, and quote the following from his new book, which I believe embraces the spirit of the conference overall:

I do not believe that we are fated to destroy the Earth by fire, heat, or technology run amok. But if there is a happier future it will come down to this: to act with compassion and energy, our hearts must be in it; to act intelligently, we must understand that we are but one part of an interrelated global system; to act effectively and justly, we must be governed by accountable, transparent, and robust democratic institutions; and to act sustainably, we must live and work within the limits of our natural system over the longterm. (Dangerous Years, p. xi)

If we are as a civilization in some measure successful in addressing the massive challenge of climate change, the Oberlin conference on “After Fossil Fuels: The Next Economy” will have had some role in inspiring and informing this future success. It was a privilege to be there for the experience, for the education, and for the inspiration.

Following the Green Brick Road with MES and IGEL to Real-World Sustainability

By: Nathan Sell*

January to July 2014 were the quickest and perhaps busiest months of my life to date. As a Masters student in the Environmental Studies program at Penn I was finishing up my degree, joining the Initiative for Global Environmental Leadership (IGEL) team, and job hunting. My time at IGEL was an invaluable experience in many ways. I joined in the thick of event planning just as the annual conference and a host of other events were all being planned.  This “trial by fire” had me leveraging my new knowledge as an MES student, as well as my educational background, and building a new set of communications and outreach skills.

I was in awe at the audience that IGEL has and the power that its events have to bring together leaders in sustainability and push the discussion on what companies can do for business and the environment. A lot of the skills I refined while at IGEL both caught the attention of my current employers and have served me well in my new role.

As a participant in the ORISE (Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education) program, I’m working with the EPA Office of Water at the headquarters in Washington, DC. As part of the Climate Change Team, I work on issues closely tied to sustainability.  Balanced between communications and research, a portion of my work is dedicated to facing EPA’s message to the public through social media and outreach. My research at the moment focuses on “Blue Carbon,” carbon sequestered within coastal marine ecosystems such as mangroves, sea grass beds, and salt marshes. Blue Carbon is getting a lot of attention, and for good reason. These ecosystems are shown to store carbon up to 100X faster than terrestrial ecosystems such as forests, and store this carbon for incredibly long periods of time. They’re part of the puzzle to building climate change resilience. Seeing how policy can be leveraged for additional protection and expansion of these threatened environments, and seeing where business can build blue carbon into international carbon markets are some of the drivers that will be increasingly important in the future.  It’s an exciting intersection of science, policy and business that I’m thrilled to be working on, and an amazing way to begin putting my MES degree and IGEL experience to use.

*Nathan is the former IGEL Coordinator and currently works with the EPA Office of Water on their Water Policy Staff.  @mister_sells

Adapting to Climate Change: Environmental Liability

By: Anthony Wagar

Over the past several years, more and more companies are becoming increasingly aware of climate change issues and the necessity for sustainability/resiliency planning.  This awareness comes in many forms but primarily centers on how their business might be affected financially (through legal liability, fines/penalties, government regulations, and financial disclosure requirements) or just simply public relations surrounding responsible corporate citizenship. 

As the climate change threat becomes more real, based upon its estimated path into the future, industries are preparing for the potential impact, the importance of sustainability planning and facing that possibility that they may need to be prepared to pay a price on their carbon output.

This is not isolated to only major oil companies or large manufacturing companies who utilize vast amounts of coal to generate energy (some companies that have already taken the initiative to consider sustainability planning include firms such as Microsoft, General Electric, Walt Disney, ConAgra Foods, Wells Fargo, DuPont, Duke Energy, Google and Delta Airlines just to name a few).

Storm Surge and/or Flooding

Adverse weather events such as flooding, storm surges, droughts and heat-wave could lead to unexpected clean-up costs and/or pollution legal liabilities issues.  A few “real life” examples illustrated below.

Historic/Pre-Existing Contamination

Properties having historical or pre-existing contamination could be disturbed and, subsequently, carry pollutants to multiple locations resulting in the cross-contamination of various parts of the property and/or neighbouring properties.

Landfills

Heavy water infiltration can cause landslides carrying with it pollutants and/or contaminated waste water into nearby waterways or sensitive third party receptor areas.

Drums and Storage Tanks

Drums containing hazardous waste and storage tanks containing oils and other chemicals could be raised afloat and damaged during transport from their original locations, thereby distributing pollutants downstream.

Sewerage Authorities

Sewerage authorities have limited storage and processing capacity, therefore, large unanticipated volumes of water could result in the overflow and/or release of raw untreated sewage.

Mold Damage

Mold can grow at alarming rates given proper moisture, temperature range and food source (cellulose based substrate) following a saturation event.

“Green” Materials

Many environmental insurers are now providing coverage which give Insured’s an option to replace property with “green” materials following damage from pollutants, hence, further reducing their “carbon footprint” and addressing sustainability issues.

Many businesses experienced these scenarios during Hurricane Sandy, which resulted in costly remediation, bodily injury/property damage and staggering legal defense costs.

Droughts and Heat-Waves

While most of these loss scenarios discussed above would be addressed under a pollution legal liability policy, there are other “non-pollution” related environmental damages that would not be covered. For example:

Loss of Operating License

A major soft drink company lost their lucrative operating license in India because of an exhaustion of water resources used as raw material.

Supply Chain Disruption

A major footwear and clothing manufacturer was disrupted because an extreme weather event negatively affected cotton growth (which as one of their primary raw materials).

From a risk-management perspective, all of these exposures affect a company’s business risk and, ultimately, how insurers may view them in terms of underwriting appetite, coverage, premium, and limit for certain classes of risk.

While public policy and government intervention can help raise the importance and address the climate change issue, it’s actual corporations that can make the most impact through their own individual greenhouse gas reduction and sustainability efforts to ensure their own business success and longevity.

Climate change will continue to be one of the top concerns facing businesses across the board. Therefore, adapting proper risk management strategies and loss control planning measures early on is key.

– See more at: http://blog.willis.com/2014/04/adapting-to-climate-change-environmental-liability/#sthash.7eCgYB7w.dpuf

Is Your Business Safe from Climate Change?

By: Anne Coglianese

Climate change poses global threats to the environment, but do you know how it will affect the quality of life where you live and work? If you own a business, do you know how climate change will affect your bottom line? A recent report called Risky Business: The Economic Risks of Climate Change to the United States helps businesses identify and prepare for the specific, local risks that climate change poses.

To the average citizen, climate change may feel abstract, and many people believe that only coastal communities will be affected. However, the Risky Business report draws attention to effects far beyond sea level rise, including mortality, storm surge, crop yields, and energy, to name just a few.  For the first time, individuals can narrow in on their region to learn which issues are most relevant in their state, discovering how closely climate change will affect all of us.

The report was released by the Risky Business Project, started in the fall of 2013 when the nongovernmental organization Next Generation paired up with Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Paulson Institute to research climate change’s economic threats. The report stresses “this is not a problem for another day. The investments we make today—this week, this month, this year—will determine our economic future.”

The Risky Business Project’s website makes the group’s report highly interactive and more informative. Due to the many videos, images, and charts found on the website, visitors can easily digest information on climate change risks.  For example, the website contains a video designed to help individuals understand the progression and threat of extreme weather changes.

What makes the report truly unique is the focused analysis provided. By breaking the US into regions and states, Risky Business targets the climate concerns in specific parts of the country as well as nation-wide.  The website then allows individuals to scroll through date on their prospective locations.

The report focuses on climate risk education in order to provide businesses with the information necessary to begin taking action to sidestep catastrophe. It highlights three areas to reduce risk: business adaptation, investor adaptation, and public sector response. Throughout various sections of the report, one thing becomes clear: a shift towards sustainable business and investment needs immediate action.

Former New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, a co-chair of the Risk Business Project, and a key player in the development of this report, recently stated in an interview:

Damages from storms, flooding, and heat waves are already costing local economies billions of dollars—we saw that firsthand in New York City with Hurricane Sandy. With the oceans rising and the climate changing, the Risky Business report details the costs of inaction in ways that are easy to understand in dollars and cents—and impossible to ignore.

To learn more about climate change and find your business’ next move, visit the Risky Business Project website.

The Win-Win-Win of Impact Investing

By: Nathan Sell*

Ask not what your investment dollars can do for you, but ALSO what they can do for others, and the environment. That’s the idea behind Impact Investing, an emerging paradigm shift in philanthropy. This form of socially responsible investing generates both measurable social and environmental impact as well as returns on investment. Mark Tercek, CEO of the Nature Conservancy and former Managing Director at Goldman Sachs is at the forefront of linking business and the environment for a better world as he discusses in his recent book “Nature’s Fortune.” Tercek, and the new wave of impact investors are proving that your investments can make money AND do good.

Impact investing in the environment is quickly coming to scale as the value of ecosystem services to clean air and water, armor shorelines, as well as climate change mitigation and adaptation is being realized. Cities like Philadelphia are leading the way in green infrastructure investment. Over the next 25 years, Green Stormwater Infrastructure will help the city to combat the extreme weather patterns as well as prevent Combined Sewer Overflows resulting in greener cities and cleaner waters for which the initiative is named.

Novo Nordisk entered China in 1994 and immediately noticed that a diet high in starch was leading to diabetes in a large portion of the population. Combined with rapid pathogen spread due to urbanization, the health of the people in China was (and continues to be) at risk. Novo Nordisk put their efforts toward alleviating some of these health concerns. By training doctors in diabetes care and prevention, the company has helped to save over 140,000 life years. The shared value of impact investment ensures companies like Novo Nordisk remain profitable while helping the communities in which they work.

Impact investing also has the potential to bring promising technologies to scale. Without investment, it’s possible that companies like d.light may never have gotten off the ground. With the help of investment, this for-profit social enterprise has been able to sell affordable solar lamps to those without reliable power. The result? D.light is bringing safe, bright and renewable lighting to people around the world, allowing students to do their homework, families to cook, and an overall better quality of life to over 34 million people.

Impact investing may prove better for people and the planet than charitable giving. Investing in businesses that do good by people and the planet can ensure the success of their mission, allowing for long term solutions, rather than a potential band-aid in the form of a grant or gift. If your investment could benefit the triple bottom line, rather than just YOUR bottom line then you’ve found the rare win-win-win scenario. The next time you invest, think strategically about what your money can really do.

*Nathan is a recent graduate of the Master of Environmental Studies program at the University of Pennsylvania and a current ORISE Fellow with EPA Water.

The Impact of Climate Change on Global Food Production

By: Anne Coglianese

Water scarcity is a growing global issue and one that is significantly exacerbated by climate change. Agricultural industries around the globe are facing drastic consequences due to limited access to freshwater. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], the change in supply will “exacerbate competition for water among agriculture, ecosystems, settlements, industry and energy production, affecting regional water, energy and food security.”

Such scarcity may seem surprising because the world holds 332.5 million cubic miles of water, a seemingly infinite supply. However, very little of this is life-sustaining freshwater. In fact only 2.5% of water on earth is fresh, and much of this tiny amount is inaccessible for human use due to storage in either glaciers or the ground. According to the US Geological Survey, water sources, such as “rivers and lakes, only constitute about… 1/150th of one percent of total water.” However, these are the very water sources upon which humans rely most heavily.

The IPCC states in its 2014 report that climate change is projected to strain freshwater resources significantly. The report also states “each degree of warming is projected to decrease renewable water resources by at least 20% for an additional 7% of the global population.”

My interest in issues surrounding climate change and water grew as I attended a semester abroad last year with the International Honors Program, studying climate issues in four countries: the US, Vietnam, Morocco, and Bolivia. I, along with 25 other students, looked at ways to mitigate and adapt to issues that climate change will bring to food, water, and energy. Throughout the semester, I conducted independent research on the impacts that climate change and water scarcity have and will continue to have on agriculture around the world.

I learned quickly that the two are viciously linked: food production will be drastically affected by water shortages caused by climate change, but conversely agriculture plays a huge role in creating water shortages.

Technology is making great strides to help farms conserve water resources and adapt to an increasingly arid climate. Most farmers around the world use open-air irrigation systems, such as sprinklers or channels, which lose a large quantity of water to the air as vapor, long before reaching crop roots. This means that significantly more water is being used in irrigation than is being effectively used in crop production.

Drip irrigation systems have been developed to reduce water needed for irrigation. These systems dispense water directly to the crop roots through underground hoses that slowly release water. The implementation of drip irrigation can do an incredible job of reducing the strain agriculture puts on limited water resources.

Unfortunately, the average farmer in most countries cannot easily implement this technology. Whether in the US or in countries like Morocco, farmers already face narrow profit margins and struggle to become more sustainable without the financial support and education needed to implement new technologies.

Advances in technology are going to become key in preserving agricultural sectors around the world; however, technology will not be enough to sustain farming in many regions. It will become increasingly important for farmers to begin tailoring the food they produce to match the climate.

In the last fifty years, our export-oriented world has driven farmers to seek out the most profitable crops and grow them in the highest quantity possible. For example, Morocco has high fruit exports and high imports of grains; however, the arid farms of the Atlas mountains would be better suited to growing less water-demanding crops, like grains, rather than the more water-intensive crops, like fruits. Around the world, crops produced for export often lead farmers to strain the natural capacity of the land, requiring the use of fertilizers and extensive irrigation, which threaten water supplies.

The scope of the issue of water scarcity and food production is vast and growing due to climate change. No one individual or farmer has the power to reverse this scarcity, but with needed support from governments and corporations the agricultural sector can transition to widespread sustainable food production in order to avoid looming social and economic fallouts.