Dear EarthTalk: I understand that some Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic U.S. states have banded together to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions. Can you enlighten? -- Bo Clifford, Cary, NC

Given the lack of federal action to curb greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., several East Coast states joined together in 2008 to form the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), committing to a market-based system to cap carbon pollution and lower energy bills while creating more green jobs.

Under RGGI, the 10 participating states—Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont—agreed on a region-wide greenhouse gas emissions limit, enforced through the sale of pollution permits to large fossil fuel power plants there. The utilities that run the plants purchase the right (at quarterly auctions) to emit certain capped amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2). The money raised is in turn invested in local businesses throughout Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states that promote energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. RGGI’s overall goal is to reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector in the states involved by 10 percent by 2018.

The program was conceived in 2008 by then New York governor George Pataki based on a similar federal program launched by President George H.W. Bush in 1990 that successfully curbed emissions of other pollutants that led to acid rain.

While RGGI had strong bipartisan support at launch, changing priorities have since forced some states to reconsider their commitments. According to RenewableEnergyWorld.com, New Jersey is likely to back out, while factions in New Hampshire and Maine have also called for a withdrawal. “The political tides have turned significantly since the program was started, and many legislatures are now dominated by a new crop of lawmakers looking to cut spending in cash-strapped states,” the website reports.

Environmentalists and many business owners have banded together to try to save RGGI in the face of economic threats to its viability. Last July some 200 Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic businesses signed on to an open letter urging the governors of the 10 participating states to keep up with the program so that it can achieve its goals. “The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative shows that market-based programs can reduce greenhouse gas emissions while boosting our economy and improving energy security, and we encourage you to support and strengthen RGGI going forward,” the letter states. The letter goes on to cite research showing a $4-6 increase in economic output for every $1 invested in energy efficiency programs in the RGGI states. “Even better, these market-driven investments create jobs in the clean tech sector—one of the most dynamic segments of our state economies.”

Perhaps more important, RGGI “serves as a powerful model for what a comprehensive national energy policy should do” says the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading environmental group. Whether or not the economy will improve enough or climate change will become dramatic enough for Congress and the White House to take federal action to limit greenhouse gas emissions across the board is anybody’s guess. In the meantime, keeping alive programs like RGGI might be the best we can hope for.

Photo: iStock Photo/Thinkstock

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: How is it that global warming could negatively impact water supplies in the U.S.? -- Penny Wilcox, Austin, TX

Climate change promises to have a very big impact on water supplies in the United States as well as around the world. A recent study commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading environmental group, and carried out by the consulting firm Tetra Tech found that one out of three counties across the contiguous U.S. should brace for water shortages by mid-century as a result of human induced climate change. The group found that 400 of these 1,100 or so counties will face “extremely high risks of water shortages.”

According to Tetra Tech’s analysis, parts of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas will be hardest hit by warming-related water shortages. The agriculturally focused Great Plains and arid Southwest are at highest risk of increasing water demand outstripping fast dwindling supplies.

While the mechanisms behind this predicted dwindling of water supplies is complex, key factors include: rising sea levels and encroaching ocean water absorbing lower elevation freshwater sources; rising surface temperatures causing faster evaporation of existing reservoirs; and increasing wildfires stripping terrestrial landscapes of their ability to retain water in soils.

Researchers have already begun to notice dwindling water supplies across the American West in recent years, given less accumulation of snow in the region’s mountains as temperatures rise. According to a 2008 study out of the Scripps Institute for Oceanography and published in the journal Science, Western snowpack has been melting earlier than it did in the past thanks to global warming, leading to markedly longer dry periods through the late spring and summer months in states already suffering from extended droughts. Given that the length and strength of these changes over the last 50 years cannot be explained by natural variations, researchers believe human induced climate change is the culprit.

The upshot of these changes is that Americans of every stripe need to curtail their water usage—from farmers irrigating their crops to homeowners watering their lawns to you and I taking shorter showers and turning off the tap while brushing our teeth. Even more important, water and resource policy managers need to conceive of new paradigms for the management of freshwater reserves to make the most of what we do have. And all of us need to work together to cut down on the emissions of greenhouse gases that have led to global warming in the first place.

Analysts also worry that warming-related water shortages could erupt into conflict, especially in parts of the world where one country or group controls water resources needed by others across national borders, such as the Middle East where already five percent of the world’s population relies on just one percent of the world’s fresh water. Parts of Africa, India and Asia are also at risk for water-related conflicts. American policymakers hope that the situation won’t get that dire in the U.S., but only time will tell.

Photo: Comstock

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Can big business do good in the world? Can corporations contribute to a healthier planet while still turning a profit? With each new headline about bad corporate behavior, it would be easy to assume that the answer to both questions is decidedly 'no'.

But in fact, a global army is hard at work every day to answer those questions in the affirmative. They are Corporate Idealists: people who believe that business can make the world a better place and are working from within to put their beliefs into action.

Where are these Corporate Idealists? They're in China's industrial zones, working with factory owners to make sure employees are paid and treated properly. They're in Silicon Valley, collaborating with product developers to protect privacy on the internet. They're in Africa, sitting on dirt floors with village elders to make sure that mining is done without disrupting indigenous traditions. They're in executive suites in London and New York, convincing their colleagues that protecting human rights and the environment is good for business.

Why should we care about them? Corporate Idealists are the change agents we must recognize and support if we are to tackle the biggest challenges facing our world today: climate change, food and water shortages, economic disparity. Big business can either solve or exacerbate those problems; Corporate Idealists are working to make it the former, not the latter.

I know that Corporate Idealists exist because I am one of them. I've been a Corporate Idealist since my first Students for Responsible Business (now Net Impact) conference as an MBA student in 1998. I then joined BP and worked in Indonesia and China for three years, consulting with people living near company sites and setting up social programs to make sure that BP's presence didn't harm local communities.

The Deepwater Horizon disaster last year challenged my belief that companies can be good, as I watched the company I supported for so long wreak havoc on communities around the Gulf of Mexico. But while that tragedy tested my faith, it affirmed to me that we need Corporate Idealists now more than ever: My experience with BP in Asia showed me that a company can do good and operate successfully given the right staff and resources -- but that work then needs to replicated throughout a company, and beyond.

Last year more than 5,500 companies around the world issued sustainability reports, up from about 800 ten years ago. An increasing number of companies are working with nongovernmental organizations to assess their socioeconomic impacts (see Oxfam's assessment of Coca-Cola and SABMiller, done in partnership with those companies) and to tackle particular issues, from supporting factory workers to protecting free expression and privacy on the internet.

The real question is this: How do we get the efforts of individual Corporate Idealists to add up to more than the sum of their parts? In other words, how can the work of committed individuals amount to the sweeping changes that we need?

To start, we need to state our shared values. We need a Manifesto for the Corporate Idealist: an outline of the principles and actions that will help us better align the interests of business and society.

Here's my proposed starting point for such a manifesto, based on my ten-plus years working in and with big business and the experience of other Corporate Idealists I've gotten to know over the years:

1. Renounce the carbon offset model. If a company doesn't pay a decent wage and refrain from polluting, it can't redeem itself by sponsoring youth soccer teams or museum exhibits -- or even by creating beautiful, innovative products. (Apple, I'm talking to you.)

2. Learn and improve the tools of business. I didn't need the finance or accounting I learned in business school to speak with those villagers in Indonesia, but I did need those skills to translate their needs into actions for the company. We also need better models of calculating risks, costs, and benefits, that take externalities into account.

3. Listen. Perhaps it's so obvious that a company should listen to its stakeholders that executives assume someone else is doing it. When I started working for BP in China in 2002, local staff were still calling the company by its former name -- British Petroleum -- because "B" in Mandarin can sound like slang for "vagina", and "P" for "fart". Perhaps a trivial (if memorable) example, but if a company fails to heed its own employees' warnings on something as basic as the company name, will it hear concerns about human rights and the environment?

4. Build community. If you're the only one in a company fighting for better practices, it can be a lonely job. Initiatives like the Global Business Initiative on Human Rights bring together Corporate Idealists from different companies to develop tools to support their work and connect with others facing similar challenges.

5. Share stories. Spreadsheets are important, but at the end of the day we're talking about people, not numbers. We have to keep reminding ourselves that every decision we make affects a worldwide supply chain of real human beings.

To be sure, simply following these five steps won't solve the world's problems: Regulators, consumers, and investors need to demand better company behavior. But we need Corporate Idealists and we need to help them succeed. Consider this Manifesto for the Corporate Idealist the beginning of a conversation we must all have, about how to align the needs of business with the needs of society.

Are you a Corporate Idealist? What's your Manifesto? Tell Christine Bader on Twitter: @christinebader.

Christine Bader is a Nonresident Senior Fellow at The Kenan Institute for Ethics, Duke University.  This article was first published on The Huffington Post and is republished with permission.

Watch Christine's TEDx talk, Manifesto for the Corporate Idealist.

Executives responsible for sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs at large companies are overwhelmingly optimistic that those initiatives will be part of the “core strategies and operations” of global businesses in the next five years, according to a new survey.

Top sustainability and CSR priorities for those companies in the year ahead, the survey found, were human rights and workers’ rights, climate change, and the availability and quality of water on a global basis.

The survey was based on data from 498 professionals representing more than 300 member companies of BSR, a non-profit global membership and consulting organization that focuses on CSR and sustainability issues; some two-thirds of BSR members are large firms with annual revenue of $1 billion or more.  The results were released in San Francisco at the organization’s annual conference, with about 1,000 participants from more than 30 countries in attendance.

Despite a poor economy, large global businesses “are maintaining, if not extending, their commitments to sustainability,” said BSR President and CEO Aron Cramer.  According to Cramer, corporate managers are concluding that sustainability initiatives help cut costs and save money, particularly in environmental programs; drive “innovation” of new products and business models; and help to “future-proof” overall corporate strategy.

Executives polled in the survey said their biggest current leadership challenge is the integration of sustainability into core business functions.  While more than two-thirds reported that their companies’ communications functions (corporate communications and public affairs) were engaged in CSR/sustainability, far fewer reported engagement by critical operational functions such as investor relations (38%), human resources (37%) and finance (18%).

According to the survey, executives continue to acknowledge that the public does not have a high degree of trust in business, with only 2% sensing “a great deal of trust” from the public. To improve that situation, executives said, the two most important actions their companies should take are to “increase transparency of business practices” (55%) and “measure and demonstrate positive social and environmental impacts” (51%).

Among top subject area priorities, the survey found “a sizeable increase” in interest around water availability and quality over the past 12 months, with 54 percent noting it as a priority, up from 47 percent last year.  Other top priorities were human rights (65%), climate change (63%) and workers’ rights (61%).  BSR’s Mr. Cramer said increased interest in human rights and worker’s rights this year may have been driven by the release in July of the UN’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

When asked to "rate your outlook regarding the extent to which global businesses will embrace CSR/sustainability as part of their core strategies and operations in the next five years," 22 percent of the executives said they were "very optimistic" and 62 percent "somewhat optimistic" that would happen.

It’s illogical – and quite myopic – that many of the nation’s largest institutional investors refer to shareholder-sponsored resolutions addressing material topics such as climate change, resource constraints and environmental stewardship as “special interest,” “non-routine” or involving “special circumstances.”

The opposite is in fact the case. We strongly agree with David Lubin and Daniel Esty’s contention in a recent Harvard Business Review article that sustainability is a core driver of competitive business strategies. Sustainability issues present both opportunities for competitive advantage and risks that, left unmanaged, will cause a company to lag its sector. If companies aren’t addressing sustainability they won’t be producing long-term value for their shareholders.

The financial numbers back this up: A review of 36 studies by Mercer Investment Consulting shows strong linkages between ESG (environmental, social and governance) integration and positive investment performance. “Eighty-six percent of the studies are neutral or positive,” Mercer’s Jane Ambachtsheer told the CalPERS Board of Directors in August.

With this in mind, Ceres recently unveiled the new and detailed Ceres Guidance: Proxy Voting for Sustainability to a Council of Institutional Investors breakfast in Boston. Our guidelines are a tool. But more importantly, they launch a serious effort to get mainstream investors moving now – immediately – to assert their prerogative, as part of their fiduciary duty, on these issues. Ceres, which coordinates the $10 trillion Investor Network on Climate Risk, has the partners in its network to leverage this initiative.

The guidance includes:

- Ceres’ set of Proxy Voting Sustainability Principles covering governance, social issues, environmental issues and general sustainability topics like “Management Accountability for Sustainability Goals” and “Adoption of Specific Environmental Performance Goals and Measurements.”

- Accompanying guidance on how to cast votes on particular sustainability resolutions. For example, when faced with a resolution that proposes independent directors, the guidance advises voting for this proposal applying the Proxy Voting Sustainability Principle of “Loyalty” to shareowners. When faced with a resolution calling for a link between executive compensation and sustainability performance, the guidance advises voting for this proposal applying its “Management Accountability for Sustainability Goals” principle.

- A compilation of sustainability resolutions from recent proxy seasons and the vote counts on these resolutions from the 2010 season. Surprising examples indicative of sustainability trends include a 60.7 percent vote at Sprint on a resolution requiring the company to account for both its direct and indirect political spending and a 53 percent vote requiring coal producer Massey Energy to set greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

- A compilation of sample proxy voting guidelines already being used by leading investors around the world. Guideline language from big pension funds like Florida’s State Board of Administration on water scarcity and proxy access are highlighted next to guideline examples from the AFL-CIO on performance based equity compensation, TIAA-CREF on charitable contributions, SRI funds like PaxWorld on workplace health and safety and more.

Investors who adopt the Proxy Voting Sustainability Principles will be better positioned to vote consistently and responsibly on the 700-plus sustainability resolutions now being filed with US companies each year. They can adopt these principles as a policy to guide their proxy voting consultants or as a supplement to other proxy guidelines. Pensions funds and other asset owners can similarly press their asset managers to use these principles in voting their proxies. For those developing proxy guidelines for the first time, these principles can provide the framework for shaping a comprehensive set of corporate governance guidelines.

The resolutions are categorized so that investors can determine whether their existing proxy voting guidelines are sufficiently specific to create consistent voting outcomes on these resolutions. The list of common resolutions can also be used as a checklist for investors who wish to ensure that their existing or new proxy guidelines will comprehensively cover sustainability and governance issues arising in the future.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Ceres Guidance includes more than 75 leading examples of proxy guidelines that asset owners and asset managers can consider as they re-visit their own guidelines and policies. The sample language from public pension funds, asset managers, socially responsible investment funds, labor unions, and foundations covers key sustainability topics such as climate change, water availability, broad environmental risks, ESG-driven executive compensation and board of director governance.

Our message to asset managers, asset owners and voting fiduciaries who have yet to incorporate specific mention of the various sustainability issues into their proxy voting guidelines is clear: Now is the moment to act. You cannot defer to the opinion of specific management bodies in deciding how to vote on issues that will help determine business success or failure and significantly impact long-term value creation in the coming years.

And if you fail to specifically address these issues in your guidelines, you run a serious risk of breaching your fiduciary duty by voting inconsistently or failing to vote on resolutions of critical importance to the companies you own and the shareholders or beneficiaries to whom you owe your fiduciary duty.

Sustainability will not wait. Climate change, water constraints, human rights and labor issues, new rules for corporate behavior or for governance and stakeholder treatment will simply not be ignored in a globalized economy where environmental, economic and social developments move at lightning speed – along with news of corporate failure and its attendant bottom-line and reputational damage.

The opportunity to promote key governance and sustainability reforms at large public companies – including reforms that might have helped avert the ongoing financial crisis – is a key competitive opportunity for those with their eyes open. Investors are increasingly watching – the rise in both the number and vote percentages of recent sustainability resolutions is testament to that. With our new guidance we’re confident they’ll be watching even more.

Kirsten Spalding is the California Director for Ceres. She works with members of the Investor Network on Climate Risk on their initiatives and represents Ceres on the West Coast for all Ceres programs.  Prior to joining Ceres, she served as Chief Deputy Treasurer under California Treasurer Phil Angelides and Director of the Treasurer’s environmental financing authorities.

This article was first published on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation and is re-published with the author's permission.

Dear EarthTalk: What’s the latest in regard to putting limits on greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.? Is there any hope that Obama can get something done? -- Bradley Johnson, Helena, MT

Our best hope to date was 2009’s American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), a bill that called for the implementation of a “cap-and-trade” system to limit carbon dioxide emissions by capping overall emissions and allowing polluters to buy or sell greenhouse gas pollution credits—similar to what the European Union has been doing since 2005 to successfully reduce its own emissions—depending upon whether they were exceeding established limits or had succeeded in coming in below them.

According to the bill, U.S. businesses needing to pollute more could buy emissions credits on the open market; those able to reduce emissions could sell their pollution credits on the same trading floor. Thus there is a built-in incentive to reduce emissions: If you exceed pollution limits you have to keep buying costly credits; and if you can get below limits you can profit from the sale of credits for the difference.

Among the bill’s key provisions was a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2020, with a mid-century goal of an 80 percent reduction. Also, billions of dollars would have gone to initiatives bolstering green transportation, energy efficiency and related research and development. The bill was approved by the House in June 2009 by a narrow 219-212 vote. But Senate Democrats decided they didn’t have enough votes to get a version of the bill passed, and tabled the discussion.

While ACES may not have made it into the law books, its passage by the House was significant as it represented the first time the legislative branch called for sweeping climate legislation. Also, the bill’s provisions served as a guideline for U.S. negotiators heading to Denmark later in 2009 for the COP15 international climate talks (although in the end nothing binding was agreed upon there).

Then, in May 2010 Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman unveiled their own cap-and-trade climate bill for the Senate. Dubbed the American Power Act, it aimed to reduce overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by similar amounts as ACES. But with the nation still reeling from the effects of BP’s Gulf oil spill—the American Power Act include provisions for offshore drilling—and Senate Republicans leery of any climate legislation, the bill failed to make it to a floor vote. Some point the finger at a handful of Democratic Senators from coal-producing states for not supporting their party colleagues. Others say Obama wasn’t advocating strongly enough despite his campaign rhetoric on the topic.

“The best one could plausibly hope for in the next Congress, assuming only modest Republican gains, is some sort of weak cap on utility emissions, possibly with some weak oil saving measures, though that would still require Obama to do what he refused to do under more favorable political circumstances—push hard for a bill,” writes commentator Joe Romm of Think Progress, a liberal political blog. Romm adds that it’s inconceivable to think the next Congress would even contemplate strong climate or clean energy legislation “without Obama undergoing a major strategy change and taking a very strong leadership role in crafting the bill and lobbying for the bill and selling it to the public.”

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: What is the environmental impact of so many people now using sites like Facebook and spending so much time online? -- Bob Yearling, Paris, TX

The environmental impact of so much online time really boils down to energy usage, which in turn affects the amount of greenhouse gases we pump into our atmosphere. For one, each of us can help by limiting computer time (whether surfing the ‘net or not) and shutting them down or putting them into sleep mode when we aren’t using them (this can be automated via the computer’s power management control panel).

Also, when shopping for a new computer, consumers and businesses alike can opt for models certified by the federal government as energy efficient with the Energy Star label. If all computers sold in the U.S. met Energy Star requirements, Americans could pocket $1.8 billion annually in saved energy costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an amount equivalent to taking some two million cars off the road.

Individual responsibility aside, the creation and management of more efficient data centers by the major online hubs—especially as we enter the age of “cloud” computing whereby most of the software, content and services we look to our computers for resides online and is served to us as-needed—is what can have the biggest impact. Google, Facebook, and Amazon.com are already deeply committed to the cloud computing model, with Microsoft, Yahoo and others following suit accordingly.

For its part, Google has been a real leader in the building of green data centers, even powering them with renewable energy. The company recently released environmental footprint scores for several of its data centers. While the energy usage required to run its cloud services (Google Search, Google+, Gmail and YouTube) seems huge in the aggregate—it used 260 megawatt hours to power its data centers in 2010—it boils down to only 7.4 kilowatt hours worth of energy annually per user. Google reports that to provide an individual user with its services for a month uses less energy than leaving a light bulb on for three hours. And because the company has been carbon neutral since 2007, “even that small amount of energy is offset completely, so the carbon footprint of your life on Google is zero.”

In an April 2011 report entitled “How Dirty is your Data?” the non-profit Greenpeace examined energy sources for the 10 largest IT companies involved in cloud computing, finding Apple, Facebook and IBM especially guilty of getting significant amounts of power from coal-fired power plants. (Facebook had come under fire earlier this year when reporters uncovered that the company planned to buy electricity for its brand new eco-friendly data center in Prineville, Oregon—one of the greenest such facilities ever designed and constructed—from a utility that derives most of its power from coal.) Yahoo, Amazon.com and Microsoft scored best in use of renewable alternative energy sources for cloud services.

In the long run, analysts think that the widespread shift to cloud computing will be a great boon to the environment. A report released in September 2011 by Pike Research, “Cloud Computing Energy Efficiency,” predicts that because of the shift to cloud computing and increasing efficiencies, data center power consumption will decrease by 31 percent between 2010 and 2020.

Photo: Jurgen Plasser/Flickr

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: I understand that mountaintop removal as a way of coal mining is incredibly destructive. Didn’t a report come out recently that named major banks that were funding this activity? -- Seth Jergens, New York, NY

Yes it’s true that many major banks invest in companies that engage in the environmentally destructive practice of mountaintop removal (MTR) coal mining, whereby the tops of mountains are removed by explosives to expose thin seams of recoverable coal. The wasted earth and other materials are either put back onto the mountain top in an approximation of their original contours, wreaking havoc on local ecosystems and biodiversity, or dumped into neighboring valleys, polluting lakes and streams and jeopardizing water quality for humans and wildlife.

According to the non-profit Rainforest Action Network (RAN), this dumping—especially throughout Appalachia where MTR is most prevalent—“undermines the objectives and requirements of the Clean Water Act.” The group adds that some 2,000 miles of streams have already been buried or contaminated in the region. “The mining destroys Appalachian communities, the health of coalfield residents and any hope for positive economic growth.”

This past April, RAN teamed up for the second year in a row with another leading non-profit green group concerned about MTR, the Sierra Club, in publishing a “report card” reviewing 10 of the world’s largest banks in regard to their financing of MTR coal mining projects. The new 2011 version of “Policy and Practice” takes a look at the MTR-related financing practices of Bank of America, CitiBank, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, GE Capital, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, PNC, UBS and Wells Fargo.

What did they find? Since January 2010, the 10 banks reviewed have provided upwards of $2.5 billion in loans and bonds to companies practicing MTR. While some of the banks—Chase, Wells Fargo, PNC, UBS, and Credit Suisse—adopted policies limiting their financing of MTR, few actually pulled funding in place from any such activities upon adopting such policies. Citibank, despite announcing publicly in 2009 that it would limit its involvement in MTR, doubled its investments in the business in 2010.

RAN and the Sierra Club are also keeping a close eye on UBS which, soon after stating that it “needs to be satisfied that the client is committed to reduce over time its exposure to [MTR],” went ahead and acted as a paid advisor on the merger of Massey Energy, which operated the West Virginia mine where 29 men died last year, and Alpha Natural Resources. This merger created the largest single MTR company in the country, now responsible for some 25 percent of coal production from MTR mines.

The report card grades each bank based on its current position and practice regarding MTR investments, and calls on the banks to strengthen their policies and cease their financial support for coal companies engaging in MTR. “The ‘best practice’...is a clear exclusion policy on commercial lending and investment banking services for all coal companies who practice mountaintop removal coal extraction,” says RAN.

RAN and the Sierra Club hope that by exposing the impact these banks are having on the environment through their financing programs, they can help alert the public and policymakers to the need to outlaw MTR coal mining altogether.

Photo: Ilovemountains.org

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: Freight companies like FedEx, UPS and all those 18 wheelers on the highways probably generate a lot of pollution and global warming. Is anything being done to address this?  -- Michael Brown, Washington, DC

Freight companies operating in the U.S. and beyond do generate significant amounts of pollution. While transportation technologies and fuels have gotten more efficient in recent years, freight demands have grown considerably over the past two decades. Today, in the U.S. alone, for example, freight is responsible for about a quarter of all transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions.

Most freight trucks, locomotives and ships run on diesel engines, which are major sources of emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and carbon dioxide (CO2). Repeated exposure to nitrogen oxide-based smog and particulate matter has been linked to a wide range of human health problems, and we all know what CO2 emissions are doing to the planet’s atmosphere and ecosystems in terms of global warming.

According to a 2005 analysis by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHA), heavy duty trucks are the biggest villains, accounting for 77.8 percent of total U.S. freight greenhouse gas emissions. Boat, train and airplane freight contribute10.8, 8.7 and 2.8 percent respectively.

Besides filling up loads completely and keeping equipment well tuned, shippers can reduce emissions via smarter operations and procedures. Software developed by UPS’s Roadnet helps logistics managers re-engineer their fleet routing, preventing tons of emissions and saving millions of dollars and in the process.

Newer Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions standards aim to reduce nitrogen oxide and particulate matter pollution from freight operators upwards of 60 percent by 2020. They are a step in the right direction, but the failure of Congress to pass substantive federal legislation limiting CO2 emissions means that a growing freight sector will continue to pump out more and more greenhouse gases.

A recently released report by the tri-lateral North American Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA’s) Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) lays out a vision for how to make freight—the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in North America after electricity generation—more efficient and less polluting across Mexico, the U.S. and Canada.

The report identifies some scary trends. For example, emissions from freight-related vehicles grew 74 percent between 1990 and 2008—some 40 percent more than emissions growth from passenger vehicles over the same time span. Also, while emissions by light duty vehicles are expected to drop 12 percent by 2030, freight truck emissions are expected to grow by 20 percent. To start turning the freight sector around, CEC recommends that the three countries party to NAFTA start shifting to lower carbon fuels, putting a price on carbon emissions and replacing crumbling infrastructure. These fixes won’t be cheap, but CEC claims they will save money in the long run and clean up of North American freight altogether.

Photo: Thinkstock

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: Isn’t it a waste that we buy water in plastic bottles when it is basically free out of our taps? Even health food stores, which should know better, sell it like crazy. When did Earth’s most abundant and free natural resource become a commercial ‘beverage’? -- A. Jacobs, via e-mail

Bottled water has been a big-selling commercial beverage around the world since the late 1980s. According to the Worldwatch Institute, global bottled water consumption has more than quadrupled since 1990. Today Americans consume over 30 billion liters of water out of some 50 billion (mostly plastic) bottles every year. The Beverage Marketing Association reports that in 2008 bottled water comprised over 28 percent of the U.S. liquid refreshment beverage market. The only bottled drinks Americans consume more of are carbonated sodas like Coke and Pepsi.

And frankly, yes, it is a ridiculous waste that we obtain so much of our drinking water this way when it is free flowing and just as good if not better for you right out of the tap. According to the Earth Policy Institute (EPI), some 2.7 million tons of petroleum-derived plastic are used to bottle water around the world every year. “Making bottles to meet Americans’ demand for bottled water requires more than 1.5 million barrels of oil annually, enough to fuel some 100,000 U.S. cars for a year,” says EPI researcher Emily Arnold. And just because we can recycle these bottles does not mean that we do: The Container Recycling Institute reports that 86 percent of plastic water bottles in the U.S. end up as garbage or litter.

The financial costs to consumers are high, too: According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), bottled water costs up to 1,900 times more than tap water. And the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) reports that 90 percent or more of the money consumers shell out for it pays for everything but the water itself: bottling, packaging, shipping, marketing, other expenses—and, of course, profits.

EWG is particularly appalled at the lack of transparency by leading bottled water sellers as to the sources of their water and whether it is purified or has been tested for contaminants. According to a recent survey by the group, 18 percent of the 173 bottled waters on the U.S. market today fail to list the location of their source; a third disclose nothing about the treatment or purity of the water inside their plastic bottles.

“Among the ten best-selling brands, nine—Pepsi’s Aquafina, Coca-Cola’s Dasani, Crystal Geyser and six of seven Nestlé brands—don’t answer at least one of those questions,” reports EWG. Only Nestlé’s Pure Life Purified Water “discloses its specific geographic water source and treatment method…and offers an 800-number, website or mailing address where consumers can request a water quality test report.”

EWG recommends that consumer resist the urge to buy bottled water and go instead for filtered tap water. “You'll save money, drink water that’s purer than tap water and help solve the global glut of plastic bottles,” the group advises, adding that it supports stronger federal standards to enforce consumers’ right to know about what’s in their bottled water besides water. Until that day comes, concerned consumes should check out EWG’s Bottled Water Scorecard, a free website that provides information on various bottled water brands, where they originate and whether and how they are treated to remove contaminants.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.