A new paper published by the asset management arm of Deutsche Bank AG challenges the claims of climate change skeptics and argues that global warming “is already happening and is a serious long term threat.”

“There is a very high probability that we are already heading towards a future where warming will persist for thousands of years,” the paper warns. “Failing to insure against that high probability does not seem a gamble worth taking.”

The paper was published by DB Climate Change Advisors, an investment division of Deutsche Asset Management which pursues investment opportunities stemming from climate change. Deutsche Asset Management says the division is now “one of the leading climate change investors in the world,” with about $4 billion under management as of March 2009.

Mark Fulton, Global Head of Climate Change Investment Research, said the bank asked scientists at the Columbia Climate Center at the Earth Institute, at Columbia University in New York, to examine major skeptic claims in the light of the latest peer reviewed scientific literature and to weigh the arguments of each side in the balance.

“Although the scientific community has already addressed the skeptic arguments in some detail, there is still a public perception that scientists have been dismissive of the skeptic viewpoint, so the intention in this report is to correct the balance,” Mr. Fulton said. “The paper's clear conclusion is that the primary claims of the skeptics do not undermine the assertion that human-made climate change is already happening and is a serious long term threat.”

Among a number of citations, the paper notes the recent publication on the State of the Climate by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which analyzed over thirty indicators, or climate variables.  That report concluded that “the Earth is warming and that the past decade was the warmest on record,” Mr. Fulton said.

The Deutsche Bank paper concludes: “Our best projections indicate that the most negative impacts of climate change will occur in nations that are already vulnerable to other stressors such as rapid population growth and extreme poverty.  Humans have survived climate changes of the past, though never with global populations of the current magnitude.  One might ask whether survival of the human species is an adequate standard of success.”

Investors filed a record 101 climate and energy-related resolutions with 88 U.S. and Canadian companies in 2010, a 50% increase from the year-earlier, according to activist shareholder organizations.

A record 51 resolutions were withdrawn after the companies agreed to climate change and energy-related commitments.

Sixteen of the 42 resolutions that went to a vote achieved 30 percent or greater support, nearly three times the number that achieved that level of support in 2009.   The average vote for the 42 resolutions voted on so far this year was 24.6 percent, up from 21.7 percent last year.

The statistics were compiled by Ceres, a coalition of investors and environmental groups, and the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), a coalition of nearly 300 faith-based institutional investors.

”The BP spill is only the latest reminder of why investors are ratcheting up their attention to climate and other environmental risks across their portfolios,” said Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres. “This year’s record results send a powerful message that companies should boost their attention to these issues.”

“If our portfolio companies are to provide long-term shareowner value, they need to be proactive, not reactive, in addressing climate change and other ESG matters,” said Jack Ehnes, CEO of CalSTRS, the second largest pension fund in the U.S.   Mr. Ehenes said the record results for shareholder filings in 2010 are “an encouraging sign that investors and companies are paying increasing attention to long-term drivers of value.”

Among the resolutions, requests for companies to provide a corporate responsibility or sustainability report have “increasingly resonated with investors,” according to Tim Smith, Senior Vice President for Walden Asset Management.  He  pointed to a  record 60 percent vote at Layne Christensen and votes at Gentex and St. Jude in the low 30s and low 40s, respectively. “We believe this signals a tipping point for the case for transparency on CSR,” he said.

Correction 7/26: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the comments of Walden Asset Management’s Tim Smith in discussing vote results at Gentex.

The issues with key high votes and share value of votes in favor, according to Ceres and ICCR, were:

Adopt greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals:
CMS Energy, 35.1%  ($729 million)
ExxonMobil, 27.2%   ($39.7 billion)
Massey Energy, 53.1% ($852 million)
Ryland, 37.4%  ($234 million)

Issue a sustainability report including GHG reduction strategies:
Boston Properties, 44.1%  ($3.2 billion)
Chesapeake Energy, 31.5%  ($2.4 billion)
EQT Corporation, 37.4%  ($1.4 billion)
Federal Realty Investment Trust, 44.6%  ($1.4 billion)
Layne Christensen, 60.3%  ($234 million)
St. Jude Medical, 42.8%  ($3.1 billion)

Report on the environmental and health risks associated with coal ash:
CMS Energy, 43.1%  ($875 billion)
MDU Resources Group, 40.5%    ($962 million)
The Southern Company, 21.0%  ($2.6 billion)

Report on risks posed by the environmental, social and economic challenges associated with oil sands operations:
ConocoPhillips, 27.1%  ($13.8 billion)
ExxonMobil, 26.4% ($38.3 billion)

Dear EarthTalk: Is there any link between increased volcanic activity—such as the recent eruptions in Iceland, Alaska and elsewhere—and global warming? -- Ellen McAndrew, via e-mail

It’s impossible to pin isolated natural phenomena—like an individual volcanic eruption—on global warming, but some researchers insist that there is a correlation between the two in some instances.

“Global warming melts ice and this can influence magmatic systems,” reports Freysteinn Sigmundsson of the Nordic Volcanological Centre at the University of Iceland. Her research with Carolina Pagli of the University of Leeds in England suggests that rocks cannot expand to turn into magma—the primary “feedstock” for volcanic eruptions—when they are under the pressure of a big ice cap pushing down on them. As the theory goes, melting ice caps relieve that pressure and allow the rocks to become magma. This in turn increases the chances of larger and/or more frequent eruptions in affected regions, from Iceland to Alaska to Patagonia to Antarctica.

As for Iceland specifically, the eruption of Mt. Ejyafjallajökull that shut down some air travel for weeks this past spring cannot be blamed on changing climate: That volcano lies under a relatively small icecap which would not exert enough pressure to affect the creation of magma. But Sigmundsson and Pagli found that the melting of about a tenth of Iceland’s biggest icecap, Vatnajokull, over the last century caused the land to rise an inch or so per year and led to the growth of an underground mass of magma measuring a third of a cubic mile. Similar processes, they say, led to a surge in volcanic eruptions in Iceland at the end of the last ice age, and similarly increased volcanic activity is expected to occur there in the future.

On the flip side, volcanic eruptions can exacerbate the ongoing effects of climate change: Already retreating glaciers can lose all their ice when something below them blows. Of course, many volcanoes around the world are not subject to pressure from ice caps, and scientists stress that there is little if any evidence linking global warming to eruptions in such situations.

Some have theorized that large volcanic eruptions contribute to global warming by spewing large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the stratosphere. But the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by even a large and ongoing volcanic eruption is but a drop in the bucket in comparison to our annual output of industrial and automotive carbon emissions.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes make up less than one percent of those generated by human endeavors. Also, ash clouds and sulfur dioxide released from volcanoes shield some sunlight from reaching the Earth and as such can have a cooling effect on the planet. The 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines—a much larger eruption than what occurred recently in Iceland—caused an average cooling of half a degree centigrade worldwide during the following year. Regardless, single volcanic eruptions, even if they last for weeks or months, are unlikely to send enough gas or ash up into the skies to have any long term effect on the planet’s climate.

Photo: The Arenal Volcano in Costa Rica, by Frank Kehren, courtesy Flickr

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: What is “kenaf” paper? From what I've heard, it’s good for the environment. But what exactly are its benefits and where can I obtain some? -- Tiffany Mikamo, via e-mail

Kenaf, a fast-growing, non-invasive annual hibiscus plant related to cotton, okra and hemp, makes ideal paper fiber as well as great source material for burlap, clothing, canvas, particleboard and rope. Its primary use around the world today is for animal forage, but humans enjoy its high-protein seed oil to add a nutritious and flavorful kick to a wide range of foods. In fact, kenaf has been grown for centuries in Africa, China and elsewhere for these and other purposes, but environmentalists see its future in replacing slower-growing trees as our primary source for paper.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) research shows that kenaf yields some six to 10 tons of dry fiber per acre per year, which is three to five times more than the yield of Southern Pine trees—now the dominant paper pulp source in the U.S. And to top it off, researchers believe kenaf absorbs more carbon dioxide—the chief “greenhouse gas” behind global warming—than any other plant or tree growing. Some 45 percent of dry kenaf is carbon pulled down from the atmosphere via photosynthesis.

Bill Loftus tends kenaf plants at the Kenaf Research Farm.

No wonder environmentalists are so bullish on kenaf for our common future. “The more kenaf we grow, we can not only absorb significant amounts of the carbon dioxide that is responsible for global warming,” says Bill Loftus of the non-profit Kenaf Research Farm, “but also educate the world on how to be self-sustainable through kenaf’s many properties of providing food, shelter and economic opportunities.”

As to its use for paper, 10 major U.S. newspapers have tested kenaf-based newsprint and were pleasantly surprised by how well it held up and how crisply it displayed text and pictures. And since it is already brighter than wood-based pulp, it requires less bleaching before it can be used to carry ink. But since kenaf is not mass-produced the way paper trees are on big plantations across the Southeast and West, it still costs more than regular paper and as such has not gone mass market, despite its environmental.

Also, while some policymakers and many environmentalists would like to see our paper feedstock switched from Southern Pine and other trees to kenaf, entrenched timber companies with big investments in tree farms (and who employ many a Washington lobbyist) do not. And with many timber companies already suffering economically, lawmakers are unlikely to mandate changes that could make matters worse.

Even if kenaf doesn’t become the paper of tomorrow, it may still have a bright future. The Kenaf Research Farm reports that  Toyota is also experimenting with using kenaf to reinforce the sugarcane- and maize-based biopolymers it hopes can replace many of the plastic and metal parts in the vehicles it is designing today.

Your best bet for finding some kenaf paper is to try a specialty art supply or stationery store. One good online source is The Natural Abode. Photographers might try using kenaf photo paper, such as Pictorico’s ART Kenaf, in their ink jet printers to give their snaps a unique look and a green pedigree.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: Where does ethanol as an automobile fuel fit into the alternative energy mix? Is it better for the environment than gasoline? -- Donna Allgaier-Lamberti, Pullman, MI

Ethanol—a biofuel derived from corn and other feedstocks—is already playing a major role in helping to reduce emissions from many of the traditional gasoline-powered cars on the road today. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, nearly half of all the gasoline sold in the U.S. contains up to 10 percent ethanol, which not only boosts octane but also helps meet federally mandated air quality requirements. By promoting more complete fuel combustion, this small amount of ethanol mixed into gasoline reduces exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide—a regulated pollutant linked to smog, acid rain, global warming and other environmental problems—by as much as 30 percent compared with pure gasoline.

Also, a growing number of so-called “flex-fuel” vehicles now available can run on either straight unleaded gasoline or so-called E85, a mix of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Ethanol proponents underscore emissions savings, cost stability (ethanol is distilled from domestically grown corn) and reduced reliance on (foreign) oil as benefits of more drivers filling up their tanks with E85 instead of gas.

But even though some eight million flex-fuel vehicles are now on U.S. roads, most of them are not near convenient ethanol refilling stations and are therefore mostly running on regular gasoline. (The U.S. Department of Energy website has a map-based listing of E85 refueling stations across the country—most are in the Midwest’s “corn belt.”) So while the capacity and perhaps demand for a cleaner burning fuel is there, supplies have not kept pace—some say because the federal government has subsidized ethanol producers only and not the distributors and retailers who get the product to customers.

But this may change. In May 2009 President Obama signed a Presidential Directive to advance research into biofuels like ethanol and expand their use. The resulting Biofuels Interagency Working Group is developing a plan to increase flex fuel vehicle use by making E85 and other biofuels more available.

While many environmental advocates view increasing ethanol use as a promising development (if drivers would actually fill up with it), others are not so sure. Cornell agriculture professor David Pimentel argues that producing ethanol actually creates a net energy loss. His research shows that a gallon of ethanol contains 77,000 BTUs of energy for engines to burn but requires 131,000 BTUs to process into usable fuel, not including additional BTUs burned from fossil fuel sources to power the farm equipment to grow the corn, and the barges, trains and trucks used to transport it to refineries and ultimately fueling stations.

Pimentel also says that powering a car for a single year on ethanol would require 11 acres of corn, which could alternatively feed at least seven people. If we step up our use of ethanol and begin putting our farmers’ yields into gas tanks instead of on dinner tables, we could see a shortage of domestically grown food and higher prices at the grocery store. To address this problem, biofuels producers are researching alternative non-food feedstocks such as algae, corn stalks, wood chips and switchgrass, though they would still make use of arable land that could grow food for human consumption.

Photo: Chazz Layne, courtesy Flickr

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: Which woods are OK to purchase, and which are not, in the interest of preserving forests and not harming those who depend upon them? -- Jon Steiner, Boise, ID

Deforestation continues to be one of the world’s biggest environmental problems, especially in fast developing regions like South America, Southeast Asia and Africa. Cutting down large numbers of trees erodes land and silts waterways, displaces native people and wildlife, and releases tons of carbon dioxide (which is stored in living wood fiber) into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming.

Of course, wood products are essential to modern life. Without wood we wouldn’t have the buildings, furniture, paper and other essentials we make use of every day. That’s why protecting sources of wood has become a leading concern among not just environmentalists but everyone else as well.

In response to the problems wrought by increasing deforestation, some forward-thinking wood products professionals teamed up with environmentalists, native people’s advocates, community forestry groups and responsible corporations to form the nonprofit Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) in 1993. Previous attempts to stem the tide of unchecked logging—including international negotiations and boycotts—were having little effect, so FSC vowed to use the power of market forces to create change for the better.

FSC promotes responsible management of forests by certifying forestry operations around the globe and promoting its certification system at every step of the wood products distribution chain. Whether you’re shopping for wooden furniture, building materials or other items, one easy way to tell if the wood you are considering buying was harvested from sustainable sources is to look for the FSC label on it or its packaging. (See photo, left.) If it is, you can trust that such products were harvested sustainably and are not contributing to deforestation-related woes. If you don’t see the FSC logo, you should inquire as to where the wood came from and whether or not it was harvested sustainably.

The nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) warns consumers to avoid purchasing some tropical hardwoods unless they can be assured that it came from sustainable forestry operations. Many of these woods—including Big Leaf Mahogany, Spanish Cedar, Caribbean Pine, Ipe, Rosewood, Teak, Ramin, Merbau, African Mahogany, and Okoume—are difficult to manage sustainably as they typically grow in low densities in natural forests and regenerate poorly after logging. Some woods and wood products may contain FSC-certified wood without bearing the logo, while other woods may be OK without going through the FSC certification process. If you don’t see an FSC logo you should ask. If the store salesperson can’t provide information, then you can’t be sure.

Even better than purchasing sustainably harvested new wood is to seek out reclaimed or salvaged wood, as it precludes the need for logging altogether. An added benefit of using reclaimed or salvaged wood—look for it at used building supply stores and even at construction sites where older materials are being tossed—is that it provides incentives for municipal recycling programs. NRDC suggests that if you can’t source used wood, consider recycled plastic lumber or composites if they are applicable for your project.

CONTACTS: Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), www.fsc.org; NRDC, www.nrdc.org.

PHOTO: Giles Douglas, courtesy Flickr

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: There have been many contradictory reports (“it was good; it was bad”) about what came out of “COP 15,” the December 2009 international Climate Change Conference held in Copenhagen. Can you set the record straight? -- Jay Killian, Brookline, MA

Indeed hopes were high that international negotiators in Copenhagen last December at the 15^th Annual Conference of Parties (COP15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) would be able to hammer out a strong agreement to once and for all take the climate beast by the horns and begin to reign in carbon emissions worldwide. But a new binding formal agreement was not to be, mostly because of conflicting priorities among participating countries.

Even a weaker 11th hour voluntary “framework” put forth by the U.S., China, India, Brazil and South Africa failed to win consensus support among the 119 attending heads of state. However, the resulting Copenhagen Accord—which aims to keep global temperatures from reaching any more than 2˚C (3.6˚F) above pre-industrial times—did leave the door open for a stronger agreement later, with developing countries pledging a total of $30 billion in the short term and $100 billion a year by 2020, mostly to help less developed nations adopt policies and technologies to keep carbon footprints small moving forward.

“This accord cannot be everything that everyone hoped for, but it is an essential beginning,” reports UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. “The bad news is that the Accord is not legally binding and provides no plan of how to limit emissions,” says climatologist Mark Maslin of the University College of London’s (UCL) Environment Institute, pointing out that the original text leading up to the meeting called for a global cut in emissions of 50 percent by 2050, including an 80 percent cut by all developed countries.

The lack of detail in the resulting Accord regarding specific emissions reductions targets means cooperation is completely voluntary, which is not what environmentalists want to hear. “The Accord should be seen as simply a face-saving agreement,” comments Maslin. “The politics are clear: Some developed and the richer developing countries resisted the call for legal limits to emissions.”

The failure of COP15 to generate a binding agreement means that international policymaking will likely take a back seat in the effort to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and profligate carbon emissions. Chris Flavin of the U.S.-based Worldwatch Institute believes that future progress on climate “will be driven more by domestic economics and politics rather than the international negotiating process.”

Flavin goes on to say that climate change mitigation will depend on the ability of individual nations “to persuade domestic constituents that they will benefit economically as well as environmentally from an energy transition.” He adds that future UN climate talks should focus not on overarching agreements but on practical goals like providing funding for poor countries to mitigate and adapt to climate change, accelerating international cooperation on technology, and coordinating a global effort to protect the world’s remaining forests given their capacity to store large amounts of carbon. “Efforts over the next few years will determine whether Copenhagen was a fatal setback for efforts to combat climate change, or just a painful mid-course correction,” concludes Flavin.

CONTACTS: UNFCCC, www.unfccc.int; Worldwatch Institute, www.worldwatch.org.

PHOTO: Getty Images

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: Oceans are in big trouble and I understand President Obama is creating a high level ocean council to address them. What are the major issues? -- Steve Sullivan, Bothell, WA

Our oceans are indeed in a terrible state, thanks primarily to unrestrained commercial and industrial activity. Overfishing and pollution have decimated once abundant stocks of fish and other marine life, and the damaging practices continue to this day despite international agreements outlawing them.

Our appetite for seafood has pushed three-quarters of the world’s fisheries to or beyond the limits of sustainability, while nine out of 10 of the sea’s large fish like tuna and swordfish have disappeared. And while it is still unclear what toll global warming will have on oceans—coral reefs dying and powerful ocean currents shifting or shutting down are two scary scenarios—the outlook is grim at best.

While George W. Bush was no friend to the environment overall, his record on ocean protection is actually not too bad. After convening a commission of experts from various disciplines to report on the state of U.S. oceans, his administration took steps to protect 215 million acres of biologically rich deep sea ocean habitat in the Pacific near Hawaii and Guam. The newly protected areas are off limits to resource extraction and commercial fishing but open for shipping traffic, scientific research and minimal impact recreation—and should provide a boon for fish and other marine species trying to recover from decades of abuse. But while such protections are a huge step in the right direction, they represent less than a drop in the bucket as to what still needs to be done to help fish stocks and marine ecosystems recover.

In light of ongoing threats, President Obama last June set up a task force to craft a national ocean stewardship policy. Led by Nancy Sutley, chair of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality, the task force is currently working to draft a framework for sustainable management of American coastal and ocean resources. Currently 20 different federal agencies oversee some 140 ocean protection laws; Obama has charged his task force with pulling together all the different authorities and laws to focus attention on addressing the most serious challenges facing the oceans and those who manage them.

Environmentalists have been quick to praise Obama for creating the task force—something called for by Bush’s oceans commission and other experts—but it is unclear how effective it can be given competing political priorities. Some members of Congress are pushing an omnibus ocean protection bill called Oceans-21, which aims to regulate fisheries, establish a network of protected areas, provide an oceans management framework to rescue coasts and off-shore areas, and help ocean life survive global warming.

Fortunately, Americans are not the only ones concerned about the world’s oceans. The United Nations launched its Oceans and Coastal Areas Network—later renamed UN Oceans—in 2003 to coordinate ocean and coastal efforts around the world. More recently, several island nations in the western Pacific and Indian oceans formed the Coral Triangle Initiative, adopting a 10-year plan of action to avert growing threats to coral reefs, fish, coastal mangrove buffers and other marine resources across the region. While the challenges may be greater than ever, at least now our oceans are getting some long-overdue attention; only time will tell if we took action in time to stave off a global collapse of marine ecosystems.

CONTACTS: UN Oceans, http://ioc3.unesco.org/un-oceans.

PHOTO: Richard Ling

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

When the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) first fought for a ban on the pesticide DDT more than 40 years ago, the  non-profit organization went to court and fought hard.  Back then, says Fred Krupp, the organization’s president, “the motto was ‘Sue the Bastards.’”

Times have changed.  In its drive to combat climate change, EDF now assigns staff members to a place like Bentonville, Arkansas, corporate headquarters of WalMart, the world’s largest retailer.  “I think we are the only national environmental group that has a staff stationed full-time in Bentonville,” says Krupp. “We walk in and out of the WalMart offices going to whatever meetings we want, really, to advise them on how to take their immense supply chain and get them to be greener.”

While the tactical makeover did not happen overnight, the environmental group still frequently has to defend this new business model for a non-governmental organization (NGO). “The whole idea is to change the world,” says Krupp. “If you want to change the world, it’s important to work with some of the big forces in the world.”

Impact on Supply Chain

Speaking at the The Economist Corporate Citizenship 2010 conference in New York, Krupp described how former WalMart CEO Lee Scott, concerned several years ago about the retailer’s image on labor issues, “recognized that the environment was a big issue and wanted to get ahead of it.”

To help educate Scott on climate change, Krupp says, he and Scott took a trip to the White Mountains of New Hampshire “to learn about global warming and how it was affecting maple trees up there,” as well as a separate trip to Kansas to visit with farmers.  Along the way, according to Krupp, Scott “had this epiphany that getting ahead of these issues actually could be a good offensive strategy, and good for business.”

WalMart’s current sustainability initiatives are having a major impact on the retailer’s suppliers, according to Krupp. Flat-screen televisions are still sold at WalMart, for example, but now they are energy efficient. “WalMart has something very precious that these vendors want, which is shelf space,” Krupp says.  WalMart and EDF are being “inundated” with phone calls from suppliers who say that if the new standards determine "whether or not we get shelf space, we want to know what we can do to meet or exceed expectations.”

EDF generated headlines in 2007 when it endorsed the purchase of TXU, the giant Texas utility company, by private equity firms Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Texas Pacific Group for $45 billion.  In return for that endorsement, KKR and TPG agreed to several conditions, including reducing the number of new highly-emitting coal-driven power plants to be built by TXU from eleven to three, as had been planned by TXU’s previous management.   EDF’s relationship with KKR and TPG has grown since then, Krupp says, to involve other companies in the private equity firms’ portfolios.

McDonald’s and FedEx have also worked closely with EDF.  The McDonald’s engagement first involved reduction of packaging but later addressed the issue of antibiotics in chickens used by the fast food chain in its sandwiches.  Working with their suppliers and the pharmaceutical industry, McDonald’s was able to cut the volume of antibiotics it used by 90 percent, according to Krupp.  FedEx worked with EDF to find ways to reduce emissions from its worldwide fleet of delivery trucks, resulting in 96% less soot and 50% more fuel efficient vehicles, Krupp says.

Free Advice

While EDF believes NGO-corporate partnerships can be productive long-term, they don’t always work out.  An attempt to work with General Motors over a decade ago on environmental impact fell apart  fell apart because “they weren’t ready at that time,” according to Krupp.

In the case of McDonald’s and antibiotics, Krupp says, “the beauty of it is that we didn’t have to go to Congress, we didn’t have to beg a politician to help us…When we have a huge outscale impact by working directly with a company, that’s the way to be truest to the people who donate money to us because we’re getting results without the vagaries that have been known to happen sometimes in Washington.”

EDF does not accept money from any of its corporate partners.  “We thought it would be better for us, and better for the companies we work with, to keep our good name and reputation, and to be above reproach,” Krupp says. At McDonald’s, “we wouldn’t even accept a free hamburger in their restaurants.”

To accommodate the increased workload from the corporate engagements, EDF has grown from about 40 employees twenty-five years ago to more than 400 now.   The current annual budget of about $120 million is funded through private contributions from foundations and more than 700,000 individuals; corporate donations total less than $500,000 annually, according to Krupp.

Asked which companies might be next on EDF’s target list, Krupp declined to be specific.  “If you think about the biggest companies in the world, that have the most impact on climate,” he says, “those are the ones we want to work on…work with, and on.”

Dear EarthTalk: Isn’t the interest in electric cars and plug-in hybrids going to spur increased reliance on coal as a power source? And is that really any better than gasoline/oil in terms of environmental impact? -- Graham Rankin, via e-mail

It’s true that the advent of electric cars is not necessarily a boon for the environment if it means simply trading our reliance on one fossil fuel—oil, from which gasoline is distilled—for an even dirtier one: coal, which is burned to create electricity.

The mining of coal is an ugly and environmentally destructive process. And, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) burning the substance in power plants sends some 48 tons of mercury—a known neurotoxin—into Americans’ air and water every year (1999 figures, the latest year for which data are available). Furthermore, coal burning contributes some 40 percent of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) estimates that coal mining and burning cause a whopping $62 billion worth of environmental damage every year in the U.S. alone, not to mention its profound impact on our health.

Upwards of half of all the electricity in the U.S. is derived from coal, while the figure is estimated to be around 70 percent in China. As for Europe, the United Kingdom gets more than a third of its electricity from coal, while Italy plans to double its consumption of coal for electricity production within five years to account for some 33 percent of its own electricity needs. Several other countries in Europe, where green sentiment runs deep but economics still rule the roost, are also stockpiling coal and building more power plants to burn it in the face of an ever-increasing thirst for cheap and abundant electricity.

On top of this trend, dozens of electric and plug-in hybrid cars are in the works from the world’s carmakers. It stands to reason that, unless we start to source significant amounts of electricity from renewables (solar, wind, etc.), coal-fired plants will not only continue but may actually increase their discharges of mercury, carbon dioxide and other toxins due to greater numbers of electric cars on the road.

Some analysts expect that existing electricity capacity in the U.S. may be enough to power America’s electric cars in the near future, but don’t rule out the possibility of new coal plants (or new nuclear power plants) coming on line to fill the gap if we don’t make haste in developing alternate sources for generating electrical energy. And while proponents of energy efficiency believe we can go a long way by making our electric grids “smarter” through the use of monitoring technologies that can dole out power when it is most plentiful and cheap (usually the middle of the night), others doubt that existing capacity will be able to handle the load placed on even an intelligent “smart grid” distribution network.

Environmentalists—as well as many politicians and policymakers—maintain that the only viable, long-term solution is to spur on the development of renewable energy sources. Not long ago, the concept of an all-electric car charged up by solar power or some other form of clean renewable energy was nothing but a pipe dream. Today, though, such a scenario is within the realm of the possible, but only if everyone does their part to demand that our utilities bring more green power on line.

Pictured: Virginia Electric and Power Company's Mount Storm coal-fired power plant in northeastern West Virginia
Photo Credit: Rich McGervey, courtesy Flickr

CONTACTS: EPA/mercury emissions; www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk® is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.