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: 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: I understand that China is about to overtake the U.S. as the world’s largest global warming polluter. What is China doing to address this issue as well as its other environmental impacts as such a populous nation? -- Sophie N., Andover, MA

A factory in China at the Yangtse River

Actually, China passed the U.S. as the world’s leading greenhouse gas emitter back in 2006 and today produces some 17 percent of the world’s total carbon dioxide output. According to the China Daily news service, air and water pollution, combined with widespread use of food additives and pesticides, make cancer the top killer in China. Meanwhile, World Bank data show that, based on the European Union’s air quality standards, only one percent of the country’s 560 million urban inhabitants breathe air deemed safe. But many Chinese insist that all this environmental trouble is part of the cost of developing into a world superpower, and government leaders there are hesitant to impose restrictions on economic development.

Nevertheless the Chinese are starting to take action. In December 2009 at the Copenhagen global climate talks, China announced plans to slow greenhouse gas emission increases relative to economic growth by 40-50 percent between 2005 and 2020, and use renewable fuels for 15 percent of its energy. China also committed to increasing forest cover by 40 million hectares by 2020 (forests absorb carbon dioxide).

But even with such measures, analysts say China’s carbon dioxide output will still increase a staggering 90 percent in the next decade, assuming eight percent economic growth. While international negotiators were pleased to finally secure a commitment from the Chinese, it was a far cry from the fast and binding emissions cuts many scientists say are necessary to stave off potentially cataclysmic climate change.

Regarding other pollution, China is a signatory to the Stockholm Convention, which governs the control and phase-out of major persistent organic pollutants (POPs), including many pesticides, PCBs and other chemicals. China has committed to eliminating the production, import and use of pollutants covered under the treaty, and will establish an inventory of POP contaminated sites and remediation plans by 2015.

Other green strides China has made include 2008’s nationwide ban on plastic shopping bags. Before the ban, China was using 37 million barrels of crude oil annually to make the bags that would no doubt come back to haunt people, wildlife, land and water bodies as litter. China has also signed on to an international effort sponsored by the United Nations and the Global Environment Facility to phase out incandescent lightbulbs over the next decade in favor of more efficient varieties. China makes 70 percent of the world’s supply of lightbulbs, so the switch could have a big impact on energy usage for lighting around the world.

China is also no slouch when it comes to manufacturing green technologies and now produces more solar panels and wind turbines than any other country. And the Chinese government recently committed $216 billion in subsidies to further develop the nation’s green technology sector. A recent report by the non-profit Pew Environment Group found that in 2009 China spent two times as much as the U.S. to fund so-called “green markets,” and close to 50 percent of world expenditures overall.

Photo by High Contrast, courtesy Wikipedia

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: I know that some people abstain from meat on Fridays for religious reasons, but what’s the story behind “Meatless Mondays?” -- Sasha Burger, Ronkonkoma, NY

Meatless Monday—the modern version of it, at least—was born in 2003 with the goal of reducing meat consumption by 15 percent in the U.S. and beyond. The rationale? Livestock production accounts for one-fifth of all man-made greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and is also a major factor in global forest and habitat loss, freshwater depletion, pollution and human health problems. The average American eats some eight ounces of meat every day—45 percent more than the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s recommended amount.

An outgrowth of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for a Livable Future, the Meatless Monday project offers vegetarian recipes, interviews with experts, various resources for schools, organizations and municipalities that wish to promote the initiative—and regular updates on Facebook and Twitter. “Going meatless once a week can reduce your risk of chronic preventable conditions like cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity,” the group reports. “It can also help limit your carbon footprint and save resources like fresh water and fossil fuel.”

The Meatless Monday concept actually dates back to World War I, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) urged citizens to reduce their meat, wheat and sugar intakes, since such foods took more energy to produce than others. Americans willing to cut back—even just one day a week—would be supporting the troops and helping to feed starving Europeans. To encourage participation, the FDA coined the terms “Meatless Monday” and “Wheatless Wednesday” and published vegetarian cookbooks and informational pamphlets. The campaign was resurrected briefly during World War II, but then died down.

But as Meatless Monday President Peggy Neu reports in a recent issue of E – The Environmental Magazine, today the initiative has transcended its war effort origins: “The focus for the first couple of years was health,” Neu says, but the movement has begun to grow in part because of increasing awareness of the environmental impact of meat consumption.

Some of the municipalities and institutions that have signed on include the City of San Francisco, the Baltimore Public School System, and Harvard and Columbia universities (along with some two dozen other colleges). Similar campaigns have sprung up in two dozen other countries, while the city of Ghent in Belgium, Oxford University in the UK, and Israel’s Tel Aviv University have also pledged to participate.

In May of 2010, a Washington Post article reported that the meat industry is feeling the heat. “Over the past year, lobbying groups including the American Meat Institute, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the National Pork Board and the Farm Bureau have launched a quiet campaign to try to reverse the momentum,” reported the piece. The Animal Agriculture Alliance and the American Meat Institute have railed that Baltimore schoolchildren are being denied protein—and have urged citizens not to allow Meatless Monday to spread. But Neu says the movement is here to stay. “I want this movement to be sustainable prevention,” she says, “not just a health or environmental fad.”

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: I know that local food has health and environmental benefits, but my local grocer only carries a few items. Is there a push for bigger supermarkets to carry locally produced food? -- Maria Fine, Somerville, MA

By eating locally sourced foods, we strengthen the bond between local farmers and our communities, stay connected to the seasons in our part of the world, promote crop diversity, and minimize the energy intensive, greenhouse-gas-emitting transportation of food from one part of the world to another. Also, since local crops are usually harvested at their peak of freshness and typically delivered to stores within a day, customers can be sure they are getting the tastiest and most nutritious forms of the foods they like.

Luckily for consumers and the environment, local produce and other foods are now more widely available than they have been for decades. The first national grocery chain to prioritize local producers, perhaps not surprisingly, was natural foods retailer Whole Foods, which was buying from local farmers and ranchers since it opened its first store in 1980 in Austin, Texas. Today each of the company's 270-plus stores in 38 U.S. states prioritizes local sourcing—so much so that its customers take it for granted. Whole Foods’ relationships and distribution arrangements with local producers serve as models for the leading national grocery chains, many of which are beginning to source some produce locally when the season is right.

Some are taking more initiative than others. Perhaps most notable is Walmart. Back in 2008 the company committed to sourcing more local fruits and vegetables to keep produce prices down and provide affordable, fresh and healthy choices. Today more than 2,800 Walmart Supercenters and Neighborhood Markets across the country rely on a diverse network of small local growers to provide produce—making Sam Walton's company the nation’s largest purchaser of local produce. During summer months, at least one-fifth of the produce available in Walmart stores is grown within the same state as the given store.

The company’s Heritage Agriculture program encourages farms within a day’s drive of one of its warehouses to grow crops that the company would otherwise have to source from so far away that freshness would be jeopardized and the fuel burned and greenhouse gases emitted in the process would be substantial. While the Heritage program currently accounts for only four to six percent of the company's total domestic produce sales, the company is aiming for 20 percent within the next few years.

Other big grocery chains aren’t far behind. Safeway, one of the top three grocery chains in the country, prides themselves on local sourcing, getting nearly a third of its produce nationwide from local/regional growers. In heavy agricultural regions like California, the figure can be as high as 45 percent. The company has also made a big push into organic products, just like its biggest competitor, Walmart.

If the chain grocer near you doesn’t do a good job stocking locally sourced food, there are alternatives. Community Supported Agriculture programs, in which consumers “subscribe” to the produce of a given farm by paying monthly dues that entitles them to a box of fresh produce every week, are more popular than ever, as are local farmers’ markets, food co-ops and independent natural foods markets. To find local food near you, visit the Local Harvest, which lists organic food sources by zip code and offers a wealth of resources for those looking to learn more about where their food comes from and how it is produced.

Photo by Donkeycart, 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.

There’s an easy tendency to read corporate responsibility reports with skepticism, discounting high-sounding language about policies and principles as “greenwashing” that largely serves a company’s public relations goals.

GE CEO Jeffrey R. Immelt

When the report is issued by GE, however, I think it pays to read the language carefully and take notes.  With operations in 100 countries and about 300,000 employees, GE generates annual revenue of $156 billion.  The company’s stock is the most widely-held in the world, with more than 5 million shareholders.

While GE’s corporate behavior doesn’t always please everyone (and, in fact, often infuriates many), the company’s rigorous attention to management and best practices for over a century has regularly placed it at the head of the corporate pack.   As Fortune magazine put it: “Through good years and bad, GE consistently does things the rest only wish they could.”

And so it is with GE’s 2009 Citizenship Report – Renewing Responsibilities – a 40-page document, supported with additional materials on the GE web site, in which the company sets forth a vision of addressing global concerns with confidence, integrating  sustainability into its core business strategy.

“Our goals," GE says, "are to make money, make it ethically and make a difference."

In fact, the company views two of the world's most pressing societal issues - the environment and health care - as huge commercial opportunities, central to its future.  GE's "ecoimagination" product line, launched in 2005, last year generated $18 billion in revenue, or 28% of the corporate total.

Not an Accounting Exercise

Assume that GE’s corporate citizenship team has spent considerable time and attention formulating the message it wants to convey in this report.   Assume the message has been crafted by well-paid writers and – maybe even more importantly – vetted by high-priced lawyers.   And then assume that the highest-levels of management are comfortable not only with the facts and figures in the report, but with the overall tone of the message from the top.

Then pay attention to the language.

“In light of what many have called the Great Recession,” says CEO Jeffrey R. Immelt, “the world is reset.  Now we must lead an aggressive renewal to win the future.”

“Citizenship is not a spectator sport," writes Sam Nunn, chair of the GE board of directors’ Public Responsibilities Committee. "Companies with global reach and impact like GE must set commercial priorities to increase shareholder value while recognizing that our business foundation rests on forward progress on public policy imperatives. GE is making a dedicated effort to develop its business strategy so that its products and services have a positive human impact and produce long-term business success.”

The report goes to considerable lengths to address the big picture: “Economies are rebuilding after the financial crisis, and with that comes the opportunity to reshape systems toward a pathway of sustainability — one that enables positive human impact. The challenge of meeting the needs of today’s nearly seven billion people, and tomorrow’s nine billion, is immense. The limits of the planet’s natural resources — clean water, air, energy and land — are already stretched. Closing the global gap between where we are and where we need to get to cannot be achieved by a return to business as usual.”

And this: “In the end, the return on investment for corporate citizenship is a world fit to live in, do business in, and hand down to our children — and this requires long-term commitment. The impact of successful corporate citizenship comes from driving the conversations (with employees, customers, regulators, competitors and markets) needed to catalyze systemic change.  Turning corporate citizenship at this level into an accounting exercise linked to profit and loss calculations is wrong, a waste of time and a concept mistaken from the very beginning.” (Emphasis added.)

OK, it’s just language.  But language can matter greatly.  One of the tactical truisms of corporate responsibility reporting is that once a company has taken the plunge (and in this case, GE seems to be diving into some pretty deep water), retreat from the commitment is far more difficult.  The language doesn't guarantee that GE or one of its businesses won't be in the news in a negative context sometime soon.  It does mean, however, that the company is in the game and on record with some long-term thinking regarding corporate priorities.

There are no startling statistics in the GE report.  Compliance, which many companies place in a silo separate from corporate responsibility, gets featured up front.  GE uses about 700 designated ombudspersons throughout he company who act as independent resources for reporting integrity or compliance concerns; the company says anyone reporting a problem is "fiercely protected from any retribution."   Last year, there were 1,641 "integrity concerns" reported through the process, with a resulting 420 disciplinary actions, including 118 firings.  (Not bad, when placed in the context of almost 300,000 employees.)

On a broader scale, GE’s citizenship strategy is focused on three areas: energy and climate change, sustainable healthcare, and community building - all “underpinned by our commitment to operational excellence.”  Greenhouse gas emission and intensity are improving relative to established benchmarks; new technologies are driving healthcare breakthroughs; and the company seems mindful of how delicately an enterprise of its size must tread in dealing with governments around the world.

“We recognize that any business that is promoting a view on how best to achieve public policy goals while also advocating for its own commercial priorities runs the risk of running into conflicts of interests, both real and perceived,” the report says. “There are legitimate concerns that businesses may influence public processes unduly to achieve private ends, or conversely may lose commercial focus by aligning too closely with governments’ goals.”

Heavily influencing GE’s corporate citizenship strategy is an economic reality: more than half the company’s revenue now comes from outside the United States, “increasingly from emerging markets such as China and Brazil,” reports CEO Immelt.  The result is a focus on localized research and development in countries around the globe and “a plan to sell these products in every corner of the world.”

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: 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.

Illegal logging and tropical deforestation are the focus of two newly-announced but separate initiatives – one focusing on the legal risk to companies that buy illegally harvested wood, the other highlighting potential rewards to American business of U.S. legislation that would help end illegal logging and tropical deforestation.

The Forest Legality Alliance was launched by a consortium of public and private organizations to “ensure that importers and supply chains know and understand the emerging new trade policies” and to “help companies assess the risk of encountering illegal wood.”

“Some companies are not aware of the need to ask questions about the wood they are buying or the consequences of letting illegal wood enter their supply chains,” said Craig Hanson, director of the People and Ecosystems Program at the World Resources Institute, one of the organizers of the Forest Legality Alliance. “The Alliance seeks to build confidence that imported wood and paper products are legal. Done right, trade supports environmental protection and the Alliance recognizes the role trade plays in protecting our world’s great forests.”

In addition to the World Resources Institute, other organizations in the Alliance are the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA-U.S.), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the American Forest & Paper Association, the Hardwood Federation, IKEA, the International Wood Products Association, NewPage Corporation, the Retail Industry Leaders’ Association, Staples Inc., and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

The Lacey Act

The Alliance said that much of the illegal logging taking place occurs when forests are cleared to make room for agriculture and ranching activities.  “This illegal logging contributes to deforestation, biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions, deprives nations of much needed public revenue, and can lead to social conflict and human rights violations,” the Alliance said.

Illegal rosewood stockpiles in Antalaha, Madagascar

In 2008, the U.S. government amended the Lacey Act to prohibit trade within the United States of products made from illegally harvested wood, making the U.S. the first country to ban imports of illegal wood and related products.  According to the law firm Sidley Austin, the Lacey Act extends the reach of foreign laws and regulations by making it a violation of U. S. law to traffic in products made from wood that was harvested, transported or sold in violation of foreign laws – such as forest management laws and regulations in producer countries such as Thailand, Malaysia, Myanmar, China, and Laos.

The European Union is in the final stages of approving a "due diligence" regulation to curb illegal timber entering the European market, and Australia is also considering legislation to prohibit trade in illegal wood, according to the Alliance.

In November 2009, agents from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and local police seized wood, guitars, computers and boxes of files from a Gibson Guitar manufacturing facility in Nashville, Tennessee.  Sources told the Nashville Post the company was being investigated for violating the Lacey Act for importing endangered species of rosewood from Madagascar.

At the time, the company said it was "fully cooperating” with the investigation.  Gibson added that it is a “chain of custody certified buyer who purchases wood from legal suppliers who are to follow all standards.”  In addition, the company noted then that Gibson Guitar Chairman and CEO Henry Juszkiewicz sits on the board of the Rainforest Alliance and "takes the issue of certification very seriously. "  Mr. Juszkiewicz reportedly took a leave a leave of absence from the Rainforest Alliance board following the raid.

Deforestation and U.S. Competitiveness

Separately, a coalition of U.S. farm and forest products groups called on Congress and the Obama administration to adopt “comprehensive energy and climate legislation and other policies” to help end tropical deforestation.

Members of the group include the National Farmers Union, the American Forest & Paper Association, the United Steelworkers (representing forest products workers), and the Ohio Corn Growers Association.   (The American Forest & Paper Association is also a member of the Forest Legality Alliance.)

The groups cited a new report showing that “overseas agriculture and logging operations are expanding production by cutting down the world's rainforests, allowing them to flood the world market with cheap commodities that undercut American goods.”

The report, "Farms Here, Forests There: Tropical Deforestation and U.S. Competitiveness in Agriculture and Timber,” estimates that ending deforestation will boost revenue for U.S. producers by between $196-$267 billion by 2030 – “approximately equivalent to the entire amount projected to be spent by farmers on energy during that time.”

"Saving rainforests isn't just for treehuggers anymore," said Fred Yoder of the Ohio Corn Growers Association, immediate past president of the National Corn Growers Association.  "It is in all of our best interests to protect forests."

"Continued rampant illegal logging in tropical countries shows we need to strengthen law enforcement efforts to allow Americans to compete on a level playing field," said Donna Harman, President of the American Forest & Paper Association.  "At the same time, protecting tropical forests through offsets can provide an affordable way for the forest products industry and other manufacturers to keep energy costs affordable as we address climate change."

"America is losing many thousands of jobs because of illegal logging and tropical deforestation at a time when instead we should be growing jobs here at home," said Keith Romig, Strategic Issues Representative for the United Steelworkers. "Any climate policy that aims to protect American jobs also has to protect tropical forests."

Photo: Erik Patel, Wikimedia Commons

Dear EarthTalk: Can airplanes be run on cleaner fuels or be electric powered? Are there changes afoot in the airline business to find cleaner fuels? -- Reema Islam, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Given air travel’s huge contribution to our collective carbon footprint—flying accounts for about three percent of carbon emissions worldwide by some estimates—and the fact that basic passenger and cargo jet designs haven’t changed significantly in decades, the world is certainly ready for greener forms of flying.

But since air travel emissions were not regulated under the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement signed in 1997 that set binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the friendly skies aren’t much greener than they were a few decades ago. And most national governments have been reluctant to impose new environmental restrictions on the already ailing airline industry.

Nonetheless, some airlines and airplane manufacturers are taking steps to improve their eco-footprints. Southwest and Continental have implemented fuel efficiency improvements, waste reduction programs and increased recycling, and are investing in newer, more fuel efficient airplanes. Another airline on the cutting edge of green is Virgin Atlantic, which made news in early 2008 when it became the first major carrier to test the use of biofuels (liquid fuels derived from plant matter) on passenger jet flights. Now Air New Zealand, Continental, Japan Airlines (JAL), JetBlue, and Lufthansa are also testing biofuels.

Even airplane maker Boeing is getting in on the act by developing a carbon-neutral jet fuel made from algae. Boeing’s newest commercial jet, the much vaunted 787 Dreamliner (now in final testing before late 2010 delivery to several airlines), is 20 percent more fuel efficient than its predecessors thanks to more efficient engines, aerodynamic improvements and the widespread use of lighter composite materials to reduce weight. Airbus is also incorporating more lightweight composite materials into its new planes.

On the extreme end of the innovation spectrum are zero-emission airplanes that make use of little or no fuel. The French company, Lisa, is building a prototype small plane, dubbed the Hy-Bird, that uses solar power (via photovoltaic cells on the elongated wingspan) and hydrogen-powered fuel cells to fly with zero emissions—and nearly no engine noise. The company claims the Hy-Bird is the first 100 percent eco-friendly plane, and is readying a round-the-world flight punctuated by 30 event-filled stopovers.

Even more unusual is the proposed fuel-free plane dreamed up by Mississippi-based Hunt Aviation. The company is working on a prototype small plane that harnesses the natural forces of buoyancy (thanks to helium-filled pontoons) for lift-offs and gravity for landings—along with an on-board wind turbine and battery to power everything in between—to achieve flight without any fuel whatsoever.

Don’t look for these futuristic planes on airport runways anytime soon. It will likely be decades before this technology filters its way up to the big leagues. Until then, take a train or bus instead. If you must fly, compensate for your flight’s emissions by buying a “carbon offset” from TerraPass or CarbonFund.org, which will use the money to fund alternative

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.