When David Roberts was growing up near the oilfields of West Texas in the early 1960s, it never got dark. Back then, oilfields were lit 24/7 by the gas flares used to burn off natural gas, a byproduct of oil drilling. The flares released massive amounts of CO2, and over time, oil companies halted that harmful practice in the U.S. But gas flares remain the norm in the developing world—and today Roberts oversees a team at Marathon Oil that's trying to end the practice. In 2007, Marathon opened a $1.5 billion liquid-natural-gas plant in Equatorial Guinea to capture the natural gas that once went up in smoke. The plant is one factor that helped Marathon, No. 100 in NEWSWEEK's Green Rankings, cut its CO2 emissions by 40 percent between 2004 and 2008—and the plant earns a profit.
It's a small example of how the economic case for going green is becoming more compelling. Economists view environmental damage as a classic "externality"—a cost that impacts society but isn't imposed on producers or consumers. But with scientific consensus that carbon emissions threaten our climate, there's growing political will to curb them, particularly with the global powers set to meet in Copenhagen in December. The Obama administration is pushing for a cap-and-trade system that would turn companies' emissions into a bottom-line cost. Smart companies are working to better understand—and cut—those emissions ahead of new regulations.
The inaugural NEWSWEEK Green Rankings recognizes those efforts. For more than a year, the magazine worked with leading environmental researchers KLD Research & Analytics, Trucost, and CorporateRegister.com to rank the 500 largest U.S. companies based on their actual environmental performance, policies, and reputation.
Ranking companies based on sustainability is a huge challenge. That's largely because comparing environmental performance across industries is a bit like analyzing whether Tiger Woods or LeBron James is the world's greatest athlete—there's an inevitable apples-and-oranges element. Some industries are far dirtier than others: a typical financial-services company exacts a smaller environmental toll than even the best-run utility or mining company. Also, many corporations are secretive about key environmental data, if they track the numbers at all. Even among companies that do report green data, there's no uniform standard, so their numbers often aren't comparable.
http://roia.biz/im/n/S62Lvq1BAAGJ_UMAAAUSQgAAUctmMQA-A/" target="_new" />Despite those obstacles, we worked hard to design a ranking system that makes sense. More than half of companies' overall Green Scores are based on their environmental policies and reputation, industry-neutral metrics that help even the playing field for companies in carbon-intensive businesses. To overcome limited corporate emissions numbers, NEWSWEEK used data from Trucost, which has created a widely acclaimed system for estimating emissions of companies that fail to provide them. (Note, however, that among our Top 100 best-performing companies, 70 voluntarily disclosed the data.) Over time, we hope NEWSWEEK's rankings will become more precise as more companies begin to report their numbers. "One of the purposes of this is to improve the transparency of corporations…and encourage them to provide an even higher level of disclosure," says Thomas Kuh, KLD's managing director.
Many of the companies that finished in our Top 100 are recognized leaders in sustainability. Intel, No. 4 in NEWSWEEK's ranking, recently launched an initiative in which every employee's annual bonus is tied, in part, to how well the company does in meeting sustainability goals. Wal-Mart, No. 59, recently announced plans to create a Sustainability Index that will help consumers better understand which products sold in its stores are greener than others.
Rankings inevitably provoke controversy—and we welcome that. Our hope is to open a conversation on measuring environmental performance—an essential first step toward improving it. The NEWSWEEK Green Rankings for 2009 on the pages ahead provide a snapshot of companies poised at this most important starting line.
© 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Why Newsweek Produced the Green Rankings
No Impact Man talks about making an impact
No, Impact, Man
No Impact Man talks about making an impact 3
Subscribe by
Posted 4:00 PM on 27 Sep 2009
by Jonathan HiskesPosted in
Read More About
-->
First, Colin Beavan donned a superhero nickname and gave up electricity, fossil fuels, un-local food, and buying stuff. He blogged, he wrote a book, he let filmmakers follow his family around (his wife and daughter were roped in too). The New Yorker criticized the stunt, er, experiment. Grist weighed in. Beavin responded to, um, the New Yorker. Whatever, that’s cool.
The dialogue continues—here’s an edited transcript of our recent conversation.
Grist: The movie leaves viewers wondering, how are you living now that the No Impact experiment is finished?
Beavan: We’ve tried to keep the things that actually make sense in our life, because so many of the resources we use end up hurting our quality of life. For example, it made sense for us to save $1,200 a year by not having an air conditioner, so we gave it away. On those five or six really hot summer nights, Michelle, Isabella, and I go down to Washington Square Park and play in the fountain and talk to our neighbors, instead of huddling inside with the air conditioner.
We kept our bicycles, but we also each have a rickshaw so we can take Isabella [TK-year-old daughter] around. And it makes sense to eat food that isn’t processed and full of chemicals, so we continue to eat locally as much as we can and shop at the farmer’s market.
And you’re traveling now?
Oh geez. I haven’t flown for personal reasons yet but I will be flying to talk about the book. The publishers have very kindly offered to make substantial donations to developing world renewable energy projects. The one in particular that we’re supporting at the moment is SELF (Solar Electric Light Fund). They bring solar panels into sub-Saharan villages, which isn’t about having reading lights, it’s about running the medical refrigerators. So it becomes important in the fight against AIDS.
You’ve taken flack for focusing on lifestyle choices—where you get your food, shutting off the electricity in your apartment, and what-not. Was it inevitable that people would get hooked on the personal stunt and not on the message in the book of civic engagement?
It’s not inevitable at all. I think there are two main arguments on individual lifestyle change. One is that we have to change our way of life no matter how much technology we get, no matter what regulation we get, because we have to get to 350 [parts per million of carbon dioxide] and because Americans generate five times the carbon emissions per capita as the Chinese. Our consumption-based economy, I would argue, doesn’t work for the planet. It doesn’t work for the people either.
Second, there are gigantic groups of Americans that we can’t meet directly through environmental politics. They’re just not going to call their congressperson and tell them to support the climate bill. But they do understand that there’s a problem and they are willing to begin to change their lives. If we’re going to get the legislation we need and then keep it next time there’s a Republican administration, then we have to go beyond just using our political power to leverage the rest of the country into doing what we want. We have to change the culture. And you can’t change the values of the culture through legislation.
Let me repeat that: I don’t believe in individual action over collective action. I believe in both. It’s what I call engaged citizenship, a combination of both living your values in your own life and also living those values in your community life, volunteering for nonprofits and putting pressure on your political representatives.
There’s a pervasive idea that we can start with lists of ‘10 easy things you can do’ and they will serve as a stepping stone to get people involved in more intensive work.The idea that people will start with their light bulbs and move up to calling Congress members and organizing. But Americans have been offered lists of easy green things for years, decades even, and they’re still not politically engaged on climate change. Do you have any faith in this strategy? Or does it teach people to think of themselves as consumers and not citizens?
I completely do not believe in the 10 easy green things. The problem is when people stop at using canvas bags or changing their light bulbs. I believe in robust lifestyle change instead. For people who aren’t yet involved, who aren’t already in the choir, I find that the two big ways to start are with local food and bicycling. Once you get people to make those changes, then you can start getting them involved in politics. If you get somebody to cycle here in New York because it’s fun and healthy, they’re more likely to get involved with Transportation Alternatives and to push for changes in the cityscape.
But that sounds like the green tips thing again. It sounds like starting with the small things, and they’re going to bring people into local transportation planning. I’m just not sure that happens with enough people.
I’m not arguing that it happens with everybody. I’m saying that this is a way of doing things that reaches a certain population. And at this stage, the last thing we should do is sit back until we find the one thing that works. We need to all of us put our shoulders at the doors of change and push and not worry about criticizing each other as much as supporting each other in all the various methods. Somebody will have a breakthrough, and we all need to be cheering each other on.
We have to find an on-ramp into environmental politics, because it’s just not growing fast enough. The more attempts at on-ramps that we can think of the better.
That’s a nice way of putting it. I like that. It does seem like a lot of the reviews of your book mention that either/or mentality, as if the focus on lifestyle takes away from the civic stuff.
No impact family: Michelle, Isabella, and Colin.Photo courtesy Oscilloscope Laboratories
I didn’t realize it when I started the project, but part of the reason is this: collective action is at the root of liberal ideology and individual action is at the root of conservative ideology. To straddle individual and collective action feels like, whichever side you’re on, you’re betraying your political heritage. To suggest that we should do both is strangely radical. It’s almost like you need a whole new political party.
I mentioned in reviewing the film that your project is getting much more attention than traditional environmental health groups like Sustainable South Bronx. What do you make of that?
Let’s talk about 350.org. What 350’s doing on Oct. 24 [the International Day of Climate Action] is in some ways a spectacle, right? Somebody dives under the ocean and unrolls a “350” sign by a coral reef. The spectacle itself is not important. What is important is that the number of spectacles happening around the world will gain enough attention for people to begin to think about this policy number 350. It’s unfortunate, but so much of our media is entertainment-based. We have to create spectacles in order to get the attention that we need.
The truth of the matter is that it’s awful that No Impact Man got more attention than Sustainable South Bronx. The South Bronx has one of the highest asthma rates in the country, and it’s caused by trucks passing through the neighborhood carrying our trash to garbage transfer stations. It’s insane! Let’s take this back to individual action. It’s important that people understand this and say, “I’m throwing out so much stuff that kids are getting asthma? Maybe the way I live and the way that my culture lives is not so great.”
So what’s next for you?
I’m concentrating now on starting a nonprofit called No Impact Project. It’s a portal, in the web sense of the word and the larger sense of the word, where people can get involved and ask themselves whether they might be able to find ways of living more environmentally, in ways that also make their lives better.
One of the centerpieces of the project is a one-week experience where you get led through a bunch of different environmental adaptations while being asked all the time, “Is this making your life more or less good?” Our three main partners are 1Sky, Food and Water Watch, and Alliance for Biking and Walking. The idea is we attract people to the idea of lifestyle change and then take that energy and loan it to the existing environmental nonprofits, who can feed them into the legislative process.
Let’s end with a very important question: What’s the deal with the Will Smith rumors? Is he going to make a feature version of No Impact Man?
Sony has optioned it on behalf of Todd Black, who did Seven Pounds and Pursuit of Happiness, both of which were Will Smith films. I have no idea what talent they’re hoping to attach to the film. But I do know they’re planning for it to come out in 2012.
Is this the kind of thing where they buy lots of these rights just in case, or are they really going to make it?
I mean, rumor in the street is that they’re really going to make it. They’re not in production yet, so we can’t know until they’re in production. But what I’m told is that they are going to make it.
Find out when No Impact Man, the documentary, is showing near you, and watch the trailer:
Jonathan Hiskes is a Grist staff writer. He reports, tweets, eats, asks questions, self-promotes, looks out windows, and wonders if it could be like this.
Related Stories
Comments
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
A letter to Vern Buchanan
| After receiving a campaign letter from my Vern Buchanan this morning, I decided to let my congressional representative know how I felt about his asking me for money while deriding half of the population. His letter follows mine. Dear Mr. Buchanan, Please cease and desist from making the assumption that just because someone is signed up for your newsletter they must automatically be a financial supporter. You are my representative. I am not your cash cow. While I truly appreciate your polls to find out what your constituents think, I do take offense in your using this list as your rallying call to a battle you were not hired to fight. Regarding the first point of your most recent email, it is of no concern to me that your campaign is "attacked" by the Left. You were not hired to campaign. You were hired to serve your country and your constituents, many of whom are the so-called liberals you are herding into your list of enemies. Though I seek to do you no harm, my conscience and ideology would probably place me among their ranks. We are not your enemies, Mr. Buchanan. We are your employers and we are your constituents. We would truly appreciate it if you would endeavor to put your country before your party during the next year of your service. Many of our policies are in dire need of radical change. Please at least devote a fraction of your day to opening your mind to the possibility that our country, all of us, might benefit from some improvements in our policies. Regarding your second point, I completely understand your need to marginalize the population to serve the two party system, but please try not to misrepresent those you have chosen to embattle. It is bad enough that we have Rush Limbaugh and Fox New out there distorting facts, we do not need it from you as well. From you, we cherish honesty and integrity. Democrats, liberals, and the Left want a balanced budget too. President Obama has fewer special advisors than President Bush had. Let them do their jobs so you can focus on yours. In lieu of more and more scientists, even conservative ones, acknowledging that human activity is having an impact on our global environment, putting a cap on such activity to TRADE for a cleaner planet is not something that should be stopped, but addressed wisely and judiciously. And you and I both know that our health care system needs reform so that the citizens of the wealthiest nation on the planet do not go bankrupt from illness. Understand that I am registered as an independent, unaffiliated voter. I do not represent the Democratic party and am not a part of any special interest group. I am simply one of the many Americans who, though he may disagree with many of your policy choices, will continue to pray for you to serve with wisdom, compassion, and honor. Sincerely Steven R. McAllister September 28, 2009 Thank you! I wanted to send along an email to everyone and publicly thank the 176 supporters that made an online donation last week and over the weekend. You have helped my campaign move closer to our end of September fundraising goal. Today I am hoping that this last appeal for donations will help put us over the finish line. I am asking 67 of my supporters to make a donation in whatever amount you can afford today. Why is donating to my campaign today important? First, my campaign needs to have the financial wherewithal to defend itself from attacks from the Left. Special interests and the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) in Washington, DC have targeted me since I entered Congress. Their goal is to expand their majority and control over the Congress to help pass their radical agenda. My second point is that these very same groups oppose the views you and I hold dear: lower taxes, balanced budgets, defunding ACORN, making President Obama’s czars accountable, stopping “Cap and TAX” and protecting our health care system from a government takeover. And because I have been consistently representing these views in the Congress, these groups are determined to settle the score. This is my last email to you before our end of September campaign financial report is due. I am hopeful 67 of my supporters reading this email will make a donation before the midnight Wednesday deadline. As I have said before, the amount isn’t as important as being able to count on your support. I want to be able to show these outside groups, national and Florida Democrats that my campaign has broad support. Please consider making a donation today. On Thursday, October 1st you have my promise to get back to the issues. You can count on me to use email, my campaign website and video to keep you informed. As always, I appreciate your taking a moment to read this email. Sincerely, Vern |
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Conscious Capitalism | Modern Hippie Mag
Conscious Capitalism
Written by Steve McAllister
courtesy dleafy
Not too long ago, the European Union pledged to enforce trade restrictions on countries that don’t comply with their efforts to reduce their greenhouse gasses and help to prevent climate change and global warming. I think many of us hoped that America would have been the leader in this endeavor and taken the first step toward environmental sustainability. However, our mentality as a nation too often prizes our “freedom” to impose limitations. Especially given the fact that many of America’s most prosperous corporate entities will suffer if we seek to protect the environment, it is safe to say that our government will not lead us in this endeavor of global advocacy. So it is up to the individuals, the people upon which this country is based, to step up to the plate and be the change we wish to see in our country and our world.
Instead of waiting for government to mandate that large corporations need to make the changes that will reduce pollution and implement sustainable practices, it is up to us to seek out and educate one another on actionable changes that people can make today which will effect our collective global footprint. One of those changes is the business we engage in and the products we use.
Believe it or not, global corporations are not at fault for our current situation. They are entities which we created to do our bidding and are not the cause of our ecological woes. They are merely one of the avenues through which it has been delivered. We created businesses and we created their policies. Whether the policies are good or bad, they are a construct of mankind’s human imagination. If they are causing a blight on the future of this planet and polluting the environment, it is our oversight in planning that has caused the devastation, not the business itself.
A business is something we create, and aside from its lack of visual aesthetic beauty, it is a work of art. From the service delivery paradigm to the material production model, businesses are truly fascinating machines that create jobs, wealth, supply, and security. However, they also often create the by-products of servanthood, poverty, need, and pollution. Just as a beautiful painting can elicit hope and delight, it can also elicit longing and despair. However, it is not the painting that is to blame for the emotions it elicits, and it is not the business that is to blame for the part it plays in the human condition. But in each situation, it is the people who are involved who must take responsibility for the action of the creation. Just as art needs both the artist and the witness to be appreciated, each business consists not only of the supplier, but of the consumer as well. And that is where we need to consciously accept our roles.
At this stage in the game, we must look again at the machines that we have created in our gallery of capitalism. We must consider the by-products of the businesses we are using and the products we are consuming. We must weigh the differences between what we truly need and the sacrifices which are being made for us to attain it. It is time for us to be conscious consumers.
Over the last few decades our government, which was once hailed as an entity “Of the People, By the People, and For the People,” has become largely reclaimed as an entity “Of the Corporation, By the Corporation, and For the Corporation.” We are firmly grounded in the concept of Capitalism and the Free Market so this transfer of power should be of no great surprise. Nevertheless, though an added integer may have been added into the mix, the American people can once again take control of our government. If the government is to be run by corporations, then we must make our votes heard at the cash register.
Given the climate of competition in our society, for almost every product or service that we use, there is an alternative. Additionally, with the rapid growth of green initiatives, we are seeing a great rise in businesses that are providing sustainable alternatives. By changing our buying practices to include more local businesses and eco-conscious businesses, we can make our voices heard as to which way we think our government and our economy should operate.
We are at in an extremely fortuitous situation where information is readily attained should we only have the impetus to look for it. We at Modern Hippie Mag want to help you make the right choices in your voting purchases by reporting on businesses that operate with an eco-conscious and Fair Trade bottom line. If the European Union can enforce trade restrictions on countries that don’t comply with their efforts to reduce their greenhouse gasses and help to prevent climate change and global warming, then the American people can do the same.
Tags: Climate change, Environment, fair trade, Free Market, Global warming
Posted 24 Sep 2009 by Steve McAllister in Money Matters, Stuff
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tyIizkmom9OGjibyHp8e58SXVAnQS26DdizCCoh6RdGBQpF2Cs2UcFn0l5qOjuYr0Rmne23FkW1Fc99ABg1ldGUGgN4s82PRoZCK0P0fJ3niC8gwL_n7o58H-lbGeZTWcCUMKxO2jLYqRloS9zrecX=s0-d){kind=small}
Harvesting Rainwater for Household Use | Modern Hippie Mag
Harvesting Rainwater for Household Use
EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk How can I make good use of the rainwater that runs down my roof and into my gutters? – Brian Smith, Nashua, NH
courtesy RainXchange
For most of us, the rain that falls on our roof runs off into the ground or the sewer system. But if you’re motivated to save a little water and re-distribute it on your lawns or plants—or even use it for laundry, dishes or other interior needs—collecting rainwater from your gutters’ downspouts is a no-brainer.
If it’s allowed in your state, that is. Utah and parts of Washington State have antiquated but nonetheless tough laws banning anyone but owners of water rights from collecting rainwater flowing off privately owned rooftops. Such laws are rarely enforced, however, and one in Colorado was recently overturned.
According to John C. Davis, writing in E – The Environmental Magazine, just about any homeowner can collect rainwater, given that the roof and gutters do most of the work. And since an inch of rain falling on a 2,000-square-foot roof produces some 1,200 gallons of runoff, one can harvest enough to supply all the water needs of a family of four for about two weeks. Of course, most of us would only use rainwater to irrigate our lawn or garden, and there should be plenty to go around for doing that in all but the most drought stricken areas.
Plants and grass actually do better when fed rainwater instead of tap water, which is usually treated with softeners that actually inhibit plant growth. And, reports Davis, the lack of minerals in rainwater actually makes it more effective than tap water for shampooing or doing dishes. Using rainwater for plumbing uses can also extend the life of pipes and water heaters, since the salts added to tap water facilitate corrosion. Homeowners should set up a water purification system if they do plan to use rainwater for interior needs.
Beyond the benefits to individual homeowners, rainwater harvesting can also be good for the local community, as it reduces the erosion, flooding and pollution runoff associated with heavy rainfall, and lessens reliance on public water supplies, alleviating some of the burden on utilities. Given these benefits, some states, including even drought-prone Texas, subsidize residential rainwater collection systems.
Many varieties of rain barrel systems, starting at just $100, are available for home installation. A typical set-up is simply a rain barrel positioned under a gutter’s downspout. “The barrel is typically fitted with a spigot at its base to fill a watering can or attach a soaker hose (which bleeds out water all along its length, providing effortless drip irrigation), and a filter or screen at its top to prevent a buildup of leaves and other debris,” writes Davis. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a single 100 gallon rain barrel can save up to 1,300 gallons of utility-provided water during the high demand summer months.
Handy homeowners can make their own water harvesting systems, but buying one pre-made is a lot easier. Most nurseries and garden centers offer a range of choices (as well as advice), but websites such as Aquabarrel, Clean Air Gardening and Rainxchange make it easy to order a system online.
CONTACTS: Aquabarrel, www.aquabarrel.com, Clean Air Gardening, www.cleanairgardening.com; Rainxchange, www.rainxchange.com.
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.
Tags: E/The Environmental Magazine, Environment, Irrigation, Rainwater harvesting, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Water Resources
Posted 23 Sep 2009 by EarthTalk in Environment
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sy3F0uH8odllNaBpl4000UtLT0D6FPbkQiDc4KGiC4nKqEhx_tU0Mx-WnWCO_S6NhFdBjV6G3mIfd2JtAvHoVTTbyJSrxMYrIV8a-z76OAjtCWDVmk5WUFc7fmlHNz5zX9B5qaf5ltBkhsGaVl-8s=s0-d){kind=small}