president proclaims: government will be green

President Obama’s recent proclamation that the government must reduce its green house gas (GHG) emissions 28 percent by 2020 was not entirely altruistic. The measure will, by the administration’s figures, save between $8 and $11 billion in energy costs.

President Barack Obama participates in the CEQ Executive Order signing in the Oval Office, Oct. 5, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.) recently told the New York Times, “The best thing about reducing energy use is that it’s not just good for the environment–it saves money, too.”

Federal departments and agencies are measuring their energy and fuel usage, and will submit a reduction plan to the White House Office of Management and Budget by June. Some agencies plan to achieve the reductions by switching to solar, wind, and geothermal energy. Others are using federal stimulus dollars to upgrade their auto fleet to hybrids.

“As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient,” said President Obama in a recent press release.  “Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy.”

ambitious targets

The reduction targets are part of Executive Order 13514, which requires agencies to measure, manage, and reduce GHG emissions to meet predetermined targets. However, the executive order goes further: It also calls for a reduction in water and waste. The following are highlights of the order:

  • 30 percent reduction in vehicle fleet petroleum use by 2020;
  • 26 percent improvement in water efficiency by 2020;
  • 50 percent recycling and waste diversion by 2015;
  • 95 percent of all applicable contracts will meet sustainability requirements

wanted: green ideas

To aid the government’s quest for efficiency, officials in November launched a program called the GreenGov challenge. GreenGov created a place where any of federal government’s 1.8 million employees could suggest ways to meet the environmental targets. The top ideas were passed along to the Steering Committee on Federal Sustainability. We liked the following submissions to the water efficiency section:

  • “Xeriscaping”–plant native species and drought tolerant plants so that irrigation can be eliminated or reduced on federal properties.
  • Capture rain water from building rooftops….
  • Install water-saver shower heads in all federal fitness center showers.
  • Stop subsidizing companies that produce corn-based ethanol. This has become a huge drain on the limited West Texas water supply. Instead, favor companies that produce ethanol using more complex/higher-energy grains or sugars in non-arid regions.

We want to thank the federal employees who participated in the GreenGov Challenge for contributing their ideas, and helping to shape the “greening” of our government. We are also pleased that the government’s focus is broader than reducing GHG emissions. And as the announcement stated, cutting waste and reducing energy and water usage will save the government some serious green.

We think that’s environmentalism everyone can get behind.

Bookmark and Share

climate risks must be disclosed: sec

On Wednesday the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved an interpretive guidance on existing SEC disclosure regulation to ensure consistency in reporting climate risks for all publicly traded companies.

The SEC provided a video of Chairman Schapiro explaining the interpretive release. She reminds us that:

It is neither surprising nor especially remarkable for us to conclude that of course a company must consider whether potential legislation — whether that legislation concerns climate change or new licensing requirements — is likely to occur. If so, then under our traditional framework the company must then evaluate the impact it would have on the company’s liquidity, capital resources, or results of operations, and disclose to shareholders when that potential impact will be material. Similarly, a company must disclose the significant risks that it faces, whether those risks are due to increased competition or severe weather. These principles of materiality form the bedrock of our disclosure framework.

The ruling this week is being lauded by major institutional investors and environmental groups. The Chief Executive Officer of the California Public Employees Retirement System, Anne Stausboll, told the Environmental News Service that, “Investors have a right to know which companies are planning to be part of the clean energy future and which are lagging behind.” CALPERS is the largest public pension fund in the country and has manages $205 billion.

Clearly, the move to understanding and quantifying the risks posed by climate change is only going to increase. We’re curious to know if your business is already measuring these risks and how that process is working.

Bookmark and Share

7 sustainability challenges for business

The Network for Business Sustainability, a Canadian business organization which claims to be comprised of over 300 researchers, has released a report detailing what the group believes will be the top sustainability challenges for companies in 2010. The report, titled 2010 Knowledge Priorities for Business Sustainability, lists the following seven questions as the top sustainable challenges for businesses:

  1. How can we measure and value a firm’s ecological impacts (e.g. ecological footprint)?
  2. How can we build a durable, enduring sustainability corporate culture?
  3. How can we promote and ensure sustainability within our supply chains?
  4. How can we incorporate sustainability into employee incentives?
  5. What business risks are associated with water quality and water shortage?
  6. What is the aboriginal perspective on business sustainability and what are the best approaches to constructive engagement?
  7. Are the concerns of NIMBY-ism borne out?

The presence of question number five signifies that even in water-rich Canada, companies are examining the ways in which water will affect business in the future. The report asks these additional questions focused solely on water risks:

  • How can we evaluate the risks of poor water quality and quantity?
  • How do the risks differ in different contexts?
  • What can we learn about water management within businesses operating in other countries?

Plenty of answers already exist. And while some large companies, such as Intel and MillerCoors, are cognizant of the business risks associated with water scarcity and quality, many others have yet to fully examine this potential problem.

Far more companies are concentrating on measuring their ecological impacts, or creating a sustainable supply chain. However, those questions have far more to do with water than these companies might think. For instance, in order for a company to properly examine its ecological impact, they must include a look at water sourcing, how the company uses water, and what happens to that water after the company uses it.

The same applies to creating a sustainable supply chain. At some point in the supply chain, water is used. In the textile industry, water may be used to grow raw materials or dye garments. A supply chain cannot be “sustainable” if the water used within the supply chain gets polluted or contaminated.

The seven questions outlined by the Network for Business Sustainability are quite important for companies to examine in 2010. However, we have one minor quibble. Because of water’s integral role in almost all companies’ operations, we believe it deserves higher placement on this list. At the very least, risks from water scarcity should have been listed above finding a way to incorporate sustainability in employee incentives.

Bookmark and Share

china, pollution, and textiles: a cotton problem?

Water pollution is disturbingly rampant in China, and it has become one of the country’s greatest environmental challenges as it struggles to rank among the world’s top industrialized nations. The textile industry is a significant source of pollution in China, and it is largely driven by the worldwide demand for cotton products.

just how polluted is china?

The World Health Organization estimates that polluted water causes 75 percent of diseases in China, and over 100,000 deaths annually. Cancer rates among villagers who live along polluted waterways are significantly higher than the national average.

According to information in a Scipeeps.com article, 70 percent of lakes and rivers in China are polluted, as is an astounding 90 percent of the groundwater. More than 320 million Chinese do not have access to clean drinking water – that’s more than the entire population of the United States.

Recently, a Chinese photographer won the W. Eugene Smith Grant in Humanistic Photography for his photos exposing the horrific instances of industrial pollution and its effects. Here is just a sample of Lu Guang’s extraordinary work and examples of how desperate the situation is in China:

the cotton problem

Go into any discount retailer such as like Wal-Mart or Target, and you’re sure to find inexpensive cotton T-shirts and other products. While low-cost goods please American consumers, the effects on the environment and population of countries like China are staggering.

China produced an average of 36 million bales of cotton each year from 2006 through 2008, making it the world’s largest producer of cotton. But it’s not the leading exporter. In order to meet its enormous domestic demand for cotton, China buys 45 percent of the yearly exports by U.S. cotton growers.

Each year, cotton growers account for more than 25 percent of worldwide insecticide usage, and 12 percent of all pesticide usage The crop requires seven times more fertilizer than insecticides, and the runoff from all these chemicals pollutes the rivers and lakes, leeches into the groundwater, and leads to China’s abnormally high water pollution. Farmers in China are using more than six times the amount of pesticides and fertilizers than growers in sub-Saharan Africa.

Cotton also is a remarkably water-intensive crop. Eco Fashion World estimates that to grow enough cotton for a single t-shirt requires 2,700 liters of water. The expansion of cotton farming is leading to increased desertification in areas of the world. The Aral Sea in Uzbekistan is an example of how cotton farming can turn lakes into deserts. In China, cotton farming is increasing the size of the Taklamakan Desert because an unsustainable amount of water is being diverted to grow the crop.

tainted textile production

The textile industry in China is a big business. The Chinese State Development and Reform Commission said that in 2005, textile and apparel exports exceeded $117.5 billion, with an average annual growth rate of 17.3 percent. According to the Danamex China Business Resource, China provided 24 percent of the global textiles and apparel in 2005. And as bad as growing cotton in China is currently, the textile industry is far more environmentally damaging.

In addition to heavy metals, carcinogens, fabrics, dyes, organic materials, starches, and bleach, the industry uses a large amount of water and energy. According to information from Bluesign Technologies, growing cotton for use in textiles requires between 8,000 liters and 40,000 liters of water per kilogram of cotton. Producing textiles creates up to 600 liters of wastewater per kilogram of textiles. The chemically-saturated and toxic wastewater is what makes textiles such an environmentally damaging industry in China.  Miller-McCune, a consultancy, estimates that only 10 percent of dye wastes are recycled. According to an article on textile pollution in the Wall Street Journal, treating contaminated water can cost more than 13 cents per metric ton. In order to keep prices low, many textile dye houses build pipelines that dump industrial runoff either underground or directly into rivers and lakes. In China, people often joke that to know what colors are currently in fashion, one need only look at the rivers.

In the same article, Andy Xie, former chief economist of Morgan Stanley Asia is quoted as saying, “Prices in the U.S. are artificially low. You’re not paying the costs of pollution, and that is why China is an environmental catastrophe.”

Although China’s national leaders have environmental guidelines and policies to curb pollution, local agencies routinely ignore violations because of economic development incentives. There is little enforcement of national environmental policies at the local level, and companies who conduct business with dye houses and textile mills often have a greater ability to influence change.

moving forward

It is clear to Chinese leaders that pollution is becoming a drag on the country’s economy. China’s Development Research Center commissioned researchers from around the world to create pragmatic solutions and policies that worked with the market. The researchers concluded that China would benefit from a “Green Trade Policy” to encourage sustainable cotton growing, supply chains, and textile production. One proposal recommended instituting a “green tax” on cotton and textile goods to pay for wastewater treatment and recycling, though this measure is not favored by industry.

The Chinese cotton and textile industries are coming under increased scrutiny as people around the world are becoming conscious of the country’s environmental catastrophes. Several companies have worked with textile partners to impose higher environmental standards, but that is not the norm. Most companies either are not aware of–or ignore–the true environmental costs associated with their products.

Some Chinese activists are taking it upon themselves to add transparency to the textile supply chain by publicly linking polluting factories with the overseas companies that purchase their products.

Ma Jun, a Chinese water pollution activist who posts pollution data on a website, told the Wall Street Journal, “We want them to know we’re watching from China.”

A company who is found doing business with major polluters could suffer reputational damage to its brand as customers increasingly demand products that are “better” for the environment. Pollution from cotton growing and textile production may become what sweatshop labor was for the industry in the 1990s.

Companies interested in avoiding brand damage should work with dye houses to ensure that better environmental standards are met. Another option is to use dyeing technology that doesn’t use massive amounts of water, energy, or toxic chemicals that can be dumped into waterways. Textile companies looking to establish sustainable supply chains need to seriously reexamine the cotton-growing, garment dyeing, and textile treatment operations in China.

photo credit: Lu Guang / Pollution in China
Bookmark and Share

sustainable textiles professionals network

Interest in creating a sustainable textile industry is growing. At Colorep and Transprint we work with designers and manufacturers serving a variety of markets: from hospitality to health care to fashion. More and more often we’re hearing that these companies are examining the impact of their products cradle-to-cradle and looking for creative solutions to reduce waste, green house gases, and water use.

While we have a suite of solutions around eliminating water and reducing energy demands during the dye process, there are many other opportunities to “green” the textile industry along the entire supply chain.

To bring more people into the conversation and be able to help our customers and colleagues broaden their professional network, we’ve started the LinkedIn Sustainable Textiles group. Membership is growing nicely and has attracted people from the across the U.S., Canada, India, and Pakistan.

The Sustainable Textiles group will quickly become a valuable resource as members post relevant news, ask questions, engage in conversation, even post jobs–all with building a more sustainable textile industry in mind.

Certainly you have something to contribute. Won’t you join us?

Bookmark and Share